Wikipedia:Teahouse

Marchjuly, 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

section formatting

I had a draft reviewed and the reviewer suggested I use "==Section Formatting==". I cannot find any information on ==Section Formatting== on any of the help pages. Can someone send me a link which explains what ==Section Formatting== is and how to implement it? I appreciate the review and suggestions. SharedHeritage (talk) 00:33, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Looking at your draft, it's divided into headings using bold text titles, which isn't how articles are typically ordered here. If you replace the bold formatting on your section titles with two equals signs on either side, it'll create a more traditional section header for each title, which also then forces the page to create a table of contents and allows easier navigation. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 00:42, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank You. SharedHeritage (talk) 00:47, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

SharedHeritage COURTESY: Draft:Peebles Homestead You fixed that, but there are other problems. Several descriptive paragraphs have no references. Much of the content about his military service is general history, i.e., not about him (nor is it about the house). Hence, not relevant. David notMD (talk) 02:09, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

SharedHeritage (talk) your draft has great promise. The section on the homestead today used one reference source three times, so I reformatted the citations so that the references are combined. You did a good job of finding references, can any of your sources be used for paragraphs that have no references? If not, where did you find the data about the house dimensions and construction details? If it was from a published source (such as a history book or local newspaper article) those can be used as a reference. Unfortunately, if it was from an unpublished source (such as handwritten notes found at a historical society) that would be considered original research and can't be used as a reference. You'll need to do some more work on your draft, but I'm sure it can be improved enough to be accepted. Keep up the good work. Karenthewriter (talk) 09:37, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Ownership gap between 1838 and 1994. David notMD (talk) 10:22, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Karenthewriter, Thanks for combining my multiple citations; I couldn't figure that out! The dimensions for the house (and other observations) came from me. I measured the house to see if the dimensions matched the 1798 Tax records, but I'm sure I can find them in other sources, especially the State Museum Survey. Also, I think the few sentences about Peebles' military record are relevant, because his military service adds credibility to the comment that the property could be eligible for the National Register. Without a notable person, places like Monticello and Montpelier would just be old brick houses. I could insert his military service elsewhere. Thoughts? Granted, Peebles service and the Cumberland County Militia could be separate articles which I can't do right now. I will clean up my citations. SharedHeritage (talk) 01:13, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

@SharedHeritage: To answer your original question, see MOS:SECTIONS. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 05:27, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

SharedHeritage (talk) I'm glad I could help with your multiple citations. I've been an editor since 2007 and I just recently mastered that skill. There's a lot to learn. As David notMD stated the information about Peebles military service isn't about the homestead you're writing about, so a reviewer might feel its unnecessary. (I'm not a reviewer, so I am no expert on that subject.) You mention Peebles received two different land grants. Did he receive any of his land due to his military service? If so you could state that, which would tie in the homestead with him being in the military. I live in northwest Pennsylvania, and some of the area's earliest settlers apparently received land because of their Revolutionary War service, so that's why I asked about the land grants.

One thing you need to be aware of is that Wikipedia does not want any original research, or writers speculating on what happened. (To quote Sergeant Friday from the old TV show Dragnet – "Just the facts, ma'am.") So I'm a bit concerned about such phrases as "it is reasonable to believe that the windows are original..." and "The two front doors were likely replaced at this time," for that reads as though you are guessing or giving an opinion. You can quote someone and say that researcher Joe Smart-Guy believes the windows are original, and give a reference citation, but don't make it sound as though it's your conclusion. Remember that you're writing an encyclopedia article for the general reading public, and not trying to convince a historical commission to add the house to the National Register. I hope I'm not overwhelming your with details, but I'm aware that writing for Wikipedia means following Wikipedia rules. Best wishes on your research and writing project. Karenthewriter (talk) 05:44, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

To reinforce the above, "No original research" means no observations by you. David notMD (talk) 02:58, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Problem with visual editor

When I edit wikitables using Visual Editor, the tools doesn't work, I'm trying to edit a text within the table but whenever I tap the wikitable, it goes lock. Can anyone help me? Anyone? —It'sCtrlwiki • talk • 05:31, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

@Ctrlwiki: Could you tell us which table in which article you're trying to edit? The most common cause that I can think of is that the table's cells are created with templates instead of the usual table syntax, but I have to see the table itself to know. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 09:46, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

In filmography table. After seeing this problem, I've tried to edit in other device, but still not working. Maybe only mobile user can experience this problem. The Visual editor was okay before, it works well, but it is not working now. It's not a template, it's wikitable, could you please help me, I can't edit using visual editor—It'sCtrlwiki • talk • 12:04, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

The question you were asked was "which table in which article"? --David Biddulph (talk) 13:08, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Blp articles, or almost all articles that has wikitable. I'm using VE until now because of referencing. But using VE to edit wikitables, doesn't work when using a mobile. The VE is working properly before—It'sCtrlwiki • talk • 13:17, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

@Ctrlwiki: Please provide the specific name of one article where you are having this issue. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 05:34, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

@GoingBatty: Try to look my sandbox, there is a draft article with a table there. I can't link specific article, because I'm having this problem in all articles that has a table, my example is my sandbox—It'sCtrlwiki • talk • 06:20, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

@Ctrlwiki: I had no problem editing the wikitable on user:Ctrlwiki/sandbox with VisualEditor with my Windows 10 PC and Google Chrome. What hardware/software are you using? Are you using the Wikipedia app? Or are you using browser on your phone (in mobile view or desktop view)? What do you mean "it goes lock"? Could you please provide a screenshot of that situation? GoingBatty (talk) 15:29, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hi, I wanted to know the precise difference between blatant and subtle vandalism. Itcouldbepossible (talk) 09:34, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

hi Itcouldbepossible! basically subtle vandalism is vandalism where there is an attempt to make it seem real or otherwise hide it from others, for example changing a date to "21 April" which may seem real until further inspection instead of something obviously fake such as "420 January" such as the case with blatant vandalism. other such cases are, from the page linked, are adding plausible misinformation to articles (such as minor alteration of facts or additions of plausible-sounding hoaxes), hiding vandalism (such as by making two bad edits and reverting only one), simultaneously using multiple accounts or IP addresses to vandalize, abuse of maintenance and deletion templates, or reverting legitimate edits with the intent of hindering the improvement of pages. happy editing!  melecie  t - 09:48, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch @Melecie. But still I want some help. Can you tell me what type of vandalism the two edits are in page Warfaze, which I reverted moments back. Itcouldbepossible (talk) 09:51, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

it may be one of those edits that fall in between, like if you understand bengali it would probably be visible that it's an attempt at vandalism, while if you don't it could be understood as an attempt to add something constructively to a page.  melecie  t - 10:01, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah so the language matters. Any way that you @Melecie. Itcouldbepossible (talk) 09:28, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Is it concern if draft doesn't show up in search?

I created a draft about a dance collective called FlucT Draft:FlucT. When I do a search for "fluct" on Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=fluct&title=Special%3ASearch&go=Go&ns0=1, the draft doesn't show up. This concerns me because I fear someone else may start an article on FlucT not realizing there is already a draft. Greg Dahlen (talk) 11:55, 23 November 2021 (UTC) Greg Dahlen (talk) 11:55, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Greg Dahlen To search for a draft, you must put "Draft:" in front of the draft title. Keep in mind that users are not under any obligation to first search for a draft if they want to directly create an article. I have added the submission template to your draft so you can submit it. 331dot (talk) 11:59, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

331dot thanks, I probably understood that. I just wonder if it's a good policy, because some editors may not know they have to put draft: in front, miss my draft, create their own draft, then there seems to be a duplication of effort that feels needless? Greg Dahlen (talk) 13:41, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Greg Dahlen, and welcome to the Teahouse. You can always open a discussion on this sort of issue at the Village pump. But in my view there are good reasons for the way it is. The Wikipedia that the public sees is six million encyclopaedia articles: nothing else. That's all that is indexed by external search engines, and that's all that the Wikipedia search box gives you unless you tell it otherwise. All the rest - talk pages, drafts, user pages, projects pages, policies, essays, etc, are "under the bonnet", seen only by those who choose to look inside. --ColinFine (talk) 13:59, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

@Greg Dahlen: There is actually a clever feature which makes it unlikely anyone would accidentally start a second draft with exactly the same name as one that already exists. If you go through all the steps to begin a new article called "FlucT" by typing that in the search box, choosing the option to "Search for pages containing FlucT" and then clicking on the red link in the search output page where it says "You may create the page "FlucT", but consider checking the search results below to see whether the topic is already covered." you'll find that the newly created page will have a big banner at the top saying "There is a draft for this article at Draft:FlucT." You can confirm this by clicking on the redlink I placed in this answer, which cuts out all the searching and will now go straight into draft creation mode when clicked. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:18, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

No. It's a space after the url that's needed. Look at the source code of my links to see for yourself. Nick Moyes (talk) 09:42, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Visual Editing

Hi, can anybody out here tell me how I can visually edit a table, as in this page. I could figure out how I can add a new row below a specific row, but could not figure out how to change the sl. no of all the following rows, after adding a new row. I could now answer the edit request on that talk page, not only because I could not do it, but because the edit request had not provided relevant details. Anyway, can anyone please tell me the procedure of doing it. For example, consider the following. I want to add a new row after 7th row. And add new details. So what is the procedure, using visual editing. Itcouldbepossible (talk) 14:18, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

@Itcouldbepossible It's a two step process, involving both Visual Editor and Source Editor. I have copied the source code from the article into my Sandbox as it's too risky playing around with tables directly - and especially as this is just a demo. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Nick_Moyes/sandbox#Scratch_5 (Note that my edit summary links to the source page where the authors are credited - do this even in your sandbox please, as we need to credit other people's work when we upload it, as it isn't really ours to claim as our own)

1. You'll see I have added my very own, well-known and highly-popular YouTube Channel to a newly inserted row at position 8.
2. You should do that bit most easily in Visual Editor by Selecting Row 7, clicking the Chevron button that appears on the far left of the table and selecting Insert below.
3. Now type in all the information/data that you can, obviously numbering this as Row 8.
4. Ignore the fact that text is not aligned, you'll fix that in the next step.
5. Now save your edits (Publish Changes) then go back in, but via Edit Source so that you're editing the wikimarkup.Do not use VE. Find the row with the newly added data. (Tip: use Ctrl-F to search for my surname, so you're taken straight there.)
6. Find the line containing the position number '8' that you added. It will look likethis: |8
7. Copy and paste the style command from an existing centred cell and paste it in so it looks like this: | style="text-align:center" |8
8. Preview it to check it's centred, and repeat elsewhere as necessary.
9. For flags and so forth, find an exisiting row contining what you need and paste that in to the empty cell (also within Source Editor, not in VE)
10. Finally, you will now have to manually edit every subsequent row so that the row number shifts up one to accommodate the newly-inserted row. (You cannot do this automatically as you might using Excel.) It should take you just a few minutes to fix this. I stopped at fixing this at row 20, which is why there are two rows numbered 20 in my demo. Again, don't use VE for this step.

