Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1235

Archive 1230

←

Archive 1233

Archive 1234

Archive 1235

Archive 1236

Archive 1237

→

Archive 1239

Hey guys! I have a question about references.

I was wondering how to use General References on an article. I was informed that this place will probably have some answers. So how would i use a general reference if i wanted to reference something but there was no relevant place to put an actual inline citation? thanks! Elliott (talk) 17:18, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

You can create a "Bibliography" or "General references" section uner the "References" section. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:07, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Don't call the "Bibliography" -- that's for books the subject has written. Call it "Sources" if you have used the source in writing the article. Call it "Further reading" if you have not actually needed/used the resource when you wrote the article. Softlavender (talk) 05:26, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

okay, thanks! Elliott (talk) 12:04, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

As a matter of pedantry, the heading we use for references that are cited in the article is "References". —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:24, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, Im saying if i cant figure out where to put an inline citation, where do i put it? The question has been solved already though. Thanks anyway man! Elliott (talk) 15:26, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Politician's wiki format

While updating politicians pages, I noticed two different styles, one that had one section for election description with table of election results. Another that had two sections one that had election description, and at bottom of page the election table results. Seems the first seems to be a better format, why would you separate a photo/graph from the caption/description? Love your idea/comments Michaelwarpedu (talk) 13:58, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

@Michaelwarpedu Welcome to the Teahouse. I don't have a view on this but there is an active politics Project where specialists will hang out. You could ask again at WT:PLT. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:11, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Request to add information to this article: Gay_village

I understand this page Gay village was semi-protected due to vandalism. I would like to add some information regarding Bangladeshi hijrapollis with a few sources, as I think it is relevant. Please let me know if I can provide further information Zahrank777 (talk) 16:15, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

@Zahrank777 You can make an edit request on the associated talk page. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 16:19, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! Zahrank777 (talk) 16:25, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

First Article Support Needed

Hello - I'm in the process of writing my first submission and would value support/feedback before I publish.

Is there someone available to do that? Staceyrich (talk) 16:43, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Staceyrich, this is exactly what the Wikipedia:Articles for creation process is for! You can write a draft and submit for review, which will be reviewed by experienced editors. Qcne (talk) 17:01, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The answer you got to a query to an editor was to read Help:Your first article as a way to create and submit a draft for review. An experienced reviewer would either approve, decline, reject or speedy delete. As always, references are required (WP:42). Standard advice is to gain experience improving existing articles before attempting a new article. P.S. "Publish" means save. David notMD (talk) 17:02, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, I replied all at once to the first comment...this is all new to me, appreciate the help! Just needing a bit more clarity as I want to make sure I follow the process correctly. Staceyrich (talk) 17:21, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you...and as all of this is brand new to me...I'll reply to both Qcne and David notMD...of the 2 recommendations provided, where is the best place to submit it for review prior to publishing. I do have references and have done my best to model the format after what I see available in other published articles, but would prefer to have feedback. Staceyrich (talk) 17:20, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

@Staceyrich both I and David's process is the same - you'll end up making a draft article that can be reviewed by editors (just slightly different ways of getting there). :) Qcne (talk) 17:23, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Okay, great! And how do I submit that? What format will it need to be in (PDF, copy/paste, etc.)? Staceyrich (talk) 17:26, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

We don't accept direct uploads. We have our own text editor (similar to the one you used to write this reply) which will allow you to build an article.

I would recommend reading the tutorial on how to use it at WP:VE. It's akin to a word processor with one very important difference: it does not save automatically, so please regularly back up your work (you can copy and paste into Microsoft Word). To save manually you have to press the big blue Publish button. This doesn't publish the article, but "publishes" (saves) your edits. Qcne (talk) 17:30, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I really appreciate the help and instructions. And once I've "published" it...will it only be viewable by people who can help edit it? I'd like to double and triple check that I'm doing this correctly :) Staceyrich (talk) 17:40, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Ah, no, so everything on Wikipedia is public (apart from your personal user account settings). This means the draft you create and edit will technically be available to be viewed by anyone in the world. However they won't appear on search engines, and members of the public don't really go around looking at random drafts (of which there are thousands).

Once you are happy with the draft you'll see another big blue button that will say Submit the draft for review! which will put it into the review pile for the reviewers to review. Qcne (talk) 17:44, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Okay, gotcha. So is it only available to edit after I've submitted it for review? And how do I make sure if it really needs some work, the editors who see it...don't flag it for being deleted immediately?? Staceyrich (talk) 18:04, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

We might be having different uses of the term "edit"- any page is available to be "edited", you will create and then edit a draft which you can Publish to save your edits/changes, and then Submit for review in order for it to go to the review pile. Sorry - terminology is quite confusing!

Take a look at our core content policies: as long as your draft meets those it won't get deleted. Qcne (talk) 18:51, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Staceyrich. Drafts are unlikely to be deleted quickly; it's expected for them to be messy.

To get the draft accepted as an article, and to keep the article from being deleted, check out Wikipedia:Notability. "Notability" is the criteria for keeping an article. As that page says, "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." If you have sources already, feel free to make a post here to get an idea of whether they do establish notability. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:56, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, this is really helpful and yes...the terminology is a lot to learn, appreciate you saying that because I thought it was just me! :) 2601:8C0:B01:8D50:1CE9:EA73:A501:E42A (talk) 11:07, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate your help on this, thank you! I do have sources, but I'm not sure I understand the difference between what I see in other articles where there will be internal links/sources to other Wikipedia articles and then...actual external sources. Does an article need both (I do have both linked in the draft I've created on my computer)? Is there a certain number of external sources that improve Notability? Thank you! Staceyrich (talk) 11:11, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

There are:

- Wikilinks, which are links to existing articles on Wikipedia, in the body of the text.

- References which are links to the sources and the way readers verify all the information in an article.

- External Links which are a short number of relevant links to websites that may appear at the bottom of an article.

Notability is shown through the reference links to your sources: the rule of thumb is that we're looking for at least three reliable sources that are independent of the topic and provide in-depth significant coverage.

Your article should actually be paraphrased from the sources you find: don't write your article backwards: find the sources first, then write your article based on what those sources say.

Ideally every statement you make will have an in-line citation to the relevant reference. The tutorial WP:INTREFVE shows how to make these using the visual editor. Qcne (talk) 11:38, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Once submitted, it can be reviewed in days, weeks or sadly, months, as there is a backlog of drafts and the system is not a queue. You can continue to work on it while waiting, and if Declined, improve and submit again (and again). Each reviewer will give reasons for the declined. David notMD (talk) 19:34, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, this is helpful and really insightful. I've used Wikipedia as a reader for years, but had no idea how extensive the process to participate was. I'm amazed really. But it sounds like when reasons for something being declined are given...if that's the case...I'll have time to make any necessary changes and possibly course correct prior to it being deleted? Staceyrich (talk) 11:14, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

That's correct- when a draft is declined you'll be given feedback and be able to re-submit it once you've addressed the issues. Drafts can also be rejected which means no re-submission is usually possible. Drafts are automatically marked for deletion after six months of no activity, but you'll get a warning posted on your talk page. Drafts will otherwise only be deleted if they very obviously contravene the purpose of Wikipedia by being spam, vandalism, etc. Qcne (talk) 11:40, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Gotcha, okay...so I have a draft written (when I put all the links and references and wikilinks) in a Google doc...can I copy and paste that into the Wikipedia platform or do I need to re-type everything within this system? Staceyrich (talk) 16:11, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

And is there a way for me to let you know where it's at as I would be very grateful to have it looked at by someone who understands I make no claims to know that I'm doing this right, but very teachable and willing to modify whatever needs to be changed :) Staceyrich (talk) 16:13, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

You can copy and paste from Google Docs into the Visual Editor, but it'll likely break some of the formatting and you'll have to go through and re-apply any formatting. You'll also have to do the referencing from scratch in the Visual Editor using the referencing tool.

More than happy for you to leave me a message on my User Talk Page (click the talk link in my signature below then click the Click here to leave me a new message button at the top ) and I can have a pre-look at a draft before you submit for review. I'm an experienced reviewer myself so will be able to give you an indication on if it's notable or not. Qcne (talk) 17:07, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! I really appreciate that! Okay...so step 1 would be to input everything into the Visual Editor...? And then before I click what exactly...how do I send it to you to review pre-submitting for review? Staceyrich (talk) 18:03, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

@Staceyrich Step 1: Go to the Wikipedia:Article wizard and go through the various steps. The last question will ask you to title the name of your new Draft, and it will then create it and load the Visual Editor for you to start inputting text.

Step 2: Click the blue Publish Page... button to create the draft and make it live (this doesn't publish your draft to the review pile).

Step 3: You draft is now live in our draftspace, and you can edit it once more by clicking the Edit button in the top toolbar. To save these edits click the blue Publish changes.... It's a good idea to Publish changes regularly to "save" the content.

Step 4: Once you're ready to have it reviewed, click the blue Submit the draft for review! button

Hope that helps! Qcne (talk) 19:12, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

THANK YOU! This step by step is incredibly helpful! Staceyrich (talk) 16:27, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Need help with references for a page!

Hello!

I've been working on a page (currently a draft) on the game Cryptid Crush. The thing is, despite adding references and information to push the writing, i can't get the page to be uploaded because "This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article."

I have absolutely no idea of what to add/edit, despite the time i spent searching on the Notability and sources page... Does anybody can help or have ideas on what i should add?

The page is Draft:Cryptid Crush .

Thanks! Linkfandos (talk) 16:57, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Linkfandos as mentioned in the decline reason you should look for multiple published sources that are:

• in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
• reliable
• secondary
• independent of the subject

None of the sources you added satisfy all of these requirements. So far. If you can't find any such sources, then the game is probably not notable. Hope this helps. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 17:27, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Linkfandos, and welcome to the Teahouse.

I'm afraid that, like most editors who try the challenging task of creating an article before they have spent significant time learning how Wikipedia works, you have written your draft BACKWARDS.

First, find sources that are independent, reliable, and have significant coverage of the subject. Ignore anything written, published, or commissioned by the article subject or its associates, and anything based on an interview or press-release. (See WP:42 for the criteria in more detail).

If you cannot find at least three such sources, then stop trying, and work on something else: the subject does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and no article is possible.

If you have found sources, then forget everything you know about the subject, and write a summary of what the sources say.

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. ColinFine (talk) 17:37, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Requesting a deleted article to be reinstated

Hello,

A wikipedia article about a famous Pakistani actress (her name is Uzma Beg) which was deleted. The deletion was a mistake based on people not knowledgeable about her. They questioned the veracity of the article and did not do enough checking. In order to request the article being restored I wrote some basic facts in this talk page.

However there has been no interest and no response for some months. I'm not very savy with Wikipedia and was wondering if someone could look into this. I love the idea of wikipedia and the democratic idea of people editing to supply information and to improve things. But in this case the folks who deleted the article acted on incorrect assumptions and lack of knowledge about the subject.

All I want is for someone to independently look into it. Here is the talk page that I contributed: Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Uzma Beg - Wikipedia

Best Regards,

Sahgalji Sahgalji (talk) 17:06, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Sahgalji you placed the comment in the wrong place. You can ask for the page to be undeleted so you can work on it as a draft and establish notability. Make sure to address the reasoning at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uzma Beg when editing. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 17:30, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

@Sahgalji: Don't waste the community's time with an undeletion request. They are always denied if the deletion was the result of a deletion discussion, as it was in this case at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uzma Beg. Instead, ask the deleting administrator, in this case User:Liz, if she would consider restoring the article to draft space for you to work on and submit for review. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:48, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

I apologize I am just unaware of the processes to follow. Many thanks for your guidance. I will reach out to User:Liz and do exactly as you advise.

Many thanks ~Anachronist and Sungodtemple for taking the time to educate me. Sahgalji (talk) 18:09, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Editing Company Wiki Page

Hi! I'm wondering if there's a verification process for employees of companies to update their company's page with lesser risk of having said updates be taken down? Say, if I have info that has no outside source yet but is accurate? Tmtiggs (talk) 17:38, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

@Tmtiggs: All information must be verifiable by published sources. You may post an edit request on the article's talk page. You can preface your request with the tag {{Edit COI}} to cause your request to be listed on a category page. Make sure you make a well-formed request, like "change X to Y", or "add X after Y" or "delete X", along with your reasoning and citations to reliable sources if applicable. Note that Wikipedia is not interested in what a company has to say about itself, so citations to secondary sources (independent of the company) are preferred. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:44, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Then you can not add that information! No information can be added without outside source. 176.0.144.43 (talk) 17:45, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

ok, thank you! Tmtiggs (talk) 18:01, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

@Tmtiggs: Some limited information can be added by citing the company's own website: a new headquarters location, for instance, or a CEO leaving. But still use the talk page to make such requests. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:31, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Contributions

I want to make a contribution using a check. Would you send me an address, please? 2601:204:100:B1A0:44A0:5697:42F9:1E0F (talk) 19:50, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

We don't handle donations, please see https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/Ways_to_Give for how to mail a check. Inquiries about donations should be directed to donate@wikimedia.org. 331dot (talk) 19:53, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Also note that a scammer could post a false claim here but not at https://donate.wikimedia.org. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:59, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Lowercase Sigmabot user talk archiving issue

After some discussion here Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Deal_with_user_talk_pages_that_are_way_too_long, I attempted to fix or add the coding for talkpage archiving to User_talk:Masao and User talk:Dr. Sroy. Someone else had already added the code some time ago but the archiving never worked for some reason. My fixes didn't help matters after I read the bot documentation. I cannot figure out what the problem is. Does anyone else know why the bot is ignoring these pages? Lowercase Sigmabot talkpage says the bot owner cannot help and to ask at the Teahouse for help. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 15:36, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi Iggy pop goes the weasel. Your fixes look right. Archiving only runs once a day and skips some days. User talk:Masao has been archived now. Today's run is ongoing and may still get to User talk:Dr. Sroy. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:53, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Ok, thank you so much! :D Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 20:07, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Species articles

Just wondering, what is the point of the species articles when Wikispecies exists? CrushedAsian255 (talk) 08:33, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

@CrushedAsian255 different sourcing/notability requirements, but more importantly a Wikipedia article like Zebra finch has written prose, more images meant for regular reader. Contrast that with species:Zebra finch circovirus which is a lot more clinical. Or a more fleshed out pairing of Ugandan kob and species:Kobus kob thomasi. Wikidata and Wiktionary overlap with Wikipedia too, but have distinct purposes as well. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 08:57, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

See more at meta:Wikispecies/FAQ. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:02, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

species:Zebra finch circovirus is about a virus, not a finch. They're much less photogenic. Maproom (talk) 12:13, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

@Maproom less photogenic ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 20:41, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

How to reduce discord between Wikipedians?

There is an article in which one user has been doing some edits that were (IMO) problematic. I posted a (kind and civil, I hope) comment on that user's talk page regarding one of the edits. However another user has responded (to the first user, not to me) with invective, which seems to me to be counter-productive.

Is there anything useful I can contribute to this situation, other than seeing how it plays out?

Thank you for any insight or suggestions you might provide. Trackerwannabe (talk) 17:19, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

The relevant policy is Wikipedia:Civility and the relevant guideline is Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Repeated violations of the civility policy is a blockable offense. Drop a warning on the offender's talk page. The appropriate first-warning template would be {{uw-bes1}}, escalating from there, but there is no requirement to start with level 1 for an egregious offense. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:58, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I just noticed that the 'victim' has told off his fellow Muslim editor quite effectively and with civility. I see no need for further action except perhaps to issue a warning to the abusive editor, if you feel so inclined. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:05, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Digging a little deeper, I notice that the User in question has a history of responding with invective to polite admonishments on his own Talk page. I have not examined his other contributions in detail; someone else might care to, and to take further action if it seems warranted. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.6.83.137 (talk) 18:32, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

If the problem persists, then reporting the behavior at WP:CESSPIT may be in order. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:51, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Heraldry of the World

Is Heraldry of the World a reliable source? WikiPhil012 (talk) 00:20, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

WikiPhil012 it says in the URL that it is a wiki, so no. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 00:36, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Is there a list of cities notable enough to not include the province/state names in the title?

I noticed recently that most internationally known cities simply have their titles in their names; for example, New York City, Los Angeles, Vancouver, Seoul, Tokyo, Jakarta Rome, and London. Meanwhile, most cities have province/state names in their page titles; for example Albany, New York, Monterey, California, or Victoria, British Columbia. I presume this is because the cities without province/state names are more famous, and because some cities have the same name as another in a different location (such as Albany sharing the name as Albany, Oregon and Albany, Western Australia), but I'm wondering if there is a list of the cities deemed notable enough to not include province/state names. Unnamed anon (talk) 07:00, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Unnamed anon, the fame of the cities is irrelevant. What matters is whether there's another city, of comparable fame, with the same name. Worminghall is not world-famous, and is not a city or even a town, but it's the only place with that name, so no disambiguation is needed. Maproom (talk) 07:47, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

What Maproom says above is correct, and is the answer to your question. What you may however be intuiting is that within the text of a given Wikipedia article, it is often not necessary to provide the state/province name of a well-known city where something happened or is located, unless the context of the wiki article or paragraph is insufficient to indicate which "Albany" (or similar multiple city) is being referred to. Softlavender (talk) 08:17, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

@Maproom: and @Softlavender: Thank you for your answers. I assume the "comparable fame" part is why some cities that share its name with another have the most well-known one treated as the primary topic with no province/state in its title? For example, Vancouver, Washington exists, but Vancouver, British Columbia is simply titled "Vancouver", I assume because the Canadian Vancouver is more well known? Similarly, there are about 14 US states with cities named Rome, but the Rome, Laizo in Italy is given precedent and treated as the primary topic? Unnamed anon (talk) 08:35, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

@Unnamed anon: WP:PRIMARYTOPIC may explain things more, as does the following WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY. Bazza 7 (talk) 09:35, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

@Unnamed anon, Vancouver is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and likely the only Vancouver most readers have ever heard of (its metro population is more than 10 times that of Vancouver, Washington), and therefore it needs no disambiguation. The same goes for Paris, London, Troy, Athens, Rome, and all other cities that have multiples but only one primary topic. Softlavender (talk) 01:51, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

United States places are treated as an exception to the rule per WP:USPLACE, but for the rest of the world normal disambiguation is followed. CMD (talk) 08:39, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

my edits keeps on being rejected and im really trying hard :(

Hi everyone,

I’ve been working really hard to create a page on Wikipedia: Draft:Hikmat Abou Zaid, but I keep facing rejection due to the sources I’ve provided. I’ve gathered 18 sources that I spent a lot of time researching and verifying, but it seems like they still don’t meet the requirements.

I would really appreciate any help or guidance on how to improve my draft and ensure my sources are acceptable. If anyone could take a look or offer some advice, that would be amazing!

Thank you in advance for your time and support! Mradmrad1 (talk) 12:44, 11 September 2024 (UTC) Hello Mradmrad1 Your sources are very weak, www.antoineonline.com is merely a book store mentioning your references, you need a notable sources that detailed the author you are writing about, also glco.org is not accessible and one other only summarises the author. Work more on your references. Tesleemah (talk) 04:05, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

@Mradmrad1 Strictly speaking, your draft was not rejected (which would mean you would have to stop work on it) but repeatedly declined, meaning that it could possibly be improved. As I don't speak Arabic, I can't comment on all your sources but I can immediately see that the draft does not meet the mandatory requirements of a biography of a living person. Please read that policy carefully. So, for example, you say that Zeid has a law degree and a Masters degree but you provide no citation to back up these facts. Any draft has to show that the subject is wikinotable in the way that Wikipedia defines notability. So, for example, your citation to omt.com is useless in that respect as it is not independent of him. Do you have any sources at all that meet all of the golden rules? If so, read the essay on how to use them and them only to show notability. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:15, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Mradmrad1, and welcome to the Teahouse.

I'm afraid your experience is a common one for new editors who attempt the difficult task of creating a new article before they have spend significant time learning about Wikipedia's policies and procedures. (Would you enter a major competition when you only took up a sport for the first time last week?)

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft.

The stages of successfully writing an article can be simply stated:

1. Find several places where people wholly unconnected with the subject of the article have chosen to write at some length about the subject, and been published in reliable places. If you can't find these, go and do something else, because you will not be able to write an acceptable article.

2. Forget everything you know about the subject, and write a neutrally-worded summary of what those sources say.

Please see WP:YFA for more detail. ColinFine (talk) 13:17, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

You need to establish why Zaid is notable. According to the draft: He's a board member of "OMT SAL", whose own web site says it provides "financial solutions", without explaining what they solve or what services it offers. He was the chairman of the Lebanese office of Opel. He founded a non-notable chamber of commerce to foster trade between two small non-neighbouring countries. He's written two books, but there's no evidence anyone has read either of them. Maproom (talk) 14:11, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Starting a biography page

I have made an account with Wikipedia. My goal is to do a biography of my father who was a major figure in the oil industry in North America...primarily Pennsylvania. Not only is he an oil industry scholar but an expert on John Wilkes Booth. He has published over twenty books on these subjects. Two PA historical societies and a couple museums have agreed to assist me with this page. Here is my dilemma: I am 76 years old and not exactly computer literate and have no clue where to go next with Wikipedia to start the biography. Help please. Mary Jane Miller (talk) 18:16, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

@Mary Jane Miller: I'll leave some links to guidance on your talk page. We generally discourage people from writing about relatives, but if you are scrupulous in following our guidelines on sourcing and neutrality, you may start the article by following the procedure here where it will remain in draft status until reviewed by a neutral editor. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:27, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Mary Jane Miller, and welcome to the Teahouse. I want to caution you that people who try the challenging task of creating an article before they have spent time learning how Wikipedia works often have a frustrating and miserable time, even without the issue of editing with a conflict of interest. My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft.

When you do come to try writing the draft, you will find that - unexpectedly - what you know about your father cannot go into the article unless it is supported by a reliable published source - and preferably a source wholly unconnected with your father. So the best way that your associates in the historical societies and museum can help you is by identifying sources about your father than meet all the criteria in golden rule: they are published by a reliable publisher, they are wholly unconnected with your father and his associates, and they contain significant coverage of your father. ColinFine (talk) 19:26, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

It would in fact be easier and better for a random person from a foreign country to write the article. Basically all the knowledge you have that is special (to you, to your family, or to the company) is going to get erased from the article anyway, leaving only what any random person can see was printed in the papers at the time those things happened. TooManyFingers (talk) 06:30, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

(This does mean that the more you act like a random person from a faraway country, who knows nothing about your father and can only look through already published materials, the more successful the article would be.) TooManyFingers (talk) 06:48, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Relationship to the subject

I would like to write an article about one of the first women to run a political party in the UK as national secretary for the SDP. She was also part of the first women's team to race in the Middle East Rally Championship. However I am related to this woman, so I understand I shouldn't be the one to write the article. But this also means that I am in possession of hard copies of print media from the time that I can use as reference. Whereas as far as I can see, there is barely anything about her in online media.

Does anyone have any thoughts on what to do ? Scripttopage (talk) 08:11, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

You are allowed to create a draft article and submit it through the Articles for Creation process, assuming that you properly declare your conflict of interest. See Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline, particularly our guidance for writing about your family and friends (and see also Wikipedia's guideline for writing or editing an article about yourself, which has many of the same considerations).

Alternatively, if you say who it is that you think should have an article, it is possible that some other editor may be inspired to create it. (From the details you give I cannot work out who it might be: the only National Secretary for the SDP I can find any information about online is Richard Newby.) For a woman politician, you could try asking at the Women in Red project or the UK Politics project. In that case, it would be helpful to tell other editors where they can find sources - even if they are only available as print media, many editors have access either through their local or institutional libraries, or the Wikipedia Library project. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:51, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Scripttopage and welcome!

You can write the article, but you shouldn't publish it yourself, you should instead prepare a draft and submit it for review through our Articles for Creation (AfC) review system. You can find pretty much everything you need to get started, including an interactive wizard which gets you started on the AfC process, at WP:YFA.

You also need to disclose your conflict of interest (COI). I will post a message on your talk page User talk:Scripttopage with more info on this, and instructions for disclosing.

Bear in mind that Wikipedia articles are mostly composed by summarising what reliable published sources have previously said about a subject. So while you obviously know a lot about this person, you should not include your own commentary, unless this is backed up by published sources. You also need to write in a neutral, factual manner, without any attempt to make the subject appear in a positive (or negative!) light.

Finally, since you mention that some of the sources are not available online, you may find this essay on citing offline sources useful: WP:OFFLINE.

Good luck, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:52, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

ratemyprofessors.com

If several students said they're the best professor at (famous university), can I cite ratemyprofessors.com in the professor's bio? Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 00:19, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Allthemilescombined1 no, you shouldn't, since ratemyprofessors isn't a reliable source and so doesn't deserve coverage in the article. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 00:36, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

@Allthemilescombined1: Welcome to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1235. Going into a little more detail into Sungodtemple's answer, the site isn't a reliable source because its content is user-generated. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:35, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Not a reliable source Tesleemah (talk) 06:22, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

• Hi Allthemilescombined1, user-generated sources and user-reviews can never be used as citations on Wikipedia. For future reference, consult WP:RS. Also, WP:RSN is a noticeboard to ask genuine questions about the reliability or usability of any given source on Wikipedia. Softlavender (talk) 06:31, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

To add to the other answers, the only circumstances in which this might be appropriate is if secondary sources have reported on the RMP ratings (e.g. a newspaper had mentioned their high rating). Cordless Larry (talk) 08:40, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 09:59, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Bigle Legal article creation

Hello, I would like to ask for help in creating a Wikipedia article. It is about creating a page about the history of the legal tech company Bigle Legal. The draft I proposed was rejected for lack of references, but every piece of information provided in it is referenced by external media and pages.

This is a Spanish software company that has been in the legal technology sector for 10 years and has notoriety in the industry, so I would like to know what kind of sources I should include for it to be considered a notorious article.

I would also like to ask if this is a language conflict: if I were to create the article in Spanish, would the sources already added be valid?

Thank you very much for your help.

Draft:Bigle Legal Beñat Huartemendia (talk) 07:53, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello. I see that you declared a conflict of interest; instead, you need to make the stricter paid editing disclosure, a Terms of Use requirement, as you are an employee of the company.

The Spanish Wikipedia is a separate project, with its own editors and policies, what is acceptable there is not necessarily acceptable here. You would need to ask them about what they consider acceptable.

Wikipedia(this one, at least) is not a place for business to tell about themselves, what they consider to be their own history, and what they do. Wikipedia articles about businesses summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the business, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable business. You have just described the existence of your company and told what it does, not said what is notable about it according to independent sources.

Sources are not required to be in English, as long as they meet all other requirements of being a reliable source. 331dot (talk) 09:49, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

[Edit Conflict] Beñat Huartemendia, the Draft has not been Rejected (meaning "will likely never become an acceptable article, please give up"), it has been Declined (meaning "not up to standard yet, please improve as suggested and try again").

It was not declined because the references are not correct as far as they go, it was declined because they do not demonstrate Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) (which the Reviewer already linked for you in their assessment) as required by this English-Language Wikipedia. The reviewer mentioned that they were only trivial mentions and routine business reports; en.Wikipedia requires at least three different sources that discuss the subject at some length – substantial paragraphs or whole articles all about the subject – to demonstrate Notability (as Wikipedia uses the term). The sources you already have may be useful to WP:Verify particular facts, but they cannot confirm the notability of the subject as a whole.

Different language Wikipedias have different standards: they are all separate projects. En.Wikipedia is generally considered to have the strictest standards; if you were to submit your draft written in Spanish to the Spanish-language Wikipedia at https://es.wikipedia.org, they might or might not accept it, we here at English Wikipedia cannot say. You are welcome to try to improve your Draft here, or to submit it to es.Wikipedia, or both. Good luck!

(A minor point – in English, 'notorious' and 'notoriety' mean that something is known for bad reasons, not that it is 'notable' or has 'notability'.) {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.6.83.137 (talk) 10:05, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Unable to upload image to my article

I've been tasked to create a Wikipedia page for a late Professor Olayinka Odewale, firstly I don't know if creating a wikipedia page for him aligns with Wikipedia's guidelines. My main question is relating to the uploading of a petrait of the prof. I get an error when I try to upload it.

I wanted share a screenshot of the error and share that, but even uploading that is somehow not allowed. Any advice would be appreciated. Brianmvk11 (talk) 10:50, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If you are trying to upload the image to this Wikipedia itself, new accounts cannot do that. If you personally took the image of the professor, you can upload it to Commons. If you didn't personally take it, it would be harder to upload it. The good news is that images are not relevant to the draft submission process(via the article wizard), which only considers the text and sources. You can worry about images later.

Note that you will need to provide sources for your information, see Referencing for beginners. You will need to show that the professor meets the definition of a notable academic narrowly or more broadly a notable person.

Whom tasked you with this work? 331dot (talk) 10:56, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

A friend asked me to do it for his boss, but I'm not sure if the prof is a notible person. I guess I have to do a bit of research. Thank you for the info and the quick response! Brianmvk11 (talk) 11:16, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Should you pursue this further, you will need to declare a conflict of interest. You may want to show your friend WP:BOSS as well. 331dot (talk) 11:19, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

And you should probably check Wikipedia:Notability (academics). DS (talk) 14:40, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Uploading a Film Poster

Hi! I want to learn how to upload a film poster on an established wiki page. Can someone guide please? Albertan2014 (talk) 14:48, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Try Wikipedia:Files for upload/Wizard. NotAGenious (talk) 15:16, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure but I think film posters are usually "fair use" images. 331dot (talk) 15:19, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Correct (non-free). NotAGenious (talk) 15:21, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

@Albertan2014 So see WP:NONFREE and ensure you follow all the guidance in doing the upload. You can look at how others have done their upload to see what details are needed: for example at file:Godse (film).jpg. A bot will reduce the pixel size automatically if you upload a high-resolution version. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:32, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, but I need to know where do I start? Is there any tutorial? Albertan2014 (talk) 15:55, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't think there is any tutorial for uploading film posters, Albertan2014, but I'll leave a message on your talk page in a while, explaining briefly how you can upload them. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 20:35, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much, my friend! Albertan2014 (talk) 14:46, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

US Migrant Crisis

Is there an article on wikipedia about this? I couldnt find one and i would be interested in creating one. SunnyScion (talk) 15:38, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Depends what you're looking for:

• 2014 American immigration crisis
• Migrant crisis
• Mexico–United States border crisis

Consider expanding one of those as appropriate. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:49, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

The last one is what i was looking for. Thx! SunnyScion (talk) 16:16, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Including a draft in a WikiProject?

