Wikipedia:Teahouse

Melecie, a Teahouse host

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

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

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

Help Wikipedia

Is there a new policy - revert IP users with impunity?

This is happening increasingly: I make a reasonable - but, I accept, as always, debatable - edit, which is reverted so fast, that I can only think that it was done without any kind of checking. (I mean, the edit of mine above, as with similar recent incidents, does not scream "disruptive edit" on the face of it, I believe - So should deserve at least a cursory look to check.)

As in this case, when I check the reverter's history, there are masses of reversions, often solely, or nearly so, of IP editors. There is generally a mix of good and bad reversions, as in this case. It is also quite commonly an editor who does not use edit summaries.

I accept that if I choose not to register, I have to take the rough with the smooth, and I see lots of implicit and explicit suspicion of IP editors. I know there are reasons, too. That has never worried me (too much!), but there seems to be a noticeable upsurge in this kind of thing. And it's getting disheartening. Could there be any special reason for this taking off in the last few months? For example, are there special anti-vandalism projects that newly registered users are encouraged to undertake? Or something like that? Any ideas? I'd like to know how long to lay low for, giving WP a bit of rest, if I have to ride-out an anti-IP reversion campaign. But editing has been a real life-saver for me throughout the pandemic, restrictions, etc.

Also, can anything more be done to try to encourage habitual non-users of edit-summaries to a more collegial approach? I find the discourtesy of being reverted with no edit summary whatsoever, quite in-your-face hostile. I would never behave that way to others on WP, so find it really objectionable in registered users - some of whom seem to think they're superior creatures to troublesome varmint IPs.

Rant ended. Thanks for listening. 49.177.69.7 (talk) 12:04, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I opened a report on ANI about this particular editor about an hour ago here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Safari web - mass reverting IP edits without explanation because they seem to be making a significant number of problematic reverts. New editors jumping into anti-vandalism work with little idea of what they're doing is a common problem, you really need a decent grasp of Wikipedia policies before doing it but for some reason it's advertised as being a beginner friendly activity. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 12:11, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

UPDATE: User:Safari web indef blocked as a sockpuppet. David notMD (talk) 13:10, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

The reported case is an outlier, but the underlying problem is real. It is certainly the case that

1. some users are a bit too quick to hit the revert button (especially with automated tools)
2. some users take less precautions when interacting with IP editors

I have no idea if those problems are on the rise, and I do not think anybody has a solution. It occurs from time to time that someone comes to complain about being reverted without an edit summary, we ping the reverter, and they come here to apologize. In the defense of those people, when you have spent the last 99 clicks reverting promotional material, you are not in a mood to carefully analyze the 100th edit that comes through the list, even if you ought to be as cautious as when you started out. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 13:41, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, as this reverter appears to have been blocked, they were clearly an anomaly. The occasional over-correction is understandable, and I do not begrudge that from the people you mention in the sort of circumstances you describe. I am concerned that it appears to be accepted that editors exercise less care when reverting the edits of IP users (compared to registered users). I say that, while aware that unregistered users are known for disruptive and clueless editing. I don't think the fact that a disproportionate number of such edits come from IPs should be the basis for a kind of creeping disrespect for all IP users' contributions, though, nor a preparedness to accept this sort of differential approach - even if there are reasonable grounds to develop this kind of implicit bias.

One of the things I was also trying to say, though, was, far from "careful analysis" on the 99th or 100th click, all that was needed was a very quick glance. The edits of mine - and of a few other IPs I've seen - that I have been discussing here, do not even remotely look like disruptive edits. It appears at times, that the extent of the process has been: 'IP made edit; can't see what for in first millisecond; must be bad, even if not, who's gonna pick me up on it?"

I don't want or expect an apology with such events; these things happen, even with the well-intentioned editors who seem to do this. It's just one of those things, but I thought I would bring up how cumulatively demotivating and disheartening it is. With all the massive work done on WP in holding back the tide of low-quality material, while trying to widen the scope and enhance articles, I realise this is very small beer indeed, perhaps to the point of being irrelevant. I thank you all for your attention and responses. 49.177.69.7 (talk) 03:21, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

If anyone with the "rollback" user right is abusing it consistently (not just making an honest mistake now and then), that should be reported at WP:ANI or to the administrator who granted the right. Rollback should be granted only to users who can be trusted with it. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:27, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Errors will of course occur - I make more than my fair share! - but that seems more of an argument for the use edit summaries when reverting - always. And I am not certain if "rollback" was used in the cases I am thinking of. But, even when editors use WP tools to revert, is there still the capacity to briefly mention the perceived issue in the ES?

As for "occasional mistakes": It's more about patterns of reverting and communication (or lack of) that I am thinking of, and what that suggests about WP's real-life approach to unregistered editors. Just to give a flavour of what I mean, note the edit summaries employed by this editor. They extensively revert, for sound reasons from what I can tell, and they are always quite terse in their ES. However, when it's a registed user, there is some brief effort to explain. When it's an IP user, there is only ever one explanation: "Revert IP". And that is my concern, (not from this editor, to be clear, just using them as my example.) I note in passing that I asked on this editor's talk page - and then later, on mine - to discuss a reversion they made; I received no reply, so re-instated the reverted reference repair. (While not very talkative, this editor does usually reply to questions from registered editors on their talk page.) But that experience echoes several I have had. I realise there's no "fix" to all this: I guess I just hoped to raise awareness.

Anyway, thank you very much, @192.76.8.74, @David notMD, @Tigraan and @Anachronist for taking the time to respond. 49.177.69.7 (talk) 03:21, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Although one isn't supposed to edit while not logged in, I have done so deliberately in the past to remind myself of what it's like to edit as an IP address. I encourage every experienced editor to try it: put in a few hours on Wikipedia as an IP address to see what it's like, see how others treat you. It gives you a new perspective that makes you think twice about how you respond in edit summaries and talk page comments, causing you to treat any good-faith editor the same regardless of whether it's an IP address or a username. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:00, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

I might actually do that. Although if I'm allowed to I would use a VPN so that my real IP address isn't revealed Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 14:03, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

@Blaze The Wolf See WP:VPN. ― Qwerfjkltalk 21:26, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Makes sense. Also you got the wrong one. It's WP:NOP Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 21:36, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Oops (I typically just guess the shortcuts and assume I'm right if it's blue). ― Qwerfjkltalk 21:41, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

It's also quite educational to stop and read the edits being carried out by IP editors. Yes, there are some really misguided IP editors, but if you just pick random edits and read them, you will also find people spotting and correcting mathematical errors in the middle of hideous formulae that only one reader in a hundred could understand, people adding carefully-written paragraphs on marine invertebrates; people sorting out historical misunderstandings in the aftermath of battles that took place in countries that no longer exist, a thousand years ago; WP is a huge resource of human knowledge, and passer-by IP editors who happen to be experts in something obscure, and happen to spot something not quite right, are an enormous benefit to the community. Really, the lesson from this, is stop trying to clock up non-existent bonus-points for reverting quicker than Cluebot; instead carefully read what's been written, and check it really is wrong. So what, if someone else reverts it first? The important thing is that our encyclopaedia remains accurate, clear, and as complete as possible. Elemimele (talk) 21:56, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

IP editors have been responsible for many of the worst, but (seconding Elemimele) also some of the very best, edits I've seen. My problem with latter class is that there's no good way of paying them a compliment.

(I can't try editing while logged-out: there's an idiot vandal on my IP, and a couple of times I've needed industrial-grade intervention to be able to post anything at all.) Narky Blert (talk) 16:10, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Encyclopedia.com

I was planning to work on the article about the cult-film journalist and author Danny Peary, and his birth information is footnoted to Encyclopedia.com. From what I read at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_279#Encyclopedia.com, Encyclopedia.com aggregates reliable-source material. Here's my question: Rather than cite Encyclopedia.com, shouldn't we cite the reliable source instead? I've seen "via=" in some footnotes. Would that apply here?

I'll be specific. This Danny Peary Encyclopedia.com page https://www.encyclopedia.com/arts/educational-magazines/peary-dannis-1949 says at the end that the material comes from the reference work Contemporary Authors, New Revision Series. So should the current footnote ("Peary, Dannis 1949-". Encyclopedia.com. 2009. Retrieved August 19, 2019.) be more like ("Peary, Dannis 1949-". Contemporary Authors, New Revision Series. Via Encyclopedia.com. 2009. Retrieved August 19, 2019.)

Also I don't see "2009" anywhere on the Encyclopedia.com article. Should the 2009 come out?

I'm sorry to keep asking questions, and thank you everyone on Teahouse for helping me many times.

Now that I think about it, I'm not sure any of this even matters. The footnote goes to the same place. Am I being too persnickety? The Horror, The Horror (talk) 21:52, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

@The Horror, The Horror My quick passing observation is that you should not cite anything unless you have personally seen and checked that the information stated can be verified from that citation. If you can't do that, perhaps you should not be the one trying to create the article. Or try to find other reliable sources yourself that do support Notability. My point being that if Encyclopaedia.com can aggregate sources, you ought to be able to go out and find those sources yourself. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:00, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

@The Horror, The Horror: On the Encyclopedia.com page, click the "Cite this article" button (which looks like curly quotation marks), and you'll see citations that are similar to your proposal (without the 2009 year). Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 22:02, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

The Horror ×2, I completely agree with Nick Moyes. I'm not sure if GoingBatty is making a suggestion rather than just stating a fact, but if there's a suggestion that you should believe what the encyclopedia.com page says about its sources and then cite these sources on encyclopedia.com's say so rather than either citing encyclopedia.com or checking its ostensible sources for yourself, then I strongly disagree. (Incidentally -- and though not relevant to your question -- I bought Peary's Cult Movies trilogy when freshly published and found the three books to be most enjoyable reads. They go into fascinating detail. However, I gradually realized that, for those films that I happened to know well, the details were rather often mistaken.) -- Hoary (talk) 22:25, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

@Hoary: Sorry I wasn't clear. I was suggesting using a citation with "via Encyclopedia.com". I would do something similar with Newspapers.com. If The Horror, The Horror wanted to make the extra effort to find Contemporary Authors and then cite that directly, that would be fabulous. GoingBatty (talk) 22:32, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Hoary likes this.

So it sounds like two people say we shouldn't cite Encylopedia.com and one person says it's OK? Am I reading that right? I apologize I'm confused. I don't want to be a bother. I just want to make sure before I do anything at the article. I can't really take time to find a library that has Contemporary Authors and go there. Maybe one of you can look at Danny Peary and see the Encylopedia.com footnote and if it's not usable take it out? I'm new and I don't want to rock the boat.