Please visit this Help page to appreciate what you can do in Visual Editor and all its limitations. You can't, for example, change colours with VE - you must use source editor. The 1st line of that section I linked to mentions a 'Phabricator' list of tasks to improve VE. Follow it to appreciate what can and can't yet be done. See https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T108245

Whilst you might be frustrated that you can't do everything in Visual Editor, just remember that this tool was devised to make basic editing simpler and more WYSIWYG for beginners. Experienced editors generally tend to avoid Visual Editor and prefer using Source Editor. You are now asking about very complex editing, where either only Source Editor or a combination of both editing tools will be necessary.

I hope this all makes sense. Please ping me know when you've done with the stuff in my Sandbox, and I'll then delete the content from it. Nick Moyes (talk) 16:49, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

PS: Another little tip for you: Enter as much data as you can in VE. If you can't add what you want, leave some placeholder text like aaaa bbbb ccccc etc in its place. This make it much, much easier to find the right cell to edit late in Source Editor/wikimarkup. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 16:54, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes I really don't have words to thank you man. You just helped me beyond imagination. I really did not imagine, you would use your precious time in writing so much for me. I read this page. But could not find any help. But see, you gave me the the necessary page, which has the right information. But I could not find it myself - so foolish. I just sometimes tend to wonder, how some Wikipedians, know about every help page in Wikipedia, and have explored every nook and corner of Wikipedia. They know the exact help pages, for the exact problem, and they know which help page has that needed information. For example see, the page that I was looking into, and the page that you gave me. Such a difference. I thought I might get help from the Visual Editor help page, but you gave me the actual page which has the information that I need, the Help:Table page, under the VE section. Although both the pages may seem to have the same kind of information, but it is a huge difference. And see you also left me a PS: and gave me your great tip. Yes, in that way, it is really easy to find out. Thank you again for helping me learn Wikipedia, and with all the elder Wikipedians' kind help, I am learning so fast. Thanks again. Have a nice Wikipedia career. Itcouldbepossible (talk) 04:56, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes But I cannot figure out one thing, while writing the name of the channel I wrote Itcouldbepossible, but wikipedia is thinking it to be a page, and in the preview section, I see that it is writing like [1], which it thinks to be a link, for further reference you can see that in your sandbox. While yours is not looking like mine. Can you figure out and tell me what is wrong with me. I am always getting confused. Itcouldbepossible (talk) 05:03, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

@Itcouldbepossible The only think "wrong with you" is your wonderful fascination in some of the minutae of Wikipedia. Nerdiness is an asset here, as is a desire to ask questions and to learn. I only hope you then put what you're learning into practice. That's why I was willing to spend time answering someone's technical questions (even though I'm no expert on tables at all - or indeed much else, if I think about it!)

The best way to learn from one's errors is first to accept that one must have made a mistake, and then to keep analysing the problem until you suddenly go ahah! that's my mistake. You never forget those types of mistakes, and that's how we learn through life.

Although not normally encouraged, I give you permission to go into that section of my sandbox and make an edit there to show me the problem you're encountering. I'm not 100% sure what you're seeing. My link was actually a wikilink to the Teahouse, modified to display my name. (In my settings it shows up as a green WP:REDIRECT for clarity, but might not on yours. A red link is to a page that doesn't exist, whether it's an article page, a user page or something else. The link you've just pasted above was to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/En.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Itcouldbepossible If you had put it as an external link (using one square bracket), it would look like this: [1] Both would not work becaue you accidentally repeated the en.wikipedia.org elements. You actually needed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Itcouldbepossible as an external link, though that would not be appropriate for a table. This also works: Itcouldbepossible - I forced the User: bit to not display by putting a vertical pipe character at the end.

Now I think you asked somewhere else about how we learn all this stuff. Watching, reading, doing and making mistakes. It's taken me 10 years of editing to pick up the stuff I'm now happy to share with you, but I was quite able to do most of the basic editing (apart from tables - they're really scary!) after quite a short time. I worry a bit that you're wanting to "run before you can walk", but I hope I've now managed to answer all your various questions. Good luck! Nick Moyes (talk) 11:38, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes Yes, you are answering all my questions to my content. And you were saying about putting into use what I am learning. Yes, I am doing that. For example when I copied the table from your sandbox to my new tables sandbox, I wrote from whom I have copied the table. What I am wanting to say is that for example I want a wiki link to my talk page, which would show up like "Itcouldbepossible", using the vertical pipe (|) character. Then why cannot I do that? Itcouldbepossible (talk) 12:28, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Very simple. [[User talk:Itcouldbepossible|Itcouldbepossible]] renders as Itcouldbepossible. For help on wikilinks, see Help:Wikilinks. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:38, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

@David Biddulph Thanks, that was what I was wanting to do from the beginning. Itcouldbepossible (talk) 13:13, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

@Itcouldbepossible If you edit the source to this thread and look at my reply above, you should see exactly how I did it. The alternative is still to use the vertical pipe after your username, but to add different text (either your own name without the User: bit) or as I did when linking you to Albert Einstein! You'll work it out. Nick Moyes (talk) 12:48, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes Yes thank you, I wanted to tell you this from the very beginning. But you could not understand it, anyway, thank you for all the other help that you provided. Itcouldbepossible (talk) 13:24, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes Also I want to know how I can turn by wiki redirects to green as you said here - In my settings it shows up as a green WP:REDIRECT for clarity Itcouldbepossible (talk) 13:26, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes Is it possible to mask external links to read the way I want. I mean Wiki links can be renamed as the editor wishes, is there any way in which external links can be masked, or is it at all possible? Itcouldbepossible (talk) 13:30, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

@Itcouldbepossible Yes. You could have something like:

External links

• West Bengal official website
• Peregrine falcon live webcamera on Derby Cathedral

Is that what you meant? Nick Moyes (talk) 20:28, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes Yes thank you, that is what I meant. I wanted to know how to mask external links. So we put a "/" isn't it??? Instead of using "|" to mask to external links. Thanks for telling me. Itcouldbepossible (talk) 03:27, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Creating a page ethically

Creating a page for my boss My boss is adamant that she wants a Wikipedia account (she's a prominent science communication researcher). I think she probably deserves one, but I'm also deeply aware that I'm biased as a prospective page author. Does anyone have any advice for me? I want to make my boss happy, but not by violating Wikipedia guidelines. Lorikie (talk) 14:26, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

@Lorikie: You'll need to read and abide by Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. DuncanHill (talk) 14:33, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Lorikie, and welcome to the Teahouse. Thank you for being up-front about your situation. Unfortunately, there are some formidable obstacles in the way of you being able to satisfy your boss. As Duncan says, you need to read up about conflict of interest, and further, you need to make the formal declarations that you are a paid editor (it doesn't matter if you are specifically paid to do this, from what you say it is part of your job). Next, you need to drop the idea of "deserving a page", because that assumes that a Wikipedia article is in any way for the benefit of its subject. Of course many people (and other entities) do get some benefit frrom there being a Wikipedia article about them, but that is incidental: Wikipedia has no such purpose, and indeed is indifferent as to whether the subject wants an article about them or does not want an article about them. An article about your boss will not belong to her, will not be under her control, will not necessarily say what she wants it to say, and should be based almost entirely on what people wholly unconnected with her have chosen to publish about her (good or bad!) and not on what she or her associates say or want to say. You might like to show her an article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing.

The counterpart of "deserve" that Wikipedia actually uses is, "does the subject meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability? This is not directly related to prominence, importance, influence, popularity, or any of the other things that you might normally connect with "notability": in essence it is a question of whether there are enough reliably published sources, wholly unconnected with the subject to base an article on.

If you and she decide that you still want there to be an article, there are more hurdles. Creating a new article is much more difficult than it looks - I liken it to building a house as your first building project, or playing a public recital after your first violin lesson, and always advise new editors to put the idea aside for at least six months while they "learn the trade" and how Wikipedia works. Editors who do not heed this advice often have a frustrating time as they put in a lot of work and don't understand why their house keeps falling down. Having a conflict of interest you will likely find it even harder, as you will need to basically forget everything you know about your boss, and summarise only what those independent commentators have published.

If you decide to go ahead, you need to read your first article, and then use the articles for creation process to create a draft. --ColinFine (talk) 14:57, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

If pressed to proceed by your boss, see if there are three or more published articles about her - content at length, not just a name-mention - and then use guidance at Help:Referencing for beginners to create references in proper ref format in your Sandbox. If you cannot find publications about her, then the effort is futile. David notMD (talk) 15:52, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

@Lorikie: Is your boss by any chance Laura Lindenfield? If so, I think that you will have a very difficult time finding the sources you'll need for a draft article on a living person in which each and every statement has to have a reliable reference. When I Google her name, I get a number of sources but they are virtually all based on interviews (or are on websites clearly linked to her), so are not WP:INDEPENDENT. The nearest I can find that might be OK is this one at science.org which probably reaches the WP:SIGCOV for notability (specifically in her case WP:NACADEMIC) but still seems, by using language like "She is passionate about...", to take a tone that Wikipedia would not use (see WP:NPOV). Your best bet, I think, is to draft a very short article using such independent sources and then not be too disappointed if the Draft is declined: that will at least prove you have tried! Make sure you start by complying with the mandatory disclosures described at WP:PAID. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:00, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Text Allignment

Any idea on text alignment in table. I want to center align some text in tables, using visual editor. Itcouldbepossible (talk) 14:44, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

@Itcouldbepossible I think you'd probably need to use wikisource code for that, using the "text-align:center; parameter.