Hi all- I am a newer editor and I'm not sure when it's appropriate to add/contribute to a WikiProject. I originally wrote an article draft for author Andrew Joseph White, which was labeled too soon, but another editor suggested I instead write an article about his most famous novel. I've written and submitted a draft, but I don't have the bandwidth right now to continue to expand it myself if it is sent back for more edits. Would it be appropriate to label the draft as part of the WikiProject:Books or WikiProject:Horror, for example? The intention would be drawing more eyes to the page in hope someone else could provide support. If it is appropriate, am I allowed to add the draft to the project myself, or would I need to propose the draft on the WikiProject talk page? Beckbucket (talk) 16:39, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

@Beckbucket At the upper part of your submitted draft, you'll find a line that says "Improving your odds of a speedy review". Click on "show" and you'll find it reveals a tool to help you add relevant Project tags to the draft. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:14, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

how do you edit

ihnbjl 167.88.225.4 (talk) 16:36, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

IP editor. Please see Help:Introduction for a tutorial. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:15, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

No original research policy

My grandfather has a page on wikipedia and I was thinking about interviewing him about his life and making some additions to his page based on his responses. Would this violate the no original research policy? I would put the audio recording as a source. Fred Hansen Nfh66 (talk) 22:18, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Nfh66 according to WP:PUBLISHED, as long as it is generally accessible somehow it should work. However, you can't use your grandfather's own words to cite many things in the article about him (see WP:ABOUTSELF). Nevertheless I would support such an interview and it may be also useful outside of Wikipedia. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 22:34, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello. A raw interview would be a primary source, only useful as described in that policy, and even then you just posting it on the internet somewhere makes it difficult to verify, for example, that it was indeed your grandfather being interviewed. If you were a journalist working for a newspaper, an editor would examine your interview before publishing it. 331dot (talk) 22:35, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Nfh66. For the sake of other readers, your father is an Olympic gold medalist and former world record holder in the pole vault. Those are considerable accomplishments that must be a source of great pride to your father and your whole family. If I was in your shoes, I would approach the editors of various track and field magazines or magazines or journals focused on Olympic athletes. Try to make a deal with one of them to publish your interview with your father. If published in such a magazine or journal, the interview could be used as a reference in your father's biography. There is no doubt that he is notable, and, personally, I hope that you will pursue your project. Cullen328 (talk) 07:01, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

You could also do a video interview and publish it on YouTube, which could be referenced as a primary source. But Cullen326's suggestion above is much better. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:57, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

But that would not count as a reliable source, @Anachronist ColinFine (talk) 16:00, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

It could be used only for verifying for anything the subject says about himself. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:01, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Editing an entire book plot

Hello! I was looking up a book series that I love, and when I read the plot on Wikipedia for the first book, it was wildly different than the book. If it's a big edit like that, how does that work? It would take an entirely new write up to fix the errors that the current plot description has. Thank you for your help! DannyBearDW (talk) 05:31, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi DannyBearDW. There's some information on this Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction#Contextual presentation, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Novels#Plot and Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary. The key thing to remember is that a "plot summary" is intended to be nothing more than a "summary" of the key parts of the book without adding any personal interpretations to them. It's also not expected to cover every minute detail mentioned in the book. Perhaps by taking a look at Wikipedia:Featured articles#Literature and theatre, you'll find some examples of articles about book series that have been assessed as being very well written and thus possibly good references for how to write a plot summary. You can also ask for assistance at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Books or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels to see whether others share your assessment of this particular plot summary and can offer suggestions on how to improve it if they do. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:21, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. I will look into those things and see what I can do. :) DannyBearDW (talk) 20:38, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Could you check that your book and the book described by the article are really meant to be the same and not two books that have the same title by random chance from different authorship? 176.0.144.43 (talk) 07:41, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

The book that I am referring to is book one in a series of 37 books. The characters mentioned in the plot are characters from the series, but some of them are not introduced until much later in the series. Also, some of the plot points are things that happen much later in the series or are about different characters than what is listed currently. The current plot is riddled with spoilers or completely incorrect information. If I hadn't have read all of the books, I would have thought I was looking at the wrong book description for sure. Have you ever heard of this happening before? DannyBearDW (talk) 00:27, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

No,but of the opposite case. A whole book was published and later, in the second edition, it was split into a series for maximum revenue. Of course the plot had to be changed somewhat. 176.0.155.8 (talk) 08:17, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

The current plot is riddled with spoilers

Please be aware that spoilers are not a problem; on the contrary, plot sections are expected to have spoilers. See WP:SPOILER, and do not remove correct content simply because it is a spoiler. CodeTalker (talk) 18:03, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Page about a cult marked as promotion

I'm having a hard time understanding why anyone could consider a page about a cult to be a promotion. When we use the word "cult" in the English language it usually refers to a dangerous cult, so I don't see why anyone would write a page to promote it. Why is it being marked as such? Grad0507 (talk) 13:52, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Anything can be promoted(though you don't tell which article you're referencing). Perhaps the person who marked the article is promotional is concerned that a dangerous cult is being promoted(even if that's not the intention). 331dot (talk) 13:56, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Which article are you referring to? An article about a cult can be promotional if it says positive things without providing sources. Or something can be promoted as a cult that wasn't traditionally a cult (I've seen this charge in the media recently in reference to the US Republican Party). ~Anachronist (talk) 15:52, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to link it here: Draft: Kevin Trudeau's Global Information Network (GIN). I provided sources though I've been told they weren't enough. Grad0507 (talk) 13:52, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I can see why you're confused but also I understand completely why the declining editor marked that draft as "advert". Take the "GIN Lifestyle" section, for example. It looks like you've taken this section directly from the website? I expect you probably thought something like "the website of the cult is a reliable source for information about what the cult says their lifestyle is like, so it's fine to use this". You're correct that you can source a statement like "the website lists various kinds of membership benefits, such as group meetings" with a footnote to the website itself. But if you copy the text like that, you have two problems: one, you might be violating copyright; two, what you put in the article now sounds like "website copy", which isn't encyclopedic and will get reviewers tagging your draft as an advert like this. -- asilvering (talk) 19:25, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

If I copy anything it's in quotation marks. You can go to the website itself to search for the text in this article, and you won't find anything. So how do I change the tone so that bots and people like yourself don't flag my own voice? Would it help if I moved the lifestyle portion to the cult section to prove how much of a typical member's life revolves around the organization? Grad0507 (talk) 19:31, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

The best way: Stop looking at their website, and switch to using third-party published reports about them. TooManyFingers (talk) 19:39, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Bingo. -- asilvering (talk) 19:49, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

QUAD A - info page

Hi, I am trying to create a wikipedia page for QUAD A , a medical accreditation company. There are several medical accreidation companies on wikipedia, so im unsure why QUAD A is being flagged Janacgodshall (talk) 16:58, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Janacgodshall. You wrote a draft which was overly promotional. This is prohibited on Wikipedia. Please carefully read the following policies:

- Wikipedia:Neutral point of view

- Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) Qcne (talk) 17:00, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

really - i didnt promote it at all - it was information based saying the programs it had - im not sure how anyone even had time to read or flag it because it happened within miliseconds of submission Janacgodshall (talk) 17:02, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

That's promotion. Wikipedia is not a place to just tell about something and its offerings. A Wikipedia article about a company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Not every company merits an article, even within the same field. 331dot (talk) 17:05, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

We have articles as part of the encyclopedia, not pages. That other articles exist has no bearing on whether an article about this company exists. Each article or draft is judged on its own merits. That one article exists does not mean in and of itself that other articles must exist- not every member of a field gets an article just because one does, it depends on the criteria, like a notable company.

If you work for this company, that must be disclosed, see WP:PAID as well as WP:COI. 331dot (talk) 17:03, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

well, iw ould like to try again as it is strictly informative and information on what QUAD A is. Janacgodshall (talk) 17:05, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that's promotion. Wikipedia is not a place for businesses to provide information about themselves. We want to know what others say about the business, not what it says about itself. 331dot (talk) 17:07, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

The Joint Commission and AAAHC have Wikipedia pages. They are identical companies to QUAD A. This is very unfair that both of these can have wiki pages but we cannot.

The Joint Commission: Wikipedia page

AAAHC (Accreditation Association for Ambulatory Health Care): Wikipedia page Janacgodshall (talk) 17:09, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I haven't examined those articles to know if they meet the criteria to merit an article. It could very well be that they don't, but again, each article is judged on its own merits, not based on the presence of other articles. If you wish, you can initiate a deletion discussion if you truly feel those articles should not exist, or just mark them for attention from other editors- but you will first need to declare your relationship with QUAD A. If you work for them, the Terms of Use require disclosure. 331dot (talk) 17:12, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Those organizations do not "have pages" that they own and control. Wikipedia has articles about those organizations. Our articles are typically written by independent editors. 331dot (talk) 17:14, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

well, how can QUAD A have pages that we do not control. I would be happy to just have articles about our organization. How can we proceed? Janacgodshall (talk) 17:49, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

You need to make the paid editing disclosure, this is a Terms of Use requirement. I will provide instructions on your user talk page.

Your organization trying to force the issue of creating an article is not likely to be successful. The best thing you can do is go on about the work of your business, and once enough independent reliable sources choose on their own- and not based on materials from your organization like interviews- to write about it, eventually independent editors will take note of that coverage and choose to write about your business.

Be advised that an article about your business is not necessarily a good thing. There are good reasons to not want one. Any information about your business, good or bad, can be in an article about it as long as it appears in an independent reliable source and is not defamatory. Disgruntled customers could vandalize the article which others could see before it is removed. Think carefully about this. 331dot (talk) 18:04, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

In sum, a company (or a person) does not "own" the article. Once it exists anyone can edit as long as content is verified by references. References need to be independent, and ABOUT the company. Writing what the company wants to publish about itself is useless. David notMD (talk) 19:38, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

@Janacgodshall: If you can write a whole page of more than 450 words of such blatant marketing-speak as "committed to ensuring high-quality services", "continues to drive excellence in the industry", "high-quality, cost-effective", "adherence to high medical guidelines and commitment to patient protection", and so on and so on and so on... and really honestly not think that it's promotional then you will probably never be able to edit in the neutral way required for Wikipedia. Also if you really honestly can't see the difference between that kind of thing and the way that the articles Accreditation Association for Ambulatory Health Care and Joint Commission are written, then ... well, words fail me. JBW (talk) 20:02, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Draft Speedy deleted and account indef blocked. David notMD (talk) 20:54, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Not really a question; just wanted to announce I am still here

Hello. I know this isn’t the place for such a thing but I don’t knwo where else to go. this is the second account of User:Wolfquack. No I‘M not an impersonation, I am THEE Wolfquack (as if I was of such a title). The reason I’m making this is to just let some of my wiki friends know why I’ve been on a hiatus despite novody asking me.

You see I never linked my email with my account as I was afraid of Spam (the food and the mail), so I left it out. Then one day I was deleting some passwords to accounts on separate websites when I accidentally deleted my password. Way-ago right? After that I gave up editing- I had nearly 500 edits and all that away in a literal snap.

I hope the members here allow me to break the rule of not Q&A’ing just this once. I am largely inactive and if anybody is wondering why my editing skills appear a tad rusty it’s because I really haven’t honed in my skills in over a year. So if you notice me not being the most proffesional, that is why, and by all means correct me on my talk.
Anyhow I hope every has a good day. Wolfquack2 (talk) 21:38, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

What punctuation should come before "style"?

Template:Pizza in the United States has a mix of dashes and hyphens in front of the word style. For instance California-style pizza but New York–style pizza. I don't really care which is right, but having a mix in the navigation box is bothersome. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:45, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Both of those are correct. When one or both of the terms in an adjectival compound like that are themselves open compounds (e.g., "New York"), an en dash is used instead of a hyphen (see MOS:AFFIXDASH). Deor (talk) 23:24, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Questions on Article Deletion Policy

Is the consensus for notable but undeveloped pages to be keep, delete, or draftify?. I'll use an example as my question. Let's say article "Bob Smith" exists. Bob is notable per guidelines and has sources that are not on the page. However, Bob's page is undeveloped and currently does not have enough sources on the page to pass the notability guidelines. Enough sources exist, but they aren't on the page. Somebody nominates it for deletion. Person A says keep and argues that Bob is notable per guidelines and that these sources exist; they just haven't been found/integrated yet. Person B says it should be deleted it is unsourced. Who is correct?

Secondly, are there things such as Nobel Prize/Olympic Medal Winners etc. that automatically confer notability, regardless of sources? Or do these things only strongly suggest that sourcing will be there, without automatically conferring notability?

Finally, are all these things set in stone, or is there no consensus answer to these questions?

Thank you :) Bres2 (talk) 02:13, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

1. Neither. It's wrong to delete an article because it's currently unsourced. It's worthless to claim that sources must exist but that you don't know what or where they are. 2. Regardless of the sources provided for these awards? No. Please see Wikipedia:Notability and the associated pages to which it links. -- Hoary (talk) 02:46, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Article declined

Is there a place that I could get my article and references reviewed before submitting it into Wikipedia as I have already submitted once and have been declined? 198.52.165.99 (talk) 18:51, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, IP user.

In short, no. The place where you go to get your article and references reviewed is: article review. We don't general do a "pre-review".

However, having looked at Draft:Infinite Universe Theory, I will tell you that it doesn't look like an encyclopaedia article to me.

To create a Wikipedia article:

1. Find several independent reliable sources about the subject. If the subject of the article is to be a theory, nothing written or published by the people or team who originated the theory is relevant here: it must be independent writing about the theory. If you can't find several such sources, give up this article, as it is not possible.
2. Forget everything you know about the subject, and write a neutral summary of what those sources say. Do not attempt to argue, compare, or reach conclusions, or to address or teach the reader: simply summarise what those indpendent sources say.

More generally, when editors attempt to create an article without first spending a significant amount of time "learning on the job" how Wikipedia works by making many edits, they usually have a frustrating and miserable time, because they don't understand the criteria and standards. My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. ColinFine (talk) 19:13, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Do not resubmit until you learn how to reference properly. Practice creating refs in your Sandbox, copying into your draft only after those are properly formatted. David notMD (talk) 19:20, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

 Note: The draft in question has been deleted for unambiguous copyright infringement. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:00, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Image

Are images, whether it be a flag or a coat of arms, on the The Public Register of Arms, Flags, and Badges of Canada website free or not? WikiPhil012 (talk) 02:59, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

As this page explains, no, they're not free in the sense required by Wikipedia. -- Hoary (talk) 05:06, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Based on your username it seems like you are writing an article about yourself?

I am writing a biography for a magician "Alan Magic" and my article is not being published for the comment " it seems like you are writing an article about yourself? " but i am not writing about myself what should I do? I linked to the sandbox page below

Sandbox: User:AlanMagic1999/sandbox#Alan Magic AlanMagic1999 (talk) 01:25, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

AlanMagic1999: Please read our Username policy. If you are not Alan Magic, then your username looks like impersonation and you must choose a different one. — ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 02:41, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi!

This is because your username is the same as the author, you can request to change your username, also you might need to put a disclaimer going forward. Tesleemah (talk) 09:46, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Nobility

Does reliable sources like CBC and CTV make a subject, which normally would not be noble enough, meet Wikipedia's nobility laws? WikiPhil012 (talk) 23:44, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

WikiPhil012 yes, they would make a subject notable, if they also meet the significant coverage and independent sourcing requirements and you had 1-2 more of them. If you are working on a draft article, feel free to link it here and we can provide some advice. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 23:55, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes!..

So far these sources are reputable and cover the subject independently. Tesleemah (talk) 09:48, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Draft with Redirect for creation

Hi, I've created this draft without knowing multiple names of the subject— Angustus Labyrinthus. I had searched with "Inca City" on Wikipedia but, found nothing. Now, what should I do.? Should I submit it inserting a redirect link to the main article.? or, should I nominate it for the speedy deletion.? —𝐏𝐞𝐫𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨(𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔) 11:26, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

@Perfectodefecto If I were you, I'd use the template {{Db-G7}} to delete your draft. You don't need permission to create redirects in mainspace (although they do get reviewed by the WP:NPP). So you can then directly create the redirect as {{R from alternative name}}, which seems reasonable given the content at Angustus Labyrinthus. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:40, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Got it. Many Thanks. —𝐏𝐞𝐫𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨(𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔) 11:47, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Mass-rollback

Could this IP's disruptive template changes be mass-rollbacked? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/103.205.69.11&target=103.205.69.11&offset=&limit=500 --FMSky (talk) 08:28, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Looks like they have been. See the contribution history you linked. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:03, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

alright thx — Preceding unsigned comment added by FMSky (talk • contribs) 14:16, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Helping a new Wikipedian

I have an issue of notability lacking reliability sources. I was attempting to edit Magic: The Gathering Commander and add cEDH to the variant section. My issue is that it has been almost exclusively community built with significant communities on Reddit, forums and discords but has lacked an official presence up until the last few years. As an example, CCS Summer Showdown cEDH 10k was a tournament a few months ago. This has created a lack of official sources on the topic. I've consulted both the perennial source list, WikiProject Board and table games and the WikiProject Video games to find any reputable sources on the topic and haven't found any. I was also directed here to seek help. What would be recommended to follow from here? I have the edit saved on my sandbox page and don't know how to link it currently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WordyTalks (talk • contribs) 07:25, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

WordyTalks Hello and welcome. I'll link to your sandbox, it's done the same as any other internal link, which you've already done, User:WordyTalks/sandbox. The reply on your user talk page pretty much tells the story, if you have no independent reliable sources that discuss this variant of the game, it would not merit a Wikipedia article at this time. User-generated websites are not considered reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 07:40, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

331dot Thanks for your response. I'm still trying to figure this out so any assistance is appreciated. Is there any allowed space for sources that are less than official sources like Wizards of the Coast? CEDH has been almost entirely community-oriented being an unsanctioned format of Magic: The Gathering and lacks the official status that say Standard or Modern has in the landscape of Magic: The Gathering. This makes the availability of more reliable sources comparative to more official sources less likely to exist. Is there a method to resolve that issue or is it just a SOL situation? WordyTalks (talk) 02:58, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

There may be other websites with less stringent requirements where you could post about this game variant, I don't know what those are; maybe you could start a Fandom wiki for this information, or there is already one. If a topic is not discussed in independent reliable sources, it can't have an article here. That's just the way it is. 331dot (talk) 08:05, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

WordyTalks, you'll need to find an acceptable source, as explained by 331dot. But it doesn't need to be "official". Maybe WotC ignores or even disparages this variant; other reliable published sources can still be acceptable. Maproom (talk) 08:07, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is extra strict about trustworthy sources, sources that have an editorial staff and they fact-check everything and they have a big reputation for accuracy. Wikipedia does not care if something is official to the game company. So, for an extreme example, if six major trusted newspapers publish some things the company doesn't like, it goes in the article. But if I am a universally acknowledged master of the game who understands it better than the designers do, my blog doesn't count, because I don't have editorial staff and fact checkers and I don't have a public reputation outside the game. TooManyFingers (talk) 14:22, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

User claims he's the author and wrote the book (which the Wikipedia page is about)

Hello,

I was checking the recent edits to help catch any vandalism when I saw this edit:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Gray_Man_(novel)&oldid=1245603944 "(The following is not the plot of the book- This looks like it's been created by AI and it's completely wrong (This is Mark Greaney, and I wrote the novel))"

By 73.5.10.191 (talk · contribs), who claims they are the author of the book. I'm not sure what to do here - This doesn't feel like pure vandalism but also this could very well be a troll. Hopefully someone more experience with this type of stuff can help?

Thanks!

Justanotherinternetguy (talk) 00:01, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

@Justanotherinternetguy If they believe the plot is bad, they are free to change it. The warning should obviously not be part of the article, so I reverted it. They can also bring it up to the talk page.

Since they claim to be the author, I have left a COI notice on their talk page. win8x (talking | spying) 00:11, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

It could easily be a troll, but that plot summary does really smell like AI, and it was only recently added by an IP editor who has made no other edits. We lose very little if it is removed, and may be spreading outright falsehoods if it is not, so I removed it from the article. -- asilvering (talk) 00:24, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

I checked on GPTZero and it indeed is AI generated - A noob who just joined the AI wikiproject SecretSpectre (talk) 09:15, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Be careful with that - GPTZero will also ding real, human-created text as AI generated. -- asilvering (talk) 14:41, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Noticing potential BLP violation as a new editor

I'm new to Wikipedia and came across an article with a recent change [1] that I think could be a WP:BLP violation. I don't think I understand the policy enough to do a revert or make changes, but also don't want to leave the page without knowing for sure (if it is a vio, it needs to be removed, ..). Also, I saw the noticeboard says to try and work things out on the talk page first, but I don't know how much attention just a post there would get. What should I do? / Tips? FifthFive (talk) 01:51, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Better links:

diff - [2]

page - Yasmine Mohammed FifthFive (talk) 01:51, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

The text added says (if I may summarize) that she "has been accused of advancing Islamophobic views". It's phrased dispassionately and cites sources. What's the problem here? -- Hoary (talk) 02:56, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

But while we're here, it does look to me to be a real problem that the "early life" section is entirely sourced to her own autobiography. The text is clear that it's her autobiography, but there are some pretty eyebrow-raising claims in here, like Mohammed states that the judge ruled that because her family was Arab, they had the right to discipline her in that manner. -- asilvering (talk) 15:31, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

While I would personally strongly dispute the use of the word "phobia" to describe any person who has not been diagnosed with that particular phobia by the appropriate medical professional, in general the new part of the article is perfectly appropriate in my opinion.

(My complaint about that word, though I consider it valid, has been shouted down for so long in so many situations by so many people that the complaint no longer really counts for anything. "Phobia" has falsely come to mean "prejudice" because people – many of whom really have been seriously oppressed and mistreated and who are right to fight against it – consider it an advantage to mischaracterize oppressors and abusers as sick, rather than as dishonest and immoral. Maybe they think people are too stupid or impatient to understand the real problem, but in the end they're fighting against prejudice by creating more prejudice, and intentionally perpetuating the existing prejudice against anyone who is mentally ill.)

Anyway ... I think the subject of the article would freely admit the truth of most of what has been added there, but probably has some major explaining ahead of her regarding these published false claims about her being a professor, why didn't she tell them "stop calling me a professor", etc. TooManyFingers (talk) 15:25, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

My First Edit

I just completed my first edit. I'm not sure if I did it correctly. I don't know how to get rid of the numbers in brackets within the part I edited, so I just moved some of them way from the text of my edit. Also, the only source of my information is the King James Version of the Holy Bible. I don't think there's a copyright on God's word. Can someone please take a look at it and tell me if I did it right? It's important to both me and God that it is accepted and published. Thanks in advance. MLP Millard Lewis Powers (talk) 17:50, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid you did not do it right. You removed material cited to a source, and added different material not cited to a source. Both of these are no-nos.

Wikipedia articles are summaries of what reliable sources say on a matter, nothing more. If you dispute that a given source meets Wikipedia's criteria for being reliable, or you believe that the article does not accurately summarise what the source says, then you should open a discussion on the article's talk page. But you are not entitled to remove material merely because you think it is wrong.

Having said that - if you have other reliable sources which say something different then it is possible that the article could summarise them as well, and it is an editorial decision whether to grant more or less weight to different sources. But again, you should start a discussion on the talk page for that.

Bibles and other scriptures are regarded as primary sources, and can be cited only for their text, and not for any kind of interpretation or exegesis: see WP:RSPSCRIPTURE. ColinFine (talk) 19:13, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

I see that you reverted your own edit: thank you. Please look at WP:BRD for how we reach consensus. ColinFine (talk) 19:14, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Newbie- New Musician Page

Hello, newbie here so thanks in advance for your help. There is no article for jazz musician - Theo Saunders - however he is credited on a Bill Evans album (Ted Saunders ) but has since changed his name to Theo. I am just trying to start a new page for him that will likely take me years. BUT There is no other “red link” to create a page from his current name. However, there are two links on wiki referring to him, and current name but no link in red or blue in order to create a new article. Sorry for my ignorance- recovering from surgery and not on a laptop, so mobile device options likely limited. I would love to just start the page today. I understand every sentence needs a reliable neutral source - this is fairly easy in his case given the volume of articles and recordings accessible.

• Pierce Street Jazz
• Zan Stewart
• Ted Saunders
• https://theosaunders.com/theography

-- Sentil08 (talk) 16:14, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Sentil08, to establish that he's notable, you'll need reliable independent published sources with extensive discussion of him. None of the sources listed above qualify — the first three aren't reliable (anyone can write anything in WIkipedia), and the fourth is not independent. I strongly recommend assembling some good sources before you start writing. Once you're ready to start, just click on Theo Saunders and start writing. Maproom (talk) 16:46, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, thank you makes sense. I did not provide the links as “reliable sources” for the ultimate public page. I provided them to try to understand how to start the page from those links -given that his name was not linked in red. Again, excuse my ignorance, I guess I can just start without using a red link for his name? There should be no problem, citing reliable sources. He’s all over the Internet has played with all the greatest jazz musicians but is nowhere to be seen on wiki. Sentil08 (talk) 16:56, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Sentil08, and welcome to the Teahouse. You're probably not going to want to hear this advice, but: My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft.

The evidence is that editors who don't do this often have a miserable and frustrating time, because they don't understand what they're trying to do or why it is not succeeding. ColinFine (talk) 17:50, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for this great advice. I’m sure this is by far the best way to go about it. I was just hoping to start a draft -with title only today. Sentil08 (talk) 19:19, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Draft deletion

Hi, I had created few drafts earlier — This and That but, I couldn't find enough sources to establish its notability. Now, I want those drafts should get deleted. Is it possible.? if yes. then, guide me how to nominate those drafts for deletion. Thanks. —𝐏𝐞𝐫𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨(𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔) 06:33, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Perfectodefecto: I have tagged those drafts for speedy deletion by an administrator – see § Requesting speedy deletion for instructions if you have other drafts you want deleted. — ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 06:55, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Got it. Many Thanks. —𝐏𝐞𝐫𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨(𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔) 06:59, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

For future reference, if you are the author of a page that nobody else has edited, or other people have made only minor edits to it, then you can put the tag {{db-author}} at the top, and an administrator will come along eventually and delete it. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:40, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm new

As the title says, I'm new and nervous, and even the newcomer pages don't help. I worry about even clicking on the edit button. The reason why is because I'm afraid (make a big mistake) to get banned from Wikipedia and plainly just is confused going through a tutorial. What is your number one advice to get over this fear? Tri Comment (talk) 00:49, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

@Tri Comment: Welcome to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1235. Just make tiny edits to start out. As a new user, you should have a homepage enabled at Special:Homepage, which should show you some suggestions for "easy edits" like correcting a typo. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:55, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

@Tri Comment Just be bold! If you believe a change is right, do it. Explain the reason in the edit summary, if an editor disagrees, they'll explain why instead of reverting without reason. As Tenryuu said above, start by making small edits. You'll get more comfortable over time. If you have any other questions don't hesitate to ask. Regards, win8x (talking | spying) 01:00, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Edits may be reverted (reversed, undone) - often for not providing a reference in support of added content - without the erroneous editor being blocked. Blocking offences include stuff like vandalism, threatening other editors, threatening to start legal action... David notMD (talk) 01:23, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

@Tri Comment: Further to the good advice given above by others, you can make some practice edits in your sandbox. Please do! Also take our short tutorial. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:47, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi! You asking how to overcome fear is the first step to overcoming it. There is nothing to worry about here. As others have said previously, see videos and check the edit guides.

In addition, try to join the Wikimedia affiliates in your community for offline guidance. You can also come here to ask questions you are not sure of, you can also reach out to me on my talk page as I'm open to guiding new editors Tesleemah (talk) 12:19, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

@Tri Comment: People here are extremely forgiving of what you're thinking of as stupid mistakes. Go ahead and make some! Nobody gets blocked for that, ever. People get blocked for constant malicious actions, for persistent advertising, for persistently trying to force unsourced material into the encyclopedia, or for continually ignoring warnings. Even if you did do something that's considered bad enough to get warned about, it wouldn't matter at all – as long as you heeded the warning and "mended your ways" appropriately. If you are doing your best to not fight with people (including trying not to become provoked if harassed), and if you are consistently "above-board" and honest, then any mistakes you make will quickly be forgotten and you will stay as long as you like. TooManyFingers (talk) 15:54, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

I am also a pretty new editor, mostly adding ref's and links to other pages, fixing bare URLs, etc. But, just by going into lots of articles for edits, I've learned a lot. I've also learned alot by looking at the html code itself.

There is a LARGE amount to learn, way more than I thought to try to write and article from scratch (which at this point is way too difficult for me to try).

One word of caution, don't get frustrated if people revert some of your changes, I've found a few times already I thought I did something wrong, and it really was just a "vandal" or someone purposely disrupting things. While I was trying to figure out what was happening, admins were working on it (with minutes), vandal got banned and an admin told me not to worry and re-did my change. Admins were VERY helpful. Jjamulla (talk) 23:17, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Some of my students cannot post external links to my talk page

This problem is affecting only a minority of my students; as far as I can tell this is pretty random, as in, it affects only some students. Many students with new accounts can do this, but a few cannot. The links are the same (they need to take a screenshot of the training for students page, upload it to imgur or such and link it in their post). We already had a similar activity last semester and no student reported this problem back then. Some of the affected students include Poeyal (talk · contribs), Xukeying2022039098 (talk · contribs) and Hee Jung, Yoon (talk · contribs) (there are more - see my talk page if you need more data and look for student posts without links). FYI my first thought was that this is some security feature affecting just created accounts, but this does not appear to be the case, looking at the logs I see that students who created accounts today could send me links, but others, like Poeyal, who created an account few days ago, could not. I also had them try alternative browsers and even computers, which did not help, so it is not the fault of their PCs but rather some weird account issue. What's up?

