Wikipedia:Teahouse

Sdkb, a Teahouse host

Welcome to the Teahouse!
Your go-to place for friendly help with using and editing Wikipedia.

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

New to Wikipedia? See our tutorial for new editors or introduction to contributing page.
Note: Newer questions appear at the bottom of the Teahouse. Completed questions are archived within 2–3 days.

Help Wikipedia

Relativity between two same things

Wikipedia auto-filter of source is, and well very good, for, well blackish-source-interception. However, is it because of political stand-point, or is it really "a bad new source", to eventually restrict user against citing Global Times source. If you want to go further arguing with me, why not let me interpret and explain to you the reality. Is that when I cited Global Times source and confirm my publish of edit, one nuisance would pop-up, saying clear that the source I'm citing is not reliable or whatever, who impose this restriction? Gosh, second step I took, was however, tried to find Global Time's trace in other article, I found a bunch of it. Like India News citation, as in 2020 China-India Skirmishes, the news was directly sourced from global times, acting s third party, then, why not you, together, restrict the website's citation availability. Besides, being one of one of the only, well state-owned news media, it has full coverage of everything, that is, well, possible to be covered by their news team. Lots of Chinese (mainland)-news-sources is based on Global Times as reference (full-copy) while being cited through third party websites, like SCMP, India Times etc., to source news form Global Times. Who can explain this? If Global Times is unreliable, I think third party could not live, then, as of now. Hypersonic man 11 (talk) 13:00, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

INFORMATION FROM WIKIPEDIA'S ARTICLE ON Global Times: "The Global Times is a daily tabloid newspaper under the auspices of the Chinese Communist Party's People's Daily newspaper, commenting on international issues from a nationalistic perspective. The newspaper has spread unfounded conspiracy theories and disinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic." And, per Global Times, disinformation about other topics. David notMD (talk) 13:19, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Every news has its on views on cases, it doesn't mean it has a joint-conspiracy theory of doing things, even though "you" hate the ideology of CCP doing things, leaded by leaders in your "own country", accept this as a controversial point of view. Just accept and justify it. For fake spreading of news, you can't prove it clear, I can say this statement is false, and is brought up by western community to counter CCP. I believe a lot didn't cared about news transparency and unpropitious/incorrect of it, but as part of their country's worldwide efforts to destabilize all communist governments, they ramp up against CCP, like as news agency such as BBC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hypersonic man 11 (talk • contribs) 14:17, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

This is a reliable sources discussion. Anyone want to weigh in? David notMD (talk) 14:59, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

There is near unanimous agreement, per this discussion [1] that the Global Times is a tabloid propaganda rag, and is thus a "deprecated" source. AdmiralEek (talk) 15:15, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

If, Global Times, per anti-ideological "editors", is a tabloid propaganda rag, and is thus a "deprecated" source, then why we cite third-party source that is copied and sourced directly from Global Times, isn't this indirect distribution of propaganda. Say it steadily for your self, Wikipedia is for everyone and is free for everyone to share their thoughts, and censorship does not occur under political standpoint or ideological-prejudice. If Wikipedia wants to play political propaganda censorship, why not BBC, CNBC et. cetera. get banned, as they follow western ideology and is on the conspiracy of Western propaganda. These are the inequality of news availability, and I request fellow Wikipedia to remove the restriction. Within the limits, I can also say BBC spread fake Chinese deprecated news out and is a tabloid propaganda rag, and this is why it gets banned. SO, IF YOU WANT TO PLAY THIS CARD WITH ME, GO DO IT TO BBC, #EQUALITY AND FREEDOM OF NEWS AVAILABILITY AND NON-POLITICAL-"SIDE VIEWS" OR STANDPOINT. So, you see, the Western accused G.T. of spreading fake propaganda, and thus, G.T. is restricted, then, on the other hand, China accused BBC of spreading fake and "counterfeit" propaganda in and around China, so, why not, we restrict BBC citation. With such, I DON'T THINK EITHER G.T. OR BBC IS WRONG, BUT POLITICAL JUDGEMENT AND CRITICAL POLITICAL BLACKISH/ENVIOUS OF THE CHINA ERA THAT causes G.T. TO GET THIS TREATMENT, AND, POLITICAL REFRAIN AND avenges/TIT-FOR-TAT caused BBC TO GET BANNED. SO WHY NOT, IN THIS COMMUNITY, LET'S CREATE POLITICAL-FREE ENVIRONMENT, and stop the restriction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hypersonic man 11 (talk • contribs) 04:55, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

You said "Wikipedia is for everyone and is free for everyone to share their thoughts". No, Wikipedia is definitely not for everyone to share their thoughts. Our articles report what reliable sources have said. We have judged that Global Times is not reliable and BBC is. It's not about which ideology a source has but whether their claims are considered reliable. Western sources can also be unreliable. The British Daily Mail was the first source to be deprecated. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:04, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

@Hypersonic man 11: There is also a big difference between the Chinese state censorship banning media from the whole country, and Wikipedia, a privately run website, choosing not to report what somebody claims. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:16, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

It's unclear to me how allowing use of a source that apparently disseminates propaganda would "create a political-free environment", Hypersonic man 11. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:38, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

@User:PrimeHunter, this is per Wikipedia, not form me @User:PrimeHunter, if the whole state media team is banned, BBC and others should get banned for Eastern's violation and controversy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hypersonic man 11 (talk • contribs) 11:38, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

The two cases aren't remotely comparable: the BBC is editorially independent of the British government. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:14, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry, stop arguing and interpreting in a political standpoint, the "independent" means non-sate-own, and you are credibly just going recklessly against CCP AND communism ideology like other Wikipedians to destabilize Chinese presence in the growing world. BBC, i know, it isn't backed by state, however, it is whirled inside the case, of spreading of fake news, and, is considered a "deprecated" source, as per China. Neither of them is wrong, I know, "but" they are just dragged by political tensions. Say it your self, BBC also spread fake and unapproved news. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hypersonic man 11 (talk • contribs) 13:02, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry, no, I didn't credibly mention disseminating propaganda would create political free environment, but, I meant Western Wikipedians follow a conspiracy of destabilizing growing Chinese presence, instead of saying it is a propaganda spread-room, we can say it is an insightful source of Chinese article. For the propaganda, every government has it, and you're gonna adapt to China's today, in 21st century. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hypersonic man 11 (talk • contribs) 13:10, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

If your beloved Chinese dictators conquer the World then they can close Wikipedia or use it in their propaganda. Until then, the editors decide what to do. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:29, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Whoa, don't go any further with this, I first mention news availability, not pro-parties, why do you have to meddle with politics against each-other in Wikipedia? Do you want to go any further? Until then, your snubs are deleted and you are round-up-ed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hypersonic man 11 (talk • contribs) 13:47, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

AdmiralEek pointed out that in 2020 there was a month-long debate on Global Times as a reliable source and the decision at that time was "Result: Global Times is deprecated and is now considered an unreliable source; WP:SNOW close. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:39, 4 September 2020 (UTC)" A new RfC discussion could be started, but for now, that decision stands. David notMD (talk) 15:51, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

@David notMD, Neither does I want to be whirled into the politics, however, just saying, that none of the bilateral media group is a deprecated or unreliable source, they, particularly is forced by state and their conspiracy held theory to go against each and other, BBC is forced to spy-report Xinjiang camps and create counterfeit and fake news, to convince others to go against China's ethnic issues, does we have to meddle with propagandas here, I could held BBC up for commenting on Eastern issues from a nationalistic perspective. The newspaper has also spread unfounded conspiracy theories and disinformation related to the Xinjiang reeducation camp and is considered a deprecated source. I could do this, if @DavidnotMD wants G.T. to continue get restricted in citation, from a western perspective and reckless conspiracies, you should, however, consider to do this to BBC, from an eastern perspective and conspiracy theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hypersonic man 11 (talk • contribs) 03:28, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't expect this to be month long, however, I will fight until eastern gets the justice, ZH:Wikipedia also cites Chinese state-media news, and I strongly believed that they are much more ahead than us in Chinese article, for the time being, I am also ZH:Wikipedia member, and I do want to take the move if rights doesn't exist here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hypersonic man 11 (talk • contribs)

@David notMD, so, how was it now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hypersonic man 11 (talk • contribs) 03:58, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

@Hypersonic man 11 Multiple users (from what i'm guessing, i'm not going to make myself read this whole thing) have told you GT is not going to be a source used on this wikipedia, there has also been many discussions people have posted, keep arguing like this is going to go nowhere. I'd also like to note that GT is owned by People's daily, which is a newspaper company in China, can you guess who runs it? : ) Max20characters (talk) 17:45, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

@Max20characters, What's wrong with state-owned, do you got any clue Al-Jazeera and other news media don't get such brutal treatment. I will go forward with it, you can argue with me but not without a reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hypersonic man 11 (talk • contribs) 05:05, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Regarding Reliable Sources for esports articles

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

---

Hello, i am very confused about what kind of references could be considered as reliable sources for esport related articles according to wikipedia GNG? For eg:- the article i created earlier Stalwart Esports has major coverage because of their India x pakistan thing, but here in india we have much more major organisation but they don’t have enough links, they have references in indian media houses only, For example:- Orange Rock Esports is a very famous esport organisation and they’ve won many tournaments and i want to do article on them but they have references in websites like (SportsKeeda Esports) (Dot Esports) (Talk Esports), I wanted to confirm will these articles be accepted as reliable sources for wikipedia? I can confirm that they are very major esport media houses in india, but wanted to confirm from some experienced editor/ admin as per wikipedia GNG. Also if you reply to me, kindly tag me. Thanks Hums4r (Let's Talk) 23:51, 20 February 2021 (UTC) 

Hello Hums4r, and welcome to the Teahouse. I was going to recommed that you tried asking this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Esports, but I see you found that already. In general, no WP:SPS, no WP:USERG. It's ok to use non-English sources, but they still have to be WP:RS. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:25, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Suggestions request:

Greetings! to all editors of the teahouse I need some suggestions from all of you to develop it. This is my 1st article work User: Auramstate/sandbox. Please give me some time of yours to check this draft and guide me to correct if there are any errors. I have 2 doubts before submission for review. 1. Is this work eligible for hosting a Wikipedia space? 2. What category should be tag in this work? Auramstate (talk) 08:12, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

@Auramstate: I don't read Hindi, but it appears that many of the English language references are using the same Indo-Asian News Service article. Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria states that there need to be multiple sources independent of each other. Although the draft states "Raju has also worked with several companies as a content writer", the two references after this statement do not include any work for other companies. GoingBatty (talk) 21:36, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

@GoingBatty: I am feeling happy that you have given me your precious time to test my work and your suggestion is very helpful for me. I will follow your suggestions. Thanks with best regards. :) Auramstate (talk) 06:41, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Help in draft

Hello

I need help to know the reason behind rejecting this draft: Draft:Abdou Diop And if someone can help me to improve it, I will appreciate it. I think all sources available in the web are good but just in french.

