::::::::::: Also bear in mind, {{u|Elli}}, that citations are there to [[WP:V|verify]] something in an article — usually some fact. We call it [[WP:OVERKILL]] when multiple citations are given to back up just one piece of information. Think about the people who have to review your article. They will be much more impressed by a single good reference to a [[WP:SECONDARY]] source than they will to several [[WP:PRIMARY]] ones that may all have been based on a single press release. I'm thinking of the references 23 to 27 in the career section! [[User:Michael D. Turnbull|Mike Turnbull]] ([[User talk:Michael D. Turnbull|talk]]) 15:42, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
::::::::::: Also bear in mind, {{u|Elli}}, that citations are there to [[WP:V|verify]] something in an article — usually some fact. We call it [[WP:OVERKILL]] when multiple citations are given to back up just one piece of information. Think about the people who have to review your article. They will be much more impressed by a single good reference to a [[WP:SECONDARY]] source than they will to several [[WP:PRIMARY]] ones that may all have been based on a single press release. I'm thinking of the references 23 to 27 in the career section! [[User:Michael D. Turnbull|Mike Turnbull]] ([[User talk:Michael D. Turnbull|talk]]) 15:42, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
:::::::::::: Sorry, meant to be {{ping|Bradwalls1992}}, not Elli.... [[User:Michael D. Turnbull|Mike Turnbull]] ([[User talk:Michael D. Turnbull|talk]]) 15:44, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
:::::::::::: Sorry, meant to be {{ping|Bradwalls1992}}, not Elli.... [[User:Michael D. Turnbull|Mike Turnbull]] ([[User talk:Michael D. Turnbull|talk]]) 15:44, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
::::::::::: Thanks [[User:Michael D. Turnbull|Mike Turnbull]], I appreciate the feedback. I never received this when submitting the article. The reason I did perhaps move towards [[WP:OVERKILL]], was because I kept getting rejected for the sources not being relevant, hence I added more, which in retrospect wasn't a great idea. Thanks again! [[User:Bradwalls1992|Bradwalls1992]] ([[User talk:Bradwalls1992|talk]]) 01:02, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
::::::::::::: Thanks [[User:Michael D. Turnbull|Mike Turnbull]], I appreciate the feedback. I never received this when submitting the article. The reason I did perhaps move towards [[WP:OVERKILL]], was because I kept getting rejected for the sources not being relevant, hence I added more, which in retrospect wasn't a great idea. Thanks again! [[User:Bradwalls1992|Bradwalls1992]] ([[User talk:Bradwalls1992|talk]]) 01:02, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Why so many articles of biographies of persons are existing without their photos ? 223.178.144.61 (talk) 18:06, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Possibly because they have the right to refuse to have their picture taken, for privacy reasons. AidTheWiki (talk) 22:25, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Because no-one has found and added a suitable photo. The problem is often that there's no available copyright-free photo. Maproom (talk) 18:14, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Very few images will meet these requirements. In particular, with some limited exceptions, images of living persons can't meet the fair use criterion of "no free equivalent", because the possibility always exists, while they are alive, that someone can snap a photo somewhere and release it. Please note also that unlike many websites, where someone can license a non-free copyrighted image for use at that site, we don't allow this. For these reasons, many biography articles do not have any image, and many others have a non-professional quality image because the only one we can use was one taken at some random location by an amateur (rather than, e.g., a professional headshot) who then released the copyright of the image under a suitable license. And even this last is restricted – see Commons:Photographs of identifiable people. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:21, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, for living people, the third criteria mentioned above (fair use) cannot generally be used. Which is why many living people don't have photos. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:36, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But it is wired and feels like incomplete. when a naive reader like do not see photo of the person related to that article.Many folks paste photos on WP from here and there under fair use policy.But still I don't know how to use this fair use policy and pick photo from somewhere and paste it on WP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.178.144.61 (talk) 10:12, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The fair use policy accords with the Wikimedia Foundation's interpretation of US copyright law. Please either (A) make sure that you understand this policy (which is necessarily complex) or (B) don't upload photographs or other images for which you claim "fair use". -- Hoary (talk) 11:58, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hoary No , sir I still not able to understand what is this fair use policy. I will not dare to upload any copyright work here. 106.220.85.12 (talk) 16:16, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Article is semi-protected so I can not edit
I am a student working on a class that requires us to edit an article. I chose the article "Feral cat" and I wanted to add an update from the AVMA with citations as well as 3 references for this week's assignment. I will also need to do further edits on the article as the course progresses but it said that the page is semi-protected. Will I be able to work on this article or should I pick another article to work on? Jmm26 (talk) 15:12, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmm26: Welcome to the Teahouse! If you click on the gray lock icon at the top right of the article, you'll see that a user can edit the article if they are autoconfirmed (accounts that are at least four days old and have made at least ten edits to Wikipedia). You meet both these criteria, and I confirmed your status at Special:UserRights. At the top of the Feral cat article, you should see "Edit" and/or "Edit source" tabs. If you only see "View source", then you cannot edit the article. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 15:22, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If for some reason you wish to edit an article that you cannot edit, you may make a formal edit request on the article talk page, and write the change you wish to make there, for another editor to review. But as GB says, you should be able to edit that article. 331dot (talk) 15:26, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
talk Hi first time I am seeing this that a people editing on Wikipedia as their class work. I don't think your response genuine. But before editing do research and write in you own words in simple UK English , don't use slang , local Eng words of your place. Because WP is read by folks all around the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.178.144.61 (talk • contribs) 15:41, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is not at all unusual for students to get an assignment to work on a Wikipedia article. Secondly, the variety of English depends on the article – articles about UK-specific subjects should be written in British English, articles about US-specific subjects use American English, and so on. Articles that are not about a topic that is connected to a particular region should in general stick to the variety the first author used. More information here. --bonadeacontributionstalk 16:15, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jmm26. Only articles which have been the subject of repeated disruption or vandalism tend to get page protected. Usually, page protection is the last resort when all other attempts to try and resolve the problem have failed. There also tends to be a number of editors closely monitoring such articles to make sure someone doesn't try to any sneak in any disruption by somehow figuring out a way to get around the page protection. So, you might want to discuss you desire to edit this particular article with your Wiki-Ed advisor(s) since you might find it a bit harder to edit than perhaps some other article. Well-meaning students often run into problems when they select articles about contentious subjects or articles which have a history of being page protected. Feral cat is indefinitely protected which means that there was some serious disruption going on at least at one point in time. The article has been protected six times since 2012 and each time the protection was removed, the disruption seems to have started up again. So, this might not be the best choice of an article to work on. I'm not trying to discourage you. If you really want to try to improve this article, then go ahead once your account has been WP:AUTOCONFIRMED; this might, however, be an article where it's better to be a bit more WP:CAUTIOUS than WP:BOLD. Just make sure you leave a clearly worded edit summary for your edits and try not to do a major rewrite/reorganization without first proposing it on the article's talk page. If you do those things, your edits are unlikely going to be mistaken for disruption or vandalism. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:05, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you all, but I still was not able to edit. The same message saying that it is semi-protected appears. Jmm26 (talk) 22:21, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Jmm26, Now that you're up to 19 edits, you shouldn't have any problem editing the article. The message will still appear, but you're part of the permitted group now. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:19, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
PARANOID NUMANOID on CHARLES SWAINSON
Sorry: I forgot to add a headline properly and so my question is attached to the previous question (above)!
Paranoid Numanoid (talk) 15:38, 1 March 2021 (UTC) Paranoid Numanoid (talk) 15:38, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can I have an editor look over my draft article please? I've had feedback and tried to incorporate everything, I know I have expanded it and that it may be too long, I know I need more referencing after the first part, and I think having three paragraph headings in the same form may be repetitious (is there such a word?!) but apart from that am I on the right track and how can I shape it to be acceptable in due course? Grateful for any constructive criticism.
Paranoid Numanoid (talk) 15:28, 1 March 2021 (UTC) Paranoid Numanoid (talk) 15:28, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This must be about User:Paranoid Numanoid/sandbox/Rev. Charles Swainson, M.A.. There's a lot of ureferenced content, including the whole of the three sections that follow the lead. Where did you get all that information? If from reliable sources, you'll need to cite them. Otherwise, you'll need to remove it. Maproom (talk) 16:51, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cut vigorously and reference everything. David notMD (talk) 17:14, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Paranoid Numanoid: Your personal correspondence cannot be used as a reference - all references need to be published so they could be verified by others. Also, please remove the link to example.com. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 23:24, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to do a two-dimensional schematic diagram to represent a streetcar network of 3 north/south lines and one interconnecting east/west line. I would like to use Template:Routemap but I would want the east/west line to be a horizontal line instead of twisting it into a vertical line. Thus, the schematic would resemble the city street grid. However, I suspect I would have problems indicating and labelling east/west stops. Is there any existing examples of doing this?
My second choice would be to acquire some inexpensive, easy-to-use diagram software to produce a diagram similar in style to this svg example or this gif example. Could someone recommend software to do this? Thanks. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 22:01, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the tip about InkScape. It looks complicated but there are lots of online tutorials. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 02:26, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I use Inkscape and find that the learning curve isn't too steep, especially if you can find something it can input as a starting point (such as the .svg map you mentioned). In my case as a chemist, I create drawings in a chemical drawing package (which can't do .svg directly) and use metafile formats like .emf to swap into Inkscape for final tweaks and conversion to .svg. Note that Wikipedia has an .svg Help Desk at WP:SVG help where there are real experts. Good luck, TheTrolleyPole. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:16, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
need article edited
Hi, I have an article in my sandbox which I like to see instead of the one at 'Gympie Pyramid'. I hope someone has the time to have a look, edit or change what he doesn't like and post the remains. I could upload, but in my experience even with the smallest and well founded change someone comes along and interferes, does the change himself.
So I need help if Wiki policy is, that no newbie can change anything. Wikigetsme123 (talk) 07:18, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Wikigetsme123. There is already an article Gympie Pyramid, and the best course of action is to make incremental changes to the existing article instead of trying to write a completely new version of the article. That may be perceived as disrespectful to the previous editors who worked on that article. That could possibly lead to arguments with the prior editors. I suggest that you gradually add impeccably referenced new content, and gradually remove content you believe to be poorly referenced, explaining why in edit summaries. That's the best course of action, in my opinion. Cullen328Let's discuss it 07:46, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Cullen328, and I would add that if any of the other editors have an issue with the changes that you are making, you should pause and discuss on the article talk page. Giraffer(talk·contribs) 07:50, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What's new in User:Wikigetsme123/sandbox is largely unreferenced. As you add material to Gympie Pyramid, Wikigetsme123, make sure that each part of it is clearly linked to a reliable, independent, published source. This is slightly complicated here, because as it stands the article cites what we can politely call "fringe" sources. Articles normally shouldn't do this, but it can be permissible (even commendable) in some circumstances. Certainly the reader shouldn't get the impression from the article as a whole that a "fringe" interpretation is the most convincing one. -- Hoary (talk) 08:13, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks everybody for the input. This a well written article with poor information in it. The photo was wrong and two web links were dead. Nobody cares ... until I change a little thing. So I will add my additions to this existing article and really hope that no one of the experienced editors here reverse it just because of... Lets see. The information comes straight out of online publications, all with references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikigetsme123 (talk • contribs) 07:08, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The bulk of your materials, Wikigetsme123, can expand the Theories section of the existing article (provided they are sourced, of course). Good luck. Darwin Naz (talk) 00:02, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I want to creat article about a village in India
What if the article of of a village already exists and I want to create article with that same name but about village from different district ? 106.220.85.12 (talk) 08:22, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, IP editor. Create it as a draft with a title like "Village, District". I think some Indian states and other areas have local conventions like "Village (District)", but the Manual of Style (here) recommends the style with the comma, for instance Tanur, Malappuram. If and when the draft is accepted, the reviewer might move it to a differently-styled title if that conforms to the local convention, but you don't need to be concerned about that when you create the draft. Regards, --bonadeacontributionstalk 08:33, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gråbergs Gråa Sång Hi and what about if in a district two villages have similar name ? For my instance I want to create a article about my village ' Ghodasgaon' which is present in Jalgaon district of Muktainagar taluka but already a article about different village of same name existing on WP - Ghodasgaon it's a village in Shirpur taluka of my district. 106.220.85.12 (talk) 10:04, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure. Can you add another subdistrict, or east/west/north/south? Perhaps this list of places named Washington can inspire you. But even if you should pick a "wrong" title, that can be changed later. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:17, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Follow the existing pattern in Category:Villages in Jalgaon district. There are two systems so it could be "Ghodasgaon, Jalgaon district" or "Ghodasgaon, Jalgaon". I examined some other subcategories of Category:Villages in Maharashtra and they don't include "district" in article names so I would go with "Ghodasgaon, Jalgaon". PrimeHunter (talk) 10:36, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why not Ghodasgaon, Jalgaon, like Bonadea suggested? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:32, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
Having made all the required changes to my draft, it has been pending re-review now for nearly two months. Is there anything I can do to alert the reviewer, who initially declined it, or another reviewer who can take a look?