PS. Ping @AlphaBetaGamma - perhaps this is related to the issue you reported on my talk page? (But the students should be logged in...) _{Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here} 08:27, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi Piotrus at Hanyang. New users have to enter a CAPTCHA when they add external links. This is no longer required when the account becomes autoconfirmed after four days and ten edits. You could try asking them to disable "Enable quick topic adding" at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing. They still need a CAPTCHA but the inferface may be different. I don't know how CAPTCHA interacts with quick topic adding. AlphaBetaGamma referred to old issues in the logs.[3][4] There is only one log entry since June and that was an IP. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:44, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Huh. I thought I saw an IP triggering "prevent new users from editing other's talk pages" filter in your talk page. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 10:49, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter Thanks. There is probably some error with CAPTCHA and our interface here that needs to be reported to Bugzilla. I can verify this as numerous students showed me that - they try to click "Add topic" blue button and it does nothing, there is no captcha for them to fill. No idea how others were able to succeed this, since students who succeeded did not ask me for help. This should be investigated by someone (any idea whom to ping?). _{Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here} 04:51, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

@Hanyangprofessor2: I have reported it at phab:T374770. Some users could post at User talk:Hanyangprofessor2 because they are autoconfirmed, or did not use the new topic tool, or did not post a clickable external link. It's possible to post a url inside <nowiki>...</nowiki> which prevents a link. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:55, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia's Geolocator

Hi, I had a really old account and I used to moderate the recent changes log and used a bot to warn certain users of vandalism, etc. There was also a feature where you could find the IP address of a certain user to prevent sockpuppets. Can someone send me a link to that again? It would be really helpful.
Thanks. SKINNYSODAQUEEN (talk) 22:55, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, SKINNYSODAQUEEN, ordinary editors cannot find the IP addresses used by registered accounts. Not even administrators can find those IP addresses. That requires the advanced WP:CHECKUSER permission. There are less than 50 checkusers on English Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 23:02, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

I am not referring to the CheckUser funtion. The website was third-party. SKINNYSODAQUEEN (talk) 23:06, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

@SKINNYSODAQUEEN There's no way to see the IP of registered users, third-party or here. For IPs, if you go to their contributions page, you can see links at the bottom to geolocate them. I am not sure what else you could mean. win8x (talking | spying) 23:08, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Ah, that is what I meant. Thank you. SKINNYSODAQUEEN (talk) 23:12, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm having trouble finding the geolocation tool at the bottom. Is there a certain level of confirmation you need to have? I have autoconfirmation on this account, and on my old account I had the same. I'm just having trouble finding the link. SKINNYSODAQUEEN (talk) 23:15, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

@SKINNYSODAQUEEN: It's only shown on pages for IP's. It's added by the English Wikipedia. Most other wikis don't have it. It may not be shown if you have set another language than the default "en - English" at Special:Preferences. I see a box with "Geolocate" and many other links at the bottom of Special:Contributions/97.116.170.7. I still see it if I log out. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:18, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Advice with "Draft:Hector Izquierdo Triana"

I have included WP THREE and more inline citation. Hector is in charge of the reconstruction from a huge natural disaster: this interesting link from National Geographic shows https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/article/lava-built-this-island-then-entombed-towns-in-stone-feature and it was the beginning because the volcano lasted 85 days. The total damage caused by the volcano amounts up to 1,000 million euros. The lava flow covered over 1,000 hectares (2,500 acres), prompting the evacuation of around 7,000 people. The lava flow was about 3.5 kilometres (2.2 miles) wide at its widest point, about 6.2 kilometres (3.9 miles) long and reached the sea, destroying more than 3,000 buildings. Hector Izquierdo left his job as Secretary of State of Finance in Madrid (which is a great job) to help his people because he was born closed to the volcano and his parents were evacuated. Last month he was awarded as knight with the Grand Cross of the Royal Order of the Civil Merit (it could be, more or less, like the Presidential Medal of Freedom in the United States or Knight of the Order of the British Empire, I could qualify the subject under WP: NBIO. ). You have much much more experience in Wikipedia, could you have a look the draft and tell me what can I do to improve it? Cuentaderevision (talk) 10:41, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Sample: He was Secretary of State for Finance Ministry of Finance, President of the Spanish Tax Agency and Professor at IE Business School. In May 2013 he was Financial Times "Professor of the Week". Well then, what, according to reliable sources, did he do and how did he perform as Secretary of State for Finance Ministry of Finance, President of the Spanish Tax Agency and Professor at IE Business School? What did the FT give as the reason(s) for naming him Prof of the week? Put book titles in italics, not between « » guillemets. And please use Template:ISBN. -- Hoary (talk) 11:35, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much Hoary. I have just followed your instructions and I have put the book titles in italics, used the template ISBN and tried to explain the performance during his career. I really appreciate it, the draft has improved with your tips and advices. Cuentaderevision (talk) 10:35, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Cuentaderevision Draft:Hector Izquierdo Triana revised and resubmitted, but a question: there is now what looks like a very professional photograph that you claim as "own work", dated 2021. Is this true? And what is your professional/personal connection to Triana, if any? David notMD (talk) 13:48, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much David, I don´t have much experience and your advices are helpful. No, there is not professional/personal connection with Triana. The photo was done at the presentation of one of his books 4 or 5 years ago. I had a very good impression that day because from that date I think that he is a committed person. In Spain there are many professional politicians (I mean, the policy as a profession) but Triana has his own career and he has put it aside for public service for a period of time. You know, later I found out that Triana had been in India working on a mission of the Society of Jesus and in Ghana with the IE Business School in a microcredit program. Thank you again, I really appreciate your help. 83.33.136.131 (talk) 10:22, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

How to cite Dorland's medical dictionary like this format?

Hello, can someone please explain how to cite Dorland's medical dictionary like this format. I found this format in this article, yet I am unable to access other definitions. I'm looking for the definition of pericapillary end foot on Dorland's, but every time I try accessing it, I get directed to this page instead. Can someone help me find it? PecMo (talk) 04:30, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

As far as I can see, they do not have that term: perivascular end foot. Any special reason it has to be that source, and not another one? Mathglot (talk) 05:20, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Add missing ping: PecMo. Mathglot (talk) 05:27, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

@Mathglot: My apologies. It's pericapillary end foot or perivascular foot. I got perplexed; can you please provide the format for citing it? PecMo (talk) 05:38, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps merckengage.com did indeed have the pages you want, but the Wayback Machine didn't spider merckengage.com deeply enough to find and scrape the pages. But I wouldn't be surprised if I'm overlooking something here. I was about to suggest posting the same question to people likelier to be familiar with the work and with citing it, but I see you've already done so. -- Hoary (talk) 10:29, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Article: "Charge And Groove"

Hello Teahouse,

I recently submitted a draft titled "Charge And Groove," but it was declined due to a lacking of reliable sources. I'm aware on how important it is to use trustworthy sources for Wikipedia articles, and I would really appreciate some advice on how to make my draft more effective.

Source Recommendations: Could you suggest specific types of sources or databases where I might find credible information related to "Charge And Groove"? Validating Sources: Are there particular criteria or examples of valid sources that I should aim to include in my draft? Draft Improvement: Any tips on enhancing the content of my draft to better meet Wikipedia's standards would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you for your assistance!

Musican editor0420 (talk) 02:26, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:Charge And Groove— ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 02:31, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Not useful: the subject themselves, interviews, friends and supporters, employees, helpers

Useful: Articles ABOUT the subject, but not interviews; we want the kind where the reporter does all the talking. These should be from what Wikipedia calls reliable sources. TooManyFingers (talk) 03:15, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Musican editor0420: not my area of expertise, so I'll just say: you should start by listing the sources you have used for every statement in the draft. You do have some sources, don't you?
In terms of content, I would suggest looking at WP:Proseline – it's not a rule, but advice on making your writing more encyclopaedic. An article about a musician should be more than just a list of singles. This is assuming that your subject meets the notability criteria for musicians, and the onus is on you to prove notability. — ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 03:19, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Muscian editor0420, and welcome to the Teahouse. You ask about "sources or databases", but mention of databases suggests that (like most beginners) you don't have an understanding of what sources are for in Wikipedia. While there are circumstances in which a database (managed by a reputable organisation) may be cited, these are very much the exception. The vast majority of sources - and all the sources used to establish that the subject is notable in Wikipedia's sense - should be text (or broadcasts or podcast) written by named individuals wholly unconnected with the subject, and published by somebody with a reputation for fact-checking and editorial control, and containing significant coveragew (say, at least a couple of paragraphs) about the subject of the article specifically (not just things associated with them, like organisations or people they work with, or things they havw created). Most people (and most bands, companies, charities, inventions, etc) are not notable because this independent published coverage does not exist.

More generally: My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. ColinFine (talk) 10:35, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello?

Please make an article and Disambiguation page called "Mini World:CREATA"and "RALR"? 103.176.202.49 (talk) 06:05, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Why? If you want to try it yourself, try Wikipedia:Article wizard. ~Anachronist (talk) 07:31, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, IP user, and welcome to the Teahouse. We are all volunteers here, and work on what we choose. Asking random people here to make an article is not likely to be successful. You have made no attempt to interest people, to show why we might want to make such an article, or even to give us an idea what the subject is.

There is a formal way to request an article - see Requested articles - but in all honesty the chances of a request being taken up is small.

Another possibility is to try and interest another editor who has some interested in the relevant field in working on this: the best place to do this would be a WikiProject: if you can find one that is appropriate to the topic (I have no idea what the topic is, so I can't suggest which) you could ask on the WikiProject's talk page if anybody there is interested in working on such an article.

Anachronist is right that your most likely way is to do it yourself. But I would caution that successfully creating an article is very difficult for an inexperienced editor. My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft.

The most useful thing you can do now, is to look for published sources about the subject, and make sure that each of them meets all three criteria in WP:42. If you can find at least three such, then an article is possible, and you might try one of the approaches I've suggested. (A request at WP:RA is more likely to be taken up if some solid sources are given).

If you cannot find at least three independent reliable sources for the subject, then no article is possible, and you should forget it and do something else ColinFine (talk) 10:47, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

I need help with an article

I just had an article rejected at the AFC with the reason being "the references do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject". I believe most of the references have significant coverage, some that do not have very significant coverage are just support references. I would really like some help with getting it approved. Here's the page, Michael Tawadrous Michael Ugbodu (talk) 10:21, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Michael Ugbodu, which three would you say contain the most significant coverage (and of course are reliable). Tell us here, and then we'll look at them. -- Hoary (talk) 10:34, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello Hoary, the three references will be [1], [4], [5] Michael Ugbodu (talk) 10:42, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Michael Ugbodu. None of these three are independent of Tawadrous. Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources.

Every single source which is used to support notability must meet all three of the criteria in WP:42. ColinFine (talk) 10:49, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

A not-small distinction - the draft was Declined, not Rejected. The latter would have meant that the reviewer saw no potential to succeed. David notMD (talk) 11:13, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Gibberish

One article has in its infobox the legend "String Module Error: Target string is empty". That might mean something to a computer programmer or the like, but it looks like jargon and gibberish to me. Plus, it is in red lettering, so it might be eyeing me up for extermination. What is it actually saying and how do I get rid of it. The article is "Ball Park Incident". Thanks, - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 21:33, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Now fixed by Trainsskyscrapers. Maproom (talk) 22:23, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 12:23, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Show me patal world

Show me Patal world 2409:4056:218:36EB:0:0:138E:8A0 (talk) 04:06, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

I do not understand. Please clarify. Is this a question about editing Wikipedia? We have no article about "Patal world" Cullen328 (talk) 04:11, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, IP user. Patal seems to be the name of three places in Iran. Other than that, I have no idea what you are asking. ColinFine (talk) 10:36, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

OP probably means Patel World, but I'm not going to provide a link here. Please use a search engine. Shantavira|^{feed me} 13:12, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Can an existing page title be changed?

Is it possible to change the title of an existing page? If yes, how can this be done? Benzekre (talk) 16:42, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, if the renaming complies with policy (like WP:COMMONNAME) and would be uncontroversial, you do this with the "move" function to move the page to a new title. Or you can make a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:48, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Assistance with Source Editor

I mostly use the visual editor because I find that's what's easiest for me to work in. Some pages only allow the source editor for whatever reason. I have a really hard time navigating through it on some longer pages. Are there any tools available to help make source editing more like visual editing? I think I could fumble my way through the source editor if I had a tool to help keep the source/preview windows moving in lock step so I can at least keep them mostly lined up and not get lost swimming around a sea of apostrophes and brackets. Mintopop (talk) 16:53, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

@Mintopop Help:Introduction has a full tutorial on the source editor. There is in fact a toggle (top right in the editing window) that allows you to preview the text as you type. Like most editing features, it is much easier on a PC than on a mobile phone. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:01, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Hey @Michael D. Turnbull, this is sort of what I was asking about above. Is there a way to keep the preview window and source window mostly synchronized? Mintopop (talk) 15:59, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

@Mintopop They are deliberately scrollable independently. I find this useful when, for example, I want to check out a section of the article where I'm not currently editing. I'm not sure if you can "lock" the source and preview windows to always show the same part of the article but I don't think you can. With big citations where you have <ref> and </ref> tags, the reference will just be a superscript in the preview at that point, whereas the actual rendered reference will be in the reflist. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:22, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

If you do not feel like using the tutorial, try copying the style other users have used. That is how I learned how to write titles. Drdr150 (talk) 18:17, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I think clicking forwards (as if to publish, but without clicking the final button), reading the potential result, and then clicking backwards to edit again, would be a lot easier and better than trying to synchronize anything.

Or just get used to apostrophes and brackets. TooManyFingers (talk) 19:54, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

@Mintopop: Welcome to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1235.
Some pages only allow the source editor for whatever reason.
Some namespaces suppress the use of the visual editor, such as Wikipedia:. You can force it by appending &veaction=edit to the end of whatever page URL you're on in the address bar, but functionality may be limited as its use doesn't extend to those namespaces and you'd have to do it every time. I'd definitely recommend previewing what you're editing in source mode if you're unfamiliar with it, or if you're just in spaces like Talk: to post comments, just stick with using the reply tool. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:58, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

it's much easier to use on desktop than mobile, to use on mobile. You might need to check how same edit is done previously. Tesleemah (talk) 09:51, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Help

Hi, I am new here and I please like some help with learning how to edit like with citing. Thanks. 23.248.100.238 (talk) 16:56, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Welcome. The place to start is Help:Introduction. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:24, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Editing userpage

Hey I'm new here and want to edit my userpage. I have already added userboxes by copy pasting from another editor but I want to format all the userboxes to the right side of my userpage which I'm unable to do. So can anybody please help me out? Iamtheboss47 (talk) 17:28, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

@Iamtheboss47 You need to use the templates {{Userboxtop}} and {{Userboxbottom}}. See my userpage (in source editing) for how that looks but please don't change anything there! Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:43, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Okay thanks Iamtheboss47 (talk) 17:45, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Article is repeatedly getting edited and major content removed within 1 day between my lengthy edits.

Hello - Today from my own homepage, a suggestion was made by the Wikipedia system to add links to the following article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divergence-from-randomness_model FYI - I am a relatively new "editor" mostly helping to fix bare URLs and other "easy" things. I proceeded to make edits including fixing some URLs, checking content which didn't match sources, etc. Twice today alone other users (likely from the same suggestions pages it appears) have gone in and, looks to be made edits/mistakes and WIPED out large portions of the article. Since I was actively working in there it was VERY frustrating. I don't know how to make sure this doesn't happen. Also is there a way to have articles "locked" from multiple users editing same time? Jjamulla (talk) 23:09, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

@Jjamulla: This information you've been adding, what sources does it come from? TooManyFingers (talk) 00:39, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

You and WhyIsNameSoHardOmg- - need to discuss this on the Talk page of the article. David notMD (talk) 11:10, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

It comes from the sources already listed in the article, I read them myself where I added the info. One of them is a thesis on the subject. For example, I put in reference tags for some specific sentences which I found in the thesis.

I would call this vandalism now, as this users has AGAIN deleted a good portion of the article, and reverted all of my changes which I spent hrs. and hrs. on....

How do I get an admin involved. Jjamulla (talk) 11:18, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Check my Talk page. I'm sorry! I understand that things like this could be a punch to the head for your experience with this website; I do feel you. WhyIsNameSoHardOmg- - (talk) 20:07, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Publishing new article from sandbox

I am attempting to create my first new article, but I have not been able to find the process to move my draft from the sandbox to the wikipedia page. Smedler (talk) 13:33, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

New accounts cannot directly create articles. You will need to submit it for a review, typically this is done via the article wizard, but I will add the information to your sandbox needed to submit it. However, if you were to submit it, it would likely be declined, as it is far too brief. You will need to (assuming the sources you give already do) summarize what the sources say makes this person a notable person as Wikipedia uses the term. 331dot (talk) 13:38, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I have had an account for ~2 years, but this is my first article. I created it in the sandbox a few weeks ago and I believe I did submit it for review at that time. I haven't seen any response to the review. I can easily add more information to the page if that is the issue. Smedler (talk) 13:41, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Your account is old enough, but you need 10 edits to create articles, you only have 5. 331dot (talk) 15:45, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

331dot put a submit button at the top of your sandbox draft so you can submit it for review.

I find it curious, however, that you are attempting to write a Wikipedia article that cites your own work as its primary source of information. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:46, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

@Smedler Your published biography has lots of sources and you would be better to cite those directly where possible. For example this .pdf is very useful in showing notability, since it was a review by Usherwood in Nature. You obviously have a conflict of interest (which you should declare) but that's no bar to drafting an article for Wikipedia. Keep the draft fairly short initially: your main task is to show that Hoyle meets the special notability guidelines at WP:NPROF. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:40, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Smedler, when writing for Wikipedia one should try to avoid assuming that readers are already familiar with the area they're reading about. Thus for example one should avoid specifying a journal via Behav Brain Sci and instead write Behavioral and Brain Sciences. Yes, readers could google the former and thereby find the latter, but this shouldn't be necessary. (True, we are in 2024, so most who want to chase up a paper will instead find it via its DOI -- so please investigate Template:DOI; or, better, Template:Cite journal.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:19, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

I fixed the Medler ref. I agree with Turnbull that is is more appropriate to use as references the sources for your journal article rather than your article. David notMD (talk) 02:56, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Fabio Mancini wiki page

Hi, good morning. I direct follow the discussion about the [Fabio Mancini] supermodel page who was deleted. I cannot understand why I search for many many days source a and article ton”save” the page and many people ( not admin - but normal people) vote to keep the page, save and correct but they have no consense. So my question is, if they have 7/8 people want to keep and other 5/6 to delete, why the most vote are not consider? Actually we know wiki is a free enciclopedia, but i reality we see its a kind of lobby we’re people decide if someone can stay on or not, without reason if Google Speak alone with many images and sources of the subject.

thank you so much for read me. LuciaS23 (talk) 05:17, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Have you read the notice at the top of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fabio Mancini (2nd nomination), and Liz's closing statement? In short, deletion discussions are not polls or majority votes. They're a collective assessment of whether an article meets Wikipedia's policies and standards. If an argument to keep isn't based on a solid understanding of those policies and standards, it won't hold much weight. jlwoodwa (talk) 06:22, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, LuciaS23, and welcome to the Teahouse. In addition to what others have said, please see WP:NOTDEMOCRACY ColinFine (talk) 09:21, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

When they discuss keeping or deleting, the topic is not "Do we like it?" – the topic is "Does it follow Wikipedia policy?"

If you add people who do not understand Wikipedia policy, unfortunately it makes you appear dishonest – even though you really are honest. TooManyFingers (talk) 06:53, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Gravitation of The Moon

Please correct this page (first paragraph).— Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.176.122.147 (talk) 03:28, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Gravitation of the Moon Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 03:32, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

122.176.122.147, If it's a simple and uncontroversial change, you can do it yourself, otherwise you should discuss changes on the talk page of the relevant article, which is Talk:Gravitation of the Moon. — ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 04:00, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

The key number, 1.62 m/s², agrees with this NASA Fact Sheet. I suggest 122.176.122.147 discuss on Talk:Gravitation of the Moon. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:12, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Cnn blocked?

I tried to cite a cnn article and it says it's blocked as not a reliable source. SeashellPirate22 (talk) 18:01, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Where on Wikipedia did you try? Which CNN article do you mean? TooManyFingers (talk) 18:05, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

You can delete this.. it was an issue wthe u SeashellPirate22 (talk) 19:10, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Url SeashellPirate22 (talk) 19:10, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Adding images to an article

Hello. I recently deleted the images I had in my article because I wasn't sure if I had uploaded them correctly. I originally uploaded them to wikimedia commons a few months back and guess I had selected "own work". I am not the artist nor did I take the pictures, but I did get permission to use the images. I did not want my error to affect my article so I deleted the images. I then tried to upload directly to wikipedia, but I'm not sure if that is correct either. Would the actual artist or organization which gave permission for the images have to upload the images themselves? I feel like articles about artists really need a few images. Thanks for your help! CrissCollab (talk) 16:32, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

So I just saw my article had been reviewed and I guess everything was okay with the images - do you think I can just add them back? CrissCollab (talk) 16:41, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, CrissCollab. There are two ways for images to be used in English Wikipedia.

The preferred way is to use free images, which can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. This means either images which are in the public domain (either by explicit statement of the copyright holder, or by reason of their age), or images which the copyright holder has specifically released under a copyleft licence such as CC-BY-SA, which allows anybody to reuse or alter the image for any purpose, requiring only that they attribute the source. This licensing by the copyright holder is required, and "permission" of any other sort, from anybody, is irrelevant.

The second way is that English Wikipedia (unlike some other language versions) allows non-free images to be used in certain restricted ways, as specified in NFCC. Permission from anybody is irrelevant.

So, if your artist is willing to license their work under such a license, then it can be uploaded to Commons. There are three ways they can do this: they can make a public declaration (eg on their website) that it is so licensed; or they can upload the image to Commons themselves, declaring it as their own work, and releasing it; or they can email the WMF as detailed at donating copyright materials. But you cannot do it (though you could be the one to upload it).

If they are not so willing, it is possible that a representative work of the artist might be justified as a non-free image - but not more than one.

See Help:Upload for more. ColinFine (talk) 17:04, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your speedy response! I just want to make sure i'm abiding by the proper rules. I will look into these options. CrissCollab (talk) 17:11, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

@CrissCollab Just to say that we don't allow WP:NONFREE images for living people, so Colin's option 2 is not possible. If you have a good relationship with the individuals and already have permission from them to upload to Commons, you can do that on their behalf and then ask that they email the volunteers at Commons to confirm you have been authorised to do the uploads on their behalf. This is explained at WP:IOWN. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:23, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Oh, right. Without looking at the article, I assumed this was about pictures of works by an artist. ColinFine (talk) 21:14, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct, they are artwork images by an artist. So if the artist themselves have not licenced their images under either wiki commons or creative commons, does that basically mean they cannot be used in my wiki article?

Should I be deleting the images I added to wikicommons then? Colin above mentioned that it does not matter if I had "permission". CrissCollab (talk) 21:45, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

@CrissCollab Apologies, I misunderstood the type of picture you had uploaded. The principles are the same. For File:Prosia DeAnn L Oasis LineEtching 12x12 in 2022.jpg and any others you uploaded, you need to get the artist to email the Commons volunteers from an email address that is obviously personal to them, giving the filenames and your username, saying that they have indeed authorised you to license them for Commons. See WP:IOWN. As we don't allow nonfree images of artwork anywhere except in an article specifically about that artwork, you should not use the files in the meantime. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:14, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much. I have deleted the images for now. I can see if I can get ahold of the artist directly for this, otherwise I guess I will just have to leave off images. Appreciate your help so much! As I'm sure you can tell I'm new to wiki and learning as I go :) CrissCollab (talk) 17:18, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

@CrissCollab You deleted the files from the article DeAnn L. Prosia but I'm afraid that is not enough. You must delete them from their storage location on the Wikipedia servers as well, as they are copyright infringements. Include this one you uploaded to en:Wikipedia. Deletion is achieved by placing the template {{Db-g7}} on each file's page. Alternatively, get the artist to approve retention, as I mentioned above. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:22, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Okay got it! I will delete the file. I'm in touch with her gallery to get in touch with the artist directly so hope to have that all cleared up soon. Thank you for your continued help and support! CrissCollab (talk) 14:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I just added the template you gave me - I hope I did it correctly. This message comes up now:

This file may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion as a page where the author of the only substantial content has requested deletion or blanked the page in good faith. See CSD G7.

If this file does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, please remove this notice.

This page was last edited by CrissCollab (contribs | logs) at 14:13, 13 September 2024 (UTC) (0 seconds ago)

@CrissCollab Yes, you did that correctly and the file I linked by the URL is now gone. You need to do the same thing on the files you uploaded to Commons. When deleted, the current blue link to the filename here in this thread will turn red. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:33, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I thought I could have the artist email Wiki Commons - or do I still have to delete them and then have the artist email them if I reupload them? Thanks for clarifying CrissCollab (talk) 17:08, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

@CrissCollab You can get the artist to do the email now, without deleting them. You might find that they are removed before the artist's email gets to Commons volunteers but that won't matter as they can be undeleted by the admins there. Make sure the permissions email includes the filenames you used. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:12, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Mike! The gallery reached out to her and sent me her info to contact her so I plan to be in touch later this afternoon. CrissCollab (talk) 19:32, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Issues with translating articles

So I have been trying to translate some articles, specifically into Cherokee Wikipedia. I successfully translated the article on camels and the article on Vatovia into Cherokee. However, when I tried to translate the articles about Augustus and Hitler, it created a whole new article, not a translated form of the original article. For reference, here is the translated article about Hitler: Ꭰ⁠Ꮩ⁠l⁠f⁠ ⁠Ꭿ⁠Ꮮ⁠r. Can someone tell me why this is happening? Thanks. RedactedHumanoid (talk) 18:15, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

If this wording doesn't make sense, in a nutshell, I translated the article about Hitler into Cherokee wikipedia, but the article on Cherokee wikipedia isn't showing up when I click on the other languages tab in the article about Hitler on English Wikipedia. RedactedHumanoid (talk) 18:17, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

To connect different languages you have to edit the entry in Wikidata. In this case I added the entry on chr for Hitler to wikidata:Q352, you can do the same for other articles by finding the "Wikidata item" link for an article on the sidebar and adding the article name to the list of Wikipedia pages at the bottom. Reconrabbit 18:50, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Can you provide a bit more detail as to how to use the Wikidata item link thing? RedactedHumanoid (talk) 19:26, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

There is a help page on wikidata:Help:Sitelinks. Basically scroll to the bottom of the page where there is a "Wikipedia" box and add the name of the wikipedia (chr) and the article (in this case Ꭰ⁠Ꮩ⁠l⁠f⁠ ⁠Ꭿ⁠Ꮮ⁠r). Reconrabbit 19:38, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. RedactedHumanoid (talk) 19:56, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

regarding a page approval

I have recrated a draft , wating for approval Draft:Sumit Kumar Singh - Wikipedia Sumitfilm (talk) 05:22, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

OK, what is the question you want to ask? A reviewer will let you know the status of your draft soon. Tesleemah (talk) 06:17, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Approval of this draft

Draft:Sumit Kumar Singh - Wikipedia Sumitfilm (talk) 08:08, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Are you writing about yourself? 331dot (talk) 08:17, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Let me quote, Sumitfilm: He has lent his magical touch to a plethora of projects [...]. Recently, he astounded audiences with his directorial genius [...]. Ripe for deletion, I think. -- Hoary (talk) 07:16, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

IF you intend to try again, title your draft as Draft:Sumit Kumar Singh (film director) as there is an existing Sumit Kumar Singh who is in politics. David notMD (talk) 12:24, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

A lot of weavil words and exaggeration sighted Tesleemah (talk) 18:15, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

You meant weasel words. Weevil words would be quite different, but maybe funnier. :) TooManyFingers (talk) 21:19, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Declan J Donovan

Please create a page about Declan J Donovan in English wikipedia. (I am represented by an IP address, so I cannot create pages.) 122.176.122.147 (talk) 10:05, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

You can create an account. Or you can leave an entry at WP:Requested articles. But be aware that Wikipedia volunteers are not here to do work for you like that, especially if you tell us nothing about the subject and provide no sources demonstrating notability. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:37, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to Teahouse! We're all WP:Volunteers here. Creating an article yourself, is the most likely way to make it happen. Even without a registered account, you can check out Wikipedia:Articles for creation. Once your draft is ready for review, an experienced editor will look it over/give you feedback. Happy volunteering! Welcome to the Teahouse! Creating a new article from scratch is extremely challenging, and new editors are strongly recommended to spend a few months learning how Wikipedia works, by making improvements to some of our existing seven million articles before trying it. When you do decide to have a go at a new article, you are highly encouraged to read WP:Your first article. If you haven't already also check out WP:TUTORIAL; it's a lot of fun! Happy editing! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 11:23, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

@Shushugah: Why are you telling me this? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:50, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Andy Mabbett, it was unthinking use of the "Reply" function, most likely. -- Hoary (talk) 22:00, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

From googling, he's a 22-y-o musician with one full album released. You need to study Wikipedia:Notability (music) to determine if he meets the required criteria, but I suspect that like most artists this early in their careers, it will be a case of WP:Too soon. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.6.83.137 (talk) 13:10, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Although I'd agree it may be too soon to make an article, it might not actually be too long before one can be made. They're definitely moving up in the musical world, having worked with Martin Garrix and Third Party on a song early this year. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 13:20, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Requesting articles for protection

Today, I requested that the article Botswana Defence Force should be protected, But I really wanted it to be request for semi-protection, but I emailed Cyberpower678 to fix the issue and I got no response. What can I do? Sparkbean (talk) 21:44, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Have you checked back on your request yet? Someone's responded there. jlwoodwa (talk) 21:55, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

@Sparkbean: According to the reply at WP:RFPP, it looks like the disruptive IP user was blocked instead of adding semi=protection to the page. RudolfRed (talk) 21:56, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

@RudolfRed and @Jlwoodwa: Turns out another user will have to protect the article. Sparkbean (talk) 21:57, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Sparkbean, when the disruption is coming from a single IP, the solution is to block the IP instead of semi-protecting the article. Cullen328 (talk) 22:01, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

@Cullen328 Oh! That explains it. Sparkbean (talk) 22:03, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Featured lists and inclusion in good topics

Howdy all,

Maybe better for Wikipedia talk:Good topics, but that talk page seems rather inactive, so figure I'd bring it here.

I'm planning to eventually do a good topic centered around the Vegas Golden Knights (see here). I've currently got List of Vegas Golden Knights general managers up for featured list status as part of that pursuit; however, there's an emerging consensus that it's unfortunately currently not long enough to meet FL criteria. The same issue would apply to List of Vegas Golden Knights head coaches, which I haven't overhauled quite yet. Without unexpected circumstances, it'll likely be decades until both lists are at the requisite 7-8 entries for FL status, given turnover rates for NHL franchises.