Someone said they thought I was going to create an article. Danny Peary exists. I still have to learn how to make an article. The Horror, The Horror (talk) 21:33, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

@The Horror, The Horror: I updated the reference in the article. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 22:33, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

@GoingBatty: Thank you GoingBatty! I'll use that as a model for how I should handle Encyclopedia.com in the future! And thank you for showing me "ping"! The Horror, The Horror (talk) 21:26, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Who wrote this article

Malayal 41.116.94.252 (talk) 17:21, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

You have not named or linked to any article, so we can't tell you. In general, most Wikipedia articles have been written and edited by many different contributors, sometimes hundreds. You can see the complete history of all edits (additions, changes and deletions), including its initial creation, made to an article by clicking on the "View history" tab at the top of the article page. Hope this helps. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.121.162.207 (talk) 17:31, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

[As there was no article so-named, I assumed in my response above that "Malayal" was intended as a signature. Apologies for the misinterpretation. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.121.162.207 (talk) 12:34, 25 August 2021 (UTC)]

(edit conflict) I don't see an article with that title, although there is one for Malayali. As with all Wikipedia articles, it is likely to have had a number of editors whose contributions can be seen using the "View history" tab for the article. There is also a tool to summarize the contributions, showing who added most material, which you will find using the "Page history" link on the top of that tab. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:32, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

My reference In Popular Culture was deleted?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nambu_pistol

Note to self: Apparently editing is NOT a collaborative effort. Got it. Didn't realize pages are "owned" by individuals. When did that change as I was thanked previously for my first edit? Good to know for future attempts which may or may not happen. Thanks Wikipedia (Considering canceling my monthly $$ amount)Alden Street (talk) 17:24, 24 August 2021 (UTC) Alden Street (talk) 17:24, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

@Alden Street: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia so that means that we only collect facts that have been reported in reliable sources. There are many other reasons we require all facts to be sourced, such as that lots of trolls come here to add deliberately false misinformation and that readers should be looking at our references to check facts they need confirmed. You can cancel your donation if you want—certainly no-one reading your message is receiving the money. I, at least, prefer people to volunteer time rather than money, but working in a collaborative environment means that you should not respond with anger or hurt when somebody informs you something new about the way Wikipedia works, and conflicts should be resolved by polite discussion (you could have contacted the person who undid your edit to ask for further explanation). — Bilorv (talk) 17:36, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to The Teahouse. Please don't get discouraged. It appears your edit did not include a cited source. Please try again but include a source for your edit(s). Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 17:36, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Bilorv If I knew who undid the edit I could have reached out to that person, but I don't know how to find that person. And as far as citing a source, I cited the season and episode that mentioned the Nambu pistol. How does one include a source citation for a TV show episode? And, BTW, EVERYONE in Wikipedia is receiving the money. QED. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alden Street (talk • contribs)

I will note that the edit summary gives the impression that WP:MILPOP is Wikipedia policy but it is not. It is part of the essay WP:MILCG which clearly notes it is not policy. However, WP:N and WP:V are policies and WP:MILPOP is based on those policies. To Alden Street: Please don't get discouraged. See if you can find a reliable source to your statement. If you can then you may re-add the content with the source in the form of an inline citation as the only issue presented is that it was unsourced. My fellow editors, @Pyrrho the Skeptic and @Bilorv, have pointed out some links you might be interested in should you decide to continue editing here. --ARoseWolf 17:51, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

[Edit Conflict] Your two latest edits were correctly amended and reverted by Loafiewa, the first because you made an incorrect wikilink to a wrong or ambiguous target, the second because you did not cite any source for the information. Wikipedia is collaborative, but contributions have to be both accurate and in accordance with our (admittedly quite complex and extensive) rules and guidelines, painstakingly evolved over sixteen-or-so years.

Reversion of an edit is just part of our Standard Operating Procedure of "Bold, Revert, Discuss." You Boldly made some edits, Loafiewa thought they were not correctly done, and amended or Reverted them, the next step is for you to Discuss the reverted one with Loafiewa (and others who may choose to join in) on the Article's Talk page, or on Loafiewa's Talk page, or on yours, whichever you prefer. Most likely you will agree on how to properly link or cite that contribution. This is all normal and no animosity or ownership is involved.

Donations are made to the Wikimedia Foundation, which runs many activities and projects, not just English Wikipedia. All editors on Wikipedia are unpaid volunteers who have no access whatever to any information about donations, so are not influenced by them (or their absence).

To find out who made a revertion or other edit to the article, just click on the "View History" tab, where the reason for the edit should be given following the linked signature of the editor. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.121.162.207 (talk) 17:57, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, editing costs me money (buying books that I write articles about and so on). I've never been paid a penny and I wouldn't accept a penny. Alden Street, to view the page history of any Wikipedia page, there's a "View history" button if you're on desktop or at the bottom of the mobile layout there's a bar saying "Last edited by X" that you can click on. The layout of the page history might look quite complicated at first but by clicking on a few things you should see that you can view (a) what article content changed with each edit; (b) the user pages, talk pages and contribution logs of every editor who edited the page; and (c) what the page looked like at each point in its history (and many more things besides). — Bilorv (talk) 23:59, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Please Approve or Ban me Permanently

Hello Dear Admins, As always satuition in Afghanistan so Bad, Just killing and Kilings... I am also one them the people who living in Afghanistan. I thought i would be helping my country people and copmanies those are Known to create pages as much i can, Cause our people are not familar with Technology and they can't. But here in wikipedians really didn't helped me, Instead of Few of Them were asking for money to approve my page, But i told them i need ligit work and want to learn. I am seeing there bunches of pages those don't have even on Reference as well but still approved, but in case admins like they having personal issues with me. They don't feel in how much struggling i am trying to work, I spent more than Hurdred Hourse on my article, and i have good refrences than many pages, but still not approving.

PLEASE MAKE DECESION NOW, APPROVE MY PAGE, OR DELETE DELETE MY ACCOUNT PERMENETLY ImanSalvador (talk) 21:45, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

sorry to hear that i will tag an administrator immediately —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 21:52, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

• It is not possible to delete an account, but you may abandon it. 331dot (talk) 21:54, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

hello dear @Oshwa sorry to bother you, but i thought you have to hear that! according to @ImanSalvador she/he wants to create Articles that's Totally legit and it's their right, but someone tries to ask for money for that, i think the problem shouldn't be neglected that's why i am informing you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sakura emad (talk • contribs)

thanks for accepting it. —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 21:55, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

@ImanSalvador: Welcome to the Teahouse. As terrible as the situation is in Afghanistan, Wikipedia does not make concessions for regions in conflict, and new articles must still follow the encyclopedia's policies and guidelines. The reviewers who reviewed your draft, Draft:Zwak News, are not admins. The biggest concern that reviewers raised is that the references do not establish notability as Wikipedia defines it from reliable sources. I see the draft being written as ad copy, which is not the tone that Wikipedia goes for.
Wikipedia has been around for two decades, with existing guidelines and policies enforced and created years after the project's creation. This means some articles have slipped through the cracks, and would very likely be deleted; however, the project is vast, and people edit where they want to edit, so it isn't surprising some articles are neglected.
If someone is asking for money to approve [your] page, report them to paid-en-wp@wikimedia.org; articles are not held hostage for approval. It is most likely a scam and should be reported.

Wikimedia accounts cannot be deleted, as edits need to be attributed to one. You can abandon the account and never use it again if you wish to stop editing Wikipedia. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:13, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

• If ImanSalvador has really run into people here who are "asking for money to approve my page", those people are CROOKS and must be ignored. But I'll help you ping @Oshwah:, Sakura emad; you misspelled the admin's name, which means your ping won't work. Bishonen | tålk 23:13, 24 August 2021 (UTC).

  😪 omg my bad, thank you for helping @Bishonen. —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 23:31, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

• This user has been a regular in -en-help and AfC/HD. His draft existed before the Afghanistan crisis started and has consistently never had anything near acceptable sources, to the point that they evidently fabricated a source (rather clumsily) in an attempt to bypass our sourcing requirements. I'd actually look into this user's history; I have a feeling they have a high conflict of interest here and the attempts at fabricating sources, emotional manipulation, etc. are the signs of someone who shouldn't be editing Wikipedia full stop. As to the draft itself, it's at MfD due to repeated resubmissions without addressing the issues reviewers keep pointing out. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 05:25, 25 August 2021 (UTC) (Edited 05:27, 25 August 2021 (UTC) to link MfD)

• Hello Dear Admins, I Hope are all safe; Sorry For late Response, As most of telecomunications Towers are Desytroid We can't Access Intrenet Easily! For the conflict of interest : Sure I was writting about Models for Zwak News fews Years ago when i was like an employee. That time Zwak News Publishing Paper Megazines only. This why I started my frist artcile from Zwak News, Cause I was Fimilar with Zwak News, And knew Information About Zwak News also I was abslout begginer, I didn't know that it's a crime in wikipedia's rules. For the Admin who were asking for Money: As I am From Afghanistan and we also Speak Dari, which is Similar to Persian, Once they admins checked out my Article that, He knew that I am fimilar that I can speak Persian is well, So they were startig chat in Local Lanuages, whcih the rest admins or people didn't know about that what we are talking. The money Seekers Mostly time Creating Seprate Chat Room for Chatting and Was BlackMailing me that I could or the other amdins will delete your artcile now, So give that much money, so i can approve and i approved lot of pages for Afghans; But I was always saying that I need Legit Work and i want to learn. For the ad copy : I tried as much I can to remove any promotional content or Words, Even becouse of that, I have mad the artcile that much short. Even I didn't Included that it's Independent Agency, That words is So important for Afghanistan People, If you not input, Taliban Will think that it's govement Agency, You will be target killed! As I remained as Journalist; I am in Extream Danger of Death, And also, Theres Lack of Credit Cards to Recharge your Internet Data, and Net is Extreamly slow, So this why if not approved that artciles, I wont mind, And I know you are doing you best and and I Respect you soo much. At last Thanks sooo much and i love your Kind response Dear —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 Love you soo much - Pray for Me! ImanSalvador (talk) 19:32, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

• Please quit it with the attempts at emotional manipulation. If you're seriously at risk, getting safe should be your first priority, not Wikipedia. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 23:45, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Need help with rogue editor. Was referred here by dispute resolution.

This is about the page, The Palmer Report. I was told when I lodged a complaint on the dispute board, to come here. There is an edit war raging and luckily, it stopped in July. But a rogue editor has stirred the pot again and locked the page down and "talk" as well. Palmer Report is a Left-wing blog. It offers Political news and often analysis.

The founder once ran a site called "The daily News bin." The editor I refer to is Dr. Swaglordphd. I do not wish to speak bad of him but he is the one who will not let this go. Apparently, Swag changed PR header to say it is a fake news site. This produced hard feelings. Swag did say in his edit "feel free to revert." The problem is he's got alot of friends on here and some editors were pissed that this started up again so they locked the talk page. I read every comment, I made some of those comments and no threats were made, just pleas to please take "fake news" out of the header. This is not a fake news site and in fact was just featured on MSNBC the other night with Brian Williams. MSNBC is a recognized source. It would appear to me that some are just interested in "winning" versus really thinking about the issue. If you look at the talk page, several editors agree with me. Several. One even went so far as to say by stating that calling PR fake news one is basically calling them b-sh#t. This is not a non-biased thing and anyway Dr. swag must have known this since when he did his edit he invited anyone to revert it back. Dr. swag has also been complained about by Raw story for basically doing the same. They are also left-wing.It would seem he wants to as one complaint put it, push down the good stuff and push the bad stuff upward. I am hoping SOMEONE will take this seriously and even if the term fake news must remain there is no reason why it must remain in the header. I invite anyone to read what has been going on there and lastly -- Dr. swag now wants to change it AGAIN and wipe out the word "website" explaining that PR has always been the daily bin and that they are the exact same thing. This does not come from a reliable source. It comes from Dr. swag's preconceived notions. In fact I am and was a reader of both and they are two completely different sites. Here are his words that speak for themselves.I ask for help from a kind and non-biased editor or editors.

