This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Teahouse. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.
I am wanting some further guidance as to why the article page Draft:Jacobi (software company) was declined and what further changes are required to have this approved.
Stuart at Jacobi Strategies Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I am afraid that, like many in your position, you have some fundamental misunderstandings as to what Wikipedia is. Wikipedia is not a place for companies to tell the world about themselves and what they do or that they exist. Wikipedia has articles, not mere "pages". This is a subtle but important distinction. A Wikipedia article about a company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. This does not include the mere reporting of the company's routine business activities(such as the raising of capital or opening of locations), the company website, press releases, staff interviews, or other primary sources. We are not interested in what the company says about itself, but in what others completely unconnected with the company, and not based on primary sources, have chosen on their own to say about it. If you do not have at least three independent reliable sources with significant coverage, the company would not merit a Wikipedia article at this time. Not every company merits a Wikipedia article, even within the same field. It depends on the sources. Please see Your First Article.
I had a nicely worded response but it primarily followed @331dot's response so I wont push mine on here. I would like to echo their appreciation for you disclosing your relationship with the subject. Far more than many do not do it, most do not do it without being repeatedly admonished and instructed to do so. I hope 331dot's response helps clarify and gives you a better understanding of what Wikipedia is and is not. --ARoseWolf21:41, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Reviewing my Draft
Hey, can you guys help me review my draft? it is starting to get a little irritating with this page I'm making for a kid I met on campus. I'm just trying to help his name keep getting out there and my draft keeps getting declined. Any help is greatly appreciated! D cook 12 (talk) 15:00, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
@D cook 12, hello and welcome to the Teahouse, my colleague GoingBatty is very much apt both in their response and their actions. This comment of yours “I'm just trying to help his name keep getting out there” is not in alliance with what Wikipedia is, please see WP:NOT or WP:NOTLINKEDIN & WP:COI. Articles published on Wikipedia are articles which have passed our notability threshold and are written by editors who predominantly do not have any connection to the subject of their article. Please feel free to ask any more questions you may have. Celestina007 (talk) 16:09, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
I restored the two Declined notices at Draft:Desmond Cook 12 W&M. When a Declined includes "Do not remove this line" it means do not remove. You also have a draft at Draft:Desmond Cook. Do not submit that. American football players are only considered significant after they have reached the professional level of play. YouTube is not an accepted reference source. And I will bet a dollar that the photographs - dating back to Cook's 7th grade play - are not your "Own work." David notMD (talk) 17:53, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Help getting my article published
I had one of my colleagues revise my draft on Desmond Cook. And I think it's good but do you guys mind helping me by editing adding any references if I need anymore and I think the photos are good because I had to buy all of them and upload them to add them to the Draft so were good there. I have No Relation at all to Desmond Cook. And this article is about Desmond Cook Who will be playing College Football in the Spring. D cook 12 (talk) 18:08, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
@D cook 12:No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. We don't have articles about people or things that might become notable in the future - they have be notable in the present day. If he isn't notable now, an article about him will not be accepted. He might very well become notable over time and merit inclusion later, but right now it is too soon to have an article about him.
@SteveREBT welcome to the Teahouse. Could you let us know why you lost the ability to edit articles? Have you forgotten how to do certain tasks? Do you believe you are no longer allowed to edit? It's difficult to give advice if the problem isn't known. Karenthewriter (talk) 23:01, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
@SteveREBT Welcome to the Teahouse. I can see you've made a few edits some years ago, but nothing recently. So welcome back! Why not start off like any new editor by either taking out interactive tour at The Wikipedia Adventure? Or, for a more earnest start, check out Help:Introduction and work your way through the short tutorial pages. We now have a more WISYWYG editing tool called Visual Editor, but you can also use the very slightly more complex Source Editor which you need to use on Talk pages, and which gives you better overall control. We're a lot more policy-driven than we used to be, and perhaps the most important is that everything you add should be supported by a citation which anyone in the world can verify via a library, bookshop or the internet. You can learn how to add citations at this page.
There is no record in your Contributions of you editing an article since January 2020. What have you been trying to edit? Are you clicking on Publish changes at the bottom? — Preceding unsigned comment added by David notMD (talk • contribs)
Intellivision Amico article: New editor removes vast majority of talk page discussion to highlight his "final response."
A fairly new editor ( 2601:540:8200:1895:1F11:1CEA:17AE:94CE) is posting a lot of soapboxing type opinions on the subject in its talk page, with an appearance of doing commentary with an agenda often with immature language. This person's latest act was to remove about 80% of the discussion on the talk page to leave only the discussion this person was involved in and add some final rebuttal that seems like a veiled attempt to post a bunch of links in a strange manner. I undid the mass deletion and then added that person's rebuttal back at the end. Seemed like an extreme move, so I wanted to report it, since "final responses" are often not. Daltonsatom (talk) 23:56, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
@Daltonsatom Welcome to the Teahouse. Without delving into any of the content dispute or issues about that article, I can see that blanking talk page discussions is not appropriate. I have left a warning for the IP user, and you may repeat and enhance the warnings if this happens again. They could be blocked if such actions continue. IP's are as human as you or I, of course, so hopefully there may be ways to engage the individual and seek an understanding of any issues, based upon WP:RS, and not biased opinions. Good luck! Nick Moyes (talk) 00:10, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Oh, seriously off-topic comments can be deleted, of course, with an appropriate edit summary. But sometimes {{cot}}/{{cob}} templates can be used to collapse really wordy discussions, whilst still keeping them available to view. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:12, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
@I.hate.spam.mail.here: Nope. Only the IP address 127.0.0.1 will get blocked. The only time other IP addresses get blocked is if it's a range block (127.0.0.0/24 for example), and even then in order to block all editing from any IP address with 127 at the start you would have to block a wide range of IPs. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654518:36, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
No problem! And just so you know, I don't actually know what the range to block all IP addresses from 127.x.x.x (x representing any number from 0-9) would have to be. THat would probably only be done as a very final resort if an IP hopper is somehow able to hop IPs to get to that point where that large of a range block would be needed. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654518:40, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
As far as IPv4 addresses are concerned /16 is the absolute largest rangeblock that the software will allow, unless something has changed recently. (For reference, the smaller the number after the slash, the larger the range.) —A little blue Boriv^_^vJéské Couriano18:50, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure this is joke question or not but the others, I believe didn't, realize what 127.0.0.1 represents. This is the ip given on a device for the local host, your own machine. So if 127.0.0.1 was blocked on Wikipedia it would only prevent someone on the hosting server from editing Wikiepdia articles while not logged in. It would have no effect on any other user as it is only ever used to access the machine your are on. McMatter(talk)/(contrib)21:22, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
And to add to this, several server configuration bugs have resulted in normal edits going through 127.0.0.1. See User:127.0.0.1. A patch a while ago mean that anonymous edits should no longer go through that address, however as a checkuser I have sometimes seen edits still go through that address in more recent times. So the short answer to the question, and why we say don't block it, is that you don't know who you could be blocking. -- zzuuzz(talk)00:15, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Guidance to create a new Wikipedia page for a recently deceased notable person
Hello Teahouse hosts!
I am new to Wikipedia and have just created an account today. Per subject heading, I want to create a page for a well known deceased person. I have done a search, and the page does not currently exist on Wikipedia.
Now, here is where I cannot find an answer: I want to create the page so that I begin work on it during this year, and likely continuing into 2023. If I do not update the page for several months, is it considered "abandoned" and can it be deleted? Also, am I considered the "owner" or "author" of this page once it is created?
Thank you very much, in advance, for your help. If I am posting my question in the wrong place, please excuse me, and if possible, guide me to the place where I can find answers to my questions.
Nj-Schumacher (talk) 21:32, 10 January 2022 (UTC) Nj-Schumacher (talk) 21:32, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
You can create it as a draft or as a userspace draft. You can find advice at WP:Your first article. A draft could be deleted under criterion G13 as abandoned if it goes for 6 months without edits, but if you edit it more frequently than that it should remain. An article doesn't have an owner, but if your draft is eventually promoted to mainspace its page history will show your involvement. --David Biddulph (talk) 21:42, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Nj-Scchumacher Consider attempting via WP:YFA a draft which has the most important information about the person, with at least three reliable source references. Model it on articles about people in same profession. A short draft, adequately referenced, can be accepted as a Stub article. You can then over time expand the article. Be aware that once it exists as an article, other people may edit it. Article creators do not 'own' articles. David notMD (talk) 22:52, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
@Nj-Schumacher For long-term, slow-burn article drafting, follow the link at the top of the page in desktop view to your 'sandbox' and create the page and work on it there. Providing it doesn't contain copyright (copy/pasted) content, and is not contrary to the purposes of building an encyclopaedia, you can keep it there for as long as you like. But, personally, I'd advise doing it as a draft. If you can't be bothered to edit something within six months, is it really that significant a topic? Nick Moyes (talk) 00:26, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
What exactly is your question? Do you have a business that you think can be the subject of a Wikipedia article? Keep in mind that Wikipedia is not social media. David notMD (talk) 03:02, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Help to revive an inactive Wikiproject on Biophysics
Good Afternoon, I would like to revive the inactive Wikiproject Biophysics (sorry, can not link the page since it seems to be external). I wonder if there are any editors that are interested in joining the Wikiproject Biophysics. This research field is gaining continuously more importance in science, so I am convinced new subjects of research will come up regularly. Moreover, I noticed there are some really interesting Wikipedia pages in the category of Biophysics that could benefit from new edits and updates. I am a Biologist with strong interests in Biophysics, so I really need help from Physicists, Biophysicists and other Biologists to work together.
Although this Wikiproject is inactive, any interested editor can still add his or her name to the list of participants on this page from where we might start to work.
Is there any other place in Wiki where I could make the same proposal? Phacelias (talk) 19:35, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
@Phacelias Looking at the Article Assessment table on that Project, I see only four (yes, four) relevant articles. Is that a gross under-representation? If so, you've a lot of work to do there in finding and tagging related pages. Or, if it's correct (which I doubt), then the WikiProject probably does seem rightfully moribund. Good luck with getting it going again. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:38, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Nick Moyes thank you also for your interest. It probably is a lot of work to get the project going again and to keep it going. I realize I can't do that by myself. But a project that is inactive will not be attractive or gain participation from editors that might be interested in Biophysics. Have a good day! Phacelias (talk) 05:32, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi Rubbish computer, thank you! Does this mean you are interested in joining the project? Please add yourself as a participant on the list on this page Wikipedia:WikiProject Biophysics so that we can discuss the project. If you could change the state of the this project from inactive to active that would be very nice, thanks again Phacelias (talk) 21:07, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
I'm having a bit of a crisis at Homeyra. I've maybe put my foot in it. It's being edited heavily by Anoush22, who has inserted a lot of extremely positively-worded text about Homeyra's work, and a lot of material about how awfully her father treated her, in no case with any referencing. I reverted the lot, earlier today, failing to notice that while Homeyra is still alive and active, it's quite likely her father is no longer with us. But in any case, I feel it's close enough to BLP to require good referencing before we say bad things, no matter how true. I've tried to communicate with Anoush22 via their talk page, via edit summaries, and via the article's talk page, but they've simply reverted my reversion and carried on. I think they might have seen at least my edit summaries because they've made an attempt at referencing, but unfortunately it only extends to two YouTube videos, one apparently an interview, and both now unavailable because the account that uploaded them has been terminated. I don't think this article is anything like conforming to Wikipedia's standards. I can stick as many tags on it as I like and no one is going to take any notice. I don't want to take it to AfD because it needs clean-up not deletion. But I can't edit-war with Anoush22; I don't like this situation that whoever hits 3-reversions first is the evil-one, while the other gets their way without needing any form of justification. I don't honestly know what to do. I don't want to make a dispute of this, it's too small a thing. But any opinions would be welcomed. Anoush22, if you're reading this, please communicate! I don't hate what you're doing, I just want it referenced to something that other people can reasonably find. Elemimele (talk) 16:37, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Elemimele, It appears to me you left a very good edit summary explaining why you reverted their edit(s), engaged them on the article talk page and their user talk page. I think you've done an amazing job of staying calm and responded in a kind and civil manner while also pointing out policy driven reasons for why these edits are not yet appropriate for this article. Unfortunately we can't make an editor respond to us. If they continue to add content which violates policy you can take it to Dispute Resolution and if it becomes more disruptive perhaps to AN/I though I would avoid the latter unless it becomes much more serious. Beyond that maybe give them a chance to respond to your requests or perhaps there are suggestions from other editors here that could help further. :) --ARoseWolf16:57, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Oh good, communication happening, and a move towards referencing. I really appreciate the help you offered on the talk page, @ARoseWolf. This is looking much happier. Elemimele (talk) 06:38, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
@Michri michri: Welcome to the Teahouse! SoundCloud is NOT copyright free - see https://soundcloud.com/pages/copyright for more information. Since the Flickr photo says "(c) All rights reserved", I suggest you don't use it. Yes, you may upload a photo you have taken with your own camera. To ask for help finding an image for an article, you may add {{reqphoto}} to the article's talk page. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 17:12, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
@GoingBatty: I have a question sort of related to your answer. If someone were to take a picture of only the copyright notice on a work that is copyrighted, would that image also be copyrighted? I have a feeling the answer is yes but just to ease my curiosity. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654517:56, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
@Blaze Wolf: I'm not a copyright lawyer, but I presume that distributing a photo of someone else's copyright notice would be a copyright violation, unless you could demonstrate some fair use reason. GoingBatty (talk) 18:26, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Michri michri: Souncloud podcasts are not "copyright-free" at all, even if they might be accessible without having to pay. In all likelihood, both the podcast contents and the thumbnail image of your first link are non-free. In the absence of an explicit mention to the contrary, anything barely creative should be assumed to be copyrighted.
The Flickr images you link to are copyrighted as well, as indicated by the Flicker license notice. (Some images on Flickr do have appropriate licenses for upload to Wikipedia/Commons, but those ones have "all rights reserved".) Furthermore, even if that was not the case, the Flickr user likely took those pictures from elsewhere; for instance the player card for Mohammed Shami Ahmed comes from cricwindow.com (the player card itself could maybe be out-of-copyright for complicated reasons, but it casts doubts that the rest of the photos originate from the user).
If you took an image of the Andaman/Nicobar islands (or any place on Earth, or anything really) yourself, then you are the copyright owner, and so you can release them under an appropriate license for use on Wikipedia. I would encourage you to do so, because we do not seem to have many images of those islands on Commons. The only copyright restrictions are:
if you were working for someone and the contract specifies a transfer of copyright (unlikely if you are not a journalist or professional photographer)
Hello, I m new in Wikipedia and I don't know anything about computer language or coding. By my small effort is to put the information as much as I can so please guide me. Lawnlegislative (talk) 08:22, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
@Lawnlegislative: - I second what David notMD said above. It may not be obvious, but creating a whole new article from scratch is one of the more difficult things to do at Wikipedia. It is best to start out with smaller changes to existing articles for a while first. Even minor things like improving spelling and grammar errors will build your experience, so you can tackle bigger tasks.--Gronk Oz (talk) 11:25, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
CSD criteria
While patrolling recent changes, when I found a draft or article is in a different language than english, which CSD criteria should I tag. Also for blank drafts. Onmyway22talk08:19, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Onmyway22 for articles (in article space), if they're a direct copy of another language Wikipedia page, then A2 is correct criteria for speedy deletion. But if they're not in English, but not a direct copy, then I don't believe there is a speedy deletion criteria for it, but it should be tagged with Template:Not English (and hopefully someone will come fix it). Joseph2302 (talk) 11:19, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
talk:Qigong4wellness, your sandbox only cites one source (with inadequate bibliographical information, e.g. no date). It does list some other sources, but not in support of any of the content. You need to work on that, citing the sources immediately after the statements they support. I can't help with improving it, as I can't read Spanish or Chinese. Maproom (talk) 19:10, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Qigong4wellness. The draft is full of promotional language. 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. I also wonder if you have a connection with Mieza? If so, please read about editing with a conflict of interest. --ColinFine (talk) 19:24, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello, I am in no way affiliated with Alex Mieza's organization. I happen to be a follower of a Daoist traditions and therefore I thought Alex would be a notable person to have a prominent profile on Wikipedia because of what Alex represents as one of the first Daoist lineage holders in the West. Please advice what steps are needed in the process of uploading Alex Mieza's images, which are plentiful on the legitimate, third party, world media outlets like EFE News Agency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qigong4wellness (talk • contribs) 05:05, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
@Qigong4wellness: Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. Please review the Wikipedia:Image use policy before you upload any more images. If you have any questions about a particular image that you have found on the Internet, please ask before you upload it. Thanks, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 14:45, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
It should be C or Start class I suppose. (I know only Good articles and Featured articles are a matter of concern but aksing just for my knowledge). Excellenc1 (talk) 10:31, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
@Excellenc1: well spotted; there is no way that should still be a stub. At the risk of stating the obvious, the reason it is still marked as stub-class is because no editor has changed that assessment. Including you; you have just as much right as any other editor to assess that article against the criteria (linked from the Talk page) and update the classification accordingly. Give it a go, and let us know what you decide. Or if you come across any questions, of course.--Gronk Oz (talk) 11:33, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
The article doesn't have a stub template at the bottom like Michel Charasse. This is the primary way to mark stubs. WikiProject ratings on talk pages are less important and often outdated. I never pay attention to them. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:44, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello. I think you may slightly misunderstand how the encyclopedia works. People are not hired to edit. They do so for independent reasons, and only add content if it has significant coverage in reliable sources.
(edit conflict) Please don't hire anyone! People posing as paid editors are often scammers. Editors here are, with few exceptions, unpaid volunteers. If you tell us the name of the article you think needs editing, we can probably help provided you can provide reliable sources to allow us to verify the new information. Each article has a Talk page where you can suggest changes if you are not confident to make them yourself. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:28, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Even if you do not create an account, you are empowered to edit existing articles. There are some restrictions - if you are being paid for a connection to the topic, you are restricted to using the Talk page to propose changes. Likewise if an article is about you or someone you have a personal connection to. If by "...do some editing on a page" you meant to create a new article, that is the area of activity populated by scam and incompetent operators. David notMD (talk) 16:36, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello again, Madhuri Singh Payagpur. I replied to your previous post before I saw this one. You have put your details on your user page. That page is not part of the encyclopaedia, and does not get indexed by Google or other search engines: it is a place for you to share information about yourself as a Wikipedia editor with other Wikipedia editors.
It looks to me as if you have the (very common) misconception that "having a Wikipedia page" is something you can do as part of your online presence. This is not the case. Promotion of any kind (which is not limited to commercial promotion) is forbidden on Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 11:53, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi, i wanted to ask how can i improve this article? It has multiple notable sources and it talks about a single from a mixtape of an artist that is a candidate for the 2022 Grammy Awards. Thank you, Borteddd (talk) 22:55, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi, Borteddd. Notability is not inherited, and that's true just the same for Grammy nominees, of which there are ostensibly hundreds this year alone. The first citation is two brief paragraphs on a relatively obscure hip hop news site; the second is – I'm not sure how to describe it – an editorial being eaten alive by a merch store?; the third is a blog with no byline hosted on Disctopia; the fourth is just the song with a very brief description; and the fifth is the music video on the artist's YouTube channel. These aren't nearly enough to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NSONG. The most substantial coverage I can find from a reliable, independent sources is this article from Complex, which can get you started, but still doesn't meet either of those notability requirements on its own. Some articles simply can't exist until notability requirements are met, and that's no fault whatsoever of the editor who created the draft. Pinging Robert McClenon in case they would like to further expand upon their decision to decline. TheTechnician27(Talk page)08:29, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
User:Borteddd - I review drafts of music by looking at the musical notability guidelines. If it is obvious that a draft meets one of the criteria, I will accept it. If I do not see that it satisfies any of the criteria, I will usually decline it, and will advise the submitter that they can explain, in an AFC comment or on the draft talk page, which of the criteria is satisfied, when they resubmit. So if you think that your draft satisfies one of the musical notability criteria, leave an explanation for the reviewer. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:49, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
User:Kleuske - Your draft was moved back from article space to draft space by reviewer User:Kleuske. I would suggest that you also ask her what she thinks you need to do to improve your draft. If a reviewer moves an article from article space to draft space, you may ask them why, and it is a good idea to ask them why. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:49, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
vaccines
How do you really know which side of the vaccine story to believe? You have many highly esteemed Doctors, immunologists on both sides of the fence saying the other side is wrong. How do we really know what to think! 2603:7080:5F03:7600:15AE:F94C:1638:793A (talk) 16:58, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
IP, Welcome to the Teahouse and thank you for your question. Wikipedia is not trying to tell you what to believe. The encyclopedia summarizes encyclopedic information in a neutral tone found in what it deems reliable sources based on consensus of the community about notable subjects. If the sources the community deem as reliable get something wrong then Wikipedia will get it wrong because we are completely reliant upon what reliable independent sources say. The opposite is true as well. We each have to decide what we are going to believe based on our own experiences in life. There is plenty of that not found in this online encyclopedia and may never be present here. As editors we are just trying to build the best encyclopedia we can in good faith. --ARoseWolf17:06, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
References (and hence content) for medical/health articles has a high standard described at WP:MEDRS. This reduces but does not eliminate disagreements on content. For examples, see Vitamin C and Vitamin D Talk pages for extended discussion on whether either of these vitamins has a role in preventing or treating COVID. David notMD (talk) 17:33, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia tries (but does not always succeed) in presenting a neutral point of view. It aims to help readers make up their own minds, even if they are not experts in a particular area. We can't all be expert in everything! Usually, when there appear to be two or more sides to a story, there is a consensus from most experts but there may be fringe views that could turn out to be true but probably aren't. I would hope you can read an article like vaccine and work out which side is which. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:58, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
overzealous first edit?
Hi,
I'm just starting out with editing. I noticed that the external link to the Israel Museum portal was not loading and so after checking the current URL I made a small correction. It still doesn't seem to load. I'm not sure what I did incorrectly (though I suspect there is a lot of things I could have messed up).
Help would be appreciated.
Mike Mbrown297 (talk) 19:13, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi, Elijah. I'm not super familiar with official policy/guideline on this, so take this with a grain of salt, but I feel this is perfectly acceptable as long as you're not e.g. copy/pasting a recruitment message on every and any talk page you find. Try finding editors who seem like they would be interested but who may not be aware. For example, I went to the 'Weather articles by quality and importance', looked at low-importance featured articles (you don't necessarily have to look at FAs, FLs, and GAs; it's just that those often have very hard work put into them by one or two editors), clicked on '1850 Atlantic hurricane season', and found that it was heavily worked on by Juliancolton and 14GTR. So now I might go to their talk page and say something like: "Hi, I saw the work you did over on the 1850 Atlantic hurricane season article and was wondering if you knew about the 2022 WikiProject Weather drive." You still have something roughly copy-pasteable, but it's at least somewhat tailored to their experience. TheTechnician27(Talk page)16:40, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
@Elijahandskip: Also, if the editors running the drive contacted people who signed up to be part of WP:WikiProject Weather, that would be fine with me (especially if the message explained that's why they were being contacted). If the editors running the drive contacted every editor, I'd consider that to be spam. GoingBatty (talk) 19:58, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
How to prevent deletion of a translation page
Hello
I wish to create a page, But im afraid of it being deleted.