PS: I've tweaked the demo warning you placed on your sandbox page as you'd left the nowiki commands in which stop it from working. So the warning now looks like it's come from me, but obviously isn't a real vandalism warning. The best way to leave warnings is to enable WP:TWINKLE in your Preferences. Then it does it automatically for you via menu options, plus a whole lot more. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:20, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes Yes thanks for the edit. I know it is not a real vandalism warning. It is just my sandbox. If I had done something wrong, then you would have told me in the talk page. But anyway to get to the point, I have already TWINKLE enabled. I used it to start delete discussions, and got myself blocked for being thought to be a sockpuppet, since that page was created by another sock, and the sock with whom the checkusers thought me to be linked had edit warred with the previous sock. Anyway thats not the point. What you are saying is that it will give me warnings. Can you specify what warning, or what type of warnings??? Also it would be really kind of you, if you could tell me in a more precise way of how to use wikisource code, suddenly while I am writing in normal language. For example I am using "text-align:center" here, but nothing is happening. Please tell me the way, to center text in a table while using visual or source editor. Thanks for the answer, and regards. Itcouldbepossible (talk) 04:21, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

@Itcouldbepossible As I replied to you on my sandbox, it's important that you are editing tables and complex entries in WP:Source Editor not Visual Editor. Did you follow my instructions on how to switch between them, and did it work?

You will get nowhere with anything other than the simplest of tables if you stick to VE. The parameter I mentioned above is wiki markup - as written with Source Editor.

So, go to the table I put in my sandbox for you at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Nick_Moyes/sandbox#Scratch_5

Click 'Edit Source' next to the heading to open the section in Source Editor. (Tell me if that function is not showing, as it means you've not forced it to display via your personal Preferences setting. My default is for it to offer me both editing tools all the time - it should be yours, too, especially if you're working on tables.)

Search for the word 'center' and you'll see 101 examples - one controlling each cell of data.

Regarding WP:TWINKLE: Go to your own userpage. Use the drop down menu box marked 'TW' to access the Twinkle menu. The first sub-item is WARN. This opens a menu box for you to explore the various options. Try leaving yourself a first level warning against vandalism, then a second, and then a third. I can't explain all the options here for you - we expect editors to very carefully' learn for themselves how to use these powerful tools (which can easily upset other users). So read the TWINKLE page and the accompanying Documentation to understand what it can do. But it covers most of the common issues of edit waring, content removal, addition of uncited content, harassment, conflict of interest, spamming, plus single issue notices like encouragement to use edit summaries, biting newcomers, etc etc. There is a complete list of warning templates (here). Nick Moyes (talk) 10:33, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes Yes the edit source function is showing. Also I thought that you were telling me of editing error warnings, so I asked what type of warnings. I had pasted that warning in my sandbox just to see how it looks. I knew how to use twinkle. For the table related thing, I want to know where should I place "text-align:center; parameter? I have made my edit on your sandbox. You can see that, and tell me if it is right or wrong. You will see that the table I created, it has some errors. For the channel name column I thought of adding my talk page and then renaming the wiki link as "Itcouldbepossible". But it showed up like this: ([2]) - why??? While your wiki link it redirects it to the teahouse it shows Nick Moyes' Wikipedia Editing Channel? How come??? Why cannot I edit my wiki link to show my username, while on clicking it redirects to my talk page. For example yours show Nick Moyes' Wikipedia Editing Channel and it redirects to WP:TH Why is mine not like that?? Itcouldbepossible (talk) 11:25, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Tables

Today I was editing random articles, when I came across Nach Baliye. I was reading the article, trying to find for any errors, when I came across this table [3]. I just sort of went mad seeing this table. Just a well formatted and advanced table, with all the color schemes, and just nice cell merging. Can anyone, for heaven's sake tell me how that table was created with all those attractive features. I don't really think that the Wiki markup was typed out. There must be some modern graphical interface, for doing such a tedious thing. I want to know how that table was created. I would really be glad, if I get the answer from someone who is an expert in this matter, and has been editing Wikipedia for a couple of years, because, I want the exact and precise method of creating such a table. Itcouldbepossible (talk) 14:58, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

I've been editing for over 10 years and wouldn't dare to create such a thing. I have, however, created very long data tables by starting in Excel, getting all the sorting, the text and the wikilinks and in the right places before exporting it with a tool to Wikimarkup. But I'm not aware of a tool to make tables look pretty like that - so I shall await for answers from other users more experienced in such things, too. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:27, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

@Itcouldbepossible: It takes work, often over time with improvements by different editors, often starting with copying the format from another page. The first similar table in the article was added by an IP here with edit summary "added table like other shows Jhalak". That may refer to Jhalak Dikhhla Jaa (season 9)#Scoring Chart or an earlier season. It could maybe be tracked further back but I haven't tried. Help:Table has general help but it's complicated. Much of it is the same or similar as HTML tables which some editors already know. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:50, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter Yes, but how did that specific table appear in Jhalak Dikhhla Jaa (season 9)#Scoring Chart. How was it created??? And also I wanted to know one thing, how on Earth did you find that specific page history, when the table was added?? I have seen many people doing so. Is their anyway of finding out when a specific edit was first made, and the what edits followed?? I really don't think that you flicked through the page history. Itcouldbepossible (talk) 04:14, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

@Itcouldbepossible There are various ways to find when an edit was first made. The slow way is to look at 500 edits in View History at a time. Let's assume that covers the entire history (if not, just increase the number to 5000 in the url bar), then you can find a rough midway point, click (and note down) the date you clicked. Is the edit showing there? IF yes, go down and divide the lower half of edits into half again, and select another date to click. Is the edit there? If 'No', then it will have been made between those two date points. Divide the edits roughly in half again and then again until you find the first one where that edit was made. Doing this in conjunction with looking at View History (green numbers are positive count of bytes added/red are negative overall additions) makes this just a few minutes work. It took me just a few moments to do that for Nach Baliye, speeded up by using Ctrl-F to search for 'Scoring Chart', of which there were 823 mentions in the edit summaries. I went to the lowest one, then scrolled down a dozen or so edits further and found a massive addition by an IP on 9 March 2019 with a very helpful edit summary. Job done.

Of course, that's the slow way. For simplest way to find when a short text string was first added to an article is to copy it, then go to the View History tab. Just above all the row entries, click Find addition/removal to use the 'WikiBlame' tool. Be aware that by default it only searches 500 of the latest edits before the date selected. So it will miss the first addition of text if it's a very heavily edited page as this one is unless you spend time to understand how to take advantage of the tool's searching features. I wouldn't use it to search for a chart being added, but I might focus on just one unique element or keyword in that chart. Hope this helps. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:09, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes Thanks, I learnt a new thing. Itcouldbepossible (talk) 10:49, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes Thanks for the answer. Itcouldbepossible (talk) 04:07, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Prime Healthcare

My interest in CAlifornia health systems drew me to Prime Healthcare, where I was struck by the difference in how Wiki editors handle the material. Whereas large systems such as Sutter and Kaiser are given the opportunity to list history, background, hospital names, etc, Prime's editing history is aggressive and heavy handed. The result is a page listing controversy and nothing else. Prime owns 45 hospitals nationwide, employs 50000 people, but you wouldn't know it by Wiki. BTW I am in no way affiliated or compensated by Prime; my research is for a graduate program. I'm just amazed at the discrepancy and poor treatment. I haven't researched it enough to determine whether sources should be improved on deleted materials, but that is different than what edit history shows. Any attempts to improve the page are immediately deleted wholesale, in apparent violation of Wiki editing rules. (I attempted to undo some edits myself) Can anyone explain this? Prime owner Prem Reddy has made a number of enemies with his handling of labor, etc. Is that at play here? Archie515 (talk) 16:46, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy link: Prime Healthcare Services Karenthewriter (talk) 17:20, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello @Archie515. Welcome to the Teahouse! You can discuss the issue about the content of the article on the article's talk page. The concerned editors might engage in the conversation and help you in finding a possible solution. Lightbluerain❄ (Talk | contribs) 17:24, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

thanks but page monitors refuse to allow access and have not responded to talk page requests in the past. Now locked out from making any changes to sources. Page is an embarrassment to all Wiki contributors. Archie515 (talk) 22:29, 23 November 2021 (UTC)Archie515Archie515 (talk) 22:29, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

The Controversy section is well supported by reliable published sources. It's Prime Healthcare that should be embarrassed. Maproom (talk) 23:04, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

@Archie515: I see you posted twice at Talk:Prime Healthcare Services. The last piece of advice you were given there was to make a specific request. I suggest you think about the worst problem with the article, and then post a specific detailed suggestion on the talk page, such as: Please change the current article text "_____________" to "_____________" based on the independent reliable source found at ___________________. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 06:45, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Do anyone think like that?

Are there people actually thinking that this page represents a universal and unbiased point of view? Owerthise (talk) 18:00, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

I think like that. It doesn't seem biased to me. What direction do you think it's biased in? Maproom (talk) 18:43, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't think there is such a thing as an universal point of view, certainly not about a topic connected to religion. It looks neutral to me; it may not be perfect (no article is) but there are no obvious problems. --bonadea contributions talk 19:02, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

@Owerthise: Welcome to the Teahouse! If you have a specific suggestion to improve the article, please post it on Talk:Muhammad with a reliable source and the {{edit extended-protected}} template, and another editor will review your request. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 06:48, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Gehad Hamdy

Hey. I have been editing the errors on Draft:Gehad Hamdy for while. Is there anything I should or edit before publishing? Thank you. Ayaelmelegy (talk) 00:07, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, some things need to be improved: (1) the article must have a lead portion (the introduction should not have a heading), (2) there should not be no links or Arabic letters in section headings, (3) there is too much text in the infobox, and Arabic text isn't needed there. There are other things, but you can start with this. Regards. — Alalch Emis (talk) 00:54, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

STATUS: Draft nominated for Speedy deletion and creating editor blocked as suspected sock (denies). David notMD (talk) 01:15, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

I have overhauled (Major Cleanup) the article (This specifically). Jairus is doing... 🎮🦜 02:02, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

@Ayaelmelegy: Draft:Gehad Hamdy has no references in the "Biography" and "Speak Up" sections. Please add more independent reliable sources to your draft before submitting for AfC. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 06:34, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

GoingBatty, "Ayaelmelegy" got an indefinite block six hours before your last (and of course well-intentioned) message. -- Hoary (talk) 12:02, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Rv tags

Hello. Is it possible to remove tags? Thank you. Richard Michael William (talk) 06:40, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