Swaglord: 4) For all intents and purposes, Daily News Bin is the Palmer Report. There is no difference in content or ownership between the two. Palmer literally just changed 2600:6C65:7E7F:B93E:3992:37A7:BB99:C937 (talk) 22:56, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy link: Palmer Report. Karenthewriter (talk) 23:02, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Person using a very long IP number, your post above is very long. I confess that I haven't read it with care. (I really doubt that anyone will. In order to be persuasive, you must first be read; and in order to be read, you must maximize the signal/noise ratio.)

• You seem to have a content dispute. There have been content disputes about the article in its talk page, Talk:Palmer Report. You don't seem to have participated. Participate, persuasively. (Tip: Before hitting "Publish changes", try reading what you've written, aloud. Cut the flab.) If the discussion is problematic, look at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for tips on what to do and how to do it.
• Incidentally, while you're free to participate without being logged in, it's likely that what you say will be taken more seriously if you are logged in as such-and-such a user ID.
• In recent days, you (or somebody resembling you) have twice attempted to bring this up on Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. The first time, you were told "the filing editor did not correctly list any other editors and did not notify any other editors". That shows that you ignored (or didn't bother to read) the instructions at the top of that noticeboard. But that comment seems to have had no effect on you, because the second time: "Closed for failure to read instructions or follow the listing rules." Transporterman added: "The filing party [that's you] is obviously struggling with limited resources and the complexity of Wikipedia and is advised to seek help at the Wikipedia Teahouse which is intended to help newcomers." (I'll attempt to help by suggesting that you get a user ID, log in under it, and participate in the discussions on the page Talk:Palmer Report.) Meanwhile, don't kid yourself that the "Dispute resolution noticeboard" offers a way to avoid the need for meticulously worded statement. See "Psychology" on that noticeboard for an example of how a complainant should set out a case there.

-- Hoary (talk) 05:08, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Complaints about rogue editors in Wikipedia are common, and usually have either of two effects. Either they are simply ignored, or they result in a boomerang being thrown back at the complaining editor for the personal attack. Civility is the fourth pillar of Wikipedia, and does not just consist of the avoidance of "bad words", but of treating other editors with a minimum amount of respect and dignity because they are human beings. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:25, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

@Hoary: I would remind you that IPs are human too, even when they use IPv6 (person using a very long IP number). Furthermore, one should not have to register an account (never seen the term "user id" before btw) to get taken seriously; if some people are dismissing OP’s queries based on their IP status, they are the ones in the wrong. Of course, your other points about brevity still stand. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 12:14, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Tigraan, I do understand that IPs are human too; I dismissed the detail of this effusion not because its writer wasn't logged in but because of its prolixity. (As I glance below, I get the impression that you and I agree at least partially.) I didn't dismiss it as a whole; indeed, I responded to it (or anyway to certain aspects of it). -- Hoary (talk) 12:31, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

OK. I am going to respond and this post maybe long but that's just the way it is. You do not have to read if you choose not to. First off, I have participated so you are wrong about that. They locked the talk-page down. Then I went to dispute and was referred here. All rules followed! I DID let editors know. Wiki said to go to their talk-pages and that is exactly what I did. There was one editor who seemed to be anonymous but I posted on at least three editors talk-pages. I have said (about 50 times now) that I am recovering from a broken knee. I am not asking for sympathy for that but that IS the reason I cannot spend alot of time on here and the only reason I keep speaking about my broken knee is because everybody keeps ignoring me and asking me to create an account. I cannot due to the knee and the fact that the person whose computer I use is frankly not a fan of Wiki and does not want me to make an account using his computer which, being a kind and understanding soul, I understand.I am grateful he let me use it at all. I have tried being polite and kind and specific and I do not like nor do I understand being accused of a personal attack on an editor. I am sure he is a very nice person. I have a disagreement with him. I asked for help. That's all. It also boggles my mind. Free speech is a thing. Are you telling me that questioning an editor's judgement is considered a personal attack? So, this place that is supposedly opened to the world is in reality not because if one cannot have meaningful discussions and communications without being scolded then where is the free speech? I am on here because two blogs I love--Palmer Report and Raw Story--are being lied about. Sorry to be politically incorrect but when I am sweet and docile and polite I am labeled as not being courteous to the editors. An analogy would be like complaining there's a big in your food and being scolded by the manager for being impolite to bring it up. I am educated and as such I know when avoidance is happening. I think that is called the strawman's argument? I wrote with politeness and instead of actually addressing the issue you make it into something else. I read every comment including from many people who are not me and all I saw were many generalizations and no addressing the core principle--which is the heading of the article itself. A few )brave) editors tried but there seems to be a "good ole" system going on. It is quite a disillusionment. Did you know when I went to write this, a request from Wiki for money popped up? You have rules that are to deep, corporate and unyielding for any non-regular to be able to follow coherently. It is an exercise in futility. The fact that nobody has still addressed my question nor answered complaints on Raw Story as well as Palmer Report tells me the general consensus is non-caring about fairness and frankly honesty. Many of the editors on here are very smart and have been around quite a long, long time. That does not make my opinion any less valid. This is not said with anger but I understand it will be labeled as such because there appears to be no way to have an honest and fair conversation with many of the editors on here. (Not all.) In closing, ask yourself this: why are less and less people giving to your organization? Why is Wiki's reputation so awful? Why are there so many unresolved complaints? Even the smartest people have competency issues. I obviously cannot go to talk on a locked-down page and obviously if you had given even a cursory glance at my first post you'd know and understand that. I resent being called unwilling to learn---I came on here for one question. And it never was answered. In closing I will not bother you again but you will most likely continue to receive complaints, continue to rebuff anyone new or unaware of how the system works (or lacking in the means to spend much time learning.) I hope this is not considered an attack. It is not. You know what it is? It's called feedback. Yes, even Wikipedia editors are not immune from that. And sometimes feedback involves length and specific answers to questions which you seem to interpet as not being polite. I will leave you to your loftiness and please refer to this post if you ever want feedback, not anger. Bye, Someone who tried. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6c65:7e7f:b93e:3992:37a7:bb99:c937 (talk) 06:24, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

There is no freedom of speech on Wikipedia, any more than freedom of speech lets me rewrite an article in CNN when I don't like it. This is a privately owned website and the owners, the Wikimedia Foundation, just so happen to be kind enough to let the Wikipedia community decide by consensus what the boundaries for acceptable communication are. — Bilorv (talk) 10:05, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

• Writing long posts when one could have shortened them is not being polite. It has been part of the etiquette of letter-writing for centuries that you should take time to shorten what you write out of respect for the time of the reader. In the case of internet forums, this effect is even stronger because what one person writes is read by many, therefore the one person should be aware that whatever waste of time they cause is multiplied by the number of people reading.

Here’s what your first post here should have been: I have an edit dispute with User:Dr.Swag_Lord,_Ph.d at the page Palmer Report. They changed the header [lead] to say it is a fake news site. The page was locked [semi-protected] afterwards. I have an MSNBC source proving that the Palmer Report is not fake news, but Dr. SwagLord will not allow it because they have a bias.

I added in [brackets] the Wikipedia-jargon terms, but it is OK to not know these. Notice how this "summary" drops any discussion of the inner motives of other editors (left/right-wing bias, preconceived notions, etc.) which is irrelevant in any case, or the detailed history of the dispute (which can be found on the talk page of the article). Notice also how it is one short paragraph and will be read entirely by anyone coming across this noticeboard.

I suspect your latest post was also particularly ineffective. If I may do some mind-reading of Bilorv, they appear to have read up until your mention of "free speech" and then typed their reply without reading the rest. Having read the rest of your post, I know that the free speech thing (while a bit silly) could have been safely ignored; however, you only know that if you commit to reading the whole thing, which is not a very productive use of one’s time.

Finally, you said I came on here for one question. And it never was answered.. If you can cite a part of your initial post that is less than 50 words and that asks a question, I would be very impressed, because I do not see it. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 12:14, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

I read both DRN requests, I've read the entire talk page, and I've read your post here. It was a lot of reading. And here is my take on the situation- you are convalescing, and have a deep personal passion for this page. You have pled your case to the editors- and they were not persuaded. That doesn't mean you're wrong and they're right- however- WP operates by consensus and consensus is against you. When you were told that- you continued to post unnecessarily long paragraphs on the talk page demanding that your POV be enacted and calling anyone who disagreed with your names "Rouge" etc. At that point- it was determined you were being disruptive (you were) and the Talk was locked down so you could go cool off. You came back and resumed the same thing and opened two DRNS without reading the rules of that page or following our very simple instructions.

My advice is this. Stop now. Consensus is against you. Multiple other editors disagree with you. Move on, find another passion- be it here on WP or elsewhere. But you are beating a dead horse at this point and consensus is unlikely to change the longer you do so. What is likely to happen is you being completely removed from WP. I would much rather see you learn to become a useful contributor to this project. But you cannot continue the way you have been. Be like Elsa and Let it go friend. Nightenbelle (talk) 15:21, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

I've been observing this article and Nightenbelle's summary is accurate, in my opinion. The only thing I would add is that the Talk page was locked, in part, because of real-world editor safety concerns. The owner of the website about which this article is about has been using his large Twitter following to dox WP editors, to threaten to sue editors, to make even more extreme personal threats beyond lawsuits, and to exhort his followers to flood Wikipedia Talk spaces with complaints about WP editors as part of a "war of attrition" [sic] against Wikipedia. Chetsford (talk) 15:28, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

I want to begin by thanking Tigraan, Nightenbelle and Chetsford for speaking with humility and not scolding me.I appreciate the kindness and all of your thoughts. Tigraan, that "how it should have looked" post was perfect and you nailed exactly what I wanted to say. I cannot thank you enough.I am referring to this below:

"I have an edit dispute with User:Dr.Swag_Lord,_Ph.d at the page Palmer Report. They changed the header [lead] to say it is a fake news site. The page was locked [semi-protected] afterwards. I have an MSNBC source proving that the Palmer Report is not fake news, but Dr. SwagLord will not allow it because they have a bias."

Chetsford-I knew about the threats of a lawsuit but I deeply hope and pray no personal threats were made because that would be horrific and they would lose my support if that happened.

