Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1106

Archive 1100

←

Archive 1104

Archive 1105

Archive 1106

Archive 1107

Archive 1108

→

Archive 1110

Adding copyrighted photos

Hello. I found some pictures I want to add to the article Ali Must Go and asked the publisher for permission which has been granted. I tried using the 'Upload File' tab but did't find options for this kind of upload. How can I go about this please?  The Sokks💕 ^_(talk) 08:43, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi TheSokks. Can you clarify what you mean by the publisher has given permission? This is important because unless it can be verified that the publisher has given its WP:CONSENT (or c:COM:CONSENT if you're trying to upload the file to Wikimedia Commons), you're not most likely not going to be able to upload the pictures under a free license that the Wikimedia Foundation accepts. If the publisher gave its permission for you to use the photo only on Wikipedia, then that's too restrictive of a license per c:Commons:Licensing and Wikipedia:Copyrights#Guidelines for images and other media files; basically, the publisher needs to agree to allow anyone anywhere in the world to download the pictures at anytime to reuse for any purpose, and it can't change its mind once it does. You might want to take a look at WP:PERMISSION just to make sure you asked for the right kind of permission. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:58, 24 April 2021 (UTC); [Note: Post edited by Marchjuly to strikethrough a redundant “not” in the second sentence. — 21:39, 24 April 2021 (UTC)]

Oh. Seen! This is noted thank you. I simply sent an email and they replied that I could use the images but I just had to give credit. I hadn't asked about the change in permissions you have noted. Sounds like a tough ask for copyrighted material but I'll ask anyway. Thank you! The Sokks💕 ^_(talk) 21:27, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Question

How can I restore edits using Twinkle in Mobile view? I usually go in Desktop view on my Phone just to restore edits. LooneyTraceYT comment • treats 21:41, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

LooneyTraceYT, Sadly, there is not a mobile Twinkle. I too use the "desktop view" trick if I want to use Twinkle on mobile. The mobile version of the website is still in development and leaves some things to be desired. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:26, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Copyrights

I would like to print some news and distribute it. However, I've realized that this could be difficult with copyright laws. Can I print and distribute Wikipedia articles? TipsyElephant (talk) 01:51, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

@TipsyElephant: Most likely not, but however, you can take information from the article and state it in your own words. creamepuff 🏹 (talk • contributions) 01:58, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

@Creamepuff: That is not correct. Text on Wikipedia is under creative commons license which allows for reuse. RudolfRed (talk) 02:03, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

@TipsyElephant: For the text, yes you can, if you attribute it. Wikipedia is licensed for re-use so that is not a problem. Images may or may not be reusable. See WP:REUSE RudolfRed (talk) 02:00, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Need an experienced editor to review the article in my draft

FYI

 – Turned into a heading by Tenryuu.

Hi! I'm new here, made over 100 edits, 6 days old Editor but I need help with the article in my drafts especially on notability and the layout.

Thanks! :) D'phenomenal (talk) 19:00, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy: Draft:Oluwa Memorial Secondary School. David notMD (talk) 22:20, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

@D'phenomenal, hello and welcome. For starters I need to clarify a few things for you, the first being the number of your edits do not matter but the quality does. Furthermore articles at AFC may take as long as three months before the article gets accepted or declined. So unfortunately, you have to be patient, you have done your part by creating and submitting the article, it is then behoove of us to do our jobs, but please bear with us as these things take time. Upon further observation I see you have asked this question multiple times, please try as much as you can not inundate AFC reviews, if you continue at this rate you may unknowingly irritate the AFC reviewers. Please as earlier stated, do be patient. Celestina007 (talk) 02:37, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

UNHAPPY WITH BULLYING MESSAGES I GET ON WIKIPEDIA

Dear Commander Waterford, I have found that Wikipedia has a negative unhelpful and discouraging attitude to anyone who is even attempting to make an edit or an entry. I have been very upset and depressed at the bullying messages I have received recently. They appear to have been written by TROLLS who enjoy bullying people and hide behind annonymous pseudonyms such as Ahmetlii and Jonsey95 who seems to be delighted in their speedy deletion of an entry for screenwriter Susan Morrall and rejection of the edit for British film director, Terence Ryan. I am astounded that these trolls Jonsey 95 and Anmetlii are allowed to be part of Wikipedia. In this day and age where online bullying and racism is being elimiated I cannot understand why you would allow this to happen. I request that these persons be banned from putting messages on my page and that any messages they have entered be erased. The legal team at Wikipedia should reassess how bullies operate on your website. I can only presume that the people who leave these messages for me have very little to do in their lives and have contributed very little to the world. They are the very epitome of trolls, mean spirited bullies.

As for you Commander Waterford, if that is your real name, I hope you do read my message but I fear that it will be speedily deleted by yet more Wikipedia Trolls pretending to be some kind of editors and who will find fault with what I have written . Wikipedia is complex and difficult for anyone to naviagte and instead trolls whose pretense at "editing" is sarcastic bullying there should be simple help for those who try. The nastiness in the comments is enough to make me want to just walk away. I am a real person, graduated from McGill University, Montreal and from Imperial College, London all which can be verified with online citations. I am also writer with film credits that can be verified with online citations at IMDB, Google, LinkedIn. To be disparaged by Wikipedia Trolls has extremely upsetting. I hope that Jonsey95 and Ahmetlii are cautioned about their unpleasant bullying messages banned from posting any further messages to me. I have not bothered to put any references or citations on this message as there seems to be no point in any references for anything. You can clearly see that my name is in red type which apparently means that it is nonexistant although I somehow am on Wikipedia and my name susanmorrall present along with a Sandbox, whatever that might be, and also I get sent messages. I wonder if there is any point in any of this at all.

Sincerely Susan Morrall -----susanmorrall Susanmorrall (talk) 16:50, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

@Susanmorrall, hello and welcome, I haven’t read or seen the backstory to this entry of yours, but I presume you may be attempting to create an article on yourself? could that be the issue here? If yes, then unfortunately, writing about yourself is an action that is very much discouraged in this collaborative project. You may want to read both WP:AUTO and WP:COI, that is, assuming the subject of the article even satisfies our golden rule in the first place. Celestina007 (talk) 17:20, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Based on [[1]], it seems unlikely. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:38, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Ping to CommanderWaterford. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:24, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank for the Ping @Gråbergs Gråa Sång - what I see is that their user page and draft was nominated and deleted for advertising promotions several times. The draft had been deleted but I guess @Celestina007 is right with her assumptions and that there is nothing to add. CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:30, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

@Susanmorrall: and while we are at it, please be aware a Wikipedia article might not nessesarely be desireable. Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:33, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

All the people you name are conscientious volunteer editors and experienced Administrators who are applying the rules for Wikipedia articles. As explained to you on your Talk page, all articles require reliable source references. This does not include IMBd, Google, LinkedIn or any social media. The problem is not bullies and trolls, but you misunderstanding of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, not a webhost for a person's profile. David notMD (talk) 18:07, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

@Susanmorrall: A few things.

First, whenever someone creates a new account on here they do not have a userpage (hence the redlink). You may choose to create a userpage about yourself in your role as an editor on Wikipedia. It is not a place to draft quasi-articles or promote yourself (as an administrator has given the speedy deletion criterion U5, which means that the page was deleted as it was a misuse of Wikipedia space as a webhost). There's a tricky line to straddle when you want to let people know who you are without contravening Wikipedia policies. One user that I think has done a good job of telling other users who they are on their userpage is Doc James, so you may want to do something similar in that respect. It's also easier to keep a semi-professional userpage like that if you edit articles to show that you are here to improve encyclopedic readability and knowledge; even more so if you're editing in areas outside your own expertise.

Second, please assume good faith. Wikipedia (I can only speak for the English one) has gone through many revisions and policy changes over the last two decades. Implying that someone is hindering the creation of an article about you out of bullying and racism without providing evidence is considered casting aspersions, and is strongly frowned upon on Wikipedia and can result in you yourself being blocked.

Third, an article about you may be created if it can be shown you meet Wikipedia's notability standards, but it should preferably be done by an editor that does not have a conflict of interest with you or receives monetary benefit in any way. Wikipedia doesn't forbid editors from writing about themselves, but strongly discourages it as many find it hard to write about themselves in a neutral tone. If there are concerns about an article about you, you can raise said issues on the associated talk page, and submit edit requests so that uninvolved editors can make those changes for you.

I'm sorry to hear that your experience so far on Wikipedia hasn't been a good one. I suggest taking the interactive tutorial, The Wikipedia Adventure to get an idea of how Wikipedia operates. It lightly touches on Wikipedia's main policies and guidelines so that you don't get lambasted. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:33, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

I think it is important to note that the additional of procedural technical templates to your talk page is not "bullying". This is standard procedure when articles are rejected. If your articles are being rejected, it is not because editors are being "mean" - they are following policy, as you are almost certainly not notable enough to qualify for a Wikipedia article and your attempting to create one as a form of personal advertisement is contrary to the purpose of the site. Please read up on the mission of wikipedia, the type of content and references that are used to establish article notability, and stop being rude to editors who are adding procedural notices per policy. BlackholeWA (talk) 04:35, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Help! Very rusty, very basic editor help :)

Hi! I'm trying to contribute to an outdated article but I'm realizing that I do not know much about linking to a website, Bullets, numbering, and separating paragraphs... :( Is that too much to begin? :-) _ AL Angeles Lady (talk) 04:36, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, none of us did when we started, so the problems can be overcome. Have you tried WP:The Wikipedia Adventure? (It's widely recommended, though I must confess that I've never tried it.) As for markup reminders, there's Help:Cheatsheet. -- Hoary (talk) 04:50, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

@Angeles Lady: Welcome to the Teahouse. Alternatively, have you tried using the visual editor? There are toolbar options that can do that for you while the page mostly displays as it would in read mode. You can go to your preferences, navigate to the Editing tab, and uncheck "Temporarily disable the visual editor while it is in beta". —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 07:01, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Looking to livestream editing Wikipedia on Twitch

Hello, I'm looking to livestream me editing Wikipedia on Twitch... is this allowed? Are there things I should be aware of? Are there other streamers? Eric.c.zhang (talk) 02:21, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I am not aware of anything that prohibits you from livestreaming your Wikipedia editing. 331dot (talk) 06:59, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Me neither. Doing so may a be form of WP:OUTING yourself, and, well, try to be polite when you comment about other editors. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:14, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Amir Ali Shaik article approval

Please help in article approval of Amir Ali Shaik as it will get improved in coming days 124.123.80.139 (talk) 06:35, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

(About Draft:Amir Ali Shaik, which has been declined. -- Hoary (talk) 06:47, 25 April 2021 (UTC))

Hello, IP editor. Primary sources like the subject's own website are of no value in establishing notability. I suggest that you read about the difficulties of writing a autobiography, and spend some time studying Your first article. Please be aware that Wikipedia is not a place for self-promotion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:16, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

 2A00:1028:8390:639E:EC97:17A9:A3AD:356B (talk) 08:24, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

How do I make an user page?

Hello. I would like to ask how to make an user page. There is really nothing to say about me, but from what I could understand it's necessary for my edits to be credited to me or something like that. English is not my first language so i might have misunderstood some stuff. so yeah, i would be very grateful if you cleared if it's even necessary or not, and if it is, how to do it. Thank you. Quetzbal (talk) 17:18, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

@Quetzbal, Go here & write {{Userpage}} inside and save your edit. You would have then successfully created your userpage. Celestina007 (talk) 17:31, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

@Celestina007, Thank you. I know 'how' to make one, but I don't know if it's necessary to create one for any purpose, or what should i add in it. But thank you anyways. Quetzbal (talk) 17:45, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Or click the redlink Quetzbal in your signature in this thread, write something and publish. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:43, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

@Quetzbal, if you can create one, then like @Gråbergs Gråa Sång said just go there and type what you want inside. It is however not a prerequisite for editing here, that is, having a Userpage isn’t mandatory, it’s your choice. Celestina007 (talk) 17:50, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

@Celestina007, Thank you very much, i don't think i will be creating one, but you really cleared it out for me. Thank you. Quetzbal (talk) 17:56, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

@Quetzbal, glad we could be of service. Celestina007 (talk) 17:58, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

@Quetzbal: just an FYI, having a redlinked (non-existent) userpage will make some editors prejudge you as inexperienced. There are some long-time users and admins without userpages, but they are very rare. Elli (talk | contribs) 10:21, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Is this table a copyright violation (updated) ?

--93.193.170.30 (talk) 09:19, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Book of Mormon Videos

Title	Verses of the Book of Mormon	Duration	Release date	Reference
The Lord Commands Lehi's Family to Leave Jerusalem	First Nephi 1–2	18 min	20. September 2019
Nephi Is Led by the Spirit to Obtain the Plates of Brass	First Nephi 3–5	25 min	27. September 2019
Ishmael's Household Joins Lehi's Family	First Nephi 7	12 min	4. October 2019
Lehi Sees a Vision of the Tree of Life	First Nephi 8	13 min	11. October 2019
The Lord Guides Lehi's Journey	First Nephi 16	16 min	18. October 2019
The Lord Commands Nephi to Build a Ship	First Nephi 17–18	15 min	25. October 2019
Lehi's Family Sails to the Promised Land	First Nephi 18	13 min	1. November 2019
Lehi Gives His Family a Final Blessing	Second Nephi 1–4	13 min	11. November 2019
The Nephites Separate from the Lamanites	Second Nephi 5	8 min	15. November 2019
Jacob Teaches of the Atonement of Jesus Christ	Second Nephi 6-10	8 min	22. November 2019
Nephi Teaches the Doctrine of Christ	Second Nephi 31-32	5 min	29. November 2019
Nephi Records His Final Testimony	Second Nephi 33	2 min	6. December 2019
Jacob Teaches about Pride and Chastity	Book of Jacob 2–3	10 min	13. December 2019
Sherem Denies Christ	Book of Jacob 7	7 min	20. December 2019
Enos Prays Mightily	Book of Enos 1	6 min	27. December 2019
King Benjamin Addresses His People	Book of Mosiah 1-5	18 min	13. March 2020
Abinadi Testifies of Jesus Christ	Book of Mosiah 11-18	25 min	20. March 2020
Alma the Younger Is Converted unto the Lord	Book of Mosiah 27, Book of Alma 36	11 min	27. March 2020
Alma Preaches the Word of God	Book of Alma 4-7	10 min	17. April 2020
Alma and Amulek Are Delivered by the Power of God	Book of Alma 8-15	23 min	24. April 2020
Ammon Serves and Teaches King Lamoni	Book of Alma 17-19	23 min	1. May 2020
Alma and Amulek Teach about Faith in Jesus Christ	Book of Alma 31-34	20 min	12. May 2020
Alma Counsels His Sons	Book of Alma 36-42	17 min	15. May 2020
Moroni Invites All to Come unto Christ	Book of Mormon 8-9, Book of Moroni 1,10	8 min	16. September 2020

As a plain list of stats and facts, it is not copyright able. Original elements might be—such as fonts and layout, and especially images—but as it stands, no. ——Serial 10:39, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

No, it's not a violation. Though it might be undue (reliant on primary sources). Elli (talk | contribs) 10:22, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

References

Help improve Draft

I've recently submitted a draft on a notable Portuguese company. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Corkbrick_Europe Can anyone give feedback regarding if the draft qualifies for a neutral writing style and feedback on the draft overall before it gets reviewed? UserBk12 ([[User talk:|talk]]) 09:42, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi UserBk12. Your account is only about a month old and all of your editing so far seems to have been focused on creating an article about this particular company. Your edits include the uploading of a number of files to Wikimedia Commons in which permission emails have been sent to Wikimedia OTRS to verify copyright ownership. None of these things are a violation of any Wikipedia (or Commons) policy or guideline person, but combined together they do give the strong appearance of at least an apparent confict of interest. Are you connected to the company you're trying to create an article about in any way? If you are, then please carefully read through Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure because those to pages contain information that may apply to you. Moreover, if you do have some connection to Corkbrick Europe, then it will be easier for someone to help you the more transparent you are about it.

As for the draft itself, I would get rid of the image gallery because there already seem to be a sufficient number of images used throughout the article; the image gallery has a promotional brochure feel to it. You might also want to reconsider the "Corporate Structure" and "Board of Directors" sections since these too seem a bit WP:PROMOTIONal and perhaps not encyclopedically relevant to the reader as currently written. Please also take a look at MOS:SECTIONCAPS and MOS:TM for some style-related issues I noticed. Finally, also please take a look at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), particularly this section, because lots of the sources you're citing seem to be WP:PRIMARY sources or trivial mentions, which can be used but have very little value in establishing Wikipedia notability. It might be possible for an article to be written about this company, but the article might need some seriously trimming so that its content focuses on the significant coverage the company has received in WP:SECONDARY and WP:INDEPENDENT reliable sources, and doesn't come off as just being an attempt to create an extension of the company's official website. These things are just my opinions and other Teahouse hosts might feel differently.

Finally, please try and understand that no matter how neutrally written and properly formatted a draft may be, there will be no real way to WP:OVERCOME a lack of Wikipedia notability. Sometimes when trying to creating a new article, it might seem that more is better by citing lots of sources and adding lots of extraneous content. However, an article doesn't have to be fully developed from the get go, and often too much content muddies the waters and makes it hard to assess Wikipedia notability. This often seems to happen when there is some type of paid editing involved because the person trying to create the article appears to be working on some sort of deadline and is trying to churn out a "finished" project in one fell swoop because they were "hired" to do a job. I've got no idea as to whether any of that applies to your situation and I'm not accusing you of doing anything improper. I'm just pointing out some things that really experienced AFC reviewers might look for when assessing a draft like this that has been submitted for review. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:39, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

FAR too much of the draft is the company talking about itself. That includes all quotes by the CEO/founder. The company's intent matters naught. I cut the Directors table because I agree with MarchJuly that it had no valid reason for being in the article. My advice is attempt to cut the length of the draft by at least one-third. That includes corporate structure, and too many images. Lastly, if you have WP:COI or are WP:PAID, state that clearly on your User page. If not - meaning no connection whatsoever - then state that on your Talk page. David notMD (talk) 12:35, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Hiding thumbnail

How to hide the thumbnail of an image in infobox? Excellenc1 (talk) 17:09, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Excellenc1, I don't suppose Help:Options to hide an image is what you're after? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:42, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

@Excellenc1: If you're asking about how to get rid of the box around the image in your Garden City of Suresnes userspace draft, you should include only the image name (2011 Cite-jardin suresnes Garden city movement.jpg) in the image_skyline field, and add the caption in a separate image_caption field. See Template:Infobox settlement for more information on the different parameters as well as an example. DanCherek (talk) 17:55, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: and @DanCherek:, no I was asking about the caption of an image in infobox. I want only the image to be visible while reading, and caption should only be there while opening the image. Is this possible? Excellenc1 (talk) 08:03, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't know. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:07, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

@Excellenc1: It could be done with Wikipedia:TemplateStyles, e.g. using .thumbcaption {display:none;}, but don't do it. Readers shouldn't have to click an image to see the caption. Many readers wouldn't have the option, e.g. if they disable Media Viewer at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering, or view the page somewhere else which doesn't have Media Viewer. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:14, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I wanted to hide because that's how it was in the original article (which I am translating) (Check the infoboxes in the original: Garden City, Suresne and my work: Garden City of Suresnes — Preceding undated comment added 10:35, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

@Excellenc1: It's not an article caption which displays when you click the image at fr:Cité-jardin de Suresnes, it's the French description at commons:File:2011 Cite-jardin suresnes Garden city movement.jpg. You can get that effect by only saying |image_skyline = 2011 Cite-jardin suresnes Garden city movement.jpg (which you should do in any case), and not setting an |image_caption=. Media Viewer will display the Commons description when there is no caption, but Commons descriptions are not meant as captions and some readers will not see it even if they click the image. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:36, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Foolish over-reach on my part - Archive edit filter

In a rush of blood to the head, I became uncharacteristically over-confident, and moved older sections of an overly long Talk page (the length of which I am disproportionately responsible for) to the newly created Archive page. This apparently trips edit filters, I discovered, so clearly I should not be doing this as an unregistered User.

My question is: Why did WP let me do the suspicious edit, then not allow me to self-revert? Supplementary question: All these edit filters I have tripped, do I have to fix something to avoid being hung, drawn and quartered, or will I just be eyed with suspicion?

In any case, I apologise; I did not mean any harm. I have learnt my lesson, one shouldn't attempt a below-the-radar whinge, nor WP operations above one's level of ignorance. 49.177.64.138 (talk) 12:04, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi there 49.177, and welcome to Wikipedia.
I'll assume you were referencing to archiving Talk:Post-vaccination embolic and thrombotic events. The talk page is getting a bit long, so doing so is completely fine. Wikipedia has hundreds of different edit filters, for different reasons. Some simply tag an edit to help notify users who "patrol" recent edits to suspicious edits. Other filters "warn" a user before pressing the publish button, and some simply disallow the edit. The edit filter you triggered was a "tag" filter, simply there to help editors spot bad edits. in this case, there didn't seem to be anything inherently wrong with your edits, so you shouldn't worry. If you'd like to know more information about archiving and edit filters, see Help:Archiving a talk page and Wikipedia:Edit filter. Hope this helps! — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 12:22, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Berrely. Yes, that Talk page archive is the one I was referencing. I appreciate the reassurance. 49.177.64.138 (talk) 13:04, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Citation with same link

I have put 2 citations with the same link to 2 different sentences. But the numbers which are shown above the sentences are different (one is ^[2] and the other one is ^[3], instead of both being ^[2]). Excellenc1 (talk) 12:45, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Excellenc1. You can combine multiple references to the same source using WP:NAMEDREF. --ColinFine (talk) 12:49, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello Excellenc1. Also if you are using Visual editor you can chose Re-use option from the Cite window and pick a necessary source from already available list of references. Less Unless (talk) 14:19, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions. Excellenc1 (talk) 14:25, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Numbers in the edit history

What are those numbers in the edit history like -12, +14 etc. Excellenc1 (talk) 14:29, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

@Excellenc1: Those are the number of characters that the editor added or removed from the page in that edit. So for example in this edit, I removed a single period, so it shows in the history as "-1". The numbers can be helpful when you're trying to figure out how substantial an edit is (e.g. if someone removes a large chunk of the page, it would show up as a really large negative number). DanCherek (talk) 14:32, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

To be more precise, it's the size difference in bytes. If you add 10 bytes and remove 10 other bytes then it says 0. Some charaters use more than one byte. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:41, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

How can I view edit summaries with the Vector skin?

Hello, I'm trying to view edit summaries. They're not visible anywhere the help page says they should be. I'm using the legacy Vector skin, if that matters. What can I do to make them visible? Thank you! Cnehren (talk) 13:55, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Cnehren. When you visit a page history (e.g., this page's) what do you see? I am going to leave an edit summary for this post, that says "query regarding question as to lack of edit summaries". When you visit the page history link earlier in this post, do you not see my name at the near the top of the page with that edit summary? Is the page blank? What's there?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:31, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello Fuhghettaboutit! Sorry for the noise, I've figured it out. I have an extension in my browser that hides internet comments and I didn't realize it was hiding edit summaries as comments. Please consider this issue resolved. Cnehren (talk) 15:44, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Two Draft Gilbert Academy articles

I (Queen Kitty Cat) submitted a new article on Gilbert Academy (in New Orleans) for review. Fiddle Faddle messaged me that there is another Gilbert Academy draft article in the queue. FF instructed me to work with the writer of the other article so we can combine information into one article. I will happily do so but can't figure out how to contact the other writer. Or do I just add information from that article into mine? If so, how do I identify that the information came from that person's draft article? Many thanks for any help. --Queen Kitty Cat (talk) 15:43, 25 April 2021 (UTC) Lisa C., aka Queen Kitty Cat Queen Kitty Cat (talk) 15:43, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

@Queen Kitty Cat: Welcome to the Teahouse. If you're transferring your content into the other article, you can just state in an edit summary that you're moving content from Draft X (the draft you started) to Draft Y (the draft the other editor started). If you're trying to contact the other editor you can leave a message on their talk page. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:50, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Tramp Stamps AFD Query

Hi, I nominated this page for AFD by just noticing the dates of news published. All in April 2021, For me, this is like an overnight sensation of videos going viral. Am I wrong? If yes, I will withdraw the nomination. Sonofstar (talk) 16:03, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Cascading Protection

When I saw a few cascading protected pages, they all had the full protection icon instead of the cascade protection icon. Why does this happen? Cupcake547^{Let's chat!} 22:23, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

 2403:6200:8872:D6C3:60EB:C5FF:FE65:1063 (talk) 01:00, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

@Cupcake547: Can you provide some examples? RudolfRed (talk) 16:36, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

General question about Request For Comment (RFC)

If an RFC is created by an editor and then that editor gets blocked by an administrator, what happens to the RFC?

Does it get invalidated and should it be closed? Or does it stay open? What is the procedure?

Also what happens if that same editor returns. Can they do an RFC again?

what is that procedure?

How do these situations work? 2603:8001:440:82E2:B0EE:2FFC:3F1B:D5A8 (talk) 17:04, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

A person’s editing status should have no effect on an open RFC. It is open until sufficient comments have been received and/or it ages out without any interest. It is then closed when the RFC tag is removed. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:22, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

May I see some samples of summary of edits?

I find it difficult to write a summary of edits, after editing, please may I know some samples. Arnt9099 (talk) 06:36, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Arnt9099, if you check the "View history" tab on any WP-article, you are likely to see several. Here is one example: [2]. Or you can check the history of a particular editor, like [3]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:04, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Arnt9099, take a look at Wikipedia:Edit summary legend. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:19, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

How do I add proper footnotes

How do I add proper footnotes I've seen some articles that use the references section for footnotes, I think there is some way to actually add footnotes SilverRobinson (talk) 20:56, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

SilverRobinson, Help:Explanatory notes may give you whatyou need. StarryGrandma (talk) 21:03, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Mixing Short Citations and Named References

I previously asked whether the Sfn or Harvnb templates can be mixed with standard citations and was told that that is perfectly acceptable, but I've come across an interesting problem. The Notes section uses a reflist template to display short notes that link to the References section which uses refbegin and refend to display the full citations. However, that means regular citations are included in the notes rather than the references section. If I try to move the citation into the references section the refbegin and refend templates convert the citation into a footnote rather than displaying the citation. Is there a way around this? TipsyElephant (talk) 02:16, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

TipsyElephant, please provide a link to the page with the problem. The shortened references and the regular references should appear in the same list. Only the shortened footnotes should link to the references in the reference section. See the article Lillian Moller Gilbreth. StarryGrandma (talk) 04:43, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

@StarryGrandma: I was working on Black theology. What I was trying to point to was the fact that sources like note number 1 (Cone 2010, p. 1.) or note number 9 (Feiler 2009, pp. 134-139) are short citations that link to the more extensive reference below, whereas notes 2 (Hagerty 2008) or 3 (Matthews 2008) contain their full references within the Notes section rather than the References section. I was under the impression that the notes section should only contain short notes while the references section contains full reference information. Based on a look at Lillian Moller Gilbreth I see that the article uses the same format so perhaps I'm wrong. It seems odd though to mix short and long references in the note section, and it forces editors to leave lengthy reference material in the body of the article because you can't include it between the refbegin and refend templates and still use the ref name option. Is there a way to clean up the body of the article and move references to the notes or reference sections? Is Black theology written perfectly fine? TipsyElephant (talk) 18:05, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

TipsyElephant, it is standard to have one section for all the numbered footnotes. It would be weird to have the numbers jumping around from section to section or to number long and short references differently. It doesn't force you to keep the full references in the article text; you can put them in the Notes section. Expand the {{reflist}} in that section to use "|refs=" and put the references there as explained at Template:Reflist#List-defined references. They will all have to have refnames. StarryGrandma (talk) 20:58, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

@TipsyElephant: You can call these sections whatever you like. I too used this mixed format but I now prefer full references only or all references using a short + full combination. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:07, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Dealing with a page created as one's private online CV & advertisement platform

What are the standard Wiki means for dealing with that? It is more than obvious that Mr Abid Ullah Jan or an associate has misused Wikipedia for creating for him(self) a free online CV of maximum impact. I did come across such pages marked for deletion or requested to be rewritten, but I don't know what templates were used. I am not very well-versed in such technical issues, so just directing me to a bulky, technical page wouldn't normally help; pasting in here some concrete tags or other tools (between "nowiki" brackets; that much I do know) and other user-friendly advice would be very welcome. Thank you. Arminden (talk) 20:52, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

This has apparently already been addressed, and the problematic content removed. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:19, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Article

hi. I created the article named Pranga for a Azerbaijani musician, but that article nominated for deleting. Can you help me, I do not want it deleted. I am a fan of this artist and there are a lot of people listening him from different countries 5.47.187.235 (talk) 16:05, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi. I am a fan of this artist, and this artist have streams in Youtube, Spotify and other plaftorms from foreign countries, because that I wanted to create article about him in English. Please help me to improve this article, I do not want it deleted

article name - Pranga Prangamania13 (talk) 16:07, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

@Prangamania13: Draft:Pranga - your contesting reason will need to be relevant to the actual reason for deletion (in this case, you need to either argue that it's not promotional, or improve it, and state it is no longer promotional). That will need sources, ones which are reliable, independent, and secondary - especially for sentences like " This song was one of the most popular rap songs in Azerbaijan Rap Music Indu". You saying "his artist gets a lot of streams from foreign countries on Youtube, Apple Music and Spotify," is irrelevant both to whether it should have an article but especially doesn't mean it's not promotional. You should also remove external links in the main text, such as the whole Discography section Nosebagbear (talk) 16:27, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Okay, thank you my friend. I will try to change the article now, I will remove links and change my some sentences. Thank you again.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Prangamania13 (talk • contribs) 16:39, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi again. I changed some things in my article. Now can I add this article to Wikipedia? Or are there other things which I have to edit? Please help— Preceding unsigned comment added by Prangamania13 (talk • contribs) 16:47, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Prangamania13, in the current state the draft would still not be accepted. Articles need reliable, independent sources that show that the topic has received significant coverage and is notable. (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.) – NJD-DE (talk) 17:14, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Prangamania13. Trying to write a Wikipedia article without first finding independent reliable sources that discuss the subject at length is like trying to build a house without clearing the site or checking that the ground is stable: your house is likely to fall down (your article not be accepted). Wikipedia is not interested, at all, in what you (or I, or any random person on the Internet) knows or thinks about Pranga, and it is not interested in anything said or published by Pranga or his associates. It is only interested in what people who have no connection with Pranga have chosen to publish about him in reliable sources: unless you can find at least three such sources, then any and all time you spend wriing about him will be wasted. --ColinFine (talk) 17:22, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

First of all, thank you bro. But I saw a lot of articles about artists in Wikipedia, which there are not any sources or references, just personal information about this artist. How can it be?--Prangamania13 (talk) 17:25, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

@Prangamania13: See WP:OSE. Most likely nobody has come to delete them yet. Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:59, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, other stuff exists. Please provide the Wikilinks to those artist articles so those can be nominated for deletion. David notMD (talk) 20:32, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello my friends. I removed the links and promotional sentences from this article and I edited some informations which are looks like advertising this artist. Now, can wikipedia accept this article? Or are there other stuffs which I have to remove or edit? Please, help me. My article name is Pranga--Prangamania13 (talk) 21:41, 25 April 2021 (UTC) Prangamania13 (talk) 21:41, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Prangamania13, I have noticed you removed a lot of the promotional external links, but unfortunately nothing has changed when it comes to the reference situation. Have a look again at the comments above regarding independent, reliable sources. Without them, it's not likely that Pranga would be accepted as an article. – NJD-DE (talk) 22:03, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Would someone be willing to take a look at my first article?