Many thanks Ukuser691 (talk) 14:10, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ukuser691 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. As noted on your draft, "This may take 4 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 4,829 pending submissions waiting for review." You will need to continue to be patient. You can contact users who have previously reviewed the draft, their names are linked to in the decline notice) but it may or may not help. 331dot (talk) 14:22, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draft:Bahman Panahi Declined in January and now Declined again March 2. See comments left by reviewers. My comment is delete the Exhibitions list. Wikipedia articles are not intended to contain all mentions of a person's accomplishments. The text already mentions major solo exhibitions. David notMD (talk) 14:46, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I have now removed the Exhibitions list. Ukuser691 (talk) 17:07, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible to take extra action against someone who is deliberately adding WP:OR (in the form of spoilers for future episodes of a web series I like, which is annoying me)?
There is this IP at 41.58.xxx.xxx who has twice added thousands of bytes worth of (possibly fake or stolen from the production company) episode summaries at List of Talking Tom and Friends (TV series) episodes, and as someone who is interested in the show but doesn't have the time to frequently patrol the article, I am getting really annoyed by that person (to be honest, it's not so bad if the plots added are fake, but if they are real and stolen from the production company, I am definitely going to hate that person more than anyone else for spilling the beans very annoyed). Since it's not just a single dynamic IP range, an IP block won't help, and since this is the second time in 4 weeks, it is also probably a slow-motion vandal. I've warned the address that most recently did this, but I don't want to have to wait till he does it 2 or 3 more times to warrant protection.
Is it possible to have someone either:
add Pending Changes Protection till either:
the end of May (which is when each new season of the web series usually starts)?
OR
add the page to their watchlist and revert anyone suspiciously adding a large amout of unreferenced text to the article?
And by the way, would a revdel be necessary for all the "fake" episodes just in case the plots are real and the production company responsible for the series complains? Ignore the struck-out request, I should have realised that this was overkill.
Thanks, 45.251.33.129 (talk) 16:23, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, you seem to be getting worked up, which you shouldn't be. Second, please remember to assume good faith. I'm not sure what you mean by "I am definitely going to hate that person more than anyone else for spilling the beans". If they are adding summaries for future episodes then they are obviously fake. Try requesting page protection. βӪᑸᙥӴ • Talk • Contribs 17:07, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
45's statement that someone is leaking future episode content is plausible. Page protection with a time limit can be proposed. David notMD (talk) 20:21, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I did let my feelings get in the way of my reasoning, so I suppose I could have written this in a more polite way... And I personally don't think that WP:GOOD FAITH could be applied when someone adds spoilers for future episodes, since I don't know why anyone would like spoilers. (By "I am definitely going to...", I meant that I hated them a lot (though now that I think of it, hate was definitely too strong a word)). As for requesting page protection, I chose not to directly ask for it at WP:RFPP since this was only the second time that person added the content, while many of the requests I've seen have been declined for more active vandalism. But I would appreciate it if someone here added the protection till the end of May. 45.251.33.24 (talk) 01:33, 3 March 2021 (UTC) (I'm on a dynamic IP range)[reply]
Hello 45.251.33.205, yes? SenatorLEVI 08:25, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be a case of good faith, not vandalism - there is no intention to disrupt the encyclopedia. The extra content seems to have come from the Talking Tom Wiki - see this entry for "Roy to the rescue" which matches the text entered into Wikipedia.
Requesting revdel, page protection and blocks seems overkill for what should be a good faith insertion. An accusation of vandalism just because somebody fills in a plot summary when you haven't yet seen the episode is frankly just silly. Nobody has properly reached out to the IP - apart from an L2 vandalism warning left by the OP (which I've struck, because it's inappropriate). Let's also remember that although WP:OR may be viable, there is also WP:SPOILER - a plot summary is expected to tell the plot which by definition means spoilers. There is a very real likelihood that this information will be applicable at some point - before the actual airdate, or certainly before the OP has seen the episodes. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:46, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All I want is for someone to either add pending changes protection till the end of May (which is when each new season starts) or to add the page to their watchlist and regularly check and revert if anyone tries to add those unverified plot summaries. 45.251.33.205 (talk) 10:41, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
PS - I just wanted to point out that I struck down my own revdel request already and noted that I realised that it was overkill. I also did not request blocking that IP. I just requested for PCP which will let that person edit and will let that person's edit be publicly visible if it is a proper edit. 45.251.33.205 (talk) 10:45, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Did "SenatorLEVI" reply only to mock the fact that I was trying to get someone's attention to this? Because that is what i interpret his response as. 45.251.33.205 (talk) 10:41, 4 March 2021 (UTC) Redacted after I thought a bit more about what he could've meant. 45.251.33.205 (talk) 11:14, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the episodes haven't aired has little bearing on the issue. I know we don't consider user-generated forums to be reliable sources, but neither should we automatically consider them to be intentionally deceptive and misleading.
I suggest you re-read WP:CRYSTAL BALL, as your current understanding of it is completely wrong. Crystal is about attempts to use Wiki to predict or make claims about the future. A plot description for a TV show that hasn't aired is a far cry from that. We absolutely do allow plots to be outlined even if the book/movie/TV show/etc has not been aired - although we do also generally require sources for them which is why they can be classed as WP:OR without.
Given that the editor in question has not tried to re-add any of the information, I would strongly oppose any kind of sanctions - especially page protection, where you want 2 months of Pending changes protection just because of a plot summary? That's completely over the top. Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:04, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Non-free logo template
Does anyone have the code to cut and paste into a logo file for a logo with non-free use credentials? I tried to follow the instructions on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Non-free_use_rationale_logo but I guess I erred because I ended up getting blocked. Advice greatly appreciated. Jallerso (talk) 20:26, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Jallerso, and welcome to the Teahouse. I don't know why you think you have been blocked: I can't find any evidence of it, and you still seem to be able to edit. The logo will be removed from Commohns because Commons accepts only freely licensed material. Logos can usually be uploaded to Wikipedia itself, as non-free media; but only if their use meets all the criteria in the non-free content criteria - two of which are that they may be used only in articles (not drafts), and that they must be used in at least one article. The time to consider uploading the logo then is after your draft has been accepted as an article. In the meantime, you can work on turning your draft from a piece of marketing puff into an encyclopaedia article. For example, a list of devices, OS's and languages supported in the first sentence is not appropriate - probably not appropriate anywhere, but certainly not there. 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) 21:17, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Jallerso. To be absolutely clear, acceptable non-free images should be uploaded here on the English Wikipedia. They are not allowed on Wikimedia Commons. Cullen328Let's discuss it 00:20, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much Teahouse members GoingBattyColinFine for the sound advice. On the road to improvement! Jallerso (talk) 10:03, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
106.220.85.12 Teahouse hosts volunteer to answer question on how to edit Wikipedia, but are not here to help improve drafts. You are likely the person most knowledgeable about Jalgoan, Kothadi and Ghodasgaon. The responsibility falls on you to improve these drafts while waiting for reviewers. David notMD (talk) 20:39, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
David notMD Okay , I got it ! I also naive.New to WP , learning by mistakes.But I thought some editors if looking for some article to contribution then they can edit them. Cheers 106.220.85.12 (talk) 20:44, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does have a place to request articles get written by other editors (see Wikipedia:Requested articles), but there is a HUGE backlog. And, as you can see from above, sometimes a Teahouse volunteer will aid with more than just advice (at times, me too). David notMD (talk) 23:02, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
David notMD Hi can you change Draft: Ghodasgaon (District - Jalgaon) to 'Ghodasgaon,Jalgaon'.Some editors here suggested me.If two villages heve same name and 1 is pre existing on WP ,you can differentiate your artu by writing like this - Ghodasgaon, Jalgaon,'cause Ghodasgaon names article is already here on WP. 106.193.80.33 (talk) 13:12, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If the draft is accepted, then the reviewer who accepts it can assign a better name. David notMD (talk) 14:54, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard vs Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources
If I'm looking to talk about if something is reliable for a gaming subject, which should I default to? Should I go to one before the other? Tyrone Madera (talk) 21:09, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tyrone Madera. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard (RSN) is a community-wide noticeboard for discussing particular sources and any consensus reached there would take precendance over anything decided at the WikiProject level per WP:CONLEVEL. You can ask for assistance at the WikiProject and perhaps its members will be able to help you out, and then bring things up for further discussion at RSN if no agreement can be reached over the reliablity of a source.Generally, RSN is best for resolving a dispute between multiple editors as to whether a particular source is reliable for the context in which it's being cited, while a WikiProject might be a good place to ask a general question about sourcing (e.g. What types of sources are reliable for gaming subjects?) since the members of the project might have a "list" of sources they generally consider OK to cite for video game articles. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:21, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The summary of what led to a previous Teahouse exchange on 23:37, 22 February can be found in the second paragraph here. Attempted to reach out to User:David notMD, but views it as as a horsemeat. They do not seem understand I am trying to reach compromise with a user. User:Hostagecat had broken off from discussion after raising many concerns erroneous in nature that I think need to be examined (i.e. should AllMusic no longer be designated a reliable source under WP:RSMUSIC?) and then filed a report, which User:EdJohnston accepted without vetting if its claims were actually accurate and gave me a warning. Or perhaps they simply do not want to weight in. According to David notMD, "Content is totally outside my realm of knowledge (I'm an old white guy)". Either way, I am simply looking for a someone to serve as mediator between Hostagecat and I to enhance our communication. If you can assist in initiating a resolution or point towards the direction of an editor whose purview this falls under or is in some way interested, I would greatly appreciate it. -- Ascribe4 (talk) 23:56, 2 March 2021 (UTC) Ascribe4 (talk) 23:57, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ganbaruby:I tried replying on their talk page explaining that their claims were inaccurate. Among other things, User:Hostagecat repeatedly claimed AllMusic is unreliable and that I had not provide any sources when text did in fact have a citation, at the very end of the sentence they copy/pasted from. Instead of either accepting the facts I asserted or providing a clarification for what caused them to make such false claims they based their entire revert on—perhaps there was some sort of misunderstanding—Hostagecat broke off from discussion and filed an obscurant report. This complaint resulted in me receiving a warning by User:EdJohnston that I believe was undue. User:EdJohnston understandably had not been familiarized with the particularities of our conflict, accepted Hostagecat's claims without vetting if everything they said was accurate. When EdJohnston replied to me, for some reason they refrained from delving into the details I gave and instead turned their attention towards the 3rr and my earlier speculation that User:Hostagecat potentially might have been a sock, even though I had already stated Hostagecat has clarified they are not and that I assume good faith and believe them. EdJohnston has since moved on to other tasks without touching on the specific issues that I presented and has yet to respond to my request for assistance. --Ascribe4 (talk) 17:01, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@RealShivaaa: Welcome to the Teahouse! Do you have a question about Wikipedia! GoingBatty (talk) 04:13, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@RealShivaaa:, you have created Draft:Digitics247, which is a blatant advertisement for a company, and which therefore should be deleted. This is an encyclopedia, not a PR outlet. -- Hoary (talk) 04:41, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Hoary: I think these things should be brought up on the User talkpages or elsewhere, and not at the Teahouse unless brought up by the user or directly related to their statements and/or questions. This user literally hasn't said anything, so the comment comes across as aggressive.Tyrone Madera (talk) 05:54, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
RealShivaaa titled the section Digitics247, so in my opinion the question was implied and Hoary's reply warranted. David notMD (talk) 08:51, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@David notMD: True, you have a valid point. I've retracted my earlier statement. I didn't even notice the title when I left my comment. I apologize for any damage I've potentially caused. Tyrone Madera (talk) 18:19, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The primary purpose of this draft seems to be giving advice. Giving advice isn't something that Wikipedia does. It just recycles published facts from reliable sources. So the draft shouldn't say for example "A proposal video should have a mission statement of its organisation within the storyline" (my emphasis), as it now does; instead it should say for example Three studies found that around 80% of successful proposal videos submitted to grant organizations in northwest Europe from 2016 to 2019 had mission statements whereas 60% of unsuccessful proposal videos did not.[1][2][3], with each of those three index numbers pointing to a study published in a (non-vanity) academic journal or similar. -- Hoary (talk) 08:09, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia as a source
What if the only other source is Wikipedia? Jajajay (talk) 06:42, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If the only potential sources for a particular subject are in Wikipedia, then it's not a subject that can have an article in Wikipedia. -- Hoary (talk) 07:32, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Https issues
I was changing links from http to https on Cleveland, Tennessee, and when i tried to publish it, it said a link to a blacklisted site had been added. The problem is, i didn't add a link. All i did was change http to https. Any ideas on what to do about this. Chewie1138 (talk) 07:02, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's odd indeed. What's the page you want to link? (You can write it out here like "https :// www. spamcornucopia. com/ nigerianmillions .html".) -- Hoary (talk) 07:35, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Confession: I'd never heard of (or had forgotten about) this blacklist log. Well, Chewie1138, city-data wouldn't be worth linking to even if doing so were technically possible. -- Hoary (talk) 11:24, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Watchlist
Hello everybody, I had fun looking at watchlist stuff, including the 1000 most watched pages, Rawe ki te kite Te Hauturu-o-Toi. My question is, are there pages no-one watches? Should they be listed at the "things to do" sort of pages. Brunswicknic (talk) 07:19, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Such pages do indeed exist. There are thousands of them, but the vast majority aren't obviously important -- they're the talk pages of IPs that were only fleetingly active, and suchlike. There are currently under a hundred unwatched articles, I believe. The list is visible to administrators. If you'd like to see it, become an administrator! (If it seems a perk of the job, well, there are very few such perks. No chauffeured limos, no country club memberships....) Hoary (talk) 07:44, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Brunswicknic. Yes, you can watch some obscure pages that have had zero activity for 18 years if you want. But what's the point of that? Cullen328Let's discuss it 08:30, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hoary I'm surprised you think there are under a hundred unwatched articles out of 6.3 million articles. I think several thousand is more likely, but we don't identify them as that would encourage vandalism of unwatched articles.--Shantavira|feed me 11:15, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Shantavira Good point, though not sure vandals will be looking at some sort of "things to do" list. I suppose my point is not that I particularly want to increase my watchlist, but that if nobody is watching an article, it may well be open to vandalism. I do acknowledge that there are some good anti-vandal bots out there, many many thanks to the people who made and maintain them. Though if Hoary is right, then yes gosh, only a hundred, it's not much. And I know what a tough job, hard work, adminship is, and I thank all those admins who maintain and improve WP and keep us dilettante editors from getting carried away. Brunswicknic (talk) 11:26, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Brunswicknic: Administrators can see Special:UnwatchedPages. It was last updated two days ago and shows 95 articles. All I examined were created in the last month and have 1 watcher now (not me), so somebody may be going through the list to watch them. Administrators can see the number of page watchers when others only see "Fewer than 30 watchers", e.g. here. "Add pages I create and files I upload to my watchlist" at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-watchlist is enabled by default so most pages have one watcher from the beginning. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:41, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@PrimeHunter: Thank you very much, that is good to know. Again I thank the admins, but also those who set up (no doubt after lots of trial and a little bit of error) such a system. Brunswicknic (talk) 03:12, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Talk
I am trying to respond back to the individual on talk but am unsure how to respond back. How do I respond back to the individual on his talk in order to prove that the correction was made for approval? Aletahall2021 (talk) 07:45, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Aletahall2021: In order to send a notification, you have to link that person's username and sign in the same edit. I've done so in this response to you. Go into source editing mode and look at how I use Template:Reply to and try the same. ◢ Ganbaruby! (Say hi!) 08:02, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Loveable_lion
Hello, please can you tell me how to put a jpg file/picture on an edit you've done?
