I now have a lot of sites I want to visit on occasion, such as my mentor's Talk page, some of the policy and guidance information like conflict of interest, and how to add images. Does Wikipedia have a Bookmark feature, as do Chrome, Safari, and other browsers? Augnablik (talk) 19:23, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As for stuff that's unlikely to be updated but that you want to keep track of, I, as an Opera GX user, tend to simply have the tabs open in one of my workspaces so I don't have to go rummaging through my regular browser bookmarks. CommissarDoggoTalk?19:25, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CommissarDoggo and @ColinFine, thank you both for your ideas. I think Colin’s suggestion comes a little closer to what I was thinking of, but I should mention that after I posted this question here in the Teahouse, I thought to ask my mentor if perhaps there was a way to make a request of the tekkies to create a feature.
In his reply, he mentioned the Wishlist. I’ll probably try that, though I know there’s no guarantee of a Wiki Bookmark feature ever being created — and of course that will take awhile. So I’ll try out all 3 of your suggestions, starting by trying to set up a User sub-page first. Augnablik (talk) 17:45, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ColinFine, @CommissarDoggo, @Usernamekiran, just as follow-up to our discussion here ... today I was reading some informatiion about the Sandbox and came across this: "Sandbox Organiser is a set of tools to help you better organise your draft articles and other pages in your userspace. It also includes areas to keep your to do lists, bookmarks, and list of tools."
I haven't personally, no. I keep the stuff I want to make on my user page in my own personal to do list, plus because I use Opera I just have all of the pages I think I'll need open. CommissarDoggoTalk?13:55, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CommissarDoggo, why “because I use Opera?” Anything special about that browser, or did you word your comment as you did only because you just meant to point out that you keep a browser open at the same time as you work on Wikipedia? Augnablik (talk) 00:22, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Augnablik Basically, Opera GX (or regular Opera if you wish) allows you to have multiple "workspaces" (basically just groupings of tabs) open at the same time. When you close and then re-open Opera, say, if you shut down your computer and turn it back on again, all of your tabs will still be there when you turn on Opera again, just not loaded so as to avoid turning your computer into a bonfire. It's really handy for dealing with Wikipedia. I'm sure there are browsers like it, this is just the one I use.
I have three different workspaces for Wikipedia, the first is the one I'm in right now as I type this, Wikipedia. This holds all of the policies, guidelines and templates that I use when simply editing Wikipedia, alongside my watchlist and the recent changes tab for recent change patrol. My second is for page projects, which is pages I'm either actively working on or gathering sources for. The third is for my userpage, it includes stuff like userbox pages, userpage templates and other such gubbins.
In all three of these workspaces alone, I have around 30 tabs open, just not all loaded up. It's definitely worth looking into if you want to keep pages ready. CommissarDoggoTalk?00:35, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Augnablik: I heard about it for the first time as well. I keep the links on my subpage as a lot of them are categories, and special pages. For rest, I use watchlist, and the custom watchlist mentioned above. —usernamekiran (talk)18:41, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi AlexTheWikipedian. I believe if you scroll all the way down to the bottom of a Wikipedia page while using the mobile Wikipedia site, I'm pretty sure you're given the option to view the page in "Desktop mode". If you click this, you should see the page as you would see it using the regular Wikipedia set up, and be able to edit just like you would edit any Wikipedia. Be aware, though, that your mobie service provider might be using an IP proxy that is blocked from making edits per Wikipedia:Open proxies; you can view pages fine, but you just can't edit them. So, if you go to desktop mode and still can't edit because the IP address your account is using has been blocked, there might not be much you can do except try Wikipedia:IP block exemption. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:06, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AlexTheWikipedian: I've never used iphone, but given their reputation, I think first you would need to upgrade, or buy some accessory. I'll post a serious answer in a few hours. —usernamekiran (talk)03:02, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Automatic search for red links
Hello ! Anybody can say me if there are a way for an automatic search for red links ?
When I see an article with red links. If there are articles about the topic available in another language than English.
I create an interlanguage link.
I'm unable to translate into English because I'm not a native speaker of this language and my translations could be too literal.
I can translate from English into French but not the reverse.
mw.loader.using(['mediawiki.util'],function(){mw.util.addPortletLink('p-tb','//www.wikidata.org/wiki/Special:Search?search='+encodeURIComponent(mw.config.get('wgPageName')),'Wikidata search','t-wikidatasearch','Search the page name in Wikidata',null,'#t-wikibase');});
In the article for Walmart, I wrote a sentence in the History section about them ending their DEI program and delisting gender affirming products for minors. I originally cited an ABC News article, but I found an article from the Associated Press, which I believe is a more reliable source when it comes to current events. As of my edit, both sources are there to back up my sentence but I kind of want to get rid of the ABC citation since AP is a better source. Should I get rid of it and leave the AP citation, or leave it alone with two citations? Additionally, to avoid any confusion in the future, does Wikipedia have some sort of tierlist or something for sources that ranks how accurate and reliable they are? I know we have one for bias, but I am not sure about accuracy. ApteryxRainWing | Roar at me | My contributions14:08, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! If this is a problem, both sources, should be clear, as said by the reliability chart. I have placed some screenshots below to show you.
Thank you. For future reference, is it a good idea to have multiple citations on a claim, especially one about a recent and/or controversial development? On the surface it sounds like it adds credibility to my statement but having too many sources might impact readability because of all the blue superscript numbers. ApteryxRainWing | Roar at me | My contributions14:36, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Made an edit there to bundle both references to a single number. This leaves both sources in case one is more accessible to a reader. You can re-order them if it makes a difference. Just change the 2 to a 1, and the 1 to a 2 for quick change. I think if you're missing #1, the template does not produce the desired result. Alegh (talk) 19:24, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
xtools counter. I recommend to be mindful of WP:NOTHERE. In the past, I've seen over-enthusiastic editors getting blocked for similar editing. You should spend more time on help building Wikipedia, and less time on user/user talk pages, or doing some other irrelevant activity. —usernamekiran (talk)03:16, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I try to do this using the "About" template, I get:
This article is about aliasing in statistics, in particular fractional factorial designs. For other uses, see Aliasing (factorial experiments) (disambiguation). There is no such disambiguation page. I don't see a way to use extra arguments to do what I want.
The templates "Other uses" and "For" are not helpful here, either, and I'm assuming that I would need to write a unique headnote for this purpose.