On one hand, delaying a good topic by such a comical length of time due to the criteria feels, to put it bluntly, unfair, especially if (when, hopefully) all of the hypothetical articles are of good quality. On the other, I can't really pull off a GT that excludes these lists, given the importance of GMs and HCs to a team.

I suppose my question would be: is a good topic still possible to create if the lists are high-quality, even if they're not technically able to make FL? If not, would it be acceptable to exclude them, despite their importance? The Kip ^(contribs) 21:59, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

The Kip, you have created a list of two people with a massive lead section and 29 references. I hate to be unkind, but can't you see that this is a little bit . . . silly? Cullen328 (talk) 22:07, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

@Cullen328 I didn't create it myself - it's been around for some time now, I overhauled it from what had previously been a two-sentence stub. The lead was intended to mirror that of similar WP:IH FLs, specifically that of List of Detroit Red Wings general managers.

As for the refs, I added (probably too many) citations after feedback at the FL nom for List of Vegas Golden Knights players, where one user critiqued an already-detailed lead for not having enough citations. Perhaps an overreaction on my part, though such citations were necessary on the GMs list for individual trades/claims. The Kip ^(contribs) 22:12, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Items that are ineligible for featured article, featured list or good article status, either due to their limited subject (in the case of lists only) or due to inherent instability (in the case of either articles or lists), must have passed an individual quality audit that included a completed peer review, with all important problems fixed. Such items do not count towards criteria 1(a), 3(a)(ii), or 3(b)(i).
— Wikipedia:Featured and good topic criteria § 3c

So yes, if it's justified and the items are independently considered high-quality, you can exclude a limited number of items from the "good articles and featured lists" requirement. jlwoodwa (talk) 22:10, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

@Jlwoodwa Much appreciated, and good to know. The Kip ^(contribs) 22:13, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

No Trivia like on FANDOM

Why is there no "Trivia" section on Wikipedia articles like there is on FANDOM articles? They were both made by the same person! 69.160.112.31 (talk) 22:06, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

This used to be common on Wikipedia, but is now discouraged. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trivia sections for details. jlwoodwa (talk) 22:12, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia while fandom is a fan site. They have entirely different purposes. I can assure you that most Wikipedia editors do not contribute to Fandom. I certainly don't. Cullen328 (talk)

Please read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trivia sections. Cullen328 (talk) 22:15, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Because usually its inclusion is WP:UNDUE and does not add any understanding for the reader. See WP:TRIVIA EvergreenFir (talk) 22:18, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Association Football Club Kits

Hello. How do I upload football kits to a football club article and if the kit is not available, how do i create them?

i have been struggling with this specific problem ever since i became an editer and i would appreciate it if someone could help me out. Greg (talk) 14:46, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Does "kit" mean uniform, e.g. File:WHL-Uniform-VIC.png? jlwoodwa (talk) 14:53, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Greg. See Template:Football kit.

@jlwoodwa, "Kit" is the standard word for team clothing in sport in Britain: "uniform" is hardly ever used. See wikt:kit, sense 6. ColinFine (talk) 15:46, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

@Soccerking.greg127: I don't know if this entirely answers your question, but it's probably a good start at least: {{Football kit}}. (That template, in turn, is used in {{Infobox football club}}.) HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:56, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

It helped alot but the thing i didn't understand after reading the article is when creating the patterns. Do i require any specific applications to create the patterns, is so, which one? Greg (talk) 16:30, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Greg. If you need a pattern that is not already available then you'll need to create an image. I don't think there's any particular program required for that. But I suggest asking at Template talk:Football kit, or at WT:WikiProject Football. ColinFine (talk) 16:42, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Greg (talk) 06:07, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

How to start engaging with the community?

Heyo! I'm relatively new to editing Wikipedia and picked it up on an impulse, and so far I've found it to be a surprisingly interesting and engaging pastime. It's nice to be able to make a difference in even the smallest ways by performing simple tasks like copyedits and chasing down sources and the like, and I think I'll continue to do those on my own for a while until I gain enough interest/experience in a specific topic/subject to start making dedicated edits that add meat to the bones of those articles.

In the meanwhile though, could someone direct me towards some social spaces for Wikipedians to chat? Places like Discord servers, web chatrooms, etc. I want to get more engaged with this vast community and its members, and I'd like some tips on that in general as well. Cheers! ^w^ Sirocco745 (talk) 04:47, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions, Sirocco745. I'd say "Yes, baby steps at first: very wise"; except that chasing down sources is hard work. Do please keep chasing them down. Is the page Wikipedia:Discord helpful? -- Hoary (talk) 05:23, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Yup, I'll join the Discord server later when I have some more free time to chat on there. Thanks for that!

Chasing down sources is kinda fun to be honest. You find yourself diving through all sorts of rabbit holes, but the most important thing I've recognized as a new editor is to find your limit. If research on a specific claim is taking too long, then I think it's best for me to leave a ^{[citation needed]} and flag it on the talk page along with the other claims I find in the same vein. Sirocco745 (talk) 06:22, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Expert Advice about an Esoteric topic

Hello Everyone,

I’ve been working really hard to create a page on Wikipedia: Draft:Memnun about the Etruscan hero who has lots of his own mythological evidence

I keep facing rejection due to the sources I’ve provided. I’ve gathered reliable primary and second sources that I spent a lot of time researching and verifying, but it seems like they still seems like no one is bothering to note the actual topic when there are plenty of independent articles on Wikipedia about other Etruscan gods and here is that list:

List of Etruscan mythological figures

And here are examples of independent Etruscan articles about Etruscan gods that essentially are the same as Greco-Roman gods. I am wondering why these pages got approved and mine about the newly revived research page: Memnon is being so summarily dismissed and it seems by editors without the expertise to understand the Etruscans were their own ancient society.

Tinia - who is Zeus with his own Wikipedia approved Etruscan page.

Menrva -who is Minerva or Athena with her own Wikipedia approved Etruscan page.

Uni - -who is Juno Hera with her own Wikipedia approved Etruscan page.

I really feel like the first wikipedia editor just summarily rejected the idea that a new page was being offered simply because Memnun sounds and reads so similar to Memnon (as the hero is known in the Greek tradition) . I believe the editor saw the research as a typo and then a series of strange conversations began that don't reflect the academic research I provided.

I would really appreciate any help or guidance on how to improve my draft and ensure my sources are acceptable. If anyone could take a look or offer some advice, that would be amazing! Magistracraig (talk) 00:12, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Memnon and Draft:Memnun indeed look like similar articles, however if you think they are different which I am not so sure seeing the contents (birth, death and origin of the author) all look similar, perhaps you move the title of your draft to another one not having the same spelling as Memnon. This is the main issue as pointed out by the reviewer. Tesleemah (talk) 07:01, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

The first sentence of Draft:Memnun makes it clear that Memnun and Memnon are the same person, in different languages and cultures. But this is also true of Zeus and Jupiter, who have separate articles. Maproom (talk) 07:23, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Railway stations

I have come across the Wikipedia:NTRAINSTATION page and found that many train station articles don't meet such a notability guideline. For instance, many articles in List of railway stations in Pakistan are purely the documentation of the stations' geographical location and nothing else. Does anything need to be done? If so, I may be unable to clean up all these articles and would require assistance. Pygos (talk) 08:17, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

@Pygos Wikipedia_talk:Notability#RfC:_Notability_and_British_Rail_stations may be of interest to you. Consider asking for input at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains. You can perhaps pick a few bad ones (3-4 perhaps), WP:PROD them and see what happens. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:25, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! I have also posted this at the Wikiproject page. Pygos (talk) 08:32, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Does this read like an ad / promotional copy?

Came across a string of recent edits on Acacia Research and some of it sort of reads like an advertisement / I wonder about the neutrality of the author. My first time posting to Teahouse, apologies if this is not the right place to ask. (I was thinking of adding to Talk page first but noticed a similar posting for another topic already here). Should any templates be added or content removed? --Colinstu (talk) 22:40, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it's soporific corporate advertising speak. Sample: Acacia is focused on acquiring public or private businesses across industries including the mature technology, energy and industrials/manufacturing sectors where it believes it can generate shareholder value. Meaning: "Acacia acquires public and private companies in technology, energy and industrial/manufacturing sectors", I suppose. ("Generate shareholder value" I suppose means "make money". But readers don't need to be told that profit is the motive.) Feel free to cut the junk. -- Hoary (talk) 22:50, 16 September 2024 (UTC) And on second thoughts "is focused on acquiring" may mean just "hopes to acquire", without asserting that any have yet been acquired. This article is bad. Unsheathe your editorial machete and get to work. -- Hoary (talk) 23:13, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for confirming. And wow, thanks all for the edits already! --Colinstu (talk) 14:06, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Cullen328 and I have cut some of the waffle, Colinstu. That was pretty easy. What would take a little longer is determining which parts of what's stated are based on reliable sources that are independent of the company and disinterested. We can take the company's word for it when it says that, say, the CEO is such-and-such a person; but claims for what may be called accomplishments need good sources. Wikipedia provides a cornucopia of templates to warn of sourcing problems/inadequacy. -- Hoary (talk) 02:00, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I just cut out a lot of corporate fluff cited to press releases and added a short section about legal issues. This company appears to be considered a patent troll, based on my brief search for sources. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:11, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

The biggest problem that I now see with this article is that the references do not include any independent, reliable sources that devote significant coverage to this company. It is all about what the company says about itself. Cullen328 (talk) 02:23, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

It was worse before. What I cut out was cited to nothing but press releases and other primary sources. I added citations to independent sources in the legal issues section. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:31, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

How do I submit a Wikipedia article?

How do I submit a Wikipedia article? Boys4tam (talk) 06:19, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello. You may use the Article Wizard to create and submit a draft. Be advised that writing a new article is the most difficult task to attempt on Wikipedia, and it is highly recommended that you first gain experience and knowledge by spending much time editing existing articles in areas that interest you, as well as using the new user tutorial. These will greatly increase your chances of success compared to diving right in to article creation. 331dot (talk) 06:24, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

If you decide to try this, you should start by assessing if an article about the subject you're thinking of has any chance of being accepted. See WP:BACKWARD. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:51, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Boys4tam, So, get references first - perhaps park in your Sandbox - then only write content that is verified by those references. What you personally know to be true cannot be used unless verified by references. David notMD (talk) 17:23, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

About section right side

Hello, i'm creating a page on wikipedia and would like to know how do i insert a box on the right where I can place a picture. Thank you User972364 (talk) 14:34, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

@User972364: It looks as though you need {{Infobox television channel}}. (Click on the link to see the available fields.) Deor (talk) 14:47, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, User072364. I'm afraid that, like most editors who try to create an article before they have spent time learning how Wikipedia works, you have written your draft BACKWARDS: first find the (independent reliable) sources, and then write your draft from them.

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. ColinFine (talk) 15:32, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Having an infobox or images has no impact on getting a draft approved. David notMD (talk) 17:24, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Your one 'reference' for Draft:The Destination Channel is to a press release service, so does not contribute to confirming Wikipedia-notability. 17:28, 17 September 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by David notMD (talk • contribs)

Do you work for The Destination Channel? If so, then WP:PAID applies. David notMD (talk) 17:29, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Regarding an Article

I want to know what improvement should be done in this article, as i have mentioned an article

Bagri Kumhar having RAJ Era sources and i also added disclaimer about that, after that it was not accepted. Tizzythewhale (talk) 16:45, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

@Tizzythewhale If there are no sources for sections of the article, then you simply can't write about it for Wikipedia. Disclaimers don't help and won't be accepted as we don't allow original research. See also the comments others have addded to the top of the draft. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:23, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

There are no other sources present on the internet or in any books besides RAJ Era books regarding "Bagri Kumhars." Tizzythewhale (talk) 17:26, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

@Tizzythewhale Yes, indeed and WP:RAJ, which you have already been pointed to in the comments, specifically says you should not use such sources. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:30, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

so what i do to publish that article as no source is available on internet besides Raj era books Tizzythewhale (talk) 17:34, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Your only choices:

- find good sources

- give up TooManyFingers (talk) 17:50, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

To ask that the draft be deleted, put Db-author at the top inside double curly brackets {{ }} and an Administrator will delete it. David notMD (talk) 17:31, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Why is it so vital to cite stuff and source it

Im always getting my edits removed because my edits as unsourced, and only once have my facts been incorrect. They now describe me as a "highloy disruptive user". In my opinion, it doesnt really have to be sourced because if you really want to delete my meesage, check the fact first. So, why is it so vital? 94.192.32.22 (talk) 16:54, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Verifiability is a core principle of Wikipedia. I could put on anyone's article that they are a space alien from Mars, that doesn't make it true. It need to be verifiable somewhere. 331dot (talk) 17:16, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Looks like they were blocked. 331dot (talk) 17:16, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Were blocked, 10 days ago. Not blocked now. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:19, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks 331dot (talk) 17:44, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

IP editor. Wikipedia is, by consensus based on a number of policies. Of these verification is the most relevant. How would a reader know that you had not just made something up if you added it to an article without a reliable source? Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:17, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

@331dot They were blocked on 7 September but are currently not, I think. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:18, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

"I now shall sit in the darkness and cry..." is your perogative for being temp blocked, but a better approach would be to register an account and provide content with references at the same time. Adding content without references while expecting others to fact check and verify for you is akin to expecting strangers to clean up your dog's poop. David notMD (talk) 17:35, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

while they were doing that i was just learning it myself 94.192.32.22 (talk) 17:40, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

check the page about "list of skateparks" and go to united kingdom 94.192.32.22 (talk) 17:41, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I added st neot and corby, with citing 94.192.32.22 (talk) 17:41, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

st neots* 94.192.32.22 (talk) 17:42, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

For clarification they are both good known skateparks across the uk 94.192.32.22 (talk) 18:12, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Youll endlessly be scrolling youtube when you search st neots skatepark 94.192.32.22 (talk) 18:13, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

And adrenaline alley is Europe's largest indoor skatepark 94.192.32.22 (talk) 18:14, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, IP user. Suppose you put in some information which you absolutely know from your experience is correct.

Next month, somebody changes it. Maybe they think you were wrong, maybe they misunderstand what you were saying, maybe they made a mistake, maybe they want to promote something they are associated with, maybe they are a vandal.

What happens then? If somebody who patrols new changes looks at it, they see that some unreferenced material has been changed, but is still unrefernced. They may very well have no idea themselves about the material - so should they leave it, revert it, or remove it?

And if nobody happens to review it, the changed version will stay there, and a random reader next year will see the changed version, not your original. If they are clued up on Wikipedia, they may notice that it is not sourced, and know to be sceptical. But most users will take what it says.

That is we we prefer (and in many cases required) citing sources. ColinFine (talk) 18:13, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Colin. 94.192.32.22 (talk) 18:14, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

How to Connect with Fellow Wikipedians for Collaborative Writing

Hello everyone,

I've been contributing to Wikipedia for a while but haven't yet connected with others who share my interests.

I'm particularly focused on documenting contemporary art and would love to collaborate with fellow Wikipedians in this field.

Could anyone suggest the best ways to find Wikipedians with similar interests and explore potential collaboration opportunities? IlEssere (talk) 14:02, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

The contemporary art wikiproject has apparently been renamed to Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts. It still has sub-pages under the old contemporary arts title, such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Contemporary Art/Notability. Anyway check out the visual arts wikiproject page and other pages linked there including the talk page. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:38, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

@IlEssere: It also helps to simply start in, by improving existing articles that interest you and appear to need work. After doing that for a while, you may notice (from their edit summaries and their contributions on Talk pages) that you are often working alongside the same people. TooManyFingers (talk) 18:32, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Breaking News

I am currently editing this article, which is being updated in light of new information (2024 Bangladesh anti-Hindu violence). However, I am aware that breaking news is not always accurately captured. At what point should one revisit the cited references to identify appropriate sources? Given that this is a sensitive topic, I do not want to dismiss it altogether and would appreciate an objective approach. LeónGonsalvesofGoa (talk) 18:28, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I'd recommend keeping note of sources that they show on tv about that specific report 94.192.32.22 (talk) 18:31, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

And make sure the source is checked to be correct or otherwise some other people could undo your edits due to incorrect sources 94.192.32.22 (talk) 18:34, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

You won't find objectivity, but at least you can be thoughtful and diligent.

In my opinion, it would be nice to revisit quite often for an event that is very recent, and less often as time passes. But this can cause a problem: at the beginning, many people are passionate about the situation, many are trying to say something, and it's hard for them to stay reasonable and civil. Compromise can be necessary, in terms of how quickly you act. TooManyFingers (talk) 19:18, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

COPYVIO on Plummer Terrier

See Special:Diff/1246248739. The text was copied directly from the cited source. Was it appropriate for me to blank the section, and what are the next steps? Svampesky (talk) 20:32, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

{{copyvio-revdel}} is the way to tell an administrator that a page's history contains copyright violations. There's a script to make it easier: User:Enterprisey/cv-revdel. jlwoodwa (talk) 20:41, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Svampesky (talk) 20:46, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Help editing to get published

Draft:The Killing of Miles Hall I am working on editing this page and am unsure on what exactly I can do better. "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations." These are the comments of why the page was declined. I used Google News sources and am un sure on the second comment. Thank you for your help. Patty Mitchell (talk) 21:59, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure that his biography is necessary here. But now (just to look at one area of your draft), there's a one-paragraph biography. It has no references whatever. Why should the reader believe what it says? Well, it does say for example "Miles Anthony Hall was the first born to his proud parents". In a sense, it's too easily believable. Why "proud"? A significant and regrettable minority of parents aren't proud of their kids; but can't we assume that, unless we have evidence to the contrary, parents are proud of them? (It looks to me as if "proud" was added for politeness' sake or similar.) Another point: you have external links in the body text, for example police officers from the [https://www.walnutcreekpdca.gov/ Walnut Creek California Police Department]. That's not permissible. (If you must have a link there, then perhaps: police officers from the Walnut Creek California Police Department{{Efn|[https://www.walnutcreekpdca.gov/ Walnut Creek California Police Department]}}.) -- Hoary (talk) 22:16, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Updating linking article

Knox County, Ohio - Wikipedia

Can someone please help me update this page to say "Brinkhaven" instead of "Gann?" We got the main article for Brinkhaven updated, but this one still links to "Gann." Christopher from Brinkhaven (talk) 22:14, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

You're demonstrably able to edit Wikipedia. (If you weren't, this request of yours wouldn't appear.) Where's the difficulty in editing Knox County, Ohio#Villages? -- Hoary (talk) 22:21, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

It's not really my strength. I tried last time and got a lot of blowback. So I'm asking for someone who can. Christopher from Brinkhaven (talk) 22:23, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

User talk:Christopher from Brinkhaven#Name suggests that it's a conflict-of-interest matter. If you have a conflict of interest concerning Brinkhaven, Ohio, then (i) add Template:UserboxCOI to your user page (be sure to read the instructions for this), and (ii) please make requests and suggestions for that article on Talk:Brinkhaven, Ohio. -- Hoary (talk) 23:16, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Really, dude?

If you aren't able/willing, I'm sure someone else will assist. It's a pretty simple thing. Christopher from Brinkhaven (talk) 23:22, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Really dude, this was a trivial edit that you could have done yourself. I just did it for you. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:50, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. That's all I asked. Christopher from Brinkhaven (talk) 23:50, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Can I Duplicate An Existing Article on German Wikipedia to English Wikipedia?

There is currently an article on German Wikipedia about an author. Is there a way to duplicate or copy the existing article on German Wikipedia to English Wikipedia? A lot of the content would remain the same, except the English Wikipedia article would focus on the author's impact in the United States. The German article on German Wikipedia has a greater focus on the author's impact in Germany. Sa2840 (talk) 19:21, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

@Sa2840 Maybe. en-WP articles must be inline with WP:N and, if it applies, WP:BLP or your translation will be deleted. Just existing on another WP does not necessarily mean the article will stick here. Read Help:Translation carefully, it goes into detail. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:32, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Assuming the article will stick here, is there a way I can duplicate the article with the approved formatting here so it is easier for me to just edit the article, rather than make a completely new page? Or must I make an entirely new page on English Wikipedia? Sa2840 (talk) 13:09, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

@Sa2840: I think what you're asking for is your User Sandbox. You can paste the German material in there and work on your English version; feel free to make a complete mess, because sandboxes cannot be found through a normal Wikipedia search. (But never place anyone's sensitive personal information in there, nor any personal attacks or potential copyright violations, because the sandbox does belong to Wikipedia.) TooManyFingers (talk) 18:48, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Sorry – I forgot. After making sure you are logged in with your username, you can find your sandbox from one of the menus at the top of your screen. On mine it's in the menu with the icon of a person. TooManyFingers (talk) 18:54, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree with @Gråbergs Gråa Sång.

In addition, make sure the references are notable and they are translated with neutral point of view. Tesleemah (talk) 19:45, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I think that's slightly incorrect. References don't need to be notable, but they should be reliable. jlwoodwa (talk) 19:56, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Agree with this point....... the reason that many translated articles get deleted is because other Wikipedia's don't have the same higher level of sources.Moxy🍁 19:59, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I was referring to a strong independent reference, so yes! Reliable. Tesleemah (talk) 20:02, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Probably meant to say they need to demonstrate notability. There are often references that don't do that. (and are therefore only usable as supplementary, if that) TooManyFingers (talk) 21:10, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Who is this author, Sa2840? -- Hoary (talk) 22:02, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Brianna Wiest. Sa2840 (talk) 13:06, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Sa2840, the article de:Brianna Wiest isn't obviously impressive. Which would you say are the best three sources about Wiest or her work? Each must treat her or her work in depth, be independent of her -- be disinterested (not one of her publishers) and not based on interviews -- and be independent of each other. The sources don't have to be in English. -- Hoary (talk) 23:53, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Help, not related to editing

where can I get help from experienced editors if i am having trouble in finding something on wiki- for e.g: I am trying to find discussion on kolkata rape case vistim's name removal. I read article's talk page and left a comment. I am just trying to see if it was picked up by editors/community for more discussion and any policy discussions/ admin discussion on the same topic. I just want to try to help in policy discussion if there is one happening.

Also, where to find wiki policies, any directories prepared by wiki on this? `~ᴀɴᴋʀᴀᴊ ɢɪʀɪ🎇✨( C • Talk ) 23:30, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:List of policies and guidelines. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:46, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Ohh wow, Thank you, I would enjoy reading it all at my comfort. What about the policy discussion thing? where do those happen? creating new policy, proposing changes, etc... `~ᴀɴᴋʀᴀᴊ ɢɪʀɪ🎇✨( C • Talk ) 02:06, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Every page on Wikipedia also has a "talk" page, where discussions take place about improving the content of the page to which the talk page is attached. If you want to discuss the Wikipedia:Notability policy, for example, you would use Wikipedia talk:Notability. And for that Kolkata discussion, it's at Talk:2024 Kolkata rape and murder incident#RfC: Name of victim. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:45, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

There is an extensive and ongoing WP:RfC about this issue on the article's talk page, with a large number of editors contributing (and also a comment from the Wikimedia Foundation). The RfC was listed on both the general RfC page and the BLP Noticeboard. You can also find short but more general discussions about naming rape victims, such as this one, on the BLP talk page. The policy most relevant to this situation is probably WP:BLPNAME. FactOrOpinion (talk) 02:06, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks!! <3 `~ᴀɴᴋʀᴀᴊ ɢɪʀɪ🎇✨( C • Talk ) 02:08, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Where do I help for linking orphan articles?

I use User:SupportBot but it only gives 3 orphan articles per suggestion. Solise (talk) 08:04, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Have you tried Wikipedia:Orphan#Step 1: Finding an orphaned article? Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:35, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Lack of refrences Draft:Macedonian Student Organization in Slovenia

Hello i have a question. I sent a draft for a page and it got returned because i had no references. I wrote about an organization that i am apart and the only source is our website. Any suggestions what to do? Handjiski1234 (talk) 18:21, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello. If no independent reliable sources have written about your organization and shown how it is notable as Wikipedia defines a notable organization, it would not merit an article at this time. Wikipedia is not a place for organizations to tell about themselves. 331dot (talk) 18:24, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

i agree. It primarily depends on how famous it really is to be on wikipedia 94.192.32.22 (talk) 18:29, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

and also as how wikipedia defines it, as you mentioned 94.192.32.22 (talk) 18:30, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Notability isn't quite the same as fame. jlwoodwa (talk) 19:02, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Handjiski. Please note that Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 09:39, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Lucy R. Lippard unsourced edits

FYI

 – Adjusted heading level. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:06, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, could someone have a look at recent edits to the page Lucy R. Lippard. An IP address and then a new user named Qc311 has been adding fairly large sections of unsourced text. I've reversed them twice, but I'd rather not get into an edit war, and am unfamiliar with further administrative steps. Thanks,  Curiocurio (talk) 01:03, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

@Curiocurio: Welcome to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1235. You may wish to let the user in question know on their user talk page that they run the risk of edit warring, and that persisting in such an endeavour may bring their actions before the edit warring noticeboard. Please read the relevant information on those pages for more information. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:10, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I've semiprotected the article for now. Adding large quantities of unsourced prose to a BLP isn't permitted on Wikipedia. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:35, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! Curiocurio (talk) 10:47, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I need someone to help me back up this page

im trying to edit the Huntingdonshire page. What im trying to add is "The largest settlement is the town of St Neots and the town the district was named after is Huntingdon" . Unfortunately i cant find any sources to back this up, even though it is true. So could somebody help me find sources that say st neots is the largest settlement in huntingdonshire and another source saying Huntingdon is the town the district is named after. 94.192.32.22 (talk) 19:11, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

What type of "largest" is it meant to be? Area? Population? 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:21, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Population 94.192.32.22 (talk) 19:27, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

It's possible that citing a source for the naming process might be unnecessary because it's uncontroversial. TooManyFingers (talk) 19:28, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

every edit i do without sources gets deleted. Ill even name the people too theres so much 94.192.32.22 (talk) 19:29, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

In such a situation (editors being difficult about things that are frankly not important), it's often better to give up for a few months and hope they go away. It's also important in such cases to discuss things on the Talk page, partly because if you end up needing to make a formal complaint, your own behaviour is up for discussion as well. TooManyFingers (talk) 19:35, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Nah they need to accept not everything had to be sourced 94.192.32.22 (talk) 19:48, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

They need to realise the actual truth that we're currently pointing out 94.192.32.22 (talk) 19:49, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

But in case, i still need the sources 94.192.32.22 (talk) 19:49, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

TooManyFingers, I will quickly add that this wasn't "difficult editors", this IP was blocked for disruptive editing after several warnings. Anyways, here's the source you requested: http://abcounties.com/huntingdonshire/about-huntingdonshire/ SirMemeGod  19:54, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks legend 94.192.32.22 (talk) 21:17, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

So, you're trying to make two assertions: "The largest settlement is the town of St Neots and the town the district was named after is Huntingdon". And you don't have sources? Then how can you possibly know they are true? Where did you get this information? ~Anachronist (talk) 19:57, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Huntingdon shire wikipedia, research of my own, and i live in st neots 🙂 94.192.32.22 (talk) 19:59, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

and how could the town Huntingdonshire was named after be any different then Huntingdon?💀 94.192.32.22 (talk) 20:00, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Research of your own? Surely you must have found some sources then. Are you aware of our policy Wikipedia:No original research? That is why you are being reverted. Also, if something is obvious as you are implying, it need not be stated. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:44, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Yeah but i just read wiki there's no other sources. And in all due respect, that policy is flipping rubbish. I mean, an AI, that knows everything in the world as it gets updated every hour, tried to edit wikipedia with out citing sources, you lots would still make it not to be put on there. See what im trying to hint at? It just doesn't make sense .this website is to display the truth but if your stopping me from telling the truth because i didnt waste another 2 to 10 minutes looking for sources to back the truth up, it just doesn't make sense. Its like they expect us to pull out a sheet of sources out of our bums as if we are a real life Google. 94.192.32.22 (talk) 21:16, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

and straight after i submit it, the same dude who always does it comes to ruin it. If you need me I'll be rethinking my life choices 94.192.32.22 (talk) 21:37, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

The lead in a Wikipedia article is meant be a succinct summary of the content of the article. You added information that was already covered adequately in the following paragraph. It did not need to be mentioned twice. Nor did it need citing, as it was in the lead and thus a summary of cited information in the body of the article. If you want to be treated like a grown up then please behave like one. Your rants here are doing you no favours. 10mmsocket (talk) 21:52, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

You're fully entitled to your opinion, but it's incompatible with Wikipedia. So either (A) suppress your opinion and either (i) find and cite good sources or (ii) realize that whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent; or (B) find some other website that's more compatible with your opinion. -- Hoary (talk) 21:45, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Wise words 10mmsocket (talk) 21:52, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Those wise words are over a century old. Perhaps they could be be paraphrased for Wikipedia purposes as "if you can't find significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources about a topic, don't start a Wikipedia article about that topic". Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 11:18, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

If you think the WP:OR policy is rubbish, you are welcome to go to the policy talk page and gain consensus for eliminating it. The policies on Wikipedia weren't made up one day out of thin air, but evolved over many years through community discussion. In all due respect, if you cannot be bothered to learn the basics of how an encyclopedia works, then perhaps you should, as you say, rethink your life's choices. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:44, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

This is a message from Amazon. I'm sorry but the person you are trying to speak to has written a custom status "dead". Thank you. 94.192.32.22 (talk) 06:35, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Targeted for COI for creation of the page Hassan & Roshaan

Hello. I am stuck in a situation and I don't know how to get out of it. Two days ago, I created the page Hassan & Roshaan. a music band based in Pakistan. They garnered attention and became quite popular in 2020. As I was searching for subjects to work on, I found it would be great to create a page for this music band and I found locally-known platforms featuring this music band. However, when I published the page and shared it in my circle as an achievement, it was pointed out that I got the spelling wrong, so I corrected the spelling of it. An editor moved it to the draft space, saying that it feels like its written like an advertisement and requires references, it also said to move back to article space once changes are made. I altered the content a bit and added new references and moved it back. The same editor started accusing me of UPE after I made changes upon their message on my talk page. When I tried to defend it, they threatened me with an Afd and they in fact did that. Now, another editor has started a discussion about COI on the noticeboard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#WikiProCreate. I need to understand what proofs/evidence do I need to provide to defend this claim? I am really worried about my reputation as an editor. Please help. Thank you WikiProCreate (talk) 10:00, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I'd suggest confining this to the COI noticeboard where you have already posted, to avoid duplicating effort. 331dot (talk) 10:02, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I believe this is a place to ask questions? I am here, asking what proofs/evidence do I need to provide to defend this claim? Please don't tell me, even this is something that I cannot do or it would not help me?