Hi there!

Four weeks ago, I started contributing to Wikipedia. So far, I have only added sections to existing articles. Now I would like to create some new articles, and I have three pieces in the pipeline.

My first article would be about the "logic of appropriateness," which has already got an entry in the Encyclopaedia Britannica. (The logic of appropriateness is a theoretical perspective on decision-making that is closely related to constructivist approaches in social sciences. The idea is to offer an alternative action model to the widely used rational choice theory.)

Would one (or more) of you be willing to take a look at my first article and give me some feedback? If there are any issues, I would then be better prepared for subsequent new articles.

I would be grateful for any advice and assistance that you may have!

See: Logic of Appropriateness

All best, Socialsciencenerd (talk) 19:10, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

• Hi @Socialsciencenerd: The link to your draft isn't working. Do you mind including a URL? Kokopelli7309 (talk) 19:18, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Didn't look at the article, but the correct page is Logic of appropriateness; pages are case-sensitive. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:19, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi there, thank you so much for your quick replies! And sorry for including the wrong link. I completely forgot about the issue of case sensitivity. Many thanks for your willingness to help. Socialsciencenerd (talk) 19:24, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

@Socialsciencenerd: I took a quick look and modified the references section. I can't verify that the sources back up what is written, but my main concern is the article's tone. It's written more like an scholarly essay than an encyclopedia article. Phrases sprinkled throughout like "hence", "what is more", "yet", and "finally" make it look like you're editorializing a point of view (borderline WP:OR), rather than just simply describing in clinical fashion what the logical perspective states. Hope this helps. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:17, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello :@Timtempleton:, thank you very much for your feedback! I have just compared my article with the entry in the Encyclopaedia Britannica, and I see what you mean. The phrases in my text that you mention ("hence", "what is more", etc.) do, indeed, sound a bit misplaced. I will revise the text tomorrow. Many thanks for your time and advice. Good night,Socialsciencenerd (talk) 21:57, 25 April 2021 (UTC) PS: :@Timtempleton: I realised I misspelled your name in my previous message. I am not sure if that message got through to you. So I thought I'd send this quick note. Sorry about that. Socialsciencenerd (talk) 22:09, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Counsel

Hi there guys. An user has repeatedly deleted sourced content from the article Bruno Juričić, an article I created. I reverted his edits twice, then left a warning on his talk page, to which he hasn't answered yet. Instead, he added a BLP noticeboard template to the article's talk page. The article is not being discussed at the noticeboard, as far as I know. How should I proceed? Thanks.--Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 21:49, 25 April 2021 (UTC) Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 21:49, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

EDIT: The BLP noticeboard is solved. Still not sure what to do should user delete content again.--Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 22:11, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Once an article about a notable person is published, who has the ability to edit it over time?

Hi there! I have a quick query: once an article, or biography page, about a notable person is published -- who has the ability to edit it over the time? Does the original author of the article have the ability to revise it as the subject's career/accomplishments evolve? And how can someone ensure that the page isn't able to be modified by anybody in the public?

Thank you! 2601:645:4300:4870:D588:58E:9763:CA34 (talk) 22:24, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

WP:OWN has a lot of information about this. Any text that is added to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed by anyone—you agree to this when you click "Publish changes". So anyone, including the original author is welcome to edit any article or biography on Wikipedia (that's why it's called "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit"), and the original author does not have more of a "right" to edit the page compared to anyone else. If you want to make a page non-editable by the public, Wikipedia probably isn't the right place—a personal website or blog would be more appropriate in that case. DanCherek (talk) 22:43, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Improving my Article

Hi There, I would like if someone helps or assists me in improve the article Draft:Maceo_Frost which would be very helpful for me. Thanks in advance!!! Jocelin Andrea (talk) 15:55, 25 April 2021 (UTC) Jocelin Andrea (talk) 15:55, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

@Jocelin Andrea, hello and welcome, it appears the article isn’t notable just yet. The message @Theroadislong left for you still applies. We are unable to assist you because assisting you would require the utilization of reliable sources discussing the article's subject of which the subject of your article doesn’t have. Celestina007 (talk) 16:24, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Jocelin Andrea. I agree with Celestina007, mostly, but I'm not as certain the necessary sources don't actually exist (if not, then I agree the subject is just not yet notable). To state the broader issue, what the draft needs is to cite sufficient reliable, secondary, independent sources that treat the topic in substantive detail – which the draft article does not yet do. Here's the thing: we're all volunteers, working on what interests us. In theory, there could be someone willing to donate a significant amount of time to hunting down better sources for a subject where those sources might not even exist, and if found, add them and compose good content summarizing them. But most people are just not going to be willing to do so. This will be true far more often where notability is not clear in the first place, and where sources have already been looked for, added, and are insufficient. In practice, this usually means that the burden is on the proponent to find the better sourcing and use them. Hey, maybe this will be one of those instances where someone else will be willing. But I guess I'm just saying: be aware of what usually happens in similar contexts, and be pragmatic about the prospect of cutting your losses. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:25, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Fuhghettaboutit, Thanks for your Help. I thought that he was notable enough as he had some news on Google News too, but that is Fine. Anyways, thanks for guiding me in the right path. Thanks!!! Jocelin Andrea (talk) 01:48, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Sources for a Tokusatsu Article

Hello, (I'm relatively new to making articles for WP) I am in a little slump for my article. I cannot seem to find much information outside of a few sources. These sites are mainly in China. The problem itself isn't necessarily translating, more about the type of source because majority of the sources lead to a Chinese encyclopedia (Baidu). I am not sure if I can use this source or not for my article about Chinese tokusatsu. (I was also planning to go further in depth with other toku series in/outside of Japan and the US)

If anyone could possibly help to solve this then that would be great, even if I have to cancel this article. FusionAlloy (talk) 20:03, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

@FusionAlloy: Welcome to the Teahouse. If reliable secondary sources are in Chinese they can be used here; WP:ENGVAR states that although English sources are more preferred, there's nothing stopping you from using said Chinese sources here. The issue arises, as you've guessed, from Baidu Baike, which as far as I can tell is user-generated, which fails it from being a reliable source. What about the sources used in Baidu's article? Those could potentially be sources that Wikipedia can use. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:22, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

@Tenryuu: So far most of the sites Baidu uses either display info about the series (from basic info about the show to announcements) or display the episodes. Would these sources be plausible to some degree? FusionAlloy (talk) 22:32, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

@FusionAlloy: It depends: Wikipedia asks for secondary sources to establish a subject's notability. Are the sources there independent from the production company that creates the can be used for some details, but that's generally for incontrovertible ones. Announcements sound like press releases, which aren't secondary sources. Are there any Chinese tokusatsu interest magazines for fans out there? They might be reputable enough to be used as reliable sources. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:44, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

@Tenryuu: All of the sources that are (possibly) usable are outside of Alpha (Aofei) Entertainment. In terms of interest magazines, I'm not sure if there is any with info on the series. FusionAlloy (talk) 01:40, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

@FusionAlloy: I'll tentatively say yes, they could be used. I only threw out interest magazines as they are generally secondary sources that report on content, but they are by no means essential to creating the article. Someone may be able to tell you if the sources you're using are reliable for English Wikipedia's use over at the reliable sources noticeboard. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:53, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

@Tenryuu: I can do that, thank you for your help and cooperation on this debacle. Hopefully, this will help the article. FusionAlloy (talk) 02:46, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Horizontal tables?

hi i was wondering if it was possible to make horizontal tables

thanks

 Jayden Parker (talk) 03:42, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Tables conventionally have two dimensions; what do you mean by "horizontal table"? -- Hoary (talk) 04:52, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, they are split horizontally, and the data is arranged vertically, I was wondering if it was possible for the groups to be split vertically, and to arrange the data horizontally -- Jayden Parker (talk) 08:16, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Source listings question

Hello, I have modified the page I created by adding many secondary sources as suggested. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:David_Russell_(artist)

I am having a hard time determining the correct formatting for sources. Please let me know if I have made any formatting errors. Many thanks.

Njikecat Njikecat (talk) 07:52, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

@Njikecat: The long list of sources look like they have potential, but really you should be using inline citations to show which specific pieces of information are extracted from which source. Use those sources to back up every piece of information that currently doesn't have a citation: yes, that includes the filmography! Also, if you have a filmography, you don't have to list them out in the first sentence; instead, why don't you tell me more about his personal life and his career history? You can reference well-written biographies currently on Wikipedia for ideas. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 09:21, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Ganbaruby, thank you for your advice. I will change the draft to include references to listed sources. As far as his bio details, I thought I could expand on it later, after the basic page has been approved. I also intend to add images of his relevant artwork then. But please confirm whether the formatting of sources in my draft is correct so far. Thanks a lot again, Njikecat

Can't upload videos

I tried to upload a video in Ingenuity (helicopter) but I couldn't. I tried .mp4s and .webms, but error messages appeared. The one for the .mp4 version was "File name not allowed.", and the .webm version error was "File did not pass name verification." Can you help me? K1401986Talk with me 22:44, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

@K1401986: You may want to try asking at commons:Commons:Help_desk. I do know that Wikimedia Commons does not allow .mp4 for patent issues. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 02:54, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

@K1401986:. The relevant help page for video formats and upload processes is at Commons:Video. .mp4 is not supported: the preferred VP9 / WebM combination can usually be created using conversion software. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:20, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

How to line up pictures on wikipedia?

Hello, i want to improve the Amhara people page because it has very controversial content and looks unbalanced, the worst article i have read in my opinion. i want to expand and improve the culture section, but don't know how to line up pictures next to each other like for example in the Russians page in the cultures section. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 11:32, 26 April 2021 (UTC) Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 11:32, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Dawit S Gondaria, what you see in Russians#Culture is achieved using a table. You can click on the "Edit" link at top of the section to see how it's done. (This use of a table seems to me a rather poor idea, as the table is wider than my browser window, so I have to use the scroll bar to see the last few pictures.) Maproom (talk) 11:56, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Maproom Thanks for the response. You think it's a poor idea? I thought about adding a music section, i created a Draft:List_of_Amharic_musicians which is pending review for this purpose. I want to line up a few pictures of prominent musicians/band, do you have a better suggestion? Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 12:33, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Declined article

Hey I dont know why but I keep getting declined regarding my referencing. I did everything I know correctly, could you please help me. Dewi339458 (talk) 08:01, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

@Dewi339458 The draft which was declined now twice is full of unreliable sources, please have a look at Wikipedia:Reliable sources. The comment "IMDb, YouTube, Spotify and Commons Wikipedia are not reliable sources" was given to you. CommanderWaterford (talk) 08:41, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Courtesy link: Draft:Berlando Deton. The references should follow punctuation, not precede it; and you should provide full bibliographical details (title of article, author, name of work, date, page number), not just bare URLs. But those problems are easily fixed. A more serious problem is that none of the sources I checked (the first five) have significant discussion of the subject. To establish that Deton is notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article, you'll need to cite several sources with in-depth discussion of him. Maproom (talk) 08:47, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

hey CommanderWaterford, I've changed my sources for Draft:Berlando Deton, could you please take a look at it. I hope it's right this time. Do you think it is now approved reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dewi339458 (talk • contribs) 08:52, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

The draft says very little (although it does manage to provide trivia such as your man's height and the names of all three of his sisters). Do the sources that you list provide (non-trivial) information about him? If they do, summarize it; if they don't, this suggests that there's nothing much to these sources and therefore that he fails WP:PERSON. -- Hoary (talk) 12:43, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

What if i know the person? Hoary

How is the article ?

The page I have created in userpace is ready , I want it to be cheked once. TewariKamal (talk) 17:55, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

@TewariKamal: You can request review by adding {{subst:submit}} to the draft. You will need to be patient, there may be a long wait. See WP:YFA for more info on creating an article. RudolfRed (talk) 18:03, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi TewariKamal. How is it? It is about as bad as it can be – because it plagiarizes other peoples' writing and is an illegal copyright violation, of at least this site. (The fact you cite the source of your copying usually means it is done in ignorance, rather than done in bad faith, so there is that). Nevertheless, this has further knock on effects because of the waste of other's time required to determine if the page is subject to deletion under CSD G12, whether anything can be salvaged, editing to remove the problem content, revdeletion, warning the editor involved (here, you), etc. and I actually don't have time to do so right now), if someone else could step in...--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:47, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

@TewariKamal: Writing a Wikipedia article is hard work. You need to do proper research, rewrite the information you found so you aren't just copying and pasting what someone else wrote, and you need to review what you've written, to check for mistakes. I've published many articles, but I still need to go over my work many times, to edit sentences that don't seem quite right. I looked over the first few paragraphs of your draft, and found many mistakes that you should try to correct, after you've rewritten the plagiarism Fuhghettaboutit has told you about.

I've copied two sentences you've written, and will give some tips for correcting them:

"After some time he was recommendation he was promoted Colonel in command of the 6th Michigan Cavalry . Sometimes he got injured in battles but ends up winning it."

What does "he was recommendation he was promoted" mean? You might want to change the sentence to: He was promoted to the rank of colonel, and placed in command of the 6th Michigan Cavalry.

Regarding the second sentence, if the person you are writing about received numerous battle injuries tell what those injuries are, don't just write "Sometimes he got injured in battles," and if you want readers to know he won battles, give the names of those battles, and cite good references that tell about the battles won.

I do not have the time to rewrite the article for you. I just spent several months researching a new article of my own, then spent about six hours writing it, then another couple of hours reviewing my work, and correcting the mistakes I made, even though I was trying my best to not make mistakes. It is a great responsibility to write a Wikipedia article. Anyone who tries to write one must be willing to spend many hours doing the best work that they can.

I don't want to discourage you for trying to write an article that is good enough to be published. But I want you to know that writing an article is a difficult undertaking. The only way to become proficient, is to keep writing, and always rewrite your first draft. Karenthewriter (talk) 02:48, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: Page has been deleted under CSD G12 (not by me).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:23, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello again,

So yeah third question I have had, what is a user page? How do I use it? Thanks Aiden LaBonne (talk) 13:25, 26 April 2021 (UTC) Aiden LaBonne (talk) 13:25, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

@Memerman69: you've already created your user page. Clicking on your username at the top of Wikipedia brings you there. versacespaceleave a message! 13:33, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

As to what you might wish to place on your User Page, see this advice. The idea is to tell other editors what you intend to contribute to the encyclopaedia and whether you have any specific expertise or language skills, for example. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:40, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Okay thank you Aiden LaBonne (talk) 14:57, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Taskforce article alert page

Hello – I was drifting through WikiProjects and noticed that an animation taskforce had an article alert page; a page that they could watch to see if there is any deletions, merges, etc etc on their project articles. How would I go about making/getting one of these for the soap opera WikiProject? – DarkGlow • 14:32, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

@DarkGlow: All the information is at Wikipedia:Article alerts/Subscribing. Basically you should add an entry for your WikiProject to Wikipedia:Article alerts/Subscription list and then AAlertBot will create and update Wikipedia:WikiProject Soap Operas/Article alerts with articles that have the soap opera WikiProject banner on their talk pages. DanCherek (talk) 15:09, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

I need help

I need help

Every time I make a meaningful change to Wikipedia it gets taken down for vandalism. "Vandalism" is not a real word so it is fake. How do I avoid this Jonjo4eva (talk) 13:04, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Jonjo4eva Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm not seeing where you edits were identified as vandalism(which is a real word, see vandalism), but one of your edits was removed because it was completely unsourced. All information in Wikipedia must be sourced to a published, independent reliable source for verification purposes. This is especially the case in articles about living people, which have their own rules, see WP:BLP. 331dot (talk) 13:21, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Jonjo4eva, this edit of yours was vandalism. Maproom (talk) 13:26, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

@Jonjo4eva: The edits were not helpful. Calling Mark Noble a football player who "is extremely old but is still quality" is not a helpful edit, not to mention you didn't even provide a reliable source for this, which is required to add information to an article. You also changed the man's date of birth, which is something you are especially not supposed to do. On Mary Berry's article you provided a statement that was also not sourced. You did not even add a period to end your sentence. It was rightfully reverted. On Adebayo Akinfenwa you added a whole new section where you wrote that he is part of the "69 best football players ever". This edit actually was vandalism because no such list exists and "69" is funny or whatever. Jokes about 69, or any variant of it in articles are vandalism and will be treated as such. versacespaceleave a message! 13:29, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Every edit Jonjo4eva made has been reverted. All were clearly vandalism. Jonjo4eva also removed two vandalism warnings from own Talk page. Level 4 vandalism warning now placed on Talk page. Clearly not here to work on the encyclopedia. David notMD (talk) 14:36, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked this user, for obvious reasons.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:17, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

why can't I edit finn wolfhards wiki page

 ItsArianalol (talk) 16:53, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

@ItsArianalol: Welcome to the Teahouse! The Finn Wolfhard article is currently semi-protected due to disruptive editing from other users. That means that only editors who have been registered for at least four days and have made at least 10 edits to Wikipedia can edit the article. In the meantime, you can request changes to the article on its talk page, or edit another article that isn't semi-protected. DanCherek (talk) 16:57, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

@ItsArianalol:(edit conflict) Finn Wolfhard is protected from editing by unregistered editors and new accounts for an indefinite amount of time due to persistent disruptive editing by unregistered and new editors. You are welcome to make suggestions on the article talkpage accomponied by {{edit semi-protected}} (as it appears when viewing this page). Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:58, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Article approved without it being summitted to AfC(?)

Hello everyone, I have a quick question. I created my third article and published it, planning on doing some last minute edits before submitting it to the Articles for Creation. Someone than reviewed my entry and it was accepted, without me submitting it. What is the difference between a review and AfC review, and when do I use one over the other? GGOTCC (talk) 14:12, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

GGOTCC, is this about Tampa-class cutter? None of the links in the reference list leads to a source with any mention of the subject. I expect this can be corrected, by supplying correct URLs, or adding issue numbers, publication dates, and page numbers; but until it's fixed, it shouldn't be kept in article space. Maproom (talk) 14:24, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

From looking at the history of Tampa-class cutter, appears that you created it as an article, thereby skipping AfC. If that was not your intent, then it should be moved to draft. David notMD (talk) 14:48, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Just to be clear, you also have also created Draft:USCGC Jackson (WSC-142), submitted for review, and Draft:USCGC Bedloe (WSC-128) not yet submitted for review. David notMD (talk) 14:52, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

David notMD yes, my question was about Tampa-class cutter. I am currently fixing the sourcing URLs, which cover the topic. I created and edited this article like my two drafts, yet I lost the option to submit it to AfC after it was reviewed. How would I be able to remove it from article space back into the drafting areas? GGOTCC (talk)

Hi GGOTCC. I see you figured it out (and did it correctly – moving the page to the draft namespace was the answer). I have deleted the redirects created by this. As to the "review" that prompted your question, the type of review here is essentially entirely unrelated and not akin to the "review" one receives through the AfC process – which I can see would be confusing.

When a page is created in the article mainspace, and the creation is by a user who does not have the autopatrolled flag, it is automatically shown at Special:NewPages, and Special:NewPagesFeed – central locations where newpage patrollers will take a variety of actions, from tagging them for speedy deletion, to adding maintenance tags, stub tagging them, adding categories, and so forth.

When a page is marked as "reviewed" or "patrolled" (which can be done directly, or automatically depending on the actions taken), that removes the page from being flagged as unreviewed and unpatrolled in these feeds, and also has the effect of removing coding that makes the page ineligible for indexing by search engines. This also results in a "review" (and "patrol") log entry, which in turn triggers a notification (which I assume is the message that most directly prompted your question). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:03, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Would this cite help an article?

Big textWould this citation help an article? Big text

For the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation_Builders_Corps_(NABCO) Would adding this new citation below help it? Or need to be added in differently?

https://www.modernghana.com/news/1076332/nabco-has-achieved-85-of-its-target-ar-boss-tout.html

Thanks for any feedback. I’m learning here and Wikipedia suggested this article to improve after I signed up! DemoGirls (talk) 14:28, 24 April 2021 (UTC) DemoGirls (talk) 14:28, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

DemoGirls, You can read Wikipedia:Reliable Source to determine. Lightbluerain❄ (Talk | contribs) 18:30, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Historical figure vs literary figure being put in seperate articles

The spanish wikipedia article about M. D'Artagnan and the historical figure of Charles de Batz de Castelmore d'Artagnan are seperate articles, should smth be done about that? If so to whom can I speak to? or how do I do it? Any tips. Chefs-kiss (talk) 18:00, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

@Chefs-kiss: Welcome to the Teahouse. This is something the Spanish Wikipedia project has decided on, and it doesn't have to do with the English Wikipedia project. You could ask for more help at their coffeehouse. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:03, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

This sometimes happens on en-WP too, like Ertuğrul/Ertuğrul Bey (fictional character). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:07, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Regarding personal information

Not that it has happened but what would be protocol if someone were to publish an address or phone number in a talk page or article page, or anywhere? I would assume first reverting the edit would be key, but it would still be in version history. LucasA04 (talk) 02:32, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi LucasA04, non-public personal information should be reported to Wikipedia:Oversight (there is a link to email the oversight team on that page), so that one of the oversighters can remove the information such that not even an administrator can access it. WP:OS has more information about the oversight policy and when it should be used. DanCherek (talk) 02:42, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

LucasA04, it is fine to ask a hypothetical question, and I agree with DanCherek. But if you run across an actual example, do not discuss it on Wikipedia, but rather report it immediately by email. Avoid the Streisand effect. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:00, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Adding on to the information above, if it were information that is already publicly available (for example if it were the suicide prevention hotline) then it's perfectly fine. However, if it were something that's not supposed to be public (for example your real life house address) then you would want to follow the above. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 20:03, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Blocked from moving sandbox to draft

Hi I am new to Wiki and can't figure out why I can't publish my sandbox. I wrote an article and submitted for publishing and then I get a warning that it needs to be moved to draft however when I do that, it gets blocked. Any insight into how I can fix this? It also seems like my user page doesn't exist. I can't figure out why and if that's why I can't move to draft. I went to the Wiki page for requested moves but I don't have a button to edit that either.

Thanks! SvetaMartya (talk) 20:07, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: User:SvetaMartya/sandbox — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 20:21, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi SvetaMartya I have moved it to Draft:Neuromuscular modelling for you. I have no idea why you could not do it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:31, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Dodger67 Thank you!

Policy or essay reference

Hello! Hoping to get some clarification on content pertinent to BLP articles, specifically when accusations/allegations (non-criminal) are made against the subject. I am asking this because obviously many accusations/allegations are made against living persons daily. Does this mean we should include these? To every one offered by a credible source? And if these accusations/allegations are never confirmed, are they still worth noting on Wikipedia?

For example, person X has been accused of many many things, from sex scandals to money laundering. With those claims being cited by sources (credible or otherwise) as "alleged" or "accused," but never convicted, proven or otherwise known, where is the line for users to draw?

Is there a specific policy or essay I can use as a reference for clarity? Hope this makes sense! Thank you! PerpetuityGrat (talk) 17:31, 26 April 2021 (UTC) Hi PerpetuityGrat.

Reducing anything that is a complex gray area to black and white rules is difficult. I would give my best distillation of what is involved here as follows:

• Since you already refer to "BLP"s, using that shortcut, I may be citing here what you already know, but obviously that policy is the main guide here. Two sections of that page seem of obvious relevance to your query: generally WP:AVOIDVICTIM, but more problematically, you specifically use the words "accusations/allegations" but then have the parenthetical "(non-criminal)", by which, I suppose, you are intending to indicate WP:BLPCRIME is inapplicable. That is a bit difficult to discuss (or really understand and apply) without context, and context is always important. (If your question regards someone specific, the context would help greatly; if not, a concrete example to chew over would also help to inject concreteness). Anyway, what are they then, allegations of misconduct not rising to the level of crimes? Ethical violations? Some whisper campaigns of sexual misconduct? What? Or are you understanding that section as only applying to people who have had actual law/judiciary involvement? I would say it should be broadly construed to be given its effect.
• Given that you're already aware of BLP, then understanding application of the neutral point of view policy seems key here – especially in avoiding one common and very unfortunate misunderstanding and misapplication of it, to perverse effect. To wit, I have many times seen it miscited as allowing and even requiring both "sides" of a matter to be represented, e.g., the flat Earth view should (and must) be treated in an article on the Spherical Earth, to "balance" the scientific view. This turns the policy on its ear. What the policy actually says, from the shortcut at WP:WEIGHT (probably the most important policy statement on your overall question in my view, is:

"Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources,*** in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources" (emphasis added).

• What the excerpted section means in part is that we do not even mention the flat Earth view in a scientific article on the spherical Earth (nor, e.g., devote swaths of ink in an article on evolution to credulous writing about creationist nonsense; see WP:FRINGE).
• I hope the analogy I am attempting to draw to your issue is illuminated by that; why the same logic means not every mention of these undefined accusations and allegations, even if included in some reliable sources, would be warranted. Once you get past threshold matters like, does BLP:CRIME really not apply, and are the mentions in reliable sources, then you have to start asking, things like: "in a survey of the sources, is the preponderance of mentions significant enough, in proportion to the whole, to even warrant a mention?" If so, is the mention commensurate in its depth of detail to substantially mirror the prominence of the detail in the body of sources on the subject? Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:39, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

***It is separately important to an understanding here that determining what a reliable source is can be quite nuanced; that what is an IRS can shift radically depending on the context, e.g., The New York Times is mostly considered a highly reliable source, but a side note mention in a NYT article summarizing some detail of science would most often not be considered a reliable source to verify that scientific detail in an article on a scientific topic. (See Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (science).)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:39, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Ok @Fuhghettaboutit: this is helpful! Yes you are right, I am not referring to any criminal accusations here. I guess I'll just be specific here as I can. I recently stumbled across an article on a Twitch channel. That Twitch channel was accused of faking free giveaways. This was never proved one way or another as far as the sources say, and the sources use words such as "alleged." Honestly is so petty it's not even worth pursuing the truth. Is something like this appropriate for Wikipedia? Again, I'm asking this because in other articles (mostly about BLPs), many people are accused of allegedly doing many things. Are those encyclopedic? Please help me understand this, thanks PerpetuityGrat (talk) 20:17, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

PerpetuityGrat I think you've answered your own question. You said "Honestly is so petty it's not even worth pursuing the truth." I think that's a pretty strong argument for not mentioning it in the article. If someone else comes along who feels it is worth pursuing, you might engage them in an editorial discussion to decide what to include or exclude - within the bounds of the relevant policies mentioned above. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:50, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

PerpetuityGrat. This is an easy one. Unless these are a very particular type of primary, user-generated twitter sources, that meet an exception to the general rule, they're not reliable sources in the first place. Full stop. Hence, we don't even get to apply the policies I was discussing because they fail to meet this threshold condition. See WP:TWITTER. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk)

taxobox

I am trying to help copyedit an article about heterobilharzia. A "taxobox" is suggested by one of the reviewers. I learned what that is but have no idea of how to find one for this parasite. Does Wikipedia have a library with usable templates or ones that can be adapted by a writer? OodFloo (talk) 21:01, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

I have infinitesimal knowledge of the subject area, but what I'd do is look at the articles about comparable subjects, see which "taxoboxes" they use, and copy over and adapt whichever is the most suitable among them. -- Hoary (talk) 21:11, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

OodFloo, You can also go to Template:Taxobox if you haven't already for various examples and blank templates to copy/paste and fill to your liking. Thanks, EDG 543 ^{(message me)} 21:15, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

This webpage has nothing to do with the actual Wikipedia subject.

Someone thinks they are being smart by calling their dance school 'Bellydance Superstars' and listing themselves on this Wiki, but they have absolutely NOTHING to do with the subject. Bellydance Superstars is based in Los Angeles under the eye of Miles Copeland. They have nothing to do with some little two-bit dance school in Pennsylvania who don't even offer bellydance in their curriculum.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bellydance_Superstars#External_links

I don't know what the protocol is for deleting stuff off Wikipedia, so I am asking here if someone can do it or point out how to do it. 198.48.248.218 (talk) 21:17, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

I've removed the link. Squeakachu (talk) 21:30, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

My guess is that "Bellydance Superstars" neglected to renew payment for their domain name, which thereupon went to what you call "some little two-bit dance school in Pennsylvania". I'm not convinced that the "Bellydance Superstars" of LA still exist; if they don't, then the article should be in the past tense if it should remain at all. However, as the article has feeble sourcing (including an unpublished master's thesis), I suspect that it's ripe for deletion. Working out whether an "AfD" (formal proposal for deletion) is deserved is a matter I'll leave to others who are more interested in "superstars" than I am. -- Hoary (talk) 21:37, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Verification of each source in a Stand-alone List

I've come across quite a few WP:STANDALONE articles and I'm starting to think very few of them meet Wikipedia's guidelines. I'm trying to make a stand-alone bibliography article (Draft:Bibliography of minjung theology) and I'm unsure whether I'm going to be able to meet Wikipedia's guidelines, but perhaps I'm simply misinterpreting guidelines.

WP:LISTCRITERIA "Selection criteria (also known as inclusion criteria or membership criteria) should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. In cases where the membership criteria are subjective or likely to be disputed (for example, lists of unusual things or terrorist incidents), it is especially important that inclusion be based on reliable sources given with inline citations for each item."

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Bibliographies#Recommended_structure says "It should be possible to verify that each entry in a bibliography meets the inclusion criteria."

WP:SOURCELIST says "all individual items on the list must follow Wikipedia's content policies: the core content policies of Verifiability (through good sources in the item's one or more references), No original research, and Neutral point of view, plus the other content policies as well."

