Wikipedia:Teahouse

jmcgnh, 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

German Methodist Episcopal Church

You don’t have an article on this semi-denomination. Founded as a missionary effort to reach the new German immigrants in 1836 within the structure of the ME church, in 1865 it became separate but still in the ME church with its own conferences, seminaries. By 1920 it had 10 conferences. By 1939, only one was left. It was a major religious body. It needs either a major section in the ME article or its own article. The main problem is that there is only one book on it, published in 1939 by the Methodist publishing arm. I am not the person to write it. Wis2fan (talk) 03:48, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

If not you, then who, Wis2fan? Go ahead and try. Do you really think that among the relatively small group of Teahouse hosts, you are likely to find a fluent German speaking host who is interested in German church history from about 100 to 200 years ago? Cullen328 (talk) 03:56, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

@Wis2fan: you can request that an article be written; see WP:REQUEST, but suggestions tend to languish there for a very long time indeed. The main problem I see is lack of sourcing; one book is not much to go on. I personally believe that encyclopaedias should collate and summarise multiple sources, which is quite different to providing précis of individual works. I'd suggest starting a discussion about it on the talk page of the ME article, and see whether people there think it would better be accommodated as a section in that article? Elemimele (talk) 07:08, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Ach, mein lieber Cullen328, you zhust neffer know. Vee Veekipedia edditters ken be a ferry strenzhe group, mit eefen strenzher neetch interrests. Heppy edditing! Mathglot (talk) 08:37, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Und vhy is it, mein lieber Mathglot, zat my winzig-klein little artikels on klitzig-klein castles and razher unknown people zat haff liffed in Germany und Austria linger in ze queue at AfC fuer qvite so laaaang?? Vun vould zink, zat novun vos interested... Elemimele (talk) 15:40, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

@Wis2fan:, the article German Methodist Episcopal Church was created in 2013, and is still there. You are welcome to improve it, if you find any missing information. Please read Wikipedia's policy on WP:Verifiability, and the use of citations to reliable sources. Good luck! Mathglot (talk) 08:24, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

German Methodist Episcopal Church is about the Iowa building and, to a lesser extent, its congregation. At the main Methodist Episcopal Church, I only see In the late 1840s, separate Conferences were formed for German-speaking members of the Methodist Episcopal Church who were not members of the Evangelical Association or the United Brethren in Christ (later merged to form the Evangelical United Brethren (EUB)). Among these was the St. Louis German Conference, which in 1925 was assimilated into the surrounding English-speaking conferences, including the Illinois Conference. @Wis2fan, you could start by adding a (source-supported) line to Methodist Episcopal Church#Divisions and mergers or a couple of sentences to Methodist Episcopal Church#History. Did the various German-speaking conferences have a shared governance structure, or were they more loosely associated? ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 03:44, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

ATL Money Transfer Declined

Please check why this is decline as references are there already! Atlmoney (talk) 14:51, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

But, to paraphrase both editors who declined it, they're not very good references. Read the decline form: This submission's references do not ... show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject.. In short, you need better references from better publications. See WP:RS for an explanation of what Wikipedia means by a reliable source. - X201 (talk) 14:59, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

To add to the above reply, these are not even references - they are all copies of same press release issued by the company. Nthep (talk) 15:02, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

OP blocked for promotional editing. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 15:30, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

I have requested for an admin to yeet this promotional draft out of existence with some good ol' {{g11}}. A diehard editor (talk | edits) 03:34, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Help uploading non-free use images

Hello Teahouse, I have uploaded two images to the Squishmallows article File:Squishmallows sample.jpg and an animated gif File:Squishmallows Flip-A-Mallows Animated.gif

The second image was nominated for deletion for failing Commons:TOYS. I now understand why I can't release my images under a free license (even though I took the photos and own the stuffed toys I do not own the copyright on the toys), so I also nominated my first image for deletion for the same reason.