BIDR74, welcome to the Teahouse - I have done it for you as an example, for further edits please have a look at H:L. CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:24, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, BIDR74, and welcome to the Teahouse. If you work for the university and are editing any articles connected with them, then you are reagarded by Wikipedia as a paid editor, and you must make the declarations specified at that link. You should also read about editing with a conflict of interest. --ColinFine (talk) 12:02, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
change
When will the change I made to Lazlo Lorand biography, which is noted on the edited page version, appear on the main and first page of his biography Martinsugarman16 (talk) 11:20, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Martinsugarman16, your edits were reverted due to incorrect format by another editor. As such they will not appear of the main and/or first page of his biography. SenatorLEVI 11:46, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Martinsugarman16, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia. Your edit was in good faith, but there were some things wrong with it. I think it was rather unkind of both KIENGIR (who reverted your edits) and SenatorLEVI above not to give a clear explanation to a new editor. You added information to an article, and gave a citation: well done! That's better than many new editors manage to do. KIENGIR's objection was that you hadn't put the citation in a proper format as explained at REFB.
I have now reapplied your edit, but with some changes:
I have not put it in the lead section, but in the biography section, where I trhink it is more appropriate
I have formatted the reference as a proper citation. I don't think that KIENGIR was right to have reverted for this reason, but the fact that you didn't give full bibliographic information, so that a reader ten years hence would be able to track it down, is a problem.
I have removed the mention of his being Jewish, mostly because that was not in the source. All information in a Wikipedia article should be found in a reliable published source. Even with a source, it is not necessarily the case that this should be mentioned, and it should not in the lead unless it is significant to the subject's notability: see CONTEXTBIO. --ColinFine (talk) 12:34, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have to completely refuse to judge me being "unkind", neither it holds for SenatorLEVI. The edit log proves that ("please.."). I considered better than just put a cn tag, and I wished to see especially the source for veification. However, thank you for fixing it.(KIENGIR (talk) 12:45, 3 March 2021 (UTC))[reply]
Hello, KIENGIR. I did not say you were impolite (you were not) I said that both you and SenatorLevi were unkind in not explaining clearly to a new user just what was wrong with his edit. Your edit summary said "please use proper source format" without an explanation or a link to find out what the proper source format was - similarly Levi's comment above; and you didn't post anything on his talk page. Many new users don't realise that they can look at the history and see edit comments. I don't know if Martinsugarman16 knew to look, but his question above suggests that he wasn't aware that somebody had manually reverted his edit: if so, then he certainly wouldn't have seen your edit summary. --ColinFine (talk) 14:39, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
still reject being unkind, I did not investigate the user's background, I had zero negative intention, and please excludes the possibility not just being unkind, but even negligent. However, next time I will cite in the edit log a WP guideline/rule, so noone may say I did not give sufficient information.(KIENGIR (talk) 14:45, 3 March 2021 (UTC))[reply]
Sandbox
How do i go about a sandbox? Rmesiwotso (talk) 11:23, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Rmesiwotso, welcome to the Teahouse. I see you already created User:Rmesiwotso/sandbox before posting. That is the page linked on "Sandbox" at the top of pages so I recommend using that and not Rmesiwotso's /Sandbox link. Please clarify your question. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:49, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good morning, I have been trying to update my boss's Wiki entry. I first tried using a new account I set up for him (Richard Andrew Baker), made the changes, published, and a few hours noticed that it had reverted to the old version. I didn't understand why. I then set up a new account for me (KimberleyKitten), re-amended the entry and the same thing happened. The Luke that is mentioned in some of the communications, is an IT friend of mine who was trying to help me. Basically, Mr Baker's entry isn't changing much at all, just that his roles are being put in to chronological order. Could someone advise on how to update and retain the amended entry; ie what I need to change or alter, thank you. I copied and pasted the revised entry so I could refer to it myself if necessary, this is copied below in case it is of any help:
KimberleyKitten (talk) 12:01, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for getting back to me. Having tried to understand the limitations, it isn't obvious to me why some of what we have amended is not allowed, there is a small amount of additional information, and the rest of the roles have been put in to a new chronological order. I also didn't copy and paste anything in to the entry when amending, I just kept a copy of it for my file. Can anyone tell me what to do in layman's terms? Many thanks, kind regards, Kimberley KimberleyKitten (talk) 14:28, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@KimberleyKitten: Because you have a conflict of interest, you are discouraged from editing the article directly since it's very hard for you to remain in a neutral point of view. You should instead make edit requests at the talk page; instructions are in the link. Also, please continue the discussion in the same section; it helps other editors keep track of prior replies. ◢ Ganbaruby! (Say hi!) 14:41, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, per the message left on your Talk page "You are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation." See WP:PAID for how to declare that on your User page. Sam would apply to Luke. Per what Ganbaruby wrote, you are prohibited from editing the article directly. Instead, specifically worded content is to be proposed on the Talk page of the article, so that a non-involved editor can decide to implement or not. David notMD (talk) 14:53, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Table
First round of discussion about 'Difference between Muslim .... and Islamic .... ?' in relation to Wikipedia article titles has been initiated at following talk pages.
Since I had promised at this notice board to keep informed hence a discussion invitation message.
Why at multiple talk pages, because 1) it is just initial first round only 2) to reach out a more people over a long long period.
Please do join in discussions, Thanks and regards Bookku (talk) 12:03, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
First round of discussion about 'Difference between Muslim .... and Islamic .... ?' in relation to Wikipedia article titles.
I have written an article about the first episode of Season Four of Stranger Things. It was declined for not having any references (fair enough). I have now added eighteen refrences. When will it be reviewed? And when will it be published? (if you think it is good enough) 146.199.189.161 (talk) 12:39, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. As noted on your draft, "This may take 4 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 4,787 pending submissions waiting for review." You will need to be patient. 331dot (talk) 12:40, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am just wondering though, because it has been reviewed before, and I have now added eighteen references, if one of the Teahouse editors could review it? Cheers.
I'm afraid that's not how it works. There is no deadline, and in any case, folk are more likely to take a look if you provide a link. I noticed that the first sentence of your draft contains the word "upcoming" which is something of a red flag to reviewers. While you're waiting you might usefully be reading WP:UPCOMING.--Shantavira|feed me 13:26, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse volunteers are not necessarily draft reviewers (a few are). The system is not a queue - reviewers select what they want to review. So, could be days, weeks, or (sadly) months.David notMD (talk) 13:51, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But I can tell you that a draft which suddenly spouts eighteen references, the first twelve of which don't appear to relate the subject, and the next two are to Twitter and Instagram, doesn't inspire much confidence that it is worth a reviewer spending any time on your draft. One of the first things a reviewer does - mirroring the absolutely first thing an article writer should do - is look for the three or four references that are reliable, independent and give significant coverage to the subject of the article (not to the series it belongs to). There may be such sources among your eighteen, but if I were a reviewer, I would probably do what I've just done, and conclude that it wasn't worth my time wading through the rest of them looking for evidence of notability. Note in particular that it is very rarely worth adducing more than one source for a particular point, and when a writer does so it often suggests that they are struggling to find satisfactory references for the rest. --ColinFine (talk) 14:54, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ColinFine If you look back through the references, the first nine are about the cast of the episode and the next eight are about the season and the title's announcement. I would say these are references to do with the episode. Reading these, you would know the history behind the season and episode, and the cast. But what do you want me to do with the draft, if it isn't worth a reviewer looking through it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.199.189.161 (talk) 15:08, 3 March 2021 (UTC)146.199.189.161 (talk) 09:58, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ganbaruby: They are not blocked on en-wp, but they are indeed blocked on test-wp by Koavf (see log). I see no warning on their talk page beforehand, so one might argue it is a bit harsh; but then again, stuff like this looks like they are testing how to make efficient vandalism, which we should probably not encourage. TigraanClick here to contact me 14:38, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, everyone!
I am a recently extended-confirmed editor on Wikipedia. Recently, a nonprofit organization that I work with in my personal life called VoteRiders sent out an email coincidentally asking for volunteers to help them with their Wikipedia page. I signed up because I enjoy editing Wikipedia, and they only recently reached out to me with the details of what they actually want to do. Their goal is to get more WikiLinks to VoteRiders in other pages of Wikipedia so that it is easier for their organization to be discovered – for instance, because the actress Amy Schumer volunteers with them, they would like to have a mention and WikiLink included on her page (but they can't do it themselves because the page is extended-confirmed).
The project felt innocent at first, but now I'm starting to wonder if it's unethical – even though some of the WikiLinks that they want to put in actually feel like notable additions to the articles, it seems wrong for an organization with stake in the matter to have control over what content goes in or stays out. Additionally, although I don't have any financial ties to the organization, my personal support for them makes me feel that it would be hard to make decisions around this in an unbiased way. Does anyone have any guidance on what I should do? And if the project is unethical, what course of action should I advice to the people at VoteRiders who contacted me in the first place?
Thank you! Kokopelli7309 (talk) 13:54, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kokopelli7309. My suggestion would be to try and explain yourself or get the VoteRider people to read WP:NOT, WP:OWN, WP:COI, WP:PAID, WP:NOBLE and WP:NORG because it sounds like they are misunderstanding some things about Wikipedia. You might also get them to look at WP:ALTERNATIVE because there are probably better and easier ways for them to achieve their objective of getting more exposure for their organization. — Marchjuly (talk) 14:21, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It might be worth mentioning that the article talk page has old discussions about conflict of interest. At least one past editor disclosed a COI, and a few WP:SPAs appear in the edit history. --Drm310🍁 (talk) 19:13, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a host but i can help. I agree with user marchjuly's above reply. I would day that would be the best course of action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chewie1138 (talk • contribs) 20:10, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can't find Draft in pending AfC submissions
Has this draft been submitted for review? I cannot find it in the AfC Pending submissions list but the draft page has the subst:submit template. Thank you! --Indianite (talk) 14:00, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I guess today's just not my day :) --Indianite (talk) 14:42, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Three reverts rule
If any editor is vandalising a page continuously and I am reverting it and at last I revert the third time then also that editor vandalises that page again, then what should I do as I it would be againt the tree revert rule, if I see that after two hour also no one has reverted that vandalism then what to do? ExclusiveEditor (talk) 14:32, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have been working on a article and there is a more detailed version on the Norwegian wiki. I was wondering if a translated version could be transferred to the English wiki and then copy edited and changed up? Is this allowed and If so does this require a professional editor? Here are the articles both English and Norwegian,https://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egil_Svartdahl and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egil_Svartdahl.