Thanks Art&football (talk) 21:00, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

The Interventions section should be deleted. Nothing it the rest establishes that Diop is other than a businessman with a career. David notMD (talk) 21:49, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, a businessman but notable to have a Wikipedia page. isn't he?--Art&football (talk) 21:53, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

@Art&football: Which of the references do you believe are independent sources providing significant coverage of Diop? GoingBatty (talk) 21:59, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

@GoingBatty: Here are 3 independant sources:

https://leseco.ma/business/abdou-souleye-diop-a-la-tete-de-mazars-maroc.html https://telquel.ma/2017/02/06/abdou-diop-prend-les-commandes-mazars-maroc_1534466?fbrefresh=4 https://www.leconomiste.com/article/1067654-cgem-abdou-diop-president-de-la-commission-afrique LesEco, TelQuel & L'économiste. 3 big and independant medias in Morocco. There is also JeuneAfrique (if you know medias in Africa, you may know it): https://www.jeuneafrique.com/193532/archives-thematique/abdou-diop-le-grand-fr-re-s-n-galais/

What do you think?--Art&football (talk) 22:10, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

@Art&football: I think the first two are reprinting the same press release. The third is behind a paywall - is it also a press release? GoingBatty (talk) 22:30, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

@GoingBatty: No the first 2 are about nominating him as the head of Mazars Morocco. The 3rd one is about his nomination to be president of the Africa Commission of The General Confederation of Moroccan Companies.

The 4rth one is a biography article about him. We can add this too: https://www.buzzsenegal.com/news/News/ce-senegalais-conseille-le-roi-du-maroc_n_18664.html --Art&football (talk) 22:43, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

@Art&football: The buzzsenegal.com article is four sentences - not significant coverage to help establish notability. GoingBatty (talk) 22:52, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello

I have found some additional sources that can help establish notability:

FinancialAfrik: https://www.financialafrik.com/2017/02/06/le-senegalais-abdou-souleye-diop-aux-commandes-de-mazars-maroc/ https://www.financialafrik.com/2020/09/25/abdou-diop-monsieur-afrique-de-la-cgem/

Short biographies here: http://fieldattitude.com/wp/biographie-des-intervenants/ https://www.forumae.com/amo-team/abdou-diop/

Long article in MAP: http://www.mapexpress.ma/actualite/economie-et-finance/entreprises-marocaines-en-afrique-interview-president-commission-afrique-cgem-abdou-diop/ Long article in Afrimag: https://afrimag.net/patronat-marocain-senegalais-abdou-diop-tete-commission/

Long article in L'homme actuel; https://lhommeactuelmagazine.com/interview-abdou-souleye-diop/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Art&football (talk • contribs) 11:03, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Creation of a new article versus adding as a section

Hello. With respect to the terms of notability, if I am looking to edit an article and the information for a certain section is much larger than the the rest of the information provided, would it make more sense to request that a separate page be created? With the assumption that it met with all aspects of notability but it has direct relations with the subject of the page. Thank you! RSuee (talk) 03:07, 22 February 2021 (UTC) RSuee (talk) 03:07, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

@RSuee: It's hard to answer in general. You might want to ask on the article's talk page. GoingBatty (talk) 04:06, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Examples I am aware of are Potassium and Potassium in biology, Magnesium and Magnesium in biology, and then for Vitamin C, also Vitamin C deficiency, Vitamin C megadosage and Vitamin C and the common cold. There is sone duplication of content, and there are linkages.

I doubt a request would get anywhere. David notMD (talk) 08:26, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

References

How do I properly cite a source on wikipedia. We used the subjects website and reached out to her promotion team for a lot of information. We also gathered information from social media and online interviews. How do we cite that? Her official website is www.tariajaybre.com Tjmills1 (talk) 07:05, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy: You have created a Declined draft at Draft:TariaJaybre` with no references. David notMD (talk) 08:32, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I am guessing that you know Taria personally, as a lot of the draft content is about her personal life, not her musical career. All that has to be deleted unless it can be referenced, and you need to describe the nature of your connection (relative?) on your User page. References need to be to published stuff about her. Stuff from her website, her promotional team, interviews are considered primary sources, and thus do not contribute to her being notable in the Wikipedia sense of the word.

Given first album not released yet, this is definitely WP:TOOSOON. David notMD (talk) 08:38, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello Tjmills1 and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid citations from the "subjects website", "her promotion team", "social media and online interviews" are completely useless to Wikipedia. You need to find "significant coverage about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject" per the links provided to you on your talk page.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:39, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Tjmills1. It may help to realise that Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely 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. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. . --ColinFine (talk) 13:23, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Doubt on a template

Actually, what is the use of dmy dates template? I clearly don't understand what is the use of it. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 08:34, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Ken Tony Peter. The linked page explains it. I could quote it but I guess you read it. Do you have a more specific question about it? PrimeHunter (talk) 08:54, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

How to be an administrator?

May I know what is the terms to be an administrator? Laney145 (talk) 08:40, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

 Laney145 (talk) 08:41, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Laney145, thank you for your interest in Wikipedia. One can become an admin by applying successfully at the requests for adminship. However, one needs to garner a very large amount of experience and show excellent knowledge of policy and generally good behaviour on Wikipedia, and as a result it is very difficult to make a successful request. Typically, applicants are expected to have been members for several years and have tens of thousands of edits, and demonstrate that they have full knowledge of policies and lack a track record of incivility or controversies. Since you are a new editor, I would rather advise you to make yourself familiar with Wikipedia's policy and guidelines, and start making minor improvements to articles to garner experience. Hope this helps! JavaHurricane 09:04, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Laney145: Administrator candidates go through a rigorous process known as an WP:RFA to become administrators; there's one right now that you can check out and see what it's like. It is very, very hard to become an administrator. You must have significant (read: years) of contributions and a solid track record of good decision making, plus a good reason to need to tools that come with the administrator role. Keep in mind that you really don't need to be an administrator to do most things on Wikipedia, and I've heard from them that being an administrator is a very tough job. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 09:06, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Laney145 I would add that being an administrator just means that you have some buttons or tools that would be irresponsible for everyone to possess(such as deleting articles). Administrators have no more authority than any other editor. You can do probably 95% of things here without having the administrator tools. 331dot (talk) 09:11, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

As 331dot says, it's just a few extra tools. It's kind of like how in a large building, only a very few people would have access to the janitor's closet, which is why you'll often see an image of a mop to indicate who is an administrator. So Laney145, I'm curious, what specifically is it that you were hoping to do? Odds are there is a way to get involved in whatever area you're interested in without admin tools. --Paul ❬talk❭ 09:45, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Vandalism report

The page Sushant Singh Rajput of Wikipedia has been vandalised. (incorrect death cause).
Cokeah (talk) 08:50, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Cokeah, the cause of death (suicide) is consistent with the information given by reliable secondary sources. I am well aware of the controversy, and while several conspiracy theories exist, the official version flatly states that he committed suicide. Unless new reports in reliable secondary sources change the cause of death to something else, we can't (and won't) change it, as Wikipedia reports what reliable, secondary sources states. See also WP:TRUTH. JavaHurricane 08:58, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

See also Talk:Sushant Singh Rajput#FAQ — READ THIS FIRST if you are requesting changes. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:04, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Note that the talk page is presently semi-protected specifically to curb the conspiracy-mongering. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 19:04, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

What is the most decent and respectful way to get indefinitely blocked?

--Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 09:43, 22 February 2021 (UTC) Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 09:43, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Jeromi Mikhael An interesting question. Are you looking to get indefinitely blocked? 331dot (talk) 09:45, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

@331dot: Yes. I won't return here. --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 09:46, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry to read that, Jeromi Mikhael. WP:SELFBLOCK might be one option, if you're sure you want to be blocked. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:50, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Jeromi Mikhael (ec) You don't need to be blocked to stop coming here. Most people who wish to not return simply stop using their account. You may also request a courtesy vanishing. If you truly feel that a block is necessary to keep you away, you may contact one of the administrators listed at Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to consider placing self-requested blocks. 331dot (talk) 09:51, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

GFJAOFJOSWJF JWAOJDCWSM ALDJKSOFJ=FP-SWKD. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 09:55, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Image change

Hi, please could you let me know when an image change is needed in a wikipedia template. MasterD.D. Patel (talk) 10:34, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello, MasterD.D. Patel, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid your question makes no sense to me: most templates do not contain images, and for those that do, there's no particular reason why they need to get changed. Please clarify your question - it may also help understanding if you specify which template you are referring to. --ColinFine (talk) 13:26, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi, MasterD.D. Patel. I believe you're talking about an infobox, as you recently updated the picture for John Williams' infobox – from a picture taken in 2007 to one taken in 2009 – which was then reverted. If you're wondering what conditions the image should be changed under, it would usually go as follows: an editor decides to change the image. If it gets reverted, as yours did, then it can be discussed at the article's talk page to get a consensus on whether or not to change the image. This is known as the Bold, revert, discuss cycle. I hope this helped and that I've understood your question correctly. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 13:39, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Index

I am going to create a Wikipedia page but don't know how to create the content area https://prnt.sc/103mo5s Where all content index is shown in a box. Please help me ButlerJan (talk) 10:36, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

ButlerJan, I assume this is about User:ButlerJan/sandbox. Once it has at least four properly-formatted section headers, a contents box will appear automatically. Currently there are only two. Maproom (talk) 11:44, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I created section titles, but this is still an utter mess. The attempt to create an infobox failed. Hyperlinks are not allowed. References need to be embedded in the body of the article, and not just as 'naked' htmls. There is so much else wrong that I give up. Maybe others will be moved to give direction. David notMD (talk) 14:50, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

​ Hi ButlerJan. I have deleted the page under CSD G11, as unambiguous advertising. Please note that the page contained copyright violations – content copied from Truya's websites both word-for-word as well as too closely paraphrased to the original. We cannot host copyrighted material, and even if it was rendered usable, it would be unsuitable for use here, as blatantly promotional content.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:00, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Dead Links

What are the best practices for including an official website in an infobox or under the external links section when the subject's official website is no longer active and the only available links are archived? Also, what if there is an article for a specific project done by a person with a website that no longer contains information related to the project? For instance, someone who released a podcast for a number of years and included information on their website at the time, but now the podcast is no longer active and isn't included on the website. TipsyElephant (talk) 13:55, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

@TipsyElephant: If the websites are archived, you can use {{webarchive}} with the most recent archived version. GoingBatty (talk) 16:29, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

What now?

I have just recently become extended confirmed. I am also currently being trained for the CVU. Now that i am extended confirmed, What else is their to do? Starman2377 (talk) 13:58, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Starman2377, It gives you the right to edit articles that are extended-confirmed protected to counter vandalism. See WP:XC for more details. Panini^🥪 14:40, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Appears you have made the leap into article editing. Great. So many articles need help. A minor comment - I suggest not bothering to Welcome IP accounts (numbered) to Wikipedia, as so many are just a person deciding to make one edit (sometimes vandalism!) and then never return. David notMD (talk) 14:55, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Will I be notified about autoconfirmation?