Once deleted, is there any way to reupload these images under a non-free use rationale on Wikipedia and how do I do that? I just want to provide my photos to help illustrate the article and provide information that only text will not be able to provide, but I want to do it respecting the constraints of the copyright. Thank you very much for your assistance. QuercusJuglans (talk) 17:01, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello, QuercusJuglans, and welcome to the Teahouse. In order to upload them non-free you need to be sure that their use meets every one of the non-free content criteria. In uploading non-free material you will be asked to justify the use, and you will need to have considered all those criteria. ColinFine (talk) 17:36, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the help. Do you know how I can indicate that my derivative work (the photograph) is free but that the copyright of the toys is non-free and fair use? Is there any existing template or example from another article that I can use? QuercusJuglans (talk) 17:57, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello, QuercusJuglans. Take a look at File:MattelBarbieno1br.jpg for an example. Cullen328 (talk) 18:27, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you all very much! I will try to upload it under the proper license now.QuercusJuglans (talk) 18:49, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Delete page Louise Wareham Leonard

This page -- see history with profanity ie. "c -- word" has been hacked. Please delete LouiseWLeonard (talk) 01:38, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Courtesy link: Louise Wareham Leonard

I see nothing in the article like this. This article won't be deleted, but the edit you're referring to, which by the way, was two years ago and reverted (By you!), can be deleted. I've requested Oversight of the edit, which allows it to be removed from the history. casualdejekyll 01:44, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

They want the article to be deleted as they are the subject of the article. (see this previous post, three minutes before)

Asparagusus (interaction) 13:40, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

@LouiseWLeonard, If notability is shown by the sources, we don't delete articles just because the subject asks. The article belongs to Wikipedia. You can ask for changes to ths article; see Wikipedia:ER. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 06:34, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Donations

Hello, in Israel we are getting a request to donate. That is a great idea! I donated. However, I keep getting interruptions asking me to donate! It’s a bit unfair and very annoying because I already donated. Wouldn’t it make sense not to keep asking for donations after one has already donated? 93.172.107.43 (talk) 09:17, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello and welcome. The Foundation is responsible for the donation process, including donation requests. We have no way of knowing that the person sitting at your computer/holding your device at any given moment has donated. If you create an account, you can turn off the donation requests. 331dot (talk) 09:21, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Also, you might very well have a dynamic IP (like me and very many others). The IP your device had when you made the donation might not be the one (see above) it has now, and the one it has now might be reallocated to someone else's device tomorrow, so even if the IPs of donors were tracked by the Wikimedia Foundation it would not help. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.208.90.29 (talk) 19:01, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

coi disclosure on user page

May I please have direction on how to put the COI template on my user page (at the top). thank you

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AJgm_mgt&action=edit Jgm mgt (talk) 15:44, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello Jgm mgt. Please see Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#howtodisclose. Shantavira|^{feed me} 15:51, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

thx. I have looked - I am not clear about "putting the template at the top of the page". thx Jgm mgt (talk) 16:27, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

@Jgm mgt, you just need to click the link you posted above, place the code for the templates in the editing box and click Publish. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:46, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm trying. Not following your comment re code. I need to fill in this template and Im confused. have read article

{{Connected contributor (paid)|User1=Username of the paid editor|U1-employer=Name of person/organization that is paying for the edits|U1-client= Name of client|U1-otherlinks=Insert diff to disclosure on your User page.}}

name of employer is same entity as who is paying

is this correct?

{{Jgm_mgt (paid) Jgm_mgt=Ballroom Music=Dan Wilson}} Jgm mgt (talk) 17:28, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

No, that's the template you use on talk pages of articles you're making paid contributions to, for the one to use on your userpage, you want Template:Paid.

Additionally, you're stripping parts from the template that it needs to function: the part between {{ and the first | is the template's name, and it should stay in because otherwise the software doesn't know what template you're trying to call. Then you've got the parameters (that stuff that looks like |text=, with 'text' replaced by the relevant parameter, like |user= or |employer=). Those need to stay too, because otherwise the template doesn't know what to do with the information you're filling in. All you need to change is the text in italics, after the = and before the next |.

