Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1151

Archive 1145

←

Archive 1149

Archive 1150

Archive 1151

Archive 1152

Archive 1153

→

Archive 1155

How to handle unattached references

Hi, there's a bit of a reference mess at Early childhood. A new editor, Makayla rosenfeld1127 has attempted to improve this article, and has added a lot of references. Unfortunately they accidentally messed up the reflist template while doing so, so the original inline citations piled up at the bottom of the article. I've re-added the reflist template, so the inline ones are now correct, but Makayla has added a load of "hard wired" references with numbers, though unfortunately hasn't indicated where these should be cited in the text. As a result, it's now a bit of a mess, because the hard-wired ones pile up as one huge blob of text at the end, with just one being cited, and that as a single number at the bottom of the inline citations. Since Makayla has only had one editing-session so far, there's no guarantee they'll be back to fix this. I don't want to revert the whole lot, because these may be useful references, assembled with some care. I wanted to convert them to properly-entered named references so they could be cited by name from the text, if desired, but that doesn't work very well either. What's the correct way to sort this out? I've put a link to WP:REFBEGIN and some hints on Makayla's talk-page in case they're back, but it'd be nice to sort it out if they don't come back. Many thanks for any advice, Elemimele (talk) 17:27, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Elemimele, you are a regular so I think we can skip welcoming, if they have messed up the article simply revert it to the last best version, if you say there are some good references they added then copy them and paste them elsewhere in your computer, and when the revert is completed, using the proper cite method reinsert them all properly. Celestina007 (talk) 17:43, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Celestina007, thanks! ah, okay, I have to convert them into Short Citations and list them separately to the reflist. I'll have a go, after I've fed my kid! I've never done a general reference before, so stupidly, I'd never read WP:GENREF. Learning! Elemimele (talk) 17:57, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

New editor w/ photo to add

Hi. I have never tried to edit an article. I wanted to add a mug shot to an article on an entry about a serial killer recently convicted. It was previously in the system. However a bot deleted it claiming copyright issues. However it was a mug shot. So I’m not sure whether it belonged in the commons or not (The reason the bot reportedly deleted the mug shot was that it was supposed to come from local, a difference I don’t understand). However it is not covered by a copyright because it is a mug shot.

In any event I don’t have enough edits to be able to put the picture back into the system nor do I know how. Can someone help me? VoxFugit (talk) 11:30, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello VoxFugit and welcome to Wikipedia. There have been previous debates about the use of mugshots and we have a policy on that stated at WP:MUGSHOT. I don't know which article you are referring to, as your account has no other edit except this one at the Teahouse. Assuming the person has indeed been convicted, a mugshot may be a valid addition but you would have to show that it was not covered by copyright (or had an appropriate license for use on Wikipedia) in the jurisdiction where it was taken. What makes you think that this is the case? (In the USA, mugshots taken by government officials are public domain but that may not be the case elsewhere) Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:50, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

I think that is only federal mugshots, states may be different. 331dot (talk) 13:23, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

I am reasonably certain that states cannot legally copyright mugshots; mugshots are posted in public places to alert the public of the likenesses of convicts and suspects. Mugshots are taken usually when a suspect is taken into custody or when incarcerated. I'm sure that other users are able to clarify this. 69.112.128.218 (talk) 11:47, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

You are incorrect, IP editor. It depends on the laws of each of the 50 states. Things posted in public places are quite often copyrighted. Some states copyright mug shots and other states release them into the public domain. It varies. Cullen328 (talk) 15:13, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Which states are those, specifically, that issue copyrights on public records? Mugshots taken by police, and by jail and prison officials would naturally be of public record - normally public record is exempt from any copyright protection. True? 69.112.128.218 (talk) 15:26, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Incorrect. Please see Copyright status of works by subnational governments of the United States. Cullen328 (talk) 15:33, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll look that one up too. Just adding to the above (trying to answer my own question), I did find information online with a list of states and their respective policies on 'mugshots'. Not even one refer to any copyrights. Almost all of them refer to either "public record" or "freedom of information" (or something related) and the rest (a minority) are either blank or non-committal on this. A few of the states have policies on restricting the release of photos, but again, none list these photos as either private or copyrighted. You did say that some states copyright these photos. If you can specifically show a state that copyrights these photos, that would be very helpful. Here is the link: https://www.rcfp.org/open-government-sections/11-mugshots/ 69.112.128.218 (talk) 15:42, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Mugshots are not always considered public records. It depends on the state. 331dot (talk) 15:31, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Note also that some states have special rules to control online use of mug shots. Those rules mostly target scammy 'background check' sites, but may apply to us in some circumstances. MrOllie (talk) 15:40, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I saw that. Good point. I would say that Wikipedia would, instead of trying to bill a person in order to remove a photo, just remove a photo without any issues. This refers to sites that charge people a fee to take mug shot photos off their webpages. 69.112.128.218 (talk) 17:02, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

• One general thing to note about U.S. copyright law. The biggest change to U.S. copyright law came in the Copyright Act of 1976, which was a MAJOR overhaul of prior laws, but the biggest change was that it turned the application of copyright from an active process to a passive one. Prior to 1976, copyright had to be claimed by the use of a copyright notice placed on the work in question. After 1976, the use of the notice became optional, and copyright is now presumed to exist as soon as the work exists in a tangible form. Which is to say, by the text of the law itself, copyright exists on "original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device". Under current law, works only enter the public domain under two conditions 1) the copyright protection expires or 2) the holder of the copyright expressly states that they release the work to the public domain. The only reason why U.S. Federal Government work is in the public domain is that the U.S. Federal Government has expressly done just that; they have passed laws that state that work created by the Federal Government is in the public domain. They don't have to do so; they could repeal that permission at any time, and any future works would be covered by copyright. The individual subnational governments, whether they be states, counties, municipalities, HOAs, whatever, are not governed by that situation; they get to decide for themselves how to handle the copyrights they own. And here's the deal, even if they have made no statement on the matter, the default assumption is that the work is under copyright. This applies to mugshots as to any work created by such governments or their agencies. You can't go by a lack of copyright statement on the matter, because a copyright statement is no longer necessary to claim copyright. Instead, you need to find express permission to use the work, either in the form of a public domain statement, OR in the form of a copyleft license which is compatible with Wikipedia's own license. --Jayron32 15:54, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

  Quite informative! I would like to know, then, if the above link to the 'rfcp' (reporter's committee for freedom of the press) website - is of value - in terms of Wikipedia's pervue. What would you say? They specifically have a verbose list, by state, most of which have legal references, of laws that describe public usage of mugshots; for example: Alabama - A mug shot in a police computer database is a public record. Op. Att'y Gen. Ala. No. 2004-108, 2004 Ala. AG LEXIS 35 (Apr. 1, 2004). Although there are a minority of states listed that are either ambiguous, or "silent" or the like on this topic, most of our states have similar listings (stating that mug shots are publicly available without restrictions & are public record). The rest have notes saying that the photos can be restricted for various reasons. Of those on this site, that advises reporters on whether a mug shot can be published, saying that the photos are public record, and including legal references and rationales, wouldn't that eliminate the stipulation on copyright being the default condition (in those particular cases)? Here is the link again (same as above). Every state has some kind of notation: https://www.rcfp.org/open-government-sections/11-mugshots/ 69.112.128.218 (talk) 16:56, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

  This is worth reading. Just because something is a "public record" does not guarantee that it is free of copyright. Cullen328 (talk) 17:07, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks for the link - does it not specifically refer to the State of California? Also the page that was linked to refers to an audio record of a voicemail left by a telephone call. That is quite useful, although, remain focused on mug shots, and what states besides California may (or may not) copyright those photos. As to whether the State of California copyrights their mug shots, there is a CPRA ('California Privacy Rights Act' which refers to privacy of a citizen, but not copyright of a photograph taken by public servants: California - Access appears to be discretionary. See Cal. Ops. Att’y Gen. 03-205 (2003)(sheriff has discretion to furnish copies of mug shots to public or media but once released a copy must be made available to all who make request). In California, law enforcement agencies routinely make mug shots available to the press. Indeed, in People v. McCloud, 146 Cal. App. 3d 180, 182, 194 Cal. Rptr. 75 (1983), the only published California case regarding mug shots, the court recognized that mug shots are routinely made available to the press and public and that this practice provides a variety of benefits to the public and the law enforcement system, as evident from the arrests at issue which “were brought about through the publication in a daily newspaper, of their mug shots taken after some earlier arrest.” The McCloud case does not discuss access to mug shots pursuant to the CPRA. It holds instead that mug shots are not part of the criminal summary history (“rap sheet”), which is a confidential record under Penal Code Section 13300. That might indicate that in California, there may be some doubt as to the privacy of the concerned individual, which is very important of course. 69.112.128.218 (talk) 17:28, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

  This is getting rather long and involved for the Teahouse. The folks at WP:MCQ might be able to explain more clearly the legal intersections between privacy concerns, public records, and copyright. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:42, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

  Here goes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#Mug_Shots_-_Which_States_Copyright_Them_(if_any) Thank you for that. 69.112.128.218 (talk) 18:18, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

How do I edit a submission that has already been submitted? Or unpublished Pages?

Title Nedstarkx (talk) 18:21, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

@Nedstarkx: Hello Ned! If you are referring to the draft you created, I hate to tell you this but, Wikipedia is not the place to advertise your Discord server. There are other places better suited for a task like that, but unfortunately Wikipedia isn't one of them. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:26, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

@Blaze Wolf: No you don't hate to tell him. ;-) TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:41, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

You're right. I don't. I'm just phrasing it that way so it sounds like I"m trying to be nice instead of just being like "We don't accept promotion. Go elsewhere." ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:44, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Changed name and now messages are going to my redirect talk page

I changed my name and got a message on my old talk page here [[1]] is there a way to keep this from happening so I can continue getting my messages for activities before the name change? Immanuelle 💗 (please tag me) 02:11, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

hi Immanuelle and welcome to the teahouse! I've moved the discussion to your current talk page. it may be because the script Locomotive207 is using didn't detect that your username had changed and sent it to the old username's talk page. I believe it shouldn't happen anymore in the future unless you have multiple drafts under review. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 02:35, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

I do have multiple drafts under review so this will be a problem Immanuelle 💗 (please tag me) 02:44, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

@Melecie I edited all my pending drafts such as this one Draft:Himetataraisuzu-hime to inclue my new username in the template. Do you think that will be enough? Immanuelle 💗 (please tag me) 20:49, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Update I just got that draft in particular approved at Himetataraisuzu-hime and it went through, so it looks like it's working Immanuelle 💗 (please tag me) 19:37, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Kickstarter and other fundraising websites

Is there a guideline, policy, or essay that directly addresses the use of websites like Kickstarter? There are shortcuts for WP:TWITTER, WP:YOUTUBE, WP:IMDb, WP:FACEBOOK, etc. but I'm not seeing any guidelines, policies, or essays that explicitly mention Kickstarter or GoFundMe (i.e. WP:KICKSTARTER or WP:GOFUNDME). I would've expected them to be listed at WP:RSP or at least mentioned at WP:RS, WP:V, or WP:ELP. TipsyElephant (talk) 19:01, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I can't think of one. Off the top of my head, WP:PRIMARY and/or WP:SPS applies and existing doesn't mean should be included. I've mentioned kickstarter in a couple of articles, but sourced to independent RS. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:24, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

If you wanted to use the link as part of a citation, then perhaps this or (as pointed out above) this would apply. If you wanted to use the link as an external link, then perhaps this would apply. If you have a specific link and a specific use in mind, you can ask about it here or here. — Marchjuly (talk) 19:43, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, TipsyElephant. Here is my opinion. Those sites are crowdfunding sites, which are a subtype of crowdsourcing sites. The content is user generated and therefore fails the requirements of a reliable source. See WP:UGC for details. I suspect that they are not listed at WP:RSP is because it is rare that anyone would try to cite them. Cullen328 (talk) 19:44, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Editing an original stub created by another contributor

I am going to edit a stub that was created by someone else. There is an accurate sentence and I have written to the author. I will fine editing the chapters, but how can I correct the initial stub paragraph? Soquelrob (talk) 20:58, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Soquelrob, and welcome to the Teahouse. There is a gadget you can turn on in your preferences, which will give you an "edit" link in the lead section of an article. Alternatively, you can pick "Edit" at the top of the page to edit the whole page. Does that answer your question?

"There is an accurate sentence and I have written to the author" does not seem to make much sense: do you mean "an inaccurate sentence"? In any case, while it may be courteous to contact the original author, especially if it was recent, there is no requirement to do so: an article does not belong to the original editor, or to anybody else. ColinFine (talk) 21:28, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

CEDU

Over the last couple of weeks, a lot of information has been removed from the CEDU Wiki page. A lot of the information was sourced. There seems to be no rhyme or reason for what is removed and what is permitted to stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.2.15.157 (talk) 19:17, 2 May 2022 (UTC)  ―  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwerfjkl (talk • contribs) 20:51, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Qwerfjkl. Unless they are clearly Vandalism - which I would say they are not - then if you disagree, open a discussion with SkidMountTubularFrame on Talk:CEDU. See WP:BRD. --ColinFine (talk) 21:25, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I believe Qwerfjkl simply moved the IP's comment from where it had been (mis)posted on the talk page. The double signature is definitely confusing. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 21:37, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

conflicting sources

If there is an archived link that has one piece of information and a PDF link which has a different piece of information, which source should be used in an article? 73.167.238.120 (talk) 22:57, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi, IP user, and welcome to the Teahouse! The reliable sources guideline says "..some sources provide stronger or weaker support for a given statement. Editors must use their judgment to draw the line between usable and inappropriate sources for each statement." If one source seems far more reliable than another, that source could then be preferable (though the format alone of the source does not make it so). This essay section, while not outright policy, also suggests possible resolutions for such problems. Does this answer your question? Perfect4th (talk) 23:15, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Pretty much! What if the link is dead and only the archived link works? 73.167.238.120 (talk) 23:38, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Link rot gives some guidance for dealing with dead links. Cullen328 (talk) 23:41, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Her to hers

Can i give a permission to edit all the her pronoun to hers in possesive context? aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa (crying at the top of the lungs) 114.122.73.93 (talk) 15:45, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I don't understand why you would want to do that. Can you please give an example of where you think that might be appropriate? Shantavira|^{feed me} 16:23, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. You certainly don't have permission to edit all "her" to "hers", because in many contexts (whenever it precedes a noun phrase) that would not be grammatical. If there are particular uses of "her" that should be "hers" (because they are stand-alone noun phrases meaning "belonging to her"), then you can certainly correct them - you don't need permission. ColinFine (talk) 16:23, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, 114.122.73.93. I have looked at your previous edits to Wife, which Wesoree has, quite correctly, reverted (although I think their assessment of your edits as vandalism is probably an overstatement).

I suspect that you think you were correcting errors: you were not – the text was correct, and it appears that your grasp of formal English is less than perfect. I strongly suggest that you refrain from attempting "corrections" to grammar on the English Wikipedia until you have studied the language in a classroom setting for a few (more?) years. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.208.88.97 (talk) 17:09, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Sentences where "her" is correct are far more common than "hers" in English so if you don't know enough English grammar to choose then I suggest to pick "her" when you speak or write, and don't change what others have written. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:52, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Page about pedophile

How can you create a page about a convicted pedophile without violating "BLP"? --2A01:36D:1201:34D:61BC:45D9:2CEA:8AD5 (talk) 12:18, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Judiciously. Incidentally, you'll only be able to create an article (whatever the subject) while you're logged in. -- Hoary (talk) 12:55, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

You have to use WP:BLP good sources, nothing else. Don't write anything not clearly supported by your citations. Also, your sources have to meet the demands of WP:BASIC, preferably very clearly so. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:25, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Judging by your activity on Ingenuity's talk page, you are very keen on the idea. Do not think of writing a draft whose assertions rely on Twitter chitchat. -- Hoary (talk) 13:30, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

You have already had a draft Speedy deleted for insufficient referencing, and were warned. David notMD (talk) 13:52, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

"Insufficient referencing" may have been the reason specified, David notMD; but having seen the thing, I'd cite "juvenile inanity". It consisted of a single, short, and arguably defamatory sentence, repeated many times. -- Hoary (talk) 01:31, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello. I suggest you have a careful read of WP:RIGHTINGGREATWRONGS. ColinFine (talk) 15:25, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Copying tables from other articles to use as a template

I just wanted to ask if copying and using a table from another wikipedia page as a template is okay? Lightless1 (talk) 00:45, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Lightless1, and welcome to the Teahouse! I assume you mean you're trying to copy the formatting of a table to use in another article. That is perfectly fine! When you use it in your target page, you may want to use the Preview feature to ensure that nothing else from the original page snuck into your content, though. Happy editing! Perfect4th (talk) 00:50, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Great, thanks for the help! Lightless1 (talk) 00:53, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello @Lightless1! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. When you are copying any text from one area of Wikipedia to another, make sure to attribute the original page. Cheers! 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 03:47, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Weird table of contents on article way to small for a table ot contents

I ecently wrote this article Interfax-Religion and it displays a very strange table of contents. File:Interfax Religion Error.png how can we fix this? Why is it happening? Immanuelle 💗 (please tag me) 20:19, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm confused - it looks like an entirely normal table of contents to me. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 20:28, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Immanuelle, and welcome to the Teahouse. What are you expecting to see? The TOC contains all the section headings from the article, so I don't know what else you expect to see there. ColinFine (talk) 20:31, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Maybe they meant the word-wrapping that occurred when they used {{TOC left}}? But removing it has fixed that issue. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 20:36, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

idk what happened to this page, but that's right {{Ping|User:ColinFine}} the template made it wrap weirdly and removinf it fixed it Immanuelle 💗 (please tag me) 20:38, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

There were <nowiki> shenanigans. Hopefully they have been unshenaniganed. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 20:53, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

@Immanuelle: You translated ru:Интерфакс-Религия which uses the same template and displays in the same way. The code was simply copied during the translation. I don't know the practice of the Russian Wikipedia but the article has no reason to use the template in the English Wikipedia so you were right to remove it. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:44, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Immanuelle. When I look at the article on an Android smartphone using the fully functional desktop site, the Table of contents looks pretty normal to me. The only exception is that it displays to the left. Is that what you intended? Displaying the Table of contents to the right is by far the most common, at least on English Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 04:18, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Help!

Hello, Good morning/night. My name is Leonardinho and im done editing my sandbox, i would like to submit it for review and move pages (Change the title). Leonardinho Báez (talk) 06:14, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse! If you want to submit your article to Articles for Creation, there is a blue button on the top of your sandbox that you press which says "submit your article for review". Click it, and it will guide you through the process for you. Happy editing! HenryTemplo (talk) 07:08, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

hi Leonardinho Báez and welcome to the teahouse! I've added a template to your sandbox that will allow you to easily publish your draft by just pressing the button. however before you do, please take note of the notability guidelines for people: does de Marchena count as notable under one of these guidelines? once you do, please add reliable, independent sources stating such (not youtube, not facebook). happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 07:10, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

It's SOCCER.

Nobody calls it "association football". 2A01:36D:1201:34D:61BC:45D9:2CEA:8AD5 (talk) 07:36, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Mostly agree, except of course it's FOOTBALL. However, see "Frequently asked questions (FAQ)" near the top of Talk:Association football. If you're not on a laptop, you may have to tap something to see it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:09, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Most people call it football, except Americans who have a game I call handegg. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 08:11, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Agree it's mostly called football, and we shouldn't default to US terminology for the sport. However, many places on Wikipedia call it "association football" to distinguish it from other sports known as "football" in some countries e.g. American football, Australian rules football, Gaelic football. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:13, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

And IP user, please stop trying to remove all of List of association football competitions, and redirecting it to the non-existent page List of soccer competitions. You will get blocked if you continue. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:16, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

OLa

parabéns Pmpso (talk) 12:11, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

@Pmpso: Welcome to the Teahouse. Do you need help with editing Wikipedia? The Tips of Apmh 12:54, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Difference between incorporating dates of reprints and different editions of books?

Wikipedia:Citing sources#Dates and reprints of older publications....On this guideline site it states that reprints of older publications should include both the date of the original publication and any modern day reprint. But for a book that is a different edition in a series (meaning the text has been examined and significant alterations to the text have been made including adding/removing of information in light of up to date research), would it be necessary to include the date of the first edition? Thanks in advance. Kamhiri (talk) 12:17, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

If you're citing the 7th edition, published in 2020, of a statistics textbook, readers will infer that there were at least six earlier editions, will probably have no interest in this, and, if they are interested, can easily look up the earlier ones at WorldCat or similar. If it's a revised and slightly augmented edition of a book that argues for this or that (such as Pinker's The Blank Slate or Diamond's Guns, Germs and Steel) readers will of course need to know that it's the such-and-such edition (for the new page numbers, if nothing else), but would benefit from a subtle reminder that this is an update of an earlier book. If it's a corrected text of something regarded as literature (say, a "Library of America" reissue of an essay collection by Didion), then again, the subtle reminder. Are you finding inclusion of the additional year onerous, Kamhiri? (It shouldn't be.) -- Hoary (talk) 12:50, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

For this book, https://apnaorg.com/books/english/history-of-sikhs-v2/history-of-sikhs-v2.pdf. The first few pages state the preface to the first edition, the second edition, and the third edition. It started off as a PhD thesis for a prominent university scholar in 1937, the second edition in 1952 being a revised edition with many sections being added, some deleted, and clarifying statements and facts added. In 1978, the third edition having many changes added to it, including addition of information and deletion of other as well correction of mistakes and facts. So I'm wondering if the book is to be used, is it necessary to include the 1937 date as an original publication date? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamhiri (talk • contribs) 13:00, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I'd say no, Kamhiri. It is necessary to state that this is a 2007 reprint of the 3rd edition of 1978, and to do so in such a way that there's no risk of a misunderstanding that 1978 was when the 1st edition was published. If this were a 1980 reprint, I normally wouldn't bother mentioning that it was a reprint. (There are cases when I would, but I shan't bother going into them here.) But it's unlikely that a 29-years-later "reprint" is a reprint in the straightforward sense, and there could be differences in the content, page numbering or both of the 1978 and the 2007 books. -- Hoary (talk) 13:22, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Got it, thanks for your help Hoary!

• Hoary This is good discussion but question for you. Since majority of the content in 2nd and third edition still forwards from the 1st edition, so shouldn't original publication date be included in that case? Granted that some changes are added, removed and corrected but if we look at the majority, that should still be the same as the 1st edition, also especially if the pages in discussion were not part of the changes in 2nd or 3rd edition. So in this case, isn't it reasonable to add original publication date? What is your opinion on this? MehmoodS (talk) 14:26, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

No, there doesn't seem to me to be any obligation to say that the book dates back to 1952 (or earlier). Yes, it may be reasonable to say this. Kamhiri, MehmoodS, I notice that you have both been recently editing the article Battle of Lohgarh, and that this article is heavily dependent on this book. If you want/need to agree on how best in this article to refer to the 2007 version, then the best place to discuss the matter is Talk:Battle of Lohgarh. If the matter extends beyond this one article, then Talk:Battle of Lohgarh would still be a good place for discussion: the talk pages of other articles could point there. This place (the "teahouse") is not a good place, as material posted here is rapidly archived and then can't be added to. -- Hoary (talk) 00:50, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Kamhiri, MehmoodS, I have started the discussion on Talk:Battle of Lohgarh. -- Hoary (talk) 01:33, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

MehmoodS, no need to follow my edits around, and thanks Hoary, I think I will ask an experienced editor/admin later on and report back on the talk page. Kamhiri (talk) 12:41, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Hoary thank you for your suggestion and advise, well noted and helpful. Kamhiri please no need for such mistaken opinion. MehmoodS (talk) 13:48, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Level of information on a given wikipedia page

How can one settle an edit "argument" on the level of information that should be on a wikipedia page? Specifically for a school district. Delphinium1 (talk) 12:52, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Delphinium1. The answer is "by reaching consensus", not by appeal to authority, or some hypothetical "rule". See dispute resolution for the avaiable resources. ColinFine (talk) 13:21, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

And the answer also isn't edit-warring. Not a single established user has objected to my cleanup campaign of long-term abuse by Raindrop73; in fact several have thanked me for it. Raindrop73 added grotesquely inappropriate detail about Pennsylvania over a period of many years, especially to hundreds of public school districts in the state, making the articles ridiculously large compared to similar ones in other US states and around the world (see my above link). Wikipedia is not a place for information of hyperlocal and extreme fringe interest. Delphinium1, the only reason I'm not following up on my message on your talk page is your attempt to reach out to the community here. Also, you must declare any conflict of interest you have relating to this topic. Graham87 13:56, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't call the education of over a million students in PA a fringe interest. I removed nearly half of Raindrop73's edit information and this still isn't enough? Delphinium1 (talk) 14:34, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Also see this old help desk thread. Graham87 14:09, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I also looked at the revisions and the reversions, at the activity on the (Sayre Area School District) page. I found both versions to be fine. Still, in all, I feel that an encyclopedia is full of facts, that these facts are pedantic, and mostly of little interest to the majority of users. If anything, the more verbose version of the page is, in my view, MORE encyclopedic than the shorter version. These little, boring, and uninteresting facts that load an article up with a lot of verbiage are only of value to those who need them, and very occasionally. An encyclopedia is useful in that way, since the person who needs these little items of information is saved many hours of research, since those facts are gathered together in one place, having been put together by the author of the article. Of course, it would seem "unnecessary" to the casual reader. It is inherent in the composition of an encyclopedia that it contains boring facts. If this were an online pamphlet or an online magazine, such pedantic facts wouldn't belong here. Since this is an encyclopedia, I believe that too much summarization is less valuable than more verbosity. Most people, yes, do not need so many facts, but most people do not look up things in an encyclopedia on a regular basis. Additionally, the longer version of the article was very well composed and organized, and looks quite professional, impartial and uncontroversial. I hope this helps. 69.112.128.218 (talk) 14:36, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Reproducing - in detail - what a primary source (in this case, the Pennsylvania Department of Education) puts out isn't what any encyclopedia, much less Wikipedia, is for, IMHO. It's for collating what reliable secondary sources have decided is important and remarkable about the subject, and the words of these secondary sources are lost in that sea of primary material. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:46, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. I removed much of this material with my most recent edit. Delphinium1 (talk) 14:49, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

No one, till now, mentioned plagiarism. That definitely makes a difference. Plagiarised content would be wrong to include on any page. If the page was composed of plagiarised material from the department of education, then it should be revised. 69.112.128.218 (talk)

I wasn't implying that anything had been plagiarized - I have no idea, I haven't checked (and since this is all apparently US government-produced material and probably under a compatible license, it would only need to be attributed anyway). My point was more aimed at WP:TOOMUCH and WP:NOT. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 15:05, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

• I would say, try to settle the dispute on the article's talk page and try to reach consensus. If that doesn't help, then try to get 3rd opinion or go to dispute resolution link here. [2]. I believe there is also an option to involve admin if necessary. MehmoodS (talk) 14:34, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
• This is now at ANI. Please take any comments there. FWIW I didn't notice Delphinium1's 14:34 (UTC) comment until now. Graham87 20:15, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
  • The discussion at WP:ANI isn't about the original question, which was how to decide the level of detail in an article. Level of detail in an article is often a matter of dispute. The applicable policy, which is the second pillar of Wikipedia, is neutral point of view, but that doesn't answer how much information to provide. Similarly, the balance guideline and the due weight guideline expand on neutral point of view, and don't provide a clear statement as to what is too much detail. If there is disagreement, discuss on the article talk page, or ask for a Third Opinion, or for moderated discussion at the dispute resolution noticeboard. If those are inconclusive, a Request for Comments can be used. There is no single answer, and how much detail to include in an article is often argued about. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:02, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Set preferences or what for vertical quotes and apostrophes

Hi, I’ve just had a discussion at the Talk page of User:Cullen328’s essay on using smartphones for editing. I use an iPhone while Cullen328 uses Android and has no problem.The issue is: when i select the apostrophe or quote characters in editing, what i call slanted or curved versions of those get inserted. Same if i select for insertion the marks at bottom of my editing window. While Wikipedia needs vertical versions, which are what my editing on laptop delivers. Slanted versions are “ and ‘. So, for example if i type apostrophes to make bolding, what i get is ‘’’bolding?’’’ (which will not show as bolded). (I do know that for bolding i can highlight a phrase then select bolding icon. My point is I can’t type the symbols i and Wikipedia writing want.) I wonder: is there some way my user preferences could be changed so that the vertical versions of quote and apostrophe marks come out? Thanks, Doncram (talk) 21:08, 28 April 2022 (UTC) P.S. MOS:STRAIGHT and wp:APOSTROPHE say the straight versions should be used. Doncram (talk) 21:13, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

This is more of an iPhone question than a Wikipedia question. Does this link answer it? [3] CodeTalker (talk) 21:27, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi Doncram. This might be something worth asking about at WP:VPT, but it might turn out that there's nothing anyone can do on Wikipedia's end. I understand the "problem" you're experiencing, but perhaps it's not a major issue as long as it doesn't significantly affect how the text in question is being displayed in the article. These appear to be minor MOS issues that usually are going to eventually cleaned up by some bot or user who likes to look for such things; you can always go back "fix" things yourself (which is what I do) if you want. Some languages use full-width characters and perhaps there's something similar to that being done by Apple with respect to its iPhones because it seems to use smart quotes. If you Google this, you'll might find some information on this feature and whether it can be disabled (like this). Finally, although an excessive number of "full-width" or "smart" characters can sometimes be a indication of content being copied-and-pasted from external websites into Wikipedia articles, you should be OK as long as you're not doing anything like that. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:43, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

All fixed now, i think, thanks! Googling "how turn off smart quotes in iphone" gets me to this page which points me to turning off "smart punctuation" under my iPhone settings/keyboard options. Yay, i can bold and "straight-quote" and 'vertical apostrophize(?)'. Not sure what else is covered in "smart punctuation" that I'm losing, except i see there's something about dashes. Yeah, i bet typing two hyphens now (as here -- and here--here) they won't be converted to an em-dash or en-dash, and that's fine by me. Thanks! Doncram (talk) 22:16, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

1 for the phrase banish the curlies in that Bear doc! I've followed the advice and toggled the setting on my iPad. I prefer curly quotes in other contexts, but I do more WP editing on this device than other writing, so perhaps that trade-off will be worth it. (I tend to use the B I buttons where they are available because ''' is so hard to type. But the mobile source editor ...) My next decision will be what to do about spelling correction. @Doncram, do you have issues positioning the cursor next to a word that iOS (or maybe Safari) thinks is mis-spelled? ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 23:30, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "bear doc", o i c, the link i gave goes to bear.app something. But, yes, if i have something Safari in IOS thinks is misspelled, like when I tested selecting several accented letters like this: áÁãé, then i could get stuck in edit mode where it is absolutely insisting that I replace that. I could not go on with an edit, the only thing I could do would be to exit the edit, losing anything else i had already typed. User:Pelagic, is there any workaround for that which you can see or imagine? --Doncram (talk) 02:36, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Not that I can see, but it drives me nuts too, Doncram. Good to know I'm not the only one. If I find the magic combination of settings I'll let you know. I don't want to completely abandon spell check and/or autocomplete, but I imagine they could be involved. ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 15:22, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Just a question about spaces...