WikiProCreate (talk) 10:19, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

You don't necessarily need to defend anything if you haven't been paid for writing, just state in clear and civil way how you have been contributing out of good will. I will suggest you stick to the page dedicated for the issue as stated by @331dot Tesleemah (talk) 10:22, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Alright. Noted with thanks. Appreciate the direction @Tesleemah and @331dot. WikiProCreate (talk) 10:24, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

My suggestion was simply that, out a desire to keep things consolidated in one location. 331dot (talk) 11:40, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, i understand. Thanks a bunch.

WikiProCreate (talk) 11:42, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Clarification on Link Removal and Tone of Feedback Regarding Demidov Contribution

Hello, Teahouse community! I recently made an addition to the Nikolai Vasilievich Demidov Wikipedia page, including a reference to the International Demidov Association, specifically linking to a page about Andrei Malaev-Babel and the Assotiation (the link in the page are dead). Malaev-Babel is a well-regarded expert on Demidov’s techniques and has been instrumental in preserving and promoting these methods through his work as a professor and as a leader within the association. The link I included was removed, and the editor, APK, left a message stating that my contribution "did not appear constructive," with an utterly insulting suggestion to "experiment" in my sandbox next time.

While I understand the importance of ensuring Wikipedia maintains high standards, I found the tone of the feedback somewhat dismissive and not conducive to constructive dialogue. I believe that Malaev-Babel’s contributions are highly relevant to understanding Demidov’s legacy, and the link provides verifiable information on his work and influence. Could someone help clarify why the link might have been considered inappropriate, and how I can reintroduce this important information properly? Is there a more appropriate way to cite this source or explain Malaev-Babel’s significance in the article? I’d appreciate any guidance on how to handle this situation and ensure that the content meets Wikipedia’s standards. Thank you so much for your help! Best regards, kimon Fioretos

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolai_Vasilievich_Demidov Kimon fioretos (talk) 10:44, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

@Kimon fioretos You added bare url with no explanation whatsoever. Please read WP:External links. I see that you are now discussing this issue with the reverting edtior on your talk page. Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:10, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Editing references to provide Internet archive links

Hello all, I am a newer editor here at wikipedia and would like some guidance - I am unsure of the procedure for editing a broken reference link to add a working one that uses the internet archive. If there's a related article to read that would be great. Some information is readily available here, but some of the details are hard to track down. Thank you for your time. HelenaBertrand (talk) 19:00, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

If the reference is using {{cite web}} or a similar template, then the procedure is described at Template:Cite web/doc § archive-url. jlwoodwa (talk) 19:04, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your help! This was just what I was looking for. HelenaBertrand (talk) 12:25, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Hia, i would like to know why it was rejected

about the article submitted Kaul7 (talk) 08:59, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello. If you are referring to your sandbox, it was declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning in the draft process, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means that it may be resubmitted. Your draft is completely unsourced. All information, especially about a living person, must bs sourced to an independent reliable source. Please see Referencing for beginners. 331dot (talk) 09:10, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

The article was declined for lack of reliable independent sources. You can go through citing sources. Also, since you are pretty new (5 day old here) , I will suggest you take things slow and master how to edit on Wikipedia first Tesleemah (talk) 09:12, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Tesleemah, the draft was declined, not rejected. If you want to answer Teahouse questions, please try harder to be accurate. Cullen328 (talk) 09:31, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Now, this will gear me up. Cheers! Tesleemah (talk) 09:54, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Kaul7, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Like most beginners, you have written your draft BACKWARDS: writing an article begins by finding solid indpendent published sources, otherwise there can be no article. What you know (or what I know, or what any random person on hte internet knows) is irrelevant, unless it is backed up by published sources.

More generally: My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. ColinFine (talk) 09:41, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

A) no references B) after Declined, do not resubmit to AfC without first addressing the comments in the Declined notice, as that just wastes a reviewer's time. David notMD (talk) 12:59, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

using non-SPS written by a BLP's subject for claim about third parties

WP:BLPSPS discusses the conditions under which a SPS by the subject of a BLP article can be used, one of which is "the material ... does not involve claims about third parties." But the BLP guidelines don't address non-SPS written by the subject of an article. Does the same condition apply for non-SPS? And does "the material" refer to the WP text, or to the source? (Background: a BLP discusses criticism of a 2003 scientific paper that the subject wrote, and the subject has asked that a non-SPS he wrote be mentioned, where that non-SPS addresses the criticism and critics. The WP text might be something like "the subject lamented that the [unnamed] critics objected to the paper's conclusion instead of engaging with the paper's methods and analysis" or might instead be limited to "in 2023, the subject wrote a reflection on the paper's origin and responses to it.") Thanks. FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:54, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

You can cite a SPS for assertions made by the subject as long as those assertions are attributed properly in prose. The two examples you mentioned are fine (although I wouldn't use the word "lamented"). ~Anachronist (talk) 01:37, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

FactOrOpinion, if a living person who is the subject of a Wikipedia article writes a reliably published article or book, then there are absolutely no restrictions on use of that reliable non-SPS source, other than normal editorial judgment and our content policies. If a Wikipedia article about such a person includes properly cited criticism of them or their work, then, of course, their reliably published rebuttal should be included and summarized with a comparable level of detail as the criticism. Cullen328 (talk) 04:23, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

@Anachronist, @Cullen328, thank you both for your help! FactOrOpinion (talk) 13:20, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Regarding a username change…

Hi.

So I’ve been waiting for weeks for a username change and it has become apparent to me that that group that manages that is critically understaffed. I would like to volunteer to be a name changer. How would I go about this business? Alexysun (talk) 09:37, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Here's the easier way, Alexysun. You start by becoming an administrator in some Wikipedia. With that accomplished, you become a bureaucrat in some Wikipedia. With that accomplished, you become a global renamer. (Or so I believe. I may be making one or more mistakes here.) -- Hoary (talk) 10:36, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

@Alexysun: I can't find anywhere in your contribution history where you requested a username change. Maybe you started the request and didn't save it? Go to WP:CHU/Simple. Your username won't change unless you request it, and the response time isn't unreasonably slow. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:23, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Adding a template to a redirect using the visual editor

How can I add a template to a redirect using the visual editor? I would like to add the Template:R from alternative language template to Notes sur le cinématographe redirect. Can someone help me, and not just do it for me, but teach me how please Iljhgtn (talk) 21:18, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Notes sur le cinématographe might be the better location of the redirec that I am trying to add the Fr (french) language ISO code to based on the aforementioned template. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:19, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Click on Notes sur le cinématographe. You arrive at Notes on the Cinematographer. Near the top of this, you see "(Redirected from Notes sur le cinématographe)". Click on the link within that. You're now at the redirect. Edit it, as you'd edit a regular article. -- Hoary (talk) 21:50, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

No I know how to edit a redirect, I was saying that I do not know how to make a certain type of edit to the redirect (which is adding a template such as Template:R from alternative language) once the redirect is already created. I can do so when I am first setting up the redirect, but once made, that category appears blocked from use within visual editor. Does my question now make sense? I apologize if it was unclear. Iljhgtn (talk) 15:42, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

How does wikipedia prevent political or religious bias from affecting accuracy of information?

see above Tomsinsky (talk) 16:05, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

@Tomsinsky We don't aim to remove bias, since everyone has some sort of bias. However, as editors it is our policy to represent neutrally the opinions expressed in reliable sources. If there are two equally valid opinions, then the article can and should represent them both, without false balance. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:18, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Bias has been eliminated by the principle of Neutral Point of View (NPV) Tesleemah (talk) 09:53, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it's true to say that Wikipedia is free from bias, Tesleemah. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:48, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

I was emphasising on the standard and the guideline of editing on Wikipedia. Perhaps you can tell me more about what you meant. Tesleemah (talk) 21:54, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

I had in mind the issues documented in Gender bias on Wikipedia and Racial bias on Wikipedia, for instance. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:12, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

These are all interesting reads for me, Thank you for sharing. I was referring to the non-sentimental and principle of neutrality of Wikipedia. Tesleemah (talk) 06:16, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry: While I have no doubt that you are right, the opening of the gender bias article accidentally highlights a fallacy that can sometimes justly discredit arguments it is intended to support. Disparity and bias are not reliably connected to each other, and neither of them can be used to gauge the other. It's easy to think of situations where disparity can persist despite lack of bias, and easy to see bias occurring despite parity, because they are not in a simple cause-and-effect relationship. Parity cannot just be assumed to be a natural or correct state. Certainly there are situations in which parity is good or expected or desirable, but it is not a universal default.

I'm not criticizing the thought that parity could be good, I'm criticizing the assumption that bias among Wikipedia editors must be what's preventing parity on Wikipedia. For example, Wikipedia's strict rules on notability mean that we only use outside sources; if there is not parity "out there in the world", Wikipedia would be wrong (by its own philosophy) to try to create a false parity inside the encyclopedia. To put it another way, the advice given here in the Teahouse to COI editors, that nothing is admissible without reliable third-party sources, is going to also skew the overall result, because we already know who used to own and operate nearly all the reliable sources (and I'm sure still controls far more than a parity share of them).

Wikipedia has essentially committed itself to do no more than hold up a mirror, and has explicitly written non-activism into its most fundamental rules. Aiming for gender parity among the articles on Wikipedia falls VERY squarely under the Wikipedia prohibition against "righting great wrongs"; it's exactly the kind of thing that, if it started, could bring Wikipedia crashing down.

Aiming for gender parity among EDITORS, on the other hand, is a worthwhile goal that I support. I wish we were there already. TooManyFingers (talk) 22:57, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Sure, disparity in coverage isn't necessarily a result of editor bias, but it's hard to overlook the fact that such a small proportion of Wikipedia editors are female when looking for explanations. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:21, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers: Have you seen WP:MULTSOURCES? Accounting for external bias isn't a hypothetical, it's been part of a core notability guideline since a 2018 RfC. I agree in principle that absolute parity isn't necessarily achievable or desirable, but I don't think efforts in that direction (like Women in Red) will bring Wikipedia crashing down. jlwoodwa (talk) 05:35, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I have read it, though not recently, and I really understand. "Crashing down" was intended for a if gender parity on Wikipedia became a requirement, regardless of the obvious disparity among especially the sources further back in history. For centuries, it seems clear that historians intentionally avoided mentioning most of the notable women. And those women are now literally no longer notable, because there's no documentation. For the historic notable women who were documented, good! (Though too many famous historic women were noted at the time merely for being connected with men, which is not as good.) Writers and filmmakers are notorious for neglecting women characters. These omissions were unjust to the point of being ridiculous, yet there's very little legitimate we can do anymore to repair history. "Crashing down", in the context of my comment, is "becoming an irrelevant project because we allowed POV-pushing and forced gender balance to become core values". TooManyFingers (talk) 16:57, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

This article needs additional citations for verification.

I get this error message "This article needs additional citations for verification." when I only use Wikipedia quotes through out the page including one external reference. The page is in my sandbox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lagosman/sandbox) . I'd like to publish but nOt with this error messagE. What do I do to remove it ? Lagosman 09:49, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I will not advise you publish the page with just one reference, what you added so far has been linking the author to other connecting pages on Wikipedia.

You still need more references to back up your claim about the author and these references needs to be Independent and reliable as per reliable sources. You should also check citing sources.

On a final note, see how M. Visvesvaraya was written for further sample on how to edit yours to meet WP:Notable(people) Tesleemah (talk) 10:18, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Lagosman, and welcome to the Teahouse. A Wikipedia article should be almost 100% based on what independent reliable sources say about a subject. Wikipedia itself is not regarded as a reliable source, because it is user-generated.

You have written your draft BACKWARDS, in that you didn't start with the reliable independent sources.

Please see WP:YFA. ColinFine (talk) 10:44, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks - I've learnt something I need ideally minimum three good sources independent of Wikipedia. Lagosman 17:59, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

How do I check my edit score?

You know how when you edit, if it’s a good edit, the number goes up, but if it’s a bad edit, it goes down? how do I check that number? Cornishrom20 (talk) 09:49, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

@Cornishrom20: If you are referring to the + or - number that displays in the article's History, that is nothing to do with whether an edit is "good" or "bad". It just shows how the SIZE of the article changed: longer or shorter. (If that is not what you meant, then can you please provide a bit more information about where you are seeing a number go up or down?) --Gronk Oz (talk) 09:55, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Oh ok. I thought there was some kind of point system Cornishrom20 (talk) 10:37, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

@Cornishrom20: - LOL. If you want to see a summary of your edits, click on "Contributions" near the top of the screen. Then from the Contributions page, click on "Edit count" near the bottom. This will give you more stats than you could ever want about all the edits you have made. Enjoy!--Gronk Oz (talk) 11:27, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Ok thanks Cornishrom20 (talk) 11:29, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

lol my average edit change number is -432.4 bytes.

that came from the time I section blanked the Austrian empire. I’m still trying to work that off, I was really dumb back then Cornishrom20 (talk) 11:38, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

@Cornishrom20:, you don't need to "work it off". There's no negative connotation in having a net reduction in the size of the articles that you edit. In fact, reducing the size of an article can sometimes lead to an improvement in its quality. Mike Marchmont (talk) 11:44, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Yea but section blanking Cornishrom20 (talk) 11:45, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

My average is probably even more negative. As an administrator, I've deleted entire articles. There isn't an easy way to factor in deletions, however. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:18, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

If there was a "wikiscore" that mattered, I think it might somewhat resemble a "signal-to-noise ratio", which might need tricky sabermetrics-style formulas to calculate properly. But unlike in baseball (where "success" is almost exactly equal to "winning games"), relative edit values on Wikipedia aren't clear because there are different interpretations of success; the math might be even harder to do correctly. But "How much good have I done here, minus the sum of (any permanent harm I've caused and any good I've prevented by disruption)" would be interesting if it was possible. TooManyFingers (talk) 18:11, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Sometimes administrators need to judge a sort of "wikiscore", and it's hard. Occasionally we need to answer the question "is this editor a net positive or net negative for the Wikipedia project?" If negative, then we block the editor, which is difficult to do when the editor is trying to contribute in good faith but keeps leaving messes behind for others to clean up, and shows no sign of improving. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:33, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Dialogue in writing

Hi, I found an article from the task centre, Dialogue in writing, and have been working on it and hopefully improving it. I have somehow indented part of the page, and I can't see how to reverse it. Also, (regarding a different article), what's the best way to add categories - is there a big list somewhere? thanks Blackballnz (talk) 06:38, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

When you put a blockquote, you must later put /blockquote to show where that quotation ends. (They both need the angled signs, you'll know what I mean). Also, it appears you may have fixed up the quotation marks by making them curly. Please "un-fix" those by putting the straight ones back again - Wikipedia only uses the straight type of quotation marks, for technical reasons. TooManyFingers (talk) 06:50, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers: If you want to mention an HTML tag (rather than use it), there's a handy template: {{tag|blockquote|c}} gives </blockquote>. jlwoodwa (talk) 18:16, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! TooManyFingers (talk) 21:53, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed a couple of things: 1) If you forget to end one of your blockquote sections, the entire rest of the article may be turned into a quotation, as you saw. 2) I don't know anything about categories, sorry. TooManyFingers (talk) 06:57, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Blackballnz, thank you for your work. The matter of selecting appropriate categories tends to be hard for new editors, a lot easier with even a little experience. Dialogue in writing is a somewhat abstract subject, which will make category selection a lot harder than if the article were instead something "concrete" (?), like a model of car, a painting, or baseball player. I suggest that you skip categorization for this article, practise it on another, and then perhaps return to this article in order to categorize it. -- Hoary (talk) 07:09, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for this - the article I want to put categories on is this one Katherine Heiny, but I don't know how to do that. Blackballnz (talk) 22:18, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

I did the "Example" section to show you. TooManyFingers (talk) 07:41, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I'll continue tidying up. I'm not sure about the difference between curly and straight quotation marks - can you show me what they look like so I don't do that again. Blackballnz (talk) 22:17, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

" ' (The ones we want, whether for quotation marks or apostrophes)

“ ” ‘ ’ (The ones we don't want)

If you are using a word processor, it may have an easy-to-use control or preference to turn OFF "Smart quotes". That might be easier than having to correct afterwards by hand.

If you're typing directly to Wikipedia, then just use the ordinary quotation mark and apostrophe keys on your keyboard, without doing the special keystrokes required to get fancy marks.

I hope that makes sense and actually works for you. TooManyFingers (talk) 00:53, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help. I've left a msg on the talk page as well. The article has been improved, although I'm sure there could be more to add. Should I go ahead and remove the maintenance tag, or leave it to someone else? Blackballnz (talk) 06:31, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

@Blackballnz: Have all the things mentioned in it been fully solved, so that the person who noted the problems would really have to admit it's fixed now? If that's done, then yes, go ahead. TooManyFingers (talk) 20:17, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Editing ‘Related Articles’ text

I apologize if this has been asked and answered already, but I’m curious how one would go about editing disparaging text in a ‘related articles’ link.

For example, the Connor Stalions article (Connor Stalions) is followed by a link to a related article about Sherrone Moore.

Unfortunately, that link includes the disparaging text, “American football player and horrible coach”

I am not remotely connected to this person, but I feel that this description should be edited. The problem is, I’m not an editor and have no idea how to fix this myself.

Thank you for whatever information you can provide, and again, I apologize if my question has been addressed in an existing article. Waldohammer (talk) 21:37, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not seeing anything about Sherrone Moore on the page Connor Stalions. jlwoodwa (talk) 21:48, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Waldohammer. Thank you for pointing out this vandalism to Sherrone Moore, which I have reverted.

You are an editor, and you could have reverted it (though as it is in the "short description", which doesn't appear in the text of the article, it's a bit hard to find). ColinFine (talk) 21:50, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

@Waldohammer: "Related Articles" is a feature of the mobile version: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connor_Stalions. Most editors use the desktop version and don't see that feature. The description is taken from the target article so it was fixed there.[5] PrimeHunter (talk) 22:14, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

"Geoffrey Kabat" Wikipedia page

I am asking you to please study the material that I have posted over the past 2 months on the "Talk" page for "Geoffrey Kabat." Therein I have, on several occasions, with increasing detail and increasing documentation tried to explain that the article is TOTALLY one-sided and cites only derogatory sources (which are extremely political in nature), while ignoring very strong evidence that tells a different story. So far, after two months of posting these comments, I have gotten almost no response. My most recent posts are the most comprehensive and tell the story with documentation. I look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely, Geoffrey Kabat Gkabat (talk) 21:16, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

@Gkabat: The Teahouse isn't really set up to deal with requests like yours. You'll probably have a much better chance of getting assistance on one of the more specific noticeboards listed at Wikipedia:Noticeboards. Please don't make essentially the same request simultaneously, though, on multiple noticeboards because this will just make things confusing and might lead some to believe that you're forum shopping. Read the description for each noticeboard given at the top of its page and decide which one best deals with the problems you're having. In addition, please remember that all Wikipedians are WP:VOLUNTEERs and someone might not immediately respond to your post. Nobody posting here has any connection to the Wikimedia Foundation or speaks on their behalf; so, if you're looking for that, see foundationsite:About/Contact. If you do decide to post on a noticeboard, I suggest avoiding WP:SHOUTING and any kind of legal terminology when making your request because either could easily be misconstrued. As long as you remain WP:CIVIL, others will respond similarly; if, however, you start to get accusatory, then the responses you receive will likely reflect that. Finally, please also remember that Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons applies not only to what's written about you on Wikipedia, but also what you might write about others on any Wikipedia page and be very careful not to fun afoul of WP:OUTING when posting. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:26, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for this, Marchjuly. I have been very careful to be civil and to try to explain my issue. Could you possibly take a look at the 2 or 3 most recent posts on the "Talk:Geoffrey Kabat" page and suggest what route would be most appropriate for me to take. It's very hard for an outsider to understand the workings of Wikipedia and how get a one-sided and unfair portrayal of my work corrected. This has been up there since 2025 from what I can tell.

Thanks in advance,

Geoffrey Kabat Gkabat (talk) 23:04, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

A careful look shows that you are (either mainly or entirely) in the wrong, and need to step back. 1) Wikipedia requires independent reliable references without personal testimony; 2) it is ethically wrong to try to clear someone's name regarding something that they did in fact do. TooManyFingers (talk) 00:34, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

@Gkabat: Assuming that your username is authentic, then perhaps the best next step for you to take is to go to major news outlets with this revelation. When they've printed it, Wikipedia will follow. TooManyFingers (talk) 02:06, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

I neglected to add "... under their byline, as a factual report in which they exonerate you, not as an op-ed or a letter" TooManyFingers (talk) 02:11, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

@Gkabat: You might want to read Wikipedia:FAQ/Article subjects. jlwoodwa (talk) 06:09, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it's appropriate for you to suggest that Wikipedia can avoid taking responsibility for this wholesale distortion. I've put in hours of work to explain where the error lies. I've provided credible documentation from respected sources (editors at the British Medical Journal and published scientific papers). SOMEONE AT WIKIPEDIA NEEDS TO TAKE A CAREFUL LOOK AT THIS, TAKE RESPONSIBILITY, AND OUTLINE THE STEPS TO CORRECT THIS ARTICLE. Can you please bring this to the attention of those at Wikipedia who are in a position to rectify a violation of Wikipedia's own rules/principles? The careful case that I have built should be taken seriously by Wikipedia. Editors could learn a lot from this incident.

Thank you.

Geoffrey Kabat Gkabat (talk) 11:57, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

You have our attention- there is no central authority here to do what you claim- we all do. You've already been told what the next step for you is- get the news to print your claims as a factual report written by an independent reporter supervised and fact checked by an editor in which they state you are exonerated. I'm guessing that you've tried and they won't do that- in which case there is nothing we can do for you. 331dot (talk) 12:03, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't make any sense that editors at Wikipedia can be taken in by a politically-motivated hit job against two well-established scientists and publish a totally one-sided and distorted account. And now you tell that there is nothing anyone at Wikipedia can do to correct this situation. I have provided independent, respected sources. Please look at the materials I posted. You seem to be going blindly by very simplistic rules governing what can be written and what is a valid source. But one has to examine each case individually to understand what is going on. Anyone who can read will see that I have presented overwhelming evidence with strong citations showing that the claim that our paper was "discredited" is wrong. Furthermore, the claim that our results are at variance with the results of other studies on passive smoking is also wrong. If editors at Wikipedia don't take the time to look at the specific facts of each case, but just go blindly by something sensational and attention-grabbing that has been published, taking it as "the truth," then we are in big trouble. Lots of wrong and distorted things get published. That doesn't mean they are true. This story got published because it made a GOOD STORY. So no one questioned it or looked at all the other relevant evidence. Gkabat (talk) 13:44, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

@Gkabat: The evidence you're trying to give is irrelevant to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a court. There is no one here to plead your case in front of. You're doing the equivalent of trying to sell gloves to a fish. When we see the reporters' explanations in the big newspapers, we will act accordingly. TooManyFingers (talk) 20:32, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

@Gkabat, unfortunately, Wikipedia does not aim to capture the truth of a subject. Rather, it tries to summarize what "reliable sources" (as defined by Wikipedia) have said about the topic, recognizing that those sources may get things wrong. This essay elaborates on the fact that truth is not what determines an article's content here. You might also be interested in this article that criticizes some of Wikipedia's policies and notes that expert opinion doesn't always meet the reliable sources rule. That said, the page should point out that the BMJ did not retract the study. The Ungar and Bray article may also have some relevant contents. I have no expertise in this area, so I have no idea whether there's additional relevant literature out there that could help to balance what's there. Some of the literature is also paywalled, which makes the matter harder. FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:55, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

This is enormously helpful. Not only did the BMJ NOT retract the study. The Editor-in-chief and a second editor defended publication of the paper. I have cited their responses in the journal. Ungar and Bray is DEFINITELY relevant. Here is an article published by me, giving a lot of information about the BMJ affair. Also, since we were being attacked, it should be relevant to cite our response to the criticisms

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC188404/

https://quillette.com/2023/09/15/dogmatism-data-and-public-health/

Many thanks. For the first time, I feel like I am getting responses that are specific to my situation. I will keep working this.

Any more suggestions will be greatly appreciated.

Geoffrey Kabat Gkabat (talk) 23:23, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

FactOrOpinion (talk). As I said 2 days ago, this was extremely helpful and makes me feel I am being heard. You make several good points as to evidence/facts/citations that can be used. Let me list a small number and then ask a question for you or anyone else to answer.

Relevant evidence/facts/citations include:

1) page should point out that the BMJ did not retract the article

2) 2 editors defended their publication of the article and responded to criticism

3) Ungar and Bray (2005) give a sociologist's analysis of the storm of criticism in letters to the journal.

4) There are two articles by me in Quillette giving a detailed account of the BMJ affair.

https://quillette.com/2023/09/15/dogmatism-data-and-public-health/ The second one will come out this week. This second article reports on a new study from the American Cancer Society analyzing the contribution of a wide range of exposures to cancer incidence and showing that smoking is, by far, the most important risk factor for cancer, and that passive smoking had a small-to-negligible effect on cancer incidence.

https://acsjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.3322/caac.21858

I'll leave it at that, for now.

Now to my question, can you or anyone else suggest what entity at Wikipedia I should approach with this material? Should it be some group in the Wikipedia Foundation or some group of Wikipedians who handle such cases? Please give me as specific guidance as you can.

Any guidance will be greatly appreciated.

Thanks again!

Geoffrey Kabat

I also appreciated the points/feedback from TooManyFingers (talk) jlwoodwa (talk) Mjroots (talk) MarchJuly (talk) Gkabat (talk) 17:15, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

@Gkabat, first an FYI: when you write a reply, if you click on the figure with the "+" sign next to it that appears above the reply box, that allows you to add the name of a participant in the discussion in a way that the person is notified that you've mentioned them. I happened to check back here; otherwise I wouldn't have known about your reply.

Re: the substance of what you wrote: I did make a couple of edits to your page, as did someone else, and I also raised a question on the Talk page that might lead to another edit. From what I understand of WP's rules, we can only introduce material written by the subject of a biographical page for info about the person him/herself, but not to introduce claims about other people (e.g., not about people who criticized the BMJ article). I'll try to doublecheck that, but it may take a bit before I get an answer. Is there something about yourself that you'd like sourced to the Quillette article? I haven't yet thought about how to introduce a line about the Unger and Bray article. Re: the study you mentioned, I don't think that your upcoming Quillette article is an acceptable source for medical info, per this guideline. Re: your question, you can try the BLP Noticeboard. FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:13, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

@Gkabat, turns out that I was wrong about how your Quillette "Dogmatism" article could be used, and I've added a line about it to your page, and another about your third book. I think I've done about all that I can do while adhering to WP's policies. FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:13, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

@FactOrOpinion

I can't tell how much I appreciate your additions, including my third book. I do think you should cite our (Enstrom & Kabat) response to the charge that "there was no comparison group," since that was the first specific criticism made by Michael Thun, and we responded directly to it in our response to the critics: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC188404/

Also, do you see how to incorporate a sentence about Ungar and Bray?

There is a typo in the middle of the para on the BMJ affair (line 7): "on the its conclusion"

I am going to continue to combat the RICO business and the charge of industry funding/involvement by following another editor's suggestion that I get these points discussed in a reputable magazine or newspaper.

I will look into the BLP noticeboard.

By the way, since you thought to list the third book, there is a first book: Ideology and Imagination: The Image of Society in Dostoevsky (Columbia University Press, 1978. https://www.ebay.com/itm/256380837675

Once again, I really appreciate your work on this.

Geoffrey Kabat Gkabat (talk) 20:16, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

@Gkabat, Ebay isn't a reliable source for WP, but I was able to find a review of your first book and have added the book to your page. Thanks for the heads up re: the typo, which I've fixed. I didn't add a line about the Ungar and Bray article but did add it as a reference. Perhaps some subsequent editor will choose to add some text about it. Due to my lack of an appropriate background, I'm not in a position to assess whether the additional Enstrom & Kabat letter does respond to the "comparison group" isssue, so I haven't added it. Take care, FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:55, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

@FactOrOpinion Thanks again for the new additions and the added references. I feel that, thanks to all your work, the page gives a much more complete and balanced account of my career. This is really minor, but reference 22 has "Kabat" spelled "Rabat."

Best wishes. Gkabat (talk) 00:07, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

@Gkabat: I'm sure you'd agree that you came here to set the record straight. The problem is that Wikipedia is a second-hand copy of the record. "I'm going to go over there and set the second-hand copy straight!" just doesn't have the same ring to it.

And we are very adamant about remaining ONLY a second-hand copy. We refuse on principle to publish original material that people bring, and that's why this has happened to you. TooManyFingers (talk) 20:50, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate this. You’ve made it much clearer. So, when an article appears in Time magazine or in the WSJ, or some such publication, the bio will be modified to reflect the new story? Thank you.

Geoffrey Kabat 2601:41:4300:F4E0:11D5:6264:BDA7:87C0 (talk) 21:44, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

That's essentially it, yes. When a person deals with issues in a clearly straightforward and honest way, not giving the appearance of trying to put one over on anybody or "game the system" or anything like that, their path here tends to be much smoother and more successful. If a person's actions seem self-serving or suspicious, they tend to face more scrutiny and more roadblocks. You can read Wikipedia's main policy on biographies of living persons at this link: WP:BLP

That isn't the only policy that might apply in every case, but for certain it is the primary one in this case. TooManyFingers (talk) 05:10, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

@Gkabat There is no literal requirement that something be published in this or that particular source. There are full explanations in the policies of Wikipedia, but in this situation the following simplifications might be useful as a starting point:

- Very clearly outside your sphere of influence, as well as that of your publishers, colleagues, employers, employees, and family

- The reporters' voices are primary; not interviewing you, but reporting on developments in the case

- Appearing in publications with reputations such that even an adversary would have to admit they are compelling. TooManyFingers (talk) 06:37, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I see your point!