Going by the information given here, the text you post on your userpage should look something like

{{Paid|employer=Ballroom Music|client=Dan Wilson}} AddWittyNameHere 17:47, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. For the template for talk pages of articles I edit, this is the formatting I used. it appears on the article page's talk section and the link to my user page talk page works but should I modify. thanks so much

{{Jgm_mgt(paid)=Ballroom Music=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Jgm_mgt&direction=next&oldid=1106831697{{}} Jgm mgt (talk) 21:37, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

revising my question. my most recent update to user page, with my COI disclosure is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jgm_mgt. However, this does not work when I insert it into the template as follows so that the disclosure appears on the talk page of the article. thanks again and again. :)

{{Jgm_mgt(paid)=Ballroom Music=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jgm_mgt}} 69.116.140.209 (talk) 22:07, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

You're still replacing parts of the template that it needs to function. You should only replace the parts that appear in italics in your post further up this section. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:12, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks so much Larry - I did what you said and it appears I did it correctly. source and visual follow. however I;ve been advised that the notice on the talk page for article needs to include the word (paid) My user page notes (Paid) could you advise where I insert (paid) below for the talk page notice. thanks

{{Connected contributor|User1=Jgm_mgt|U1-declared=yes|U1-otherlinks=ps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jgm_mgt}} Jgm mgt (talk) 23:05, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

@Jgm mgt, for that you need to use {{Connected contributor (paid)}}. 97.113.27.216 (talk) 23:14, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Username @Jgm mgt sounds like a company. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 06:42, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Biographical Content Disputes

I wrote a biography several years ago about a living person. A couple of months ago, an editor completely revised this biography. The two of us clearly have a different view of the facts about the person and the content. I am an admirer. The editor is a critic and appears to be a supporter of a rival. I want to reverse the edits because most of this content is based on the individual's interviews and my observations. However, I want to avoid a petty snit. How do these things get handled? DBlakeRoss (talk) 00:04, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

If the article is based mostly on the subject's interviews and your 'observations', rather than on substantial published pieces (which your observations are not), independent of the subject (which interviews are not), that have appeared in well-edited reliable sources, then it should not be an article on Wikipedia.

Articles should also have a Neutral point of view which requires using a proportional balance of such Reliable sources, not show a bias towards either admiration or negative criticism.

Please give a link to the article in question. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.208.90.29 (talk) 00:16, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Nahid Angha Jolly1253 (talk) 00:38, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello, DBlakeRoss. The neutral point of view is a core content policy and is not negotiable. Your version was much more like a hagiography than a neutrally written encyclopedia article. Including your observations in an encyclopedia article is a violation of no original research, another core content policy. Cullen328 (talk) 01:12, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Hagiography

Today I learned about a new word, a "hagiography". It's a biography of a religious person like a saint or ecclesiastical leader. A diehard editor (talk | edits) 14:24, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

That was its original meaning, but in this context it means "a biography which idealizes or idolizes its subject". CodeTalker (talk) 16:29, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Makes sense. Now I know there isn't some cult out there who worships Nahid Angha or whatever. A diehard editor (talk | edits) 03:25, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Creating a Page on the Unrailed! Game

I don't know if it has enough notability to create an article on OnethirtyfourR (talk) 04:10, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

@OnethirtyfourR: it seems to be available on multiple game platforms, but I’m having a little trouble finding independent reviews. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:45, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

@OnethirtyfourR - You should check out WikiProject Video games - this is a page where editors come together to improve game-related articles. casualdejekyll 23:39, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

I need help adding to name and disambiguation pages

Hi, can anyone help me add entries to name and disambiguation pages? I have my hands full with editing and could use any help that I can get. I would be very thankful as well. Davidgoodheart (talk) 05:08, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

@Davidgoodheart: This seems like a strange request, because it would almost take you as much time to explain to somebody what you want them to help you with as to just do it yourself. But if you can provide more information, maybe we can help you. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:40, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Davidgoodheart Which specific articles do you need help with? Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:05, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Question about rules

If I get blocked for edit warring does that mean the next time I edit war I’ll be blocked indefinitely? Is there another place on Wikipedia to ask questions about the rules or a index of all the rules regarding editing on Wikipedia? Bobisland (talk) 09:08, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Bobisland The best place to start is Policies and guidelines. You don't need to know every single rule to participate here, I'm an admin and I don't know every single rule. You need only be willing to hear others when you are told you have not followed a rule. There is nothing wrong with you asking about rules here, you may also ask at the more general Help Desk. My suggestion to you is to be less concerned with following every rule and more concerned with contributing to the encyclopedia. Most rules are common sense things that you are (or could be) already doing.