@Johsebb What you need is {{About|aliasing in statistics, in particular fractional factorial designs|other uses, see|Aliasing (disambiguation)}}. Copy/paste this directly from the rendered text, as you don't need the nowiki etc. you see in the source code. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:01, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is it reasonable that a reader would wind up at a page titled "aliasing (factorial experiments)" if they wanted some other meaning of the term "aliasing"? If not, then WP:HATNOTERULES #3 advises not to have a hatnote at all. DMacks (talk) 22:12, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I found a somewhat suspicious user. It seems as though they're editing things to advertise a business.
I do know that the user is actually contributing, or at least... it looks like it. I'm not really experienced enough to what to do from here. Can someone help me out? AmrAlWatan(🗣️|📝) 16:54, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why does wiki sometimes show "Edit" and other times show "Edit Source"?
Its annoying for my 2 braincells, since I'm horrible at source editing, but it always shows up, unless for suggested edits. Is there a way to toggle this? BlazeFlames (talk) 18:31, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BlazeFlames, are you having this problem on article pages or only elsewhere? There is no Visual Editor support for talk pages, for example, so it's only edit source available there. -- asilvering (talk) 18:36, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, go to Preferences --> Editing --> Editor --> Editing mode. Make sure this is set to "always give me the Visual Editor if possible". -- asilvering (talk) 19:52, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Teahouse! I have some question regarding an article I'm debating on creating.
The article I am debating is on the effects of Millennium Force, particularly in the station and queue. Throughout the main article on Millennium Force, there are some references and notes regarding station effects and history, a lot of which was added by me. However, that only scratches the surface of what there actually is and has been. I'm just unsure as to whether it fits in the main article, and I believe I could create a sub-article of sorts explaining the information in a much, much better way than there is now.
For example, under the "station" heading, a note is mentioned about 3 sets of dispatch audio. It had citations to the audio and the fact that there may be more, but that's it. In reality, those audio sets have a deeper history, such as the decade old promos that they came in.
This is prevalent again with the in-station projectors. I mentioned that they had been brought back in a new but limited fashion, but didn't get to touch on the history of them, or why they weren't even working on the time. (I even emailed Cedar Point's spokesperson regarding this and got a good answer with info!)
There is just so much interesting and deep history regarding the queue, station, and cable lift effects that don't get mentioned at all in the main article. I have and can get more citations for all of the info, but I just don't know if it would qualify for Wikipedia. Like would I have to take some existing information regarding the effects from the main page? Or could there be some brief info on the main page with all of the in-depth info on a "sub-page"?
@Therguy10, it sounds to me like this is the kind of thing you can add to the main article, rather than something that ought to be added as a WP:SPINOUT. In general, the way this kind of thing is approached is by working directly in the "parent" article and only spinning out if it gets too long or overdetailed. Regarding emailing CP's spokesperson, did they send you to some resource online, or did they just answer your questions directly? Unfortunately, since personal communication isn't externally verifiable (see WP:V), we can't use it on Wikipedia. But if you can find that information in reliable sources (WP:RS), you're good to go. -- asilvering (talk) 19:14, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Asilvering The email I received confirmed what I had suspected with already reputable sources, but I wanted to be 100% sure before adding anything to Wikipedia because no official announcement was made about it. Tony Clark (the spokesperson) just gave me additional details; things that I had already gathered but was happy to hear confirmed. (You can actually email him yourself if you need more verification)
And as far as adding the information I have goes, if I typed up an article draft of every single bit of info, (with all of the reputable sources and citations, of course) and then added it to your talk page, maybe you could you review it and decide whether or not it should go into the main article or spin-off? Or is there anyone else I could find help with? I'm comfortable with either option in adding to the main article or to a spin-off, but I'd hate to gather up all of my sources and citations just for it to be undone.
It's really hard to review drafts on a talk page, so please don't paste it there (also, my talk page is kinda long so that will be extra annoying). My advice would be to work directly in the article, but not to make all of your changes in one go. Add a paragraph or maybe only a couple of sentences at a time, and see how that goes. That's easier for other editors to review, and will be less disappointing to you if someone objects to your additions. -- asilvering (talk) 19:38, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I should warn you that, because that is a Featured Article, you may receive some pushback for changing it, simply because you're changing it. If that happens, just know that it's not about you. Come back here for more advice and we can help you untangle whatever happens. -- asilvering (talk) 19:50, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to View history, the article has 95 'Watchers' who purportedly check on their Watchlist every time they log in (albeit many are likely no longer active editors or Watchers). The Talk page of the article is a better place for discussion if reverted. On a more general note, pot3ential content can be true and reference-verifiable but not seen as improving the article. See the essay Wikipedia:Fancruft for thoughts on this. David notMD (talk) 22:51, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. I have a question about using a book as a reference in my draft. The book is named "Valiant: Many Hands, One Vision" published by Walkerville Publishing in 2009. We have an ISBN - I can provide if necessary. However, the book is not available to the public, and you can't purchase it online. If you search for the book you can only see the cover, but it is not being sold anywhere. Can I use this source if other editors can't verify the information in the book?
@AliceMaiAnh, I assume you are working for the company and they are willing to put it on their website. It depends on if the company owns the copyright to this privately published book. It would be easier just to have some company history on the website to use as a source for facts. The bigger issue is finding sources that are completely independent of the company in order to show that it is notable enough, that is well-enough-known, to have a Wikipedia article. Currently all your references appear to be based on press releases. StarryGrandma (talk) 22:46, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another thing: This page of Walkerville's lists "Valiant: Many Hands, One Vision, with Marty Solcz". Draft:Valiant TMS tells us "Founder[:] Michael G. Solcz". And so as well as probably having little or none of the checks imposed by a traditional publisher, it appears to be co-written (or perhaps even written) by somebody with a COI. All in all, publication of the PDF on the company website (or anywhere else) wouldn't help. -- Hoary (talk) 11:23, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My edit got reverted despite it being accurate
Hello, my edit got reverted despite it being accurate. The edit being "To Pimp A Butterfly was met with universal acclaim" on Kendrick Lamar's "To Pimp A Butterfly" due to it being the highest rated album on "RateYourMusic" and it indicating universal acclaim on "Metacritic", so now i'm just wondering on why it got reverted since i think it's completely accurate? Elijahjb306 (talk) 00:32, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I’m seeking guidance on how to improve this draft. It has been rejected multiple times for reading like an advertisement.
