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.
Weakly Sourced, Low Traffic Article with Heavy Bias Desperately Needs Help
While not new to Wikipedia (16-year editor), I am new to the situation I just stumbled upon while doing unrelated research. There is an article on a low traffic topic (so Talk page traffic is sparse) that is written from a strongly biased perspective. It's weakly sourced and laced with subtle untruths and false assertions. Most of the content probably falls into the category of original research, much of it found no where else on the Internet. I'm happy to take on repairing it (it's notable and should remain), but will require a vast remodeling to be appropriate. I'd estimate at least 75% of the content, including entire sections, needs to go. I question the inclusion of the nonprofit linked prominently to the article that should be focused on the historical nature of the subject matter instead of the nonprofit's agenda. My guess is they created the article. The original author is no longer a valid user. I'm an unbiased party and I understand the underlying motivation for the bias, but I need some guidance on how to proceed.
@Condorman I skimmed over the article in question, checked the Talk page, and saw one person has responded and told you to start editing. If you haven't already done so you may want to become a participant in the WP:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, and become familiar with the project's goals and guidelines. When a large article needs major revisions I believe it would be best to do it in phases. That way, if someone comes along and reverts a section of the article, they won't be reverting all of your work.
Make sure you have good references for all your changes, leave descriptive edit summaries, and add a new Talk page post if you run into any problems, or believe a portion of your work may be controversial. Let it be known that you are open to discussions and help from anyone with useful references, but don't be surprised if no one steps up to offer any assistance. Best wishes on your work in improving the article. Karenthewriter (talk) 16:35, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
The creator, User:Terran57 is still actively involved in revising the article, and states on own User page that is part of the Mount Tabor community, so I strongly recommend opening a dialog with Terran57, either on Mount Tabor Indian Community Talk or creator Talk. Anticipate that this will be an interactive process. David notMD (talk) 17:15, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Left a comment on the article talk page. I agree with David above that a dialogue should be opened with the original creator. I suspect they will disagree with my personal views about their group but I remain neutral about the article itself and very much believe it should remain as it passes Wikipedia guidelines for inclusion. That said, a dialogue might afford us opportunities to improve upon the article and subsequent research might allow more information to be included. Condorman, if you do decide to open such a dialogue I request that you include others that have edited on the article and myself in the discussion if it is not on the article talk page. Thanks --ARoseWolf17:47, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Appears you created the draft of the list article and it was approved. You are probably the person best able to improve it. David notMD (talk) 14:52, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
You might want to add some more information to the Rashida Bello article to make it a bit more detailed if you can, but it looks like a good start! I think the List of first ladies of Nigerian states could use a little more clarification though. Was there a first lady for every Nigerian state, or was there one first lady for the entire country? If so, when did they become first ladies?
I can change my name on my Instagram and Twitter, but I can’t find the button for changing my name in Wikipedia. I don’t want people to think I’m an official NBA statkeeper, because I’m not. I would rather be called NbaStatsFan. NbaStatkeeper (talk) 21:28, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Since you only made the account today and have only made 10 edits, I would simply suggest just abandoning this account and create a new one under you desired name. McMatter(talk)/(contrib)21:35, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Help on Article for Candidate who won Senate election in California
I would like help creating an article for a candidate who won in the primary elections (with over 24,000 votes), and is now set to run at the general election of California's Senate. Here are the primary election results 2022 California State Senate election, and here is her webpage. https://www.votealvaradogil.com/
I added "The Most Remarkable Formula In The World" to the same section after starting RfD about "The most remarkable formula in mathematics", should the discussion of these two redirects be discussed in separate sections ?--SilverMatsu (talk) 07:51, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
@SilverMatsu That redirect should have been added as a separate section. There was already a lot of discussion about the first redirect present that does not apply to the second. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 11:16, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
I have read the guidelines on the use of Wikipedia:External_links and made the change that any external link resides in the references section, not in the body of the text.
I have also read the guidelines in WP:SCOIC regarding complying with COI disclosure. I was wondering how can I resolve this issue? I tried my best to comply with the neutrality point of view of Wikipedia and the Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons guidelines.
May I receive some help on how to address this issue?
@Abdelrahmanhosnym, welcome. Afaict you have done things right, COI-wise. You have "declared" on your userpage and the draft talkpage, so your COI is above board, and you have submitted the draft for review, not moved it to mainspace yourself, also by the book.
A brief look at the draft shows that there is uncited text, it should be fixed or removed. Your hurdle is WP:BASIC, or perhaps WP:ACADEMIC in this case. The more obvious it is to a reviewer that these WP:N criteria are met, the better. And a minor thing, in article text, put punctuation before ref. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:35, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for looking into this. There are many peer-reviewed academic publications available on Google Scholar [4]. In particular, here are some related publications [5][6][7][8]. There are also patents [9][10].
Citation still needed when the topic is linked to another Wikipedia page?
Hello,
I use Citation Hunt as a way of contributing to Wikipedia so following "citation needed" tags around is the main way I edit at the moment.
Sometimes, a citation needed tag appears at the end of a sentence, and that sentence also links to an article about the subject of the sentence. How much redundancy is helpful here?
I've added lots of citations as well as removed a few "citation needed" tags that seemed unecessary. This comes up often enough that I wanted to ask if there was a broader policy to follow.
I've read through https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed as well as the linked articles about Citation overkill and Citation underkill and I'm still not sure if there is a useful general policy or if it depends on the situation.
I can imagine that it is easier to deal with pages changing over time if the citations are everywhere -- ie, more redundancy is helpful, especially in cases where the original article might be subject to deletion, or the reference to it might be eliminated.
On the other hand, choosing just one citation to reference e.g. the existence of something that has its own Wikipedia page is somewhat challenging, as well as managing the ongoing relationship between a subject and references to it in other articles. So I can also imagine that it is easier to deal with pages changing over time if the references are only on the main subject page instead of needing to be changed and updated anywhere and everywhere the topic comes up.
Is it a judgment call, or is there general policy around this?
The source or sources must be copied over, otherwise you are attempting to use Wikipedia as a source. See WP:USERGENERATED. Wikipedia is a user-generated site and thus is not a reliable source itself. Meters (talk) 22:05, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the additional reference! I do understand that Wikipedia itself shouldn't be used as a source, I was mostly trying to understand the degree of redundancy desired between pages (and it sounds like a lot of redundancy is required).
e.g., the esoteric languages page has "citation needed" beside pretty much every example (https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Esoteric_programming_language), but they mostly also have their own wikipedia pages. It's not always obvious which citation(s) to include in a larger article.
Emixolydian, you need to wrap your head around the concept that a link to another Wikipedia article does not comply with the core content policy of Verifiability. No reader should have to look at the reference list of a different article to verify an assertion in the article they are reading. The reference list in that specific article should be comprehensive. Of you find and read a good reference to a reliable source in another article, go ahead and copy it over, attributing the source article in your edit summary. Cullen328 (talk) 03:34, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, that makes sense, I appreciate the explanation. (I think in many cases there are larger structural problems with articles I've come across that can't just be solved with citations which is maybe part of my confusion but I will keep this in mind)
I searched Wikipedia for my fathers name ( Hasan Cemalovic) and what i found out is that someone who wrote it made a few mistakes in the title ( my fathers last name is spelled incorrectly) and in text below.
I am new to Wikipedia and i would like to know how to make those changes to the article? I would like to reply to be for Visual Editor.
Hi Hamza131974, welcome to Wikipedia! Since you have a conflict of interest, you should not edit the article directly yourself, but instead propose changes at the talk page. It looks like both of the references that the article has spell the last name as "Cemalovic", so if you want to change that, you'll need to provide a reliable source in order to verify the different spelling (unless it something minor like an accent). ––FormalDudetalk08:17, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
WorldCat has Hasan listed as Ćemalović, not Čemalovć.[11]. Article-talk is the best place to debate the spelling, since then the discussion is permanently stored with the article. But I'll ask here out of curiosity: an English-speaker would probably say it like "semalohvik", how do you pronounce your name, Hamza? ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 08:15, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Last of the Mohicans (1936)
Is a minor error in a film description worth the time to fix? In Wiki's description of Last of the Mohicans, the 1936 film. it mentions a romantic relationship between Hawkeye and Cora. Cora is the younger sister, who dies. Hawkeye's relationship is with the older sister, Alice. Gregory urbach (talk) 04:24, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Is there a specified/recommended size limit for talk page archives? According to Help:Archiving a talk page, the talk page needs to reach 75 KB to be considered for archiving (or have multiple resolved/stale conversations). But what about the archives themselves? Is there a size limit before starting another archive?
As a specific and recent example, I created Archive 4 for Talk:Chupacabra due to an extensive backlog of resolved/stale conversations. Archive 1 is currently 69 KB, Archive 2 is currently 42 KB, Archive 3 is 57 KB, and Archive 4 is 14 KB. While I already created Archive 4, is there a recommended KB value that needs to be reached before starting the next archive folder? If so, is there any value in editing these archives to "fill up" the oldest to a certain size value (so take the oldest material from Archive 2 and add to Archive 1 until it reaches, say, 75 KB; and so on with each subsequent archive).
@TNstingray: Good question. I believe it's mostly left up to editor discretion. 75 KB does seem to the minimum desired size for archives, so I do think it would be a good idea to "fill up" the older archives. Often on larger articles that see more talk page discussion, archive size will be even larger, up to 125 KB. ––FormalDudetalk04:15, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
I read on some websites that Yoshiro-sensei the mangaka of Hunter x Hunter has returned to working on it. Can we now change date from 1998-2018 (hiatus) to 1998-present? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolfp5 (talk • contribs) 06:20, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Wolfp5. It seems to be unclear whether or not comicbook.com should be treated as a reliable source (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 188#Comicbook.com?), but if you think it should, then you're welcome to edit the article, citing the source. If you're not confident in doing that, or you think its reliability might be challenged, it's best to post on the talk page of the article. ColinFine (talk) 09:49, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
I was trying to create an article about an academical NFT project with educational intention that is called TID hNFT Research Institute. There were various articles about the topic that I added as references.
Unfortunately Wikipedia consider that project non notable and my intention as an intention of promotion of a company or something. TID is not even a company. On the other hand I see that on Wikipedia you can find articles of many other NFT companies that could be considered promotional.
So I don´t understand how Wikipedia considers that something is an act of promotion and something it isn´t.
My experience with wikipedia until now is not good and I feel that the Wikipedia community is not hospitable to new users.
Hello, @Vango Rosios, and welcome to the Teahouse! First of all, please note that notability is defined slightly differently on Wikipedia. Essentially, for a subject (be that a person, event, place, object, organisation etc.) to be considered notable on Wikipedia (and thus deserving of an article), it should be non-trivially covered in multiple reliable, independent, secondary sources. Under these criteria, TID hNFT Research Institute is probably not notable (a quick google news search only brought up 2 sources, one of which is a press release, which is not considered independent from the subject). Another important policy of Wikipedia is NPOV (neutral point of view), which I recommend you have a look at. In your case, your sandbox was speedily deleted because an editor thought that it was "Unambiguous advertising or promotion" (Please note that this can apply to all Wikipedia subjects, not just companies). I can't say wether or not the content in your sandbox was "Unambiguous advertising or promotion", as it has now been deleted (however, you can still recover the deleted content, just speak to the administrator who deleted the page), but I imagine that, since it was speedily deleted, it was obviously promotional in some way. Also, please check the rules regarding editing Wikipedia with a conflict of interest.
I'm sorry that you feel that the Wikipedia community is not welcoming, but it is sadly true that being a newcomer to Wikipedia can be difficult, but there are plenty of editors (like myself) who will be more than happy to help you. Have a great day! HenryTemplo (talk) 15:38, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Vango Rosios (ec) Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Please read other stuff exists. Please understand that the existence of other articles has no bearing on yours. It could be that these other articles you have seen are also inappropriate and simply not addressed yet.
You seem to have a common misunderstanding about Wikipedia- it is not a place to merely tell about something. That is considered promotional here, you don't have to be soliciting customers or selling something. Wikipedia is not for merely providing information or mere education. A Wikipedia article about a topic must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about it, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability. Your now deleted draft had much promotional language, like "The hNFT concept seeks to revolutionise the collection and dissemination of historical and cultural knowledge by joining the tech-driven art movement with museums, universities and non-governmental organisations to reimagine our common heritage for the blockchain and the evolving metaverse." This language is not appropriate for an encyclopedia article and does not summarize what independent sources state about the topic. Please read Your First Article. If you are associated with this academic project, please read WP:COI.
There are special rules when editing about cryptocurrencies/blockchain. I will notify you of these on your user talk page. 331dot (talk) 15:39, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
From the TID website, I got the sense that it exists to sell 'historical NFTs' (hNFTs). Hence, promotional, and "Good-by." David notMD (talk) 15:47, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Not sure about the quality of a citation
I'm reviewing the article "Disappearance of Lars Mittank" about a 2014 disappearance case for GA status. The article includes a citation to "culturecrossfire.com" which seems to be a entertainment website. I'm not sure if this is a adequate source. Llewee (talk) 12:42, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Hello! It appears to be written by authors which is awfully similar to a blog, so IMO it is unreliable. If you disagree try opening up a community discussion at WP:RSN. interstatefive18:57, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
I noticed some articles have audible versions of them. Is that something only administrators can add or could I make them too? Zorya's Leshak (talk) 23:14, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi. I am trying to start a page for a band I am in called Kyrbgrinder. I am useless at this sort of thing but feel the band is definitely noteworthy enough. Articles about the band can be found. Can anybody help me with this? Thanks. Ben Bullitb1 (talk) 13:18, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Bullitb1 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia does not have "pages", it has articles. Those articles are typically written by independent editors wholly unconnected with the subject, who took note of a subject receiving significant coverage in independent reliable sources and chose to write about it, summarizing those sources. Please review the conflict of interest policy for some important information. It is advised that you not attempt to write about your band, as you may be too close to it to write about it as Wikipedia requires. You would need to set aside everything you know about your band and all materials it puts out, and only write based on what independent reliable sources say about it. If you have read the Wikipedia definition of a notable band, and your band meets at least one aspect of it, you may however submit a draft at Articles for Creation after reading Your First Article and using the new user tutorial. 331dot (talk) 13:25, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Why is ones Articulated document about that "Zep Tepi" extremely and extensively quite lacking~~ regarding only containing that other Correct "Echt" truth? Yes this one rather contains all those other: those further made in order to fit: all those "Axiom made" truths instead of??? Yes certainly has become very, very, very doctored2601:540:4100:2100:AC66:B64A:F39:C980 (talk) right on up2601:540:4100:2100:AC66:B64A:F39:C980 (talk) since that very inception beginning of this resulting Tale??? Why else?? Because: as they were apt to say before: Only that natural and realistic truth shall finally set one absolutely upon that very free! Otherwise it's actually only that simulated appearance of ever being free! Yea since the moment that rebellion happened within that very first Garden of Need, then did all ones ever concurring problems2601:540:4100:2100:AC66:B64A:F39:C980 (talk) afterwards did simultaneously2601:540:4100:2100:AC66:B64A:F39:C980 (talk) begin to developmentally occur too for sure! Yes if I'd write everything about this extensively long tale, then what a tale that would certainly be. Yet understand this would be nothing else but an absolutely and precisely correct tale only! Minus the wanton and willful desire to have all that advantage favor, regulation, and control attached within hand! Then that is definitely what makes ones entire present tale quite further perverted on up too for sure! Yes ones present tale only contains subtle hints regarding that actual and realistic truth contained within! 2601:540:4100:2100:AC66:B64A:F39:C980 (talk) 02:28, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
It appears that the user likes to use tildes -- sometimes two, and sometimes four -- as punctuation, to separate thoughts and phrases. It makes for very choppy reading. Not that the prose is very understandable either way... 73.127.147.187 (talk) 03:47, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Determining Conciseness And Sources For Media Plot Summaries
I just started editing and am a little confused about how to determine what makes sense when it comes to conciseness and citations for media, like a video game. I was editing the Wikipedia for the video game Flushed Away, and there is a large section devoted to plot with no citations. It all seems to be original work. But, the original writer also seemed to just recount the events of the game. Should this plot section be deleted? I found YouTube let's plays of the game, which seem to match up with the summary. Would those videos work as a citation? Pizzarush (talk) 03:21, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
@Pizzarush: Welcome to the Teahouse. Per Wikipedia:PLOTSOURCE, plot sections do not need to be sourced with in-line citations, as it is generally assumed that the work itself is the primary source for the plot summary, but if sourcing is available it is encouraged. Don't use YouTube videos as sources, as there are issues with copyrights, especially if they're not from the game developer's account. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:07, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
How to make my article independent
Im trying to claim my knowledge by creating this article Irishkidd
Shawn Mokwena 01 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. To be frank, Wikipedia has no interest in your knowledge graph and nothing to do with what search engines require to obtain or enhance one. 331dot (talk) 21:33, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Google's Knowledge Graph does not pull exclusively from Wikipedia (and in fact will cull information from non-Wikipedia sources if an article doesn't exist). Even then, the Knowledge Graph only provides the first few sentences of the lede section of any article it scrapes, Wikipedia or otherwise. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how both the Knowledge Graph and Wikipedia actually work. —Jéské Courianov^_^va little blue Bori22:52, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
@Shawn Mokwena 01 The other editors are right, but I'll take a bit of time and explain more fully:
"finding my google website on Wikipedia": I don't know what you mean by this. If you already have your own website that you created, it is not related to Wikipedia. A website lives on the Internet; it does not really live within Google. Google and other companies have ways to facilitate creating web sites, for example, at sites.google.com. Is that what you mean by "your Google website"? Either way, Google can help you find your website if you have one, but if you have one, I predict you know how to get to it. Wikipedia is not involved.
"im unable to create a biography of an artist": The notes here about creating autobiographical articles apply. Have newspapers and magazines written articles about you? If so, you might be "notable". If not, then you can't be shown to be notable, and you won't have a WP article. WP is an encyclopedia, not a social media site.
"i don't know where to link my source": Link what source? Linked to what?
"Claim a knowledge graph": Do you mean a Google knowledge panel? A knowledge graph is a different thing. I think that a knowledge panel that appears in Google search results will have a link within it that says "to report errors in this knowledge panel", and maybe a link "to claim this knowledge panel". Search Google for "knowledge panel" and you will get information on how to deal with knowledge panels. Google knowledge panels are not directly related to Wikipedia, although Google often uses information taken from Wikipedia to populate what it shows in a knowledge panel, if Google thinks that there's a matching article in WP (even if the article is really about a different person by the same name). Wikipedia has no control over this.
"create a person bio on my website": Create a person bio on YOUR website? If you have a website, then you can do whatever you want on it, and Wikipedia is not involved (and we can't help you create anything on your website). If you are still asking about creating a biography on Wikipedia, then, as above, you must be notable as proven by independent references, which are generally newspaper or magazine articles that were written about you. If these references do not exist, a "person bio" will not be possible.
"make a perfect Article for my knowledge graph": You likely cannot create an article about yourself to be used by a knowledge panel, as stated -- if there are published articles about you, then someone (preferably not you, since people cannot write neutrally about themselves) could write an article about you. If an article is successfully written, which is a VERY hard thing to do, then after the article is accepted and later indexed (found) by Google, it's very likely that Google's knowledge panel will use information taken from that Wikipedia article.
Respectfully,
first I made a small article about myself yet it was declined because i have not provided proper links and it was not written properly. then 3 days later an article appeared on everybody's wiki page without my further influence. I would like to remove the article if possible from everybody's wiki page for I hsaven't published it on that page. Also, I have issue with logging on for it doesn't accept my username and password and luckily I have a page opened already on taskbar from first time creating a profile. My name is Bojana Sretenovic- UUrania. If you could hel me with issues I would really appreciate it.
best regaards
Bojana 109.93.175.132 (talk) 01:04, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Where to begin? There is no English language article titled "Bojana Sretenovic- UUrania" The Teahouse only helps with English Wikipedia. What language and what title are you refering to? David notMD (talk) 01:16, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. EverybodyWiki is not related to Wikipedia at all; they simply copy and post articles, as well as drafts, which are declined or deleted at Wikipedia. No one here has any control over what they do. You'll have to go to their site and try to get the article removed there. Also, your account here will not work there - is that where you're trying and failing to log in? If you're trying to log in here and failing, and you linked an email address to your account, you can recover the password by following the instructions here. 97.113.167.129 (talk) 01:17, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
When you clicked "Publish", you agreed that "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." This means that anyone can copy the content, so you may find it difficult to remove from Everybodywiki.--Shantavira|feed me09:52, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Using autobiographies made by the subject as footnotes/references
I know about the policy on self-published sources, but I cannot find anything that covers the policy on using autobiographies written by the subject in question that is obviously not me. All I could find was the policy on using autobiographies that you have produced yourself. Does anyone have any knowledge on this, because I have an article that I am planning on promoting to FA status, and a good chunk of the subject's early life and career is based on an autobiography that he co-wrote with someone else. Any input is welcome. NSNW (talk) 23:42, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Sanders's autobiography isn't an independent source on Sanders. What kinds of claim would you hope to use it for? Consider the article Vladimir Nabokov. The subject's memoir, Speak, Memory, is highly regarded, yet the article makes little direct use of it. The article does make much use of Brian Boyd's two-volume biography of Nabokov. Boyd in turn made much use of Speak, Memory; but if WP cites Boyd where Boyd is actually citing Nabokov, then WP is citing autobiographical material but is doing so with the quality check, as it were, made via a favorably reviewed book by a respected professor. -- Hoary (talk) 00:13, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
@Hoary: Mostly claims about his early/personal life. A few times I cited the book in other ways that I wouldn't consider controversial, and there's another book (with used footnotes), in the article that uses the autobiography in the way that you described. I only used the autobiography if I absolutely had to and couldn't find the information anywhere else from a more verifiable source, or if was coupled with a verifiable source. It's also co-written by a friend of his, so may be considered more independent than if he wrote it by himself per se. NSNW (talk) 00:45, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
The main thing I'm trying to figure out is the source is so unreliable that most of it may be stricken from the article. Or if in the future I should stray away from autobiographies, even if there's information in them that I'm otherwise unable to find elsewhere. NSNW (talk) 02:27, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
NSNW, I'm reluctant to involve myself in this, as it's about American football, one of my very many areas of complete ignorance (and one about which I'm happy to know nothing). But I notice that you use his autobiography as the source for such material as Sanders did not become the starting running back until the fourth game of his senior year, in which he rushed for 274 yards and four touchdowns. During one of those touchdown runs, Sanders cut and darted his way into the end zone, Sanders' high school coach Dale Burkholder called it: "one of the greatest runs I've ever seen by a high school running back." He rushed for 1,417 yards in the final seven games of the season, which earned him all-state honors and was named an Honorable Mention All-American. During that seven-game span, Sanders averaged 10.2 yards per attempt. "Starting running back", "rushing", "touchdowns", "darting": it's all Greek to me. I don't even know what "all-state honors" are. But presumably they're honors (and presumably a [capitalized!] "Honorable Mention" is more than a mention), so it's all praise for Sanders. Praise for Sanders shouldn't come on the authority of Sanders (or a friend of his, or both). And: Irrelevant to your question, but is it OK for measures to be in US units only? (For other subjects, no; but imaginably American football is so American that articles about it don't use units that are used by the great majority of the world's population.) -- Hoary (talk) 05:05, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for your feedback, I'll try to find better sources for this. To answer your question, they are always going to be in U.S. units; as they are counted as such in record keeping. It would be unnecessary and time-wasting to convert American football yards to meters for example. NSNW (talk) 14:09, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Draft page I find concerning
I stumbled upon a draft <redacted> written by a 10 year old girl writing about herself.