If you continue to edit war after a block for edit warring, yes, the next block may be longer, though not necessarily indefinite. A block is proportional to the need to prevent disruption to Wikipedia. If you edit war after blocks, this means shorter ones have not prevented the disruption. 331dot (talk) 09:16, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

331dot will a long period of time elapsing from my first edit war block reduce the chance that the next block I receive for it will be indefinite or is it all subjective to the admin giving me one? Bobisland (talk) 11:03, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

@Bobisland: I'd say that it's subjective to an administrator assessing your actions – if the only edits you have are edit wars, and if that's all you seem to be here to do, then even with a long period of time between edits, you may simply be blocked. The best thing you can do is avoid edit warring – follow WP:BRD, ask to discuss content with other editors on a Talk page before adding it back into an article, and remember that we're all (mostly) just attempting to improve Wikipedia. If someone's being genuinely antagonistic, that's frustrating, but sinking to their level doesn't fix much of anything – it'll just end up with both parties blocked. You can always ask for help on a topic from other editors, either here on the Teahouse or on our various other forums (though forum shopping is to be avoided).--Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) ({{ping}} me!) 11:25, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Bobisland. I'm concerned about the phrase the next time I edit war. Since you know about edit warring (and, I presume, about BRD), why would you ever, ever, ever, edit war yourself? Perhaps it's my suspicious mind, but that suggests to me that you are going spend time and effort (yours and other peoples') pushing the boundaries of what's allowable, as though editing Wikipedia were a game you had to work out how to win. If you are thinking of it in that way please let go of it. Wikipedia is a huge and magnificent project that we are all working together to create - there are no losers. It needs rules, procedures, and sometimes sanctions to keep us on track and to deal with people who are ill-inclined (vandals), or who don't understand the goals and purposes of Wikipedia, or are so passionate about something that they can't see other people's point of view. But I would urge you, rather than worrying about "what would happen if I ..." you thought instead about "what can I do to make it better?". Nobody will penalise you for making mistakes, or for not understanding how something works, as long as you are ready to learn when corrected. ColinFine (talk) 12:56, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

My edits reverted despite providing official reports as sources

My edits on Asian Pacific Mathematics Olympiad have been brutally reverted on completely wrong accusation of no reliable sources, even though that i added the reports and regulations from the very organizer itself of the 2002 and 2003 APMO, the Canadian Mathematical Society as the sources. The 2001 APMO was organized by Colombia and I couldn't find any sources for it, but the 2002 APMO report is clear enough what the problem was. I spent lot of time to find these hard-to-find official reports and regulations for sources scattered on the internet. Being a 2000, 2001 and 2002 APMO participant myself I know very well what happened and why my awards were gone in 2001 and 2002. If official reports were not reliable, what is reliable? --Stomatapoll (talk) 09:31, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Stomatapoll Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia is primarily interested in what independent reliable sources say about a topic, not what it says about itself (such as through official reports). 331dot (talk) 09:50, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