It seems that pepole here have the power to delete whenever they want to.
how can I prevent it? is there a group that can help me edit a page in order to prevent it from being deleted?
also, the page I want to make is a translation to another language of a page already established,
How can I link them? how can I suggest a translation to an existing page,
thanks alot, this is my first teahouse message. IndieCite (talk) 09:16, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
If you are referring to Draft:Joshua Griffit, it has no references. If this is a translation, does it have references in the non-English version? References for an English article do not need to be in English. David notMD (talk) 09:40, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Also, the current draft was created by IP address 81.199.120.248. Editing as IndieCite, there appears to be a history of a draft being submitted and declined several times. Was that draft different from the current, unreferenced draft? David notMD (talk) 09:46, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello, IndieCite, and welcome to the Teahouse. It is not true that people "have the power to delete whatever they want to". However, Wikipedia has policies regarding what is acceptable in articles, and processes for deleting what is not acceptable. Hundreds of drafts and article are deleted every day, often because people have rushed into writing them without taking the time to learn about Wikipedia's criteria. Please see Help:Introduction, WP:Notability, and WP:Verifiability. --ColinFine (talk) 13:27, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
How do I know where to write to answer you? I hope you will se my answer. What do you mean as reference? the original article refers to old articles and links outside wikipedia, If I can refer to the original article and only translate it, is that ok? I think to answer your question, I dont think I know how to ref, and so the old draft where deleted for the same reason. thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by IndieCite (talk • contribs) 14:29, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Yes, an English language version of the article can be referenced with the "outside" references used in the Hebrew language Wikipedia. The refs areessential. A potential problem is that each Wikipedia sets its standards as to what are reliable source referencs, so what was sufficient in Hebrew will not be in English. But first, copy over all the Hebrew refs. In your Edit summary, state that you are doing this. Copying within Wikipedias is allowed, but attribution is required. David notMD (talk) 15:49, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
@IndieCite: David notMD raises a really important point that I want to emphasize on its own. If you are creating a page by translating from somewhere, it's essential that you state that source you are translating. For example, an edit-summary, a note on the article's talkpage, or something like that. That is an independent detail, not related to the reliable-source referencing. DMacks (talk) 21:45, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
How to move forward when a topic lacks Wikipedia's traditional expectation of sources?
Hi Everyone, I am trying to create a wiki page for a research program that has ended (https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Draft:Gulf_of_Mexico_Research_Initiative) as a legacy to it, at their request. I was part of the organization while it was active and have given my statement on COI. My first two attempts were rejected because of copyright issues with the program's website, which I used as the main reference and my wording was too similar to what was on the website. In my most recent draft, I wrote using my own words based on my knowledge of the program. But it was rejected because not enough documentation to support what is stated. Here are the challenges: There are no major news outlets that describe the program other than announcing the program; There is one peer-reviewed publication that describes the program; however, I am a co-author on it and have been told not to use that; I was told not to use a YouTube video (or any YouTube video) that has the two founders talking about how the program was established and its main components. I looked at NSF wiki page as an example, and they reference its website a good bit; however, it is not copyrighted. How can I proceed? Slywriter suggested that I ask this group and also suggested considering adding a section to Deepwater Horizon oil spill as an alternate to submitting a new page, noting that what I added would need to be significantly shorter (perhaps what I currently have in Summary section of my draft might work)? I appreciate any help or advise you can give me. NMDann (talk) 20:49, 11 January 2022 (UTC)NMDann NMDann (talk) 20:49, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
@NMDann:There are no major news outlets that describe the program other than announcing the program If true, that means the program is not a suitable topic for a Wikipedia page, and no amount of work on the draft can change that. (Although we would accept "minor" news outlet i.e. local papers etc. if they do cover the topic with a reasonable amount of detail and do more than rehash a press release or conduct a barebones interview of researchers.)
Alas, Wikipedia's traditional expectation is no source - no article. Which is tough when you have a fascinating, worthwhile, beneficial, relevant, topical, etc etc topic to cover. But that's how other people keep me honest; by being able to double-check anything I claim against independent published sources. If the sources aren't there, I have to stay quiet. --Verbarsontalkedits21:08, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Slywriter, I don't want to "pile on", but trying to create a wiki page ... as a legacy to it is explicitly not part of the purposes of Wikipedia. See WP:NOTMEMORIAL, which is talking about people, but the same principle applies. --ColinFine (talk) 21:50, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
@Mschulz75: Welcome to the Teahouse! Are you asking "Why was Draft:Trademarks, Patents, and Copyrights declined?" In addition to the messages left at the top of the draft and on your talk page, I would add that your draft is formatted more like an essay than a Wikipedia encyclopedia article, and WP:NOTESSAY reminds us that Wikipedia is not the place for such personal essays. Your draft contains wikilinks to several Wikipedia articles. You may want to improve those articles instead of trying to create a new article. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 22:03, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Moving articles from AfC to mainspace
I have been working on articles that are older declines from AfC and getting them ready for the mainspace. While I understand the guidelines for when AfC has to be used for new editors (and people with a COI), I am unsure about the need to re-submit articles to AfC if they have already started down that path.
For example, I am autoconfirmed/extended autoconfirmed/autopatrolled, so I can create articles in the mainspace. If I am working on pages that were declined from AfC and deem them ready for the mainspace, are they required to go through another round at AfC, or can I move them into the main space myself?
DaffodilOcean I'm assuming that you patrol drafts for any that you can improve. If you are 95-100 percent confident that a draft would survive an Articles for Deletion discussion, and you are experienced with creating articles, you would be pretty safe to move it, I think. 331dot (talk) 23:20, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Exactly - I am browsing for things to improve. I would only move something that I think would survive AfD, so sounds like I am all set to move. Thanks 331dot. DaffodilOcean (talk) 23:26, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
DaffodilOcean, it is worth keeping in mind that AfC is an optional process for autoconfirmed editors. I occasionally do just what you are talking about - move a decent quality AfC draft to main space. Go ahead. Cullen328 (talk) 23:31, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks Cullen328. The piece where I was not sure is when an article has already been submitted to AfC. I did not know if there was a special process to get it out of that loop. Thanks. DaffodilOcean (talk) 23:36, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi @Jgtrevor, you should get as many articles as you can to put an election result on Wikipedia. Make sure you have articles from both sides. Depending on the article, you may need 10+ sources. Urban Versis 32 (talk) 00:34, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
On 1-11-2022, I received an email from Fireflybot asking me to edit or delete an article I created in August 2021. I edited Draft:New Orleans Men’s Circle. I thought it was up for consideration for permanent Wikipedia article. Is there something else for me to do? Mr Lonedrum (talk) 23:05, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
@Mr Lonedrum, hello and welcome to the Teahouse, when you create a draft article and have not edited it in 6 months, it is eligible for a WP:CSD#G13 speedy deletion, you were reminded by a bot to continue work on the draft article else it gets deleted. So yes, you can do something by continuing to work on the draft. Furthermore, it isn’t an article proper but a draft article. Celestina007 (talk) 23:50, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Mr Lonedrum, you never submitted it as a candidate for a permanent article. It won't submit itself. However, if you do submit it as it is, it will be declined. An assertion such as The mythopoetic approach offers a unique inroad into the male psyche in the way it bypasses the familiar linear, left brain activities. Its effect is much deeper than normal male shared time such as intellectual discussion, sitting around a card table talking, hunting and fishing, or simply spending time in front of a TV. would have to be backed up with disinterested, reliable references. -- Hoary (talk) 01:25, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Wrong page title
Hello, I have created my first Wikipedia article in my sandbox, but the article isn't about sandboxes. So the page title is incorrect. It should be renamed to the name of the person it's about. Is there a possibility to fix this? 178.51.244.21 (talk) 12:36, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
This is the first and only contribution from your IP address, so I can't really help unless you provide a link to the sandbox you mean. If you are a new editor here, the best process to use to create a new article is explained at WP:AfC. However, creating articles from scratch is much harder than it may appear. Please read H:YFA. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:43, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Sandbox isn't actually the name of a page, it is just a place where you can work on an article before you submit it at WP:AfC. There, other editors will review it to make sure it meets Wikipedia's guidelines, and if it does, it will be moved to article space with a proper title. AryKun (talk) 04:40, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Question about the legitimacy of one page's inclusion rules
Hi everyone, I would like someone to clarify some my doubts: when the rules for inserting content on a page are legitimate and when they are not. In this specific case, I am referring to the List of political parties in Italy (a page rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale). Some time ago on this page some inclusion rules were inserted by a user (unlike all other pages of the same type, which have no specific inclusion rules) without any previous discussion. I find some of these rules highly questionable, so I have long tried to find an acceptable compromise with the user who unilaterally introduced them. Unfortunately, the dialogue with the user failed. Attempting to engage other users also failed. The problem is that the current rules are not supported by a community consensus, and through them, the user who introduced them decides for himself what can be entered and what cannot be entered on the page. All this seems to me contrary to the principles of Wikipedia. My question is: are these inclusion criteria really legitimate? Wouldn't it be more correct to remove them, given that they represent a minority point of view? Scia Della Cometa (talk) 12:37, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
@Scia Della Cometa: There is a huge discussion on the Talk page, and it seems that a lot more history has been removed. I can't see any criteria that somebody added out of the blue. Sorry, but I cannot put my finger on these Inclusion Rules you're talking about: would you mind pointing to exactly where they are; it will facilitate the discussion.--Gronk Oz (talk) 12:57, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
You and Checco have been editing this list article and the Talk page (almost 10X the size of the article despite periodic archiving!) nearly forever. Arbitration needed. David notMD (talk) 13:04, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
@Gronk Oz: The rules are written under each sub-section of the page (Minor parties, Regional parties etc.).
@David notMD: Yeah, I know, six months of discussion and no final agreement reached seems paradoxical enough. I agree that arbitration would be usefull, up until now I had always been advised against it...--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 13:15, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
User:David notMD - You gave mistaken good-faith advice to the OP, either using the wrong term for a process, or conflating content disputes with conduct disputes. Arbitration is the last resort for the resolution of conduct disputes, and can ban combative editors and desysop administrators. This does not appear to be a conduct dispute, just an persistent unresolved content dispute. Maybe you were thinking of mediation. If not, this is a case that is best resolved by mediation. The OP took your advice and filed a Request for Arbitration, which is being declined, and the OP and the other editor are being advised to rely on mediation. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:45, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Facts are quite different from how they have been presented here. I also think that the rules should be updated, but, if no consensus is reached, the current rules should stay. This is exactly what another edito, User:Autospark, just wrote: "hopefully a new compromise can be reached soon, and if not, the current rules should stand". There is only one user constantly opposing just about everything and not accepting basic compromises that have been offered from time to time. That user is not me. I am nice enough to always answer. --Checco (talk) 15:04, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
The facts are exactly as I described them: some time ago Checco introduced rules on the page without any prior discussion. When he needs support, he always turns (and I repeat: always) to Autospark, with whom he has almost certainly established a collaboration agreement and with whom he most likely communicates outside Wikipedia. I made many proposals to definitively approve those rules, he has always found at least one obstacle/objection to my many compromise proposals. But the rules were written and introduced by him. And based on these rules he decides what can be placed on that page and what not. The content of that page depends on rules that are based on a minority point of view. It is a fact.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 15:49, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
@Scia Della Cometa, have you read WP:DR? Please go through it, evaluate what steps you have already tried, and try the next one. @Checco, did you introduce your own criteria for what makes a party "major", "regional", etc.? That seems like original research to me. Aren't there reliable independent sources that characterise each party as "major", "regional", etc.? I would expect there to be. You should use those sources to decide which parties belong to which list, not your own criteria, I would think. Regards! Usedtobecool☎️15:59, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
@Scia Della Cometa, see my reply above. Arbitration on Wikipedia means WP:ARB which is the last resort, and you are nowhere near there. "Arbitration" has likely been used here to mean other kinds of mediations. Again please see WP:DR. Regards! Usedtobecool☎️16:03, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Standalone list inclusion criteria can be whatever is supported by consensus of the editors involved in working on that list. Any criteria could be 'legitimate'. You haven't exhausted all other options, so if you were to request arbitration that would almost certainly be denied. MrOllie (talk) 16:08, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
@Usedtobecool: I have already analyzed WP:DR, the request for comments and the request for a third opinion to reach an agreement about that topic have al failed, for this reason I ask an opinion here. The arbitration option really looks like the last one remained...--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 16:15, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
The extensive back and forth in the RFC's discussion section blew the RFC - no one's going to read all that. I suggest you all agree on a RFC question that would settle the dispute, and then start another RFC. Each of you make one (and only one) short comment on the RFC. Incoming editors are not going to help you by giving their opinion if they have to invest a large amount of time reading walls of text to do it. Then abide by the result - whether it favors your side or not. MrOllie (talk) 16:19, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
So you had an RFC and still only the three of you ever !voted in it? That's not gonna work. I suggest a little less WP:BLUDGEONING and a few notices requesting participation. Was the RFC publicised to relevant WikiProjects and noticeboards when it began? Usedtobecool☎️16:26, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
@MrOllie The problem is another: a point of disagreement concerns a very technical aspect, namely the method of applying a regional threshold, which involves many aspects. Unfortunately, I think that a further attempt would be a waste of time, so I think we need an alternative solution: delete the criteria and possibly restart from zero.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 16:32, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
You're certainly welcome to make that proposal, but the Teahouse can't enforce it for you. Arbcom won't either, they deal in sorting out behavioral problems. This is a content dispute, not a behavioral problem, so the way forward is clear: either come to an agreement among yourselves or stage another RFC. MrOllie (talk) 16:40, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
@MrOllie I actually see it as a cross between a behavioral problem and the content of the page: indeed I would like to ask if it is legitimate to impose rules on a page when there is no consensus on them.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 17:51, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Failure to agree isn't a behavioral problem. And it is legitimate to leave things at the status quo until a consensus emerges to make a change. MrOllie (talk) 18:01, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
@MrOllie I am not referring to the failure of an agreement on rules on which there was already a consensus, but on rules introduced by the user himself, who therefore has little interest in modifying (as he himself admitted). It does not seem too compliant with Wikipedia's principles that the content of a page is conditioned by the rules introduced by a single user, since Wikipedia should be a free encyclopedia. The behavior of the user that I do not agree with is his will to maintain rules introduced by him on which there is no consensus.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 18:16, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Again, the presentation of the situation is grossly inadequate. The rules were not established by me alone, but they were the result of long discussions a long time ago, both in it.Wikipedia and en.Wikipedia, both regarding the template and the list. More importantly, those rules have been challenged strongly only by one user, while other users have supported them or, at least, the fact that, until a new consensus is formed, they should stay. Rules are necessary because in the Italian context the number of parties is and has been virtually infinite. I have been proposing for months a new presentation of the rules and also I would like to see changes to the current rules, but the "all or nothing" strategy of my main counterpart make any compromise impossible. I am exahusted by that discussion and his behaviour, but, nonetheless, I never refrain to answer: it is matter of courtesy and a matter of principle. --Checco (talk) 07:50, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Additionally, the fact that my good faith is always put into question is quite annoying. The fact is that I am the only user really interested in the issue and that always answers. Other users might have been slightly interested, but were exahusted long before I was. --Checco (talk) 07:54, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
@Checco The rules of the list have never been decided in any discussion of en.wikipedia, in it.wikipedia the list has no inclusion rules and any decisions made in other language editions have no value here, so please stop turn the truth at your convenience. Besides, you keep saying that other "users" support the rules you introduced unilaterally, but I don't see other "users", I see only one user (Autospark), with whom you have formed an alliance. So, even in this case, stop using the plural. The other users, if they were interested, would have answered immediately, when I asked for their opinion. It was their choice from the outset not to intervene in the discussion. Finally, I've always told you to discuss how exposing the rules after they are approved. It is you who are in a hurry to change their setting to maintain the status quo. Now it is even more urgent to ask for the legitimacy of this situation.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 09:06, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Your reading is far from truth. The fact is that you are the only one user strongly challenging the status quo, even though I have been a proponent of changes too. You wrote extensively in talks and, as of now, only two users have more or less regularly answered to you. There is ample room for changing the rules, but you are not able to understand the meaning of compromise and you always want "all or nothing". --Checco (talk) 09:15, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
And you are the only user who is strongly defending the status quo (which you have unilaterally imposed). Frankly, I discount the opinions of a user who always supports you uncritically, alliances and agreements (implicit or explicit) of support in Wikipedia should not exist. What does "all or nothing" have to do with it? There is currently a rule that I am contesting, and you do not want to find an acceptable compromise by refusing to give plausible explanations. We agreed to standardize the rules, then you withdrew, without giving explanations. I'm not the one who refuses compromise, analyze your attitude better. In Wikipedia the rules are written by the community, not by one user.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 09:30, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Again, false assertions. If you were interested in standardisation and/or in chaning only one rule (I would change more), you would support my latest RfC proposal as it is simply a new presentation of the current rules. Again, "all or nothing". I would like several changes and I have offered you several compromises, but it is true that I can live with the current status quo, which was not imposed by me and is certainly the established consensus of the list, being endorsed and/or unopposed by several other users (I understand that they have been exhausted by your attitudes and are not particularly interested in answering to you all the time, as I always do and you should give me credit for it). Finally, I find really interesting what User:MrOllie wrote above: "Standalone list inclusion criteria can be whatever is supported by consensus of the editors involved in working on that list. Any criteria could be 'legitimate'". Please seek consensus, instead of accusing me of just about everything, let alone disparaging User:Autospark, an independent-minded long-time editor, for the only reason that he feequently agrees with me. --Checco (talk) 09:39, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
"for the only reason that he feequently agrees with me": oh, please... I asked for the opinions of other users from the start, they weren't exhausted, they just weren't interested, don't confuse consensus with disinterest. You have offered no compromises, you have only offered to rewrite the rules so as to achieve the same result, which is the current status quo, I am not silly... in a set of rules that you have unilaterally introduced or approved, currently, there is no rule or party that it can be introduced without your permission, otherwise you remove it. This situation does not exist in any other list, unfortunately only in the list of Italian political parties...--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 09:51, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Please stop insulting good-faith users. Indeed, you should appreciate that I always answer to you and you should also accept User:Autospark's contributions. And, please do not forget that several of the current rules have been proposed by you and have been accepted by you. You also were instrumental in forming the current consensus, but, of course, both of us would like more changes. --Checco (talk) 17:50, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
@Checco You keep saying "accept": the rules must not be accepted by anyone, they must be agreed. As long as your attitude remains that of "accepting" (based on which principle a user has the right to accept the proposals of others?) It will be difficult to find an overall compromise...--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 19:57, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
I don't know if it will be accepted, however I would like to point out that I have made a request for arbitration (here). In my opinion it would be useful, however I don't fully know the parameters on the basis of which requests are accepted.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 16:23, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Ya'll better come up with an RFC inclusion criteria, because Italy's got more political parties then anyone could count. GoodDay (talk) 19:44, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
@User:GoodDay: There is already a set of consensusal rules, even though there is talk about changing them. This morning I proposed a RfC in order to present the current rules in a clearer way and make changes easier. --Checco (talk) 19:48, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
@User:GoodDay It goes without saying that not all rules are consensual, and some rules are actually unilaterally established. The list in it.wikipedia has no inclusion criteria and there are no such big problems ... --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 19:57, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon Hi, I think a couple of matters should be cleared up first:
What should we do with this RFC? As soon as I asked for the legitimacy of the current rules, Checco took a leap forward with this RFC to try to implicitly fix those rules. This discussion appears very premature.
Shall we start immediately with the DRN on the rules? Or as someone has suggested, should we start with a RFC on whether or not we have rules? In the case of an affirmative result, we could start the Drn with all interested users. Surely the discussion on how to expose rules and classifications should be the last step: the current rules are contested and the current classifications (major / minor parties) are the result of original research.
I premise that then we should also discuss how to expose the parties on the page (there was also a controversy on this topic, with the user Checco who would like to exclude a series of information from the tables). Do you think we should start with a Rfc on the presence or absence of criteria on the page or start immediately with the DRN? And do you think this RFC should continue or be reopened as a last step?--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 08:01, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
User:Scia Della Cometa, User:Checco:
If you want my mediation or any other assistance, please request it at DRN, because that is where I look for disputes. I do not plan to try to mediate a dispute here (at the Teahouse), or on the article talk page, or at Requests for Arbitration. If you want me to try to mediate a dispute, ask for help at DRN. We can talk about any RFCs during DRN discussion. I know that DRN says not to request DRN while any RFCs are running. I am willing to ignore that rule, and to open a DRN anyway. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:40, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
If you wait for this good-faith but misguided RFC to finish running, you will be waiting for another four weeks for the RFC to be closed, and it is still a misguided RFC. Waiting for it to complete will just be unnecessary waiting. That is your decision.
I suggest requesting DRN first and then discussing whether to start any RFCs.
So either file a request at DRN, or don't file a request at DRN. But the Teahouse is an advice forum, not a mediation forum, and waiting for an RFC to run will just wait for the RFC. So either file a request for DRN, or don't file a request for DRN. But, User:Scia Della Cometa, you were sufficiently desperate that you asked for quasi-judicial arbitration. Why are you now arguing with yourself about whether to request DRN? If you argue with yourself, you are likely to lose the argument, and no one will win. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:40, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
There are two 'Euclid' pages, Euclid and Euclid of Megara. The first Euclid page seems to be talking about Euclid of Megara, while the Euclid of Megara page seems to be referring to Euclid of Alexandria (the first one). It is evident from the title page of the 'Elements' book, which is credit to both men.
I don't know enough about either of the men to properly edit those pages. I'm also not very proficient at editing Wikipedia's pages.
How can I find the authors of those pages? Is it hidden somewhere within the article?
I would appreciate it if someone could look into both pages and fix the issue or help me find someone who could do that. Theluvdov (talk) 15:39, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Also, for future reference, you can see the edit history of an article by clicking "view history" at the top of the page. This will be the authors of the article, but again, it'll be hundreds or thousands of editors long. — Czello15:51, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
@Theluvdov: The articles clearly make the distinction between the two philosophers. At Euclid, which is supposed to be Euclid of Alexandria, there is what is called a hatnote to say "Not to be confused with Euclid of Megara." and at Euclid of Megara it says "Not to be confused with Euclid." Now, it may be that some of the authors of these articles have mixed up their sourcing and it would be great if you could disentange any such confusion. The Talk Pages of the relevant articles (Talk:Euclid and Talk:Euclid of Megara) would be the place to put comments, as there are literally hundreds of editors who have these pages on their watchlists. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:50, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Theluvdov: The page Euclid, in its current state (permalink), does talk about Euclid of Alexandria. The lead says: Euclid (...), sometimes called Euclid of Alexandria[1] to distinguish him from Euclid of Megara, was a Greek mathematician (...) His Elements is one of the most influential works in the history of mathematics (...). It does discuss a speculative connection to Euclid of Megara but clearly separates the two characters.