@Richard Michael William: Possibly - which tags were you considering removing, and why? GoingBatty (talk) 06:50, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

@GoingBatty, no, I've no reason, I've seen some users who edit without any tags. So I asked. Can the tags be removed without any reason? Thank you. Richard Michael William (talk) 06:57, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

@Richard Michael William: When tags are removed from an article, it's assumed that the problems they highlight have been resolved. If an editor feels that a tag was removed prematurely, they'll add it back at their own discretion. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 07:01, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

@Tenryuu, I didn't tell about the tags of article. I told about editing tags such as "2017 wikitext editor". Thank you. Richard Michael William (talk) 07:07, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

@Richard Michael William: There is a difference between Wikipedia:Tags and Wikipedia:Templates I see you removed the {{under construction}} template from the Carlos Moguel Jr. article in this edit, but you cannot remove the tag "2017 wikitext editor" from the edit. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 07:09, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

@Richard Michael William: Those are not removable. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 07:11, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Reftoolbar

How to change the date format for Reftoolbar? from Dmy to mdy. Thanks. —It'sCtrlwiki • talk • 06:49, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

@Ctrlwiki: Welcome to the Teahouse! It appears that there is a discussion about this at Wikipedia talk:RefToolbar#Date formats. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 06:53, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

User level

Hi, I wanted to know how I can add a user level. I mean there will be a bar on my user page, and it will fill up as I edit articles. And beside it would be written, my next user level. Any idea on how to do that? Itcouldbepossible (talk) 09:32, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Here's a workaround, Itcouldbepossible. Just edit articles, constructively. Soon you will be "extended confirmed". Most people are, and few people will be surprised or much interested to know that you are. There are some other very minor superpowers that you can acquire; but again, few people will be interested. Some superpowers are a bit out of the ordinary, and you might want to advertise one or other of these; on the other hand, advertising them may seem somewhat vulgar. Best is to aim to be an article-improving Clark Kent. -- Hoary (talk) 11:58, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

@Itcouldbepossible Welcome to Tea House! As @Itcouldbepossible stated, it's rarely of interest to anyone else. This essay on WP:HATCOLLECTING could be useful on the mostly harms/some benefits of gamifying your user page with statistics. I do indulge myself with Wikipedia:Service awards as a way of marking specific tiers of editing. Happy editing! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 12:57, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

@Hoary@Shushugah Actually I was talking about service award progress templates. I have finally found out. But still can anyone here give me some more service award progress template link? Itcouldbepossible (talk) 09:14, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Dead Links

I see that many pages have something called 'dead links'.

What are these so called 'dead links', and how can I make them alive again?? Itcouldbepossible (talk) 09:48, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

For information about dead links, read WP:Dead links. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:56, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

@David Biddulph Thanks again for the answer Itcouldbepossible (talk) 13:32, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Add (journalist) to title

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

Can you write this in brackets as journalist because it is journalist? You can write Journalist in back of their name in brackets. Coolblack4 (talk) 10:21, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Coolblack4, and welcome to the Teahouse. We use a term in parenthesis like that in an article title only when it is necessary to distinguish between different people (or other subjects) with the same name. See WP:Disambiguation. --ColinFine (talk) 11:44, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Something drastic certainly should be done to this article. Sample: In digital journalism, he has created and successfully established an innovative and exclusive multilingual digital first content vertical moneybhaskar.com for Danik Bhaskar Group, DB Corp. It is the largest Hindi business portal and offers guidance, utility and wisdom based jargon free economic-business and investment content to aspiring readers in Hindi. (For one thing, I wonder what is being excluded.) -- Hoary (talk) 12:06, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

OP sock-blocked. DMacks (talk) 05:19, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Distracting AFC submission templates

Does anyone know how to collapse or get the "this topic is not notable" AFC submission templates out of the way? I'm trying to work on a draft article, and they're distracting and take up about half of the page. wizzito | say hello! 12:43, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Those templates were put there for the benefit of reviewers, and of anyone who might want to work on improving the draft. You should not remove or collapse them. That's why they all say "Do not remove this line!" Maproom (talk) 13:37, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Thing is, they are INCREDIBLY distracting to look at, I at least want to move them to the bottom at the page if I can't collapse or make them invisible. I just can't have them taking up 90% of the page from the top, it bothers me a lot and prevents me from working. wizzito | say hello! 13:50, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Reality shifting has been Declined three times and Rejected twice. I have restored the Declined and Rejection and Comments to the top of the article, where those belong. David notMD (talk) 14:23, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

If you believe you can rescue this with better references, do so, but be aware that Rejected drafts are likely to be deleted and 'salted.' Make sure you have an off-Wikipedia copy. And understand that 'salted' means that an Administrator's approval would be needed to try again to create a draft on this topic. David notMD (talk) 14:31, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

David notMD is there seriously no way to get these to the bottom of the page (where they are still visible) or make them look less distracting? Your comments aren't helping me, sorry. Also, I am still working on the article; I had to rewrite it from scratch because the original user who created the draft made it look very bad and had bad formatting and grammar. (Also, they kept resubmitting it multiple times despite not addressing the concerns, I haven't submitted it yet.) It isn't anything speedy deletable (see Wikipedia:Drafts are not checked for notability or sanity), there's a Washington Post report and a scholarly article on the subject, but probably just needs to be worked on and more RS might need to be made before it gets published. wizzito | say hello! 14:35, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Declines and Rejections are considered a required part of draft history, so that the next reviewer can check if the weaknesses identified by previous reviewers have been addressed. Given that you have taken over a draft created and edited by other editors, you can leave a Comment to that effect with the other Comments. David notMD (talk) 14:39, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

David notMD is there no way to at least move it to a part of the page where it's visible by people contributing and reviewers, but not as distracting as a glob that takes up the first part of the page? If not, I may just have to move it to my userspace and work on it from there. wizzito | say hello! 14:42, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

@David notMD noting for the record I have reverted you; @Wizzito offers up a convincing reason why they moved them down, because it was distracting for them, and as long as they move them back up before resubmitting I see no issue with that move. That is ignoring the question whether or not these templates are relevant at all considering the rewrite currently ongoing, although it appears that at least some of the original text still exists. -- Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 15:40, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

I have added a Comment that you are in the process of completely revising the draft. Do as much as you can before submitting. I know nothing about the topic, but will mention that as it stand now, the lead is over-referenced. Pick at most three refs to support the Lead. Those refs and the others may be used in the body of the article, as more detail on history, reception, criticism, etc. is added. David notMD (talk) 14:47, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

That's because I was working on it, putting the references in so I can use them later, and then delete the ref in the lead when I've finished reviewing the source and using it to source statements. You act like a draft should have the same standards as mainspace, and besides, I moved it to userspace anyways so I can work on it. wizzito | say hello! 14:49, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

You didn't move it, you copied & pasted the content, so please read about copying within Wikipedia. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:54, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

I want to pitch in from an outside editor. 5 declined templates, 2 separate comments, and 1 draft template? I know if I was unaware of all Wikipedia policies, this would feel very WP:BITEy to me. Is there not a better solution, in the form of an {{articlehistory}} style template? I understand why the need for all the notices (for future reviewers to know at a glance), but there can be so many better ways to do this now. --JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 14:50, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

I feel like a lot of people in this thread are being BITEy too... wizzito | say hello! 15:17, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

My intention was to proffer advice on how to create a draft that is more likely to be accepted. David notMD (talk) 15:20, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

I understand, but I feel as if my questions weren't answered and were just met with a "don't do this" or "don't do that" and reverts. wizzito | say hello! 15:22, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Tendentious editing

This is not marked as an essay. This is also not marked with the green symbol for policy, guidelines pages. So, how important are these types of guideline pages? Knight Skywalker (talk) 12:58, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Very important. It's a supplementary explantion to the guideline WP:DE, and carries the same status. Mjroots (talk) 13:15, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

@Mjroots: If this is very important, then why Wikipedia is not including the green symbol in the box? --Knight Skywalker (talk) 14:13, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

@Knight Skywalker: Green symbol not being included in the box is not important for deciding whether the page is important. It's important because it's an explanatory supplement to a guideline. It doesn't need a green symbol to be important. — Alalch Emis (talk) 01:00, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I didn't use the bold format, but still the above lines are showing as in bold to me. --Knight Skywalker (talk) 14:15, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

You used the bold format by putting a semi-colon before the colon at the start of the line. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:25, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

I've fixed the bold. Mjroots (talk) 16:45, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community.

Also it has category. Wikipedia essays (−) (±) Knight Skywalker (talk) 17:11, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Explanatory supplements are often initially created and developed as essays and then the community adopts them as vetted—but not quite as "thoroughly vetted" yet. The essay categories are not subsequently removed. Many essays that are marked as just an essay are also very important. — Alalch Emis (talk) 01:16, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia Markup

Is there any introduction page, or help page, or user guide page for Wikipedia Markup. If there is then please provide me. Itcouldbepossible (talk) 13:56, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi Itcouldbepossible, you may be looking for Help:Wikitext. DanCherek (talk) 14:15, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

@DanCherek Thanks for the Wiki Help page, I am surely going to read it. Itcouldbepossible (talk) 14:17, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

My Talk Page

As you see now, my talk page has become a little clumsy. What is the way to make it clean? Should I archive them or is there any other option? Seeking for options. Itcouldbepossible (talk) 13:58, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

@Itcouldbepossible: While you're allowed to delete conversations from your own talk page, archiving is recommended because it makes it more convenient for you and other editors to find those old conversations in the future. There are a few different ways to archive a talk page – you can do it manually or have a bot help you – and there is more information about each of those at Help:Archiving a talk page. DanCherek (talk) 14:22, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

@DanCherek I have archived the archival messages left by a bot on my talk page and have shifted them here. But I cannot move the three notification to three different headings, it is coming under a single heading. Please can you help me in that respect. Itcouldbepossible (talk) 14:24, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

The first section starts with {| so you need to end it with |}. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:30, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

@David Biddulph I don't understand how to do it. Could you possibly do it for me? Itcouldbepossible (talk) 04:51, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

As, I said, simply add |} to the end of that first section, see this edit. --David Biddulph (talk) 07:01, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Newcomers

How, can I find all newcomers on Wikipedia??? Itcouldbepossible (talk) 14:08, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

@Itcouldbepossible: You can find them at Special:Log/newusers but for what purpose ? 2402:3A80:1A4C:6E8:43C:D3FB:1E1F:28CA (talk) 15:01, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

IP blocking for 31 hours

Hello, Teahouse hosts…

I hope you don’t mind me asking this question: When administrators impose a block on IP addresses for the first time, the length of the block is usually 31 hours (1 day, 7 hours). Do you have any idea why administrators chose this value? Thanks. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — SANDBOXES — LOGS — 15:35, 24 November 2021 (UTC).