I’ve made several attempts to rewrite it with a more neutral tone, but I’m struggling to get it approved. To me, it seems neutral, but I may be missing something. Could anyone point out specific sentences or sections that come across as promotional? I would really appreciate your feedback so I can make the necessary edits.
Here’s the draft: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Draft:Quintessential_(company)Commercialindustrial (talk) 07:14, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair to Commercialindustrial, Ahri Boy, the reviewer who rejected the draft invited Commercialindustrial to come here and ask for advice. Commercialindustrial has asked, politely, for specifics; and has done so according to the invitation. Perhaps you'd care to tell them how the draft is too promotional. -- Hoary (talk) 11:28, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The great majority of the content and references document financial activities of the business real estate company. While true and referenced, these are about the company's actions but not the company. If you really intend to try again, I agree with the Comments suggestion that all existing content be set aside and start over in the existing draft. David notMD (talk) 11:45, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will add that many of the references are press-release-like interviews with company executives. The Property portfolio needs to be deleted. Same for descriptions of the Master funds. Content on the three divisions is not referenced. The ESG section requires a ref other than Q. The awards list can stay, but minor awards do not contribute to establishing notability. David notMD (talk) 11:52, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
General References
Hello, how do I format general references into an article? My draft already has some in-line citations, but I would like to make my general references display properly. How do I insert them without getting the little bracketed number (the ones that look like this [1] but smaller) in-line citations do? AkiyamaKana (talk) 12:57, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
I want to write a wikipedia article. I can't seem to get the sandbox to work. I want to write the article in the sandbox and then submit it for approval.
Could anyone provide the exact URL or a link that is sure to help me write the article in the right place?
Article_wizard seems to make a draft, but the draft is not in the Sandbox, is that correct?
I want to write 2 articles. Can I have 2 or more articles in the Sandbox?
Thank you for your help. SpecialistWikiEditor (talk) 14:33, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you may be conflating the general Sandbox, which is for everyone, with your personal sandbox, which is not. You can make as many concurrent items in your personal sandbox as you like, but items in the general Sandbox will likely be overwritten within minutes. Does that answer your question? DS (talk) 14:48, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SpecialistWikiEditor I stongly recommend you use the article wizard to create a draft article, rather than your sandbox, but you should see a link to your personal sandbox at the top of any Wikipedia page. You can create as many drafts as you wish. Shantavira|feed me14:54, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Darth Stabro: This is just my personal opinion. A better question ask might be to ask why is there even an image gallery needed in that article. Image galleries can, for sure, improve the quality of an article as explained in WP:GALLERY, but too many images can also overwhelm the text of an article, particularly a shorter article. Multiple images showing the church as it looked in during roughly same time period probably don't provide the reader with twice or thrice as much encyclopedic value as seeing one image of the church, and other images could probably be incorporated into sections of relevant article content to better establish context. There can be a tendency with respect to image galleries to keep adding more and more images because it tends to be easy edit to make, and many see it as a case of more always being better. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:42, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CF-501 Falcon That's the sort of detail that appears on an organisation's own website, which is already linked in the infobox of the article. If any of these is notable enough to have an article in Wikipedia then that might be justification for mentioning them somewhere in the text but otherwise I think it is non-encyclopaedic. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:07, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What if someone with a Conflict of Interest to a subject writes about it but fails to or deliberately doesn't mention about it in their user page? Randomdude121 (talk) 15:42, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Typically, if someone's not willing to disclose that they have a COI, there are other issues with the quality of their edits as well. DS (talk) 04:45, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Randomdude121: You can't force someone to disclose they have a COI; moreover, WP:COI is a guideline that users with a COI are encouraged to follow, but they're not required to do so. Undisclosed paid editing is a violation of Wikipedia's Terms of Use, and such editing can lead to an account being blocked because disclosure is required by Wikipedia policy. So, if you suspect an editor of having an WP:APPARENTCOI, you can follow the guidance given in WP:COI#How to handle conflicts of interest and encourage the editor to be as transparent as possible about any connection they might have with the subject because doing so will make it not only easier for others to help them, but more than likely make others want to try to help them. You don't want to come down like a ton of bricks on the other editor, at least not right at the beginning of your interaction with them, but instead make them aware of Wikipedia's concerns about COI editing and ask them to try to follow the COI guidelines. If they don't and their edits are otherwise no problem per relevant policies and guidelines, there's no really need to push the matter COI any further. It's only when someone with a COI starts making inappropriate edits that their COI tends to become a problem; in such cases, their problematic edits can be dealt with in the same way as problem edits made by any other editor. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:15, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Say there's a conduct issue that I tried (possibly badly) discussing with the user and didn't manage to convince them that it's an issue, the issue also didn't improve but it also seems too minor-ish for ANI... is there an alternative step that isn't the drama board? Is there a way I can ask a third, neutral, opinion? – 2804:F1...02:ACA0 (::/32) (talk) 15:46, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve been reading WP:Graphs and Charts and WP:How to create charts for Wikipedia articles and it’s all quite confusing and I’m now wondering can I create graphs on excel following the guidelines listed on “How to create charts for Wikipedia” and then upload those to commons or is that classed as copyright infringement. I really don’t know if that’s okay or not and I’d prefer to find out before trying it. Thanks N1TH Music (talk) 16:00, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome to create graphs from scratch in Excel or other programs and upload them to commons. Because you are the creator, you can declare whatever license you like (though only files with open licenses would be allowed). Be sure you cite the source of your data. Unlike creative graphical works or writings, pure data cannot be copyrighted, so your graph would not be infringing on the publication that contains the data you used (assuming you are not literally recreating the same graphs that publication has). DMacks (talk) 17:38, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is the origin of the data you are graphing? Did you get it from a newspaper, a journal article, generate it by a math equation, make it up yourself, etc. DMacks (talk) 20:29, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi N1TH Music. Copyright issues aside, your graphs shouldn't be a way for you to incoporate your own personal research into an article. So, if you're going to create a graph based on your own personally accumulated data, then others are most likely not going to want that in the article unless you're a really well-established content expert who is recognized as such by reliable sources. At the same time, if you're going to use data from a third-party source, you should make sure that source is considered reliable for Wikipedia's purposes and clearly say where the data comes from. You might be able to upload your graph to Commons because Commons is mainly considered with the copyright status of the content it hosts and not so much how such content ends up being used; Wikipedia, on the other hand, is equally concerned about both, and there's no guarantee it will end up being used in Wikipedia if others feel it adds no or just very little encyclopedic value to an article. In other words, you may have seek a consensus on the article's talk page to add the graph if someone feels it's not really an improvement. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:28, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hii, I have doubt on blocks and unblocks