@Tigraan: The article about Euclid of Alexandria is crediting him with 'Elements.' Meanwhile, according to the title page of the book, it was written by Euclid of Megara.Theluvdov (talk) 20:10, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
@Theluvdov:Euclid's Elements starts with The Elements (...) is a mathematical treatise (...) attributed to the ancient Greek mathematician Euclid in Alexandria. I see no inconsistency either there or in the Euclid article.
@Tigraan: If you look at the first picture on the page of Euclid's Elements (which illustrates the title page of Elements' translation), you will see that it has Euclid of Megara's name right on it.
If one of the Euclids was a philosopher and the other a mathematician, it is highly unlikely that they both wrote a book with the same title. However, if they did, then the wrong picture is being used for Euclid of Alexandria's page and the Euclid's Elements page.Theluvdov (talk) 22:02, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
@David Biddulph: That's nice. Now, please tell me what your comment has to do with the FIRST PAGE OF THE BOOK THAT WAS POSTED, ON THE COVER OF WHICH IS EUCLID'S OF MEGARA NAME.
If the author of the book was confused, as you say, how can WE know anything for sure?
Either way, Henry Billingsley's translation is that of Euclid's of Megara book, and the picture of its first page doesn't belong on Euclid's of Alexandria page.
@Theluvdov:: Yes, you are presumably having difficulty with what is perhaps not your own language? Henry Billingsley#Translation of Euclid (which perhaps you haven't read?) says that his translation was of Elements by Euclid of Alexandria, but that Billingsley (along with many of his contemporaries) was confused between the two, hence the error on the title page of his translation. If you read the Oxford DNB biography of Billingsley it says "Billingsley's own volume of Euclid, now in Princeton College Library, comprised a Greek text and a copy of Proclus on book 1, both published in 1533, bound with a Latin text which had come through the Arabic, translated by Adelard of Bath, then by Campanus, 1558, and the first Greek to Latin translation by Zamberti, published in Venice in 1505. Campanus was responsible for confusing the mathematician Euclid of Alexandria with a later Euclid, a philosopher of Megara, an error which Billingsley perpetuated." --David Biddulph (talk) 08:22, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
You're asking about Draft:Shultz Thatcher. This has six references. Which three among the six would you say are the best? Also, you were (or Deivilooney was) pointed to WP:REFB. Though you say "nothing seems to work", you don't seem to have tried to make any change since the second decline, and no substantive change since the first. If you have a question about what WP:REFB says, feel free to ask here. -- Hoary (talk) 04:32, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Deivilooney has replied on my talk page: I have some good sources I think the Forbes , Gotham mag and nyc post most definitely best ones. So, here are one Gotham mag source, another Gotham mag source, and a Forbes source. The second of these is very minor; I don't know how to evaluate the first or third. (Perhaps someone else will step in.) I don't know what you, Deivilooney, mean here by "nyc post". -- Hoary (talk) 06:32, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, his name is Thatcher Shultz. Refs are better if using a standard ref format rather than just URLs, and inserted into the text of the article rather than all at the end. Of paramount importance are having refs that are about Shultz at length rather than just a name-mention of him in articles that are about the businesses he co-founded or partnered. David notMD (talk) 07:53, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
I uploaded the photo of Didwho Welleh Twe to be inserted into my article. The image falls under the public domain category, deceased person but I am having a problem inserting it. Can anyone help?
Hello again, Dagbayonoh. You uploaded File:Didwho Welleh Twe.jpg, but you did not give any copyright information, so it will be deleted next week unless you remedy that: you say it is public domain, but you need to explain why it is public domain - see WP:File copyright tags. If it is indeed public domain, then it should be transferred to Commons, so that it can be used on other Wikimedia projects (such as other language Wikipedias). If it is not in fact public domain (and pictures of people who died fifty years ago are usually not), then it may still be possible to use it under our non-free content criteria; but you will need to make a specific justification, showing how it meets those criteria (again, see the page I linked above).
We read that this person is "a Bangladeshi Influencer, Singer, Composer and Entrepreneur". You might specify the spheres of influence and the area of business in which they exercise entrepreneurship (citing reliable sources, of course); if you don't, it's rather meaningless. -- Hoary (talk) 09:14, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
I have been looking for sources to expand the history on the page about Amberfield_School. In my research I came across the Old Girls facebook group, and there has been posted a picture from a 1997 school magazine that fills in the final pieces of the Headmistresses puzzle I was trying to solve (I now believe I have a full timeline of headmistresses) The referencing guidelines state that links to facebook are unacceptable, which is completely understandable, but I do not believe I could find a better source.
Further investigating this source, it is a special feature in the June 3rd 1997 edition of the Ipswich Evening Star, for which I cannot find an archive entry.
DownTheLongPath (talk) 11:35, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps similar, but not quite the same is the record of School House names from a Sports Day pamphlet from 1998, similarly posted to facebook. This I would be less inclined to use as a source, as it is not independently verified, but if anyone could think of a way I could include it I would be very grateful.
DownTheLongPath (talk) 11:55, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
DownTheLongPath Hello. A source does not need to be avaliable online to be used on Wikipedia, as long as it is available to the public(such as a copy in a public library) and you have the information needed to cite it(publisher, date of publication, page numbers, etc.) 331dot (talk) 11:58, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi, a user, Snackmurat, reverted some BLP edits of mine, which says that the person was tested COVID-19. He reverted these edits by saying not encyclopedic unless they die. But he didn't say any proof! What can I do now? Thanks. Troyol (talk) 12:50, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Given the number of people around the world who have contracted COVID-19, it could be considered that including this in each person's article would be out of proportion. What you should do now is to revert your edit-warring on this point. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:08, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
e/c @Troyol: Can I assume you are talking about Arijit Singh? If so, the information about testing positive may be correct and come from a good source - but that does not mean it belongs in the article. It has nothing to do with the reasons he is notable, it is not particularly unusual (unfortunately!). Wikipedia tries to just have "encyclopaedic" information, but that is not clearly defined anywhere I know. If you want to discuss the pros and cons of having it there, the best place to do that is on the article's Talk page, Talk:Arijit Singh. Do not continue with the edit warring you have been doing up to now; discuss it on the Talk page and come to a consensus with the other editors.--Gronk Oz (talk) 13:15, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
@Troyol: Providing that you don't do it again, you are unlikely to be punished. I see that many of the pages where you had edit-warred had been reverted by another editor, and that you self-reverted in another case so thank you for that. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:30, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
@Troyol: Goodness, I hope they don't start punishing editors for making mistakes - I'll be in big trouble if that ever happens! Just learn from it, and don't keep repeating the same problems. I probably should have mentioned before that Wikipedia has a normal process called "BRD" for "be Bold - Revert - Discuss". You can read all about it at the link WP:BRD, but in a nutshell it means that you should be bold and make a change if you think it is good (as you did when you first added this information). Then if somebody disagrees, they revert that edit. If you still think it should be there, then you go to the Talk page for that article, discuss with all the interested editors, and come to a joint decision about how to proceed.--Gronk Oz (talk) 13:40, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
We've all - including me, here 15 years - been reverted for good faith edits, with no 'bad marks' put next to our names. Carry on. David notMD (talk) 14:11, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Part of English article, written in French
Hi, at Miguel Pacios biography, it starts out in English, then switches to French. I really don't know what Notice tag to use, so asking for help here. Or anyone to translate please. JoeNMLC (talk) 20:41, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Even if the french did have a reliable source and was translated, some of it would still be removed because some of it is a positive opinion (or at least, from what Google Translate translated some of it to). ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654521:15, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
There's a French-language article here (from La Dépêche du Midi, a regional daily newspaper) that's basically a "where is he now" article. Whether that's enough to push him over the notability line, I'm not sure. --Drm310🍁 (talk) 21:23, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
That "article" is basically an interview (so: worthless). However, they played for AS Cannes in the 2000 and 2001 seasons, during which AS Cannes was in the professional league, so that meets WP:NFOOTY (and I will therefore not nominate for deletion). (It was a bit tough for a non-footy to investigate that because they played in lots of clubs that once were in the professional league but not when he played in them.) TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact)21:30, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Keep having my edits removed even though I'm using neutral language and valid references - I don't understand
Hello, I'm interested in the retail and logistics sphere, so I read a lot about this and use what I learn to make edits here on Wikipedia to contribute to the overall knowledge basis here. Unfortunately, the edits I make keep getting reversed e.g. I wanted to make it clear that Ocado Group now has a new chairman to the one listed on its page and that the company has moved away from being just an online grocer as it says in its current topline (it now licences its tech to other retail businesses around the world and owns a 50:50 stake in the online grocery business Ocado.com). I made a note of this on the Ocado Group talk page, and how it could be improved for accuracy with up-to-date references, but no one commented. So I made the update myself and it has since been reversed. This is just one example of edits to a page I have made that have been reversed - is there something I am doing wrong? Please can someone help? Cat lover 6lp (talk) 12:11, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Cat lover 6lp I have looked over the edits that have been reversed. The discussion of the increase in order numbers is unsuitable for a wikipedia entry, I think. Your language is perhaps too specialist for a wikipedia article, for instance:
Ocado Group is a UK-based online grocery solutions and logistics business that licenses its technology to grocery retailers around the world.
This reads like a corporate promotional byline.
Some of your edits were good, such as the additions to the history section, though I'm not the most experienced at editing. I would parse through what has been reverted and see what you can salvage.
DownTheLongPath (talk) 12:41, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Cat lover 6lp A good deal of the time, unless they have saved the page for notification, some editors do not even know there is a discussion on the Talk Page. My advice would be to personally invite any editor that reverts without proper discussion or a viable summary comment. If you believe your edits are an improvement to the article, make the argument and back your claim. On the other hand, there are those editors that are not as community-minded to partake in a Talk Page solution and simply revert without productive discussion. Good luck! Maineartists (talk) 15:33, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Asking for a 3rd opinion about the relevance of adding something in an article
I would appreciate if anyone can come and offer their opinion. It's a question of whether adding a mention of King Peter's coins is relevant to the article or not. The arguments of both sides are present on the talk page. Thank you. TheGoldAge (talk) 10:12, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
If you are adding something to an article, and you copy-paste some text and a reference and edit the text a bit, do you have to edit the retrievement date on the reference to today's date? InterstateFive (talk) - just another highway lover 01:57, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
If you're pasting in text, be sure to use quotation marks. That important matter aside, InterstateFive, I don't think you're compelled to change the retrieval date. But doing so would be a good idea. Of course, check that material claimed earlier to have been sourced from it still can be sourced from it. In certain kinds of web pages, material found previously in it will no longer be found in it, and an additional reference will be needed: not just the older one, but instead one to a copy made earlier by/at the Wayback Machine, and one to the page as it now is. -- Hoary (talk) 04:51, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
The two basic rules are that (1) you should only change the retrieved date if you retrieved it on the date you said; and (2) you shouldn't be inserting unreferenced material. This means that if you're adding information from a different source, but as a result you have to shuffle some sentences and reword things, but you are not claiming anything new of the original source (and therefore you aren't checking it or changing its referencing), then you should not change the retrieval date; you should merely add your second source. If you are adding information or changing something, basing this on the original source, you should retrieve it, check it supports everything that's now in the WP article, and change the retrieval date. By so doing, you are asserting that on the retrieval date, it said everything it's being used to support. If you are merely rewriting a clumsily-written sentence without changing its meaning (and therefore you are neither checking nor adding references), you shouldn't update the retrieval date. Elemimele (talk) 16:07, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Luting Agent (dentistry) v. Luting (boatbuilding)
Hi
I am interested in traditional boat building. I have contributed the Spiling (boat building) page.
I was just curious to see if Wikipedia had an entry for Luting Compound, placed between timbers in a boat.
I didn't find that but I did find Luting Agent (dentistry).
I could simply create a separate page, but would then miss the rather interesting etymological commonality between the two very different substances.
Any suggestions as to what would be the best way to create a record for Luting (boatbuilding)?
@GranbyPatrick: First, check Lute (material) and see if that covers the use you have in mind. Perhaps your material could go into that article? I know nothing about the subject, so I can't say - but you can.
If that isn't suitable and you need a separate article, the name you propose, "Luting (boatbuilding)", looks perfect to me.
Then you can add a hatnote at the top of each article so that the reader can easily be sure they are on the right article - something like {{distinguish|Luting Agent (dentistry)}} will put a hatnote that says "Not to be confused with Luting Agent (dentistry)."
Hello -- an article I wrote that was rejected has been uploaded onto Everybody Wiki. I want it to be taken down. How can I do this? DJC12345 (talk) 16:47, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
DJC12345 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You would have to speak to Everybody Wiki, which is completely separate and independent of Wikipedia. When you edit Wikipedia, a notice above the publish changes button reads "By publishing changes, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license." This is how Everybody Wiki publishes things, so I don't think there is too much you can do about it. They aren't the only site that takes Wikipedia content, either. 331dot (talk) 16:53, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Vandalism is often caught quickly by bots but in this case it just happened that Garnarblarnar was watching the page and noticed the nonsense you had added. Please don't continue making that type of edit as it wastes everyone's time. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:57, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Moving images and tables within the page
I would like to knw how to manipulate image placement with the page and around the text. I am specifically asking in reference to the pineapple article their are two images which probably should be moved down in order for the Pineapple production-2019 table to sit flush along the right side of the page. Or is it possible the arrangement will appear differently in another browser? Regardless I am curious how to manipulate the placement of images and tables within the page specifically in regards to forcing them to adhere to the right side of the page. Thank you for your help. Godspeed18 (talk) 18:09, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
@Godspeed18: Welcome to the Teahouse! You are correct that the arrangement may appear differently in another browser, depending on the screen resolution and size of the browser window. To me, it appears that the {{nutritional value}} table is causing the "Pineapple production – 2019" table to be indented. I see that you posted the same question on Talk:Pineapple, which is the best place to collaborate with other editors on how the article should be laid out. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 20:14, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
"Your submission at Articles for creation: Christoforos Krokidis (January 12)" . Chtistoforos Krokidis has references in wikipedia in Ibanez where his name is pronounced as Christoforos Krokidis and in the article about Vassilis Papakonstantinou , where his name is pronounced Christophoros Krokides. I would like to ask your help 1: should I change the Article Mame as Christophoros Krokides 2: should I continue editing the article as it is using the above 2 references as external links 3: There are several articles and interviews in Greek radio stations and websites but in Greek language. Looking forward for your help regarding the article Geo1953 (talk) 20:07, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
The spelling of his name in the draft should match the spelling in the reliable sources you need to use in the draft.
When creating a draft, you should first gather your reliable sources and then summarize what they say in your own words. See Help:Your first article for more information.
I'm new to edit warring and believe I accidentally may have started something. I was hoping someone else could take a look at Lex Fridman in case I've done anything wrong or to help resolve the dispute and provide a different POV. TipsyElephant (talk) 17:34, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
@TipsyElephant Hello, If you are in a dispute or edit war or something similar to that I would recommend seeking dispute resolution/mediation, you can find this at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. While I am answering this I will quickly look to see if you have made any mistakes. Hopefully this helps you, Zippy (talk) 19:10, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
@TipsyElephant Hi again, it appears that you may be in a content dispute so until it all cools down I would just stay away from that article and those types of edits, I would recommend focusing on copyedits or something similar. If you have any more questions please feel free to ask them on my talk page, Thanks, Zippy (talk) 19:13, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Actually Zippy, I don't think TipsyElephant did anything wrong here that I can see. It looks like they followed WP:BRD by taking the edit to the Talk Page after the user reverted it. Neither party did anything wrong that I can see (other than the other editor (not Tipsy) being a bit rude in the edit summary). I added my thoughts on the content dispute to the Talk Page discussion. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 20:37, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Someone removed a citation
At Sinead Matthews, I gave a citation for a birth year. Another editor changed it to a date without a citation. Doesn't that violate Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons? I'm afraid to get into a fight with another editor, because everyone has been really nice to me so far but I've read about people fighting on Wikipedia. I don't have much time and I don't want to waste it fighting but I just feel that if something is wrong i should say something. Does anyone have any advice? The Horror, The Horror (talk) 23:04, 10 January 2022 (UTC) The Horror, The Horror (talk) 23:04, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
@The Horror, The Horror Assuming you used a Reliable Source for the citation, stick to your guns and reinstate the cited date with an edit summary inviting anyone wanting to revert you to first seek consensus at the article talk page. Then, nip over there and leave a post to explain your actions and invite discussion. You then hold the 'moral high ground' and can revert uncited changes in a BLP, with reference for the need to seek consensus. You coould also leave the other editor a formal warning notice for adding uncited content, escalating it each time if they continue. I've not looked at your edits, but I feel your approach is the right one and, as an admin, you'd have my support to revert. Repeated insistence and reinsertion of uncited content would be disruptive. But please try to avoid an WP:EDITWAR. It matters not a jot if relatively uncontentious information remains in an article for a few days until consensus is arrived at. If you want to link to the relevant article, feel free. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:57, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
@The Horror, The Horror I've just checked and see that you appear to have used a citation giving just a year as the person's birthdate, whilst they've inserted a full DD/MM/YYYY without evidence. Maybe try to discuss this on the talk page with them and encourage them to supply a better citation? Bear in mind that you're probably both after the same thing - accuracy. Sadly, I have so little interest in media personalities/film stars/actors/musicians etc that I'm not going to investigate further myself. Hopefully, you're good at using search engines to root out the very best sources yourself. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:20, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
@The Horror, The Horror: If she was 24 when the cited article was published on 2005-01-19, then she would have been born between late Jan 1980 and early Jan 1981, no? How the other user knows it's specifically 8 Feb is anyone's guess. VIAF, LOC, and DNB give her birth year as 1980, but they don't cite sources for their records (for recent book authors it may be provided by the publishers, but for performers?). Anyway, Talk:Sinead Matthews is the best place to record concerns about accuracy and sourcing. ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 14:36, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
@DJC12345: Hello DJC! Could you have possibly gotten it confused for another draft? This one has only been declined (which means it can be improved and then submitted again) and is not marked for deletion. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654517:37, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
I also do not see it as tagged for deletion. If you, as the creator, want it to be gone, then put Db-author at the top inside double curly brackets {{ }}. This will notify an Administrator to deleted it quickly. David notMD (talk) 21:43, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello i want to move Tekle Hawaryat to his full name Tekle Wolde Hawaryat, but i want his old redirect > Tekle Hawaryat to go to another more prominent historical figure >> Tekle Hawariat Tekle Mariyam (other variations in sources : Tekle-Hawaryat, Tekle Hawariat, Tekle-Hawariat last name: Tekle Mariam, Tekle Mariyam). Tekle Hawaryat is his first name. Question how do i give the redirect to the other article? Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 01:10, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Context: Bonnie McKee, one of the biggest songwriters of the 2010s, recently revealed some information about some of the 2010s biggest pop songs that definitely would be good information to have in their articles, such as:
Would this be okay to include in the articles of the respective songs? This looks like some nice info to me but if it's really not allowed then I understand. Thank you! shanghai.talk to me06:10, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Hey, TikTok definitely doesn't qualify as a reliable source as anybody could publish something in it, making it essentially user-generated and unusable as a source of reliable information. AryKun (talk) 06:36, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
@AryKun: Hey, please reread what I said. The person who wrote the songs herself said this information on her own Tiktok. The "anybody" here is coming from the songwriter's own Tiktok itself in question. Thank you. shanghai.talk to me09:59, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
I guess it would be fine then, but I don't write on music articles, so maybe wait for another opinion. I couldn't look at the TikTok in question since it's banned where I live. AryKun (talk) 10:15, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
@RogueShanghai, per WP:SPS you could argue that she is a "subject-matter expert" (or close enough). Others may or may not agree. The Tiktok has the blue checkmark, so it seems safe to assume she is who she says she is. Depending on what you intend to include, be aware of WP:BLPSPS. Hope this helps. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:21, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
@RogueShanghai: For first-party claims, I would incline towards in-text attribution, something like "In a self-published video, songwriter Bonnie McKee said that she wrote Wide Awake as a continuation of Teenage Dream. ...". I'd also consider transcribing a supporting quote from the video in the citation, in case it goes offline in future. ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 22:56, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
@RogueShanghai: I see that Hold It Against Me#Background already mentions the Katy Perry inspiration, and references a Hollywood Reporter interview where McKee tells the same story (reference #4), so I don't see how adding the TikTok video would be an improvement. (I didn't check the other two.) GoingBatty (talk) 15:26, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
@RogueShanghai: If you were to use the second video, I suggest you not put "continuation" in quotes, as McKee doesn't seem to use the word "continuation". I also wondered if McKee's use of Perry's videos constitutes fair use. GoingBatty (talk) 23:23, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, I hate spam mail, I followed your suggestions and was able to upload the image, but it would not insert into the article. The image is a photo of Didwho Welleh Twe, the subject of the article. It is a public domain Image, and I put the public domain mark 1.0. and the deceased person on the description but they would not help. Can you and any other person help insert the photo? Thanks again. Dagbayonoh (talk) 00:05, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Gronk,thanks for replying. I uploaded the picture under File:Didwho Welleh Twe.jpg. The picture is of the subject of the article. I got the picture on the internet on articles on the subject. I think it is public domain because it was taken or photographed in Liberia and is used publically during and after the lifetime of the subject.
I would appreciate your help.
Dagbayonoh (talk) 23:40, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
From global contribs, it appears to be File:Didwho Welleh Twe.jpg. The PD-mark doesn't seem to have worked, and a bot has tagged it as missing license. @Dagbayonoh can you tell us where you obtained the photo and why you believe it's out of copyright? (Copyright in photographs is tricky; it can depend on when the photographer died, what country it was taken in, when it was first published, etc. It might otherwise qualify under our Wikipedia:Non-free content rules, but note that they are quite strict.) ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 13:17, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks Pelagic for replying. As I stated before, I got the picture on the internet on articles on the subject. I think it is public domain because it was taken or photographed in Liberia maybe in the 1920s and is used publically during and after the lifetime of the subject. I would like it if you can insert it in the article or show me how to if possible.