It's so that they don't just wait 24 and return to the same things. 31h is also a standard length in the blocking dropdown menu and has been since before I was an admin. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 15:56, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Imagine a kid messing around in study hall, causing a school's IP to be blocked. A 24-hour block would allow him or her to come back the next day during the same period to cause more trouble. Deor (talk) 16:24, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

@Deor and Jéské Couriano:

Thanks for letting me know about this. Come to think of it, that value might be why IP addresses don’t vandalize/disrupt Wikipedia again after their block expires. (Although I don’t know how many.) — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — SANDBOXES — LOGS — 01:20, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Amkgp is Sock editing

Hi, first I was blocked on the ground of thinking to be a sockpuppet, and the sockpuppet investigation was raised by an ipv6 ip 2402:3A80:6E1:9A2E:A110:65A0:5AD7:4F15. The sock investigation page is here. In the Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments section Blablubbs commented and said The filer is obviously Amkgp loutsocking. I blocked them for a bit. Then after the block expired then again another comment was added by ipv6 user 2402:3A80:1A4E:9197:C5B8:CED1:C0FD:9A1D, and then blablubbs blocked the ipv6 again. When it was proved that I am not a sockpuppet, this ipv6 2402:3A80:1A4C:A17E:9C61:AA1F:59E2:32A2 came and added welcomed me. Till date, I could not understand anything, why an ipv6 was coming an leaving me messages on my talk page. Today again an ipv6 2402:3A80:1A4C:6E8:43C:D3FB:1E1F:28CA came and gave me a vandalism warning on an edit that I made two articles namely, Piet van der Sluijs and Dré Saris, where I had only added a more reference needted tag using twinkle. It was my mistake or not is a far matter, but then he leaves me another link to learn wikipedia in under an hour link. He also answers one of my questions in the teahouse. The thing is all these ipv6 start with 2402:3A80, and blablubbs has stated previously that it is block evasion of sock amkgp. Now what is to be done? Should I raise a sockpuppet investigation request?? Would it be possible to block just huge range ipv6s? Please give me suggestion in this matter. Itcouldbepossible (talk) 16:20, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Also in there sockpuppet investigation page [[4]] we can see that the suspected sock puppets ipv6 also starts with 2402:3A80. We can also see that he got blocked because he used to edit logged out for a couple of time, and he was blocked for that reason. And also in a further section we see that he also used or uses 2409:4061::/36 this ipv6 range. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itcouldbepossible (talk • contribs) 16:24, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Article Not Published - not adequate sources

Hi, I am trying to publish an article about a triceratops skull nicknamed 'Dragon King' which was sold last year which is the biggest skull ever found, but the article was rejected due to a lack of sources. The sale was private so there wasn't a lot of press generated, but what there was is referenced. The skull is definitely the biggest in the world. How would I go about validating that? Would an image of the skull with dimensions count? What could I use to validate it.

Any suggestions would be very welcome. I should make clear that I have no financial stake in this at all, it is simply a fact that the skull is the biggest found and I think should be public information. Maudjohnson90 (talk) 16:27, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Maudjohnson90 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia articles summarize what publicly available independent reliable sources say about a topic. If a topic is not sufficiently covered in such sources, it cannot be on Wikipedia. Documents in private hands or otherwise not available to the public cannot be used as sources here. Did no sources cover this sale, or its discovery? If some did, but not enough for a standalone article, there may be an existing article this could be mentioned in. 331dot (talk) 16:37, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Shouldn't you first put any reliable information at Triceratops#Size, Maudjohnson90? That's a pretty well-watched article and if you think that particular skull needs another full article, you could discuss that on the Talk Page at Talk:Triceratops Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:59, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Mike Turnbull! I have added information under Triceratops#Skull and that has remained since I added it. I'll discuss on the Talk Page as suggested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maudjohnson90 (talk • contribs) 17:05, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Final Publish

Hello Sir, how much time does it take for the draft to get finally published ? Thank you. Johnalphanso (talk) 17:19, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

You have not created nor submitted a draft to Articles for Creation. Is there a particular draft you are interested in? — Preceding unsigned comment added by David notMD (talk • contribs) 18:09, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Johnalphanso, and welcome to the Teahouse. There is no simple answer to your quewstion: a draft takes as long to be published as it takes. There is no queue, no schedule, no deadline: all editors are volunteers, and work on what they choose when they choose. If you're talking about Draft:Sanskar Desai, that will not get reviewed until it is submitted for review (add {{subst:AFC/draft}} to the top). But it will not get accepted until somebody follows Theroadislong's advice in the comment and removes all the unreliable sources from the list. It will likely not get accepted until somebody reformats the references from a useless list of URLs to a meaningful set of citations - see CITE. There are probably other things that need improving too: in particular, the question of whether it has been worked on by a paid editor. --ColinFine (talk) 18:10, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

How do I contribute images?

 Bettertoseeit (talk) 19:29, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Bettertoseeit Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Please review WP:UPIMAGE carefully. It's not as easy to do as it may appear. You must be autoconfirmed(account is four days old with 10 edits or more) to upload images yourself, but you can visit Files for upload to get assistance with doing so if not autoconfirmed. 331dot (talk) 19:54, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Creating Book Pages

Hello. One of the reasons I became an editor was an interest in filling some of the gaps in bibliographies I am familiar with. What I'm unsure about is if an author has a large bibliography with Wiki articles already created for most of their books (for example; Stephen Baxter bibliography), am I safe in assuming I can create pages for those novels which do not have an article, or might the lack of an article be for a reason?

Thanks in advance. John Bullock (talk) 20:01, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Such novels still have to be independently notable. Ruslik_Zero 20:07, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

@Jbullock83 Welcome to Tea House! In general, a notable author does not mean their books are automatically notable and vice versa, see WP:NOTINHERIT, however in the book specific Wikipedia:Notability (books) guidelines, it does mention certain famous authors' books are likely to be automatically notable. Anything by Jane G. Austin for example, but another editor may disagree. Looking at specific notability criteria for the books themselves would be the most forward process. Happy editing! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 20:45, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the info/reply! Ruslik, Shushugah. John Bullock (talk) 21:32, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Jbullock83, the most common building blocks for writing an acceptable Wikipedia article about a book are reviews written by professional critics or known subject matter experts, published in reliable sources such as newspapers and magazines, including reliable equivalents published online. Find the significant coverage in reliable sources first, and if the coverage is there, then proceed to write an article that summarizes what the reliable sources say about the book. Cullen328 (talk) 03:11, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the additional info, Cullen328. If I could trouble one of you helpful people a little further; I understand the notability and sourcing requirements, but how does it work for plot summaries and character listings? I've looked through several book articles and there never appears to be a source for information about the plot. I presume it wouldn't just be taken on faith (especially if it were an editor as new as me) but I can't imagine other editors would be going off to read an entire book to verify the information. I know there are plot summaries readily available on sites like Amazon, but I've not seen anything like that referenced, and the plot summaries on Wikipedia often go into far more detail. Thanks again. John Bullock (talk) 09:47, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

@Jbullock83: There's actually a section in the manual of style that talks about this: MOS:PLOTSOURCE. Basically the books themselves are considered primary sources and don't need to be sourced for the plot, but sourcing is encouraged whenever possible, and necessary when direct quotes are used. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:43, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

@Tenryuu thanks! You've all been a massive help. John Bullock (talk) 16:52, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Shushugah, I wouldn't say that, in the 21st century, Jane G. Austin is famous, and a quick look doesn't suggest that any of her books have articles devoted to them. (Jane Austen, perhaps?) -- Hoary (talk) 03:56, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

@Hoary blah indeed! And I'm fairly certain Jack London is British, due to his last name, and among other misnomers 😅 ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 05:11, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

ASIAN MONTH

i would like to ask if my translated ( not fully complete article counts for the ediathon asian month in order to get a postcard Georgekagian (talk) 21:37, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

@Georgekagian Welcome to Tea House! Your question is better asked on Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Asian Month/2021 but if you add {{WAM talk 2021}} to the talk page of said article, a WikiProject judge will determine its eligibility for you. I doubt a full translation is needed, since each article can be independently edited anyways. It needs to comply with English Wikipedia WP:5 Principles whereas it may differ in other languages. Thank you for the question and happy editing! Good luck with the edit-a-thon! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 21:49, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

@Georgekagian, looking at here, it looks like it counts unless it was a pure machine translation (e.g. Google Translate) that you didn't copy edit to correct any errors. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:50, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

What did I do wrong?

I'm the guy who created the article for Legends of the Multiverse: Draft:Legends of the Multiverse, just wondering why you rejected it? LoudCasaGumInsanityBFDI (talk) 22:05, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

LoudCasaGumInsanityBFDI Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The reason for the decline(not rejection) was left by the reviewer at the top of the draft. Do you have specific questions about it? 331dot (talk) 22:10, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

In short, your draft seems to have no sources. 331dot (talk) 22:10, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

The fan film does not have any progress on the production yet, why do you expect it to be full of sources? Sources will only be added during production. (also i'm new here on wikipedia so i don't know what exactly are sources) LoudCasaGumInsanityBFDI (talk) 22:15, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

LoudCasaGumInsanityBFDI Please review what a reliable source is. If no independent reliable sources have written about your film, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable film, it cannot be written about on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a place to just tell about something.

If you have further comment, please edit this existing section, instead of creating additional sections. Please also review conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 22:21, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

"Legends of the Multiverse is widely regarded as among one of the greatest film series ever made", but "Production will begin in 5 December 2021." I see why this draft has been described as a blatant hoax. Maproom (talk) 22:31, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

FYI

 – Combined sections. GoingBatty (talk) 00:16, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

But the movie is overall just an idea from my mind, I'm actually making this movie with my two best friends. So technically, I wouldn't call it a "hoax" since it's actually coming to YouTube. Did you even read the entire article? If you don't want an article related to my fan film in this site, where else do I put it?