at this [2] a user got blocked for being WP:NOTHERE but I am of view that merely because the person expressed unpopular opinion there, he should not get blocked from editing as per WP:NOTHERENORMS - Expressing unpopular opinions in a non-disruptive manner -
@Ankraj giri, I hear you about WP:NOTHERE blocks. I really don't like them, myself. You can always go ask the blocking admin about this kind of thing, but I'm not sure I'd suggest that a new editor do that. In this case, though, I can understand this block pretty well, so I'll explain it: this person was never at any point engaged in what we're all trying to do here, which is "building an encyclopedia". Look at their contribution history - all they ever did was talk about this one issue. Wikipedia isn't a forum for discussion. Established editors say things like "no IPs should be allowed to edit wikipedia" all the time and don't get blocked for it; saying that isn't a problem. Wasting everyone's time is. -- asilvering (talk) 18:17, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to argue if as long as the person is not harming Wikipedia, vandal edits or edit battles then should they not be allowed to stay on the site. I myself have limited time, I got free just yesterday and thought I would roam around wiki only to find a burning forest here. I wish best for editors and wiki, good luck! I just hope that the day when I get blocked its not without me being heard :-) Thanks for response as always TeaHouse is best place to come! `~ᴀɴᴋʀᴀᴊ ɢɪʀɪ🎇✨( C • Talk )18:26, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you get blocked, you can appeal through various means, principally on your talk page. An independent administrator will review the decision. The process is mentioned on that blocked user's talk page, and they get more details when or if they try to edit again. The 'community' doesn't really entertain unblock appeals from third parties, since we always need to discuss things with the original blocked user. However, you as a third party are allowed to question the blocking administrator and ask them to review their decision, by visiting their talk page. There's also nothing stopping you in principle from urging the blocked user to appeal, on their talk page. I'm not recommending either here, in fact I'd probably recommend against both; I'm just explaining the process. The short answer if that if a user wants to appeal they have plenty of opportunity to do that. -- zzuuzz(talk)18:39, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Indefinite" means there's no fixed end time, but that also means that a block can be very short - it's basically "forever, or until you successfully appeal". In some ways it's less harsh than a block for a month or so, since you're not terribly likely to be let out of a time-limited block early, but you can be let out of an indef as soon as you've satisfied an admin at unblock appeals that you don't need to be blocked anymore. -- asilvering (talk) 18:56, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am an adminstrator who has issued quite a few WP:NOTHERE blocks. For me, a typical example is an editor who has registered a profane, trolling sexualized username and then sets out on a campaign of profane, trolling sexualized vandalism. Either policy violation deserves an indefinite block but how do I choose between one or the other? I will block for NOTHERE and note the two (or more) reasons in the block log. Often, violations of the WP:BLP policy are involved as well. In my personal practice, I want to see two or more policy violations to use NOTHERE. Without delving too deeply into the specifics of this case, evaluating which pattern of editing is disruptive and blockable is the job of an adminstrator using their discretion and good judgment, and if another adminstrator decides that unrelenting axe-grinding is enough for a NOTHERE block, then I will not object to the label applied to that block. Quibbling about the specific block reason of a justified block is not a good use of volunteer time. Any editor who sincerely believes that they have been blocked unfairly, or that they have repented, is free to file an appeal which will be reviewed by another administrator. If I believe that my concerns have been adequately addressed, I never object to the unblock. But feeding trolls is a bad idea. Cullen328 (talk) 09:36, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not interested in editing.
I'm not interested in editing.
So I don't want all these pages that have to do with editing. I just want to do searches. And I couldn't find anyplace where to do it. I created an account as I thought that was the only way to do searches only to find that the magnifying glass icon is for searches and it was there all along. But in the meantime I have all these pages having to do with editing, is there a way to get rid of them? Terry W Ryder (talk) 20:33, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Even if you don't intend to edit, an account may help you use Wikipedia without having to see fundraising banners. I can't be certain what pages having to do with editing you refer to, but I'm guessing one of them is the newcomer homepage. You can disable the newcomer homepage and related features in your preferences > user profile at the very bottom. Perception312 (talk) 22:29, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Technical question: is there a reason why at Special:UserLogin there is no "Show password" button?
Hello. When logging in, I noticed that there is no "Show password" button when doing so. I do realize that this may be due to several reasons, namely: 1) it would be unwise to have someone peer over your shoulder in a vulnerable café table as you enter your password, and 2) perhaps MediaWiki hasn't accomodated for this feature yet. Could someone let me know why this so, and would it be wise to implement this in the near future? Thanks. — 3PPYB6(T / C / L) — 02:14, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zzuuzz, @Ahri Boy – Thank you both. For one, yes, I do realize that using a password manager is simply more convenient in this case. The other thing is that when typing my password (I have it memorized) I was thinking exactly about RexxS' (hoping for his return) use case in that Phabricator ticket (obviously, I would never type it out in a café with the hypothetical password shown in thin air). I suppose I'll make do with what I have, though, as this is a relatively minor issue (at least for me). — 3PPYB6(T / C / L) — 15:32, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am something of a Dinosaur when to come to IT Tech !! There is a page relating to a feature in my/our village with some total inaccurate information -- Caton Oak a link maybe ?
How do I alter it to make the info correct ? Don't want to mess it up !!!
1, It says the tree is routed in the River Lune - its not its close to 1 mile from the Lune -- it is situated in a Mill Race man made stream take from Artlebeck a tributary of the Lune.
2. It states the blacksmith used to set up his forge there - He did not the Forge /Blacksmiths shop was in Farriers Yard some 150yards away and backed onto the Croft drying grounds -- closer to the tree.
By the Way I am now 80y lived in Caton all my life so did Dad and Grandad, I remember the forge, blacksmith, the carpenter next door, etc etc
Hope someone can point me in the right direction
Thanks John Redhunter350 (talk) 11:39, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What you know to be true is not evidence enough. It is not clear what reference verifies that the oak tree in question was "rooted in the River Lune", and so, perhaps, you could change that text to the mill race. As for your second point, reference #5 states that a blacksmith would set up near the tree, so you would need a better reference for where he did set up in order to justify removing mention of the blacksmith. Or else change the first and leave the second. David notMD (talk) 12:10, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cyprus military ranks
I need help with the NCO ranks, i already made the png files how the ranks look but i dont know how to modify the code so i make it look like the greek one, cypriot army have 2 nco ranks for every rank, one for permanent NCOs that completed military academy and the other for SYP-EPY (in Greece EPOP-EMTh) for contracted NCOs that cannot become Warrant Officers, example bellow.