Dagbayonoh (talk) 23:40, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Whether to include connected wikipedia pages
I'm drafting a wikipedia entry about a Southern Californian non-fiction author. I have found that two of his first cousins have wikipedia entries already, for something unrelated - they were baseball stars. Should I include the family ties, just to establish the connection, and possibly to show the family story of an early Southern Californian resident? Or should I not, because the cousins are not particularly relevant to the author's notable contributions? Prof Mo Lill (talk) 00:39, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi Prof Mo Lill. It's probably OK to include such content, particularly if there are existing Wikipedia articles about these two cousins and the information can be reliably sourced. Going into too much detail, however, is probably not going to be a good thing, especially if you only do so because you think that the chances of the draft being approved are going to increase because the author has Wikipedia notable relatives. Many INFOBOXes for biography type articles (e.g. Template:Infobox person) have parameters for "relatives" and usually this means Wikipedia notable relatives; so, that can be a way to incorporate such information into an articles. The content of infoboxes, however, is really expected to summarize and reflect corresponding article content and not just really be the only place where something is mentioned; so, a corresponding sentence in the article body would probably be a good idea. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:18, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hello, Prof Mo Lill. Your question is an interesting one. Most commonly, Wikipedia biographies only mention parents and notable siblings and children. But some articles about royal figures mention many relatives for many generations. Every rule has its exceptions. Maybe this is because the whole concept of royalty is tied up with ancestry and genealogy. So, in your specific case, the question should be whether or not these cousin relationships are commonly discussed by reliable sources that devote significant coverage to this author, or if the connection to the author is rarely mentioned. That sort of analysis should guide your decision about whether or not to include these relationships. Not everything that might be included in a book length independently written biography should be included in an encyclopedia article, which should be a summary of the most relevant information, rather than an exhaustive overview. I hope that this helps. Cullen328 (talk) 02:30, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
You can send a message by clicking new section and adding your title in-between the two = signs and the message below the two = signs to the user talk page. I hope that answered your query, Zippy (talk) 16:23, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
@Mohidahmed777: Hello Mohida! When viewing a talk page (such as mine for example, at the top there will be a button that says "Edit Source" (although there may also be a button that says "New Section", in which case all you have to do is press that button, and then add your title of your talk page message, and then what you want to say). You'll want to press that button, and then scroll to the bottom of the talk page and add 2 equal signs before and after your title == like this ==, and then press enter and type what you want to say. Finally, before you press "Publish" (which is sort of Wikipedia's equivalent to "save), add 4 tildes (this character: ~) after your message and then press publish. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654516:23, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi, Mohid! I see you successfully started a section on another user's talk page, congrats. They reverted your post, but nevermind, there is a discusssion at Talk:TAI/AgustaWestland T129 ATAK#Operators where you can engage with them. You might like to visit Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-betafeatures and enable Discussion Tools. It's very convenient for replying in conversations. If you're not using DT, then edit the section and add your text after what the others have written (and sign with ~~~~). ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 00:23, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
How do I edit the article title (for a minor grammatical issue)?
Hello! I've been working on the article for the battle of Grand-Reng, generally polishing it, clarifying sentence structures and explanations, and most importantly, adding in handmade battle maps to illustrate the action based on the article and the sources it references. Along the way, I realised that the place the battle is named for is Grand-Reng in two words. It says so all the way from contemporary maps of the period till the modern day on Google Maps. The article was previously written with "Grandreng" and I've replaced all the mentions I could with the correct two-word spelling, except for the title, which seems to be greyed out. How do I correct the title as well so it reflects the correct wording? Talamioros (talk) 08:58, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
On a different issue, I see that you have been adding battle maps with your own additions of the presence of the contending forces and their movements to this and several other articles. I hazard a guess that your battle maps are designed to illuminate referenced text descriptions of the battles. Have you ever been challenged as to whether this represents original research? David notMD (talk) 09:33, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi David notMD, I'm not sure what you would consider original research, or why someone would need to challenge it? To answer the direct question, I have not been challenged. However, I THINK what I've done, as far as I'm doing it, is either original research or built on the existing research already in the existing articles, so I believe I have a valid answer in that event. Still, in case there may be an issue, here is my methodology and rationale for review, since your raising the issue seems to imply you're about to challenge it if someone hasn't, for whatever reason.
I'm doing this as a pet project because I really enjoy learning about the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars, but there's a great dearth of good, decently accurate maps that are free-use enough to give a good idea of the action in public domain, validate the accuracy/military sense of the action as reported by article writers, and illuminate the intentions of commanders. And yet, maps absolutely have to accompany battle articles, if only because these articles are sometimes next to impossible to reconstruct/visualise in the mind once they're filled with a high level of detail, because a casual reader's eyes will just glaze over. Even I, with many years of military history interest and mapreading experience, have gone a little lightheaded from trying to refer between an article and Google Maps trying to figure out who went where and did what. Thus the rationale. Next, my approach.
My methodology has been to make minimal changes to an existing article, if it already exists in form substantial and detailed enough for me to construct a battle map from it. In those cases, such as for the battle of Mouscron, Willems, Tourcoing, Courtrai, Grand-Reng, and the one I'm working on now, Erquelinnes, the map is purely based on what is already described in the article, and hence there should be no challenge unless the article content itself is challenged--which I imagine it shouldn't because it has been accepted. All I'm doing in these cases is to represent what is already in the article in a visual form.
In the case of substantial articles that give the idea of the general battle but are nevertheless not consistently detailed enough to illuminate specific actions (such as what this brigade or that division was doing), but which I am unable myself to locate better sources to fill those gaps to my own satisfaction, such as the battle of Tournai, I have simply done what I could and either left out the parts I could not factually say (such as not naming unit commanders when I did not have their names), or stated it was conjecture (such as placing question marks next to brigade commanders because while it is known this division had these brigade commanders, it is not known in what order they were arrayed except that the one mentioned commander likely had to be nearer to the place he was said to have attacked). If I come across an article in the future where there simply isn't enough to go on, I'll simply not illustrate that one. But so far, not yet--I'm only a few battles in.
Where articles have already been written, I try not to touch any content within the article itself, except insofar that I found, along the course of trying to understand the action FROM the article, that a section is inadequately clearly explained, or that the content could be better structured/headed using the same content, to provide a better schema for the reader to follow the action, or that a commander's intentions, which are clearly shown by the movements on the map, have not been explained adequately to provide a plan of intention for the battle, because the writer likely did not have a map and/or the military understanding to parse the various movements beyond just reporting them. Or in some cases, that the action has been misunderstood/confused from sources, in many cases which I have either read myself along the way, or which I tried to seek out to clarify puzzling assertions.
In cases where an article has not existed before, or does not exist in sufficient detail to illustrate, such as the battles of Gosselies and Lambusart (only one-para stubs before), or Fleurus (incredibly detailed right up to the actual battle itself, which is then passed over in 1-2 vague and incredibly general paragraphs when it needed the most detail of all), I have sought for sources and researched and written/fleshed out the article myself, prior to then appending the maps based on my research, last.
In all these cases, in terms of the drawing, I have tried my best to adopt a middle course between super-detailed cartography (e.g. placement of precise regiments etc, specific formations, etc, because that may not always be possible) and really vague blocks. I've tried to stick to division-level action and approximations of the frontage of the units, based on the descriptions stated in the article, which actually provide a very clear idea of where each unit was and how wide precisely its frontage would be, based on my own training as a history graduate and a former soldier, and my knowledge of the conventions of popular military history cartography.
Nevertheless, whatever the cartographic style, the placements are firmly rooted in factual mentions, either in my own source where I did the research myself, or in the already-existent article as stated by someone else, which I take to be accurate since unchallenged. The movements are also broadly correct, though no one should take it that my arrows reflect the precise path a division takes, for example, only that that is broadly the direction it would have gone, passing through specific landmarks where those are mentioned. Often, these routes make immediate sense not from the facts stated alone, but from looking at them either on modern maps, or from the contemporary map. Hence while there is some measure of extrapolation, in that someone may not have LITERALLY said it word for word in a source that this was precisely the route, it is clear from circumstantial facts, decriptions and evidence, once plotted onto a map. Say, from the topography overlap of Google Maps, an understanding of military practice, and the positions of the units as described in the article or the source, it may be clear that a movement was intended to be a covered flanking manoeuvre, hidden from the sight of the enemy, for example. My point is that if "original research" is supposed to mean "precision" (not sure what your definition is), few if any military maps, even academic ones, are truly precise, unless they were created for a professional military level of usage that would then be too technical for the common or casual reader just wanting to get an overview of the action. Of course if that is not the point of contention then this paragraph can be safely ignored.
With regards to the locations I've marked on the maps, I've validated every single one of the points and places I've marked out against contemporary maps of the period, at this moment the contemporary 18th-century Ferraris map since I'm dealing with battles in Belgium, and Google maps for modern equivalents. This is especially important if the names or places have changed, or the places no longer exist (e.g forests that have since been cut down), because on a military map, of course, the precise location of crucial points are utterly crucial to a correct understanding of a battle. I have applied the techniques of landscape archaeology and historical research to identifying and reconstructing locations. This surely is original research. Only a couple of locations have been placed by inference and logic, based on circumstantial facts, because I could not find the exact location literally recorded. But those are very, very few indeed because I have largely been able to pursue and pin down locations with success.
So yes, that's my rationale behind what and how I've done what I've done. I'm not sure if someone can see fault to find in my methodology such as it stands, with the means I have to hand, but if they do, I am more than happy to correct my facts or approach, or publish the necessary caveats, acknowledgements, or whatever other technicalities are needed to make it acceptable to Wikipedia. I'm even thinking of posting the Google Drive links to the working files for each map on each article's Talk page so someone else could come along and improve the maps based on better or new research findings down the road, and will probably do it at some symbolic point (e.g. when I finish all the maps for a particular theatre, or a particular year's campaigns).
If you see something to be challenged in here, please let me know what the issue is so that I can fix it and ensure that my published writing and maps will be acceptable, because the objective here is to provide better understanding and higher-quality maps (or even any maps at all) that can be given to the public, and that requires that whatever I create can stay published for the next beneficiary.
I'll answer your first question. Original research, is basically your own knowledge on a subject. THe reason someone would challenge it is they don't know where that information came from or if it's true. That is why most things in a Wikipedia article require references to reliable sources. If reliable sources weren't required and you could just add your original research, you could add something like, "Steam is going to shut down in the year 3021" and people would have to take your word for it and possibly be mislead by false information. BUt they wouldn't know since there wasn't anything proving it and they couldn't fact check it to see if it was true. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654514:54, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you Blaze Wolf for the explanation! Well in that case I think my conscience is clear, since as I've explained above, all the dots I'm joining are provided by factual data points from sources either already found and referenced by me in my own article, or found and referenced by someone else in an existing article. I'm not claiming any substantive knowledge of events from my "own knowledge" as the point in why I am doing this is because I had no own knowledge of these battles, but wanted to gain it and understand it better from these articles. Hence I am much reliant on the work others have already done where possible. I had initially wondered why someone would penalise original research since that's kind of what we need to do to justify our assertions with references, but I see now that it doesn't mean so much "original academic research" as it does a quasi-anti-vaxxer sort of "I did my research". Whew. Talamioros (talk) 00:59, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Why are unregistered users identified by IP address?
There is something that is wrong with Wikipedia. Unregistered users are identified by a IP address, the reason why it’s bad because it has the information where you live, you can get robbed by hackers and other unknown people, they can also track you down too. Why are unregistered users identified by IP address? Please help. 2603:8000:F400:FCEA:24BA:3F27:B661:8DEE (talk) 00:11, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Fairly soon IPs will be concealed from the public(though not retroactively), once it is ready to be implemented. You can hide your IP now by creating an account. 331dot (talk) 00:14, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
it has the information where you live, you can get robbed by hackers and other unknown people, they can also track you down too IP addresses only give a fairly vague indication of geography (never down to a residential address). Knowing an IP address does not really help "hackers" to do nefarious deeds either (unless you have associated intel - if you know that the person is using such-and-such browser/network configuration, that they are a valuable target because they are the CEO of a big company, etc.). Finally, IP is a fairly poor tracking mechanism (most ISP attribute IPs from a rotating pool), which is why lazy advertisement websites run a ton of cookies and third-party analytical scripts, and the crafty ones use device fingerprinting.
Many years ago, I was taking part in some online groups where we all used User Names; foolishly, I was doing it from my work computer. Someone boasted about what he could tell about us from the information associated with our posts. So I challenged him to it. Not only did he tell me where I worked (which I would never have revealed in that forum), he told me the number of my own work station there. Uporządnicki (talk) 01:16, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi, @Kaleeb18, it's not just a question of "how?", but also "should?". You might find here on English Wikipedia, a proportion of people would be unhappy about being mass-pinged without prior consent. (In contrast, if I joined a Wikiproject on 'Data, I know that ping-project is already an accepted practice and that I'd be signing up for that.)
The way it works is to transclude a list of users and hide the text with "display: none". To use here on w:en, we'd need someone who is good with templates to make a local copy. If I was doing it, I might generalise the usage from {{Ping project|Some-project-name}} to {{Ping all|Any-page}}.
... Ohh, self-trout! From d:Template:Ping project, I tapped "Wikidata item" in the sidebar, which took me to Template:Mass notification (Q19546454), where it shows me that we already have {{Mass notification}} (and equivalents in some other languages, like w:fr:Modèle:Notif projet). I could also have just tapped English in the language links. The template here might work differently under the hood; I haven't looked at the source. Your idea is a good one, and it turns out it's already been implemented (though not widely used).
How can I generate a [[Special:Log/xxxx]] type link. It can be any type of log? Say page move log, user creation log, or drafify log, or whatever? I just want to know how I can create a special link to a log. I tried creating by using the number that comes after logid=, but it did not work. ItcouldbepossibleTalk15:36, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
I see many pages that says "Blanked for courtesy", and also says "This page has been removed from search engines' indexes." What is it, and how is it done? Why is it done? I had once seen a user page where it was written the same - "This page has been removed from search engines' indexes.". So why is it done anyway? ItcouldbepossibleTalk05:49, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Do everything that appears in google scholar search are reliable sources?
Is google scholar search, the only way to find academic sources?
Are google books, which have scanned books printed 100 years ago, also scholarly sources?
Prescribed books in universities are also scholarly sources?
Is there any way to disagree with a scholarly source, If I find it to be biased, fake, cherry-picking?
Example- In a riot, 200 people died from community A and 120 people died from community B. Some scholar writes that the entire riot was against community A, as they have more casualty, whitewashing the deaths of 120 people from community B. Wikipedians might say, even though the media reported 120 dead from community B, still, we consider scholarly sources as better sources. --Knight Skywalker (talk) 13:24, 12 January 2022 (UTC) Knight Skywalker (talk) 13:24, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
In brief, any independently-published book is likely to be a reliable source. Self-published books generally are not, because only the author decided whether to publish them. The assumption is that a book published by a publisher independent of the author has been quality-checked by the publisher, at least to the extent that the publisher deemed the author competent to write the work. So you are fairly safe to use any genuine book. It doesn't matter how you got it: scanned-in, written in electronic form, or printed by old-fashioned means, and located in some library. Yes, all books and authors have bias, but it is not our job to refine the contents of books. If a scholar has cherry-picked and is presenting a biased viewpoint, then some other scholar will have said so, in another book, and it is our job to find both books and summarise the situation in as neutral a manner as possible. If you think a published scholar is wrong, and you can't find any source to say so, then unfortunately you need to go and become that second scholar, and get your viewpoint independently published somewhere else! Then someone else can produce a neutral Wikipedia article based on your work and the existing work. Wikipedia isn't the place to do the actual original research. Elemimele (talk) 13:52, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Oh, and we have no particular bias towards books found in Google scholar compared to any other sources. For example, if a book says A and the Guardian newspaper says B, both are valid views. Each source is judged on its merits. Elemimele (talk) 13:54, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
If two seemingly reliable sources contradict each other, the solution is to mention them both. X says 200 people died, but Y said 300 people. DS (talk) 23:46, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Before you start, the first thing is to determine whether your subject meets the criteria for being notable. In particular, are there multiple reliable sources that discuss the subject in depth? The material you put in this entry does not give any indication of the person being notable at all. So start by collecting your sources: books written about this person, national and international media where extensive articles were written about them, television shows about them in detail, etc. Then evaluate them against the criteria at WP:GNG to see whether the article can even be accepted. If so, follow the instructions at Your first article.--Gronk Oz (talk) 11:36, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Register for an account (not required, but useful). If you have a conflict of interest, as in a personal connection to the person, declare a WP:COI on your User page. As advised above, use WP:YFA to initiate a draft. Identify your reliable source references first! Refs that mention a person's accomplishments are not sufficient; need refs with content at length ABOUT the person. If there are not qualifying references, you will be wasting your time and that of Reviewers when your draft gets Declined or Rejected.
Generally no, as without a secondary source it's hard to see the music as being WP:DUE. That article is a general disaster with fans/PR people stuffing as much junk as possible in it. It gets cleaned up once in awhile but they are persistent.Slywriter (talk) 12:26, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Ive removed some of the unsourced and will do more later if no else gets to it. I took this article off my watchlist a year ago because months of whack-a-mole got tiring.Slywriter (talk) 12:35, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi Michri michri. Generally its better to ask questions related to uploading images to Commons over at Commons. Although there is lots of overlapping between Wikipedia and Commons, there are some important differences; so, questions about uploading files to Commons are usually best asked at c:COM:VPC or c:COM:HD. Having posted that, the content on cricwindow.com appears to be copyrighted (scroll down to the very bottom of the page to see the notice) which means that any images found on it most likely can't be uploaded to Commons without the c:COM:CONSENT of the copyright holder. The YouTube video, on the other hand, actually might be OK because it has been licensed under a Creative Commons license by whomever controls that YouTube channel. Things could be tricky depending upon whether the YouTube channel is only hosting original content or whether it's also hosting content created by others; so, you defintely might want to ask about this at COM:VPC. You have to be careful because if the channel is using content created by third-parties (e.g. in-game video footage, photos) as part of its reports, then that content probably can't be uploaded to Commons without the consent of the original copyright holders who created it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:33, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Kaleeb18, thanks for your suggestion. If you find any image of the player we are speaking of in Flickr except those already used in the article, then please inform me or add to the article. Gracias. Also, kindly tell whether screenshot from the YouTube video can be used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michri michri (talk • contribs)
Talk page redirects
Recently, I split my talk page into separate pages to make it more readable, and the current split is User talk:Philosophy2/2022. To ensure that people leave messages there, I have made User talk:Philosophy2 redirect to it. However, any talk page message I get is never on the 2022 page, and always on the redirect page, even though I have specifically put a message on the latter to leave messages on the proper page. I have been on Wikipedia for 3 years, and this is not my first time redirecting my talk page to something else for convenience. Whenever I do so, I always find that the same thing happens: all messages are seen on the redirect page rather than the redirect target. The only reason for this I can think of is that leaving messages on the redirect page will give me a notification, while doing so on the redirect target will not, but this should not be a problem since the watchlist exists, and also because you should assume that anyone who redirects their talk page to something else should have the decency to check the redirect target often for new messages. So why does this happen? Are they using an automated process to leave messages? Philosophy2 (talk) 01:44, 13 January 2022 (UTC) Philosophy2 (talk) 01:44, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
@Philosophy2: Ok, to answer your question: those messages are automated like what you suspect, probably through WP:AFCH. Apparently the tool doesn't follow the redirect. Please don't redirect your talk page; it creates more problems than it solves. ◢ Ganbaruby! (talk) 10:53, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Although some such messages are automated, many are not. If a user leaves a message that they wrote themselves without a template, is that still automated? Philosophy2 (talk) 10:56, 13 January 2022 (UTC)\
When I asked about automation, I was not asking about AfC templates such as those you mentioned (I already know that those are automated), but whether they are using a tool that lets them leave the message without actively pressing the edit button on the talk page. If they are, then that would explain things, but if they are not, then that means the users know that they are leaving messages on a redirect, which is what I am confused about. Philosophy2 (talk) 10:58, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
There are lots of tools that leave messages on user talk-pages that get triggered from pages other than that page, either as their main function or as a courtesy note about some other action being performed. DMacks (talk) 13:48, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi,
I wanted to continue the discussion about the Corporate notability/COI but did not find how to add a public comment (maybe someone can tell me how, by the way?), and eventually found that the thread has been archived. So I'm creating a new one. Could you please tell me how do I declare a COI? Con3butor (talk) 14:09, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
@Con3butor Welcome back to the Teahouse. I'm really sorry that your first question was answered without anyone giving you a link to the guidance on how to make that Conflict of Interest declaration. You can find guidance at WP:COI (and possibly also at WP:PAID if you are an employee or otherwise being remunerated for your efforts here). Usually you would add a COI template to your userpage which links to the article you are connected with. Often, it's simply better to post an WP:EDITREQUEST on the relevant article's talk page. It does also help to mention your COI in any WP:EDITSUMMARY you make to an article, too. I hope this helps. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:18, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
@UsernameAbUuser Welcome to the Teahouse. I have no idea what you mean by the idiom "backspace out" - do you simply mean "removed" or "reverted"? If so, yes, there is a quick way. If a bad edit is the latest to be made to an article (that perhaps you have been alerted to via your Watchlist), in desktop mode, simply go to the View History tab and look at the rows of individual edits. The most recent is on the top. You can choose to view the particular change that was made and click 'Undo' against it if it was a bad one. Just make sure you undo the right edit!
In the same way I have just reverted one of your edits to Conker the squirrel because we don't go around simply making changes to articles to match our local/national preference to spelling. Both the ones you 'copyedited' were quite valid spellings - especially as its the product of a UK company, so UK spelling would be better than US spelling. You can read more about this at WP:ENGVAR. I hope you enjoy coming to grips with editing Wikipedia - just ask if you need further advice or information. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 15:05, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
I think they do mean removing unconstructive edits. Based on what they say it appears they do it manually and remove each bit of vandalism (or unconstructive editing) by hand. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654515:09, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
A user 'Sumanuil' Disappointed me by reverting my all night's effort
I am new here on Wikipedia, and tried to contribute by adding precious information regarding my home Tehsil, Arifwala. But Mr. Sumanuil erased all the information I added, even without pointing any mistake. In case, as a new member, I have made any mistake, he should have polish me and ask me to correct the mistake, else wasting my all night's effort. I am a Doctor by profession and gave my preciuos time to add some valuable information here at Wikipedia. But now, I am much disappointed.
And I dont know how lodge a complaint against that person and on which forum?