(p.s. irrelevant question: do you like the idea of my fan film trilogy?) LoudCasaGumInsanityBFDI (talk) 22:45, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

"where else do I put it?" Facebook, maybe. Maproom (talk) 22:49, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

LoudCasaGumInsanityBFDI Yes, Wikpedia is not for people to tell the world about what they do. When the New York Times or CNN or BBC write about your film, then someone independent of you will write an article about it. Until then, you will need to use social media. 331dot (talk) 22:53, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't use Facebook and which specific social media do I share the movie's existence? LoudCasaGumInsanityBFDI (talk) 23:05, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

@LoudCasaGumInsanityBFDI anywhere else but here. Please stop creating a new section for each question. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 23:07, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Make a YouTube video telling the world that you are making a film. 331dot (talk) 23:12, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Basically I think you may benefit from reading WP:NOT & internalizing what it says about what Wikipedia is not, you may find it imperative. Celestina007 (talk) 23:19, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

You can also have a look at WP:OUT, LoudCasaGumInsanityBFDI. --ColinFine (talk) 23:21, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Loud now indef blocked. David notMD (talk) 02:22, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Calculating and "fixing" Hubble's Constant using light speed (C) and Pi only.

Is it possible to to use the following equation as a Hubble Constant value for reference purposes only on the Hubble Chart page?

It is unique in the fact no measuring processes are involved, so accuracy of Hubble's Constant is as good as the inputted speed of light :-

 2 X a Megaparsec X C, divided by Pi to the power of 21 =  71 Kilometres / Second / Megaparsec

For this equation, a Parsec is the standard 3.26 light years. C is light speed in Kilometres / Second, and Pi is 3.142.......

This equation "fixes" Hubble's Constant directly and precisely to light speed (C) and Pi.

As this equation is original, there are no references, but it has been tested, and has successfully withstood many challenges since 2008.

I am quite happy if it were used anonymously, due to the fact there are no references.

The lack of external references was (rightly) the reason it was rejected as a stand alone article / submission.

No copyrights are involved, as it is purely lifted from my work (Astrogeometry), and is not the work of anyone else

I feel its anonymous inclusion on the Hubble Chart page would stimulate new interest in what has now become a "Hubble Constant stalemate".

Sincerely, ClownBojo ClownBojo (talk) 22:25, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Interesting. The same theory was advanced several years ago here on Wikipedia by a user named David Michael Hine. Wikignome Wintergreen^talk 22:35, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Please read no original research, ClownBojo. Unless several independent people have written about the equation in reliable sources, it does not belong in Wikipedia. Period. --ColinFine (talk) 23:19, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Well that just means the obvious solution is to get a few colleagues to analyze your research and write about it, then cite them as they cite you, to add it to WP. Gallomimia (talk) 04:31, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Fair use

Why are fair use resolutions lowered?

It doesn’t make sense that Wikipedia lowers resolution on fair use images. Other wikis don’t do this. Alex Mitchell of The Goodies (talk) 23:25, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

@Alex Mitchell of The Goodies: Welcome to the Teahouse! I hope that WP:IMAGERES will answer your question. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 00:17, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

@Alex Mitchell of The Goodies Each Wiki follows its own rules, and ours on en-wiki are often firmer than most others, I hear. FAIRUSE is exactly that: we think an image which has not been released under a normal Creative Commons licence can be suitably displayed at a low resolution on a monitor screen for the purposes of being fundamentally important to a named article. But anything of higher resolution wouldn't be fair to the image owner. So we don't allow it here. Nick Moyes (talk) 19:03, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Asian month

I try to sumbit my article in the asian month ediathon-contest in order to get a postcard but its not working. The link that wikipedia has shared is broken it says error 500 please any help? Georgekagian (talk) 23:27, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

@Georgekagian: Hi there! What is the full URL of the page with the broken link, and which link on that page is broken? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 00:19, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Based on discussions here and here, it seems to be a known problem with the Toolsforge database. There's a manual submission option at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Asian Month/Submissions. Wikignome Wintergreen^talk 16:18, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Regarding Manipal Hospitals Klang

Business has been bought over, and need to update/amend the old wiki page Hi all,

We have recently acquired a new facility we have made the necessary changes to google business profile etc. Unfortunately google still pulls the old wiki, which is related to the older business name. I tried editing the page, but the edits got undone. RSD Digital (talk) 01:22, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

 Note: added header. unsure if Manipal Hospitals Klang is the relevant page, but their only edits seem to be on that page and those edits were revdel'd  melecie  t - 01:27, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

hi RSD Digital! firstly, if you do come from the company, you might want to step out of the article entirely, you may have a conflict of interest that makes it hard for you to edit about your company neutrally. instead of this, you may instead send a edit request to the talk page of the article.

before wikipedia is able to update business changes such as a name change, this change has to be reported to by reliable and independent sources. additionally, the changes seem to have been revision deleted, unless the company site's data is under a suitable license, it cannot be copied over to wikipedia. happy editing!  melecie  t - 01:36, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

@RSD Digital: In addition to what Melecie has written above:

• Please never copy material from elsewhere onto Wikipedia. We can't accept it for two reasons, 1) due to Wikipedia's very specific content licensing, we need to make sure we are allowed to use it copyright-wise and 2) probably 99% of the texts not specifically written for Wikipedia can't be used here, both from a verifyability and Neutral point of view standpoint.

• I am not an administrator and therefore cannot see the deleted revisions, however, based on the URL that was given when removing it, it fails both the verifyability and neutral point of view requirements. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 05:42, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Review of draft

Hello Sir, I have just made some changes in draft Sanskar Desai as per comments of expert editor to remove blogs and press releases. I have replaced it with other reliable citations. Please guide me . I have also requested for review. Am I on the right track? This is my first New page created hence need your guidance.Thank youJohnalphanso (talk) 02:35, 25 November 2021 (UTC) Johnalphanso (talk) 02:35, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

According to Draft:Sanskar Desai, this person seems to have been busy doing things, but this doesn't make him noteworthy. You should do either or (preferably) both of two things. (A) Here, in this thread, specify the three best sources about him: reliable sources, discussing him or his work in detail. (B) We read "His work has been nominated in several film festivals internationally and have won awards." Which work, which awards? Improve the draft by providing this specific information, which of course must be backed up by reliable sources. -- Hoary (talk) 02:52, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

It appears you wanted to submit the draft to AfC, but put the wrong tag on top. Before you do submit, the refs should be maed into proper refs rather than the URLs there now. See Help:Referencing for beginners David notMD (talk) 02:56, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Is Template:Db-f9 actually being considered for deletion?

The page Template:Db-f9 says:

This template may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion because it appears to have been copied from an unspecified source, which does not have a license compatible with Wikipedia, and the uploader does not assert fair use or make a credible claim of permission.

Is this actually true of the template, or is this meant to be inserted on copied pages? I.hate.spam.mail.here (talk) 03:40, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

It is, as the transcluded documentation says, intended to be inserted within a copied page. Thanks to substitution, if the page is a template, it will start "This template". -- Hoary (talk) 03:53, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Protected This Page

Hello Dear, Wikipedia Team

Hope you doing well, I face some issue Some people are manipulating this page. Please protect this page.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anshuman

Thank You. Coolblack4 (talk) 04:37, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

@Coolblack4 Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia Teahouse. Here you can ask questions and get them answered.

You cannot request page protection here like this. Click this link, and then click the 'request protection' button. Then it will ask for the page title of the page, that you want to protect. Next you have to give a suitable reason for seeking protection. Then press 'submit request' button. An administrator will view your request. If he / she thinks that your reason is justified, and the page really needs protection, then he / she will obviously protect the page. I hope you find this helpful. Happy editing. Itcouldbepossible (talk) 04:58, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I've handled this situation by sock-blocking Coolblack4. DMacks (talk) 05:05, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Might wanna ask for a global lock; the sockmaster is known to be an issue across multiple wikis. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 05:10, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Make a redirect page

Hi everyone, Board of Control for Cricket in India article needs a redirect page from short form 'BCCI', most of the folks know this board by its abbreviated name. I tried to create BCCI but show blue link to disambiguation article. Google doesn't give WP article, when I searched BCCI. Newton Euro (talk) 05:39, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Most people who know of the Board of Control for Cricket in India may know it as "BCCI"; but many people know of BCCI as the failed bank. How is the disambiguation page unsatisfactory, Newton Euro? -- Hoary (talk) 05:57, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Follow-up to How do I know if a page is full?

Hi, I had on the teahouse talkback forums, and I'm afraid that even though it's been archived I never did get a satisfactory response. I've been trying various angles for a while now, I just want to know a way I can help that page without being rebuffed. My initial resistance came from editing uncontested for six months; I'm not looking to start a fight. --Smcupcake19 (talk) 05:43, 25 November 2021 (UTC) Smcupcake19 (talk) 05:43, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Smcupcake19, you disagree with other editors. It's imaginable that they are wrong and you are right. If you are confident that this is so, according to policies and guidelines of Wikipedia, and confident that you can demonstrate this, then you're free to launch a request for comment. I suggest that you spend a long time thinking the matter over, and, if you're still intent on going ahead, that you spend a long time perfecting your request. But you'd probably be wiser to take the advice you got earlier: to stop flogging a dead horse. -- Hoary (talk) 06:07, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

No article is ever 'full' if that is intended to mean that the article is so comprehensive and error free that it need never be added to again. The issue you got pushback for was your intended addition of large amount of content, criticized as being overly-detailed 'fancruft' or original research to Scrappy-Doo. You have made hundreds of edits to the article dating back to September 2020, much of it reverted, and there have been lengthy discussions of your behavior on the Talk page of the article and on your Talk page. You were blocked from editing the article for a month as a cooling off period. The article maxed at 167,700 bytes before being reduced to its current 25,000 bytes. Much of what was cut were your attempts to add detailed plot summaries of every episode of the animated series to this article about Scrappy-Doo as a character. One of your Talk page rejoinders was "But this isn't over." I disagree. David notMD (talk) 10:36, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I apologize if that comes off as overly hostile; however, that was a while ago and is not the present. This is a response to my finding little fruit in my current attempts.Smcupcake19 (talk) 22:52, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps you'd find Scoobypedia less restrictive? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:37, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps, though I still want to help this page in a way that Wikipedia will approve of.Smcupcake19 (talk) 22:52, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Spoken Wikipedia