Given those guidelines it seems like none of these meet the necessary requirements: Category:Lists of podcast episodes. Similarly, Bibliography of Colditz Castle doesn't have a single source, let alone a source for every entry in the list. However, it seems strange that Bibliography of Colditz Castle would be mentioned as an example on WP:BIB if it isn't considered notable or verifiable. Both Bibliography of Jimmy Carter and Bibliography of classical guitar are also given as examples on WP:BIB, but none of the entries have sources. TipsyElephant (talk) 01:12, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello, TipsyElephant. Every entry in a list article should have a reference to a reliable source verifying that the entry belongs on that list. It is easy to add items to a list but much harder to reference properly. The existence of poorly referenced or unreferenced lists is not an argument for creating new poorly referenced lists. Instead, those lists should be cleaned up. Personally, I have done a lot of work to improve and properly reference List of Jewish American authors and List of members of the Black Panther Party. It is satisfying to clean up a big mess, but it takes a long time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:50, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Am I correct in assuming that the examples listed at WP:BIB don't meet Wikipedia's guidelines and if so then would an AfD be appropriate? Similarly, some of the highest rated articles at WP:BIB (class/quality B) such as Brian Moore (novelist), Bibliography of 18th–19th century Royal Naval history, and Bibliography of early United States naval history don't cite sources for the vast majority of their list entries. If I chose to challenge the majority of these list entries would they have to be removed? And if so wouldn't even these B class articles have to be deleted? I'm not sure I understand the guidelines if these articles are somehow still notable or verifiable. TipsyElephant (talk) 10:59, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

TipsyElephant, deleting articles is sometimes necessary but should be the last resort. This is a project to build an encyclopedia, not a project to disassemble an encyclopedia. The best course of action is to do what I did with the two list articles I mentioned, which is to add references wherever possible, and remove entries that cannot be verified after a sincere search for sources. As for B ratings, frankly, the only ratings that truly matter are Good and Featured, which require peer review. Lower ratings can be assigned by any individual editor, and therefore most experienced editors pay little attention to them because they are applied inconsistently. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:15, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Okay, that makes sense. Do I still need references that explicitly mention the book titles that are included in the list or would a reference stating that an author is well-known for writing books on the subject be enough to include works by that author. For instance, if I continue working on Draft:Bibliography of minjung theology then can I include works by Ahn Byung-Mu simply on the basis that he is considered one of the two founding fathers of minjung theology? I suppose that some of his works might be on different topics but if the title or description of the book on Google Books or WorldCat mentions Minjung theology it seems pretty clear that it would be worth including in the Bibliography. TipsyElephant (talk) 19:04, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

TipsyElephant, as you implied, you cannot assume that every book by a prominent theologian is about a particular variety of theology, but if you can find a reliable source saying that it a specific book is about that branh of thoology, and you cite that source, then you are on solid ground. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:49, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Citations in its basic form

In the article which I am translating (Garden City of Suresnes), there are certain citations which I feel are not adequate. For example, here's a line from the article with the citation,

À la fin des années 1930, un centre d'hygiène infantile et de puériculture avait également été construit en allée des Platanes.

(transl. At the end of the 1930s, an infant hygiene and childcare center had also been built in allée des Platanes.)

The citation is actually an illogical sentence. But it hasn't been removed from the original article by Wikipedia, so may I use it? Excellenc1 (talk) 14:55, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

The different language versions of Wikipedia have different standards but here on English Wikipedia, "panels in front of the baths" would not be considered a reliable source and of course you can't use the French article itself as evidence of a source. So I'm afraid that for the purposes of your translation you will need to find much better citations, whether from guide books, newspaper articles or elsewhere to replace all these "panel" sources. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:22, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

So, if I could not find sources to cite the sentences containing "panel" sources, can I simply ignore them? (Please check 7th and 8th citation in my article wizard) Excellenc1 (talk) 15:43, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello Excellenc1, yes you can and should ignore them, so I'd recommend removing those sentences from your article wizard before moving it into mainspace. Best regards, OakMapping (talk) 16:02, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

According to WP:GEOLAND, it is likely that the Garden City of Suresnes will be assumed notable, so lack of sources, although less than ideal, should not be a bar to having your translated article in mainspace, where it can be improved later. The current article at Suresnes is also poor in relation to sources and maybe you could work on both when you are looking for extra references. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:26, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Actually signage can be a perfectly acceptable reference, provided it is from a reliable source. In this case the signage is by the responsible curatorial authority, so I'd be inclined to accept it as reliable. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:01, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Excellenc1, please see Template:Cite sign for how to use a sign, plaque or historical marker as a reference, as long as it is a reliable source. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:57, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Cannot publish my article

 Courtesy link: Draft:Grigori Balasanyan

Dear team, I am having trouble with publishing my article. When I press "submit for review" button, it comes back again. How can I know that my article had been submitted for review? BR, Ellen Ellen Grigoryan (talk) 15:50, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Ellen Grigoryan. There is no point in submitting the draft at present as it has no reliable sources. Facebook, Youtube and Instagram are not acceptable and simple interviews with the subject of the article will not establish his notability, which is an absolute must for the article t be accepted. When it is ready, there is a "submit draft for review" button now at the top and once submitted a template confirming receipt will appear at the bottom. I suggest you read WP:FIRST before going any further. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:33, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

@Ellen Grigoryan: Just to clarify, the draft has not been submitted for review (I don't know what problem is happening with the button you say you have pressed; it should have worked – but also 100% agree with Mike Turnbull that there is no point in submitting the draft at present, for the reasons given). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:04, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

I have seen references to Instagram, Youtube, FB in other wikipedia bio pages. The official web page of the President of Armenia is a reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ellen Grigoryan (talk • contribs) 21:35, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

@Ellen Grigoryan: Just because you see something elsewhere on Wikipedia, does not mean it is acceptable. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inappropriate content to go undetected. Without knowing the specific articles you observed, I can only speak generally, but those sources are not usually acceptable, and do not establish notability. 331dot (talk) 21:40, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Ellen Grigoryan, just to clarify, the official YouTube channel of a reliable media source is also reliable. A large majority of YouTube videos do not meet that standard. An official Facebook page is a self-published source that can be used for very limited personal information about the person writing the page. However, it is not an independent source and you must be very cautious because there are a lot of fake celebrity Facebook pages. Please read WP:ABOUTSELF for the relevant policy language. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:07, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Adding sections

I am trying to add sections to my draft page on the "At Dead of Night" game. I can't figure out how to do it. Can anyone help me?

TheBCPlayer TheBCPlayer (talk) 17:47, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

@TheBCPlayer: Welcome to the Teahouse. You're going to want to use the following code for the standard largest heading:

==Example==

There's more guidance at Help:Section. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:57, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

TheBCPlayer, assuming that you are working with wikitext, which I recommend, then Help:Cheatsheet is a handy reference to the most common coding techniques. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:17, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Does this count as copyrighted work if it's just quotes?

I tried to submit a new page here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Thinking_in_Systems:_A_Primer

I added information about systems traps, which came from this source: https://www.sloww.co/thinking-in-systems-book/

But that source is simply quoting from the book. Is this content ok? When am I allowed to use quotes from a book that other (possibly copyrighted) sites also use?

Thanks! Rhys.lindmark (talk) 00:01, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Rhys.lindmark and welcome to the Teahouse. Thinking in Systems is a technical book. Just give a brief summary of what it covers, mentioning the main points. Remove the current summary section. Don't use quotes from other books, rewrite what they say about the book in your own words. Find reviews of the book or other commentary about the book and summarize what that says, using the sources as references. This is an influential book and should have an article. See The Limits to Growth as an example. StarryGrandma (talk) 01:04, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Rhys.lindmark, looking closer almost everything in the current draft should be removed. Let it be speedy deleted and start a new draft. StarryGrandma (talk) 01:14, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Rhys.lindmark. A large majority of the prose that you add to any Wikipedia article should be written in your own words summarizing what the reliable sources say about the topic. A few quotations are permissible, but they must have an inline reference and they must be set off by quotation marks or blockquote markup. This is a matter of policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, so please be cautious in the future. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:18, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I'll just allow it to be speedy deleted. Understood that, next time, I should summarize in "my own words" rather than pulling from the book itself. Thank you both StarryGrandma and Cullen328

Need some Help

Hello everyone, I am facing issues at the time of creating the article about Jordan Nash. I already wrote the article, it was rejected and then accepted and then rejected again. I request an administrator to kindly help me with explaining the rules if I violated any. Also, I met with an editor who wasn't nice with me. I have something to say about that Editor but I think it will not be proper to say that openly. Can anyone please provide me the contact details of how to share the details. This is the draft page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jordan_Nash  AntheaNash (talk) 07:46, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Please note that there is a case of undisclosed paid editing and WP:MEAT. I have filled the SPI already and shared the off-wiki details with Arbcom and a few admins so if anyone interested to know more please mail me for private evidence per WP:OUTING. Thank you, GSS ^💬 08:44, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Depending on what the editor said to you they may not have read WP:BITE. But the situation above is a bit more important. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 15:21, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

User:AntheaNash How are you related to Jordan Nash? McClenon mobile (talk) 19:03, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

McClenon mobile, I see it showing the name of the reviewer who declined Jordan's draft twice but the account name is different. Are you the same person? Jordan is related to me very closely. Is it binding to disclose the relationship openly? Lately, I faced some behavior on Wikipedia, which left me feeling heavily concerned about my own privacy and pushed me to feel insecure. So, I am thinking twice before disclosing anything more. AntheaNash (talk) 22:37, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

User:AntheaNash - As the user page User:McClenon mobile states, that is a legitimate alternate account that I use when editing from an Android. So, yes, I am the same person with different devices. You have now made a disclosure of conflict of interest. I recognize your privacy concerns about yourself and about your son/brother/nephew. You did complicate your relationship with Wikipedia by hiring a paid editor who did not disclose that they were being paid, and has been blocked, and then you were thought to be a sockpuppet of the paid editor. What you are discovering is that some of the volunteers who are the people of Wikipedia don't like paid editing, and don't like paid editors, and don't like the use of paid editors. Jordan Nash is probably less likely to get an article accepted than if you had left alone and had let his reputation and his fans take care of neutral editing on his behalf. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:02, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Your draft will be reviewed in accordance with neutral point of view, which is the second pillar of Wikipedia. In Wikipedia, there is no deadline. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:02, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much Robert McClenon for your message. Unfortunately, my privacy concerns are more serious than what you think. I have submitted my concerns to an administrator and hope it will be addressed properly. I made my disclosure of conflict of interest when creating my Wikipedia account going by the rule of Wikipedia. I just repeated the fact when you asked. I respect Wikipedia and its editors but I can not agree on a few things you said about an editor. Also, I have some queries. Are you saying Jordan's article will not be accepted just because it was created by me in spite of following the rules of Wikipedia? Given the fact that the article was accepted by a reviewer after my rectifications [4] based on your suggestions of first decline, you still rejected the article showing notability concerns. Can you kindly explain how it was accepted by another reviewer if it had notability concerns? AntheaNash (talk) 01:26, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

User:AntheaNash - I did not say that the article will not be accepted, and I did not say that the article will be accepted. What I said is that it is less likely to be accepted, and its review may take longer, than if you and your team had followed the rules of Wikipedia from the outset. There is a common myth in the outside world that the best way to get an article in Wikipedia is to hire a professional editor. This is a myth, and many professional (paid) editors are much less competent than they claim to be, and Wikipedia has very strict rules about paid editing that most paid editors try to evade. Unfortunately, your editor did not make the proper disclosure, and was blocked, and now your family has a record of having not followed the rules. Yes, you are now following the rules, but you weren't until you personally came in, and other volunteer editors reasonably suspect you of also not following the rules. I have only a partial understanding of the circumstances of the acceptance and then un-acceptance of the article, but I am reasonably sure that that happened because the paid editing had not been fully disclosed. I have tried to answer your questions. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:13, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Of course, one option that you have with regard to privacy is to leave your draft alone, in which case whether an article is accepted on Jordan Nash will depend on whether a neutral editor decides to go forward with an article on a child actor. But that isn't what you want. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:13, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

HOW DO I REGISTER MY ENTITY ON WIKIPEDIA?

Hi, It's me SK Wasim Akram, I'm the Owner & Founder of Demoody, Demoody is an Indian Software Company and Retail ecommerce platform. I want to register my company (Demoody) details in wikipedia and also I want to register my (Sk Wasim Akram) page on wikipedia, Can you help me to register my entity here on Wikipedia? Sk Wasim Akram 13 (talk) 02:24, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

@Sk Wasim Akram 13: I'm afraid you don't understand how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia articles are written by volunteers who take an interest on a subject; you can't "register" to have an article written. Even then, the subject must fulfill a set of rules to determine if they're notable enough for an article, which is to have significant coverage in reliable, independent sources (see WP:GNG, WP:NORG). You are strongly discouraged from writing about yourself or an entity you're involved with; see WP:COI for more details. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 03:39, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Preventing other users from deleting my content

How to prevent other users deleting my content repeatedly even I had cited from credible articles and journals for the Wikipedia page Devendrakula Velalar ? It has become frustrating as my long hours of work in Wikipedia became fruitless when users like Nandivarman undid my revision without prior reasons. Alphajith13 (talk) 02:15, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

@Alphajith13: The other editor, Nandivarman, raised concerns that Devendrakula Velalar is not mentioned in the references you provided and is therefore looking like original research. While you may be knowledgeable in the subject area, everything on Wikipedia must be verifiable. Also, much of the prose you added (permalink) is not written in a neutral point of view and is not consistent with Wikipedia standards. You can't "prevent" other editors from changing your content. Do not revert to your old revision, as that will be considered edit warring and is a blockable offense. Instead, go to the talk page and discuss your changes with the other editor to reach consensus. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 03:47, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Alphajith13. Start by taking the advice of experienced editors seriously. Continue by discussing your concerns at Talk:Devendrakula Velalar, and I cannot overemphasize the importance of that. Be calm, logical and persuasive. If talk page discussion is not effective, there are several forms of dispute resolution available to you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:54, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your clarification, I'll take in your advice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alphajith13 (talk • contribs) 04:39, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Read more like an advertisement

Hi there, my article was declined because "..it read more like an advertisement..". Could anybody give me some tips on getting it approved? Sinead Morrissey (talk) 17:46, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy link: Draft:Remilk Princess Persnickety (talk) 17:51, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Sinead Morrissey, don't worry, with a little work I think your article will get approved. There are sufficient sources available, so the company/product is likely notable. The issue the reviewer has lies most likely with your style, which should be neutral. An issue I see, for example, is the lede section: It presents the prognosticated benefits in comparison to cow's milk – but these are only estimates yet! To sound more encyclopedic, you would need to clearly communicate that these are claims by the company, not something that is verified in e.g. independent studies. But not every part of the article is bad, some are already quite well written (imo). I might actually jump in and rewrite a bit just to show you what I mean (and sneak in a German-language source I just found), though it will likely require more work from your end. --LordPeterII (talk) 19:39, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments made at the draft. David notMD (talk) 21:00, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

I would say that the problem was the dearth of independent sources, LordPeterII. If you base a draft on sources which just regurgitate what the company says about itself (as all but two of the sources do) then you're naturally going to sound like an ad. 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) 21:16, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Apologies, pinged the wrong person: Sinead Morrissey. --ColinFine (talk) 21:17, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

@ColinFine: No, the ping was alright – I was the one stating there were enough sources. However, I actually didn't look just at the article, but also at google news. The article itself has some bad sources, should have made that more clear. I know that Merkur is a reliable and independent one, as likely is the Times of Israel. The problem I see overall is rather that the information contained in even these reliable sources is mostly information about investments, and statements that the company itself made. That's because it currently exists mostly "on paper", and there just isn't much even for reliable sources to publish. Thus, I would need to be a bit more cautious and say that the company is likely notable, but a proper article might not be finished at this point.

But my optimistic answer was given also because, for a first article, this is comparably well-written. I mean, it has at least a few reliable sources, instead of just Facebook+Instagram... --LordPeterII (talk) 05:32, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Notability criteria for Web Series

Hello, is there a specific criteria we use for notability of web-series that are (or will be) streamed at OTT platforms like Hotstar and Netflix? Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 03:22, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Nomadicghumakkad, I don't think there are notability criteria for web series but you might want to refer WP:NME as it's related to media. Excellenc1 (talk) 03:33, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Hey Excellenc1, yes. WP:BROADCAST might work! Thanks!. Was too early to say. It is about television stations rather and not about programs. I think films will be closest now.

@Nomadicghumakkad:, so I guess you are looking towards WP:NF. Excellenc1 (talk) 03:44, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Nomadicghumakkad. Web series are covered under the notability guideline WP:NWEB, please read that policy for more information. — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 07:08, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

How can I add a picture to my article

 Sandiey X (talk) 07:43, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Start here, and take the links that it provides, where these seem to apply to what you're trying to do. -- Hoary (talk) 08:00, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Your list of contributions, Sandiey X, suggests that your primary purpose in Wikipedia is promoting yourself. Promotion (of yourself or anyone else) is not what Wikipedia is for. Please stop it. -- Hoary (talk) 08:50, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Your user page is not a place to have article-like content or your picture. It's for a bit of description about yourself relating to your intents as a Wikipedia contributor. Stating where you are from and that you are a rapper and your professional name is OK, but do not get into career details. That could lead to the page being deleted, and you having to start fresh. David notMD (talk) 10:30, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Pronunciation clips

Why are some of the clips that play the pronunciation of the word available online, but others need to be downloaded? Compare Coup d'état (available online) and Grand Est (needs to be downloaded). 2601:640:4000:3170:614B:FF2B:6C44:9C57 (talk) 18:58, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

It may depend on what audio your browser supports. One of those files is .ogg and the other is .wav. RudolfRed (talk) 19:22, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that seems to be the issue, IP user. Both clips work directly in my Windows 10 / Edge browser, without download. Chrome should be the same as Edge in this respect. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:50, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Warnings issue

Hi, I'm trying to warn this IP user for vandalism, but for some reason it's not working. I've tried Twinkle and RedWarn, and even manually, but with no success. I'm not sure what the issue is, as everything seems fine. Twinkle comes up with the error "Error: there is no section 6". Cheers, Hockeycatcat (talk) 11:41, 27 April 2021 (UTC) Hockeycatcat (talk) 11:41, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

@Hockeycatcat: well, in December 2020 the person decided to vandalise his own talk page, breaking a HTML Comment along the way, causing the remainder of the page to be interpreted as a part of a HTML comment, which aren't interpreted by the parser, meaning the sections don't technically exist. I have fixed the HTML comment for now and disabled all signatures that failed to be resolved. I will fix them now. Victor Schmidt (talk) 11:50, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

@Victor Schmidt: I see. Sorry, I have never experienced this before. I am glad to have asked! Cheers, Hockeycatcat (talk) 11:56, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

New editor dealing with repeat and insistent vandalism on wiki page

Dear fellow editors,

I am fairly new to editing wiki articles. I have made minor edits of several pages in recent years. Now I am focussing, time allowing, on specific articles in order to make useful and larger contributions. I made extensive contributions recently to the page for Calderwood, East Kilbride.

Being well aware of Wikipedia etiquette, and to assume good faith, I am clearly now in a situation where an editor is vandalising the article, despite several reversals. the first reversals were batch and with simple reasoning. Now the most recent reversals have been made one by one with clear substantiation for each. Now the same user has come back onto the Wiki page and made a another batch edit which they have captioned as 'slimming down'. In doing so they have made a series of genuine improvements, but used it as a veil over yet another reversal of all the improvements that I have had to reverse previous times. The issue here is they are introducing wrong information, changing tenses, over simplifying matters to give different meanings entirely, and in doing so introducing grammatical errors. Furthermore is that they are going beyond plain English to truncate sentences down to a point where the syntax has lost its meaning. This is very discouraging as a new editor, and in one case their multiply reversed edits has been attracting ridicule. This is most so where they have edited the list of botanists to appears as lists of first and second names where they are all surnames. They have also removed notable content several times, and it is my intention to expand this article to be longer and to full Wikipedia standards. But this malicious user seems to be content on keeping it as more a neighbourhood stub which it does not have to be.

If I reverse these edits again then I would have to do them one by one in order to sidestep the other minor improvements this user made. As this has happened several times I wonder if the page should have some restriction made on it or on the user. Otherwise I would ask all the sections I added are removed, because I do not wish to be loosely associated with the poor quality content being insisted upon.

C. Ladds. Chrisladds (talk) 20:44, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

So you're saying that this edit is vandalism, and that its author, Bmcln1, is a "malicious user"? This surprises me. Please start a discussion on Talk:Calderwood, East Kilbride, and do so without diagnosing Bmcln1's mental state. -- Hoary (talk) 21:09, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Hoary. I don't go in for such discussions. They waste time. If this person has specific problems, share them with an administrator. I'll accept his/her verdict. Bmcln1 (talk) 21:21, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

If Chrisladds wants to argue some point in the article's talk page, they're free to do so. Nobody can compel you to pay it any attention, but I'd urge you to do so regardless. And as you should know, an administrator has no more right to adjudicate than does any other user in good standing. -- Hoary (talk) 21:42, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Bmcln1, I appreciate that you may have to invest a bit of time into this, but it is what it is, and Hoary is correct: administrators don't adjudicate content, though at some point an admin can judge whether any behavior is unacceptable, for instance. Chrisladds, those edits were not vandalism, and please don't call them that--and don't go warning the user for vandalism, because that is unacceptable behavior. I've seen your edits: there is too much in the edit summaries, and not enough on the article talk page. Drmies (talk) 21:47, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Drmies. He/she seems to have lost his/her temper over this. I'll drop the page and take a look in a year's time. I have almost 2000 others to cope with. Blessings. Bmcln1 (talk) 22:00, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello again. The multiple edits with lengthy summaries represent a last attempt to clearly substantiate why the previous edits should remain. They are multiple and too long because I wished to make each correction clear in the hope the other editor would not reverse them again. However the other editor reversed these for a third time, reintroducing several major errors, as well as new grammatical and syntax errors over again. Wikipedia vandalism guidance suggests that such insistent changes or reversals are vandalism. It goes further to describe situations where many genuine edits are used to conceal the same vandalism. It calls this, the perhaps inappropriately named, undetected vandalism. I can assure you that I have neither tried to diagnose a mental state, nor am I cross or lost my temper on this. I am a cool-headed academic used to reasoning things out where the facts speak for themselves. The fact is that the situation I describe represents the third repetition of the actions, despite clear edit summaries. Perhaps I should have used the talk feature as described, but I was unaware of it today as a new user. The Wikipedia interface is not far off code in many respects and hard to navigate for a new user. I was managing with edits and edit summaries. Now I know how to use the talk feature but also the tearoom. Indeed it was a user that invited me to the tearoom where I noticed this area is used as a place to raise concerns too. It was only after raising the issue here that I found the guidance on the protocols for vandalism. I am also surprised at the idea the user in question would perpetrate vandalism because I can find little evidence for it previously, and they have been involved in multiple pages. Be that as it may, when the sequence of events are laid out and the edits looked at, then how can it be rationalised as anything but deliberate?

I do not regret raising the issue, but similarly I do not regret issuing the warning because that is exactly what Wikipedia guidance suggested I should do.

C. Ladds Chrisladds (talk) 22:22, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Chrisladds, three points. First, "vandalism" is defined for our purposes here. Read it. Also read this. Having read both, please think hard about whether or not you want to continue with accusations and insinuations. Secondly, I happen to know something about grammar. (My copy of that unrivalled book The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language is within arm's reach.) Please describe the problem(s) on the article's talk page. Thirdly, remember that concision is a virtue. -- Hoary (talk) 22:39, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Hoary Firstly I do not appreciate what I perceive to be a curt, condescending and provocative tone. I previously and fully read both articles you highlight. I maintain that the behaviours I initially described were vandalism, because upon examination they were not helpful and were persistent. I don't doubt you are proficient in grammar, but the heart of the issue complained of was not grammatical. Concision is a virtue, but it is often misused or misunderstood to the point where it is counterproductive. The aim is to communicate the maximum meaning with the fewest words, but in many cases meaning, detail and nuance are lost. Wikipedia is informative, and the article in question should be and can be more than a stub. The heart of the issue was false information, and I would find it hard to believe that a very experienced Wikipedia editor would be unaware of repeated reversals of edits despite comments to substantiate why they were made. Such appears to be clearly beyond good cause. Now cognisant of the talk feature, I will ensure to raise such issues there as a prelim in future. However, my reasoning over whether something is or is not vandalism will remain. As a new Wikipedia user I am discomforted by seeing hints in conversation threads, here and elsewhere, that suggest tenure and respect occupy a higher ground above plain right and wrong and facts. It seems against the spirit of what Wikipedia is truly about. It parallels a class system that was once the greatest threat to academic progress, and in some areas still clings on. Chrisladds (talk) 23:02, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Chrisladds - User:Hoary is taking a curt tone with you and is being correct and very brief because you are being wrong at length. If you have been editing Wikipedia long enough to know what vandalism is, then you have been editing Wikipedia long enough to know what is not vandalism. This is not vandalism. This would be a content dispute, except that you are yelling vandalism, and that is a personal attack. Stop it. Either discuss your edits, or stop editing. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:14, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Robert McClenon Although there is a lot to take away from your response, the edits that I am specifically concerned about, clearly fall within the subtle vandalism category and also partly the hoaxing vandalism category under what is vandalism. I don't need to elaborate why this is the case. Although I should caution that most of the people responding to this thread seem to be making a cursory glance over the large edit made by the user, and perhaps some of the earlier back to back single edits I made to stress the point to that user. If the sections of concern are looked at, mainly concerning Moncreiff Parish Church, the Hunter Brothers and occupancy/ownership, and especially the names of seven botanists being joined together, then they are clearly not a content dispute. As much as you may all be experienced content editors, there is no escaping the black and white conclusion that what I elucidate (and the article edits itself do better) falls under the vandalism sections described. This sounds more like a mounted defence for an experienced user regardless of wrongdoing. I would be happy for any senior moderator to look over any of that. BEcause I have not done any wrong in calling this vandalism. The article is now completely marred. The extra conciseness and cross-linking to other pages is not a compensatory measure by the user for the issues highlighted. Chrisladds (talk) 03:08, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Chrisladds - The Teahouse is not a conduct forum. WP:ANI is the forum for reports of malicious behavior that will not be resolved at the vandalism noticeboard. I suggest that you first read the boomerang essay and then report the user to WP:ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:25, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

A specific diff

It isn't vandalism, but it is the introduction of factual errors in the pursuance of a writing style goal. Take Special:Diff/1019063724 as a specific diff.

• Before: "Calderwood Glen was recorded for notable and often scarce flora by all the main botanists who historically surveyed the region, including Ure, Patrick, Hopkirk, Hooker, Hennedy, Lee and Macpherson, and findings retrospectively included in an edited regional survey."

  — This is supported by sources giving these authors' surnames. Putting this in the passive voice is very convoluted, though.

• After: "Calderwood Glen was noted for often scarce flora by the main botanists who historically surveyed the region, including Patrick Ure, Hooker Hopkirk, Lee Hennedy, and Macpherson, and findings retrospectively included in an edited regional survey."

  — We know that xe knew that these weren't the names because, in this very same diff, Bmcln1 edited these authors' names in the citations.

and as another example in the same diff:

• Before: "The only directly neighbouring area is St Leonards to the south, with the bypass forming a physical division from the East Mains and Village areas to the west […]"

  — This is correct per what I can see on a map.

• After: "The only directly neighbouring area is St Leonards to the south. There the bypass forms a physical division from the East Mains and Village areas to the west […]"

  — The insistence upon turning a subordinate clause into a sentence has changed the meaning, and readers are now being told the clear falsehood that the bypass is at St Leonards, when in fact that is the place where the bypass is not.

Chrisladds has a legitimate complaint about factual errors being introduced by Bmcln1, even though xe cannot apparently state it on a talk page to save xyr life.

But the converse is that "the show cottage receiving a grand reveal by the Marchioness of Bute" is a circumlocutious and excessive, like the discussion comments here, way of saying "was unveiled by".

Uncle G (talk) 11:50, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I've dropped the page, so please discuss it among yourselves. Bmcln1 (talk) 12:47, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Request an edit involving COI

So I have mentioned this on the respected talk page but, when I was looking at the Super Mario 64 article, I noticed that in the glitches section it only briefly mentions glitches and then talks about a rumor with a sign that people think says "L is real 2401" (which ended up being sort of true) which isn't a glitch. So I mentioned this on the talk page, however I'm not sure if many people will see and since I have a conflict of interest with this page (i would declare it but I have thousands of conflict of interests because I'm involved in the gaming community) I would rather not make the edit myself since I'm unsure how I would do it correctly. How would I make an edit request for that specific part of the article? Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 20:01, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Blaze The Wolf. If you add the template {{edit request}}, it will get added to a list that some people patrol. It may take some time. See further Edit request. --ColinFine (talk) 21:20, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

You've brought up the matter in Talk:Super_Mario_64#Glitches_section_doesn't_talk_about_glitches. But you've done so rather vaguely, in the form "Maybe this should be X and maybe it should be Y". Are you advocating X, or Y? Perhaps if you proposed new text (adding that one or more among your thousands of conflict of interests prevents you from making the change yourself), this might get a reaction (or of course implementation) more quickly. -- Hoary (talk) 21:21, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

I was being vague cause it wasn't really a formal edit request. I was throwing out a few ideas cause I wasn't really sure which would be better so I wanted to discuss the ideas and see which would be better. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 12:57, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Category confusion

Hi! I am getting myself confused. I was looking for the category for a person that is Black (African-American) and Iranian. I wasn't seeing this so I made a category which I possibly did incorrectly (?) Category:American people of Iranian-African descent. Then I found something I thought was related called Category:Iranian people of African-American descent and proceeded to try to redirect mine to this one.

1. What is the proper wording for this category?
2. Are these the same meaning for the sake of categories? Or does category one imply origin, due to the hierarchy of the words? (example: does "Iranian people of African-American descent" specifically mean people born in Iran-only?)

Thank you for your time and attention. Jooojay (talk) 11:28, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

The first category would be for someone who is American but their relatives are of Iranian-African descent. The second category would be for people who are Iranian but their relatives are of African-American descent. While similar, these are 2 different things. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 13:26, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Review my article and advice What can I improve in this article?

Hello l have this article am working on my sandbox, l want it be review and published User:Ngangaesther/Rachael shebesh

Regards Esther Ngangaesther (talk) 08:43, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Ngangaesther I have added the appropriate information to allow you to submit the draft. 331dot (talk) 08:51, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Ngangaesther, you're writing about "Rachael shebesh", but the (few) references are about "Rachel Shebesh". -- Hoary (talk) 08:56, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy: Draft at User:Ngangaesther/Rachael shebesh. David notMD (talk) 13:56, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

How to insert soundtrack samples in a page?