Please guide. Mubashirwell (talk) 04:07, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello, the problem here was that the information that you added was completely unreferenced. Any information you add to a Wikipedia article has to be supported by reliable sources, like newspaper articles or books. You can add references to the article when editing it by sing the Cite button in the toolbar at the top. AryKun (talk) 06:32, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Their "all night's effort" was to put an external link in the infobox image section and put in a in-line link to IMDB. They didn't fix any of the existing problems (pre-existing vandalism, nonsensical infobox parameters, etc.) They already asked about this on my talk page, and would have scrolled past the giant red notice there to do it.Sumanuil05:16, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
User:Mubashirwell is now indefinitely blocked for disruptive editing, with the usual option to appeal the block. In addition to asking Sumanuil on Sumanuil's Talk page - a valid reaction - Mubashirwell posted similarly worded complaints about being reverted at Requests for undeletion, Talk:Wikipedia, Wikipedia Talk:Dispute resolution and Wikipedia Talk:Administrators' noticeboard. All that over-reaction (all reverted) led to the block. David notMD (talk) 07:31, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Nevertheless, they had also added some Notable residents and one of those checked out. So I have added back Yumna Zaidi (with reference).--Gronk Oz (talk) 07:59, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Obviously, the spam-posting was inappropriate. However, as far as I can tell there was no warning of any kind before Bbb23 applied an indef block. Straight to indef seems way overboard to me - after all, some of their article edits were useful, and all were attempts to be constructive - but maybe I am missing some context? TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact)10:03, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Mubashirwell can appeal the block, stating that now know the only proper place for an initial discussion of a content dispute is the Talk page of the article. David notMD (talk) 00:15, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
I've unblocked the editor. They're new, we need to cut them some slack. I've directed them to ask what went wrong in more detail here, if necessary; I assume people who are unable to treat a new editor like a new editor will let others reply. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:18, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
EmilyEmergo Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You have already submitted it once and it was declined. I gather that you work for the company that you wrote about, please read your user talk page for information on required formal disclosures you must make. I think that, like many in your position, you have a common misunderstanding as to what Wikipedia is. Wikipedia is not a place for companies to tell the world about themselves and what they do. This is an encyclopedia, where an article about a company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, and not based on any primary source materials, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable company. Your draft is exclusively sourced to your company website. We want to know what others say about the company, not what it says about itself. If you can set aside everything you know about the company, you are welcome to rewrite it to summarize independent sources. Please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 15:38, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
You have not yet responded to the request that you clarify the paid-or-not-paid connection to the company in question. As noted above, in the Declined draft, all of the references are to the company website, meaning that none of them estabishing notability in the Wikipedia sense of the word. David notMD (talk) 16:34, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Why does Wikipedia beg for donations?
I mean, i usually just click the "I already donated" button (if there is one) and just tell it to leave me alone.
I do believe college students just ignore it cause their student loan is probably in shambles.
If i would donate money, it would all go to here: https://www.patreon.com/vress151.188.213.248 (talk) 14:41, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Are you implying that you are still seeing the donation banners? Because last I've been told they have been removed and IPs should no longer be seeing them. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654514:48, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
To answer the question in the title: the Wikimedia Foundation (that runs Wikipedia in many languages and a few sister projects like Commons etc., does not run ads, and they need some money to keep the websites running. However, they raise much more money than they need for that basic need, and many in the community think that (1) they spend too much on fluff and (2) the fundraising is unnecessarily aggressive. See for instance this article.
And another point is that it gives you no special rights over the article (or any article). Admins get no right of veto, and have to follow consensus just like the rest of us. In fact they're at a definite disadvantage, because if they take action in an administrator role (for example by blocking someone who's been editing badly) then they are involved, and generally have to step back from the actual content dispute. Stay as you are, edit free, edit wild, and enjoy minionhood! Elemimele (talk) 18:09, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Being an editor here is the highest position anyone can hold on the project. Every other position is a support function designed to aid editors and the community on the project. Anyone acting is good faith (editor) is a part of the community. Everything is below the community so, congrats, you've arrived at the top! :) --ARoseWolf18:17, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
New draft article
Hallo, I just published an article on AEquacy in the User:Giovanna D'Alessio page. How can I have it reviewed so that the article can (if appropriate) be published on wikipedia?
Thanks!
Giovanna D'Alessio (talk) 17:09, 13 January 2022 (UTC) Giovanna D'Alessio (talk) 17:09, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
@Giovanna D'Alessio: Welcome to the Teahouse. Before thinking about getting it reviewed by an AfC reviewer, you're going to need to address the speedy deletion criterion, which is that it is only done to promote the subject. Doing a quick skim I agree with such an assessment; ad copy has no place on Wikipedia as a part of prose. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:22, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
@Karestoonegoli, Draft:Zahra_meygoli does not currently have any references that establish the subject's notability. Please read WP:NACTRESS and add suitable references (it's okay if they're in Persian), or the draft will be declined. If no such references exist, then the subject is not yet ready to have a Wikipedia article.
Hi, and welcome to the Teahouse! Do you have a question? If so, please be clear what your question is so that we can help you. {{u|Sdkb}}talk19:37, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
hi my article was decline because it was "promoting a business or person" despite it just being me writing an article for a business that my grandfather established can anyone help me undo this? Gykiwyl (talk) 20:53, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
@Gykiwyl: Welcome to the Teahouse. Your article has been rejected and is marked for speedy deletion due to its promotional nature, which isn't what Wikipedia is for. I suggest you find another site, like Instagram or Facebook to advertise. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:58, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
@Gykiwyl: In order for a Wikipedia article to be created about a business, the editor would need to demonstrate that the business meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion - see Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). The primary criteria is that a company "is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Your draft does not contain any sources. Hope this helps! GoingBatty (talk) 21:04, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Gykiwyl, please understand that Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. --ColinFine (talk) 21:09, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
What was factually incorrect and not constructive about my edit? All 3 men are on the record of opposing the creation of the Federal Reserve along with multiple Presidents and all 3 died on the Titanic, coincidentally. 45yellowb (talk) 17:58, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
@45yellowb: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse, the reason your edits were reverted and considered unconstructive edits is because the information you put in was not backed by reliable sources and that is considered original research. Hope this helps you understand and happy editing! ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb18:03, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
I’m sorry to bother you. I’d like to start a baseball player, but I don’t know the template for introducing the player (e.g.,here). I’m sorry that my English is very simple because I am active in Japan. If possible it would be helpful if you could write it on the Japanese version of the Qbwr8296 conversation page. Thank you very much. Qbwr8296 (talk) 04:26, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
I apologize for the ambiguity of my question. I thought I was asking about the template about baseball players used here, not the template used in the Japanese Wikipedia...Qbwr8296 (talk) 13:14, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
You won't hear any argument from me! I have no idea how it works behind the scenes, but it's an absolute marvel. Now if we could just get Britannica on there. *thonk* TheTechnician27(Talk page)01:09, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Writing an Article for the Company I work for
HI. I'm new here. I suspect that writing an article for the company i work for would be against wikipedia guidelines (a conflict of interest), so I'm here to ask how could I get someone ELSE to write the article for the company? Thank you. DahliaSells (talk) 02:12, 13 January 2022 (UTC) DahliaSells (talk) 02:12, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello, DahliaSells. Your very first step is to comply with the Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure, which is mandatory and non-negotiable. Then, familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). If, after studying that, you think your company is notable, then you can use the Articles for Creation process to write a draft for review by experienced uninvolved editors. You should also study Your first article. It is very difficult although not impossible for an editor in your position to create an article. Unless you are highly confident that your company meets the notability guideline that I linked to, do not even try. The effort will be a waste of your time. Cullen328 (talk) 02:24, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
on "Requested articles": yes, things languish there for years. You can improve the chances by including a few really good sources to get the potential author going (people are lazy. Finding sources is often harder than writing articles). But there's a depressingly-high chance nothing will ever get written. Elemimele (talk) 18:15, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
On the one hand, I think one of these days we really should have a drive to try to create requested articles. On the other hand, I feel like that would create a perverse incentive for editors to create articles on subjects with very iffy notability. For my part, I think I'm going to look through there and create at least one article tonight. Anyone else feel like joining in? TheTechnician27(Talk page)01:18, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi, Tom Crown, and thanks for stopping by the Teahouse. As other editors will note, we write articles, not pages. The distinction that comes with this is that the article's subject(s) must meet notability guidelines. These guidelines exist because Wikipedia's aim is to document subjects through reliable, independent sources, and we therefore generally use the presence of said sources as a litmus test for notability. In your case, that would include WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, and WP:ARTIST. We don't create articles for the sake of their subject(s), and any such benefit is entirely incidental. I would also recommend seeing WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY; we heavily discourage writing about oneself or about something which otherwise poses a conflict of interest. Based on a cursory glance, I highly doubt you will be able to have an article created about you without it being subsequently deleted. The issue that poses to you is that, should you become notable enough to warrant an article in the future, having a previous deletion brings that hypothetical new article under much greater scrutiny. I'll end this by noting that self-promotion is not allowed on your user page. Update: the concern about self-promotion seems to have been taken care of by Fastily. TheTechnician27(Talk page)00:49, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, my apologies for creating a page.. I thought it was my personal user profile I was editing. I suppose This means the answer is, I don’t.. I wait for someone to write about me?
Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom Crown (talk • contribs) 01:11, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
@Tom Crown: indeed, basically if people see you're notable, they would be able to work on the page themself and keep it neutral due to their lack of personal or professional connections to you. happy editing! melecie t - 01:18, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
I know what the correct information is, but I don’t know how to attach sources
Please help me, I was not making edits in good faith it’s just that I simply am unaware of how to, you know, attach information. I am barely using wikieditor from my iPad. Shreemantsaurabhpant (talk) 18:27, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
To add to above, Shreemantsaurabhpant, in the area you've chosen to edit, the idea that you "know the correct information" and by extension, the wikipedia articles are wrong, isn't going to make your editing experience pleasant. As you can see from the references there, intelligent people have read through scholarly resources and authored those articles. Before you go about "correcting" that, do please take some time to examine the validity of both your information and that present in the articles. hemantha (brief) 04:58, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Can someone take a look if the Siberian nuthatch french version article's sources are fine to use especially for GAN after translating all the content and cite it? Because some of it are Russian citations. 1.37.86.81 (talk) 07:28, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Are you asking somebody to check that the Russian sources cited within Sittelle de Sibérie say what they are presented in that article as saying (with an eye to englishing this French-language material)? If so, you'll first need to find somebody who is capable of reading ornithological material in both French and Russian, and then you'll have to persuade them to spend quite some time on the matter. The Teahouse is not the best place to ask. You might try Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds. But if I misinterpret your request, please rephrase it. -- Hoary (talk) 08:48, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Company industry type
When assigning a company "industry", is there a list of possible industries it is possible to use, or can this be used to show when the company is engaged in multiple industries, like Virgin or Google? Occasionalpedestrian (talk) 12:14, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi all,
I'm new here and still learning how to work on Wikipedia. Plastometrex is a company that invented a novel way of mechanical testing of metals that didn't exist before. Ultimately, I want to make a page on the testing technique itself, though for practice it seemed reasonable to start with the company page. Though it got instantly marked for deletion. (https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Plastometer)
Note that I work for this company as well, which I specified in my user profile.
I thought I followed the guidelines, though if this is not the case I apologise and will try to improve in the future. In this case, why is the company page deemed not important enough? Since there are other company pages of all types of companies, small and big, active and foreclosed. Just so I can understand and not make the same mistake twice.
At this point, I don't dare to start working on the page on the new technology since I'm unsure why the company page got deleted.
Thank you and keep up the great work! Vilnix (talk) 14:11, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Firstly, you can contest the speedy deletion. There are instructions on the template for how to do this (look in the box at the top of the article, and do this quick-like before it gets deleted). For the article to have any long-term chance of survival, you will need to demonstrate that the company is notable in Wikipedia terms. Basically, you will have to find sources that write about it independent of the company itself. Press-releases and managed publicity won't do much good, but if you can find someone writing about Plastometrex and its products who wasn't paid to do so, and has no connection with the company, there is hope! Secondly, thank you for declaring your relationship to the company; do make sure you continue to conform to WP:COI and WP:PAID. Many editors are extremely sceptical about the work of paid and conflicted editors, so do expect resistance. The best thing to do is provide really good sources, stay calm and polite, and use the article's talk page rather than making edits directly, now that the article exists. Elemimele (talk) 14:19, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Hey Elemimele, Thanks for the info. By now I also started to understand a lot of things about my ignorance and how to do things better. The company page will be a long time before it's notable so won't happen. But I would like to make a page on the technology that was developed. Though I will take way more time for this and try to do it following the Wiki-ethics as much as possible! :) Thanks for the great work and good luck there! --Vilnix (talk) 15:21, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Courtesy: Draft now at Draft:Plastometrex, and this may be WP:TOOSOON to be noteworthy. Given it is still a draft, you may continue to work on it directly (if you REALLY think there are valid references). Only after it is an article are paid editors advised to avoid direct edits. David notMD (talk) 16:06, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
That article needs a rewrite or a deletion. Actually looks like deletion as its copyvio.Slywriter (talk)
To explain the copyright situation: WP has a very generous copyright (anyone can use text from here, even for-profit, provided they acknowledge the source), but a very strict attitude to enforcing others' copyrights. Even if you work for Plastometrex, even if you're the managing director and own the copyright for its brochures and publicity information, it will be extremely difficult to use it here. The best thing is to summarise sources in your own, new words. David notMD is probably right about WP:TOOSOON; it's better to wait until a good amount of stuff has been written about a subject before trying to write the article. Failure to get an article now does not mean there will never be an article. The same applies to the technique. For example, if the technique is new now, but next year someone unrelated to the company writes a technical review article where they compare this new method with existing methods, then that article constitutes an independent secondary source that demonstrates the technique has made an impression on the professional community. At that stage, you have a reference to work with. A couple of sources like that, and an article becomes a real possibility. There is no shame in admitting it's too-soon and deciding to wait. Elemimele (talk) 18:04, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you all for the help and clarifications! I learned so much in the last 12 hours since Wiki has such a great community (always thought so but nice to see it in action myself). As a first note, I think you're all correct that it is too soon for the company itself to be notable, hopefully at some point we'll get there but for now, it's not in the cards. Thanks as well to @David notMD: for the clarification between a paid editor editing a draft vs a live article, I will definitely keep that in mind! As for the Plastometer page, this is indeed something I noticed and was going to ask for advice on how to approach that. Though The technique itself is called "Profilomitry based Indentation plastometry", while the device is called a Plastometer. So if an article is made it will be on the technique, not on the device. Lastly @TimTempleton:, Thanks as well for this coherent clarification. I will for sure keep it in mind if/when I work on the article on the technique. But I wanted to ask, just so I know. We have quite some published articles done by academics linked to our company, which I get is not useful as a reference. But what about publications our scientists did in collaboration with independent researchers who are linked to universities leading in the field? Since those articles have both an independent party as well as dependant ones linked to them, I'm unsure if that would be acceptable.
Again, thank you all for the help! --Vilnix (talk) 10:55, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Having a section of a list of a few sci journal articles in which the device was used as a method could be valid information, but would not be considered as contributing to notability. Referencing an article comparing methods would be better. David notMD (talk) 11:10, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Establishing notability through obituaries
I noticed the creation of Carroll Timothy O'Meara because Conan the Barbarian is on my watch list. And this edit caught my eye. While O'Meara does indeed have dozens of credits according to IMDB, there seems scant news or other coverage. The biographical page about him is based entirely on obituaries. I am normally an inclusionist, but this doesn't quite sit right with me. Cheers, --SVTCobra 06:35, 14 January 2022 (UTC) SVTCobra06:35, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello, SVTCobra. There are two types of obituaries. The first type is written by family members or close friends, and is submitted to the newspaper with a payment. This type of obituary does not establish notability. The second type of obituary is written by a newspaper staffer with editorial control and is often 90% completed before the person dies, because this is a notable person who is "getting up in years". This type of obituary does contribute to notability. In this case, it is asserted that this person was nominated for an Academy Award and won a Primetime Emmy Award. Unless these claims are demonstrably false, I would assume that additional reliable sources could be found in the archives of Hollywood sources of that era. Cullen328 (talk) 08:01, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
But since a diagram already exists, do I need to replace it or can I make a new one?
If I make a new one, wouldn't it be weird that the same page in two different languages have different information?
The majority party, according to the sites, is UD (30 seats). But the president of the Council, Christian Poiret, is from DVD (10 seats). The fact that this president is from DVD is based on what I read in the French wikipedia page of the council and didn't find any source that said C Poiret was from UD. Also, I assume that they won't choose a president from a party which got 10 seats.
@Excellenc1: I'm scrolling through past discussions to see if we missed any (yes, I guess we are sleeping). When in doubt, follow the reliable sources, so good job. I do not speak French nor am I familiar with French politics; however, be bold is still a thing on the French Wikipedia! If you're comfortable with it, why not edit over there as well? Also, I'd leave a message on the old image's talk page about what you noticed. ◢ Ganbaruby! (talk) 14:03, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Film page got declined
Hello, just now my film page got declined because of reliable sources. It is an upcoming fIlm, there is no newspaper article published about it now. Which reliable source should I give ?
Pradnyeshparulekar (talk) 11:17, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
You have more--or-less answered your own question. Since "there is no newspaper article published about it" it dies Think he means does ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 14:19, 14 January 2022 (UTC) not meet the notability criteria specified at WP:FILM. There are thousands of films produced each year across the globe and thus Wikipedia has to be selective in what it covers with an article. For upcoming films, it is very likely to be WP:TOOSOON for a worthwhile article to be made. You can keep your draft and see whether this particular film becomes WP:notable later after people have had the chance to see it and publish their reviews. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:34, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Why is wikipedia so old school?
Not to like offend anyone but wikipedia is quite old school like it looks like it was made on a Windows 97 computer and they just never changed it? Logan5671111 (talk) 08:18, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
I understand (and appreciate) your desire not to offend, Logan5671111, but I don't know what you do want to do here. Are you suggesting something, or asking a question? If the former, what do you suggest; and if the latter, what's the question? -- Hoary (talk) 08:50, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Logan5671111 Please understand that Wikipedia is a global website used by people around the world, including in places with less expensive(and less powerful) computers, as well as slower internet service. As such the website needs to be accessible to all from a technological standpoint. Furthermore, major changes to the layout and appearance of Wikipedia generally requires a consensus among editors. Because of this, it is difficult to change the layout of, for example, the Main Page. You could probably get agreement for the basic idea that it needs to be changed, but the disagreement is on what to change it to. All of this said, please offer any specific suggestions you have for improvements at the Village Pump. 331dot (talk) 08:57, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
@Logan5671111: 331dot’s considerations of accessibility are correct (see for instance that article from a website that purposefully uses no style sheet whatsoever). There is also the fact that bells-and-whistle libraries come with tracking software which we do not want.
I have however a strong hunch that the real reason for the old-school design is that unlike any other site in the list of most visited websites, there is a large subset of users (the Wikipedia editors) that have an unusually large say over questions of governance. Ultimately the Wikimedia Foundation decides everything, but they cannot alienate the community too much. A redesign would anger people; any change is fought when first introduced, especially one that will create concrete problems ("button X used to be here, I lost it!") and only solve fuzzy problems ("is it prettier / more functional now? meh, I dunno").
Consider, for instance, Wikipedia:Skin - a few customized CSS classes for logged-in users (so, already people who know a bit how to change the settings). Those skins are extremely similar to each other, and differences are minor. Yet a very large amount of electronic ink has been devoted to whether some skin or some other should become the default, whether dropping support for one of the skins is acceptable, etc. TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact)14:25, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Unfortunately some editors have itchy mouse fingers and can be quick to judge any edits made by an IP as WP:VANDAL. Often this is because they are using automated tools that allow them to make lots of edits quickly and these tools only generate commonly used boilerplate types of edit summaries. Perhaps that’s what happened in your case. Anyway, I wouldn’t worry about it too much because any experienced editor familiar with WP:VANDNOT would’t try and seek sanction against you for such an edit. Now, I’m going to add that your subsequents edits on that same article probably weren’t the wisest way to try and implement the change you wanted to make and could’ve been seen as edit warring. You probably should avoid that in the future no matter how correct you believe you are. Editors can be blocked for edit warring just as easily as they can be blocked for vandalism. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:42, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It certainly wasn't vandalism but it was an example of WP:OVERLINK. Just because there is an article on the United States, not every instance of the word "American" needs to link to it. Readers about Miller Brewing can see from the sentence that it is in in Milwaukee, Wisconsin (both linked as specific places); they are unlikely to find a link to the US helpful. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:46, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
I've been submitting a draft for an article, and it has been rejected twice. Granted, it is my first ever article, but it has been rejected on the grounds that there are not enough secondary sources. After looking at the rules, I believe it was you needed three sources? And I can't tell if the citations are primary or not. Is a source recounting events that happened a secondary or primary source? For example, one of the articles details what happened at an event with the main focus of the article being the group that my article is about. Is that a primary source, or a secondary one? ThatNameWasAlreadyTaken (talk) 01:30, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
ThatNameWasAlreadyTaken, do the references for Draft:Pigmice "show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about [Pigmice] in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of [Pigmice]"? If so, then perhaps you could (here, in the "Teahouse") specify the best three among them. -- Hoary (talk) 02:22, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
ThatNameWasAlreadyTaken, although what is done is done moving forward you should read WP:YFA before attempting an arduous feat such as article creation. On sources, which i pride myself in being very decent at, I’d explain how sources work in the simplest manner I can, First of all, WP:THREE isn’t a policy but is however generally accepted as an “unwritten constitution” to be the conventional “bare minimum”. To your other question, The real difference between a primary source and a secondary source is that in a primary source, it is usually too connected or can be influenced by the subject, an example would be a personal website, Facebook page, (all social media's) an IMDd entry, press releases, whereas a secondary source is a source that analyses primary sources, and the author gives their own unique interpretation. A quintessential example of a secondary sources can be a notable digital news media or a website that has a reputation for fact checking and a clear presence of editorial oversight of which the subject being discussed has no influence on the output published by the author. In summary, recognizing and optimizing reliable sources is not easily achievable i studied under Barkeep49 and read WP:RS daily for months is the reason I’m decent at analyzing it. Sourcing correctly is something you’d learn overtime and no one can teach you sourcing with just one reply. I wouldn’t want to bore you, so in your spare time you can take a look at WP:RS. if you have further questions please feel free to ask here or ask me directly here about anything sourcing and I’d be willing to answer or expatiate further on any questions you may have on sourcing. Celestina007 (talk) 02:43, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
@ThatNameWasAlreadyTaken: To clarify: what is needed is not three sources, but three good sources, with a fairly complex definition of "good". Good sources are stuff like this one and that one: they are journalist pieces (i.e. "secondary" sources), where presumably the journalist chose the editorial angle and did some investigation that goes a bit beyond formatting an interview (= independent), for a journal with a presumably decent editorial process (= reliable), and they deal with the subject at length (= in-depth). The triple prong (independent, reliable, in-depth) is failed by that other piece which, although independent and reliable, is not in-depth (there, Pigmice is mentioned for a couple of paragraphs that only give a score result and quotes from a team member).