She mentions suicidal thoughts, and that is very concerning behaviour for a 10-year old.
A note that this question was removed in good faith by someone. An IP editor had redacted the specific page name, and the page is now deleted, and WP:911 already contacted, so this might be a useful thing to answer in public in a more general way.
@QuickQuokka:, my personal opinion, for what it is worth, is that the people handling WP:911 reports are actually trained to decide what the next steps are, and are usually very quick in handling it. I would tend to defer to them for further action. If we take the aspect of the suicidal thoughts away, and just focus on a self-declared 10-year-old, I would say you could reasonably leave a link to WP:YOUNG on their talk page. But when the edits are made by an IPv6 address, I'm not sure that is worthwhile; the odds of the correct person seeing the message isn't high. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:00, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
This page over at meta - Threats of Harm - says, "If you feel comfortable you can reach out by email or on their talk page and provide them with support or resources. For example the Crisis support resources curated by the Trust & Safety team.", but of course that's meta, not enWP. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 19:27, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Their talk page is the only option in that case (and in the case of a registered user without a linked e-mail address), though as Floquenbeam notes above, there's no guarantee they'll ever see the message. At least you'll have made an attempt. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 20:01, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
I founded Black Scat Books (BlackScatBooks.com), a small, independent press back in July of 2012. Now, as we approach our tenth anniversary, we have published nearly 200 books by established and unknown writers from around the world. I am utterly baffled as to why Wiki will not accept a brief listing for us. Does anyone know how to get simple recognition for a remarkable American publisher. Thank you for your time. Norman Conquest Nconquest (talk) 15:16, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Hello @Nconquest, welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia's recognition - of anything - is dependent on who else has recognized it. Quoting from our notability guideline for organizations, a company will only meet our standards for notability "if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". Does your company meet that requirement? Can you point to some significant, independent coverage, published by reliable sources? Then an article (I assume that's what you mean by "brief listing") may be possible. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 15:35, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Nconquest, the IP is absolutely correct. There is only one thing that counts, and that's coverage by secondary sources. BTW I looked over some of your edits and I haven't any problematic ones in terms of promotional edits, so thank you--but you DO need to declare that COI, for all the articles you have a COI with. Oh, and please leave out the bold in things like this. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:01, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Nconquest For those familiar with the purpose of Wikipedia and how it works, the phrase "a brief listing for us" says it all. You are thinking of this as a way of drawing attention to your business. You think that because some other publishers are included in the encyclopedia, you are entitled to be included too. But Wikipedia is neither a directory nor a means of promotion: please read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not for further guidance. Deb (talk) 16:02, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Newcomer with a generic question, yet an important one.
I've been using Wikipedia since it started, and it's clearly gone through major changes over the last couple of decades. One thing that I've noticed is the trend to give political articles from all sides a more emotional tone, often revealing the party to which the author is affiliated. My question is: Is Wikipedia meant to provide facts like actual encyclopedias, or is it meant to have more of an entertainment factor to it? The question might sound facetious, but that is not intended in any way. I just often notice parts of articles based on opinion alone. It's just good to know the take, because I prefer to read unbiased articles. Anything else should be relegated to opinion pages or tabloids. Thanks. Vox Merus (talk) 15:45, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Articles are supposed to follow, among other things, the WP:NPOV policy, if that helps. To pick a random example, a statement like "Trump made many false and misleading statements during his campaigns and presidency, to a degree unprecedented in American politics, and promoted conspiracy theories." is in line with this policy, even if you feel it reveals the party to which the author is affiliated. There is, however, a possibility that the author isn't American.
@Vox Merus Wikipedia is to have a neutral point of view, but with over six million articles there are always articles in need of improvement by one of the hundreds of thousands of volunteer editors. If you see a political article that seems to have an "emotional tone" it would be helpful for you to do some copy-editing to make the text more neutral. Karenthewriter (talk) 16:10, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
This may not be the best way but how I know is that you go into the preferences tab, and your statuses should be under "members of groups." NSNW (talk) 23:46, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
@Organic Increse45:: I don't know if this is the "official" method, but try this: Go to your contributions page (click on "Contributions" in the menu at the top of every page); in the resulting page, click on "User rights" in the panel at the bottom of the page; scroll to the bottom of the resulting page. You should see a box showing your status and the date that the account was created (or is that the date that you achieved that status?) Mike Marchmont (talk) 12:11, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
One thing I see off the bat is a question in the Article. I'm no expert but articles shouldn't have questions in them. That is more for essays.
"What is Lumbarest?"
"Background on Lumbarest" could be a better header, try not to use questions. It's makes it more like a script for a video or like I said, an essay.
All in all it's shaped like an ad. I don't have much experience in Wikipedia drafting, after all, I'm still pretty new here. I hope someone with more experience can help.
I used to be a vandal like others, until I took a realization to the knee, that its fun not to vandal.
Avazo - If you want to carry on paid editing in a way that doesn't result in your article getting deleted and you getting blocked, take a bit of time to read the Wikipedia guidelines, especially Wikipedia:NPOV. Practise making small edits to existing articles before trying to create one of your own. We aren't here to do your job for you. Deb (talk) 13:35, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi @Avazo, welcome to the Teahouse. Thank you for declaring your COI. Your draft had (it's now been deleted) several problems - besides the inappropriate tone, as mentioned by Smotoe above, it had no inline citations. Also, it was about a medical device, so its claims fell under the province of WP:MEDRS. Your sources must be very, very good in order to make such claims, per that guideline, and the sources you cited - posted on ResearchGate - don't seem to meet our standards. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 13:37, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
If not clear, MEDRS means that even published case studies and clinical trials (even placebo-controlled) are not adequate as references to establish notability. David notMD (talk) 16:55, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Obituary Quotes
Can the published obituary (published in a newspaper) of a person be quoted in "full" and not rewritten or summarized? It will be sourced with a link to the newspaper. GlennEarls (talk) 23:18, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Not being able to edit the paragraph on the search page
Hi wiki! I wonder how the short paragraph showed up from Wikipedia after a search on google can be edited. I am talking about the little paragraph of description on the side after a google search. That paragraph was originally the first paragraph of the Wikipedia page, but after editing the first paragraph on the page, the side paragraph after searching didn't change. GuangyanLi (talk) 16:57, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
@GuangyanLi: The Google Knowledge Graph collects information from many sources. That info may not be from Wikipedia even if it looks like it is. Or, if it is from Wikipedia, Google may be using a cached version from the last time the page was indexed. You will need to contact Google to get it fixed. RudolfRed (talk) 17:04, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Hello @GuangyanLi, welcome to Wikipedia and the Teahouse. You may have noticed that your edit has been reverted. The wording of the lede of Traditional Chinese medicine has been much discussed on the talk page; if you want to make changes, especially changes that contradict mainstream scientific consensus, the talk page is the place to discuss them. You may want to read our sourcing requirements for biomedical information at WP:MEDRS. They're quite strict, to say the least. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:16, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for the response. Yes, the wording of the lede of TCM has been discussed on the talk page, but any unbiased individual would noticed that some negative opinions are very aggressive and are not based on evidence. For example, some user says: "If it does not work, it does not work" and disregards many evidence out this that proves the effectiveness of TCM. A conclusion cannot be drawn from this talk page, nor can it reflect the mainstream scientific consensus. There need to be evidence to supported the so called "mainstream scientific consensus".
Also, Can a random user revert other people's change? Is there a rule about this? If reliable sources that fits the requirement can be found to support my description, can other users still revert my changes? GuangyanLi (talk) 03:09, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
@GuangyanLi, if you get consensus on the talk page for your change, then it will be allowed to stand. But you must get consensus by discussing on the talk page and providing a source that meets Wikipedia's standards. 97.113.167.129 (talk) 03:25, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Thanks! How do you define consensus? Also please let me know the rule about making changes and who made these rules. GuangyanLi (talk) 04:07, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
See WP:Consensus. An essay with guidance about making changes and what to do when you are reverted is at WP:BRD. Besides article talk pages, we have noticeboards where you can bring up specific questions for discussion and potential action: discussion of reliable sources at WP:RSN, of editor behavior at WP:ANI, etc. 97.113.167.129 (talk) 04:18, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
And if you mean a keyboard shortcut to the Publish button, it's ⇧ Shift+Alt+P. If you hover over a button or other element, a tooltip will show you the shortcut, if there is one. —Wasell(T) 🌻 04:55, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Adding article for new technology process (with patent)
I wrote a scientific article with cited references, but it got rejected as an advertisement. How to I edit the article to allow it to be accepted as a scientific, industry piece for a new technology process in the energy conversion industry?
Note: The submission has been deleted, so it's not visible to non-admins. Question has also been asked at the AfC help desk. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:09, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
@Nwiles1414 See WP:GNG. You find sources that are at the same time reliably published (WP:RS), independent of the subject (and inventor, etc) and about the subject in some detail. Then write the article as a summary of those sources. The WP:PATENTS doesn't help in this context. If the sources demanded at WP:GNG don't currently exist, an article will not stick. Also, if WP:COI applies to you, follow the guidance there. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:13, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
@Nwiles1414 Wikipedia does not want to be the first place where research is published. Once the wider world has taken note of something, and written about it, then Wikipedia can summarize those secondary sources. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 06:09, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Review of Page: Alabi Oyinkansola
Hi there!
This is Andrea here. Hope you all are doing great. The page I recently came across, Draft:Alabi Oyinkansola seems to have notable and is in a neutral point of view. I do know that posting here does not make the review process faster, but it would be really great if a fellow Wikipedian will assist me in adding any Edits needed to the page now. This is just a request, kindly apologise if I said anything wrong.
Hi there @David notMD, as I did say in my post that I understand that Teahouse hosts are not reviewers, What I meant is that it would be great if someone would take a look into the draft and suggest me ways to improve if it is lacking anything. Thank you! Jocelin Andrea (talk) 01:55, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
At three spots there are six or more refs in support of simple facts. The draft would be better with one or two refs from reliable sources. David notMD (talk) 01:58, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi, a request for an article on Synthetic Nicotine is probably not notable. You may be able to add a section on the Nicotine page, as it is probably not suitable as its own article UrbanVersis32KB ⚡ (talk | contribs)20:59, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Hello fellow IP editor. I don't see any such request from this IP, and the page you linked is a general one with links to specific subpages where requests can be made. A request for an article on synthetic nicotine would probably be most appropriate on the chemistry page - specifying the exact compound(s) might be better. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 21:11, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi IP editor. I concur with the comments above that there would be no reason to have a separate article on synthetic nicotine. However, I was surprised to find that our article on nicotine doesn't have a section on its chemical synthesis, only its biosynthesis. Per WP:Manual_of_Style/Chemistry/Chemicals#Preparation we usually have an account of the first synthesis of a compound. In this case, that might be for racemic and/or chiral samples. We would also describe the industrial synthesis if relevant. Do you happen to have citations for any/all of these, to save me time looking? If so, I will happily write something appropriate for the article. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:35, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
I seem to have lost the ability to swap between source editor and visual editor when doing certain tasks. I have the preferences set so I show both Visual Editor and Source Editor as I like to move between both. However, now when I do something like edit source at AfD discussions, the visual editor option is grayed out which means I can no longer preview the source code I have written. I am pretty sure this is a new issue, though I cannot pinpoint exactly when it started happening. Thanks in advance for any thoughts. DaffodilOcean (talk) 12:28, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
I have found historical errors in a page claiming to be the history of a church I have been researching. I can produce full evidence as to why the claims are in error. What can I do to inform any readers of these errors? Historydebunk (talk) 15:46, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Historydebunk. Your choices are basically to edit the article, or to open a discussion on the article's talk page. If you edit the article and somebody disagrees and reverts you, then you should open a discussion on the talk page anyway. As 331dot says, it depends crucially on whether you have published reliable sources (but also on whether the material already there is cited to published reliable sources). You should not remove material which is cited to (apparently) reliable sources, even if you believe it to be wrong - see TRUTH. Ideally, you should not add material unless you have found reliably published sources for it - but if the material already in there is unsourced then you aren't making anything worse (but somebody might still disagree with your edit). What you should not do, though, is include any information you have only from unpublished sources (such as parish records): get your findings published by a reputable publisher, and it may be possible to include them (though even then, you should not add them yourself, as you will have a conflict of interest, but should make an edit request). ColinFine (talk) 16:18, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
I would like to open a discussion but the links seem to send me in a circle. I went to Talk and found the article I want to comment on but when I clicked on it I was taken back to where I started. Historydebunk (talk) 16:31, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by I went to Talk and found the article I want to comment on: every article has an associated talk page, so for example beside Ripon Cathedral there is Talk:Ripon Cathedral. If you are editing on a browser and have an article open, then there should be a "Talk" button to take you to that article's talk page; if you are on the app, it seems to be under the "three dots" at the top. (There may be some old articles whose talk page has never been created, but if you find one such, you are welcome to create the talk page). ColinFine (talk) 17:22, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
This is the first time I have used Wikipedia in an editing role and am trying to learn how it works. I am trying to nudge the original authors into accepting the required changes as the two earliest dates in their article are based on sources that give no references. The earliest date is based on a newspaper report that makes a claim for a reference that, when followed up, does not exist. The second date seems to have been picked to pre-date Domesday as none of the fabric of the building is earlier than 100 years after the date given, this is based on evidence from Pevsner and Historic England plus original documents. A discussion page might achieve my aim but I do not know how to start one. Historydebunk (talk) 12:46, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
@Historydebunk, please give us the name of the article, or at least of the church so we can look for the article ourselves. It would be much easier to help you. You have no edits to any page but this one, so we can't track down what you're talking about through your contributions.
Every article has a discussion ("talk") page attached, though they must be created by an editor before first use (by clicking on the red link and typing in the edit window). If you give us the name of the article/church, we can point you right to the talk page. 97.113.167.129 (talk) 14:32, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
The article I am questioning is St. Helen's Church Trowell. I have contacted the local people responsible for the history but they do not seem to be interested in documentary evidence. However, I know a number of people who use Wikipedia as a starting point for references when doing local history projects, including for qualifications, so my hobby has become trying to ensure the articles are accurate. I am finding churches to be a little stubborn as they seem to use age as a USP. I'm also working on a "pre-conquest Norman church". Historydebunk (talk) 15:07, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
I have looked at the article's talk page and cannot for the life of me see anything that mentions starting a discussion. I have never tried to do this before, is starting a discussion called something else on the articles talk page? Historydebunk (talk) 15:27, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
@Historydebunk, click on "New section" at the top of the talk page.
The two earliest dates are sourced to the church's website (not a great source, a better one would be... well, better) and the Southwell & Nottingham Church History Project, which doesn't look too bad. The folks at the WikiProject will be good judges of that. 97.113.167.129 (talk) 15:29, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
I've tried to find out how to find the people on the Wikiproject and have only managed to get back where I started. The problem with the page is that the 801 date goes back to a local newspaper report of 1949 that says it is recorded in the "annals of York Minster", according to the records in York it is not. The 1080 date looks like an attempt to make the chancel appear to be the half-church mentioned in Domesday when all reliable sources date it to the 12th century. Unfortunately all the on-line histories, including the Diocesan history, use the work of the same person, who does not provide references. In the first two references in the article they are, in effect, referencing themselves. Historydebunk (talk) 15:40, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
@Historydebunk It is especially difficult to improve Wikipedia articles when you care deeply about the subject. One option is to only edit articles about which you are certain that YOU can be UNBIASED, but this also is difficult, because we all have a tendency to see the biases of others while not seeing our own biases. That's how people run into confirmation bias and group bias: anyone who agrees with us seems to us to be unbiased (even if they are quite biased), and anyone who DISagrees with us seems to us to be biased (even if they are as unbiased as possible). The second option is to simply break down your edits to the small pieces, and to do the work like a scientist and/or historian, one step at a time. For example, if you have new information to add to an article, based on a published reliable source, add the information, and add the reliable source, in the same article edit. However, if you see a circular reference which you can document using a published reliable source (even if that source was published long before the internet existed), you should submit a single, separate, article page edit in which you explain, with full documentation, how that particular reference is circular. Do NOT be tempted to include a better source in the same edit, because that muddies the waters. Keep your edits simple, one tiny step at a time. It's about improving the quality of information and improving the quantity and quality of published reliable sources, not about arguing over who or what is right or wrong. CDUpchurch (talk) 14:21, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
I came to this article at the end of a rather long trail after doubting the Saxon origin of the chancel of the present church in another source. I was perfectly prepared to be proven wrong, that's the name of the game. The date of 801 for establishing a church can be traced back to a newspaper article dating from July 1949 claiming it is recorded in the "annals of York Minster". Contacting York Minster and the Borthwick Collection I was informed that their records do not go back that far, think Vikings and the "harrying of the north" for reasons why. I noticed that the claim for this source has been dropped from the article and the "renewal project" has been referenced, which was written by the authors of this article. The date of 1080 is also, apparently, invented and uses similar references. I have searched records in more than 20 possible locations and the earliest record I can find for Trowell is in Domesday (1086), I am not alone in this Sir Frank Stenton et.al. in their "Place Names of Nottinghamshire" could find nothing earlier either and I'm told Sir Frank was considered quite a thorough Historian.
Two other references in the article are to Pevsner's work on Nottinghamshire buildings and the register of listed buildings of Historic England, both of which date the chancel to the late 12th century so contradicting the date of 1080 given.
My research has unearthed original documents dated by Nottingham University to c1175 transferring land in Trowell to a religious order and a report of an archaeological excavation at the church. These documents allow me to demonstrate that the half church mentioned in Domesday was connected to a different site and that the chancel was the first building on the current site. The detail in the documents even allows me to identify the masons who built the chancel by name.
It appears to be acceptable to write an article for the church's own website then use that article as a reliable source for Wikipedia. What appears to be more difficult is to refute an article based on thorough research of independent, often primary, sources.
I admire what Wikipedia is trying to do and have donated to its funds to keep it going. What I do want in Wikipedia, however, is reliable history based on genuine research. This site is often the first stop for students when embarking on projects and they deserve articles that are not only accurate themselves but also give reliable sources. In the past I have had to tell students to pick another topic because of circumstances like this and have heard of students who have failed because they relied too much on unreliable information. Staff really do check their sources, we don't just say it to frighten them.
Until it becomes more straightforward to refute articles such as this by presenting fully researched work I am afraid I would have to advise students to avoid using Wikipedia as a reliable source. Historydebunk (talk) 20:07, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
You're quite right, @Historydebunk, Wikipedia is not a reliable source (and we also don't host original research). The goal is to base our articles around reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy - our articles should be jumping-off points for students doing research, not destinations (but that's often not how they're used). 199.208.172.35 (talk) 20:30, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
I fully agree that articles should be based around reliable, independent, published sources. I stressed that to students over a career of 30+ years. My problem with this article is that it is not based on reliable and independent sources. Two of the sources given are published but the problem is they were written by the same people as this article, leaving the situation of "this is right because I say so". The date of 1080 (for which no one has been able to find any evidence) is contradicted by the references to Pevsner and Historic England, both highly reliable, independent and published sources, and both of which give dates of approximately 100 years later (and which the authors either do not seem to have read or have ignored any evidence that does not fit their dating). I did not want to re-write this article, I certainly do not want to replace it with my full research which is already earmarked for a professional journal. I simply want to raise a warning concerning some content and references, similar to those that I have seen at the top of other articles. It appears that to do this my reasons must be justified by evidence in "reliable, independent and published sources", my mistake seems to be in believing the work of Sir Frank Stenton, Godfrey Davis and Marc Morris, plus others, might fall into this category but St. Helen's "Church Renewal Project" (published on the Church's own webpage) carries more weight. Historydebunk (talk) 14:39, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
@Historydebunk, then we circle around to where we started almost two weeks ago - if you have better sources than the ones used, sources that meet our criteria, and you don't want to make the sourced corrections yourself, then a post on the article talk page with a following alert at the WikiProject is the way to go. 97.113.167.129 (talk) 15:12, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Historydebunk, The only way you are going to "find" people on a Wikiproject is to open a dialogue with them exactly the same way you would on an article talk page. You are where you started because you haven't begun the process to gaining consensus which is the way to get material changed on Wikipedia, especially information that has been contested. We are trying to help guide you to that point. --ARoseWolf15:48, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
The source of my difficulty is that I do not know how to start a discussion. When I click on "new section" I get a dialogue box to type in but no indication of what is expected next, will typing in that box start a discussion? Historydebunk (talk) 15:59, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
@Historydebunk, whatever you type in the dialogue box will be posted on the page after you hit "Publish" (BTW, remember to include a subject in the Subject box). Other people can then read the post and reply. 97.113.167.129 (talk) 16:02, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Don't be worried about making a mistake. It can always be fixed. Just take your time and lay out your issues with what is written and make sure to provide sources for your claims. --ARoseWolf16:06, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
I have prepared my article for the Talk section of the article on St. Helen's Church, Trowell and have given all my sources in the body of the text. Do I need to add them as footnotes aswell. Historydebunk (talk) 14:15, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
I tried to insert reference numbers in the text followed by footnotes. My footnote gets inserted in the body of the text in normal print. This is my first attempt at putting an entry on Wikipedia in order to correct an article and it is proving less than straightforward. Historydebunk (talk) 14:15, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
@Historydebunk, it sounds like you're trying to rewrite a chunk of the article instead of suggesting changes to one or two sentences, which is certainly very difficult work for a beginner (we often tell newcomers to spend some time doing small edits and fixes to get a feel for things). There is a place where you can practice with posting and formatting - your personal sandbox, located at User:Historydebunk/sandbox. If you follow that link, you can paste your text into the dialogue box, "publish" it, and work on getting things correct from there, plus other people can see it and help you. There also should be a link to your sandbox at the very top right of your screen, along with talk/contributions/etc.
If you're pasting in text that's been copied from the article, you need to attribute it per WP:Copying within Wikipedia. You'd do that by putting Copied content from [[St Helen's Church, Trowell]]; see that page's history for attribution in the edit summary. If you can't figure out how to do that, just come back and let us know once the page is created, someone else can make an edit with the summary for you. 97.113.167.129 (talk) 15:45, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
I am trying to refute the two earlier dates in the article. It would not be acceptable to just say they are wrong so I need to present my evidence for saying that they should be removed. In order to do this I need to give my references. To say the dates are wrong then give a string of references would achieve nothing as no one would check the references and my contribution would be ignored.
The in line references break up the flow of the points being made and make them look amateurish and difficult to follow.
The first two dates in this article are, in effect "fake history" of the type I spent many hours showing students to identify during a 30 year career in further and higher education and it is proving more difficult than it should be to refute it.
I have got in touch with some of my old colleagues and we are considering starting and on line database of unreliable historical sources for use in sixth forms and universities so it may not be necessary to refute this article here after all. Historydebunk (talk) 12:09, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
That may be a better solution, since this sounds like a much more complicated case than the usual procedure of pointing to a Wrong Thing in an article, and presenting a reliable source which says the Right Thing. Good luck! 97.113.167.129 (talk) 12:19, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
What might be confusing @Historydebunk is that when he or she opens the edit window, one sees the wikitext, with article text and footnote text all jumbled together. Who would guess that the content between the <ref> ... </ref> tags is footnote content? If the tags said <footnote> or <endnote>, that would at least be a clue. But they don't. —Finell00:50, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
How to get category entries to say something different from the article name?