? Gandalf the Groovy (talk) 14:58, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is Fandom.org basically an online encyclopedia like Wikipedia but with more detailed articles on television cartoon series? It seems many shows have their own dedicated "mini encyclopedias" within the website itself. 47.150.227.254 (talk) 15:01, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was hoping for some clarity on off wiki discussions. I see this page: Wikipedia:Off-wiki_policy_discussion which makes it clear that not all discussions need to occur on-wiki. But also see this page: Wikipedia:Canvassing which warns against off-wiki communication. It seems like the dividing line is whether you are trying to rally people towards a goal or just getting the word out of an ongoing discussion so people can participate. So in this vein, off-wiki posting about the edits you make should be fine, since you're not attempting to change anyone's mind. You are simply writing a public diary in a way. Please let me know if my understanding is incorrect. Thanks Nweil (talk) 16:33, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say that I don't know how current that essay is, it was written in 2006. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:09, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nweil: The specific forum matters as well. For example, posting about a discussion on Black Lives Matter will have a very different effect posted on Parler versus Facebook. In general, if you are forum shopping to get a favorable discussion anywhere, on or off wiki, it will hurt your standing in any discussion. People will probably find out, and might even report the canvassing on the administrator's noticeboard. Unless the venue is clearly neutral, best to use more common procedures such as posting on project pages, talk pages or using Wikipedia:Requests for comment. TimTempleton(talk)(cont) 19:51, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Forum Shopping page [[1]] specifically relates to on-wiki discussion ("noticeboards", "talk pages", "administrators" or "reviewers") not about social media venues. With regards to canvassing, it seems you are referring to the stealth canvassing section. Again, that section specifically relates to persuading people. Posting about an edit or discussion is not necessarily persuasion regardless of the forum it is posted in. That would seem to require a call to action, no? Nweil (talk) 20:35, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fixing a draft article
I am working on draft article and I've now realized it has the wrong name and I cannot correct it. I was wondering if there was a way to fix it or do I have to create a new draft page? Jediaj02 (talk) 16:39, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Jediaj02 I would leave a note for potential reviewers that the title is incorrect; if accepted, the reviewer will place it at the proper title. 331dot (talk) 16:43, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why was one of my contributions reverted by an unregistered user?
Lionsleeps26 You added a timeline to Incredibox on 15 January and an IP deleted it without an Edit summary on 23 January. One path open to you is add it again. If deleted again, then you could start a discussion on the Talk page of the article. One issue may be that the timeline needs references to confirm the releases in the versions listed, given that the entire Musical styles section is without references. David notMD (talk) 17:17, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
David_notMD, i cant find good sources. Which is weird because its really popular on the app store. i did find this article, but the entire article is kind of a bruh moment. Lionsleeps26 (talk) 17:32, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Development section is also short on references. The whole article needs to be tagged accordingly rather than sprinkling it with 'citation needed'. David notMD (talk) 21:35, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can I get my old account back without email?
Hello. I forgot my password for my old account, KTTcontributes. I didn't input my email, so can anyone help? Thank you, KTTNEWTalk :Dcontribz 18:07, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid not, KTTcontributesNEW: if there's no email, then there is no way for anybody to recover the account. All you can do is put a message on both user pages explaining and each linking to the other. --ColinFine (talk)
Given that you had started KTTcontributes on 1 March, just give it up for lost and continue as KTTcontributesNEW. It appears you have already recreated some of your User page decor. David notMD (talk) 21:38, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to the Teahouse! In my opinion, the draft might be rejected, as Tony Jazz appears to be only notable for one event. Obama's 2012 reelection song is not exactly that notable, wouldn't you think? Basically he needs to have significant coverage to deserve a Wikipedia article. See WP:BIO for details on this. I feel like it's kind of on the border here... Sungodtemple (talk) 13:34, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rejection of my draft
Hello. My draft, Wilbur Soot, was recently declined due to me not addressing comments about the subject not passing the criteria at WP:NM. In actuality, I had addressed the concerns, just on the talk page, although the reviewer missed that, which is understandable, as it was the wrong place (which I know realize).
I'll lay out my argument here once again, in case that's helpful. Criteria number two at WP:NM states that subjects may be notable if one of their albums or singles have appeared on a national music chart, which the subject in question, Will Gold, has done with "Your New Boyfriend", which peaked at number 65 on the UK Singles Chart. This, in addition to additional sources existing to flesh out the article, makes the subject, in my opinion, most likely notable.
I was wondering if it was possible to get a re-review, or anything of the sorts. Thanks for any and all help. IanTEB (talk) 19:43, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
IanTEB not an AfC reviewer, but AfC doesn't own drafts. I'd say it's more likely than not to survive an AfD, so if you'd like me to publish it I'd be willing to. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 20:47, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that'd be very helpful. Thank you! IanTEB (talk) 21:01, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Pcaabplroa: you should upload a new file instead of overwriting that one. See commons:Commons:Overwriting existing files for the policy on this. Then, you can replace the uses of the old file with the new one in articles, but keep the old one around. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 20:43, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Elliot321: I also want to delete the old file. Is that possible? Pcaabplroa (talk) 04:24, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Pcaabplroa: perhaps, but it's discouraged. The file is under an appropriate license and there's not a good reason to delete it. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 20:55, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Elliot321: I just uploaded the new cover image. I don't think I did it in the same way because I can't remember how. Can you please tell me if this is right or how to fix it? Thank you
Pcaabplroa, you uploaded it to Wikipedia as non-free media. The website you took the cover from says "The text and images of this website are available for modification and reuse under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts)." - and the old cover is uploaded to commons as free media under such a license.
Would you like me to move the file to Commons? Since it is free media, apparently. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 04:23, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Elliot321: Yes, please! I want it to be published just like the first time. Pcaabplroa (talk) 04:25, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
btw, is this your book? if so that's a conflict of interest and you might want to disclose that. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 04:33, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Elliot321: Thank you! No, it's not my book. I'm a graphic designer and contributed some of the design ideas. Pcaabplroa (talk) 04:45, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pcaabplroa ah, I see! (that's still a minor concern, depending on your involvement, but it doesn't seem like a large problem in this case) Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 04:47, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Partner to publish first Wikipedia Article - How to find one?
I "joined" ~ 3 yrs ago...in retirement... while researching a subject I hoped to "publish." (It relates to lots of existing content.)
I made a couple edits to related Wikipedia subjects while drafting my original article -- but that was my total actual contribution.
Actual "publishing" seemed too daunting. Learning W's arcane language...
So, I simply drafted in plain English, in the "style" of Wikipedia, but never published.
I did identify all links to existing article.
And there it sits in a word-processing format, for two years.
How do I find a someone actually edit/publish?
And where might I go for any reply? (I don't know how to use "Talk" or "Sandbox" or...
Could I just do email? Is there some way to share the content off-line as a PDF perhaps?)
Oh, and the subject is... U.S. Naval history - pre-Civil War (in case that strikes someone's interest)
Save it as plain text (not in a word processing format). Copy this to the clipboard of your computer. Click on this link. Paste it there. Click on "Publish changes" (which means save what you have). Then ask here about it. -- Hoary (talk) 23:03, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I have pictures as well and footnotes. Will convert and post as instructed in the next couple days (it may take that long to convert and purge all the formatting I did to make it "look" like a Wiki document. Appreciate whatever help, advice you can offer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Furwood (talk • contribs) 00:49, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Here, both to fortify you and to demonstrate picture insertion, is a glass of rather good beer. (Apologies for the miscellaneous category confusions.)Good, Richard Furwood, but please do not attempt to upload any pictures until you fully understand the (necessarily stringent) legal requirements. However, you're welcome to insert pictures that are already at Wikimedia Commons. -- Hoary (talk) 02:15, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I uploaded all the plain text... but no pictures. So, the text is at the page where you sent me -- my "Sandbox?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Furwood (talk • contribs) 02:25, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's at User:Richard Furwood/sandbox. Well done, Richard Furwood! And yes, it looks interesting. First priority: labeling subheaders as such (I've done one for you), and attaching the references to, well, what they're supposed to be attached to (I've done a bogus sample for you). Don't worry yet about the infobox or the pictures: these can come a little later. -- Hoary (talk) 03:04, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've converted the remaining headings the best I could (I assumed the order based on the context), correct them manually if they are wrong by adding/removing a =. Don't go below two = (==), and don't go above 5. (=====) Remember that the equals on the left must match the equals on the right! Spacing doesn't matter. WhoAteMyButter (📨│📝) 07:09, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Thank you, both. This is beginning to look real. I will see if I can follow instructions later today... (and will try not to "break" anything!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Furwood (talk • contribs) 17:41, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
First draft published
Good afternoon Wiki editor,
I have just published my first draft for a new page on Wiki. I haven't received a message mentioning it will be reviewed or pending for review. Have I maybe skipped a step?
Thank you! AllisonNellaF (talk) 22:57, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
AllisonNellaF Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I have added the appropriate information to allow you to submit your draft for review. 331dot (talk) 23:00, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's at Draft:Slow Shiver. If you submit it for review as it is, it will fail, because it doesn't cite any references. Everything that it says should come with a reference. -- Hoary (talk) 23:07, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Non-declared alleged connection
I am dealing with an editor who claims she is the daughter of the subject but has not given any proof. For reference the article is Kim S. Cameron. Any advice? LOMRJYO(About)(contribs) 23:11, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Lomrjyo. You can advise this editor about WP:COI, WP:PSCOI and WP:BLPSELF (if her parent is still living), and try to explain to her that being related to the subject of the article doesn't give them an special editorial control over the article. Try to avoid WP:BITE, and let her know there are ways like WP:PSCOI#Steps for engagement for her to seek help from others; she needs to understand, however, that she will need follow proper procedure for things to go smoothly. You might also want to ask her to look at WP:REALWORLD for reference as well since what she posts on Wikipedia will be there for everyone to see. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:25, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If anything, declaring that she is related to the subject would hinder her neutrality to the article, and she would be encouraged to submit edit requests on the article's talk page in order to contribute. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:36, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Music sample
Can I sample a short section of music on a Wikipedia page without the permission of the artist/group? If so, how long is the sample allowed to be? Castilruiz (talk) 23:17, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Castilruiz provided it is in an article about the song, a sample of 20-30 seconds would be appropriate. The general policy on non-free content is at Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. To upload, go to Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard, select "This is a copyrighted, non-free work, but I believe it is Fair Use.", then select "This is some other kind of non-free work that I believe is legitimate Fair Use.", and finally choose the option "Sound sample of an audio recording". Be sure to fill in all the necessary fields or the file may be deleted. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 23:27, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to know if someone can out a the right image for Univision Canada
I wanted to know if someone can out a the right image for Univision Canada? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ItsJustdancefan (talk • contribs) 23:37, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly, if that person could understand the idea of "[outing] a the right image" for Univision Canada. (Are you talking about a corporate logo?) -- Hoary (talk) 00:34, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Authority control
Hello,
I was just wondering, which articles should have {{Authority control}}? I had a brief look at the docs but was wondering if I could get some clarification.
@Ritenerek: See Wikipedia:Authority control. Basically, if the topic has entries in any of the catalogs in the template documentation, it would link it if Wikidata has it. You may also specify the entries manually in the template. ◢ Ganbaruby! (Say hi!) 00:09, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How do I make and add user boxes. I have seen them on other profile pages and I have been wanting to upgrade my user page. Any help would be appreciated. Gandalf the Groovy (talk) 00:07, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How to completely, thoroughly, totally, and permanently delete a Wikipedia account? If not possible, why not? Please avoid wild, vague, invalid, insignificant, inappropriate, and unprofessional answers; instead, provide us with a logically and scientifically convincing, valid, and appropriate answer. Thank you.
Ala.academics (talk) 01:12, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
How to completely, thoroughly, totally, and permanently delete a Wikipedia account? If not possible, why not? Please avoid wild, vague, invalid, insignificant, inappropriate, and unprofessional answers; instead, provide us with a logically and scientifically convincing, valid, and appropriate answer. Thank you.[reply]
Ala.academics You've gotten several answers to this question on your user talk page. 331dot (talk) 01:17, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello!
I found this article, Stephen Totter, and it says he died in 2019. But there is no citation. Still categorized under Living People. I don't know how this is handled when there is an apparent grey area. Can someone help? Kirby777 (talk) 02:24, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I typed his name in google, and the first result was a news article from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reporting his death on May 25, 2019. I updated the article, but article is still mostly unsourced. Cmr08 (talk) 02:48, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Upload
Hi, how do we upload to replace an article from sandbox? Wikigetsme123 (talk) 07:24, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Wikigetsme123: As explained to you last time, we would much rather you improve the current article rather than replace the current one. However, you still need to to put it bluntly, your prose inside the sandbox is not up to Wikipedia's standards. You may try to boldly edit the existing article or propose changes on the talk page. You also mentioned last time that there's another editor that you got into a disagreement with, so please head to the talk page and try to come to a consensus. ◢ Ganbaruby! (Say hi!) 08:50, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thank you for the feedback. To improve 'this' short article, I would have to add 70% of text, I would consider this a rewriting. I am waiting for feedback on the talk page for weeks now, as it is, there is nobody interested. The other editor who reversed my early small change and then agreed to change it himself (so no 'disagreement anywhere' is saying, he is only part time on Wiki 9what ever that could mean to me), suggesting another editor might help. I contacted him 3 weeks ago, but no response, yet.
That is where we are... in the air. Ok, I will change it, and hope somebody comes up with suggestions without deleting it just because of.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikigetsme123 (talk • contribs) 23:39, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello!
So I would like the option to hide images on wikipedia, I have been using the help page on the topic to replace most pictures with the battenburg pattern until clicked on and turned off article previews in my preferences. Unfourtunately however when using the searchbox images for articles still come up and still do in the "related articles" section on many page, is there any solution for this? Thanks!999ThingsToFix (talk) 07:38, 4 March 2021 (UTC) 999ThingsToFix (talk) 07:38, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
AfC submission and no COI declaratoin
Hi there, I have a predicament and I don't know how to go about this. My last name is Ziade, I have recently changed my user name from Elie plus to my current one. I am afraid now of being accused of COI for that. This is my problem: a while back I noticed that one of the articles on my watchlist was being written over (Philippe Ziade the journalist) I created a disambig page and moved the new page (that of a politically involved entrepreneur / consul) for other users to edit and left it at that. I regularly review articles related to the Ziades (Ignatius, Phil the journalist and May) and I came upon the AfC for Philippe Ziade when I had thought the disambig and overwriting issue was resolved.