Even experienced editors may disagree about how exactly to apply those criteria in certain cases. Some people request a minimum of three sources of impeccable quality, while others are OK with two good sources plus a few mediocre ones. I would very much like to hear whether Slywriter, reviewer for the last decline, objects to the quality or to the number of sources in the current draft, because as it stands I think it has a decent chance to be accepted if it was resubmitted. TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact)14:05, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
21 sources. Of those 15 are not usable to establish notability as self sourced. East PDX news is a single author blog, which leads me to question his use again when published as part of Pamplin group. Public School review doesn't add to notability. Resolution of the Legislature is an interesting one, but also a primary document so no indication secondary sources considered it notable. After that I believe all that remains is local news coverage. Oh and Bloomberg is just a press release. As always WP:BOLD publishing is an option for any editor, but the draft does not show notability beyond local attention.Slywriter (talk) 14:28, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
@ThatNameWasAlreadyTaken: Welcome to the Teahouse! Phrases such as "still going strong today" and "The team is still thriving" seem to be promotional, and are not supported by sources or the "Team statistics" table. GoingBatty (talk) 16:03, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Wendy Choo WWE
Hey, so could you make an article about wwe superstar,Wendy Choo? Or help me make one? I've only made small changes to articles, but I looked, and I don't know how to make one. Thanks! Signed, Livvy 71.31.209.179 (talk) 03:12, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
See List of WWE Raw Women's Champions for connection to existing articles about women wrestlers. Use these as models. Essential - before you start - is to find similar references about Wendy Choo. Given that this is a brand new persona for her, previously appearing in the ring as Karen Q and Mei Ying, it may be too soon. David notMD (talk) 11:00, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi there! Creating a new article is one of the hardest things to do on Wikipedia, especially if you've never edited Wikipedia before. To learn how to edit, you could view Help:Introduction and The Wikipedia Adventure. I suggest then spending a significant amount of time editing existing articles to hone your skills. Once you're ready to create an article, you would gather independentreliable sources that have provided significant coverage of Choo, and determine whether she meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, called "notability". If so, you could follow the instructions at Help:Your first article, and be prepared for a process that may include months of waiting, rejections, and rewrites, before an article is created. Editors who are members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling may be able to provide assistance. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 16:05, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi Polly Kiersten. You can try Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user/Adoptee's Area, but maybe another thing to do would be to spend sometime trying to improve existing articles instead of trying to create new ones. Then, when you’ve gained a better understanding of relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, you might find it easier to create new articles. The WP:GUILD can be a good way to learn how to edit. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:31, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Epecially because it is about a living person, all content needs referencing. Much about Lively is not referenced, and is at risk for being cut. David notMD (talk) 14:57, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Can you please revert all changes made in 2021 on the following page
https://ro.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ioan_Rus_(senator)
It looks like somebody, maybe the owner himself change the page in order to accuse me and ask me for more money after I was scammed in 2021 by his friends/clients. :( Please help and revert that page at original Jan 2021 form Princessl87 (talk) 10:38, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Princessl87 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. We can only help you with issues on the English Wikipedia; you will need to use whatever forum that language version of Wikipedia has to request assistance. Each language version is a separate project. 331dot (talk) 10:43, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
I found the template Infobox person/Wikidata that is a better alternative for Infobox person. I tried to find similar template for Infobox software but I couldn't. Does it exist? If it doesn't exist, it is very bad and my suggestion is to do it. DustDFG (talk) 17:16, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
It's not agreed upon that Wikidata infoboxes are better than ones stored here on English Wikipedia, not least because lots of Wikidata content isn't properly sourced (it's often just imported from another language Wikipedia, which isn't a reliable source). And there doesn't look to be one for Template:Infobox software/Wikidata, all the infoboxes using Wikidata (either wholly or in part) are listed here. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:24, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
@Neel.arunabh Hi, as mentioned on the reference desk Please take this to Facebook if there is an error. We do not work for or with facebook here, we are volunteers for Wikipedia. Thanks Zippy (talk) 17:30, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
@Neel.arunabh: You pretty much wasted your time coming to Wikipedia. Wikipedia can't do anything about Facebook. Have you tried asking Facebooks support team (if one exists)? ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654518:00, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
No-one here works for Facebook, so no-one here is going to be able to fix anything wrong with Facebook. Please stop contacting people on Wikipedia about this issue. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:33, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
This Teahouse is a A friendly place where you can ask questions to get help with using and editing Wikipedia- the key word being Wikipedia. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:34, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Close paraphrasing flag, no discussion in talk page
There is a close paraphrasing flag on an article, but there are no comments in the talk page to flag the issues. All facts have citations, so they are clearly referenced. So, if there is no discussion on the talk page, how do I resolve the flag? DraChicana1 (talk) 19:45, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
@DraChicana1: Unless I'm missing something, I don't see any egregious paraphrasing. I might suggest you go to the Talk Page, and ask the user who put the tag there (TheBirdsShedTears) for examples of close paraphrasing. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 20:58, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
WP:SYNTH And Sources
Does WP:SYNTH forbid the use of sources that don't mention the article's exact keyword, but are still very clearly about the same topic? For example: let's say I'm editing Mulled Wine and my source only refers to them as "hot spiced alcoholic beverages" - is that acceptable? Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 14:24, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for poisoning the well. I was establishing a baseline using neutral examples before asking about the spesifics because I wanted an unbiased response on general policies. Why are you following me from article to article and inviting your friends along? I don't think there's any rule about having interests. if there were, we would not have wiki projects. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 15:17, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
@TiggyTheTerrible We work by consensus here. So, if you tried to use a source that only ever spoke about "hot spiced alcoholic beverages", you could be in danger of trying to use a source that is actually about Hot toddy in an article about Mulled wine, whilst not realising your error. If the source doesn't refer explicitly to the subject, then drawing conclusions about it (see WP:SYNTH) so that you can use it would be folly. That edit would soon be removed as you would have applied the wrong conclusions about the wrong topic, and it would appear that you are failing to realise this, whilst drawing a lot of editor time to point this out to you. Maybe go slower and more carefully, please, to avoid too much disruption. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:22, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi Nick. Thank you for helping me. That is a good illustration, and I trust you on it. My spesific question is about the Gynocentrism article. They keep telling me I'm breaking SYNTH rules by giving examples such as this one on the page, or by citing studies showing a pattern of systemic favouritism towards women in the courts. Do you think either of those are valid examples, or do they fall under your hot toddy example? I would value a second opinion on this. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 15:39, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
@TiggyTheTerrible Unfortunately, I have to agree that this edit of yours is indeed WP:SYNTH and I would have removed it. Now, I don't want to get drawn into a content dispute here, but your edit stated "Several studies show that special leniency is given to women over men in the justice system[ref], and that criminal acts are judged less harshly when committed by a women[ref]. In the UK Judges have been instructed to "be more lenient to woman criminals"."[ref]]
The first ref's abstract said Several research studies have found that gender affects the sentencing process in ways that are advantageous to female offenders,, but the same abstract stated Contrary to existing literature, results found gender did not have an effect on the decision to incarcerate, the sentence length, or the fine amount. So you've cherry picked words to support what you want to say without balancing it with other studies (the one you've actually cited which shows the opposite.) Did you spend time tracing the actual article or just work from an abstract?
The second ref seems so way off topic that it doesn't in any shape or form support the statement you added. That isn't SYNTH, it's just plain wrong.
The third statement is only indirectly supported by the ref. You cited and quoted the Telegraph's headline as to what judges were told, (often designed to draw the eye, but not be factually accurate). You did not use the actual quotation given within the newspaper which I interpret as being the words given to the judges, namely: "bear these matters in mind".
Thinking off the top of my head, and bearing in mind it could even be off-topic for the whole article, it might have been OK for the third part of your edit to have stated something along the lines of "In 2010, UK judges were given official guidance when sentencing women which highlighted that they often have extra burdens such as parenting responsibilities, educational or mental health handicaps to contend with. They were advised to ""bear these matters in mind".[ref] It may be that such guidance was rescinded in the next update - did you do any research to see if it is still there?
Reading only abstracts and interpreting newspaper headlines has to be done with extreme care, especially when there could be just as many other such sources which someone could use to present the opposite idea. Never quote a newspaper headline without looking at what was said in the article. Time taken to consider the implications of complex sources on complex issues is time well spent here. Rushing in to present a POV view from a handful of selected or inappropriate sources just tends to waste a lot of people's time. Do you think you can be more careful and balanced in this regard?
(Final Caveat: I've not read the article nor am familiar with the issues involved. If necessary, my responses can be linked to or copied (without timestamps) to any talk page if its helpful elsewhere to further any discussions). Nick Moyes (talk) 16:24, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Sorry about any mistakes @Nick Moyes:. Since they revert everything I try to do, I may have been getting sloppy. I have looked into the prisons thing, and everything I have found suggests that they are pushing to keep as many women out of prison as possible. Regarding the rural study, I was only citing the part that states that there are many studies showing the bias exists. I didn't think it was relevant what the study itself found as I was quoting broader statistics. Should I try to add your suggested edit? Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 21:12, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Though, actually, since I've got multiple very verifiable studies that nobody has shot down showing this bias I'm not sure I need the study just to say there are several. What do you think of the 63% one and the one saying that the bias has existed for at least 200 years @Nick Moyes:? Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 21:27, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Your recent additions to Gynocentrism have been reverted by two editors, and the three of you have entered into a discussion on the Talk page of the article. You and same editors and others also verging on edit warring at Male privilege, where there are also lengthy discussions at the Talk page. Not clear if the discussions have reached the futility level. David notMD (talk) 16:19, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
@David notMD: I've mostly given up on the Male Privilege article, but I would be very interested to know what you guys think of their vote to remove words like "theory" from the page in order to reclassify it as a "phenomena" - which is a very, very odd choice considering that more or less all of the sources are sociological theory. Indeed, when I tried to cite sources that explicitly call it a theory they shot me down. I realise consensus is powerful on here, but can it really take a page filled with nothing but sociological theory and rebrand it like that - even in the face of new citations? Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 21:12, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
@TiggyTheTerrible Forgive me - I'm afraid I simply do not have sufficient spare time to delve deeper into this specific issue. All I can do is offer the advice not to be confrontational in any discussions, but to be cooperative and collaborative. Everyone wants to see articles improved here, so it's about discussion and gentle persuasion. If you genuinely feel you have a more encyclopaedic 'neutral' point of view to offer (and aren't simply pushing something you know goes against general common knowledge), then Wikipedia:Dispute resolution may offer further advice. But working with, not against, other editors is the way to go. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 21:45, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
@Nick Moyes: I don't think anyone is unbiased, but I have read through the theory behind that page and I do think it is a very one-sided take that does not hold up well. I will have a think about the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. I was trying very hard not to go that route, and - as much as others would likely disagree - I have tried to work with them. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 21:49, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Reliable source for TV credit correction
My credit correction is getting kicked back because I cited IMDB. Does anyone know of an accepted "reliable" source?
Composer should be "Emerson and Emilio Palame"
I stumbled upon a group of articles about some tank landing ships listed on Template:LST-542_class_tank_landing_ship and would like to know if the article subjects are in any way notable. Specifically, let's look at USS_LST-701 (just a random choice). The article has only one source, a database record which lists technical specifications of this LST and has two random photos. The source provides no coverage whatsoever. It appears that the article is just an aggregate of similar sources (military inventory reports mostly), because it
contains an assortment of facts about when the LST was commissioned, which contractor carried out the order, when the order was delivered, and so forth to when the LST was sold for scrap and to whom. None of this has any discussion of importance of this particular LST. Frankly, this reads like machine-generated content sourced from a few public-record table reports. My question is, is any of this notable? Anton.bersh (talk) 21:47, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
There are DANFS entries for all of the LSTs that might qualify as significant coverage, but obviously some are less notable than others. I'd say that in the case of 701, yes, I suppose you could build a halfway decent article around the entry, but probably upwards of 75% of it would be boilerplate context for the amphibious invasions the ship participated in, from sources that don't mention the ship. I had a look in Jürgen Rohwer's Chronology of the War at Sea, and there's no entry for 701 in the index (though there are for a number of other LSTs).
So I'd say no, it's not particularly notable and the article ought to be merged somewhere, but we don't have a good destination as of yet. Ideally, List of United States Navy LSTs would be developed along the lines of List of protected cruisers of France, so the "biographical" details (i.e., construction data and fate) can be preserved. But it would be such a huge project (and probably require splitting the list into multiple sub-lists, since there are so many LSTs) that I frankly doubt it'll ever get done.
To add a bit of color, this issue came up just this past week with a handful of LSMs that got AFDed (1 was kept, two were redirected, and the fourth is still outstanding, but will likely end up being redirected as well - see here for example). I don't see how 701 would have a different outcome were it to go to AFD. Parsecboy (talk)
Yes, it is OK to re-use the reference, in fact editors can give reference a short name and then refer only to that name to avoid duplicate references at the bottom of the page. However, please note that duplicate references count only once for the purposes of notability (in other words, one can't find a single source and use it 3 times and claim the subject is notable). Anton.bersh (talk) 21:18, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
@R30591, there's a simple help page here on reusing references in VisualEditor. (If you're using source editor, see the last paragraph here instead.) Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk21:38, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello, the last month and a half there’s been different accounts changing a lot on the popes pages and it’s really weird because a lot of them aren’t log in users they add the same stuff. And whenever one of these accounts adds a caption to the info box the way they make the caption is exactly the same as the other accounts. And if you look at there contributions they only edit popes. I think it’s one person using multiple accounts to make it seem like there’s more people who want those changes then there actually is. Those are some of the accounts
Yeah I know is I just thinks it’s weird that all the contributions they make are to popes and the revert pretty everything I do but think there being used by the same person I talked to one of them on the Alexander VIII talk page.
Orson12345
(talk)
As a suspect by Orson12345, I declare here my position. I never used a registed account here in Wikipedia, I was editing only anonymously. In fact, I was putting some portraits of Popes (uploaded by some registered users, included Stv26) to apply the MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE with the infobox portraits, which Orson had reverted to put the portraits that he like much istead the others that were created by contemporary authors or which are chronologically close to their time. I didn't vandalized any page and my only objective is to make constructive corrections to the articles. Also, I'd post to Orson in my talk page that yes, I'm contributing in Wikipedia since August 2021 but the IP of my Wi-Fi connection has been changing automatically from time to time. Only this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.40.135.122 (talk) 22:45, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
How do I disable the floating header bar in new vector style?
When using the vector theme and scrolling down, the header bar becomes floating and takes up screen space. Is there a way to disable it without changing themes? 205.253.126.191 (talk) 22:54, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
What is the appropriate section within a WP page and the recommended methodology for displaying links to copyrighted images? DMBanks1 (talk) 16:11, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello, DMBanks1. The use of external links is explained at WP:External links. With few exceptions, they should go in a section called "External links" - and you need to make sure that their use is justified according to that page. --ColinFine (talk) 17:12, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
ColinFine. After reading the guidelines, I am still somewhat confused. It appears some thoughtful contributors add into the respective section links to a few historic images, which represent the flavour of the page. However, other enthusiastic contributors later delete all such image links. Which of the contributors is correct? DMBanks1 (talk) 17:53, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
@DMBanks1: I suggest you discuss the links on the article's talk page, to come to a consensus with the thoughtful and enthusiastic editors. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 21:08, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
@GoingBatty: The issue being raised is not specific to one article, but a generic one applying to countless articles. Has there ever been a discussion on whether it is a good or bad idea to offer readers an opportunity to view a few archival images pertaining to a specific location? DMBanks1 (talk) 21:34, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Yet another problem from an editor that looks experienced…
So, I’ve run into a bit of confusion with WP:NOTWALLOFSHAME. Per WP:KEEPDECLINEDUNBLOCK, it looks like people should not remove declined unblock requests while they are blocked. However, I’ve run across a case when you should not remove block notices while you are blocked. ({{uw-block}}, for example) So, does WP:KEEPDECLINEDUNBLOCK apply to just declined unblocks, or block notices themselves as well? Thanks. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 17:03, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
I am quite sure that your understanding is correct (i.e. block notices should not be removed while the block is active), but I can find no firm footing in policy to assert that. The best I can have is Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Other_important_information which tells blocking admins to put relevant information in the block notice for other admins - from which one might make a weak inference that removing such notices goes against policy of using them to communicate information across admins. TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact)17:34, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
@3PPYB6 and Tigraan: Nope, per the current text, it's just declined unblock notices. I don't see the purpose in keeping the block notice around if the user doesn't want it there. There's a big pink box at the top of the user's contributions saying This IP address is currently blocked. along with the name of the admin and the time of the block. From there, it's easy to find the notice in the history. If an admin wants to communicate something to other users on the same IP, they should put that in the block reason instead. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:46, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
@3PPYB6: That's easy: Don't edit war on another user's talk page, for any reason. Revert maybe once, but if that doesn't work, just let them have their fun for a little while, and come back later and clean up the mess when they get bored. If they're engaged clear block-on-sight behavior (e.g. replying "User:Foo is a f*****t" in response to a revert by User:Foo), just leave it and report them. The blocking admin will take care of it. No one else is going to read it in the meantime. We only aggressively revert vandals in article space because the WP:READER comes first. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 00:04, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
A list in Draftspace
Hello! In August 2021 an article consisting of a list that I have created following the models of others on Wikipedia, have been moved to Draftspace because references would be missing. Here is the article-list: Draft:State Public Libraries (Spain). Today I have been warned that if I do not make changes to the list it will be deleted, but the problem is that it is a simple list and when I created it I already added some references to the Spanish government agencies where they can be consulted (it is a list of the 53 state libraries that exist in Spain managed by the Ministry of Culture). What can I do to return it to the main space? I don't know what other references to put for a list of 53 items. Thanks in advance for your help.--MJSB73MP (talk) 18:53, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi @MJSB73MP (and courtesy ping Hatchens, who moved it to draftspace)! The list appears to be on a valid topic, so that's a good start. Some of the columns should be adjusted, though. Remove the Wikidata item column, as it's not acceptable on English Wikipedia to link to Wikidata from an article. Also change the header of the "Tag" column to "Name", remove the :es prefix in the address column and translate as needed, combine the postal code/address/location columns, remove the see also section if it's not going to link anywhere, and fix the weird punctuation at the end of the lead.
@MJSB73MP, looks good! I accepted the draft and restored it to article space. Another editor will come by likely sometime in the next few weeks as part of our page patrol process and may have some additional suggestions. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk21:36, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
On the article The Book of Boba Fett why does it say “Cite error: A list-defined reference named "Goransson" is not used in the content (see the help page).” At the bottom of the page when there is no ref with that name anymore. ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb22:21, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello Kaleeb18! It's because the reference isn't being used that it's giving that alert. The named reference is still listed among the references at the bottom of the page when you edit the source. "<ref name="Goransson">{{Cite web |date=September 22, 2021..." If you remove that unused ref, the error message goes away. Alternatively, use the reference in the article. Hope this is of help! LooksGreatInATurtleNeck (talk) 22:37, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
I don't have an opinion about which best represents general usage, but I note that there is a redirect from SMTOWN to SM Town. So a reader searching for either variation will end up at the right place.--Gronk Oz (talk) 02:41, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Simple Visual Editor question: removing image and caption
I can't believe I'm having to ask this, but using onlyVisual Editor, how do I completely remove an image and its caption from a page in one simple mouse-click? This should be an easy task, but I've failed to find a user-friendly button to let me do it without having to resort to Source Editor. What obvious thing am I missing? Nick Moyes (talk) 14:12, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Well, happy to help you Nick. To remove an image and its caption from a page, you can just click on that image and press delete on your keyboard. Thats it.
PS: I am really embarrassed, that I, who once did not have the faintest idea about Visual Editor or about using it, is now helping you; the person, who was like my father of my Wikipedia career; the person who taught me how to use Visual Editor. ItcouldbepossibleTalk14:22, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
@Itcouldbepossible Well, blow me down with a feather! - I didn't even think to try that!! Works perfectly, of course. Thank you. I have often said that I am still learning here, and this is no truer than today! Just for context, as part of an online 'train the trainers' course I'm about to attend, I'm trying to familiarise myself with using only VE as a beginner might (hence my blind spot). I've also discovered to my delight how much easier it is with VE to insert an extra field once you have a citation already in place, simply by switching over to VE and editing it there, rather than have to use source editor on the full template text. So, I'm gradually becoming a VE convert. Old dogs, new tricks, eh? Nick Moyes (talk) 14:36, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
@Itcouldbepossible I thought you might like to know that I've just added this important addition to the VE Guide, which was surprisingly absent until now (Oh, and thank you for those lovely words earlier - I was a bit preoccupied to properly respond. It's the fact that I have been able to help others like yourself that gives me such satisfaction here. And now you're able to do the same for me. What more can one hope for!) Nick Moyes (talk) 22:39, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
@Nick Moyes And, now I am seeking you a help. I've also discovered to my delight how much easier it is with VE to insert an extra field once you have a citation already in place, simply by switching over to VE and editing it there, rather than have to use source editor on the full template text. Can you please explain me this feature? I did not quite understand what you said. Thanks. ItcouldbepossibleTalk05:47, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
@Itcouldbepossible In Source Editor, I enter all my reference information via a template, preview it and, if it's looks right, I click insert. The 'source code' now appears in the page, and I don't get a second chance to go back and re-use that template to add an overlooked field - say, the date on which I found a url, for example. Instead, I have to go away and find the correct name to use for that field and manually add somewhere within the reference so it looks roughly like this: "|access-date=12 January 2022|". Of course, if I've missed off more than one field, I have even more work to do to manually edit the source code of the citation.