When you add that article to film and TV related categories it shows up as Falling (Howard novel).
How can I change it so that it says Falling (TV film) or Falling (Television film) in the film/TV categories which contain it? Danstarr69 (talk) 17:03, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi, my recent change to an article was reverted. Does Wikipedia not use ISO 31/XI typesetting in which operators are written in roman font? The "d" is an operator and therefore should not be italic. See this explanation under section 2.2, point 6.
I have noticed some articles use roman font while others do not (like the article I corrected).
Hello, IP user. For questions about a specialist area like this, I suggest going to the relevant WikiProject, in this case WP:WikiProject Mathematics. I see there is a link to the relevant MOS page in that, or if you can't find an answer, you can ask on the WikiProject's own talk page. ColinFine (talk) 09:16, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Help editing erroneous information in ADHD article
Some months ago I noticed some information on exercise in the ADHD article which conflicts with the recent Federation of ADHD International Consensus Statement (which I believe is a tertiary or even, er, quarternary? source). As far as I can tell it should pretty much overrule any other sources that predate it.
I raised this on the ADHD talk page and was encouraged to make the necessary changes myself. However, I have been struggling to make time for it due to general life chaos (having ADHD myself), and as I've never edited a page before I feel like I'd need to take a lot of time over it, reading up on how to write things and cite things etc. so I don't get yelled at lol. And at the moment I barely have the headspace to think.
Is there someone who would be willing to take it on instead or, failing that, help me make sure I get it right and up to Wikipedia standards? It shouldn't actually be that big of a job - the Wiki article makes claims about how exercise helps ADHD but the consensus statement says that no evidence has been found supporting a significant effect of exercise on ADHD, once you correct for publication bias. Just not sure how to go about it. (Also I haven't checked if the sources used in the Wiki article are mentioned in the consensus statement.) RapturousRatling (talk) 15:09, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Hello, @RapturousRatling, and welcome to the Teahouse! It's great to hear you've been reading all the policies on Wikipedia, it can be a steep learning curve, but it is still very good to do. I will first let you know that when it comes to medical statements (where things can get pretty controversial both on and off Wikipedia!), there's a special set of guidelines (WP:Reliable sources (medicine)) when it comes to sourcing, so I don't blame you for not wanting to take it on, although sometimes, it can be best to just be bold and add it, as it there's a problem, another editor can just come along and correct it, and if there's a dispute, just talk about it on the talk page. If you still don't want to add it, and you've already put something on the talk page, may I suggest asking a relevant WikiProject about it, as I imagine they would be able to give you any feedback on the reliability of the source etc. (although some WikiProjects are more active than others, so you might have to wait a while for a response). Have a great day, and happy editing! HenryTemplo (talk) 15:55, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
In same vein, I do see that you raised this issue on the Talk page in January, and were encouraged to proceed. The exercise section in the article references three relatively recent reviews (2013, 2014, 2017). My recommendation is that rather than deleting any of that content or the review refs, you add a statement, with a ref, for the conflicting theory - that exercise is of no clinical benefit. If reverted (reversed), invite that editor to the Talk page, where you should start a new discussion, as the old one is already archived, and should not be added to. Wikipedia's policy is be bold, but if reverted, discuss. David notMD (talk) 16:01, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Having looked at the World Fed report, it states that the evidence for a benefit from exercise is weak, BUT the two meta-analysis references it cites (item 207 in the article) actually concluded there were benefits!! David notMD (talk) 16:11, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the replies guys, that's helpful! I think I might post on the WikiProject page as I'm getting myself a bit muddled about which sources are more reliable and what they reasonably conclude (I think what's currently in the ADHD article might need some rephrasing). @David notMD they do conclude there are benefits, but the report says that once you correct for publication bias there isn't a significant effect (assume they mean statistical significance?) Doesn't that mean that at best there are reliable but conflicting reports on the topic? They don't emphatically state that that exercise has no clinical benefit, but say there's no significant evidence of it in the studies they examined (which were restricted to large-scale studies). RapturousRatling (talk) 22:34, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
my draft is declined with this reason: Notability requires significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources
I've put sources independent like "Forbers", "The NY Times", "Il Sole 24 ORE (in Italian)", what kind of better sources I can add to make my draft published?
I recommend adding more sources such as this one, and as many as you can find. Product roundups like the NYTimes, and product reviews may not be as strong as as an article that covers the company in-depth. Add more of those, and cut back on any content that could be construed as promotional. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 17:59, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Pyrrho the Skipper, That was a very non-judgmental assessment. I got a better understanding of your ability to talk facts instead of opinion. And this is not an attack but merely pointing out that dishing opinion even if not about the people involved casts a bad light on your belief in a positive environment. I see it all the time in Craigslist, people hiring to have created an article for them. And it does not help to know from what i have read that WP allows administrators, senior system experience contributors, to do such work as long as they establish separating themselves from the areas that they edit.2603:8000:D300:D0F:D5D:8295:289E:24F5 (talk) 22:37, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Obviously you have already used the common acceptable way to do it by just doing it but sometimes some editors think that what you think is important is not or you have provided no source or a less than reputable one.2603:8000:D300:D0F:D5D:8295:289E:24F5 (talk) 21:49, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi @Baseballgirl5099 and welcome to the Teahouse. You didn't provide any source at all in your edit. You need to include a source for any information you add, and the source must meet our standards - in other words, it should be a reliable, independent, published secondary source, especially when it comes to info about a living person. The talk page (Talk:Tyler Danish) can be used to discuss what should be added based on the sources available, if there is disagreement. 97.113.167.129 (talk) 21:52, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
@Baseballgirl5099, a reliable, independent, published secondary source would be something like an article in a well-known newspaper or magazine with a good reputation. What coverage has there been of this marriage by the media? 97.113.167.129 (talk) 01:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Gristmill video
The article says I may freely copy the video file, but there is no download icon.
How do I copy the file to my laptop for appropriate use? Ehansonsmi (talk) 01:55, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
That depends on your software, Ehansonsmi. For any of a number of browsers, right-click the video display and choose an option called something like "Save this video". -- Hoary (talk) 02:42, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Hello. Maybe someone can help me troubleshoot. I made a few edits to Bobby Shmurda, Rowdy Rebel, and 6ix9ine's biographies. Namely, that they are rappers who are also convicted felons in the lead of their Wikipedia pages. I saw Martin Shkreli's profile (that he was a hedge fund manager convicted of misappropriating the funds of his clients and, thus, a convicted felon) and decided to copy that style of writing. After a few days, these edits were reverted with two of the reversions coming from an account that justified the reversions by writing 'not an occupation' — in reference to their felony convictions.
It is true that being a felon is 'not an occupation'. But if that is true, shouldn't people like Andrew Fastow, Martin Shkreli, Elizabeth Holmes, have their respective crimes taken out of their leads? I didn't want to revert the edits made to my edits (and start an edit war) so I decided to come here, to the teahouse, to get an education on the relationship between a person, their crime, and how that crime is displayed on their Wikipedia page. Thanks for any help you can proffer.
Hello, SpicyMemes123, and welcome to the Teahouse. Thank you for not edit-warring. But rather than coming here and asking a general question, what you should be doing is engaging with the other editors who reverted you, on the talk page of the relevant article. Open a discussion with them specifically (though of course others may join in), and try to reach consensus. If you (collectively) are unable to do so, then dispute resolution tells you how to proceed further. see WP:BRD for more on this process. ColinFine (talk) 21:50, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Well, I appreciate the answer (in the sense that I have recourse to an official channel to resolve the dispute between what I think the lead of the Wikipedia article should reflect and what my, uhh, interlocutor thinks it should reflect). But I want to know, concretely, why there is an incongruity between how the malfeasance of a financial figure (like Martin Shkreli or Andrew Fastow or Elizabeth Holmes) is reflected in their Wikipedia page and that of three famous rappers (6ix9ine, Bobby Shmurda, and Rowdy Rebel). Five of the six listed are convicted felons yet only two of the six have their felony convictions reflected in their lead. Why is this? Why are some criminals treated differently by Wikipedia than others? What is the rationale here? Do you know? If not, can you link me directly to someone who does? I'm seriously curious.
SpicyMemes123, it's a reasonable question. Only one name among the six is familiar to me, and I'm not in a mood to refresh my knowledge of him, learn about the five others, and evaluate the articles. But perhaps the variation among the six articles in their emphasis on malfeasance reflects the variation in the coverage of that person in the reliable sources that are cited. -- Hoary (talk) 23:47, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi, SpicyMemes. The simple answer to But I want to know, concretely, why there is an incongruity between ... is "because that's how Wikipedia is". Even with core areas of policy, such as verifiability, there are thousands of articles which don't conform. For most questions such as yours that come up, there is no easy way to check if the question has been debated in general; and even if it has, and a consensus reached, there may be hundreds or thousands of editors working in the same area who are unaware of it. Obviously consistency is a laudable aim, and most editors will agree that it is desirable, but not many of us are willing to spend much effort on it. Probably the best place to discuss concerns such as yours are on the talk page of a relevant WikiProject, (maybe WT:BIOGRAPHY - in fact, if you look through its archives, you may find relevant discussions). ColinFine (talk) 11:30, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
This is the quality response to my query I was looking for. I'm still kind of new to editing (three months in), so I still have a lot to learn but thanks for pointing me in the right direction!
Could someone do a search on "impossble" in this article to see if it needs to be corrected. This is the only listing of impossble in WP so it should not be too difficult to determine after reviewing the article. I would have done it but it is a locked article and an editor has felt that reporting it on the talk page was vandalism and so I have been blocked there. Thank you.2603:8000:D300:D0F:D5D:8295:289E:24F5 (talk) 21:34, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. There is a misspelling on List of topics characterized as pseudoscience, but making an empty post on the talk page with "impossble = impossible" as the header, and no other context, is easily going to be mistaken for vandalism. Since you don't have an account, your best option in such cases is to make an edit request on the talk page which clearly describes the problem and solution - see Wikipedia:Edit requests#Making requests. 97.113.167.129 (talk) 21:44, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
how do i respond to someone who is changing my edits?
I have constantly seen that the "Kenna" page changes ages from 43 to 48 randomly and I was trying to change it back, but someone reverts my edits. the actual age it October 30, 1978 - please advise. In addition, there are a number of wrong things with the page and doesnt include any of his new information. How can I contribute? I feel like any work I do will be edited out. MadKennaFan (talk) 21:39, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Be grateful they have not already warned you about disruptive editing, or vandalism. When it comes to some things dealing with numbers is not there something in WP that you can code a tally recalculation such as for years?2603:8000:D300:D0F:D5D:8295:289E:24F5 (talk) 21:42, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Just checked your talk page and they are claiming that you have posted "original research" in this matter. If it is his age I guess you cannot use his birth certificate but you can reference someone in a source of integrity such as the NYT saying how old is he or when he was born?2603:8000:D300:D0F:D5D:8295:289E:24F5 (talk) 21:46, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi @MadKennaFan and welcome to the Teahouse. You need to include a source for any information you add, and the source must meet our standards - in other words, it should be a reliable, independent, published secondary source, especially when it comes to info about a living person. Primary sources - people writing about themselves or things that happened to them - can only be used in very limited circumstances. The talk page (Talk:Kenna) can be used to discuss what should be added based on the sources available, if there is disagreement. 97.113.167.129 (talk) 21:49, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
@MadKennaFan, please stop adding the information to the article without a source. That is not allowed, and in fact, you are engaged in what is called an edit war, which may indeed lead to your account being suspended. A verified Instagram account may work as a source - please start a discussion on the talk page instead of continually restoring unsourced information. 97.113.167.129 (talk) 22:05, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
not trying to start any war. just trying to do the diligence and make sure the page is updated properly. not sure how to do that. apologies. MadKennaFan (talk) 22:09, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Nothing criticle toward those that assume an action is warring but it is a tool that is unfortunately applied to those who do not know about it and quite possible the accuser is not providing a sufficient explanation why reverts are happening. Remember that a review of the history of someone's "contributions" can show how quickly those actions are done in succession. Not saying they are unneeded but if you as an experienced WP user do not bother to explain and just appear to jump the opportunity to teach is lost and it might appear to some of not sustaining a uncooperative environment. Not all contributors act in the same manner when it comes to their reverting. Unfortunately, some reverters take possession of an article.2603:8000:D300:D0F:D5D:8295:289E:24F5 (talk) 22:20, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Hello, MacKenna fan: good news. WP:DOB says: A verified social media account of an article subject saying about themselves something along the lines of "today is my 50th birthday" may fall under self-published sources for purposes of reporting a full date of birth. It may be usable if there is no reason to doubt it. So provided the account is indeed verified as his, and the birthdate is not controversion (sometimes it is, for a public figure), you may add the information, with a proper citation to the account. ColinFine (talk) 22:07, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
As for getting a page locked, @MadKennaFan, the place to request that is WP:RFPP, but you'd need to provide proof of continuing disruption. Right now the only disruption going on seems to be over this birthdate issue, which can pretty easily be resolved with a little discussion. 97.113.167.129 (talk) 22:11, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
thank you colinfine. i am not used to this wiki-world. there are quite a few discrepancies with his page and unverified information. since i have direct access to him via instagram, I thought I could help. However, it feels like I am actually doing the opposite. Maybe I should leave it alone? maybe someone on his team should reach out? i could tell him. I just see a lot of issues with wikis like his, kilokish, chad hugo, and a few others i like a lot and i thought i could spend some time editing, but i feel a little nervous now - someone mentioned "war!" MadKennaFan (talk) 22:16, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
@MadKennaFan: It's OK if you meant well and just was unfamiliar with things Wikipedia. If you're in contact with Kenna, you can ask him to take a look at this. There are processes in place where he can seek assistance about what's written about him on Wikipedia. As posted above, you can start a discussion about this at talk page Talk:Kenna. Politely explain what you're trying to change and why. You should also explain that you contacted the subject of the article and they responded. What a subject publishes themselves can sometimes be cited as a source for a Wikipedia article, but it's considered to be a primary source that needs to be used carefully. Since there are lots of people out in the real world who are (for various reasons) sometimes not inclined to tell the truth when it comes to their age, you may find other editors a bit skeptical about the claims made by subjects of articles. Don't be offended if that happens in this case, just try and figure out whether there are any secondary sources unconnected to the subject which support the same claim. If there are, they can possibly be cited in support instead. Regardless, if you conitnue to try and force this change into the article (no matter how right you believe you are) instead of trying to establish a consensus for doing so on the article's talk page, you're account is likely going to end up (1) reported for edit warring or some other type of disruption and (2) possibly blocked by an administrator. Please follow Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and try to resolve this on the article's talk page. For reference, articles can be protected to various degrees when there's some serious disruption involved: this, however, needs to be done by an administrator. In this case, I'm pretty sure no administrator is going to protect this page simply because you want to page "locked" to stop others from removing the poorly sourced or unsourced change you've been trying to make. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:23, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Can you ever be certain about what any administrator will or will not do? Is there a board on WP recording chastised administrators for getting caught? There would not be WP standards about something if it did not happen. Not an attack on the credibility of administrators but it is like your accountant embezzling your pockets. It is not a good thing, You do not like it if it happens. If it happens, do not be surprised.2603:8000:D300:D0F:D5D:8295:289E:24F5 (talk) 22:51, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Understood. I think Im going to back up and learn more about wiki first. there is a serious protocol and i am ignorant to it all. maybe i can get smart and come back to support. i will send him the link. thank you. MadKennaFan (talk) 22:28, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
@MadKennaFan, that's a pretty good source, though since it's at least partially an interview, it's not entirely independent. Not to worry, you can probably use a lot from it, plus there's the Instagram account, as said above. I'd recommend looking over Help:Referencing for beginners and making a few small edits for practice. Don't worry too much about making mistakes - as long as people see you're trying to add good info from a good source, they'll be forgiving. Don't forget that you can use the talk page for discussing the particulars. 97.113.167.129 (talk) 23:13, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
@MadKennaFan Having access to him through Instagram does not mean that you can ask him questions, and put his answers into the article. Sources need to be independent of the subject. The DOB issue is an exception. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 05:03, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Electronic Dance Music Producers “Over Easy”
I am a concerned fan and collaborator and I have been trying to find the Wikipedia page for Electronic Dance Music production duo “Over Easy” so I can reference an article but I can’t find them? I am including a link to all their socials and work - hoo.be/overeasy
Been seeing so many fake pages of theirs and I want to source them correctly.
Also, Jroodz, please note that "their socials", by which you may mean social media, cannot be the basis for any article about this group, as "socials" are connected to and controlled by Over Easy. Please make the effort to unearth reliable sources.--Quisqualis (talk) 02:17, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
My recent contributions including new article creation and the related changes-its assessment are not getting updated in the summary of my user page.! This is to seek any guidance & support.! Thanks.! Thirukannan (talk) 05:28, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi! I'm a very new editor and I've run into an issue that I can't really find a consensus on. For an article, I'd like to find a citation for a major event in the history of the game. The problem is that I can only find one official source on the event, a Discord post from the game's lead community manager. The game was never very big, and this event occurred some time after development was stopped and the game was removed from Steam, so I am unable to find any news articles relating to the topic. I understand this is very much a edge case, but would it be better to add this as a citation or to leave the statement uncited? If the former, would it be more proper to add a link to the message (requires the user to have a Discord account, and be in the game's Discord server) or to take a screencap of the message?
Sorry for such the strange case! Like I said earlier, I'm very new, so if there's any other information I can provide to help please let me know :)
@GTink911: I'm afraid if something never got beyond the stage of a discord post from a primary source connected with the article's subject, then it's not appropriate to include it in the article at all. I am also very much afraid that I'm far from convinced that Hellion (video game) should even be in Wikipedia; it looks like a very non-notable game that barely made it into the world before disappearing again, and that hasn't generated more than a handful of routine press-release-inspired reviews. If you've got strong feelings about the game, I'd keep quiet, tiptoe away, and hope no one notices the article exists... Elemimele (talk) 09:05, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Dead interwiki links
Hello from german wikipedia! For the german wikipedia I wrote some script to identify dead interwiki links, now after 2 month almost all those "redlinks" are gone. So maybe the english wikipedia (or others) are interested in such a list. Currently I find 3,706,692 interwiki links to 401 wikis and there are 129,018 "redlinks" in 39,420 articles (I did not check namespace draft). So 3.5 % of those interwiki links are not working, in german wikipedia we had about 3 % such dead links, so there is no big difference. If you are interested, I can create it. --Wurgl (talk) 07:41, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
I'm used to the hyperlinks allowing me to deep search a tropic. But today they are not working. I created an account just now thinking that was a new requirement but still no luck! FiberBundle (talk) 00:55, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Lou Stallman was is very successful songwriter of the 1950s and 60s and although he is mentioned as a song collaborator on some pages, there is not one on the man himself. I am a screenwriter who has been asked to write a story about him. There is also a biography currently in the works about his life. He has had over 15 songwriting hits and is an important public figure for there is little information. How would I go about creating a page about him on Wikipedia? MusicMyThing (talk) 16:29, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Start by gathering sources. Wikipedia is intended to be a compendium of the information found elsewhere. What published sources do you have? (So, for instance, that "biography currently in the works" won't count until it is in fact published.) DS (talk) 16:39, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
@MusicMyThing, since you mentioned that you've been asked to write an article, I think you should take a look at our policy on editing with a conflict of interest - here's a link to a simplified guide: link. The more complicated page is at WP:COI. Please ask if you have any questions. Lou Stallman does get mentioned in a lot of articles, he may very well meet our standards for notability, but if not much has been written about him - yet - there's not much to build an article around. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:57, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
@MusicMyThing, that's probably a good idea. Note that we can't use a feature film as a reliable source to base an article on, but we could have an article on the film itself if it meets our notability standards (outlined at WP:NFILM). Also, here's some general reading about creating your first article: Your first article. Always feel free to ask questions here at the Teahouse. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:51, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
I'd say it depends on whether your research turns up sufficient already-published information, or if you'll be sourcing from interviews and unpublished primary documents, MusicMyThing. Either way, best luck for your film! ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 10:21, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. Yes I have extensive interviews with him as does his biographer now as well. The author has a major publisher, so when either Lou's biography or the feature film comes out, I think that will be the time to create a page on him because of heightened public awareness. MusicMyThing (talk) 12:11, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
History of 138 Dutoitspan Road, Kimberley South Africa
Good afternoon. I am the Manager of Cecil John Rhodes Guesthouse in Kimberley, South AFrica. I am trying to find more history tying Cecil John Rhodes with our Guesthouse, 138 Dutoitspan Road, Kimberley. Is there perhaps anyone available to assist me? 41.163.0.52 (talk) 14:03, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Hello fellow IP, welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia has an article on Cecil Rhodes with many, many useful sources listed at the end, but for a more specific idea of where to look for such information, you could try asking at one of our reference desks - Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities seems like the best fit. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:10, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
I am contacting Wikipedia to suggest that it cross references this list of sundown towns and counties with another massive list. The following database has a more complete list of sundown towns and counties, and it could help Wikipedia make a more complete list.
I challenge the accuracy of the proposed additions. I have been writing about the history of Maynard, MA for 12 years (newspaper column and three books). There is no evidence whatsoever that Maynard was a Sundown Town, but it is listed in that Tougaloo document. David notMD (talk) 16:01, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Lots of UserBoxes
Why there are many users of Wikipedia/WikiMedia who have a lot of UserBoxes? and by a lot, I mean a LOT. is it some kind of WikiPedia/WikiMedia joke? 186.137.76.153 (talk) 18:37, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
With so many reverts taking place and some things so simple that it could be corrected without much difficulty your assessment just might be the answer. Is there a mechanism within WP to create your own boxes? I do not get too involved in some of these mechanics because I am not that vested in WP except for the general obvious things like misspellings and run on sentences.2603:8000:D300:D0F:D5D:8295:289E:24F5 (talk) 21:39, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
I kind of agree with the IP/OP and with Grabergs. I probably say more than I should about myself on my User Page. Think of it as getting caught up in the novelty of things when I was new. Yes, I made several of the Userboxes myself (about my being a nudist and an art school model, and the countries I have visited--those edited from existing boxes), but it was many years ago, and I just sort of stumbled through it and finally got them to work more by accident than anything else, so I couldn't really tell you how it's done.
One thing that's incredibly important though: If you think of editing a Userbox for yourself, DO NOT edit the code at the template itself--you will then edit it for everybody else who uses it. Copy the code onto the edit portion of your own User Page and make the changes there. And hope they come out the way you had in mind. Uporządnicki (talk) 21:57, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Hello, @Dcmpedia, and welcome to the Teahouse! Are you referring to your draft article on Ashfaque nabi? If so, please bear in mind the feedback the reviewer left. The draft has been declined twice because the reviewer, KylieTastic, found that the draft does not demonstrate that the subject is notable, and therefore doesn't qualify for a Wikipedia article. Unless you can prove that the subject is notable by providing multiple reliable, independent, secondary sources which cover the subject in non-trivial detail, your draft is unlikely to be accepted into the mainspace. Regardless, have a great day! HenryTemplo (talk) 16:29, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Hello, QCS 2020. The vast majority of primary schools are not notable. Only those of exceptional historical or architectural significance are notable. Your draft requires several references to reliable sources that are independent of the school and that devote significant coverage to this specific school. Currently, there are none. You have primary sources, passing mentions and database entries. That is not good enough. Please read WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Cullen328 (talk) 17:06, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. In order for that to happen, she must merit a Wikipedia article, and in order to do that, she would need to meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable musician. 331dot (talk) 17:27, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
She is indisputably notable. She has won several Grammy Awards and an Academy Award. I spend a lot of time in Vallejo since I own a home nearby. The biography is at H.E.R.. Cullen328 (talk) 17:44, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi, on this page, I've been wondering whether I should keep copy the special election results from Alabama's 8th into the Alabama infobox instead of having the general election results.