NCO and other ranks
NCO ranks (excl. OR-9 and conscript ranks) have undergone some changes through the years, the latest being in 2004.[1]
^ abGreece has only one level of Warrant Officer. According to the current issue (2021) of STANAG 2116, the Greek Warrant Officers are included in OR-9, however they are afforded the privileges of an officer. See STANAG 2116 note 29, page D-9
^ abc"Βαθμοί" [Ranks]. army.gov.cy (in Greek). Cypriot National Guard. Retrieved 26 May 2021.
Hello. The draft was declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning in the draft process, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means it may be resubmitted. Please see the advice left by the reviewer. Wikipedia is not a cookbook; Wikipedia articles summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the topic, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability. I'm not really seeing a claim to notability in the draft- that a database includes this beverage does not confer notability unless you have independent sources that detail the significance of this. It's true that there must be an article to include it in the list article, but it must be notable. 331dot (talk) 15:16, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After cutting what obviously does not belong in a cocktail article, there is not enough left to establish Wikipedia notability. Look at other cocktail articles to get ideas of what to incorporate - if references can be found (if not, abandon the effort). David notMD (talk) 16:01, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT: You claimed that the image is your own work, but it is copied from the copyright protected Kindred Cocktails website. David notMD (talk) 16:04, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative to range block calculator
I didn't realize that Fastily had maintained the IP range block calculator, an invaluable tool. Their departure from the project means that tool is not functional. Is anyone aware of 1.) suitable interim alternatives and 2.) discussions on the reintroduction of the tool? Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:30, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pbritti – I was able to access Fastily's password-strength tool on the Wayback Machine. After checking for a couple seconds, I found out that web-crawlers successfully archived a version of that the rangeblock tool as well from 17 September 2024 (with all functionalities preserved surprisingly after testing it) here. I doubt that Fastily changed their tools substantially in two months, so I think that should be a feasible interim solution. With regards to the reintroduction of the tool, I actually have no idea, and it would either A) be dependent on Fastily's return, or B) have someone else basically fork Fastily's software to another tool in toolforge.org. Thanks. — 3PPYB6(T / C / L) — 15:36, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gaëlle Ibrahim – Could you provide me with the link to this article? In most cases, the simplest solution is to fix it yourself (the sentence is not going to fix itself anyway). If the article is one you cannot edit, most of the time you can request an edit on the article's respective talk page. Just make sure if you are fixing it yourself that you make sure that the statement is indeed verifiable with a reliable source (for reference: a peer-reviewed research paper is reliable, a reputable news source is reliable, but a disinformation outlet or "I said it myself" is not reliable). — 3PPYB6(T / C / L) — 16:00, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What are the important project pages to get started with?
@NicePrettyFlower: I'm not sure about your expectation from watchlisting it. Watchlisting helps you identify recently-edited pages from a list you specify, so if you have numerous pages on your watchlist, the "GettingStarted" page won't necessarily be near the top. Perhaps more sensible to just set up a user page with bookmarks, then go to that page to see the bookmarked pages of interest. Fabrickator (talk) 04:45, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rosemary Jacobs
I'm currently making an article on her (victim of colloidal silver) and have asked her for permission to use her image on it. However, if she allows it, what should I do next? Tavantius (talk) 17:49, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Note that the subject of a photo isn't necessarily the copyright holder- typically it's the photographer. Not that its wrong to ask the subject, just that the photographer needs to grant permission, unless they reassigned the copyright. 331dot (talk) 18:05, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
She is mentioned by name as a person who had permanent skin discoloration due to colloidal silver at the article Argyria. I see no potential for an article about her, even though other people with argyria have articles about them. Her activism against quackery medicine is probably not sufficient enough to justify an article either. David notMD (talk) 20:25, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Query
I have 2 things to ask. First about the tags on talk page which is used to give the class to any article eg:stub class or start class. Can these classes be given only by user with any specific user right? If not, then how do we know and how do we use it or give it ourselves to any article. I saw many such articles which were expanded from stub class to start class or c class but they are haven't been updated there. So, I am really curious and it would be immensely helpful if I would have the knowledge myself of how and when to use those.
Secondly, there is a YouTuber named Nitish Rajput. He is very prominent in India. A year ago, a article was made about him but was deleted using PROD. May be at that time he wasn't notable. But then also in the deletion discussion then, some editors said that he might be notable after some time. Although, the article was then deleted. I want to ask and request the AfC reviewers out there, to check now if he's notable or not and would it be justified to create a draft on him and submit it for AfC. It takes a quiet long time to create any draft and article and so, it would be very helpful for me to know that it would be good to create a draft or not. AstuteFlicker (talk) 18:35, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question about citing a blog post as a quote from an expert
Is it okay to cite a blog post made by a notable expert (Tyler Cowen) if it's explicitly mentioned that it's a quote? For example, I wrote the following text that was reverted because the source was considered unreliable:
In his blog Marginal Revolution, economist Tyler Cowen included the developer of 15.ai as one of the "most underrated talents in AI and machine learning."[1]
My question is: is the above valid? My understanding was that per WP:V, quoting that an expert said something about the subject is valid, but something like:
The developer of 15.ai is one of the "most underrated talents in AI and machine learning."[1]
Although I would typically say "yes, that's okay", I'm not confident I like the way you've interpreted what Cowen actually said. DS (talk) 19:17, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the response – do you have any suggestions on how I should reword it? I tried to be as neutral as possible by quoting Cowen directly, but I wasn't entirely sure on my wording, either. GregariousMadness (talk) 19:23, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would the following be better?
In his blog Marginal Revolution, economist Tyler Cowen referenced the developer of 15.ai when asking readers to identify underrated talents in AI and machine learning, specifically highlighting technical builders.
Partial translation of an English article already existing in French
I would like to extract information from English articles to put them in existing French articles.
I am thinking for example of the article about the language "Talysh" on the French Wikipedia which is not as complete as the equivalent in the English language version.