I noticed that while editing in the source editor it appears as if there is always at least two spaces in between any one sentence to the next. Is this real? Or am I imagining things, and I gather these spaces do not render when then published and viewed from the perspective of a reader, right? Is this just part of the coding for the encyclopedia? I sometimes remove these, but I'm beginning to think that they have no effect, and that they are automatically generated. So there is no point. As best I can tell. Thank you. ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 15:24, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

@Th78blue: I see them occasionally. They don't render when articles are being read, but some editors are used to leaving two spaces in-between sentences as style. I personally remove them as extraneous. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:36, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Got it. If that is all that it is, then I also would remove them when I see them as extraneous. Thank you. ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 15:42, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

As someone who learned to type when the dinosaurs were still around, I was taught that terminal punctuation must be followed by two spaces. Therefore, I wouldn't necessarily say it's erroneous, more an outdated convention, and I for one don't see the need to change it, especially as it makes no difference to page rendering. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:12, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Neither of us said that they were erroneous; only that they were redundant when it came to being rendered. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:16, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

We even have an article on the history of how this happened, Sentence_spacing. Unfortunately the article is exemplary in adopting a neutral point of view, so it's not going to tell you whether double spaces are good or bad. My take on it is that double spaces between sentences are a habit that some people were taught, particularly people with a slightly formal, old-fashioned secretarial training, but it's not very relevant in the modern world. I don't do it myself, but I certainly wouldn't actively remove it either, it's part of typography's rich pageant. Elemimele (talk) 16:19, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Fortaleza de Santa Teresa. I would love to know if the poem from Buenaventura Ureta is still there inside a cupula please

Buenaventura Ureta was my mom's grandfather and he wrote a poem and for what my mom remembered it was place inside a cupula by the Fortaleza de Santa Teresa. Babe2012 (talk) 07:14, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

hi Babe2012 and welcome to the teahouse' unfortunately this is not the place for such questions. the best way to answer this would probably to ask your mom if it's still there, or (if you can) head over there yourself. happy reading! 💜  melecie  talk - 07:20, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Fortaleza de Santa Teresa, in Uruguay, for the other insatiably curious folks out there. It seems like a place that might have a lot of cupolas to search. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:43, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

My Wikipedia Subpages

I have a question about the legitimacy of this deletion. So, I made custom Wikipedia Sandbox Pages (not an article that you can easily access), and the only way to access it was to search User:TatiVogue/. An administrator deleted it saying I was using "misinformation". It was not a real Wikipedia article, it was a user sandbox, AND I stated it was my custom season to improve my English & Wikipedia editing. Please tell me if this was legitimate or not. Also, excuse my English, because it is not my first language. TatiVogue (talk) 15:46, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

This seems to be in regards to Bbb23, whom I'll courtesy ping here. OP also seems to have created User talk:Bbb23/sandbox to leave a templated warning. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:55, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, TatiVogue. You were creating several hoax articles in your userspace. That is not permitted. Cullen328 (talk) 16:17, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

TatiVogue, you also forged another editor's signature in their userspace. That is outright disruptive and you need to stop this behavior. Cullen328 (talk) 16:20, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

When?? Also, how is it a hoax. I never passed it off as real, and I even stated it was fake. I was believing/tricking/manipulating anyone into believing it was real. Also, I just copied & pasted something. TatiVogue (talk) 16:21, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

No, you never stated it was fake. Never. casualdejekyll 16:23, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Do not engage in any further disruptive behavior. You have been warned. Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service for you to create hoax articles. Cullen328 (talk) 16:25, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

The thing is, it was my sandbox. You could've just warned me & told me to specify more clearly that it was not a real article! TatiVogue (talk) 16:26, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Oy user page, I said custom drag race season. Also, instead of immediately deleting it, you could just told me to better clarify that it was fake. Also, people can use common sense to decipher that it is fake. It's not a draft, not an official wikipedia article, and Tati Vogue appears as a guest judge. Tati Vogue isn't even a real person. TatiVogue (talk) 16:25, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

@TatiVogue: In this diff, where you used Bb223's signature rather than your own. I strongly recommend you slow down, as it seems you might not be here to contribute to an encyclopedia (particularly when one uses Wikipedia like a web host), which may end in your account being blocked. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:32, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Also, no tea no shade no pink lemonade but you're a grown adult and can't tell if an article is fake... As I said, no tea no shade but I did specify that it was FAKE & CUSTOM on my user page. I worked a lot to experience myself with WikiText & be more familiar with editing, and for all my work just to be taken away without even a first warning to specify that it was fake more clearly is extremely irritating. This whole situation makes me want to quit Wikipedia, because I worked extremely hard on these articles, and even struggled HARDER than the average Wikipedia user because English isn't my first language, and I had to work extremely hard. TatiVogue (talk) 16:32, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

If you would like to have more experience with wiki markup, might I suggest you try out the interactive tutorial? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:46, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

You created nine sandbox pages that contained hoax articles (included seasons of RuPaul that have not yet occured). Hence the "Blatant hoax" reason for deleting. Does not matter that all this was in Sandbox, as everything at Wikipedia is public. It's why the button at the bottom is Publish rather than Save. David notMD (talk) 16:32, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Could you have just left on my talk page, "Hello, can you specify that these articles are NOT REAL." TatiVogue (talk) 16:33, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

TatiVogue, the answer is no. You are misusing Wikipedia as a free web host and that is contrary to policy. Please read WP:U5 and stop arguing. Cullen328 (talk) 16:42, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Also read WP:FAKEARTICLE. Cullen328 (talk) 16:47, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

If you want to create custom articles, may I recommend Fandom? You can start your own Wiki there and not worry about Wikipedia's rules. HenryTemplo (talk) 16:48, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Although Fandom does have some rules about the content that can be in any Wiki, although they aren't nearly as strict as Wikipedia's ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:50, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Also, @TatiVogue, your work isn't permanently "lost". While it won't be allowed on Wikipedia publicly (for the reasons stated by other uses above) , administrators should have access to your deleted sandbox pages. Some of them are even willing to provide you with a copy, just ask nicely and you might be in luck! HenryTemplo (talk) 17:04, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. TatiVogue (talk) 17:17, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Your welcome! I hope you continue to make productive edits to Wikipedia, and help contribute in the ways you can! Enjoy your day! HenryTemplo (talk) 17:21, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Alternatively, there's also Miraheze that offers similar freedoms. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:02, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

I was once a fandom user in 2019, but I was a lot more immature back then seeing as I had just turned 13. I'm sorry if I came across rude/immature, and I'm sorry that I didn't fully read the rules. I'll keep this in my brain next time I continue to edit Wikipedia. Thank you TatiVogue (talk) 17:37, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

How to ask a question in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Elections?

How would I raise a question in Wikpedia:WikiProject_Elections? The question- which I mistakenly raised here- can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_1150#UK_By-Elections_link_to_last. Thanks 18egr (talk) 18:51, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

@18egr: You can simply ask the same question at the Wikiproject's talk page at WT:WikiProject Elections and Referendums ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:59, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks very much! 18egr (talk) 19:01, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Help me do Clean up

Please i need Help for page clean up Rashida Bello and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:First_Ladies_of_Nigerian_state_governors Dorathy Nnaji (talk) 18:17, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, @Dorathy Nnaji: Are you looking for help on generally improving the article, or are there specific "clean up" edits you need help making? Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 19:43, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

How do I edit the place of death on the panel on right side of page?

The place of death in the panel on the right of the page of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir_Robert_Mackenzie,_10th_Baronet needs to be changed to London, England. GGraver (talk) 16:31, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

The text of the article - Personal life - states he died in London, but there is no reference for that. Provide a ref for place of death first, and then change place in the Infobox. David notMD (talk) 16:35, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

@David notMD: I would like to note that the reference stating he died in London might be in there, however there's only 1 inline citation in the entire article making it unclear what reference is supporting what claim. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:37, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

@Blaze Wolf and GGraver: After taking a look at the article and using the "Find" section of my browser, it's not the inline source that's cited, it's this one [4], which is the third source linked in the sources section. Clovermoss (talk) 16:52, 4 May 2022 (UTC); edited for clarification

@Clovermoss: I figured it wouldn't be the single source that is cited. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:31, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

I took a look at that article, and it's been lacking inline citations pretty much since it was created (although it was unsourced when it was created the first source was added in 2007 and it just happened to be the source for his death). Might need checking to see if the person is actually notable by modern standards. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:41, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Ouch, if asking a simple question resulted in an AfD nomination. David notMD (talk) 17:52, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

It's not necessarily the user's fault if that happens. They just happened to come across an article with an inaccuracy, which more experienced editors fixed (me after we found out what source supported the claim) as well as other issues. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:54, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

@Blaze Wolf and David notMD: The lede mentions that he was a Premier of Queensland. From my understanding of WP:NPOL, he'd likely meet it. Clovermoss (talk) 18:08, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello

Many thanks for correcting place of death. The death was reported in The Scotsman - Monday 22 September 1873, p 8 as well as the Pall Mall Gazette - Wednesday 24 September 1873, p 4. He also has an entry in the Australian Dictionary of Biography although I have also contacted them to correct his place of death from Scotland to London.

Regards GGraver (talk) 18:52, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

He's in the ODNB, he's surely fine by current notability standards. I haven't gone looking for other WP:SIGCOV but I'd be really surprised to learn it couldn't be found. -- asilvering (talk) 20:57, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

why are editors like PKT who have conflict of interest in durham allowed to remove a report i sourced well?

it seems editor PKT has a conflict of interest removing anything negative about durham region, i live out here and there is a homeless crisis like no other BigCdogWS (talk) 15:05, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

@BigCdogWS: Hello BigCdog! While i can't say anything about the editor (PKT pinging so hopefully they can provide us with a bit more of an explanation), I can tell you that while you may live there, your own knowledge of the region cannot be included in the article as it is considered original research which is not permitted in articles. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:09, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

I reverted some bad editing with inadequate references. Details were left on BigCdogWS's talk page, and of course their edits are in the history of Regional Municipality of Durham. Specifically regarding the reference: BigCdogWS was referring to a committee report, but their reference was merely to "www.durham.ca", and not to the committee's report. This made the text impossible to check into. PKT(alk) 15:20, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

By the way, if I could verify information from the committee report, I'll be happy to help shape the referencing and language of the text into something acceptable to Wikipedia standards. PKT(alk) 15:26, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

that is a bold faced obfuscation of truth!...durham region website www.durham.ca is where you can access the advisory committee minutes, you are a hired shill by durham region is my thoughts BigCdogWS (talk) 15:28, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

@BigCdogWS: We need to keep this topic on the content and not on the user aspirations especially without any sort of evidence as per our no personal attacks, PKT has given a valid reason for their removal of your edit. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 15:31, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

@BigCdogWS: Please refrain from the personal attacks, and understand that Wikipedia cites the closest webpage for verifiability. The Durham homepage is inadequate for citing purposes, so actually pointing to the minutes would be helpful. Furthermore, your edit was not in a neutral tone, and I would've reverted it on sight as well. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:33, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

thanks to you the fake news keeps coming, you are shameful BigCdogWS (talk) 15:36, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

@BigCdogWS: I will thank you to strike that personal attack, as it is becoming increasingly apparent that you may not be a good fit for a collaborative project. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:50, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

@BigC: If you do not know how to strike a comment we would be willing to assist you with learning how to do so. All you have to do is ask. --ARoseWolf 15:56, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

i agree as i lost my cool....i am going to become a editor as i see so much fake news on wikipedia pushing "agendas" without proper references....this may work out well, what is good for the goose is good for the gander lol....i will try to relax, i agree i let things get to me at times as a person with disability...furthermore as a person with disability i notice human rights violations on this site i am now addressing BigCdogWS (talk) 16:39, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Before you get too deep into addressing any human rights violations, you might want to take a quick look at WP:No legal threats. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:47, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

you can easily go to wwww.durham.ca and access the advisory committee on homelessness minutes to see what i am saying is correct, our state funded news like cbc has been hiding the crisis in durham that is the worst in canada...if all we write are positive lies our readers will fall victim to the reality that durham region is unsafe due to homelessness fostering hard crime....even oshawa police chief martin was entangled in corruption with criminal chair john henry...i live here, i know what is going on!!...i sourced things correctly, wikipedia should ban PKT from further edits BigCdogWS (talk) 15:34, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

@BigCdogWS: Once again, you did not source correctly; please provide a link directly to the minutes, and absorb WP:NPOV. Otherwise, please discuss on the article's talk page. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:35, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

BigC - It is 100% on you to provide a reference that links to the advisory committee report/minutes on homelessness. David notMD (talk) 15:36, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

What I would suggest is that BigCdogWS go to the article talk page and begin discussions with @PKT because the only way this is going to be resolved is through good faith collaborative efforts. I would also like to remind @BigCdog that WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA is a thing. Lets avoid casting aspersions when discussing. --ARoseWolf 15:45, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Are these the minutes? In which case they do not support the assertion made  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   15:44, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

I believe that those just describe what happened at the meeting, and that BigC is referring to a specific report on Homelessness. However, I've been looking on the Durham website for the past ten or so minutes and haven't found anything yet. ― Tuna 15:46, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

as a person with disability i have serious human rights law concerns with this site and the "agendas" being pushed like attacks on good places like russia without proof other than state funded media theories from government paid shills like cbc...i have a degree in political science from sir wilfred grenfell, i am going to be become a editor too and start challenging references myself....if you can't beat them join them lol BigCdogWS (talk) 16:44, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

@BigCdogWS, you're trying to provide references in good faith, but you haven't quite worked out our standards yet. Are you willing to work with us on your talk page to figure out how to do this right? 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:51, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

https://www.durham.ca/en/doing-business/durham-advisory-committee-on-homelessness.aspx#Mandate is a link to the Committee, with links within that to minutes of recent meetings. A statement about the state of homelessness in Durham can be made as long as it is verified by a link to minutes of a meeting. Unfortunately, the published minutes do not include attachments, which could be such a report. David notMD (talk) 15:46, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the ultimate result was a block. Reka Szekely does seem to be a journalist who's published on poverty issues in the area, if anyone wants to look further into incorporating something into the article. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:28, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

We tried. David notMD (talk) 22:23, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Three Questions re. Citations

May I ask,

1. What are the most important factors regarding the provenance of sources used as citations?
2. Is it good practice to use multiple cited sources that help to evidence a statement? Such as: He played basketball for major teams in Canada.^[1][2]
3. It seems that articles from established newspapers favourable to Wikipedia are often behind a pay wall, how does this affect the perceived quality of an article's references and the article as a whole?

Thanks,

WikiArticleCheck (talk) 20:26, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

WikiArticleCheck Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Sources must be reliable sources with a reputation of fact checking and editorial control. This usually excludes things like some blogs. The number of sources needed for a particular statement can vary depending on how controversial it might be; something fairly non-controversial like someone playing for a sports team probably does not need many sources. A paywall is not a barrier to using a source, see WP:PAYWALL. Sources do not need to be free or easy to access, as long as they are available to the public(such as something in a non-online archive in a library). 331dot (talk) 20:31, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your fast response - it is greatly appreciated. WikiArticleCheck (talk) 00:12, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

@WikiArticleCheck It's also worth having a look at WP:RSP if you're feeling uncertain about how to evaluate sources, especially newspaper sources, which come up pretty frequently and often have an existing consensus on whether they are "reliable" or not that you can find on that page. -- asilvering (talk) 20:55, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for this WikiArticleCheck (talk) 00:13, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Image uploading criteria clarification for copyrighted material

Hey all,

So, I'm trying to (hopefully) write some articles on a series of films from a distribution company that has some of it's films on Wikipedia and some not. I'm not being paid for them or anything - I just figured it would be a pretty "simple" jumping off point for article writing and well, who doesn't like to check out a new film. I mention all of this just to make it clear I'm not trying to upload my Cousin Johnny's indie camcorder film or anything.

That being said I was wondering how uploading the image for the page's Infobox [which seems to near universally be the theatrical poster for the film] works in terms of Wikipedia's rules for image uploading. It appears pretty stringent that if an image has copyright belonging to another person/entity it cannot be uploaded, but at the same time it's hard for me to imagine that the only way to get a poster image uploaded would be to ring up the production company or whatever and ask them to pretty please upload it themselves.

Am I just missing something in terms of the rules that permits these types of uploads? Or how does this normally occur? I've been stupid in the past, so I may be missing something obvious.

Thanks!

P.S. Do drafts save automatically or should I be "publishing" them and just hoping they don't get instantly deleted while they're still a WIP? Sweating a bit over here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A MINOTAUR (talk • contribs) 01:53, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

-A MINOTAUR A MINOTAUR (talk) 01:27, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

@A MINOTAUR, they do not save automatically, definitely hit that "Publish" button. It doesn't push an article to main space, it's just a signal that what you 'post' will be public and visible. Also, BTW, saving a copy of your work in a handy Word/text/etc. document on your device is a good idea. 97.126.106.3 (talk) 02:01, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Gotcha. Thank you! Definitely saved me from a tough situation down the road.

I've been spoiled by that sweet sweet google docs feature I suppose. A MINOTAUR (talk) 02:04, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

@A MINOTAUR, to answer your second question, I'm going to point you toward Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images. If you have some time, you may want to read up on fair use, you'll come across it a lot in regards to copyright issues here. Oh, and welcome to the Teahouse! 97.126.106.3 (talk) 02:23, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Ah I see! Yes thank you, I believe that covers it and makes a lot more sense. I appreciate the link. Wikipedia has so many (often rather dense, if you don't mind me saying) introductory pages it can sometimes be tricky to find what you're looking for.

But - I'm glad I've got the Teahouse to rely on. Have a good one! A MINOTAUR (talk) 02:28, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

A MINOTAUR, it can be difficult sometimes to find what you're looking for. I'll drop a welcome on your talk page with some links you'll hopefully find useful. Happy editing! Perfect4th (talk) 02:46, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

A MINOTAUR, to simplify a bit, there are two kinds of images used on Wikipedia. The first type are freely licensed, or copyright free, either because the copyright has expired, or they are in the public domain by law. This includes images created by employees of the U.S. federal government performing their job duties. These images can be used anywhere by anyone for any purposes with the only restriction being attribution in some cases.

The second type are non-free images used in a single article with stringent restrictions, as pointed out above by the IP editor. This type of usage must comply with every aspect of the policy.

Quite concerning is User:A MINOTAUR/sandbox. What the heck are you doing there? That behavior is inappropriate. Cullen328 (talk) 03:49, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Oh? I thought the purpose of the sandbox was to play around in the editor to get the feeling for everything.

Regardless, thanks for the other tips A MINOTAUR (talk) 04:07, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi A MINOTAUR. The "freely licensed images" Cullen328 described above can also include copyrighted images which have been released by their copyright holders under certain types of free licenses that the Wikipedia Foundtion accepts. You can find a little more about this here and here. Creators of copyright protectable works can versions of their work under certain types of copyright licenses that make it easy for others to use, but also allows the creator to retain copyright ownerships over it. This might sound odd in a sense, but it's basically what you, me and everyone else is doing every time we edit Wikipedia and click the "Publish changes" button. We still retain copyright over the content of edits, but are just agreeing to release in under a license that makes it easier for others to reuse in some way. So, if you can find images online that have been released by their copyright holders under an acceptable, then those should be OK to upload and use. Sometimes, however, people will try and claim copyright ownership over public domain works or copyrighted works created by others; therefore, it can be tricky to figure things out. If you've not sure about an image, it usually a good idea to ask for assistance at WP:MCQ or c:COM:VPC, and someone will try and help sort things out. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:28, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

How can i get a pages quality changed

Hi there i have put some work into the page Breviceps fuscus and believe it is now a C class article on the quality scale as it has a similar layout Adelophryne maranguapensis and some other articles which are C-class do you believe that Breviceps fuscus is of c class quality and if it is how can i get it changed to c class Massimo510 (talk) 07:39, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

@Massimo510 Until you get into GA/FA territory, these quality marks are informal and anyone is allowed to change them, but changes should of course follow the linked quality scales. So you can do it yourself, or try asking at the talkpage of one of the wikiprojects mentioned on the article talkpage. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:24, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Appears you decided to upgrade from Start to C-class. David notMD (talk) 11:29, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Possible copyright infringement: You uploaded an image of the frog https://greensavers.sapo.pt/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/sapo.jpg from Green Savers on 26 February. How is that not a copyright infringement? At Wikimedia Commons there are four images of Breviceps fuscus, including the one you used, and the other three have been nominated for deletion on 4 May 2022. David notMD (talk) 11:39, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

And now, this one has been nominated, too. David notMD (talk) 13:49, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

@Massimo510 Did you steal screenshot of all the images you uploaded to Wikimedia and claimed were under a CC-BY-SA licence? I have nominated others for deletion. Please don't do that again unless you are clear the image has been properly licenced, or if you took it yourself, of course. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:50, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Oh Gosh im so sorry about this i uploaded those images a while ago before i knew much about copyright and probably should have checked or deleted them — Preceding unsigned comment added by Massimo510 (talk • contribs) 05:53, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

sources are fake?

so social media and google and a physical storefront are not credible sources now, not even 9 news and local newspapers.for a website known for being false information these rules seem to just be hate to people trying to present real news. can someone tell me what a real source is? i made an article and cited everything from world news, local papers, google and social media sites. WTF? Saintmythi (talk) 01:51, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Saintmythi, and welcome to the Teahouse! I assume you're talking about Draft:Pawnman. Have you read Wikipedia's guideline on reliable sources? It explains what a source is and what makes it reliable; this part explains Wikipedia's stance on social media sites. I hope this helps! Perfect4th (talk) 02:11, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

After the first declined you did very little before resubmitting, so no surprise that it was declined again. David notMD (talk) 03:28, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Hyperlinks are not allowed in the text of an article and you have no references. For biography of a living person, all factual statements must be verified by reliable source references. David notMD (talk) 03:35, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

@Saintmythi You haven't cited anything (correctly). If you want to make edits to WP that "sticks", you have learn how to use references here, see WP:TUTORIAL about referencing and more. See also WP:BASIC, if you don't have the sources demanded there, the article will not be accepted. And since you're writing a WP:BLP, read that carefully too.

Trying to create an acceptable WP-article without any WP-editing experience is hard but maybe possible if good sources exist. If you are writing about yourself, see Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. WP is not your social media, and "real news" is not exactly what this place is about. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:32, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

New Article

Am Snash a YouTuber from Tanzania i need to write my article ,but i don't how to get an article a published one. Snashtz (talk) 12:33, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Snashtz, you created User:Snashtz/sandbox, in which you advertised your own skills, achievements, popularity, etc. Please find some other website for your PR efforts. Wikipedia is not for this purpose. -- Hoary (talk) 13:19, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

You're not supposed to create your own article based on WP:NPOV, WP:What Wikipedia is not, and a few others. You can ask users to create your article at requested biographies. However, an article needs to be supported by reliable sources, and there may not be any on you. Also, users aren't required to slave away creating an article for you.

Asparagusus (talk) 14:03, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Hirtle chart

Hi, we seems to have an article which is not really an article. Should I ask its author first, move it to the project namespace and tag the redirect for deletion, take it to AfD or... ? NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 17:02, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm no expert, but the page appears to be a redirect to Commons, I would leave it as is. More experienced editors, let me know if I'm wrong! HenryTemplo (talk) 17:24, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

One of only 12 (that are in the hidden category and excluding the 2 shorthand redirects which I'm fairly sure would go to commons anyways) ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:28, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Never seen that before. Could be considered helpful, but I wonder "should we do that?" Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:09, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

The page in question is a soft redirect, in this case to Wikimedia Commons. Although not often used, they are usually helpful. In this case, we don't (yet) have an article on "Hirtle chart" but do have the chart as a .pdf on Commons: it helps readers determine when US media enters the public domain. Soft redirects don't take readers directly to the target page but allow them to click through there if they want to after reading the brief description. So, bottom line, NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh is that you should do nothing. Such redirects are cheap to create and useful. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:40, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Overly aggressive deleting?

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

---

Over a period of 2012-18 an editor initially editing as IP 50.29.183.144 and later as Raindrop73, added literally millions of bytes of information to hundreds of school and school district articles - mostly in Pennsylvania - with references. Raindrop73 stopped editing in 2018. Over a period of March-April 2022, Graham87 (an Administator) went to every one of these articles and deleted roughly 90% of the content and references, leaving as an Edit summary "make proper school district article after extreme and sustained disruptin by IP user who became Raindrop73". An example is North Pocono School District. To me, this feels arbitrary. Should one person - Administrator or not - be empowered to radically shorten articles that were in existance for years, based on their own concept of what a school article should be? David notMD (talk) 11:22, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Ask WP:WikiProject Schools for input? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:43, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Will do, mentioning that also asked at Teahouse. David notMD (talk) 11:50, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

This strikes me as an odd place for this thread (perhaps a village pump would be better). In any case, I'm certainly not the only person who's had issues with articles created by Raindrop73. Most prominently, and I know This is hard to prove after the fact, about 40–50% of articles in the category for Wikipedia articles that are excessively detailed from October 2021 were there due to additions by ChillyBlanket and others (example). I began dealing with Raindrop73's edits in January and took a break in February to do some link-fixing on Australian government websites. No established users have brought up any issues with my editing of these pages until recently. Also see this thread. Graham87 12:29, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

It looks like several years went by between when Raindrop73 stopped editing and when Graham87 started reverting, so there wasn't an opportunity for discussion of the reverts with the original editor. Personally I think that 80-90% of that information is unencyclopedic and extraneous, which makes it hard to find the relevant bits, but that's not a huge deal compared to some of Wikipedia's other problems. Also I don't blame anyone for not wanting to spend a bunch of time combing through all that info and paring it down. 97.126.106.3 (talk) 12:35, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

 Note: This is a matter being discussed at the ANI. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 12:51, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Indeed; it's linked from the above thread, which is why I didn't add a link here. Yes, a lot of the text I removed was copy-and-paste boilerplate (especially the sections about 2013 academic scores). Before I started taking this on as an ongoing project, I did check a few of the largest school districts in the United States by enrollment to find out what was de rigueur in these articles (knowing that there'd naturally be a lot more encyclopedic to say about big cities than rural areas). The Los Angeles Unified School District article is probably a touch too detailed and I removed some text from it that was added by an IP as recentism. I won't lose sleep if an established editor can come up with a good reason for restoring this text, but no-one has done so in the past three months or so. Graham87 12:59, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

(This is the same person as the IP above) I guess it comes down to two questions: Did the additions improve Wikipedia? Did they harm Wikipedia? IMHO, the answers are "no" and "eh". I did find a somewhat worrying BLP issue in the Sayre article, but it's the sort of thing you could probably expect to creep into any low traffic, lightly monitored article about populated areas. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 13:22, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

To answer David directly, I believe, based on the spirit of the libre mission of Wikipedia, that an administrator has no more and no less power to edit an article than a regular editor except if an article is protected where only an admin can make edits to it. These are exceptionally rare cases. I won't rehash anything said at AN/I or at any talk page discussion, only answer David's question directly. I maintain that the highest position on the encyclopedia is editor. If an editor is in good standing and their edits are in good faith then they are part of the community and the community IS the highest governing body on this version of the encyclopedia. All other positions, from administrator to bureaucrat to arbitrator, are under the community even as they are entrusted with tools not given to the average editor. Those tools should never be used to cause injury to an editor acting in good faith as a member of the community. I don't find anything striking about Graham87 editing these articles in a bold manner. We all edit based on our perception. Once something is disputed, however, then the offending (not meant in a negative way, only that they are the ones adding or removing) editor, no other position matters in this case, should seek consensus to either add disputed information back or keep disputed information deleted depending on which applies. An admin is still an editor and still part of the community and receives no extra benefits which precludes them from having to follow the same policies, in those regards, as any other member of the community. In fact, if anything, they have more responsibility to be extra cautious as they have the added trust of the community and that trust is not to be taken lightly. In short, admins do not govern, they serve. The community, by consensus, governs. --ARoseWolf 13:53, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Extensive discussion at at the ANI, so I see no need for additional separate discussion here, other to say that my initial concern was that Raindrop73 was an editor who appeared to be contributing in good faith, and Graham87 - acting as an editor, not an Administrator - made deletions apparently based on a personal decision on what belongs or does not belong in a school-related article. The ANI discussion evolved into issues about blocking, which I consider as separate from my initial concern, and (hopefully) resolved there. David notMD (talk) 13:59, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

At Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools the response was that over-detailing and over-referencing at school articles not unique to Raindrop73. David notMD (talk) 14:03, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Fancruft gets everywhere. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:23, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

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

Help with requesting a splitting

Hi, I am trying to request a split for Aunt Jemima and I would just like to know if I used the right template in the talk page. Please let me know if I need to fix it and if I need to use another template thank you. BigRed606 (talk) 15:46, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi, BigRed606! Looking over the splitting procedure, it looks like the talk page template was done correctly, although you might specify which sections you're referring to when you say "Pearl Milling Company", since none of the sections in the article have that exact title. You can also complete step two of WP:PROSPLIT by adding the {{split}} template to the article. Happy editing! Perfect4th (talk) 17:31, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Wiktionary Teahouse

Is there a Wiktionary Teahouse? I know this is not wiktionary, and I apologize in advance if this is the wrong place to ask (which I know it is), but hoping someone might know and be able to help. I predominantly edit wikipedia, but I wanted to start on some basic stuff on wiktionary as well. Thanks you.