Nightenbelle-thank you. You are correct. Palmer Report AND Raw Story are my two favorite websites. I feel I have debated all I can and simply cannot do anymore. For Palmer Report, I have a feeling they will be featured on many more "reliable sources" besides MSNBC so in time perhaps things will change. With Raw Story they were labeled a "tabloid" not fake news, it seems someone within the company complained so will leave it to them. As for DoctorSwagLordPHD I would not attack or bully him or any editor. I thank you again for educating me and I hope things work out for both websites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6c65:7e7f:b93e:5ccf:f891:888d:5c08 (talk) 19:28, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Now that was much more readable! If you want to stick around, consider WP:REGISTER. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:04, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Delete image

Please how do I delete an image from draft Olugold (talk) 23:18, 24 August 2021 (UTC) Olugold (talk) 23:18, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

The draft will read [[File:This is the image I don't want.jpg|optional stuff]] or similar; you simply delete this. (I'm assuming that you're editing the "source", not using the "visual editor"). -- Hoary (talk) 23:49, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

@Olugold: Welcome to the Teahouse! If you're referring to Draft:Benneth Nwankwo, and you're using the source editor, the code for the photo is [[File:BENNETH NWANKWO.jpg|thumb|Benneth Nwankwo]]. If you're using VisualEditor, click Edit, click on the photo, click your delete key, and save your change. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 03:15, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Hoary and GoingBatty thank you for your swift response. I will edit immediately — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olugold (talk • contribs) 11:43, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

@Olugold: The draft has been deleted, but the image still exists (for now) at commons:File:BENNETH NWANKWO.jpg and commons:File:Benneth Nwankwo.jpg GoingBatty (talk) 21:14, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

okay, thanks.--Olugold (talk) 21:31, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Didn't nominate a hook to DYK because I didn't know how to do so

Hi! I've been working on Articles on the First Carlist War for the past 2 weeks as a beginner project. I found a cool fact about one of the battles of the war and added it to the article but didn't know I could nominate it to DYK and so the 7 days have passed (the edit is 12 days old). Is the fact just lost now? I'll still be working on the article and hope to get it to B-class someday but it feels kind of bad that a possibly interesting DYK was lost cause I didn't know about the process. For reference, the DYK can be found here (I didnt add it to the nominations list). A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 23:29, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

A. C. Santacruz, I haven't investigated whether the article really has been "5× expanded"; on the other hand, I note that you write "I still have to review another nomination and will post this here once it's done", but if you're new to "DYK" you do not have to review another (or do a "QPQ", as it's cryptically called) when nominating your own. Indeed, if you're very new to the DYK business I advise you not to review another nomination; despite the best of intentions, you could easily make mistakes. Better to propose two or three of your own, paying attention to what reviewers and others say about each, and only then start your reviewing. -- Hoary (talk) 23:53, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Hoary, thanks for the reply! According to wmflabs I have authorship of ~80% of the article, with the second author (if that is correct to say) having an additional ~13% but having made their edits when creating the article in 2008. Would the last significant edit before mine being made 13 years ago affect the process or no, for future reference, as there are many battles in the Carlist War whose articles were created in the 2000s but are stubs. I tend to work slowly and adding information as I read through sources and am concerned with going past the 7 day period where I've 5x expanded the article by the time I find a cool fact to nominate for DYK. --A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 00:01, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

@A. C. Santacruz Assuming I have interpreted your question and the history of the articles correctly, I fear you may have misunderstood the DYK process. It's been a little while since I did a few Did You Knows for new articles that I had either created or expanded. But there is definitely a hard cut-off time between when you created/significantly expanded an article/or got it to WP:GA status, and the point when you submit your DYK nomination. If you pass that 7 day cut-off, your nomination will be rejected. The way around that is to develop any article in your sandbox or as a DRAFT. This is because the DYK clock starts ticking from the point the page is in mainspace, not when the draft was started. So you can work on it in draft space or your sandbox for years if you wish, but, having moved it into mainspace, you then have 7 days to make your DYK nomination.

Here at the Teahouse, we always tell people that creating an article from scratch is the hardest thing anyone can do here. Personally, my experience was that understanding how to make a proper DYK nomination was far harder to understand and follow correctly than creating an article. (You may find this of help in future: Instructions for 'Did You Know' that a normal human being can understand)

I really can't see on what basis you'd nominate First Carlist War for DYK. It hasn't reached Good Article status; you haven't just created it, nor have you expanded it size by five times at all, let alone in the preceding seven days. I'm sorry if you missed the cut-off for expanding Battle of Alsasua, but as long as the fact mentioned in your hook is within that article, it won't be lost. That siad, DYK exposure brings huge attention to newly created or improved articles, and that, of course, is its purpose. Better luck next time. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:08, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply! I'll make sure to use drafts more often ^u^ --A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 09:05, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Let's see if we can get this straightened out. First Carlist War exists and you have done very modest editing. Secondly, you copied the article into User:A. C. Santacruz/sandbox where you have roughly doubled the length. You have not yet copied your revised version into the existing article. The DYK 7-day clock will start ticking when you merge your new content into the existing article. HOWEVER, your additions do not qualify for the 5X size expansion, so no DYK allowed. You could considering nominating it for Good Article status. If you succeed, that qualifies submitting a DYK. David notMD (talk) 01:54, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply :) --A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 09:05, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Should all Latin America-related articles use DMY dates?

As a Latin America fanatic, I've come across a few articles written in MDY date format even though all Spanish- and Portuguese-speaking countries use DMY instead. Should the DMY date be mandatory on all English-language articles associated with events in Latin America? 2001:8003:3447:9F01:E01E:E556:BC21:FA42 (talk) 23:30, 24 August 2021 (UTC) 2001:8003:3447:9F01:E01E:E556:BC21:FA42 (talk) 23:30, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

As far as I know, the most important thing is consistency within the article. I can't think of a logical reason to use the format that's used in that country for the English article, as there is no reason to assume that readers of that article would be mostly residents of that country and therefore confused. I could be wrong, though. Great question and happy editing! Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 23:52, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, IP editor. This seems to be in the purview of retaining the existing style. MOS:DATETIES offers guidance on English-speaking countries, but not those that predominantly speak another language. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:52, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

I found MOS:BADDATE which says explicitly Do not use dd-mm-yyyy, mm-dd-yyyy or yyyy-dd-mm formats, which I assume is what the OP meant but MDY/DMY dates; so the answer is neither, only YMD is allowed for numeric dates. However, in article text, we usually write out the months, in which case Tenryuu’s advice above works (i.e. keep consistency and check the local variety of English to choose between July 4, 1976 and 4 July 1976). Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 11:33, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Tone of Draft

Hello! I am working on an article that I submitted for review and was declined for "praising subject," could someone read over it and point out specific areas?

This is the link to the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:James_E._Stewart

Thank you! JorodHistory (talk) 01:07, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

@JorodHistory For starters, the 2nd sentence should not be in the lead. It says Stewart was noted for “his ability to work with almost anyone, regardless of religion, color, or political belief” and for never backing down from what he believed, but always standing his ground “in a manner which commanded respect. That is not something a reader needs to see immediately, as that description fits innumerable people. Put it further down on the page, please. I'd also suggest that we don't need to know who gave Stewart a particular job - just say he got the job, and let readers find that level of detail by reading the reference if they so desire. On the whole, it doesn't look too bad to me, but maybe others might wish to make comments

. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:15, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Back in July you were asked on your Talk page if PAID or COI applied. You must answer. If not, state that on your Talk page. It yes, state the nature of your connection on your User page. David notMD (talk) 02:35, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

UPDATE: JorodHistory has declared PAID on User page. David notMD (talk) 09:30, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

if numberblocks had a spinoff after alphablocks, what should its name be?

 5944alsas (talk) 02:10, 25 August 2021 (UTC) hey! alphablocks ended and i definitely like numberblocks, so what would its spinoff be 8 years after alphablocks ended? (example: colorblocks)

@5944alsas: Welcome to the Teahouse, a place to ask questions about editing Wikipedia. Do you have a question about Wikipedia? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 03:18, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

This wouldn't really be a question for the Teahouse. It might be better for the appropriate reference desk. You might want to try there for something like that. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 13:51, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

My account's email.

I registered a new account with the email of an old account, and now I'm not getting email notifications for pages I'm watching. What do I need to do? SweetTaylorJames (talk) 06:11, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Have you enabled the relevant option in your new account's preferences? See Help:Email notification. - David Biddulph (talk) 06:22, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

I think that may have been the issue, thank you David! I think I'm back in business. SweetTaylorJames (talk) 03:50, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

assamase

 47.29.158.191 (talk) 09:21, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello IP editor. Do you need help or advice in editing Wikipedia? That's what we're here for. Nick Moyes (talk) 09:42, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

How to generate consensus?

I requested someone to add a sentence to a semi-edit protected article here but nobody did. An editor asked me to generate consensus for it (I am asking them to use the Washington Post, a reliable source), how do I do that? Baamiyaan2 (talk) 09:40, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

@Baamiyaan2: the problem with saying "here's a reference, add it" is that it puts all the burden on the person who has to implement the edit request: it takes you maybe 20 seconds to write that, but it takes me 15 minutes to read the source in full, decide what's useful information, work out whether that information is already in the article by reading it, then work out where the new information should go and whether any other sections need restructuring or adapting to this new information and so on. When we get hundreds of edit requests and big backlogs pile up, I simply can't do that. I'll reject the edit request and go onto one where the requester put 10 minutes of effort in and I only need to put in 3. That's why the rejection comment you got says Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.

We have additional problems in that the article has been protected because this is a very intense topic where things get heated and lots of unregistered or new people come here demanding something that violates neutral point of view, such as by showing bias towards the Taliban or the U.S. government of the Afghani government.

It seems to me that you suggested a sentence but you've not really understood the reasons it was contested. The claim you're trying to make is enormous—that Pakistan's government have been helping the Taliban. Now I don't really know much about the topic (and I'm one of the volunteers who read through edit requests) but if that's inaccurate, or a minority opinion, or a U.S.-centric approach to the topic—well, there are hundreds of millions of Pakistanis who would be incensed by us getting it wrong. So one Washington Post article marked as "Analysis" isn't enough. We'd need a much bigger diversity of sources all claiming the same thing. We need to work out how widespread a view it is, so we can see whether it needs to be stated as fact, or stated as opinion ("Some journalists such as Washington Post contributor Ishaan Tharoor argued that..."), or doesn't even rise to that level and can't be included.

This is a very difficult topic area to begin contributing to Wikipedia here and I understand that it feels like you've asked for a very simple thing to be done, but what our article says on this topic is really crucial to millions of people who read it and are likely to take it as reliable fact, so we have to be really careful when someone comes along saying "summarize this source" because we don't know what their agenda is or whether that one source is representative of a worldwide perspective.

If you wish to push forwards in this approach then I'd recommend gathering all the sources you can find on the topic of the Pakistan military/government's involvement and say in a new talk page section "here's the consensus in the literature, here's how it differs from what the article says—do people agree with me?" Then you listen to what others think and when enough people have weighed in, someone will be able to implement what the community there decide is the right outcome. — Bilorv (talk) 10:22, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Sometimes, in a very contentious situation, you may find that sources we normally regard as 'reliable' differ in their opinion. In this case you will probably not get consensus to present a single point of view. It may be that instead of requesting insertion of the text "X did this" you will have to see if you can get consensus to add the more arm's-length "The Washington Post reports that X did this", which can stand alongside other referenced statements "X didn't do this", leaving the reader to decide which they believe, or whether they want to look into the original sources themselves. Elemimele (talk) 10:41, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Referencing

FYI

 – Heading added by Qwerfjkl (talk) 11:18, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

How do I give a reference?