However, if I switch to edit that same page in VE, I discovered yesterday that all I need to do now is to click the inline reference number [in brackets] within the article, and the template window appears again. Now, all I need do is click 'Edit' to either add data to an existing field, or insert a new field from the 'add more information' button at the bottom of the template window. I select the field I want to use, enter my data, and 'Apply changes'. It's so much easier to re-edit a citation - something I wish I'd appreciate before now. I hope this explanation is clear enough. Give it a try and you'll see what I mean. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:52, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
@Nick Moyes You bet, I am learning half as well. You know what...after editors complained about my edits couple of weeks back (all evidences are on my talk page, I did not remove the complaints, so that people can see them in future and analyze me), and specifically told me to see how Wikipedia and the community works...I really sort of just stopped myself. Even Claudine once said to slow down and learn instead of trying to be a hero all the time. And, I did the same. I sat and read all the policies, that are currently on the English Wikipedia, but did not quite understand all of them, but still just got a overall knowledge. I read what Wikipedia is not, and specifically WP:AGF, and WP:Categorization, because it was because of few of my categorizing edits that the problems started. I also read some start class and stub class articles, and found out the content quality that is accepted at Wikipedia. I made anti - vandalism edits carefully, though problems still arised. I specifically learnt to use the tools properly, and that was when I learnt the more proper and superb uses of the Visual Editor tool. And, I gave the trick out. And thanks for adding it to the VE help page. I thought of adding it myself, but could not be bold enough. Now, I am giving you an open proposal. Whenever, you encounter any problems with VE, you can ask me if you like. Sounds a little funny though, but I can try and help you, and I would really love to do so. Thanks and regards. ItcouldbepossibleTalk03:52, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
User:Itcouldbepossible have you ever considered becoming a Teahouse host? The information you provide to everyone is spectacular, and you have all the qualities needed to become a well-received host! Although you might need to stay on Wikipedia a little longer, because you've only been on Wikipedia for 3 months and 13 days. I don't remember, but I think the bare minimum for becoming a host is like five months or something. Anyways, just suggesting something you might want to check out. Sincerely, CertifiedAmazing (talk) 23:05, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
@CertifiedAmazing Woa, not really, actually I am too young at Wikipedia to think of those things. Actually, I am learning fast and making mistakes too, but from those mistakes I am learning, and I am giving out my knowledge to help newcomers, and for the first time an administrator. I might as well as think of being a host after I have gained some more knowledge about Wikipedia's policies, and have created a good amount of articles, and also when I don't encounter with too many problems. Maybe that would take a whole year, but I am ready for it. And thanks a lot for giving me this offer. I had never thought of it before. If you ever encounter any problem, the Teahouse as well as my talk page is there for you. Seek help if you want. Thanks and happy editing. ItcouldbepossibleTalk05:31, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
The list as it is seems fine to me – it is actually providing lists of cantons by department (for eg, a list of cantons in the department of Eure). AryKun (talk) 06:38, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Agree to above, but you can be bold and create it if you feel that will be helpful; you don't need to ask to anyone. If you're unsure, may be you can prepare it the way you feel like it should be in a draft first, and, then, propose the changes to the talk page of the list. Hope that helps. Lightbluerain❄ (Talk | contribs)09:40, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
@Excellenc1: You're definitely welcome to experiment in your sandbox first and evaluate if it's an improvement after you finish. It's also a good idea to go to the talk page and see if there's consensus for such a change, so that you don't waste time working on something that ultimately won't get used. Do note that lists that are too long are hard to navigate and are generally discouraged; 2,054 does sound like a lot. ◢ Ganbaruby! (talk) 12:56, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
@Excellenc1: That is a grossly humongous list, more than six times the suggested threshold at WP:SIZESPLIT, and definitely an accessibility issue. It's been kinda discussed (here and here). But really, the "what about x" argument should generally be avoided; consider the pros and cons of your specific scenario instead. ◢ Ganbaruby! (talk) 13:54, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
With how big that list is, I'd suggest splitting it so each state has it's own article. That might already exist even! ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654514:01, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
@Blaze Wolf: Yes, a state wise list already exists (Template:U.S. Counties). But this gives me an idea: how about a list of cantons by French region? There are 2,054 cantons and 13 regions or 18 regions, which is roughly 120 to 160 cantons per region. Excellenc1 (talk) 04:29, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Intermediate editing
There is a user that insists on using intermediate edits when editing an article, but is currently leaving unencyclopedic content, particularly blank tables, in order to do so. I have pointed out that this is disruptive editing and that this could be very easily resolved via Sandbox, but the person insists on not using it. I do not believe the person has bad intentions, and the blank tables will probably be filled before I get a response, but for future instances, how should I treat this situation? And what guidelines can I cite when addressing this, besides from the fact that it is unencyclopedic? Are there specific guidelines that addresses this issue? Or am I mistaken about this, and is an intermediate edit with nothing unencyclopedic except blank tables acceptable? TheGEICOgecko (talk) 07:08, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Hoary I mean incremental edits that are in itself unencyclopedic or otherwise unacceptable, but in an attempt to make acceptable revisions to the article. In this example, the person added empty tables, and later filled them in
Looking at the article, it appears that there are still blank tables, however, I can not fix this, to abide by the 3 revert policy. TheGEICOgecko (talk) 15:43, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
@TheGEICOgecko: Welcome to the Teahouse! It might be better for readers if the editor was to draft the tables in a sandbox and then copy them into the article. However, when an editor is using the {{in use}} template, I suggest temporarily giving them a few hours to fill the tables. If they leave the blank tables for hours, then another option would be to comment them out, so they're not visible to readers but the editor can quickly restore them when they resume editing. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 16:14, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
@GoingBatty: This user is annoying me since yesterday with the argument that the tables are empty and should not be visible before they are filled in. Well I took your advice and commented it out but he keeps arguing and doesn't seem to want to end this discussion. He said that all tables should be removed unless they are completely filled in, which is not possible because, for example, there are a few sources available for that era (footballdatabase.eu) and there has to be some emptiness in these tables. I've talked to him enough and I can't go on like this because he doesn't want to understand.--Sakiv (talk) 03:37, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Sakiv, I am not arguing, I was under the impression from the last message you sent that we both agree, as you seem to have confirmed here by repeating what I previously said as something you would like to do, and also by the looks of your comment here, it appears you have not fully read my reply. I trust that you will make the proper citations, and as I am not an expert in this field, will not mess with things I do not understand (as I have already stated). If you still disagree with something I am saying, then perhaps we can discuss it or otherwise consider options that GoingBatty has suggested, but as far as I am aware of, we seem to agree, at least to the degree that there should be no more issues. To be clear, I am merely concerned over the extreme blankness of the tables, but have no issue with citations from an experienced user in a topic I do not fully understand. TheGEICOgecko (talk) 06:21, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
I realize it's only been a couple of days (and I just made a revision to my notice yesterday), but I see that there are some items have been posted there for weeks without any response.
My expectation was that people would just jump on these noticeboard items, but evidently that expectation is not reasonable. Is there something else I should be doing to get somebody to render their opinion as to whether or not the content is a violation of OR? Fabrickator (talk) 19:37, 14 January 2022 (UTC) Fabrickator (talk) 19:37, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
There are different ways to handle this type of dispute, but one suggestion is that when you post to the noticeboard, you trim WAY down to one paragraph. Brevity is key if you want people to read and comment. The OR noticeboard post was a bit long and dense. Also, where did the user say they did not not want a 3O? Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 20:13, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
You don't need anyone else's permission to request a 3O (though it's a nonbinding process, so anyone is free to ignore it, but of course it does represent what some uninvolved editor thinks.) You don't have to ask first before requesting one, nor does the other editor's objection bar you from doing so. SeraphimbladeTalk to me07:34, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
That said, it looks like you went to the editor's talk page to discuss the matter. If I'd been trying to provide a 3O there, I'd have had a hell of a time even trying to figure out what the two of you were talking about. Generally speaking, discussions regarding article content should take place on the article's talk page, not a user talk page. SeraphimbladeTalk to me07:37, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
How to contribute image for biography article which do not have infobox picture
If there are plenty of images of people on the Internet that are copyrighted or non-copyrighted and I believe fair use, can I upload them? If yes? How?. I do film posters under non-free fair use criteria. Because I found so many Malayalam biographies especially BLPs without images. I would like to contribute and it would be helpful for readers to find the exact article and understand the person. Onmyway22talk06:58, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria#1 says "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose", so you won't be able to use a copyrighted photo in a BLP, as it would be possible for someone to take an alternative photo of the living person and release it. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:55, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Kind of. Please read WP:THREAD about replying to comments in discussions. (But don't worry, it's just a stylistic thing; it helps everyone keep track of who's replying to whom.) Mathglot (talk) 10:31, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Citations, need a lot of helpt
This is a real site, but there is a problem with link. Don't know where to start.
The link works for me, AirFlex. Please note that, apart from the issue that Katherine Hoover is already an article, Papagena press is a primary source, so should be used sparingly in an article. I haven't checked the nine places where it is cited, but I doubt that these are all suitable uses of a primary source. Probably some of them should either be cited to an independent source or removed. 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) 11:03, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
How to put Project Banner on HP?
I saw this in the past but can no longer find it.
I'd like to add the banner for the Wiki Project on Geocentricity to my home page to help raise awareness.
Hi MultiScrivner. I'm not sure what you mean by my home page. Do you mean your user page or do you mean some external website like your personal homepage? WikiProject banners are templates that are typically added to the tops of article talk pages. Such templates should work on your Wikipedia user page as well, but that's not really where they're intended to be used. Many WikiProjects, on the other hand, do have userboxes that are also templates especially for editors to add to their user pages and these are usually found someone on the main page of the WikiProject in question. Neither of those templates, however, will work on external websites which means you'll have to add a url link to the WikiProject's page if you want to add a link. Finally, I'm not sure there's a "WikiProject Geocentricity", but there are number of WikiProject listed at the top of Talk:Geocentric model. Perhaps one of those is the WikiProject you're looking for. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:59, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi, a person had a heart attack and was admitted to ICU (But didn't die yet). So if the information I add to this person's article, will it be encyclopedic? Thanks. Troyol (talk) 11:12, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
A few days ago you were warned against adding to biography articles that people had been diagnosed as testing positive for COVID, and all those edits were reverted. Same would have applied if they had COVID and ended up in an ICU. In my opinion, same applies for this question. People enter intensive care units for myriad reasons. Some recover, some die. A public persona, being in intensive care, even if referenced, is ephemerial. Encyclopedias, even Wikipedia, are not. Unless a person dies, my opinion is don't. David notMD (talk) 15:50, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello. This is a place to ask questions about using Wikipedia; it is not for asking general discussion questions. If you have a concern about the articles on Nazism and Fascism, please discuss your specific concern on the relevant article talk page, Talk:Fascism or Talk:Nazism. Please understand that Wikipedia summarizes independent reliable sources and not the opinions of editors. 331dot (talk) 12:20, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Need help regarding wikipedia adventure's mission 7
Hi, I am a new user of Wikipedia and I have already done my other 6 missions on the Wikipedia Adventure Tour but facing a confusion in mission 7. Can anyone help me out how to add the sections on earth page. However, I used Heading and Sub-headings too but then I didn't get any message from Wikipedia Adventure Tour.
Hi TheTechnician27, Yes I have added wikilinks also and then too it said "Let them see" and also about something "Publish Changes". However, I did everything. Still not completed the tour.
I have created an article on a movie which is not yet released. Is this ok?
Excellenc1 In general upcoming films do not merit articles, per WP:NFILM, unless there is some notable aspect of the production of the film itself(such as with Rust (suspended film) where a shooting incident killed a member of the production). I'm not clear on what is notable about the production of this film. 331dot (talk) 11:54, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Excellenc1 The cast and crew being notable does not make the film notable before its release. If the production of the film is not notable, I would suggest that the article be moved to Draft until the film is released. 331dot (talk) 15:37, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
@Michael D. Turnbull: Ah come on now. This will be moved to draft, then y'all will delete it, then when this movie releases, some other admin host reviewer rollback holback person will make it and this will be his/her 10 gazillionth B-class article, instead of letting me, a peasant, celebrate having made an article that will actually be read by people.
Maybe there's no clarity in what I said but basically this article is my chance to make something that'll get me a lot of views (if that makes sense, and also I said 'chance', there's no certainty if this article will be super popular). Excellenc1 (talk) 16:38, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
I certainly don't go around deleting drafts. On the other hand, notability is a key guideline which you shouldn't be ignoring. Your draft can spring back into life if and when the film gains the necessary independent secondary sources. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:48, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
I'm sorry, Excellenc1, but if your purpose here is to get credit for creating articles and getting a lot of views, then I suggest you give up on Wikipedia and find a site that it about promotion and competition rather than collaboration, because I don't think you are going to get that kind of satisfaction here. See WP:editcountitis. --ColinFine (talk) 16:58, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
@ColinFine: Maybe I do have WP:editcountitis based on what I read but what we are talking about right now is not about edit count. What is the purpose of creating an article if no one will read it? Why would someone create an article on some village in the corner of the world, which hardly anyone would read, than about the latest, most popular event which will actually help people? Excellenc1 (talk) 17:21, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Well, Excellenc1, my answer is that the point of creating an article is to make Wikipedia as complete and valuable a collection of curated knowledge as we can. In most cases we have no idea how many people are going to look at a particular article: why should I care? (Coronavirus has been there since 2003, but I doubt if many people looked at it before 2019). If the article is there for somebody who does want it (or stumble on it) and I have done something to make the article more useful, that's enough for me. I would much rather editors spent their time turning some of the rubbish we have had clogging our encyclopaedia for ten or fifteen years into well-referenced and useful articvles than that they spend their time writing a mediocre article about one more company or brand or band or sports person, who is currently everywhere on the internet anyway and will probably be forgotten in ten years. But that's just my preference (and only a quarter of my edits are even in article space, so I hardly practise what I preach!). We all have our own reasons for what we choose to do. But I am suggesting that if you are bothered about whether you get the "credit" (whatever that might mean) for creating an article, then you might not get a lot of satisfaction, because most of the regular editors don't play that game. In any case, if the article is a popular one, the creator will be just one out of several hundred contributors. --ColinFine (talk) 18:15, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Excellenc1, my suggestion to you is to draftify the article and keep working on it. Move it to article space when the film is released and add critical commentary based on reviews in reliable sources. That is a much better course of action than speculating that more experienced editors are eager to steal the credit from you, which is highly unlikely. As for deleting the draft, that too is highly unlikely unless you leave it untouched for six months. Cullen328 (talk) 18:33, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Rugoconites Tenuirugosus, The comment from the reviewer is not about the reliability of the sources, but in the lack of proper footnotes. Have you looked at the link WP:REFB for help. They should not be hard-coded with [1] as you have done. MB21:33, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
N013i, the ISO 639-1 code for Punjabi is "pa", so I presume that you can write {{User pa-5}} (or whatever is the appropriate level). -- Hoary (talk) 22:07, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
First article and I'm sorry to say I'm in a hurry for this article, which is a translation of another article.
Wikipedia tells me I might have to way for 2 months to see my article published, and I didn't expect that...
I'd appreciate if you had a suggestion on how I could find a Wikipedia contributor that would be interested in reviewing my article?
@Shushugah Hi! Thank you. I'm not paid for this. This is volunteer work in order to help promote democracy in my country. I'm in a hurry because the elections are comming very soon and my candidate is a non-partisan candidate with only volunteers to support her. Sorry if my request was impolite. Best regards. CitoyenSolidaire (talk) 19:49, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi, CitoyenSolidaire. While Wikipedia has no concern as to how this affects any sort of election, the subject does seem notable. Would you mind if I hopped in and tried to clean up the article a bit? Nothing drastic; just grammar fixes, citation cleanup (namely adding translations), adding names of the works to citations, etc. TheTechnician27(Talk page)20:15, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
@CitoyenSolidaire: I suggest you add a couple sentences to the lead that summarize why Egger is notable. There should be no external links in the body of the article - either convert them to references or move them to an "External links" section or remove them. On the English Wikipedia, punctuation comes before references and there are no spaces between references. Also, please replace the « » marks with quotation marks or italics. Thanks, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 21:16, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
@CitoyenSolidaire Do you have a personal knowledge or familiarity with this person? Is sounds from your words as if you know them, or are a part of their campaign team. If so, please ensure you declare 'conflict of interest' by following the guidance at WP:COI. Merci. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:49, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
@CitoyenSolidaire You have completely avoided answering my question. So, stating it more explicitly: do you know this person or are you working on their behalf to create an article about them on English Wikipedia? And are you being paid to do so? (What is on other Wikipedia is of no relevance to us here.) Nick Moyes (talk) 18:18, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
@Nick Moyes I didn't mean to avoid your question; I thought you'd have seen my answer to User:Shushugah (around 30 lines above this one). I do not know this person personally, I am not working on her behalf. I am not paid by anyone or any organization and have no promise to any advantages or whatsoever in exchange to this work. I'm only very enthusiastic about the message of this person for the general public. CitoyenSolidaire (talk) 19:21, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
@CitoyenSolidaire: When I posted there can be a downside to having an article created you on Wikipedia, I should have clarrified that the word you wasn't referring to you specifically, but anyone in general. You seem to be in a hurry because the subject of the article is a candidate in some upcoming election with only volunteers to support here. It's great for you (this time I do mean you as an individual) to want to do that, but Wikipedia cannot be used for such a thing. This happens all of the time on English Wikipedia with people trying to create articles about political candidates they support because they somehow think it such an article can either directly or indirectly used to help support their campaign. Many of the times the editors trying to create these articles have the best intentions in mind, but they usually just aren't familiar with things like WP:NPOL or WP:OWN and WP:NOT; they mistakenly assume that the Wikipedia article will somehow be able to benefit their candidate, even in almost all cases it will not. It's also not unheard of for the staff of a candidate to try and create articles about their "boss" on Wikipedia, and this is why I think Nick Moyes was a bit concerned about your intentions. Nick has been and editor for a long time and is a Wikipedia administrator; so, he's probably seen this kind of WP:APPARENTCOI thing many times before. When people start asking about creating an article about "my <insert name of subject here>" and seem to be in a hurry to get such an article created, it often does indicate they might not be as forthcoming as they can about any connection they have to the subject of the article. One thing I noticed is that you uploaded File:ClaraEgger 2021-12-29 18-16-03.jpg to Commons and that it's licensing as been c:COM:VRT verified. The photo is attributed to someone other than yourself and perhaps you contacted that person to ask them to upload it. That's great and thanks for doing that, but sometimes such a thing indicates a connection between article subject and content creator. Anyway, if there are no such concerns in your cases then great; you might still, however, want to take a look at this just to make sure your goals are in tune with Wikipedia's goals.As for the translation of the article itself, please take a look at WP:TRANSLATION, WP:MACHINE and WP:OTHERLANGS. Articles found on other language Wikipedias can be translated into English, but existing in another language is no automatic guarantee that it should also exist in English. Each language Wikipedia has it's own policies and guidelines and while there's lots of similarities and overlapping, there are also sometimes important differences. Even in cases where a policy or guideline is pretty much the same, there may be differences in how rigorously it's being enforced. Since someone else feels Egger is Wikipedia notable and has offered to help out on the draft, may be the best thing to do here would be to offer support and follow that editor's lead. If the goal is to create a viable article about Egger that is going to survive a deletion challange, then it should make no difference whether the article is created before the election. This is why WP:AFC is suggested for editors without tons of experience in creating articles: it helps separate the wheat from the chaff and gives more experienced editors a chance to assess when there's potential for a viable article to be created. AFC isn't perfect and it does take some time, but the idea is to avoid articles ending up deleted shortly after they're created as much a possible. You might also want to see assistance on this from the members of WP:FRANCE since some of them may be able to help as well.Finally, in my opinion, the last thing most political candidates are going to want is an article created about them on Wikipedia that they have absolutely zero control over that might end up containing content that somehow casts them in an unfavorable light. Even if you don't intend to do such a thing, other editors might feel unfavorable content warrants mentioning in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines. It's certainly not going to be helpful to any candidate if the WP:REALWORLD around them start creeping into any such Wikipedia article and they find it tag with maintaince templates pointing out various concerns about the article or even page protected because of continuous disruptive editing or vandalism. They or their staff may be tempted in such a case to "fix" things, but they will only find that creates more problems and that they will need to resolve things in a Wikipedia way. It's not only candidates but all kinds of living persons who are subjects of Wikipedia biographies who also might have problems like this, and it's one of the reasons there are special processes in place for their concerns. It's not totally unheard of for the subject of a Wikipedia article to request that the article be deleted because they claim it's is affecting them in a negative way, and in some cases their request has been granted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:15, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
"As of" statements
On the NYC page, in the blurb before the article, there is a lot of statements that say "as of 2018", and I'm not sure if it has to be changed or we keep these statements as is. For example, there is a sentence that says NYC is home to the highest number of billionaires in the world citing Forbes from 2018 when according to Forbes in 2021 it is not. Thank you! 22:14, 15 January 2022 (UTC) Real60isanumber (talk) 22:14, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Real60isanumber, and welcome to the Teahouse. As long as you can find a reliable source for updated information, you're welcome to update it. (Note that Forbes publishes both reliable and unreliable articles: see its entry on WP:RSNP). In a case like this, if the source is reliable, then it's worth updating it; but it is up to editorial discretion whether to keep the historical information as well or not. You could make your choice, and be aware that other editors may disagree with you and make further changes (or even revert your edit), and then you can discuss it on the talk page; or you could decide to open a discussion on the talk page first. (See WP:BRD). --ColinFine (talk) 22:25, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Noting Problems with Articles
I have been working on multiple articles that I have been editing for encyclopedic tone and am wondering how to add notes such as for "citation needed" or those which appear at the top. I mainly work with visual editor most but am willing to use source editor for things like this. Thank you in advance. Siguida (talk) 16:59, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi, Siguida. Please see the cleanup template index for a full list of templates at your disposal. To add an inline tag for a needed citation, you can type '{{citation needed|date=January 2022}}'. In order to add tags to the top of an article in the visual editor, you can go to the top of the article and type '{{' and then search for the template you need. There's also a tool called Twinkle which can help you create tags more easily. TheTechnician27(Talk page)17:34, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
If this is about the article White-browed nuthatch, it's ridiculous to state that a nuthatch weighs 11.3 pounds (11.3 grams would at least be possible). Is the OP sure that he or she has accurately reproduced the information in the cited source? Deor (talk) 00:22, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
The French version of the article says the weight is 8-11 grams, not 5100 grams. I've updated the article to correspond to the French version. MB01:22, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Columns are best left unspecified due to the variation of devices that can be used. The footnote section is already one column on my computer with my normal window settings. If I enlarge the window to extremely wide, it changes to two columns. This is a feature of the browser that changes the display to best suit the size of the screen. On my phone, which is very narrow, there is just one column also. MB01:48, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Does there exist a music website in which you can create stations and set them to play only songs from certain timespans, of certain genres, and in certain languages? (I'd prefer it if the stations would still play songs of genres not on the list of genres to play, but no songs of no genres on the list.) 47.36.25.163 (talk) 00:27, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
On Pandora, I can click on "Browse" and have lots of choices in "Browse genres" that will only play from certain timespans and/or certain genres - almost always in English.
On Spotify, I can click on "Search" and scroll down to "Your top genres" and "Browse all" to see lots of genres. When I click on some genres, I'm then sometimes presented with songs of that genre from certain timespans. Again, the songs are almost always in English. GoingBatty (talk) 03:07, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Sockpuppetry
If one edit Wikipedia while logged out is that sockpuppetry? Why does a login expire? Is creating a new account sockpuppetry? I'm just wondering. Cwater1 (talk) 18:26, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Nope. Editing while logged out (As long as it's constructive) is not considered sockpuppetry. Sockpuppetry is when you create an account to get around a block. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654518:28, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
@Blaze Wolf: I am afraid I can't agree 100% with you. @Cwater1: please see WP:BADSOCK for things that are considered inappropiate uses of alternate accounts (or IP adreesses). Login sessions are saved in a cookie, which by default (unless you tick the "keep me logged in for up to 365 days") is removed after 30 days if I am not mistaken, however, if your browser is configured to remove cookies on shutdown it might happen earlier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Victor Schmidt (talk • contribs) 18:50, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
I was just wondering. I'm not trying to cause trouble. I just wanted a better understanding and I do make sure I'm logged in. Cwater1 (talk) 18:53, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Of the almost 300 movies I've seen recently, all but just a couple were available free on-line (Internet Archive, You Tube, or ok.ru).