In the text from citation (104). It says, "the 9/11 attacks on New York and the Pentagon". There should be a year obviously, (01 or 2001), and the sentence, should also include something, in reference, to the downing, of the jetliner in a Pennsylvania field. As I live in Pennsylvania, and have visited the memorial site. I consider a jetliner, being used by a missile, after the killing of innocent stewardesses, and pilots, and then all the passengers including babies, an attack, on the Unites states also.207.44.34.110 (talk) 21:26, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
It says "September 11, 2001", so I am not clear why you think the year is missing. And the linked article about the attacks has information about the Penn. part also. You can discuss suggested changes on the article's talk page. RudolfRed (talk) 21:43, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
(ec) Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. We call pages in the encyclopedia "articles". New accounts and IP users cannot directly create articles, and need to use Articles for Creation to create and submit a draft article for review by other editors. Be advised that successfully creating a new article is the most difficult task to perform on Wikipedia, and it's a good idea to first gain experience and knowledge by editing existing articles in areas that interest you, to get a feel for how Wikipedia operates and what is expected of article content. Whether you prefer to do that or to dive right in to article creation, please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 08:38, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
along with Your first article, I advise you to also read Notability (or whatever notability guideline is appropriate for your subject) and Reliable sources, which show what subjects can have an article and what sources can be used to prove claims in the article respectively. happy editing! 💜 melecie talk - 09:11, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Where to get started on Counter-Vandalism
Hi!
I've been reading about Counter-Vandalism here on WP and would like to contribute. Do you have any pointers for me? Where do I start? What tools do I use?
hi @Kvoou and welcome to the teahouse! I'd advise you to take a look at Counter-Vandalism Unit and read as many policy articles as you can, starting with Vandalism and Disruptive editing (and make sure to know the difference between both! vandalism is deliberate disruptive editing, while disruptive editing can be unintentional or caused by them not knowing the policies). you might also want to get a script to help with your CVing, I advise RedWarn and Twinkle. happy editing! 💜 melecie talk - 09:08, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
this is just a name that people use for their Girl in Kurdistan and the reference for that is a physical dictionary. I'm wondering if the referencing is the case how can I reference it? Yuseferi (talk) 10:58, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
hi @Yuseferi and welcome to the teahouse! the problem is that the sole reference is a dictionary which does not really establish notability (there are lots of words in a dictionary, not all of them deserve separate articles since we're not Wiktionary), not that the dictionary is physical. not all names are automatically notable for Wikipedia. you could make it a disambiguation and show links to all notable people with the name Gashin (for example, see Lucy (disambiguation)), although if you want to make it a full article detailing the etymology, history, and notability of the name Gashin, you have to prove it meets the general notability criteria, see Anastasia for an example of such article. happy editing! 💜 melecie talk - 11:19, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
thank you for your message. the problem is that there is no any English reference for this name, nobody has added anything to this name in English. and in the Kurdish alphanet are different.
Yuseferi, the great majority of personal names are not of encyclopedic significance. Imaginably Gashin is an exception; but your draft doesn't start to suggest that it is. -- Hoary (talk) 13:41, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
@Melecie, sorry I didn't get that. what can I do know?
could you please help me how can I improve it and make it published. at the moment what I have is translation of it from Kurdish to Persian and I translated it from Persian to English.
I have a reference from Kurdish to Persian in the top kurdish-persian dictionary. ( it's pdf file of this Abdurrahman Sharafkandi person).
@Yuseferi, sources do not have to be in English, that is not one of our requirements. The problem is that one dictionary entry isn't enough to build an article on - it doesn't demonstrate that a word is notable by our standards. If you wanted to make a disambiguation page, you could use the dictionary entry to support a sentence about the name's meaning and/or origin, but right now there don't appear to be any articles which need disambiguation on enWP. Gashin redirects to Gasin faith, which is the main context for the word in articles here. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:48, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
I have reference for Gashin, it's a paper book. ( of course it's pdf is around). if I upload it somewhere and add it as a reference will be approved? Yuseferi (talk) 14:53, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
(Note: I am not Melecie) @Yuseferi, you don't need to upload it. You just need to cite it. See {{cite book}} for how to do that. If it's online as a pdf, you might be able to use {{cite web}}. One book is probably not going to be enough for an article, though, especially if it's just a dictionary. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 15:01, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
we don't mind that sources are not online, we accept paper sources or sources in other languages when they are available, however what we are looking for are sources that are not just dictionaries, ones that actually show that the name gashin is notable for wikipedia standards.
however unless if the book was published a long time ago (very early 1900s or before) please do not upload the full book at all, just citing the book is fine. happy editing! 💜 melecie talk - 15:01, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi, Fortunewriter! To create an acceptable Wikipedia article, it's not sufficient just to show that something merely exists, even if you can provide a long list of examples. An article needs to show that the subject is Notable in Wikipedia's sense of the term. That is, that other people have discussed the subject in some depth in well-edited, published Reliable sources.
In this case, instead of just creating a list of examples (which by itself is bordering on Original research or at least Synthesis, Wikipedia no-nos), you need to find examples of, for example, literary and film critics discussing teenage pregnancy in fiction, how it has been portrayed and used in fiction, and what significance these uses have. You then need to base the article mostly on summaries of what these sources say, and cite them appropriately. The list (which is well constructed using notable works – well done on that aspect) can form a useful part of such an article, but it's insufficient on its own.
Using the argument that "Other stuff exists" is not a good idea – other articles may themselves be substandard (in part because Wikipedia's standards have become higher over the years), and there's a lot that should really be either improved or deleted if only there was the editorial time available. Also, some list-based articles (like the one you mention) at least have hard numbers that can be measured and compared (money is always significant to some points of view).
I suggest that you look at the articles about your list entries and see if any of the sources used in them lead you to discussions of the titular topic (which could easily be the subject of PhD or D.Litt theses), and if writers of those sources have also published other articles about it. Good luck! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.193.131.154 (talk) 15:48, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Any way to contact an editor who might be wasting their time?
Due to a misunderstanding, an editor I was involved in a dispute with is now implementing what they consider to be the consensus. It's not. This is affecting 57 articles and presumably a lot of work for them. I've left a message on their talk page but fear they haven't seen it and are now in an editing trance. Is there any non-etiquette-breaching way I can contact that editor and suggest they stop?
@IpseCustos, it wouldn't be wiki-illegal to e-mail them if they've attached an address to their account, though doing it repeatedly would obviously cross a line. It's generally best to keep things on-wiki as much as possible. They're aware of the various discussions, you've taken things to a noticeboard and started an RfC, seems like it would be best to let things play out until a consensus is reached, then implement it. If they then go against it, there's a different problem to be dealt with. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:57, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your responses and advice. I shall try to be more patient and see where things go.
As a very minor nitpick, it's not "high-energy oxygen" we're arguing about (i.e. oxygen species that are more reactive than ordinary oxygen), it's about calling ordinary old oxygen a "high-energy" molecule. About 2 food calories in a deep breath, in case you're wondering (though I suppose we ought to call them air calories). IpseCustos (talk) 15:36, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the correction, @IpseCustos - I was just copying the title of the RfC, since chemistry is far from my area of expertise. Unfortunately this looks like it's going to be a complicated issue, with some WP:COI flavoring on top, so much patience will no doubt be needed! 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:21, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Adding a name.
Re: Wiki list "Friends Seminary Notable Graduates." First let me say that I'm 84. and happy when my toaster works. This is whom I tried to add to the aforementioned list, my late daughter, Christiana Ley Parker, author, equestrian, humanitarian. [https://www.christianaparker.org The website mentioned is my privately funded charitable entity in her memory. Additionally, I endowed her non-sectarian "Christiana Ley Parker '92 Humanitarian Award" at Friends Seminary; which, in perpetuity, has and will provide a yearly grant to that person, as chosen by the school, "Who went their own oft-times lonely way with goodness and grace" as she did. Chris was the co-author with me of "Camp Off The Wall" and "A Horse In New York" published by Avon, combining our initials as CaM Parker. It was our way of spending time together during school holidays or waiting for camp, when her ongoing efforts to save the world and every horse in it allowed. The listing is not all that important I suppose, to any save me, but it would be nice. Be and stay well. Mtnpkr821 (talk) 22:28, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Mtnpkr821, I don't doubt that your adding the name of your late daughter would give you great satisfaction. You should note, however, that names added to lists of notable alumni need to have an article written about them on Wikipedia. Otherwise, they are subject to either immediate or eventual removal from the list. In order for an article written about Chris to be published on Wikipedia, she must qualify as notable, which Wikipedia defines as having been discussed in depth in multiple, published, reliable sources (i.e., sources in no way connected to her or her family, friends, etc.). If you wish to go down that road, please read Your first article and the articles to which it links. --Quisqualis (talk) 22:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Mtnpkr821. I am so sorry that you lost your daughter and I can see that you are trying to commemorate her. I am 70 and I lost a loved and expected and eagerly anticipated first grandson at birth 6-1/2 years ago, and it was devastating. In response, I wrote and expanded articles like Now I Lay Me Down to Sleep (organization) and Rainbow baby and Zenith Radio Nurse and Baby rattle. So, I suggest to take your valid and legitimate grief about your daughter's death, and work to neutrally improve articles that do not mention your daughter, but instead have to do with the things you loved about her and the things that she loved. I am very fortunate to now have a 4-1/2 year old granddaughter, so that motivates me as well. She makes life worth living for me. I wish you well. Cullen328 (talk) 06:26, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. If anyone knows your feelings of loss, and that of your grandson's parents, I certainly do. Mine was 15 years ago, but I relive that awful day each and every day; and I suppose I shall until I too am no longer around. Chris was born in what might be considered late in my life, and that in itself was a miracle I treasured. I appreciate your article suggestions, but since her death have chosen to perpetuate her memory by continuing her good works in the only meaningful way I know of, via financial arrangements for the benefit of those who deserve recognition for traits that reflect her goodness and concern for others. Adding Chris' name to the list of her Alma Mater's "Notables" isn't really important. There, via her endowed fund's yearly grants in perpetuity, Chris will remain a kind of living presence long after I as well as all now, or in the future, alive are long gone. It was just something that occurred to me when coming upon same. Keep well, and please accept my best wishes for the health and happiness of you and yours. 71.230.172.147 (talk) 18:20, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Oilphase
Hi. I would like to ask if it is possible for me to create and publish a wikipedia page for a past company called Oilphase (Oilphase Sampling Services Ltd., to be precise). It could link to the reference of "Oilphase" on this other company's page (https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Schlumberger). I only ask as if Wikipedia has a policy of not publishing pages for past companies or anything like that, since if it does then I would rather not waste my time. Otherwise, I will try to compose something of value. Oilphase was/is notable in the oil & gas industry for revolutionizing bottom-hole sampling technology in the mid-90's in North Sea oilfields. It then soon grew and oil & gas companies around the world were using their tools in their wells. The technology, single-phase sampling, has since been adopted by several other service companies (Halliburton, Baker Hughes, etc). Thanks & regards for your time and consideration, Chris Batzer. 216.227.241.182 (talk) 21:04, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi, Chris, and welcome to the Teahouse! To answer the question generally, any article (not page) can exist on Wikipedia if it follows the relevant guidelines. For your specific question, an article could be created for the company if it is notable by Wikipedia's definition. The article would also need to be neutral and verifiable. If you wish to create an article, you should look at Your first article, which describes the process. However, if you are connected with the company in any way, you should first read the conflict of interest guideline before editing about the company. Happy editing, Perfect4th (talk) 21:23, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Hello Chris. To add to what Perfect4th said above, you would have to be confident that Oilphase met our very specific notability criteria for businesses. You can find them with this shortcut: WP:NCORP. Whilst there are millions of companies that someone might deem notable within that field, our definition used by Wikipedia is that you would need evidence that the world at large has already taken note of that business, and that people independent of the company and of the sector have written in detail and in depth about the company. If you can find three books, newspapers or major publishers which have written about that company, and supply us with links, we can take a look at them and advise further. You would need to exclude all insider business sources, press releases, social media posts and blogs. It's a hard ask, so unless you can unearth some really good sources, there would be no chance of an article here. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:32, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Relationship limits
Is there a policy for mentee-mentor relationship on Wikipedia? Or a list of what a mentor is not supposed to do?
What does a third person do, if a mentor appears to be abusing their role and harassing a third person in order to protect their protege?
Hi Armatura. All editors are expected to comply with Wikipedia's behavioral policies and guidelines, and being a mentor doesn't mean one can do as they please when it comes to their mentee. Mentor–mentee relationships tend to be quite informal and are basically entered into by mutual consent. Neither party is obligated to continue their participation if they choose not to, unless perhaps one of those involved (usually the mentee) has agreed to do so under certain conditions as the result of previous discussion about their behavior. I'd image that most users wanting to be mentors do so because they want to help others and not because they want to exert some control over others. If you feel a mentor's behavior is questionable, perhaps posting a polite note on their user talk page to express your concerns might OK. It could be that there's something else going on between mentor and mentee that you're not quite aware of, and the mentor will clarify their actions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:55, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
On the page of protected titles. Why is the first entry "Category:Motherfuckers"?
The first entry is Category:Motherfuckers. most other entries make sense, as they are basic functions or pages that would be created often, but this isn't the case for this entry, did something happen? AccountantOfGrillers (talk) 00:29, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
@AccountantOfGrillers: From that title's page log, it has been protected against re-creation since 2007 for being an attack page. If you need more details than that, you will need to contact one of the administrators who were involved. Having said that, it's more than a bit odd that the first edit you made with this account is about an obscure category page that has been protected against re-creation for almost 15 years for being an attack page. If you created a new account just to ask about this one particular page, it would probably be wise to just move on to something else before someone tries to figure out why this is of interest to you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:46, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Why is it the first entry? Protected titles are listed in the order they were protected. Simply, it probably struck someone as a good and obvious place to start. There are plenty of other inappropriate titles further down in the list. -- zzuuzz(talk)00:56, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
My edits are not saved
I am trying to edit this page - Viber, and I am adding words/sections that are updated about the company, including relevant sources, and its still always reverted back and not saved. I am always providing reasons and links, and its still not saved. Who can I speak to in order to solve this? CKWiki1818 (talk) 07:06, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
CKWiki1818, here's one of your additions: "One of Viber’s very first collaborations was with the BBC. In 2016, the news channel launched a public account on the app. In its public account, the news channel delivered real-time news to its subscribers and gave them access like never before to breaking stories." It's completely unsourced. It has an external link, but this isn't a reference for any proposition. Additionally, in-text external links are frowned on, and "like never before" sounds promotional. Had I seen this addition, I too would have reverted it. But the matter can be discussed in Talk:Viber. -- Hoary (talk) 07:27, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Okay, but what about the rest of the edits? I added more things, more sections, with sources, and everything is reverted. Is there any way to check the reasons for the rest of the unsaved edits? Also, is there anyone who is an official from Wikipedia that I can speak with? CKWiki1818 (talk) 07:34, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
You also added an unsourced section which said "Viber works closely with global brands across various industries to help users connect with their favorite brands, and teams, or get access to essential information." that was VERY promotional and correctly removed. Theroadislong (talk) 08:14, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
CKWiki1818 We are all official representatives- Wikipedia has no paid staff involved in day to day operations. You may ask any questions you wish here. Please also see your user talk page for important information. 331dot (talk) 08:55, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi! Not sure if I should be using the Teahouse for this question, but some months ago, I came across a post by Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales where he pointed out how the ratio of unreviewed Wikipedia pages was on the rise (he also shared a graph showing this). I remember the comment thread was pretty active then. Can someone share that post here? Thanks in advance! Toofllab (talk) 15:23, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Yes! This is the (somewhat alarming) graph. I remember Jimbo referring to it in a post. Any idea where I can find that? Toofllab (talk) 16:17, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Hello, HelpingWorld. Yes, this is a primary source. That does not mean it cannot be used at all as a source. It needs to be evaluated by uninvolved editors, and primary sources should be used in very limited ways. And primary sources are never acceptable for establishing notability. Cullen328 (talk) 05:50, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Please I wanted to ask why my article was denied because I had good evidences and proof that I am real I even added my LinkedIn profile Boluwatife Samson (talk) 07:38, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Boluwatife Samson Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves, that is what social media is for. Wikipedia is for summarizing what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about you, showing how you meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable person. Please also read policy on autobiographies. 331dot (talk) 07:45, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT: The Career section of User:Boluwatife Samson/sandbox is a copy of content from the Alabama, Newstime ref (access since changed to blocked by firewall or antivirus software), so expect the entire draft to be deleted soon. David notMD (talk) 11:08, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Reworked a declined article for Draft:International Professional Security Association (IPSA)
Hi,
I had written and submitted an article on IPSA (International Professional Security Association) a while ago that was rejected with feedback of seeming advertising with lack of a neutral point of view and that it needed better references.
I have now completely reworked the article based on the feedback and would like to get some feedback on it before i submit it to Wikipedia again.
It's still hopelessly promotional. From the first few paragraphs alone we have irrelevant phrases such as the following which have no place in an encyclopedia: "globally recognised membership body", "companies that resonate with the association's values and beliefs", "4500+ Individual Members from all over the globe. These members enjoy a long list of membership benefits". "celebrated its great milestone, the Golden Jubilee in 2008 with an event at the House of Lords", "a strong advocate for the welfare of security professionals and women in security throughout his career in the industry". Please read the advice you have already been given and also WP:COI. Shantavira|feed me08:33, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Ihsnavihs: Please give a look at WP:NORG before working any further on that draft. Promotional language is a problem that can always be fixed, but there’s no point doing the huge work of fixing it if the draft is going to be declined later. Lack of notability cannot be fixed (within Wikipedia at least).
The article still contains highly promotional language. For instance:
the only UK based security association established to acknowledge, support and represent the front-line security workers - "acknowledge" means nothing, "support" is vague (and not detailed in the body of the article), and there is a word for associations that "represent" workers, it’s "union".
IPSA's membership consists of security individuals and companies that resonate with the association's values and beliefs - as opposed to other associations that gather aliens and plants that disagree with the association’s values and beliefs?
IPSA is a courageous body of professional, experienced, and influential members of the security industry that are working together - similarly: as opposed to cowardly, sloppy, unexperienced and obscure members of the industry? As opposed to sabotaging one another?
Basically, that is the kind of stuff you find in a statement of purpose or other promotional materials, that aim to make people want to join, or support, or have good feelings about the association. The ideal Wikipedia article is more like a technical manual, using the clearest possible words with the least emotion attached to it. That’s not to say it should be boring, but it’s better to be boring than overly emotional. TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact)09:37, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Separate from all that, tables of peoples' names and corporations does not belong in an article, so removed, again. David notMD (talk) 11:24, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
draft not getting published
Hello,
There is a omax token draft and there are so many references and other key aspects and also its been trensing on google search engine but still its not getting published.
OMAXCHAIN Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Have you read the advice left by reviewers? Editing about cryptocurrencies has special rules due to being a topic area with significant disruption. I posted information about this on your user talk page. If you are associated with the topic, please read WP:COI and WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 12:42, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
"celebrity endorsements from celebrities": as opposed to celebrity endorsements from who, I wonder. Which celebs, OMAXCHAIN, and what evidence can you present for their endorsements? Don't your use of "whopping" and "massive" suggest some commentary? Also, I notice a certain resemblance between "OMAX TOKEN" and your username: any comment on that? - Hoary (talk) 12:47, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Hello all, would love some help regarding Draft:Daniel Edelson
From some reason the draft is declined again although I have sourced it out and added many cites. As can be seen, there are links to his own work and links about him from and in realible sources. To map it out, here are a few on him which most are in Hebrew:
Polysaccharides, I clicked on the first item in your list of links above. It appears to be a retailer's sales page for the man's novel. "Biggest books site", you say; but (i) I doubt that it's as big as Amazon, and (ii) that doesn't matter, because a sales page on Amazon is unusable too. Perhaps I'm lazy, but I'm not going to slog through all the other links. What would you say are the three best sources about Edelson? -- Hoary (talk) 11:43, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
And please remember, Polysaccharides, when you reply to Hoary's question, that your answer must not contain anything said, written, published, or commissioned by Edelson, his publisher, his agents, or those who sell his work. 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) 13:54, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Assisting A Volunteer To Recover Wikipedia Account
The Nana Darkoaa has had issue in accessing her wikipedia account in other to get her editing, we have tried password recovery and sign in's but she is not able to access her account. She is not blocked. A quick help on this would be great. Thanks Jwale2 (talk) 13:48, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Also, if there is no e-mail backup, and you have forgotten the password, then you unfortunately cannot recover the account. Kpddg(talk)15:34, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
How do you know if a source is reliable
I've been making an article about one of the battles fought in the Philippine-American war, i was looking for sources and found bunch, however, most of them seem fake. There were either no proof or classification. They looked like sketchy websites. I don't know if one source is reliable and i don't wanna get blocked from editing. Leahnn Rey (talk) 23:08, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
For the Phillippine-American war, I expect the best sources are actually going to be scholarly books, not websites. But as a rule, I apply a five-prong test, as follows:
Wouldn't that get me blocked? There are some hosts here that checks/verifies the citation. If they come across a non-english reference would i get blocked? Leahnn Rey (talk) 13:27, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
@Leahnn Rey: Wikipedia:Offline sources, though an essay, reaffirms the validity of sources that aren't online. Non-English sources are also allowed to be used, and neither would warrant an editor getting blocked. That being said, both offline and non-English sources may be contested by other editors more frequently, but a relevant WikiProject or Resource Exchange might be able to help. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:42, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
@Leahnn Rey: In addition to the fact that giving non-English sources is correct... Simply doing some incorrect edits will not get you blocked. What can get you blocked is either outrageous conduct towards fellow editors (calling them racial slurs etc.), or repeated incorrect edits (= doing the same thing over and over even when other editors told you to stop and why it’s wrong). Failure to conform to arcane Wikipedia guidelines will never get you blocked; at worst, it will cause your draft to be rejected. TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact)16:34, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Looking for an editor familiar with non-free use image policy
I'd like to grab a still frame from a copyrighted video to illustrate an article. I believe there's probably a good non free use reason to make it OK. But I could use some help from someone who knows how all that works. Thanks! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:33, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
@NewsAndEventsGuy: Welcome, and thanks for asking about the copyright use. I suggest you ask at WP:MCQ, which is where editors familiar with copyright and non-free usage answer questions like this. RudolfRed (talk) 16:38, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict) NewsAndEventsGuy Welcome to the Teahouse. The guidance at WP:NONFREE is, I agree somewhat arcane but it is very necessary. As a starting point, what is the article in question and what is the video? If it is for a draft article, forget about doing anything until it gets accepted. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:40, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, RudolfRed! I did not know about that resource. And thanks, Michael, I'll include a ping when I post at the place R suggested. Thank both of you for serving the TeaHouse! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:43, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Managing Conflict of Interest
Hello!