P.S.

If someone can help directly (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User_talk:Th78blue) I am trying to build a redirect (like I have for my wikipedia user page to my talk page) of my wiktionary user page to the "Discussion" page next to it (they seem to be called "Discussion" pages on wiktionary). Thanks again. ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 18:08, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Th78blue, they have a tea room, but your question seems more suited to their information desk. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:19, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 18:21, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Posting first new page

I could use a little help creating my first Wikipedia page.

I have been writing and editing a page called, Leona's Sister Gerri in Sandbox. I would like to move the page from Sandbox to a regular Wiki page. I understand that this will take a while for the page to be reviewed and hopefully approved.

After I made revisions to the page, I tapped the "publish" button.

Is that all I need to do, or is there another step?

In order to get the page up and running as quickly as possible, I would like to submit the page now although I would still like to make revisions and additions of new material.

Does my making revisions put the process of approval back, or can they happen simultaneously? FilmFiend (talk) 15:44, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, FilmFiend. You have not yet submitted Draft:Leona's Sister Gerri for review, and I strongly suggest that you wait a while and do more work on it first. You do not have any properly formatted references, but just a list of bare URLs at the end. Read Referencing for beginners and convert those URLs into properly formatted inline citations. Then, go to WP:AFC to learn how to submit the draft for review. Continuing work on a draft after submission should not have an effect on how long the review will take. Cullen328 (talk) 15:55, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

I have moved the content to Draft:Leona's Sister Gerri where you can continue to work on it. In due course , when it is properly sourced, you may submit it for review which, if successful, will publish the article to mainspace.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   15:48, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

I have to say, your article reads rather like a (favorable) magazine review--or perhaps even a promotional press release. I have nothing to do with deciding what Drafts pass muster, but from what I've seen, I think you'll need to edit out such phrases and expressions as:

• ... approaches one of the most divisive topics ...
• ... tells the dramatic story of ...
• Reprinted thousands of times ...
• ... this grisly photo ...
• ... pro-choice icon.
• Powerfully addressing issues of ...
• ... video is a moving portrait of ...

There are a bunch more wrapped in quotes; they might be all right if you properly attribute the quote, but right now, there is not a clue where the quote came from.

There are no sources, but lots of "External" links (a link to a Wikipedia article is not external) largely to things that would be meant to promote the film. One could suspect that your goal in this endeavor is not so much to improve Wikipedia as an information reference, but to "get the message out" in a timely way, given recent goings-on in the news. That's something for blogs or magazine articles, not for Wikipedia or for pretty much any other encyclopedia. Uporządnicki (talk) 16:16, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I'll work on the draft. FilmFiend (talk) 16:38, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

@FilmFiend, just a friendly nudge to check out WP:COI, as you will likely need to be very familiar with it if you are going edit articles which you have a Conflict of Interest in (although the best advice, generally, is don't edit with a COI!). HenryTemplo (talk) 17:31, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

FilmFiend, there's a copyright violation at the end of the opening (lead) section. If you want to quote material written by someone else, you must attribute it. I think the quoted material is from here, but it's behind a paywall so I can't check. Maproom (talk) 18:38, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I have generally rewritten the article to make it more suitable for Wiki. I have removed the quotation. FilmFiend (talk) 19:40, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

I just saw your User page. You say you are married to the film maker who made the film you're writing about, and you frankly acknowledge that you're trying to write about her career in general. Uporządnicki (talk) 09:54, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

That is correct. Trying to be transparent about it. There is suddenly, because of current events, a great deal of interest in the film Leona's Sister, Gerri. Many publications are discussing the circumstances of the picture that is at the core of this film (of an anonymous woman, dead from an illegal abortion, on a hotel room floor). There was no mention of the film or the director on Wikipedia. I honestly believe that there is sufficient evidence to show that this film deserves a place on Wikipedia (exensive critical discussion, awards, repeated screenings on PBS to huge national audiences, as well as the repeated republication of the photograph and display of the image). It seems like it's important to provide some basic information about the cast and crew of the film, links to some of the articles that have reviewed it, and generally provide the basis for anyone with an interest in the subject to do their own research. My first attempts at creating the page were poor and clearly didn't follow Wikipedia guidelines. I have completely rewritten the proposed page to try to bring it into compliance with Wiki standards. I have tried to be as neutral as possible, provide citations for important points, and generally give the reader the tools to further explore the subject. I look forward to any constructive comments, and certainly encourage others to add information and edit what's there. I think it's in good shape now, and I am almost ready to publish to mainspace. Ultimately, I am relying on the Wikipedia community to decide if this article has value and is acceptably written to be included. I am very appreciative to all who have offered constructive advice. FilmFiend (talk) 17:08, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

@FilmFiend, thank you very much for your transparency and willingness to work within our guidelines. I think folks are mainly concerned with you reading and heeding the restrictions around editing with a WP:COI. So far, I don't think you've violated those - I do notice you've been editing Alloy Orchestra, but as a former employee your contributions will be under less scrutiny, though be prepared for a possible challenge if your editing comes across promotionally; there are definitely a few issues with that article's structure at present, which I'll probably head over to correct now.

Incidentally, I'm a big silent film fan, I've probably heard and enjoyed more than one of your soundtracks over the years! 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:28, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks again. I have resisted editing the Alloy Orchestra page for years, even though it was filled with broken links (the Alloy website no longer exists and it now directs viewers to an Indonesian video game page), inaccuracies, and very little actual information about the groups work. Again, I've tried to be as neutral as possible, to include lots of verifiable information, and to provide copious citations. I would have preferred that someone else did this editing, but it wasn't happening. Please check it out and make any additions, subtractions or to ask me any questions. FilmFiend (talk) 17:37, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

If you want to be extra-transparent, @FilmFiend, perhaps you would like to try placing some COI templates and userboxes on the relevant pages. If your unsure how, I'll be happy to place them for you :). HenryTemplo (talk) 17:34, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi again, I don't know how to do that, but would like to. Your help would be greatly appreciated! FilmFiend (talk) 17:38, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

I actually started editing the Alloy page to follow Wikipedia's suggestion to make edits to existing pages as a way to learn how to work with Wiki in order to write a new page (Leona's Sister, Gerri). I started simply, but got lured into making substantial edits. FilmFiend (talk) 17:40, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Rightio, I'll get the templates placed. Do you want to place an userbox on your talk page? This one is the one you'll need, let me know if you have any problems. HenryTemplo (talk) 17:55, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Apologies, I meant place the userbox on your user page! HenryTemplo (talk) 17:56, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks again for all your (and others) help. It shouldn't be a surprise, but so far I've found Wikipedia community to be extremely helpful. I'm having a very positive experience and hope to learn more and get better at editing Wiki. FilmFiend (talk) 19:52, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary... but glossaries are fine?

Hello! So while I was handling some requests at WP:EFFPR, I came across a report for a user who tried to edit the article Glossary of cue sports terms. The article just seems to be a list of definitions of terms used in cue sports. The thing that confuses me is this seems to violate WP:NOTDICT as Wikipedia isn't a dictionary, but that article seems to basically be a dictionary for terms in cue sports. So what's so different about glossary articles that make it so they don't violate WP:NOTDICT? ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:37, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

@Blaze Wolf: See this note in WP:NOTDICT: "Some articles are encyclopedic glossaries on the jargon of an industry or field; such articles must be informative, not guiding in nature, because Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, or textbook." There is link to Wikipedia:Stand-alone_lists#Specialized_list_articles. RudolfRed (talk) 19:41, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

@RudolfRed: Ah thanks! I had looked at WP:NOTDICT earlier to see if it mentioned anything about glossaries but I must've just missed it. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:56, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

After cleanup, what next???????

I want to know whats left before Rashida Bello will be reviewed, some editors have contributed, any help whats left for me to do??? would appreciate. Dorathy Nnaji (talk) 18:37, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Dorathy Nnaji, it is already in article space. Sungodtemple (talk) 19:35, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

@Dorathy Nnaji You could add a |website=, |work=, or |publisher= parameter to each reference that doesn't already have one. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 20:31, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Only Talk page showing up on Google search

I recently created an article ("Carey R. Dunne") and now, when I search for it on Google using its title, the link that surfaces is the TALK page only. Same thing when I search using Wikipedia's search function. Can someone help me so that the Article, not the Talk page, is prioritized and shows up first? Thank you! Llmeyers (talk) 21:45, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

@Llmeyers: Welcome to the Teahouse. New pages aren't indexed by search engines like Google until a new pages patroller reviews it or 90 days have passed, whichever comes first. I didn't have any issues with getting to the article via Wikipedia's search bar. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:53, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Got it, thank you! For some reason I thought it had been reviewed by a patroller... Llmeyers (talk) 22:02, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

@Llmeyers: Not sure why that is happening to you, but when I search I get this Carey_R._Dunne RudolfRed (talk) 21:55, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks RudolfRed. It seems like others aren't seeing what I'm seeing. Will circle back... Llmeyers (talk) 22:03, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

In case anyone else has intel on this problem, please lmk! Llmeyers (talk) 22:10, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I thought that Talk pages were not indexed by search engines.?.? 73.127.147.187 (talk) 07:40, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I thought so too, but if you Google "Carey R Dunne", ONLY the Talk page shows up. Any help from an admin or patroller? Llmeyers (talk) 14:53, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Doesn't happen for me. Would you mind linking your search results Llmeyers? ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:55, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, here are the results -- https://www.google.com/search?q=carey r dunne wiki&oq=carey r &aqs=chrome.0.69i59l3j69i57j0i512j69i60l3.1165j0j9&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 Llmeyers (talk) 14:57, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Am I missing something? Llmeyers (talk) 14:58, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

@Llmeyers: As others have stated above it will take some time for the article to appear in a google search. As to why the talk page appears when you add "wiki" or "wikipedia" to the search result I'm not sure since talk pages shouldn't appear in search engines (unless it's on a wikipedia mirror). ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:59, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Okay, thanks Blaze Wolf. Kind of a mystery about the talk page. I guess I will wait a while and check back to see if the article, rather than the talk page, shows up. Llmeyers (talk) 15:01, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

In the article's "Options" section, I set it as "Default indexing" Llmeyers (talk) 14:59, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Huh? Articles don't have any options section... I'm confused as to what you mean. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:01, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

@Llmeyers, is "Options" from a gadget or add-in? 73.127.147.187 (talk) 03:40, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Not that I know of!! I click the three lines at top right --> categories, page settings, etc. Is that an add in? I didn't think so. Llmeyers (talk) 19:39, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

All the other pages I've edited have the same settings. I don't think it's a gadget or add-in issue. Why would it be showing up instead of the Article? Llmeyers (talk) 19:48, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Possibly the wrong venue for this. See WP:VPT for hopefully better explanation. Mathglot (talk) 22:33, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Moved to WP:VPT § Talk page appears in Google search results

Help with draft

I have been working on a draft for the past couple of months. The times it has been rejected, I've fixed the noted issues and republished it. However, I am not entirely sure if it is pending review. Would I be able to get some help with this problem? Bellamreeves (talk) 21:53, 5 May 2022 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:David_Schendel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bellamreeves (talk • contribs) 21:54, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

@Bellamreeves: Why did you delete the declined messages? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:58, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

If I did then it was most likely an accident on my behalf. Is that why it's not pending review? Bellamreeves (talk) 22:00, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

There's no {{subst:submit}} at the top of the page. Please restore the declined messages so reviewers can determine if the issues have been resolved. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:28, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Restored the two Declines, which provide a Submit button. David notMD (talk) 22:59, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Book Image Question

I recently asked a question here a few days ago about this but the post was archived and I had a follow up question.

The current main image on the Sapiens article is the Hebrew first edition cover. Would it be appropriate to either update the main image to the Harper Collins english first edition cover if it could be obtained and uploaded in the proper way, or if the Hebrew version is the best image for the article since it was the very first edition published, could the English first edition cover be added to the page? The English first edition is the image used by the author on his website and also the image most readers of the English Wikipedia page will be familiar with and be able to read the text on. There doesnt seem to be much guidance on this topic for books with multiple language first editions about which image is prefered for use with respect to the various language wikipedia pages. An image I mentioned in my post the other day has been nominated for deletion. File:Sapiens-uma-breve-historia-da-humanidade-livro-yuval-harari-320001-MLB20265211115 032015-O.jpg This image is not the official English first edition cover but it is being used on several other global wiki sites for the book image in other languages. Thanks! LightBulb22 (talk) 21:24, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't know of any specific guidance for this situation, but if you think it would be a better image, I would go for it. A quick search turns up WP:WikiProject Books/Images, if you're looking for information about how to put images of book covers on Wikipedia while complying with fair use guidelines. – Anon423 (talk) 00:09, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

References

I'm unable to adequately enter three references I have tried to provide. I've gone to the help page but everything I try does not work....I get this error code: Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).

Don't know what I'm doing wrong....jeff Mrjeffmcc (talk) 23:04, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

I have reformatted your question, Mrjeffmcc. When you start a reference with "<ref>", you must also end it with "</ref>". -- Hoary (talk) 23:07, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

And please don't do what I did once and leave off the closing </small> tag and shrink the whole Teahouse to miniature size. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 23:10, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry I did that, Pyrrho the Skipper. (But where?) -- Hoary (talk) 23:16, 5 May 2022 (UTC) Oh, you did that. OK. -- Hoary (talk) 23:17, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Mrjeffmcc, I notice that in Jeff McCracken (which I infer is your autobiography), you previously had <ref> [https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0566841/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1]. There are several things wrong with this:

• It should have had a matching </ref>
• It shouldn't have been a "bare URL".
• IMDb is not a reliable source.
• You shouldn't have been editing an article about yourself.

-- Hoary (talk) 23:16, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

As your talk page shows that you had previously been amply warned about your conduct in that article, and that you had been specifically warned against removing templates from it, and seeing that you had very recently again removed the COI flag from the article, I have blocked you from editing it. -- Hoary (talk) 23:34, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

@Mrjeffmcc, you're not blocked from using the talk page (Talk:Jeff McCracken). Please use it to suggest improvements to the article. I've tweaked some of your additions; the sourcing still needs a bit of work. 97.126.106.3 (talk) 00:54, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Move requests: a question

What to do when during a RM discussion two users on different times go ahead and make changes, while others are still commenting on the discussion (and/or the discussion is not closed yet)? I did not find something useful on the RM page itself. Cheers. --Opencross (talk) 01:42, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Add language code for Prefix codes for linking to Wikimedia sister projects

By default, the interwiki prefix codes link to the Wikiprojects in English.

Is there a way to add vi language code for this shortcut wikisource:Đầu Pháp Chính phủ thư ? Leemyongpak (talk) 00:56, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

@Leemyongpak, put it in this way: wikisource:vi:Đầu Pháp Chính phủ thư. StarryGrandma (talk) 01:08, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Great. Thank you. Leemyongpak (talk) 01:17, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

@Leemyongpak—You can also put it in an even shorter format: s:vi:Đầu Pháp Chính phủ thư. The "s" should indicate Wikisource. You can also read Special:Interwiki for all of the interwiki links. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 02:15, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Aw man

Why there is so much the word her on possesive pronoun as male his? The word hers is severely underutilized. The word her is one of the most annoying word in my lifetime. Why the english word her has a dual accusative and possesive term as him and his? 114.122.104.72 (talk) 10:59, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, IP editor. You are going to want to ask this at the language reference desk, as this space is to ask about using or editing Wikipedia. Also, hers is a possessive pronoun. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 11:09, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

IP user. You asked a similar question yesterday, at WP:Teahouse#Her to hers and received answers. Please do not waste everyone's time by repeating this line of questioning. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:15, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

I'll bite, though, and answer the "why" nonetheless: her/hers for possession isn't equivalent to him/his (accusative/genitive), but to his/his (dependent genitive / independent genitive). Example sentences: This is her dog. The dog is hers. This is his dog. The dog is his. When you line them up like this, the answer is pretty obvious: "his" already has an s on the end. We can't add another to turn this into an independent genitive. You might be interested in reading History of the English language, English possessive, and English pronouns. -- asilvering (talk) 20:58, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

@Asilvering I think I know Engligh grammar pretty well, but I didn't realize, until reading this yesterday, that his and his are the same, while her and hers are different words. I know when to use them, but I never thought about the parts of speech for those. (What, there is more than just nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs, and pronouns? Who woulda thought?) 73.127.147.187 (talk) 07:33, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

His is more like a hissing cat indeed Wtf is the her and hers for no reason other than being accusative and or genitive?! I really despise the word her becayse h is for hummer or hajj anything else letter e is for ford econoline van. While the letter r is more like rrrrrrrrr! French movie in 2004 114.122.105.208 (talk) 00:29, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

If you want to make jokes, please do it somewhere else. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:51, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Is there a way to have my drafted article reviewed? I'm new but put in a solid amount of work on it.

 Courtesy link: Draft:Longstocking (producer)
I'm uncertain how I would give access for someone to review. Any insight for a true noob would be much appreciated. DenniKindred (talk) 00:50, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

@DenniKindred: Welcome to the Teahouse. You can add {{subst:submit}} to the top of your draft when you are ready. That being said, you are strongly discouraged to write about yourself, especially when the draft looks promotional, which will definitely cause reviewers to decline (or even reject) your draft. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:55, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate the script and the links! You rock Tenryuu DenniKindred (talk) 01:03, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Hey Denni,

I'm also new to editing / article writing! So take what I say with a grain of salt. But I would say that more specifically, some lines such as "... and so many more.", "It was here in Seattle that her DJing and producing really took off.", and even "...her sound became part of the global underground music community." are probably going to come off as red flags to a lot of people reviewing them. Just because they're rather subjective and not in the traditional "tone" of the website. For instance, instead of saying "her DJing really took off", it would be more standard to list & cite specific examples of how this is the case.

All that being said, I would be a little ahhh cautious about the odds of your page being approved. There's no hard and fast rule for when someone is eligible for a wikipedia article, but even googling Longstocking (producer) had limited results. That being said, best of luck with everything (on and off the site)! A MINOTAUR (talk) 01:50, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm in a situation where the most notable Longstocking Apple Music page, verified Spotify page, etc are all my music but some one album punk band from 25 years ago gets credited with all my music. I thought a wiki could solve it. I'll delete that part and I may delete the draft. It sucks that a small band I've never heard of that has a single album gets a page and I can't. I'm going delete the draft and give up on the wikipedia acknowledgment. I have a couple albums and a Buch of EPs all signed. Hell, I'm signed on a Warner Music sublabel but it doesn't seem to matter. Throwing in the towel. Thanks Fam! DenniKindred (talk) 01:55, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi DenniKindred! Don't feel bad about the situation: being assessed as Notable enough for a Wikipedia article (or not) isn't any kind of value judgement, it boils down to how much other, unconnected people have chosen to publish about you in what are considered Reliable sources, which is not really something under your control.

Because that punk band existed a quarter century ago, there has been plenty of time for people to write about them: since you are new(ish), there hasn't been as big a window for people to write about you, yet. Probably this is a case of "WP:Too soon", and in time (possibly quite soon) reliably published pieces by disinterested third parties will accumulate, demonstrating that you meet the criteria of Notability (music), and someone will decide to create a Wikipedia article about you, based on them.

Remember that, as an encyclopedia, Wikipedia aims to inform readers, not to promote anyone or anything, so an attempted article that appears to have promotion as a primary aim is never going to be accepted. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.208.88.97 (talk) 08:57, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Jacques Baud

A few days ago I found in Wikipedia in English the page on Jacques Baud, who was a member of Swiss army and inteligence, and worked for the UN. However, the page disapeared completely. I recall that the page was showing some warnings that an "editing war", or something similar, was going on. I ask you please for an explanation. Valerio pillar (talk) 11:06, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

hi Valerio pillar and welcome to the teahouse! there exists no english-language article named Jacques Baud, however it exists in french, which is what you may be looking for. edit wars are when people keep reverting each other to keep a desired revision on the current article, for more information check that page, or the French equivalent (different language projects may have different community guidelines and policies). happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 11:16, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

BloombergQuint in Now BQ Prime - How to Change Wikipedia entry

Hi,

We have rebranded ourselves from Bloomberquint.com to bqprime.com. We wanted to understand how the rebranding on wikipedia works. We came across a similar example where Tata Sky rebranded to Tata PLay. Tata Play seems to have created a new wikipedia entry and added a redirect to its wikipedia Tata sky page which brings it back to Tata Play.

We wanted to do the same exercise but we dont have the expertise in Wiki entry hence wanted to check if any credible editor will help us create a new brand wiki page and then do the redirection from bloombergquint wiki to bqprime wiki, this is the announcement here - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oX4ruJmnSZE

Do let us know how we can proceed and what requirements are there to get this initiated.

Regards, BQ Prime BQ Prime (talk) 11:48, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Step 1. Don't ask the same question at two different locations. This is also on the Helpdesk.- X201 (talk) 11:53, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

hi BQ Prime and welcome to the teahouse! before we get to that, please also change your name through one of these processes as you may not have the company name as your username, as they have to identify individuals, not companies. once that is done, you may add a edit request or a move request to have the article be renamed. you would also need to disclose your conflict of interest and provide reliable, independent sources to have it moved (you cannot just cite your own announcement, for example). happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 11:57, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Further discussion should take place at the Help Desk, where BQ Prime asked two minutes before asking here. -- Hoary (talk) 12:02, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

done BQ Prime (talk) 12:13, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Categories on an article

Hi there! I was reading the article Oliver Sykes when I got to the end and I saw the categories. My question is: Why should there be a category for "English atheists"? I mean that isn't it like putting a label on a person. I don't know. It seems a bit bad for a person? I've also seen categories of like emo artists or about their sexuality. Guys, isn't it something completely personal? I really do not get it why categories like that should exist! I know that categories exist to find a person easier but these ones are like making it easier for someone who is against the beliefs of someone's to start discussing it. English Wikipedia is a worldwide encyclopedia lots of people see and trust around the globe. Those are "labels" that people with the same beliefs might feel awkward. Please someone explain me WHY!! Thank you - Fisforfenia (talk) 12:33, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Fisforfenia, my understanding of Wikipedia policy is that someone should not be labelled an "English atheist" unless their atheism is/was a signicant component of their notability. My personal view is that your claim that such a label is "a bit bad" is insulting to atheists – though few of us are likely to care. Maproom (talk) 13:04, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

And now that I've read Oliver Sykes, it's very clear that he would not consider that label "a bit bad". Maproom (talk) 13:30, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Also, @Fisforfenia, in many cases we don't put people into a category unless they've publicly identified themselves as belonging to that category. If they make such a decision, presumably they don't regard the information as completely personal. Sometimes they then want to put the cat back in the bag, but as the adage implies, that's very hard to do. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 13:36, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Where are all my alerts?

I wanted to read an alert but accidentally marked it as read. Is there a way to see all my alerts? ScientistBuilder (talk) 12:58, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

@ScientistBuilder – Yes, there is a way. You can tap the bell badge for alerts, and then click "View all notifications". There, you can see all of your notifications, whether read or unread. Alternatively, you can go directly to Special:Notifications. Thanks! — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 13:09, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

@3PPYB6 Is there a way to read an email? I see the preview of the email but I can't open it. ScientistBuilder (talk) 13:13, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

@ScientistBuilder – Emails don't go on Wikipedia; for that, you have to look at your email inbox and view it. Sorry for any inconveniences. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 13:15, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

@ScientistBuilder: I think for that you actually have to go into your email and read it (otherwise you just mark it as read here). Probably for privacy reasons. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 13:16, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

@ScientistBuilder: Like the others have said, emails are not on Wikipedia. You can receive notifications here that an email has been sent if a user used Email this user, but you have to view the actual contents on their own application/webpage. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:15, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Frequent Grammar Issues

I have noticed many errors in grammar, and approximately 98% of all articles have a majority of typographical errors.

The preponderance of most articles has denied the foundational rules of English grammar. 98s (talk) 22:44, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

You're requesting that 'someone' proofread nearly six and a half million articles? How long would you expect that to take?

All of Wikipedia's articles are in principle ongoing projects, but all of Wikipedia's editors are unpaid volunteers who are free to choose what they do (or don't). Only a small proportion are interested in actively pursuing copyediting, though many will copyedit something needing it if they happen to stumble across it.

If you're interested in helping out, there is the Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors. (I myself have resisted joining it as, being an ex-professional copyeditor, I know that if I did it would consume my every available waking hour to the exclusion of all else.) However, you probably first need to learn how to spell "Grammar" ;-). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.208.88.97 (talk) 23:25, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

@98s, welcome to the Teahouse. Be sure that you are really seeing grammar issues. When you edited Matadero Madrid you changed perfectly correct spellings from British English to American English. Don't do that. Please read WP:ENGVAR before doing any more copy editing and make sure you understand that various varieties of English are used here. StarryGrandma (talk) 23:25, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

@98s The majority of your edits have been reverted, which suggests you do not have a firm a grasp on grammar that you think you have. David notMD (talk) 03:25, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

98s, an editor who misspells "grammer" and "descried" is not in a strong position to make sweeping assertions about grammar problems in the world's most popular encyclopedia. Cullen328 (talk) 03:32, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

@98s, you are incorrect. Most articles do not have over 47 grammar issues. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 08:29, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Unlikely that this user has had enough time to descry(2) the majority of our six million articles, no matter how strongly they descry(1) it now. Perhaps someone who knows more statistical theory could advise a sufficient sample size to draw a meaningful conclusion? I suspect a significant proportion of articles would have fewer than 47 sentences. Fun aside, though — 98s: code of the form [[namespace:Page name]] should not have a space after the colon. I wish this was the first time that I had seen someone enact that misconception. ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 09:27, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

I have discovered literally many thousands of articles (mostly on species) for which the categorization could be improved--or was out of date, or just plain wrong. I generally don't "descry" them--whatever that means. What I have done is to go through and fix them--literally many thousands of them. But for the reasons given above, maybe that's not the best suggestion in this case. Uporządnicki (talk) 09:36, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

@98s, Re: your user page, what does "Contrubutes" mean? Uporządnicki (talk) 09:40, 5 May 2022 (UTC)I

It's worth noting that English Wikipedia serves the entire English-speaking world, and within that range, there are a lot of different approaches to grammar. What is correct in American English may be wrong in English English, and vice versa. Even within one "brand", English is not a prescriptive language: there are often multiple acceptable ways to express oneself, and last year's edgy, informal street-speak is next year's appropriate grammar for the boardroom. Wikipedia permits a wide range of grammar and spelling; there is no single true correct path to grammarish correctness. There are limitations: if an article is about a US-American subject, is already written in US-American vocabulary, or is marked that it should use US-American spellings, we Brits must keep our 'rubbish' to ourselves, and instead write garbage. But one should be cautious about 'correcting' grammar. The grammar may have been correct in the original author's variety of language, and changing it a waste of time - and possibly borderline-rude. Copy-editing is sometimes regarded as a bit of a trivial task, but it actually requires knowledge, skill and judgement. Elemimele (talk) 11:37, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

@98s, although you're allowed to change your own comments, doing it after they've already been replied to is very much frowned upon - see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Editing own comments. As to your new question, unfortunately they haven't yet invented a bot smart enough to handle all the various complexities of all the complex varieties of English. It's quite a mess. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:42, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

@98s: repeatedly changing your initial comment, after you have been advised that this is misleading, really hurts your credibility. You still have not provided any evidence to support any of your accusations about grammar issues here. ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 23:13, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

I am NOT suspecting you to do anything about this subject, only to take it under consideration. 98s (talk) 02:41, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

hi 98s! by confiscate it under consideration, what do you mean? please take note that wikipedia is a volunteer service and we have no obligation to fix grammar issues immediately. as you may already know, we have a system that allows people to tag articles for copyediting, where others can help out in their free time. 💜  melecie  talk - 02:48, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

also, are you by chance using a grammar-checking tool like Grammarly to detect grammatical errors? 💜  melecie  talk - 03:07, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Grammarly? 98s (talk) 14:47, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

@98s The phrase "approximately 98% of all articles have a majority of typographical errors" doesn't make sense either. I have tried to parse that in several different ways, and I just can't. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 07:24, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

_{Maybe they're saying that 98% of articles account for over half of the amount of typographical errors in Wikipedia.} Thefficacy (talk) 18:20, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Rewriting File Information

Hello,

I am trying to rewrite the fair-use rationale section for an image (not uploaded by me) so that it has some better language justifying its free use. How do I do as such? The edit link on the summary section does not allow me to edit the rationale. And yes, I have read WP:COPY and WP:IUP. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 03:08, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

@CollectiveSolidarity: Hello Collective! Would you mind linking the image here for us? Make sure you add a colon (this character-> :) before the word "File:" when linking it so that it displays as a link and not an image. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:08, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

It is this one. It is located on the page Hollow Knight. I wanted to rewrite it because its inclusion reasoning is not very well written. It is just a copy-paste of the reasoning for the infobox image. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 14:49, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

@CollectiveSolidarity: It appears that somehow in both images, the words "Section" and "Main infobox" add a specific reasoning. I don't know how it works or why but that's what it's doing. Anyone here on the Teahouse more familiar with this know why it behaves like this? ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:58, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

It behaves like that because that's the wording specified in Template:Non-free use rationale video game screenshot. I don't really see the need to alter the rationale for an image that's been here since 2018, though whether it "makes a significant contribution to the user's understanding of the article, which could not practically be conveyed by words alone" is debatable. Deor (talk) 15:45, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I was recommended here to change the reasoning (see section "Request for mentor"). I was hoping to change it to justify multiple non-free images and prepare the article gradually for a FA. If the reasoning is still okay, I will try changing it during the image review of FA. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 15:54, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Deletion of a cited claim

I'm familiar with WP:PROVEIT, which places the burden of proof on someone restoring a claim. In order to restore a removed claim you have to then provide a citation supporting it. However I'm interested in the opposite scenario. What if a cited claim has been removed (in good faith) by an editor simply claiming it is wrong? Is there policy that addresses the best course of action in this scenario? AquitaneHungerForce (talk) 20:49, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi, AquitaneHungerForce! You should discuss on the talk page of the article to form consensus. While not policy, the bold, revert, discuss cycle is often a good rule of thumb describing this process. Does this answer your question? Perfect4th (talk) 20:58, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Ok, I figured it would have to go to the discussion somehow. But I wasn't sure if the page should be left with or without the claim until discussion is resolved. And furthermore I'm not really sure what the point of the discussion should be. It hardly seems like the job of wikipedia editors to figure out what is true or not and with only one source I'm not so sure what can be discussed. There's also issues with proving a negative. It's much harder to find sources making negative claims unless the positive claims are widely held. AquitaneHungerForce (talk) 21:07, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

If you think the article is better a different way, you can try reverting and explaining your reasons in the edit summary, but make sure you don't edit war. It's generally good to form consensus on the talk page, though. Perfect4th (talk) 21:13, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I want to nominate Led Zeppelin as a daily article

I've waited for 17 years for maybe it to pop up on the daily but to no avail. Then I see Lorde and I feel some kind of injustice for one of the greatest rock bands of all time. I thought for something in their 50 year anniversary or the 40th year of Bonzo's death. If it's good enough for Lorde it should be good enough for Led Zeppelin.