I recently made my tenth edit here, and got a notification about it. Since I don't use Tor or anything else to hide my IP address, and I created by account about 2 years ago, I should be autoconfirmed now. When do autoconfirmed privileges take effect, and will I get a notice somewhere about this? KirbyDude25 (talk) 15:00, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi KirbyDude25. You won't get a notification that you're WP:AUTOCONFIRMED, but you can check for yourself by going to Special:UserRights and searching your user name. -- Marchjuly (talk) 15:10, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Marchjuly. I checked, and it says "implicit member of autoconfirmed." I assume that it means that I meet all of the requirements for autoconfirmed. Thanks for your help! KirbyDude25 (talk) 15:33, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

@KirbyDude25: Yes. You should also be able to see it at Special:Preferences. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:58, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Recently improved a draft article that is within a redirect page. How to get it in article namespace?

Okay, I'm sorry if the title sounded weird, I'm not too familiar with terminologies here. But I recently added several information and improvements to Draft:Twice3 which is within a redirect page of "Twice3" (category:Redirects with possibilities). How do I get other editors to consider it for inclusion into article namespace? JTan1017 (talk) 15:47, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

@JTan1017: There are two possible solutions:

1. You submit the draft to WP:AFC by placing {{subst:submit}} (as it appears when viewing this page here) to it. This variant is much slower (due to review backlog), but it is more likely that reasons why someone might send this to WP:AFD are found before it gets promoted to article. In this case, the reviewer will take care of the move for you
2. Or you request a move for technical reasons. This proccess is faster, but will still take some time. Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:38, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

@Victor Schmidt: Thank you! I did both options.

Is it okay to copy and paste text from a different language Wikipedia and put in the same page on the English Wikipedia? (of course the text is translated and fixed)

Would it be okay to copy text from a different language Wikipedia and translate it like i did here? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Janusz_P%C4%99cherz&diff=prev&oldid=1008295843 Thank you Starman2377 (talk) 16:15, 22 February 2021 (UTC) Starman2377 (talk) 16:15, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

@Starman2377: Hello, and Welcome to the Teahouse. In general, yes, provided that you attribute its source. You should also take care that you copy the source code over, so that references are retained. Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:27, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Please add required attribution yourself, like described in Help:Translation, or give an URL to the source so we can do it. Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:30, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Starman2377. In addition to what the others posted above, you should understand that each Wikipedia project is separate from the others and that each Wikipedia project has its own policies and guidelines. Since English Wikipedia is the project with the most articles and the most editors, other language Wikipedia projects often follow in its footsteps and establish policies and guidelines that are quite similar; however, some project's don't enforce these policies and guidelines as rigorously as English Wikipedia. So, just because an article exists on another Wikipedia, that doesn't automatically mean it's OK to exist on English Wikipedia (and vice versa) as explained in WP:OTHERLANGS and in paragraph 4 of WP:OTHERSTUFF. You may still be asked to establish how the subject meets Wikipedia:Notability by other editors and any translated article you creat can be nominated or tagged for deletion if another editor doesn't feel it meets English Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Such a thing could happen regardless of how long it's been an article on the other language Wikipedia or whether it's nominated or tagged for deletion on the other language Wikipedia. As for the actual translating itself, you should probably avoid machine translations as explained in WP:MACHINETRANSLATION. While the quality of machine translations have improved greatly over the years, it's still better to avoid such a thing. If you're competent enough in both English and the original source language, then perhaps it's best to simply use the sources cited in the other language and either translate the article yourself or write the article from scratch in English. If you're not confident in your ability to do either, then perhaps you can find someone who can and who would mind helping you do such a thing at Wikipedia:Translators available. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:29, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Userboxes

Hello,i was wondering why when i was trying to add some userboxes to my page, some of them worked while others did not? Can anyone explain why some of them would not work? Thank you in advance. Ilovecats0519 Ilovecats0519 (User) (talk) 16:42, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Ilovecats0519 Fixed. I removed the nowiki David notMD (talk) 16:58, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

ok thank you David notMd Ilovecats0519 Ilovecats0519 (User) (Talk) 17:02, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

What do I do if most of the information I need for the Wikipedia page I'm editing is a primary source?

Hello! I am an intern at the Air Conditioning Contractors of America. This month, I've been given the task to update our Wikipedia page as it does not hold much information about the association, and would like to expand for anyone who would like to look us up. After failed attempts, I now understand that the sources I've used are from our website which prevents me from creating the page. Although, if the information can only be found at our website, how should I move forward? For example, we want to list out current members (companies) would it not be okay to use our website? I am confused on what is allowed or not, or what is considered promotional or not, and would really love some insight on this as I am a little lost! (I am also aware that since I am a paid intern, I may be considered a conflict of interest but I've followed instructions and have included that information on my profile)

Thank you! Wingelcaburian (talk) 17:30, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Wingelcaburian, and welcome to the Teahouse. If most of the information you need is in a primary source, (and, Air Conditioning Contractors of America has no independent sources already) then the subject is almost certainly not notable, and you should not waste any more time on trying to work on an article which is going to get deleted. You are doing the equivalent of building an extension on a house which was built in the first place without having checked whether the ground it was on was solid or not. Remember that Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely 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. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. --ColinFine (talk) 17:37, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I would add that the appropriate place for the ACCA to speak about itself is its own website, not Wikipedia. Any article about the ACCA is not "their page", but a Wikipedia article about them. Feel free to show your superiors these messages. 331dot (talk) 17:47, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Under unintended consequences, ACCA is now nominated for deletion. See Air Conditioning Contractors of America. Only potential to save it is find and use as references valid secondary sources. However, as you are in paid situation, the place for creating references is on the talk page of the article. If refs found, you can also leave a comment at the AfD that you have found valid refs and proposed that those be added to the article. David notMD (talk) 22:08, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Inquiry on proper 'title' parameter usage for the citation of websites

Hello! While browsing random articles on wikipedia, I found Summer storage tank, of which the first citation was titled 'Insert Title Here'. Clicking on the website, this is indeed the title of the page due to the <title> tag in the <head> element.

However, there is an element named 'IRRIGATION PROFILE OF CHITTOOR DISTRICT'. Would it be appropriate to replace the title to that, or should it stay as 'Insert Title Here'? I checked Help:Citation_Style_1#Titles_and_chapters and Template:Cite_web#Title, but these did not answer my question, unless I missed something. PascalCase (talk) 17:57, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi PascalCase, welcome to the Teahouse. We have some citation tools which automatically fetch the title from a page. That was probably used here. I don't think an editor would have written that title. Poor html titles like this should be changed. The url isn't responding for me but if it displays 'IRRIGATION PROFILE OF CHITTOOR DISTRICT' then 'Irrigation Profile of Chittoor District' would be suitable. We don't use all caps. PrimeHunter (talk)

Thank you for your assistance and clarification! I have done so using sentence case as other cited sources on the same page do so as well, and Help:Citation_Style_1#Titles_and_chapters says its best to stay consistant. PascalCase (talk) 18:17, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

@PascalCase: I trimmed the references a little. Someone could also add the |trans-title= to reference #3. GoingBatty (talk) 19:08, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

List of youngest birth fathers

List of youngest birth fathers have wrong wikilinks. Please check and remove. Thanks in advance! --2001:B07:6442:8903:F938:6B9A:863C:E8FA (talk) 18:07, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Please be more specific. I didn't find any obvious errors. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:11, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

What do you mean by wrong wikilinks? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:15, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't believe the Teahouse is a place to ask for people to do things for you. βӪᑸᙥӴ • Talk • Contribs 19:00, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

If you can, be bold and fix the wikilinks. If you don't know how, you can post a request on the article's talk page - Talk:List of youngest birth fathers - so a knowledgeable editor can assist you. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 19:23, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

A general question

added a section title David notMD (talk) 22:51, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

How are you editing today? PhampH102 (talk) 19:09, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Is a Wikipedia Lock a thing?

I paid for a Wikipedia submission to a 3rd party business, and the company are now saying that I need to pay £1000 for them to get a "Wikipedia lock" as they are claiming competitors are rejecting the page.

They said the money goes to Wikipedia. They have said if I seek a refund for the original cost they will lock the page so no one else can add to the page. Can they do this? MatthewLawson.ribble (talk) 19:13, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

This is a scam. What they mean by "lock" might be something like edit locks, but these do not "prevent" a page from being rejected. Established editors will still review and nominate the article for deletion. Do not pay the money. WhoAteMyButter (📨│📝)

Seconding what WhoAteMyButter says, this is entirely false/fraudulent. Even apart from those threats, paid editing like this is generally frowned upon and I would discourage you from trying to use any of these types of services in the future. If you want help creating an article, please start at Help:Your first article or the WP:Article wizard. Alyo (chat·edits) 19:27, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: user is being helped on Wikipedia:IRC/wikipedia-en-help, and has said they will be contacting the address listed at WP:SCAM. Perryprog (talk) 19:38, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Animated programs broadcast by MeTV

Does anyone think that the links in List of programs broadcast by MeTV#Animated is reliable? If so, I will leave it alone, But not, I will edit them for you guys. LooneyTraceYT (talk) 19:26, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

LooneyTraceYT Welcome to the Teahouse. The best place to discuss this and air your reservations is on the article talk page where interested and knowledgeable editors will see it.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 19:36, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

But what if two notability guidelines fight?

Greetings,

so I have a specific question about notability (well who doesn't, 80% of questions here are about notability ^^). I've recently started to meddle a bit in merge discussions, and have now dipped into deletion discussions. But I'm curious about how exactly the arguments should be made there. Because in these two examples Jitender Mehra & R. W. Chandrasiri the nominator referred to WP:GNG which makes sense to me. But both are cricketers, so they seem to fall under WP:CRIN as well. Can a deletion occur because they fail GNG, but pass CRIN? This ofc applies to any situation where there's a specific guideline that supplements the GNG. Which one takes precedent (I assume the supplement)? Or do we just use common sense (our own judgement) in the end?

But maybe I am misunderstanding the discussion there and they fail both GNG and CRIN, in which case the decision is obvious. -- LordPeterII (talk) 19:33, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

@LordPeterII: See point (1) at Wikipedia:Notability. Either the GNG or the subject-specific guideline can be used. If the person passes CRIN, then that person is presumed notable. RudolfRed (talk) 19:48, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi LordPeterII there is a tension I see between the SSNGs and the GNG, that is not well clarified in guideline or policy that your post calls to. (I personally believe we should get rid of all the SSNGs—entirely—partly grounded on issues implicated by your question, but that's a much longer post.)

Anyway, they provide (are supposed to but not all properly clarify) presumptions of notability—'X is presumed to be a notable topic → because Y status → usually means the necessary sources from which notability actually depends (on which an article with verifiable content could be written, beyond a stub) → are likely to exist for topics with that status.'