Hello i want to create a page, and include soundtrack samples from this site >>> https://www.allmusic.com/album/the-legendary-bahru-kegne-1929-2000-mw0002582768 Is this possible, and how can it be done? Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 13:01, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello Dawit S Gondaria and welcome to the Teahouse. I suggest you read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music samples.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 13:34, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello Shantavira Thank you very much! Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 13:56, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Does Tesla India meet with CSD?

Is Tesla India notable enough to have an article on English Wikipedia? Also it is too short, and does it meet with CSD? And should it be requested for deletion? ExclusiveEditor (talk) 15:14, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi ExclusiveEditor. In order: yes; sort of; not at all; no. This is a massively notable parent company, and any subsidiary opening in a country is going to inevitably generate enough press coverage to sustain an article. This is just a stub (that should be stub tagged) – a short article in need of expansion – but that's in no way a deletion issue, and the article is already sourced to {{RSIS}}. We have so much crap popping up every minute; this isn't even close to good deletion fodder. No deletion process applies. From the 50,000 meter view, your question makes me think you might get much out of a careful study of the guidance at Wikipedia:New pages patrol.

Rounding out the deletion issue: the CSD are precisely defined to cover only limited types of pages, none of which are even arguably applicable here (unless there was some intervening, general status, unrelated to the topic itself, like creation by a banned user or a copyvio affecting every revision and so forth). They really need to be read a few times carefully to learn their coverage limits. Prod is technically inapplicable (as doing so for this would be controversial given we're talking about) and would be unwarranted for the same reasons any articles for deletion nomination (presumably grounded on notability concerns) would fail. The same would be a waste of community resources and a violation of WP:BEFORE, because this is a notable topic, which if not evident from the existing sourcing, would be discovered upon any due diligence search for sources out in the world. Doing so would properly lead you to not bring the nomination in the first place, and is a condition precedent to making the nomination. (At AfD we're looking to the merits of inclusion – not what's currently included in an article.) Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:58, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

ExclusiveEditor Opinions can vary, and only an actual AFD can make a real determination. At this point, I have my doubts. There is no company at all where we make articles for every nation subsidiary. That said, India is a very large and important country with a very substantial automobile market and industry. However, Tesla only plans to enter this market. According to the references, it has established a subsidiary, but not yet built a factory or even begun distribution. When there's actual production, there would be the occasion for a longer sustainable article. I'm not myself going to list it for deletion of merging, as I do not usually work in this area, but someone else might. The best thing you can do is add additional information as it is published. DGG ( talk ) 14:33, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Reference in language other than English.

Should the reference in English Wikipedia be only in english or other languages are allowed. ExclusiveEditor (talk) 16:11, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

@ExclusiveEditor: sources can be in other languages. There's a few things where English speaking sources are the only ones considered, mainly to do with names, but for proving statements and notability, other languages are fine. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:29, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

@ExclusiveEditor: Foreign language references are allowed, but English are preferred. If there is an English and foreign reference of the same quality available and both meet RS, use the English one. Use a foreign RS over an English non-RS. Mjroots (talk) 16:44, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

my own practice is to add the best source available in English, and if there are better ones in another language, add them also. DGG ( talk ) 14:35, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Ranging IP

How can I find a Range of IP addresses? LooneyTraceYT comment • treats 14:28, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

@LooneyTraceYT: If you are asking about how to find the smallest range that will encompass multiple similar IP addresses, you can try this IP range calculator tool. IPv4 addresses are the shorter, all-numeric ones that contain periods, while IPv6 addresses are the longer ones that include letters and colons. For IPv6 addresses, often one connection has access to a /64 range, so if you are looking at their contributions page you can sometimes just add "/64" to the end of the URL to see the edits from that range. DanCherek (talk) 14:38, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

What can I improve in this article?

Hi all

I'm writing my first article, and it has been declined two times, but I just updated it a third time and wanted to check in here to see if there's anything else I can do. The article is about David Reinfurt, a very important American writer about graphic design, who has been hugely influential and is widely celebrated in design circles and indie publishing. Let me know if there's anything I can improve upon, and thanks!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:David_Reinfurt Designandcode (talk) 19:49, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

At Draft:David Reinfurt, adding lists of exhibitions and articles by DR contributes nothing to confirming his notability in the Wikipedia sense of the word. What is needed is what other people have written ABOUT him. Other hosts may choose to provide a better description, but it still comes to ABOUT, NOT BY. Also, a lot of the factual statements are not referenced. David notMD (talk) 20:38, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

@Designandcode: I made some minor changes, including removing the long list of articles, but you still need media coverage of Reinfurt in reliable sources demonstrating notability. You should also check out WP:COI if you have any connection with the designer. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:05, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the quick replies! I will try to find articles about him in reliable sources. I do not know David, I've only been inspired by his work for a number of years.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Designandcode (talk • contribs) 17:18, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Designandcode, there's another criterion we use, and he might well meet it. Any artists whose works are in the permanent collection of a major art museum is almost always considered notable here. This needs to be show specifically, by indicating precisely what works and referencing it to the Museum's catalog and giving the accesssion number. According to the article, he has works in the Whitney, MOMA , Minneapolis's Walker Museum, and Cooper-Hewitt. . But there's no reference for the Whitney, or CooperHewitt, and the references for MOMA & Walker do not seem to specifically stare what works of his are included. This information is nowadays generally online, but if not, the libraries ofthe various mseums can generally help. Remeber that this is specifically referring to works in hte permanent collection -- they do not have to be on current display, but it has to be more than their being included in a temporary exhibition held there. In addition, please adjust your refernces using the cite web or template to indicate just what the author and title of the publication is, the weblink if relevant, the publisher or name of the website--for books or journals, use the corresponding reference template and include similar information including the page number . For example, your ref 5 is complete, but none of the others are. After you've clearly added the information, let me know for a review. DGG ( talk ) 14:50, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Backlog of >5000 articles waiting review

There are now over 5500 articles waiting review. The waiting time is quoted as "PLEASE BE PATIENT A REVIEW MAY TAKE 5 MONTHS OR MORE". How can we reduce this backlog? Is there anything I can do personally? GRALISTAIR (talk) 14:50, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

@GRALISTAIR: you can become a reviewer at WP:WikiProject AFC. versacespaceleave a message! 15:10, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks I have now applied. We will see how it goes. GRALISTAIR (talk) 15:54, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

I am still seeing articles not approved for trivial reasons. The criterion is that an article will likely pass AfD, not that it be perfect. . (Depending on the reviewer, likely = somewhere between 70 and 90%) The place for articles to get further improved beyond what will clearly pass in mainspace, where other editors will collaborate. Otherwise, the only thing needed to correct obvious major faults, and show notability . Missing information can be added later, (but I and most reviewers usually do suggest that the contributor add it while we have their attention) . . DGG ( talk ) 15:01, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Request for Guidance in Editing Wiki?

I'm having a difficulty in finishing my Tour guide because every time im am mission seven it seems like i haven't finished . I need to know if am doing the right thing or not..and for some new as me where do i belong . thank you ""Keepitup4444 (talk). 13:44, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Keepitup4444. There's nothing regimented about the Wikipedia Adventure. I wouldn't worry too much about not completing the last module, for whatever reason. It's just a tool for teaching some of the basics that is geared toward trying to make the learning process fun, to keep people interested. If you are interested in learning some of the fundamentals more thoroughly, and don't require the game trappings, the WP:TUTORIAL is much, much better. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:17, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Are you talking about The Wikipedia Adventure? If so, try clearing the page cache. IF the issue still persists then another host might be able to provide you with a link to where you can get troubleshooting help (I can't seem to find the link myself). Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 15:19, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

#Reverted tag

I've been using the Recent changes with filters for #possible vandalism, #Possible vandalism, and #possible BLP issue or vandalism. However, about half of the edits have been reverted, which leads to a lot of trouble for me, as I have to filter through the #Reverted edits. Is there any way to exclude a filter?  Sungodtemple a tcg fan!!1!11!! (talk) 15:24, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

@Sungodtemple: Currently, negative filters for tags are not supported — this is an open request that is being tracked at phab:T174349. However, one way to get around it is to add .mw-changeslist-line.mw-tag-mw-reverted { display: none } in your CSS — note that if you do this, you'll have to remove the line or comment it out if you want to go back to the original settings. DanCherek (talk) 15:32, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Rejected draft moved to article space

The draft of Soham Lahiri was declined twice due to GNG and NPOV (last time yesterday), but has now been moved into article space by the author. Could anyone advise the best thing to do - can I tag the article for deletion or should it be moved back to draft? Thanks Princess Persnickety (talk) 12:14, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi PrincessPersnickety, you should not move the article back to draft, as draftspace and AFC are not requirements (draftification is often used when an article is directly created in mainspace but isn't quite ready yet). You are welcome to put the article up for deletion (CSD if you think it meets any of the speedy deletion criteria, or otherwise PROD or AFD). DanCherek (talk) 12:18, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks DanCherek, I will look into those. Princess Persnickety (talk) 12:55, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Vtbn21, the creator, has actually moved the draft to mainspace TWICE, the second time just minutes after an editor draftified it. Given intent to circumvent AfC after failing there twice, I recommend AfD. David notMD (talk) 14:01, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soham Lahiri DGG ( talk ) 15:07, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you all. Princess Persnickety (talk) 15:40, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Difference

What is the difference between {{re|example}} and {{ping|Example}} for notifying editors. ExclusiveEditor (talk) 15:58, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

ExclusiveEditor, they both have the same function, just like {{yo|Example}}, {{reply|Example}}, and {{reply to|Example}}. Have a nice day, friend! Thanks, EDG 543 ^{(message me)} 16:14, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

(e/c) Hi ExclusiveEditor. None, really, but for what you type to express the same output and functionality. They are redirects to the template: {{Reply to}} (as are {{Yo}}, {{Ping}} and others). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:15, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

What matters for notification is whether a user page like User:ExclusiveEditor is linked. It doesn't matter whether it's linked directly or via some template or redirect to a template. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:52, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Updating a declined draft

Hi Teahouse Team!

I recently tried to publish a Draft Article for Matthew Mahan which was denied. I've since edited the Draft and added better sources and more content. I would really like to get this one approved and published. So, I was wondering if the page would be more likely to receive approval if it had more content that might I'm not 100% certain meets the Wikipedia criteria in sourcing/content/anything else or if it had less content but it was content that I'm certain should fit within the Wikipedia content standards. I'd love some info in this area so I can continue working on my Draft! Of course, I'd also sincerely appreciate any advice on improving my sources if even my updated reputable secondary sources still do not meet the standard.

Thanks in advance! Squishmallow218 (talk) 22:54, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:Matthew Mahan   Maproom (talk) 22:59, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

The content standards for biographies of still-living or recently-departed subjects are "everything MUST be cited to a strong third-party source. No exceptions.". You still have unsourced claims that need to get sources or get out of there. So the answer is no, because the standards for sourcing here are much stricter than for pretty much any other topic this side of medical claims. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 23:08, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If you want this draft to be accepted, someone will have to establish that Mahan is notable, by citing several reliable independent published sources with substantial discussion of him. The draft currently has none, all the sources being based upon what he has said, and so not independent. Wikipedia isn't interested in what someone has said about himself. Maproom (talk) 23:10, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Squishmallow218. I am not expressing any opinion about your draft. Speaking generally, a draft of a concise, tightly-written article with five references to indisputably reliable and independent sources that devote significant coverage to the topic is vastly preferable to a bloated draft article loaded up with 25 dubious sources provided as references to dubious assertions. The first type of draft is a pleasure to review. The second type is a pain. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:43, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Cullen. Don't add sources, replace the (imho largely worthless) current sources by better ones. The draft doesn't need more content, it needs better content, based on independent sources. Maproom (talk) 07:31, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I cut unneeded details. I agree needs better refs, but regardless, election to a minor government position may not qualify as notable. David notMD (talk) 10:18, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you all for the help! I really appreciate it— I'm going to go find better sources with indisputably reliable and independent sources to support my information. As for notability, I know that a few other pages across Wikipedia, mainly Causes (company), San Jose City Council, and Brigade Media link to Matthew Mahan but since there's no page for him, the link is dead. I was wondering if that would help support my argument that he is notable enough to maintain a page. I've also been previously referred to the related persons guide as Matthew Mahan's predecessor and coworkers have pages on Wikipedia as well so I will make edits to fit those criteria. From my understanding, articles that are interviews with Mahan and include experts from things such as his campaign website shouldn't be included. I was wondering what articles that I've currently linked to meet the Wikipedia criteria, specifically I'm asking about the article from the San Jose Mercury News that says Mahan won the election as I think that's about as objective, independent, and secondary as it gets. Again, thank you all so much— Wikipedia is an incredible resource and I realize now how much effort goes into maintaining its quality. Squishmallow218 (talk) 18:01, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Favours and suggestions from blocked editors

Hi all, a blocked editor who I don't know very well but who, before they were blocked, seemed to be a veteran Wikipedia editor has asked me on my talk page to make some edits. I was wondering how ethical and within the rules it would be to make these edits? The subject matter is only kind of within my usual editing sphere.

Eagle eyed editors will also note that this editor made a suggestion once before, but as I considered it a suggestion rather than a favour and much more within my usual editing sphere, I did it. Was this also the right thing to do (ethically and within the rules)? FollowTheTortoise (talk) 14:55, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

@FollowTheTortoise: Because that editor was partial-blocked from article space so that they could first get consensus for their desired edits, I don't see any issues with fulfilling their requests/suggestions/favours if you think they are constructive. However, if you don't want to do so for any reason, or don't have the time, you're under no obligation and can also request that they ask someone else or open an edit request on the talk page with {{Edit partially-blocked}}. DanCherek (talk) 15:03, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

After looking at their talk page the editor's account in question appears to have possibly been compromised. However, I'm using a beta feature that allows me to see if a user is blocked and since their name is not crossed out it may be a partial-block like DanCherek said above. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 15:15, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your help. A partial-block makes sense; I didn't know that there was a difference. I do think that the edits would be constructive and so will put them into place when I have time. FollowTheTortoise (talk) 18:14, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Wanting to help

I really wish to donate to Wikipedia for all the good it has done and the hundreds of times it has saved me, but I don´t feel safe giving it my credit card information. 78.78.213.223 (talk) 18:09, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

No worries, friend. You can always donate via PayPal or Amazon Pay. Click here for the link. Thanks, <span 7 EDG 543 ^{(message me)} 18:13, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Here is more info on different ways to donate: [5] RudolfRed (talk) 18:23, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

BDSM in UK

I had a look at the Wikipedia entry for Operation Spanner: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Spanner

This is good as far as it goes, but there is no page for the Countdown on Spanner Campaign Group (and I have great doubts about the date of the picture of the SM Pride March)

There's also no page about the evolution of the BDSM community in the UK, which was growing as Spanner happened.

I have been significantly involved with this community since 1986, and have a great deal of information. I would very much like to be able to help create pages to provide this information.

Ishmael Skyes

(Redacted) 86.2.198.227 (talk) 15:47, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello, IP editor. Please do not post personal information. Try taking The Wikipedia Adventure for an introduction to editing. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:06, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

First, personal experience information and unpublished information cannot be used as references. Second, as a brand new editor, consider first adding information on Countdown on Spanner to the existing Operation Spanner article. This way, gain experience in ways of Wikipedia before essaying a new article. David notMD (talk) 18:48, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

"!vote"

Why do editors so often write "!vote" with the exclamation point on talk pages and in XfD discussions? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:38, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Firefangledfeathers, the "!" symbol is used in various fields as a symbol for logical negation. So a reference to a "!vote" or "!voting" is a reminder and affirmation that the writer's comments in a poll, and the comments by others, are not voting, but are just offering individual views in a consensus-building discussion. (This answer was copied from WP:NOTVOTE, click on that link for more information.) DanCherek (talk) 18:40, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Perfect. Thank you! Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:48, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

1,592 days ago.

My daughter and grandson were murdered on that date. 12/15/2016 No sign of a trial date as yet. How long can a family suffer, prior to justice? 208.123.135.200 (talk) 02:11, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry for your loss, but this is a space to ask questions specifically about editing Wikipedia. Do you have such a question? ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 02:45, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Can't we be a little soft to her? She suffered a great loss. Nobody wants to have such cold replies to such tragic incidents. Lightbluerain❄ (Talk | contribs) 19:14, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Non-English Post

उन्होंने कहा कि इस तरह की घटनाओं को रोकने के लिए सरकार ने कई कदम उठाए हैं। उन्होंने कहा कि इस तरह की घटनाओं को रोकने के लिए सरकार ने कई कदम उठाए हैं। उन्होंने कहा कि इस तरह की घटनाओं को रोकने के लिए सरकार ने कई कदम उठाए हैं। ~~Bhashkar Bharat (talk) 17:46, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Bhaskar Bharat - This is the English Wikipedia. Please translate your post. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:55, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Bhaskar Bharat, you will also need to rephrase the question. Taken steps to prevent what incident? Are you referring to the Indian government's handling of the resurging COVID-19 pandemic? Please elaborate. Thanks, EDG 543 ^{(message me)} 18:11, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

नमस्कार भास्कर! चूंकि यह प्रतीत होता है कि आप हिंदी बोलने में अधिक सहज हैं, इसलिए आप अपनी भाषा में मदद के लिए हिंदी टीहाउस की जांच कर सकते हैं। | Hello Bhaskar! Since it appears that you are more comfortable speaking Hindi, you can check the Hindi Teahouse for help in your language. (i couldn't find the link to the Hindi Teahouse if it exists so if someone has it, please add it. I also used a machine translation which I know isn't accurate but Twinkle didn't have an option for a Hindi user welcome) Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 19:08, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Blaze The Wolf, there is no Teahouse in Hindi wikipedia. But, we have a village pump kind of page. Let me link it. Lightbluerain❄ (Talk | contribs) 19:18, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Here is the page. I linked it in the above reply as well. Lightbluerain❄ (Talk | contribs) 19:23, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Ah, thank you. I attempted to find it by using the position of the portal to the Teahouse on the English Wikipedia to find where it is on the Hindi Wikipedia (despite not speaking Hindi), however I couldn't seem to find one. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 19:23, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Blaze The Wolf, Welcome. Lightbluerain❄ (Talk | contribs) 19:27, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Rough translation of what Bhashkar said: He said that the government has taken several steps to prevent such incidents. He said that the government has taken several steps to prevent such incidents. He said that the government has taken several steps to prevent such incidents. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 19:27, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

So, basically, not to put to fine a point on it, he said that the government has taken several steps to prevent such incidents? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:51, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Basically. He said that 3 times and it's supposed to be separated but because he didn't use the <br></br> code it didn't display like that. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 19:58, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Not editing in English

If a editors edits in a language other than English, then how should I tell him that you are more welcomed to that language Wikipedia. ExclusiveEditor (talk) 15:19, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi ExclusiveEditor. You might try composing what you want to say in English and then add a machine translation of the content. If it helps, when I've done this in the past I've introduced it with something like: "because you seem to be a native ____ speaker, I am going to post below a machine translation of this message. I hope it's not too garbled". Then, of course, go to translate.google.com or whatever, and get the applicable machine translated text. I suggest not using too many wikilinks in the message as you will typically need to fix each one in any translation. Also attempt a simple style; avoid idioms, metaphors and the like, that are likely to not translate well.

As to what the write, it really depends on the situation, and much of its comes down to whether the person recognizes their limitations, and edits accordingly. If it might help, I wrote a Teahouse post here, addressed to a non-native speaker who was persistently not recognizing their limitations. For someone who recognizes limitations, maybe see Wikipedia:Speakers of other languages and Wikipedia:Contributing to articles outside your native language. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:50, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

If you use the Twinkle tool, then under TW on the talk page, you can select "Wel", then under the dropdown menu for "type of welcome" you can select Non-english welcome. From there you can select any of the languages or, if the language isn't in the list, you'll just use the first one selected. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 20:03, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

@ExclusiveEditor: Also, if you know what language the editor's first language is (and its corresponding ISO 639-1 code), there are a number of pre-made welcome templates to welcome non-English speakers here.

Difficult meaning changes with people

In the article Glass, a line says "However, its high melting temperature (1723 °C) and viscosity make it difficult to work with." Does this line violates Wikipedia's policy of Neutral Point Of View, as for some people 'difficult' may mean difficult for children, for some it may be difficult for man, for some it may be difficult for professionals, whereas for some it may mean difficult for old people. ExclusiveEditor (talk) 14:11, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy: text in question is in section Types, subsection Silicate. David notMD (talk) 14:28, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

No, there is no POV in that phrasing, and it is necessary context for the following sentence. The sources (and the entire context) make it clear that this is a description of a highly specialised process, which is objectively difficult. --bonadea contributions talk 14:40, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

WP:NPOV should be followed up to a point, really. If you say 'Glass is harder to work with than ceramics', that is a POV edit. However, if you give them statistics, like 'Glass has a melting temperature of XXXX C, while ceramics only need to be heated to YYYY C' (where xxxx > yyyy), people can draw conclusions from that. Another reason for these words is it might help the article flow better. For example, in Deuterium-tritium fusion, it says:

About 1 in every 5,000 hydrogen atoms in seawater is deuterium, making it easy to acquire. However, tritium is a radioactive isotope, and it is hard to source naturally. Luckily, exposing the more readily available lithium to energetic neutrons can produce tritium.

Yes, it uses words like 'luckily' and 'however', but what would it look like without these words? Something like this:

About 1 in every 5,000 hydrogen atoms in seawater is deuterium. Tritium is a radioactive isotope, which means it decays into other atoms over time. Exposing lithium, a more common element, to energized neutrons, can produce tritium.

It doesn't flow as well. These two, I think, are the reasons for slightly POV words in articles. Sungodtemple a tcg fan!!1!11!! (talk) 15:34, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

References

@Sungodtemple: If you say 'Glass is harder to work with than ceramics', that is a POV edit. This misinterprets our neutral point of view (NPOV) policy at a fundamental level: if a majority of authoritative and reliable sources say that glass is harder to work with than ceramics, than Wikipedia should say that glass is harder to work with than ceramics. Wikipedia's 'neutrality' means being neutral towards what sources are saying (i.e., Wikipedia says what sources are saying, rather than taking its own independent point of view), even if what sources are saying may itself not seem entirely 'neutral' in the common meaning of that word. Also, anything that is common knowledge or can be easily inferred from existing info may be stated without further ado: we don't need to cite that the sky is blue. Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 21:20, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Desired format for inline citations

Hello, I am new to Wikipedia and I would like to know which format is the standard for inline citations on Wikipedia. I gone through help articles and I can't seem to find it. HiCooldude (talk) 21:31, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi @HiCooldude, welcome to the Teahouse. Please have a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources - hope that helps. CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:46, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

@CommanderWaterford Thanks for helping me. I see that you can use any citation format, as long as it is kept consistent through the Refrences section.

Could some review my first major editing attempt?

I have recently overhauled the Aeronautica Imperialis page, and I'm looking for someone to review my work for me. Ideally I'd like it assessed against the Quality Scale, I have an idea of where it might rank but I'd like to see what other people think. Please let me know if there's a more appropriate place for this request!

Problems that I think the page still has:

1. Not sure if putting the current edition of the game first follows Wikipedia convention, but I couldn't find anything in the style guide saying 'oldest first'.
2. The sources are all from Games Workshop or Forgeworld, the creators of the games. I had a search for alternate sources (e.g. news, third-party reviews, etc.) but couldn't find anything that I thought was suitable as a source. Is there a suitable/common source for information around board games/tabletop games?
3. A small amount of the changes are original research - i.e. using my knowledge of the game (I decided to overhaul the page as I got into the game, and wanted others to find info on Wikipedia useful). So there's a couple of things that are my own words, such as the brief descriptions of the races/factions that are my own words, and the scale of the models in the game. Jaketobyhadley (talk) 19:08, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Jaketobyhadley. The General notability guideline requires significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. No article should exist without references to such sources. Original research is forbidden by policy, so any such content must be removed. If you cannot establish the notability of the game, then the article should be nominated for deletion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:47, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

That's great, thank you. When I talk about "finding suitable sources", what I mean is I'm not sure what's really authoritative/reliable enough given the kind of sub-culture around tabletop games. I think this article counts as news but doesn't feel "official" enough like Reuters or BBC news would be. There's also a lot of reviews out there (e.g. Tabletop Games UK or Goonhammer), but I couldn't figure out if they fall under 'user-generated content' or not (again owing to the kind of niche nature of the topic). I think if these kinds of sources are acceptable, then I can add them in (and find others as well) to cross the notability threshold.

Regarding the original research, I think it's useful to have a brief description of what each faction is/does. I'll look for a source that has a description that I can copy for each. Jaketobyhadley (talk) 20:26, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Jaketobyhadley. The question is "does this source have a reputation for fact checking and editorial control?" The fact that I can't find any information on belloflostsouls.net about contribution policy or editorial policy (or even copyright) does not bode well - though the article is signed, it may have been user-contributed for all I know. But it may be that within its field, its editorial quality is well-known and respected. WP:RSN is the place to ask about a particular source (and remember that reliability may depend on the context, and the nature of the information being sourced from there). As far as I can tell BOLS has not been discussed on that noticeboard before. --ColinFine (talk) 21:47, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

That's great, thank you! I'll check out WP:RSN for any hints. And I guess I can look at articles for other Games Workshop products to see what the community feels is an acceptable source, and other tabletop wargaming pages in general. Jaketobyhadley (talk) 21:56, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Get error message when trying to edit article

Hi

I was trying to add a paragraph to Shoshana Zuboffs page please.

When I pressed 'done' and the preview page came up, instead of showing a preview of the amended article I got an error message:

{"type":"https://mediawiki.org/wiki/HyperSwitch/errors/internal_error","title":"TypeError","method":"POST","detail":"Cannot read property 'tagName' of null","uri":"/en.wikipedia.org/v1/transform/html/to/mobile-html/Shoshana_Zuboff"}

I can still then continue to the next page, but I dont want to press 'Publish' in case it messes something up.

Can you advise what I should do please?

Many thanks V VeMangoTree (talk) 20:33, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi VeMangoTree, welcome to the Teahouse. Just try again. The edit can be reverted if something goes wrong. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:30, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Difficulty with Userfication process

Publication of article was blocked by wikipedia, citing need for secondary sources and mandating that the page undergo Userfication. When attempting userfication process, "Move" option is unavailable (as is "More" tab.) Wiki article on how to move page suggests the page is protected if the "More" tab is not present. Failed to register Noncontroversial technical request. Please advise. CuriousOne22 (talk) 22:12, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

CuriousOne22, Your article is located at Draft:Sybren Hendrik de Jong. You can improve it there and submit it to WP:Articles for creation if/once notability has been established. (t · c) buidhe 22:18, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

@CuriousOne22: Your account has too few edits to move pages. It requires ten edits and you have seven. Draft:Sybren Hendrik de Jong does not have to be userfied. If you don't want it to be deleted then just make an edit to it and it can stay there for another six months. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:41, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Help: Its me again.

− − So the previous questions posted were were very helpful and I've improvised on the draft since then based on the advice I've received here. But it has also attracted a lot of hostility such as nominations for speedy deletion. I think I've removed all the promotional content (60-70% of the content gone), so remove the tag please? (PS. Yes I'm paid. Yes I wrote it for a contest. Yes I'm new and naive. Yes I'm a very bad person. I have declared it already, please stop judging me on that :()

− Is there anything wrong with the existing references? I've kept only secondary ones

− − https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Corkbrick_Europe Userbk12 (talk) 21:53, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

The reviewers who declined the draft took the time to provide useful comments. You reached out to Teahouse, and editors have responded by trying to remove the worst of the promotional content and identify fatally flawed references (the company's own content). You belatedly got around to declaring PAID. There may not be tact in the comments, but all of these people - volunteers - are taking time to help. Thinking of it as "a lot of hostility" does not help. David notMD (talk) 22:49, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Apologies if I sound too negative, I just panicked thinking the article was tagged for speedy deletion by a particular person (I think its not actually tagged, maybe?). I was referring to that person, not the reviewers, which I think were being fair. Thankyou for your cooperation [added at 23:18, 27 April 2021 by Userbk12]

Userbk12, here's a sample:

The company contends to have a simple corporate ownership model, in which the core of its economic decisions operates on the principles of sustainable entrepreneurship,

(citing this at industryeurope.com). "Contends to have [something]" sounds strange to me (it's not how I use contend), but I suppose it means "claims to have", "aims to have", or similar. However, what a company claims or aims for isn't normally of encyclopedic significance. Claims and aims aside, does the company have this (according to independent, reliable sources), or doesn't it? Furthermore, industryeurope.com looks very much like a mere conduit via which companies broadcast their PR releases. (A further question would be: even if a reliable source were found to confirm that "the company has a simple corporate ownership model, in which the core of its economic decisions operates on the principles of sustainable entrepreneurship", then what would that actually mean? I have to say that it sounds more than slightly Frankfurtian to me.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:24, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Userbk12, I'm sure you meant well in deleting one sentence above, but it's better not to revise or delete when somebody has already responded (the response then makes little sense). That's why I restored the sentence but crossed it out. But your change of mind about the matter is appreciated. -- Hoary (talk) 23:30, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Appreciate your suggestions, I've made improvisions on that too, thankyou — Preceding unsigned comment added by Userbk12 (talk • contribs) 23:46, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Help, Please: Theory of Self-Transcendence and Social Change

Greetings dear friends. I need your help. I keep re-writing my article only to have it rejected and removed from the Sandbox. I understood that the Sandbox where I was to refine the article for submission and review. Yet every time I get rejected, the article disappears and I'm back to square one.

I would be deeply grateful if you would help me to get this theory published because it needs attention at this critical time in history. Thank you all for your attention to my efforts, your comments, and this offer to work with you here at the Tea House.

With humility and deepest regards, Kim. Edugossip (talk) 04:35, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

@Edugossip: Welcome to the Teahouse. Are you editing in the community sandbox? That sandbox gets regularly cleared out. You will want to follow the guidance described at Your first article and start a draft in draftspace. Just make sure you're only reporting from the sources you're taking information from and that you're not doing any original research. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:40, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Dear Tenryuu, so, the article was submitted a couple of times and received up-votes yet was still rejected. I was editing in my sandbox ( I thought). And, I have no idea where draftspace is. And yes the article was in my own words, and contained not original research.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Edugossip (talk • contribs) 13:50, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Dear folks, others suggested I edit existing articles for which my article speaks to, which I did, and had those edits removed. Any suggestions?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Edugossip (talk • contribs) 13:53, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

@Edugossip:} is this about User:Edugossip/sandbox? If so, what has been there was moved to Draft:Theory of self-transcendence and social change on January 24th and deleted there on January 25th by Anthony Appleyard under WP:g12. I am not an admin and therefore cannot see what has been deleted there, however please never copy texts from elsewhere onto Wikipedia. (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.) Victor Schmidt (talk) 05:42, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

• @Victor Schmidt, Edugossip, and Tenryuu: At 09:38 on 25 January 2020 Anthony Appleyard deleted page Draft:Theory of self-transcendence and social change on the grounds "G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of https://digitalcommons.law.wne.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1796&context=lawreview ". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:45, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Edugossip. Are you reading the notifications at your talk page? You should have received a very prominent notification through the software when your talk page was edited to leave this speedy deletion notification by the person who tagged the draft for deletion, which by its content and context, tells you the title where your draft was last located (see above) and why it was deleted (see above – because it was a blatant copyright infringement).