Thanks C Cdope666 (talk) 03:11, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Cdope666. Wikipedia has two top levels of assessed articles, which are Good articles which are very good, and Featured articles, which are the best. Only Featured articles are eligible for "Today's featured article" on the main page. Lorde is a Featured article and therefore eligible. Led Zeppelin is a Good article and therefore ineligible at this time. You could work to upgrade the rating of the article if you want, but that involves a rigorous peer review process that could take weeks or months. You would need to be thoroughly conversant with the reliable source literature about Led Zeppelin, which currently has 235 references. If you are willing to do the work, go for it, but be aware that it will be a lot of work, and you will have to convince every active editor who watches that page that your edits are beneficial. But if you succeed, it will likely be "Today's featured article" at some time in the future. Cullen328 (talk) 03:29, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Led Zeppelin made GA in 2011, and then was a FA candidate in 2012 and 2013, but was not promoted. David notMD (talk) 06:13, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

That's fascinating. . I wonder why it wasn't promoted:(. . :) THX Cdope666 (talk) 07:20, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

THX for chatting. . It all seems subjective considering it's up to Wiki's editors (first line in FA). . :) Cdope666 (talk) 07:18, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

You can read the most recent FA review at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Led Zeppelin/archive4, Cdope666. Of course there's always some element of editor judgment involved, but articles are assessed against a list of criteria. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:34, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

The article has undergone more than 2,500 edits since the last FA review! That does not necessarily mean better, but it is much longer and with more references. David notMD (talk) 07:37, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Larry!!:) Cdope666 (talk) 22:19, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Cdope666, and welcome to the Teahouse. It sounds as if you think that being the subject of a Featured Article is somehow an honour or a tribute to the subject. It is not. Wikipedia articles are not in any way for the benefit (or the detriment) of their subjects. "Having an article" (a phrase I usually avoid, for just this reason) means only two things: enough has been published about the subject to meet the criteria for notability, and one or more Wikipedia editors have been interested enough to create the article. It says nothing about whether the subject is worthy or laudable - indeed, we have articles on many subjects that are neither. The same applies a fortiori to a Featured Article. ColinFine (talk) 10:54, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi Colin and thanks for your reply and greetings. I've loved Wiki for almost 17 years and I always see articles that are obviously picked by the young generation that runs Wiki. To me having that Bronze star and being on the front page is special. Stupid I know. Many of things have been published. . most from 4 to 5 decades ago. Led Zeppelin is one of the highest selling bands and held attendance records for years. I really like one of the editors to do this. :):):) Cdope666 (talk) 22:31, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Cdope. I don't know where your evidence is that "the young generation ... runs Wiki": that may be the case, but I doubt it. This is a cooperative project. If you want to see something happen, you can make it happen either by doing it yourself, or by inspiring others to want to do it. One way to do the latter is to post at (say) WT:WikiProject Rock music, saying something like "I would love to improve Led Zeppelin to FA status: does anybody want to work with me on that?" Talking about "injustice", or what should be is not likely to inspire many people. But share your enthusiasm, and it just might. ColinFine (talk) 22:30, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

My user talk page / New contribution dis-appears by itself after 1 second

Please, don't refer me to Phabricator; Phabricator is a little resistive to letting someone who does not have an e-mail address/account report a bug (to word it politely and say not more).

As regards answers in topics, a few years ago all was fine.
Then I took some holiday (because of frustration about a few users, in the German WP).
Since a couple of weeks, since I'm back, something strange happens when I open a message.

The sequence is as follows:

1. Once in a while, at the very top of any wikipedia-page, I see a little rectangle with a number in it.
2. I click into this rectangle.
3. A window opens.
4. I click on one of these alerts.
5. My user-talkpage opens.
6. I see the heading of the concerned topic (or only older contributions to this topic).
7. The new contribution (text) of this other user appears.

So far everything is, as I expect it to happen.

8. This new contribution stays for about a second.

9. Then this new contribution dis-appears, all by itself, with me having done nothing.

But there remains the empty space, where the contribution was;
the space does not close.

If the message has started a new topic, the new heading remains visible.

If there are older contributions above this new contribution, under the same topic/heading, these older contributions remain visible;
only the latest contribution(s) disappear(s).
(Sometimes I find two answers to one topic.)

The same happens in the German wikipedia.

I recently had two announcements from the Teahouse. They also left a little image. After the text had disappeared, where there was supposed to be this image, there was only a dim/very dark kind of placeholder for this image.

If I repeat the same sequence, the same happens.

As a workaround I scroll to the top of my talk page and, in the table of content, click on this topic. Then this topic appears and the new contribution(s) is/are visible and remain(s) visible.

It has also happened that the latest answer remained visible, and only the second to last answer disappeared, leaving empty space inbetween.

After a while (minutes), or maybe because I went via the table of content, the messages are visible permanently, as they are supposed to.

I have Windows 8.1 and Firefox, both updated.

Steue (talk) 00:26, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Steue! Is the rectangle you click on a notice badge (the second image in Help:Notifications#Viewing_notifications)? Perfect4th (talk) 00:50, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Perfect4th, I guess so, but with me it is a simple rectangle with rounded corners.

Steue (talk) 01:04, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Steue, clicking on the notice takes me to a conversation and highlights the new response for a few seconds before the highlighting fades. I've never had messages outright disappear, however, so I'm not sure what the problem is. If it takes a while for someone who knows the answer to reply here, you could try the Help Desk. Sorry I couldn't be of more help. Perfect4th (talk) 01:39, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Steue. For a highly secure and anonymous email service, see Tutanota. For discussing technical issues, please try Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). Cullen328 (talk) 02:04, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

I just found out, by intuition, : If I click into the first line, the text comes back - and remains.

Steue (talk) 02:07, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

I mean: the first line where the text was and should be.

My contribution above is not indented, although I used [Reply].

Thanks Cullen328.

Steue (talk) 02:16, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Is there a tool that helps with editing episode list tables?

To where I don't have to do this and this manually or completely manually?

Wikipedia:VisualEditor is pretty much the same as just just doing it through "edit source" and doesn't really have much of any options either when it comes to editing episode lists/tables.

Is there a tool of some sorts that helps with this process? Similar to Twinkle for vandalism-fighting and XFDCloser for closing AFDs? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:53, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

x in y?

I remember there is an essay about this that I read shortly before notifying a college student about mangoes in Florida or something of the sort... does anyone have the link?

In short, the essay is about not including articles that have the form 'x in y', unless the particular combination of x and y happens to be something important or special enough to merit its own article. Sungodtemple (talk) 03:23, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

@Sungodtemple: Are you looking for WP:XY? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:21, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

I think that I too may have seen such an essay. It might explain that, although for any nation/territory X, far more "man-hours" are expended sitting on chairs than on either playing or watching hockey, Chairs in X is much less likely than Hockey in X. (X would probably need an extraordinary tradition or manufacture of chairs, or something similar, for the former article to exist.) I'd expect to see the essay listed within Wikipedia:Essay directory#Notability, but I don't. Perhaps it's listed elsewhere in that page. -- Hoary (talk) 04:33, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Help undoing vandalism

Hi, I found what appears to be a user systematically vandalizing old movie pages. The two contributor IP's I found are 71.38.23.47 and 71.222.2.166 both making the same small edits to cast listings. I started undoing them one at a time but I discovered that there are at least 30 pages and possibly more.

Any suggestions on how to undo the vandalism in a batch process? Or, is one-at-a-time the only way to go? Thanks Glasshammered (talk) 21:35, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Vandalism typically implies malice. Are you absolutely sure these are not good-faith, but unsourced additions to the cast? Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 21:44, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

From "The Bet (2016 film)"

• Tricia Pettitt as Woman Drinking Coffee
• Eric Schenk as Angry Coffee Drinker

were added to the cast listing. These two names appear to have been added to the cast list of over 30 films. The additions are fairly innocuous i.e., not profane or obscene, however, they seem to be defacement of the article. Glasshammered (talk) 00:12, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Also: a quick scan of the films in question reveals a range in release date from 1948 to 2016 Glasshammered (talk) 00:20, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

@Glasshammered, that does seem to be misuse of the encyclopedia. I know of one tool that can do multiple reverts, but I've never used it myself - see Wikipedia:Rollback. 97.126.106.3 (talk) 12:33, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I see both of those names mentioned in about 20 articles. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 06:25, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

It’s Srinda not Srindaa regarding the article Srindaa

•  Courtesy link: Srindaa

I am actress srinda, my name is not Srindaa it’s just Srinda. Please change it, it’s affecting my google search also the career. Please help somebody!! Srinda446 (talk) 06:30, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

I've changed the spelling throughout the article, in accordance with the sources cited. But I can't move the article "over a redirect" – I think it needs an admin to do this. Maproom (talk) 07:02, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

hi Srinda446! I've also mentioned it over at requested moves, where hopefully someone would be able to swap the pages so Srinda would be the main article page. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 07:13, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Plagiarism revision

I used an online program to identify the plagiarism. Now there is still 35% overlap, but they're all proper nouns. Just want to make sure there isn't anything else I should do prior to reposting. Please let me know if anyone has any other advise. Thank you Mededbios (talk) 19:00, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Mededbios: - can you please identify which article you're referring to? Thanks, PKT(alk) 19:17, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft_talk:Ara_Tekian

i Mededbios (talk) 04:45, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

@Mededbios: Close-paraphrasing by replacing pronouns with proper names isn't enough to make it stop being copyvio/plagiarism. Rewrite it wholesale, in your own words. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 19:28, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I do not believe that 35% overlap indicated plagiarism, especially if the duplicated content is proper names. David notMD (talk) 01:19, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. I am weary of making the same violation again. Mededbios (talk) 04:50, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I major copyrighted part was a detailed list of awards. I did rewrite this completely, but the list of awards together still triggers the copyright overlap. This is what I am referring to. Any advise on how to rewrite this? Mededbios (talk) 04:48, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Lists of non-notable awards generally aren't a good idea anyway (though many creators of articles provide them, maybe thinking that they contribute to notability). Maproom (talk) 06:51, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

@Mededbios: I did some editing, ran a copyright violation check and left a comment. I suggest you resubmit. David notMD (talk) 11:17, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Why is [Visual Edit] a tag?

I noticed it comes up a lot while patrolling recent changes. Is there a reason why its tagged? ~ carpathianflorist 11:23, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

hi carpathianflorist! I'm assuming it's tagged mostly to let people know that edit was made using the VisualEditor and comes with all the quirks and possible bugs of such. in recent changes patrol it doesn't really mean much except distinguishing between visual and source edits (and also for me explains why sometimes infoboxes get randomly removed, because they for some reason seem to be fragile with visualeditor and easy to backspace out, although Iunno, haven't tested it) happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 11:32, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Template show/hide

Hello
Why is the template: Netherlands squad – UEFA Women's Euro 2013, at the bottom of Maayke Heuver set to show, while by all the other players, who have this template, it is set to hide? Dutchy45 (talk) 08:56, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

hi Dutchy45 and welcome to the teahouse! if I'm correct, navboxes in general are automatically collapsed when there are two or more of them (or two or more collapsible templates in general) in a page. Maayke Heuver has only one, which is why it's left expanded there. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 11:58, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

@Melecie Ah, thanks Dutchy45 (talk) 13:11, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

how do i create a new page

Minimushtheduck0 (talk) 10:39, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

hi Minimushtheduck0 and welcome to the teahouse! please read Notability (guides you on what can and can't have an article), Reliable sources (guides you on how you can find sources appropriate for establishing notability and proving what you write in the article]], and Your first article (which guides you through every step of actually writing your article). I know that's a lot of reading material, but I promise the information all three pages contain would help you write an article properly. happy writing! 💜  melecie  talk - 10:48, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

cheers Minimushtheduck0 (talk) 10:57, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Not by inserting uncited and tendentious material into Wikipedia, that's for sure. ColinFine (talk) 14:12, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Article Flagged and Deleted in Minutes

Hello everyone,

I recently had an article I had authored a few days ago flagged and deleted in a matter of minutes. I am a bit confused because altho I have been a very sporadic contributor over the years, I have had two articles be approved that I drafted from scratch, and in both instances I had access to way less actual citations than this particular one. Furthermore the citations were in particularly well respected media outlets, references in actual printed books, the subject has won several awards from respected design institutions, their work has been part of a museum show, and they are faculty at a very well known university.

My question is this: I would like to receive a copy of the text that was deleted, so I can examine/work on the tone and seek guidance from more experienced editors. How do I go about doing this? And in what format can I receive it?

Also, would it perhaps be better to resubmit the page as a very brief factual stub first and wait for that to be reviewed and approved to establish the basic notability of the subject before working on adding more information? Or is it better to submit a longer article from the get go?

Finally, as I have access to a design archive library, I was able to pull even more well known printed magazine and journal articles (which date back to early 2000s), how would I go about refrencing them in a way that editors are able to actually review and verify them? I do have the ability to scan these pages, but if I do so, would I be able to host them anywhere and link the PDF? I ask because I don't think the editors would be able to pull up the actual text were I to merely cite the edition and page numbers.

Thanks in advance!

SleepyWhippet (talk) 08:09, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

hi SleepyWhippet and welcome to the teahouse! the best place to ask would be at Requests for undeletion. I don't exactly know why those articles were deleted, but if they were removed for not having been edited for six months (CSD G13) then you could probably retrieve them easily and continue editing. happy writing! 💜  melecie  talk - 08:22, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

...since it probably wasn't G13, then please see WP:Deletion review instead, where you can challenge the draft's deletion. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 08:28, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick response @Melecie, seems like the article was actually marked for Speedy Deletion under section "G11" SleepyWhippet (talk) 08:29, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello SleepyWhippet. As melecie indicated above, you can request undeletion of most articles into draft space as long as they were not deleted for copyright infringement or the like. Usually you would ask the deleting administrator first on their talk page before going to the WP:RFU page.

However, you do not seem to have created any deleted pages. If that is actually about Fade258’s decline of Draft:Araz Fazaeli, I see you have started to discuss it on their talk page. However, please note that sources like this do not really count towards notability (in that case, it is a short interview, so not independent of the subject and arguably not in-depth coverage either). Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 08:31, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Tigraan:, Yes I am the one who had review this draft. If I made any mistake regarding reviewing this draft then let it me know. Thank you! Fade258 (talk) 09:13, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

@Fade258 my question here was actually about a different article entirely, which we clarified below. SleepyWhippet (talk) 09:21, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi SleepyWhippet. Articles are not generally deleted so quickly after they’re created unless they seriously violate some major Wikipedia policy. Do you know the name of the article that was deleted? If you do, then you should be able to determine which administrator deleted the article and then ask that administrator to send you a copy of the article via email. The administrator in question may be willing to do so depending on the reason why the article was deleted. As for your other question, if the sources you which to cite are considered to be reliable per WP:RS, then they don’t need to be available online as long as they are published and readily accessible. Availability online often makes assessment easier, but it’s not required. Just provide as much information about the source as you can per WP:CITEHOW. I wouldn’t suggest you upload the sources anywhere and try to link to them because that could possibly be a copyright issue for Wikipedia’s purposes. The accuracy of the linked source may also be called into question. — Marchjuly (talk) 08:33, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

SleepyWhippet, the deletion came with the summary "G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: more at User talk:Rasd coduresa diziet." Two more or less random quotes from what was deleted: (1) Over the years, Corr has continued to collaborate with a diverse set of designers, brands, and fabricators to create furniture, lighting, and fixtures for high-end hospitality applications. (2) Her academic career parallels her design practice in its focus on bringing cross disciplinary perspectives to explore topics such as Luxury design and Sustainability. Neither is encyclopedic language; rather they're possibly impressive but more certainly nebulous. ¶ As has already been pointed out, there is no need for cited material to be available online; and normally you should not scan material published this century and upload these scans, because for the vast majority of material published this century uploading scans would violate copyright. (Also, Wikipedia can't link to pages that appear to violate copyright.) -- Hoary (talk) 08:38, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

@Marchjuly@Tigraan@Hoary -- Thank you all -- I suspect the issue may be that when I decided to write the article in question last week, I first could not remember the login to my (this) account, so I made a brand new account and went through the AfC wizard on that account, so the articles origination may not be associated with this username (incidentally, is there a way to merge accounts?), as @Hoary mentioned, The article in question is was on "Jessica Corr" -- in retrospect, I can see how the highlighted language could have been more neutral. But I guess my question is: is the entire article worthy of deletion? Or is it perhaps something that could have been discussed and fixed? I have asked the Admin who deleted it for a copy of the text on their talk page, they haven't responded yet --- or should I be asking the user who originally flagged the article for deletion? SleepyWhippet (talk) 08:44, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

There is no way to merge accounts - just don’t reuse the old account even if you remember the login/password. If you want to, you can add a note on the old account’s userpage to avoid any accusation of sockpuppetry, but I do not think that is necessary.

Non-admins may not see deleted pages, and non-admins do most of the speedy deletion flagging, so it is unlikely that whoever flagged the article can help. You should first wait until Athaenara replies to your query (unless it takes more than a week or so, then ask at WP:RFU). (Athaenara might refuse if she judges that it contains nothing of value, but we will cross that bridge when we get there.) Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 08:58, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much for all of your time and advice -- I shall wait for Athaenara's response. Also noted re accounts, I clearly have a lot to learn about all the policies and best practices, so I appreciates everyone's help. SleepyWhippet (talk) 09:03, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

The admin restored the article as a Draft:Jessica_Corr. I took a pass at fixing the type of language that you had highlighted. I still haven't had a chance to add all the print references that I had compiled tho. But in the meantime, could you please take a look when you get a chance and tell me if the tone of voice is more acceptable now? Thanks. SleepyWhippet (talk) 13:23, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

@SleepyWhippet - on the subject of the Awards and Recognitions section - typically on Wikipedia we only cover independently notable awards someone has earned. casualdejekyll 16:05, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

@Casualdejekyll thank you for for pointing that out. My assumption had been that if Parsons, as a reputable design school, has deemed those awards worthy of listing on their website that must mean that they are notable and verifiable. But I will make sure to read the wiki article you've linked later today and go through it with a "fine comb" to make sure anything that doesn't fit the criteria is deleted. or perhaps that entire section should simply go? SleepyWhippet (talk) 16:40, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi, SleepyWhippet. What you are doing here is unwittingly confusing two different meanings of "notable."

In the general sense, those awards that Parsons lists may well be "notable", i.e. "worthy of notice" to Parsons. However, Wikipedia uses the term "Notable" as (slightly misleading) internal jargon to mean roughly "have been written about at some length in several published sources that are subject to good editorial standards, by people unconnected with the subjects (in this case the awards), and are therefore able to have acceptable Wikipedia articles written, based on those writings." Phew!

A line has to be drawn somewhere, or we would end up listing people's 4th-form prize for raffia work in their biographical articles, and the like: this is how we have chosen to draw the line.

If you can find Reliable sources that would support the creation of a Wikipedia article about a given award, even if there isn't one yet, then you can argue for including mention of that award in the current Draft, and hopefully stimulate (see WP:Red link) an editor into writing an article for that award. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.208.88.97 (talk) 12:41, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Ahh, thank you @90.208.88.97 for that VERY helpful explanation of the distinction. I finally get it! I have taken the awards off for now as per @Casualdejekyll's @Theroadislong's comment on the draft. I think my first priority is going to be first getting the tone of the remaining copy in the correct tone and format, then adding the printed magazine articles/features that I have (and any new facts) from as proper citations, and having the article reviewed. But perhaps once I get in the swing of things, contributing information/articles to wikipedia about design industry awards can be an interesting niche for me to work on. SleepyWhippet (talk) 15:07, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Small technicality: pages that aren't in the (Article) or Draft namespaces aren't articles, usually. If you don't know what that means don't worry about it casualdejekyll 16:44, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Stop multi language vandalism

Dear Administrators, I'm a newcomers Wikipedian.I've investigated a multi language vandalism which has done by BitaKarate1. The user has been editing destructively in articles named Kafir and jizyah‎ etectera. It's ongoing in Hindi[5][6], Malayalam, Kannada and Bangla.The user has banned in Bangla Wikipedia after warning third times for vandalizing, destructive edit, cheating , bullying and personal attack about religion. Please kindly investigate the user's crime and take a proper action. -মজুমদার সাহেব (talk) 06:38, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

hi মজুমদার সাহেব and welcome to the teahouse! do you have specific diffs showing this vandalism in english wikipedia? 💜  melecie  talk - 06:59, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Dear @Melecie:) Thanks for the purple welcome.Here's the diff link [7]

-মজুমদার সাহেব (talk) 07:33, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Bita says on their edit summary "The source says that". You attempted to amend the sentence to Encyclopedia Britannica has a statement like that '...'<ref name="Britannica" /> Which means you acknowledge that Britannica does say that? Please be careful about accusing editors of "vandalism". ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 08:07, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Oops, forgot ping @মজুমদার (Majumdar). ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 08:09, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

@Pelagic: I don't know.When I saw it refers to Britannica I thought there might be a statement like that, so I neutral this sentence by mentioned the source. Don't make it complicated, matter is that Britannica has statement, "Jews and Christians were required to pay the jizyah." but the other line while pagans were required to convert to Islam or die. has added by BitaKarate1. It's a vandalism, look these difference in Hindi[8][9], Malayalam, Kannada and Bangla [10] [11]] [12] Wikipedia article. The user added much lines and saying he translated it from English, Hindi or Kannada Wikipedia article while it's not, rather a cheating or destructive edit.I've talked in Hindi Wikipedia about this user vandalism but a hindi wikipedian removed talks[13].In Bangla Wikipedia this user banned by administrators. -মজুমদার সাহেব (talk) 08:25, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

@মজুমদার:

1. The current online Britannica literally says "They were, however, required to pay a per capita tax called jizyah, as opposed to pagans, who were required to either accept Islam or die." Don't try to suggest that BK1 made it up out of thin air. Just because you dislike it, doesn't make it vandalism. We take accusations of vandalism seriously here and @BitaKarate1 would be well within their rights to demand a retraction.
2. Another user has since removed the paragraph, with a sensible rationale in the edit summary. In contrast, you have been reverted multiple times at Kafir. I hope our article evolves to present a more nuanced view than Britannica, but the convert-or-die perception is common in the west and it's not surprising to find sources which present that.
3. Whether hi, ml, and ka Wikipedias object to the characterisation of the "Muslim invasion and plunder" of the subcontinent is up to them.
4. Maybe the Bangla talk page [14] loses something in translation; it looks like Bita intimated suggested another user was a non-Muslim [add: in fear of their life], and that person chose to interpret it as a "death threat".

. ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 10:04, 7 May 2022 (UTC) edit: improved charactization of the translated Bangla discussion 10:41, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

(P.S. nor would I condone the deletion of your post on hi wiki.) ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 11:05, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

@Pelagic:

1.Need sources, strong sources. Not Britannica, it's a encyclopedia and we already bad experienced about Britannica.Please proof it by strong sources.Don't try to suggest that BK1 made it up out of thin air. Just because you dislike it, doesn't make it vandalism. You've personally attacked me here.I think Administrators will take care about this line. This is not about my personal choice , without me anybody can talk about this or debate on it.

2. When I've started controversy about the line then removed it by strong sources demanding. I don't surprised in Western 'convert or die' perception, I've surprised the user BitaKarate1 already have warned 2 times in Bangla Wikipedia for Vandalizing, he added it might be controversial.But then I saw it's in Britannica. So I've mentioned it in the line.

3. A user undid few times my talks in Hindi Wikipedia and administrators doesn't take any action. When I can't talk how could they take action or consider!

4.

• @মজুমদার সাহেব: আপনি কি হত্যার ভয় পান?- BitaKarate1 ( আলাপ) ০৯:১৩, ৫ মে ২০২২ (ইউটিসি) (English: Do you fear of killed?)
• @মজুমদার সাহেব: আপনি এইমাত্র ইংরেজি উইকিপিডিয়া থেকে অনুলিপি করা আমার উত্স সহ নিবন্ধগুলি সরিয়ে দিয়েছেন। কেন? আপনি কি বাংলাদেশে বসবাসকারী একজন কাফির/হিন্দু?- BitaKarate1 ( আলাপ) ০৮:৫৮, ৫ মে ২০২২ (ইউটিসি) (English: You now undid with sources my translation copy which from English Wikipedia.Why? Do you a Bangladeshi hindhu/kafir?

Now you tell me what's those lines. I've warned the user several times that I'm translated it totally from English Article,the user should mark me which lines the user translated from English Wikipedia (these translation was cleverly vandalized by the user) and why when it already exist. On the other hand, I saw the user doing it same in Kannada, Malayalam, Hindi too by the edit summary 'the user translated from Hindi, Kannada, Bengla and English.' I've given link of those edit on top.

Conclusion: You personally attacked my in 1. Then you cleverly denied all those crime done by BitaKarate1 by the word of translation mistake! But what about 3 or 4? 1 and 2 was a good work by me you can't refused it.-মজুমদার সাহেব (talk) 12:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

@মজুমদার সাহেব, that was not a personal attack, and what this user is doing (at least on English Wikipedia) does not seem to be vandalism. This appears to be a content dispute which should be worked out on the talk pages of the articles involved. Complaints about editor conduct should be discussed at an appropriate noticeboard, such as WP:ANI. 97.126.106.3 (talk) 12:28, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

As an addendum, try to stay away from ANI. Generally everyone comes out of a report mildly frustrated at the very best. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:05, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

I have provided sources for all my sentences. This person who is complaining about me is actually the vandaliser who is removing sentences with sources.-BitOfKarate (talk) 16:21, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Biography

I have wrote a biography of my grandfather who is alive and one of the well known writers of the Pashto language but got rejected. I tried to first write in English and then in Pashto language but it got rejected in the first attempt is there anyone to help me in this regard.

As he is an academic personality of Pashto language and there are no proper research papers on web regarding this language if there is any possible way to help me publish his biography on Wikipedia.

Regards. Abdulmusawir88 (talk) 14:39, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Convenience link - Draft:ZAHEDI AHMADZAI

Abdulmusawir88 the only "reference" in your draft is "interviews with him" - which is totally unacceptable for Wikipedia - We are not interested in what he says about himself, only in what others have said about him.
As per WP:42 Articles require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Unless you can find such coverage, I am afraid that the subject is unsuitable for a Wikipedia article - Arjayay (talk) 14:46, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

@Abdulmusawir88, our notability criteria for academics is here. The sources needed to prove his notability, and which would be used to build an article, do not need to be on the web and do not need to be in English. They only need to meet the criteria outlined by Arjayay above. 97.126.106.3 (talk) 15:15, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Declined, not rejected (which is more severe), because it lacks references and other reasons. Unless people have published about your grandfather (see comment, above), may not be possible. David notMD (talk) 17:52, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Article Review before re-submission

Hey all,

I posted a couple days ago, but am hoping I could lean on the Teahouse's assistance in making sure my draft Draft:Barbarians (2021 film) is in solid shape before I resubmit it. Friendly user Bilorv indicated I should add in some more specifically cited reviews which I've done now (thanks Bilorv!); but I figured I would toss the draft in the Teahouse first just to get general impressions on if there's anything else obviously missing.

The only thing I would mention is that it is an independent film - and while I firmly believe it's notable enough to deserve an article, there is some limited information out there regarding some things like where exactly it was filmed, what the budget was, etc (at least, from what I could dig up myself). A MINOTAUR (talk) 16:18, 7 May 2022 (UTC) A MINOTAUR (talk) 16:17, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, A MINOTAUR, and welcome to the Teahouse. The Teahouse is not really an appropriate place to ask for informal review (though people often do so). Whether particular information such as locaton and budget are available is not really the point: the question is whether there has been substantial independent coverage: uncontroversail factual information such as that (well, at least the location: the budgt is not always uncontroversial) can come from non-independent sources, as long as there are adequate independent sources to establish notability. I haven't looked in detail, but your first four references, and no 7, are not independent, so do not contribute to notability. References to iMDB should be removed, and your citation 12 seems to be garbled: it is to the LA Times (which is usually a reliable source), but says it's to Facebook and Twitter. ColinFine (talk) 16:42, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. My mistake on posting it here - I figured The Teahouse was kind of a "catchall" for new user questions & general advice. Regardless, thanks for the tips on citations and all. I'll try to reinforce or change some references as needed to make the page a bit more robust. Citation 12 is a goofy one lol. It seems the automatic citation feature must have picked up on their website a bit incorrectly. Regardless, it should be fixed now! A MINOTAUR (talk) 17:16, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

@A MINOTAUR: I've accepted the draft, as your changes address the issue I had with the draft not showing notability. I've made a number of minor changes to conform to Wikipedia's house style in this edit. — Bilorv (talk) 17:57, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Bilorv! You've been a big help in getting my first article down. I appreciate seeing your edits as well - I'm still very much working on the habit of the house style down, especially in my tendency to capitalize more than I need.