 TechnoTiger2008 (talk) 10:30, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

@TechnoTiger2008, try these guides: WP:REFBEGIN and WP:TUTORIAL. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:34, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Ecological Overshoot

I submitted 'Ecological Overshoot' as a new topic on August 10, no response as yet, I'm wondering whether I submitted it properly Global Aspiration (talk) 11:16, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:Ecological Overshoot ― Qwerfjkltalk 11:19, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi, as the notice at the bottom of the article says,
This may take 2–3 weeks or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 846 pending submissions waiting for review. ― Qwerfjkltalk 11:22, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Global Aspiration First, you will be asked to change your User name, as User names are not allowed to be organizations or companies, etc. Second, your draft will be declined. It is a wall of text with very few references. Sprinkled throughout are hyperlinks. Hyperlinks are now allowed. It may be possible to convert some to references. At the end, there is a long paragraph in quotes, without a ref. Try to fix as much as you can before a reviewer declines it. If declined, resolve what the reviewer identified as problems before resubmitting. David notMD (talk) 12:53, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

As a separate, important issue, the last two paragraphs, including that long quoted paragraph, appear to be via hyperlink to your own website. This is a no-no. Your website can be an external link, but not a ref. David notMD (talk) 13:03, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

@Global Aspiration As well as agreeing with the points above (though I am unclear whether your username is actually a company or organisation, or just a gentle awareness-raising name to reflect your interest?), try to split the article up into different elements. In particular, the very first sentence should define what the subject is, rather than starting with the preamble. It's not a bad start for a new article, but there's a fair bit of work to do to get it into shape for an encyclopaedic article, and making it look less like a university essay. (Oh, and if you are directly involved with any of the organistions mentioned, do please follow the guidance at WP:COI to help you declare any conflicts of interest you might have.) Good luck. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:14, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

It appears this is their 2nd username that they've had. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 14:04, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't know how to make a template

Moved from Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) § I don't know how to make a template

 –  ― Qwerfjkltalk 11:35, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Help me create a template or else — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brothernotuser1 (talk • contribs) 11:28, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Blocked as a sockpuppet of JustAUser201468. -- Hoary (talk) 12:05, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

NOt only that but they basically just made a threat. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 13:08, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Or else what? You ain't gonna get nowhere with an attitude like that. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:10, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

0.o why is this happening. —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 20:20, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Notable enough?

I want to create a wiki page for singer/songwriter Tom Fairnie. Can anyone tell me if he’s “notable” enough for inclusion based on these links please?

https://www.eastlothiancourier.com/news/18514008.singer-releases-new-album-following-trip-lifetime-usa/

http://www.haddstock.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Tom-Fairnie-Band-Exclusive-Making-of-Lightning-In-The-Dark.pdf

https://hudba.proglas.cz/noklasik/folk/tom-fairnie-skotsky-pisnickar-hraje-americanu/

m.sn-online.de/amp/news/Schaumburg/Sachsenhagen/Woelpinghausen/Tom-Fairnie-bringt-Mel1425 (talk) 12:03, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

No I'm not going to look at all of those, and I doubt that anyone else will, sorry. (Life's too short.) Please indicate which among this list are the best three; then someone here will look at those three. -- Hoary (talk) 12:07, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Without even clicking the links, I can predict that some of those will fail at least one of the criteria at WP:GNG: darrensmusicblog.com and timepastandtimepassing.wordpress.com are likely to be blogs written by some random guy/gal and therefore not considered "reliable"; localbarsfinder.com or edinburghfestival.list.co.uk sound like listings of stuff (bars or Edinburgh festival events) that are never considered "significant coverage". On the other hand, I know the The Scotsman is a reputable newspaper, so a review in it might be quite a good source proving notability (but I would need to click the link to be sure it is an actual in-depth, independent review of the subject of the draft article). Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 12:23, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

You've done the right thing, by collecting possible references first. I suggest you create a short draft with a handful of what you think are the strongest reliable source references. Be sure that those are ABOUT him, as confirming his musical output, or what he has said in interviews, or what concerts per performed at, or who with, adds naught to confirming notability. (Music output worth listing, but not enough in and of itself to confirm notability.) David notMD (talk) 13:14, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

To explicate what David notMD said, Mel1425 (since I had to read it three times before I was clear that he was saying what I thought he intended): "confirming his musical output, or what he has said in interview, or what concerts [he has] performed at, or who with" are all things that don't contribute to establishing that he is notable. 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) 14:34, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, that. David notMD (talk) 14:43, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you all. I was just doing what wiki suggested by asking in Talk and I’m (obviously) not a seasoned user. I didn’t expect anyone to read all of the links. You’ve been most helpful, appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mel1425 (talk • contribs) 15:05, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Mel1425 I read all the links, as I'm having a similar problem - at first I didn't have enough notable links, so I added more, now I'm told I have too many - but 'notable' is what you need to look up. Many of these are just references to something related to this dude or an album. As per above, pick 3 to start - but remove all that aren't write ups about him. So the prominent industry magazines or journals are notable, but the link to him playing at some festival, less likely. Media interviews by outlets that are hard to get on where they've typed up the conversation, larger city newspaper articles, separate these out and remove the rest, you will have a stronger short list. Broad coverage is also a criteria, and a google search wikipedia notable sources will likely bring up a few options. By the way, I'm completely unqualified to answer this, and even I can see several of your references are grasping at straws. You can still start the page and build it, just read up on the reference criteria. Best, Victor (talk) 06:41, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Victor. Yes. As a complete beginner on Wikipedia page creation, I read that the best place to start when wondering if someone was notable enough was to ask here. I should have read more on wiki first - but I don’t find it easy to navigate around the creator/editing pages. Now I know what’s required and that what I have is not sufficient.

Issues with "promotes or publicises someone or something"

I am having issues publishing a page for a British Entrepreneur being met with the violation that it promotes or publicises someone - however it has been written very factually, using similar pages (eg. Peter Jones, Theo Paphitis) for reference. How do I overcome this? JimboJamesSinclair (talk) 14:20, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

JimboJamesSinclair Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You edited your user page, which is not article space or space to draft an article; you may use Articles for creation to submit a draft.

Please read other stuff exists. That other similar articles exist does not mean that yours can too. It could be that these other articles you have seen are also inappropriate. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inappropriate articles to get by us. We can only address what we know about.

Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about someone and what they do. An article about a person must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the person, showing how they meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable person. Your draft was completely unsourced. Please read Your first article. 331dot (talk) 14:37, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

If you want to use other articles as a model, make sure that they are classified as a "good article" on the talk page. 331dot (talk) 14:37, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

@JimboJamesSinclair: In addition to the above replies, please disclose any conflict of interest you might have with respect to that person. In particular, if you are paid to edit Wikipedia on behalf of that person (or expect to be paid, or are doing this as part as your regular job), you must disclose it in the manner described at the link WP:PAID. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 14:46, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Problems with a stubborn user

Hi dear Wikipedians. I'm having trouble with a stubborn user at Gedik Ahmed Pasha. You can see our discussion there, but basically user rejects content backed by (multiple) sources (with specific quotes) added by myself, but says we should include his own interpretation of a single source that, according to them, disproves all the others (it's about ethnicity. Balkans). I warned them I would report them. Immediately after, they posted this on my talk page. Thanks in advance for your help!--Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 15:29, 25 August 2021 (UTC) Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 15:29, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

• Having read the entirety of Talk:Gedik Ahmed Pasha, my impressions are that:

1. It is rather cool-headed for a dispute content about Balkan ethnicities, kudos to both of you (ping: Haldir Marchwarden, Demetrios1993)
2. The most uncivil thing I can find on the talk page is man, what the heck are you talking about?, Please, refrain from edit warring again. (problematic because it implies they are the only one at fault, but it takes two to edit-war), and the threat to "report".

As I have no desire to delve into the details of the dispute (and encourage you not to make any substantive point here), all I can do is remind you of how to do dispute resolution: first hash it out between you two. If it does not work, you can ask for a third opinion (which might be the best attempt here) or a full WP:RFC (read the manual before posting the RfC, it is highly codified); for those, if you can agree on a succinct and neutral summary of the dispute, it would help immensely (for instance: sources X, Y say A, sources Z, W say B, Haldir thinks sources X and Y are unreliable because of M, Demetrios thinks source W is outdated because of N). Only use the dramaboard if you can identify that the other person has clearly violated the guidelines (and so far, we are not even close to that point, unless there was a breach of WP:3RR that I missed). Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 15:53, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply Tigraan. My warning that I would report was a shortening of the whole posting-of-the-warning-on-the-talk-page-thing. It's very simple: I say let's keep what the sources say, whatever they say, as long they say it and are reliable. I have 4 authors claiming A and zero claiming B. They say that because one author, according to them, implies B, we must cite that author and delete whatever the others say. Again, from my part, I agree to keep anything, as long as it is backed by sources and actually reports what the sources say. They are the only ones deleting material here. I will try with the link you provided. Thanks again for your help.--Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 16:07, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

What is the requirement to get a good article symbol

I need to get a good article symbol in my article wishes to mean how can I write a good notable article?? hope someone can help me with some advice.--HellmuSa (talk) 17:05, 25 August 2021 (UTC) HellmuSa (talk) 17:05, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello, HellmuSa, and welcome to the Teahouse. All the information about Good Articles is at WP:GA. But your question is a bit like "Hello, I've just started learning to build houses and I would like somebody to tell me how to build a prize-winning house". My answer is, spend a few months or years learning the trade - in this case, making small edits and learning how Wikipedia works. It looks as if you have started doing that, so congratulations; but creating new articles is one of the hardest tasks for new editors, and getting them to Good Article status is even harder, so I suggest, in the English idiom, that you don't run before you can walk. --ColinFine (talk) 17:33, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

You have created and submitted Draft:Esav Marrakech, which has been Declined. Work on responding to the reviewer's comments. Getting to GA is incremental - first get a draft accepted, then improve it over time. Fewer than 1% of all articles in English Wikipedia have reached either Good or Featured status. David notMD (talk) 19:29, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

HellmuSa, you asked about a good article; I'm not sure that you're asking about "Good Article" (GA). I've written and helped in a lot of articles that I think are good. I've only created one GA. (I think that two or three others would qualify but haven't bothered to nominate them.) A GA is an article that has been scrutinized by other editors to make sure that it is satisfactory in various ways. Don't worry about GA yet. Just make your article good. Here's one small suggestion. You call the place a "Superior School". This sounds to me like a literal translation of "École Supérieure" -- and very strange. I went to the official website but didn't see this name used, even in English. Instead, even when describing itself in English, ESAV calls itself "ESAV", or on occasion "École Supérieure des Arts Visuels de Marrakech". -- Hoary (talk) 00:05, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

@Hoary hey men what do you think i can do to get this article execpted any usefull tips bro i will appreciated. talk 00:39, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

HellmuSa, why don't you start by attending to "Superior School"? Then look for commentary about ESAV from sources that are reliable and independent of ESAV, and summarize this commentary. -- Hoary (talk) 01:03, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Chinese short names in articles

Hi! I am an avid reader of Chinese historical articles on this site, but there is one thing that drives me crazy: I think, for brevity's sake, whenever a person is mentioned multiple times in an article, their name is shortened. For instance, there is an article on Han Fei, and there is a sentence later in the article that reads "Han borrowed Shang Yang's emphasis on laws". So here the author shortens Han Fei's name to "Han", only the problem is this is confusing and not really reflective of how Chinese people use and say their names. "Han" could also refer to the state of Han, which Han Fei is from , and which is also mentioned in the article. And Han is a family name, whereas Fei is the given name or "first name" inn American style. So for clarity's sake it would be better to either just say the full name, "Han Fei borrowed Shang Yang's emphasis on laws , or to say something like "Fei borrowed Shang Yang's emphasis on laws". Thoughts? Are there particular editors I could talk to that regularly handle these articles? I would love to create an account and change them, but before I do that I want to understand why this method is used. I get that it's foreign content, but it only takes a little cultural knowledge to fix, and the articles would read more accurately and be less confusing.  18:35, 25 August 2021 (UTC) HanFeiZiFuRen (talk) 19:19, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, IP editor. This appears to be the culmination of following the Chinese naming conventions and subsequent use of a person's name. For the most part, I think it'd be easy to tell through context whether the article is referring to the person or the state. As far as using the full name goes, I think you'd have more support if there was another person mentioned in the article that also had the family name of Han. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:03, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, but it's not easy at all. I'm going to make an account and contribute, and read and understand, but I will also show you examples of where it is confusing. There are many, I've been reading these articles for years. I love them and I only want to make them better. This discussion will probably continue in other boards, and hopefully I can add to them.HanFeiZiFuRen (talk) 19:19, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Edit: I found this in reference to Japanese names "Japanese historical (and some modern) figures may be conventionally known by either their family (clan) name and their given name or their given name only but not their family name only."https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biography#Subsequent_use