I am a journalist who covers the music scene for a few of the larger publications. I decided to write an article about one of the bands I have covered in the past. It's not original research, just news reporting. I wasn't asked or paid to write the Wikipedia article, nor am I part of the band's management or PR team, I just wanted to write about the band. Some of the sources are my own writing, I am also listed as a source on others band's articles (not ones I wrote, just cited as a source) because the publications I work for are considered "reliable sources" since everything is vetted for accuracy by my editor. Like I said, I wasn't asked or paid by the band, I have just covered them. I don't have any kind of relationship with them. Is this a conflict of interest? And, if so, what is the appropriate way to declare it? CorinneWestbrook (talk) 15:57, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Hello, CorinneWestbrook. From what you describe, it is not a conflict of interest for you to write about the band, but it is a conflict of interest for you to cite your own works. This doesn't mean you cannot do it, but you need to be circumspect.
If you put a statement like the one above on your user page, that should be adequate as a declaration.
If you wanted to edit existing articles about bands, citing your own publications, I would advise you to make edit requests on the articles' talk pages - see the link for the details. If you want to create a new article, then you should use the articles for creation process (which is recommended for newer Wikipedia editors anyway. and cite other independent publications as well as your own, and (especially if those publications disagree with your own conclusions), do your best to treat them all evenly. (If you cannot find any other independent publications about the band, they probably do not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability anyway). --ColinFine (talk) 16:08, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
CorinneWestbrook It is OK to add a limited number of cites to your work directly, per guidance at WP:SELFCITE but if a draft is going to be based mainly on such sources to the exclusion of others (e.g. because there are few others) then Colin's advice is very relevant. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:48, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Thank you both so much!! I appreciate that. I had quite a number of sources, and the article was accepted and has been published, but it has the COI flag on it right now. I will add my statement to my profile. I generally don't make edits based on articles I write, this was just my first page so a couple (out of 30 or so) sources were mine. Do I leave the COI flag or does that get removed? CorinneWestbrook (talk) 16:54, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
I am working on an article about a living person. Most of my attempts to publish have been rejected, due to a lack of "reliable sources, independently of them,...published material of substantial length about them."
I have since uncovered articles in publications where my subject is mentioned, or is featured, but there is no "online" access, they are photocopies of articles.
How can I cite these to Wikipedia standards?
Thanks,
Terra H. Terre Hominum (talk) 17:41, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Hello @Terre Hominum and welcome to the Teahouse. For an offline newspaper article, the best choice would likely be {{Cite news}} - click on the link to see what parameters it uses. Basically we'd want the name of the paper, article title, publication date, and anything else you can fit into one of the parameter fields, so a reviewer can easily go search for the article in various archives. You can see a list of many other citation templates at Help:Citation Style 1#General use. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:49, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
@Terre Hominum To quote WP:SOURCEACCESSDo not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access. It is completely acceptable to use offline, out of print or otherwise difficult to access sources in articles. 192.76.8.94 (talk) 17:58, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
I was coming here to ask the exact same thing as @Terre Hominum! I have photocopies of articles written from Out of Print publications. I am brand new to Wikipedia, so my related question is this: Is it enough to cite the above information that I do have (Name of the paper, article title, publication date, etc.) without risk of page deletion, or is there some way to create a gallery of the relevant photocopies that makes access to their existence easier? JustTheFacts815 (talk) 18:05, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
@JustTheFacts815, you'd immediately run into copyright issues if you tried to upload scans of the articles. Citing them is enough - reviewers have many different ways to access newspaper archives (and not just reviewers, regular editors can get access to a lot of good stuff too, through, for example, WP:RX). 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:11, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
I was curious if anyone was aware of a specific policy or guideline that explicitly discusses the capitalization of qualifiers. When looking at the title Atom (Web standard), should "Web" be capitalized? TipsyElephant (talk) 19:07, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
As for whether "web" is a proper noun in this case or not... there seems to be a great deal of debate on the subject. Usage has generally shifted from "yes" to "no" (web page, not Web page, for example), but I can't find anything in the MOS about it. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 19:30, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Trams in Ostrava
This is both a rant and a question about the Trams in Ostrava article.
A rollbacker and a page mover admin completely ignored my contribution on the article. Their argument on my talk page was that the article wouldn't pass WP:V. I read about WP:V and admittedly, there wasn't many references to the article, and as a beginner, I was 1. practising my articles whilst openly contributing 2. providing in depth translations and 3. working on references. But wouldn't millions of articles on Wikipedia currently not pass WP:V?
For example, the article now reads more succinctly (congratulations to the editor), but there's no information on steam trams that has been completely rubbed out. Surely not every sentence on Wikipedia has to have a corresponding reference? I find it unlikely that this would be possible.
I risk highlighting Trams in Košice article for the same reason; yet there are a few books available on it. While I can speak a bit of Czech, Slovak is a little different; I don't understand some words or context to be able to cite the book properly. Kmlbon (talk) 07:21, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
It's hard to tell which of your contributions you are talking about. Could you give us a diff? And this isn't really the place to raise such issues. Deb (talk) 08:38, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Kmlbon. Unfortunately we have thousands and thousands and thousands of seriously substandard articles, which would not be accepted if they were created today in the form they are. Our standards have become significantly higher since the project began. Ideally somebody would go through these improving them or deleting them if they cannot be made acceptable; but not many of our volunteer editors are intersted in spending their time in this way. When somebody does work on one of these articles, it tends to bring it to other editors' attention, and the result is sometimes that the article gets moved to draft, or deleted. Please look at WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.
It is true that Wikipedia's policies do not require that every statement be cited; but they do require that every statement be citeable - that is, that a reliable published source exist for every claim; and reviewers nowadays tend to strongly prefer that the citations be present (after all, if there is a source, why not cite it?). If there is no reliable published source for a piece of information, then that information should not be in a Wikipedia article - period. ColinFine (talk) 09:12, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Whilst this was possibly not the place to discuss this, compare Trams in Ostrava where not a lot of citeable references in journals and books are available: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Euro_Truck_Simulator_2. How is the Trams in Ostrava article different to this, where equally, only web sources are mainly available? Two different categories of articles, for sure, but if context can be only referenced by web content, why should it be declined? Am I missing a Wikipedia policy I haven’t read? Or should the policy be reviewed to differentiate between articles that have bibliography available, and those which don’t? “Reliable sources” is a very vague guideline for some articles. Objectively, this is still a good article including contributions from others. Would Wikipedia guidelines or certain administrators stipulate for this article be removed? Few of the articles I created have been moved to Draft because of this. Should the policy be modified to include the exception of certain geography (because of its lack of popularity, and interest; less people study to reference, and live for example in Ostrava compared to say, Prague, where references are widely available), or a completely seperate universe, in case of the Euro Truck Simulator 2 article? Kmlbon (talk) 18:14, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
I'm struggling a bit to understand what you're saying, @Kmlbon. Being offline or online doesn't affect whether a source is reliable. Euro Truck Simulator 2 might be a bit over-sourced to the dev blog, and unsourced in spots, but otherwise it's not a bad article. Our policy on reliable sources applies across the board; it's true that this leads to less coverage on Wikipedia of less popular or less populated article subjects - see the essay on systemic bias. There are people and projects trying to combat this, but so far, there has been no consensus to relax our standards. Policy can change, but changing it is a long and complicated process. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 20:19, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Possibly wrong info with unusable source
Hello,
So the page for Kamehameha Highway on Oahu lists a distance that cannot be verified as the source is a Google map that is not of the complete route.
That information is in the big important info box at the very beginning
Stormplatter Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If the Google Map is accurately cited, but in error, you will need to contact Google to report the error and get them to issue a correction. If you have a different reliable source with the correct information, you may offer it on the article talk page. 331dot (talk) 19:01, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
(moved from my talk) Hi 331dot,
In the question about Highway 99 on Oahu, the problem isn't with Google Maps. The problem is that the map the user linked to was of the wrong thing.
I am not sure how to add this to our discussion without messing the posts there up, so I contacted you instead.
Stormplatter Okay, I misunderstood your question. If the map is the wrong map, please point this out on the article talk page, an editor there my replace it with the correct map or otherwise fix it
To respond, just edit this existing section of this page, placing your comment below. There may be an "edit" link in the header to facilitate this(depends). 331dot (talk) 20:37, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi, IP editor, and welcome to the Teahouse! In addition to random articles, you can also look at the Community Portal (also in the top left column). It has a section near the top titled "Help out" which has lists of articles that need improving. If you're interested, you can also create an account, and you'll then get a 'homepage' that will suggest articles you can improve for you. Happy editing! Perfect4th (talk) 17:50, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Another suggestion is to ask yourself what specialist interests you have, and what reference books you might have on your shelves at home that could be used as sources that maybe other editors haven't got access to. Then go check out some articles that interest you - perhaps about your home region, or your hobbies. For example, one of my interests has been climbing the highest summits in the Alps over 4,000m. I have many guidebooks on those topics, and I find that many Wikipedia articles about these mountains (with a few exceptions) are usually very short and incomplete. So I might go and look at a few I know and whether I have some good climbing guides I could use. I'd consider what content is currently missing from that article and use those books to add additional information.
We have lots 'WikiProjects' here, which are simply groups of editors who come together to work on specific topics. So, in my case I'd visit WikiProject Mountains of the Alps. They have a table of all relevant articles there (3,097 of them), and all listed by importance and by their quality (=completeness). To have the greatest impact, I might choose to look at all the 'High' Importance articles that are really short (we call them stubs). The table shows me there are currently 22 of them. By clicking the number in the cell, I get list of those articles, and can visit each in turn to see whether I have anything I could add to them from my reference books. I can't base what I write on my own personal experience of them, and must be able to cite published books or other reliable online sources to support everything I want to add. I suspect you don't have the same interests as me, so why not visit the full list of Projects. Most WikiPrtojects have similarly helpful Article Assessment Tables, and I hope you might find one that inspires you to edit. I hope this helps a bit. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 21:56, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi, IP user. The talk page was protected because of "persistent disruptive editing". It has been quite a few times, so I'm guessing there's been a pretty high volume of unconstructive edits. Perfect4th (talk) 22:48, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Using one's own work
I am an area expert (Asian historian in a University position). Is it appropriate or inappropriate for me cite my own work? Sguha55 (talk) 23:43, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi IP 165.21.21.38. Employees of the Wikimedia Foundation probably get paid for their work just like most people working for a company would, but they aren't working for Wikipedia per se; they are working for the company that owns Wikipedia and their jobs are probably just related to the business activities of the Wikimedia Foundations. The people who actually "create" and "edit" Wikipedia articles are all WP:VOLUNTEERs who don't receive any payment from the Wikimedia Foundation for their "work". -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:27, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Problem with spacing
Regarding the Sound film article, there's a huge space above both the "Transition - Asia" and the "Cinematic Turn" sections. I went to the edit page, and the spacing there appeared normal. Any suggestions? -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) 07:20, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Did the same one with the cinematic form one...someone had a {clear}- template put in there, probably to make the pictures more discernible. Lectonar (talk) 08:29, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
question : if i giving u make invesment long team ,i want u in 1 year long team invesment make money USD 1 millliion per year, do u can do this Lee chee keong (talk) 04:11, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
There is a user who reverts my main space article edits, and I have collected some evidence that they reverted my edits without reading the content. I left a comment on their Talk Page regarding this issue, but they also reverted the section I created on their Talk page. I looked at their Talk Page history, and they also reverted other editors' comments on their Talk Page about edit warring, etc.
1. Is it appropriate for me to revert their revert to restore my message on their Talk Page?
2. Is there any rule against editors deleting criticism from their Talk Page?
So the first question is it is appropriate because users are not allowed to revert warnings on your talk page.
2 is depends on the situation so like if a user was critisizing your article or anything then you cant, but if they are doing it for no reason then you can
The revert reason they gave was "undue weight", but there is evidence that was not the reason, because their comments later indicated that they were unfamiliar with the content that they reverted and had made incorrect assumptions about what it was about. Is this vandalism? TechnophilicHippie (talk) 04:12, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
I started to revert and got this message:
This edit seems to be restoring a comment to a user's talk page.
Policy does not prohibit users, whether registered or unregistered, from removing comments from their own talk pages, although archiving is preferred. If a user removes material from their talk page, it is normally taken to mean that the user has read and is aware of its contents. There is no need to keep them on display, and usually users should not be forced to do so. It is often best to simply let the matter rest if the issues stop. If they do not, or they recur, then any record of past warnings and discussions can be found in the page history if ever needed, and these diffs are just as good evidence of previous matters.
World's response is wrong. Users are allowed to delete almost anything from their own talk page. There are very limited exceptions, and warnings, criticism, or comments from other editors are not among them. You should not restore such material if it has been blanked. See WP:UOWN and WP:BLANKING. Meters (talk) 04:27, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
As for reverting main space edits without reading them, it's not a good idea, but that does not mean it is necessarily vandalism, as World claims. Vandalism requires an intent to harm the content. If an editor is in the middle of reverting continuous vandalism from another editor, sometimes the assumption is made that the latest edit is also vandalism, and it gets reverted without being read, even if it's a good edit. As I said, it's not a good idea, but it's a mistake and disruptive, but not vandalism. And how did you determine that the other editors was not reading the edit first? Meters (talk) 04:46, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
I left the reasons on their Talk page (which is now reverted). Basically, they left comments on the Talk page saying that two paragraphs was too long, so that's why the whole thing was deleted. However, it was only 3 sentences. They also said something else in another section of their bulk rollback was deleted entirely because it was too long. When someone else complained, they restored it and said their copy edit was the correct due weight, just two sentences. However, what I added originally was only two sentences, and what they restored after the other person complained was almost the same was what I had added originally. It was my wording, but a reference was moved to the end, and some small detail was removed. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 06:43, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
The context is that they deleted many sections on the Elon Musk page and moved them to the Views of Elon Musk page, saying that the main Elon Musk page's Views section should be summary style. For summary style, important parts should be mentioned (not entirely missing) but in short form, so I was restoring some in short form. They rolled back everything under the assumption I was restoring the original long form they deleted. This is because they assumed I was undoing their change and didn't even read my edits to find out they were in short form. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 07:59, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
If the reverting editor said two paragraphs was too long, so that's why the whole thing was deleted but it was really only 3 sentences, well, 3 sentences sounds pretty short. I can't find the actual revert at the moment to check. I wonder if the same 3 sentences in one paragraph would be ok with the reverting editor... 73.127.147.187 (talk) 04:42, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
UTC)
The diffs for the reverts were linked to in my link to my diff of my comment on their Talk Page. However, after describing the issue here, I realized that my conflict with this editor is likely based on mutual misunderstanding that the other is trying to undo each other's contributions. My contributions are mostly additions, theirs are mostly deletions, so my restoring of deleted content (even a partial/short version) is seen as undoing/manually reverting their work, which is why they immediately revert my contributions. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 05:51, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Title change
We want to change Founders Day Ghana Writing Contest to Founders Day Ghana Writing Contest- Decolonizing the Internet. This is because the earlier title was wrong. This year we are creating Founders Day Ghana Writing Contest as title on a meta page and we are wondering whether its possible. Kindly show as how we can go about it.Jwale2 (talk) 01:16, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi everyone, thanks for the reply, I have successfully performed the move, Baggaet Is it possible to perform a move for the sub-pages too. Thanks Jwale2 (talk) 13:40, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
On Meta-Wiki, only admins can perform such moves. I think you should revert your move and ask an admin to move the page along with its subpages on m:WM:RFH, for the ease. --Baggaet (talk) 16:21, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi, IP user, and welcome to the Teahouse! It looks to me like you successfully created your talk page based on its history. Are you referring to a user page? I'm not sure if IPs have the ability to create those. Perfect4th (talk) 22:44, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Hello and welcome...To add to the above, I would recommend if you can, you should consider creating an account. It's easy to do so and you will get to create and customize your own userpage and talk page. I will send you a welcome note with links to help you with that for your consideration. Happy editing Volten001☎07:21, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Where to add this news in the respective Wiki page?
Hi. I just made an edit and seen notices about getting an account. It says that will hide my IP address but I'm not really bothered about that. Is it definitely free to join and what are the main benefits? Also, are there any constraints? I just followed a link here so hope I'm in right place and filled this in right. 79.73.27.91 (talk) 20:34, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Registering and maintaining an account is indeed free. Registered accounts can, given enough time and activity, get the autoconfirmed and extended confirmed userrights, which allow them to edit thru some forms of protection. —Jéské Courianov^_^va little blue Bori20:40, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Hello,
I can tell you that it is definitely free to join Wikipedia- in fact, you don't even have to use an e-mail to join. You are in the right place. As for constraints, I don't think there are too many. If you create an account and edit it often you can edit semi-protected pages, which is something you cannot do not signed in and without many edits. Having an account means that someday you can become a Wikipedia administrator. All in all, if you only do one or two edits and you do not care about your IP address being shown then I would say that it is perfectly okay to edit not signed in. Otherwise, I would definitely recommend creating an account. Thanks! 𝙷𝚎𝚕𝚕𝚘𝚑𝚎𝚊𝚛𝚝 (𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔) 20:43, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi, Jéské and Helloheart. Hope you are both well. Thank you for your answers that give me food for thought. Much appreciated and best wishes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.73.27.91 (talk) 20:52, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
I would add to the good comments above that if you do not provide an email address to an account, it is not possible to recover your password if you forget it. 331dot (talk) 21:03, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi, 331dot. I'm surprised an email address isn't mandatory for a membership. It is at many other sites. If I decide to join, I'll bear that in mind. I'm always forgetting passwords. Thank you and best wishes. 79.73.27.91 (talk) 21:16, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
I'll just add my own "Welcome to the Teahouse" message for you, and just address something the others above have not. You asked about "benefits" and "constraints". The great benefit of editing Wikipedia (whether logged on with a free account, or as an IP user living in Swindon) is the great feeling of accomplishment that you're able to contribute in your own small way to this amazing encyclopaedia, with its 6.2 million articles. There are definitely "constraints", though we like to call them "Policies & Guidelines. Boy, do we have lots of 'em!!!
But don't panic, they're all basically there to make sure we only add content that can be Verified from published sources, and that it's presented in a Neutral, encyclopaedic manner, and that we all work courteously together on this collaborative project (CONSENSUS, and don't either accidentally or intentionally cause disruption. Common sense basically applies when you start out editing - and I hope you enjoy it. But if you want to get a sense of all those lovely "constraints", do take a quick peek at Wikipedia:List of policies. So, a hearty welcome to a project - one that you'll either try out and abandon after a few goes, or discover a whole new, exciting world of information sharing and world-wide education and cooperation. We're here to help and guide you as you start out on this journey if you need us. Regards from the East Midlands, Nick Moyes (talk) 21:30, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi, Nick and Deor. I have decided I will open an account. I do a lot of historical research as a hobby. I think it will be fun to do some editing too. I am short of time this morning. Will think of a name and let you know. Thank you all so much for helping me and your words of welcome. Best wishes and laters.
79.73.27.91 (talk) 06:20, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your positive contributions! It's great to see new editors here at the Teahouse. Have a wonderful day! 🐶 EpicPupper(he/him | talk)06:26, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, EpicPupper, and everyone else above. I have opened my account as Sistorian. My sister calls me that because I love history. Don't worry, she has a nickname too! I have made a start by trying to address some of the issues in articles recommended by the system. Two will need a lot more work so I have added them to the watchlist, which must be very useful to have. I am not sure if I will have any more time today but I should be able to come back tomorrow. Thank you again, everyone, for all your help and the very kind words of welcome. Best wishes.
Is it possible to insert an image already on Wikipedia to an additional article. I'm creating a draft for the Southworth library in Dartmouth MA and I wanted to insert an image that already exists in an additional article. Is that possible?
Have a cup of tea and enjoy seeing Commons images on Wikipedia@AdmiralAckbar1977: Even longer version: Let's assume you have already found an image image you want to use. It could be this one of a cup of tea that you want to re-use. You need to get to the image on Commons, so either click on my link in the previous sentence, or click the photograph you see here - you're taken to the same place on Wikimedia Commons - and look just above the picture, and beneath the filename where you'll see a line of five small links. Look for the link with the tiny Wikipedia 'W' logo and the words "Use this file". Click that link and select the text offered to "Use this file on a Wiki as a Thumbnail". (The convention is always to add an image as a thumbnail, no matter how much you'd love to make it larger.) Copy the link to your clipboard and then go to the Wikipedia page you want to add it to (let's assume we want to add it to the page we're on now). Edit the page (ie click the tab labelled Edit Source). Scroll down to the section you'd like to add it to, and paste in the text you copied at the very top of that section. By default, this adds the thumbnail picture and its caption on the right hand side of the page, as you see here. To change the caption text, just edit the text to the right of the vertical bar - or 'pipe'. Don't change the filename.jpg text itself or the image link will be broken. There are some useful links on this help page: Wikipedia:Images with further guidance and tweaks, or detailed layout possibilities at Wikipedia:Picture tutorial.
Of course, if you are using the alternative Visual Editor (which is a bit more WYSIWYG), the process is slightly different. You once again navigate to the section where the image is needed, then, in the editing toolbar, click Insert > Media. At the search bar in the popup that then appears, type the keyword to search for certain image types, or just type in the filename of your image you've already chosen from Wikimedia Commons. Select the image and then click 'Use this image'. Before inserting it you'll be prompted to add a caption. Captions can include hyperlinks, but that's probably best left for another time. I hope this helps. (If it doesn't just visit the tutorial links at Wikipedia:Images) Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 13:53, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
hello,please how can I tag a user on a talk page so that he/she will receive a notification that the were mentioned e.g @Uricdivine. Also how can I add links in a talk page so that it can be easier for users to understand the points being made. Lastly,how do I edit my user page to show things like (this user is a wikipedian, THIS user is a rollbacker,this user loves to swim)or something like that in templates. Thanks Uricdivine (talk) 23:12, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Help
Hello, when am writing a discussion in a talk page I don't see the five options displayed above me now. What I mean is I don't see capital letter option, citations option,tag option and visual/source editing option.. please do I need a particular level or number of edits to get this privileges? Uricdivine (talk) 23:17, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
@Uricdivine: Welcome to the Teahouse. It seems you're able to ping others, as you've done so for yourself. You are probably thinking about the reply tool, which should be enabled for new users by default. If it isn't, you can go to Preferences → Beta features → Discussion tools. Please see Help:Link for more information on how to create wikilinks.If you want to show vanity fluff like This user is a Wikipedian as templates, consider reading Wikipedia:Userboxes. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:01, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
For your first question, you can "ping" a user by using {{u|Example}}, which produces Example; I used this to respond to you. You can also respond to someone with the template {{re|Example}} (which produces @Example:). For more information, check out Help:Notifications.
To link to an article, talk page, or anything else, put the name of the page in square brackets: [[Lionel Messi]], [[Wikipedia:Main Page]], and [[User talk:Example]] produce Lionel Messi, Wikipedia:Main Page, and User talk:Example.
I assume your next question is referring to userboxes. That page should give you a guide to using them, as well as links to galleries containing hundreds of userboxes.
You should be able to have editing options no matter how many edits you've made. You might be seeing different options because you're using the newer discussion tools; if you use the "New section" link in the top right of a page rather than just clicking edit, you should get the same results.