How to translate without copying and pasting. The beta version of the tool to translate articles with the English text on the left and the French text on the right is not suitable. I tried. Anatole-berthe (talk) 18:54, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know whether this is the best place to bring this up, but I notice that some editors place brackets around ellipses. Their point presumably is to show that the ellipses were not in the original language being quoted. But that doesn’t make sense, because, if bracketed ellipses were the convention, then bracketed ellipses could have been in the original language being quoted, if that language were quoting something. I believe that readers should assume that ellipses without brackets were not in the original, unless the person quoting inserts "[ellipses in the original]." Brackets should not be placed around ellipses. Maurice Magnus (talk) 20:18, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hoary (talk). Thank you for the cite. It indicates that my suggestion is already Wikipedia's rule: "When an ellipsis (...) is used to indicate that material is removed from a direct quotation, it should not normally be bracketed. (See § Ellipses for an exceptional case.)." Therefore, I will feel free to remove brackets around ellipses (except in the exceptional case), and, if anyone complains, to cite the rule. The exceptional case referred to is, "Square brackets may be placed around an ellipsis that indicates omitted text to distinguish it from an ellipsis that is part of the quoted text: She retorted: "How do I feel? How do you think I ... This is too much! [...] Take me home!". In this example, the first ellipsis is part of the quoted text and the second ellipsis (in square brackets) indicates omitted text." Maurice Magnus (talk) 22:10, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Echowanderer43. I'm not sure what the above answer has to do with your question, but you might want to try asking about this at Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies because certain templates might work better in certain articles. You could also look at articles where each template is used by going to the template's page and clicking on "What links here" in the left-side bar. Seeing how each template is being used by others might help you better understand their differences. Lastly, you can practice using them in your WP:USERSANDBOX where you can display them side-by-side or above one another for a visual comparison. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:30, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Referencing
Do templates in the {{more sources}} family like {{one source section}} and [additional citation(s) needed] require a new section on the talk page? Somebody removed templates that I added and their edit summary said "drive by tagging", but I thought "drive by tagging" was about things like {{POV}} where the changes required are more debatable or less obvious? Is there a clear list somewhere of which tags need discussion? Industrial Metal Brain (talk) 22:34, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing wrong with using a single source in a section, as long the source is reliable and comprehensive and verifies the content. In my view, if you believe that the section needs additionsl sources, the best practice is to explain why on the article talk page. Cullen328 (talk) 00:30, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Username change policy questions
Hello. Going over WP:UNC, it mentions that one would be better off starting fresh on a new account if the current one has “few or no edits.” What is the cutoff there? 78 is really small in the grand scheme of things, but it’s not literally a few—it’s several dozens. Further, if starting anew is the route I take (I’m not actually sure what, or if, I’d want to rename to yet,) is there anything I should do with this account to be sure I’m not mistaken as a sockpuppeteer? Thanks in advance! Velvetune (talk) 01:44, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you are attached to your edits, then I would keep the account and just rename. If you want to go down the alternate account route, as long as you are not using multiple accounts to do bad things and you are open about it, you should be fine to have multiple accounts. ✶Quxyz✶02:48, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Velvetune: Hi. Do you want to keep the two accounts connected, or do you want a WP:CLEANSTART? You will be considered sock puppeteer only if you use these two accounts at the same time for bad purposes, without disclosing the connection. If you create a new account, then post on older userpage: "I stopped using this account, now I use 'new account'". On new userpage, you should mention "Velvetune was my old account". I think 300 edits would be enough for renaming the account. —usernamekiran (talk)07:01, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Usernamekiran! Having the two accounts connected would be fine, I have no reason to seek an entirely clean start. It just comes down to this username no longer feeling like me—Wikipedia is the only place where it remains my username (barring Cohost, which is read-only now.) Not a feeling I can put into better words than that, to be honest. I did entirely forget about that policy though, so thank you. Velvetune (talk) 08:40, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Velvetune: in that case, you can either wait till you have 200-300 edits, and have a rename, or abandon current account with mentions on both the user accounts. —usernamekiran (talk)18:18, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
there are many users, but I recently remembered Scs. Their old userpage redirects to Scs, and on Scs, they have mentioned their old account. —usernamekiran (talk)18:56, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am looking at the article about Pygame and wonder if maybe we should put the tutorials in external links, maybe in tutorials subsection? Wouldn't it be more readable and easy to access that way?
I might be wrong, though... :) this is why I am writing in here :)
the important question is, external links leading where? To some YouTube channel gaining viewers/revenue because of Wikipedia? To some fishy website? I would be comfortable only if it is their official website — pygame.org —usernamekiran (talk)19:02, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Films - (Music too?) - Response - Critical Response - [Should have historical format]
I come here to Wikipedia for information of all sorts! lol In movies is see under "Response"(sometimes reception) and then "Critical Response."
I'm seeing a decent amount of 'unformatted' content here where there should be all formatted content in "(Film)". First off we have to go through a bit of history and the cinematic publishing history; IE: VHS, DVD, Blu Ray, Streaming Services. If memory serves me then about 1982 (Video Disks?) was when VHS started to take off with local 'mom & pop video rental stores.' And Blockbuster (1987?). DVD's in the late 1990; Blu Ray and Streaming services last.
Now with that out of the way lets look at "The Exorcist" (1973).
Sure if you've seen it you've heard the controversies but I lived through them! lol I like that format, given what the movie IS! I also like "After release" subtitle(?). So that's a decent 'historically accurate' account.
Now if you look at "Forrest Gump" (1994) you'll see "Critical reception" start the first paragraph with "Rotten Tomatoes" which by the way wasn't even active until 4 years later. Then it goes into: "Ebert" of the Sun Times, but doesn't mention "Siskel & Ebert"... Too many times I see: "On the review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes" and that makes it look like 'Wikipedia' is upselling Rotten Tomatoes. Least I get into "They weren't even around." At least I'm glad I don't see IMdB here especially because of the "Rings of Power Fiasco!" What I'm getting at is that this 'reception' should be historically accurate as well as in historical order. Cadamier (talk) 06:23, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are free to be WP:BOLD and amend such articles to your preferred arrangements (and reference-cited contents). If someone disagrees with any of your edits they will Revert them, and the two (or more) of you can civilly Discuss them on the article's Talk page and form a consensus. This, the WP:BRD cycle, is a normal way of improving Wikipedia.