But when looking at their Wikipedia articles, I only recall seeing one that has an external link to the actual movie. Is there a reason this isn't done all the time, when available? Pete Best Beatles (talk) 06:34, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
I need help with completing my project: "Eghosa Anglican Grammar School"
Courtesy link:Draft:Eghosa Anglican Grammar School
Hello, I am currently working on a project titled: "Eghosa Anglican Grammar School" I need help with completing it so that it can be approved for publication. Thanks
I got this notice from one of the Admins "This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject."
Hello, Sunnycash. In general, grammar schools are considered notable if reliable, independent sources describe them, in detail, as of unusual historic or architectural significance. Is that the case with this particular school? Cullen328 (talk) 08:11, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Despite the name, this appears to be equivalent to a high school, i.e., pre-college level. In many countries, "grammar school" is young children. David notMD (talk) 15:01, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
@Sunnycash: Note that the editor who declined your draft is not an admin. Editors do not have to be admins in order to be an Articles for Creation reviewer. I suggest you trim the list of "Notable alumni" to be only those with a Wikipedia article or an independent reliable source. I also suggest removing the "List of Principals" - interested readers can go to the school's website for these details. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 16:28, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to review my bio submission. I appreciate your comments. I am new to the process of exchanging through this process and am hoping my response is getting to you this way. I will wait a couple of days if need be to see. If I don't get a reply I will dig deeper to try to reach you another way. If I am stumbling through the process and can be advised on the correct way, please advise.
I got that my references were inadequate to substantiate the validity of my credits in my bio. I think that's what you meant? Since I have a diverse background, all being truthful and can be substantiated, I just started with references pertaining to my surfing background. I feel that you wanted references for all my credits, correct?
If so, some references go far back in time and may be only sources through images of articles from the original media. Would that do? Would providing media titles and dates suffice? Can I place images linked to a URL? Also, I am not well versed and don't quite understand the process of doing that on Wikipedia. I sure could use help.
I tend to be frugle and thrifty with my money, so I'd rather try my hand at editing rather than pay for a service , which can get quite expensive. I hope you understand and can appreciate that.
The best way of talking to an individual editor is through their user talk page, in this case User talk:Rusalkii. As a starting point you ought to read Wikipedia's advice against trying to create an autobiography. When you get round to creating an article on a more suitable subject you'll find advice at WP:Your first article. You need to make sure that references are provided as in-line citations, see Help:Referencing for beginners. References don't necessarily have to be online; references to newspaper articles can use {{cite news}} if you provide the name of the publication, date of publication, & page number. Images of newspaper articles may well not be permitted as they could be breaches of copyright. We would not recommend that you pay anyone to edit Wikipedia for you; they would need to declare their paid editing, and many of the editors fail to provide the service which they offer. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:22, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
COURTESY: Draft is at User:Bobpurvey1/sandbox; Submitted and declined. Needs more refs, and in proper ref format. Also, will need to decide if potential for notability is the surfing career or the acting career. Think of it as one or the other, not a hybrid. See List of surfers for examples of content and refs. David notMD (talk) 11:31, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Not a question, just thought this was funny (but also kind of a question)
As it turns out, due to a strange edit by an IP back in November 2017, our page Carl (name) calls the PBS children's show Arthur a "fighting game" (fixed now). Now onto an actual question: where are we supposed to draw the line for 'Fictional characters' sections? Having their own article? Major roles in a major piece of media? Their own subsection of a given article? The one on CJ from GTA and Carl Grimes from TWD, for example, seem like no-brainers if a section like this is to exist. Carl Winslow, despite not having his own separate article, also seems like a compelling case. But then you get to e.g. Carl from Meet the Robinsons; not a minor character and not a minor film, but overall not an especially major character in a film that wasn't a crazy hit. And then you get even further into e.g. Carl Gould from Arthur, a super minor and seemingly non-notable character, or 'Carl', the nickname used for the Guardian of Forever in two episodes of Star Trek: Discovery. It starts to feel less like "These are characters with enough pop cultural presence that you could reasonably be searching for them by looking at this disambiguation page" and more like WP:POPCULTURE. TheTechnician27(Talk page)01:17, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello, TheTechnician27. I just took a look at that article and it seems that almost all of the real people listed there have Wikipedia biographies, while many of the fictional characters do not have articles. In my opinion, this type of list article should only include people or fictional characters that have actual Wikipedia articles. Otherwise, this type of article tends to get clogged up by trivia and unverifiable content. Cullen328 (talk) 02:19, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
You may want to take a look at the WP:LISTPEOPLE guideline, which supports Cullen328's interpretation: a person should be included in a list only if the person meets the Wikipedia notability requirement. In general, this means a person should be included in a list only if there is already a Wikipedia article about them (or in rarer cases, a Wikipedia article could clearly be written about them but hasn't been yet). CodeTalker (talk) 17:43, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
References seem to still be a problem
I have embedded all of the references but I'm still getting this message.
Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them
Can you please tell me where the problem is? 74.90.0.124 (talk) 20:51, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello IP editor. @Pyrrho the Skipper has fixed it for you. - as the bright red message said, you had a pair of empty ref tags with nothing between them. You would have spotted this immediately had you switched over to WP:Source Editor. I would comment that everyone of of your references is not very well constructed. Try using the Cite button and adding the urls and the other fields in the right places in the citation template. To find out more, see here.
"LGBT Rights in South Korea" contains a sentence that states that the transgender population of South Korea is around 1000 people. The source of this is a South China Morning Post article, which since 2016, more reputable sources (The NY Times, the Atlantic, and Der Spiegel) have described as CCP propaganda. All the same, when I removed this line, my edit was undone by administrators for not being "constructive." Skye5515 (talk) 19:59, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Skye5515. There is no consensus among editors that the South China Morning Post is an unreliable source, although it should be used with caution with regards to the Chinese Communist Party. Cullen328 (talk) 20:16, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
I refer to the response by Nick Moyes 16.47 12 December 2021. I cannot see on the article talk page Death of Eleanor de Freitas how to raise the concerns that Nick Moyes says that I should. The references I want to refer to are any from Alexander Economou or Accused Blog. If I am noted as having a conflict of interest, so should Alexander Economou and Accused Blog. The Brooklyn Law Review reference deals with an article from Prof Lisa Avalos. Alexander Economou refers to Prof Avalos in his Accused Blog as his stalker, at the entry for Friday 22 June 2016, which is ridiculous. As this Brooklyn Law Review article is the only academic review of the failings in the CPS's continuation of Alexander Economou's private prosecution of Eleanor, I am keen to include suitable tracts from page 840 onwards. Alice Vachss also wrote about this prosecution in her book 'Sex Crimes' and I want to include a suitable extract. I believe this page was incepted by an editor called McPhail; is there any way that McPhail could assist? RobinEllie (talk) 19:29, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
SITUATION: McPhail created the article in October 2018 and has continued as a contributing editor. RobinEllie has been editing since May 2020, and has stated that the article Death of Eleanor de Freitas is about his daughter, hence a declared COI (see article Talk page). Can someone guide RobinEllie on how to craft references, and how, on the article's Talk page, to propose changes? David notMD (talk) 19:51, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Editors Equord and C Fred have been constantly edititing a page with a false "source" which is a planked source and the editing is transmitting false information and translation. How to avoid that the page keep being constantly vandalised? Otto-Christian von Bismarck (talk) 05:20, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
@Otto-Christian von Bismarck Well, can you tell which page they are editing. The editors that you said, are quite experienced, so it is unlikely that they will make a mistakes. Though sometimes, it can be possible too. So, it would be of great help if could specify the page that they are editing. Thanks.
Alerting HaeB to this discussion as they removed the material in the latest edit. HaeB appears to be fluent in German and deems these German-language sources to be unreliable.
Indeed, I encountered this article on recent changes patrol, and happened to notice that the two sources cited in support of the contested paragraph were Bunte and a blog post that relied on Bild am Sonntag. Both Bunte and Bild am Sonntag have a less than stellar journalistic reputation, to put it mildly.
That doesn't rule out the possibility that some of this information could be re-added if better sources are found. But the now removed version looked like a serious WP:BLP problem.
Thank you Drm310, User:Itcouldbepossiblefor your courtesy to respond and for your help. The page has been vandalised several times with unreliable sources with harmful editing, intentional or due maybe to the lack of the editors being familiar with foreign language "german" and unreliable "german" sources. Thank you HaeB. Editors have replicated the English edition version also on the German and Portuguese pages Otto-Christian von Bismarck— Preceding unsigned comment added by Otto-Christian von Bismarck (talk • contribs) 6:18, 11 January 2022 (edit) (UTC)
I want to question the use of the word “vandalised” which implies bad faith edits. Can you demonstrate that? From my perspective patrolling recent/pending changes, one editor was repeatedly removing cited text and everyone else involved was just asking “why?” and restoring it. Nick Levine (talk) 08:35, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Well I fell into that one didn’t I. But when a WP:COI notice was put on your talk page you didn’t protest it then, so I assumed you weren’t arguing the facts. Nick Levine (talk) 08:25, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
This is a bit of a mess. To summarise: (1) we have a conflict over a piece of very negative information about Carl von B, which Otto von B wants removed. The information is supported by truly atrocious sources (HaeB's assessment is quite right; Bild is roughly equivalent to Daily Mail). Therefore it would normally be a no-brainer to remove the content. However, (2) the editor who wants it removed shares a very unusual surname with the subject, and has countered a COI claim with a shadow-boxing counter-claim of name-prejudice rather than simply declaring no COI, so we're left with a strong suspicion that the removal is COI editing, which is also normally a no-brainer revert. My "vote" is that the correct thing to do is ignore Otto-von-B's opinion as potentially biased until such times as they state clearly that they are unrelated to the subject, but nevertheless remove the information whose support traces back to Bild, as per HaeB, unless someone can find a better source. Elemimele (talk) 11:43, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
@Elemimele: This is a case study in why COI editors should not cry "vandalism" when they remove negative material. The immediate reaction by experienced editors is to view the edit as whitewashing and restore the material. It is certainly easier to do that first and then vet the sources. In a perfect world, Otto-Christian von Bismarck would have requested removal of the offending lines on the talk page on the grounds that they were supported by a blog and a tabloid, sources too weak to support such claims. Thank you to HaeB for digging into the source chain for the material, determining it's weak, and removing it based on policy.@Otto-Christian von Bismarck: to be clear, we did not remove the material because it's negative; we removed it because the sources are not reliable journalism per Wikipedia's standards. —C.Fred (talk) 12:41, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
It was me who initially edited the disputed facts. I'm very sorry that the sources I added are not regarded reliable. However, I'm convinced the negative information they contain is largely correct. Furthermore I suspect that User:Otto-Christian von Bismarck is Carl vB himself, as his only topic is Carl and the dispute, as is for User:Friedrichsruh-Aumuhle [3]. Just today his edits under the same name User:Otto-Christian von Bismarck have been reverted in the German WP article de:Carl-Eduard von Bismarck and the reverted version has been saved, with User:Otto-Christian von Bismarck being accused of edit-war [4]. The underlying story, covered by numerous German newspapers (inevitably primarily tabloids and yellow press, but also serious daily press) is going on for many, many years. Just a few examples: Fierce dispute over the inheritance: The Bismarcks are flying tatters (in: Lübecker Nachrichten, a regional daily newspaper, of 9 Dec 2013). Or: Is this the decline of the German nobility? (in: Die Welt, one of the largest and best-known German daily newspapers, of 14 Dec 2013). Both report sharp arguments between Carl and his brother Gregor and their parents. Furthermore the Die Welt article reports the following: "Carl-Eduard von Bismarck, known as Calle, also has problems. But unlike his late brother Gottfried, the 52-year-old decided to take an incomprehensible step in his circles: He spoke about it in public. In an interview with “Bild am Sonntag” he told of alcohol problems, debts and the fact that his third marriage would also be in crisis.". Here it is: [5] It may be a little ironic that the source classified here as dubious (Bild) at the time served as the mouthpiece of the person concerned. The sources revised here essentially addressed three negative facts: marital problems, alcohol problems, and disinheritance. All three facts were made known or confirmed personally by the person concerned in the quoted Bild interview of 2013. Regarding alcoholism: „Unfortunately, alcoholism is a disease that comes and goes. And unfortunately there were relapses through the whole trouble. I tried to get my alcohol problems under control in New York with my father's approval. That worked well too. I made money with my company, I didn't want to be on my family's pocket forever. But then there were always situations like last Christmas...“ Regarding marital problems: The third marriage, which he described as troubled in his 2013 interview, was divorced in 2014. Regarding disinheritance: „My brother had my father dragged to the notary without legal assistance in order to secure the property for himself. My father tried to change these agreements out of a bad conscience and even sued my brother. Without success. The fact is that my brother already owns 51 percent of the forestry, which I have no problem with. From his 50th birthday, next August, Gregor will also have the say in the castle. But only after my father died.“ To quote a somewhat more recent (and undisputedly reputable) source, the local daily Hamburger Abendblatt from July 25, 2019: „In 2014 Ferdinand von Bismarck handed over the administration of the Sachsenwald to his son Gregor. Since then, he has been taking care of the Bismarck family. He is also considered a prudent and resourceful entrepreneur.“[6] Regarding debts: Focus (German magazine) headlined on December 16, 2013: The luxury life of Carl Eduard − Bismarck heir squandered six million dollars.[7] - So all in all it's a well-known, classic and tragic family dispute. It is not clear why WP should not name these facts. Facts that have preoccupied the German press for years. And the person concerned seems to want to polish up his image not only through interviews, but also through Wikipedia. My revised edit here read like this: Due to his marriage and alcohol problems as well as over-indebtedness, which his father often had to settle, he was disinherited by his father in 2002 and placed on the compulsory portion. After the latter's death in 2019, the family estate, including the manor house at Friedrichsruh and large parts of the Sachsenwald forest, fell to his youngest brother, Count Gregor von Bismarck-Schönhausen (born 1964). One can argue about the exact choice of words, but hardly about the facts. At most, one could create a certain balance here by depicting the motives for disinheritance from Carl's point of view, namely driven by a greedy brother and a vengeful mother, under the manipulation of the father. One could write, for example: He himself accused his brother in interviews... - However, there is no need to speak of other, more temporary facts here in WP, such as the presence of the police at Friedrichsruh Manor, which he himself confirmed in an interview with the Bild newspaper on October 1, 2019, due to violence: [8]. Or the arrest warrant that his ex-wife obtained from the Reinbeck District Court on October 8, 2020, because Carl did not meet his maintenance payments for his children and on subpoenas had not appeared to submit an affidavit about his financial circumstances, as reported in Hamburger Morgenpost of 22 Oct 2020: [9]. All in all, it cannot be seen why at least some basic facts that he himself had made known in interviews (a kind of press war) should not be mentioned here. Equord (talk) 15:21, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello. I'm from pt.wiki, and would like to thank all of you for the analysis and discussion around the content, its sources and the COI. Otto-Christian von Bismarck has been blocked at pt.wiki, initially for 3 days because of edit warring, removal of content and COI; but the block has been extended to 1 week due to the use of a sock puppet to evade the block (Amber22200 was the sock). Otto's edits removing content have been reverted, and the article pt:Carl-Eduard von Bismarck is temporarily protected. I would like to invite the other two editors involved in the situation at pt.wiki, @M.a.salgado11 and 79a:, to read the topic here (and specially Equord's comment above mine) so that the content in dispute can be edited there according to the sources considered more reliable. Thanks. Solon26.12521:36, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
@Equord: Thank you for this thorough writeup. Regarding "It may be a little ironic that the source classified here as dubious (Bild) at the time served as the mouthpiece of the person concerned": Not sure what's ironic here or how it would override WP:BILD/WP:BLP concerns. Just a few weeks ago, Bild was criticized for seriously misrepresentating of statements from an interview it had conducted [10]. On the other hand, I agree that e.g. Die Welt is a more reliable source. Anyway, per Nick Levine, conversation about specific article content should probably continue on the article talk page rather than here. Regards, HaeB (talk) 21:48, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Per WP:REALNAME, Do not edit under a name that is likely to imply that you are (or are related to) a specific, identifiable person. Sure, a dead person is not likely to edit Wikipedia, and a couple of editors use usernames that technically impersonate historical characters (I could find Winston Churchill). However, the above discussion shows that some people were confused. I would also note that your note on your userpage seems like an assertion that you are OCvB rather than a general biographical notice. TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact)16:45, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Equord you've provided good background and a lot of support from far more reliable sources than Bild. I'd say anything that's made it into reputable newspapers, even local ones, is fair to use. I have nothing against including the information, I just think it needs to be supported by something solid. I think you're right that where necessary we can quote what he said himself, in an interview with the tabloid press, but I do think we utterly need to specify "in an interview with Bild, Carl von B said..." because this is a double-unreliable-source: a newspaper that we expect to take a biased position reporting the words of someone who we expect to be biased by their personal involvement; our readers need to be aware, and take it as his words about himself, not necessarily a fact. We should do this when we actually want to present what he's said about it, as a relevant feature of the overall argument, as opposed to presenting the facts. For that, I really like your better sources. Thank you for listing them, and for your work. Elemimele (talk) 19:16, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
You have a large number of syntax errors, as reported by the numerous error messages in red. In each of those, the word "help" in blue is a wikilink to more detailed advice if you need it. If you start a reference with <ref> but forget to finish it with </ref> it is liable to interfere with the display of subsequent text. Sort those errors out, and then look again at how your page is displayed. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:02, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
@AnnRos: Once you've sorted out the unbalanced ref tags, you will then need to not only remove those citations which self-reference to other wikipedia pages, but also remove inline urls to external sites. Neither should be present in an actual encyclopaedia article. Cheers,
@Bcritical Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I would hope you would be able to find all the advice you would need by following the resources provided at Wikipedia:Maps for Wikipedia, especially on how Template:Maplink map is utilised. I would advise experimenting with different version in your personal sandbox before trying to insert anything in a live article, as this is a great way to learn. Another tip is to find an existing page which does something similar to what you know you want to achieve, and then to look at the source code to work out how it was done. I hope this helps. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 12:33, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Nick Moyes Hi Nick, thanks for the advice, I will try this out. I know I should have used my sandbox, I was overconfident, oops. I had tried to copy from the WP article Windsor but I could not see any addition of coordinates there. I thought I had copied the coding exactly and couldn't see what I was missing. I clearly changed something and didn't revert it, my bad. It is always a good learning experience. --Bcritical (talk) 00:19, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
To whom do I turn?
I posed a question on a movie's talk page, but I realize now that it's a medical question, and I have no idea about to whom I should redirect the question. For reference, see "Unsuccessful suicide attempt" at Talk: Elevator to the Gallows. Pete Best Beatles (talk) 00:04, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
when turning left or right the turning lights are not working i have checked the bulbs and the fuse is there something else i can look at 154.14.112.185 (talk) 04:34, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
ian t
Hi, Ian. I suggest checking out /r/MechanicAdvice over on Reddit. It only takes a few minutes to make an account and post there, and while they seem to usually take on more challenging automotive problems like blown gaskets, they should be able to help you with your turn signals. Hope this helps you out. TheTechnician27(Talk page)05:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Google Indexing
Please how long does it take for a newly created Wikipedia page/article to be indexed on google and does it happen automatically or there are steps to follow. Thanks. MrMarvE (talk) 05:44, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
MrMarvE, articles created by editors with the autopatrolled user right are immediately available for search engine indexing. I have that right, and have created new articles a few times and then I continued Googling the topic to improve the article, and less than five minutes later, my brand new article is at the top of Google's search results. That is an impressive thing to see. Cullen328 (talk) 17:45, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
@MrMarvE: In addition to what others have stated, if you have any relationship with or are Marvellous Odiete, you must disclose it on your user page. Please see WP:PAID. I say this because you coincidentally have a photoshoot of the subject listed as your own work, you submitted the draft several times over the course of a few months at AfC, and your username seems to be a possible reference to the subject ("MrMarvE" ~= "Mr. Marvellous Efe"). TheTechnician27(Talk page)05:23, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
@TheTechnician27: I have no relationship or affiliation with the subject and i do not own the photoshoot file, i made so many inexplicable rookie mistakes starting from my account creation to writing articles. i have since been spending to study the Wiki guidelines and won’t be making contributions or writing articles until i fully understand the guidelines. I'll be writing more articles in the nearest future once i'm confident enough. Thanks. MrMarvE(Talk page)
User keeps adding back reverted content, trying to avoid an edit war
On the article Malharrao, a user has been incrementally adding unreferenced information since 12 January 2022 about someone named Bellamkonda Malharrao. This user also submitted an article about this person to AfC, which was denied on 14 January. A few hours ago I manually reverted the article to its original state before the user's additions, which removed about 13.6k bytes, and left a warning on the user's talk page about adding unreferenced material. About 10 minutes later and the information was copy pasted back by the user. I reverted it once again and left a longer edit summary trying to explain why I reverted the edit, but since then it has been added back a third time by this user. I don't want to revert more and cause an edit war, but I'm not sure how to get the message through to them. I'm also not sure what to do next, if the appropriate step would be to report the user (and if so, where) or to try again explaining how/why to use their sandbox for this instead of adding it to this article, which is not about that person. Any advice appreciated, Normal Name (talk) 06:37, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
@Normal Name: Obviously disruptive edits are exempt from the three revert rule. I've reverted the edit and reiterated what you've pointed out. If it happens again, the place to report is is WP:AIV. Meanwhile, I see that you put your revert reasoning in an edit summary; we usually do it as a talk page message since many new editors may not know edit summaries exist and won't see your reasoning. ◢ Ganbaruby! (talk) 07:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Mwanzotoursuganda Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Like many people, you have a common, fundamental misunderstanding as to what Wikipedia is. It is not a place for companies to tell the world about themselves, and is not a directory where mere existence merits inclusion. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with criteria for inclusion. Wikipedia is not concerned with your company's online presence or in enhancing search results for it. A Wikipedia article must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about your company, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable company. This is usually extremely difficult for people in your position to do. Please read WP:COI and WP:PAID for information on required formal disclosures you must make, as well as additional information. 331dot (talk) 10:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
@LalKhan2022: Whole sections of the article are unsourced. For example, in Livelihood section, it has two setences. Where are the references for that? If it is published in the state, ir will either be deleted or sent back to draft. For the whole article, you have one reference. Follow the guidance of the reviewing editors, specifically read WP:RS, WP:PSTS. Also please look at the short tutorial, WP:REFB that describes how to create inline citation. To create references for village, for example, look for source amongst geographic gazetter's. These are usually government or university sites that have details on specific villages, lakes and other geographic features. They are ideal for sources. Hope that helps! 12:22, 17 January 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scope creep (talk • contribs)
Previous discussion : #Didwho Welleh Twe
Courtesy link: Didwho Welleh Twe TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 00:55, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Done - Thankyou, JoeNMLC (talk) 14:55, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Next discussion : #Didwho Welleh Twe (2)
Courtesy link: Draft:Roadrunner Pizza
Courtesy ping: Rusalkii —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 07:51, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
_And_Rugoconites_Tenuirugosus_(middle).png){kind=link}