I have reviewed the sources for the said AfC and I have created a draft but I am reluctant to edit the AfC submission because of my fear of being accused of COI. I cannot find a tag to declare non-COI and I am here to declare that I don't use Wikipedia to promote any person with my family name. I have interest in these people but I have no relationship whatsoever with any of the Ziade article subjects on Wikipedia. Please tell me how to go about this. I also declare that I am not related to Philippe Ziade (neither the journalist nor the consul) nor affiliated to him, or his business (any of his businesses). I am not in contact with him nor with anyone from his side. I will not edit this article before hearing your counsel. _Elias Z. (talkallam) 07:47, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's no requirement that announcements of this kind must be made via template. You might write something on your user page. ¶ I note that both Draft:Philippe Ziade (businessman) and Draft:Philippe Ziade (entrepreneur) are about the same person, and that they use the same photograph: a photograph clearly taken with the cooperation of the biographee. Furthermore, the photograph first appeared for use in Philippe Ziade Real Estate Developer, an article subsequently deleted as unambiguously promotional. (The new "businessman" draft says that Ziade "is the founder and chairman of Las-Vegas based Growth Holdings"; the photograph was uploaded by the user "GrowthHoldingsPZ", later blocked for promotional activities.) There seems to be something fishy about all the activity on Wikipedia surrounding Ziade, whose notability is not obvious to me. -- Hoary (talk) 08:31, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hoary I am not aware of the deleted article's edit history; I was only made aware of the article of this person when I noticed the edit conflict on the journalist's article. If the image is problematic why not delete it altogether? (For the record I don't think it's Wikipedia-appropriate because it looks like a promotional posed corporate shot, I only kept it because I saw it on the AfC page and assumed it was okay-ed). I have written an article from scratch and supplemented every primary source (interview video) with a secondary one. As for the notability issue, the person is notorious due to his alleged political connection with the ruling class, and shortly thereafter for his paradoxical refusal to participate in a cabinet dominated by HA after the liquidation of a regionally influential Iranian general. After that he was targeted by what people here qualify as a vengeful smearing campaign on a political background which (I only included a part of it). Other accusations include his relationships with Lebanese singer Yara (singer) and Najwa Karam, both of which are Arab divas, while being married. I found these bits of information irrelevant and ill-sourced and I did not include them in the article. Ziade is also popular among young graduates for obvious reasons. I am not responsible for paid or edits made by connected contributors (GrowthHoldingsPZ) or others. I raised this subject here because I worked on the article and found that there's a pending AfC. I am interested in Philip's story but I am in no way connected to him and refuse any insinuation of the sort. I have been here for the third of my life and I have never even considered breaching Wikipedia code and mission. _Elias Z. (talkallam) 09:05, 4 March 2021 (UTC)\[reply]
While here I would like to inquire if starting an article for an MP with the same last name as mine will raise COI questions. I am also not related or affiliated with that person (Camil Ziade). _Elias Z. (talkallam) 09:09, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Given your extensive and stellar history of improving Wikipedia articles (Wow!!), I see no reason why anyone would doubt a simple declaration on your User page that you are and will be editing articles about people with the same last name as you (Draft:Philippe Ziade (businessman)), but that you have no COI with any of them. David notMD (talk) 10:12, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Elias Ziade, the image is fine. Its uploading and initial use raised my eyebrows; but now that it's at Commons you're free to use it. And yes, I agree with what David notMD has written immediately above. -- Hoary (talk) 11:51, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry if anything I wrote was defensive in any way. I am very humbled by your words of encouragement David notMD and Hoary Words don't convey intentions well but I am very impassioned and I take starting and improving articles very seriously. I was afraid that my family name would impede my plans to publish more articles about known Ziades that I am not related to. Now how can I proceed? Is it possible to delete the AfC article so I can publish the draft I wrote? _Elias Z. (talkallam) 13:15, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing to apologize for, really. I suggest you just ignore the "entrepreneur" draft. As for the "businessman" draft, unfortunately I don't read Arabic (and don't trust Google Translate) so can't judge whether your man is notable (in the odd sense that the word is used here in Wikipedia). Unfortunately it's past my bedtime and my brain cells are dying even as I type, so I just hope that David notMD (or somebody else) will give you an intelligent response. -- Hoary (talk) 13:34, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Given your Wikipedia experience, I suggest you avoid AfC and just promote Draft:Philippe Ziade (businessman) to article status. However, the draft is a bit 'fluffy', and could use trimming. I did some. David notMD (talk) 14:18, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fluffy describes it well lol. I will do that thank you for your time everybody. _Elias Z. (talkallam) 14:58, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
process of providing the copyrights for my company page
what is the process of having Wikipedia copyright for the magazine page? What documents I have to submit and how I have to submit and where i have to submit the documents? please guide me. Sauravgupta7297 (talk) 08:43, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sauravgupta7297: Is this about File:1 feb 2021 edition cover.jpeg? A magazine cover is considered a non-free image, meaning that we can only use a low-resolution version for identification purposes only, given that a Wikipedia article exists in the first place. This is known as fair use, and you don't need to release copyright for that. However, since no article uses the image, it will be deleted. Also, when you upload a non-free image, do not tag it as public domain or any other license that it is not.
On a separate note, are you affiliated in any way with The Opinion Express Group? If so, you have a conflict of interest; please read that page entirely and make relevant declarations before making any more edits. You are also strongly discouraged from editing anything that you have a conflict of interest with; instead, make edit requests on the talk page. ◢ Ganbaruby! (Say hi!) 08:58, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sauravgupta7297: please don't ask the same question in more than one place. I have just given you a lengthy answer at the Help Desk, and I am irritated at coming here and finding you have posted the same question, and engaged other editors' time as well. --ColinFine (talk) 09:26, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Taking over!
Someone made a wiki page for me. Thanks! How do I take complete control. My name is KOKUMO. Also, how do I capitalize my name all over the page? From the header to the body.
KOKUMO
The Queen Of Queer Soul
Founder & CEO Of Born Worthy Records MommaBaker60 (talk) 09:38, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry MommaBaker60. Nobody controls their own page on Wikipedia. We have a style for content which does not include upper case names.Charles (talk) 09:45, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is more information at WP:EDITREQ for the process of making edit requests on the talk page. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:17, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I want to take down the wiki made of me and start fresh!
(NB. I've merged these two sections). KOKUMOTheQueenOfQueerSoul, MommaBaker60 - is there a reason you're using two accounts for this? We're not keen on individuals using multiple accounts without good reason, especially when navigating something like a Conflict Of Interest. --Paul ❬talk❭ 11:55, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is very unlikely to happen. I suggest you take the time to read WP:BLP and WP:COI carefully, and then make suggestions and provide sources (WP:RS) at Talk:Kokumo, which is the place to discuss changes to that article. If your suggestions are inline with WP:s policies and guidelines, they may be acted upon. You don't control the article (it's WP:s article about you, not your WP-article), but it's possible you can have influence. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:37, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Based on what I can find in a Google search, I don't see any way to improve on the sourcing the present article has, and the present article's sourcing is barely adequate. Any attempt at an autobiography would likely go nowhere fast. —A little blue Boriv^_^vTakes a strong man to deny... 16:53, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A few weeks ago I created a page (titled Ran Namerode) and understood it requires several months to be approved. I looked now to check how it's doing, and now I can't find it anywhere, can someone please help me find it? Wikinamerode (talk) 09:47, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikinamerode You have asked this at the Help Desk, please only use one method of seeking assistance, to avoid duplication of effort. 331dot (talk) 10:11, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikinamerode, welcome to the Teahouse! This means unfortunately that your page may have been deleted however it's not permanently deleted and can be restored. Search up the exact name of your article and see if you can edit it then look in the notification bar and see if you can find the user that deleted your article and ask them further questions. SoyokoAnis 12:59, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SoyokoAnis I checked and the page has never existed, deleted or otherwise, under the title given(as well as in the Draft space). Either it's under another title, or possibly on another language version of Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 13:05, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I want to write an Article about the CEO of A company
Hi,
I recently searched for The CEO of Maruti Suzuki India Limited, Kenichi Ayukawa, but could not find any information about him except here.It is stated that he is here that he is the CEO but He did not have a Page dedicated to Him. Can I create one on him? It is written on the creating your first article that I should check for notability of Topic In the Teahouse.
Regards, Wikiedit (talk) 12:11, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikiedit01995 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The CEO would not necessarily have a dedicated article(not just a "page") about him, unless there is significant coverage in independent reliable sources about him personally, and not just having to do with his job. If all the coverage about him is just related to his being the CEO, he probably would not merit a standalone article, as he would not meet the Wikipedia definition of a notable person. 331dot (talk) 12:15, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Wikiedit01995:, to determine the gentleman's notability, which must be separate from the corporation's notability you need to find material about him written by others.
He is a living person. For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, and is in WP:RS, and is significant coverage. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact cited, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the person is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.
Your approach is a process.
find references
select the facts form those references that you wish to use (you will cite the facts with those references WP:CITE is your friend here
Create a storyboard from those facts
Using WP:AFC use the article wizard to start a new draft. It is not mandatory, but it guides you
Write very neutral, flat prose, citing the references for the facts
Double check your work and submit the draft when happy
While awaiting review, continue to enhance your work
Note that an inability to find references means the draft is unlikely to be accepted (0.9 probability). We want new articles here, and we try hard to maintain high standards. Welcome to a consuming new hobby FiddleFaddle 12:22, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is an article about the chairman of the company R. C. Bhargava which you could use as a template for any draft, Wikiedit01995. Although that article has been around since 2014, it still debatable whether it passes the WP:BIO notability threshold, in my opinion. However you will see the sort of article Wikipedia expects as a minimum. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:57, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Michael D. Turnbull, Were three of the references not dead links we could probably make a better determination. I am leaning towards Bhargava being a decent gentleman doing his job well rather than having notability. I am currently 50:50 about Bhargava. FiddleFaddle 13:09, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree but didn't want to go off-topic. Personally I would be pretty certain that article would not survive an WP:AfD but I'm not familiar enough with all the WP:BLP policies to be sure. Go ahead with that if you wish, Timtrent. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:29, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Michael D. Turnbull, I don't think this is a true diversion of the thread. It will be useful for Wikiedit01995 to see a discussion such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/R. C. Bhargava because it will show what is required of an article such as this whether it be deleted or kept by the consensus which will be formed at the end of the discussion. I will be interested to see the outcome FiddleFaddle 17:13, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Red Links
How can I find red links which are pages that don't exist. I am wondering if there is a list of them somewhere or if I have to seek them out somewhere. Any help would be appreciated. Gandalf the Groovy (talk) 13:42, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If they don't exist you can't find them. You can search for non-existent articles and create them. SoyokoAnis - talk 13:46, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is a list! - it's not regularly updated and and it's frustratingly not divisible by namespace but it is at Special:WantedPages. --Paul ❬talk❭ 16:08, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Article not published
An article written by me, is still not published. It's been close to a month. How do I gather details about its publishing?
Sneha.s.shenoy Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You created the draft, Draft:Umar Sharif, but it lacks the information you need to formally submit it for a review. I will shortly add that information. 331dot (talk) 13:50, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Be advised that once you submit it, it likely will take many weeks if not months to be reviewed, due to a backlog. 331dot (talk) 13:52, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Really weird vandalism
I found a really weird instance of vandalism. First he called a user an idiot here, and then he replaced the page here. I reverted it, but do I put two user warnings, or just one? And if the former, which one? Help! MEisSCAMMER(talk)Hello! 14:34, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting content on the Talk page of an article is indeed vandalism, so you were right to revert it. The vandalizing editor is an IP address (not a registered account). I suppose you could watch the article and the talk page to see if the editor returns, but otherwise don't bother. IP editors often show up once - edit or vandalize - and then never return. David notMD (talk) 15:32, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Article draft
I am looking to write a requested article and I am not sure how. Where do I go to write a draft? Gandalf the Groovy (talk) 14:44, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Gandalf the Groovy, if you're looking for requested articles you can find them here. If you want to created a draft just create a page in the following format Draft:Insert name of article. You can then submit it to WP:AFC, or move it directly to the mainspace when you're done. For a clearer image you can refer to WP:YFA and WP:DRAFT. SenatorLEVI 14:52, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Given that this appears to be your first effort to create an article, I strongly recommend going through AfC versus moving a draft directly to mainspace. And see WP:YFA. David notMD (talk) 15:58, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Search history on Wikipedia app on iPhone
I am using the Wikipedia app to browse through Wikipedia. It really annoys me that it saves your search history. I know how to clear my search history in the app, but I would like to how to prevent the app from storing my search history so I don’t have to keep clearing it. Same goes with the article viewing history. I asked this at WP:VPT 4 days ago, but got no response. Thanks, Interstellarity (talk) 15:28, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@GoingBatty: That link doesn’t help. It just gives a list of Wikipedia mobile applications. What I am looking for is the steps needed to stop the Wikipedia app from saving my article viewing history and search history. Interstellarity (talk) 12:48, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Interstellarity: Try scrolling down to the External links section of the article to find a link to the appropriate help page related to the app you're using. Hope this helps! GoingBatty (talk) 22:35, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I want to join the new page patrol. Any tips for joining?