Anyway, what you are attempting to post is very, very far from anything resembling an encyclopedia article. While I have not delved into the subject in enough depth to make any assessment of whether any article is possible, if your intent is to post some version of this research essay (in addition to avoiding any further copyright infringement), you really need to take in our policy on no original research, and post something radically different. No article in anything like this form will ever succeed, and your time will be wasted. You might consider that you have simply chosen the wrong platform for this content, and focus your efforts at a different site that is not an encyclopedia.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:02, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you all for your insights. I will need some time to reflect on your comments. I did rewrite the article after the "copyright infringement" feedback removal; and yet, as an academic, may find it difficult to write/speak/talk in a non-encyclopedia manner. The intention is not to do "original research essay," yet to report on a promising social science theory. Peace and love, Edugossip (talk) 01:01, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Images

I am wondering, Is it better to have pictures on a persons biography. For example say there is a biography without an image and you happen to have a usable photo of that person. Is it best to include that image or leave the page just text. Is there exceptions? Gandalf the Groovy (talk) 23:35, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Gandalf the Groovy. It is always a good idea to include a photo of a person in an article about the person. However, any such photo must either be in the public domain or freely and acceptably licensed. A large majority of photos that you run across are restricted by copyright, and therefore are not acceptable in biographies of living people. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:42, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Remember: biographies can benefit from images. But they don't need images. DS (talk) 02:53, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

UAA

Can I reply on an UAA report when I am not an administrator?🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 00:52, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Or should I report the error to an administrator?🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 00:54, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Kepler-1229b. Speaking as an administrator who frequently patrols WP:UAA, I appreciate useful, informative comments by non-administrators there. That general principle applies to all administrative noticeboards. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:58, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

How to remove article?

The following self promoting article has had a template warning of removal of the entry for several years. How do I go about finally removing this article from Wikipedia?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Tobias AnotherUser12345 (talk) 03:19, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

It seems that you have figured it out by yourself, AnotherUser12345. Wikipedia:Proposed deletion that you used is one way and is appropriate for this case. If it gets challenged, the process will be a bit longer. If that happens, you can use the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion venue. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:43, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Are you high? What are you smoking? What does that mean?

It's a sentence I've never heard of, so I'm wondering how it makes sense. I'm not a native English speaker, so I'll try to look up the dictionary myself.--SilverMatsu (talk) 22:35, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

SilverMatsu, Wiktionary has an adequate entry: [6]. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:50, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Rosguill Thank you for teaching me. I was shocked to hear the meaning, but apparently it was removed. Talk:F(x) (group)--SilverMatsu (talk) 22:59, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Hey SilverMatsu. This is idiomatic; the Wiktionary entry tells you what the included phrase "get high" refers to, but not the nuance of meaning. Each of these idiomatic expressions are similar to "what were you thinking!?", if you might be familiar with that other English idiom, and mean something like "what you did (wrote/suggested/said) is so obviously irrational/inane/unwarranted/absurd that I am considering whether you were under the influence of drugs... were you?", but the meaning is so ingrained, an English speaker might not even think of actual drugs in relation and it is never actually implying drugs are thought to be involved nor asking about drug use. They are also often used playfully, though context plays a role as does tone, which does not come across when written. Often the use is rhetorical; more a statement of (chiding) surprise at the behavior, than actually asking the recipient to explain why they did the absurd thing. Does that help?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:07, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Fuhghettaboutit Thank you for telling me. It was very helpful for me, who is not a native English speaker.--SilverMatsu (talk) 06:16, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Using Google books

Can I cite a book in the bibliography from Google Books provided that I haven't bought the book and only the preview is available? Excellenc1 (talk) 03:27, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

@Excellenc1: You can't cite a second book in the bibliography inside the first book because you have not read the second book. You may, however, just cite the first book if the information you want to put in the article is included in the preview. Just remember to specify which page in the citation template. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 03:36, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

No I mean can I cite a book from Google books in the bibliography section and actually even the preview of the book isn't available. (In the French article which I am translating, they haven't mentioned page and url). Excellenc1 (talk) 03:41, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

@Excellenc1: Then no. You must actually read the book, either as a preview or a full copy. You cannot just blindly translate the French article and believe that it's in the reference. Instead, look to see if your local library has a copy, or find a different source that you can access that says the same information. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 03:51, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Excellenc1. It is not necessary for you to have read an book in order to add that book to a bibliography list on Wikipedia. Instead, you must verify through a reliable source that the book belongs in that bibliography, and you should cite that source as a reference. That could be a Google books preview, or a citation to the book in an academic journal in the proper context, or a review of the book in a reliable source. And so on. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:06, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

So is it necessary to cite the book, or the information of the book is enough? Excellenc1 (talk) 04:15, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Excellenc1, it seems that you are getting conflicting answers from Ganbaruby and Cullen328. However, I suspect that each is responding reasonably enough to their own interpretation of or guess at what you mean by "bibliography". If you're using the word to mean something like "set of references for what's said in the article", then I agree with Ganbaruby. If on the other hand you're using it to mean something like "list of suggestions for further reading", then I agree with Cullen328. -- Hoary (talk) 06:04, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes @Hoary: I am talking about the set of references from books used in the article. But if I agree to @Ganbaruby:, isn't it possible that I'll spend some money to buy some books only to have my article ending up deleted, or having my article published but has nothing to my benefit. And if I agree to @Cullen328:, I can do that, but the problem is in the fact that I can't find previews or at least a glance of a page which would give my required reference. I guess the French Wikipedia doesn't have strict policies on references, bibliography or citations, which makes it difficult for me to translate the content freely to the English wikipedia.Excellenc1 (talk) 07:20, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, Excellenc1, I'm afraid that since the burden of verifiability falls on you per WP:BURDEN, you should only add material translated from another edition of Wikipedia if you've been able to check that it's supported by the source (or you can provide an alternative source that supports it). Cordless Larry (talk) 07:25, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

But the problem is that the another edition of Wikipedia does not have proper citations which I can use here. (Is it possible for someone to check my work-in-progress article for me, and tell me if there is a need for more citations or I'm going smooth?)Excellenc1 (talk) 07:41, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

@Excellenc1: Overall the article looks nice, but I think you need some more references, yes. The general rule of thumb I use is one ref per paragraph, except if that paragraph is really just obvious (e.g. stating that Paris is a city in France). But about the book – have you considered asking some Wikipedian in France for help? Maybe someone from Wikiproject France is or knows a Wikipedian that has access to the book via a library. Might not be the case, but if you're lucky, someone else might be able to verify the book's content for you. --LordPeterII (talk) 07:56, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

WP:RX may also be tried for that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:45, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi @LordPeterII:. A user from Wikiproject France helped me with the citations and stuff. Thanks for suggesting the article. And Gråbergs Gråa Sång that link you provided also came handy for books which do not have a preview in Google Books. Excellenc1 (talk) 07:19, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

That's great to hear @Excellenc1 :) And @Gråbergs Gråa Sång, thanks for linking that! Didn't know this exists, but it may come in handy for me in the future. --LordPeterII (talk) 07:30, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Untitled question by K9ww32ww3

1) I edited the content, but is it the reference link as the main issue? 2) I think I'm worried is that if I need to change everything inside there or if just a particular area that I should focus on. (Hence question above) K9ww32ww3 (talk) 06:23, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy: This is about Draft:Intumit, Inc.. David notMD (talk) 07:51, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

how can I fix my Draft:Montik,_Ivan

I want to understand how can I fix my Draft:Montik,_Ivan to make the publication real? Can some one help? I'm doing it the first time. I carefully read both the guidelines and recommendations, but still got into the category of speedy deletion. I have already made some edites, but I do not know how to check if they are suitable for saving the article. Coldmanviktor (talk) 08:08, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

@Coldmanviktor see Wikipedia:Articles for creation#Creating an article. You need to prove notability with verifiable reliable sources. Ahmetlii (talk) 08:18, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Coldmanviktor: the reason the draft was deleted (according to the deletion log) is that it was unambiguously promotional. That means that even if you had used reliable sources and shown that the topic is notable, the writing itself was so promotional that the text could not be saved. I have not seen the draft, but you can ask the deleting administrator about it – the deletion log shows who that is. --bonadea contributions talk 09:00, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Need help in putting up a wiki page.

I was tasked to put up a WIKI page by my employer to reach a wider searchability. The company is in the exploring stage in being visible in the internet. A help from you would be appreciated. Romeo.Be (talk) 10:00, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Romeo.Be:, welcome to the teahouse. You and your employer has general misconception about wikipedia. It is not a place to advertise. Wikipedia has articles about notable subjects which have received significant coverage in independent reliable sources -- Parnaval (talk) 10:20, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Also you should disclose paid editing contributions, and for specific notability criteria see WP:NBUILDING and WP:NCOMPANY but your Draft:The Loop Towers does not seem notable -- Parnaval (talk) 10:34, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Romeo.Be. Given what you've said above, all indications are that this is a non-notable subject, and so you will be wasting your time: the sources that are required to exist and to be used through citations to support a tertiary source encyclopedia article—which properly only summarize preexisting, published content about a subject, and which must predominantly be entirely independent of that subject (that is, reliable, secondary, independent sources that treat the topic in substantive detail)—probably don't exist, and so it is likely impossible to write any article that meet our inclusion standards.

For these reasons, I suggest you do not recreate any draft on this subject. I have deleted the one you posted as a copyright violation, since you copied and pasted a significant part of it from content I found in a Facebook page (I will leave a note about this at your talk page). If you decide you want to try anyway, despite my misgivings that any suitable article is even possible, it must not copy and paste copyrighted content, and (as already linked above by Parnaval), you must comply with paid editing disclosure requirements before doing so; they are mandatory. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk)

Minor edits

Does This Count as a "Minor Edit"? Recently I've been adding hyperlinks (links that go to another page in the website) in some Wikipedia articles. I was wondering if that counts as a "minor edit" or not. It doesn't exactly CHANGE the article but it helps people navigate Wikipedia easier (I've also been playing Wikispeedia with my friends and adding a few hyperlinks here and there helps a lot).

Thanks for the help, --CatSnake200 CatSnake200 (talk) 04:44, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

@CatSnake200: Our definition of WP:Minor edit is an edit that no other editor could contest, but there's some room for interpretation, so you may get different views on the question. If it's a clearly warranted link that complies with MOS:LINK, then normally yes, it's minor, but if it's potentially controversial (e.g. linking a broad topic that's perhaps too common to need a link), then it's safer to not mark it as minor. One other note: A popular tool for adding links, WP:Findlink, marks edits made with it as minor, so that would be a point towards saying it is okay. Overall, I wouldn't worry too much about it; the minor/non-minor distinction is a good courtesy but others will look over your work regardless of how you check the box. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:55, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

@CatSnake200: I examined your edits. They have many issues and shouldn't be marked as minor. See e.g. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking#Duplicate and repeat links. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:53, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Maintenance Break

There was maintenance break today. What all has changed? What's new?   Parnaval (talk) 08:55, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Parnaval. I don't think anything visible to editors was changed. See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Read-only time April 28 at 05:00 UTC. But our software is usually updated every week, on Thursdays for the English Wikipedia. See mw:MediaWiki 1.36/Roadmap and mw:MediaWiki 1.37/Roadmap for recent and planned updates. Tomorrow is mw:MediaWiki 1.37/wmf.3. Most of it is not visible to editors. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:31, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks@PrimeHunter:, I wasn't aware it was aweekly thing. I thought it is sort of update which games receive. I was wondering new update will be "BOOM! Now you can upload animated 3D avatars of people in BLP infobox" -- Parnaval (talk) 10:59, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Kobe's death

Was Kobe's pilot drunk at the time the helicopter crashed? TheDeterminedDev (talk) 12:21, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

You're asking in the wrong place: this is for questions about editing and using Wikipedia. -- Hoary (talk) 12:29, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

TheDeterminedDev, a more appropriate place to ask this would be at the Reference desk. The pilot was not drunk, he was likely disoriented by the fog, per WaPo and BBC. Thanks, EDG 543 ^{(message me)} 12:44, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

My article on a notable person is being disapproved

Hello everyone. My draft article on Mr. Arun Shankar a National Award winning Actor, Director in India has been declined. I am not able to understand why? I have given all supporting articles from Independent, reliable sources/publications and written my article in the same standards as required by Wikipedia. Why is it yet not being approved? Socialmediacreator (talk) 12:20, 28 April 2021 (UTC) Socialmediacreator (talk) 12:20, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Socialmediacreator. I haven't looked at Draft:Arun Shankar in any detail, but looking over the references section, it looks to me as if a lot of them are not independent. Reliability is only one of the criteria for a source: something based on an interview with Shankar or his associates, or obviously based on a press release, does not contribute in any way to establishing notability, and should be used only in the limited ways (and limited numbers) laid out in primary sources. Remember 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) 12:46, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Socialmediacreator, problems raised by the last reviewer include that the article is written like an advertisement. Wikipedia is not a place to advertise a person or business, but a place to state the facts. They also point out that a major contributor to the article (you) may be being paid for the creation of the article without disclosing it. Please see WP:PAID. If you are being paid in any way to work on this article, you absolutely must disclose this fact. See WP:PAID#How to disclose for how to do so. Thanks, EDG 543 ^{(message me)} 12:50, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Creating a page for a "Sii Poland" company.

Would it be notable to write an article about the "Sii Poland" company?
I have an information that such page has been deleted in the past from english wikipedia, however many companies have a pages about themselves.
There is also a page about Sii_Polska in polish wikipedia.

Below some secondary sources about that company:

1. https://www.computerworld.pl/news/Jak-Sii-wygrywa-z-konkurencja,410376.html
2. https://www.computerworld.pl/news/Dostawca-powinien-byc-partnerem,413646.html
3. https://www.rp.pl/Lista-2000/306189934-Sii-francuski-pomysl-na-polski-biznes-IT.html
4. https://www.pb.pl/sii-bladzi-ale-zarabia-930052
5. http://www.outsourcingportal.eu/pl/sii-polska-w-pazdzierniku-otworzyla-biura-w-bialymstoku-i-gliwicach
6. https://www.computerworld.pl/news/Sii-otwiera-w-Polsce-kolejne-biura,410854.html
7. https://www.forbes.pl/praca/28-laureatow-konkursu-najlepsze-miejsca-pracy-polska-2020/0gsswbz
8. https://biznes.newseria.pl/biuro-prasowe/it_i_technologie/sii-polska-w-ze-statusem,b1242189045

Regards, Wojciech Nowakowski Wojciech Nowakowski '91 (talk) 10:36, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Wojciech Nowakowski '91, an article here about Sii Poland has been deleted three times. Yes, pl:Wikipedia has an article about it, but this doesn't mean that the company merits an article here (and as the Polish article is merely a series of lists, it does not look promising). If you're interested in this subject area, aren't there articles about it here that need improvement and that you'd enjoy improving? -- Hoary (talk) 13:25, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Wojciech Nowakowski '91. The first deletion was a nomination for a deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sii Poland, to consider the merits of the article. As you can see, there were two predominant issues: lack of notability and that it was a blatant piece of advertising. The other two removals were of later recreations of articles on the subject, deleted under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion (and separately, also as blatant advertising under CSD G11). You can see the deletion log entries here. What this all means is that any new article on this subject will be scrutinized; would need to significantly address the bases for deletion, i.e., not tread any similar path; and demonstrate notability better – or just be subject to speedy deletion again. I agree with the thrust of the post above; you should probably focus your efforts elsewhere. I will say though, that, while I am not going to spend the significant time needed to assess the list of references you've provided, I can see that they do not appear to duplicate the same ones used in the article considered at AfD (though a few are the same used in the later recreations, that were also deleted). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:56, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Is a news report that relies entirely on a Twitter user's screenshots reliable?

While on a different IP address in this range, I had removed some information from here a long while back, which was re-added by another user, "Faisal" at this revision with the edit summary "reinstate section removed by IP,see talk page". His talk page comment is here, and I am the 2nd IP he is talking about.

I have two issues here:

• That user's reference, while being from a newspaper, is also completely reliant on screenshots from Twitter. I went through the LinkedIn page of the person accused of Islamophobia in the information I removed and the three publicly accessible articles by him don't show him writing "Jaahils continue to endanger our lives - A Muslim man removed his mask and spit on a Manipuri woman. Arrested by the Mumbai police. Still don't believe in the terrorism, Jalalat of these Jaahils? Be ready to suffer in future," (at least according to Microsoft Edge's Ctrl+F function) which Faisal's reference claims was written by the accused. The accused's articles do show (in my opinion) that the accused probably is an Islamophobe, but I would be violating Wikipedia:SYNTH by calling him an Islamophobe and using his articles to draw that conclusion.
• Faisal says on the talk page "Also the right-wing Hindu nationalist government is encouraging these islamophobes in India. Sad." which looks like a personal attack since he may have intended to call me an Islamophobe (which is false, for the record)

So, is Faisal's news report reliable? And am I overreacting by assuming that he made a personal attack? 45.251.33.77 (talk) 15:14, 28 April 2021 (UTC) (don't message me on my talk page to inform me that you've replied, I'll be checking this page periodically and I am on a dynamic IP range)

Is wikitranslation down?

I was translating an article. I had almost completed the translation and decided to finish it off the next day. The problem is that when I tried to open the in-progress translation, it did not start at all. It just kept refreshing the page. Is anyone else facing this problem? AbhigyaDahal (talk) 16:05, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

@AbhigyaDahal: Yes you are right, when I tried to start a new translation, it did not start and kept reloading the same page. I don't know why, but maybe it is due to a bug or any other thing. I hope it is fixed soon. ExclusiveEditor (talk) 16:18, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Same here. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 16:19, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Article creation finder?

Is there anyway to find all the articles I created in my time on Wikipedia? I'm hoping to link them to my user page for future use...cheers :) RailwayJG (talk) 15:38, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi RailwayJG. Click "Articles created" at the bottom of Special:Contributions/RailwayJG. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:42, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks PrimeHunter, found it...regards RailwayJG (talk) 16:46, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

how to pull up the visual editor

I do extensive copy editing. Today I started to have "Edit source" instead of "Edit" appear next to "Read". When I press "Edit source" I cannot do visual editing. How can I get the visual editor back? OodFloo (talk) 20:27, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello OodFloo, you should be able to enable the visual editor by clicking the pencil in the top right corner of the editing box, and selecting the visual editor. Let me know if that works. Best, Pahunkat (talk) 20:55, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I want to thank a mentor for helping me turn on the visual editor. I don't know how to enter my thanks on Pahunkat's talk page. Is this where you use the four tildes? OodFloo (talk) 21:16, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy ping: @Pahunkat: Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 21:22, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

@OodFloo: Welcome to the Teahouse. Not sure if it's a preferences slip-up, but if you go to your preferences and navigate to the Editing tab, could you confirm that "Temporarily disable the visual editor while it is in beta" is unchecked? You might also want to set your editing mode immediately below that option to "Show me both editor tabs". That should allow you to see "edit" and "edit source" links next to each other; clicking the former should open the visual editor. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:04, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Whoops, looks like this has been solved. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:05, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Hey OodFloo, it was a pleasure to help! Pahunkat (talk) 18:08, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

why do you want me to come

 Chidiebera (talk) 18:28, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

This is a place to provide people that are new to Wikipedia, to ask questions, and get answers. Aiden LaBonne, That One Strange Child,⚔️🗡🔪 Memerman69 18:32, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Why did you take off my edit?

I tried so hard to do it.BIN your selfs at this rubbish wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tottenham Amongus12 (talk) 17:20, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

@Amongus12: I am afraid you might find it funny to change the location of Tottenham from England to "England Amongus12". However, we don't find it funny at all, and I believe the about 129 000 People living there do neither. See WP:Task Center on how to contribute to the encyclopedia in a more usefull manner. Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:24, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I’m new what is this message

FYI

 – Merging with above. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:26, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

This is the message

Hello, I'm Coolperson177. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Tottenham have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks. Coolperson177 17:10, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

What is this wiki removal people Amongus12 (talk) 17:24, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Amongus12. A whole bunch of things about your edit made it look a lot like vandalism, when I'm not so sure your edit was intentionally made to harm (though it was properly reverted). First, you signed your username (placed your signature) in the article. You may have read in various places that you should sign your posts, but this is true only of discussion places like this page – your signature never belongs in articles. Because of this, it made it look like you were changing the name of the country from England to England+your username (as Victor Schmidt notes above). Second, you did not leave an informative edit summary, but instead said in all caps (which is not uncommonly associated with vandalism) nothing helpful to understand your true intent – which means your intent in making the edit had to be gleaned mostly from your addition itself. Third, in that same regards, your addition of "N80" was actually, factually incorrect, but since it is apaprently a postcode for the somewhat similarly named Nottingham, (not Tottenham), I suppose your error could make some sense. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:13, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Your edit was not constructive and that is all there is too it, this is an encyclopedia, that tries to provide people with information, Aiden LaBonne (talk) 18:16, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

No Aiden LaBonne. This has so many problems that marking it as vandalism was not unwarranted in this instance, and it well may have been, but there are things here that indicate it might not have been. I have and I'm sure will likely again block users for continuing to persistently mark good faith (but properly reverted) additions as vandalism, with its terrible chilling effect. This edit is a very bad example of that, because I would not fault anyone for thinking this was vandalism, but noting the possibility it was not, under the circumstances, matters. There's an actual person on the other end, writing the post (who's probably 12 and probably incapable of contributing quite constructively now), but who might in a few become a great Wikipedian; leaving with ashes in their mouth because of an unjust accusation of bad faith, when it was not can make all the difference.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:28, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I did mean to mark his post as vandalism, but I did not intend to harm anyone’s feelings. Nor was I trying to make someone leave wikipedia, I did not realize that this has been resolved, (I admit to not having fully read everything, and that is a mistake I will not make again) sorry Amongus12 Aiden LaBonne, That One Strange Child,⚔️🗡🔪 Memerman69 18:33, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

How many published paper and how many citations for WP:Academic?

The criteria 1 of WP:Academic says The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work – either several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates. I am finding it slightly vague. Can someone help me understand how many published academic works one should look at to satisfy this? And how many citations on an article is considered okay? For example, X number of academic works with Y numbers of citations? Any insights will be great! Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 10:24, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello @Nomadicghumakkad. I’m not a host, but I think that you need at least 4 citations at the minimum. I’m not sure about how many published academic works you need though. HiCooldude (talk) 11:06, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

@Nomadicghumakkad: The guideline is intentionally vague because academic fields are so different that it's impossible to set a blanket number across every single field. For example, some research disciplines, such as genetics, naturally have higher citation counts, so the threshold for notability is higher as well. On the other hand, the leading expert in a really obscure topic may be notable even if they don't get thousands of citations a year. What's needed is a comparison of the subject's citations to the standard in their field — this can be a hard task and it's something that people regularly discuss/debate in AfD discussions. DanCherek (talk) 11:11, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Hey DanCherek, this actually makes a lot of sense. Thanks for letting this know. I am thinking then the best way to evaluate is to check pages of the peers/seniors/colleagues of the subject and see how heavily are they cited and draw a comparison to establish notability. Thoughts? Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 17:16, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

@Nomadicghumakkad: Yes, absolutely! Check out their coauthors and try to get a sense for how many citations one gets just for being a researcher in that field, and then evaluate whether the subject in question is highly cited in comparison. DanCherek (talk) 18:58, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

What the heck does this br thing do?

What does this exactly do? I’m just wondering. HiCooldude (talk) 17:05, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

It creates
a line break (It creates<br />a line break). See Help:Line-break handling for more info. Kleinpecan (talk) 17:20, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you @Kleinpecan. But what would you use line breaks for?

@HiCooldude: For one, they can be useful in tables (search Help:Table for <br). I also found a recommendation of use at Help:Wikitext#Spacing in simple math formulae. You won't find them much in articles (though in many drafts, for people who don't yet know wikimarkup). I used to see them more often in templates, such as infoboxes to separate elements of a parameter, but we now have things like {{unbulleted list}}. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:59, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Basically in simpler terms, the <br> code is like hitting Enter on your keyboard, it creates a new paragraph for you to start typing on. Hitting the Enter key in the source editor doesn't do this automatically for reasons I do not know myself which is why <br> is used instead. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 19:12, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Which level?

If I reverted a edit which was not adhering to Neutral Point of View and then went to talk page of the editor who made it to warn him. There I see that he has got level 3 warning for adding unsourced content and has not got any warning for not adhering to NPOV. Then should I warn him with level 1 warning of "Not adhering to Neutral Point of View" or level 4 warning of the same? ExclusiveEditor (talk) 16:11, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

@ExclusiveEditor: Hmm, that's a really good question; I'm not actually sure if we have any firm guidance on that (maybe someone else here will know). Something to note is that warnings don't always have to start at level 1 or go in order; you're allowed to use discretion based on the severity or likelihood of bad faith. So maybe don't go directly to level 4 for a first offence, but don't start at level 1 either. It also depends on how blatant the NPOV violation was; if it's the sort of thing where an editor could plausibly-albeit-wrongly think the edit was neutral, it's normally best to discuss on the talk page rather than give a warning. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 16:23, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Like Sdkb said above, it depends. Since he already has a Level 3 warning you would want to do a level 4 warning. Depending on the severity of it or the editor's past actions (for example if an editor has been blocked previously for the same reason), if they don't already have a warning you don't have to start with a level 1 warning. In fact, some things will have a level 4im warning which is the only warning for said thing and if the editor does it again they will be blocked. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 19:15, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Request for help closed by a user under IP

Is it normal that a request for help from an administrator has been closed seven days after by an unknown user under IP, under the pretext that nobody manifest to help me? It can be the one with I had an "editorial war" (which seems to calm down by now). Why not? Faunus (talk) 14:39, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

 2607:FEA8:BC9F:4630:2976:4794:829B:2FEA (talk) 15:04, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes. All discussions can be closed after 7 days of either no further discussion or no discussion period. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 19:18, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Redirects

Hello again, I was wondering how I make a redirect, specifically for redirecting ISD 318, to Independent School District 318 ThanksAiden LaBonne (talk) 18:12, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

You can create redirects by typing the following code: #REDIRECT [[Target page]]. I have created ISD 318 for you. Kleinpecan (talk) 18:37, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Okay thank you Aiden LaBonne, That One Strange Child,⚔️🗡🔪  Memerman69  19:18, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Rejections because of lack of reliable independent sources?

 Courtesy link: Draft:David Vito Gregoli

"An article you recently created, David Vito Gregoli, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia)."

I don't understand why the sources I quoted aren't reliable? None of them are my personal sources and are all established media sources. I hope someone can educate me on this so I can get this page live. 🤞🏻 Thank you everyone here ahead of time.

Here's the article as it stands now:

David Vito Gregoli is an American music producer/multi-instrumentalist from Los Angeles, California. [1] "Vito" released his first album as an artist in 2006 of ambient New Age music called "Yoga Heart Healing". [2] In 2016 he worked with singer Kimberly Haynes on "Awaken Me". [3] Vito has provided music for tv/film such as The Jeff Foxworthy Show (1997), Days of Our Lives (1996) and An American Affair (2008). [4] ^ https://experiencetalks.org/shows/2-17-19-kimberly-haynes-david-vito-gregoli/ ^ https://www.allmusic.com/album/yoga-heart-healing-mw0001540610 ^ https://musicandmediafocus.com/2016/08/17/awaken-me-by-kimberly-haynes ^ https://www.imdb.com/name/nm4221720/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0 Granoli (talk) 03:06, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

@Granoli and Discospinster: I agree with the move to the draftspace because in its current state the sources do not demonstrate that the subject is notable enough for their own article (see WP:GNG, WP:NMUSIC). We need significant coverage in independent, reliable sources: experiencetalks.org and musicandmediafocus are not significant coverage and questionable reliability; IMDb and AllMusic is not reliable (WP:IMDB, WP:ALLMUSIC) and doesn't count towards notability. A move into the draftspace means you should just work on it more and submit it for later review, but also, if there's not enough sources to demonstrate notability, then an article should not have been created in the first place, and there's nothing you can do on Wikipedia to save it. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 03:57, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. A few notes and I hope it will lead to a clearer path to getting this article live. Experience Talks is KPFK radio so I have to fix that link to reflect that. All Music Guide is the 'official' credit source for the whole music industry so I'm not sure why that isn't a reliable source, there is no higher source in the music industry. Yes I will have to find a replacement for MusicMediaInFocus link. And imdb.com is the 'official' credit source for the film/tv industry, so again, there is no higher source for this. Again excuse my newbie comments but I'm trying to find out how to get this done. Thank you again.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Granoli (talk • contribs) 13:26, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

@Granoli: As the links given describe, IMDb isn't accepted as a suitable reference as its content is user-generated, which calls its reliability into question. External links to IMDb are considered appropriate, but not references. There is no consensus to AllMusic's reliability, but it is strongly recommended that more suitable sources are found. (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.) —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:48, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

A fatal flaw in the current version of the draft is that all you are doing is trying to confirm albums he had performed or produced. What is missing is content supported by references ABOUT him, not just BY him. Interviews are not considered reliable source references, either. David notMD (talk) 12:53, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

So magazine articles are of no use then? Granoli (talk) 03:54, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Granoli, nobody said that magazine articles are of no use. It depends on the quality of the magazine and the type of article. A feature article containing independent journalism by a staff writer for a major music magazine like Rolling Stone is an excellent source. An article in some local magazine that regurgitates a press release is worthless. We are looking for high quality sources and a lot of the coverage of the entertainment industry is promotional junk. Interviews, as pointed out above, are not independent sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:01, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes they are either local newspapers/magazines, online blogs or album reviews. What about other Wikipedia articles, how do they rate? I'm really trying to get my head around this without studying for a PHD, if you respectfully follow me. ;) So please excuse my newbie-ness. 🙏🏻 It's confusing because I see my colleagues' wiki pages w as poor or worse accomplishments and they somehow got them published. Granoli (talk) 19:19, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

On Dennis Prager

Literally nothing I am posting is being allowed to remain on the page, despite me citing my sources. I'm trying to edit just one page for a class, and I cannot. Egf10 (talk) 01:01, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Egf10, Hipal has given you advice on your talk page. Do you disagree with the premisses, or do you not understand the advice? Well, let's take a quick look at your latest substantial addition. You say "Prager is well-known for his promotion of interfaith dialogue, having engaged with Catholics, Muslims, Hindus, and Protestants. He has also lectured on all seven continents, 45 states, and nine Canadian provinces" (plus internal links). However, you back this up with a single reference: the biography page of Prager's own website. This is not satisfactory. Wikipedia doesn't want articles based on biographees' own claims of their achievements (let alone for their claims that these achievements are well known). Instead, this kind of thing must cite sources that are independent of the biographees (and of course that are also reliable). I'd never heard of this person, but what do "broadsheet" newspapers (or their websites) say about his promotion of interfaith dialogue? -- Hoary (talk) 01:46, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Egf10, I didn't realize you were a student. I'm sorry that you have been put in a situation where you're trying to get a school assignment done, not realizing that your work will be removed if it fails to meet Wikipedia's content policies.