Note that you will make mistakes and likely have them corrected. This is inevitable with such a complex, evolved project as Wikipedia: erring and being corrected is one of the ways that everyone learns how to edit here, so don't take it personally. Before you start, you might want to study Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Happy editing! {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.211.243 (talk) 07:47, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Cadamier. The reason why you see Rotten Tomatoes used so frequently in film articles is that they are a specialized News aggregator focused largely on movie reviews. They are perfectly capable of aggregating reviews for movies released long before that website was founded, and there is nothing improper about that. As for Siskel and Ebert, they never worked together to review movies. Each reviewed separately and then they had intense debates. Please read WP:ROTTENTOMATOES and WP:IMDB for the consensus among editors about the general reliability of the first for aggregating professional reviews and the general unreliability of the second for most things. Personally, I consider subsequent release dates in various formats to be far less imprortant encyclopedic content than critical commentary about films. Cullen328 (talk) 20:31, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I edit the Three Prisoners Problem. It appeared shortly then Jochen Burghardt "Undid revision" adding "should be discussed on talk page before." How do I discuss on talk page?
"Latest revision as of 06:50, 21 November 2024 edit undo thankPublicly send thanks?ThankCancel
Jochen Burghardt (talk | contribs)
Undid revision 1258634392 by Kicab (talk): should be discussed on talk page before
Tag: Undo" Kicab (talk) 15:48, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Each article has a talk page where you can go to discuss how the article can be improved. Starting a discussion first is often a good idea when you want to make major changes (see WP:CAUTIOUS for the relevant policy). On desktop, there should be two tabs below the title of the article: "Article" and "Talk". Clicking "Talk" should take you to the talk page, in this case Talk:Three prisoners problem, where you can click "Add Topic" or "Edit Source" in the top right to start a new section for discussion. Perception312 (talk) 16:16, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I went to the talk page and added my proposed major edit and submitted. I don't know if you can check whether I did that correctly. Kicab (talk) 17:54, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Google maps shows two adjacent locations named Oaklawn Plantation, a little over 2 miles apart – neither are in either Natchitoches (the city/county) or Natchez, though they are closer to the latter.
Recently Cullen328 moved the article (i.e. changed its title) from "Oaklawn Plantation (Natchez, Louisiana)" to "Oaklawn Plantation (Natchitoches, Louisiana)" and then back again, on the grounds that "It is closer to Natchez".
I can't speak with experience about the USA, but certainly in the UK, a postal address does not define a geographical location. Postal addresses are allocated according to the Post Office's administrative convenience: for example, I had some friends whose postal address came under Shrewsbury, Shropshire (in England), but who were actually located just over the border in Wales.
After re-checking Google Maps, Oaklawn Plantation refers to one historic building and grounds whose location is named as Natchitoches, and Oakland Plantation to another, some 2 miles away, whose location is named as Natchez – neither are within the map-shown limits of either town/city/county, but both are in Natchitoches Parish. The latter is also in the Cane River Creole National Historical Park, FWIW. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.211.243 (talk) 15:33, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How to cite a National Park Service Documentation Form?
A significant number of searchers have their device set to all caps (due to either habit, forgetfulness or inadvertance). Such redirects lessen the annoyance of their otherwise correctly spelled query failing (which they may blame on Wikipedia). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.211.243 (talk) 05:19, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking for some advice on whether or not I'll be able to add a Wikipedia article about a band my parents were in in the 80's. The band was called "Legacy", they were a bluegrass and folk music band that played mostly Northern Virginia, DC, suburban Maryland, and only small venues like folk music festivals, old mills and farms... local stuff. There aren't many articles or "secondary source" coverage of them as they were very small, but I'd like people to know about them, and I'd like to publish some of their music (albeit not well recorded or produced). The guidance from Wikipedia about new articles is that it should be "notable". I'm not sure they were ever big enough to be "notable", although they certainly are to me and my family, and a large group of folk music fans around the DC metro area.
I'd like to create an article about them, and curious as to whether that could be done without citing "secondary sources", as just none exist digitally. They were active from about 1981 to 1988.
Hello. Wikipedia articles summarize what independent reliable sources say about a topic- that's what we're about. If you have no sources, there cannot be an article here. If you just want to tell the world about your parents' band, you should try social media or another website with less stringent requirements. 331dot (talk) 00:43, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that sources do not need to be online, as long as they are published and publicly available, like magazines in a library. But I get the sense your parents band probably does not meet WP:BAND. 331dot (talk) 00:45, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that 'Legacy Band, DC' is an existing band that (according to their website) "Is an elite music group performing in the Washington D.C., Maryland, and Virginia region. Our band covers Top 40 hits, fiery versions of Soul, smooth versions of Motown, head nodding versions of Pop and some good ol’ country!"
This is liable to complicate searches for published information about a former band of the same name operating in the same region, and has the potential for a 'turf war' over any putative Wikipedia article. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.211.243 (talk) 05:26, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be useful to have this as a standard template?
The current source(s) support(s) only a small part of the text. If sources have been added to support most of information please remove this notice and use [citation needed] to mark any information that remains unsourced.
But that is not a good description of most articles I have seen with one source, and I have also seen sections where it doesn't describe the problem well. I more often see one source supporting only a tiny part of the page or section, and the rest is completely unsourced.
Sort of. I have changed one or two "one source" tags to that, and that is what I put inside the "multiple issues" box above. But it is very vague, and it doesn't have a comment or reason field to point out where the problem is, only search terms? I made a version of top box for a section where there were a large number of citations, but those were all on about 20% of the information shown. I often see articles or sections where "more sources" fits, but the top box fits better. Industrial Metal Brain (talk) 19:00, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Citations / Referencing changing when in edit mode
I came across an article where something strange was happening with the citations. The first two citations read [1][6].
I clicked into edit mode, and to my surprise, the first two citations (in exactly the same place) now are [1][2]. The list of references is rearranged too: the article that was listed as 6 in read mode is now listed as 2 in edit mode.
Thank you so much for your reply, this is very useful to know.
I clicked the overall edit button at the top of the page, but what @ColinFine said makes sense -- the references were probably in an info box, which didn't count for the overall edit, causing the 2-5 references to disappear when I hit edit. Daphne Morrow (talk) 11:52, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Daphne Morrow, and welcome to the Teahouse. The numbering of citations is of no significance, and is allocated on the fly by the rendering software - in order of their definition in the article, I believe.
So the oddity you saw might mean (as an example) that the first five citations were all in an infobox (which appears before the text in the underlying source), and then the point you noticed reused no. 1, and also defined a sixth one.