Colonizor48, This will only happen if you contribute in a nice manner for more than three months. Best ─ The Aafī(talk) 16:58, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Colonizor48. There's a bit more to this than what The Aafī has posted above, and you can find out more details at WP:NPP. You might also want to take a look at WP:HATS as well since special user rights are usually only given to those that the WP:COMMUNITY feels will not use them inappropriately or incorrectly. Some special rights do have minimum requirements, but most always require that the editors requesting the right have an established track record of making sound edits that shows they have a good understanding of relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. This doesn't mean that the editors can never make a mistake, but it does mean that the need to clearly demonstrate that they are WP:HERE and are capable of learning from their mistakes. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:02, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Wiki Volunteers,
First, let me say how much I appreciate your hard work and how much I appreciate Wikipedia. That said, I was recently on a feedback board, asking for help with updating my page. I am a dinosaur and was completely confused by the directions I was given. I know it's possible to do, but it is not so clear, nor easy, to make the simplest changes. I, of course was not adding any weird, or libelous information, just updates about me and my career, and of course, since I didn't know how about the protocol of making changes, all my hard work was erased. I don't mind, but I wish I knew how to add info properly. I know I am supposed to go to the "Talk" page, and add sourced backup to any additions, but I have no idea on how and where to do that, specifically. I suppose there's no step-by-step example of how to do this? That would be super helpful!
Any way I could talk to someone about it? I certainly have source press, etc. to back up my additions/changes.
Best, Michael Holman (filmmaker) 2603:7000:4001:E49A:3425:B428:E7E9:83F5 (talk) 17:10, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, editing your own article is discouraged. What you do instead is use edit requests. Go to Talk:Michael Holman (filmmaker). Click "new section". Type the name of the section you want, like "requested edits to a page about me", then at the top of the section include {{Request edit}}, which will include the template. Then, write your request under it, as well as the references supporting whatever changes you'd like to be made. The clearer you are with your request, the faster it will be implemented.
Also, it's not necessary but I'd suggest registering an account. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 17:46, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please be patient. There are more than 4000 other drafts also waiting for review. RudolfRed (talk) 18:01, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your question has already been answered above. I would add, however, that you will need to continue to improve and clarify the article for it to stand a chance of being accepted. For example, the first line says he's a "songwriter, musician and writer", but under the heading of "career" it says he's "president of the Economic and Social Development Counci" with no mention of music except at the age of seven.--Shantavira|feed me 19:13, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Xtools
Under the xtools section it has information if our small edits and large edits but only the last 5K edits is there I way ai could find out life time Fan Of Lion King 🦁 (talk) 17:46, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand you question correctly, you can navigate to any user's page, click on the menu item to the left ("User contributions") and then, at the very bottom of the page that appears, click on "Edit count" and you should see a full breakdown for that user. Your personal one is "at this URL". Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:08, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah done that and it says ‘’Data limited to the past 5,000 edits‘’ I wanted to know my lifetime total not just my last 5 thousand edits Fan Of Lion King 🦁 (talk) 18:13, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fanoflionking this is not possible with xtools afaik, would take too long to process. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:23, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Fanoflionking and Elli:. Not so. The stats (at the URL I linked) say (top left) you have 15,106 edits. The part that says the data are limited to the last 5,000 edits is next to an asterisk that just refers to the pie-charts nearby. Presumably that's not just for processing time reasons but because most people won't dramatically alter the pattern of their editing over time. Mike Turnbull (talk) 08:53, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Michael D. Turnbull I'm pretty sure that's exactly for processing time reasons. Some counts are faster to run than others, I'd assume counting byte size is more intensive than just asking for the namespace totals or whatever. Elli (talk | contribs) 09:01, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, exactly, @Elli:. On any sensible relational database SELECT COUNT * WHERE (condition) is always much much faster than any query that needs to process the individual rows returned. Mike Turnbull (talk) 09:05, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Businessman Category Requirements
Where is a list of notability requirements for people categorized under the businessman category? Is recognition by the United Nations / The White House sourced in a major publication enough to qualify notability? Dannyocean99 (talk) 18:11, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Dannyocean99. I think the guidance that you are looking for is at WP:DEFINING, which says: "For example, a film actor who holds a law degree should be categorized as a film actor, but not as a lawyer unless his or her legal career was notable in its own right or relevant to his acting career."
Similarly, it is very common for highly paid professional athletes to invest in businesses. If the vast majority of coverage of the person is focused on their sports accomplishments and occasionally, somebody mentions "And person Y also owns a business," then that athlete should be added to sports categories but not business categories. Cullen328Let's discuss it 18:31, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What should I do?
It appears that an edit war has been started on the page Daihatsu Rocky. User TheAafi is removing the images on that page, saying that "this is a set-index article, images should be used on particular related articles, not convenient here, MOS:DABIMG backs my argument." However, the same article also backs my argument that if a reader was looking for the F70 Rocky but didn't know the model codes or years produced, an image might help them differentiate between the F300 and A200 series Rocky. How should I go about resolving this conflict. Thanks! Sagquattro2009 (talk) 19:12, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sagquattro2009 Set index articles don't disallow images - they're not disambiguation pages, they're lists. MOS:DABIMG doesn't apply because the page is not a disambiguation page. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:25, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
sorry. It was my bad. I've closed the unnecessary edit-war related discussion. Not an edit war really. ─ The Aafī on Mobile(talk) 19:51, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hatnote Help
What action do I need to take at this point for acceptance? This is the comment I received on my draft. I am confused. Should I move forward with creating a hatnote on the primary page? Thank you.
Comment: The title of this draft has been disambiguated.
If this draft is accepted, a hatnote will need to be added to the primary page to refer to this page.
The primary page is Post-industrial society.
Dawnpalmyra (talk) 19:19, 4 March 2021 (UTC) Dawnpalmyra (talk) 19:19, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dawnpalmyra once the draft is published as an article, then a hatnote should be added. You don't need to and shouldn't add any hatnote while your article remains a draft. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:24, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Research
Cullen,
I am reaching out to you at Wikipedia Teahouse for both advice and help,
I have always loved vintage fashion, automobiles and music because they represent the classics in their own way, and always find a way to come back. I have always been interested in how the stock Market had an impact on color, automobile’s fashions and music and believe that the stock market with its rise and fall had it ‘s impact in these areas but have not been able to prove my theory. I also want to use any articles I might find on Wikipedia and give credit to their contributing editors.
Welcome to Wikipedia. Messages for a specific user should go to that user's talk page. In this case, probably User_talk:Cullen328RudolfRed (talk) 19:58, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I made one edit in Investigative Reporters and Editors, adding the History of the organization, at least its beginnings, which was told in one book I reference in the article. I'd like to ask the members of the Teahouse if they could review my contribution, since I'm not a native English speaker, so I might have made some grammatical errors or repeated some words a bit too much. Thanks! User:Tetizeraz. Send me a ✉️ ! 20:15, 4 March 2021 (UTC) User:Tetizeraz. Send me a ✉️ ! 20:15, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, there is this article Charles DeLisi. What possible steps must one take so they can remove this tag forever without it having to appear again. Please assist in this case. Thank you. (Precariousman123 (talk) 20:44, 4 March 2021 (UTC))[reply]
Hi Precariousman123. Generally, any editor can remove a maintenance template from which has been added to an article as explained in Help:Maintenance template removal as long as they feel they have addressed the reasons why the template was added in the first place. If someone else disagrees and re-adds the template, then things can be discussed on the article's talk page. For templates added for WP:COI or WP:PAID reasons, however, it's probably not a good idea for the editor who is considered to have the COI or PAID relationship to the subject of the article to remove such templates no matter how good their intentions are. It would probably be best for you to either start a discussion about this on the article's talk per WP:ER, or maybe at a noticeboard like WP:COIN or WP:NPOVN to see what other unconnected editors might think. This might seem a bit unfair perhaps, but it probably best to be WP:CAUTIOUS in a case like this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:51, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed I would note that the page linked above says that "Any user without a conflict of interest may remove a maintenance template in any of the following circumstances:..."--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:00, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, all of you. I really appreciate the helpful responses. (Precariousman123 (talk) 11:23, 5 March 2021 (UTC))[reply]
2 questions
When was a page office protected before?
Does uploading a logo of your company on WP count as COI? 🔥LightningComplexFire🔥 20:54, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
LightningComplexFire to answer your second question, you should upload it to Wikimedia Commons. If you own the logo you should be able to release it under a free license - making this clear on say, your company website, will prevent the logo from being deleted. Provided your company has an article, uploading the logo is acceptable. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:11, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@LightningComplexFire: goto Special:Log and select Protection Log from the drop down and put in the page you are interested in and it will show you when/if it has ever been protected. RudolfRed (talk) 21:17, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Elli, that is not helpful advice. LightningComplexFire, Elli's advice is only correct in the (very unusual) situation that the company is willing to license the logo in such a way that anybody may reuse or alter it for any purpose, commercial or not (or the slightly less unusual case that the logo is simple enough that it does not meet the threshold for being copyrightable). For most logos, you do not upload them to Commons, but to Wikipedia itself, making sure that the use meets all the non-free content criteria: more detail is given in Logos. (Note that the criteria require that the media be added to at least one article, and that it be essential to that article, so in practice, this can be uploaded only to be added to a published article about the company, and not for any other purpose.
Uploading the logo and adding it to the article about the company is technically COI editing: in my view it is acceptable, but I don't know that everybody would agree. An alternative approach is to make an edit request on the article's talk page, giving a URL for the logo, and asking somebody to upload as non-free and add it to the article. --ColinFine (talk) 21:43, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ColinFine if it's your company, then you can license the logo however you want, because you own it. I'd advise them to release it under a free license.
It's like if a person comes here and asks "can I add a picture of myself to an article about me?" Yes, release it under a free license. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:23, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Most people would never want to release their business' logo under a free license. (Many big companies spend huge sums of money on essentially the opposite; zealously protecting their intellectual property from use by others, their logos, trademarks, etc.) On the other hand, by the very nature of what fair use is, a person who owns copyrighted content cannot claim fair use—only a third party can. There is a catch-22 there, of course.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:13, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Trademarks != copyrights. And besides, most photographers wouldn't release their pictures under a free license - but that's what we encourage them to do here, if they'd like to share their images. I don't see the issue with applying the same standard to others. If you'd like your images included, release them under an appropriate license. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:19, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Elli, after mentioning intellectual property, I said "logos, trademarks, etc."; do you see the comma? Anyway, the equivalence you're drawing between photos and a business logo is utterly inapt. It's like saying "people give blood all the time; can we have your liver?"--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:11, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Fuhghettaboutit: yes, I did - my argument is that the copyright status doesn't, or shouldn't, matter to them. Many companies pick logos in the public domain already - like Google - and there is no issue there, they can still go after trademark infringements. Elli (talk | contribs) 03:15, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Google didn't choose to put their logo in the public domain; the logo they chose was too unoriginal for copyright protection. That doesn't imply if they had a logo that met the threshold of originality they wouldn't spend a billion dollars protecting it. But the real point is that you're actually, empirically wrong about how the vast majority of those who have copyright protected logos feel about protecting them, and how that interfaces with your advice. Yes, some small portion of people are willing to release their original logo. The vast majority would say are you f*ing kidding?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk)
Elli, Ok, I would just put it under a fair use license, or if I'm wrong, any license that allows the image to be on WP, but cannot be used except for the subject page. I'm not an expert on copyright, so I mess up which licenses are which. 🔥LightningComplexFire🔥 15:58, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Help with questions on Steph Korey article
Hi, I'm the subject of the Steph Korey article and have declared that connection. I was having a productive conversation with @Seagull123: about the content of the article but they seem to be on an extended break from editing. I would really appreciate it if someone had a few minutes to pick up the conversation with me where Seagull123 left off. Stephkg (talk) 21:46, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Stephkg. It appears some other editors besides Seagull123 are trying to help you on the article's talk page. All I can suggest is that you continue to follow WP:PSCOI#Steps for engagement when seeking assistance and try and remember that (1) all editors are WP:VOLUNTEERs who (2) sometimes get WP:BUSY and (3) there are really WP:NODEADLINES for the most part when it comes to Wikipedia. While it's understandable that your primary focusing might be on the article written about you, others may and most likely will do so at their own pace. So, absent some really bad or otherwise major policy violating type of content requiring an immediate response, you might have to just wait for someone to come along. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:40, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Uploading documents to prove/support an allegatio
I please would like to correct some glaring errors in the Wikipedia article about myself - this includes statements that incorrectly portray my beliefs or cause the public to have a mistake notion about myself. In addition, this page has not been updated in ages, and I have written several new books since it was written, released two music albums, and received additional awards and international attention.
My specific question: I have many physical documents, such as an Award from the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts (and letters written to support my claims and assertions). But I do not know how to upload such an item, even I don't know where I would send such an item. But the physical document is part of the evidence that I received this award. Does Wikipedia accept PDFs, JPGs, and so forth? And if so, how would I make them available to those who review such things for inclusion on my page - do I put it onto Google Docs - and if so to whom do I give permission to view such a document?
Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state about article subjects. If the sources in the article about you are incorrect, please make a formal edit request(click for instructions) on the article talk page, Talk:Laurence Galian, offering independent reliable sources to support your proposed changes. That doesn't include primary sources. Wikipedia does not store source documents, preferably sources that report on those documents are desired. 331dot (talk) 23:28, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For clarity: this means that we might mention an award if we have a link to the official website, or (ideally) to a respected newspaper which mentioned that you received the award in an article. The same is true of more recent books, albums and other activities you have been involved with. We do not mention information that has not been published, per our verifiability policy. As 331dot says, making an edit request (by following the instructions at the link they gave) is your best way to go about this, and you can ask me at User talk:Bilorv if you are struggling to follow these instructions. — Bilorv (talk) 15:33, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Template main article
I use to put See main article xyz but I see there is a new template
. My question is “ Is this the preferred way now and thus should I go through all my articles and start replacing with this format? GRALISTAIR (talk) 00:16, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@GRALISTAIR: If you're going to put a hatnote, then yes, please use the hatnote template. If not, what context are you referring to? ◢ Ganbaruby! (Say hi!) 00:34, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well I did an article Draft:Midland Main Line railway upgrade and in the history an editor did an edit that replaced See main article Midland Main Line with the format
so that was the context and hence why I asked the question GRALISTAIR (talk) 00:48, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ganbaruby. Templates are just a convenience. If you've written it out the same way, I see no purpose served in replacing with a template, only seen in edit mode (we have had a gazillion discussions, for example, about the fact that bots who just make these types of changes, cluttering up watchlists in the process, have such little utility for the bother they cause...) As to the slightly different format you've used, it serves fine; I suppose "See" is fairly tacit, but if it's at all burdensome, don't bother. I doubt there's was any grand consensus on the exact way it should look; no involved finding that it's massively superior to some trivially different format. (By the way, the template's been around since 2004.) Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:50, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Fuhghettaboutit: They's referring to this diff: [2]. Though I'm not well versed in hatnote discussions and this is not the place to discuss the template's pros and cons, I've always used hatnote templates because of how it indents + italicizes for you. GRALISTAIR, I'd still encourage you to use the template, even if for consistiency's sake. ◢ Ganbaruby! (Say hi!) 01:09, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ganbaruby: You refer to [3]. Context is often important. There is a big difference between the start of an article and the start of a section. "See main article xyz" is not suitable for the opening line. {{main|xyz}} with its indentation and italics is better but we actually don't generally use any form of such "main" links in the opening line, only in sections (where {{main}} is also preferred). "main" links are supposed to go to articles with more detailed coverage of the subject of a section, not broader articles. Template:Main says: "This template should also not be used in lead sections." Some areas of Wikipedia do have their own practices, e.g. tennis draw articles like 2021 Australian Open – Men's Singles where {{main}} is used in an "invalid" way while 2021 Australian Open#Men's Singles is the valid way. There are thousands of such tennis articles and it may some day give a big conflict. Don't do it unless it's an established practice in the subject area. You should instead look for a way to link the broader article in the opening sentence or paragraph. Your example already does that so the "main" link can just be removed. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:22, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I'm trying to understand the rationale of why Draft:Brad_Walls is constantly being rejected based on notability. I have multiple biopic sources (Washpost, CNN, huffpost etc) that make a substantial argument for notability. Please share any insight. Regards. Bradwalls1992 (talk) 01:42, 5 March 2021 (UTC) Bradwalls1992 (talk) 01:42, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to the Teahouse, Bradwalls1992! From your username, it appears you are creating an article about yourself the reason may be because of WP:COI. Please re-review the comments to insure the article passes. SoyokoAnis - talk 02:52, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Bradwalls1992 I think COI editors are generally held to a higher standard than non-COI editors in what is considered acceptable. Do you have any reliable sources giving significant biographical coverage of you, instead of just a project that you've done? Elli (talk | contribs) 03:24, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Elli. Artists press is centered around released work and additionally will dive into biographical details of that artist, and that is the content within the sources listed on the draft. It is confusing as I cover the 4 main points in WP:ARTIST to be notable, and I am not really getting a good enough answer. It seems there is some bias with the editors? Thanks Bradwalls1992 (talk) 03:34, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Bradwalls1992 yeah, I feel like you probably are notable (lucky you!) I'm somewhat busy the next few days but I might see if I can publish your article.
BTW, would you consider uploading a picture of yourself - and perhaps an example of your work - under a compatible free license to Wikimedia Commons? Elli (talk | contribs) 03:41, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Elli, I appreciate that - it's been painful. I did upload an image of myself, but it was removed by one of the editors, should I re-upload? Bradwalls1992 (talk) 03:47, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, Elli - should I re-submit the article? Thanks Bradwalls1992 (talk) 04:02, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Bradwalls1992 as for uploading the image, yes, just make sure you agree to release it under an appropriate license. And yeah, CoI editors are viewed very negatively around here - which is understandable, as most of them are non-notable and write unfairly about themselves, but that doesn't mean that all of them are bad - WP:AGF should still apply.
As for resubmitting, I'd hold off on that - I'll look at it personally soon, submitting isn't necessary for that.
(also, please keep in mind that once your article is published, it's recommended to request any possibly controversial edits with the {{request edit}} template on the article talk page, so it'll be a bit more frustrating to edit it in that case. So if you have more stuff that's received coverage you'd like to add/change, I'd recommend doing that sooner rather than later) Elli (talk | contribs) 04:05, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll keep that in mind Elli re. {{request edit}}, but nothing to change currently. Image is uploaded now under free license to Wikipedia Commons. Thanks Bradwalls1992 (talk) 04:32, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also bear in mind, Elli, that citations are there to verify something in an article — usually some fact. We call it WP:OVERKILL when multiple citations are given to back up just one piece of information. Think about the people who have to review your article. They will be much more impressed by a single good reference to a WP:SECONDARY source than they will to several WP:PRIMARY ones that may all have been based on a single press release. I'm thinking of the references 23 to 27 in the career section! Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:42, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Mike Turnbull, I appreciate the feedback. I never received this when submitting the article. The reason I did perhaps move towards WP:OVERKILL, was because I kept getting rejected for the sources not being relevant, hence I added more, which in retrospect wasn't a great idea. Thanks again! Bradwalls1992 (talk) 01:02, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
AdamBunyi2007 there are multiple permissions you might be talking about. New page patroller allows you to review new pages, while autopatrolled automatically marks pages you create as patrolled, and pending changes reviewer allows you to review other users' edits to certain pages with pending-changes protection. Any of these rights can be requested at WP:PERM. Elli (talk | contribs) 03:20, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To add to this, most of these rights are only given to users who have significant experience with Wikipedia, can demonstrate an understanding of our basic policies and guidelines, and have a direct need for these permissions in their day-to-day editing. (The exception is autoconfirmed, which you will receive automatically in a couple of days, as it just indicates that you have more than 10 edits and that your account is at least 4 days old.) — Bilorv (talk) 15:18, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The last thing I said in a thread now archived pointed out that in an environment where publishing is constrained by political censorship, nothing can be published regarding that circumstance in spite is its existence. I am surprised this does not seem to be of concern. I wonder why that is.
On Wikipedia, this phenomenon strikes me as willful ignorance or cowardice. Wikipedia relies on published sources for everything, so a degradation of the publishing world undermines the value of Wikipedia. The logical extreme would be Wikipedia would contain nothing of value if nothing of value is published.Wikoipedia's health is tied to the health of publishing. That would make political censorship something to really hate if Wikipedia is importantDanallenhtn (talk) 03:09, 5 March 2021 (UTC) Danallenhtn (talk) 03:09, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Danallenhtn what would you prefer we do? How do we know anything that we don't directly observe?
Ideally we would just know what's true, but we don't, so we use reliable sources to determine what is true or not. Otherwise, the site would be filled with constant warring as people disagree over every possible fact. Elli (talk | contribs) 03:22, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Danallenhtn If the reliable sources in an article are being summarized accurately, but you believe they are incorrect or disagree with them, you will have to take that up with the sources. Wikipedia makes no claims that its content is "true"; Wikipedia only summarizes what can be verified in reliable sources. The sources are presented to readers so they can be examined and judged by those readers as to their truthfulness or accuracy. Only you can decide what is true for you. See WP:TRUTH. 331dot (talk) 11:47, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Danallenhtn: I think you're wrong to suggest that this is not a concern for us. It's certainly something I regularly think about. However, in order to offer a criticism you need to offer a better solution, because it is often said that Wikipedia cannot work in theory, only in practice. Many users come to this website to maliciously add false information, and it is enormously impractical for us to check whether the information is true or not in every single instance. The site could not exist if the burden were on us to do this. Instead, a rule we can implement in practice is to remove information without a reliable source. So if you think we should not rely on reliable sources only then you need to explain how the site could be rewritten under your new suggestions, and how it would be maintained in the face of day-to-day vandalism without suffering reputational damage or falling into disuse. On the flip side, we have actively opposed some political censorship such as the SOPA initiative or censorship of Wikipedia where it interferes with our mission statement and goals. — Bilorv (talk) 15:27, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Consistent Error in the entries on individual Psalms
I've noticed that many of the pages for individual Psalms from the Book of Psalms has an error in comparing the numbering systems between the Hebrew and Greek texts. Is there a way to do a global fix or do I have to change each one? Here is the text that appears with each psalm beginning with Psalm 9. The wording is consistent but the numbering changes. This example is from the entry Psalm 53, which I have corrected on the WP page.
This article uses Hebrew (Masoretic) psalm numbering. Psalm 52 in Greek (Septuagint or Vulgate) numbering corresponds to Psalm 53 in Hebrew numbering.
This is my first post in the Teahouse!!
BCPMyles (talk) 03:45, 5 March 2021 (UTC)BCPMyles BCPMyles (talk) 03:45, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is no "error" with the numbers used in the {{Psalm nr}} template on these pages. But the phrasing of that template might be somewhat clearer. Take to Template talk:Psalm nr. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:25, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clarifying this. I went to Template talk:Psalm nr and did not see the template in question. I'm brand new to this so any specific direction you can give would be appreciated. BCPMyles (talk) 05:48, 5 March 2021 (UTC)BCPMyles[reply]
Another editor reverting changes back to incorrect data
I got a message from another editor that my corrections to the incorrect numbering between Greek and Hebrew psalms were creating some problem. He has reverted the changes back. It has to do with some links that are embedded. I will stop making changes and hope for some guidance because the numbering is incorrect, it doesn't even match the numbering that is used in the text of the articles. Here is the note I received:
Francis Schonken 05:16, 5 March 2021 diff hist 0 Psalm 63 Undid revision 1010376059 by BCPMyles (talk) no, creates a blacklink, instead of a link to the article on the psalm with this number in the other numbering system. current
I’m looking to change the title of Draft:Norman R. Smith (educationist), which I’ve submitted to AFC. Someone previously submitted a badly sourced page on Norman, and I’ve (independently, not working with whoever uploaded the last thing) drafted a new potential entry for the long time college president. But I’m concerned the title of the draft is weird, as he is a university president, not an “educationist” by nature - which doesn’t reflect the thing he is notable for. Can someone please help? (I am reviewing a stipend for this work). 2605:8D80:502:9A8:4C53:4B9D:C323:4C76 (talk) 05:44, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What would you say is a better descriptor of him? Also, could you elaborate on what you mean by "stipend"? ◢ Ganbaruby! (Say hi!) 08:18, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, IP user. If "reviewing a stipend" is a mistake for "receiving a stipend", then you are a paid editor, and you must familiarise yourself with the page I linked, and make the requisite declaration. --ColinFine (talk) 13:49, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
NSE Listed GNG Criteria
What are the criteria for NSE listed website that are offering stocks. Does NSE listed contribute to Notability? Sonofstar (talk) 06:08, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am trying to cite a newspaper Article in my sandbox article on Author David Alexanian. So I did this [4] I put the reference name - SNAPD1 and then added an external link. Is this correct? Thank you Angelalala222 (talk) 10:48, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I wish to publish Biography of Dr TVS Chelapaty Rao 1911-1979 and seeking help. Please Guide.