Regardless, best of luck, and have a good one! A MINOTAUR (talk) 18:05, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Userbox alignment again

Hello, i decided to put my userboxes in a table but they are not behaving and formatting correctly, they are all over the place and floating all the way to the bottom, is there anyway i can force them to stay together at the top?

Sincerely OGWFP (talk) 16:49, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

@OGWFP: Welcome to the Teahouse. Have you tried putting the userbox templates between {{userboxtop}} and {{userboxbottom}}? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:04, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Inside of the table or outside of the table?

OGWFP (talk) 17:20, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

OGWFP, you'll put the user boxes in place of the "and" above, if that makes sense. --ARoseWolf 17:36, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, i have tried that but it just puts the boxes in one long row from top to bottom, not in the table arrangement i would like.

OGWFP (talk) 17:21, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

{{Userboxgroup}} could be what you're looking for. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:49, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Inside; {{userboxtop}} and {{userboxbottom}} should sandwich the userboxes. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:54, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Changing list defined references to inline references

I am working to improve this article Himetataraisuzu-hime and it has lots of list defined references that I cannot edit in visual editor mode. This is causing me issues, how can I turn these references into regular references capable of being edited by the visual editor? Is this a deprecated feature? Immanuelle 💗 (please tag me) 16:58, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Immanuelle, hello and welcome to the Teahouse, I note your question has gone unanswered for a while, I believe it is somewhat convoluting, but allow me attempt to answer, have you looked at WP:LDRHOW? Maybe it can be of help. Celestina007 (talk) 23:07, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Look at my sandbox?

Article Four-player chess exists. So in my sandbox I've completly overhauled the article, and I plan to cut/copy/paste. It is a definite improvement. If this is the correct place, I was wondering if someone could look at my sandbox to see if my planned changes are A. clear B. I know my references are not particularly nice, but tell me if things like that need to be fixed/where I could do that. C. Everything's encyclopedic. If this is not the correct place, where should I go?

Thanks! Bedfordres (talk) 21:33, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi Bedfordres. I like chess and I've played chess, but don't know much about this particular variant of the game. Even if I did, however, it seems pretty hard to just say to expect someone to look at your sandbox, compare it to the existing article and see how clearly better your version is. That's essentially what is being asked of others by a bold copy-and-paste rewrite like you're saying you're going to do. In some cases, such rewrites often seem to end up being reverted because it's too big to break things down and see whether it really was an improvement. So, maybe it would be a good idea to be a little WP:CAUTIOUS here and discuss what you'd like to do over at Talk:Four-player chess first to see what others familiar with the subject matter might think. You could add a Template:Please see to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chess as well to let that WikiProject's members know as well. Full rewrites of existing articles done via copy-and-pasting sometimes lead to confusion and misunderstanding because it seems as if one editor is trying to ignore what others might think or even a previously established consensus related to such articles. There's also the possiblilty of new issues related to formatting or style consistency being introduced that might not be apparent from focusing only on the one article in question. I'm just going to point out that your recent attempt to move the article to a new title was reverted shortly thereafter by a different editor because they didn't agree with it for a style-based reason. The page move also wasn't really the type of thing that the Wikipedia community considers to be a WP:MINOR edit, and it could be potentionally contentious for some reason (e.g. Three-player chess would likely also be affected). So, it might be better to get others who work on chess-related or chess-variant articles involved and ask them for feedback. Ultimately, the WP:ONUS falls upon you to convince others that the changes you want to make are things that improve the article. If you're WP:BOLD, just go ahead an make them and everyone else is just WP:SILENCE, then perhaps everything will be fine. If, however, at some point another editor either partially or completely undos the changes you make, then it falls upon you to try and seek consensus for them. With a big change like this, it sometimes can help avoid edit warring and other unpleasantness by simply proposing them on the article talk page first and give others a chance to look them over. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:25, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Haven't read all your points. The current article is a mess. I have something that at the very least would be more accurate, though I shouldn't of mentioned that, it comes off as boasting, though that was not my intention. I don't care if someone edits my work or no, I was hoping someone could read it and tell me if it is at least wikipedia acceptable. I'll read all your points now, sorry I don't think I was clear. Bedfordres (talk) 22:31, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

@Marchjuly So I was not trying to boast, or take away people's time. I was/am concerned about some things...The sourcing is bad, I may rely to much on a primary source, and I don't know if the articles clear to people who don't have expertise in this subject. Thank you for your help, I will post on that talk page and perhaps thewiki project Bedfordres (talk) 23:04, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to imply that you were boasting or that the current article isn't in need of improvement. I was only stating that trying to improve everything in one fell swoop sometimes creates other problems. Perhaps a more piecemeal approach in which you incorporate the changes you feel need to be made into the article in stages might be better. This often makes it easier to discuss changes and then incorporate them when a consensus has been established, and reduces the chance of changes being reverted by someone else simply because there're too many being made at once to properly assess them. Of course, every minute change need not be discussed, but it might work better if at least the major changes are, particularly if they're not being made for some clear-cut and very well-established policy or guideline reason. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:10, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

@Marchjuly Ok, thank you. Sorry I misread you. I will do that. Bedfordres (talk) 23:15, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Two important points:

1. You need to discuss your proposal at Talk:Four-player chess. If you make your extensive changes to the article without discussing them first, you can be sure that someone will revert them.
2. You shouldn't use cut-and-paste. It destroys the edit history of the material copied. Indeed, the current contents of your sandbox is technically a copyright violation, as you've copied other people's work without giving them due credit. Maproom (talk) 22:31, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Who did I copy; I'm genuinly confused Bedfordres (talk) 22:32, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

On November 26th, you copied the entire contents of Four-player chess. If you look at its edit history, you'll see contributions by Neils51, JacobOfChess, an IP address, Sdrqaz, and over 100 others. You haven't given any of them credit for their work. Incidentally, I agree with you that your sandbox is an improvement on the article. But if you approach this like a bull in a china shop, your work will end up wasted. Maproom (talk) 22:44, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

@Maproom@RudolfRed I didn't know that, thank you. for what its worth, almost all of the copied material I deleted(minus template with photo thing), but anyways. Bedfordres (talk) 23:01, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

didn't know that refering to the copyright law thing. Bedfordres (talk) 23:06, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

@Bedfordres: Copying entire articles into your user sandbox can sometimes lead to problems as pointed out above, but attribution would be most likely be restored and the page history would most likely be preserved when you copied and pasted your version back into the article. For minor tweaks and changes, this probably doesn't matter much since such things are usually quite easy to figure out. For major changes (e.g. a complete rewrite), things can be much more confusing. The problem is that the link in the attribution chain connecting your sandbox and the old version of the article would be unclear. Someone might mistakenly assume that everything in your sandbox was your own original work and not something that incorporated and built on the work of others. Even if the edit summary you leave when adding the content back to the article states something like "Copied and pasted improved version from my sandbox", there would be no 100% easy way to determine where the content in your sandbox came from. So, if you're going to do something like this again, simply giving "Created new sandbox with content copied and pasted from article X" or something similar as your edit summary when you add the content to your sandbox usually is sufficient. You can fix the issue with your current sandbox as explained in WP:RIA. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:29, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

@Bedfordres: Read WP:CWW RudolfRed (talk) 22:54, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Accidental AfD nom

I accidentally did a AfD when it should have been a speedy deletion, it was for the redirect only. I am unsure how to resolve this now? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anderson Museum of Contemporary Art PigeonChickenFish (talk) 02:05, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

You can WP:WITHDRAW the nomination and make a not that you accidentally nominated it for deletion. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:08, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, hopefully this works. PigeonChickenFish (talk) 02:12, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

No problem :) —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:15, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protection of an article from IPs from certain territories

Is it possible to protect a page from unregistered IP addresses and new users from certain countries/territories? There are anonymous Georgian IP addresses removing visas and stamps of Abkhazia and South Ossetia in Gallery of passport stamps by country or territory constantly. I do not care what anyone's opinion on their independence is, I do not advocate for their independence either, but they are territories that issue their own visas and passport stamps, they definitely belong on the page. This constant removal is nothing but nationalistic pissing contest and it is really annoying at this point.--Shallov (talk) 19:42, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Shallov, there doesn't appear to be much recent activity (only once every few days), and it is only one user. Simply warn IP and ask for a block at WP:AIV if necessary. Sungodtemple (talk) 19:50, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

My bad, at first glance it seemed it's multiple users. When I checked their discussion page, there were a couple of warnings already, next time I'll ask for a block straight away, thank you. Shallov (talk) 09:28, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

@Shallov I gave a clear warning to the latest IP, explaining what you said in your edit summary on their talk page. If they persist after that, let me know and I can block the IP range from the article. Best practice in these cases is to warn the user a few times and then report the user. Galobtter (pingó mió) 20:20, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for your response. I'll let you know if the user keeps removing those two items from the article. I checked their discussion page and there were some warnings already so I decided to ask here. Shallov (talk) 09:41, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

What is freedom day

i want to do my homework So that I can pass and make them proud 41.116.209.86 (talk) 07:52, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. There are several articles about various countries with a "Freedom Day"; you can find them at Freedom Day. 331dot (talk) 07:57, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

hi ip user! if you have further questions you may stop over at the Reference desk (note that they don't do your homework directly, only point you to what you're looking for), or just search what you're looking for directly. happy reading! 💜  melecie  talk - 09:51, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Jairam Das Bheel

Computers Operator Jairam Daas Bhil (talk) 10:56, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

hi Jairam Daas Bhil and welcome to the teahouse! are you here to make an autobiography about yourself? if so, don't: autobiographies are discouraged in wikipedia due to it being hard to make one that would also fit in line with wikipedia's many policies. instead, there may be other places you can write one in. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 11:03, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

"Under review" tag languishing for more than a week

Hello, Teahouse hosts, it's your (not-so-old) Teahouse host asking questions again. So, I submitted this draft, and a reviewer quickly tagged it as "under review". The template stated that it should not remain for any longer than 12 hours, but the tag has been there for over a week. I'm assuming that it's fairly common, and the reviewer should obviously do this at his own convenience. However, I just wanted some help as to how long it should be up there. Thanks. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 02:27, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi @3PPYB6, and welcome to the Teahouse! I've left a note on the reviewer's talk page. For what it's worth, I'm putting my metaphorical AfC reviewer stamp of approval on this one. Cheers! 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 03:23, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Just read the draft - looks solid ! Jasonbrown1965 (talk) 11:57, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Removed vote from blocked sock

Is Wikipedia:Dealing_with_sockpuppets#Removal Required or Optional ? Will it apply for both on going and recently closed voting ? And it is a common rule for all wikis or each wiki has its own rule for vote of sock ? Leemyongpak (talk) 12:28, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

hi Leemyongpak and welcome to the teahouse! a sockpuppet's not-votes can be removed (or other methods) to prevent confusion or the illusion of a larger support/oppose. however this shouldn't be done in already-closed AfDs since those are meant not to be edited. finally, each wiki is a separate project and thus have their own rules for sockpuppetry, with Dealing with sockpuppets only applying to the english wikipedia. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 12:41, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Is it appropriate to add a person's twitter as an external link? Or inline?

hey all, just found the treehous - teahouse?

:) Looking at this page:

Raymond Winbush - Wikipedia

Wondering if it's appropriate to create an external links section, including one to his twitter?

Or should that be noted at the end of his bio?

Tried looking up policy but couldn't find anything, specifically.

thanks for any help :D

jas Jasonbrown1965 (talk) 11:43, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Before considering adding his own social media accounts, I would suggest that you try and put in some reliable sources. The article is at serious risk of being deleted because of its lack of reliable sources.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   11:55, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Velella, will do :) Jasonbrown1965 (talk) 11:59, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

The subject's Twitter account (i.e. something the subject has tweeted) could possible cited as a source in support of article content as long as it's done so in accordance with WP:ABOUTSELF or WP:BLPSELFPUB, but it would be considered a WP:PRIMARY source and you would need to be very careful when doing so. Adding a link to the subject's Twitter account might be acceptable as an external link as long as it's not a problem per WP:ELMINOFFICIAL and item #10 of WP:ELNO. In other words, if the subject has an official website that also provides links to their Twitter account and other social media accounts, then it's better to provide a link to only their official website. If the subject is fairly well known for their tweeting and their primary online activity is Twitter, then perhaps it might be OK to link to their official Twitter account. It's probably better in that case to only link to a verified Twitter account so that there's no reasonable doubt that it's the subject who's doing the tweeting or the subject's people doing the tweeting. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:22, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

This appears to have been answered already but I thought I'd mention some more content you can read up on that explicitly addresses the usage of twitter on Wikipedia such as WP:TWITTER, WP:TWITTER-EL, and WP:RSPTWITTER. TipsyElephant (talk) 12:43, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

How to avoid speedy deletion

I'm facing this problem on pages i created. I gets notifications on speedy deletion from some bots. Can you explain me what is speedy deletion and how to avoid speedy deletion. Thank you GuardedEdits (talk) 09:41, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

hi GuardedEdits and welcome to the teahouse! the speedy deletion criteria can be found over at Criteria for speedy deletion. you can avoid it by not copying from other websites. additionally, articles (those with no draft: prefix) have much stricter rules of inclusion, so it's better to keep stuff you're working on as a draft until you believe it's ready to become an article. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 09:46, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Reasons were given for each of the three Speedy deletions. All of the nominations were by editors (not bots). The first was a draft with no content. The second was for copyright infringment (you copied stuff). The third was because the topic - an actress - has been 'salted' due to previous, failed efforts to create an article about her. David notMD (talk) 12:55, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

zaferalpat

why my page didnt approved? Zaferalpat (talk) 00:27, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

@Zaferalpat: No sources, no article, no debate. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 00:33, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

@Zaferalpat: Also, no autobiographies. ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 01:06, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Attempts at autobiography are allowed, just strongly advised against. David notMD (talk) 02:01, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Zaferalpat, and welcome to the Teahouse. Please understand that Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only 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. ColinFine (talk) 17:18, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Help edititing Article

Hi I need help reviewing editing a article. I recently submited and automatically got deleted or moved. I gave all the information needed. The source I gave is for referance that it existed. Ones that mainly got article deleted is blog, youtube channel. I added that to for it to be found. There where two other referances on their as well. I seen other youtube listed on here before. So not sure why that was included with the deletion. So am needing help with article and referance to pass afc guidlines. Thank You

link: Draft:Ss Stacks 2 ScooterSlim (talk) 05:28, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

@ScooterSlim: Is there a reason why content from the Blogger reference has been copied over into the draft? That's copyright violation, which is taken very seriously on here. Furthermore, that reference doesn't establish the notability of the subject, which is what is required for a subject to be on the encyclopedia. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:37, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Status: Created as article, nominated for Speedy deletion, instead moved to draft Draft:Ss Stacks 2, not yet submitted to AfC. The nom and move were actions by editors - not 'automatic'. As written - first person, no valid refs, copyright violation for copying content from your own blog - there is no potential for this to be approved. Either give up, or delete content and start over. David notMD (talk) 12:47, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Just for knowledge of the biography. All music has the same info as well. I can take that out. Will need add another referance for the biography? ScooterSlim (talk) 16:38, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, ScooterSlim, and welcome to the Teahouse. Please see the answer that I gave to #Zaferalpat a few paragraphs above this. Unless you find several sources that meet that specification (they are published by somebody with a reputation for fact-checking and editorial control, and they are written and published by people completely unconnected with you), you will not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and no article about you will be accepted however and by whoever it is written.

If enough such sources do exist, then an article about you is possible. Writing a Wikipedia article is one of the most difficult tasks there is for inexperienced Wikipedia editors. Writing about yourself makes it even more difficult. Note that if we do at some point have an article about you (whoever writes it) , the article will not belong to you, will not be controlled by you, and will not necessarily say what you want it to say. ColinFine (talk) 17:28, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Draftify/CSD/AfD

Hi,

I came across this article (Bhushita Ahuja). The references don't support the article and an article on the same person was deleted through AfD in April.

As a ~new person I'm unsure if it should be moved to draft, go for CSD, or AfD again. Suggestions please? Any links to good reading material on what I should have done also appreciated! Carver1889 (talk) 17:33, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

@Carver1889 Welcome to Teahouse! None of the current sources are an improvement from the last AfD discussion, so I've nominated it for deletion a second time. I also noted the dubious usage of irrelevant academic sourcing that fail to verify any of the content in this biography itself. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 17:51, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Blind scientist

I was wondering if blind people could have successful careers in science and if so, what field of science? I would really like to hear your opinions! Mtbuser name (talk) 15:54, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, @Mtbuser name, and welcome to the Teahouse. Unfortunately, this is a help forum supporting people having practical difficulties editing Wikipedia, not a general chat forum. In fact, there is no such place on Wikipedia at all to ask that sort of question, except perhaps the REFDESK. I think yours is a question for you to use a search engine on and then to land on some other discussion fora or news articles. But, in short, I think the actual answer to that question is 'Yes'. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 16:09, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Mtbuser name. Amy Bower is a blind oceanographer. Cullen328 (talk) 16:15, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

See also Joshua Miele.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 17:23, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

And Geerat J. Vermeij --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 19:05, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

@Mtbuser name, please don't removed answered posts from the Teahouse, even your own. They will be automatically archived after several days. 97.126.106.3 (talk) 19:25, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

AOL

Is AOL a reliable source? I've read through the referencing for beginners guide but I'm still getting fairly mixed signals here. I've never cited a source before, and I don't want to do something wrong. I'm trying to cite a news article from 2012, and I've noticed the writer of the article is listed, and nowhere on the news article does it seem to say that it's been looked over and reviewed. Does this make it a self-published source? Did I not read it through enough? I looked at the list of commonly used sources and AOL was not in there, so I thought I should go here to ask for help. Anything is appreciated. - Cheers, KoolKidz112 (hit me up) 20:31, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi KoolKidz112. Are you asking about this AOL or some other AOL? I don't think the American Online "AOL" is generally considered to be news media organization that creates it's own original news content, but maybe it does. Was the article you want you want to cite written by someone working (or reporting) for AOL? Was it an article simply being hosted by AOL? Some news aggregate sites do have their own independent news departments generating original content, but they also host lots of content created by others, including some of which is unvetted user-generated content. For example, if you read an article using Yahoo!, Yahoo! isn't always the original source of the content; Yahoo! could've gotten the content from someone or somewhere else and is just republishing it. So, if you can provide more information about the source (i.e. who wrote the article, what organization they seem to work for, what type of article is it (e.g. blog, editorial, news report)) and which Wikipedia article you want to use it in, then perhaps someone can help you sort things out? — Marchjuly (talk) 21:07, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

My article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed, and it has not been accepted

Hi editors! I created a draft of an article (Draft:Tissue therapy), and today I've been notified that the article isn't created at this time. Reviewers inserted some templates on the draft and on my user talk page, telling that the subject does not deserve to have a separate page on Wikipedia because the references (that I provided) don't show the subject significance. Aside from that, they are trying to have me to study the rules of the platform, to fix mistakes that I made, and to resubmit the draft. ...Or to request the article deletion.

Hmm, I find that a bit unfriendly. I created the article from a link to a non-existing article on a page about Vladimir Filatov. The link is still there (on the day of writing this), and invites to create the article with the name "Tissue therapy". Reviewers titled their edit actually, this is a really bad idea. Maybe they suspect me in promotion the subject. I'm not going to promote it. I wrote a brief complete note, as neutral as possible (it rather tends to criticize the subject). I'm not going to rewrite it, and to request the deletion either. None of proposed options. I even do not desire to have a separate article for the subject. I violated the rules. I'm sorry for that! That was not on purpose.

As I understood the material will live at least 6 months...

My question: Why do reviewers not propose to transfer materials to a more appropriate place? Tosha Langue (talk) 14:58, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Tosha Langue First, what you got at Draft:Tissue therapy and on your Talk page is standardized wording for whenever a draft is declined by a reviewer (not "Reviewers"). Second, at English Wikipedia, medical/health topics require a high standard for references, described at WP:MEDRS. I cannot read Russian, but suspect the references you provided do not meet this standard. Third, as to next steps, you can ask that the draft be deleted. If you do not, at five months you will get a reminder that it is due for deletion, and that action will be taken at six months. The clock is reset if the draft is edited in the interim. David notMD (talk) 15:48, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

This is it, @David notMD! The references don't meet WP:MEDRS. I mostly agree with the reviewer's standardized wording. The article should not exist on Wikipedia. Maybe I should add this material to Vladimir Filatov page. Nevertheless I wanted to insert a claim that tissue therapy isn't in use in scientific community, but didn't find any citation for this. This case is similar to Linus Pauling and his vitamin C therapy, however it seems that reliable and independent critics of Pauling's ideas are abundant, unlike Filatov's. Tosha Langue (talk) 17:12, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Tosha Langue, Wikipedia must of course cover "therapies" that don't achieve anything (or worse), if these are notable. I shan't attempt to judge whether "tissue therapy" is notable; but if you believe that it is, you might post a message at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard, briefly summarizing what's written immediately above and asking for suggestions. If you're lucky, your message will excite the interest of one or more editors who aren't just accustomed to this kind of subject but can also read Russian more or less fluently. -- Hoary (talk) 23:21, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

how do I move an addition to an article from my sandbox to the live page

I'm a student completing an assignment. RYNOT1206 (talk) 20:03, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Please, see Wikipedia:So_you_made_a_userspace_draft. Ruslik_Zero 20:42, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi RYNOT1206. Since you seem to have essentially asked your Wiki Ed advisor Ian (Wiki Ed) the same question at User talk:Ian (Wiki Ed)#Need help request from RYNOT1206 (talk), maybe it's best for us here at the Teahouse to let Ian respond to your question. Ian is probably more familiar with your class and what's expected of you as a student, and may be able to give advice more particular to your specific situation. Ian may also be better able to assess your sandbox and whether it's ready for the article namespace. Students who try to move content from their sandboxes into articles sometimes run into problems for one reason or another (as you can see from all the messages on Ian's user talk page); so, maybe waiting a bit will help you avoid some of them. My understanding when it comes to courses like this is that your course's instructor should be OK with assessing or grading your coursework while it's still in your user sandbox. Once you add something to an article, the next person who edits the article can modify or remove (partially or totally) what you added; so, your instructor might not even see what you actually did if someone else has already changed it. — Marchjuly (talk) 20:44, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

@RYNOT1206, I see that you have completed the training required by your course. However I also see that you spent 28 seconds on the "Moving group work live" section back in March. I suggest that you go over that again. One of the 14 sections in that training is "Adding content to an existing article?" StarryGrandma (talk) 00:18, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. RYNOT1206 (talk) 00:23, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

How to mark the British Crown Dependency on the map?

I have uploaded File:Map of countries by BMI.svg for List of countries by body mass index. This map is based on the data provided by the United Nation. I wonder that British Crown Dependencies are not part of the United Kingdom, but the United Kingdom is responsible for them, the UN didn't provided data for them. Should they be marked in the same colours as the UK or marked as "no data"? (Sorry for my poor English) --BlackShadowG (talk) 01:14, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

As "no data", BlackShadowG. -- Hoary (talk) 03:32, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Yugoslav and Serbian

Can we call avant-garde musician Konstrakta Yugoslav and Serbian, since she was alive before the dissolution of Yugoslavia? 85.238.69.176 (talk) 04:19, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Every person I know who was born in Yugoslavia (including every member of my family on my father's side, my son's best friend's grandparents, and a former supervisor) identify themselves as Croatian or Serbian or whatever subdivision of the former Yugoslavia currently exists. And having visited the region a couple of times, nobody I met, even the older folks, identified themselves as Yugoslavian, but as the region is called now. That's just a personal observation. For Konstrakta, it is more relevant to call her Serbian, as that is a better indication of the region than Yugoslavian, which is significantly larger and no longer relevant because it includes Serbia. And it's highly probably that she herself identifies as Serbian also. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:24, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Citing sources via the Wikipedia Library?

Hi, as the title may suggest I will maybe be citing some sources from the Wikipedia Library very soon, some of which will be behind a paywall. What I want to know is that do I need to include a url? EBSCO permalinks can be funny, and I was just wondering if it was possible to get away with just a doi/PMID identifier? Obviously I'll need to put in url-access=subscription in the cite journal template but I just wanted to know the deal with urls. Thanks X-750 _{I've made a mistake, haven't I?} 00:38, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

@X750: There is no requirement for a cited source to be available online. The source needs to be verifiable, that's all. If verification means going to a local library or paying a fee, so be it. A web link is just a convenience and it isn't a required. Citing sources behind a paywall is acceptable. Just include the doi or PMID parameter in the {{cite}} template, and that is sufficient for anyone with access to review the referenced work. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:33, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Italics

How to write an article's title in Italics? Yes, I have read WP:ITALICTITLE but I am not getting it. Looking forward for someone's help. Cheers! Leoneix _(talk) 14:55, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

@Leoneix: Welcome to the Teahouse. Please read the documentation at {{italic title}}. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:06, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Leoneix _(talk) 15:46, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Leoneix I had this same question a while back, if you are using {{Infobox album}} or {{Taxobox}}, the title of the article should automatically italicize. Sorry for the late reply I don't frequent here often. X-750 _{I've made a mistake, haven't I?} 00:43, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

@X750,Yep! I figured it out. Thanks Leoneix _(talk) 04:41, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

References vs. Inline Citations

Hi, I was wondering if it would be possible for me to add References to an article without having them necessarily be inline citations attached to specific segments of the article? I ask because I am working on a AfC draft where I would like to make sure the Notability of the subject is sufficiently verifiable for the reviewers once I submit it, and I do have a fair amount of printed magazine/journal articles that I could add to the references, but I don't necessarily have more to say about the subject than I already have in the article at the moment, these references would just further establish/reinforce the existing points. If this is possible, please let me know how because I can't figure out how to add references manually to the ref list anymore, I know it used to be possible years ago tho! SleepyWhippet (talk) 02:21, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Template:Reflist and Help:Footnotes should be helpful. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 03:03, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

@Ariconte thanks, I ended up creating two different heading names -- References and Footnotes -- which I think will be more clear? If so, will be adding more manual references. SleepyWhippet (talk) 04:43, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Is this a copyright violation?

I was looking for citations for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite#Hazards And I came across https://studyqueries.com/thermite-reaction/. It seems like very similar worded to that website... Anyone have thoughts on this? WikipediaNeko (talk) 04:53, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

I'd guess that the studyqueries site copied from Wikipedia, not the reverse EvergreenFir (talk) 05:02, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

The content on Wikipedia was added around 2007; I used javascript:alert(document.lastModified) on the StudyQueries page, which usually shows the last time the page was modified, but it seems to be constantly modified when I tried using it in quick succession, so I can't tell when the content on StudyQueries was added.. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:45, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

I'll second EvergreenFir, there are a lot of "study help" websites that just port or heavily paraphrase information from Wikipedia. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they)^{Talk to Me!} 06:34, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

VIISAN

Draft:VIISAN Bernice860114 (talk) 01:41, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Your creation Draft:VIISAN has been rejected, Bernice860114. This means "Please stop", because continuing your efforts would just waste more of your and other editors' time. -- Hoary (talk) 03:32, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

VIISAN is a big company and I have some of their equipment. I'm sure there will be unbiased information about them, but first you need to find those sources and adopt a more appropriate tone than advertising. You should also read WP:YFA. Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:23, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

How to write locked edits.

I want to write on locked edits because i have knowledge on that different fields Aditya2422341 (talk) 05:43, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

I suppose, Aditya2422341, that you mean that you want to edit a protected article. Please go to the article's talk page and say precisely what change you hope to make. Provide reliable sources to back up your proposal, of course. -- Hoary (talk) 05:47, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

@Aditya2422341: Welcome to the Teahouse. Please be aware that while expert editors are welcome to add to fields they specialise in, they must still follow Wikipedia's verifiability policy. For articles that are protected, please leave edit requests on their talk pages. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:48, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

To date, all of your edits have been reversed. Please develop more expertise in improving articles before going to Talk pages of protected articles to request changes. David notMD (talk) 09:47, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Help to write an NGO article

Hi people,

I would like to know if someone can help me writting an article about an NGO project I've started for a couple of years.

I've written a drawft to show more less what the project is about and add many links to interviews I've done. Honestly I would like someone else to write the article to have an objective point of view of this project called Share a Bike-Share a Smile.

Although I've written in 3th person and tried to be objective, my relationship with the project does not let me be as objective as I sould so, if someone wants to help that would be awesome.

Thanks a lot for taking the time to read this,

Looking forward to hear from you people.

Gabo Gabriel Goldsack (talk) 10:25, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Gabriel Goldsack Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Thanks for asking your question. I would note that your first attempt was deleted as both advertising and as a copyright violation- we cannot accept content directly copied or too closely paraphrased from other sourcs. I would also note that your comment here reflects a common misunderstanding that many in your position have- that Wikipedia is a place for people to just tell about a topic like an organization and what it does- even if it is a good cause. That's not actually the case- and is considered promotional here(even if you are not soliciting or selling something). As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a topic- in this case, an organization- showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability- such as a notable organization. "Significant coverage" goes beyond the mere reporting of a topic's activites or its existence, and goes into detail about the importance of the topic. "Independent" means that the sources cannot be associated with the topic or based on materials put out by the topic(like its website or interviews with personnel) As you seem to now recognize, it is difficult for someone with a conflict of interest to write about a topic for which they have one here, as you must set aside everything you know about the organization and only write based on what others have chosen on their own to say about it.