As a student, you and your instructor should be aware of https://dashboard.wikiedu.org/training . --Hipal (talk) 02:19, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Regardless of whether or not the info came from his website, if it can be verified by a secondary source the information is acceptable? Also, can I cite an article written by Prager if I'm inserting a quote from him?

No, and you're at risk of being blocked if you continue to promote Prager. --Hipal (talk) 15:16, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Hipal Can you please post an edit on Prager's page so I can see an example of what disruptive editing is not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Egf10 (talk • contribs) 16:12, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

At this point, I think it best to have you blocked. --Hipal (talk) 19:57, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Myles Moylan

I would like to correct the place of birth attributed to Myles Moylan on his wiki page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myles_Moylan. Although Amesbury, MA is widely accepted as his place of birth, he was in fact born in Tuam. I'm not very tech-savvy and attempted to edit it on his page. As I was about to upload the July 1876 newspaper article that connects him to his family in Tuam, I was blown out. What is the best way around this? BuffyO'B (talk) 19:33, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello, BuffyO'B. The problem is that several reliable sources report that he was born in Massachusetts, and the only source I can find online that says Tuam is Find a Grave, which is not a reliable source because the content is user generated. Please tell us more about the 1876 newspaper article. What is the name of the paper, the exact date, the author, and the page number?Please also provide an exact quotation saying he was born in Tuam. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:12, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

An editor has added a reference to confirm Amesbury as his birthplace. And the article is now semi-protected for two weeks, meaning you will not be able to edit it. If you do have a good source for his birthplace being in Tuam, start a discussion on the Talk page of the article. David notMD (talk) 20:20, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Need help making decision on remaking webpage

Please see my entry (last as of this time) in the talk page of this Wikipedia page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microchip_implant_(human) I believe there is much to add on the topic as my backlog of information to write up which would include new articles, new science fields, peer reviewed and growing movements in the relevant science are growing but the existing Wikipedia article is too narrow focussed to include all this new information hence I will need to make a new top down level article for the general usage of the science, and the article in question will become renamed and used as a sub-link to the main article. Thanks again, SumeetJi (talk) 15:32, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

SumeetJi, you can, and should, go to Talk:Microchip_implant_(human) and ask your question there, where interested editors are more likely to be found.--Quisqualis (talk) 21:17, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I have

I have just written for hours a short presentation of numerous area of the town I live in. The latest update was written by me and only me, however the text have been deleted. Of course I am going to inspire myself from some text to have the facts right but all the text are from my own page. This is frustrating. Same for the images which are mine.

 Fredfolkestonelondon (talk) 20:38, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

@Fredfolkestonelondon: Hello and welcome. The edit history of Folkstone shows that your contributions were reverted because they appear to have been substantial copies from different websites. This material is assumed to be copyrighted unless there is a notice on the website that it is public domain or released under a license compatible with Wikipedia's.

Please note that you cannot post copyrighted material on Wikipedia - even if you are the copyright holder or have the copyright holder's permission - unless the material has been released for use by the verified copyright owner into the public domain or under a license compatible with Wikipedia's.. These licenses allow anyone — not just Wikipedia — to share, distribute, transmit, and adapt your work, free of charge and in perpetuity, provided that you are attributed as the author. Also, because some derivative works may be commercial, we cannot accept materials that are licensed only for educational use or even for general non-commercial use. Releasing the material is both permanent and irrevocable. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 21:25, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Photoplayer

I saw the photoplayer Wikipedia page and fixed it I added informed details about other manufacturers as the page is lacking and it was all deleted by a bot why and how can I stop it from happening again Jakemcdonagh (talk) 20:56, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Re: Photoplayer. Deleted first by a bot (automated program) and second time by an experienced editor. Both times, you added content without supporting reference(s). The second time, your content ended up as a subsection title rather than content within a subsection because of misplacement of the === ===. Those bracket the subsection title, not the text. You are welcome to try again, but first, locate a reference(s) and learn how to format this. I advise you develop your text and ref(s) in your Sandbox (menu option at top of page), and then when satisfied, paste it into the article. David notMD (talk) 22:11, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

(e/c) Hi Jakemcdonagh. Bots revert additions based on certain instructions, algorithms, list of words correlated with bad edits, etc., but they usually only revert once, unless the edit is very clearly vandalism and not likely to be a false-positive. I'm not sure what triggered it here (it might have been, among other factors, because it included a link to a YouTube video). Anyway, after the bot reverted your unsourced additions (all additions, ideally, should be cited to a reliable source corroborating the information added), and you added them back in, a human being reverted them, stating in the edit summary "Reverted good faith edits by Jakemcdonagh (talk): Please discuss on talk page not clear what you are trying to do". The "talk page" refers to Talk:Photoplayer. By the way, we do not use <ins> tags. You might get some use out of taking a tour through the Wikipedia:tutorial. Best regards.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:13, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Hiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

I'm new, nice 2 meet u wiki fam! I'm a student and regularly use wikipedia for research, I thought it would be nice to give back to the community and improve different wikipedia pages myself. Spaceranger767 (talk) 20:49, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Hey Spaceranger767, welcome to Wikipedia! I put some introductory links on your talk page in case they're helpful, and feel free to post here at the Teahouse if you have any questions about Wikipedia. Happy editing! DanCherek (talk) 22:17, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Improving local government Wikipedia pages

Howdy, I'm a new Wikipedia editor and I'd love to be paired with someone to work on improving the Wikipedia articles related to Sacramento, California local politics and governance, both in pages' format (adding an infobox) and content (updating some out-of-date information), and even making new pages where appropriate for elected officials. I'm looking to start on this page. LocalWonk (talk) 00:22, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Hey LocalWonk, welcome to Wikipedia! If you haven't already, you may be interested in joining Wikipedia:WikiProject California (sign up here) — this is a group of editors like you who have expressed interest in editing California-related topics. You may also want to drop a note similar to your post above at the WikiProject talk page. Happy editing! DanCherek (talk) 00:38, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the warm welcome, DanCherek, I will check it out.

PhD Thesis

Hi. I was researching Inter-universal Mysticism, a movement in Iran. There are many Ph.D. theses on this spiritual movement. I just want to ask, in which category we place Ph.D. theses (are they secondary sources?) Can we use them to support the article when English-language content on the subject is limited? Thanks in advance. Störm (talk) 01:45, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

An article should not largely depend on PhD theses, although they can be used judiciously in order to back up minor points here and there, assuming that the institution that accepted the thesis has a good reputation. See WP:SCHOLARSHIP. -- Hoary (talk) 02:37, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Referenced website does not link same webpage properly, URL stays the same

For an article I am creating, USCGC Bedloe, I am using a link as a major source. The problem is, the URL copied and pasted into the reference section brings you to an incorrect webpage, while the code stays the same. The website in question is that for the official United States Coast Guard, which had never upgraded to https://. I believe the problem is that the website denies permission and kicks the user to the last available webpage, although the page in question is declassified and searchable. What is the proper move for me to do? Should I change the reference to that of a journal or possibly a screenshot? GGOTCC (talk) 02:23, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

@GGOTCC: Try using www.history.uscg.mil/Browse-by-Topic/Assets/Water/All/Article/2344330/bedloe-1927-wsc-128/ instead. Note that it's slightly different from the www.history.uscg.mil/Browse-by-Topic/Assets/Article/2344330/bedloe-1927-wsc-128/ currently being used; so, the problem seems to be that you've left out part of the url. FWIW, none of the other solutions you selected would really resolve the problem; changing the citation template from {{cite web}} to {{cite journal}} won't fix an incomplete url, and uploading a screenshot to use as a citation most likely creates other problems. A source doesn't need to be available online as long as it's reliable and published as explained in WP:OFFLINE; so, even if the url doesn't work for everyone, the source can still possibly cited if it works for someone. Finally, please check the spelling of Draft:USCGC Bedloe (WSC-128)#Wreak. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:12, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Request to recreate a deleted page

Hello, wise editors. I need to request the recreation of a deleted page for the NGO Field Ready (which had apparently been incorrectly submitted three times by an intern several years ago and quickly deleted upon review), but am not sure how to contact the protecting administrator before asking for a deletion review - the protecting administrator's Talk page doesn't seem to have a place to post. Any guidance would be most gratefully appreciated! Ed1t0r14J (talk) 06:13, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

@Ed1t0r14J:Hello, and Welcome to the Teahouse. The reviewing administrator's talkpage is located here. You can use this link to open a new discussion thread at his user talk page. I made the Software behind Wikipedia automatically add a title for you, but you can of course adjust it if you think something fits it better.Some things to keep in mind:

• If you expect to recive, or recive, compensation for your edits, you 'must declare it. This is a Terms of Use requirement and not negotiable.
• You can expect Juliancolton to be interested in what sources you would write a new version upon. Wikipedia is mainly interested in what reliable, independent sources have written about a subject. A lack or inability to find such means that an article today has not much of a bigger chance than in 2017. Victor Schmidt (talk) 06:28, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
• We are not going to undelete a copyright violation of advertising blurb speaking in the first person. Uncle G (talk) 06:37, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Ed1t0r14J. Hi. First let me apologize for my colleagues User:Victor Schmidt and User:Uncle G. They misspoke. Rather than (almost certainly falsely) accusing you of malfeasance and being short with you, what they meant to say (I'm confident) was:

User:Ed1t0r14J, thank you for contribution. We certainly could use an article on Field Ready, and lack of such an article is a hole in our coverage of NGOs. We appreciate your volunteering your time and energy to making this enhancement to the Wikipedia and are always ready and eager to to welcome and help new editors. We're sorry your article was deleted, it is just that it was made in a way different from the articles we publish (which is not uncommon for new editors and don't worry about it), and we can't restore it as is. Rather, we need to work together to make a new article that is like our other articles. So, let's get started on helping you make a good article about Field Ready.

So, making an article about Field Ready will take a bit of work. But it can be fun, and satisfying. So for starters, you don't want to be just copying text from their website. You need use neutral sources, and write the material in your own words.

So, to find reliable sources that aren't too obscure, a good place to start is the In The News section of their website. I see there that there is an in-depth article at Fast Company which is a good start. And then right below there are number of other articles listed, with links. Some of the more notable sources that have articles with good material about Field Ready are Al Jazeera, Huffington Post, and ABC, and there a lot of others. (There are video from MSNC and France24 etc, you can transcribe parts of those if you wish).

So, now what? Well what I would recommend first is, take a look at some existing articles about NGOs, you can find many in Category:Non-governmental organizations. Find a good one and maybe use it as guide. If you open the article in Edit mode, you'll see how the references are formatted and so forth.

Different people work in different ways, so you want to use a technique that's comfortable for you. Sometimes I like to use a single article as the "backbone" of the Wikipedia article, and work in material from other sources here and there, and sometimes I have a number of articles open and go back and forth between them.

You do NOT want copy directly from the articles, you want to weave their material into your own narrative. So anyway, we want so start off with a "lede" (opening paragraph) that describes the organization in a nutshell. Let's see... Al Jazeera has a good introduction: "A company called Field Ready focuses on the provision of humanitarian relief using a variety of technologies. It says 3D printers can provide direct assistance with a wide array of items needed in a disaster situation. A company called Field Ready focuses on the provision of humanitarian relief using a variety of technologies. It says 3D printers can provide direct assistance with a wide array of items needed in a disaster situation. 'We have carried out one domestic project thus far and will be in Haiti starting next month working with health clinics to meet a variety of needs,' Eric James from Field Ready told Al Jazeera. 'We are also working on starting projects in at least two other countries by the end of the year.'"

Taking from that and some of the other sources, we might start off with

Field Ready is an international charitable Non-governmental organization (NGO) based in [wherever their HQ is]. They focus on using technology to provide humanitarian relief, particularly 3D printers deployed in stricken areas to immediately produce items needed in relief efforts...

Or whatever -- I haven't really studied the organization. That'll be your job! Godspeed, and message me if you need further support. Herostratus (talk) 08:26, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

• No, I didn't mis-speak. The editor asked for deletion review, and that is simply not going to get undeleted at deletion review. And Victor Schmidt had already covered the idea of writing a new article from sources. I think that you are the one who owes an apology to everyone, even to Ed1t0r14J for assuming that xe wrote the bad article that xe said outright that xe didn't. Neither of us said that, but you just did. Uncle G (talk) 11:48, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Sure she may have asked for deletion review or whatever, but I mean a lot of people that come here don't know the exact thing to ask for. The person doesn't seem to be insisting "I want the article restored in its previous form, period" but probably just wants an article to exist. (It even seems that she might think the previous article wasn't that good, having been improperly submitted.) She just doesn't know how to speak Wiki. Not realizing that is was a misstep.

In this particular case, it was easy (because they make it easy at their website) to determine that the organization is highly notable, and there are plenty of good sources listed right there on the website under "press".

That being so, what we need to do is 1) help the person create the article, and thus 2) reach out to a potential new editor. You never know, she might like editing and do more. That would be my understanding of the Teahouse at its best.

So, like, getting all ToS right off and implying that there's reason to assume that the person is being paid for the article ("If you expect to receive, or receive, compensation for your edits, you must declare it. This is a Terms of Use requirement and not negotiable"), then (after properly reminding of the need for good sources) being a bit discouraging and reminding of past failure ("A lack or inability to find such means that an article today has not much of a bigger chance than in 2017"), then being just generally cranky and vaguely insulting ("We are not going to undelete a copyright violation of advertising blurb speaking in the first person")... c'mon, we need to be more welcoming. I get that there's a niagara of requests here, a lot of on hopeless stuff ("Why was my article on my mom deleted"), but still. And it turns out in this particular case that we have a notable subject that deserves an article and a person who might be recruited to make it and it was pretty easy to determine that. So, niagara or not, I'd think that if you don't have the patience to be helpful and kind, maybe cut down on your workload and answer fewer requests, quality over quantity Herostratus (talk) 03:19, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

@Ed1t0r14J: Welcome to the Teahouse. As some of the editors above have said, deletion review won't be successful if the deleted content is copyright-infringing material. What you can do is request a change in protection settings for the page; it's best to contact the protecting administrator Juliancolton as you have done for that, and provide reliable sources to support changing protection status. If that is successful, I wouldn't recommend editing the page in mainspace just yet; since it would technically be your first article, I strongly suggest clicking on the emboldened link and following the steps described there to create a draft in draftspace, where a reviewer can look at it once it's ready. As the article previously had extreme issues with being unambiguously promotional, that's something a reviewer can catch before judging it to be mainspace-ready. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:21, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Potential COI?

I'm assuming it would be a COI if I wrote an article about a corporate executive who happens to be a relative of mine. Is it? I have no actual plans to do so, it's just a matter of curiosity.  - Sumanuil (talk) 02:54, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes. If you're related to the subject, that is considered a conflict of interest. Same applies if you work for him or his company (disclosure required), have been asked to do so by a friend who themselves has a COI (depending on circumstances a disclosure will be required) or if you have some other form of financial or professional stake in the subject (disclosure required). —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 03:02, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

OK, so I'll stay away from the subject area. Should be easy enough, as I have neither seen nor spoken to him in over twenty years. I don't need a disclosure unless I write about him/his company, correct? - Sumanuil (talk) 03:05, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Sumanuil, there is no need to disclose a conflict of interest regarding a topic that you have no intention to edit about. If you change your mind, disclose your COI then. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:27, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. - Sumanuil (talk) 03:30, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Is there any development of quiz?

Is there any development of quiz in wikipedia? I wish to contribute in question answer mode especially quiz but i dont know the programming part. 2409:4060:E9A:5729:0:0:B088:9B04 (talk) 19:41, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not have quizzes as far as I know. TAXIDICAE💰 19:44, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

ok thank you but it would be better if there was quiz.

Would also be better if there was pizza and beer, but all we can offer is tea and cookies. David notMD (talk) 20:13, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a school, it's an encyclopaedia. Since when did Britannica or World Book put in quizzes? —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 04:41, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Adventure is an interactive learning game that you may like. Not really a quiz but somewhat similar. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:53, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Help needed with an article on a secondhand marketplace app, Karrot

Hi, I've been working on an article about a secondhand marketplace app called Karrot. Revisions were rejected, and I need some advice.

Article link: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Karrot&oldid=1019059700

The feedback I received was 1) It looks like an advertisement 2) This article is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia

I've made edits to improve objectivity. I don't see where I can improve further, since the article is already heavily cited from credible sources (albeit in Korean), and there are wiki pages for similar players already with comparable levels of contents depth and breadth.

Reference articles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OfferUp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kijiji https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nextdoor

In addition, there's already a page for Karrot approved for Korean Wikipedia, with a lot less coverage. https://ko.wikipedia.org/wiki/%EB%8B%B9%EA%B7%BC%EB%A7%88%EC%BC%93

Could anyone provide some inputs?

Thanks, Kyle Kwlee121 (talk) 03:48, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello, User:Kwlee121. Please disclose your relationship, if any, with Karrot. This one sentence is indicative of the problems with Draft: Karrot: "Karrot emphasizes that its value proposition is built around local engagement." Most problematically, that sentence is telling us what Karrot thinks of itself. Acceptable Wikipedia business articles summarize what independent reliable sources say about a company, not what the company says about itself. Another problem with that sentence, and by extension the entire draft, is the use of the vapid marketing jargon "value proposition" which is a phrase used only by advertising and public relations people. "Local engagement" is almost as bad. What normal person would ever say, "I am interested in company X because they have great local engagement"? And then we have an entire section called "Product features" which is referenced to the company's own website. Really? Why the heck should an encyclopedia host promotional, catalog style content when the company already has a website? That is utterly unacceptable. The draft reads like an effort to pump up the company's visibility and credibility on Google, as opposed to an actually neutral encyclopedia article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:17, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

@Kwlee121: Here is where I'd normally offer advice on how to write articles that won't be rejected, but the draft you wrote is so full of advertising language that you must be working for a marketing firm hired by Karrot. Disclose your employment before you take any other action or I will block you. Only then will I provide you the step-by-step instructions you need to get an draft approved (guaranteed so long as you actually follow through on them). Ian.thomson (talk) 06:14, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Can someone check over my first edits

I just finished my first lot of editing in the colposcopy article and was wondering if anyone could check to make sure I'm doing thinks right? I don't want to get into bad habits.

I edited to make the language simpler to read for people that don't read medical writing a lot.

I also rearranged the order of some of the text, putting the same subject matter together and putting things in an order that I think makes sense (the order things happen during the procedure)

I removed some information that I think was too technical (like the concentration of the acetic acid used in the procedure). Did I remove too much detail?

I also removed advice for preventing cervical cancer. Since this is an article about a procedure, not about cancer itself, I didn't think it belonged on this page. Was I too heavy handed removing it?

Also how were my editing notes? Is there a list of commonly used phrases for these sorts of edits?

(CowFemmeGem is also me, i started, then lost my password, so I made a new profile after a week trying to work out what email i attached that one too...maybe none,lol)

Also is there a noob forum or master list of help guides? Let me know if this shouldn't be posted here, and if so, where it should go.

Thank you for your help. Cowfemme (talk) 04:44, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Cowfemme. In all honesty, I scrolled through all your edits and truly believe that you significantly improved that article. Thank you. I hope that you keep editing Wikipedia. The Teahouse is the "noob forum" that you asked about. WP:PAG is list of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. WP:CHEATSHEET is an introductory guide to wikimarkup or wikicode. Typing HELP: followed by a plausible keyword will usually lead to a relevant help page and typing WP: followed by a plausible keyword will take you through the behind the scenes administrative parts of the encyclopedia. Beware of rabbit holes. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:56, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

@Cowfemme: I agree with Cullen, and think that the article is much easier to read and understand now, compared to what it was like before your edits. Many new editors start copy-editing articles seemingly without paying much attention to what the article text actually says, and making minor cosmetic changes without actually improving anything – in contrast, your changes genuinely added to the value of that article. Your edit summaries are good, too.

One thing I might not have chosen to do was moving the risk factors for cancer from the "Followup" section to the introduction. The article is about a procedure that's carried out for a couple of different reasons, and even though checking for cancer signs is the most important reason, the text "Human Papillomavirus (HPV) is a common infection and the underlying cause for most cervical cancers. Smoking also makes developing cervical abnormalities more likely." is a little disconnected from the rest of the introduction. The way I think about it is that the article's topic is something like a topic sentence for the introduction (though not a sentence, obviously :-) ) and so I'd expect the content of the introduction to relate directly to that topic sentence.

There is another reason for having that information in the article body as well – the introduction should summarise the most important points of the article body (that's a Wikipedia style guideline, explained in some detail here), and now, the article body doesn't talk about cancer risk factors. I definitely agree with you about removing the advice for patients bit, as well as the details about risk factors for HPV which is just one step further removed from the topic of the article. The basic info about risk factors should still have a reference, though. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 07:17, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you both :) @Bonadea thanks for the information about the cancer risk factors. Tomorrow i will move it back to the end but give it a new heading since its not about follow ups.

Does this topic fulfill notability guidelines?

Hello. I was wanting to make a page on Competitive Slapping(as a sport). I read through the pages but I'm not exactly sure if it fulfills all the notability requirements. Could someone please tell me if it does? If it doesn't meet the guidelines, could someone suggest me an article where this could be incorporated?

References

 SourceIsOpen (talk) 18:33, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Honestly, Competitive Slapping sounds like a joke. Also, you're going to need more than 3 sources to prove that it's notable. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 19:04, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I mean, people follow it as a sport seriously and it's become fairly popular on YouTube with a couple tournaments in the US, Poland, Russia and some other countries, so not sure that matters. I'll try to find some more sources though. - SourceIsOpen (talk) 21:47, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I say this could very well pass WP:GNG. Mentioned at Slapping (strike). Try to find some Russian WP:RS. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:28, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

There's also Slapboxing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:18, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Question about policy

I always use number of watchers/backlinks as a way to gauge the support/popularity of an essay page in Wikipedia. Is it a good method or not? Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 05:37, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Regarding watchers: it at least indicates how much people care about an essay (for better or worse) but not without its problems. WP:NONAZIS probably has some watchers who the essay is about and so have edited the essay or its talk page because they want it taken down or toned down. I don't think I watch any WP:MOS pages and I'm supposed to be an admin or something.

Backlinks are more likely to show that an essay is being cited, and it's more likely to be cited by people who agree with it (while people who disagree with it are more likely to congregate on the essay's talk page and deletion discussions, where linking beyond the OP is unnecessary). It's still only good as a shorthand, though, and not some scientific measure for whether or not an essay should be bumped up to guideline status (not that you were suggesting it, just came to my mind as one reason to gauge such support). Ian.thomson (talk) 06:21, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

alternatively, if what you wish is to decide if some statement aas such great support that you need to follow it, then the best way is as just suggested--look to see how the statement is uesd in WP:AFD discussions. Is it the position it supports usually accepted as settling the mater, or is it pgyrm successfully challenged? If you have some rule specifically in mind here, please tell us what it is, and we'll try to help. DGG ( talk ) 08:30, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Uploading an image

How can I upload an image ? Bhu1147 (talk) 04:31, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Bhu1147. Your question is too open-ended. Did you create the image, or did someone else? What is the copyright status of the image? When was it created? Has it been published elsewhere, and if so, when and where? Copyright issues are complex and so there are no easy answers about image uploads. Details matter. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:40, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks,Cullen328. What if the image is from an online image source?

@Bhu1147: (I assume this was you) Two possibilities here: 1) The file is not relaesed under a a siutable license (copyrighted, only non-commercial, or a non-derivate restriction): If the file meets all of WP:NFCC, you may upload it locally to Wikipedia. If it doesn't meet all of the criteria of WP:NFCC, we cannot have it. 2) The image is released under a siutable license. If so, you may upload it to Wikimedia Commons, the central media storage of all Projects hosted by the WMF. Note: Don't make assumptions. If the license status of an image is not clear, Wikipedia assumes its copyrighted. Victor Schmidt (talk) 05:12, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

@Bhu1147: 99.9% of the time, images found online cannot be uploaded to Wikipedia because of copyright. Nevertheless, you're free to put a URL to the image here for us to look at. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 08:32, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

MARA Opera (has Wikipedia page) but composer's page has notability issue

I have submitted a draft of a new page for Sherry Woods. She is a composer and her latest project is MARA A Chamber Opera. The page is waiting review 2 at this time.

I have redrafted several times to make the page more formal and have added a decent amount of references.

The most frustrating issue to me is that Dr. Woods' Mara Opera has had its own Wikipedia page since June 2017, and the librettist, Stephen Batchelor (author), has had his own Wikipedia page since May 2017.

Why is the Mara Opera notable but its composer is not notable?

Thank you! Mmglambda (talk) 20:53, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Mmglambda, and welcome to the Teahouse. Thank you for drawing my attention to the inadequate sourcing of Stephen Batchelor (author) and MARA: A Chamber Opera on Good and Evil: I have tagged both as relying too much on primary sources, and the latter as possibly not meeting the criteria for notability.

Please note that

• Nothing and nobody in the universe "has its own Wikipedia page": Wikipedia has articles on millions of notable subjects (and thousands of non-notable ones, which articles should be deleted if anybody could be bothered): these do not belong to the subject and are not under their control or for their benefit.
• Notability, as used in Wikipedia, does not mean quite the same as in normal language: here it primarily means "there is enough independent reliably-published material available to build an article on. It's the "independent" bit that's important here: 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. But not one of the sources in the article about the opera is independent of the people responsible for the opera.
• notability is not inherited: it is perfectly possible (in fact likely) that not all the works of a notable writer are themselves notable; and it can also happen the other way round: if a particular work has been much written about, it is possible for the work to be notable but not its creator.

I observe that you created your acoount four days ago, and have edited only these three articles. Are you connected with them in any way? If so, you need to be aware of what is expected from an editor with a conflict of interest. --ColinFine (talk) 22:50, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

DGG declined the draft on 25 April. Three extracts from what he wrote:

• This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article.
• 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 music-related topics).
• Please do not remove reviewer comments or this notice until the submission is accepted.

This says nothing about Woods' notability. It does say something about her notability as demonstrated in the draft.

I agree with DGG's comments, though in his place I'd have added something about the amount of material in the draft that's not attributed to any particular source.

On 28 April, you removed the notice that you'd been asked to retain. (I'm about to readd it.)

Please read Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. -- Hoary (talk) 22:55, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Incidentally, Mmglambda, the sections on "Education", "Career", "Discography" and more look like parts of a "Who's Who" entry or similar. By contrast, in this encyclopedia we normally employ conventional sentences that have subjects as well as predicates. The article MARA: A Chamber Opera on Good and Evil (incidentally, why "MARA" and not "Mara" or "Māra"?) is written in such sentences -- but is nevertheless very problematic because its section on "Music" (with other parts) is completely unreferenced. I strongly suggest that you work on improving existing articles about other composers and their compositions and thereby familiarize yourself with Wikipedia before you do more work on articles related to Woods. -- Hoary (talk) 23:11, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

References

Colin, thank you for the welcome, and for the help. First, I read the conflict of interest and I do not know Stephen Batchelor or Sherry Woods. I have been reading Batchelor's books for 20 years. I signed up to help with the three sites I have been on because I really like the Mara Opera and I deeply respect Batchelor and Woods and wanted to see if I could improve the pages since I am interested in the subject of the pages.

• Starting with Batchelor, he IS a notable Buddhist scholar and has been writing books for four decades that other writers, organizations, and academics reference. When I run him through Google Scholar with this search ( "stephen batchelor" buddhism ) there are 1,680 results. Where I run him through main Google with the same search parameters I get 92,300 results. I started adding external sources to his page earlier this week and pulled them from broad categories, such as educational institutions, news agencies, etc. How many references need to be added to his page until they are considered enough to validate him? Since listing his books seems displeasing to the wiki do the citations/references for the books need to be removed so they aren't links?
• On the Mara page I believe most of the description material comes from the the opera programs that were published for the performances at the Rubin Museum and Santa Fe, NM. Would the program count as a reference if is posted online somewhere?
• On Woods I added a recording and more of her composition history. As for the other categories I saw them on many music pages such as the page for Dinesh Subasinghe.

--mmglambda — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmglambda (talk • contribs) 04:15, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello again, Mmglambda, and thank you for taking my comments in good part. I accept that you do not know the people; but I am concerned by "I signed up to help with" - signed up with whom? If your work is in any way for the benefit of Woods or Bachelor, then you have a conflict of inteerest.

I suspect that Bachelor is indeed notable in Wikipedia's sense, which is why I didn't tag the article on him for notability, just for primary sources. It may also be that the alternative critera in WP:NSCHOLAR apply. But there need to be more independent sources. It's not a question of the quantity but the quality of sources: more non-independent sources tend to reduce the quality of an article, not improve it, as Wikipedia has very little interest in anything they say - only uncontroversial factual information can be sourced to them. Listing a selection of his books is worthwhile as part of the article, but there's no point in citing them - unless they're very obscure anybody interested can easily find them on the web.

Similarly for the opera, if the programme is reliably published somewhere, then it may be cited, but only as a primary source. The bulk of any article must come from indpendent sources (of which I don't believe there are currently any in the MARA article). And a selection of Woods' recordings may be mentioned in the article, but there's no point in citing them as the citations do not contribute to the article. --ColinFine (talk) 09:38, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Greetings, Colin. ″"I signed up to help with" - signed up with whom?″ I created an account with Wikipedia.com. In the past I have only edited wiki pages to add citations or references and have done it anonymously. The Batchelor book lists and references for them were created by the editor before me. I will work on cleaning them up and adding more independent sources. I agree that Stephen Batchelor meets the WP:NSCHOLAR criteria, some of the citations at Google Scholar are his books being cited in other scholars thesis. Not only is he a teacher at the Bodhi College (specializing in early Buddhist teachings), he is one of the founders. I continue researching to find more independent sources for the Mara and Woods pages. --Mmglambda

Tools for reverting vandalism

Does anyone know of some tools that can be used to revert vandalism? Any suggestions are welcome! HiCooldude (talk) 10:31, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

@HiCooldude: I believe Twinkle or RedWarn might be a good way to start of. Keep in mind that 1) Vandalism means to intentionally harm the project (See WP:NOTVAND for more things on what is and isn't vandalism) and 2) You are responsible for any edits performed using a (semi-) automated tool. Using a tool won't be accepted as an excuse. Later on, you might be able to use Huggle, but that is something for more experienced users. Victor Schmidt (talk) 11:08, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

While Redwarn has a user-friendly interface, its full functionality is only available to extended confirmed users. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 11:31, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Citations on my draft?