All presumptions are by definition rebuttable. Accordingly, if one does a hard dive into a topic's sourcing, such that it can be said with some degree of certitude that suitable sourcing actually doesn't exist (despite falling within some SSNG criterion), deletion is still warranted.

That's my take on the manner the SSNGs must ultimately interface with the GNG as a logical necessity, in the larger context of what we mean by notability and its pragmatic gatekeeper function of keeping out indiscriminate topics that can never be built into proper articles that meet our core content inclusion policies. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:52, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

AfD Fiber Patch Placement

Dear Wikipedia Master Minds, please help me to understand, why my attempts to optimize the "FPP" article are completely ignored. I really tried my best to align it with your regulatories. Thank you in advance for your answers and help. Antiquatuss (talk) 21:53, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Antiquatuss, I have an addin that identifies predatory journals. The second and fifth references in Draft:Fiber_Patch_Placement are identified as potentially a predatory Journal. S Philbrick(Talk) 22:08, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Sphilbrick, thank you for your comment. The sources are master theses or studies. I tried to find the variants accessible online. The text as such is honestly scientific. Concerning the magazine I cannot say more as: it is also mentioned in all offline citations. Antiquatuss (talk) 21:42, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Midnite Special Appearance RE: Dianne Steinberg

I appeared on the Midnite Special in 1977/'78 to promote my album Universal Child for ABC Records. I had just begun filming in the role of "LUCY (in the Sky) in the RSO/Universal Movie "SGT PEPPERS LONELY HEARTS CLUB BAND" w Peter Frampton and the BeeGees.

The day my band and I arrived to film, the Dazz Band was recording their segment. It may help to note the band members: Steve Lukather/Guitar/pre-Toto, Kenny Lee Lewis/bass/pre-Steve Miller Band, William 'Smitty' Smith on 2nd Keys, Mike Baird/drums, David Pomeranz/Songwriter/BG vocals, & and Trish Smith/BG vocals. Two Questions: How can I attain a copy of my performance? And how can I be added to the lists of Artists posted here?

Dianne Steinberg (AKA Diane Steinberg Lewis 71.84.25.43 (talk) 22:10, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Dianne! I don't know how you would obtain a copy of the performance. If you would like to be added to List of guests appearing on The Midnight Special, I suggest you post on the article's talk page - Talk:List of guests appearing on The Midnight Special - using the {{request edit}} template, and provide a published reliable source if possible. GoingBatty (talk) 22:43, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Can Morgan Edge be added in the category of fictional american jews in comics

 Jack1578 (talk) 22:22, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

@Jack1578: You asked the same question a few days ago - see Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_1096#Can_Morgan_Edge_be_added_in_the_category_of_fictional_american_jews. for the answers you received then. GoingBatty (talk) 22:38, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Significant proposed changes to the Susan Wagle page

edit source] In 2018, Wagle cosponsored legislation with Kansas Senate Minority Leader Anthony Hensley that worked to bring more transparency to state contracts. Senate Bill 394 required lobbyist registration for anyone attempting to influence officials in state agencies or the executive branch over a state contract. Prior to the enactment of this legislation, lobbying efforts were only required to be disclosed if such efforts were directed toward the legislative branch. Wagle stated the need for this legislation arose due to a lack of transparency within the administration of Republican former Governor Sam Brownback.

Government Accountability[edit I love Kansas (talk) 23:00, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi I love Kansas. I'm sorry but your post is impenetrable to me. You've composed a headline that talks about making significant proposed changes to a particular article, and then copied and pasted some content already in the body of that article, with nothing I can see explaining the connection between the headline and the text, or what you propose as changes. Nor can I find anywhere that you've proposed any specific changes to that article, such as on its talk page, Talk:Susan Wagle, which is the correct location in almost all cases for making suggestions regarding a specific article or to discuss a change you tried that was reverted. Can you clarify what you are seeking?

By the way, unless you created the text you copied and pasted above, your post above is a copyright violation (but of an eminently fixable kind). When you take content from an article here and post it somewhere else on Wikipedia, such as to a forum like this one, or re-use it in another article, you must provide suitable credit to the Wikipedia authors of that content who own the copyright of their edits, which we all agree can be done (among other ways) by linking the article in the edit summary where the page history is available, together with stating what you've done. I have fixed the copyright attribution in this edit, per WP:RIA. Please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia, and make sure to follow copyright in the future by giving suitable credit to your fellow editors. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:34, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

@I love Kansas: P.S. the preferred method for linking other Wikipedia pages is to enclose the name in brackets, instead of posting the URL. Thus [[Susan Wagle]] produces Susan Wagle. See more at Help:Link and Help:Cheatsheet.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:38, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @I love Kansas: welcome to the Teahouse. I definitely feel any suggestion for changes should be posted, not here, but at Talk:Susan Wagle where interested editors may wish to comment, or request you provide citations if they feel something ought to be added to the article. Just rmeember that other peole can't hear you thinking - so do make sure to be totally clear as to what changes you would like to see made, and why. Hope this helps, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:41, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia text message

I have received a text message from number 18339870836 that states : "We think you are now eligible to have your personal Wikipedia profile, contact asap" followed by a link. I did not click the link or reply as am assuming this is a scam but wanted any insight/clarification please. 101.178.218.78 (talk) 23:37, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Hey person editing from 101.178.218.78. It probably is a scam – see Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Scam warning – but it might not be. There are a bunch of mostly incompetent, often predatory acting, but nevertheless actual services that do write Wikipedia articles for money. The result is often a pile of stinking garbage, done in violation of our policies, for far too much money, that most of us could do far better than in about an hour, and that get deleted, but that's not "technically" a scam, right?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:45, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Furthermore, "you are now eligible to have your personal Wikipedia profile" is a straight, blatant, falsehood, because nobody in the entire universe "has a personal Wikipedia profile", because profiles are not what Wikipedia contains: not one. Therefore, they are either blisteringly ignorant of Wikipedia, or deliberately lying. --ColinFine (talk) 23:57, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

To clarify, English Wikipedia has articles, not profiles. It is possible that in your career field you are notable enough to be the subject of an article - which neither you nor anyone else would have control of. Wikipedia strongly recommends that people not attempt autobiography (see WP:AUTO. Paid article creators/editors are required to state on their User page that they are article creating for a client. David notMD (talk) 02:51, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Issue with someone constantly editing an article with bad sources

Hello. I manage many of the pages for the recently-deceased rapper and producer MF Doom, including the page for his first album Operation: Doomsday. Recently, a user by the name of Ascribe4 has been editing the article, adding large amounts of text which only cite a few sources, including one AllMusic article they cited 15 times (which they are using as the main source of biographical info, clearly going against WP:ALLMUSIC). At first they were blatantly plagiarizing the article with verbatim text, which I quickly undid, but it seems whenever I undo their submissions for not meeting Wikipedia's criteria for WP:PLAGFORM or WP:ALLMUSIC they just put it right back. There are now several grammatical and spelling errors and inconsistencies through the article because of this one person's edits. I'm not sure what I can do to get them to stop, I don't want to have to watch the article 24/7 to undo their edits. I made a post on their talk page which they have not responded to, nor have they responded to any of the other posts on their talk page. Is there anything that can be done to stop this person from adding bad content to the page? Hostagecat (talk) 23:37, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

@Hostagecat: Both of you are engaged in an edit war defined by the three revert rule, which is a blockable offense. Repeated reverts is not constructive towards Wikipedia or its readers. Please cease warring and discuss civilly on the talk page. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 00:33, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Also, Hostagecat, please note that you do not "manage" any articles in Wikipedia. You may have chosen to put work into those articles - thank you! - and continue to pay attention to them, but you have no more right to control them than any other editor. (I am making no comment about the virtues of the specific edits in this case, as I haven't examined them). --ColinFine (talk) 00:49, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

You and Ascribe4 have both been cautioned on your Talk pages to cease the edit war - at risk of being temporarily blocked - and instead start a discussion on the talk page of Operation: Doomsday. David notMD (talk) 02:57, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks guys! Would anyone else care to chew me out for asking for help while I'm here? --Hostagecat (talk) 03:31, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Wait, wait...Yes! You started by stating that you manage many of the pages for MF Doom. That implies a paid situation. Are you in fact paid or otherwise compensated for your work on Operation Doomsday. MF EP, Madvillain, Madvillainy and MF Doom discography? And at least a half-dozen others? If so, that needs to be declared on your User page. AND...rather than edit those articles directly, limited to posting requested changes on the Talk pages of the articles. David notMD (talk) 03:50, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Use of Alternate Language Wikimedia files

Hello!

How do I insert a file from another wikimedia language page? Some images are absent from the English wikimedia category page, but are present in another language. For instance, in English it's easy as the files start with "File:". If I link the image name from Italian or Russian, for example, I place this Файл:Пётр Петрович Глебов.jpeg and no image is inserted (page does not exist). Thanks in advance, I am trying to flesh out a page for a Russian film which is becoming popular in English~~ Knightoften (talk) 01:54, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

@Knightoften: Well, there are two ways. First, you could just upload it to the English Wikimedia Commons. Also, you could save it to your Hard Drive, and click on the image icon when editing the page. Click on upload, and choose the file. This *should* work.
EGL¹²³⁴ 04:26, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

@EGL1234: Thank you for your reply! I decided to just upload it on the English commons, but I'll keep in mind that I can upload something directly as well. Cheers! Knightoften (talk)

I'd like to add a couple of caveats to EGL1234's reply. If the file is freely licensed as required by Commons, then you can upload it to Commons. (There is no "English Wikimedia Commons"). I believe there is a tool to help with this, but I don't recall whether it's in Commons itself or in English Wikipedia - if the latter, it may not be available in other editions.