You are welcome to make a request at Requested Articles but it is so severely backlogged, to the point of uselessness, that your request may not be acted on for some time, if ever. The best thing to do, instead of trying to force the issue, is to naturally allow independent editors to take note of coverage of your organization in independent reliable sources and choose to write about it on their own. That's the best indicator of notability and will also give the article much more staying power. 331dot (talk) 10:36, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi 331dot, thanks a lot for your answer.

I understand better now. I'll let pass time, I'm sure that sooner or later will write about us and I'll be happy to see it from a person that can write with a 100% objective view of the NGO.

Once again, thanks for you time. Gabriel Goldsack (talk) 10:58, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

How to add reliable sources in Wikipedia article

Hey Team, I am a new user @Super30867 at here and I created an article at first time. I added all reliable sources in article by using citation but my draft: Sunil Sihag have declined by @Praxidicae. I want to know how to fix it. Super30867 (talk) 23:47, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Hey Super30867, you can start with Help:Referencing for beginners, and then looking at WP:Reliable sources and WP:Verifiability. For example, this webpage you referenced in Draft:Sunil Sihag isn't considered a reliable source since it appears to be a promotional press release rather than an independent news article, and we try to avoid sources associated with the subject for reasons of neutrality. – Anon423 (talk) 00:04, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Is Times Of India is promotional press release?

Is Hindustan Times is a promotional press relesae?

is dainik bhaskar is a promotional press release?

I have given many PR sources which are not Promotional Press Relesae. I request to you please review on it. Super30867 (talk) 10:23, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Any "PR source" is by definition not independent. If we take for instance that TOI piece, it is a thinly-veiled interview, consisting exclusively of what the subject wanted to tell about themselves, therefore not an independent piece. "Promotional" is much larger than only paid-for pieces (i.e. advertisement).

If you feel that is a very strict guideline, that’s because it is. If you think that means 60% of articles in even relatively highly-regarded newspapers are unusable, you are correct. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 12:25, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Getty Images

Can Getty Images be used as Image if sourced and credit to author? JohnLUcas05 (talk) 16:17, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

No. There is almost no situation in which Getty can or should be used unless it's licensed in a compatible way with Wikipedia or somehow falls under NFF, which seems highly unlikely. PRAXIDICAE💕 16:17, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, JohnLUcas05. One exception is if the image was first published more than 95 years ago. In that case, copyright has expired and the image is now in the public domain. Cullen328 (talk) 17:17, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

@JohnLUcas05: It will depend on the source of the image. Some images from Getty are incorrectly marked as copyright. See Getty_Images#Claiming_copyright_over_public_domain_content RudolfRed (talk) 17:23, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Archiving sources

I found a source that was unarchived, and I would like to know how I can archive a source on web.archive.org.

Thanks, CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 17:42, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

User:CollectiveSolidarity, you can put the URL into "Save Page Now" and submit. This usually works well. If it doesn't work for whatever reason, you can also try archive.today. 70.172.194.25 (talk) 17:49, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

@CollectiveSolidarity: Hello Collective! From what I always hear, all sources used on Wikipedia are eventually archived automatically on archive.org. To add archive links to sources (And also all sources on the page while searching for deadlinks) you can use the InternetArchiveBot which will do it automatically. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:48, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

What's going on here?

There's a user, User:Galehale, whose account is only two hours old and has only engaged in reverting edits. I haven't looked at all the edits they reverted (just mine), but I'm confident that they are not being careful or only removing obvious vandalism. They also don't explain their reversions in edit summaries or talk pages.

Probably worth reviewing each of their reversions. 70.172.194.25 (talk) 07:31, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

See this [15] they have removed content and added without source. Galehale (talk) 07:45, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

That is a false representation of my edit, and strengthens my point about your lack of care. If you see that diff and think "this is vandalism", you are missing the picture. I had copied the text of the Ukrainian article into the Draft namespace and was in the process of translating it into English—a project which I completed entirely on my own, resulting in a successful AfC submission. I did not "[add] without source" either. Rather, I did the opposite—I added a reference for a claim which the original Ukrainian text did not source.

For further evidence that I'm not a vandal, see my edits and talk page on Wiktionary, which is where I focus my main efforts. 70.172.194.25 (talk) 07:42, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Again see this [16] [17] Galehale (talk) 07:45, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Neither of those edits are problematic. Please learn how to read diffs before going on a reverting spree. I will not be engaging further but I hope other editors can provide assistance. I do think you are acting in good faith, for the record. 70.172.194.25 (talk) 07:54, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Explicit could you please take a look at this, Galehale seems to be reverting edits & changing content without sound reason. The examples Galehale has provided was merely a translation of a Ukranian wikipedia article which I've looked at (& seems fine). I'm assuming good faith but this sort of reverting spree could become problematic on more popular articles... X-750 _{I've made a mistake, haven't I?} 08:06, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I don't see where any of the usual takers have answered here so I'll try. The Teahouse isn't really set-up to enforce policy or decide who is right or wrong in a dispute. This is more of a question/answer type format where we assist new and experienced editors with their questions concerning Wikipedia and editing. It's true that we have many wonder admin's that watch the page and many of our amazing responders are admin's but content issues are best resolved on an article or user talk page or at this page. If you feel it is a behavioral issue or incidents that are urgently or persistently harmful to the encyclopedia then I suggest this page or this page (vandalism only) as the place to go. I haven't really looked deeper than the surface here but those are my immediate suggestions. --ARoseWolf 12:56, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Galehale is the sock of an LTA. Indef blocked. Girth Summit _(blether) 16:10, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't suspect that they were a known troublemaker. I had assumed it was just a trigger-happy recent changes patroller. Thank you for handling the situation. 70.172.194.25 (talk) 17:52, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

How do I link a foreign-language wikisource item in an English wikipedia article?

How do I link a foreign-language wikisource item in an English wikipedia article?

I want to link this page https://hu.wikisource.org/wiki/A_Velencei_Köztársaság_halálára 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 22:30, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Ficaia. [[s:hu:A Velencei Köztársaság halálára]] displays as s:hu:A Velencei Köztársaság halálára. ColinFine (talk) 22:37, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

editing

i cannot code the editing when o go to edit and code it it doesn't work Theguyfromfortniteguy (talk) 16:41, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Theguyfromfortniteguy What exactly are you trying to edit? PRAXIDICAE💕 16:42, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

@Theguyfromfortniteguy Hello, Welcome to Wikipedia! If you want to have a play around with editing you can make your own sandbox page to learn how to edit: User:Theguyfromfortniteguy/Sandbox. If you want a quick reference for how the formatting system works have a look at the cheatsheet, for a more detailed set of instructions there's a really detailed help page: Help:Wikitext. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 18:54, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

@Theguyfromfortniteguy Hello! Maybe you could switch to the Visual Editor if you're having trouble with the Source Editor? When you go into the editing window, there's usually a pencil-looking object on the top right corner that you can click to switch. Have a good day/night and good luck with your problem! If my answer didn't help, you can either ask on my talk page or here at the Teahouse.

Asparagusus (interaction) 22:58, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Can a company or organisation create a user account on wikipedia?

Hello, I've been trying to find the answer to this question, but I'm getting more lost than found at the moment! We have been researching and discovering a great deal about leadership, management, mentoring, coaching and counseling over the last 18 years and would like to share some of this work thought Wikipedia. Can I set up an account as an organisation and share our work that way, or set up an account as an individual and then share, write about the organisation separately? As I would if I were researching any company? I'd just like to get clarity on this, so that I don't infringe any rules before I even get started! What rule do I need to read and understand? Many Thanks Tom 195.213.242.120 (talk) 10:33, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi IP 195.213.242.120. It sounds like you're misunderstanding some important things about Wikipedia; so, I suggest you take a look at this and this. It doesn't sound like Wikipedia is suited for what you seem to want to do, but perhaps some of these sites might be. As for your question about accounts, accounts aren't allowed to be shared among mutliple users; so, corporate or organizational accounts aren't really going to be allowed. Basically, it's one user per account. You can find out more about how to register for an account here. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:40, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Organization accounts are not permitted, accounts are for individuals only and are exclusively for single person use(i.e. they can't be associated with a position and passed to a successor). You are permitted to create an account with a username that indicates association with an organization(such as "JohnDoe of XYZ Company"). You would also need to read about conflict of interest and, if you are compensated for editing or for any work related to the topic, would need to declare as a paid editor, a Terms of Use requirement if applicable. Wikipedia is not a place to share original research, it is a place to summarize independent reliable sources. That can include the reporting of original research, but not directly posting original research. (i.e. if the New York Times or BBC write about your research, but not your research itself). 331dot (talk) 10:40, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

A company should probably not have an official Wikipedia account. It might lead to violations of the conflict of interest and paid-contribution disclosure guidelines and policies (and many more). Also, naming an account after a company would be a violation of the username policy. Thanks for asking instead of just going and doing it.

Asparagusus (interaction) 17:00, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Not probably, it shouldn't at all. It's against policy for shared accounts to be used (except in certain circumstances where they are used for non-editing purposes and have been approved by the WMF). ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:17, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

(I was trying not to be mean to them. Thanks for clarifying, though)

Asparagusus (interaction) 22:59, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Muholi Art Institute

Please guide or assis in correcting:

Muholi Art Institute (MAI) uses the creative process to nurture and archive the voices, hearts, and minds of historically marginalized individuals.

We are offering a space for them to produce freely content that matter, to imagine, to believe, and to represent their creative vision for their lives and communities, through visual arts activism.

We use the medium of (documentary) photography.

Through consistent workshops with long-term partners,  including youth organizations, schools, universities, and internships; art becomes the starting point of a larger life process, and the start of larger conversations about the future of our black communities. This is the core premise of MAI Mbusongcongo (talk) 04:46, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

@Mbusongcongo: Welcome to the Teahouse. If you're thinking about using this content in a draft, I'll stop you right there and say that that will make reviewers decline it immediately. Ad copy has no place on Wikipedia, since the tone is wholly inappropriate for the medium. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:52, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

If you ever want to write an article that you do not have a conflict of interest in, don't use first-person pronouns.

Asparagusus (interaction) 23:06, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

STATUS: Draft:Muholi Art Institute was Speedy deleted. @Mbusongcongo: A search at Google found no evidence that the Muholi Art Insitute exists. There is an article about Black photographer Zanele Muholi, but no information there about an Art Institute. David notMD (talk) 09:42, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Information on sources and reality

Hello Wikipedians!! I've found here, here, here (and other articles of the same site) and here that an artist I'm writing on Draft:LØREN (musician) has produced for Somi but I don't find anywhere that information to her songs, neither with his other names. Is it possible so many sites saying that information and not be true? OK, maybe bandwagon or Vacancy Mag are not important but Vogue Hong Kong is considered one of the best mags and I don't think the translation is wrong either. How can this be possible? Fisforfenia (talk) 19:46, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

This could be a sign that LØREN is not notable. Remember, notability is determined on the number of reliable sources you can find for the subject. Sungodtemple (talk) 21:58, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Fisforfenia, I didn't click on any of the links you provided, but their titles -- with "drops debut", "to launch", and "set to debut" -- suggests that they're little more than recycled PR fluff. The sources must be reliable, of course; but they must also say something substantive about what she has done, not merely that she or her agent or PR company has promised that she will do this or that. -- Hoary (talk) 23:26, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

does 20-30 days old page can be deleted ?

Just for my knowledge wanted to know if I got a page published on wikipedia and its 20-30 days old , can any one delete that page ? Kbv2024 (talk) 16:33, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

@Kbv2024: Welcome to the Teahouse. Could you provide more information as to what page it is? Answer depends on factors like whether it is in the main articlespace or Draft:. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:35, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

main articlespace Kbv2024 (talk) 16:36, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Kbv2024. Only administrators can actually delete an article but any editor can propose that an article be deleted. It is the notability of the topic that matters most, not how long the article has been around. Please read Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Cullen328 (talk) 16:46, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

thank u for the information, Kbv2024 (talk) 16:51, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

The only type of page where the amount of time it has existed matters is Draft pages, and even then it will only be deleted if they have not been edited in 6 months. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:01, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

In addition, pages with more than 5000 revisions can only be deleted by a steward. Cranloa12n / talk / contribs / 22:50, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

@Cranloa12n: Wait really? Where did you find that info? ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 13:06, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

I forgot. Cranloa12n / talk / contribs / 13:08, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

@Cranloa12n: Oh, cause I"ve never heard that before. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 13:11, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

For those interested: more info to be found here. Lectonar (talk) 13:30, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Ah ok. So it appears that limit is to prevent the WMF's servers from spontaneously combusting because a troll tried deleting the sandbox. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 13:32, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Actually it wasn't really a troll...even in those times only admins could delete pages. Let's call it youthful exuberance, and they ended up here for it, after much barnstarring and trouting. Lectonar (talk) 13:56, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Blaze Wolf see WP:BIGDELETE & WP:SERVERLOAD X-750 _{I've made a mistake, haven't I?} 00:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Incorrect info on William Cameron Townsend Wikipedia page

Hello, Just read William Cameron Townsend's Wikipedia page and it says under "Early Life" that he attended Compton High School, yet at the top of his profile it states he graduated from Santa Ana High school in 1914 and also note that under Santa Ana High School's Wikipedia page, he's listed as a Notable Alumnus. Both cannot be correct. Perhaps he attended Compton HS for a year or two but moved to Santa Ana HS and graduated there in 1914.How do I correct this or does a Wikipedia edit make corrections? Thanks, Kelli (Kalireagan7 user name) Kalireagan7 (talk) 19:31, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

@Kalireagan7 – Hello! Here at Wikipedia, we encourage you to be bold! To answer your question, a Wikipedia edit does make corrections! Of course, you should always cite a reliable source and make sure it complies with Wikipedia's policies on biographies of living people, but other than that, make the correction! (Postscript note: You may want to use {{find general sources}} to make sure that your statement is correct.) — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 19:49, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Fixed, Kalireagan7, reverting an unexplained and implausible edit of 9 August 2018. (Incidentally, 3PPYB6, it's hardly necessary to worry about Wikipedia's policies on biographies of living people when dealing with somebody's secondary education during the second decade of the 20th century.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:52, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

@Hoary – I'll take that into consideration next time; thanks for letting me know. I need to remember WP:5P5 and know that I don't have to check every single one of my edits against BLP… — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 23:54, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Policies about BLP, 3PPYB6, are about the living and the recently dead. Townsend has been dead for decades, as one might guess from the question and as can be confirmed in seconds by a mere glance at the article in question. -- Hoary (talk) 00:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Ultraviolet

Ultraviolet (disambiguation) What is Ultraviolet? 2001:44B8:41C6:F700:A0BB:C91B:472:C674 (talk) 10:31, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi IP 2001:44B8:41C6:F700:A0BB:C91B:472:C674. Have you tried reading the Wikipedia article Ultraviolet? Perhaps that will answer your question. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:34, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Or perhaps you're referring to the tool Ultraviolet? — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 11:13, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Or the show? Panini! • 🥪 16:12, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Maybe the film? Chlod (say hi!) 16:13, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Perchance the website? CaptainGalaxy 00:10, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Was old account deactivated?

I haven't logged into Wikipedia in over 5 years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watertown_Air_Force_Station Now the password reset function is not sending me a reset email. Tried three times yesterday, twice today. I've triple-checked my email spelling. I've done normal case also lower case. I've checked my SPAM folder. I've tried my other two email addresses. Absolutely nothing. THIS screen says my username not registered. Yet when I try to recreate my same username Wikipedia tells me that the username is already in use. The 'Help' page is no help. 75.243.212.175 (talk) 02:23, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

You have been queried for more information at the help desk. Please don't ask in multiple areas to avoid duplicating volunteer effort. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:32, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Suresh Joachim

Important information about Suresh Joachim remove from the site. Why Please? 142.116.50.224 (talk) 02:31, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

@142.116.50.224: all the information is on your talk page and it appears since then you have also tried adding the information again under a different IP. The information is unsourced and even then some of it isn't relevant and not "important information" that needs to be added to the article. I suggest you read WP:BLP to see what is allowed, you also may have a conflict of interest, since all your editing seems to be about this person. Note to other editors, I have reported IP to AIV and asked for upgraded page protection.— NZFC^(talk)(cont) 02:59, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Improving my article to meet Wikipedia standards (Top 100 Films of All-Time, according to Rotten Tomatoes, IMDb, etc.)

I've drafted an article that lists the top 100 films of all-time based in now way on my own opinion, but purely based on an average ranking from 5 trusted sources: Rotten Tomatoes, IMDb, AFI, Sights & Sounds, and Empire (each referenced in my article). Unfortunately, it's been declined on the basis that it uses my own opinion but it doesn't; in fact, I don't even like the way Top 10 came out, but math is math :D

Can someone help me understand how I (if at all), I might present this data/information in a way that is suitable for Wikipedia? I'm a first-time publisher so could very well be missing a blatant issue but would love any guidance! Nuferdan (talk) 23:56, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

You have asked this at the AFC help desk; please only use one method of seeking assistance, to avoid duplication. 331dot (talk) 00:19, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

You can't, because Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. We don't publish original synthesis (which is what this is, as you're synthesising information from sources) because encyclopaedias don't do that. We merely summarise what other, reliable sources that have already done the synthesis say. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 00:20, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

@Nuferdan: Extrapolating trends to come to a conclusion is not what Wikipedia is for. This would be considered improper synthesis. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:41, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Besides, we already have lists such as 100 best American films ever made, BFI Top 100 British films and hundreds of other Lists of films. Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:15, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

@Nuferdan Top 100 films of all time as of when you created your draft, of course. Do you plan to update this when newer, better films come out and displace some entries that are currently on your draft list? Forever? It always seems to me that lists like this are unmaintainable, or at least unmaintained. Like a list of the "best 50 restaurants in Chicago" would get out of date. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 05:46, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Copyright issues

I noticed that some text put onto Talk:Fano (militia) was directly copied from a news article (Specifically this one). Ive removed the text, but im concerned about how to handle possible copyvio. I've looked through things like WP:CP and frankly im getting very confused at how to file a request properly or what is the right case for this. Would someone be able to either guide me through handling this correctly or sort this on my behalf? Aidan9382 _(talk) 06:55, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

@Aidan9382, sorted. Yeah that can be very confusing. I would just ask for a WP:REVDEL of the relevant edits using Template:Copyvio-revdel, and some admin will come and make the relevant edits hidden. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:59, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! Ill keep that template in mind, it seems quite useful. Aidan9382 _(talk) 07:02, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Is there a policy on the systematic removal of history and talk?

A very large institution has been acquiring many significant companies and either eliminating their Wikipedia pages or replacing them with short entries that are far from complete, don't mention their current ownership, and have removed history and talk pages virtually entirely, with no further editing despite their use by millions of people. Some relevant information can be found on other pages. I haven't seen such a large hole in the English Wikipedia before, and wonder what policies apply. Jgrudin (talk) 06:24, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi, @Jgrudin, welcome to the Teahouse! In regard to your lead question, while there is a policy on the removal of page history (see WP:Oversight), regarding your message, I am unfortunately unsure on what's happened. Could you give a little more information? That would help any editors who wish to check out what's happened themselves, and we'll be better informed to help you. Thankyou, and have a good day! HenryTemplo (talk) 06:34, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Jgrudin, the institution should not be removing or otherwise changing articles on businesses that it owns, as it has a conflict of interest. Also, the changes you describe seem destructive. Can you please list the articles concerned, so that competent editors can assess and remedy the damage? Maproom (talk) 07:26, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I contracted covid and did not follow up, apologies. I have no experience with archived discussions and don't know the procedure, or whether you will receive this. Seeing that there might be an issue I will create a new thread as muninbot suggested. @jgrudin 67.168.116.53 (talk) 01:07, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

how do i get new articles published

i need help in getting new article published WebpadiNG (talk) 08:28, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, @WebpadiNG, and welcome to the Teahouse! I would recommend reading Your first article. You also must make sure any articles you create have a notable subject. Notability means that reliable, secondary sources have covered the subject in depth. There’s much more that you need to know, so do let me or another editor know if you need any help. Happy editing! HenryTemplo (talk) 09:31, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

one more thing: Reliable sources describes what can and cannot be used as a source in Wikipedia, which I'd recommend you to read as sourcing claims is vital. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 10:09, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

How do we report vandalism by "extended confirmed" users?

We see a lot of Extended confirmed users who are using their privileges to push older data or delete data. There are numerous incidents, is there a way we can report this?

I am not adding names here, upon request I shall share. Shark (talk) 09:36, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

hi Shark80 and welcome to the teahouse! are you talking about the edits in K.G.F: Chapter 2? I'd advise you to talk to them first regarding why they are reverting your edits, either at their talk page or the article's talk page, instead of reverting further. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 10:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

@Shark80, also be aware that vandalism has a very specific definition on Wikipedia, and what you describe does not fall into that category (see WP:NOTVANDALISM). 97.113.167.129 (talk) 12:23, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I need this article reviewed

When working on the project, i discovered a controversy surrounding the page which is below;

"In 2018, Amina Mohammed, aka Justina Oluoha and Amina Villa, was arrested by the Department of State Services (DSS) for reportedly impersonating Rashida Bello, wife of Kogi State governor. On Monday, December 3, 2018, in Abuja, DSS public relations officer Peter Afunanya revealed this while speaking to reporters about the arrest. He claimed that the suspect gained unlawful entrance to the Presidential Aso Villa and utilized the First Lady's office, Aisha Buhari's, to commit fraud. Before being identified, the suspect used several names and identities to deceive unsuspecting people, according to Afunanya"

to avoid some individuals impersonating her i think its right if she will be identified as the first lady to avoid people falling into scam to fake people parading as the subject.

Thanks Dorathy Nnaji (talk) 17:47, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

@Dorathy Nnaji: If you have suggestions to improve an article, you can start a discussion on that article's talk page. RudolfRed (talk) 18:11, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Dorathy Nnaji, and welcome to the Teahouse! Is this about the article Rashida Bello? The talk page for that article can be found here. Happy editing! Perfect4th (talk) 18:16, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

What is there to review? You created the article Rashida Bello, including a controversy section about a woman impersonating her, and identifying Bello as First Lady of Kogi State. David notMD (talk) 18:36, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

I see that the article hasn't been picked up by two search engines I checked. Maybe that's what's meant. Unfortunately, it's out of our hands. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 22:28, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

The article in question was created on 15 April 2022, so it won't be indexed by search engines until a new pages patroller checks it or 90 days have passed, whichever comes first. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:02, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Ah, I thought it had been patrolled already since "Indexing by robots" is set to "Allowed". Then I guess they're asking for NPP to stop by. 97.113.167.129 (talk) 12:29, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't quite understand what you are saying, Dorathy, but I will point out the "to avoid (somebody doing something)" is not part of any purpose of Wikipedia. The purpose of Wikipedia is to summarise what reliable sources say about notable subjects, nothing more. ColinFine (talk) 21:20, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that the Controversy section is not about Bello or anything she did, and so should be deleted. All the real controversy is in the article about her husband. David notMD (talk) 00:34, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

course of abshiri rebellion

course of abshiri rebellion 62.8.83.129 (talk) 11:59, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Do you want to ask a question about the abshiri rebellion? If so, maybe try asking the reference desk. Have a good day! HenryTemplo (talk) 14:41, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Is this about Abushiri revolt?

Submission Declined

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Kargo_Xpress

submission been declined for the same reason.

Submission declined on 6 May 2022 by Rich Smith (talk). This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

I have resubmitted with the following reference and yet it is declined again.

^ https://www.nst.com.my/business/2021/06/697323/m-jets-obtained-aoc-commence-cargo-flight-east-malaysia ^ "Kargo Xpress adds Hong Kong to its air freight network - Payload Asia". ^"Kargo Xpress Fleet Details and History". www.planespotters.net. ^ https://www.gecas.aero/2x738bcf_to_kargo-xpress/ ^ https://www.jetphotos.com/airline/Kargo Xpress ^ https://www.airfleets.net/flottecie/Kargo Xpress.htm ^ https://cargofacts.com/allposts/carriers/kargo-xpress-nears-launch-with-737-400f/ ^ https://www.caasint.com/kargo-xpress-implements-champs-cargospot-airline-solution/ Gunasekar Mariappan (talk) 13:41, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, @Gunasekar Mariappan, and welcome to the Teahouse! It can be frustrating when your draft article is rejected, however, there are reasons why Rich Smith decided to reject it. I would recommend reading the pages on reliable sources and notability (particularly the guidelines on organisations and companies) if you haven't already, as they are very important to consider when starting an article. Enjoy your day, and feel free to ask any questions if you need to! HenryTemplo (talk) 14:53, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I will also share a comment from ARoseWolf which was shared on the discussion above: "I know having a submitted draft rejected can make you feel like you have been rejected but that is not the case. We appreciate your contributions to the encyclopedia and your added voice in the community.". Have a great day! HenryTemplo (talk) 14:56, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

This one also Declined - not Rejected - but now Declined four times. References MUST be incorporated into the text. Press release content does not establish notability. David notMD (talk) 15:43, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

References

How can I create this text or reference in French? "Maria L. Garrè et al.: Medulloblastoma Variants: Age-Dependent Occurrence and Relation to Gorlin Syndrome – A New Clinical Perspective. In: Clinical". Wname1 (talk) 05:51, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Wname1, do you mean (1) "How do I translate 'Medulloblastoma Variants: Age-Dependent Occurrence and Relation to Gorlin Syndrome – A New Clinical Perspective' into French?"? Or (2) "'Medulloblastoma Variants: Age-Dependent Occurrence and Relation to Gorlin Syndrome – A New Clinical Perspective' is somebody's translation into English of a title in French; what would that title be?"? Or (3) something else (and if so, what?)? -- Hoary (talk) 06:14, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello Hoary to have it as "Références" on https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuro-oncologie. Also, for "Margaret Wrensch et al.: Epidemiology of primary brain tumors: Current concepts and review of the literature. In: Neuro-Oncology. Jg. 4, Nr. 4, Oktober 2002, S. 278–299." and "Zentrales Nervensystem. In: Krebs in Deutschland. Berlin 2019, S. 114–117". Wname1 (talk) 07:38, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

@Wname1: Taking a look at how one of the references are cited on the article, perhaps you should take a look at the documentation on Modèle:Ouvrage? I think you're asking how to get the correct formatting, but I'm not 100% sure. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:39, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Wname1, the fact that you're asking about editing fr:WP not there but instead here in en:WP suggests that you lack confidence in French; if you do, I'd say that yes, you'd be better off using that amply documented template than writing your references "freehand", as it were. -- Hoary (talk) 23:19, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

@Hoary Everything is fine with the fr:WP. It's about displaying the references on the French site. What Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) wrote is about it. Regards, Wname1 (talk) 15:47, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

How to make my draft published

Hi all if anyone know how can I publish my draft page. Dj121e121 (talk) 15:41, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

You would need to submit it for review. At present there is no hope of it being accepted, as it is about a living person but it has no sources, never mind any evidence that this person is notable. Please read carefully the guidance at WP:YFA. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:48, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Assuming you mean Draft:Lt Gen Amardeep Singh Aujla, do not submit yet. You have recently edited Devendra Pratap Pandey, so that should give you some idea of referencing about Aujla as a Lt General. Yours does not have to hav 40 refs, but it has to have more than zero. David notMD (talk) 15:53, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Question about contributing biographies of women sceintists

Hello, Teahouse hosts! I used to work for a high-profile research institute, and noticed there were some stellar senior women scientists there who did not have wikipedia profiles. For some reason, this was not the case for the senior male scientists. Now that I'm no longer working there, would it be a conflict of interest to draft profiles for them?

Thanks for your advice. JendoCalryssian (talk) 15:34, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello JendoCalryssian and welcome to the Teahouse. You will receive no compensation from the institute will you? And you are not editing for the institute? If the answer is no to both then by Wikipedia definition I believe you are good so long as you follow guidelines for writing articles. If anything promotional or considered puffery is added then it may come under scrutiny further but the same could be said for any editor that adds that to an article. You may want to pop over to Women in Red and see if anyone there would like to help you or may already be working on something. --ARoseWolf 15:47, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

This issue a very helpful answer-- thank you, ARoseWolf. There would be no compensation from the Institute for these pages if I undertake them. Will certainly try to avoid puffery and the word "profile," and will check out Women in Red! Thank you so much. JendoCalryssian (talk) 16:48, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

"issue" --> "is" JendoCalryssian (talk) 16:49, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

@JendoCalryssian, a further note - many folks in these parts get touchy when articles are referred to as "profiles", since it implies a social media or PR-esque view of what should be in 'em. Not a big deal in the long run, but something to keep in mind. Also, check out our notability criteria for academics (including scientists): WP:NACADEMIC. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:43, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

View history

Under "View history," what does "Tag: Visual edit" mean?Maurice Magnus (talk) 17:32, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

@Maurice Magnus: Hello Maurice! It means the edit was made using the Visual editor. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:35, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Writing a Military biography on a member of the Azov Regiment.

Ive listed sources, evidently they were not enough.

ive also realized that in the past, Wikipedia articles even mentioned the subjects name,

even in a article about a Assassination.

