Wikipedia:Teahouse

PrimeHunter, a Teahouse host

Welcome to the Teahouse!
Your go-to place for friendly help with using and editing Wikipedia.

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

New to Wikipedia? See our tutorial for new editors or introduction to contributing page.
Note: Newer questions appear at the bottom of the Teahouse. Completed questions are archived within 2-3 days.

Help Wikipedia

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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: 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)

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)

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 the Teahouse. 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)

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 [1] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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[2] 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.[3] 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[4] (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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

 Courtesy link: User:MarkWHowe/sandbox --ColinFine (talk) 15:34, 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Alan Watt (author, radio commentator)

how can I contribute to Wikipedia by submitting a quote written by a man whose name appears in a Wikipedia disambiguation page in red letters? the page I am referring to is https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Watt

I will be creating a new page about him and his work, but first — if it is doable — I would like to submit some of his most enlightening quotes to Wikiquote. Thanks, Charles Fabara Writing is easy (talk) 23:43, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Writing is easy, I think you may be mistaking Wikipedia (which is where we find ourselves) for Wikiquote. -- Hoary (talk) 23:57, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Not knowing if there is a teahouse for wiki quote, I am wondering if someone in the Wikipedia teahouse knows if I can, or if anyone can, or is permitted to, submit a quote by someone whose name appears and Wikipedia and red letters. 2600:1017:B8C0:CF4A:3D87:1ED5:A326:20E9 (talk) 00:05, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Create the page Draft:Alan Watt (author and radio commentator) and submit it for review, but don't write the article WP:BACKWARD. Write it forward. That means, find reliable source coverage of him that is independent of him first, before you write a single word. If he's obscure, you may not get traction with Wikiquote. I have removed your addition of his name to the disambiguation page because it seems like you're trying to promote his website. What is your association with this person? ~Anachronist (talk) 01:30, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Anachronist points out that you'd need "reliable source coverage of him that is independent of him". True. It means coverage of him that (i) is independent of him and (ii) is from what Wikipedia regards as reliable sources. Not what he, or you, or I would regard as reliable sources, but what Wikipedia would. As I gaze at his website, I sense that amassing such coverage would be difficult, if not impossible. -- Hoary (talk) 01:55, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

That website sure doesn't give you a confident feeling, does it? Lots of promotion of self-published works. Even the website about the Pacific Northwest tree octopus was more convincing. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:06, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

But the formatting/design has a certain period charm. (1996 or so, perhaps?). -- Hoary (talk) 02:12, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikiquote says "We limit ourselves to quotations which are notable. A quotation can be notable because it has achieved fame due to its enduring relevance to many people, or because it is attributed to a notable individual, or appeared in a notable work." Perhaps not a good fit for Alan Watt. -- Hoary (talk) 02:12, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I would just add that redlinks are not permitted on disambiguation pages, per WP:DDD. Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:44, 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)

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 the Teahouse. 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)

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)

Factual errors in citing

It is important that we do not have lies in Wikipedia. The article There's a Small Hotel asserts that a cited book contains a particular statement. It does not. This is easily confirmed by searching the book on line. I removed the lie and substituted a different citation that gives a sensible explanation of the story. Someone has reverted the text to what it was before, apparently failing to notice what I said in the Edit Summary. What can be done? It would be unseemly for this to be changed back and forth ad infinitum.Roryjohnston (talk) 06:44, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

You can contact them on their talk page to point this out, perhaps they didn't see the error you are trying to correct. Tesleemah (talk) 06:55, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Roryjohnston. This is probably something you should discuss on the article's talk page. The editor who reverted you has provided a quote from the source in support of the content they restored. The source might be wrong, but that's something to at least first try to resolve through article talk page discussion. Finally, it might be a good idea to consider the reversion of your edit as having been made in good faith, and refrain from referring to the content in question as a "lie". It's not uncommon for reliable sources to provide conflicting information on the same subject. Whether that's the case here is something to figure out through talk page discussion. Using the word "lie" runs the risk of starting the discussion off on the wrong foot and creating an atmosphere not conducive to friendly discussion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:03, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Roryjohnston, your "someone" is Pdebee. As Marchjuly suggests, you and Pdebee should discuss this on Talk:There's a Small Hotel. It's been 16 years since anyone discussed a proposed or actual edit there. -- Hoary (talk) 08:07, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

To: Roryjohnston

Copy: Tesleemah, Marchjuly, Hoary

Dear Colleague,
Thank you for your interest in "There's a Small Hotel" and in aiming to get it right. As Marchjuly suggested, I am happy to work with you in a collaborative way, per WP:DISPUTED. In the past, when I came across similar situations while creating articles myself, I opted to write a footnote to indicate that the fact in question is disputed across the sources, as I did in the first entry, here (see "i"). This way, we demonstrate to the reader that various sources themselves are in conflict about the fact, without us having to do any more than simply point this out. With this in mind, I will now continue this discussion at the article's talk page later today, and I invite you to join me in this constructive effort. Thank you.
With kind regards for now;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^{(talk)(become old-fashioned!)} 11:37, 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)

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)

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)

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 9https://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)

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)

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)