If the file does not meet Commons' requirements, then it may be possible to upload it to English Wikipedia, but only if it and its use meet all the Non-free Content Criteria. --ColinFine (talk) 12:01, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

@ColinFine: I assumed there were different wikimedia sites per language, since like I said, Файл:Пётр Петрович Глебов.jpeg exists on the Russian page in a category, but on the English page the category is blank (and also the file itself does nothing here in English when I try to link it). I am not well versed in these matters, so I thank you for your response as well. My belief was since it exists in one place, why not another? Knightoften (talk) 16:08, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Knightoften, there is one Wikimedia Commons, and the files stored in it may each have descriptions in many languages. Commons accepts only freely licensed material - either public domain, or material that has been explicitly released by its own on a suitable licence. In addition, each edition of Wikipedia may allow files to be uploaded, but their policies vary: I believe the de-wiki does not accept non-free material at all. English Wikipedia does, but only if it meets all of the WP:NFCC. I don't know ru-wiki's policy, but I suspect that it is less restrictive than en-wiki: if so, a file that is accepted at ru-wiki may or may not be accepted at en-wiki. When you link to a file, it will pick up that file from the local Wikipedia if it exists, and if not, from Commons: it will not pick up the file from any other Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 18:57, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Knightoften. I'm afraid that the screenshot you uploaded to Commons is likely going to need to be deleted per c:Commons:Screenshots, unless you can verify that either (1) you hold the copyright of the film And Quiet Flows the Don (1958 film) or (2) the copyright holder of the film has given you their consent to upload the screenshot to Commons. So, if unable to provide evidence of either of those two things, I think it would be best for you to follow the instructions given in c:Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion#G7 and request that the file be speedily deleted. It's OK if you just made a mistake, but you might want to carefully read through c:Commons:Licensing before trying to upload anymore files to Commons for reference. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:45, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: I am not well versed in these matters, so I thank you for your response as well. I had read them, but my belief was that since it exists in one place, why not another? This is why I reached out in the first place. What I will do is as user:EGL1234 secondarily suggested, and upload it directly without using Wikimedia Commons, and then ask for it to be speedily deleted from the Commons. Knightoften (talk) 16:13, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

@Knightoften: While I appreciate that you uploaded the file in good faith, as ColinFine explained above, each language Wikipedia project has its own rules and policies when it comes to the image use; so, what they do at Russian Wikipedia has no impact on English Wikipedia. Wikipedia's non-free content use policy is quite strict as explained here and it is this policy which needs to be satisfied. Since I think the file's non-free use currently doesn't satisfy that policy, I've tagged it for speedy deletion; if you disagree with this assessment, please follow the instructions given in the deletion template I added to the file's page or in the notification template I added to your user talk page. Finally, while I think EGL1234 answer to your question was somewhat helpful in explaining some technical aspects about uploading a file, their answer didn't touch on the copyright aspects of doing so, which is something that is much more important per WP:IUP#COPYRIGHT. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:16, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Can I cite this YouTube video

Hello,

I would like to cite https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mM7C_Pw7OL8 in The Broomway. Are youtube videos acceptible in articles? Thank you. Nightwolf1223 (talk) 02:00, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

@Nightwolf1223: I would say yes, because it is published by Tom Scott (entertainer). If the videos were from random person or copyright infringement, then no. GoingBatty (talk) 02:12, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

@Nightwolf1223: Depending on context you may need to do in-text attribution though. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 07:53, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Helping confirming move of article on College Committee on Disability Issues (CCDI) to main Wikipedia

Hello, I am just learning. I have created a new page on information that did not otherwise exist. The article is entitled College Committee on Disability Issues (CCDI). The page describes a Province of Ontario committee related to college disability service committee. I am not sure what or if my page will be posted. Do I receive a confirmation for someone that it has? Tutorial session indicated that simply need to move it to Wikipedia and that is that. However, I can't seem to find my entry now in Wikipedia so am quite confused. Any help would be welcome. Also when I was trying to move my article up, it was also including my invite to the teahouse and I had to go back and delete that part of the post as was not part of my article. I could not see what was to be moved - a print preview - so that I could have seen that there was extra information that I did not intend to include. How would I ensure that this does not happen again in future? Thanks so much! Linda Lindachamberlain1 (talk) 04:23, 23 February 2021 (UTC) Lindachamberlain1 (talk) 04:23, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello @Lindachamberlain1: and welcome to the Teahouse. Your draft was actually published, but it had some material in it (talk page notices in the actual published article, etc) that made it inappropriate for what we call "article space". I moved it to draft space where you can work on it: Draft:College_Committee_on_Disability_Issues_(CCDI). You need to find more sources that are independent of the organization and add those to the article. See WP:NCORP and WP:RS. When you are ready, you can submit the draft to be reviewed by clicking the submit button on the article. Possibly (talk) 04:54, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy: Now at Draft:College Committee on Disability Issues. David notMD (talk) 05:05, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

An editor removed all the content that was a copyright violation. Content cannot be copied or closely paraphrased from existing sources. David notMD (talk) 05:44, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Tariq shah bahrami

Dear Sir/mandam, Hope this email meets you in a good condition. I have created a page by the name of (tariq shah bahrami) but i sent the bio to preview for wikipedia. it will be very kind of you if it's confirmed by Wikipedia. thanks Waseem.nasimi (talk) 04:31, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Waseem moved the draft to Tariq Shah Bahrami without a review. Not a wise idea for an editor's first attempt at creating an article. It has now been nominated for Speedy deletion. David notMD (talk) 05:09, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Waseem.nasimi You can contest the SD, and ask that this be moved back to draft. Wordings such as vast experience, sound understanding, fondly oversaw, extensive experience... have no place in an encyclopedia article. David notMD (talk) 05:13, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

@David notMD: You're much more experienced with article creation than I am, but it seems to me like this doesn't quite meet G11, because a lot of the information in the biography are actual facts, while the peacocking could be cut out and the article improved were it moved back into the draftspace again. Per G11: "This applies to pages that are exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to serve as encyclopedia articles, rather than advertisements. If a subject is notable and the content could plausibly be replaced with text written from a neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion." [emphasis mine] TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 05:40, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I am not the editor who nominated it for SD, hence my suggestion to Waseem to contest the SD and ask that it be reverted to a draft. David notMD (talk) 05:42, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Oooh. My mistake. I should've checked the edit history, but since you do so much work in the draftspace, I just assumed it was you. Would I be able to request it be moved back to a draft, or does that have to be Waseem? Only ever used the draft space once or twice, so I'm not as familiar with it as the mainspace. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 05:55, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I contested the deletion so the article can be improved. As Afghanistan’s former Defense Minister, he seems to meet the notability threshold. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 06:29, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Waseem.nasimi The article remains an article. You have a list of references at the end; those must be incorporated into body of the article (same as existing refs 1 & 2). David notMD (talk) 13:30, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Adding Pictures to articles

Hello Please how can i add pictures to articles Rodesma (talk) 06:14, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Rodesma, and welcome to the Teahouse! If you know what file you want to use and are just looking to place an image somewhere in the article, you can use this syntax (not all of these parameters are required). If you want to put it in an infobox – the box at the top right of the article – you can place the file in the image = parameter. If you don't know what image you want to use, you can search for it at Wikimedia Commons, our sister project that hosts copy-left images and other media. If you can't find anything there but you have something you'd like to use that's compatible with the Creative Commons license used there, you can upload your own image as well. Please let me know if you're referring to something I didn't cover here. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 06:28, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

General info wikipedia:Images TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 06:31, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

How to use watchlist?

Hello! Just a question, how are watchlists supposed to be used...? ThatIPEditor (talk) 08:16, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

@ThatIPEditor: On any page that you are interested in, click the star icon next to the "View history" button on the top right, and it will be added to you watchlist. Then, at the "Watchlist" page next to your username, you can see every change done to pages on your watchlist. This is a good way to check if changes done to pages you care about are constructive. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 09:01, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi ThatIPEditor. See also Help:Watchlist#How to read a watchlist (or Recent Changes). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:07, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

List defined references

As a programmer, list defined references seem so much nicer to me than defining them inline. All of the references are in one place and, when editing, it seems easier to focus exclusively on prose. I suppose I would like to know: what are the negatives of this format and would it be improper to change this in an article (moving any inline references content to reflist). Thanks, ritenerek^talk :) 09:44, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi ritenerek. Many users prefer to add new material and the reference in the same place. Both can be done in the same section edit. List-defined references are more likely to not be updated when prose is changed. Wikipedia:Citing sources#To be avoided says:

When an article is already consistent, avoid:

• changing where the references are defined, e.g., moving reference definitions in the reflist to the prose, or moving reference definitions from the prose into the reflist.

PrimeHunter (talk) 10:38, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

PrimeHunter, that makes sense. Thank you, ritenerek^talk :) 10:49, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

@Ritenerek: As programmers, especially of languages/era where it was necessary/common to declare your variables in a separate section, LDRs naturally make sense to us. I suppose they make sense for people with recent or ongoing academic background in writing papers, too, where one might have sources on index cards (or the digital equivalent) and easily translate their source deck into a reference list. However, the majority here seem to prefer the inline approach, and the existing style used in an article should be retained. That could be because it's common to make small changes by editing the section only (helps documentation by auto-inserting the section heading into the edit summary, faster and less edit conflict on large pages, etc.), so one would need to edit the reference section, save it, then edit the text that references it.

In addition, there is a bug (I haven't checked the status recently) related to using nested references and LDRs. See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 183#Bug in list-defined references?. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 19:05, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Editing My Userpage

Hello I just wanted to ask how do i edit my own userpage? Like example, how do I add my Birthdate or Where I was born and etc? Flash Lloyd (talk) 09:49, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Flash Lloyd Hello. I would strongly advise you against posting too much personal identifying information about yourself, as a guard against identity theft. Unlike social media, there is no way to limit who sees such information. However, you edit your user page just as you would any other page. You have already added infoboxes to your user page, so you would add other information in the same manner(though just typing it out instead of putting an infobox). 331dot (talk) 10:06, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

@Flash Lloyd: You can use {{Infobox Wikipedia user}} but you can also just write plain text. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:26, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Speeding the AFC process

AfC submitted waiting for reply Hello all,

I submitted an article for review, and it has been almost a month. Is there anything I can do to speed the process, other than adding tags? Thank you so much B. BettinaGsott (talk) 11:26, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

No, not really. But there's a lot that you can do to increase the chances that the draft will be accepted. Here's how Draft:New Horizon Art Car now starts: The New Horizon Artcar Project is a private art initiative launched in 2018 at the Art Miami fair^[1], USA, which encompasses the New Horizon art car. Different artists portrayed the car via paintings, videos, poems, music, silk scarfs and a car miniature. By remembering the spirit of 1969, the NEW HORIZON Artcar Project shall invite people to think positively about change and challenges, about NEW HORIZONS[2]. To which my reaction is "Huh?" I mean, is this article primarily about the project or the car? And what is the car, and what is the project? After looking in some of the (not consistently impressive) sources that are cited, I infer that the car is a carefully restored/refurbished BMW from 1969 that has been "artistically" painted, for a certain nostalgic effect; and that the project is the PR/marketing enterprise based on this car. I wonder why the draft doesn't say this directly (or why it fails to correct my misunderstanding). I also somehow get the impression that the Wikipedia draft is intended less to inform the reader than to impress the reader. Is my reaction unreasonable? -- Hoary (talk) 11:58, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

The above draft has now been reviewed, and declined, again, for the reasons provided at the top of the draft.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 13:47, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

BettinaGsott, no, unfortunately you cannot speed up the review - currently there are more than 4,100 articles in the queue and it can take up to 4 months for reviewing. CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:58, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Why my user page is deleted? I created once

Why my user page is deleted? I created once Digimarksomnath (talk) 11:26, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