It was a report of a security issue, actual incidents that happened twice, the leakage of problems, that led to cancellation of the two APMOs, in the dawn of the internet age. Outside the very small math olympiad circle there was no mention of the incident, and even within the circle i only heard it from words of mouth of the trainers of math olympiad about the incidents and the measures to be taken in the future by the organizer. The other sources that I found being math societies of other countries reporting on the APMO results of their students which said pretty much the same thing about the cancellation, only much more brief than the official one, and two suspicious posts on sci.math of the USENET in March 2001 which leaked the APMO problems, but I cannot cite them and say that these are the posts that led to 2001 APMO cancellation unless someone could confirm it, but no reports ever said what the incidents were precisely. The APMO was a very loose cooperation between math societies in different countries and information about early APMOs was very sporadic. The current APMO website was built more than a decade later after the incidents and has hardly any information about the APMO before 2010s. I spent mcuh time and effort to paste together all that I can find on the incidents that were only known to the participants and organziers of different countries involved in the APMO in these two years. Stomatapoll (talk) 10:33, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Stomatapoll We cannot accept documents in private hands(inaccessible to the public) or information that is not published(i.e. word of mouth), both because it must be possible for the public to verify the information. If something is not found in a publicly available reliable source, preferably an independent one, it cannot be on Wikipedia. There may be other places for such information, but not here. 331dot (talk) 12:44, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

All the sources I cited are accessible on the internet. They are the official account publicly available on the CMS website. I used only publicly available sources for the account of the incidents I wrote. I did not use or write anything in the article that could only be referenced by "private communication" as on some research papers. I don't understand why it is so hard for you to understand what I am trying to say, that is I am writing solely based on public and in fact official information on the incident. and the APMO has no notabilility outside of the math olympiad circle, so if you insist that i need outside source, you may as well ＤＥＬＥＴＥ the article because this is an impossible and utterly unreasonable requirement for an article of this nature! The APMO itself has no opening or closing ceremony, it is just an exam taken by very few people on an ordinary day, like a school exam but only a much harder one, in fact much smaller than any school exam, that's it. It has never gotten any public attention and never will, no journalist would be interested in it. Have you ever seen a cheating in a school exam get reported independently outside a school? Stomatapoll (talk) 13:27, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

@Stomatapoll, the article (Asian Pacific Mathematics Olympiad) may very well warrant deletion, since at the moment it seems to contain no reliable, independent, published sources with significant coverage that demonstrate its notability. I've placed some tags on the article to that effect.

Cheating scandals have occasionally been reported on when prominent people or institutions are involved. This does not seem to be the case here. 97.113.27.216 (talk) 14:01, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

The math olympiad is a very small subculture of the small subculture of (proof-based advanced) mathematics. There is not a single sentence one can write on the APMO if this paranoid requirement of independent source is to be met, even though there is nothing controversal in the incident but only facts. It is not that there is a lawsuit or public controversy or anything like that when independent sources may be justified. The SAME can be said for ALL other math olympiads except the IMO. This is not the NBA, not the World Cup, not the Olympic Games. No one cares about the math olympiads outside the math olympiad circle. They are only the intermediate stages for selecting the IMO participants, and even the IMO gets very little public attention anyway. No information you can get about them are not from the official source. DELETE all theses math olympiads articles because they cannot possibly reach the noble golden wiki standard. Stomatapoll (talk) 14:39, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Use of official reports to support basic facts is fine, Stomatapoll, but the sources you used don't appear to fully support what you added to the article. For instance, you added In the 2001 APMO, some students had leaked problems online before some other countries started the contest. The results thus had to be nullified. In the 2002 APMO, the contest period was shortened to three days, and students were warned not to discuss on the internet until the problems had been published on the official website., sourcing this to this page, which (unless I've missed something) doesn't mention a nullification in 2001. The requirement for independent sources is a different matter; some of these are needed to demonstrate notability, but not everything in the article has to be based on them. There should be reliable sources of some type for everything, however. Cordless Larry (talk)

It is in the 2001 CMS report cited at the end of the paragraph, "The 2001 Asian Pacific Mathematics Olympiad (APMO) was written in March by 39 Canadian students, selected either because they had participated in the Mathematical Olympiads Correspondence Program or because they had placed well in the 2000 Canadian Open Mathematics Challenge. Unfortunately the results of the 2001 APMO were nullified as some of the problems were posted on an internet site before other countries had written the paper." --Stomatapoll (talk) 15:05, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

In that case, Stomatapoll, you should cite that source where you say that the 2001 results were nullified. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:09, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