Hi! Can someone please check my draft and tell me if there is a further need for citations? If yes, can you please add 'citation needed' templates on the respective places? If no, may I submit my draft? Excellenc1 (talk) 09:21, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

The draft has large sections of text not supported by citations. There are too many for it to be useful to you for editors to add CNs. I recommend not submitting unless text is references, or else unreferenced content is removed. David notMD (talk) 10:17, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

This draft is a translation of an existing article in French Wikipedia. You should have acknowledged that in the Edit summary when you started. An administrator did that for you. The English Wikipedia has different requirements for referencing, so this needs more work. It is possible that the problem can be solved by using the existing refs multiple times. A small thing: refs go after punctuation. David notMD (talk) 10:23, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

@David notMD:, I have added citations for each paragraph except the first two paragraphs in 'First Developments' in the draft (See my recent edits.) Excellenc1 (talk) 12:00, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Question

How do I use this template on my user page? Or more specifically, it won't automatically update the edit counter, even though I added an additional parameter that supposedly finds the amount of edits made by a user using xtools. LucasA04 (talk) 04:28, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

The template can't automatically update the edit counter, it's not possible to do that within the software used on Wikipedia. The additional parameter you added (|edit_count_url=) won't change that. In the template on your userpage, you can see the text "Progress towards the next level (by edits): [ 120 / 800 ]". The "120" links to xtools, and the parameter you added can be used to change where it links to. For example, you could use it to link to the Simple Counter on xtools instead. --rchard2scout (talk) 07:50, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Rchard2scout, So what would be the use/purpose of (|edit_count_url=)? Why would you need to change where it links to if it doesn't work in the first place? Or am I using it incorrectly? LucasA04 (talk) 12:11, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi again

My article has now been declined 3 times. I don't understand, i have used reliable news article as sources and delete the unreliable sources I was told to delete. I know the person in the article draft: berlando deton. please help, i don't understand why i got declined again. I even fully cite the articles. how much more verifiable can it be? please help. Dewi339458 (talk) 17:08, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Since you say you know the person in the draft, you might want to check out WP:COI. Also, the editor who declined your draft will leave a reason why. I will take a loot at it after I finish writing this. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 19:05, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy link: Draft:Berlando Deton

CommanderWaterford has put this both times he declined it: "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources." What he's saying is that there isn't enough information to prove the source is notable. See WP:NOTABILITY for more information on this. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 19:08, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I know that CommanderWaterford has declined it twice, i then changed and fix my sources. he then didn't decline it again. and then now it's declined again. i dont get why. help. Please remember to sign your comments on talk pages using ~~~~. Also yes he did. He declined it twice. And I have also told you what he means by what he said. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 13:08, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Are Director general of police presumed notable like elected politicians?

I am checking Draft:Niraj Sinha who is the DGP of Jharkhand Police. And was thinking if DGPs are presumed notable simply because they hold that post. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 15:35, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi again Nomadicghumakkad. I don't think any of the subject-specific notability guidelines apply to directors general of police, so this would need to satisfy the general guidelines. › Mortee _talk 15:38, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

The article: Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory probably needs more evidence

I have read the article "Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory". The article appear to me as politically slanted. The statements about prosecutor Viktor Shokin portrays him as corrupt with little or no evidence. This might be slander, and material for a court case. Additional verification's should be added, with references to court decisions and other relevant documents and/or film sequences. sorjon02 Sorjon02 (talk) 16:10, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Sorjon02 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse, an area for new or inexperienced users to ask questions about Wikipedia. If you have concerns about that article, please bring them up on that article's associated talk page, Talk:Biden-Ukraine conspiracy theory. Please understand that Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state. Any bias in those sources will be reflected in Wikipedia- the sources are presented to readers so they can evaluate and judge them for themselves as to bias and other factors. If those sources are not being summarized accurately, please point out the details of any errors, or offer any independent reliable sources of your own. Primary source information like court documents are not usually permissible as sources- if you have independent sources that discuss what courts have said, that would work. 331dot (talk) 16:14, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Can anyone here speed the process?

I very recently submitted my draft and I am waiting for its approval. But it shows that it may take over 5 months for the approval. So can an experienced editor reading this request approve that draft (to an article). Excellenc1 (talk) 15:59, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Reviewed and accepted. Theroadislong (talk) 16:08, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Excellenc1. I have moved your userspace draft to draftspace for convenience. Please find it here - Draft:Garden City of Suresnes. Your article looks fine - it's well-referenced and structured. If you feel confident with Wikipedia guidelines, you can also try creating the article in the mainspace and it may be patrolled faster. Best, Less Unless (talk) 16:12, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello Excellenc1, it seems like your draft has been deleted or is not available. You can retry to make the page NonPopularPerson (talk) 16:15, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

@NonPopularPerson: Excellenc1's draft no longer exists as it has been reviewed and accepted by Theroadislong already: Garden City of Suresnes. – NJD-DE (talk) 16:21, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I am a lot grateful to all the editors for helping me with my approval and clearance of my doubts. Also to mention users Cullen328, Gråbergs Gråa Sång, Ganbaruby, David notMD and Hoary among few others.

Let's discuss what is and what isn't a valid citation

Let's discuss what is and what isn't a valid citation What, may I ask, is a valid citation? I can find several Wikipedia articles with inaccurate information. So, shall we agree that a newspaper is NOT a valid citation? And if a newspaper isn't, what is? How about official documents, or history documents? Shipgirl your waifu (talk) 14:30, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Shipgirl your waifu, welcome to the Teahouse. Reputable newspapers certainly are valid citations. One relevant essay: Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. Official documents and historical records are, if anything, less well looked upon than secondary sources, because Wikipedia reports what is published by others; we don't conduct research ourselves. With articles that include inaccuracies, the ideal course of action is to find reliable, secondary sources that give a more accurate account, and use them to improve the articles. If you have particular examples and you're not sure how best to proceed, you're very welcome to ask for help here. › Mortee _talk 14:53, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Shipgirl your waifu, discussing what cite/ref is good enough in which context is something Wikipedians do a lot. WP:RSP is a compilation of sources that have been discussed several times, and their current "status". You can also search/read the archives at WP:RSN, a dedicated noticeboard. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:31, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Embedded infobox within autobiographic article

I would like to embed an infobox with photo and basic information in my biographical article. There is a previously created wikidata source with information I would like to use, but I would need help how to transfer data from wikidata. Pszichoszemle (talk) 12:56, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

References

@Pszichoszemle: Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. There are two infoboxes that might be siutable, the generic {{Infobox person}} and the more specific {{Infobox scientist}}. I feel uncomfortable selecting one for you, but once you have made your selection, you can copy the blank template from Template:Infobox person#Usage (for {{Infobox person}}) or Template:Infobox scientist#Usage (for {{Infobox scientist}}). As for WikiData, that is something you cannot do right now. To include information, one would first have to link the article to Wikidata. The Infobox template will, if I am correctly informed, automatically import data from Wikidata afterwards if they aren't specified locally, but exist on Wikidata. However, linking Drafts to Wikidata is not allowed, because they could in theory be in a state where a live user shouldn't find them without knowing about what might be in Wikipedia's draft space. Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:00, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Untitled question from User:Buzzie19

Why did I assign my self an article in wikipedia and requested to speedy deletion?#wikiAflibs

@Buzzie19: I'm sorry, but I don't understand your question. Could you please tell me more specifically what you're trying to do? ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 08:36, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

@Buzzie19: Is this about Charles Mathuva Mwalimu? If so, I am not an administrator and therefore cannot see what was in there, but based on the deletion reason I can assume that it was far insufficient. See WP:YFA for what you should know when creating new articles. Victor Schmidt (talk) 08:57, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

@Buzzie19: Your content was two words. That's not enough for an article. DS (talk) 17:11, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Fixing vandalism?

Hello, I’m new here and i want to know how to help out with fixing vandalism made by anonymous users. Can you please help me, as i know this is a common problem and want to help in any way possible.

Thanks, RecRoomBoy537 RecRoomBoy537 (talk) 17:24, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

@RecRoomBoy537: Welcome to the Teahouse. If you see blatant vandalism, you can just revert it and (if you want) warn the offending user on their user talk page. Just be sure to use the correct warning if you choose to do so. I would suggest checking out the Counter-Vandalism Unit's academy and see if an experienced user is willing to act as a mentor for you. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:33, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi RecRoomBoy537 welcome to the Teahouse. Great question. Fixing vandalism is a wonderful way to keep Wikipedia healthy and also a great way to start out editing. My own approach is to look at recent changes, setting the filter to show only "likely have problems" and "very likely have problems" edits that are the latest revision to a page. Then I open several tabs starting at the bottom so I'm not in some kind of time scramble with other editors and I'm looking at things that might otherwise slip through, and I undo anything that seems clearly bad, add welcome templates to the pages of new users whose edits have been wrongly assessed as probably bad, etc. Rinse and repeat. If you're not sure, leave it be or maybe add the article to your watchlist to see how other editors react. You're always welcome back here to ask more questions as issues crop up. › Mortee _talk 17:35, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

@RecRoomBoy537 Hello Yes yes fixing vandalism is good, just look up vandalized pages and try too fix things im new too so im learning like you so i dont know much either- anyways just reply and ill try too help Have a good day- Xd123456333 (talk) 17:48, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Redirect deletion

Hi. Can anyone expedite a redirect deletion?

There is a large number of editors interested in the article Khan al-Ahmar (village), Israel-Palestine issues are heavy like lead, I've finally got people to approve of something, but now it's stuck in a technicality. I have fully prepared the content for a disambiguation page for "Khan al-Ahmar" ("the Red Inn"), it's all ready to be posted, but the address is currently blocked by a limiting, thus misleading, and ultimately wrong redirect: Khan al-Ahmar -> Khan al-Ahmar (village). The discussion and the material for the future disambiguation page are here. I'm afraid I might have missed the 100% correct form for the removal request (I have used a CSD G6 tag), but the explanation there offers all the relevant info. It's been taking quite a while already. Could anyone please help out? Thanks, Arminden (talk) 11:35, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Arminden, removing the redirect template would 100% "clean" the page as per WP:REDIRECT. Lightbluerain❄ (Talk | contribs) 18:48, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

@Lightbluerain: thanks, I know, that's exactly what I'm asking for. Can you please remove the redirect? Arminden (talk) 01:06, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Arminden, Just blank it. I see you are an extended confirmed user, the user group the protection of the page allows editing to. Why you want someone else to do it? Do you doubt anything? Lightbluerain❄ (Talk | contribs) 18:47, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Lightbluerain, I'm mainly editing on archaeology and history. Blanking redirect pages - different job. I might be entitled, but don't know how. Do you really think I'm here out of strategic considerations? Arminden (talk) 20:27, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Arminden, Alright. Lightbluerain❄ (Talk | contribs) 13:13, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Arminden, I did remove the templates and pasted the disambiguation content but I think the DAB content needs little bit of editing. Also, I am not sure if we have citations in a disambiguation page. Kindly make changes as needed. Lightbluerain❄ (Talk | contribs) 13:52, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Lightbluerain, you're my hero, thanks! Have a great day, Arminden (talk) 17:11, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Arminden, Welcome! Glad I could be of any help. Lightbluerain❄ (Talk | contribs) 17:20, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Arminden, I suggest you remove the {{disambiguation}} template from here as it is making it count in disambiguation pages. Lightbluerain❄ (Talk | contribs) 17:26, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Lightbluerain, done, thanks. I see you really meant "blank it", as in erase all content, and then copy and paste in the new content. I thought there were a problem with "crossing paths" regarding edit history. But in this case there is no talk-page content, and the edit history for former "Khan al-Ahmar", now "Khan al-Ahmar (village)", doesn't look disrupted, so all is good. I'm not sure this is the default thing to do, but here it worked perfectly well. Arminden (talk) 17:56, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Hey, how do I put in a picture in a wikipedia page?

 Aemanops8135 (talk) 17:51, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Aemanops8135, welcome to the Teahouse. That very much depends. Could you point us towards the article you're talking about and what picture you want to include? If it's already hosted on Commons we can help you with the syntax of how to add it to the article, if it isn't yet but it's copyright-free then we can explain how to do upload it there, and if it's copyrighted but there's a reason it's needed on Wikipedia anyway we can help with that too. It's just a complicated area so I can't answer in full without a bit more information. › Mortee _talk 17:59, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I want to add a picture of the space shuttle columbia in the spaceshuttle columbia wikipedia page. Aemanops8135 (talk) 18:02, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Which image? Space Shuttle Columbia has several already. › Mortee _talk 18:04, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Aemanops8135, not sure about source editing but with visual editing you just click the insert button, then click images and media, then type the name of the picture you want with Image: in front of it. max20characters 🇺🇸 18:02, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Aemanops8135 (talk) 18:03, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Experiencing difficulty publishing / editing Article

Dear , Bkissin ,GPL93,ToBeFree I have been editing on wiki for years and trying to publish articles and editing . Recently my accounts been Blocked for any kind of editing and publishing because I have been marked as "puppet" .I have been using veracious accounts that i declared i shall not use further.Is there any other ways for me to continue editing on wiki and remove "Puppet" and unblock other blocks.--কাপ্তান (talk) 17:23, 29 April 2021 (UTC) কাপ্তান (talk) 17:23, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

কাপ্তান your account is globally locked (more at User talk:Sami Waahid) and your now-years long abuse of multiple accounts and block evasion does not help your case to return as an editor. This is especially true if you continue to try to add Abdul Waheed Chowdhury after you have been told multiple times that the subject does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards and therefore does not merit an article. The only way to be unblocked is to appeal from your original account. GPL93 (talk) 17:36, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

কাপ্তান Global locks of account can be appealed, at least according to meta:Global locks, at meta:Steward requests/Global, however, given the nature of the block, the chances of it happening are close to zero. Victor Schmidt (talk) 19:19, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Jason Sherwood

Jason Sherwood doesn't have a Wikipedia page But, he's won two Emmys. I am just here to ask if you editors would make a page about him, thank you for your time and consideration. 204.185.26.252 (talk) 19:59, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The place to suggest articles is Requested Articles. There is a large backlog, however, so if you are willing to learn how to write an article and you have sources for it, the fastest way to see an article made is to do it yourself at Articles for Creation. 331dot (talk) 20:06, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

How do i help in wikipedia?

I want too know how too help wikipedia OTHER than editing things and claiming any ideas? Xd123456333 (talk) 16:04, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Xd123456333! There's much 'behind the scenes' work too - fighting vandalism, discussing if proposed articles, redirects, categories, etc should be deleted or kept and so much more. However before engaging into any of these activities it's crucial to familiarize with core Wikipedia Policies - please find them hereWP:POLICY. BEst, Less Unless (talk) 16:18, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

(e/c) Hi Xd123456333. It's possible my imagination just fails, but other than donating to the Wikimedia foundation, I cannot think of anything you can do to help that would not involve "editing". That being said, possibly when you said that you were referring to things other than making rich edits to substantive article content? If so, there are plenty of tasks to help out with in other areas. See the Wikipedia:Task Center and the Wikipedia:Community portal. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:23, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Fuhghettaboutit Thank You For some ideas so ill try too edit more things ill check those links out anyways thankyou- Xd123456333 (talk) 17:44, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Anytime!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:15, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Advice on ~ Draft:Photo_L.A.

Draft:Photo_L.A. [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Photo_L.A. ]

Hello ~ As this was first attempt at a Wikipedia article, I followed the Wikipedia page from another notable art fair (i.e. Paris Photo) to have this article be written similarly in a neutral tone/point of view. However, it was not accepted as "This reads like a promo for the exhibition"(?) ~ Do I need to edit by removing adjectives or certain words as to me it reads almost similarly? Perhaps not cite the references word for word to rid of potential editorializing from sources? Also, the references themselves are in question, yet I am mostly utilizing sources from art publications (yes, they may not be the New York Times (I do have a Los Angeles Times though), etc. but as this is a notable art fair, it is odd that major art publications are not considered as reliable?). Please advise kindly ~ SXLA (talk) 19:22, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello, SXLA. Please explain your connection, if any, to this photo show. The draft is at Draft:Photo L.A.. Your draft contains promotional language such as "a collaborative platform that links dealers and collectors with world-class galleries, publishers, artists and photographers." A phrase like "world class" is marketing jargon and is a red flag for reviewers, especially since the reference does not use those words or anything like them. Similarly, "a platform for art photographers to broaden their career opportunities and promote their work within the extensive Photo L.A. network" is overtly promotional and far from neutral. Then we have "exclusive showcase". I am always mystified why people think advertising language like that belongs in an encyclopedia. "The historic hangar’s sweeping 35,000 square foot space hosted a curated roster of 60+ galleries". That's not encyclopedia writing- that's ad copy. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:40, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

So, adjectives, adjectives, adjectives. And some of the refs appear to be only brief mentions rather than at-length content about the art fair. David notMD (talk) 20:52, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Did I do this correctly?

I fixed a dead link. Did I do it right? Urban Dictionary CircularToucan (talk) 17:48, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Looks like it's about this edit special:diff/1020546458. --CiaPan (talk) 17:54, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

This was a good change CircularToucan (though the date was wrong, which I have fixed). This was quite confusing actually, because the original entry provided the wrong author of the Boston Globe article. The prior cite was not to the Boston Globe news story, but a re-publishing of it at Boston.com by someone named Doris Wong, and the prior citation incorrectly attributed the authorship to the re-poster rather than to Globe staff writer, Erika Noonan — so your change, which corrected the author but also changed the correct date from July 5 to July 2, 2009, all made it look to me at first like there were two similarly titled articles, with different (nearby) dates, by two different people – but you can see the prior link was just a repost to the same Boston Globe article by Noonan in the Wayback Machine, here. By the way, though here you found a direct link to the Boston Globe archive, when that's not available, the Wayback Machine is one really good resource for finding a working link for fixing these kind of dead links. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:43, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

P.S. Often when fixing dead links, a good way to do it is to leave in the non-working link, and provide a working archive URL, with all the details of the original cite available, given alongside the fix to a working archive source. (See e.g., the documentation of {{cite news}} as to archived urls, etc. as well as Wikipedia:Link rot#Manual archiving). Here, though, you actually better attributed the original source to a working direct link to that original source, so I don't think any of the archive detail would be helpful for this particular dead link fix.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:53, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Grand Canyon of the Stikine

Hello folks. I want to remove some false information from Grand Canyon of the Stikine and want to make sure I'm doing it right. The article states that Beggerlay Canyon has the most difficult rapids in the Grand Canyon. I've been there and rafted the Stikine and I know Beggerlay Canyon is not part of the Grand Canyon. I know that's not enough to change the article. Here's how I want to prove it:

The Highway 37 bridge referenced earlier in the article is upstream of the Grand Canyon of the Stikine. BC Parks lists Beggerlay Canyon as being upstream of the Highway 37 bridge. Therefore, it cannot be a part of the Grand Canyon.

Is this enough to change the article? Can I just change it or do I need to do other things before editing? Thanks.

I also have photos of Beggerlay Canyon and the Highway 37 bridge that I could add. Can I add personal photos? Pketchum17 (talk) 20:20, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Pketchum17, your proposed solution sounds to me like a bit of the forbidden synthesis. However, the article is expected to support its statements with reliable source citations. If there is no supporting citation for the statement about the canyon and its rapids, feel free to apply {{cn}} to the statement, generating . Once that tag matures over a period of a year or more, any editor is welcome to remove the statement in question.--Quisqualis (talk) 21:33, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I disagree that the proposed change is synthesis. The link provided by Pketchum17 (and also this map http://www.paddlesong.com/wp-content/uploads/Stikine-Maps-2.jpg) clearly show Beggerlay upstream of the Highway 37 bridge, and the beginning of the Grand Canyon of the Stikine as starting downstream of the bridge. Beggerlay should not be mentioned in this article. Photos would not be a useful addition. David notMD (talk) 21:57, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Pketchum17 rightly removed mention of Beggerlay. Blaze The Wolf wrongly restored it, but was acting in good faith because Pketchum17 did not provide a reference at the time of the deletion. A third editor ended this nascent edit warring by removing it. David notMD (talk) 22:01, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Wikitia??

The Wikipedia page I have been attempting to create for Postindustrial was declined due to "Sources are all self-published or too close related to the Subject". However, I noticed the article was added to a site called "Wikitia". What is Wikitia and who added it? A bot? I'm royally confused here. Appreciate the feedback. Dawnpalmyra (talk) 21:50, 29 April 2021 (UTC) Dawnpalmyra (talk) 21:50, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Dawnpalmyra. With its 31,000 articles (compared to our 6.2 million), Wikitia is a wonderfully lame attempt to gather some content together that nobody else can edit unless they've been 'verified' and "who have notability in their field or topic...". That's clearly quite a joke. Because every edit here is released under a Creative Commons licence, anyone is free to reuse it - even draft articles that we have rejected. However, that person (Andrea Glover) should have credited you - and they didn't, so they are in breach of the Creative Commons licencing as they've simply stolen your work without acknowledgement. You could go there and make a fuss about it if you wished to, but it has absolutely nothing to do with Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation and I'm sure it'll fade away into nothingness, if it hasn't actually done so already. I'm sorry I can't link to the 'About Wikitia' page to help you as it is blocked by our spam filters! Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:51, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Wikitia is independent of the Wikimedia Foundation (and thus Wikipedia), but its own "about" page https://wikitia.com/wiki/Wikitia:About coyly refrains from saying who does run it. It does leech material from Wikipedia, as a number of websites do. It has what Wikipedia calls user-generated content, and therefore can't be cited in Wikipedia. (See the brief discussion about its usability here. But anyway, as Nick has said, it's blacklisted.) -- Hoary (talk) 22:55, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Notable people lists

Is there a rule to what people are allowed in lists of notable people? For example, should this person's edit be allowed? Thanks, AnApple47 (talk) 23:05, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi AnApple47. You can find out more about this at WP:LSC and WP:SOURCELIST, but generally the most basic criterion for inclusion is that the the individual in question already have a stand-alone article written about them. However, some allowances may be made in the case of WP:REDYES individuals which are properly supported by a citation to a reliable source or when there's a consensus established on other criteria for adding individuals. The entry you're referring to above has already be reverted by another editor, but if it's re-added it would probably be best to explain try and explain things like WP:ONUS and WP:BRD to the editor doing the re-adding since they most likely aren't familiar with Wikipedia and how things work. Try not to WP:BITE them, but let them know in a friendly way why their edit was reverted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:25, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, AnApple47 (talk) 23:27, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

References behind paywalls

I'm currently looking at writing an article on something I'm relatively familiar with, but many of the references for the topic are behind paywalls on certain news sites. I was wondering if anyone could give me an idea of how Wikipedia views paywalled references, and if I should continue looking for different references that are more freely available. MoonlightSolace (talk) 23:34, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi MoonlightSolace. As long as the source is reliable, used in proper context, and published and accessible by someone, a WP:PAYWALL source is acceptable. You should understand though that you may be asked to clarify the source if someone challenges it and access to it is restricted in some way. There are also ways to indicate the source is behind a paywall if you use a citation template. Usually, you can find out how to do this by checking the template's documentation page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:43, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank-you Marchjuly, I appreciate the help! --MoonlightSolace (talk) 00:08, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

I this a good image for Wikipedia?

I this a good image for Wikipedia? https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:KUNW_logo_2019.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by ItsJustdancefan (talk • contribs) 23:57, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

It was you who uploaded this to Commons, so presumably you thought it was good for Wikipedia when you uploaded it. (Otherwise, why upload it?) Next time, perhaps do things the other way around: first ask if a graphic is worth uploading; and if the answer is yes, then upload it. Anyway, where in Wikipedia are you thinking of adding File:KUNW_logo_2019.png? (Meanwhile, I'll refrain from commenting on whether it qualifies as PD.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:48, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Using books as sources

If a book contains a chapter or paragraphs about a subject, is it considered a primary source or a secondary source? Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 05:34, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello Nomadicghumakkad and welcome to the teahouse. The answer would depend on who wrote the book. If the subject of the article wrote it, it would be a primary source. I suggest you read WP:PSTS for a full explanation of primary and secondary sources.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:34, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Shantavira, I am aware of this link. Wanted to still clarify. No, this is about someone else writing about the subject. Would that be a secondary source? Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 08:29, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Nomadichumakka. Like many questions about reliability and independence, it is impossible to answer general questions satisfactorily: we would need to know more specifics. In particular, what is the relationship of the writer to the subject of the article? Were they commissioned to write a biography? Are they a family member? An estranged partner? Are they connected with a competitor? Are they writing about events they were involved in? Do you see why we cannot answer in general? --ColinFine (talk) 09:04, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Translated part to an existing article

If I translate a part from the French wikipedia and add it to an already existing article, do I need to add the edit summary of the original article? Excellenc1 (talk) 07:37, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Excellenc1. You'll find out more about this kind of thing in Help:Translation and WP:TFOLWP, but Wikipedia's licensing requires that attribution be provided to the French Wikipedia article in some way. The content you translate will also still be subject to other English Wikipedia policies and guidelines such as WP:V, WP:RS, WP:BLP, etc.; in other words, even with proper attribution, you can't simply cite French Wikipedia as the source of the content per WP:WPNOTRS, but will be expected to provide supporting citations and make sure the content is otherwise in accordance with relevant English Wikipedia policies and guidelines. This might seem like a non issue, but different language Wikipedias may have slightly different policies and guidelines; moreover, even in cases where the policy or guideline is pretty much the same, they might not be being applied as rigorously on French Wikipedia as they are on English Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:08, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Marchjuly, I will go according to WP:TFOLWP and as for citations I'll find the respective sources. Excellenc1 (talk) 09:31, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Covid-19 cases

In articles that are on the covid-19 situation per country/territory, how can I get a previous revision of the cases and deaths at that specific point in time? For example when I look at an older revision of the same article, the cases/deaths are still in the current time. 47.152.148.162 (talk) 03:24, 30 April 20

• Well people edit it every few days up with the news/other websites so they may go up or down during the week so anyways they do change every now and then for more info go here COVID-19 pandemic by country and territory Have a good day user Xd123456333 (talk) 12:29, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
• Hi IP, the numbers aren't changing because the data are being transcluded from a template, so you'll need to look at the revision history of the template itself. The COVID-19 data templates are all listed at Template:COVID-19 pandemic data (the main one shown is the global template, or scroll down a little to see a list of all the region-specific ones), and in the history of those templates you can see all the updates that are being made daily (some are more up-to-date than others). Hope that helps! DanCherek (talk) 12:38, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Rules for musician/musical artist page images

I am currently looking for articles discussing the rules and guidelines for adding images to Wikipedia articles discussing musicians, but I've had no luck in finding any. Does anyone who comes across this post know where I can search for one? Thank you in advance! EnjoyingMyProblems (talk) 12:16, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

I think you may want to visit Wikimedia Commons at the help desk. I believe they should be able to help. Happy editig! Gandalf the Groovy (talk) 12:38, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't think there are specific rules for images of musicians but the usual conventions for biographies of living people apply. See the comments on images at WP:MUG and WP:OI as well as the Commons link already provided. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:41, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Beretta 606824

Draft:Beretta 606824, is a book written by a person I know. Articles about the book, reviewing and expressing an opinion, has been made by the largest circulated daily's of my state, the eenadu, sakshi and andhra jyothi. Considering them, I wanted to create an article about the book and also about the author, Draft:Amirisetti Gopal. But the article was declined. Can I please know where I did not meet the requirements, cause I think getting published in three reliable, independent, authenticate sources defenitely meets the notability criteria. Thank You Mash i am (talk) 09:00, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi, please check if your article is in accordance to WP:AUTHOR. If yes, give justification from your side on the draft's talk page or on the user's talk page (the person who checked it) or fix the issues and resubmit. Excellenc1 (talk) 09:43, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Let's take a look at one short chunk of this:

One of the biggest events of the twentieth century

-- A matter of opinion. (And if it really were one of the biggest events, it's strange that readers would need to be reminded of this.) --

happened on the 30th of January, 1948. The death of Mahatma Gandhi shook the entire world

--This surprises me. I'm sure it appeared in the more serious newspapers around the world; but people generally don't get so upset about assassinations in faraway places. My guesswork aside, who says it shook the entire world, and where do they say it? --

which admired him for his approach towards life and the fight he put up in his unique adorable manner.

--"Unique", how? And according to whom? And "adorable" is more obviously a mere matter of opinion. --

This book narrates the iconic journey of the gun that shot him to death and of a present day fighter whose spectacular journey coincides with that of the legendary weapon.

--I've no idea how a journey can be iconic. Which legends? Which source says that the fighter's journey was or is spectacular? Simply, this reads like a fawning review (and one that a magazine editor would reject); it's not at all like an encyclopedia entry. -- Hoary (talk) 11:23, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Along with the above, since you said that you know that person you may want to take a look at WP:COI. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 13:10, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Article Creation

Hello, I was wondering if there are more places to find to articles that need to be made then just Requested articles. I enjoy making articles and I am finding a lack of requested articles in the history section of requested articles. Is there a wikiproject for making pages? Thanks and happy editing! Gandalf the Groovy (talk) 13:14, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

You might find that joining the Project Team for history helpful (I don't see your name on the list). Their main page is WP:WikiProject History and they seem active. Asking on one of those pages, or on the Talk page of an editor who works extensively in that area should generate ideas for you. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:32, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF DRAFT:SANUSI MOHAMMED OHAIRE

I wish to express my delight and excitement for the opportunity to contribute my research work in this community. I registered newly and have committed myself to learn as much as I can focusing on editing articles as relates to Nigeria and Nigerians. In my desire to edit already published articles I came across an article that was tagged for deletion due to inadequate references; Draft:Sanusi Mohammed Ohiare. I have since corrected the references and resubmitted the draft but it is yet to be reviewed. As a new editor I believe this approval will enable me understand more how Wikipedia works and contribute extensively to the community. I will appreciate if the draft can be reviewed with necessary recommendation. It is my target to achieve up to 1,000 edits in the next three months and this will be a great boost to my confidence. Thank you Bibihans (talk) 14:24, 30 April 2021 (UTC)Bibihans

@Bibihans: Just some small feedback from me, ref number 9 ([7]) gives a Host not found error message. You will see that I have edited some of the references by adding more information about the referenced content (Title, Website, access date). This helps others to find a replacement / archived version should the original link ever decide not to work anylonger. Be advised that the review backlog is curretly about 5 months. Asking at the Teahosue unfortunally won't make it faster. Victor Schmidt (talk) 14:43, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

How people can find open SPI Cases

Hey, how can people find open SPI Cases, since I just opened one at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Evimeader. LooneyTraceYT comment • treats 17:11, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

@LooneyTraceYT: Maybe I am not understanding your question, since they are all listed here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations RudolfRed (talk) 17:18, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Adding Notes in Markup Editor

Hi, I'm not sure how to add notes in the source code markup editor. I'm referring to the notes which appear like references, such as [a], [b], [c], etc. I would greatly appreciate it if anyone let me know the source code needed to add notes into an article. Nordberg21205 (talk) 17:06, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Nordberg21205. The details can be a bit fearsome, depending on your general level of knowledge. The main Help article is at H:FOOT but you might also like to read WP:REFBEGIN. Come back with a more specific question, including a link to the Draft or article, if you run into problems. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:21, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

How would I backtrack information in an article back to it’s source if there was no inline citation for it?