@Digimarksomnath: You actually created it in a subpage of your sandbox ( User:Digimarksomnath/sandbox/Digimarksomnath), but it was deleted as it was basically trying to act as a mini-CV and promote yourself, which is not allowed. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:31, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Please provide me the link, where I can create my user page in Wikipedia format. I will not promote but basically, I will tell you about what I am, for this, I am ready to link from my personal website, social media. Can I? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Digimarksomnath (talk • contribs) 13:05, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Digimarksomnath. Your user page can be found at User:Digimarksomnath. If you click on that link it will take an editing window where you may create a user page; however, I suggest you carefully read through Wikipedia:User pages before doing creating one so that you understand what types of user pages Wikipedia allows. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:18, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:User pages for what belongs on a user page and what does not. Among 'NOT': your personal website, your social media, and anything that has to do with your business endeavors. The purpose of a User page is to describe your intensions as a Wikipedia editor, and perhaps a mention of credentials that justify your belief that you are competent to edit certain types of articles. Mine, for example, states PhD in nutritional biochemistry (I edit articles about nutrition). I do not mention my business. David notMD (talk) 13:39, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Userbox

Hi, Please could someone let me know how to make a userbox. (and the code for one) Thanks.MasterD.D. Patel (talk) 13:41, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi, MasterD.D. Patel. Both the Userbox Maker and The Super-Simple Userbox Maker seem like good options to me. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 14:13, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Contributions in the public domain

I was reading WP:UPGOOD out of curiosity, and I noticed the line: "Contributions can also be given a wider license – for example releasing them into the public domain or multi-licensing them – by putting a notice to this effect on one's user page." Would I be able to add a notice to my userpage that both places all future edits of mine in the public domain but also retroactively releases all of my prior edits into the public domain as well? TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 14:33, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello TheTechnician27 and welcome to the Teahouse. You can show this by putting {{User publicdomain}} on your userpage, which will show Template:User publicdomain. Cheers, Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 15:25, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Done. Thanks! TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 16:05, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

How do i create a navbox?

those things at the bottom of articles, how do i make them? I have before, i just forgot how since i haven't edited in a while.

Sbob99 (talk) 15:05, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Sbob99. Hopefully Template:Navbox can get you started here. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 15:22, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

@Sbob99: The easiest solution is usually to look at the code for an existing article that does something similar to what you want. If you've done it before, you can look at your contributions to find it, then edit the article and template to see/copy the code. For example, from your contribs, Duke Nukem II, with the navbox {{Duke Nukem series}}. (BTW, please don't add anything after the signature tildes – they should be the very last thing in your post, and already will include your username (I removed the dup above). Thanks.) —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 19:28, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Inconsistencies in articles on natural numbers

Hello, I noticed that there are many quite obvious inconsistencies between the articles devoted to some natural numbers- is this purposeful? It would seem that such articles should be rigorously fact-checked, however, there are things such as even the articles "65 (number)" and "66 (number)" do not mention the numbers' parity in the same place, if at all, as the articles "67 (number)" and "68 (number)." It is apparent that this inconsistent theme is quite popular when observing other articles; for example the articles "62 (number)" and "63 (number)" state "<number> is a natural number following <number> and preceding <number>," where other articles state "<number> is the natural number following <number> and preceding <number>" ("a," in the first example, is replaced with "the," in the second example). I'd simply report these issues as directed when attempting to edit, however, there are seemingly many inconsistencies such as the examples given- I'm wondering if this all is somehow purposeful, or if I just missed something. ASploopyPerson (talk) 16:58, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

ASploopyPerson: I'm sure it's not intentional. Indeed, I doubt many editors would give much attention to an article such as 63 (number). If you find the inconsistencies troubling, you could usefully correct them yourself. Maproom (talk) 17:30, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

(e/c) Hi ASploopyPerson. I don't know the answer to your question, but I can tell you that the way Wikipedia articles develop will often lead to such inconsistencies between similarly situated articles – indeed you will often find that related articles are at wildly different stages of development (e.g., with one being a poor stub with ten edits, marked for basic copyediting, and its cousin polished to a high state with 700 edits and classified as a featured article).

Wikipedia has no central authority assessing articles in any regimented way and dispatching people to make things consistent. Rather, every article you see was developed because some volunteer, like you or me, editing by his or her own lights, was interested in the subject and dove in to boldly help out. Notwithstanding this, we do have volunteer collectives, called "Wikiprojects", that do attempt to organize articles in certain subject areas in various ways, possibly to foster some of that consistency work you're here about.

Every article (and project page like this one) has an associated talk page, which will often list a banner template flagging that the article is within the purview of some Wikiproject. If you look at the talk pages of articles on natural numbers, such as Talk:66 (number), Wikipedia:WikiProject Numbers is provided as the associated Wikiproject.

A post to that project's talk page, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numbers, stating your concerns, is likely a good way to bring this up at a dedicated forum where people knowledgeable in the area will see it. On the other hand, you might be the best person to fix this, because you are the person who noticed it and seems knowledgeable in the area. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:45, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Blocked notable pages

What to do of those pages which were sysop blocked permanently long back but they are notable in today's date. Is it possible to create them? Just asking because I created the page imo (app) and coincidently one admin also created the page Imo (software) then I suggested him to redirect both the page to imo.im which was admin blocked. Sonofstar (talk) 17:37, 23 February 2021 (UTC) Sonofstar (talk) 17:37, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

@Sonofstar: See Wikipedia:Protection_policy#Creation_protection. There are options such as asking at WP:RFPP for the page to be unprotected. It is best if you can contact the admin that salted the page. It is also suggested that you create a draft of the proposed new article. RudolfRed (talk) 17:42, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Article Space

Hi, When an article is reviwed an accepted it will go in the article space. Please could you let me know what the article space is. After the review is accepted will it be on public wikipedia?MasterD.D. Patel (talk) 17:44, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

MasterD.D. Patel, welcome to the Teahouse -- It goes into the so called WP:MAINSPACE - "The main namespace, article namespace, or mainspace is the namespace of Wikipedia that contains the encyclopedia proper—that is, where "live" Wikipedia articles reside". CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:56, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

FYI - there is a lag of up to 90 days before it will show up in response to a Google or Bing search. David notMD (talk) 18:17, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

You notice how some pages have words before a colon in page titles (like this one, Wikipedia:Teahouse)? Articles don't have that. Well, they can be part of the subject's name, but those are usually understood from context provided in the body of the article. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:27, 23 February 2021 (UTC) (Addendum added 02:47, 24 February 2021 (UTC))

How do I reply directly to comments by a specific editor?

 Courtesy link: Draft:Tobey C. Moss

 DavidJMoss (talk) 18:50, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

My first attempt at a page [Tobey C. Moss]‎ I made many mistakes and corrected them in a draft that I re-published in February. I heard concern about conflict of interest. That is why I re-published the December 28th page in February to only use wording from established sources like the Getty Research Institute and the Los Angeles Times and the University of California Los Angeles(UCLA) Special Collections. I included many inline citations from those venerable sources. And, as the son of retired 92-year-old Tobey C. Moss, I would have much preferred waiting until The Getty Research Institute posted this page, but they don't do that. I wanted to see her contribution to the art world in print, especially women artists and Latino artists and Southern California artists, available to Wikipedia users, before she dies, not 10 years afterwards. There was a concern about the word, International, as in "international art dealer", I cite her 47 contributions to the collection of the British Museum, as an example. Can you tell me how I can improve that latest version from February. DavidJMoss (talk) 18:55, 23 February 2021 (UTC) DavidJMoss (talk) 18:55, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

@DavidJMoss: Some suggestions:

• Create an infobox about her
• Use more citations, especially when talking about things like birth date
• Break up the article, have more sections such as "Early Life", "Career", etc.

Hopefully this is helpful. DestinationFearFan (talk) 19:54, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Is the article about her or the gallery? If her, then remove a lot of what the gallery does? David notMD (talk) 19:58, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I renamed it Draft:Tobey C. Moss Gallery, as that was the correct subject, and did some work on it. I left some advice on User:DavidJMoss's talk page. Possibly (talk) 21:12, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

@DavidJMoss: Based on the renaming, I took the liberty of updating the template on your user page to reflect the new name. GoingBatty (talk) 22:26, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I really appreciate all your suggestions, and the updates done by GoingBatty that removed Tobey's early life and focused on the gallery's history and importance to the Southern California art world, and I went further and took out the remaining line that had citation needed. I tried very hard to take out any conflict of interest bias and stick to what was written elsewhere. Please let me know if there is anything more I can do. I do not think we need to add an infobox about her, as one editor suggested. Thanks you all. DavidJMoss (talk) 00:23, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@DavidJMoss: My only edit was to move the big yellow template to the top of the page. I believe Possibly was the kind editor who made the updates you mentioned. GoingBatty (talk) 02:48, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Deleted page. Can it be taken back?

Hello

I decided to create a page about a musician from Angola called Dizzy Diddy, but I found that the page was deleted before and the editor who created it was blocked.

Can it be taken back if we take into consideration these sources : Journal of Angola: https://www.jornaldeangola.ao/ao/noticias/detalhes.php?id=361407 https://jornaldeangola.ao/ao/noticias/detalhes.php?id=379778 https://www.jornaldeangola.ao/ao/noticias/detalhes.php?id=406324 Novojornal: https://novojornal.co.ao/cultura/interior/angolanos-nos-eua-para-os-premios-black-entertainment-television-1415.html Makangola: https://makangola24.com/c4-pedro-e-o-destaque-do-angola-music-award-cultura-jornal-de-angola/ others: https://bwevip.com/vencedores-do-concurso-musical-angola-music-awards/

Thanks Art&football (talk) 20:07, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

@Art&football: The article at Dizzy Diddy was deleted because it was created by blocked user. The admin that deleted it (Bbb23) is now retired. I suggest you start from a clean slate. See WP:YFA for info on how to create a new article draft. RudolfRed (talk) 20:14, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Sad to hear about the retirement of Bbb23. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:48, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

@RudolfRed: Hello Thanks for replying. Just done it. Can you check please? Draft:Dizzy Diddy

It has already been reviewed. Check out WP:NMUSIC on how you can show the person is notable. RudolfRed (talk) 21:12, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

New editors

What do I do when I am a new editor? GreenBayPackerFan25 (talk) 21:01, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

GreenBayPackerFan25, welcome to the Teahouse. You could check out the task center for articles that need maintenance. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:33, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Changing the google search engine image

I would like help changing the image on the google preview page of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alison_Rodger When I search "Alison Rodger mq" the image pulled is the first image from google images however that isn't the correct person. I have tried adding a profile image to the wiki page, however, that still hasn't worked. Please can you help? Graceanncooper (talk) 21:45, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Graceanncooper, this an issue with Google. Click the feedback button at the bottom of the card and say the picture is wrong. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:47, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Graceanncooper - I clicked to report the error as well - sometimes it can take Google weeks to fix. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:32, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Arab Wiki help

Hey, I’m a Wiki editor in English, and occasional scroller in Arabian. The Wikipedia pages for the Arab site are absolutely broken on Israel. It calls Hamas a “liberation organization” that has “never hurt anyone but the Zionist Occupiers”. It says the country is an apartheid-which I’m pretty sure it isn’t since I used to live there and was fine, but instead of at least presenting that in its own spot, it’s just what they call it. And they have conspiracy theories about Jews controlling the western world through Israel all over it. The mods there don’t help, and I don’t know what to do to make it slightly more sane. Any ideas? Batsquatch (talk) 22:33, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

@Batsquatch: Each Wikipedia is a separate project. You will need to ask for help at the other Wikipedia for any issues there. I'm not sure, but this [2] may be the Arabic version of the Teahouse. RudolfRed (talk) 22:47, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Okay, thank you so much!

IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes

I often edit Wikipedia movie pages, usually to add sources or detail. In the "reception" section of every article, I always see Wikipedians writing about what score the movie achieved on Rotten Tomatoes, but I never see what score the said movie received on IMDb? Why is it like this? And would I be at fault for adding an IMDb score? Ram P. (talk) 22:43, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

@Ram P.: Please do not add IMDb scores - see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Film#Audience response. GoingBatty (talk) 22:51, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

@VirusesSuck44: Welcome to Wikipedia. Information in articles must come from reliable sources. There is currently consensus that IMDB is not a reliable source due to being user generated content, but that Rotten Tomatoes is reliable for movie score aggregation. So that is why articles use Rotten Tomatoes scores and not IMDB. See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources for more info on those two sources. RudolfRed (talk) 22:54, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi VirusesSuck44. (e/c) Rotten Tomatoes' default score for a film aggregates professional published reviews, which is what we use. It also has an "audience score", i.e., unreliable, user generated content. IMDb by contrast only provides audience ratings of films, and so it's essentially the equivalent of RT's audience score, which we don't use. See also Wikipedia:Review aggregators. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:57, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Who wrote this?

Not enough traffic on the Talk Page, so bringing it here.

While pondering the term: "Character actor" for an article I am writing on a BLP, I happened upon this article the page: Character actor at WP and was really quite shocked at its rather "personal opinion" style of writing. It seemed more like something I would read in The New Yorker rather than an encyclopedia. Statements such as: "Others, like Sir Laurence Olivier, submerge themselves in any role they play", has nothing to do with the term "character actor" but simply the fact that Olivier was a very good actor; and (Character actors tend to play the same type of role throughout their careers) "Abe Vigoda as an aging criminal", even thought he is best remembered for the lovable detective Sgt. Fish on the TV series Barney Miller and roles such as Grandpa Vincent Ubriacco in Look Who's Talking. These statements, along with: "Some character actors are known as "chameleons" ..." which the source provided doesn't even back the claim: "Someone could be deemed a character actor but still seem the same in every role he or she pursues. Chameleon actor has more of a feel, because when they inhibit a character, they become it, blending in like a chameleon. In turn the viewer loses themselves in the actor’s performance." It's as if the editor simply made things up as they went along. Clearly a "chameleon" actor is not a character actor; they are a separate talent and art. The lede definition: "In a literal sense, all actors can be considered character actors since they all play "characters", but in the usual sense it is an actor who plays a distinctive and important supporting role" once again simply states an interpretation on a quote from an interview by actor John Jarratt: “I don’t know. I played the lead in Wolf Creek 2 recently, so what is a ‘character actor?’ If you’re always getting co-leads and cameos, I think they call those people character actors. But every part plays a character." Certainly not an authority on the craft of acting or the historical definition of the term: "character actor."

Merriam Webster defines "Character Actor" as: "An actor who is known for playing many different and unusual characters" which immediately disqualifies nearly half of the article's claim and content: "Character actors tend to play the same type of role throughout their careers, like Harvey Keitel as tough and determined." The lede definition found online: "An actor who specializes in playing eccentric or unusual people rather than leading roles", which contradicts itself throughout the article: "A character actor can also be the leading man in his films, such as Wallace Beery." Absolutely no source to back this very strong claim. And this: "While a leading actor often has physical beauty needed to play the love interest, a character actor typically does not." According to whom? and this: "A character actor's roles are often substantially different from their real-life persona." Isn't that the very definition of an actor ... period?

I find this article to be one of the worst written at WP. It reads like a school paper; filled with subjective - often contradicting - thought, re-interpreted, inconsistent definitions, made-up content and entirely without substantial sources for an article that should be more definitive in its term and encyclopedic in its examples. Maineartists (talk) 22:49, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

@Maineartists: You can be BOLD and improve the article yourself. If not, you can post on the article's talk page, and then post on the WikiProject's talk pages to invite them to help. You can also add {{citation needed}} for sentences unsupported by a reference. GoingBatty (talk) 22:57, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

What happens if a review is inactive?

I am currently reviewing a GA-article but the nominator last edited on February 20, 2021. What happens if the nominator continues to remain inactive? If they remain inactive by the end of February, do I then mark the review as a failing grade? --AlabamaFan101 (talk) 00:26, 24 February 2021 (UTC) AlabamaFan101 (talk) 00:26, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi AlabamaFan101, I'm a little concerned about you doing GA reviews, as (unless you've had prior accounts) you are a very new editor and are unlikely to be familiar with a lot of writing requirements and norms here. Usually GARs are done by editors who have gone through the process themselves and are quite familiar with the process. In regards to the Saquon Barkley review, that appears to be a bit of a drive-by nomination by another (relatively) inexperienced editor who has only made 9 edits to the page. A quick read by me found a number of issues that I would have flagged in a GAR and which you may not be familiar enough with yet to bring up. I would perhaps hold off on further reviews until you're more familiar with Wikipedia's manual of style and sourcing requirements. Alyo (chat·edits) 00:44, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi AlabamaFan101. Since articles aren't really WP:OWNed by any one particular contributor, I don't see why it would matter that the editor who nominated the article for a GA review is no longer around if the article otherwise meets the standards for GA status. You might want to ask about this at WT:GAN since that's where you're going to find other GA reviewers who probably can help clarify what needs to be done in a case like this. Finally, just a personal observation: your account is only about a week old, but perhaps you've been editing for much longer than that. While I don't think that means you cannot carry out a GA-review of an article per WP:GAI#Reviewing, I think that GA reviewers are generally expected to have a proven track record when it comes to article creation, even perhaps a history of creating GA articles themselves. The fact that you're asking a question like this at the Teahouse might be seen as not a good sign for someone reviewing articles GA status. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:01, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

You asked earlier if your doing GA reviews would speed the process of getting reviewers for articles you nominated for GA. The answer is still "No." David notMD (talk) 01:04, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Mea culpa. I may have been the one to suggest the editor do GA reviews, since there is a large backlog. I should have been more careful with that comment. RudolfRed (talk) 01:07, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Actually, bamafan volunteered to take up GA reviewing - which is great - because the backlog is huge. I am just hoping that bamafan understands all the criteria to consider. David notMD (talk) 01:19, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Alyo and David notMD, I have two articles that are waiting for review (and yes, I will be patient waiting). I am familiar with the GA-criteria. I am aware that articles aren't owned by people. I apologize for asking anything like this at the teahouse. Is there anyway I can withdraw from the Saquon Barkley review and let someone else review it instead? Also, RudolfRed you did suggested that I would take up a GA reviewing. I eventually took one but I'm not going to continue with anymore reviews regardless of what happens with the Saquan Barkley review. --AlabamaFan101 (talk) 01:26, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@AlabamaFan101: You don't need to apologize for asking for assistance at the Teahouse. If what I posted above gave you that impression, then my apologies to you. I was just trying to say in a clumsy sort of way is that GA status is a fairly substanital upgrade in article status when it comes to article WP:ASSESSMENTs; so, I'd imagine that such reviews are not really a good way for new or newish editors to try and establish themselves as an editor since they might not be familiar with the process or other things related to Wikipedia. If you feel up to the task, then be WP:BOLD and best of luck to you. You can always ask a more established GA reviewer to look over your reviews if you want or are stuck on something since asking for help is probably the way most editors learn how to do things on Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:59, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: @David notMD: @Alyo: This will be the last thing (or question6 I say on this section. I’m just going to go ahead and either put the Saquan Barkley article review on hold or withdraw from the review and ask another reviewer to review the Saquan Barkley article. In the mean time, I will either find another article to review (if necessary), find new articles to work on, or find articles to both work on and nominate it to GA-status. I am familiar with the GA-criteria. I will return to this page if I have any questions. —AlabamaFan101 (talk) 05:54, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Deleting something

I posted the following at Frederick Crews' Talk page, and no one has replied; I hope that it's ok to try here. I did not mention at the Talk page that the deletion I want to make, which is little better than gibberish, is at Frederick Crews' request.

In the first paragraph under the heading "Literary criticism," I would like to change the comma after "(1904)" to a period and delete the rest of the sentence, which reads, "analyzing the function and tensions within a system of manners, the interaction between an individual's ethics and their reflection within the values of a community.[12][14]."

My problem is that, when I delete it, a problem with another footnote arises. The problem, which I see when I click "Show preview," is in fn.16, concerning Kreisler, even though the footnote containing Kreisler is #3. In fn.16, I get the message: "Cite warning: <ref> tag with name Kreisler 1999 cannot be previewed because it is defined outside the current section or not defined in this article at all."

I don't know what that means. This problem occurred even when, as an experiment, I deleted the text after "(1904)" but retained footnotes 12 and 14. I don't need to understand what is going on; I would just be grateful if someone would make the change I describe in the first paragraph of this comment. Thank you.Maurice Magnus (talk) 20:41, 21 February 2021 (UTC) Maurice Magnus (talk) 00:48, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Talk:Frederick_Crews

@Maurice Magnus: Welcome to Wikipedia. Are you connected in some way to Frederick Crews? If so, it is better that you not edit articles about him. If you want to proceed, then please read Wikipedia:Plain_and_simple_conflict_of_interest_guide, there are disclosures you need to make. RudolfRed (talk) 01:05, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I know Frederick Crews only slightly, through a mutual friend; we've met in person only once, about 25 years ago, and we exchange emails every couple of years. I happened to looked at his Wikipedia entry the other day and emailed him a comment about it. When I told him that I was a Wikipedia editor, he asked me to delete the phrase I quoted above, because, as I said, it is little better than gibberish. I have no conflict of interest; he's not paying me for this trivial favor. I just don't have the editing skills to deal with the "Cite warning" that comes up.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Maurice Magnus (talk • contribs) 10:18, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@Maurice Magnus: I assume you're using "edit section": the "warning" really just means that the reference is defined outside of the section you're editing and reused inside the section, so you can't see a preview. Since all the references are not broken, you could safely delete that sentence with no problem. That being said, the fact that Crews told you to delete that sentence is a conflict of interest. Wikipedia does not care about what the subject wants to say about itself. The only reason to remove a sentence is if it were not in those sources, but the Carlson reference does seem to support it. You could elaborate more on Crews' works, but be prepared to provide secondary sources to back up your claims. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 02:18, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Maurice Magnus. The problem you're having most likely has to do with the fact that the same citation is being used to support multiple statements in the article (see WP:REFNAME for more on this); so, the edit you want to make is either removing a citation from the article where it was defined or the defined citation is located in some other section of the article than the one you're trying to edit. Look at Frederick Crews#cite_note-Fuchs2006-3 for an example of what I'm referring to above. That particular source is cited eight times (indicated by the letters "a" to "h"). Each letter is linked to the location in the article where the source is cited in which the letter "a" represents the first time the source is cited and "h" the last time the source is cited. The fully formated citation is usually (but not always) found (i.e. "defined") where the source is first cited; so, if you remove that citation, then the error "not defined in this article at all" will show for the other times the source is cited. Similarly, if you edit a section that doesn't contain the fully defined citation, then the software won't show the citation because it's "not defined" in the section you're editing.