I think the same would apply to Chinese names. Also this, same article: "In Vietnamese names, given names also take priority over family names. The given name, not the surname, should be used to refer to the person. The given name is nevertheless placed after the family name, following the East Asian naming scheme, even when written about in English." I would like the source for this, pretty much proves my point culturally. HanFeiZiFuRen (talk) 19:19, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

It says the talk discussion is closed for the Chinese naming conventions also, I have a lot of reading to do to figure out where this has been discussed, it's fun though! — Preceding unsigned comment added by HanFeiZiFuRen (talk • contribs) 19:14, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

@HanFeiZiFuRen: Again, it depends on context. It's English convention to refer to people by the surnames if it's clear who/what you're referring to by context. Han Fei is a bit tricky because he's from a state known as Han, but if a sentence says "Han wrote a book" it's clear that "Han" is the person because countries can't write books. The reason that Japanese and Vietnamese names differ is because of consensus among editors, so you'll have to get a similar consensus with Chinese. I doubt that will happen though; Chinese people are rarely referred to by their given name only. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 23:50, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Corporate Notability for Startup Company DNA Romance

Had a question about DNA Romance - I'm doing some research on this company as part of a class project but found they didn't have a wikipedia page due to lack of notability. I understand they are a small company, but I feel they are actually quite well known in the vancouver area and within dating industry. Wondering what it takes to be considered notable as a small business? Baldxseaxurchin (talk) 19:57, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

have you read WP:N? —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 20:08, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not outside the scope of Wikipedia. We consider evidence from reliable and independent sources to gauge this attention. The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article.

—— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 20:09, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Your addition of one reference to Draft:DNA Romance, created by someone else a while back, is unlikely to be enough to justify reviewer approval if resubmitted. David notMD (talk) 20:24, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

@Baldxseaxurchin: Draft:DNA Romance shows no signs of notability for the company, and it is written in a very promotional tone. The content is also almost pure spam: there are a number of claims like "People with greater differences in their receptors known as the major histocompatibility complex are more likely to be appealing to each other"; that's what the company claims in order to sell their app (maybe they even believe in it themselves, who knows), but it's not something that Wikipedia can say in its own voice. In fact, there is some coverage of that misconception in this Wikipedia article. --bonadea contributions talk 20:37, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Baldxseaxurchin, there is no way under the sun that this draft will ever be accepted without a radical rewrite neutrally summarizing the significant coverage of the company in reliable sources that are completely independent of DNA Romance. Wikipedia cares nothing about what this company says about itself or about any PR campaigns that it has conducted. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:31, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Closing Rfc

I want to close an Rfc but am unsure of the process. Am I supposed to remove the Rfc tag on the Request for Comments page or the tag on the Article in question's Talk page? Thank you. The Rfc in question in on the article Jeremiah Lisbo.

EDIT: I've closed the Rfc but would like confirmation I did it correctly. Koikefan (talk) 20:34, 25 August 2021 (UTC) Koikefan (talk) 20:34, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

@Koikefan: Your closure of that RFC was completely improper, I've reverted it. You cannot close discussions in which you are WP:INVOLVED, see WP:NACINV for the advice for non-admins. An impartial editor who is not involved in the content dispute should review the discussion and close it in line with the consensus of the discussion. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 20:48, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

I think you need to calm down a bit dude. The consensus of the discussion is delete, which I have conceded to. Therefore, I am withdrawing the question and would like to close the discussion. According to WP:RFC#Ending RfCs that's well within my rights: The question may be withdrawn by the poster (e.g., if the community's response became obvious very quickly). In this situation, the editor who started the RfC should normally be the person who removes the RFC template. Koikefan (talk) 20:54, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

IP, this is a RfC withdrawl. Koikefan is the one that added the phrase being discussed. I'm going to close the RfC. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 23:35, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Need help with my first article please!

Hello all!

I have just written my first draft for a writer I very much admire, but it's already being flagged with problems.

Any suggestions on how to improve this please?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jo_Lorenz

Thanks,

Chrissie Chrissieessbee (talk) 23:59, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse and thanks for contribting to Wikipedia. The individual does not appear to have sufficient notability yet. Meeting notability usually requires significant coverage in well-known, established media and news outlets. Read this for more detailed info. Don't get discouraged. Happy editing! Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 00:05, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Hyperlinks not allowed in article. David notMD (talk) 01:26, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Confused by article category

On August 18, 2021 I published a new article entitled Little Folks. I just went to the article's Talk page and I saw this category: AfC submissions by date/07 February 2017. That date is more than four years before the article was published. I thought perhaps an earlier Little Folks article had been deleted, but when I clicked on the category I found, listed under L, Talk:Little Folks, and when I clicked on that I was returned to the talk page of the new article. I don't understand the reason for:AfC submissions by date/07 February 2017. I'm tempted to delete the category, but there may be a valid reason for it being there. Can someone enlighten me on the category? Thank you for any assistance you can give me. Karenthewriter (talk) 00:19, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Karenthewriter, that talk page has had only one edit. The editor was yourself. It says what it says because that's what you wrote. (My guess is that you copied the material in from some other talk page, forgetting to delete the AfC-relevant part.) Now that it does say this, feel free to edit it so that it doesn't. -- Hoary (talk) 00:26, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Hoary thank you for solving my mystery. I'm sure you're correct, I must have copied material from a Talk page of one of my earlier children's magazine articles. I suppose the good news is that mistakes keep me humble -- I've been editing since 2007, but there's always more I need to learn. Karenthewriter (talk) 00:45, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Adding Music Album requires Citation/Reference?

Trying to add an album for an artist, using another of his albums as a template. My entry keeps getting declined. What am I missing?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Looking_at_You,_Looking_at_Me Superdelic (talk) 01:09, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi Superdelic. Your draft doesn't seem to contain any citations to reliable sources; so, there's no way for those reviewing the draft to assess whether the album meets WP:NALBUM or verify any of the content in the draft. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:17, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Transitioning from the sandbox to an informative article on the subject of astronomy

How to contact astronomy experts in the tea house Crandall a clark (talk) 01:27, 26 August 2021 (UTC) Crandall a clark (talk) 01:27, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

@Crandall a clark, if you'd like to contact astronomy experts, you can try posting at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:05, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

@Crandall a clark: Welcome to the Teahouse! If you're referring to Draft:Abell clusters and the Rydberg formulas, you could also add {{WikiProject Astronomy}} to the draft's talk page. (That's one of the many pieces of information in the big pink template at the top of the draft.) Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 03:23, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Crandall a clark, an acceptable Wikipedia article, even about a scientific topic, should begin by summarizing the topic in clear, simplified language that a high school student of average intelligence can understand. I have been interested in astronomy for decades and your brief draft is impenetrable to me. Plus very poorly referenced. Reading No original research is also advised, since that is a core content policy. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:42, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

How to rotate an image?

Hello, I have requested the bot to rotate this image: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cockfighting_Kamala.jpg, but it seems like the bot is not working. What can I do to make it correct? HxH3 (talk) 02:31, 26 August 2021 (UTC) HxH3 (talk) 02:31, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Download the original file and rotate it using your computer's default photo editing software? Mattplaysthedrums (talk) 02:35, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

It won't let me upload again saying this is a duplicate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HxH3 (talk • contribs) 02:41, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

@HxH3: Looking at commons:File:Cockfighting_Kamala.jpg, I see the bot has tagged it for rotation. I suggest you wait for 24 hours, and if the bot hasn't rotated it, then contact the bot operator. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 03:29, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

@GoingBatty: It's been a few days now. I requested for the second time yesterday and it told me to wait for 5 hours. I have contacted the admin who handles the bot. I think the bot is dead. I was wondering if there is a manual way to do it.

@HxH3: me and Hoary (talk · contribs) simultaniously uploaded a new version with correct rotation. See WP:PURGE for what to do when it still looks false on your device. Victor Schmidt (talk) 05:59, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it seems that I beat Victor to it (by milliseconds), which meant that he won the "contest". @HxH3:, perhaps you'd like to categorize the image? -- Hoary (talk) 06:01, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

I uploaded too! Now there are 4 images for the same thing. Hoary (talk · contribs)Victor Schmidt (talk · contribs)HxH3 (talk) 06:42, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Or only two, you guys updated, I uploaded a new one.

HxH3, I suggest that at commons:File:Cockfighting Kamala Correct.jpg you click on "Nominate for deletion". (What Victor Schmidt and I did was click on "Upload a new version of this file".) And of course my suggestion that you categorize the image still stands. -- Hoary (talk) 07:10, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Help!

Can anyone convert the following code into a chart, like at British royal family#Members?

Gulab Singh------Rakwal
             |
             |
          Ranbir Singh---------Subh Devi
                          |
                          |
          _______________________________________
          |                                     |
          |                                     |
      Pratap Singh                           Amar Singh------Bhotiali Chib
                                                         |
                                                         |
                                                       Hari Singh------Tara Devi
                                                                   |
                                                                   |
                                                                 Karan Singh-----Yasho Rajya Lakshmi
                                                                              |
                                                                              |
                                                              _______________________________________
                                                              |                                     |
                                                              |                                     |
                                                       Vikramaditya Singh                       Ajatshatru Singh

Peter Ormond 💬 04:17, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

@Peter Ormond: See Template:Tree chart for documentation. Also have a look at Template:Six Islamic Prophets, which is a good example of a simple family tree such as what you want to make. ~Anachronist (talk) 11:28, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Unsure of the process of undeleting a page. YMCA Queensland Youth Parliament

Hi, So I've recently gotten into editing and have been editing some pages about my state (Queensland, Australia), it's organisations and some public figures. As part of this I added some info to YMCA Youth Parliament's Queensland section and have what I believe is solid sourcing for it.

I can see that there used to be a separate YMCA Queensland Youth Parliament page but that was deleted for sourcing (and maybe relevancy?)issues in 2010. As it's now a number of years later and I could easily find sources on the topic I believe that this page should be recreated.

I'm unsure how to go about this. I don't want to restore the old page (as I'm willing to believe there was issues with the content), I want to make a new page that is sourced better.

Could someone please help with the process? Thank you and much obliged.

Link to deletion page. 

Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 10:01, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Since it's been nearly 11 years since the article was originally deleted, I don't think anyone's going to object to you going ahead and creating a new version in draft space. Good luck! Zudo ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:20, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

This is what I had hoped. Thank you for your assistance! Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk)

Question

i am new please which type of article can i write that will be approved? Mickel jack (talk) 10:15, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Please how can i write an article for a company? Mickel jack (talk) 10:17, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

@Mickel jack, try the guidance here: WP:GNG, WP:NORG and WP:YFA. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:24, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Mickel jack (edit conflict) Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Successfully writing a new article is one of the hardest tasks to perform on Wikipedia. It takes much time, effort, and practice. New users who dive right in to creating articles often end up disappointed and with hurt feelings as their work that they spent hours on is mercilessly edited and deleted by others, with things happening to it that they don't understand. I would strongly advise you to first edit existing articles first, to get a feel for how Wikipedia operates and what is expected of article content, which may not be what you think it is. Using the new user tutorial is also a good idea to help you learn more about Wikipedia.