Hello thank you all for your replies but I still can not find an easier way to tag someone without using perfect4th which is hard (am talking about using "{|" in the name of the editor am trying to tag)
For linking a talk page let me try if it works ((Lionel Messi))
Uricdivine, Help:Notifications lists all the options for pinging users. When you're linking a page, make sure to use square brackets (these: [[]]). Also, don't forget to sign your messages with for tildes (~~~~). Happy editing, Perfect4th (talk) 16:06, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
@ perfect4th Thank you I have learnt how to ping users and also how to add links in talk pages. All that remains is how to add userboxes in my own user pages,please help me. Uricdivine (talk) 16:16, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
I've never given a barnstar before. Would it be appropriate to give Template:The Helping Hand Barnstar to someone who assisted me a lot when I first started editing Wikipedia? It says it's for people "who frequently help new users," but I have no idea if they help other users frequently or if it was just me. I suppose I could check their edit history. Is there a more appropriate barnstar for just basic appreciation of someone helping you? I suppose I could use Template:The Special Barnstar. TipsyElephant (talk) 20:26, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Hello, TipsyElephant. As far as I know, there is no formal process for barnstars: you can give any barnstar you think appropriate to anybody you want. It's a form of public appreciation, but it's you (the awarder) giving the appreciation, so give it as you think fit. ColinFine (talk) 20:51, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
@TipsyElephant You can give barnstars to anyone you want for any reason you want, pick whichever one best matches the message you want to give and don't fret about the details. The Barnstar Brigade and the associated barnstar police were shut down along with Esparanza nearly 16 years ago! 192.76.8.94 (talk) 00:36, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
This is how the PEPFAR article references it, I would like to make more references like this:
PEPFAR began with President George W. Bush and his wife, Laura, and their interests in AIDS prevention, Africa, and what Bush termed “compassionate conservatism.” According to his 2010 memoir, Decision Points, the two of them developed a serious interest in improving the fate of the people of Africa after reading Alex Haley’s Roots, and visiting The Gambia in 1990. In 1998, while pondering a run for the U.S. presidency, he discussed Africa with Condoleezza Rice, his future secretary of state; she said that, if elected, working more closely with countries on that continent should be a significant part of his foreign policy. She also told him that HIV/AIDS was a central problem in Africa but that the United States was spending only $500 million per year on global AIDS, with the money spread across six federal agencies, without a clear strategy for curbing the epidemic
How do I merge two "N/A" cells of a table using the Visual Editor?
I need to merge two "N/A" cells using the visual editor, but following the steps listed in help I couldn't find a way to select multiple "N/A" cells. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:07, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi there!
I recently came across this article: Pugazh (actor). There are lines which seem to be promotional and are not in a neutral point of view. I would like to know if the promotional content must be removed from the article for which Copywriting is needed as well. I have removed a couple of those points too.
Hey! I came across a recently vandalised article and am trying to correct the information on it, however I've ran into a problem. I have 2 different references for the information of this person, and while most information matches, one claims he was born on the 3rd of March while the other claims it was the 6th of March. Another article I found used the 6th, but the current one was using the 3rd. Any advice for determing which reference should take priority or any advice to figure this out?
Hello, Aidan9382, and welcome to the Teahouse. I wouldn't necessarily agree with HelpingWorld here: the fact that you've found two sources which claim one date and one which claims the other, is far from conclusive: which of the sites looks most reliable? In fact, does either of them look like a reliable source in Wikipedia's sense? Are there other sources you haven't found? I would be inclined to say in the article that sources disagree, and leave it up to the reader to decide which to believe. ColinFine (talk) 10:37, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Hello Aidan9382, you've already been welcomed so I won't do that again but I am glad you came here with your question. My suggestion is to either follow what ColinFine says above, state that sources are in disagreement and let the reader decide, or say nothing at all. We are not required to provide a birth date for a subject of an article as many do not have them. Sources are in disagreement so, if one does not immediately stand out as more reliable than the other then it's okay to not list a birth date. There is no rush to update any article. Perhaps in time one source will see their error and correct it. Of course, you may decide to be bold and make the change anyway and that's okay too. I still think a more balanced approach like that offered by ColinFine is best. --ARoseWolf13:16, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi @Aidan9382: a bit late to this party, but I would refer you to WP:DOB, which says (and I quote; emphasis mine) "If multiple independent reliable sources state differing years or dates of birth in conflict, the consensus is to include all birth dates/years for which a reliable source exists, clearly noting discrepancies. In this situation, editors must not include only one date/year which they consider "most likely", or include merely a single date from one of two or more reliable sources. Original research must not be used to extrapolate the date of birth." HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:41, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
@DoubleGrazing: This seems like its going to be the most likely solution, as after doing further searches, I'm still seeing a mix of the two (to the point where one site reports both DOBs on 2 different occasions). How would you recommend phrasing this? My main problem is the fact that I'm not sure how to display this kind of behaviour inside an infobox. Unfortunately, I normally work on the technical side of wikipedia, so this isn't something I know how to sort well. Aidan9382(talk)08:36, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
How do you cite a book that has not yet been publised/uploaded to google books?
I was reading about Jose Rizal and i wanted to make a section called Rizal Law. I searched for my books and found this one book my teacher gave me, and i found some information. The information reads "Rizal Law, Also known as RA 1425, mandates the study of Rizal's life and works. This Republic Act calls for an increased sense of nationalism from the Filipinos during a time of a dwindling Filipino identity. According to the judicial system, a republic ac is a law that has already been passed and implimented." I wanted to add that information to the new section i was talking about, though i can't cite a book from real life. I googled the ISBN of the book, that being 978-971-0161-53-9. But no results were found. I went ahead to https://isbnsearch.org which was my tool for searching ISBN numbers. No results still came up, (click here.) I just know this type of information needs a citation and the section might be removed because there is no citation for the information. The book is named "A Review in the Life and Works of the First Filipino.", I also searched on google books but still no luck. Leahnn Rey (talk) 04:29, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
@Leahnn Rey: Yes, there's something odd about that ISBN. I saw an image of the book cover, which gave a different ISBN, 978-621-409-144-7, but that also doesn't find the book in any online databases. But as long as you have physical access to the book, you can still cite it – the important bibliographical info includes author names, title, year of publication, and publisher. The page number should be part of the citation, but a Google Books link is an optional extra. --bonadeacontributionstalk07:46, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Was the book named "A Review in the Life and Works of the First Filipino"? if i'm correct, the authors' names should be Dr. Andres R. Delos Santos, Orlando H. Ramos, Vanessa D. Umali and Melvin N. Ambida. Leahnn Rey (talk) 07:57, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, you lost me there – you mentioned the title in your first post, so that was the title I searched for. Library catalogue entries say the authors are those people. You do have access to the book itself, right? --bonadeacontributionstalk11:23, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Renaming a draft article
I want to rename a draft article for lollipop chart to lollipop plot.
Is there any Wikipedia guideline on advertising being discussed in articles that are not primarily about them? I searched a bit but all I really found was policies against articles that are written like advertisements. Although, it's a blurry line, so maybe those apply!
I just read the article Joker Stairs which mentions some fast food ad that was set there, listing the ad's slogan. It often happens with songs: What Have They Done to My Song Ma mentions three ads that used the song, listing the mangled lyrics in each case. I'm sure the creatives behind these throwaway ads are thrilled to have them immortalised on Wikipedia but I don't see how they can be considered notable. The ads didn't matter enough to get their own articles. If licensing a song for a while is enough for your otherwise unrelated slogan to become a notable fact about that song on Wikipedia forever, well, that's a great deal. Call apogee say aardvark (talk) 04:35, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi @Call apogee say aardvark, welcome to the Teahouse. There's an essay which lays out our general approach to what could be called "pop culture cruft" - this section is particularly relevant. Basically, any such mentions should "contain verifiable information with sources that establish its significance to the article's subject". The Joker Stairs mention might qualify; very few of the ones in the song article seem to do so. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 13:50, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Source link incorrect, and no info to replace it with
@Tenryuu I am sure I am not typing this response in the right part of this thread (edit? page?), but I think this is where I should have put this topic.
This question has to do with not knowing the real data that should go in the edit I would make.
Here I do not know where the actual data can be found.
Do I replace the data with something else like "??? ?"
The data is not the data in the source.
There is nowhere to find the data online.
I am waiting on an email back from the Division of Highways.
Before I go ask this in the other topic, since this is related but different would you like me copy paste this question there?
@Stormplatter, if the current information is not only wrong but cited to a source that doesn't verify it, and you don't have a better source with the correct information, the simple solution is to just remove it. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 13:58, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Is the Wikipedia Page I am trying to create properly sources and cited?
First ref trigggers a warning "Your connection is not private. Attackers might be trying to steal your information from tf.geoview.info (for example, passwords, messages, or credit cards). Can you find a replacement? David notMD (talk) 09:29, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Oversimplified summary of HTTP/HTTPS technology and history
Long ago, many internet pages used HTTP, a protocol to exchange data between a server (here, whoever controls geoview.info) and a client (your web browser). That data was sent "in clear", with no encryption, which allowed multiple nefarious actors to do bad stuff (for instance, if I control the internet traffic between the server and the client, I can change the page’s content, read whatever you send etc.; in some instances, internet service providers put in ads to the top of their customer’s web requests). A new protocol, HTTPS, was developed to solve that issue - the server would encrypt and sign the data it sends to the client, so that the client has some confidence that nobody has tampered with the content of the page. HTTPS was better than HTTP to use but it’s a bit harder to set up, there’s a significant technical and political problem of how the client knows to decrypt the result, and webmasters are lazy (reminder, this is a very simplified summary). Browsers decided to put increasingly dire warnings when displaying pages that are not fully-HTTPS; including pages that are "self-signed" (i.e. the page is HTTPS, but you are not sure who did the encryption - probably the server but you cannot be sure) or that include non-HTTPS elements (for instance, if my page includes maps from Google etc. I might elect to direct your browser to look up those on your own).
In the case of that page, the root page itself is HTTPS, but it calls some resources (typically images from other websites) over HTTP. Hence your browser is complaining that all the risks associated with insecure HTTP are still present. The fact that your browser is screaming is more a choice from the browser vendor (to push those do-nothing webmasters to move on to full-HTTPS already) than a function of the real security risk.
As far as I know, there is no requirement that online sources be HTTPS (and I would oppose such a requirement if it was proposed). That being said, that source is not much more than a map from Google, so I don’t know if it is really useful. TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact)14:00, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Articles With Similar Names.
Hey there,
I'm attempting to create an article for the Southworth Library, in Dartmouth MA. There's already another article titled 'Southworth Library,' so I made sure to type 'Dartmouth Massachusetts,' in brackets next to the name Southworth. However, even though this article is currently a draft. I was wondering how to put a link to the other Southworth Library akin to what's occurring in the Kevin Malone article. Like whether its a simple copy and paste - or if it requires additional formatting.
Hi AdmiralAckbar1977. There's a template {{for}} (and several similar templates) that can be put at the top of the source code of articles to distinguish them when WP:disambiguation pages are not needed. I wouldn't worry about that for the present. If and when your new draft is accepted, the experienced editor who does so will sort out that type of issue. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:10, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
issue with the illm template
Hi! I was trying to fix the external wikilinks used in this section of this article. I fixed two of them, but when I saw the preview of my edits, the en wiki article appearing near the Korean wiki page of Lee Chang-myung isn't related to him, since it talks about a different person that has his exact same name. I tried to fix this problem by modifying slightly the template, but it didn't work. What can I do to solve this issue? Bloomingbyungchan (talk) 18:26, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
@Bloomingbyungchan, I believe the solution would be along these lines: {{ill|Lee Chang-myung (profession)|lt=Lee Chang-myung|ko|????}}. Replace "profession" with whatever disambiguator is appropriate for the subject (actor/politician/etc.) and ???? with the title of the Korean article. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 19:37, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
I am new to editing on Wikipedia. Recently I opened a second username, believing that editing from both my usernames would be combined, and then I could forget about the first username, which I do not want but cannot delete. However, it seems that I have inadvertently broken Wikipedia rules. What should I do to retain only one username? I have not found an answer looking around Wikipedia pages. Xhkvfq (talk) 18:39, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, but there is currently no way to delete an old account. Because we license all contributions under the CC BY-SA 3.0, deleting an account would be a breach of the license terms, as the contribution would no longer be attributed to the original author. weeklyd3 (message me | my contributions) 18:46, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Thank you. I've done that on both talk pages. The question now is: which username should I use and what should I do with the other username? Strippedsocks (talk) 19:44, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Hello, how would I be able to challenge an edits source as truth? Also, if a page is about a living person can they challenge an edit as being true? 98.45.202.132 (talk) 14:52, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
If a living person (or relative or friend) wants to dispute content, the proper path is to explain their connection to the person the article is about, and then propose changed - with reference(s) on the Talk page of the article rather than edit the article directly. David notMD (talk) 16:10, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi @DotServer, welcome to the Teahouse. It appears that you are using this account, which is declared to be a bot, along with another account of yours to edit war at Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited, with which it is believed you have a conflict of interest. Please clarify your connection - if any - and discuss these issues on the talk page rather than repeatedly re-adding material. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:30, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
@DotServer I am most assuredly monitoring your edits. You have stretched my good faith very close to its elastic limit. Please read and take action on WP:PAID. Further if this account is a Bot, where is the bot approval, and why are you editing from the account personally? 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:22, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
@DotServer, Wikipedia is open to everyone. You can also revert my edits if I vandalise. Anyone can follow anyone's contribution history to check what that user is doing. There is nothing wrong in it. Grabup (talk) 17:24, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Removing from list of COI edit requests
Hi everyone,
I recently finished two edit requests that were on the list of COI edit requests. However, I do not know how to remove them from the list. Does the completion need to be verified or accepted by someone else first? Or am I able to go ahead and edit the list directly? Or is there a specific place it needs to be archived?
I have been working on this article for a long time already Draft:Renderforest. I have eliminated all the possible promotional parts, left purely informational text such as what products Renderforest offers and the history of their creation.
I once got rejected beacuse I inlcuded the pricing, regardless the fact that other companies such as Canva does that. (I don't know, should I feel hurt that others have the right to do that but not me : ( )
This time I got rejected because the article reminds the reviewer of a listicle, however I have been inspired by Picsart which literally states their history and the products they have.
Can someone guide me and help me understand what's wrong?
RosiGhalach Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I think that you have a common, fundamental misunderstanding about what Wikipedia is and what it does. Wikipedia is not for merely providing information; it is an encyclopedia and not a place for companies to tell the world about themselves and what they do. This is considered promotional here, you don't have to be soliciting customers or selling something. Any article about your 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 means sources must be
independent- the source cannot be affiliated with the company
reliable- the source must have a reputation of fact checking and editorial control
significant coverage- the source must do more than merely report the activities of the company, and/or be more than a brief mention. It must go into what others deem significant about the company(not what the company considers to be significant about itself)
chosen on their own to write about it- the source must not be prompted by the company to write about it, or be writing based on materials from the company itself, like its website, or an interview with a company official, or its press releases.
The article that you cite, Picsart, has some of the same problems as your draft, thank you for pointing it out. I have marked it as problematic. It is not usually a good idea to cite other similar articles as a reason for yours to exist- it could be that these other articles are inappropriate. See other stuff exists. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inappropriate articles to get by us. We can only address what we know about. If you want to use other articles as a model, use those classified as good articles. 331dot (talk) 09:26, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Upon a deeper dive, the Picsart article has a much stronger notability claim(a much downloaded app). 331dot (talk) 13:10, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
"The platform is free to download"? What does that mean? What platform, none has been previously mentioned. And how do you download a platform? Maproom (talk) 18:46, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Use of Twitter as Journalistic Citation
Hi! New editor here. I have a question about the use of Twitter as a substantive citation for information on a subject. My first edit was on a writer's page, Claire Vaye Watkins. I wanted to add a section for her newest novel, similar to the sub-headings for her other books. There was a section on apparent abuse allegations that I thought was a little strange because it used a Tweet as its citation and seemed spurious. I removed this section, citing BLP standards, but it was re-added in another edit a few days later by the same editor who had initially added it. I'm not really sure what to do. I elided the allegation into the section on her most recent novel as it seemed most pertinent there, but I feel really strange about even keeping it at all. I'd really appreciate some help here as it seems like another editor might be acting in bad faith. Thank you! Somedays2you (talk) 18:20, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
@Somedays2you You are spot on to be concerned. WP:TWITTER makes it clear we can use tweets to support info about the person who is tweeting, but not to base Wikipedia allegations about a 3rd party on just one tweet. There's also some interpretation going on there yb the other editor, so it needs to be removed. Often, the best way is to take action by removing BLP content, then raise the issue to explain your rationale with the other editor. I'll drop by their page and warn them off doing that again. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 18:40, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
And WP:RSP further states that community consensus is that Twitter is questionable in most cases. Twitter should not be used to source controversial information such as these claims. Very good intuition Somedays2you. @Nick explains everything else exceptionally. You might point the editor to WP:RSP and WP:TWITTER so they are made aware if they did not know. =) --ARoseWolf18:47, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, Nick! That's so helpful. My first instinct was to remove it, but when I saw it was re-added in a later post, I didn't want to get close to edit warring or anything. Somedays2you (talk) 18:47, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
@Somedays2you You did well. It is actually better to protect someone's reputation by edit warring and by following BLP policy, than it is to to leave possibly correct yet unsubstantiated claims on Wikipedia on fear of being accused of edit-warring. A look at the other editoes contributions suggests they are focussed on 'righting great wrongs'. But ours is not the place to do that. Nick Moyes (talk) 19:21, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Draft
Hi, How long will it take for this page to appear on Wikipedia as a final published page? I have read all the suggestions and comments,however,I am finding it hard and complicated to apply those.Can anyone please tell me in step by step simple words how to get my page published.Thank you.
NepLekhak Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. It cannot be a published article(not a "page") until you submit it via Articles for Creation- but if you were to do so now, it would be rejected, as it needs more before it can be in the main encyclopedia. The good news is that you are writing about an attorney general of Nepal, so notability is there. You must now take the sources you have and summarize what they say, and then format the references to appear within the article text- see Referencing for Beginners. You may also wish to read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 09:30, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
NepLekhak After you properly insert refs into the text, following the content being referenced, the software inserts a number at those positions and adds the refs under References. David notMD (talk) 19:50, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Need ProQuest user
Is there anyone who has access to ProQuest? I am expanding some article and I need to access ProQuest to read some historical news article. If anyone can help me then let me know. Mehedi Abedin22:21, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
@Mehediabedin: If you go to WP:REX and post what article you want, someone there is likely to help you. (Someone here may help you, but the Resource Exchange is the usual place for such help.) Deor (talk) 22:25, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Hey, I'm doing a project with my uni where we are adding mathematicians to Wikipedia who have MacTutor pages, but not Wikipedia ones. I was just wondering if anyone happens to know a mathematician who they think needs a Wikipedia page or needs their page editing? Exp2002 (talk) 21:36, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Exp2002, and welcome to the Teahouse. It might be more effective if you asked at WT:MATH. In any case, please remember to make sure that anybody you want to write an article about meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability, or you will be wasting your time. I wish we could get people out of the habit of talking about subjects "having" - still less "needing" - Wikipedia pages. I know that this is a common way of talking about it, but it easily misleads people into imagining that an article about somebody is in any way for that person's benefit. End of rant. ColinFine (talk) 21:56, 16 June 2022 (UTC) If it's ranting time, ColinFine, let me join the party! "The notability of X is such that a decent encyclopedia needs a page about X" is painfully prolix; "X needs a page" is far better. I'm happy to observe that lots of people have pages. Although I find myself ever less inclined to start new pages, I'm happy that over the years I've identified a number of people who didn't have pages, who needed them, and who now have them. If we tell each other that an article about somebody should not be motivated by the potential benefit for that person, fine; but if we say that a good, policy-compliant page about somebody in no way benefits that person, we're kidding ourselves. -- Hoary (talk) 22:34, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi @Exp2002. I've posted a student-specific welcome on your talk page. I don't know if anyone in your group has been in touch with the folks at Meta:Wiki Education Foundation; it's often recommended that instructors contact them about assignments on Wikipedia (contact info is on that page). 199.208.172.35 (talk) 22:39, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
@Exp2002 Further to what ColinFine has just suggested, I'd like to highlight a project we have here called Women in Red. It aims to redress the gender imbalance here by encouraging articles to be created about notable women. The Women in Red project maintain numerous lists by subject area of possible women who might merit a new article about them. So please check these two lists out:
Note that the former also contains a section on existing articles on female mathematicians that need improvement in some way. I hope this helps. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:42, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Miss @Nazia Preema, I would like to tell you that you can't create your own Biography article in Wikipedia or anyone close to you can't create article about you. Wikipedia is based on Independence reliable sources. You can't have a Wikipedia page if you don't meet WP:GNG. Grabup (talk) 17:36, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Hello Nazia Preema and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia which has articles on notable subjects as written about in independent sources that are both reliable and verifiable (See Wp:RS). I think you should read WP:AUTOBIO before proceeding further with any attempt to add your own biography to the encyclopedia. --ARoseWolf17:44, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
For months it has... bugged me how in Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor's article the "primary image"—the image that gets shown when you hover over the hyperlink, etc.—is his signature. Based on the Talk page there, that issue has been there for at least a year and a half by now. Thing is, I have compared Charles V's infobox with some other royals with not-so-linear primary images, and there seems to be no difference between them. Now I'm thinking maybe the issue is with his portrait, but figured that it's better to ask here first before I do anything drastic.
How does Wikipedia determine which image in the article is the "primary" one, and why is it convinced in this case that the signature should be it? Yo.dazo (talk) 21:29, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
The problem here seems to be the dimensions of the two images - the software picks which to preview based on various factors, including the dimensions, and in this case the signature's dimensions seem to rate more highly than the portrait. See mw:Extension:PageImages#Image choice for details. There's a way to force a certain image into the preview for the Navigation popups tool, but not, apparently, for PageImages (that I'm seeing). The images themselves might have to be tweaked until the portrait's dimensions are more acceptable. Unless there's a much easier way that I'm missing (very likely the case!). 199.208.172.35 (talk) 22:06, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
The real experts on this sort of thing tend to hang out at WP:VPT, incidentally, though one of those experts who also answers queries at the Teahouse might wander by and give a better answer. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 22:23, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Thanks! It kinda seemed to me that that's the case as well—the signature is perfectly square, while the portrait is significantly taller. Cropping the portrait feels too much though, so I'll probably wait for a WP:VPT folk to bring up a possible solution. Maybe even forward the question there. Yo.dazo (talk) 22:57, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
When patrolling recent changes, I often have the issue that some groups of filters are not showing up. For example, I load the page, it loads my default filters, but omits the "bad faith" or "has problems" filters. When opening the filter selector, they are not visible there either. I often have to reload the page multiple times for all filters to show up.
Does anyone have a solution for this Problem? Or is it just a general Wikipedia problem?
Over the years I've noticed that some British TV series which consist of 2 episodes, and occasionally 3 episodes, get added to IMDb and Wikipedia, as TV films when they aren't films, as the 2+ episodes, sometimes with episode titles too, and 2+ sets of credits suggest.
I've corrected quite a few 2 episode British productions on IMDB over the last few years (all of which I've forgotten, apart from the one I've nearly finished correcting on IMDB right now) by changing them from TV films to TV series along with moving all the credits to their respective episodes, and checking them along the way.
However I'm not sure if I should rename the articles about those British 2 episode TV series on Wikipedia too, from TV films to TV series which is what they actually are.
Should they be renamed from TV films to TV series, or are the guidelines about 2 episode TV series different on Wikipedia? Danstarr69 (talk) 18:15, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
The phenomenon of "As of ____" when the source is no longer from the present
I've noticed this issue quite often, and think it could be a widespread bug on Wikipedia. Basically, at the time of writing, someone used a recently-published source to cite a claim, and in making the claim, said it was true "as of" then.