I suspect you were editing only a section (as CanonNi suggests) and so it numbered only the citations defined in that section's source code. ColinFine (talk) 11:11, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this explanation. I think this makes it likely that when I hit the overall edit button, the references 2-5 disappeared because they were in an infobox. Daphne Morrow (talk) 11:53, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User Abduvaitov Sherzod V Viki
Hello, dear Wikipedian, I am always an active contributor to the English Wikipedia. Please grant me the "enhanced verified user" privilege and what functions this privilege will perform. Abduvaitov Sherzod V Wiki (talk) 09:45, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such thing on en.wiki, but there may be something with a similar name on one of the other language wikipedias, being separate projects they do their user groups differently. -- D'n'B-t -- 15:01, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well that G13 is supposed to be for drafts neglected for 6 months. G7 applies if your wrote the content yourself. But that does not apply either as it was written by a now blocked user. May be best to leave it deleted so that someone else can make a fresh start. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:18, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I saw the draft was about to G13 out in a week or so, but (other than a four character change on June 11) there was no substantive work since last October. I might not have gotten the criteria correct, but I thought it was close enough. BusterD (talk) 11:32, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rickypriv: For User:Rickypriv/sandbox, you will need to base the text on what others have said about the band. Currently it has no sources, and all external links are published by the band. Secondly it is using puffery, like "top-tier", "passionate", "talented", "strong". Promotion is not allowed in Wikipedia. When the draft is ready for review, you can add {{subst:Submit}} and an AFC reviewer will see if it is suitable to be an article. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:13, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rickypriv, here's a sample from the version after your recent changes: Known for blending diverse musical styles and visual storytelling, the group has become a fixture in the DCI World Class lineup, with notable productions that challenge and inspire its members artistically and personally. This is PR puffery. But Wikipedia is not a PR conduit; it's an encyclopedia. -- Hoary (talk) 12:05, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Rickypriv, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia. I have added a header to your sandbox, which would allow you to submit it for review. But as Graeme says, it would be a waste of everybody's time for you to do so now.
Your draft is written WP:BACKWARDS, as usually happens when editors who have not spent time learning how Wikipedia works plunge straight into the challenging task of creating an article. Please understand that Wikipedia has absolutely no interest in what you know about the Corps (or what I know about it, or what any random person knows about it): it is only interested in what has been reliably published about it - and mostly, what has been published by people who have no connection with the corps.
Hello everyone, I have a quick question. I frequently switch between different internet connections, such as my home Wi-Fi, office Wi-Fi, a friend's mobile hotspot, or my university's Wi-Fi, and I use these to contribute to Wikipedia. Could this cause any issues? Baqi:) (talk) 12:11, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
how to improve my editing ? I've done my best to get all the links in addition it was an old series back in 20 years ago, references are rarely found Alvini1223 (talk) 13:38, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, can someone please take a look at User:Floralfuryxx? I've reverted an edit of theirs (their first one) & took a look at their Talk to bring it up, but now I'm not sure what to do. Most of their edits are disruptive (uncited speculation akin to a Fandom page) & there are very similar edits from IP's that I'm also a little concerned about. Weirdly, they've added an unblock notice (probably written by LLM) to their page despite not being blocked that I can see? They've continued with the unsourced/disruptive edits after being warned so I'm not sure how best to proceed, do you have any advice please? Blue-Sonnet (talk) 15:14, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:YFA for a guide on how to create and then submit a draft. However, it is strongly advised you put in time attempting to improve existing articles before essaying to create an article. David notMD (talk) 17:28, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As it says at the top of the page "Your go-to place for friendly help with using and editing Wikipedia".It is not a place to post about things you like sorry, you can use social media for that. Theroadislong (talk) 16:34, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi 24.101.0.156 and welcome to Wikipedia. This is an encyclopedia. As such we only write about things that are factual and that we can verify by citing a reliable source. Most people edit in subject areas which interest them. Please see the template I left on your talk page for more detailed information. If you would like more information about the project in general, see Wikipedia. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:37, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what the rules or procedures are about this, but this image looks like a problem. "Abu Nidal Organization flag.jpg" (file link)
I found it used here on English Wikipedia, and it seems to be only hosted here locally, but not on commons. The image page here claims a non free use rationale, "to illustrate the government or agency in question", but I can't find any attribution for where the image came from?
Also, it looks like a less tightly cropped copy of the flag for a more well known group: "File: Fatah flag.png" (file link) That image page has a similar statement, "Used for purposes of illustration in an educational article about the entity represented by the image".
For the first file File: Abu Nidal Organization flag.jpg, it was uploaded by user:Dmhll who is still active on Wikipedia. So you can ask about it. What is CAT-UXO? If it is a web site, it is best to link to the page it is from. But as you suggest, if it is not genuine or correct for that organisation, it does not satisfy the fair use criteria, and should be deleted. THis also lease me to File:Fatah Flag Vector Graphic.png on commons, which has a false copyright label on it, as it would be a derivative of a copyrighted flag. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:33, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello everyone, I'm a student at UTK and I come seeking answers on how editors for Wikipedia feel about editing for the site. I know this isn't the most appropriate place to post a survey however Wikipedia's Teahouse is full of active editors and so I believe this to be the best course of action for finding editors for the survey. The survey results will ideally paint a picture on how editors or community members feel about their continued use of Wikipedia, this is to gain insight on informational database communities. After I've gathered the survey results, I plan to write an article for Wikipedia elaborating on the results to share my findings with the public in case anyone else is interested. Here is a link to the survey, I greatly appreciate anyone taking the time to check out this survey. https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScB-CUzRsX5SYAA9oxqJfS6-4eCEq1zQmE55AL6WZ89wAQjvQ/viewform?usp=sf_linkJaboyflamed (talk) 19:50, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Badly designed survey question: "Have you encountered instances of bias in Wikipedia articles?". Wikipedia is biased by design. See User:Guy Macon/Yes. We are biased. Wikipedia is biased toward verifiable facts. And that is a good thing. It is impossible to answer "no" to that question. The responses you get from that would be meaningless; garbage in, garbage out.
Another poor question is "How inclusive do you find the Wikipedia community in welcoming new contributors?" Initially everyone is assumed welcome but it quickly becomes evident how many new accounts were created simply to promote something or flout the rules, and those people are not welcome at all. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:47, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest to keep both, but it all comes down to the reference.
For the full list of common references, click here
Thanks, Cooldudeseven7 join in on the tea talk 14:22, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
Hellenic Army[2]
Greece
Cypriot Ground Forces[1]
Courtesy link: Pygame
.jpg)
This section needs additional citations for verification.