Is there anyone out there working on the Spoken Wikipedia project? Does anyone even care about it? I've decided to start recording some articles, but it seems as if no one does. I must admit, I was surprized to find such a thing as spoken articles exists. It seems to me that the icon "announcing" it is very small. I wonder what could be done about that? Gallomimia (talk) 05:48, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I will admit that other than the one article I did, I don't have much interest in it for the time being. Maybe I'll pick up a requested article sometime soon. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 07:25, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm intrigued. Where is Spoken Wikipedia? I cannot find a link (not even on William the Conqueror, which claims to exist in spoken form) and it is not listed among the Wikimedia sister projects.--Verbarson (talk) 15:53, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

WP:WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:01, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I had been looking for "Project Spoken Wikipedia" instead of "WikiProject...".--Verbarson (talk) 16:05, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Errors on page for COVID-19_pandemic_in_South_Africa

 Dirk J Loots (talk) 05:57, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Good morning. I have noticed an error on the page and added a comment there, but it is not being corrected. The daily increase is wrong for 23 November 2021 and is having a roll on effect to 24 November. Dirk J Loots (talk) 06:02, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi! Do you have a source for those statistics, or is the stat in the page just not correct according to the existing source? WhoAteMyButter (📨_talk│📝^contribs) 06:19, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Retrospective antigen test results were added on 2021-11-23 which has caused confusion. COVID-19 pandemic in South Africa has a chart that's correct, and I've asked the people who update the infobox at the top of the page to use that chart's data (per the NICD sources on the talk page) to fix the daily increases. -- Jeandré, 2021-11-25t07:13z

In use

Can someone tell me what is the use of "In use template"? And how to use it. Thanks. —It'sCtrlwiki • talk • 06:50, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Most templates come with explanations of what they are for, and Template:In use is no exception. Take a look there. If you don't understand something within the explanation, feel free to ask. -- Hoary (talk) 07:17, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

@Hoary: I can't understand English very well so could you please explain what is the real purpose of this template because I've seen it in a blp article, thanks—It'sCtrlwiki • talk • 13:10, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I've read Wikipedia:Edit lock, now I understand, thanks—It'sCtrlwiki • talk • 13:18, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Che Holloway (Actor) article

Can anyone help make this acceptable for review> Having a hard time with citing and resourcing however everything looks right. Any takers? 69.193.135.110 (talk) 07:35, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

In order to fix this, another editor would have to know which part of it comes from which of the listed references. That would require a formidable amount of reading -- reading that presumably you've already done (though you should check that your memory is correct). Anyway, the pattern is Assertion.<ref>Reference for this assertion.</ref> Another assertion.<ref>Reference for this assertion.</ref> .... You've got the references more or less right; you just have to move each to the right place within the text. Wikipedia's software will then place them for you below the text, indexing them correctly. -- Hoary (talk) 08:51, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Categorizing edits

Does categorizing edits count? For example the person who has the most edits, ser amantio ne nicao, he has most of categorizing edits, so does those edits count. Are those edits given value?? Please clarify Itcouldbepossible (talk) 07:41, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi Itcouldbepossible. I don't think it really makes a difference one way or another. Most editors are assessed based upon the quality of the edits they make and not the quanity of the edits they make. Only those sufferening from WP:EDITCOUNTITIS seem to care about this type of thing. It only tends matter when asking when it comes to some WP:User rights, but even then not too much. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:52, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

i am a new user at wikipedia

hello its GJAHANA i am a new user. i wrote an article about uzbek actor SHoxrux Hamdamov. but it is not publishing yet.. how long i have to wait? they will check it? will publish? coz there is not any information about him at wikipedia GJAHANA (talk) 07:51, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

@GJAHANA: Welcome to the Teahouse. Your draft article, Draft:Shoxrux Hamdamov, was not submitted for review. No worries, I've submitted it now. Review may take 2 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order, and there are 2,704 pending submissions waiting for review. I recommend learning more about WP:YFA and continuing to improve the draft in the meantime. ––FormalDude ^talk 07:56, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Notofication Bot

Hi, I was blocked for sometime, for being thought to be a sockpuppet. But it was proved to be false. I saw that I had written many things in the teahouse, but no archival notification came. Does bots ignore blocked users?? Itcouldbepossible (talk) 09:11, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

There are 3 Teahouse archives in which your username appears, & you received notification for each of those 3. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:31, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

@David Biddulph So when will all the rest be archived??? Itcouldbepossible (talk) 03:31, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

The next time the archiving bot runs after the specified conditions are met (48 hours after the last reply to a thread). --David Biddulph (talk) 08:39, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello & Help!

Hello Wiki, I'm new. I'm a long term user and donate a small amount per month. I have a public profile as a Visual Artist and really need to get a page for my profile. I am also autistic and my career is being held back by not having a page. Please could you advise me on how to do this? Many thanks and best, Becky BeckyBeasley (talk) 10:42, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

BeckyBeasley Donations to the Foundation are welcome, but Wikipedia is a separate entity. Being a donor or not has no influence on content being accepted. To you main question, Wikipedia frowns on but does not prohibit attempts at autobiography. See WP:Auto. The problem is that it is hard to write about oneself while maintaining a neutral point of view and supplying third party references for what you know to be true. If you meet the criteria for notability as an artist, that means that other people - with no connection to you - are already publishing stuff about you. For examples of articles about women artists, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Women artists, the New Articles Created section. Always remember that Wikipedia is not social media, hence the the ideat that it contains 'articles', not 'pages'. David notMD (talk) 11:18, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Want to create an article which was deleted per AfD

Hello. I want to create an article which was deleted per AfD. The discussion tells that Carlos Mercado has no senior appearances. But now he has. Can I create this article? Thank you. Richard Michael William (talk) 10:46, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Best to create as a draft or sandbox article in this case. If you can show the the relevant notability guideline has been met, there won't be a problem in getting it moved to article space. Mjroots (talk) 12:33, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

How long ago was the AfD? David notMD (talk) 23:04, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carlos Mercado closed about six weeks ago. Cullen328 (talk) 02:06, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Calculating Hubble's Constant using the speed of light (C) and Pi only

Hi, I see my equation has been rejected AGAIN for inclusion into the Wikipedia Hubble chart (for reference and comparison purposes ONLY),

due to the fact there are no write ups about it in the posh "closed shop" journals. That is quite true, and I definitely agree with that.

HOWEVER, if you look closely at the sources of the vast majority of the measured Hubble Constant values entered, you will quickly conclude

that the reference for each individual (or small research group) for each of the measured entries are simply the input of each independent

single observer (or small research team) working independently, and very VERY few of these are mentioned in any of those posh journals.

So, how are they (with no posh references) allowed, and not me?????????? It seems as different rules apply to "favourites"

-not exactly fair play??

All I am asking for is a "level playing field", without discrimination !!!!!!!

Is it because I dare to show Hubble's "elusive" Constant can now be easily "fixed" with a simple equation. Not "elusive" any more!!

Yours sincerely, ClownBojo (David Hine). ClownBojo (talk) 11:45, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Please impress some physicists with your insights, and when these appear in peer-reviewed, non-vanity journals, editors here may find them interesting. Until then, no. If you post any more impassioned pleas such as this, you'll be blocked for disruptiveness. -- Hoary (talk) 12:02, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Not to mention apparently admitted WP:BLOCKEVASION. Wikignome Wintergreen^talk 16:06, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Editing a wiki page with Arbitration Committee alert

I write to inform you that I have been trying to edit a page on Wikipedia with the link: Homeopathy , as I quite disagree with the present content. But every time I attempt it, the page comes with a warning as highlighted below:

You are subject to discretionary sanctions if you edit this article. The use of discretionary sanctions has been authorized by the Arbitration Committee for pages related to pseudoscience and fringe science, including this page. Please consult the awareness criteria and edit carefully. Does that mean my edits on this page will not be accepted? If not, then what does it really imply? DocHK (talk) 13:27, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

@DocHK In short, homeopathy is one area of WP that gets heated from time to time. Therefore, WP:ADMINS will react harsher to any form of WP:DISRUPTIVE editing, such as WP:EW, not following WP:BRD etc. You can edit, so can others. If you haven't I recommend reading "Frequently asked questions (FAQ)" at Talk:Homeopathy before editing. My guess is that per "I quite disagree with the present content" your edits to the article are likely to be reverted, but I don't know what WP:RS you intend to cite, so perhaps I'm wrong. Discussion is likely to be needed at the talkpage, though. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:46, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

@DocHK Agreeing or disagreeing with an article is irrelevant, because Wikipedia does not present the opinions of editors. Instead it presents what has been said about a topic by other people in reliable, independent sources.

The sanctions notice has links you may follow. The relevant one seems to me to be this section couop0led with Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 13:49, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Certainly, if you edit Homeopathy to remove the word "pseudoscience" (as you did), you will find that your edit is reverted (as it was), because the vast majority of reliable medical sources do indeed confirm that there is nothing scientific about the practice. If you wish to discuss the issue, the place to do so is Talk:Homeopathy. Black Kite (talk) 14:08, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Before considering editing the article again, read the Talk page carefully, and also at least some of the archived Talk discussions. Homeopathy is currently a Good Article (the green 'button' at top-right of the article) which means that there is a long history and consensus that it is correct as it exists. Note that at Talk, there are two recent proposals to remove/replace "pseudoscience" and both were rejected. "Sanctions" means that in addition to being reverted, you could be blocked from ever again editing the article. David notMD (talk) 16:24, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Page

Hi, i'm attempting to create a page for a company, which keeps being rejected as the 'submission is about a company or organization not yet shown to meet notability guidelines.' This is a large company and I've included links to various reputable sources, including national newspapers. Is there anything else i can do to get this approved?

Many thanks MSmith900 (talk) 15:07, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

MSmith900 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. First, if you represent or work for this company in any capacity, the Terms of Use require you to make a formal declaration, see WP:PAID. You should also read conflict of interest.