Curious, as this may be very helpful when a citation is needed. HiCooldude😎 (talk) 15:13, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

@HiCooldude: uh, that's kinda the problem with a lack of inline citations. There might not be a source, or it might not be easy to find. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:37, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

HiCooldude, When I see information in an article with no citation, I typically track down the editor who added the material and if they are still active, I check with them. S Philbrick(Talk) 18:01, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Update to death of 6 year old at Kennywood in 1979, my nephew Kyle Foster. The money won by his mother, my sister, Linda Foster, was used to bury her in 1981 because she could not stay here without him.

 172.58.204.157 (talk) 16:49, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

You would need to provide a reliable source stating this information. Also, this should be discussed on the article in question's talk page instead of here. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 18:24, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

question regarding the correct way of references

Dearest readers,

I unfortunately had my first ever wikipedia page creation denied due to a lack of references! I was titled "first dane to complete a philosophy degree in italian" and I was wondering what sort of reference would be considered sufficient for such an article?

(So far I had uploaded reference showing the individual's participating in the graduating class of 27th april at 11 AM

Best regards,

Lombardo-Genovese Lombardo-genovese (talk) 18:27, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

@Lombardo-genovese: Welcome to the Teahouse. You are going to want to use the subject's actual name instead of what they did. Second, I'm curious as to how it's notable for a student to complete a degree in another language that is not their own; students (especially international students) have done it for many decades. To determine what sources are allowed for articles, you're going to want to read Wikipedia:Reliable sources. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:31, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Lombardo-genovese. The correct title would be Christian F. W Christensen, but only if this person is notable. We have an article called Sally Ride, not "First American woman in space". In order to have an article about Christensen, the person must be the subject of significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. I suggest that you read Your first article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:38, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Questions

First of all thank you all for the advice received previously. I've improvised on the draft since then, weeding out the sources that read like a PR and wrote content in the most dry way possible.

Questions left now: I've gone through related Wikipedia company articles and many used the company website's about section to fill in details about the founders and date of founding. So, is a primary source allowed in that case? I used pitchbook.com for that purpose since its a known website where companies submit their own data.

Secondly, a reviewer left a comment about not being interested funding details. Does that mean details like financial information, etc (I've removed those) or the paragraph on the dates when the investment rounds took place as a whole?

Draft link: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Corkbrick_Europe

Lastly, regarding the angry comments, I understand now after being informed about paid COI that this is unethical & will not be using my account after this ordeal. In my head then, it was a regular writing contest. But what done is done and I feel uncomfortable with abandoning this after all the work, so I just need to know, IS IT EVEN WORTH IT to go on working on this draft based on the references and other content? UserBk12 (talk) 03:54, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

UserBk12 For article creation, PAID is allowed as long as it is declared, even if after the draft was started. Looking forward, if the draft is accepted, then paid editors are supposed to limit themselves to using the article Talk page to request changes, wherein a not-connected editor will implement or not. Thus, better to get it right while a draft. I agree you were snookered into a paid situation via the 'writing contest'. As to whether the draft has been amended to point it qualifies as an article, that is up to the next reviewer. It survived a Speedy deletion, and no reviewer has outright Rejected it (more severe than Declined), so there is still hope. I revised all text to minimize advertising/promoting tone. Per last reviewer, may still be in want of more reliable source referencing. Two questions to you: Does Corkbrick want what this draft has become, or would it prefer no article at present? Does Corkbrick realize that once an article exists, any editor can add content as long as it is referenced? (There is no ownership.) David notMD (talk) 05:14, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi UserBk12. I think David notMD's answer is a pretty good one. I'm just going to add that you might want to make sure someone at Corkbrick (assuming you're in contact with them) takes a careful look at WP:COI#Law of unintended consequences and WP:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. If Corkbrick believes that you can control the content of the article on their behalf once it's been created, then that's unrealistic and is putting you in a difficult situation. It may not matter to you in a Wikipedia sense if you never intend to edit again after this (that would be a bit of a shame though since you might be able to WP:CONTRIBUTE in other ways), but in a WP:REALWORLD sense there's no way to control what Corkbrick may say or do if it misunderstands what Wikipedia is about and tries to blame you as a result. As for you question about sources, you'll find more information in WP:PRIMARY and the very last paragraph in WP:ORGIND. Primary sources can be used for some basic factual information, but any critical assessment of the company probably should be supported by WP:SECONDARY sources. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:31, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks David notMD for the edits. I have no idea how they'll react to what the article has become and I believe they don't understand Wikipedia's inclusion criteria since they originally wanted their website content on it. I haven't been in contact with them since the first submission, (was trying to avoid further contact and wrap this up) but will leave a message in a few days forwarding all the information I've received. Thankyou too Marchjuly

I will stop now— Preceding unsigned comment added by UserBk12 (talk • contribs) 18:41, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Should Olympic Channel be renamed to Olympics.com?

On 29th of April 2021 www.olympicchannel.com have been merged with other IOC websites into one web-portal Olympics.com. The same editorial team and company continues running this web-portal. Should Olympic Channel be renamed to Olympics.com or a separate article Olympics.com should be created instead? Thanks! VLaiquendi (talk) 16:49, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

This would be something to discuss on the talk page of Olympic Channel. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 18:45, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Can/should creator of a page 'vote' on the AFD?

Something I have been thinking - are they allowed to vote and is their vote considered? Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 14:35, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Nomadicghumakkad welcome to the Teahouse. Yes, it's perfectly normal for someone who wrote a page to justify why it should not be deleted. Their arguments are considered alongside everyone else's. › Mortee _talk 14:47, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

They could also justify why it should be deleted (usually if the creator of the article justifies why it should be deleted then that's usually enough for it to be deleted without further consensus) Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 19:00, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Hey Mortee, justification can be done without actual voting and by simply leaving a comment. Dropping a vote means voting for your own self, no? I am just curious about this because I have seen at many AFDs that the vote of creators is striked (which I think is right). Do we have any written guidelines anywhere on this? Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 14:51, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Nomadicghumakkad interesting. I haven't seen that done myself, but I haven't been heavily involved in AfD recently. Do you have an example in mind? I can't see any reason why a !vote by the article creator should be struck simply because they wrote the article. There's no real distinction between a comment and a !vote; the closing admin's job is to assess the relative weight of the arguments in each direction. The fact that some of those arguments are prefaced by a handy bold Keep or Delete isn't all that significant in the grand scheme. It's also not about "voting for your own self"; the discussion is about an article, not an editor. › Mortee _talk 14:57, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, you asked about guidelines too. I did have a quick look and didn't find any. The template used to tell article creators about an AfD discussion tells them they're welcome to contribute, but doesn't say anything about !votes. › Mortee _talk 14:59, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I can't point to one right now. And I also agree that I have only seen this in discussions where creator is coming up with baseless arguments. So maybe that's the logic - to save the closing admin from the trouble of reading useless stuff. Also, my sense was that the admin assesses the consensus and hence the keep and delete things were relevant. Perhaps I was wrong. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 15:02, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps they were struck for other reasons, like you say. My understanding of the bold bits is that they're a useful summary but the quality of arguments is more important. From WP:CLOSEAFD: Consensus is not based on a tally of votes, but on reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments. That's why people often write "!vote" instead of "vote" (the "!" meaning "not" as in negation). There are people here with more knowledge and experience than me, so perhaps they'll weigh in. If an article I started is taken to AfD I'll add a bolded !vote to keep it (unless on reflection I think it actually should be deleted) and I think that's as it should be › Mortee _talk 15:15, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Nomadicghumakkad. Just seconding what Mortee essentially advises, I have participated in hundreds of AfD debates and read many more and I don't recall ever seeing the creator's comments struck because they are the creator. When this happens it is always, AFAIR, because of some invalid status, such as their second comment being explicitly marked as an !vote, when the first was already; a retraction; because they have changed their view and the first is in conflict, etc. In any event, the answer to your actual question is, definitively, "Yes".--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:46, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your insights. This clears my mind for now. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 15:40, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

• @Nomadicghumakkad the answer to the question depends on the context. One can open an AFD and change their minds perhaps due to WP:HEY and whatnot and !vote a keep, but i believe you are referencing if the editor who nominates an article for deletion can !vote a delete(let me know if I’m wrong) but if that’s really your concern, then it’s a capital NO, as the AFD nomination in itself is considered a delete !vote, that’s the reason if an AFD has 0 participants other than the AFD nomination the article in question is eventually soft deleted because like I said, the AFD nomination in itself is considered a delete !vote. I hope this helps. Celestina007 (talk) 19:19, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Uploading free logos

How do I upload a logo, which would be classified "free" due to it being made of simple shapes and text, with the proper copyright? Samsung yepp nugget (talk) 13:17, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

@Samsung yepp nugget: To the left, you can see in the contribute section where it says upload file. You can upload a logo to Wikipedia as fair use if you specify the destination article. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:44, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

It's not just a case of what the logo is made of. If those "simple shapes and text" were created in a country that has a threshold of originality that protects logos made from simple shapes and text, then it's not going to be a free logo. - X201 (talk) 13:59, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

An example would be the Google Chrome logo. It is mainly a circle with different, simple shapes, and it uses simple colors, however it is not a free logo. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 19:34, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Wiki election tables galore, how to hide them (are they even necessary)?

Hello hosts, hoping to get some clarity on how I would go about creating a hide function on a variety of tables. I tend to update, clean, and simplify American state legislative BLP articles. On several of articles, users have added election history tables, of which sometimes formats differ greatly. See:
Dustin Manwaring of Idaho
Dean Plocher of Missouri
Machaela Cavanaugh
These are honestly just random articles with these charts, but many legislative articles have election history sections. My main question here: is there some quick text I can insert to collapse these? Like state=collapsed, collapse=yes, or something like that? Often times these tables grow quite lengthy.
As a disclaimer, I don't believe that these should even exist on WP per WP:TOOMUCH and WP:NOTDATABASE, but rather be worked into the text of the article. Maybe I should leave those alone and move on, if so just be frank and let me know so we all can save time here lol. We all have work to do. PerpetuityGrat (talk) 17:43, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

@PerpetuityGrat: hi! In Visual edit mode, you can click on the table, go to properties, and set "collapsible" to yes. From there you can set it to be collapsed at first glance as well. You can do this in source mode as well, but it's too much work to do something you can flip some switches for. versacespaceleave a message! 17:51, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello, PerpetuityGrat. I disagree with you about the desirability of collapsing these tables. They convey important information at a glance. As a reader interested in electoral politics, I can almost instantly see that Plocher represents a heavily Republican district and that Cavanaugh represents a swing district that was a pickup for the Democrats. That could be presented in prose but that would require synthesis/analysis of the vote counts that is best left to readers instead of Wikipedia editors. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:08, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

@PerpetuityGrat: these really shouldn't be collapsed. I appreciate your work on state leg articles but electoral history sections are very relevant and useful. I don't see a good reason to remove or collapse them. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:48, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

My article about Hexennacht got reverted as being Non Constructive, it should not have been

 Courtesy link: Hexennacht

I created a small article about the holiday Hexennacht as celebrated by the Satanic Temple and it was reverted. 38.88.227.234 (talk) 19:41, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Under "See also" you created a loop by adding the link to the exact same article. So the editor who reverted your edit was doing the right thing. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 19:53, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Not clear to me that you created an article. Currently, Hexennacht redirects to Walpurgis Night, where it is mentioned in the Germany section where it is defined as ('Witches' Night'). You could query the editor who reverted your contributions at User talk:Dr Salvus. David notMD (talk) 20:03, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

As a non-Teahouse user who reverted an earlier article attempt, I would like to say that the only website sourced in both attempts falls under WP:PRIMARY. We need WP:SECONDARY sources to establish notability; more details at WP:GNG. Jalen Folf (talk) 21:28, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

The best place to discuss this is either at Talk:Walpurgis Night or at Talk:The Satanic Temple. But as Jalen Folf indicated, unless you can cite a source where somebody wholly unconnected with the Satanic Table, the information does not belong anywhere in Wikipedia. (I notice that is it is not currently mentioned in The Satanic Temple.) --ColinFine (talk) 21:35, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

How to report offensive images

Hi there, fellow Teahouse members. I would like to know how to report and remove offensive images such as the image for Hentai EfficientCamcorder (talk) 19:52, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Please see WP:CENSORED as to why this would not be the correct thing to do. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 19:55, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

If you do not want to see the image then you can simply just avoid going to that page. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 19:56, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

EfficientCamcorder Everything is offensive to someone, so removing offensive images would leave nothing behind. You can suppress the display of images, see WP:NOSEE. 331dot (talk) 21:39, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Railway lines and coordinates

I keep finding railway articles tagged with coordinates missing and am always forced to skip them as I have no clue what the guidelines are on that type of article, should I do like what is recommended for rivers, that is indicating the midpoint coordinates? Sadenar40000 (talk) 17:36, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Sadenar40000, welcome to the Teahouse. I really don't know, I'm afraid. It's not obvious that coordinates would be helpful but, if you do need one coordinate pair, the midpoint seems logical. Perhaps the best place to ask about this would be Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains › Mortee _talk 21:11, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, I thought that them being tagged with the coords missing template meant that it would be helpful to provide coordinates for them. Sadenar40000 (talk) 22:31, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Setting up talk page archiver

Hello! I'm trying to figure out how to start having my talk page archived using Lowercase sigmabot III however I'm having trouble figuring out what I would need to change to get it to work correctly. This is the code I was provided with: {{User:MiszaBot/config | algo = old(30d) | archive = Wikipedia:Teahouse/Archive %(counter)d | counter = 1 | maxarchivesize = 150K | archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}} | minthreadstoarchive = 1 | minthreadsleft = 4 }} Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 19:29, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Blaze The Wolf. The archive parameter must be a subpage like archive = User talk:Blaze The Wolf/Archive %(counter)d. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:40, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

That I was able to figure out but my problem is the %(counter)d and maxarchive size and minthreads. I don't understand what I should put for those Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 23:00, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

@Blaze The Wolf: There is documentation at User:Lowercase sigmabot III/Archive HowTo. You can just leave them as they are. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:16, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Oh ok. Thank you! Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 00:02, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Biased article on 1776 Commission

To Whom It May Concern, I apologize because I am not sure who will see this message. As I read the article on the 1776 Commission, I couldn't help but notice how biased it was. In the article, it makes lists like " The chair was Larry Arnn, the president of the conservative Hillsdale College and the co-chair was Carol Swain, a conservative former professor at Vanderbilt Law School.[1] Others appointed by Trump include his ex-domestic policy advisor Brooke Rollins; Charles R. Kesler, who edits the conservative Claremont Review of Books; conservative activists Ned Ryun and Charlie Kirk; Phil Bryant, the Republican former governor of Mississippi;[1][24] classicist Victor Davis Hanson, as well as John Gibbs, Scott McNealy, Peter Kirsanow, Thomas Lindsay, Michael Farris, and Bob McEwen." However, in your article on 1776 Unites, it refers to the members of its study as "academics". Why the difference? TheMadLasher TheMadLasher (talk) 01:48, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Talk:1776 Commission is the place to discuss your observations, TheMadLasher.--Quisqualis (talk) 02:08, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

This is bad. :/

 Courtesy link: Horribl. Hello there, I created an article about a species of animal and instantly it got vandalized by someone and moved to a page called Horribl. I saved the page and here is the link. redacted EfficientCamcorder (talk) 20:00, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Please don't post something like that as it can reveal someone's real name. Second, could you tell me who vandalized the page as it says that it doesn't exist. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 20:03, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

After taking a look at your user logs, you were the one who moved your sandbox to the nonexistant page Horribl. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 20:08, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor, I am a friend of EfficientCamcorder and know that his account has been hacked recently, maybe thats the cause of this issued. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TIMBYLURL (talk • contribs) 20:59, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

NOTE: EfficientCamcorder started editing on 5 April, and almost every edit, starting immediately, have been reverted. TIMBYLURL has first edit ever on 30 April as an alibi for EfficientCamcorder. David notMD (talk) 03:01, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Among EfficientCamcorder's dreary list of edits, this one, the second, added the most bulk. -- Hoary (talk) 03:44, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

How do I update license status?

I edited Aleck Pearsall earlier today, adding a photo with a caption. The next editor cropped the photo, re-inserted it in the article and a bot flagged it for not having information on its copyright and licensing status. The original photo information is at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Excelsiors_of_Brooklyn,_E.,_1860,_Raynolds,_J._Whiting,_Crei_-_(4050447433).jpg

Do I revert changes made? Is there a way to update the information already posted in the article? How do I proceed? Pibal373 (talk) 02:37, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

@Pibal373: I've tagged it as public domain in the US and a cropped version of an existing image. That should do it. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 04:21, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

WP:Basic & WP:GNG

Is some one aware of few examples of biographies where WP:BASIC is being met but WP:GNG is not. I get constantly confused with WP:BASIC. If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.

When it says multiple & independent sources - does it mean they can also be primary since it doesn't say secondary here. Also, when it says if depth of coverage is not substantial (means significant I guess?), what is the depth we need to look at since it can't be trivial either? I mean is it like a mid point between substantial and trivial? Sorry I am asking too many questions! Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 05:39, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello again, Nomadicghumakkad. The next sentence in BASIC says "Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject." (emphasis added). Does that answer your question? --ColinFine (talk) 09:24, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Hey, yes - settles the context and utility of primary. What about the depth? It says if depth is not substantial multiple sources that can be used that are NOT trivial. So is there a standard in terms of how much portion of the source should talk about the subject to qualify in this? Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 09:28, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

@Nomadicghumakkad, think of it like this, for GNG to be met at least three reliable sources that discuss the subject must be used. That is, those three sources must satisfy WP:INDEPTH & WP:SIGCOV, but if GNG cant be met we are provided with an alternative route which is BASIC, which in summary requires multiple, (arbitrary I put the bar at 7 sources) which although do not satisfy WP:SIGCOV discuses the subject of the article to a reasonable degree. Primary sources could be used, but may not be used to substantiate cogent assertions but may be used to substantiate inconsequential or non imperative details. Furthermore the usage of primary sources do not establish notability hence the need to be conservative when optimizing them.Celestina007 (talk) 13:21, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Celestina007, I can feel the clouds clearing and I can see the light! Thank you. Last stupid question - When you say a reasonable degree - can we say at least 25% of the article is about them? Or let's say at least two paragraphs about them? What do you think? Some more insights would be really helpful to decode WP:Basic for me. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 14:51, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

@Nomadicghumakkad, no please, it’s an imperative question. Now, a reasonable degree is subjective and largely depends on you. Okay see it like this, for WP:SIGCOV to be met within the confines of WP:GNG we need at least three/four paragraphs anything less than three paragraphs doesn’t meet WP:SIGCOV so if you come across sources that discuss the subject of an article with just one or two paragraphs that’s good enough for BASIC. One other pitfall to avoid is WP:SYNTH, you could read about that later. I hope this helps, and I’m willing to answer any more questions from you, you could leave me a message on my tp if you are in doubt or in need of assistance. Celestina007 (talk) 15:22, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Celestina007, I think I am super clear. Thank you for being so very kind to explain me this. I sometimes feel WP:BASIC has been misused (read abused) here and is being exploited. We should archive this thread and save it somewhere for everyone to read and understand that WP:BASIC doesn't mean a small bunch of sources vaguely covering the subject. Thank you again. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 15:35, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

@Nomadicghumakkad, no problems, I’m glad I could be of service. Celestina007 (talk) 15:51, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

I think a key part of WP:BASIC is People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published[4] secondary sources... (emphasis added), so one of the ways I assess 'depth' is by determining whether the source includes WP:SECONDARY coverage, i.e. an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. So from my view, 'depth' can depend on what the source is saying about the subject. I also look for facts such as biographical and career information, because this can add, per WP:BIO, valid content to fill an article about a person. Beccaynr (talk) 05:56, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Please help with why my article was rejected.

Hello, I would like some help with understanding why an article was rejected so that I can resolve the issues. My article about a high-IQ society called the International Society for Philosophical Enquiry was rejected with an explanation that it should be written "from a neutral point of view." However, I would like some advice on how it could be written in a more neutral style than it was, as it only states verifiable facts about the society and contains verifiable references. The rejection feedback also said that the article should "refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed." However, nine of the sources refer various years of the Guinness Book of World Records, which mentions the society, and one source is a book written by Marilyn vos Savant published by McGraw-Hill. A few of the sources refer to the society's own webpage, but the majority are "independent, reliable, published sources" that were not produced by the subject (society) being discussed. In the past, this society has been mysteriously targeted for rejection from Wikipedia while other High-IQ societies (Mensa, Intertel, etc.) have been included. I would like to resolve this discrepancy. In addition, the rejection stated that the article reads more like an advertisement than an article. However, the facts contained are similar in nature to those contained in the Mensa, Intertel, and other high-IQ society pages. I would like to some help in resolving these issues.

Again, I respectfully request some help identifying which of the factual statements appear to have been written from something other than a "neutral point of view." I would also like some advice about why nine separate Guinness Book of World Records books and one McGraw-Hill book do not qualify as "independent, reliable, published sources."

I look forward to your help. Thank you! ThousanderISPE (talk) 04:40, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello @ThousanderISPE: and welcome to the teahouse. Firstly, I don't understand why you used nowiki tags in references in your Draft:International Society for Philosophical Enquiry. Learn referencing from referencing for beginners or from the blue button present in first message on your talk page which says Learn more about editing.

Secondly, you will agree that your own website doesn't establish notability. When this society was included in guiness book, some newspaper must have published this news. Find that news and cite it there. Also cite what work this society has done (Eg: Scientific papers etc.)

Third, When you cite sources as I told above, the problem of article being promotional can be solved by any other editor as they can check those sources and normalise the tone.
Last but not the least, Your username gives impression that you are connected to society. You must declare your conflict of interest or if you are being paid to write this article the also read WP:PAID -- Parnaval (talk) 06:03, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

User:ThousanderISPE, let's look at a sample. We are told:

The International Society for Philosophical Enquiry (ISPE), a.k.a. The Thousand®, is a global scientific and philosophical high-IQ society founded in 1974 by Christopher Phillip Harding for individuals 18 years of age or older who have performed at or above the 99.9th percentile on any well-recognized and accepted test of cognitive ability.

Wikipedia is uninterested in the registration, or otherwise, of trademarks. (The article about Microsoft is about "Microsoft", not about "Microsoft®".) What, if anything, does "global" mean here? How (according to independent sources) is the society "scientific" or "philosophical"? What (again according to independent sources) does the society do? -- Hoary (talk) 06:35, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Request semi-protection

I'm having trouble with getting a request for semi-protection for a Wikipedia article, how do I go about this? Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 05:18, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Btspurplegalaxy, you can ask at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. -- Hoary (talk) 06:41, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

What happened to <score>  ?

when I type

<score> (score stuff) </score>

before this would produce a scoresheet, such as that found on Yorckscher Marsch. Why does it now say "Musical scores are temporarily disabled." - whats going on? 69.172.145.94 (talk) 08:12, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

It's disabled for security reasons. See Help:Score and phab:T257066. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:25, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

According to some comments at Help talk:Score there is a partial workaround (implemented, for example, at The_Cullercoats_Fish_Lass), though I've no idea whether it works in all cases.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 10:19, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Redirect Creation

Hello, I wanted to redirect De Fem to Anna Cassel § De Fem but was blocked by the "Article Wizard", forcing me to create a draft (I assume this is not necessary for a simple redirect). I was wondering if there was any way around this or an alternative facility for creating them? Should I be able to do this as a new user? SmallJarsWithGreenLabels (talk) 11:28, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

You can create a re-direct page easily by searching for the name you want to give it and when the search wizard says "You may create the page "De Fem", but consider checking the search results below to see whether the topic is already covered." you click on the red not-yet-present page and proceed. Note that you need to get the correct capitalisation in your search, so the redlink will be correct. The new redirect page just needs the code #REDIRECT [[Anna Cassel#De Fem]], which I'd do for you but the complication is that there are already redirects for De fem benspænd and De fem i fedtefadet (and maybe others), so I'm not sure what's best to do: a disambiguation page may be better. Someone more experienced than me will advise. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:54, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

P.S. SmallJarsWithGreenLabels. I see that you have a newly-created account, so you may have to wait until auto-confirmed before you can create the page yourself but as that will be trivial, I guess someone who has seen these Teahouse comments will do it if this seems sensible. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:57, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

SmallJarsWithGreenLabels Michael D. Turnbull I have created the redirect page, so that is all done. The other redirects containing De fem only had it as part of the title, so I decided that the best solution would be to go ahead with the redirect. Redtree21 (talk) 12:49, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. SmallJarsWithGreenLabels (talk) 12:54, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Reply on a Talk Page

I am having great difficulty in replying to a comment on a Talk Page. I have typed my comment and pressed PUBLISH but my reply seems to have gone into the ether. What am I doing wrong? BuffyO'B (talk) 12:50, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi BuffyO'B, could you please state what talk page you tried to edit? This will help us work out what the problem is. Redtree21 (talk) 12:55, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

How to reply to a comment on a Talk Page

redtree21 I am trying to reply to a comment on the Myles Moylan page. I have typed it and pressed PUBLISH but nothing happens. BuffyO'B (talk) 13:08, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

@BuffyO'B: Your comments on that Talk page from 28 April are there OK[8] although you forgot to sign with four tildes ~~~~. If you are trying to add something else, I suggest you try again, as clearly everything is OK now here at the Teahouse (except you added a new section when you could have continued the existing one immediately above this one) Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:23, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Unable to move articles out of sandbox and not sure how to credit/cite translated article

Hi,

I recently translated the original Traditional Chinese text of Dayi Heart with a friend who is fluent in both Traditional Chinese, Simplified Chinese, and English, and we'd like to publish the article and move it out of my sandbox. However, I do not have enough edits to publish it and I also do not know how to cite this type of article since it is directly translated from the original texts. Any help and advice would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you! XerryJu (talk) 05:12, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello, XerryJu. A straightforward translation of the text of a work written in another language is not a topic appropriate for the English Wikipedia. We do not host translations. We host encyclopedia articles. Please read Your first article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:09, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

That being said, it may be an appropriate text for Wikisource. Zoozaz1 talk 14:18, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Getting to outreach dashboard

I have difficulties finding the outreach dash board page please help ChabbieCee (talk) 15:12, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

@ChabbieCee: Is this what you’re looking for? [[9]] TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:24, 1 May 2021 (UTC) talk:Timtempleton:Yes please thank you.

Copyright on images

Hello! I have questions regarding image copyrights. If I found an image that is likely to have copyright problems, where do I make the report? Thank you! SunDawn (talk) 15:10, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

WP:IMAGEHELP will be the place to start. - X201 (talk) 15:25, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Creating a page and adding a photo

I just made my first page for my relative who served in World War Two who was the most decorated Pilot in RAF Coastal Command in WW2 who is credited with sinking the first German U Boat of the War Mick Ensor DSO & Bar DFC & Bar and AFC

i have no idea how to add his photo to the article I have uploaded one already I just now have to atach it to the page somehow

any help would be appreciated

a photo of Maechel Anthony Ensor during WW2

 Bommer76 (talk) 13:21, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Bommer76, hello and welcome to the Teahouse! It would seem you already added the photo to the article you are talking about. You would also need to make sure to put a conflict of interest notice on your user page as you are a relative of the subject of the article! Let me know if you have any questions! Thank you and enjoy your stay here on Wikipedia! Heart ^(talk) 13:30, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

I worry that there may also be a copyright issue. Where did you get the image from? The exif data says that it was taken in 2012, in which case you must have been copying an already-existing print. The copyright ownership of that work is its photographer, not you, except in certain special circumstances. Note also that when the article is submitted, you should use just the person's name for the title, not including his awards and preferably you should use inline citations (see WP:REFBEGIN). Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:38, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

I have tagged the draft for deletion, because it has been copied and pasted from here [10] Theroadislong (talk) 16:18, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Finding appropriate sources

Hello, Yesterday, I submitted an article about a minor celebrity (folk singer/songwriter Kitty MacFarlane), which unfortunately wasn't accepted. Having read the advice helpfully left by the reviewer, I understand that the references I supplied are not to the standard required by Wikipedia. Unfortunately, I coudn;t find any sources which fit the requirements; almost everything available about this person is from reviews and articles about her music. Could anyone give me some advice about finding better sources? I would really like to get this article published, as there are a number of well-known folk artists lacking Wikipedia articles - something I'd like to help with. I would really appreciate any advise. H Henry Kingdon (talk) 14:14, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

This sounds like a case of WP:TOOSOON. David notMD (talk) 14:30, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

The person in question has been a prolific member of the folk revival community for over a decade. Surely, that's long enough for us to talk about them? Most modern musicians will mainly appear in article which discuss their work in terms of reviews. Are we unable to talk about them?

 Courtesy link: Draft:Kitty MacFarlane @Henry Kingdon: (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.) TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:28, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Per the reviewer, needs better refs. David notMD (talk) 16:34, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Henry Kingdon, and welcome to the Teahouse. You say "Surely, that's long enough for us to talk about them?" But that's not the question (the shortcut title TOOSOON may be misleading you). The question is "Have other people talked about them?" That is, have other people, unconnected with McFarlane, chosen to write about her and been published in reliable sources? If the answer is No, then it is indeed "too soon". Reviews in reliable sources can certainly be cited and used in an article - but if none of the reviews say much about the artist, then there is pretty well nothing that can go into the article. At present, not a single source in the draft is independent of her. While non-independent sources can be used in a limited way (see PRIMARY), they do not contribute to establishing notability, and should be only a small proportion of the sources. --ColinFine (talk) 17:29, 1 May 2021 (UTC)