Geoffrey Kabat Gkabat (talk) 12:46, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Another way of explaining the same thing:

I have a serious legal issue that I want resolved. Oh look! A rag-tag group of volunteer librarians with no jurisdiction and no legal qualifications! They have a big placard on their desk saying "Absolutely no self-published material". Surely they will solve this for me. TooManyFingers (talk) 21:40, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

I didn't suggest that Wikipedia can avoid taking responsibility for anything. I just linked to a help page that I thought you might benefit from reading. jlwoodwa (talk) 18:59, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, your explanation is very helpful. 2601:41:4300:F4E0:11D5:6264:BDA7:87C0 (talk) 21:46, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Make sure you log in when posting, so your posts are properly attributed to you. 331dot (talk) 07:36, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Recurring Issues with User:RodRabelo7

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

(Non-administrator comment) The Teahouse isn't really set up to deal with editor behavioral issues beyond providing some general guidance; moreover, it shouldn't be used as a substitute for Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (ANI), which is the direction where this discussion seems to be heading after the last couple of posts. Those involved in this disagreement can seek further assistance at ANI if they want, but I strongly suggest they carefully read through the instructions given at the top of the ANI page as well as perhaps Wikipedia:ANI advice before doing so to make sure they understand what's going to be expected of them. Anything not related to editor behavior that others would like to continue discussing can be done on user talk pages, article talk pages, or other relevant noticeboards. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:59, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

---

Guys, I've been facing issues with the user RodRabelo7 for quite some time now. Since the incident involving the fake profile "Alexandre Exalts" in 2023 (which led to my first block and block discussion), he has reverted several of my edits, and on one occasion, he even proposed the deletion of my sandbox page on the English Wikipedia.

Due to this history, I started suspecting his intentions and associating him with other problematic users, such as Pórokhov and Quintinense. For a while now, I’ve been raising the possibility that he may have some kind of partnership or relationship with these two, both known for engaging in sockpuppetry (use of alternative accounts). I’ve even made some mentions of this on the Portuguese Wikipedia.

Recently, on Wikimedia Commons, he once again reverted one of my edits without providing any justification in the edit history.

Given this situation, what can I do to deal with this on Wikimedia wikis? Is there a specific procedure for handling this type of behavior?

Warning: I will be sending this same text to WP pt

At WP pt, I have already made more than 7 thousand edits Fox de Quintal (talk) 16:20, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

The first thing to do in case of dispute is to discuss it with the person involved. You do not seem to have posted at User talk:RodRabelo7 at all. ColinFine (talk) 16:53, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Fox de Quintal, as for the version of User:Fox de Quintal/sandbox which was deleted on 10 September, that was Portuguese language content harshly criticizing other editors. We do not host extended content in other languages anywhere on the English language Wikipedia and we do not host "enemies lists" on the English Wikipedia. Please be aware that English Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons and Portuguese Wikipedia are three separate projects with separate policies and guidelines. Let me advise you that it is a very bad idea to bring disputes and grudges from other projects and in other languages to the English Wikipedia and I encourage you to be very cautious in the future. Cullen328 (talk) 17:22, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

But here it is, if I try to send him a message, he will revert, he has already reverted several times! Fox de Quintal (talk) 19:37, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

It's simple false that I "reverted one of [your] edits without providing any justification in the edit history [sic]". Read it: "wrong section". RodRabelo7 (talk) 18:30, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

And one of Commons's administrators do agree with me. And now, Mr. do Quintal? RodRabelo7 (talk) 18:34, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

@RodRabelo7:, you know very well that this is not an isolated case, furthermore, you have never given any explanations for this behavior of yours.

Reverteds:

• (Commons, 2023)
• (Sandbox, Maria Marçal)
• (DARIO SEVERI)
• (I ask him to forget about me)
• (Commons in 2024)

@RodRabelo7: In 2023, Pórokhov started bothering me. Is it just a coincidence that you requested the deletion of a file honoring one of his sockpuppets? Why do you revert my edits and never explain why? I’ve read somewhere that you have connections with a friend of of Pórokhov.

You have NEVER given any explanations! Fox de Quintal (talk) 20:33, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Prohibit interaction

@Cullen328 and ColinFine: Once I saw on the Portuguese Wikipedia that two users were prohibited from interacting. Is it possible to place a restriction preventing me from interacting with RodRabelo7? Since he reverts edits without explaining (meaning, THERE IS NO CONVERSATION!), the tendency is that one will end up speaking poorly of the other. Fox de Quintal (talk) 21:02, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

FYI: Yes, the English Wikipedia does have interaction bans. jlwoodwa (talk) 21:41, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Fox de Quintal: the place to request such actions is WP:ANI. Make sure you read the notes at the top of the page carefully before posting. ColinFine (talk) 21:41, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

@Jlwoodwa and ColinFine: it's simple false that I revert them without explaning why... Fox de Quintal is literally harassing me in three projects simultaneously and is trying to pass as the victim! See here and better yet this comment... RodRabelo7 (talk) 21:44, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I can confirm that this is not isolated. Recently User:RodRabelo7 also, completely unexplained: (1) reverted my 1 month old edit (fixing an obvious typo), (2) left no edit summary, then proceeded to (3) accuse me on my talk page of a misleading edit summary (huh?), (4) templated an almost 20-year Wikipedian, (5) has since failed to reply back or engage with me whatsoever, and (6) has not had the decency to explain even one iota of the preceding actions. I thought this was just one random, confusing, unhappy Wikipedia editing experience until I checked if RodRabelo7 had logged on to respond to me and found the above.

I'm glad I found this because whatever RodRabelo7 is doing doesn't make any sense to me. His refusal to explain or discuss anything, instead immediately escalating to admins with accusations of harassment (although I know absolutely nothing about other situations), seems problematic, provocative, and disruptive. If he cannot satisfactorily explain whatever he is up to, at least with regards to his behavior towards me, I also will request that an interaction ban be applied as well. Hftf (talk) 00:47, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Hftf, in the specific case linked, I may have made a mistake due to the language barrier, as I am not a native English speaker. It seemed to me that the summary was misleading because I am unable to identify the typo in the previous text. Could it be a case of preferring the surname over the first name? And I don't receive pings because I disabled them in the settings. But even so, you didn't ping me. You could have reached out to me on my talk page, but you didn't. That makes it complicated... RodRabelo7 (talk) 00:51, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Hftf, oh, I just identified the typo. It really did exist. I must have gotten confused because the introduction of the article repeatedly used "He" to refer to Jiankui, and I mixed it up with an incorrectly capitalized personal pronoun ("He" instead of "he"), which led me to think there had been some recent vandalism. It's a misunderstanding I created, but I want to make it clear that it's just an isolated case that I never imagined was still causing issues for another editor. I sincerely apologize and would like to mention this is unrelated to the de Quintal case, which was even blocked here on Wikipedia. Best regards, RodRabelo7 (talk) 00:58, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Why can't you just delete an article instead of "cleaning it up"

If an article has "no citations" or "original research", then just delete it. Why do you keep the articles up if they're bad 2601:246:5C80:65F0:82AC:9F0F:D865:608B (talk) 01:05, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1235. See WP:BEFORE. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:15, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Direct information

I need more information on the Enlightenment,please and thank you. 2600:8800:9E00:D700:2C1C:F56E:3915:5471 (talk) 01:31, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi IP 2600:8800:9E00:D700:2C1C:F56E:3915:5471. You could try reading the Wikipedia article Age of Enlightenment for a general overview of the subject. Perhaps it will give you the information you need or suggest some some sources which might be helpful. You could also try asking more specific questions at Wikipedia:Reference desk or simply just Googling whatever specific information you need. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:46, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Feedback on a draft article

Hello: I have revised the draft article several times but it has been rejected twice. Can you please read and suggest what more is needed to get it to be an encyclopedia article? This is my first full article. I have read the pages suggested by the other editors. The draft is Draft:Private_school_scandals_in_the_United_States Angel94117 (talk) 05:22, 18 September 2024 (UTC) Angel94117 (talk) 05:22, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

The reviewer is correct, it's an essay, not an article. Have a look at WP:LAYOUT. You need a lead paragraph that summarizes the body text, and the body text needs to discuss the subject of the article, not tell a journalistic story - and it isn't a good story because you are tying together unrelated events into one article. That's called a WP:COATRACK, and isn't allowed. The title of the draft implies that multiple examples would be described in different paragraphs, but instead it's one big section with no structure. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:54, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

@Angel94117: I think that the most important part of Anachronist's advice is that on Wikipedia you can't have a story to tell. All you're permitted to do is prove that others have told a story already. TooManyFingers (talk) 17:18, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers and @Anachronist I made some changes based on your suggestions. Initially I wanted this to be a section in the private schools page, but it was met with resistance by two editors. The advice I was given then was to have more info about issues that were not just one school, so I revised for that with the Boston Globe article that I believe led to the sense it was one big section with no structure. I am a former journalist so it is tricky getting the Wikipedia style down, but I am trying and appreciate anyone's advice on it. Thanks! Angel94117 (talk) 00:13, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Getting there. You don't have to summarize each example in the lead section. The lead section is mainly for a general overview. A reader should be able to read the lead section and have a good idea of the contents of the article.

The "Press coverage" section seems out of place in the middle of a list of examples. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:38, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

@AnachronistThanks for the feedback! Will work on it.Angel94117 (talk) 02:29, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

How do you download all the catergories

I want to download all categories and what categories they are in and what categories and pages are in them 4.39.220.106 (talk) 15:01, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't know about downloading them. But here is a list of all categories on English-language Wikipedia. Maproom (talk) 15:33, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

You can also look at WP:EXPLORE. It has several options for seeing where everything is. TooManyFingers (talk) 17:42, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

An interesting undertaking, since I might be just about to create a couple more (as subcategories to existing categories--those are still categories). I doubt if I'm the only one doing things like that. The point is, such a download would probably be out of date within an hour. Uporządnicki (talk) 21:07, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Sometimes, when people say "download", they just mean "see". (People who don't have a lot of computer knowledge say it more often.) TooManyFingers (talk) 03:05, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Deleting a reference

If I delete a sentence connected to a reference number, do I delete the reference as well? Cherie.phoenix (talk) 22:32, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Sometimes, but not always. For example, if the article currently has The sun is big. The sun is hot., where the citation supports both sentences, and you delete the second sentence, you should keep the citation: The sun is big. For more details, see this section on text–source integrity. jlwoodwa (talk) 22:43, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, cherie.phoenix. It depends on the article. If you delete the material covered by a reference, you should also delete that reference. In some articles, nearly every sentence is cited. In others, citations cover whole paragraphs. In the example at User:Rjjiii/TSI, citation 1 could only cover a single sentence, but citation 4 likely covers multiple sentences. Sometimes, you can tell what content the citation covers from the footnote alone. Other times, it will be hard to say without looking at the actual reference. I would also echo jlwoodwa's advice above to check out Wikipedia:Citing sources#Text–source integrity. Good luck, and feel free to ask follow-up questions, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:30, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

@Cherie.phoenix One other pitfall you need to beware of is that the reference may be a named reference used elsewhere in the article as well as at the sentence you are removing. Make sure that it's not the first instance of that reference or you'll start to get a red error messages like "Cite error: xxxxx was invoked but never defined" in the list of references. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:35, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

@Cherie.phoenix: This edit worked: [6] The reference was a named reference like Mike Turnbull mentioned above. The way the Visual Editor handles deleting a named reference that has been used multiple times, is that it will only remove the citation when the last usage has been removed. Good luck, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:05, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Considering the good advice you've already received, it would be nice in your situation if the first few times you remove references you did them one at a time (which makes them easier to undo), and in articles that aren't overwhelmingly complicated. (The part about uncomplicated articles isn't necessarily the most practical advice, just would be a more comfortable introduction.) TooManyFingers (talk) 18:04, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I don’t want to be blocked

Hello. A message from an admin told me I will be blocked if I continue disruptive edits. How can I make constructive contributions? 2607:FEA8:FD04:8183:4D4C:9B9E:68A:AB12 (talk) 01:06, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

There isn't a need to link the word Wikipedia in that article. I'm not sure why you received a final warning for it. Knitsey (talk) 01:15, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1235. It appears that the user who warned you (and isn't an admin) has been blocked. As long as your contributions don't violate Wikipedia policies, no one will have a sanctionable issue with you. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:17, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, those edits are not disruptive and no admin would block you for them. The turnip edit is the expected best practice, and the other edit is also fine. It's common to get reverted, but it was inappropriate for them to leave a warning about it. Don't sweat it, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:11, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Vandalism and Eliminating redundant phrases

Could someone please explain to me just how is the following vandalism: removing "against" in the following phrase: "The club successfully appealed against Cardle's sending off against Ayr United ....". Thank you.2603:8000:D300:3650:1847:225A:5EE0:EECA (talk) 01:08, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1235. The user who left the message on your talk page has been indefinitely blocked for not being here to build an encyclopedia. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:18, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I knew that first edit they reverted as it added up to the same characteristics that i have encountered recently while editing where things such as spelling s were corrected then reverted with threats of blocking if such vandalism continued. What i was concerned with was last time it happened I ended up being banned for two weeks because i pointed out a sock puppet. This same approach of reverting and issuing threats seem to come from accounts that have been in existence for a while but have spurts of activity that seem to concentrate on reverting IP edits. Glad someone with some authority was able to take care of the culprit.2603:8000:D300:3650:1847:225A:5EE0:EECA (talk) 06:34, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Redundant words removal

Could someone explain to me why "against" in the following use is not redundant: "In February 2013, Churchill received media attention after it appealed against a High Court of Justice judgement in the case of Bethany Probert, who, in 2009 when she was 13 years old, was hit by a car driven by one of the insurer's customers whilst walking along a country lane." Appeals are always because you lost therefore are against so why the double wording? 2603:8000:D300:3650:1847:225A:5EE0:EECA (talk) 06:27, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Not every Wikipedia editor is the world's best writer. Actually, none of them are. Feel free to copyedit. Cullen328 (talk) 06:30, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Please bear in mind that "appeal against" is standard in British English, which uses prepositions with verbs far more than AmEng does. Bare appeal is used in BrEng in legal language, but it isn't common usage. Please see e.g. Cambridge dictionary, which lists British usage first. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 07:08, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Your question isn't rude or improper in any other way; but if you have other questions rather like it, you'd be better off posting them at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language: there'd be a greater appetite for answering them. -- Hoary (talk) 07:22, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Comment on Jats article narration Possible COI Influence

 The reference which he arrogantly trying to assimilate is completely wrong or out of context which not support the relevance regarding to prosperity of the Jats while Original word resemble it exponentially mattered on Jatt word nothing to do with Jats normality(You Can Double Check it)'additional have look on This It clearly mentioned Jatt as Higher caste not Jat as broader term respectively!!

I just want to suggest the minor intro is quite overweighted and possess way more acquisition on the phrase observation such as Jat spelt also Jaat and Jatt which was undisputed expansion perform by @Dimpies [7] on his latest edit and In additional, the supporting line of article detail is partially just bit more exposure of Jat integral definition thus, hypothetically emphasised the literal meaning of Jat into such narrow complexity of Jatt and Jaat without consolidating any professional commitment In my genuine consideration i would likely to recommend to add the alternates of Jat such as Jatt with double "t" and Jaat with long vowel "a" with other notable word derivative such as Jutt or Zutt into a whole ethical section of terminology which he unfortunately not mentioned prior to the proximity of Jat entity

 Comment: I thinks it should genuinely need an dedicated acknowledgment in the terminology to ensure an systematic resemblance of Jat identity. Thank and regard

Approach me for more reference

References

Expanded the application Replace the first appendix of stanza is not making any constructive presentation due to lack of its content accuracy's while the @User:Dimpies hypothetically change the wording of sensitive information and features Jatts and Jaat without any solidified assessment 121.139.240.24 (talk) 08:23, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello IP editor, and welcome to the Teahouse. This is a content issue which I see you have already raised (using a different IP address) at the appropriate talk page for the article. I see there that you have had a response, asking you to be clearer and more specific in what edit you seek to have made and why. But you have not responded yet. Please do so there, as the Teahouse is not the place where we intervene in content discussions such as this; instead we advise and help people who need to know more about the practicalities of the editing process. I hope you can achieve the outcome you seek. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 09:20, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Seeking feedback about a reference

Hello Teahouse editors, I have tried to author an article which got declined even after incorporating a couple of rounds of feedback from experienced editors who responded to my request for feedback in the Teahouse. I sort of gave up on it over many months. Thanks to a google news alert I have come across another news article from The Hindu which is regarded as a reliable source WP:Reliable sources. The article covers news about an award

https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/tamil-nadu/india-led-team-gets-award-for-work-on-digital-vaccines/article68509644.ece

I seek your feedback to help improve the draft.

It is a BLP article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Bhargav_Sri_Prakash

The original press release from Carnegie Mellon University is here https://www.heinz.cmu.edu/media/2024/August/heinz-college-professor-rema-padman-and-her-collaborators-receive-chita-award-for-research-on-digital-vaccines-to-promote-health-literacy-for-kids

The 2024 CHITA conference proceedings can also be downloaded the CDHAI website of Johns Hopkins Center for Digital health & AI

https://carey.jhu.edu/chita2024

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/381745361_Proceedings_of_the_14th_Conference_on_Health_IT_Analytics_CHITA_2024

Can you please suggest ways to incorporate this recent article in my draft? I also would appreciate any of your edits to improve my draft.

Thanks KrisJohanssen (talk) 09:14, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Since the piece you cite from The Hindu is derived from the press release, it is of no value for establishing notability. Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 09:52, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Wanting to add to the List of wars involving the United States.

Hi everyone. So I am a newcomer. I have for a long time wanted to edit on Wikipedia, but felt intimated in the editing process. Thankfully I tried it out and I love the practice edits. In particular I have wanted to contribute to the list of wars page involving the United States. I have noticed there are actually at least two wars that have not been designated on the page. But I don't want to just in without consulting people, or messing up since I am so new. I want to be respectful to the hard work everyone puts in, while adding information that helps people.

So here are my questions: Which group or groups do I talk to about this? How do I find groups on my own for future references? What types of edits should I practice on first before I jump in? I want to work on the list, but also some of the pages themselves. List of wars involving the United States

Thank you so much. I really appreciate your help. I think this will be fun and meaningful to people. Historyguy1138 (talk) 20:11, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Historyguy1138. The place to discuss such things is on the Talk page of the article. If there is not much interaction there, there is usually a box at the top of a talk page identifying which WikiProject(s) might be interested in that article - and you can put a note on the talk page of the corresponding WikiProject(s) pointing to the discussion you have started. ColinFine (talk) 21:43, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

@Historyguy1138 Just adding to what ColinFine has suggested: Pages like that one are described as 'List articles' and every entry in it should be to an existing Wikipedia article. So, my first question is have you found a Wikipedia article about a war involving the US which is not on that list? If so, it should be easy and non-controversial to add it to that List article. If not, consider creating a new article about that war first.

However, I notice that List of wars involving the United States is structured entirely using TABLES. To be frank, these can be extremely difficult for a completely new editor to edit, simply because of the complicated 'markup' used by our WP:Source Editor, or the limitations of our alternative editing tool, the Viusal Editor.

I often shy away from editing tables at times, and I've made some pretty complex tables in the past. So, yes, putting forward your suggested addition via the talk page is a very good solution, with the advantage that someone else can tie themselves in knots getting it sorted for you! LOL.

That said, we do encourage folk to WP:BE BOLD when learning to edit here. So the choice is yours. If, despite Previewing your edit, if you make a mess of an edit, you can always click the 'View History' tab straight afterwards to see that latest addition at the top of the list of edits, and then simply click the 'undo' button to revert it back to how it was before. That tip has saved my bacon a few times when I've mangled making a tiny edit to a complex table! Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:16, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Nick. Was having trouble replying to you before. (The reply button was greyed out).

Great tips. You guys Rock. (: Historyguy1138 (talk) 13:34, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

By the way, if you're interested in military history, I recommend joining WP:MILHIST. It's a large and very active wikiproject. Wikiprojects are a good way to get involved with the community. -- asilvering (talk) 05:13, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Error in Reference

Hi, I was citing at Draft:Asteria Aerospace but, suddenly I found that all the references that I had cited earlier were vaniced and, showed something like ...boolean index error. I want to know, will that create any problem for my draft and my account. or, it was just a glitch.? and, how did it come up there.? —𝐏𝐞𝐫𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨(𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔) 10:57, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Ho Perfectodefecto. I don't see issues now or in the version at the time so I guess it's resolved now. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:17, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Yeah. Now it's resolved. in fact, it was appeared for a moment and disappeared then after refreshing. —𝐏𝐞𝐫𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨(𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔) 13:43, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

A serial reverter just reverted me. How do I address it graciously?

I checked the talk page for someone who just now reverted me, and the person seems to be a serial reverter who has even gotten into edit wars. Hmmm, I do know better than to pick an argument with such an individual, but I also am pretty sad that I've now been reverted two times by people who have a history of uncivil behavior in this space. I want to stick up for myself, but I want to do it both kindly and effectively. What are my best alternatives? (For now I'm just asking about the most recent reversion. The other one happened this summer.) Fortunaa (talk) 20:35, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

See handling edit war guideline and proceed to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring if it continues. --Ratekreel (talk) 20:41, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Good question. It would be helpful if you looked at the edit summary of this 'serial reverter'. Looking at your contribution history, it seems that this is the edit that was reverted. The reasoning is given in the revert summary here: WP:RELIABLESOURCE needed.

This was a valid revert. You made an assertion that cannot be verified because you did not provide a reliable source to verify it. On Wikipedia, you cannot write what you know (this is considered WP:Original research and is disallowed), you must write what reliable sources say. In this case, however, you were simply stating what another article already states, so you would be OK reverting it back, with an explanation. In fact, I will do so. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:49, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Actually, I may have acted too soon. You created the Lagenlook article, and I cannot see that the sources you cite support the assertion you're making. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:52, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for answering so quickly. It was an earlier reversion, not the two that happened after it. Sorry I wasn't clear! Somebody else legitimately reverted me after I posted here, and actually I see what I did wrong. Wow, this feels like getting my car hit three times, but I think I know how to fix it. I'm amazed that I didn't realize the need to cite each change. Duh! Thank you for your patient and thorough reply. Fortunaa (talk) 01:18, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

@Fortunaa: Not every change needs to be cited, only the changes that bring in a new idea. I guess it depends what you consider "a change" – I'm mainly the type of editor who goes around correcting clumsy sentences and removing statements that are very obvious garbage, so I rarely need to cite.

The most important places to give excellent citations are the ones where someone is likely to jump down your throat right away saying you're wrong. It doesn't even matter if their complaints are trash, you still have to have an airtight citation in that case. TooManyFingers (talk) 18:20, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for this. I read the reverter's talk page, and it is filled with people complaining that he reverted them without discussion. I was also reverted before him by someone who has had a hearing over his hostile reversion behavior. Here is the kind of notice I found that made me think he is a serial reverter. I wrote him a nicer note that you can see below this, but after briefly defending himself (correctly, because he reverted me twice and I thought he had re-reverted me, my error), he did not respond.

I'll let it go now, I think I'm just stuck with the reversions. What worries me is that his reversions will count against me as an editor. Don't we get a reversion score of some sort? Fortunaa (talk) 20:23, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any such score. There are lots of nuggets of information about users though - this, for example. Perhaps you're thinking about the "Deleted edits" figure in the first section of that page of stats? 10mmsocket (talk) 10:33, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I beleve "deleted edits" refers to edits in articles that are now deleted, not reverted edits. Hundreds of editors can contribute to an article that eventually fails WP:AFD and gets deleted, and that increases the deleted edit count for all those editors.. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:07, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Orlando International Airport - Annual traffic table adjustment

Hello. Go to Orlando Int'l Airport article, scroll down to Annual Traffic table. Can you make Year column slightly smaller, Passengers column; center data in column and make column slightly smaller; and Change from previous year column, center data and make column slightly smaller. Thank you and have a good day.Theairportman33531 (talk) 14:41, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Theairportmant33531, and welcome to the Teahouse. Column sizes in tables are almost always calculated by the browser you are using, according to the width of the window, and the length of the cell contents in the column. While they can be controlled to some extent, this is usually a bad idea, as it restricts what the browser can do, and may make the display worse on some screen sizes. (The table looks fine to me on a computer and on my phone).

You can centre the data, but I think you have to do so in each row separately. See Help:Table. ColinFine (talk) 14:50, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

@Theairportman33531: In that table, the width of each column is defined with the code style="width:75px" or style="width:100px". You can adjust the widths of the columns by changing the width number. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 14:21, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Exploding pagers article image

Hello, was going to post this on the talk page for the relevant article but the article and talk page is protected as of now, i just wanted to get word out that the supposed image added to the article today in some revision does not appear to be of an exploded pager but rather a handheld radio transceiver, the Gold Apollo 924 is a more standard pager size.

The image appears to be dated from the 17th so i'm not sure if it's from todays 2nd wave of HT's exploding, but if it's not then that must also mean that it wasn't just 924s exploding. OGWFP (talk) 16:04, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

@OGWFP, if a talk page is protected, you can use WP:RFPP/E to make an edit request if you have a specific edit you want made. Note that since you are not extended confirmed and the topic area is under strict sanctions, you are only allowed to make edit requests, and cannot discuss the subject otherwise anywhere on Wikipedia (including the Teahouse). Keep that in mind. 57.140.16.35 (talk) 14:27, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Add an entry on an individual

I would like to contribute an entry on an individual. The individual is a fiction novelist from South Africa. 102.32.60.15 (talk) 14:48, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, IP user, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia.

You are welcome to contribute, but I would give you a couple of cautions:

First, unless you can show that the novelist meets the conditions for notability on English Wikipedia, you will not succeed and you should not put any further time into this.

Secondly, if you are connected with that novelist, you should read carefully the restrictions on editing with a conflict of interest (If you are actually that novelist yourself, please don't try it: see autobiography for why this is hardly ever successful.)

Thirdly, even if you can show the novelist meets Wikipedia's criterai for notability, writing a new article is a very challenging task for new editors. My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. ColinFine (talk) 14:56, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Learned basics of editing - What next?

Hi! I have learned the basics of editing and have read a lot of Wikipedia policies, what can I do next? BrandenburgBlue (talk) 15:47, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Congrats and welcome! From here, the world's your oyster. My suggestion is to get involved with some wikiprojects you're interested in, since that's a good way to find some community. You can also "adopt" a particular backlog. I recommend Category:Wikipedia introduction cleanup for new editors looking for a satisfying and meaningful task that doesn't take any extra skills. You don't (or shouldn't) need to do any research to fix these articles - most of them are here because they are tagged with "lead too short". Find one of those, read the article, then rewrite the lead so it summarizes it accurately. Now you can remove the "lead too short" tag. Done! -- asilvering (talk) 15:54, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Citations

When taking out the exact words from sources, do we put it in italics or any other special fonts? I want to make sure that my draft doesn't get instantly deleted. My draft is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:James_Dokhuma# I have a great knowledge (talk) 16:27, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I have a great knowledge. You can find advice about when to quote directly, and how to present quotations, at WP:Quotations. ColinFine (talk) 16:35, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Copy of a documentary

How does one obtain a copy of a documentary? Archived 12-07-2916

History of a great Nation

Johann Gottfried Schadel, by Valentyn Sokolovsky (1995)

National Television Company of Ukraine

Please reply: Alla Leever Thank you 134.56.195.248 (talk) 12:12, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

This is the encyclopedia Wikipedia. We have an article about National Television Company of Ukraine but are not affiliated with them. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:16, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm afraid Wikipedia hasn't invented time travel yet. You'll just have to wait 892 years for it to be archived.^[Humor] jlwoodwa (talk) 20:04, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Second Attempted assassination of Donald Trump

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_International_Golf_Club_shooting Needs to bew updated. The title needs to be changed to "Second Attempted assassination of Donald Trump" sicne the FBI and Secrert Service have confirmed that former president Trump was the target of the gunman 72.218.87.16 (talk) 19:58, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Additionally, not calling it what it actually is goes against Wikipedia's policy about political opinions.

The only people who are referring to this event as the "Trump International Golf Club shooting" are the Far Left. Literally every media organization, every federal and state agency, Trump, his political opponents, and even foreign dignitaries have acknowledged it as an assassination attempt. 72.218.87.16 (talk) 20:04, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Hey there! See the active discussion at Talk:Trump_International_Golf_Club_shooting#Requested_move_15_September_2024, where there is a lengthy discussion about exactly that. :) SirMemeGod  20:06, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Help with my draft

Hi, this is my first Wikipedia article. I don’t want to keep trying to publish it until it gets approved. Most information that I could get online is linked and referenced in the page. Could you please get me helpful tips to get it approved for publishing? Thank you!

Draft:Valdemar Cardoso da Rocha Jr. Strlbr (talk) 19:45, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

@Strlbr: You have not shown that he is notable. (Wikipedia uses the word "notable" in a special way.) If this is really all the information you can find, it means you cannot make an article about him. TooManyFingers (talk) 19:59, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick reply. His work is definitely “notable”, so I have to understand how to show it. I looked up a few pages that would be comparable and was not able to understand based on what they were notable. Could you please explain it to me?

Like this one for instance : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joachim_Hagenauer Strlbr (talk) 20:07, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not an expert in this subject, but I think the Hagenauer article you linked would probably not be accepted today. Notability standards have gone up.

Also, I did not make a mistake when I said "he" (Cardoso) might not be notable. It is not his work, but his notability as a person that they are talking about. Wikipedia is looking for reports about Cardoso made by publishers who are not connected to him (not the ones who publish his work, not his colleagues or his employees, etc). TooManyFingers (talk) 20:20, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

@Strlbr: All of the best tips are given to you already – the links in the "declined" notices show you a lot of things to read. All of them show something about what went wrong, and all of them show tips for what to do next. But here's an extra example (it's silly, but it's useful):

If I say "Einstein was important in his field of study", but Wikipedia doesn't believe me, I can show articles in major newspapers saying stuff like "Einstein is one of the major scientists of the 20th century", I can show a lot of books about Einstein's work written by people who never met him, ... the Einstein article is easy to support, because there's so much proof that Einstein has major importance.

But if I say "I am an important scientist", and Wikipedia doesn't believe me, I might ask my friends to vouch for me ... but that's not useful. Nobody has written reports about me. Nobody has written books about me. Wikipedia should not believe my friends. TooManyFingers (talk) 22:38, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Clearing my talk page

So I want to clear my talk page, just a generic purge of discussions that are now long irrelevant. The thing is, I can't figure out how to clear it. How do I clear it? RedactedHumanoid (talk) 00:13, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Best practice is to archive things. Help:Archiving (plain and simple) explains the simplest way. Help:Archiving a talk page has more details. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:23, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

You can simply just delete all of the text on your talk page, though archiving is much more preferred as recommended above. TheWikiToby (talk) 01:50, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Editing and creating content re Iowa railroads 1850-1880

I am new to this but less new than my previous Teahouse. Is it possible and appropriate to ask anyone who is interested to see what I have done and give me feedback? The last time I posted in Teahouse I got lots of helpful comments. Should I be using a bot to clean up citations or is it automatic?MarkWHowe (talk) 15:27, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

@MarkWHowe I think it's okay to just WP:be bold and edit. If you have any questions and would like to seek help, you could ask anyone that you think is interested or maybe come here to the Teahouse for specific editing questions. Usually, if someone thinks your edit is not constructive or appropriate they will revert and leave a useful message on your talk page. There, you could discuss the matter with the editor about your edit.