If you still want to write an article now, I would suggest reading Your First Article and then going to Articles for Creation to create and submit a draft. A Wikipedia article about a company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company(not press releases, interviews, brief mentions or announcements), showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company.

If you are associated with the company you want to write about, please review conflict of interest and paid editing for information on formal disclosures you may need to make. 331dot (talk) 10:27, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Podcasts as a source

Hello everyone. I'm still getting to grips with WP and enjoying tidying up and tightening some existing pages. Quick question. Is there any WP stance on the value of podcasts as sources? I know it's a broad question and that podcasts vary hugely in scope and quality. But I regularly listen to the Dan Snow series of History Hit ones, which often contain interesting points. Any thoughts/feedback is v much appreciated. SnowballWT (talk) 11:04, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

References

@SnowballWT: We don't have a guideline specifically about podcasts, although these are essentially the audio equivalent of blogs insofar as they consist of user-generated content. A podcast used as a source should be scrutinized with the same care as we would do for a blog. A blog can be used in some cases, as when the author is a journalist or recognized expert on a topic. ~Anachronist (talk) 11:15, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Right, a podcast is probably a WP:SPS in general. So, per

"Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent reliable sources."

Dan Snow may be an ok-ish source. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:01, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: I just posted a suggestion to clarify the policy at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources#Add podcasts to_user-generated content, if you want to leave a comment there. ~Anachronist (talk) 12:06, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Done. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:11, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks to you all for these answers - and for the subsequent discussion elsewhere. Really useful. SnowballWT (talk) 20:01, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

How to create a wikipedia Page?

New to the Community Maazkhurram (talk) 11:32, 26 August 2021 (UTC) I was wondering that how can I add a contribution page to Wikipedia with the product heading. I Tried the contribution button but it keeps adding my name and sample page next to my heading. Kindly plz Help

I'm a little mystified, Maazkhurram. Are you asking how you can continue your advertising campaign for beard oil (an example) (or your earlier promotion of the "Best Home Decoration & Interior Designer Shop in Pakistan") by changing the heading of your list of contributions? If so, you can't; it's technically impossible. -- Hoary (talk) 11:46, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

@Maazkhurram We expect anyone who is being WP:PAID to write an article here, not only to declare on their talk page who is paying them (you did, but then deleted it), but we also expect them to understand the basics of Wikipedia and not to need free help from us on the very basics of article creation. As you are clearly new to Wikipedia, please first spend a year or so familiarising yourself with how we work before attempting to make a few pennies/dollars/rupees or yen out of our Project. Undeclared paid editors and those attempting affiliate marketing soon get blocked. Thanks for your understanding. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:01, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

In answer to "How to create a wikipedia Page?" see instructions at WP:YFA. Nick's advice, which is valid for all new editors, is that you are more likely to succeed in creating an article if you first put in time editing existing articles is such a way that your edits are not reverted. So far, every one of your edits has been reverted. Also per Nick, Wikipedia is not a marketing forum. Trying to insert promotional content and refs will get you blocked. David notMD (talk) 15:05, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

How can I add a citation to the shower page?

When I see citation needed, I do a quick search and can usually find answers to these. But on the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shower page, it looks like no one can fix it now? I want to add to the section about drainage and second shower drains in Australia (which is actually quite fascinating to see, as well). Please advise - thank you! Benita >Note: This page is semi-protected so that only autoconfirmed users can edit it. If you need help getting started with editing, please visit the Teahouse. Benitag (talk) 13:31, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Benitag Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If you are unable to edit the article yourself, you may post on the article talk page, describing exactly the edit you wish to make. You can do it as a formal edit request(click for instructions) but that's not required. The talk page is Talk:Shower. 331dot (talk) 13:47, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello Benitag. I'm not a Teahouse host, but saw your question while posting my own and thought I might could help. You could consider becoming an editor who is autoconfirmed. Then you could edit. Achieving that status is rather easy--four days registered and at least 10 edits. Finding articles to edit is also easy if you look HERE. Find an article or two that is in much need of copy editing and you can easily get 10 edits. That is how I got started. THIS is one to consider. Most kind regards,Hu Nhu (talk) 04:33, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Transferring a Russian jpg to an English jpg for English Wikipedia use

How do I transfer a Russian jpg so it can be usable on English Wikipedia? I need help with the following photo:

Васикова Лидия Петровна.jpg

Thank you (Спасибо), Shari Garland (talk) 16:29, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

The image in question is available here :ru:Файл:Васикова_Лидия_Петровна.jpg. It depends on the licensing/rationale of the photo. If it's freely licensed, uploading it to :c:Main page would be ideal. If there is a legal Wikipedia:Non-free content rationale, simply download and re-upload the photo here:Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard Shushugah (he/him • talk) 16:37, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Sounds complicated. On the page :ru:Файл:Васикова_Лидия_Петровна.jpg that you shared, there is the following quote which translated from Russian reads:

"This file is not free (does not meet the definition of a free cultural work). In accordance with the decision of the Wikimedia Foundation, it can only be used on Russian Wikipedia if the fair use criteria are met. Any other use (both in Russian Wikipedia and outside it) may constitute a violation of copyright."

Shari Garland (talk) 17:07, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

In which case, Shari Garland, it may be used on English Wikipedia only if all the non-free content criteria are met. If that is the case, you will need to download it from ru-wiki (or from its original source, if you know that), and upload it to English Wikipedia (not to Commons), answering all the questions to justify that use. You can use the Upload wizard. --ColinFine (talk) 17:26, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Shushugah and ColinFine. I shall have to look into the matter. Shari Garland (talk) 17:38, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Per my understanding, since Lydia Vasikova is no longer with us, the image should be ok as non-free on en-WP. I say try, if it's deleted it's deleted. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:39, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Review of Zija Grapshi

Can you review my article, please Zija Grapshi. Why my three articles are not accepted yet. Please I beg you. Lovingheartloving (talk) 19:38, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Special:NewPagesFeed says that there are 7608 articles awaiting review. As for your drafts, it says that there are 904 pending submissions waiting for review. Please be patient. - David Biddulph (talk) 20:17, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

You've probably heard this before but, patience is a virtue. Rushing things tends to reduce the quality. So for example, say you were going to make 2 different things. One you only had 1 hour to make and the other you had as much time as you wanted. THe one where you would have as much time as you need would most likely be of a higher quality than the thing you only had 1 hour to make because you had more time to make it good. If we rushed the reviews of articles, the reviewers may miss some things that will end up in a lot of articles that aren't very good. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 20:22, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

You by-passed AfC to create Zija Grapshi as an article. My personal opinion is that it is not article-worthy in its current form, and should be draftified, as recently was done to your Draft:Arif Diren. You have also created several drafts but did not submit those, so nothing is happening there until you do. CORRECTION: You submitted three drafts Aug 15 & 16 and those are in the pile of drafts waiting to be reviewed. David notMD (talk) 22:48, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

@David notMD: you gotta admit that Zija Grapshi is in a lot better shape than Draft:Zija Grapshi, which was created by someone else and rightly declined. If you feel it should be draftified, I can merge them without conflict (there are no overlapping dates in the history of each at the moment). ~Anachronist (talk) 23:37, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

The creator of the Draft (Derwishi10) has been indefinitely blocked for abusing multiple accounts, So perhaps that draft should be SD's before draftifying the effort by Lovingheartloving. David notMD (talk) 01:14, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

@Lovingheartloving: Welcome to the Teahouse! I made some changes to Zija Grapshi, requested a reference for the award, and added WikiProjects to the Talk page. I don't understand why you have asterisks in the "Life and Career" section. While you are waiting for your drafts to be reviewed, you can continue working on them in a similar fashion. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 01:40, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Eric Clapton article

The article had outdated representations of Claptons political views. I wrote a couple of paragraphs on his updated views which he has presented numerous times in interviews about his anti-brexit views and his embracing of immigrants.

Somebody has deleted most of this, and replaced it with a curt summary which suggests otherwise, using terminology such as he 'insists' he is pro immigration, undermining Claptons changed views.

Can this deceitful piece of editing be removed please and my original edit which is more accurate, detailed and objective, be returned?

Many thanks MangoTree VeMangoTree (talk) 21:24, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

VeMangoTree, you made one edit, a month ago. On the face of it, it seems a reasonable edit. ("On the face of it", because it cites a Youtube video that I haven't bothered to look at.) However, it does seem rather wordy for its purpose; and Youtube links are automatically suspect unless carefully described. You don't seem to have attempted to discuss, on Talk:Eric Clapton, the fate of your edit. That's where you should go. If the current text seems deceitful, then say so there, giving your reasons (and remaining polite). -- Hoary (talk) 21:46, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

@VeMangoTree: Welcome to the Teahouse! Instead of citing a YouTube video of a radio interview, maybe you can find a secondary reliable source that reports what Clapton said in the interview. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 01:43, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Museum Images

Some videogame articles contain copyrighted images (like for example the Minecraft article that has this image), all this under "fair use", the same could be done for museum photographs?, in this case the official website of the Kenya National Museums page contains photos of the museum buildings, this could be considered as fair use? Seb { 💬 Talk + 📝 Edits } 00:42, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello, JSeb05. Please read the policy language about use of non-free images which is enforced strictly. I cannot imagine how the photos you describe would be acceptable. Any Wikipedia editor in Kenya could take freely licensed photos of those buildings. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:07, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi JSeb05. There's a difference between fair use and non-free content when it comes to using images on Wikipedia; so, it's important to understand that the two are not exactly the same as explained here and here, and avoid mixing them up whenever possible. Non-free content needs to satisfy Wikipedia's non-free content use policy for it to be considered OK to use, and there are ten criteria which need to be met for each use of non-free content. Whether photos appearing on the museum's website can be uploaded and used largely depends on whether those photos would satisfy non-free content use criterion #1. Since there appears to be freedom of panorama for architectural works such as buildings in Kenya under Kenyan copyright law, then (as Cullen328 points out above) pretty much anyone could take a photo of the museum's buildings and uploaded it under a free license that Wikipedia accepts; therefore, it would really be hard to try and justify uploading and using copyrighted images taken by others unless you can get their WP:CONSENT to do so. If you're looking for more recent photos of the museum but are unable to take any yourself, maybe try asking for help at Wikipedia:WikiProject Kenya. Perhaps one of the members of that WikiProject lives close to the museum and can take some photos of its bulidings. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:20, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Mark 14 torpedo article minor error

I have noticed a small error in the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_14_torpedo and I don't know who to report it to. Since I don't have the references to know what numbers are correct I didn't try to edit them myself. The problem is with the weights given in the specifications table at the start of the article. It says:

Mod.0:3,000 lb (1,400 kg) Mod.3:3,061 lb (1,388 kg) As you can see, weight in pounds is higher for the Mod.3 version but mass in kg is higher for the Mod.0 version. (Excuse me for being pedantic, but in physics courses I had drilled into me that pounds are a unit of weight while kilograms are mass.) If one model is heavier in one set of units it should also be the heavier in the other units, no?

A quick conversion gives me that 3000 lb should be about 1361 kg.