Is there a way to maybe even suggest a article to be written about a person? Lexytonb (talk) 18:29, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Courtesy: Draft:Kent Ryan McLellan. Declined. Sources have to be in reference format, embedded into the text of the article. David notMD (talk) 18:34, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Javascript convert dates from incorrect format 1979-07 to July 1979

Is there a Javascript extension to convert dates from an incorrect format such as 1979-07 to July 1979? I have a book that formats all of the dates like this and I would like to stop correcting the dates. ScientistBuilder (talk) 20:45, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi, ScientistBuilder! A cursory lookthrough of Wikipedia:User scripts/List didn't seem to show one, unless this does what you're looking for. You can look through further, or request a script at Wikipedia:User scripts/Requests. Hope this helps! Perfect4th (talk) 19:04, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Request for a review

I request editors to review my page Draft:Swami Avdheshanand Giri - Wikipedia Shatbhisha6 (talk) 19:57, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

@Shatbhisha6: See the note on the draft: "Review waiting, please be patient. This may take 4 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 3,085 pending submissions waiting for review." RudolfRed (talk) 20:05, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Shatbhisha6, there are two factors which will deter reviewers from considering, let alone accepting, your draft. One is that it has already been rejected, meaning that, in the opinion of a reviewer, it can never reach the standard required of a Wikipedia article. The other is the large number of references, most (maybe all, I haven't checked) of which do nothing to establish the subject's notability. Few reviewers will be willing to check all those references looking for some that help with notability, when they are many more promising drafts awaiting review. Maproom (talk) 20:57, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your suggestions to help me out. I only added extra references, different editors consider different sources reliable. Even the top readership mainstream was dismissed by one editor as biased towards the ruling party, although the subject here is not a politician. hence I put as many references from different sources. If you see the way initial draft was literally trashed coz sources like India today and TimesofIndia were not considered reliable. And the article was rejected by a user who was globally blocked soon after for sock puppetry, and the other account created after that were also blocked and accused of vandalism during investigation. Thanks again. Shatbhisha6 (talk) 21:41, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Moving article out of sandbox - I don't see a "more" pull-down menu

Hello, I am a new editor (not autoconfirmed). I created an article (I think) in my sandbox with citations etc. It looks like a regular Wikipedia article in terms of format and citations. Everywhere I look on Wikipedia help pages as well as other sources such as university tutorials, quora, etc., says I should see a pull-down menu at the top of my page near the search bar that will allow me to "move" my article to Wikipedia (public). I don't have a pull-down menu. Is my only option to type the title in the search bar and then ask for the article to be created or is there a way for me to publish my article on Wikipedia directly? thanks for help! Serendipitous8 (talk) 22:46, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Serendipitous8 and welcome to the Teahouse. As you are not yet autoconfirmed, you can't move your draft to mainspace. I do note one potential problem with it - it's almost exclusively cited to sources written by the article subject. Are there no more secondary sources available? Otherwise, yes, it's quite well-formatted, with citations and everything - good job! 199.208.172.35 (talk) 22:55, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Serendipitous8 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You must be autoconfirmed to directly create articles. You may use Articles for creation to submit drafts(this is a good idea even if you are autoconfirmed). 331dot (talk) 22:57, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Please understand that any article about this academic must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about them, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable academic. It shouldn't be sourced to anything they say about themselves, only to what others wholly unconnected with them choose on their own to say. Please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 22:59, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Serandipitous, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia. As others have said, you have not yet made enough edits to get the Move option. However, I strongly advise you against moving it directly even when you can, and rather recomment you to submit it for review, when it is ready. I have added a header with a Submit button to it. ColinFine (talk) 23:01, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the Submit button! 107.128.214.19 (talk) 19:23, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

How do I edit a page

how do i edit a page MiddleSchool098 (talk) 00:49, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi MiddleSchool098, welcome to Wikipedia. Editing is simple, seeing as you are most likely on a laptop, search the page you wish to edit in the search bar on the top right and then click the "Edit" button, which is also at the top right. If there is a specific section of an article you wish to edit, scroll down to it and there should be another "Edit" button beside the title. Let me know if you have any further questions X-750 _{I've made a mistake, haven't I?} 01:18, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

How to add professional Page

Working on a Bio and Professional page to be additional content from my group, REINVENTION GLOBAL. I HAVE TRIED TO ADD MY PREVIOUS INFO FROM ACTING AND FILMOGRAPHY TO PHILANTHROPY. YET REJECTED AS NOT NEUTRAL. Darrensumner71 (talk) 00:18, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi Darrensumner71. It sounds like you might be misunderstanding some important things about Wikipedia. Please take a close look at this, this and this since you might find the information contained on those pages helpful. Wikipedia doesn't really have bios and professional pages for individuals and groups, at least not in the sense you seem to be thinking. Wikipedia does have articles written about individuals and groups deemed to be Wikipedia notable, but these aren't controlled by the subjects of the articles and are only intended to reflect what reliable sources are saying about the subject. Such things could be positive or negative, but it will need to be in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines regardless of what the subject has to say about itself. Wikipedia might not be suited for what you may be trying to accomplish, but perhaps one of these sites are. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:30, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked. David notMD (talk) 01:38, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Current position

We updated current position of the living person why do you remove please? The current position of his companies listed in Canada for 20 years 142.116.50.224 (talk) 02:34, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Please do not start a new section for every follow-up to your question. The place to discuss your additions to the article is at Talk:Suresh Joachim. 97.113.167.129 (talk) 02:41, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Records

We updated exact records which he have why you have been remove please? We do have a prove of certificate as well. 142.116.50.224 (talk) 02:30, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

hi ip user! please see § Suresh Joachin. you do not need a proof of certificate, but what you do need is reliable, independent (from joachim) sources stating this information. espdcially in a biography of a living person, unsourced content when challenged can be removed or tagged if it doesn't have a source. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 02:44, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Just curious

Does anyone know why when you're editing an article, and you do an edit preview before publishing, to make sure that you haven't missed anything, the layout of the article in preview is different to the way it appears in the actual article when published e.g. the line breaks? I'm not sure if it's been asked before, but if it has, my apologies. Editrite! (talk) 05:12, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

No expert but this page suggests a few things to look at ?

Might narrow the gaps :)

Wikipedia:Browser notes - Wikipedia Jasonbrown1965 (talk) 11:52, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I have used both Internet Explorer and Microsoft Edge, and there doesn't seem to be any difference in the results, but I did notice that it's a different font with Edge. Editrite! (talk) 03:49, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

@Editrite! Are you perhaps editing a section? If you click Edit for just a section, make your changes, and the preview, you just see that section. But then when you go to the whole article, stuff around that section--pictures from other sections, for example--can intrude and change the layout. Uporządnicki (talk) 01:14, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

I am only talking about articles or sections with purely text and no other images. Editrite! (talk) 03:35, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

The Additional Platonic Solids (They are more than 5)

Hey guys, I think I found some additional 'platonic solids' which implies that they are more than 5. I would like someone to review them and give a feedback whether am wrong or right. But so far they match all the qualities of a platonic solids. They include another 6-sided solid made up of 6 triangles (Ghedron) and A 10 sided one which was previously missing. Here is the link to some short videos on all the solids plus how to get additional ones https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLwn839ShOU&ab_channel=GregoryOdhiambo Ghedron (talk) 16:02, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia and the Teahouse. Unfortunately we have a policy against original research - see WP:OR - and also about "off-topic" discussions not related to building the encyclopedia. You may want to read WP:FORUM. If your research is ever published in a reputable journal, it may get added to Platonic solid. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:28, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Ghedron, the ten-faced thing (a pentagonal dipyramid) and the six-faced thing (a triangular dipyramid) are not Platonic solids. They do not satisfy the condition "the same number of faces meet at each vertex". Maproom (talk) 17:19, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

@Ghedron Not to be rude, but as the article says, Platonic solids have been studied for thousands of years. I know the feeling and the excitement of thinking you have found something new and remarkable. If you did find new Platonic solids, then, as IP 199 says, you should begin collaborating with a mathematician or a university to verify and publish the research in a peer-reviewed academic journal -- WP would not be the place to vet your original research. Keep trying, though, you may find something new some day! 73.127.147.187 (talk) 07:02, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Article unaccepted, 'Aboukir filter'

Hello,

I submitted my first wikipedia article here > Draft:Aboukir filter

I have received the following message. > Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time.

Is this due to > show significant coverage ?

There is significant coverage of the topic, not just passing mentions. The topic is well covered in various media, including an old news paper article from the time & photographs, & an article in a book.

What should i do to get this article accepted ?

Thank you ! ArcRec (talk) 12:04, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello ArcRec and welcome to the Teahouse! I know having a submitted draft rejected can make you feel like you have been rejected but that is not the case. We appreciate your contributions to the encyclopedia and your added voice in the community. In regards to the draft that was rejected. Certainly, if you have newspaper clippings or books about the subject you will need to add them as inline citations in the body of the article after the information that is referenced in the source. You can learn about citations here. All information being added to the encyclopedia must be properly sourced. As an alternative, if it is deemed that the subject does not deserve a stand-a-lone article you might consider adding it to an existing article, possibly Supermarine Spitfire (early Merlin-powered variants) which lists the Mark V variant of the Spitfire. I hope this helps and please do not hesitate to ask further questions if need be. --ARoseWolf 12:29, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Small note: Draft was Declined, which is less severe than Rejected. Either add the references you mention, or else amend one of the Spitfire articles (still needing references). A book ref requires title, authors, publisher, year and page numbers. David notMD (talk) 15:40, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello ARoseWolf, thank you for your reply & assistance. As you say, declined is not so severe, which is great. I would like to add it as a separate article, albeit a small article. The reason being is that the timeline & further developments using the 'Aboukir filter' extend out of topic with existing articles, such as the Supermarine Spitfire (early Merlin-powered variants) article. I received a copy the book in the post yesterday, which has the essential ref's, title, author, year, page numbers, etc. With all this said, hopefully my next draft will be accepted ! Thank you. ArcRec (talk) 08:11, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Need page moved/renamed

Please move/rename Where the Wind Blows (2021 Chinese Film) to Where the Wind Blows (2021 Hong Kong Film) -- I incorrectly called this a Chinese film. Also the associate Where the Wind Blows (disambiguation) will need to have the link updated once the title is changed. Unfortunately I'm being blocked from making this change again myself. Dbmoyes (talk) 07:50, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Done ✅! Oh, and welcome to the Teahouse! I moved the page to Where the Wind Blows (2021 Film), as there isn’t a need to disambiguate with the nationality of the film. Happy editing! HenryTemplo (talk) 08:01, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

@HenryTemplo: Where the Wind Blows (2021 film) is probably a better title for the film since common nouns aren't typically capitalized when disambiguating pages. You should also check to make sure the article parameters in the non-free use rationales of any non-free images used in the article (like the infobox image File:WheretheWindBlows.jpg) reflect the page move. If you leave the rationales as is (i.e. linking to "Where the Wind Blows"), there's a chance the files being used in the article will be removed by a bot. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:13, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

HenryTemplo, I've done the move (and correcting associated redirects); I leave it to you to update the "fair use" rationales. -- Hoary (talk) 08:18, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Posting wrong info

Dear Sir/ Maa'm Someone posting a wrong information on Wikipedia trying to tarnish the image and creating a violence. Wikipedia has not confirmed information. from your policy, avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors, but matter posted about yourself, family, friend, company know you well better than other. Wikipedia also blocked user id because posting of matter about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization. You should also keep in mind that, if you have blocked a user, then he cannot edit any other information.

I hope you think on that better. Nilesh Lanke Pratishthan (talk) 04:48, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, @Nilesh Lanke Pratishthan, and Welcome to the Teahouse! Is this about the article Nilesh Dnyandev Lanke? If so, I would recommend reading WP:BLP and WP:Autobiography. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to ask! Have a good day! HenryTemplo (talk) 06:12, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

NLP have been indefinitely blocked from editing Nilesh Dnyandev Lanke, which may be about him. The major faults were adding large amounts of unreferenced content and removing referenced content. David notMD (talk) 10:31, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Welcome Nilesh Lanke Pratishthan, thank you for helping to build Wikipedia. You apparently have a conflict of interest, based on the similarity of your user name to that of the subject. That means you should not edit the page directly. Please, as I said in the message to you on your talk page, discuss content and sourcing on the article talk page. "All content must be cited from reliable sources that are unconnected with the subject and have a reputation for fact checking." Friends and family do not meet this requirement.

If content is wrong, misleading or defamatory, you can ask for assistance at the biographies of living persons noticeboard,

If the situation remains unresolved, please contact the Wikimedia Foundation's team of volunteers at  [email protected], with a link to the page and details of the problem.

The first step though is to discuss content and sourcing at Talk:Nilesh Dnyandev Lanke. Hope this helps. Best --Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:35, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

New article reviewed but not appearing on the Google search

I created an article Purulia Pumped Storage Power Station a month ago, It is already reviewed and I got notification of it's review two times. But it is not appearing on the google search. While every articles I previously created and reviewed by someone starts appearing on google search in no time after the review. ❯❯❯Pravega ^g=9.8 06:55, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

@Pravega That's because the article was marked as reviewed... immediately followed by being marked as unreviewed. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:24, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing Ok, But how to know that it is marked as unreviewed?❯❯❯Pravega ^g=9.8 13:31, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

@Pravega: I'm fairly sure that's something only patrollers can see. You will know if it's been reviewed because you'll get a notif if you made the page and it will show it was reviewed in your wathclist. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 13:35, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Page declined because of self promotion?

I fully understand that there isn't ton of content about the company, they started it 2 years ago but started to properly work in December, I've tried to put some reference in, description etc. but I'm kinda new to Wikipedia so I'm not sure about what I should add to get this page approved. Can you pinpoint suggestions on how to improve the submission please? I hope you will be able to help ^_^ Niccologaleazzo (talk) 11:56, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Firstly you need to disclose your paid editing status on your user page, secondly your draft is just blatant advertising and very unlikely to be approved. Theroadislong (talk) 12:07, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Hey, thanks so much for the answer, how do I disclose the paid editing status? (sorry for the noobness) Niccologaleazzo (talk) 16:01, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

@Niccologaleazzo: You will find more information at Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:13, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

@Niccologaleazzo If the company is so new that no independent, reliable source has chosen to publish anything about the company, then it might be WP:Toosoon for a Wikipedia article. If that is the case, you may have to wait a couple of years before an article can be created. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 12:57, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Also, there are no inline references -- the refs that are there are all bunched up at the end. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 13:00, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Is my edit revert on berberine justified?

? Machinexa (talk) 08:44, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

You didn't do a revert, just made a number of poorly sourced edits that have been removed. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 08:49, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

I assume you meant, "Was the revert of my editing justified?" Yes. You added references to individual clinical trials. This practice does not comply with WP:MEDRS. Looking at your Talk page, I see that back in 2020 you were cautioned several times (by me and others) about the need to comply with MEDRS on medical/health articles. David notMD (talk) 10:41, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Adding to what David notMD has said, I also made several comments on your Talk Page in 2020 and 2021. We have been attempting to get you to take WP:MEDRS seriously but looking again today at conophylline I see that despite my comment in December 2020 you added a new section at Conophylline#Research in 2021 that again entirely fails this content guideline. The fact that these additions of yours have not yet been removed is unfortunate. Please take note that cleaning up your inappropriate additions (as Alexbrn did for berberine) detracts from our own efforts to improve the encyclopaedia and wastes everyone's time. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:33, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, and then this[18] message to my Talk page claiming they wanted to use Goop as a source looks like pure trolling. A waste-of-time editor that need to be removed from the Project. Alexbrn (talk) 17:03, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

diabetes

can anyone tell me the difference between the USA blood glucose readings from Canadian readings? 76.11.12.19 (talk) 17:08, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello IP user. Probably, but a much better place to ask this sort of technical question is at WP:Reference desk/Science. The Teahouse is focused on helping new users with issues that come up when editing/creating articles, as you'll see if you look at other sections here. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:14, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, IP editor. This is not the correct place to ask this question; you may want to try over at the science reference desk. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:14, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

I've been working on a new page for a SpongeBob episode

Hey. I've been working on a page for the SpongeBob SquarePants episode, "SpongeBob's Road to Christmas" and I've been wondering if it's good enough to be included into Wikipedia. Here it is so far: User:LeotheBoy1110/sandbox. LeotheBoy1110 (talk) 19:09, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello @LeotheBoy1110, and welcome to the Teahouse! Personally, I don't believe that this draft article meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines, unfortunately! It is disappointing, but I was once there myself! I might be wrong, though, but you need to make sure your draft article meets all of the other requirements. Happy editing! HenryTemplo (talk) 20:25, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Why would one episode of a TV show merit an encyclopedia article? Does Britannica do that? I know we have lots of similar articles, but... it just seems weird. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 07:07, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Sometimes an episode of a TV show will get significant secondary coverage for one reason or another, which becomes enough to justify a separate article. Without such evidence of individual notability, though, a split is hard to justify. (per MOS) 97.113.167.129 (talk) 12:28, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

I just thought it would make sense to make an article for this episode due to the fact that the other two Christmas specials each their own article. LeotheBoy1110 (talk) 17:16, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Can I write a wikipedia about a professor in my university?

Hi all, There is a professor in my university I want to write about. Is that okay? For more background, I am a Neuroscience graduate student in Emory. There is a faculty that is well known in epilepsy research that deserve a wikipedia page. I have not worked with him at all but I read his papers often. We have similar research interest. Thanks, Thomas Fu Hung Shiu (talk) 15:23, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi Fu Hung Shiu and welcome back to the editing community. I see that you haven't contributed since 2014, so a few things may have changed since then. Basically, you'll need to convince yourself that the prof meets WP:NACADEMIC (which is likely if he is a full Professor with lots of well-cited papers). Then read WP:COI to check whether you have (or could be accused of having) a conflict of interest. It's no problem for drafting if you decide you do have a COI but you just have to follow the rules to declare this. After that, remind yourself of how to go about drafting an article, specifically the rather strict standards for biographies of living people. Finally, use the articles for creation process so experienced editors can check what you have drafted. Good luck! Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:39, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

@Michael D. TurnbullThank you so much!! This is very helpful :) 170.140.231.180 (talk) 17:12, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

@Fu Hung Shiu: no problem, that's what the Teahouse (and Help Desk) are for! Be careful to log in when you make edits, though, as otherwise your editing history will be a bit of a mess! Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:17, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Adding fair use file to article

I'd like "File:Sir Topham Hatt 1986.jpg" to be added to the top of the "Humans" section in the List of Thomas & Friends characters article. The last time I added it it was removed because it had no fair use rationale. There is no instruction on how to add one so I'm bringing it here so someone can do it themselves. RanDom 404 (talk) 16:05, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, RanDom, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid that, in my opinion, that would not be justified. The non-free content criteria must all be met in respect of any use of a non-free image. Item 8, Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding is usually interpreted as meaning that, as a mininmum, a non-free image may only be used where it directly illustrates the primary topic of the article. They can almost never be used in list articles. Sorry. ColinFine (talk) 16:18, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Several other fair-use articles are used in the list to show off the different characters and help readers understand them better. Wouldn’t the same count with this file? RanDom 404 (talk) 16:25, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

There are two others, and in my opinion the justification for them is inadequate. ColinFine (talk) 17:18, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Trying to upload a photo I accidentally deleted from a draft article

Hello,

Is there a way I can upload a photo I accidentally deleted from a draft article? I tried to upload the photo again but it was rejected on the grounds that it had been previously added. Thank you very much for your suggestions. NomadicLibrary (talk) 06:23, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

NomadicLibrary, I think you're saying that you removed it from a draft. Did you (or did somebody) also remove it from Wikimedia Commons (or English-language Wikipedia)? If you don't know, or don't understand, then what was/is the filename? -- Hoary (talk) 07:22, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi Hoary, Thank you for your reply. Yes, I accidentally removed the photo from a draft article about Terence Ward. Here is the link to the file on Wikipedia Commons:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Terence_Ward_in_Anghiari,_Italy.jpg All the info asserting permissions etc is there but I am stuck uploading it, just going around in circles. All I want to do is replace the photo where it was in Terence Ward's draft article. Can you help me? Thank you very much, Nomadic Library NomadicLibrary (talk) 15:29, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

The draft is at Draft:Terence Ward. I've added back the image for you, NomadicLibrary. I think the problem was just that the correct Commons filename wasn't being used. The Commons file is untouched, so naturally the system didn't like the idea of you adding it there again with the same name. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:47, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi Mike Turnbull, Thanks so much for the helping hand you extended to this newbie! It's great to see the photo back in place. With appreciation and best wishes, thank you again. NomadicLibrary (talk) 17:23, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

How to restore the correct format of the page

I made a few changes on the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delhi–Ambala_Cantonment_Intercity_Express I added image, caption and corrected train number and it messed up the earlier editing of the page. How do I restore the editing? Libreravi (talk) 17:32, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

@Libreravi:  Fixed, you accidentally removed a closing curly bracket (this character: } ) from a template near the end of the infobox which screwed everything up. I've gone ahead and fixed it for you. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:36, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @Blaze Wolf for fixing it for me. It also said that the parameter 'journey time' has been deprecated. So I removed it. Can you please help with adding journey time as well? Libreravi (talk) 18:00, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

@Libreravi: I'm confused by what you mean. You said that it told you the "journey time" parameter was deprecated and so you (rightfully) removed it. Why are you wanting to add it back? ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:02, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

I think adding Journey Time will be helpful. Perhaps there is a new parameter for that, i thought. Libreravi (talk) 18:06, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

@Libreravi: I looked at the template params and my guess is that parameter was replaced by the "Average Journey Time" ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:07, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

uploaded a photograph but it doesn't appear

Hello, still working on my article draft: Nourhane https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Nourhane I just uploaded a photograph but it doesn't seem to appear. why is that? thank you. MayKassem (talk) 12:18, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi @MayKassem, and welcome to the Teahouse! It looks like your uploads were deleted by an administrator. Wikipedia requires files to be freely licensed or available to be used under fair use. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to ask. Cheers, 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 12:24, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

yes, some were. but this one, I just uploaded.... the name of the file is Nourhane 1922 to 2022.jpg

any ideas how to make it visible?

thank you MayKassem (talk) 12:27, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

hi MayKassem! the file does exist, it's just on Wikimedia Commons. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 12:40, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

ping fix : @MayKassem 💜  melecie  talk - 12:41, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

merci @Melecie<3 MayKassem (talk) 18:41, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, File:Nourhane 1922 to 2022.jpg is here. You say that you are the copyright holder. You'll have to supply evidence that you are the copyright holder. If you don't, the file will be deleted. -- Hoary (talk) 12:43, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

This photograph is the property of the Artist's family of which I am a member. Photographs taken between 1923 and 1963 have a duration of copyright of 28 years if not renewed.

This is according to the Copyright Act introduced in 1976 in the US. This photograph was taken during the aforementioned time bracket.thank you. MayKassem (talk) 18:46, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

@MayKassem, that only applies to works first published in the United States. When and where was this photograph first published? Also, since it is not your own work, it should not be marked as such. And note that while the physical photograph may belong to the family, the copyright belongs to the original photographer (unless they explicitly transferred it). 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:56, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

It wasn't published. these were photographs Nourhane had commissioned a photographer in the region (cairo, beirut, damascus) to take and was used as a 'carte de visite' so she had a stack and would autograph them to give out to fans. MayKassem (talk) 19:01, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

@MayKassem I see. I don't know what the copyright laws are in that region (it sounds like you're not even sure what country the photo was taken in); perhaps you could inquire over at the copyright questions desk. Use of the image may still be allowed under our fair use policy, but it is probably not copyright-free. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 19:10, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

thank you so much. In this case, I might even use a photograph which was taken down but which I prefer and whose photographer I know. I will contact the copyright questions desk :) MayKassem (talk) 19:13, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

@MayKassem Are you saying that you took that picture yourself? 73.127.147.187 (talk) 13:02, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

no MayKassem (talk) 19:04, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

red links is not a bad thing

I have got this review from the reviewer: "Generally, no need for more than 2-3 inline citations together. Career is still slightly promotional. I have added wikilinks as even though the pages aren't there at the moment they are pages that should meet notability requirements and red links is not a bad thing". and I am unable to understand what should be the next steps for my article to get published. Please help! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Qasim_Farasat Danish Tariq.pk (talk) 18:06, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

@Danish Tariq.pk, apparently the reviewer, Gusfriend, has decided that your article "is not adequately supported by reliable sources". You can discuss the sourcing with them on their talk page; if you disagree on a source's reliability, it can be further discussed at the reliable sources noticeboard. We also have a list of already evaluated sources here, which you can check. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:33, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

To be clear, Danish Tariq.pk, the bit where Gusfriend said I have added wikilinks as even though the pages aren't there at the moment they are pages that should meet notability requirements and red links is not a bad thing is not part of their review that you need to act on: they are saying that they have added something to the draft, and justifying why they have done so, but this will not affect the review either way. ColinFine (talk) 20:13, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Table appearance question

Hi all,

So I am currently editing Weston, Connecticut and in particular the Politics section. Can someone help me to figure out how to force the table to take up enough space that it stays put ABOVE the "Notable people" list? I don't know why, but it seems to want to squeeze down on my screen next to the NP list and it looks bad. It would look better if the political table were on its own I'm sure. Thank you. ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 20:47, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

It was set to float, I've removed that for you. Edit history should show you where it was in the table. Kingsif (talk) 21:13, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

App

Am I being thick or is there an editing app? Wikipedia is pretty hard to read let alone edit on a phone and that's usually how I access it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fourdots2 (talk • contribs) 21:06, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

@Fourdots2: There are official apps listed at Help:Mobile_access. I am not sure they are any better than the mobile website. Some users prefer to use the desktop version of the site when editing on their phone, so you might want to try that. RudolfRed (talk) 21:26, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

my page is nominated for deletion please help me

my page is nominated for deletion please help me Rajib2209 (talk) 19:44, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

I assume that this is about Muhammad Mijanur Rahaman. Anyone thinking of helping will need to be able to read Bengali, the language of all the cited sources. Maproom (talk) 19:54, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muhammad Mijanur Rahaman, check where it says "New to AfD? Read these primers!". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:36, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Not nearly that difficult to form an opinion on, Google translate is more than sufficient.Slywriter (talk) 22:50, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

What does "ce" and "c/e" mean?

I keep seeing this in edit descriptions, sometimes being the only comment on an edit. YourJudge (talk) 22:37, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi, YourJudge , welcome to the Teahouse. It's short for copy edit. Are there any more abbreviations you are unsure on? Kind regards, Zindor (talk) 22:49, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

@YourJudge:. Welcome. Here is a list of some of the common abbreviations used in edit summaries: Wikipedia:Edit_summary_legend RudolfRed (talk) 23:05, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

How does one report an image submitted to wikimedia commons?

I found a NSFW image on there, I was wondering how I'd report it or remove it myself. I stumbled upon it accidentally. Dilpickl (talk) 16:30, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

@Dilpickl: Simple. You don't. NSFW images are perfectly fine per WP:NOTCENSORED and COM:CENSOR. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:31, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Dilpickl, the fact that a photo shows human genitals isn't a reason for deletion. But a certain number of silly people are keen to upload photos of their own naughty bits in action (etc), and not for encyclopedic motives but instead for their own amusement or whatever. These are "out of scope" for Commons (i.e. they're junk), and definitely merit this or that kind of "maintenance" (i.e. deletion). -- Hoary (talk) 23:12, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

How to report user for their own sake

There is a user who, I honestly thought was making a joke argument in a long debate at Talk:Emma Raducanu that I was moderating. I don't think the debate is relevant to the question, but it started when said user added a quotation saying that Romanians were proud of Raducanu (who is half-Romanian) and had adopted her (as she plays for Britain); to the reasonable person this is a bit of a joke about 'adopting as one of our own'. The user tried to defend the quote after it was edit-warred over by instead saying that, based on photos, they think it is obvious Raducanu's Romanian father is not her real father and this needed to be included in the article. Yes, sounds like a joke. So I responded as if it was a joke, and got an honestly slightly deranged response made over a dozen or so edits - full response here.
I don't want to take someone who doesn't seem able to engage in proper discussion to ANI, and I don't think pointing them to any guidelines on OR (is a self-made conspiracy theory even OR?) ... or the Wikipedia is not therapy essay ... would actually be paid attention to; is there any recourse, because, although I am definitely not a therapist or even close, I think taking away the tools for them to try to make this argument would honestly help the person behind the user detach from it. The more they're able to try and convince us, the more they are convincing themself, you know? Kingsif (talk) 21:11, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Kingsif, welcome. The guideline you're after is WP:FRINGE. ANI is a last resort and wouldn't benefit you as you've not been in the least respectful to the user including telling them to 'get mental help' and saying 'That's enough kool aid for you'. I've not delved into the content dispute, so won't advise on that, but if you stay civil and base your responses on relevant guidelines, policy, and reliable sources you can't go far wrong. Zindor (talk) 23:23, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

@Zindor: Er, I think I mentioned FRINGE before I got the response linked above. And as said, they aren't able to listen to reason, so linking policies is not helping them. They have stopped the disruptive editing - I came here concerned about them, did you actually read my post? Dispute resolution tactics are very much not what I'm after, I made that clear. And, for the record, I stated that I (obviously) thought they were joking when I made the kool aid joke, and still thought it was a joke but put in the serious word to get mental help if they believe what they apparently do when they kept on it. None of that is disrespectful, it's actual web interaction, where tone changes as you get more of a sense of the other person's intention. Kingsif (talk) 23:46, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

When you don't yet know someone it is best to avoid such 'edgy' jokes, as they will likely be taken as an insult. I'm not sure what isn't clear, but telling someone to get mental help after they present a theory to you (even if you think it's trash) is insensitive and disrespectful. Outside of some exceptional rare circumstances, it's not your place to suggest to other users that they get mental help. I suspect this will blow over pretty soon, it's barely a storm in a teacup, but there is advice at WP:DDE should the situation persist. Play it by ear though and try to avoid escalation. Zindor (talk) 23:57, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Kingsif, speaking generally though, there is a list here you can suggest to someone should you think they need access to help. If there is an immediate threat of harm, there is advice here. Hope that helps, Zindor (talk) 00:04, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

@Zindor: Yes, that is more helpful. I do think leaving someone in a position where they feel the need to argue their case of something pretty delusional only has them reaffirm it to themselves, but perhaps the thread can be safely closed now both of the contentious editors have basically revealed non-standard 'plans' (so no action to be taken). Kingsif (talk) 00:12, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

@Kingsif:, i agree that's probably true. Yes, i think if you have no intention of engaging further it's best that the thread be closed and collapsed. Might be worth waiting a day though, just to be sure no participants feel they are being stifled by the close. All the best, Zindor (talk) 01:13, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

User page

Hello, is there a wiki page for user page templates? If so what is it called? Thanks. Orson12345 (talk) 01:27, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello Orson12345 and welcome to the Teahouse! Yes, there is such a page - here. 97.113.167.129 (talk) 02:14, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Editing

What's the difference between show changes and show preview? Hgh1985 (talk) 03:44, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

@Hgh1985 Welcome to the Teahouse! "Show changes" will show a comparison of the old and new wikicode and highlight what you changed, while "Show preview" will show what the page will look like to someone reading the page. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 03:46, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Creating a template?