You can use a variety of bots to clean up citations, including User:Citation bot, User:InternetArchiveBot, and more. However, if you use these bots, you should check the results and making sure they're correct. I often forget to do that, sometimes. Myrealnamm (💬pros · ✏️cons) 15:33, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

For you could ask anyone that you think is interested, another place to find such people is the WikiProject relevant to whatever you're working on. jlwoodwa (talk) 16:24, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I did put my name and interest under 'trains' but there are hundreds there and no response. So I'm stirring the pot.  :-} MarkWHowe (talk) 23:40, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I recall there is a way to see all the edits that have been made to a topic in the previous few months but I can't recall how I got there. And also if there were any reversions/ deletions that were made. Sadly I keep getting to some great new site but then can't recall how I got there.  :-{ MarkWHowe (talk) 21:35, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

@MarkWHowe To see edits for a certain article, click on the View History tab on the right hand side of the navigation bar (after Read, Edit, Edit Source). To see your own edits, use Special:MyContributions. Myrealnamm (💬pros · ✏️cons) 21:38, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I just reorganized the Wikipedia "Galena and Chicago Union Railroad" history sections titled:

"Looking at Iowa and the Missouri River"

"The 1864 Great Consolidation of the Chicago & NorthWestern Railway"

I went bold like you advised but I would be discouraged if it were reverted. I would much rather get it fixed quickly in place. MarkWHowe (talk) 21:34, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

@MarkWHowe: The edits you made can't be fixed in place per se because that's really how Wikipedia works. The best you can hope for is that others also feel your edits were improvements and WP:SILENCE. FWIW, being reverted is part of the Wikipedia experience; so, it's not really a reason to feel discouraged. If it happens and the revert is not really a clear-cut case of WP:VANDALISM, you should try and sort things out through article talk page discussion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:48, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

IDU - there is no reason I can see that edits cannot be fixed. To me a reversion is a 'start from scratch'. I have already been thru' that phase. Now I would much prefer something more productive, like '3rd paragraph needs more citations' or 'citation #19 doesn't work'. We should be here to help each other. MarkWHowe (talk) 22:37, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

​ I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "fixed". Are you asking whether mistakes can be "fixed" or whether pages can be "locked"? If you're asking about the former, then for sure mistakes can be corrected as long as doing so is in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If you're asking about the latter, then pages can be WP:PROTECTed, but this is almost always only done in cases of ongoing serious disruption or a long history of repeated disruption.

Wikipedia is, after all, intended to be a collaborative editing project and pages aren't WP:OWNed by any one particular editor or group of editors. For this reason, pages aren't protected (i.e. "locked") simply for the sake of preserving one editor's or one group of editors' preferred version of the page. Wikipedia gives everyone a chance to be WP:BOLD, and disagreements over article content are expected to be resolved in accordance with WP:DISPUTERESOLUTION and WP:CONSENSUS. So, if the edits you made as seen by others as being in accordanc with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, they will likely stand the test of time or be used by others as a foundtion for further improving the article. If, on the other hand, others find them to be lacking in some way, they might be reverted (entirely or partially) or otherwise corrected. This is essentially what you're agreeing to everytime you click the "Publish changes" button and acknowledge your acceptance of foundation:Terms of Use. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:44, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not aware of 'locked' and I don't think I would approve of that. My background is science and peer review is the only way to arrive at 'truth', if there is such a thing, or at least as close as we can get. If someone can 'revert' a page for bureaucratic reasons without giving the author a chance to correct it , I think we would both agree that is wrong. Disagreement on the 'facts' is a different issue and that is how we get closer to 'truth'. That is where we come up with the term 'alternate facts' and those discussions are the most interesting. I don't expect that will be an issue in my present case however, but unless someone responds there can be no review.

Sadly, the only scholars I know about on the subject seem to die just as I learn about them. To wit; H. Roger Grant. I'm hoping my edits will flush out somebody taking up the torch. MarkWHowe (talk) 03:53, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

@MarkWHowe: See WP:VNT and WP:EXPERT for more details, but Wikipedia articles aren't peered reviewed in the sense that you'd expect from a peer-reviewed journal or other type of publication; there is WP:PEERREVIEW, but articles are essentially be reviewed by those reading them. So, if someone feels that the content you added isn't an improvement, they are allowed to revert it or correct it. The hope is that they will do so in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and leave an WP:ES explaining why. This, however, isn't already the case. The idea behind WP:DR is to encourage discussion as a way to resolve content disputes and avoid WP:EDITWARs; the former can help establish a consensus one way or the other whereas the latter only leads to disruption. So, if you edits are reverted for some reason and it doesn't appear to be a clear-cut case of vandalism, then it's probably better to try and sort things out through talk page discussion than though dueling edit summaries. Not matter how right you'll might know yourself to be, you won't be given any special consideration if you simply resort to back and forth reverting absent any real serious policy problems. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:52, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

That does sound ugly, and unproductive. Thanks. MarkWHowe (talk) 03:21, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Another interesting issue is the validity of letters as source material. It is frequently stated here that a letter doesn't establish the validity of a statement. True, but if the validity of the letter can be established, like signature or statement of an authority, then what can be established as fact is that that person wrote that. One of my battles may be that issue; I have letters written by presidents, governors, senators and superintendents etc. that I use as sources, not so much as that what they said is true but that they said it. Then you may say that sounds like original research, but if it can be backed up by published means it simply adds interest to the article. I have seen examples of letters in Wikip. articles, entered with apparent impunity. Another interesting discussion. MarkWHowe (talk) 04:08, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

​Personal letters are WP:PRIMARY and WP:ABOUTSELF types of sources at best and can only be used in certain ways, and any interpretations of them might be considered WP:OR if written in Wikipedia's voice; personal letters which have been discussed in WP:SECONDARY sources, however, can often be cited as long as the secondary sources is considered to be a WP:RS, the source is used in proper WP:RSCONTEXT and the source is properly WP:ATTRIBUTEd. So, if you're considered to clearly be an established content expert per WP:CITESELF and WP:EXPERTSPS, then you could possibly add citations to your own work if there are no WP:UNDUE issues and you can do so in a WP:NPOV; if, others disagree, you'll have to establish a consensus to the contrary through article talk page discussion or at WP:RSN. As for the examples you might have seen in other articles, Wikipedia has over six million articles and many if not most aren't being constanly monitored or assessed. So, lots of WP:OTHERCONTENT gets added that probably shouldn't have been added. So, if you come across some content, you can be WP:BOLD by trying to fix it yourself or by removing it. If someone disagrees, you can try to engage them in discussion on the article's talk page to see whether things can be resolved. If they refuse to engage, you can move to the next step of the DR process and WP:SEEKHELP. As long as you remain cool and WP:CIVIL, you've done your part. If the other party starts getting really out of line, you can seek administrator assistance at one of the administrator noticeboards. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:12, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

I avoid that at all costs! What I have seen made perfect sense historically and verifiable as legit. Thanks again. MarkWHowe (talk) 03:25, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: User:MarkWHowe/sandbox --ColinFine (talk) 15:34, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I do not understand why my draft is being rejected

draft:Aggelina Papadopoulou.Actress in 'Maria'by Pablo Larrain (imdb has all her information) 2A02:85F:E0DF:3800:599:614F:A547:848D (talk) 16:39, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

IMDB is not a reliable source, per WP:IMDB Babysharkboss2!! ^{(No Life 'Til Leather)} 16:59, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

COMMENT to 2A02: Once a query has been answered by an editor it is wrong to delete the query and answer, so I reverted your deletion. Draft:Aggelina Papadopoulou has been Declined five times, so it may be time to abandon your effort. David notMD (talk) 17:34, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Also, one really shouldn't be writing about oneself in the first place. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:09, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

IDK, it doesn't reek of self-promo/autobio to me. Just a poorly put together filmography. Babysharkboss2!! ^{(No Life 'Til Leather)} 18:12, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi!

You still need to add more independent reliable references for your article to be notable. Tesleemah (talk) 07:26, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Username COI

Out of curiosity, if I were to try editing the Sirocco article, would that trigger a Conflict of Interest bot flag because of my username? I don't plan on adding anything to articles titled "Sirocco", this question is purely out of interest and me not wanting to test it for fear of being slapped by a bot. Sirocco745 (talk) 06:38, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

The wind is not a person, so really you're fine. But could there be an error like this? Honestly I don't know. TooManyFingers (talk) 07:08, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

If you were instead "Scirocco745", and you were spotted augmenting/debasing the article Volkswagen Scirocco with material about, let's say, some company's eco-friendly, economical, and generally amazing opportunities for electrifying these old cars, you might expect some attention. -- Hoary (talk) 07:32, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough! If that were the case, I definitely wouldn't blame the bot hehe. Thanks for answering my silly question! Sirocco745 (talk) 07:46, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Plot for movies

are there any rules for writing the plot for wikipedia movie articles? Do we describe the movie in full or just the basic outline? Random8999 (talk) 03:02, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Full is great, outline is fine. MOS:PLOT has more information (but very dense). Don't forget to tell us the ending! Many editors try to avoid "spoilers", but one of the most helpful things a wikipedia article can provide about a work is its full plot, since most other websites only carry a teaser-style synopsis. -- asilvering (talk) 03:14, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion, a few overenthusiastic people start tending toward too much detail when explaining plots. I know it's only because they love their topic (or they have a thing for detail), but ... A non-passionate telling of the plot often works better. TooManyFingers (talk) 03:39, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

The guideline calling for a plot summary of 400 to 700 words is excellent advice. As TooManyFingers points out, a "passionate" plot summary is inappropriate because of the core content policy of the Neutral point of view. The plot summary of an a acclaimed film that won many Oscars should be written in the same emotionless "just the facts" style as the plot summary of a clunker that flopped at the box office and was panned by the critics. Concentrate only on the plot when writing plot summaries and ignore reception by fans and critics in that particular section. There are other sections of the article that discuss reception and acclaim. Cullen328 (talk) 08:10, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Help with validity of sources and notability?

Myself and a team of others are currently trying to get a page published for Nasser Bin Ghaith, an imprisoned human rights activist. Our helpful mentor has raised the issue of human rights organisations and the possibility that they aren't valid as sources as they may appear biased. These are international organisations that do work with governments. Should these sources be stricken or is it worth attempting to publish?

Our mentor also raised questions on notability, in that a lot of sources are passing mentions and not explicitly and exclusively discussing Dr. Bin Ghaith. He has appeared in mentions in numerous international news publications, as well as United Nations and Human Rights Council discussions, as well as government documents. I would argue that part of the notability issue is that due to the United Arab Emirates governments history of censorship and undisclosed legal sources, he may not come up near as much publicly. I would make the case that this page would contribute to his notability, free of the influence of government. There are also others within the same trials he was tried on that have their own Wikipedia pages.

Any help clearing up these issues would be greatly appreciated.

Regards UndergradSolidarity4AcademicFreedom (talk) 04:23, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:Nasser Bin Ghaith Al Marri -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:20, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't have the skill to answer all of this properly, but I can say one thing: EVERY source is biased, and "biased" does not mean "lying".

I hope that people with experience and intelligence better than mine will respond soon with more useful information, and I hope the people governing UAE learn fairness and compassion. TooManyFingers (talk) 07:05, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Please see other stuff exists; these other articles(what you term "pages") could also be inappropriate and just not yet addressed by a volunteer. We cannot invent sources that do not exist- if government censorship prevents their from being sources, we can do nothing about that- you would need to pressure the UAE to allow a free press/free speech(yes, I know that's not an easy task). You have submitted the draft for review, a volunteer will eventually review it.

If you're working with a team of editors, you will want to make that clear on your user pages, to avoid accusations of sock puppetry. 331dot (talk) 07:12, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

UndergradSolidarity4AcademicFreedom, when you write Myself and a team of others, that makes experienced Wikipedia editors immediately concerned. A Wikipedia account is for one person and one person only, and team use of a Wikipedia account is forbidden. It could possibly be acceptable if every person on the team had their own separate Wikipedia account and openly disclosed their membership in that team. I see no other team accounts editing that draft. And your Right great wrongs style of username also raises concern. Your username is problematic and you should change it. As for your statement that this page would contribute to his notability, free of the influence of government, that idealistic statement indicates that you do not yet understand how Wikipedia actually works. Wikipedia articles do not contribute to notability. Instead, they neutrally describe topics that are already notable. Cullen328 (talk) 08:36, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

number of lakes in bangalore

reliable research papers Amitprasad123456 (talk) 10:27, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Amitprasad, and welcome to the Teahouse. This place is for getting help with editing Wikipedia, not for general knowledge questions.

Unless you can find the answer in our article Bangalore, I suggest asking at the Humanities section of the Reference Desk. ColinFine (talk) 10:37, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi there, I am new here on this english site and wanted to ask how i could translate a german wiki site, that I created myself in english and publish it here?

Translation of articels in the german wikipedia to english wikipedia Lester1960 (talk) 14:23, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

See Help:Translation Lectonar (talk) 14:39, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to Teahouse @Lester1960! In short, absolutely. See Help:Translation as Lectonar suggested and check out WP:Wikiproject Germany in case it is relevant to Germany. I am happy to look it over as well, as someone who frequently translates articles from German to English (see Deutsche Wohnen & Co. enteignen, Works Constitution Act) etc.. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 14:45, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Lester1960, and welcome to the Teahouse. I presume this is de:Mario Lachat? It looks to me as if all the citations in that article are either to works by Lachat, or to sites published by organisations he belongs to; in other words, none of them are indepedent. This is not normally sufficient to establish notability in English Wikipedia - though the requirements for notability of academics are a bit different, and I don't fully understand them. ColinFine (talk) 14:51, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Lester1960 (talk) 14:16, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Inquiry about images (logos from student competitions)

In the case of creating/editing articles about student competitions or the like, which have an official logo, but don't have an exact regulamentation to use it, how do I safely add the logo in the article? I'm asking this as I included a logo in Draft:Olimpíada Nacional de Ciências, mistakingly labeling it as "Own work" in order to add the image to the page. I might've transgressed some image rule on Wikimedia Commons, so I would appreciate if someone could help! G4B-XD-3l (talk) 21:14, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

To clarify, the olympiad doesn't present any license for logo usage, but neither any logo copyright, leaving to assume that the logo can be used freely. Just want to confirm

G4B-XD-3l (talk) 21:16, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

@G4B-XD-3l: When they don't clearly say it's free to use, and license information is not posted, that means it is not free.

The copyright law is written so that it is basically impossible for anyone to give up their rights by accident or default. (The law even makes things inconvenient for someone who WANTS to give up their rights!) TooManyFingers (talk) 22:06, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Got it. I'll remove the logo to prevent any problems. Thanks for the info

G4B-XD-3l (talk) 22:11, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

That is best, for now. But you might want to explore the rules more carefully, when you have time; there may be reasons why this use is OK and can be put back up. I am not an images expert. I just know that when copyright is the issue, be very cautious, and assume that nothing is OK to use – until you really know.

WP:LOGOS is one important place to look. It may have much better news than what I gave. TooManyFingers (talk) 22:51, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

@G4B-XD-3l: Just hoping you see this; I don't want you to think removing it was the final answer. TooManyFingers (talk) 15:44, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I understand. I kept it removed as I'm not acquainted entirely with the rules yet, and I haven't read the page you suggested yet. I'll check it out whenever I have enough time. Thanks for the help

G4B-XD-3l (talk) 16:20, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Adding more citations and removing a maintenance template

Hello, I created an article, after some helpful advice from the community and further edits/citations it was in review status and then after several weeks it was published.

Recently I got notification that the article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for companies and organizations.

I have found another potential citation which I can add.

Should I remove the maintenance template or not? My understanding is that only a user without conflict of interest should remove. Therefore as I wrote the article and have updated I do have a COI and thus I should NOT remove the template.

Have I understood correctly? MotionMogul123 (talk) 11:58, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

@MotionMogul123 The article Eurospares was accepted through artciles for creation on 13 September, so I find it a bit odd that another new page reviewer User:MaxnaCarta marked it with having problems of notability. Maybe they would like to reconsider, after your recent addition of another source. You are correct that in view of your COI, you should not yourself remove the tag. Strictly speaking as a declared WP:PAID editor you should only make very limited changes to the article now it is in mainspace (see WP:ASFAQ), and add most new material via edit requests on its Talk Page. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:29, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Sincere thanks to you for the clarification and for the observation @Michael D. Turnbull. I will consider the addition via the Talk Page. MotionMogul123 (talk) 17:21, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

@MotionMogul123: I'd like to clarify something, just in case: COI is not because you wrote or updated the article. COI is because of who you know and who you work for. TooManyFingers (talk) 16:38, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the input @TooManyFingers, that is helpful and understood. MotionMogul123 (talk) 17:24, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Child Star 2024 Demi Lovato

Child Star (film) is like no other film article I have ever read. The main section is Promotion. There seems to be an excess of superlative adjectives, and indirect sentences. It does not seem "encyclopedic". Would someone take a look and steer the the article in a better direction? 69.181.17.113 (talk) 16:16, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

It can be tough to steer an article in a good direction, if there are determined efforts to steer it not-so-good at the same time. Conflict is tricky; fights are bad for Wikipedia, even if I'm fighting for the right things.

If an editor is really going over the line, bullying and refusing to listen, sometimes something has to be done about it. Very often it turns out that editors on both sides of such an issue are somewhat guilty. TooManyFingers (talk) 17:08, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

The best place by far to discuss these issues is Talk:Child Star (film) where promotional concerns are not even mentioned. The current version does not seem excessively promotional to me, except for that section heading. What is lacking is how movie critics assess the film. The concept is fascinating. Cullen328 (talk) 17:40, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Not sure what they are looking for.

This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these messages) This biography of a living person relies too much on references to primary sources. (June 2024) This biographical article is written like a résumé. (June 2024) Dehmling (talk) 15:10, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

It would help to know which article you are referring to, but that is a standard message and it will contain blue links that will lead you to further explanations. Shantavira|^{feed me} 15:19, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

"Primary sources" means "people with firsthand knowledge". Please try to erase all material that comes from "someone who really knows", and replace it with what third parties have said.

"Like a résumé" means "listing every accomplishment, especially those no one cares about". Please cut back the list of accomplishments to just the essential few. TooManyFingers (talk) 15:38, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

@Dehmling: Maybe the best way to know which of the subject's accomplishments should stay in the article is to only keep the ones that have already been mentioned in third-party source.

Wikipedia editors with limited experience often decide to show every good thing their subject has ever done, hoping that this will count as "evidence" that the subject should have a Wikipedia article. But it doesn't count. Recognition from reliable third-party sources is (nearly) all that counts. TooManyFingers (talk) 17:59, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello Dehmling and welcome to the Teahouse.

You also asked this question under a help template on your user talk page, where, at least, you gave the additional context that you are asking about Chuck Douglas.

That maintenance message or 'tag' has not simply 'popped up'. It was placed by another editor some months ago. As these other helpers have explained, the tag is asking editors to help improve the article by supplying additional references - it currently has a lot of material without footnotes - and by changing the writing style, as it currently reads too much like a CV or resume. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:05, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Requesting help with band photo upload

Hi there. I've noticed that several band articles on Wikipedia are using a press kit photo, from the group's prime years, as the main infobox image. This phenomenon can be seen on the pages for acts like Duran Duran, Soft Cell and New Order (among a number of others).

Perhaps someone would know if this[8] 1985 photo of Orchestral Manoeuvres in the Dark meets the relevant [non-]copyright criteria to be placed in their infobox. The entire press kit can be seen here.[9] This image would be useful as it captures the band at their peak of popularity in the 80s and is likely how most people best remember the visual of OMD.

If the photo is determined to be permissible, I would be most grateful if a more experienced user could upload it using the relevant settings. I have upped this crop to ImgHippo[10] (with a slight rotation applied and an artefact removed). Thank you for any assistance. Paulie302 (talk) 17:05, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

The question to be answered is whether the non-free images provides something that can't be represented by a free image. In this case I'd say that the free image currently used on the page represents the subject just as well as the proposed non-free image and so there's no justification to use the non-free image. fr33kman 17:12, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps I wasn't altogether clear in my original post: I am not at all advocating for the use of a non-free image. The Duran, Soft Cell and New Order press kit images are free, per the attached licensing details. Since the OMD image is also from a press kit of the same period, I am hoping that someone with expertise can determine whether it too is public domain. Paulie302 (talk) 17:32, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

The point is two things: 1) The image you're suggesting isn't free, AND 2) a good-enough image exists that IS free. Non-free images are all ignored, as soon as a good-enough free one exists. TooManyFingers (talk) 18:02, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

You have done all the due diligence and can confirm the OMD image is not free? The Duran, Soft Cell and New Order images are free, and they too are from 1980s press kits. Paulie302 (talk) 18:09, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I thought this had already been settled by the previous person's response. Obviously not. Sorry for misleading you. TooManyFingers (talk) 21:15, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Ah no worries. :) Paulie302 (talk) 21:46, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

The relevant public domain template is {{PD-US-1989}}. If you look at c:File:Duran Duran 1983.jpg § Summary, c:File:Soft Cell (1983 Sire publicity photo) 02.jpg § Summary, and c:File:New Order, 1985.jpg § Summary, it should give you a sense of how to establish that the template applies. (I'm on my phone right now, so I can't check the copyright status myself, but I should be able to help later today.) jlwoodwa (talk) 18:12, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for this. The image looks to be permissible along the same lines as the Duran one. I think I've managed the upload. Paulie302 (talk) 18:27, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

the photo has no copyright notice , does that make it public domain?.... 69.181.17.113 (talk) 20:30, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

No; by default, all copyright-eligible works are copyrighted. Wikipedia:Public domain describes three ways that works can be in the public domain: they are ineligible for copyright ({{PD-ineligible}}), they are too old ({{PD-old}}), or they have been released into the public domain by the copyright holder ({{PD-self}}). jlwoodwa (talk) 20:40, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Can I include a hyperlink to the copyrighted image as an inline citation?

If a paragraph requires a figure to clarify its meaning, but I found no suitable free images to add to the article due to copyright restrictions, can I include a hyperlink to the copyrighted image as an inline citation for readers to access the image directly and enhance their understanding of the content?

Can I make something like this inline citation? PecMo (talk) 14:36, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi PecMo, and thanks for your work on biomedical topics. Generally, yes. If an image is published by a reliable source, and if the image is the best part of the source to cite for a given bit of article content, go for it. I would cite it differently, by specifying the journal article using Template:Cite journal and using the at= parameter to specify the figure number. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:45, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

You might be interested in Wikipedia:Copyrights § Linking to copyrighted works. jlwoodwa (talk) 20:43, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

References

Reading complexity within articles

There's obviously not a one size fits all answer to this, but in general, at what reading level should articles be written at? I was skimming through Blades in the Dark and, despite playing the game myself, I found the section on mechanics to be complex enough that I needed to consult a dictionary for words like "elide" or "eschew" (I also feel it goes into excessive detail that may go against WP:NOTAGUIDE, but that's beside my immediate question)

My own reading level isn't quite where I'd like it to be, but I feel like I shouldn't be confused trying to read about a topic I'm familiar with. Is there possibly a WP or MOS page I can look through regarding this? LaffyTaffer (talk) 19:59, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

@LaffyTaffer: About the article you described, I think there's no need for those words because easier more common ones would be just as good. I would be inclined to edit them out (probably while simplifying a few other things along the way).

Whoever famously said something like "... as simple as possible – but not simpler", I tend to agree with them. I think we should never "dumb down" a TOPIC, but I think, keeping that in mind, we should keep our WORDS reasonably simple. TooManyFingers (talk) 20:09, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. When I get time, I'll see about replacing the words to ones simple enough for someone like me to understand haha LaffyTaffer (talk) 20:25, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

LaffyTaffer, you may find Wikipedia:Writing better articles to be well worth reading. Cullen328 (talk) 01:52, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

After looking closer at that content, there's enough odd writing and plain inaccuracies to game rules that I started wondering if might have been AI generated. I'm gonna try doing a big rewrite, which will be a big enough edit that I'm intimidated. But I'm sure this essay is going to be a great starting point to help me out. Thank you so much!!! ❤️ LaffyTaffer (talk) 02:19, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers it was Einstein, probably: [11]. I was surprised - I expected to find it in Strunk and White. -- asilvering (talk) 03:16, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I can see why. To me, Strunk and White is valuable (if at all) only for some little quotations like that, that hit on something important. Mostly, there are enough books better than theirs that they hardly merit a look. The way they ignore their own advice is instructive. TooManyFingers (talk) 06:23, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

For what it's worth, LaffyTaffer, that unreferenced content was written by an editor with little experience who has not edited since 2017. Cullen328 (talk)

My opinion: 8th grade level. Not only because our target audience includes 8th-graders, but because many high school graduates read at (what the "experts" call) 8th grade level. Of course there are web-based tools to tell you the reading level for a body of text, so it's not hard to do. It's our mission to inform, not to improve reading skills skills, and not to show how smart Wikipedia is. Wouldn't it be great if there was a site-wide consensus on this? One can dream. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:24, 20 September 2024 (UTC) Edited 07:24, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion, some articles could get away with a lower level, and if they can then they should. There are certainly articles that might require a higher level than you're suggesting, but I think they should do so because they can't get by with less, not because they're free to do more. TooManyFingers (talk) 06:30, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

In theory, a "site-wide consensus" could make provisions for sensible variances, without being overly complex or uselessly vague. Speaking more practically, I doubt the community could withstand the shock. And consensus would become hopelessly mired in debate about the sensible variances. variances. Before you could sneeze, it would be overly complex or uselessly vague. (Moral: We are limited by our model of decision-making—this is but one example.) ―Mandruss ☎ 07:14, 20 September 2024 (UTC) Edited 08:29, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

As for the 8th grade reading level, that style belongs on the Simple English Wikipedia, in my view. My personal metric is the reading level of a high school senior getting better than average grades. But this "reading level" issue is topic specific. Except for the opening sentence or two, we should not expect the same reading level in an article about a pop culture topic as in articles about advanced topics in subatomic physics, biochemistry or advanced mathematics. To name a few. Cullen328 (talk) 07:34, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

I think you're relegating half of our readers to Simple English Wikipedia (to their embarrassment), but there is no easy way to know. If I had the energy, I'd do a deeper dive into the literature, which no doubt exists. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:44, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Mandruss, if the reading level of our articles about our most searched topics was too high, then social media would be flooded with complaints like "Wows thet weekipoudua article were 2 kompleekated!!!", and yet for years, we remain the #7 website in traffic and #1 by far in originally written educational content. We have ten plus billion pageviews each month. Cullen328 (talk) 07:54, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

You assume that people care to admit publicly that Wikipedia is 2 kompleekated for them—even under the "anonymity" of the internet. The stats tell us there is nothing better available for free. They don't tell us how much the average reader is actually comprehending. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:18, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

For clarity, "kompleekated" refers to things like word and sentence length in this context. Has nothing to do with the difficulty of the ideas being conveyed, and everything to do with how they are conveyed. Most subjects can be conveyed with simple, Trumanesque language, and the rest could be accommodated under "sensible variances". In theory. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:58, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

@LaffyTaffer I don't think that anyone has yet pointed you to WP:TECHNICAL which is the established guidance that answers your original question. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:44, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

This is exactly what I was looking for, all of the resources provided as well as the above discussion have been tremendously helpful. Much appreciated. LaffyTaffer (talk) 14:09, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

I have rewritten the description of Blades in the Dark in order to be more readable and accurate to the rules of the game, doing my best to keep the discussion and resources here in mind. I'm not sure if it's appropriate to ask for feedback here, but this is the largest edit I've ever made, and with my inexperience I'm worried I may have made some critical mistakes. LaffyTaffer (talk) 21:41, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Looks great! -- asilvering (talk) 21:45, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Can Wikipedia stop using the term "Asian and Pacific Islander"? on the demographics section for pages on U.S. places?

Most pages for cities and counties in the U.S. have tables showing the ethnic demographics of the city, listing the percentages of the population who identify as "Non-Hispanic White", "Black", "Hispanic or Latino", etc. Most of these tables use the term "Asian", while some pages like Orange County, Florida and Cleveland say "Asian and Pacific Islander". I've tried to edit these tables to just say Asian but my edits get reverted back. The US census hasn't used this term "Asian and Pacific Islander" in over two decades, so there's no need to use it now. As an an American of Vietnamese descent, I personally feel uncomfortable seeing this term used because I find it to be too broad, lumping together many different people groups that have very distinct appearances and cultures, and because I do not feel a strong connection to Pacific Islanders.

Can Wikipedia use the terms "Asian" or "Asian American" in the demographics section of places in the U.S. instead of "Asian or Pacific Islander"? PIs should be listed under their own category or left off. That's all I want to change. JohnIllinois1827 (talk) 00:25, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

They did split it off to "Native Hawaiian or other Pacific islander" some time ago, so this is a good question, but I'm not sure it is one that can be handled by the Teahouse. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 00:54, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I know the census did, but I am talking about Wikipedia's use of the term API Americans. It's inconsistent across pages and yet when I wish to shorten it to just Asian other users will revert my edits back as if this term must be used. Where on Wikipedia should I take this issue? JohnIllinois1827 (talk) 03:37, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

@JohnIllinois1827: I think it will probably have to continue being shown, every time someone talks about an old census. The old census says what it says, and we can't pretend it said something else.

But if people are continuing to use it for newer census data too, because they mistakenly think it's still official, in those cases I think you're absolutely right. TooManyFingers (talk) 19:03, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, newer census data split the AA and PI. The Cleveland page will say Asian and Pacific Islander, but it's source for the 2020 statistic splits the two groups. JohnIllinois1827 (talk) 19:20, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

But therein lies the problem. The source for the 1990 census does not split the two groups, and its data is being directly compared in a table to other decades. You can't simply rename the row at Cleveland#Demographics to "Asian" without impacting the accuracy of the data represented throughout that entire row.