Thanks ---bill rogers 47.224.51.236 (talk) 02:51, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

The explanation is that the wikitext has "| weight = Mod.0:{{convert|3000|lb|abbr=on}} Mod.3:{{convert|3061|lb|abbr=on}}". The conversion uses more sig figs for the mod 3 because the input is to more sig figs. Obviously a source is needed, then appropriate changes can be made. --David Biddulph (talk) 03:41, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

What would make a deletion request "uncontroversial"?; and what's the appropriate mechanism to deal with this questionable article?

Hi Wiki Teahouse,

I have identified a page which severely misrepresents some ideas that fall within my area of expertise (I'm doing my honours thesis in a closely-related area) and I am wondering what the appropriate avenue would be for me to remedy the situation.

I had previously already submitted a WP:PROD for the page, but somebody politely contested and reverted my proposed deletion on what I understand to be procedural grounds (?), advising that this is something that needs to be decided by WP:AFD consensus instead.

The page in question is Object theory, the revision containing my WP:PROD (and the reason it was contested) is here, and my proposed deletion reason was as follows:

The page is based around a serious misunderstanding of the sole cited source. In Stephen Kleene's book on metamathematics, he describes how one theory may be interpreted inside of another, in which case we may refer to the containing theory as the meta-theory, and the contained theory as the object theory. The "object theory" here could be any theory (in the sense of model theory). There is no particular mathematical theory called "Object theory", and instead Kleene is merely using the term "object" here in the sense of Object language.

So the first thing I wanted to ask Teahouse about is that I'm not quite sure what was wrong with my WP:PROD. The person who contested the deletion didn't necessarily disagree with my deletion reason at all but seemed to be suggesting that it wasn't appropriate for me to claim the page as an uncontroversial deletion candidate:

the proposer may or may not be correct, but that is something that needs to be decided by consensus at WP:AFD rather than it being claimed that this is an uncontroversial deletion candidate, as required for the WP:PROD procedure

Is there a guideline for how I should correctly interpret what "controversial" means in this case? (I'm not sure if the person who contested was just assuming that there might be other people out there who could hypothetically disagree, or whether there is something about the nature of the request I was making that is categorically to be considered controversial?)

The second thing that I wanted to ask you about is that I started considering that perhaps deletion is the wrong mechanism to be pursuing entirely and that I should instead be looking to turn the page into a redirect for Object language. I was reading the guidelines for WP:MERGE and it is said that no permission is required to do a merge if I think it is uncontroversial, but this again circles back to the above issue with how I'm not sure why my WP:PROP was controversial. I could start a discussion to attempt a WP:MERGE, but I'm not sure if this is the right thing to be doing if I will not in practice actually be keeping essentially any content from the Object theory page and will just be turning it into a redirect - would this be misuse of the WP:MERGE feature? The two pages are indeed just talking about exactly the same thing (although one is just a very confused misunderstanding of the other), so I'm not sure whether this is appropriate or not.

Would the appropriate mechanism be for me to create a WP:AFD for the page and then separately make the page a redirect after deletion occurs, or to create a merger proposal? (Or just attempt a WP:MERGE directly without permission on the grounds that it seems uncontroversial to me? - although this seems unwise given that somebody contested my deletion for very similar reasons.) Or something else entirely?

Thanks in advance for your help! (Sorry for the long question/s!) Jackcrawf3 (talk) 03:07, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Jackcrawf3. The policy is described at Wikipedia:Proposed deletion. You thought that the deletion would be uncontroversial but another editor acting in apparent good faith disagreed. The presumption that deletion was uncontroversial evaporated forever at that moment. Articles for Deletion is your only option now. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:37, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Or a merge. But the article has been around since 2005, & has been edited by a number of people, so I wonder if you are correct. Johnbod (talk) 03:45, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi Jackcrawf3. Generally, deletion of an article is considered to be the last resort and only in cases where fixing the article is not a realistic possibility. We are encouraged as editors to try and WP:PRESERVE content whenever and as much as possible, partly out of deference to those who previously edited the article before us but also because Wikipedia is a collaborative editing project in which improvements are typically made in bits and pieces over time. Unilaterally blanking a page so as to completely rewrite it can often lead to problems even when one's intentions are the best. If you have specialized knowledge about the subject matter and no what's wrong with an article, then you can try and be WP:BOLD and fix things yourself. Please understand though that not everyone may agree with your assessment of the situation; so, sometimes it can be better to be WP:CAUTIOUS and discuss things first on the article's talk page. You might also want to take a look at WP:EXPERT for some general guidance as well. Anyone who wants to can essentially edit Wikipedia at anytime and of course content experts are most welcome to help improve things as well; being a content expert, however, doesn't grant an editor any special privileges when it comes to relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and also does mean that everyone is going to necessarily be willing to step aside and stay out of one's way. Despite everything they may know about a particular subject, sometimes content experts know very little about how Wikipedia works and that's where they might find themselves having a bit of trouble. Try and remember this when dealing with others because if your position is basically nothing more than "I'm an expert on the topic and thus people should give my position more weight", the chances you receiving an unfavorable response go way up. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:44, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

What to add in an article?

All the articles I have made till now are either translations or by copying the contents from a similar article and editing it (like the ones I have made on departmental councils). As a result, I don't know what all to add to continue my draft. Excellenc1 (talk) 03:29, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

@Excellenc1: The title of your draft is Draft:List of regional prefectures in France, but the first sentence states "This is a list of capital cities of France". I'm no French expert, but I would expect these to match, so I suggest you make the appropriate change. You could also add the appropriate categories (within {{Draft categories}}) and WikiProjects. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 04:13, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Drake's Plate of Brass

Hello Teahouse hosts. There have been recent changes in Drake's Plate of Brass by User 97.120.67.205 which you may view HERE. This user made several edits to add much material which is not cited and removed material that was adequately cited. This user has five edits on this page and one on Francis Drake's circumnavigation. The circumnavigation edit was reverted.

I believe the edits of User 97.120.67.205 should be reverted on the Drake's Plate of Brass article, too, but I do not know how to revert so many edits at once. I've only reverted one edit at a time, and even that is something I have rarely done. So, might someone look this over, and if they are comfortable reverting the edits do so--or--tell me the process so that I could do so? And please know that if I am wrong in my assessment about reverting User 97.120.67.205's edits, I would like to know that. Most kind regards, Hu Nhu (talk) 04:05, 27 August 2021 (UTC) Hu Nhu (talk) 04:05, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

@Hu Nhu: To revert multiple edits at once:

1. Go to the article history HERE
2. Next to the edit BEFORE 97.120.67.205 (which was done by Pbrks), click in the first circle.
3. Next to the most recent edit by 97.120.67.205, click in the second circle.
4. Click the "Compare selected revisions" button
5. At the top right next to "Revision as of 14:17, August 11, 2021", click the "Undo" link.
6. Confirm everything looks good, enter an edit summary stating why you're reverting all these edits, and click "Publish changes"

Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 04:18, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

GoingBatty, you're directions were very clear and worked perfectly. Thank you. Hu Nhu (talk) 04:43, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

WikiProject Banner - General Note Question

For WikiProject talk page banners, is there a way to leave a specific note with the banner for people to see? I don't mean the hidden text message for editors, but a message that everyone can see. For example, adding a message to Talk:AKM Nazir Ahmed for the Twenty-Tens decade WikiProject to say that the WikiProject only is involved with his arrest/death, which happened in the 2010s. I am not sure if adding such a note to the banner is possible, but I thought I would ask. Thanks for any help in advance. Elijahandskip (talk) 04:14, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

@Elijahandskip: After looking at Template:WPBannerMeta and Template:WPBannerMeta/hooks, it appears you could do this by either:

• adding |MAIN_TEXT= or |BOTTOM_TEXT= that you want to appear on every banner (e.g. "Note that this WikiProject is only involved in events that happened in the 2010s, even if the scope of this article covers more than that."), or
• follow the instructions at Template:WPBannerMeta/hooks/notes to add a new parameter that could be populated on a page-by-page basis, and then add that parameter to the documentation.

You might want to test in a sandbox before making changes to the live template. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 04:36, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

A couple of citation questions

1. Is it considered acceptable to report the current number of members of a facebook group? Or must I reference a reliable source reporting a somewhat out-of-date number? (Seems like the former should be obvious, but previous editors of the page I'm working on did the latter.)

2. A section entitled "contents" summarizes the contents of a (wildly popular, contested, and influential) self-published article. Must it cite reliable secondary sources that summarize its contents, or may the editor summarize the self-published article? (same situation as #1.)

Thanks! Artemisia-californica (talk) 05:48, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

@Artemisia-californica Welcome to the Teahouse, and good questions. I'll give you my opinion. I'm guessing this is about Deep Adaptation.

1. Go with the out-of-date "nearly 10,000 members as of March 2020". Any numbers primary sourced to FB is out of WP:PROPORTION (and possibly a bit WP:PROMO).

2. Tricky. We have something called MOS:PLOTSOURCE, which doesn't really apply since that's about fiction. Secondary sources would be my preference, but the devil is in the details. The "risk" is that you (being human) put emphasis on the bits you think important. Use your best judgement, be WP:BOLD and see what happens. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:25, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Sandbox content ready but can't search it in wikipedia page

Hi Wiki experts,

I prepared a wikipage about ISCN (International Standard Content Number) in my sandbox and would like to publish it so more people can find out the info. however, trying different way to publish (including submission for draft review) but still can't make it happen. Can anyone help further here?

many thanks!

Exodus21 Exodus21HK (talk) 07:26, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

@Exodus21HK, hello! As you can see at Draft:International Standard Content Number, your submission was declined. See WP:GNG for what is demanded for a stand-alone article and WP:TUTORIAL/WP:REFBEGIN on how to reference properly, this is essential. Wikipedia:WikiProject Cryptocurrency could be of interest. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:41, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

You had it nearer to being right at User:Exodus21HK/sandbox, but then you seem to have copied the rendering of it to the draft article and thus lost some of the syntax and content. Instead of the browser's rendering of the page, you need to copy the wikitext, (or move the page to draft namespace rather than copying). You do need to provide references to published independent reliable sources. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:06, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Why the Ukrainian-language Wikipedia always block me while I never say any bad things and include reliable sources

Hello. I would like to plead you for making me easy.

Although I changed to a new account named Malay833, in the Ukrainian-language Wikipedia, it always blocked me? Why it always block me? I don't understand Ukrainian completely. I never mean to say anything bad and I indeed will bring reliable sources. Why the Ukrainian-language Wikipedia always block me from editing new pages? Discuss with the Ukrainian-language Wikipedia not to block me and to allow me editing new pages. I cannot understand why the Ukrainian-language Wikipedia blocked me although I changed my account to be much better by not saying anything bad and I do include reliable sources.

Thank you. Malay833 (talk) 08:54, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Is it impossible to create new pages relating to people and things with bringing reliable sources

Hello. Do you think it's wrong for me to edit new pages about different things until I never say any bad things and bring reliable sources. I never say any bad thing, and the Ukrainian-language Wikipedia always blocked me with my new account, as I never say anything bad and I indeed bring reliable sources. In fact, when I go to the Ukrainian part, I don't understand Ukrainian completely, I'm very new and I'm from Malaysia. I'm just a learner of that for 2 years since 2019. Can you please help me to deal and discuss with the Ukrainian-language Wikipedia to unblock me so that I can create many new pages with bringing reliable sources and not saying anything bad?

Thank you. Malay833 (talk) 09:02, 27 August 2021 (UTC)