Fast forward a year or even a month (if the claim was made for that month), and now Wikipedia is possibly purveying false information! For example, if it said "As of August 2021", unless it's updated with a new source in September (which of course it never is), as soon as it is September, it's a claim that could be false, and definitely isn't verified. As soon as it is 2023, anything that said "As of 2022" and isn't updated, could be false, and isn't verified.
On the other hand, if editors were to say "By 2022" and "By August 2021",
etc., all of this is avoided. It's true to eternity, or until updated. I'm posting this as a call to arms to editors to fix this pervasive issue, and also as a plea to stop propagating it. That is all. Noble Metalloid (talk) 16:05, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi @Noble Metalloid, welcome to the Teahouse. There is guidance here, here and here, but the gist of it is that we actually encourage the use of "as of" (there's even a template for it), because it tells the reader the information was correct "as of" a certain date, and may no longer be correct after that date. It doesn't mean the information was correct on that date and for all time afterwards. You can use alternative wording in your own writing, of course (or you can challenge the guidance - that's almost always an option in these parts!). 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:17, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Hello, thanks for the links. I think "In ___", rather than "By ____", is actually the most neutral way to make a claim. I think there are several dimensions of the issue that explain my frustration: 1. someone cherrypicks a year, uses the "as of" language, even if the claim is no longer true today 2. someone innocently documents a trend that reached an apex that year, that was no longer true as of the next year, but the language implies otherwise 3. A lot of time passes, and the language extrapolates the claim across a huge swath of time, and the claim eventually becomes a load of hot air. I'll take my manifesto to those respective pages. I see what you mean though...it also matters what follows the phrase...if you say "As of 2022, Noble Metalloid is the best Wikipedia editor", it implies it is true to the present, whereas "As of 2022, Noble Metalloid was the best Wikipedia editor" has less of an extrapolation implication. Noble Metalloid (talk) 16:24, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
True, and I think all of the examples on those pages use the past tense for that very reason. It's hard to make sure articles get updated when needed, so using the most precise, least time-dependent wording possible is a good thing. Also, it's clear that 199.208.172.35 is the best Wikipedia editor as of this moment, but that's a side issue. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:39, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
@Noble Metalloid I think you have a good point, actually, and some of your alternative solutions may be better. I've never liked 'As of' that much, especially if it's used with the present tense, not the past tense. I'd suggest presenting some well-worded examples to show problems and alternative phraseology. But it's important to remind you that you are nevertheless welcome to make changes where you feel the deployment of that phrase is not appropriate, and that Wikipedia:Asof#Usage guidelines does actively encourage future updating. To that end, Template:Category as of allows you to find and update those pages, or fix them in whatever way is appropriate. Nick Moyes (talk) 17:57, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
@Noble Metalloid "As soon as it is 2023, anything that said "As of 2022" and isn't updated, could be false, and isn't verified." I disagree with that statement. If an article says "As of 2022, the population was 8000", then in 2023, it is still true the population was 8000 as of 2022. You seem to like "In" and "By" better, but I think "As of" is synonymous with those phrases. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 06:12, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
I work for an event management organisation who works closely with an NFP (ANZMHA, https://anzmh.asn.au). They're one of the main providers of professional development through conferences in Australia for mental health sector professionals. Their events host up to 400 professionals per event, providing them with 13-15 hours of CPD per person/event. Meaning they facilitate between 41,600 and 48,000 professional development hours to mental health professionals every year.
I'm wondering if that's notable enough? The problem is that the association behind it isn't really ever "in the spotlight", as the conferences themselves are what most people in the sector are aware of rather then the association (i.e. International Mental Health Conference, Stop Domestic Violence Conference, Indigenous Wellbeing Conference, etc.). Would it still be worthy of a Wikipedia article? If so, would I be able to create one (I work with them, and I realise you can't post articles about persons close to you).
hi @LorienANZMHA and welcome to the teahouse! notability and your ability to create an articlr is determined purely through the reliable sources you get that are independent from your company, not whether or not how big they are or whether they are in the spotlight (although either increases the likelihood of there being sources). you can use the following links to find reliable sources, probably through news: Find sources:Google (books·news·scholar·free images·WP refs) ·FENS·JSTOR·TWL. happy editing! 💜 melecie talk - 01:35, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Also, @LorienANZMHA, please take some time to review WP:PAID and make an appropriate declaration on your user page (located at User:LorienANZMHA). Thank you for being upfront about your COI and asking questions before jumping into the deep end of article creation! 174.21.23.32 (talk) 01:39, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
User:Birgontaur - You may have been misled by companies that provide the "service" of creating Wikipedia pages for hire for companies and individuals and who advertise that "service". They are not associated with Wikipedia except as editors. Wikipedia strongly discourages using them, and has conflict of interest rules requiring that they disclose their paid status. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:08, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi how to i remove a conflict of interest on my page as I declared it accidentaly, I tried to fix it now ive been told there is a risk of ban of editing. This was a gueniune error could you please help. Stanford M (talk) 15:57, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Removing is far more likely to get you banned. Your COI is not why you were warned about banning, it was being disruptive to the talk page of the heavily promotional draft. Slywriter (talk) 16:05, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Stanford M, You can remove the COI tag, as you did, but it looks highly suspicious that you added the COI tag back in October of 2021 and only just requested to remove it after a draft you created was rejected at AfC and the same day you created a page in main space with the same name. You edited for months with the tag and didn't see the issue with having it on your user page? The only change now is the article you created is being challenged by other editors. Even assuming good faith you can't see how that would look odd to an outside neutral observer? --ARoseWolf16:28, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
I understand where your coming from I hadnt notice it till now i created a new page as i couldnt rember why it was stuck on draft this is a guenuine missunderstanding and confusion, Stanford M (talk) 19:24, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
How to remove an extra line of space
In an article I'm editing, there are several places where there's an extra line of space between alerts such as "See XXX for further information." In one case, I noticed an initially hidden command like this:
@Augnablik: Welcome to the Teahouse. From what you're describing, you're using the visual editor. You don't; those are included to make inserting in those areas (usually between templates) easier. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:35, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Are you saying that to edit this sort of thing, I should be in the other view (what was it called, maybe Code View?)... Augnablik (talk) 19:04, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Unfortunately not, because I decided to get rid of the symbol. Or in this case, symbols, plural, one at the beginning of a phrase an the other at the end. I saw the same symbol in another article I edited when I first began editing in Wikipedia and wondered about it then.
From your question, I guess you too aren't quite sure what it means. Next time I run into the symbol, I'll post it here for you. Thanks for taking interest in this. Augnablik (talk) 19:03, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Yes, that's the article in which the two such symbols were located. I don't recall which of the other articles I edited had the other single symbol. Oh, dear, I'd better put the comment back. Augnablik (talk) 19:37, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
I decided to create a wikipedia page a month ago about software that I work on. I marked it as something that I work on so that there is transparency. I opened a draft page. a month later it is deleted. The person said that it doesnt conform to standards - which I know - it is a DRAFT and hasnt even been worked on. My understanding was that we have 6 months for a draft page? This is literally saved in my bookmarks to work on in the coming month, it is a DRAFT, and it was deleted. Can someone please explain this? are things jsut deleted randomly?? Teacheradamodix (talk) 06:04, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Note for completeness: I see that Liz has undeleted [15] and has removed the CSD tag. She and the OP have discussed it on her talk page. ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 20:40, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Messy sandbox
I'm totally confused about the Sandbox feature. From the directions about creating one, I thought I had to do so with a new name for it. But now I think I've got 2 basic user names, and I want to delete the one I created for my sandbox. Then I want to create my sandbox properly. Helllpppp! Augnablik (talk) 13:43, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Incidentally, if you think you've got two Usernames (i.e. accidentally created two accounts), can you let us know the name associated with the one not called "Augnablik"? Then I or someone else can provide further advice. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:06, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
I think my other sandbox was Augnablik-box or Augnabliksandbox or something like that. I went to a place I copied the name when I set it up, but now it doesn't look right because it's only BOX. Hope you can find it.
I have checked using Special:ListUsers and it would appear you created User:Augnablikbox (not a sandbox but a user page). That new account has made no edits but depending how you did it may have an associated password. User accounts usually can't be deleted because Wikipedia needs to keep a record of who edited what. However, I don't know the policy about deleting a never-used account. Anyway, my advice is to ignore that Username and stick to editing when logged on to Augnablik. Mike Turnbull (talk) 20:54, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, @Augnablik. On another note, I see you've been inserting commented-out remarks into various articles, and are confused about why they've been removed. The reason is that cleanup efforts on Wikipedia should be done through the use of templates or comments on talk pages, not in-line "invisible" commentary; you can see a long, long list of clean-up templates here - you'll get the commonly used ones memorized if you stick around long enough, but for now, just scrolling through the list and looking for a template that matches the problem is probably the best approach. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:09, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Thanks again. I discovered that today on my own, but the need to use a template was not at all clear as far as I recall in any instructions. If you have any clout with the higher-ups in Wikipedia who design editor training, I think it would be very helpful to really explain how to do this sort of thing early on as an editor. Augnablik (talk) 17:32, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
The only folks who might meet the definition of "higher-ups who design editor training" are the ones in the WMF Growth team, with whom I have absolutely no clout whatsoever. The Wikipedia Adventure was put together to try to help newcomers, other people place welcome messages with useful links onto user talk pages, and of course there are places like this one, where new folks are often directed so they can ask questions and (hopefully) get friendly, helpful answers. Feel free to drop by and ask any more questions you may have, @Augnablik! 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:46, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
How to specify vertical alignment of images with thumbs?
Hi! I'm trying to figure out how to keep images contained in subheadings, as the location of the images on the page I'm working on aren't corresponding to the section they belong to. I've looked at the Extended Image Syntax Page and the Help Images page in MediaWiki but it appears that vertical alignment commands only worked on frameless images? I was wondering if there was a way to make my images in thumbs float to the right, with the text being at the top and the next section not starting until after the image? One way I thought to do that was by just adding a lot of enters but I'm concerned that won't look the same across different devices? I did it for the first section just so you can get an idea of what I was trying for. Thank you so much! Stringbeans688 (talk) 19:18, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
@Stringbeans688 Have you tried using {{clear}} at the bottom of each section? That te,plate forces clear space before the next section and its related image displays. The amount of space is determined by the amount of overlap of the image above it. So you should get nice, neat alignment. Nick Moyes (talk) 19:47, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Strictly speaking, the Draft was declined, not rejected. This means that the experienced editor who reviewed it thought that as currently written it does not yet show notability requirements are met. With further work and reliablesecondary sources it may well be accepted eventually. Mike Turnbull (talk) 21:16, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia doesn't seem to have a view on the quality or otherwise of thevillagesun as a source. If it was considered reliable and the article wasn't based on an interview (in which case not WP:INDEPENDENT of Penley), it might help meet the notability guidelines if cited in the Draft. Mike Turnbull (talk) 21:23, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi, IP user! If you're referring specifically to the sandbox, you should know that the sandbox is open for anyone to test edits in and is regularly blanked. This has more information, as well as a link to create your own sandbox (it's much less likely that things you put in your own sandbox will be overwritten or cleared). Happy editing, Perfect4th (talk) 22:27, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Hello, IP editor. Please do not argue with people in the sandbox or in your edit summaries. If you see anything inappropriate, just clear the sandbox without comment. Do not add any copyrighted content to the sandbox. Any editor can clear the sandbox at any time. If you want access to a more stable sandbox, register an account. Cullen328 (talk) 22:45, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Second matter
It's me again, and I feel I should address a second matter of mine. As I am not a logged in, registered user, I face a problem. I seem to have two users which can interchange for no apparent reason. It isn't even because of a device, seeing as I only own one. If someone can, I would like this explained. Thank you~~ 2603:7081:3E41:5C00:B51F:98E:D055:8D4B 2603:7081:3E41:5C00:B51F:98E:D055:8D4B (talk) 22:47, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi fellow IP editor. Your IP will shift depending on which one your service provider assigns to your device. This is something you might be able to control by paying for a static IP, but that isn't always an option. If you prefer not to have an account, you'll have to live with switching identities occasionally - at least until IP masking comes into effect, which may make things more stable (we shall see!). 199.208.172.35 (talk) 22:51, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Marilyn Monroe gold dress
I can’t find a page for Marilyn Monroe’s gold-colored dress (the one she wore while singing Happy Birthday, Mr. President). If there is not a page for that dress, there really should be one. It was labeled as the most iconic dress of the 20th century, one if the most expensive dresses of all time, and it’s getting a lot of talk right now because of Kim Kardashian. It’s also more talked about and memorable than the white and pink dresses combined, which both have their own pages. Hope I just haven’t looked hard enough. TrevortniDesserpedx (talk) 01:50, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Is there a limit to how many people I can add to the "notable people" section of a town's page?
Hi, I'm currently updating the page for my town, South Kingstown, Rhode Island, and I was wondering if there's a limit to the amount of people I can put in the "notable people" section. I am considering just putting everyone from Category:People from South Kingstown, Rhode Island into the "notable people" section, but idk if that would be allowed or not, especially considering it's like 60 people and that's not even everyone from SK who has a wiki page about themself. SusImposter49 (talk) 22:41, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
I may be out of date about this, SusImposter49, but the last time I looked there was no guideline for this. When investigating longish lists of "notable people" (people who demonstrably are notable, as well as those who've improbably got articles, or just parts of articles, about themselves), I start by seeing whether the articles about them provide clear evidence of a connection to the place. Often the articles do not. If not, I remove them. For each of those who remain, I add one or more references, such that reference #24 will verify that "Joe Bloggs (1897–1949), paleontologist24" (which itself is quite likely to require more than one reference) was born in or lived in, South Kingstown. If this sounds laborious, it is; but you only need to fact-check and reference three or so of these notables at a time, day after day.... -- Hoary (talk) 23:17, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Pfft. I quickly noticed some surprises, Slywriter. As an example, some bloke whose claim to our attention is that he was "Grandson of Dr. Samuel Mudd; led efforts to posthumously rehabilitate his grandfather's name". I'm all for rehabilitating the names of the unjustly censured, but surprised that this would prompt an article. So I clicked on what appeared to be a link to one Richard Mudd. It wasn't: it was instead a link to one section within the article on grandpa Samuel. To be fair, the surrounding entries do have their own articles -- but a high percentage of these articles are about people whose claims to notability seem pretty feeble. It's almost as if there'd been a major effort to increase the "profile" of Georgetown U. -- Hoary (talk) 02:22, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Hoary (sharpens pruning shears) Hmm, I may have to take a deeper look at these lists. There's a few of them floating around, though Georgetown is the largest I have noticed so far. Slywriter (talk) 02:30, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
@Hoary: Good point, List of people from Toronto is a pretty bad example for sourcing now that you mention it. It wouldn't be too difficult to fix these articles, it's just probably extremely tedious. (I've fixed shorter sections like these in high school articles, by searching their name in quotes along with the place, I can't imagine doing that for hundreds of people!) — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 03:53, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi @Tirso Gutiérrez, you may be interested in this page which provides a detailed explanation of linking and linking style. The type of links used in the specific section of the article you mentioned are internal links that look like this. To create an internal link, you may use the link button (It looks like two linked chains). In source editing put two square brackets, the name of the page, and two more square brackets, for example: [[Philosophy]]. If you have any further questions please reply. UrbanVersis32KB ⚡ (talk | contribs)05:35, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Suggestions for improving a draft article (academic/artist biography)
There are multiple things wrong with your article such as references and the layout. First of all, google is not a source and second some of your sources need to be full such as your fifth ref, look at your other refs for help. Happy editing!`~HelpingWorld~` (👽🛸)08:53, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
hi @JohnEricHiggs! I'd also suggest using {{Infobox artist}} in the article to detail their information instead of a table, which automatically does the infobox code for you and allows you to set it up much more easily than using a table. to learn how infoboxes work, please check Infobox. happy editing! 💜 melecie talk - 10:33, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
@JohnEricHiggs Most critically, I can't see anything that shows this person meet sour notability critieria - neither WP:NMUSIC, WP:NBIO, or WP:NACADEMIC. All the rest of the issues are irrelevant if those criteria cannot be met. As I see it he's released some music (any awards or chart hits for them?) and published some poetry (used by one university where he once taught). I fear you're going to need to find much stronger sources to support Notability. I also believe you have an undeclared Conflict of Interest in writing about Bishop. Please ensure you declare it before continuing to edit. Sorry about that. Nick Moyes (talk) 12:05, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi Nick, thanks for the comment.
I have noted that I have no conflict of interest. I have no connection to the topic. I have mentioned some awards in the draft and the publication mentioned is an academic text. Please look again, but I believe the criteria for Academic notability is met. I will re-dreaft some of the material accordingly. Many thanks. JohnEricHiggs (talk) 12:15, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
@JohnEricHiggs Yes, that would be a lot to ask, but the subject doesn't need to be notable by both criteria. David notMD, an experienced editor, says the subject is not notable by either criterion. If you can establish notability by either criterion, then an article is possible. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 05:52, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
How do I make a page?
I have joined Wikipedia less than a half hour ago, and all I ask is simply how I can form a page. Signed> RexJB RexJB (talk) 23:30, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi @RexJB, welcome to Wikipedia and the Teahouse. You can start by reading this guide on creating your first article, but the most important step is going out to find reliable, independent, secondary sources that have published significant coverage of your subject. Those are the foundation needed to build a Wikipedia article on. 174.21.23.32 (talk) 00:35, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Creating a new article is hard, and often leads to drafts being Declined multiple times, or even Speedy deleted. Newbies are advised to gain experience by improving existing articles first. David notMD (talk) 00:49, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
I am a newbie to Wikipedia
I would like to start a page that evolves into a ready reckoner - or reference manual for fire sprinkler installation practices - specifically for New Zealand but it would be helpful for multi national contribution under different sections. I thought that users couple download a pdf copy for a small donation to Wikipedia, thereby financing the hosting
(incidentally i see there is a reasonably undeveloped "sprinkler fitters" page but that looks to address an explanation of what a sprinkler fitter is, as opposed to what decisions a sprinkler fitter is obliged to make in the process of installing a sprinkler system so i am proposing a new entry)
Hi @Graham Wyatt, welcome to the Teahouse and Wikipedia! I'm afraid that would fall squarely into the category of what Wikipedia is not - specifically, not a "manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal". Also, while the WMF occasionally runs donation drives, no one is ever asked to pay to download content, not even a suggested donation. Maybe you could try one of these alternative outlets. 174.21.23.32 (talk) 00:32, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
WP:YFA explains the process of creating and submitting a draft for review. There is no mechanism for creating content as a PDF and copying it in. David notMD (talk) 00:53, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
@Graham Wyatt: Welcome to the Teahouse. Like others have said, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a how-to guide. You could try checking out the sister project Wikibooks; that site might allow you to do what you want, but you should read their policies and guidelines first. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:24, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
@Graham Wyatt In addition to all of that excellent advice, suppose someone tried to follow such info, and then a fire suppression system failed and people were injured or died; the installer could claim that they followed instructions provided by Wikipedia... and then someone could sue WP as the "hoster" of such information. Even if the advice was correct and the installer did everything right, systems do fail, and lawsuits are too common. I hate thinking this, but such are the times we live in... 73.127.147.187 (talk) 06:33, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
What happens if two editors keep trying to make their edits "stick" and delete the other's edits?
Not sure I can add much more in a message to describe what I'm asking than the question itself. I'm sure it must have come up from time to time in Wikipedia editing. Can this sort of thing just go on and on forever, or might someone step in at some point? Augnablik (talk) 19:09, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
But what if they each have, or at least one believes he has, very good reason to make the edits? There really could be a good guy and a bad guy, to overly simplify a situation, and the bad guy just wants to paint things his way whereas the good guy is really concerned about that. So if both editors could get blocked, the good guy and a number of readers lose.
I suppose what I wanted to hear is that there were Wiki courts, so to speak, where someone well equipped to handle such a situation listens to both editors and tries to make a decision accordingly. Augnablik (talk) 19:42, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Augnablik. "I am right" is a really really unhelpful way to enter a discussion: a much more productive one is "How can we reach a consensus that we can all accept?". Dispute resolution explains the steps to take if it the people involved do not seem to be able to reach consensus. ColinFine (talk) 19:47, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, ColinFine and PRAXIDICAE🌈 . Fostering consensus rather than battles is how I prefer to approach life. I asked my initial question because with so much bias and inability to look objectively at other viewpoints in today's media, I got wondering as a new Wikipedia editor about how this sort of thing might be handled. Wouldn't it be wonderful — not to mention practical in the long run — if in arenas of strong opinions everyone would follow the Dispute resolution guidance? Augnablik (talk) 07:21, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Is this about Language demographics of Quebec? You inserted invisible-to-the-reader comments into the article that were better expressed as a discussion on the Talk page. ClueBot, an automated program, reverted your changes. As noted above, if in a dispute with a living editor, talk it to Talk, and in not resolved there, to Dispute resolution. David notMD (talk) 20:11, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Nopzilla Welcome to the Teahouse. This is not a photo sharing site. Any images you upload may be deleted at any time if they are not useful as part of the encyclopedia.--Shantavira|feed me09:02, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
I recommend uploading them to WP:COMMONS. It is separate from the English Wikipedia, and is typically more lenient. Still requires them to be freely licensed though. ––FormalDudetalk09:48, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Draft:Pratik Sen - support to write the article that can be submitted and accepted by Wikipedia
Hello, AnamikaWrites. When you write Pratik maintains a low profile and is known to avoid the media, you are basically saying "This draft is unacceptable and ought to be deleted". Wikipedia should not, in almost all cases, have biographies of people who actively shun public attention. A Wikipedia article is an invasion of their privacy. Cullen328 (talk) 06:48, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
When I say "Pratik maintains a low profile and is known to avoid the media", I mean he is noticed to be media shy which I believe though a recognized actor its a reality not just specific to Pratik Sen but many actors/actresses across industries globally isn't it ? From press meets and interviews with journalists, he comes across approachable and responsive. Would you recommend I delete the statement or rephrase as media shy? AnamikaWrites (talk) 12:25, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Status: Declined six times. Creator stopped contributing in April 2021, after five Declineds. AnamikaWrites took up the effort in May 2022 and has more than doubled the length of the draft. David notMD (talk) 08:11, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
If the fellow is a movie actor, I see no reason why he shouldn't "maintain a low profile" or "avoid the media" other than when he's being paid to act. This draft looks promising -- maybe. Just one small example: Pratik's role as Dr. Arindam, the steadfast family friend with an unrequited love was lauded. Athithi went onto achieve both, critical and commercial success. Who lauded it? Where and when did the lauding take place? What about it was lauded? Who were the critics with whom this "sensitive" movie succeeded, and can you reassure readers that the success was in part thanks to Pratik (and not just the singing, dancing, and almost-kissing, etc, by others)? NB (i) this will require reliable sources; whereas (ii) much of the Indian press (e.g. the augustly titled Times of India) unashamedly publish sycophantic advertorials, which of course are not reliable sources. -- Hoary (talk) 08:59, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Greek Oscar Winners Question
Would anyone be able to help make the List of Greek Academy Award winners and nominees page look more presentable? For example, if someone could add the red or green colors to each "status" and fix the tables for Best Actor, Best Makeup and Hairstyling, Best Live Action Short Film, Best Sound, and Best Visual Effects so that they match the size of the other tables? Thanks! Aljay508 (talk) 01:26, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
I am trying to archive Talk:Monster High but there's a problem. User:ClueBot III only archived some parts of the page, not all of it.