One possible solution would be to add another row for "Pacific Islander" in every table. For the decades that combine the two, you could combine both rows in that column and display a single, combined percentage just as the sources do. Have a look at HELP:TABLE#Colspan and rowspan on how this can be accomplished (example BBB), or perhaps an editor at one of those pages can assist (if not, reach back out here, and I'm sure one of us will be glad to).

One quick note about your "too broad concern" due to "very distinct appearances and cultures"...

Asian is still broad, ranging from Pakistani and Indian all the way to Korean and Japanese. One could reasonably present the same argument that each of these groups "have very distinct appearances and culture". The census grouping Black could even be considered more broad by definition. It would probably be best to drop this line of reasoning. The stronger argument is following the change made by the U.S. census report. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 22:44, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm trying to follow your advice on combining two rows but I'm stuck. Sorry. JohnIllinois1827 (talk) 03:11, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I understand what you're arguing, but saying "Asian and Pacific Islander also wouldn't be accurate for labeling the newer data, since that isn't the term used now. Also, Cleveland's 2020 census reveals that PIs are 0.0% of Cleveland's population, so even if the 1990 numbers are different, I doubt that the percentages are. It wouldn't really change the percentages for Asians that much. It is what it is, but I don't know why we as a nation focus so much on a group whose population is often low enough to round down to zero and overall nationwide doesn't even cross 0.5%.

I agree that "Asian" itself is very broad, but why make it even broader and more diverse by dragging another continent into the label? It's simply too broad. Asia is already the largest continent in the world, larger than both Americas combined, and yet the continent has to be made even larger by including Oceania. JohnIllinois1827 (talk) 14:49, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

@JohnIllinois1827: I get it, but to fix this the way you want to fix it you're going to have to travel backwards in time and convince long-dead government officials and bureaucrats to un-write their census categories. We aren't free to decide to give false reports of what it said back then; the census stuff is history, and we can't do present-day politics to it. Real people had to answer that question even though it wasn't a good question, and we can't suddenly claim they were answering a different question. They might have answered differently if the question had been better. TooManyFingers (talk) 17:33, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Okay, but why is it more preferable to use the old, outdated term over the current term? JohnIllinois1827 (talk) 20:26, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

• "Asian and Pacific Islander also wouldn't be accurate for labeling the newer data" – More than likely, the editor that added the newer data (back when it was released) didn't see an easy way to handle this predicament and just combined the two percentages in the table to avoid disturbing the historical data. This is all a moot point now, since the earlier suggestion above should solve that concern, assuming you can achieve consensus to do so.
• "even if the 1990 numbers are different, I doubt that the percentages are" – You could be correct, but this would be a personal observation and speculative, which is a form of original research. We couldn't use this in any way on Wikipedia unless it was directly backed by a reliable source.
• "Asian itself is very broad, but why make it even broader...by dragging another continent into the label" – To be clear, this broadness isn't being "made" by Wikipedians. In fact, Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. All of this came from older U.S. census reports, which are still being cited and compared in tables.

-- GoneIn60 (talk) 08:41, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Since the term "Asian and Pacific Islander" was retired after 2000, I think one solution would be to only show census data from 2000 onward to avoid this predicament. Or, another answer would be to use the term "Asian", but include a footnote saying "Included Pacific Islanders until 2000". Are these solutions feasible? 2601:248:601:A010:F0F3:40DE:7D21:1E74 (talk) 14:23, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

The footnote sounds feasible as well. Lots of possibilities I'm sure. Probably best to discuss solutions at a WikiProject like the one Hoary suggested below. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 16:03, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't say it's better, I say we have no choice. We must use the old wording for the old stuff and the new wording for the new stuff. We have no right to "fix" the categories to make them say what we'd like them to say, or for convenience or whatever. All we can do is faithfully report what's really on there. TooManyFingers (talk) 00:17, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

JohnIllinois1827, how about bringing up the matter at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States? (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Asian Americans might seem better, but responses to suggestions etc posted there are rare indeed.) -- Hoary (talk) 05:29, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Link converter for Wikipedia

Hello Wikipedians

Can I convert links to Wikipedia:VisualEditor? Manually changing links to the required grammar format on Wikipedia is time-consuming. Can I convert links by Wikipedia:VisualEditor? please ping to me when I should check the answer for my inquiry. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 12:12, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

@Goodtiming8871: Welcome to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1235. Your use of terminology is confusing; what do you mean by required grammar format? If you're asking whether it's okay to change links when using the visual editor, the answer is yes. Some editors might find it annoying if the wiki markup isn't perfect because of the use of the visual editor, but the end visual result is the same.

After reading the next section, I will say that the above generally applies to wikilinks within Wikipedia; Creamastra offers great advice for dealing with citing and external links. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 13:57, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind response. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 00:28, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Citoid, the citation tool integrated in VisualEditor's visual and wikitext modes, may be what Goodtiming8871 needs. every template has a grammar. ... 69.181.17.113 (talk) 20:24, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, :) I noticed that VisualEditor needs more update. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 02:07, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Inquiry for reference

FYI

 – Merging with above section

Below is a sample link. I wonder if it is possible to automatically convert this link to the Wikipedia source format.

reference [12] Goodtiming8871 (talk) 12:22, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

For most links, you can press the "cite" button in the Visual Editor, paste the link into the input box, and it will produce a formatted reference. Cremastra (talk) 13:48, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

thank you and I appreciate your support. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 00:29, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

How to use ChatGPT to overcome dead sites?

less a question than an answer -- I discovered a very useful prompt that follows the form of "Can you tell me where the MassGIS libraries went after decommission of their original site?" I believe this could be useful for other users. Regards --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:45, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Alas, ChatGPT's answers cannot be relied upon. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 03:56, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

(and one of the reasons is that while they are sometimes true, they are often ridiculously false, and there is no reliable way to tell the difference.) TooManyFingers (talk) 04:36, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Well, yes, but in this case it's obviously easy to verify if what ChatGPT said is true/useful: just go to the site it gives you. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:06, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

If you're having a hard time looking something up, sure, why not. You can't put ChatGPT into an article, but it might help find a lost item. TooManyFingers (talk) 06:08, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

nævis (SMCU) receiving a Wikipedia page

Just so you know, nævis, digital character from the SM Culture Universe has her very own single song named "Done" meaning that she needs a Wikipedia page for people needing info. Can I do this? Jacketpedia (talk) 07:37, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

@Jacketpedia No. But you may want to edit on this wiki instead. -- asilvering (talk) 07:43, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Question about the Main Page

Hello, I have a question about the Main Page, but cannot ask on its Talk page, so I hope this is the right place to ask instead.

Here's my question. The Main Page contains the following snippet near the very end:

{{#if:{{Wikipedia:Main Page/Tomorrow}}||}}

What is this for? No matter whether the check succeeds or not, this does (transcludes) nothing. Surely it was put there for a reason, however. Stúlkan (talk) 07:02, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi Stúlkan, welcome to the Teahouse. It does transclude Wikipedia:Main Page/Tomorrow to perform the #if check. Nothing is displayed but the transclusion has other effects. Wikipedia:Main Page/Tomorrow has a "View source" tab instead of Edit. If you click it then you get a message that the page is cascade-protected. All pages transcluded on Main Page are automatically part of this cascade protection. The main purpose is to ensure that only administrators can edit content which affects the main page but the code extends this protection to Wikipedia:Main Page/Tomorrow. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:13, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Hans Bergel: Is it Notable?

Hans Bergel is an historian, and three pages refer to a non-existent page, called Hans Bergel.

I was asking if it would be notable enough to create a separate Wikipedia page for Hans Bergel or need to leave it

[13] This is the page. Kavya79 (talk) 03:53, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

@Kavya79: Welcome to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1235. Like all other articles, Bergel would require sources that satisfy Wikipedia's golden rule to establish wikinotability. You may wish to draft an article if you're thinking of taking on this endeavour. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:27, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

As you will know, Kavya79, he has a substantial, referenced article in the Romanian Wikipedia, and there are many substantial-looking hits on him from googling: I'd have been very surprised if he doesn't qualify as notable by en.Wikipedia standards.

However, I notice that the Draft you have submitted, though referenced, has many paragraphs without any citations. It may be that you are applying a single citation to multiple paragraphs at a time, but I suggest that you need instead to make more numerous cites, each supporting one or two sentences at most. It's quite usual to cite the same work multiple times, specifying a particular page each time: Help:References and page numbers shows how to do this. Good luck!{The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.171.3 (talk) 12:39, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

On tagging

Hello, @Johnuniq and (less tactfully) @Softlavender have noted that my tagging efforts may have issues, so I would like to get an understanding on how to proceed further. I've cobbled together a python script (will clarify even if I hope it's obvious with the edits I've made that I'm not running an unauthorized bot) that spits out a "link density" ratio, and while I wish I had the technical skills to refine the results, I feel like I've been able to bring attention to a lot of very old pages (pretty much every page I edited in the last day or so was created before 2005) that are in need of such. I'm aware of the issues, though apparently not enough, about overtagging, I "clearly" feel like they were constructive (or else why would I have made the edit?), but some apparently disagree, so I would like to know in particular which of my edits contained "bogus tags". Akaibu (talk) 11:32, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I looked at your list of contributions and picked this. As I look at the article I notice no shortage of internal links. I'm puzzled by the addition of the template and not surprised by its removal. -- Hoary (talk) 11:45, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Oh is that why I've had so many watchlist notifications about this category. @Akaibu, I think you might want to tweak the script a bit so that it takes the size of the article into consideration? A much longer article, if it's not repeating the same wikilinks over and over, will naturally have a lower link density than a shorter one. -- asilvering (talk) 12:18, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

@Hoary @Asilvering while yes I agree the case of Fresnel's article is already pretty well linked, it nonetheless showed up as among some of the lowest that my script has found(in the lowest 5k out of the ~million pages scanned so far), I will note that there are a number of references to "biaxial" of various nature, of which Index ellipsoid looks to have a redirect of that name, is not linked on Fresnel's article, and in fact does mention Fresnel in the article itself. I'm not sure where exactly this should/would be reference, but that's one of the reason I added these templates, is that they bring eyes to an issue, the underlinked template is in fact a newcomer task and many of the pages I've put it on has had plenty of productive edits made by other newcomers(I still regard myself as such). Akaibu (talk) 13:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

@Akaibu: The instructions for {{underlinked}} say there is no consensus on what constitutes "too few" links. Use editor discretion: you should not just be blindly tagging articles based on the output of a script. The fact that an article is in the lowest 0.5% for link density is not sufficient information to judge whether or not it is underlinked to the point of needing a cleanup tag. It would be much more useful for you to find one article which you think on your own judgement is underlinked, and then add some needed links, than it is for you to blindly tag any number of articles.

In general both script-assisted editing and adding maintenance tags are things which are probably better off left to people who have some experience with Wikipedia. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:37, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

@Caeciliusinhorto-public I'll agree that there isn't a minimum amount of links required for a page, however, I've found that low link density can be a sign of other problems, such as the case of me tagging Acoustic theory being far too technical, as well as despite describing a "field of study", makes no mention on who is part of this field(i.e. a history of the field of study), etc.

Basically, I'm not blindly tagging upon the list, but using it as a metric to have people look closer at pages that have been overlooked(this page for example has been mostly unchanged since 2008). Akaibu (talk) 16:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

@Akaibu, the people who will mostly be directed to a page when you use the "underlinked" tag are newcomers using their newcomer homepage suggestions to make easy edits. You might get some more attention to the overlooked parts of the article like this, but mostly the editors going through that tag will be looking for easy fixes to do while they dip their toes into wikipedia editing. If your script turns up some article that isn't actually all that underlinked, but could use some other attention, just tag with the other relevant maintenance tags so it gets to the right editors. (Well, hopefully.) By the way, if you find articles that aren't in any wikiprojects, that's often a reason for them being unattended, and adding the relevant wikiprojects can help sort them into the right maintenance queues. -- asilvering (talk) 19:17, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Akaibu, I recommend that you slow way down with your tagging and carefully examine each article first, and only tag when you are reasonably sure that other editors would agree. "Link density" is not a concern that I have heard in 15 years of editing. If you think that an article is underlinked, by far the best thing for you to do is add some wikilinks instead of tagging it. Cullen328 (talk) 17:53, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I have heard many concerns about link density – but only when there are too many. Usually these are placed by someone who wants to inflate the importance of their subject, or by someone who is just eager to add links. I have never heard a complaint of too few links. TooManyFingers (talk) 19:36, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I want to emphasise this point. You aren't really helping improve wikipedia by tagging lots of pages with underlinked template, especially on the basis of a script. I'd recommend using your script to find pages then actually improving the article with wikilinks. Newystats (talk) 05:53, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

@Cullen328 I bring to attention a wikitable i made during my 48-hour block, with 5000 pages created from 2005 or before with the lowest "link density", since my personal judgement seems to be in conflict with best practice, so I've taken to documenting my opinions/reviews of these pages, I was waiting till I had made more progress on the matter, but I feel the need to bring it up because in my review of the pages, I came across Colegio Tarbut, a page that has been written in Spanish since it's 2005 creation; I hope this and my documenting of other pages shows the merit of this metric. Akaibu (talk) 03:28, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Don't be too hasty - I just pulled the English version out of the page history from 2023. -- asilvering (talk) 03:41, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

@Asilvering ah! I guess I was indeed hasty, I merely checked the oldest version vs a few of the recent, thanks for the quick work! Akaibu (talk) 03:48, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

A rookie mistake! (that I also make all the time...) -- asilvering (talk) 03:55, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Akaibu, I took a brief look at an article near the top of your list about a topic that interests me. That article is Display size. I then read that article and the notion that its "link density" is too low is simply ludicrous. There are plenty of wikilinks in that article. There must be something seriously wrong with your algorithm. I noticed also that some of the other articles near that article on your list are bibliographies. As long as Wikipedia allows bibliography articles to contain works that are not themselves the subject of Wikipedia articles, then of course bibliographies of prolific authors will have relatively few wikilinks. That's another problem. So, I am sorry to say this, but I think that you have not yet demonstrated that this "link density" concept is useful for improving the encyclopedia. Cullen328 (talk) 04:08, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

@Cullen328 there are now a sufficient amount of links on Display size, see the state of the article when I had initially assessed it Akaibu (talk) 04:25, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Akaibu, I assumed that the list you asked me to look at was current instead of outdated. That illustrates the proper response to the problem: Add useful wikilinks to articles instead of spending time compiling lists such as this. Cullen328 (talk) 04:31, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

But look at who added the links, @Cullen328. They're all newbies, summoned by the newcomer module. It's a good task to tag instead of doing it yourself, if you find an article that is underlinked, because it's a task new editors feel able to do. Those of us who know the ropes already can work on the harder stuff. -- asilvering (talk) 04:37, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

@Asilvering i tried doing just that but i got blocked for that, i supposed because i was trying to document all the problems the page has and being declared that i was tagbombing, thus my solution being this list. Akaibu (talk) 04:39, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

can you look for the opposite? the nearly orphan articles, such that What links here is nearly zero?.... 69.181.17.113 (talk) 20:17, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

@69.181.17.113 I could probably do such, but I'm not sure if that would actually be productive, as that would likely encourage people to potentially insert a given article page into pages that don't duly need them, at best if you encounter pages which you think might warrant being linked across the project more, something like Edward's Find ink tool is a good one, alternatively Lourdes's Backlinks userscript, though I consider both of these as perhaps having an unacceptable rate of false positives due to not taking into account parts of the text that is already linked among a few other template related issues. Akaibu (talk) 13:52, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Not sure what to do with illegal site promotion

I've gone ahead and reverted stuff on main space but i'm fairly sure that Special:Contributions/Conraldjake should be IP banned, info nuked from the site, and info forwarded to relevant authorities due to promoting a pretty clearly illegal mercantile site, if anyone wants to forward this to where ever relevant? Akaibu (talk) 13:32, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

I see their user talk is blank. Have you tried warning them first? Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 13:45, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

@Rotideypoc41352 this, I believe, is clearly a user not here to build(and is in fact a Dread Pirate Roberts type) and that admin action is needed, not being a case of biting a newbie; I've seen these kinds of promotional drive bys for other stuff of this nature on other places on the internet(the telegram link on the site sharing the same name as the user is another clue from my experience) Akaibu (talk) 13:58, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

If confident in your assessment, you are free to ask WP:AIV for help. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 14:02, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Seeing innapopriate external links, I'll usually leave a 4im warning (not assuming good faith here) the first time and report them straight to AIV if it continues. You can also skip the warning if you believe it is needed. win8x (talking | spying) 14:03, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

IPA rejection

- /mnwtth/

- /skiˈd/

- /b/

- auu'u'uu'ugh 2405:9800:B931:68C:C911:E5FD:699D:6EE3 (talk) 11:51, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1235. Did you have a question about using or editing Wikipedia? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 13:31, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

If I understand correctly: It's good that these bits of garbage were rejected as pronunciations. "Pronunciations" of random things that aren't pronounceable in English are intentionally not recognized. TooManyFingers (talk) 14:40, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

No Stash Content

Please how do I resolve this

No stashed content found for 0/01640d0f-7511-11ef-bda1-cde2bc2321fe

I am trying to publish an article ISAAC CARES (talk) 10:15, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, ISAAC CARES, and welcome to the Teahouse. That message is a technical message (nothing to do with the content of what you are writing), and usually means that you have left an editing session open for too long before saving. ColinFine (talk) 10:35, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Copypaste the wikicode of the page or section you're editing (you will probably need to switch to the source editor) into an external app on your device, then start a new editing session on the page you are working on and paste the saved content over the existing content. This will allow you to save your work.

To avoid this problem in the future, commit ("Publish") your edits more frequently. I try for a twenty minute time limit before saving, but any less than two hours is pretty unlikely to lose the content stashed serverside. Folly Mox (talk) 14:55, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

to formate a quote

Hello, fellow-wikipedians, as i don't add quotes often, i do have a small problem with formatting... i can formate it like this {{blockquote |text=Each stroke of paint, each thickened line<br /> Slashes the sky in a sudden design<br /> That shatters us on the inside<br /><br /> Is it the path to holiness<br />Is it the math, the map to bliss<br />Is it the pulse of the galaxies<br />Or is it the song that sings in me? |author=Amy Antin |source=Song ‘’Ivo Ringe’’ in the album ‘’The First Song in the Morning’’, 2020 }} - but i would like to add the source more precisely: {{cite book |last=Antin |first=Amy |publisher=Werner Meyer |title=Ivo Ringe. In: First Song of the Morning: Lyrics and Intros |place=Husum |date=2022 |isbn=978-3-87062-354-8 |page=141}}</ref>}} - and how would i do this???

I know that there must be a way, i just don't know: HOW :-) Kind regards, Naomi Hennig (talk) 12:03, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

@Naomi Hennig I think that the template {{Poem quote}} does what you want. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:18, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Dear Mike, this looks great, but i still need a way to give the reference... normally i would write "Amy Antin: Song Ivo Ringe in "First Song in the Morning", 2020" - but then the reference to the book is missing still. Naomi Hennig (talk) 13:34, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

@Naomi Hennig: Does one of the templates mentioned at WP:CITET look suitable for this situation? (Scroll down to see the details of what's in them and how they work.)

Or, you might find a similarly complex citation already done by someone else, and copy their format. I guess there's no guarantee that they've done it right, but it would be better than nothing. TooManyFingers (talk) 16:53, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much for this link. I remember that i already had this problem once, it seems that the English wikipedia doesn't stress as much as the German wikipedia to not only give the poem, but also a detailed source of it as a reference. Will have to "bastel" a bit to hopefully get all together :-). Will have a also detailed look at your link. Kind regards, Naomi Hennig (talk) 14:03, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

I've heard that the English one has more rules and is stricter. This might be just because the English one has received more articles and has more often been a target for garbage. Or because of some kind of "rules culture" on here. I agree with almost all the rules that I'm aware of and I wouldn't want to throw them out, but for every rule I learn it seems like there are a hundred more waiting to eat my brain. :) TooManyFingers (talk) 15:01, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Who governs the censorship in Wikipedia?

Is there a body which fact checks and censors the articles? If yes, then how do they prevent biases from emerging? Ibditaafsan (talk) 09:45, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Ut oh. <covers head> ―Mandruss ☎ 09:55, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

[Edit conflict] Firstly, see WP:Not censored.

Articles are either Drafted and submitted for assessment, or created directly and then (nearly always) assessed by the New Pages Patrol before being made visible to search engine webcrawlers. In either case, they are checked to confirm that they are properly corroborated by citations referencing Reliable sources that verify the facts they contain.

The assessors will also decline (pending satisfactory improvements) drafts that show obvious bias or imbalance (or anything else contrary to Wikipedia's principles and policies), but even after acceptance, articles are subject to perpetual further improvement, and anyone who reads and edits Wikipedia (and about 100,000 different individuals edit every month) can both point out an article's deficiencies and/or actively edit it to improve it. Hope this sheds some light. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.171.3 (talk) 10:07, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Note that Wikipedia does not claim to be free of bias, as all sources have biases. Sources are presented to readers so they can evaluate and judge them for themselves. 331dot (talk) 15:48, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

It is unavoidable for there to be bias. Here are a couple of interesting essays about bias on Wikipedia:

• Wikipedia:Systemic bias
• User:Guy Macon/Yes. We are biased.

Some bias is a good thing. It's also a good thing to have an open mind, but not open to the point where your brain falls out. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:24, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

That's a very interesting quote. I'll have to remember that one. 331dot (talk) 20:46, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

When people ask about bias, they are often implicitly sure that "bias" is a universally-agreed-upon topic, and that preventing it ought therefore to be primarily a matter of responsible administration and policy application.

But "bias" has more than one relevant meaning in this context, those meanings are difficult to untangle, and I think one of the biggest obstacles to dealing effectively with bias on Wikipedia is the amount and intensity of hand-waving that ensues when people who are "very certain" of the issue discover that their certainty is merely superficial, that correct answers are much less evident than they thought, and they hunt for ways to revert to the simplistic idea they were sure of yesterday. TooManyFingers (talk) 21:28, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Pretty unpromising sign that the OP's first edit is this question, and their other edit bluelinking their username. Folly Mox (talk) 14:57, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Well ... I was going to say "maybe that's not a sign of anything", but yeah it probably is. TooManyFingers (talk) 15:06, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Does the following writing technique merit being displayed on Wikipedia?

Writing a Sentence in Idea Units

Writing each of a sentence's idea units on a new line lets people write perfect sentences because it lets them organize each sentence's parts by writing each of its idea units on a new line. Each sentence contains at least one idea unit, comprised of one to about ten words. The left column shows the sentence’s idea units. The number in parenthesis specifies the number of words the idea unit has.

IDEA UNITS

In the order you think of them, (7) using the shortest, simplest, and fewest words (7) write each idea unit (4) on a new line, (4) one idea unit under the other, (6) then reorder them. (3)

If you think that an idea unit (7) might work better elsewhere, (4) move it there. (3)

Keep re-ordering the idea units (5) till the sentence says (4) exactly what you want it to say (7) in the exact way you want to say it. (9)

Delete all unnecessary words. (4)

_______________________________________________

The above technique may or may not be new. It is from a book titled "Write Talking". The technique helps me easily write and perfect sentences. It is worth including it in "Wikipedia". Thanks!

2604:2000:6FC0:4:3161:7469:3434:D60C (talk) 23:40, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi IP, this is pretty good writing advice, but Wikipedia isn't really a place to discuss writing advice. Though you will find that there are many essays about writing, hiding in the User: and Wikipedia: sections of the project. If you decide to stick around and make an account, you may want to make some reference to this technique in an essay like that yourself. But because wikipedia is not a hosting service, if that's all you write on the project, it will probably be deleted. -- asilvering (talk) 23:45, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

The URL for the Amazon.com page where "Write Talking" is displayed is https://a.co/d/a10Esyv. Writing is easy (talk) 23:52, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

My answer is yes, IP, this is the wrong place, and sorry, but I don't think there is a right place for it on WP. Your text here isn't very well written, so it seems you haven't applied it to your own writing. Carlstak (talk) 23:56, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. May I trouble you to please point out the defects you spotted? Writing is easy (talk) 00:00, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Right off the bat you tell your readers it's the "most fascinating way to write". You should show your readers how something is interesting and not tell them it's "fascinating", which doesn't actually impart any information. Saying it's the "most fascinating" is presumptuous and only compounds the literary offense. I shouldn't have to tell you what's wrong with "but new to Wikipedia, am I mistaken...", but it doesn't even make sense, and you omitted the necessary question mark. Carlstak (talk) 00:12, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

What matters is that you are following the writing guide on Wikipedia and that whatever you are writing on follow the notability guide as per WP:Notable and that they are sourced using reliable independent reference. Tesleemah (talk) 01:40, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Writing is easy (talk) 15:12, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Draft checking

Can you please checkt the draft that I am working on right now? The draft is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:James_Dokhuma# I have a great knowledge (talk) 14:12, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Btw its still a work in progess I have a great knowledge (talk) 14:14, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I removed all of the subjective and non-encyclopaedic language. Why do you believe he is notable? As an author? Teacher? What justifies him being referred to as "Dr."? Can you find more references for what people have written about him? David notMD (talk) 14:50, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I have not gotten ti what made him notable because as I said, it's a work in progress. But however, he is a notable man as he is one of the leaders of the Mizo insurgency and an autjor of many different books. I have a great knowledge (talk) 15:08, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

also, I forgot to add why he was notable. sorry. 😅 I have a great knowledge (talk) 15:10, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

• in the draft

I have a great knowledge (talk) 15:11, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

also, you deleted his works that I have noted down 💀. I haven't completed it so, you will have some questions. I have a great knowledge (talk) 15:14, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

pls ignore this one I have a great knowledge (talk) 15:36, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

pls reply quick I have a great knowledge (talk) 15:29, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

No one is under any obligation to reply quickly. Do you have a particular need for a speedy resolution here? 331dot (talk) 15:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

And also from the Criminal charges, I think one can take a guess to what made him notable I have a great knowledge (talk) 15:34, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I have a great knowledge. Writing an article starts with the references that establish that the subject is notable in Wikipedia's sense, because if they are not, every single moment spent on the draft is wasted effort.

An article is a summary of what independent reliable sources have said about a subject, nothing less, and not very much more. A selected list of a subject's creations/works may be included, but unless the article explains why they are notable (by summarising what published sources have said about them) there is no point. ColinFine (talk) 15:43, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

kk I have a great knowledge (talk) 14:10, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

btw, what do you think should be the minimum number of references? I have a great knowledge (talk) 14:19, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

You should have at least three independent reliable sources. Right now you have one - one of the sources you have cited is a book written by the biography subject so it is not independent. MrOllie (talk) 14:28, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Can you please review my draft again? I have a great knowledge (talk) 16:06, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

oh, no, no. The one that I am citing is a republished version of the original book. In the book that I cited, the publisher was R. Lalrawna, a stranger not even related to Dr. James Dokhuma. In the book that I cited, he created a section of the life of James so that people who did not know him well could get to know him. So, it is independent.@MrOllie I have a great knowledge (talk) 15:36, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

It is very clearly not independent, the biography subject wrote the book himself. MrOllie (talk) 15:41, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

no. The the person Dr James, wrote the book Ṭawng Un Hrilhfiahna without the section of his life. It is only after the publication of R. Lalrawna that the section describing his life came. How do I know? You may ask. Its because I have the whole book with me. One from 1987 and one from 2018. The newest version was revised a little, with corrections of typing mistakes and such and the addition of the section of his life. If you are still not clear, just ask it very specifically. I have a great knowledge (talk) 16:46, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I think the point MrOllie is trying to make is that the bulk of the content remains autobiographical. The content from the original (even if altered a little for the purposes of fixing errors in spelling, grammar, etc.) is still not independent of the subject who wrote it originally, as it has essentially been reprinted. To the best of my knowledge, Wikipedia doesn't believe in what I personally call source laundering, where the provenance of content magically changes when it is reprinted by a third party; as far as I can tell, the book still credits Dokhuma as the author as the bulk of it is still his writing.
From what I understand, the only significant addition that is only present in the second book is a publisher's(?) note on who Dokhuma is. Theoretically, whoever wrote the biographical section could be used as a source if it satisfies the golden rule, but I suspect using that section for citations will be limited due to its proximity with Dokhuma's reprinted content. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:41, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

but the only thing added extra was that section describing his life. After that, nothing on the book changed(except some spelling mistake). The book is about Mizo Ṭawng Upa( roughly translated to Elderly Language, its a bit like idioms and phrases but there is a big difference. They can be somehow grouped together) I have a great knowledge (talk) 14:15, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Also, can you please review my draft pls? the link is Draft:James Dokhuma# I have a great knowledge (talk) 14:21, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

but the only thing added extra was that section describing his life. After that, nothing on the book changed(except some spelling mistake).
— User:I have a great knowledge 14:15, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Exactly the point I'm making. It's still his writing, so it's not independent from him to be used as a source that demonstrates wikinotability, regardless of who the publisher is and whatever addenda were added. You may be able to use it as a primary source in a limited fashion, but it doesn't contribute to the (ideally at least) three independent reliable sources that reviewers want to see in drafts to show Dokhuma is wikinotable.

Also, can you please review my draft pls?
No; I am not an AFC reviewer and I have no intention of being one. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:20, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

No, its the writing of R. Lalrawna, not Dokhuma. If I am not saying what you mean, please clarify it more. I have a great knowledge (talk) 15:53, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Incorrect. Lalrawna is credited as the publisher in your citation, not the author. The work is still Dokhuma's. That's like saying I Am Malala is a source that can establish wikinotability for Malala Yousafzai because it was published by Weidenfeld & Nicolson in the UK, or Little, Brown and Company in the US, even though the author is the subject herself. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:13, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

but that section was not created by Dokhuma, so it cannot be an autobiography I have a great knowledge (talk) 16:16, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Which is why I said the book might be possibly used to establish wikinotability (in a limited fashion) if you're only using that section and nothing else, but reviewers are more likely to ask you to use another source as it's far too close in proximity to the author's writing that makes up the majority of the book. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:29, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

ooh, ok. thx for info. Also, the organisation that gave him an award, The Mizo Academy of Letters, wrote his life story. Can that one be used as the main one instead? I have a great knowledge (talk) 15:33, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

You need more references that show he is notable, I can only see two references repeatedly used. You can also remove statements you can't find references for, that way the article can stand as a stub. But, generally two citations are not enough for biography Tesleemah (talk) 18:28, 16 September 2024 (UTC)