Hi, I just noticed whilst browsing through List of named alloys that none of the alloys have infoboxes, and I'm sure it would be a useful idea. I just came here to ask two things, would it be useful and should I also make a navbox for alloys? Thanks. My username is actually based off an alloy too X-750 _{Rust In Peace... Polaris} 21:30, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

That's an interesting idea, X750 which you should repost at WT:CHEM, where the chemists hang out. Our template expert is DePiep, whom I'm sure will comment once you do that. Mike Turnbull (talk) 22:17, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Continued at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chemistry#Creating_a_template? -DePiep (talk) 01:55, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

@Michael D. Turnbull I read your reply as saying "where the chemicals hang out". Then I realized my mistake. Still, I made myself laugh.... 73.127.147.187 (talk) 04:10, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Upload photo

How to I upload a photo on Wikipedia? Hgh1985 (talk) 03:49, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

@Hgh1985 Presuming it is a photo you took yourself, see the Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard. As stated on the page, "Please ensure you understand copyright and the image use policy before proceeding." GoingBatty (talk) 03:55, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Hgh1985. Do not try to upload a photo unless you are highly confident that you understand the copyright status of that photo. Most photos you might find online are copyright protected. Not even every photo you took yourself is OK to upload. Photos you may have taken of copyrighted works of art, for example, are still restricted by the original copyright. Please read Wikipedia:Uploading images carefully. Cullen328 (talk) 05:02, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Quirks of the WikiProject Military History ratings

Please can someone in the know explain why WikiProject Military History seems to be the only WikiProject where the rating cannot be adjusted on article talk pages (and is presumably adjusted somewhere centrally within WikiProject Military History? And is it the only one that does this? Or are there others? (It is the only one that I have personally encountered.) Iskandar323 (talk) 18:23, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

@Iskandar323 welcome to Teahouse! The rating can/are modified from the talk page, however what is true, the WP:WikiProject Military History does use custom/non standard ratings and has additional attributes. You can find all of the possible ratings via this tracking Category:Articles by quality and from there find other WikiProjects. Also Category:Wikipedia 1.0 assessments might be of use. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 18:47, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

@Iskandar323 I assume what you've tried to do is rate an article as B-class or higher, and the change didn't go through properly? This is because you need to fill out the B-class assessment checklist. The checklist will automatically show up if you rate an article as Start-class or higher and hit "publish", or you can add each parameter directly if you're using Rater (and have the criteria memorized). WP:GERMANY's assessments also work this way, and at least one other wikiproject I've noticed but can't now remember. -- asilvering (talk) 05:47, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

I would like to know how to create a wikipedia page of a company in the field of virtual reality

There's a company i know which created virtual reality solutions and are experts in the ar/vr technology.

there are various news articles that has talked about how they are making change in the field Anirudhnairgp (talk) 10:16, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

hi Anirudhnairgp and welcome to the teahouse! if you are connected with the company, please read Conflict of interest. wikipedia won't advertise your company, only tell what people outside it have already told (the good and the bad). making an article about a company you're associated it would be hard, since it may be difficult to create an article about something you're linked with while talking it in a completely neutral manner.

otherwise, to start the article please read Notability for companies and organizations, Reliable sources, and Your first article. the first guides you in what companies can be considered "notable" and thus eligible for a wikipedia article, the second guides on what sources and sites can be used in wikipedia, and the last guides you in actually writing the article. happy writing! 💜  melecie  talk - 10:27, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Anirudhnairgp And it won't be a "page of a company," if that means something like a Facebook or LinkedIn page; it will be an encyclopedia article about the company. And anybody will be able to edit that article, and the company might or might not like the results. Uporządnicki (talk) 12:02, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

thank you for your response, while i realise the negatives and COI, what provides larger organisations like google to have a wiki dedicated to them ? is the information available constantly being corrected by some dedicated team as i hear some times the pages do get vandalised by some ill intended person Anirudhnairgp (talk) 06:37, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

hi Anirudhnairgp! theoretically any company that proves itself notable can have an article regardless of size, and pages are made if someone unconnected to the company writes one for them (which is more likely the more well-known it is). also, many of us do constantly correct information and remove vandalism on the spot usually through Recent Changes and various tools, and since we require reliable sources, it's easy to see if a given edit adds reliable information based on the reliability and reputation of the publisher (for example, someone posting news from Reuters or The New York Times would be more likely correct than someone posting from sites passing along gossip) instead of having to chase the source first before being able to prove its reliability. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 07:32, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Can't find the "Move" option above my Article.

Hi! I can't seem to Publish the Draft that I've created for my page. On checking online, it's stated that I could just have the page moved. I hope someone can help me out with this one. Thank you! Seeyaelf (talk) 02:29, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

@Seeyaelf: Hi there! I see that you have created Draft:Rise of Elves. In order for the draft to become a Wikipedia article, you'll have to provide references showing "significant commentary or analysis in published sources that are independent of the game developer", per Wikipedia:Notability (video games). If you haven't done so already, I suggest reading Help:Your first article and Template:Infobox video game as well. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 02:50, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the assist! Seeyaelf (talk) 08:52, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

@Seeyaelf, the reason you do not have a "move" option is because your account is not autoconfirmed. You can submit the draft for review through our Articles for Creation process, but without sources as outlined above, a reviewer will not accept it (and if someone moved it to main space, it would either be moved back to draft or deleted). 97.113.167.129 (talk) 03:02, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks I'll keep that in mind. I guess having solid sources will be my first priority. Seeyaelf (talk) 08:53, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Assistance with removing template

Hi There, I have been reading the wiki hows and tutorials with no luck. Would anyone be able to assist with removing the following template “This biography of a living person needs additional citations for verification” on the top of our wiki page? We added more links and details to the page but I can’t remove this header from Gordon J. G Asmundson’s page . Thank you in advance 2607:FEA8:7AE1:BA00:C531:B88C:9C1:6877 (talk) 03:15, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi there! I'm concerned about your use of "we" and "our wiki page" (see WP:OWN). What is your relationship with Asmundson, and who is "we"? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 03:20, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

The article Gordon J. G. Asmundson currently claims, for example, that His pioneering work [...] and his shared vulnerability model of co-occurring PTSD and chronic pain have led to significant advances in understanding and treating [...]. Which reliable sources (of course independent of him) have described his work as pioneering, or that this and his model have led to significant advances? Until such assertions are solidly referenced, the template should stay. And yes, I too am intrigued by your "we" in We added more links and details, above. Are you writing on behalf of an organization? -- Hoary (talk) 03:27, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

The article appears to have a rather curious history. See for example this pair of edits, and their edit summary. -- Hoary (talk) 03:37, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

@Hoary That would explain why there aren't proper references for the first six sentences of the "Background" section. Ironic that those additions strengthen the case for the need for additional citations for verification. The "pioneering work" sentences you mention appear to be copypasted from his AIBL bio. GoingBatty (talk) 03:45, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

The article still lacks independent sources that discuss the subject. The template should not be removed, Maproom (talk) 06:55, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Please understand that Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only 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. Citations to Asmundson's works are mostly irrelevant: we need citations to sources unconnected with him that discuss his work. ColinFine (talk) 08:58, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Conflicting views, and where to next in discussions

Hi Teahouse volunteers

Wondering where the line is: I don't think I come across as bullying in my edits or discussion, but another editor has said they feel that. And now they have said WP:DROPTHESTICK to my last talk page post, so I'm loathe to keep engaging without checking whether I may be a problem without realising it.

Just hoping for some general advice on how to proceed. In general terms, would it be acceptable to try another, very conciliatory, approach, asking whether we can both ask other editors for their views? My last tp reply has been removed, so maybe that would be a step too far if I tried again? What do others think? I could genuinely use some advice. Thanks. AukusRuckus (talk) 12:15, 11 May 2022 (UTC) Updated (trimmed) AukusRuckus (talk) 12:33, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi, AukusRuckus, welcome to the Teahouse. We can certainly help, there's numerous remedies for situations like this. You're correct in thinking that you can ask an uninvolved editor to help out, you don't need permission to do it but just make sure it's done without the intention of bringing them in to support a certain viewpoint (canvassing). Could you provide a link to the discussion in question? I'm having trouble finding it. Kind regards, Zindor (talk) 13:20, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Talk:LGBT rights in Texas, it looks like. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 13:20, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I.P Zindor (talk) 13:38, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

AukusRuckus, i believe i understand now what's going on. I can see you're trying hard to be civil but it's the way in which you are addressing problems with other editor that is causing friction. Firstly it's the direct references to the editor such as 'why do you keep', 'Did you really?' and 'your identical claims' etc. In short, avoid making the discussion too personal, just focus on and address the content at hand. The second reason is that you're changing the article while the discussion is ongoing, this doesn't give the other editor a chance to step back. The use of 'bullying' was imo an unfair characterization but sometimes an editor will use a strong term as a way of asking for some breathing space. Hope that helps, Zindor (talk) 13:38, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

The other editor shouldn't have removed your post and i've addressed that with them. I will restore it if you would like but i'll leave that decision to you, as you may feel differently about the post in retrospect. Going by the book the post should be restored and if you no long agree with parts then strike-them-through. Zindor (talk) 14:03, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Zindor; I appreciate the tips. I would like my talk page comments restored, please. I don't want to do it myself, in case it seems provocative.

However, having thought upon it for a day, I no longer see that there's any actual likelihood that the editor is genuine in their representations. One shouldn't try mind reading, but all we have to go on is what people say, and their past behaviour. Having reflected on my less-than-perfect response, had a good look at their history, and through WP discussions generally, I'm not as keen to take on so much of the responsibility for any misunderstandings, or sorting things.

For a start: The time between my Talk post (2 May) and the editor's decision to remove it (11 May), highlights the lack of any justification for WP:DROPTHESTICK as an edit summary. The 'stick' they want me to drop, btw, is me continuing to object to being called a bully, not my concerns with the article content. Rarely, if ever, does the editor address anything I try to discuss about what sources say. My overtures for discussion generally go unanswered; they continue on regardless with the edits I have queried. Otherwise, it's mostly radio silence.

Other than that, of the two us, I am the only one of us to initiate discussion. I have not made edits while discussion is ongoing. At least, not as I understand it.

What elicited their "bullying" ES was my restoration of 'failed verification' tags. I placed these first on 10 April; they removed them, without comment, on 15th; I restored same day, explaining why. They deleted tags again on 17th, no ES. Their next edit a few mins later reverted some formatting I had done to improve readability; this one had the "bullying" ES. That stung--a lot. All that painstaking formatting work: gone!, just like that. (For me it's a lot of work; due to visual problems, I edit with assistive dev, s-l-o-w-l-y; for other editors, may not seem like that much effort.) Cue my: "Did you really" comment, and my personalising in this one post. I took their actions personally, because they were a personal attack, so tried my best to defend myself, I felt, in a proportionate way. This in no way began the other editor's dismissive and belligerent attitude.

Whatever the case, thank you for your thoughtful approach to this, I appreciate you taking the time. And sorry for the wall-of-text.<sigh> Cheers, AukusRuckus (talk) 10:54, 12 May 2022 (UTC) Updated: to "show my working". AukusRuckus (talk) 11:34, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Whatever the case, thank you for your thoughtful approach to this, I appreciate you taking the time. And sorry for the wall-of-text.<sigh> Cheers, AukusRuckus (talk) 10:54, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

@AukusRuckus: thanks for the reply, i'll restore it now. I understand, i also edit slowly but for different reasons. Tagging is more of a contentious thing than many people realise. There's an essay here about it. Personally i try to avoid placing tags, as they add confusion for the reader and don't actually fix anything. It's often best to either proactively fix the problem yourself or simply address it directly on the talk page, quoting any necessary text. If used in abundance, failed verification and other tags can be a bit pointy, someone might feel embarrassed if you tag up their work with them. I suspect that was partly the case here.

If they continue to use the term then do come back and let us know. I would advise taking a break from that article and when you do come back to it try to focus purely on the content as advised and avoid pinging the other editor unless absolutely necessary. All the best, Zindor (talk) 11:53, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Zindor. Yes, I'm not going to edit there at all. But I'm surprised there is so little activity on so many LGBT articles. Is there a project for that, do you know? It's not an area I am that familiar with, but thought it would be more actively edited than it seems to be.

About the tags though, they were my compromise! It was an alternative to removing a controversial and unsupported statement, both OR and SYNTH. It was a new, major claim, which the sources do not refer to at all (a legal opinion not canvassed in any source). My attempts to rephrase it to follow purely what sources say were reverted (without ES). My explanations on Talk, complete with quotes (from the sources the editor had supplied) were ignored. I did try several times before I added tags - but then I was scared to keep going and do the wrong thing. I wanted discussion and consensus, not an edit war. (BTW, the user changed my edits at first, not me theirs.) Like you, I much prefer to fix than tag, but I was trying to work with the editor. I did my best, but that'll do now! Thanks for your help, AukusRuckus (talk) 12:37, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

I see, yeah you give an inch and they want a mile! That's why it's best to stick to a hard policy-based line on issues like that. It's really great however that you're seeking ways to resolve content issues, and compromise does have its place sometimes. I know how frustrating it can be when editors aren't prepared to discuss, it's often a signal that they know they are wrong, or the inverse, that they know for absolute certainty they are right haha. Perhaps Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies would be the most relevant and there appears to be some recent activity there which is a good sign as so many WikiProjects nowadays are like ghost towns. Zindor (talk) 13:07, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

I think one line is factually incorrect in an article. What do I do?

I think one line in this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hapur_Junction_railway_station is factually incorrect. This is the line:

> The Delhi–Meerut–Saharanpur line passes through here.

What should I do? How do I discuss with the person who mentioned it? Libreravi (talk) 09:35, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello @Libreravi, and welcome to the Teahouse! If you can find a reliable source that proves that the line is wrong, be bold and change it! If any editor challenges the new info, discuss it on the article’s talk page. Happy editing! HenryTemplo (talk) 10:55, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @HenryTemplo. I don't know what kind of reliable source will list all the railway stations on a railway line. The person who wrote that line can just mention a train on Saharanpur-Meerut-Delhi line which passes through Hapur and that will be enough. For my claim that the line is incorrect, I have to show that any train of Saharanpur-Meerut-Delhi line does not pass Hapur Junction, which is true.

I think this proves my claim https://indiarailinfo.com/search/hpu-hapur-junction-to-sre-saharanpur-junction/347/0/340 as there are only three trains between Hapur Junction and Saharanpur Junction and none of them pass Delhi. Libreravi (talk) 13:18, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Libreravi! The line was added by an IP nearly five years ago, so it's unlikely you will be able to discuss it with them directly. This section of the verifiability policy says Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed, so I would say that being bold and removing it shouldn't be a problem. I would recommend explaining why you removed it in your edit summary to make the page history easier to read. Happy editing! Perfect4th (talk) 13:40, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

@HenryTemplo @Perfect4th Thanks. I removed it by giving a citation and my detailed explanation in the edit itself. Libreravi (talk) 13:57, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Brilliant @Libreravi, great job! I’m definitely not an expert on Indian railways, so I’ll trust this source and your judgement on its accuracy. Enjoy your day! HenryTemplo (talk) 13:42, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Changes to articles on Factor Xa, thromboplastin, and new article on thrombokinase

I recently submitted a new article on the enzyme thrombokinase that was rejected by Robert McClenon because the word is contained in the article on thromboplastin. The reason for the submission is that thromboplastin is NOT an enzyme as stated in the wiki article, but rather acts on the enzyme thrombokinase, now popularly known as Factor Xa. I want to correct the thromboplastin article, make an addition to the Factor X article, and insert a new article about thrombokinase, as shown below. This should clear up some long-standing confusion about these terms. How should I procede?

Extended content

Thromboplastin (TPL) or thrombokinase is derived from cell membranes and is a mixture of both phospholipids and tissue factor, neither of which are enzymes. Thromboplastin acts on and accelerates the activity of the serine protease Factor Xa, aiding blood coagulation through the conversion of prothrombin to thrombin. Thromboplastin is found in brain, lung, and other tissues and especially in blood platelets. and that functions in the conversion of prothrombin to thrombin in the clotting of blood. Proposed change: Thromboplastin (TPL) is derived from cell membranes and is a mixture of both phospholipids and tissue factor, neither of which are enzymes. Thromboplastin acts on and accelerates the activity of the serine protease Factor Xa, aiding blood coagulation through the conversion of prothrombin to thrombin. Thromboplastin is found in brain, lung, and other tissues and especially in blood platelets. History: American and British scientists described deficiency of factor X independently in 1953 and 1956, respectively. As with some other coagulation factors, the factor was initially named after these patients, a Mr Rufus Stuart (1921) and a Miss Audrey Prower (1934). Factor X proposed History: American and British scientists described deficiency of factor X independently in 1953 and 1956, respectively. As with some other coagulation factors, the factor was initially named after these patients, a Mr Rufus Stuart (1921) and a Miss Audrey Prower (1934). At that time, those investigators could not know that the human genetic defect they had identified would be found in the previously characterized enzyme called thrombokinase. Thrombokinase was the name coined by Paul Morawitz in 1904 to describe the substance that converted prothrombin to thrombin and caused blood to clot[ref] . That name embodied an important new concept in understanding blood coagulation – that an enzyme was critically important in the activation of prothrombin. Morawitz believed that his enzyme came from cells such as platelets yet, in keeping with the state of knowledge about enzymes at that time, had no clear idea about the chemical nature of his thrombokinase or its mechanism of action. Those uncertainties led to decades during which the terms thrombokinase and thromboplastin were both used to describe the activator of prothrombin and led to controversy about its chemical nature and origin [ref 1952]. In 1947, J Haskell Milstone isolated a proenzyme from bovine plasma which, when activated, converted prothrombin to thrombin. Following Morawitz’s designation, he called it prothrombokinase [ref 1947] and by 1951 had purified the active enzyme, thrombokinase. Over the next several years he showed that thrombokinase was a proteolytic enzyme that, by itself, could activate prothrombin but whose activity was greatly enhanced by addition of calcium, tissue extracts and other serum factors [ref. 2021] In 1964 Milstone summarized his work and that of others: “There are many chemical reactions which are so slow that they would not be of physiological use if they were not accelerated by enzymes. We are now confronted with a reaction, catalyzed by an enzyme, which is still too slow unless aided by accessory factors.” [ref 1964] Morawitz, P (1904). "Beitrage zur Kenntnis der Blutgerinnung". Deutsches Archiv fur Klinische Medizin. 79: 432-442. Milstone, J H (1952). "On the evolution of blood clotting theory". Medicine. 31: 411-447. doi:10.1097/00005792-195212000-00004. PMID 13012730. Milstone, J H (1947). "Prothrombokinase and the three stages of blood coagulation". Science. 10610.1126/science.106.2762.546-a: 546-547. PMID 17741228. Milstone, Leonard M (2021). "Factor Xa: Thrombokinase from Paul Morawitz to J Haskell Milstone". Journal Thrombosis and Thormbolysis. 52: 364-370. doi:10.1007/s11239-021-02387-6. PMID 33484373. Milstone, J H (1964). "Thrombokinase as prime activator of prothrombin: historical perspectives and present status". Federation Proceedings. 23: 742-748. doi:10.1085/jgp.47.2.315. PMID 14080818. Thrombokinase new article: Thrombokinase, now commonly known as coagulation Factor Xa, is the pivotal proteolytic enzyme that converts prothrombin to thrombin. History: Thrombokinase was the name coined by Paul Morawitz in 1904 to describe the substance that converted prothrombin to thrombin and caused blood to clot[ref] . That name embodied an important new concept in understanding blood coagulation – that an enzyme was critically important in the activation of prothrombin. Morawitz believed that his enzyme came from cells such as platelets yet, in keeping with the state of knowledge about enzymes at that time, had no clear idea about the chemical nature of his thrombokinase or its mechanism of action. Those uncertainties led to decades during which the terms thrombokinase and thromboplastin were both used to describe the activator of prothrombin and led to controversy about its chemical nature and origin [ref 1952]. In 1947, J Haskell Milstone isolated a proenzyme from bovine plasma which, when activated, converted prothrombin to thrombin. Following Morawitz’s designation, he called it prothrombokinase [ref 1947] and by 1951 had purified the active enzyme, thrombokinase. Over the next several years he showed that thrombokinase was a proteolytic enzyme that, by itself, could activate prothrombin but whose activity was greatly enhanced by addition of calcium, tissue extracts and other serum factors [ref. 2021] In 1964 Milstone summarized his work and that of others: “There are many chemical reactions which are so slow that they would not be of physiological use if they were not accelerated by enzymes. We are now confronted with a reaction, catalyzed by an enzyme, which is still too slow unless aided by accessory factors.” [ref 1964] In the mid-1950s American and British physicians described an inherited deficiency of a coagulation factor in humans, which they named after their patients Rufus Stuart and Audrey Prower. By 1960 the Stuart-Prower factor was being called Factor X, and it soon became clear that activated Factor X, or Factor Xa, was equivalent to Milstone’s previously characterized bovine thrombokinase. Morawitz, P (1904). "Beitrage zur Kenntnis der Blutgerinnung". Deutsches Archiv fur Klinische Medizin. 79: 432-442. Milstone, J H (1952). "On the evolution of blood clotting theory". Medicine. 31: 411-447. doi:10.1097/00005792-195212000-00004. PMID 13012730. Milstone, J H (1947). "Prothrombokinase and the three stages of blood coagulation". Science. 10610.1126/science.106.2762.546-a: 546-547. PMID 17741228. Milstone, Leonard M (2021). "Factor Xa: Thrombokinase from Paul Morawitz to J Haskell Milstone". Journal Thrombosis and Thormbolysis. 52: 364-370. doi:10.1007/s11239-021-02387-6. PMID 33484373. Milstone, J H (1964). "Thrombokinase as prime activator of prothrombin: historical perspectives and present status". Federation Proceedings. 23: 742-748. doi:10.1085/jgp.47.2.315. PMID 14080818.

Leonard Milstone (talk) 14:28, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

@Leonard Milstone Welcome to the Teahouse! I suggest posting your suggestions on Talk:Thromboplastin to work towards consensus on how to proceed. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 14:50, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

@Leonard Milstone, you could also talk to the folks at WikiProject Medicine, who are more likely to be familiar with the ins and outs of enzymes. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:56, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Help me! (Shatbhisha6)

Moved from User talk:Shatbhisha6 § Help me! 3

Please help me with... Please help publish my article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Swami_Avdheshanand_Giri, its been a year. I have not been able to understand what is lacking? I have tried to write it following wikipedia guidelines. What is lacking, why is it taking so long? Shatbhisha6 (talk) 19:36, 10 May 2022 (UTC) Shatbhisha6 (talk) 19:36, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Drafts are reviewed in no particular order. Just be patient. RudolfRed (talk) 20:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

@RudolfRed: The draft has been rejected... but the user who rejected the draft is a sock and blocked and globally locked. So I'm unsure if the rejection still applies or what. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 20:07, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

@RudolfRed:The draft was rejected twice and then declined by the same user a year back. so technically its been a year. Thanks Shatbhisha6 (talk) 20:10, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

@Shatbhish6: You actually got it backwards. It was declined twice and then rejected by the same user. The thing I'm not sure about is if those declines and eventual rejection still apply since the user has been confirmed to be a sock. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 20:12, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for pointing that out. So how can I get my article published? Shatbhisha6 (talk) 20:24, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

As I pointed out above – it might help if you got rid of all the garbage references, including brief mentions, and reports of what the subject said. That way a reviewer would be able to find the good ones that contribute to notability. Maproom (talk) 21:12, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Shatbhish6. Mostly by being patient. But in the meantime you can take Maproom's advice in the item just above and remove some of the pointless references. As just one example, the line Giri is also chairman of the Hindu religious organisation Hindu Dharma Acharya Sabha is supported by three references. Looking at the first one, it contains the paragraph Avdheshanand Giri is the chairman of the Hindu Dharma Acharya Sabha. Parmatmanand is considered to be close to Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Assuming that Indiatoday is reliable, then this is completely adequate to substantiate the statement. Adding two further references (which I haven't checked) adds absolutely nothing to the article, and (as Maproom suggests) may well contribute to a reviewer saying "This article looks like too much work, so I'll go and review another one". You may find WP:REFBOMB instructive. ColinFine (talk) 21:16, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much, I only added extra references, different editors consider different sources reliable. Even the top readership mainstream was dismissed by one editor as biased towards the ruling party, although the subject here is not a politician. hence I put as many references from different sources. If you see the way initial draft was literally trashed coz sources like India today and TimesofIndia were not considered reliable. Shatbhisha6 (talk) 21:25, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Shatbhisha6. If a reference is reliable, then it is adequate to verify a claim. If it is not reliable, it is worthless. There is no circumstance in which there is any point in adding multiple references for the same claim. ColinFine (talk) 17:16, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Removed the Rejected because it was by a sockpuppet. Be aware that Teahouse hosts are not necessarily also Reviewers, so asked for review here may get comments, but not a Review. David notMD (talk) 22:27, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

@David notMD Thank you so much, how seek a speedy review, please guide me on it. Shatbhisha6 (talk) 03:29, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

@Shatbhisha6 You have been advised at least twice to be patient. There may be no way to get a speedier review. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 07:12, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

There is a backlog of more than 3,000 drafts. The system is not a queue. Reviewers select what they want to review next. David notMD (talk) 10:06, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Good to know that's appropriate to do. I was tempted to do that but I was like "it appears the sock wasn't known as a sock for a while... would this be considered a legit rejection?" ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 12:58, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

@Blaze Wolf please have a look at User contributions for Kashmorwiki - Wikipedia and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sulshanamoodhi - Wikipedia, he was blocked on 4th May for abusing multiple accounts which is 10day after declining my page. and even later on other accounts created. In this page Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sulshanamoodhi/Archive - Wikipedia, on section 5 October 2021 of investigation, you will find comments from investigators how this account indulged in deletion of articles about 85% of times. Comparing the two sock accounts the investigator says " Both are frequent AfD nominators and participants. KW !voted keep 15.4% of the time and delete 79.4% of the time [67]; as of press time, KBP !votes keep 14.5% of the time and delete 85.5% of the time [68]. Their AfD participation pertains mostly (though not exclusively) to India-related topics." Another comment from one admin , "I also note that despite neither Krishnavilasom Bhageerathan Pilla or Kashmorwiki having New Page Patroller, they both did a lot of moving of articles from mainspace to draft [94][95] ".

His behaviour has not been constructive for wikipedia. Shatbhisha6 (talk) 17:44, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

@Shatbhisha6: I know that he's a sockpuppet. Also, "His behaviour has not been constructive for wikipedia" that's why sock puppets are blocked, even if they make constructive edits. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:46, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

@Blaze Wolf what he did on article was not contsructive, The subject is a well known Saint in India and he is the Chief of the oldest and largest order of Sadhus in India. He has millions of Sadhus and other followers. How significant he is among the religious figures can been seen through the fact that during Covid second wave Prime Minister of India telephones him to requesting him to conclude Kumbh Mela and it concludes within few hours. But Kashmorwiki declined the article citing notability as the reason. Shatbhisha6 (talk) 18:01, 12 May 2022 (UTC).

@Shatbhisha6: I really don't care about this sock. Or about the subject of your draft. I'm simply here to help give you advice. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:03, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

@Blaze Wolfi'm very grateful for that, coz i really need to learn how to craete good articles. This decline and rejection left me confused on how to go ahead. It hampered creating further articles. I would thankful if you could advise how to get this article published. Coz it has been a year. Shatbhisha6 (talk) 18:16, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

@Shatbhisha6, it says at the top of your draft, "Review waiting, please be patient." It is in the queue. Please be patient. Do not keep badgering people for a speedier review, it's only going to hurt your chances. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:27, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm only replying to the response from @Blaze Wolf, when did I ask him to review or anyone for that matter ?! what is this intimidation for? I have my queries, is it a crime here to ask questions for better understanding? Shatbhisha6 (talk) 18:42, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

@Shatbhisha6: Other people are allowed to respond to your questions, even if they are directed at someone else. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:48, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

@Blaze Wolf no issues with responses from whoever, but this response is initimidatory, the language "badgering" is totally unwarrented. Shatbhisha6 (talk) 18:53, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

@Shatbhisha6, your post before this one is titled "Request for a review", and in this post you've repeatedly asked people to help get your article published, pointing out that it's taken a long time. I see you've gone to the talk pages of various editors with similar requests. Multiple people have responded with the same advice I gave you - be patient. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:52, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes I have, and all those requests were made on the same day, Some people respond some dont, if they didnt I never posted again, how does that amount to "badgering"? And the recent interaction is seeking advise, not "asking them to review". Hope you can assess that difference. Your language is initimidatiry and is against title=Wikipedia:BULLY&redirect=no Shatbhisha6 (talk) 19:01, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

@Shatbhisha6, I apologize if my language came across that way - I see you've felt bullied on Wikipedia before - but I was trying to help you see that your approach may be driving helpers away rather than encouraging them to stick around.

The article Swami Avdheshanand Giri seems to have been created, deleted and recreated many times over the years; that may be intimidating to reviewers. I imagine that your long list of sources, many of them not in English, are also a bit discouraging to reviewers (many of whom don't speak Hindi), so they may choose to move on to something easier. That means it may take a long time to get reviewed. There's really not much else you can do (unless you want to reduce the article's size by about 50% and confine yourself to your best references in English, but I doubt that's what you're looking for). 199.208.172.35 (talk) 19:45, 12 May 2022 (UTC)