I am trying to make it so that the whole talk page is archived and essentially empty, with space for new discussions. (Every single discussion on that page is very outdated and irrelevant.)
I've done it, because I agree with your assessment. For me, there is an "Archive" link on each talk page section, which I used. I suspect that is a non-standard feature of Talk pages that I added, but I cannot remember what it was !! -Roxy the grumpy dog.wooF12:34, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
I have another question. Can the {{Refideas}} template be deleted from the page? It's no longer necessary because a lot of the references have already been added (by me). Castlepalace12:44, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
If you have used all the required references and feel that the list is no longer needed, you can remove it. I have collapsed it for now. Kpddg(talk)13:03, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. I haven't used all of the refs because not all of them were "worthy," but the majority of them, I think. I'll just go ahead and remove it though. Castlepalace13:09, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Combine general and inline references into a single reflist
Please see the references section of 1974 ARFU Asian Rugby Championship. There is a reference related to the entire document numbered as 11, and other inline references numbered from 1 to 11 (different 11 from the above). I would like to combine them into a nicely formatted single reference list numbered from 1 to 12. How can I implement this?
This is my first time writing something in the village pump. If I wrote in the wrong bulletin or there is something inappropriate, please let me know.
Regpath (talk) 06:06, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi @Regpath Ref #11 is not actually a general reference for the entire article. I'm afraid a misplaced reference is probably the least of that article's problems, it requires quite a bit of fixing. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:54, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi @Dodger67 If you read the article and the reference very carefully, then you would think it is not a general reference. But that is just an example of whether it is correct or not. I just wanted to know how to make the combined list. I should have added this comment when I first ask this question. Thanks. Regpath (talk) 08:22, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
An unusual feature of that article is that most of the references aren't cited in support of anything, they're links to further relevant information. Maproom (talk) 09:08, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Actually it is incorrect. The reference you moved is not for Finals only. It is a reference to a broader section. Regpath (talk) 04:44, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Please see the references section of 1974 ARFU Asian Rugby Championship. There is a reference related to the entire document numbered as 11, and other inline references numbered from 1 to 11 (different 11 from the above). I would like to combine them into a nicely formatted single reference list numbered from 1 to 12. How can I implement this?
I'm sorry for the same question. But the previous answers are not what I wanted to know, though I appreciate their sincere help.
What I want to know is just how to make such a combined reference list. That'is just a technical question, not about the specific article that I mentioned. That was just an exmple. I am not asking about the specific article. It is just a 'general' question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Regpath (talk • contribs)
Regpath, see this guideline on general references. As it says, "If both cited and uncited references exist, their distinction can be highlighted with separate section names, e.g., "References" and "General references"." But as it also says, on enWP we very much prefer that it be integrated into the article text with footnotes. 174.21.23.32 (talk) 13:36, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Was wondering if anyone else thought this would be a good idea. I am already a massive fan of searching different cemeteries throughout the country for notable graves, do we think that if i added a "notable burials" sections to county pages would be a good idea? ShortyStomper (talk) 02:38, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Towns and cities already have lists of notable people who lived there at one point in their lives. I doubt whether lists of people buried there adds to value to readers. Also, you posed the question as listing notable burials in articles about counties. Some counties are large, contain populations in the millions (LA County ~ 10,000,000), hundreds of cemeteries and plausibly thousands of burials of Wikipedia-notable people. David notMD (talk) 08:03, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
But to answer the question posed by Hoary, I would have reliable sources.
This would obviously have been a long process, but I believed it would help to supplement the research I have done outside of just for myself, and if I had moved forward would probably have needed to be a separate page(ex. "Notable Burials in West Virginia,"). But I fully acknowledge the criticism and will thus lay it to rest. ShortyStomper (talk) 17:28, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
It all begins a month ago when I created my Wikipedia page. I don’t know much about Wikipedia at that time, even I think that only few users can edit Wikipedia articles. And then I searched for my town (Kalakote) and seen that many points are missing in article. I edited it and try to add more information but I have a gut feeling that Wikipedia is going to reject it but it got accepted. Then I realised that anyone in Wikipedia can edit it. Than I did too many edits on that article, some got rejected whether some got accepted. User:Ohnoitsjamie helped a lot me to understand about Wikipedia editing. After that I edited some more articles. Then I try to create a Wikipedia page about Thermal Power Plant Kalakote. I really found it hard! Article also got rejected because of poor citations and copyright work. Now I decided to create a Wikipedia page with all references without copying. Then I created Casetoo. And real story began here! My article got accepted by Wikipedia, I was very happy that whole night, I literally told my all friends that I make an Wikipedia article, I also informed that person through Instagram story that you now have Wikipedia article, he also congrats me (you can find my Instagram account, it’s too easy!!, I have all proofs there). I then continue my contributions to Wikipedia and cross 2 million+ views in about 120 edits. Than a thought came to my mind whether I can create my own Wikipedia page. Without any research I rushed and make my own Wikipedia page. Now you all know what is going to happen, absolutely speedy deletion. My article got removed by User:Praxidicae. He didn’t just removed my article, but also drafted my old article about Casetoo by saying, more references needed. I added almost 15-17 more references and raise a request to not tondo anything with that article. I also apologise for my shameful act of self article, on that request. But after my request he got offended, and I agree as i did such act. But User:Praxidicae got offended in such a way that he removed all references from that page and put another speedy deletion strike with claim that I’m copying the content. When i asked reason about it, he put another speedy deletion strike by saying that I’m taking money or something like that. Now I asked some questions in his talk page that whether my account got affected by your claim but he didn’t replied. This is our conversation: user talk:Thegoravsharma
Yeah, I did mistake but he should have warned me instead of deleting everything. It’ll lose new users interest on editing on Wikipedia!
Now I have some questions
Q1) Does copyright in one article affect another?
Q2) Can Wikipedia senior editors can do wrong claims without any fear?
Q3) I read all notability guidelines of Wikipedia and Casetoo is here in every aspect, but now whenever I’m creating article about Casetoo it’s getting deleted by User:Praxidicae. What should I do now?
Q4) What should I have to do if someone is pointing wrong allegations on me about involvement in conflict?
Q5) Senior editors need to guide us or he can do anything with her choice?
Q6) Can a junior editor like User:Thegoravsharma can raise a complaint against rude behaviour and wrong intentions of senior editors like User:Praxidicae?
I recently submitted an article on a very old but recently revived religious viewpoint: Draft:Revelatory Theory of Atonement. It was promptly rejected because of NPOV problems. I can see that it was written with the point of view of someone wanting to support the view. However, I'm unclear as to how much I need to do to make the tone more neutral. I've done a superficial (I think) revision in which I replaced what were statements of fact with references to this being the theory's point of view on it. I'm not sure if that is sufficient or if it needs a rewrite almost as if it was an adversarial viewpoint, i.e. pointing out everywhere that alternate viewpoints disagree and why. That would seem to me to be taking the NPOV to the opposite ditch. But I'm uncertain where the middle of the road is. I've thought of just resubmitting it but that seems like it might be wasting some reviewer's time just to tell me "No, that's not it." I've also looked at other existing articles that have been flagged as having NPOV problems and I'm not sure I see it in them. I've read the available articles on what NPOV means and am still not sure if the article is still going to have a problem. Advice on how to better understand NPOV and what needs to be done to this article would be much appreciated. WikiMrBadger (talk) 19:49, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
@WikiMrBadger: Your draft reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research. Your referencing is very messy, it looks like you're including multiple sources in single citations. Furthermore, biblical sources are only acceptable for verifying content in the bible. You cannot use a biblical source to verify a subjective analysis, those claims must be supported by secondary sources. ––FormalDudetalk20:03, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Suggested exercises
1. Try to think of a superstition you find so ludicrous it makes you laugh
2. Now try to write an essay that describes this supserstitition and the people who truly believe it, without ridiculing or insulting their belief. A helpful essay to do this is WP:Writing for the opponent
3. After you try to do that for awhile (so you have the experience of trying) study the article Salvation in Christianity. I won't claim that article is entirely free of the problem, but you can see how the collective contributors have tried to step outside of any faith to write ABOUT it, from the perspective of an observer, rather than with the unconscious word choice of the faithful.
Thanks, that was exactly what I was looking for. You have given me a good example of the mindset from which the article needs to come. WikiMrBadger (talk) 21:07, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Hello, please anyone I need reliable sources to make my own page for the first time. They ones I have tried creating in the past I end up submitting them for deletion to to the fact that information there is unsourced and not from reliable sources. Mostly trivia is what I see when I try to search about a topic of interest online. Any one with the time I beg of you to please send me multiple links to reliable sources I would really appreciate,Thank you. Uricdivine (talk) 20:02, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Uricdivine, Interestingly, Wikipedia is not for writing "autobiographies"; in case if I understand you rightly. Do you want to write about "yourself" or about a specific subject? Please be specific in your answer. ─ The Aafī(talk)20:18, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
@ TheAafi I wouldn't need reliable source to write about myself now would I?. I didn't say the name of the page I am about to create is because I didn't want other editors doing it before me. And yes I am writing about a specific topic and is not about myself it's about an actor who has received considerable coverable and appearances and also has played a role movie whereby thy real name is the title of the film...Anyways that all information I can give and please if you have reliable sources I would really appreciate thanks so much Uricdivine (talk) 20:30, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Uricdivine, Thanks for the reply. All you need is to understand different notability guidelines. WP:GNG, the guideline, passing which makes anything to get an article on Wikipedia. WP:NACTOR, a subjective guideline, passing which helps to get articles about actors created on Wikipedia, who do not pass WP:GNG. Reliable sources are generally those sources that have an editorial insight. You need to check with the sources discussing about this actor, that, if they have an author, if the publisher and author are independent of subject, and also if there is an editorial insight. If this doesn't help you, please let me know and I'll be there to assist you. Best, ─ The Aafī(talk)20:37, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
@Uricdivine Just so you know, you absolutely would need reliable sources to write about yourself. All information in an article must be cited so that other readers can independently verify the information for themselves. That is a core principle of Wikipedia. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 06:05, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Earlier today you created Boy Spyce, which was then changed to Draft:Boy Spyce, and then Speedy deleted per your request. If you intend to try again, it is on you to find published content that can be used as references. David notMD (talk) 20:58, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
For child actress Gabrielle Nevaeh Green, who plays Sadie in the TV show "That Girl Lay Lay," also on you to find references. David notMD (talk) 21:10, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
For example, IMDb is not a reliable source, because anyone can post there. Ditto, for most information, interviews with the subjects of articles, because people may misremember (or lie). David notMD (talk) 00:16, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
@ TheAafi Thank you for the links. But to hit the nail in the head I was thinking about making a page for That girl lay lay, Gabriel neevah,boy Spyce (mostly that girl lay lay and Gabriel neevah). Do any of them meet wikipedia's notability policy? Your response will be well appreciated!. Uricdivine (talk) 21:39, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
@David notMD thanks for your replies as well. Honestly I do not understand what you were saying in the place you wrote"Ditto". Do Gabriel neevah amd that girl lay lay meet wikipedia notability policy? Thanks. Uricdivine (talk) 21:43, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Apologies for not being clear - "Ditto" meant that in addition to IMDb, interviews are NOT considered reliable sources to establish notability. David notMD (talk) 21:53, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
View history of the article shows no evidence that you have attempted to edit it, either as an IP or a registered account. David notMD (talk) 22:02, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
King Leir
I found this amazing bit of information within the article on King Leir, an anonymous Elizabethan play:"Brian Annesley (or Anslowe) was an elderly former follower of Queen Elizabeth, a wealthy Kentishman with three daughters".
Hello, IP editor, and welcome to the Teahouse. Are you referring to an issue with the article King Leir? As far as I can see, the article describes an event involving someone who was a former supporter of the queen and not the queen herself, though I could be reading the article wrong. Perfect4th (talk) 23:24, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is a cheeky comment, but the casual reader should be able to parse that a wealthy Kentishman with three daughters is talking about Annesley and not Queen Elizabeth. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:26, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Indeed. Almost every English speaker can parse this as intended, apart from comedians, and people dedicated to playing the superiority game called pedantry. ColinFine (talk) 10:30, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Clear writing is not pedantry. You do not know me and you're packing a lot in there by inferring that I'm a comedian or acting in a superior fashion. I'm not an editor and don't intend to be one, but here's a simple solution: "Brian Annesley (or Anslowe), a wealthy Kentishman with three daughters, was an elderly former follower of Queen Elizabeth." Now if you think clear writing is pedantry, and that is a sentiment shared by other Wikipedia editors--well you can finish that sentence. I'm done; I won't respond anymore. Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.22.21 (talk) 22:57, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Giving fame to domestic terrorists
Some experts on reducing terrorism (mass shootings bombings etc) say the perps seek fame and one way to reduce their frequency is for society to not shout their name from every rooftop. Do we have a consensus whether we redact certain names and suppress certain biographies to support this prevention effort? Or do we just handle those troubled souls with our standard P&G? Thanks NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:55, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Seeing as how she's been dead a long time, what it suggests about the remaining "good in the world" would indeed be depressing.
Seriously though, 331dot, Hitler is a bad example since he too is long gone. A better example of what I'm talking about is Improvised_explosive_device where as you say we do report a lot of the bad now in the world. However, we are not including details that would let someone go build their own and create even more of it. The rationale behind that choice is violence prevention and the rationale behind "Deny recognition" in crime prevention is exactly the same. So we could still have our articles, say, on the Sandy Hook shooting, and a biography on the Sandy Hook shooter without identifying the perpetrator, just as we don't list ingredients for all those IEDs. And I only used Sandy Hook as a random example. The question arose elsewhere. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:24, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Ultimately it comes down to a combination of WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:EDITDISC. In my experience, there's no consensus for completely scrubbing names of terrorists. However, using their name sparingly and not using pictures is something that I have seen gain traction. ––FormalDudetalk23:31, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
No pic, that seems no brainerish. I'm on the fence about names. One benefit of making names known is so independent researchers (not plugged into government datasets) can try to tease out patterns. But if using names means that many more likely victims, its a painful cost for the uncertain longer term benefit. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:36, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
It's a controversial topic that causes a lot of dissent. The glamorization of terrorists on Wikipedia would make an interesting essay topic. ––FormalDudetalk23:41, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Thanks I think I'll pass on this drama topic. I saw a truckload of related edits in my watch list and was trying to decide whether to get involved. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:44, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Page protection
I have noticed that some pages are "protected" and cannot be edited. I have also noticed that users who are unable to edit a page because it is protected may submit an edit request on the talk page, but what happens if the talk page is itself protected? Why are pages on Wikipedia protected? Isn't Wikipedia supposed to be editable by anyone? FAdesdae378 (talk) 21:10, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Pages are protected as means of protection, to prevent vandalism, BLP violations, spam. Wikipedia can be edited by anyone but it doesn't mean that anyone is allowed to edit as they please - there are still rules and policies to follow. PRAXIDICAE🌈21:12, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
RudolfRed mayhaps was a tad to harsh there, but given that you have refused to provide an example either of protected Talk page or protected article that had not been subjected to disruptive editing, partially on you. Be aware that there is a process for unblock requests. David notMD (talk) 22:01, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
...given that the user is autoconfirmed (and most protected talk pages are semi-protected, of which the rest seem to be archives and attributions), I believe this is a theoretical situation they're asking on how an IP or non-confirmed user would be able to edit an article where both the main and talk pages are protected. that being said, they could register, wait for a bit of experience and autoconfirmation, and return; they could also request unprotection at RFPP if they don't believe the page needs to be protected anymore. happy editing! 💜 melecie talk - 00:04, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Can someone please help me put the following blockquote into 2 columns
Gather thy greatness round, Arion! Stand in state, As when the banqueting thrilled conscious—like a rose Throughout its hundred leaves at that approach it knows Of music in the bird—while Corinth grew one breast A-throb for song and thee; nay, Periander pressed The Methymnæan hand, and felt a king indeed, and guessed How Phœbus' self might give that great mouth of the gods Such a magnificence of song! The pillar nods, Rocks roof, and trembles door, gigantic, post and jamb, As harp and voice rend air—the shattering dithyramb! So stand thou, and assume the robe that tingles yet With triumph; strike the harp, whose every golden fret Still smoulders with the flame, was late at fingers' end— So, standing on the bench o' the ship, let voice expend Thy soul; sing, unalloyed by meaner mode, thine own, The Orthian lay; then leap from music's lofty throne; Into the lowest surge make fearlessly thy launch! Whatever storm may threat, some dolphin will be stanch! Whatever roughness rage, some exquisite sea-thing Will surely rise to save, will bear—palpitating— One proud humility of love beneath its load— Stem tide, part wave, till both roll on thy jewell'd road Of triumph, and the grim o' the gulf grow wonder-white I' the phosphorescent wake; and still the exquisite Sea-thing stems on, saves still, palpitatingly thus, Lands safe at length its load of love at Tænarus, True woman-creature!
Gather thy greatness round, Arion! Stand in state, As when the banqueting thrilled conscious—like a rose Throughout its hundred leaves at that approach it knows Of music in the bird—while Corinth grew one breast A-throb for song and thee; nay, Periander pressed The Methymnæan hand, and felt a king indeed, and guessed How Phœbus' self might give that great mouth of the gods Such a magnificence of song! The pillar nods, Rocks roof, and trembles door, gigantic, post and jamb, As harp and voice rend air—the shattering dithyramb! So stand thou, and assume the robe that tingles yet With triumph; strike the harp, whose every golden fret Still smoulders with the flame, was late at fingers' end— So, standing on the bench o' the ship, let voice expend
Thy soul; sing, unalloyed by meaner mode, thine own, The Orthian lay; then leap from music's lofty throne; Into the lowest surge make fearlessly thy launch! Whatever storm may threat, some dolphin will be stanch! Whatever roughness rage, some exquisite sea-thing Will surely rise to save, will bear—palpitating— One proud humility of love beneath its load— Stem tide, part wave, till both roll on thy jewell'd road Of triumph, and the grim o' the gulf grow wonder-white I' the phosphorescent wake; and still the exquisite Sea-thing stems on, saves still, palpitatingly thus, Lands safe at length its load of love at Tænarus, True woman-creature!
Ficaia I think that the whole point of the {{Columns-start}} and related templates is that they occupy the full width available to each reader's browser. Hence there should be no need to force anything. Mike Turnbull (talk) 21:58, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
@Ficaia In that two-column version, many of the individual lines wrap (within its column) on my 10 inch Android tablet in portrait mode. If you force 2 columns, I predict it would look pretty bad on a smartphone. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 06:00, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
I maintain a page on author Byrd Spilman Dewey. Another user, Curiosityseeker, keeps deleting information on the page that is factually true. I emailed the user and she blocked me. I know who this person is as an acquaintance. Not sure what to do. Flahistory (talk) 23:06, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Flahistory Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Please discuss your concerns on the article talk page. Wikipedia does not summarize personal knowledge, but what independent reliable sources say. Note that an edit with which you disagree is not vandalism(a deliberate effort to deface an article). 331dot (talk) 23:17, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Thank you! I deleted the text advertising Flahistory's book on Byrd Spilman Dewey from the Byrd Spilman Dewey webpage. "That the book served as an autobiography was confirmed in the 2012 biography of the Deweys, Pioneering Palm Beach: The Deweys and the South Florida Frontier, where the authors were able to match land records and events to the book's storyline. The Historical Society of Palm Beach County awarded the book the Fannie James Award for Pioneer Research Achievement." She figured out who I am and is trying to contact me through several venues. I'm feeling harassed. Curiositykeeper (talk) 10:31, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Flahistory. Please do not fall into the error of thinking that you control any article (as might be implied by your words "I maintain a page"). If you have written a biography of Dewey, please be aware of WP:SELFCITE, and avoid promotion. ColinFine (talk) 11:00, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Courtesy: Byrd Spilman Dewey. Curiousitykeeper deleted content from two sections, once each time, which you have restored. In my opinion, not vandalism.
One instance, the text about Dewey;s writing career had this: "Little, Brown & Company published her sentinel work, Bruno, in 1899. The book sold well across the country—more than 100,000 copies during its first year of publication—and was received well in national reviews.[ref name="Auto7S-9"] It was featured as a standard reader in several school catalogs around the United States.[ref name="Auto7S-10"] The book was autobiographical in nature, with Mrs. Dewey becoming the character of "Judith" and her husband the character of "Julius". That the book served as an autobiography was confirmed in the 2012 biography of the Deweys, Pioneering Palm Beach: The Deweys and the South Florida Frontier, where the authors were able to match land records and events to the book's storyline.[ref name="Auto7S-11"] The Historical Society of Palm Beach County awarded the book the Fannie James Award for Pioneer Research Achievement.[ref name="Auto3Y-1"]"
Curiositykeeper deleted the text starting with "That the book..." One can argue that the first reference in the deleted content is sufficient to confirm the autobiographical nature without needing mention of the 2012 biography, nor that the biography won an award. The second deletion by Curiositykeeper, also reverted by you, again mentioned the 2012 book, this time naming the authors of the book. The article is about Dewey, not about a book about Dewey. David notMD (talk) 00:45, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
There are hundreds of examples of biographies on Wikipedia that mention books written about the person. As you said, I don't own the page. Why would it be wrong to mention that the person has a biography? Flahistory (talk) 15:27, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Flahistory wrote the book Pioneering Palm Beach and has added this promotional content, along with inaccurate comments that Dewey "founded" Boynton Beach, which had been settled for many years before they platted their property. She has restored the text, sent the case to dispute resolution, and is trying to contact me outside of Wikipedia. Is there any way to get the promotional text removed? Curiositykeeper (talk) 11:50, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
You blocked me on Wikipedia when I tried to resolve this with you. I contacted you on Facebook and you blocked me there. When you made the edits, there was no explanation. It is an undisputed fact that Byrd Spilman Dewey bought the land that made up the town of Boynton in 1892, long before Boynton was ever in Florida. I have the deed which you do too. Adding Pioneering Palm Beach was meant to back up the fact that Bruno was an autobiography. Adding the award was meant to bolster the idea that this was a groundbreaking work in pioneer history. The sad part is that you could have contacted me and we could discuss as adults and researchers. That was not the path you chose. Flahistory (talk) 15:22, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
@Flahistory, you are not and never have been blocked on Wikipedia (@Curiositykeeper could forbid you from posting on their own talk page and ignore your messages, but that is not the same thing). If you can't resolve this through discussion on the article's talk page, then continue further with the dispute resolution process. 174.21.23.32 (talk) 16:42, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
I was replying to Curiositykeeper with the statement You blocked me. I emailed her through Wikipedia simply asking her why she deleted the paragraph. I did not receive a response and she blocked me from sending her massages. I did invoke the dispute resolution process. Flahistory (talk) 17:30, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
@Flahistory If a user blocks you from sending them e-mails, that is not the same thing in WP-speak as saying "You blocked me on Wikipedia". Being "blocked on Wikipedia" is a whole 'nother thing. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 06:46, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Done Theroadislong (talk) 10:50, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
.png)
Discussion tools. Please see Help:Link for more information on how to create wikilinks.If you want to show vanity fluff like 
Note: Both a page in mainspace (The Shared Learning Trust) and draftspace (Draft:The Shared Learning Trust) exist. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:14, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Adventure was put together to try to help newcomers, other people place welcome messages with useful links onto user talk pages, and of course there are places like this one, where new folks are often directed so they can ask questions and (hopefully) get friendly, helpful answers. Feel free to drop by and ask any more questions you may have, @Augnablik! 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:46, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
![[13]](https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/File:Marian_Ewurama_Addy.jpg){kind=link}