Like many in your position, you have a common misunderstanding as to what Wikipedia is. It is not a place to merely tell about a company and what it does. An article about a company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable organization. Press releases, brief mentions, or announcements of routine business activities do not establish notability. 331dot (talk) 15:30, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Submitting an article for creation

I tried submitting Draft:Today (time) for creation, but the submission was declined on account of being improperly sourced. What can I do? EddyVento (talk) 16:19, 25 November 2021 (UTC) 

No references = not accepted. David notMD (talk) 16:27, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

How do I find reliable external references then? The ones on Yesterday (time) and Tomorrow (time) only seem to refer to the title subjects. An article on today definitely would have potential to bridge yesterday and tomorrow, but I'm not seeing many sources on the time via Google. EddyVento (talk) 16:37, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

That draft doesn't have any substantive meaningful content. It's basically a dictionary definition, and that isn't what Wikipedia is for. For definitions we have Wiktionary. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:17, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Well perhaps the same can be said about Yesterday (time) and Tomorrow (time). Though those pages have "Philosophy" and "Learning and language" sections, and I was asking where to find reliable sources to add sections like that to my draft so it becomes more than just a definition page. EddyVento (talk) 17:26, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

EddyVento, the idea is that one starts with reliable sources and then creates a draft from these. Well ... I'm surprised that although you clearly know of the (somewhat feeble) article Yesterday (time), this doesn't seem to have led you to hesternal and thence hodiernal tense. -- Hoary (talk) 01:55, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Question from Aliganyira

while editing or contributing to any page, am I supposed to delete the content that I find there and leave there only mine or am not supposed to delete anything Aliganyira (talk) 16:24, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

@Aliganyira: Welcome to the Teahouse. It's a very general question you're asking that really depends on the context. So long as you're making constructive edits they'll be accepted and retained. They could take the form of adding reliably sourced content, removing poorly-sourced or unsourced content, correcting spelling and grammar, and so on. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:49, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Right. If you remove valid content (especially content that has reliable sources cited), then your edit will likely be reverted. Wikipedia is a collaborative project. You don't just go in and replace all the content you find with your own. You improve the existing content. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:19, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

@Aliganyira Well, if the edit you're making is only to add something, then you'd leave what's there. If it involves removing something (which certainly can be a valid edit), then you remove that something. If it involves changing something (ditto), then you replace what you're changing--effectively removing whatever you're making different. It might be helpful to know this, if you're not aware of it already. Each page has a history tab. You can go back and, generally, find all the past versions. So if you're concerned about removing someone else's work, just remember that anybody who has a question about what you've done can go back and see what was there before your edit--and then discuss it, or even bring it back. So it's not like you're taking your paint brushed into the art gallery and "improving" a Rembrandt. Uporządnicki (talk) 18:45, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Edit request

In the page for the page on Alsace-Lorraine (link) under the rule of the German Empire (1871-1914) I would like to add in the beginning that this page refers to the Alsace-Lorraine territory within the German Empire (1871-1914). For Alsace in modern day France refer this link LostCitrationHunter (talk) 18:07, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

This is unnecessary because of the fact that Alsace, the modern-day region, is not known as Alsace-Lorraine. Also, Lorraine is also a modern-day territory, but it is separate from Alsace because the two territories split apart. Therefore, this note is not needed. For more, see WP:SIMILAR. cheezejack | talk | contributions - 18:20, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

User was renamed, but without a redirect. Now old signs are all red?

Special:Log says user page moved "without leaving a redirect". All their previous signs are red and do not lead to the current user page. It's confusing at first glance and need to go through page edit history to find the current name (especially since somewhat prolific new page patroller, both before and after name change). Is that usual or has something gone wrong somewhere? Hemanthah (talk) 18:23, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

@Hemanthah can you give us more details? Nick Moyes (talk) 18:53, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, see Talk:Gold_Award_for_Best_Onscreen_Jodi for one among many examples where AfC reviewer name is red. Had to look at history to see who accepted it.

This is only a minor problem confined to article talk pages, but makes understanding pages' history just a bit confusing. Hemanthah (talk) 03:48, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Movie Chat Room

FYI

 – Fixed formatting. Wikignome Wintergreen^talk 18:48, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Is there is movie chat room on here? Table at dorsia (talk) 18:42, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, @Table at dorsia. We don't have any chat fora on Wikipedia at all, as general chit chat is totally discouraged. (see WP:NOTFORUM). However, we do have Wikipedia:WikiProject Film which was formed by editors interested in improving articles about movies. You might find a visit there of interest. Nick Moyes (talk) 18:52, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Ok cool. Thanks. Can I thank people? or how do I thank or show appreciation to people? Table at dorsia (talk) 19:18, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

You can thank people by text on a user's talk page (just make sure it's not a casual conversation unrelated to Wikipedia), but you can also thank people through edits by hitting the "View history" button on an article and can hit the thank button (located next to the undo button). This will publicly send thanks to the person for the selected edit. There is also a Wikipedia:WikiLove feature (top right of a user page), allowing you to send WP:Barnstars and general appreciation to a user. Happy editing! - cheezejack | talk | contributions - 19:57, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Help

Hi, I am trying to produce a page about a school named JDBY-YTT. I have looked over many other similar schools, used the same references, and Wikipedia is claiming it is an advertisement, which it is not. Please advise, as I would like this school's page to be available to the public like other schools.

Here is a link of other schools related to JDBY-YTT

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Chicago Education[edit] In 1995 Jews in Chicago attend universities at twice the rate of the overall population, and this contributes to the overall higher than average incomes.[10]

Spertus Institute for Jewish Learning and Leadership is located in Chicago.

Universities include:

Hebrew Theological College Primary and secondary schools:

Akiba-Schechter Jewish Day School Bernard Zell Anshe Emet Day School Chicago Jewish Day School Fasman Yeshiva High School Ida Crown Jewish Academy Rochelle Zell Jewish High School (former Chicagoland Jewish High School) Telshe Yeshiva

Thank you Aronrichman (talk) 19:54, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Your draft User:Aronrichman/sandbox has multiple problems, but the most serious is that it has no independent sources to show the school's notability. Without such sources showing that the school meets WP:ORG the draft will not be accepted. Very few elementary schools do meet the notability requirements. Meters (talk) 20:03, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Aronrichman (talk) I'm sure that JDBY-YTT is a fine school, but Wikipedia articles must have references with no vested interest in the subject. You may want to read Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies for more information. Your current references are what the school has written about itself, and school officials will be a bit biased in their own favor. Have there been newspaper or magazine articles published about the school's high academic standards, or ones stating that a higher-than-average number of former students go on to attend college? I did an online search and learned that Chicago has 638 public schools and 387 private schools. You need to provide references which are not written by JDBY-YTT (not the school website, and not a press release sent out by someone working for the school) that shows why the school is more notable than most of the other 1,000+ Chicago schools. That may be a difficult task, but your draft will not be accepted with your current references. Karenthewriter (talk) 05:23, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Maps

I'm working on this Draft:History_of_uranium_mining_in_the_Bancroft_area but can't figure out how to label the pins on the map, or add a label for the map. Am I going ot have to learn a ton, or is it easy, or does anyone want ot vounteer to help? CT55555 (talk) 00:03, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

I see you're working with mapframe directly. Perhaps you could use templates listed on WP:MAPS? If your use case is a map with a couple of pin points, OSM Location map template is easier from what I've seen on some map pages. Hemanthah (talk) 06:05, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

See this diff on my sandbox where I used the co-ordinates from your draft to show an OSM map with two labeled points. You can copy that and add further points as you wish. Hemanthah (talk) 06:27, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Help Improve a page

Can someone help improve the page "Village Jodha Nagri". Please visit this page and let me know how and what can be added to improve. Thanks. Hchatrath (talk) 00:18, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Chak 369 JB Jodha Nagri, Gojra  melecie  t - 01:11, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

I quote: The inhabitants are well educated in this village. The villagers want to improve their village at a fast pace. It is one of the most organized villages in Punjab, Pakistan. Most of the people are working in foreign countries. That's four (admirably clear) assertions in a row, Hchatrath (though one might object that "organized village" could mean any of several things). Each assertion must be verifiable; therefore, please specify a reliable source for each (and for each of the other assertions in the draft). -- Hoary (talk) 01:47, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

How to have words between parenthesis and the parenthesis appear in the hovering preview

Hello. I would like for "Catholicate of the West (Catholic Apostolic Church)" of the lede of the article Catholicate of the West to appear in the preview when one hovers one's mouse over the hyperlink of the article. Currently, only "Catholicate of the West " (with a spaces where "(Catholic Apostolic Church)" should be) appears. Veverve (talk) 02:01, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

I think you're referring to Hovercards aka Page Previews? In it's current implementation, they've decided to exclude text within parentheticals. Hemanthah (talk) 04:17, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Editing

I have an account but still can not edit semi-protected projects and need to get advice to fix my problem Carman 122909 (talk) 04:13, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

hi Carman 122909! semi-protected articles can be edited by autoconfirmed accounts and above. that'd require 10 edits and 4 days since the account's creation, and so far you have 3 edits and 0 days since you joined. you could drop a edit request in the article you'd like to edit to draw attention to what you want to add to a person who could edit the page so that they can add it for you. happy editing!  melecie  t - 05:10, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Proper attribution of fictitious authors

I've noticed an article quoting Masha Arimanova of gaming magazine GAME.EXE. However, this is actually one of multiple fictitious characters that the magazine attributed reviews to, see [[5]] for more details. Is it still correct practice to write stuff like 'Masha Arimanova of Game.EXE described the experience as "complex, but fleeting"', when that is not the actual name of the reviewer? InclusiveOR (talk) 07:44, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: ru:Game.EXE § Мифология jumps to the relevant section.  melecie  t - 08:19, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

InclusiveOR, it's quite normal in Wikipedia articles to describe this or that as written by Lewis Carroll, Yukio Mishima, etc, even though these were not their actual names. I suppose you could write "Masha Arimova (a pseudonym)" or "Masha Arimova (a fictitious name)" if you wanted to (and if you could reliably source the pseudonymy/fiction), but how would doing so help the reader? -- Hoary (talk) 08:35, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Resubmitting my draft !

resubmitting a draft

Hello ! I have re-edited my first drat that was rejected here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ana_Mar%C3%ADa_Gayoso (Ana Maria Gayoso) But i'm not sure its taken into account by Wikimedia ? Could someone help me check that it's still an open draft and could someone actually create the article page if it now meets the standard of wikipedia ? Thanks ! Hamudauw (talk) 07:51, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

hi Hamudauw! your draft is still open and can be submitted, you may have accidentally removed the header and comments. i have readded them. happy editing!  melecie  t - 08:14, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

fixing failed ping: Hamudauw  melecie  t - 08:15, 26 November 2021 (UTC)