@Stomatapoll, if they can't possibly meet our standards, deletion is indeed appropriate. See WP:PROD and WP:AfD for possible ways to proceed from here. 97.113.27.216 (talk) 15:11, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Stomatopoll, and welcome to the Teahouse. It sounds as if you are trying to use Wikipedia for something which it is not fitted for, viz. RIGHTINGGREATWRONGS. ColinFine (talk) 12:58, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

The incident is not some hidden affair, it is uncontested, uncontroversial, the information is publicly available. It is just an incident only known to a few of the old math olympiad participants, the accounts of which were in obscure places in old CMS reports and newsletters. The result of it was changes of the regulations and time schedule of the APMO from the one-week period of the pre-internet age to the current one within 24 hours. Somehow in the many years after the creation of the APMO article, no editor seemed to know the incident, so I had to do the research myself to correct the misleading information in the article which suggested that the time schedule had always been the same since the beginning of the APMO. --Stomatapoll (talk) 19:50, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

@Stomatapoll You say "it is uncontested, uncontroversial, the information is publicly available". But, is it notable? Does anyone outside of this small subculture really have any interest in this? That hasn't been demonstrated, in my opinion. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 06:47, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Due to the international nature of APMO, I have searched through many CMS newsletters, google books for any old day APMO regulations, read through Singapour Mathematics Society reports, Taiwan Math Society articles on APMO, versions of Korean Math Society (organizer for 2005 to 2007 APMO) old APMO website on the internet archive, searched for Australian, Japanese math societies old APMO webpages, and browsed through pages of Spanish search results looking for any trace of Columbia math society reports on the APMO 2001 which was totally unfruitful. And this Mr.weedle without asking me anything, erased all my work. Wikipedia has no respect of its user's contribution. --Stomatapoll (talk) 19:36, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Your work is all there in the article history and can be restored with sufficient sourcing, Stomatapoll. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:02, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Life style choices

1.1.What is teenage pregnancy? 1.2.Discuss one consequences of teenage pregnancy: •The parents •The individual /teenager •The school •The economy

1.3.1.Explain how each of the following concepts could encourage teenagers to end up being parents before the right time: •Peer pressure •Social grants •Culture

1.3.2. Critically discuss five religious principles that may impact positively on the issues of teenage pregnancy.

1.3.3 Mention two reasons why Young girls are attracted into unsafe relationships with" blessers"(older rich man)?

1.3.4 Discuss two negative impact of this kind of relationship?

1.3.5 Recommend five ways how the society can address teenage pregnancy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.115.127.5 (talk) 09:45, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello. This page is for asking questions about using Wikipedia. You might try the Reference Desk. 331dot (talk) 09:48, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Though do not that Wikipedia editors cannot help with your homework. Kpddg ^(talk) 11:13, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

What is summary

summary 41.115.99.84 (talk) 10:10, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

summer 41.115.99.84 (talk) 10:12, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

If you click “view history” near the top of the screen, you see a list of changes made to the article. Many changes, hopefully all of them, have a note with them saying what change was made so you can glance down the list and see how the article developed. That note is the “summary” that you supply when you make an edit.—Northernhenge (talk) 10:37, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

WP:EDITSUMMARY? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:08, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Text size too big every time a page loads on Safari on iPad

Someone may have asked this already so my first question is how do I search here for previous topics, but my main question is how to stop the text size reverting to too-big every time a page loads on Safari on iPad. I reset it using cmd-0 but then when I load another page, or refresh the current one, it gets bigger again. It’s only about 1.25x enlarged but it’s enough to push things off the right-hand edge of the screen. It may be that the actual text size is changing or, more likely, the main part of the web page is coming up zoomed. Should I be editing some css? Northernhenge (talk) 10:32, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Northernhenge. You may have better luck asking about this problem at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). That is monitored by editors with technical expertise. Cullen328 (talk) 17:13, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @Cullen328: Northernhenge (talk) 20:43, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

It's already well-known. See for example these on-wiki reports:

• Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Desktop version on mobile being too wide occasionally
• Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 199#Search box and default zoom messed up while using desktop on mobile

and the technical ticket phab:T311795. DMacks (talk) 20:27, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Bridget Rice - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridget_Rice

@Cullen328. Bridget Henaghan-Rice's birth and marriage certs confirm her place of birth as Louisburgh, Co Mayo. Her husband's name is recorded as Edward rather than Eamon on the marriage cert. Eamon is the Irish form of Edward but could not be used as Ireland was still under British rule in 1914.