I wish to publish Biography of Dr TVS Chelapaty Rao 1911-1979 and seeking help. Please Guide. Yugandhargudipudi (talk) 11:43, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have written little, if anything, that wasn't about this one person. It's very important that you read Help:Your first article. A spoiler: please forget about TVS Chelapaty Rao until you have become at least a little accustomed to, and skillful at, improving existing articles. -- Hoary (talk) 12:29, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
One of the main principles of Wikipedia is neutrality, which means we discourage you from editing about yourself or your friends or family—these are called "conflicts of interest". Most people do not meet the criteria we have for having a biography on Wikipedia, which you can read at Wikipedia:Notability (people), and in the rare cases where they do we need to see evidence of lots of high-quality references. — Bilorv (talk) 15:15, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ADDA52
This https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADDA52 page is deleted twice in the tag of [WP:G4] I tried to explain that the page is notable today & created based on 2020-21 news of the ban on it in Few states but people are deleting it due to 2017 discussion. Please let me what to do. To avoid spam I just created the Draft:ADDA52 for the discussion and point of view. Please check my Talk page also, it might be of some help. 1друг (talk) 12:16, 5 March 2021 (UTC) 1друг (talk) 12:16, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The most recent deletion was because it was promotional. As for your current draft, the one sentence The company was incorporated in late 2000 and Delta Corps acquired the company in 2017 has eight references. Why? Please see Wikipedia:Citation overkill. -- Hoary (talk) 12:39, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Hoary: Thanks for the feedback. If someone explained me this I would have improved it till now. Can you please tell me what is the next step? I have modified the entire draft and the links. Others are also most welcome to share the feedback 1друг (talk) 15:23, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The next step, 1друг, is to decide whether your draft satisfies Wikipedia:Notability (web). If it doesn't, then augment it until it does. If/when you decide that it does, add {{subst:submit}} to the top. -- Hoary (talk) 22:18, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why can't we add a new thing in the main page titled "popular articles"
Because it's protected to prevent precisely this. The main page can only be edited by administrators. The mainpage is a bunch of transcluded templates and the content in those templates is decided by consensus within the community. CUPIDICAE💕 14:37, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Creative Name 420. Such a major change would need consensus among the community. The current front page is designed to highlight reasonably good-quality articles and serve as a reward to editors who have done work to improve a page. For instance, Today's Featured Article reaches "featured" status by going through a very detailed process of peer review to ensure it's the best article it can be, and Did You Know? shows newly-created, newly-expanded and newly-improved articles. A list of most-viewed pages would probably not fit in with the spirit of the current Main Page and would be subject to manipulation by bots or other malicious activity. However, you can see the most-visited pages in the recent week at the Top 25 Report, see a list of the top 5000 most-viewed pages at User:West.andrew.g/Popular pages and find the pageviews of any particular page here. Thanks for the question! — Bilorv (talk) 15:12, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note also that each edition of the in-house newspaper The Signpost includes a review of the articles which have been most popular each month. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:29, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How to bring attention to potential COI article authorship?
I recently responded to a COI edit request on the Laurel Parmet talk page requesting that an unsourced birth year be removed. As far as I could tell, there was no previous published birth year prior to this Wikipedia article, so I removed it. This request was made by a user claiming to be the subject of the article. Although the identity was unconfirmed, I couldn't find evidence of a birth year being previously published so in light of WP:DOB, removing the birth year seemed appropriate.
However, when I was trying to ensure that there wasn't a previous source in one of the other references, I saw that the entire article was written by a user named Ethan Parmet, who appears to be an established editor. I assume the normal procedure for noticing something like this isn't just "post about it in the teahouse", but I'm not sure what the right forum would be. WP:COICOIN seems to be more about getting someone making repeated edits to stop, but this case might mean that this entire article should be deleted? Putterlace (talk) 17:14, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Putterlace. There are two issues: 1) does that editor know that COI editing is frowned on? 2) is the article partisan? For 1), a message on the editor's talk page pointing this out for future reference (check to see whether it's already been discussed there, or on the article's talk page). For 2) if it's neutral, do nothing. If it's not neutral, or you don't have time to check, stick {{COI}} at the top, and put a note on its talk page. --ColinFine (talk) 19:31, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for bringing this up. I think there are a couple of guidelines to keep in mind here. One is that it would seem likely that User:Ethan Parmet does in fact have a conflict of interest, as you have pointed out, and should mention as such on their user page, article talk page, and/or edit summaries per WP:DISCLOSE. However, as mentioned by the notes at the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard, it is not yet necessary to escalate there, at least before bringing it to Ethan's attention. The other guideline I think is relevant is that on WP:Notability, or in particular WP:FILMMAKER. Given a quick Google I think Laurel is notable enough, since she seems to have won some awards for her work on top of her significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources per the general notability guideline. Given that, the page should stand. --Anon423 (talk) 19:37, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both ColinFine and Anon423 for your feedback/help! And thank you Anon423 for taking to time to notify Ethan Parmet. Putterlace (talk) 21:35, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ethan has disclaimed any conflicts of interest, which I've copy-pasted from my own talk page to his. That should be settled, I hope. @Putterlace:. --Anon423 (talk) 23:13, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Oracle CRM" Wiki Page - Needs Updating
I am trying desperately to update the Oracle CRM, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oracle_CRM, page. All the content is wildly out of date -- not a single product or link is correct. I made a lot of updates but all were pulled off the page from folks that are not familiar with our products. I did not note that I work for Oracle (so think that is "employee" status, but if I note that and try to make updates again -- will that work?
Thank you so much for the help!
Sincerely,
ghardt13 Ghardt13 (talk) 17:16, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ghardt13, welcome to the Teahouse. If you work for Oracle, you must declare so on your user page; you may use the {{paid}} template to do so. As someone employed by the subject, it is strongly recommended that you do not edit the article directly, but rather leave edit requests on the article's talk page (Talk:Oracle CRM) and supply reliable sources that support your proposed additions or changes. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:42, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How long does it take to have someone pick it up and make the updates? Do I have to wait hours, days, weeks? Do you have a sense?
Also, I might get paid by Oracle, but what if I am trying to make an update to the generic, Wiki Page - Customer Relationship Management? Can I not update that as well? Aren't most folks employed by someone? Can anyone that is being paid to have a career never allowed to update a wiki page? Shouldn't a Companies Product Wiki Page be something that could be updated by someone that knows the products? Thanks for all the help and insight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghardt13 (talk • contribs) 17:57, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ghardt13 As you have been told, if you wish to make edits that are related to your conflict of interest, you may do so as edit requests. I do not make any edits about my employer here on Wikipedia and I don't even visit its article. Wikipedia content is ideally added by independent editors. We don't want companies to speak about themselves and their products here- they have their own websites to do that. Wikipedia is only interested in what others say about them and their products. 331dot (talk) 18:01, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks Tenryuu, If I add to the talk page, could you or others review and pick up the changes? Do you have a sense of the timing to update - is there a general amount of time we have to allot, and if not picked up, is there a channel to escalate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghardt13 (talk • contribs) 18:19, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ghardt13: This is one of the double-edged aspects of Wikipedia: WP:VOLUNTEER, which means that most edits are done by editors who are interested in the subject (but not connected). There are some editors who patrol edit requests, but there tends to be a backlog, so it can be a while before they get to edit requests related to Oracle. (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.) —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:31, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Few questions.
I've been directed to seek help here.
It would be really helpful if you send me few links to the following-
1. Userfication-(Zeyan Shafiq's article was deleted so they have been suggested over email to apply for userfication, i want to know what it is and how it works).
2. The Relevant policies for notability guidelines on wikipedia.
3. Any other important wikipedia policy which might be related and important to Stalwart Esports and Zeyan Shafiq.
4. Also other policy violations that should be kept in mind while writing regarding it. Abhayesports (talk) 17:17, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Cullen328, for the information. I have read the Conflict of interest document and the paid contribution as well. According to the document I surely do have a conflict of interest with Zeyan Shafiq, but my motive to be on wikipedia is that I've been asked by Mr. Shafiq to join wikipedia to monitor our presence on Wikipedia because i am a content writer by profession and i am an active editor at liquipedia so i have experience of wiki markup language and also because there's been many vandal attacks recently, also this was suggested to them via email from wikipedia team and since we weren't aware of the deletion discussion and we were unable to defend the allegations raised back then. So as far as i have had an idea there's been content that has had promotional tone and that's not accepted on this wikipedia. So I'd work on the page and try to trim the promotional content and cite the information that can be verified from primary sources. If there is anything else that you think i should read before i start, please let me know. Warm regards Abhayesports (talk) 18:43, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Abhayesports, please do not directly edit any article where you have a conflict of interest, or are paid to edit. Instead, make an edit request on the article's talk page. Cullen328Let's discuss it 00:13, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
References for Sandbox
How do I submit references to support my sandbox entry Collectible & Antique Chair Gallery? Submitted in the visual edition. Thanks Bhartsfield09 (talk) 18:02, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there! I just had a question about tags. I have looked on the Wiki page about tags to try to get an understanding but it just wasn't helping. I don't know how to use them and what tags to use for what purposes. If someone could help me out I would LOVE IT! Thank y'all. 14thReason (talk) 18:31, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why you couldn't do it, but I evidently have the "export to Wikimedia Commons" button enabled for Wikipedia:Moving files to Commons, which did the job painlessly through the FileImporter. If something went wrong (I have little experience with images) let me know. --Anon423 (talk) 21:12, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hostbot invite to tea house logo
Hi everyone. Apparently my username, as a veteran editor, was included in the Teahouse invitation delivered to Mikeobrianjr's talkpage. He then asked a question on my talkpage (Why is the logo different in the hostbot invite message then on the tea house itself) but I don't know the answer. Help? Thanks. Rosiestep (talk) 19:47, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rosiestep see Wikipedia:Teahouse/Hosts/Database reports/Automated invites. "If you want to be one of the hosts whose names are included on automated invites, please add your username to the list below. Then leave a message on Jtmorgan's talk page" either you or someone else added your name to that list at some point. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:08, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Elli. That explains how my name showed up in his Teahouse invite. Hopefully, someone else can answer the question about the logo. --Rosiestep (talk) 21:42, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Rosiestep, nice to see you back here again. How are you doing? I think the answer to Mikeobrianjr's question on your talk page is that the graphic was one of a suite of images originally identified when the Teahouse was designed and developed back in 2012. All these design elements can be seen at Wikipedia:Teahouse/The menu and the graphics and colour schemes here. I think it's fair to say that, after the original paid Teahouse development phase was over, we have been run purely in a voluntary capacity since then. This has inevitably resulted in some drifting away from some of those initial ideas; some elements have been removed entirely (guest book. maitre d' etc), as well as some attempts to bring a degree of coherence and colour matching back again to our headers and our template. I suspect this is just a case that no-one has especially been bothered enough, or astute enough to notice and question that difference, so top marks go for observation to Mikeobrianjnr. Whether there is a need to actually change the graphic, I'm not sure. Personally, I found our main 'tree' graphic a bit wishy-washy, but I'm not going to fuss over changing it one way or another. I suspect many of my fellow hosts would not worry too much, either, so long as the core principles of a friendly, helpful welcome at the Teahouse are actively maintained (see also here). Regarding the list of names automatically added to HostBot invites, I'm not actually sure whether they are taken directly from edits made to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Hosts/Database reports/Automated invites#Inviter_list or if it requires a request on Jtmorgan's talk page if you want it added (or removed, as I see you've just done at the automated invites page). Hoping this helps a bit, Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:01, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, @Nick Moyes:, for the warm greeting and for the explanation. I figured it might be something like that. --Rosiestep (talk) 01:01, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping Nick Moyes. Hi Rosiestep! Yes, I can take you off the inviter list (I need to make the change manually, but it's easy). Is that what you want? Cheers, J-Mo 23:23, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jtmorgan. Yes, please. While I'm one of the Teahouse's biggest fans, I'm stretched too thin these days to be of much help here. Thanks! --Rosiestep (talk) 01:01, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP Twitter Feed
Hi - someone able to point me to the procedure what will be published via the official Wikipedia Twitter Account!? I am aware of WP:ITN but found nothing for the Twitter Posts ... do we have any policy/procedure for this? CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:40, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I made changes to a persons page which included adding birth_name and other information. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Gardenhour Once I saved the changes the picture that was on the page doesn't display now and all of the personal information now reads in paragraph form at the top instead of on the right side of the page with the personal details below the picture. How can I fix this and get the picture back? I was working in Visual Editor on my computer.
Thank you in advance! TruthPR (talk) 20:58, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
An editor reverted all of the changes you made. Rather than starting over, I suggest you start a discussion on the Talk page of the article. Minimally, none of the content you added had references (but then, the prior version had no references, either). Naming music videos he worked on adds nothing to his notability. David notMD (talk) 21:17, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone make an article about web animation?
I know the web animation section on the computer animation article isn't enough, I want someone to an main article about web animation, The history of animations on the internet on the 1980s and 1990s and the popularization of web animations on the internet.
Can someone make the main article of web animation for me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmberLovesEverything (talk • contribs) 21:27, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, This question might sound very awkward but i've come across two profiles User:Anjumaafi- Who has proclaimed to be here to create Shafiq's article and is a pretty new account so is another attempt to impersonate Zeyan Shafiq.
Another Is User:Jeelanishafiq- who claims himself to be Zeyan Shafiq, while as he isn't. This issue has been reported by Shafiq to the wikipedia via email.
So I'd like to ask what policies to follow for impersonation and how do i request protection for Zeyan Shafiq so that no new editor could harm it because i am currently reading all the policies regarding biography and notability and after I'm done i will be working on that article.
Warm Regards Abhayesports (talk) 22:48, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Update Take a look at this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Alyo#Help , this person is trying to prove as if he works for stalwart and most probably by mentioning "Paying" part he wants other's to realise that Stalwart Esports is violating wikipedia's policies. Definitely something that is unethical and hasn't been sent by us (Stalwart Esports), definitely part of some campaign. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhayesports (talk • contribs) 23:31, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Admin note on the first two accounts, both have been globally locked. For the update, it looks like Newslinger has blocked per the username policy— Wug·a·po·des 00:59, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually don't worry, I've worked it out. Just thought I'd write something here, but in the few seconds since asking I've found the answer. Thanks anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ButterCashier (talk • contribs) 23:10, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I have made all adjustment as pointed at on the comment section on Draft:Oxlade (singer), rewritten to meet WP:NPOV, with reliable sources to establish WP:GNG and also left a message on the talk page as directed by Timtrent to justify the use of the interviews and I strongly believe it meets WP:SINGER. JudeJnr (talk) 23:39, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy link: Richard Baker (British businessman, born 1962)
Courtesy link: Draft:Tony Jazz TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 19:40, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Done! GoingBatty (talk) 03:31, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