As for whether you should be the one to make the edit on behalf of Crews, I suggest you follow the advice given in WP:COIADVICE or WP:PSCOI#Steps for engagement. If you feel you can make the edit yourself, then you might want to clarify your reasons for doing in an edit summary and on the article's talk page. If another editor reverts the changes you make, you should then try to resolve things per WP:DR. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:26, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Maurice Magnus, the sentence in question is cited to two, presumably reliable, sources who are other scholars discussing Crews' work: one of them is hyperlinked, and to my limited understanding of critical terminology (much of which seems like gibberish to me) appears to corroborate the passage. Since a basic principle of Wikipedia is to summarise what other sources say about a subject, not what the subject wants said about themselves, Crews' own opinion is not our concern. The only reason for deleting the passage would be if it does not, in fact, accurately summarise (without synthesis) what the sources say. If yet further sources (unconnected with Crews) assert something contradictory, then that too should be added (cited to those further sources) to show that different interpretations exist. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.125.75.168 (talk) 08:27, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Celliant Page edits reverted and is now incorrect and out of date

Hello, I recently made substantial changes to the Celliant Wikipedia page. I did this because what is currently there is badly out of date and incorrect in many instances and the creators of Celliant would like their wiki page to accurately reflect their product. My changes included numerous references and sources and notes about what I had changed. Today I learned that the edits were reverted. How can we get them changed back to the edits I made so Celliant's Wiki page can be accurate? Here is a link to the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celliant

thanks! BayekOsiris (talk) 01:07, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@BayekOsiris: Wikipedia is an enyclopedia, not a venue for promotion. Your edits were highly promotional, and in my opinion rightfully reverted. If you are connected to Celliant, you need to disclose that. See Wikipedia:Plain_and_simple_conflict_of_interest_guide, and WP:PAID. RudolfRed (talk) 01:11, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@rudolphred Ok, I read about disclosing that I'm associated with Celliant. But it's not clear what I need to do differently. I registered as independent user. I also don't agree that they was 'highly promotional' edits. I worked to put only facts that were clearly backed with sources as I put at least 27 links to outside sources. What can I do to make changes to the page? To put it plainly, if this is an encyclopedia, the entry on Celliant is currently incorrect and out of date.— Preceding unsigned comment added by BayekOsiris (talk • contribs) 10:21, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Failed ping: RudolfRed

If you are "associated with Celliant", you need to disclose your relationship: please read WP:COI and make any relevant disclosures. I also agree that your edits were highly promotional because it reads like an advertisement. In fact, you've copied text from Celliant's website, which is a copyright violation. Please familiarize yourself with WP:NPOV before you edit further. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 02:28, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Another point, BayekOsiris. You've been keen to add "^®" or "™". Perhaps you haven't noticed that Wikipedia doesn't bother with either. -- Hoary (talk) 02:52, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@BayekOsiris: Building on Hoary's note, you might be interested in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trademarks#General rules. GoingBatty (talk) 02:55, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@BayekOsiris: (cc: Hoary GoingBatty RudolfRed) Due to Celliant seemingly lacking general notability, I have nominated the article for deletion. You may be interested in the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Celliant. RoxySaunders (talk · contribs) 04:46, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

You can "not agree" all you want but the content you added was so profoundly promotional that it read like it was lifted directly from the company's website, where they hawk their products—and indeed it was. The history has now been revision deleted to remove this copyright violation.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:44, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Help needed with finding a free image

Hi, I've been on WP for a while now and I've always had troubles finding free images. Recently, I worked extensively with article Yu Wensheng, and I hope to one day nominate it for GA status. Can someone please help me find a photo of him? Thanks. Thomas Meng (talk) 03:40, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@Thomas Meng: I added some parameters to the WikiProjects on Talk:Yu Wensheng indicating your desire for a photo. There are some links in the {{WikiProject Biography}} banner that might be helpful. GoingBatty (talk) 04:55, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Potential Subarticles

Hi there. I have been working on 2008 Beijing Wushu Tournament over the last few days. As you can see, it has sections that follow a similar format to an article about a sport at a multi-sport event: some background info, schedule, qualification, medal table, and medal results, but in addition to this, there are sections on detailed results and match brackets for each specific event. As a result, the single page article is quite long as the medal tables are redundant with the detailed results. I was also going to create a list of participating nations and numbers of athletes sent, but that would also be somewhat redundant with the amount of information already listed on that single page. Do you think it is a good idea to create subarticles for each event? Thank you. Yinglong999 (talk) 03:54, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@Yinglong999: I wonder if you are going to have enough independent references for each subarticle. I suggest you ask your question on the article talk page: Talk:2008 Beijing Wushu Tournament. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 05:22, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Why I am Locked and Blocked Globally !?

Yesterday i found my User User:Auramstate has been locked and Blocked globally ! What was my mistake?

1. I don't have create any article
2. Don't have multiple accounts
3. I don't think ,i did any mistakes in 22days.
4. Talk normally with other.

I sent 2 email to Official team but no response.

What should i do ?

I am not worried that my account is blocked. bcoz it's just a wikiaccount not my bank account.😛

I just want to know what was my mistake?

I am not familiar with mobile editing so please don't mind if any mistakes. 45.118.105.26 (talk) 04:19, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@45.118.105.26: I have checked the account. Both your ip nor your account are blocked. You can see here that Auramstate is not blocked. Here you can see that your IP is not blocked either.EGL¹²³⁴ 04:23, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@EGL1234:, While i am trying to login with my wikiaccount credentials result shows . Your account has been globally locked. Yesterday i got email with mention You are blocked from Wikidata for infinite. 45.118.105.26 (talk) 04:34, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@EGL1234: Your link does not work for me, but Special:BlockList does say "The account Auramstate is already locked globally." RudolfRed (talk) 04:38, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I fixed my link. RudolfRed (talk) 04:43, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@RudolfRed:@45.118.105.26: That's relly weird. Maybe you should just create a new account, request a new account, or just appeal. EGL¹²³⁴ 04:40, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@45.118.105.26: The lock doesn't appear to have originated on wikipedia, maybe tell us where the lock did originate from. EGL¹²³⁴ 04:43, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@45.118.105.26: You can appeal your lock on meta here. Thanks. EGL¹²³⁴ 04:45, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@EGL1234:, I can't login with User:Auramstate and credentials and don't have far knowledge how to find out lock's originate. Massege show while i am trying to login (You are globally Locked)😊 And got a email User:Auramstate you are blocked from wikidata for infinite. 45.118.105.26 (talk) 05:03, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@45.118.105.26: Hi. You could still appeal, and prove that you have access to the account, by verifying the email, which you of course have access to. EGL¹²³⁴ 05:08, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@EGL1234:, Yes i can access my email which is verified with my wiki user name. User:Auramstate was a auto confirmed account also. Thank for your suggestions. I will follow your suggestion 😊.Thanks again with regards.45.118.105.26 (talk) 05:27, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@45.118.105.26: No problem :) EGL¹²³⁴ 05:28, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I personally have always been extremely uncomfortable with hidden evidence and blocks that are not transparently explained. Anything that feels like its against due process rubs me the wrong way. But that is the way sockpuppetry cases are handled. Anyway, the block was issued at Wikidata. Here's the block log, from which you can see who blocked you, with the reason being "CheckUser", meaning that evidence indicated you were a sockpuppet of someone.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:29, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@Fuhghettaboutit:

What is "sockpuppet" exactly, means wiki tech team found that i have multiple accounts during CheckUser? If this is the reason then wiki tech team needs development. 😂🤣 I join wikipedia 23days ago. edit and learn how wiki works during my office time bcoz i don't have any officework in my office. Before some day i though why spending time on YouTube lets try wikipedia atleast gain some coding knowledge. That's it. I don't have any other accounts. Now i set my mind to create my own website and spending time there to writing blogs. 😊 Thanks with regards. 45.118.105.26 (talk) 05:49, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I cannot see what checkuser found on Wikidata exactly, and even if I were able to publish it somewhere on Wikipedia. In general, CheckUser is a powerfull tool because it has access to the connection IP/user account, and can also see the used browser. In this case, the checkuser seemed to be ironically a followup of this thread on the Wikidata Burecrat Noticeboard opened by Auramstate. Victor Schmidt (talk) 06:38, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@Victor Schmidt:, Yes I User:Auramstate Open a discussion but as request not against of any user. i saw the particular user marked vote for delete even an entity have Viaf, worldcat number and an inter wikilinks and argument with other user to proof how the entity is notably. That's why i feel this is an undid subject thats no one noticed about the problem so i am set a notice to Wikidata Burecrat. everyone can read the conversation. My words r not intentionally nor pointed to abuse to the particularly user but the Wikidata Burecrat have to find out to the reported user's explanation. the user mention clearly he/she have multiple accounts and his/her words like *How can a new user found me that i am blocked and how can a new user get touch with burecart!!!!. really..😂🤣. Is this an explanation!, and the burecart decide that i am found guilty 😋 and my punishment is globally locked. Some one please tell to the wikimedia foundation please don't not allow several tools to new user they can find other user's activities! I can't stop laughing dude... Anyways i learnt lots within 23days of my wikipedia journey and it's a memorable. Thanks to all and special thanks to the tea house members and hosts. 45.118.105.26 (talk) 07:31, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

What is this?

I reverted an edit which is this because it was vandalsim, but after some time the editor ( user:Hellothisismyaccount10) who made that edit leaved a message on my talkpage stating his edit was right and he also wrote on his talkpage that I have did wrong edit. What does he mean by so? ExclusiveEditor (talk) 06:11, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Looks like the ususal student vandalism. I have checked Google Maps and the official website, both use your version. Victor Schmidt (talk) 06:29, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

What is student Vandalism? and what should I do now? --ExclusiveEditor (talk) 06:52, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@ExclusiveEditor: Basically a student vandalizing their school's Wikipedia article; it happens quite often. If they do it again, feel free to revert, but you don't have to do anything right now. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 07:26, 24 February 2021 (UTC)