No 463 on - https://civilrecords.irishgenealogy.ie/churchrecords/images/birth_returns/births_1885/02644/1974953.pdf No 9 on - https://civilrecords.irishgenealogy.ie/churchrecords/images/marriage_returns/marriages_1914/09865/5583126.pdf https://www.encyclopedia.com/women/dictionaries-thesauruses-pictures-and-press-releases/rice-bridget-mary-1885-1967

Fr Johnny Henaghan was her brother - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Heneghan. ∼∼∼∼ BuffyO'B (talk) 10:49, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello, BuffyO'B. You should make a formal edit request at Talk:Bridget Rice. I am not sure of the relevance of John Heneghan to this discussion. Neither biography mentions a sibling. If you can furnish a reliable source that states that they were brother and sister, then it could be mentioned in both articles. Cullen328 (talk) 17:05, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll have a go at requesting an edit.Regarding Fr Johnny Henaghan and Bridget Rice being siblings, Fr Johnny's posthumous Medal of Freedom was accepted on his behalf by his sister Bridget Rice TD in 1948. Fr Johnny's birth record is No 240 - https://civilrecords.irishgenealogy.ie/churchrecords/images/birth_returns/births_1881/02802/2028303.pdf ∼∼∼∼ BuffyO'B (talk) 18:23, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

BuffyO'B, you did not make a formal edit request. You just posted links there. You need to use the template. That will bring attention of other editors to this low visibility article. Cullen328 (talk) 20:33, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for trying to help me. I followed the link but it is frustrating me beyond belief trying to find the template and life is too short and getting shorter.∼∼∼∼ BuffyO'B (talk) 21:33, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Redirects and disambiguation

Hi I've created a page about the actor Ash Hunter and at the moment the draft says it's redirected to the footballer Ashley Hunter. After seeing this I wanted to change the title to Ash Hunter (actor) but doesn't seem to allow this. Someone called Robert McClenon has since posted the following:

Comment: There is currently a redirect from the title of this draft. If this draft is accepted, the redirect should be deleted, because the hatnote at the top of this page will take its place.

You may ask about redirects and hatnotes at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:31, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Comment: This draft has a title that either has been disambiguated, or will need disambiguation to be accepted.

If this draft is accepted, a disambiguation page will need to be created. (Review of the existing article or articles with the principal name indicates that a disambiguation page should be crated in place of the use of hatnotes alone.) The disambiguation page should be Ashley Hunter (disambiguation). Robert McClenon (talk) 04:29, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't completely understand what I'm supposed to do... Can anyone help? Link to the draft below. Thanks

Draft:Ash Hunter MonicaVallmans (talk) 11:13, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

@MonicaVallmans You don't need to do anything. These notes are for the reviewer who accepts the draft (assuming they do). They will sort out the relevant issues. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:05, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Oh great, thanks Mike MonicaVallmans (talk) 15:33, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Page Deleted Due To Copyright Isuue, Please Help.

Hello, I submitted a draft of my upcoming Film Page on wikipedia, but it got deleted due to "copyright content" issue, I need help, as what specifically was flagged under copyright infringement, and how can I make it right.(I own all the copyrights related to my page, just need help in how to prove it to the wikipedia).

Vishal jejurkar (talk) 11:48, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

@Vishal jejurkar: if you're the copyright holder, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. lettherebedarklight, 晚安, おやすみなさい, ping me when replying 11:53, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

@Vishal jejurkar, you should not directly copy material from other websites on Wikipedia, this is a copyright violation. The content should be a verifiable summary of what reliable sources say. Also, your draft Draft:Peepal Tree was not deleted, but declined. Kpddg ^(talk) 12:00, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

But even if you sort out the copyright, it is unlikely that much of the material from you will be relevant. Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources.

At the moment only one of the three sources in the draft - the LA Times review - is of any value at all, as the other two have no significant coverage of it. You need to cite some more substantial, reliable, independent sources about the film if the draft is going to establish that the film meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability.

Also, you should make clear on your user page and the draft's talk page that you have a conflict of interest in writing this draft. ColinFine (talk) 13:10, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

@Vishal jejurkar Yes, please read the info about donating copyrighted materials. Among other things, the license that you need to release the material under will "allow anyone—not just Wikipedia—to share, distribute, transmit, and adapt your work, provided that you are attributed as the author.". And, "Wikipedia does not accept material that claims "this can be used in Wikipedia, but not anywhere else". 71.228.112.175 (talk) 06:52, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Are there any wiki users that offer their revert vandalism tools for users who don’t have it?

I’ve found a lot of vandalism but don’t have the tools to easily revert them all, are there users or groups that offer their revert vandalism tools to people who recommend wiki pages to check for vandalism? Bobisland (talk) 12:16, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

@Bobisland: they aren't given to people, you can use them right away. there is a list of tools to revert vandalism. lettherebedarklight, 晚安, おやすみなさい, ping me when replying 12:43, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

@Lettherebedarklight are there any tools that I can use on my phone or the Wikipedia app? Bobisland (talk) 12:48, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

@lettherebedarklight Pinging on behalf of Bobisland as they did not ping properly Jolly1253 (talk) 13:25, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

@Bobisland I found two tools/scripts on the page that can be used on mobile: User:P.T.Đ/TwinkleMobile and m:User:FR30799386/undo. I have not tried them myself, so I'm not sure how good are they for editing on mobile. Jolly1253 (talk) 13:14, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm told pretty much anyting WP works on a phone if you use desktop view. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:14, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

The most useful tools are difficult to give, because one of them is located between each editor's ears, and the other is simply a second tab in your web-browser. Wikipedia isn't killed by the stupid edits, the school-kid pranks and the people in Luton who have a few too many drinks on a Saturday night and bet on how long they can make Wikipedia say that their favourite footballer has three testicles. They're obvious to any reader. It's killed by the people who, knowingly or through incompetence, make little changes, move someone's date of birth by a few months, make a mountain a few feet shorter or taller, write that Jo Brown did something that was done by Jo Browne. These edits often escape the anti-vandalism tools, and they're much harder to deal with. You'll never become a Heroic Guardian of Wikipedia, wielding a shining Huggle-sword of Righteous Rollbacking if you look at recent diffs and then open a separate browser tab to see if you can find any evidence that Jo Browne was 5'5" and not 5'4". If nothing else, it's too slow, requiring diligent, time-consuming fact-checking. But every time you check a little fact, you'll be making our encyclopaedia more reliable... Elemimele (talk) 15:31, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

@Elemimele - It's because of this we have things like Special:AbuseFilter/712 and Special:AbuseFilter/391 which are pieces of technical magic that sometimes manage to stop it. Sometimes. casualdejekyll 23:12, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Refrencing

Hello, I'm having trouble understanding WP:RS and WP:UNDUE, I've started using the Talk:Armenian genocide and I am finding it difficult to express myself effectively, can someone give me some guidence with improving my refs in this specific case it being the terminology section of the talk page. Hank the Sniper (talk) 13:19, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. From my understanding, you added possible government-affiliated sources to an article. Those kinds of sources are usually not considered reliable because they may be using propaganda, as well as the fact that they are not peer-reviewed, as said by some on the talk page. This is especially important for featured articles such as that. Have a good day!

Asparagusus (interaction) 14:10, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Well In this specific case they are used as an example of a term being used and I did not expect such hostility for it since they were used as such in Turkish wiki article for the same subject. They are not to be taken as sources but as quotes. And thanks for your reply, I too wish you a wonderful day! Hank the Sniper (talk) 14:18, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

The Turkish Wikipedia has different guidelines on reliable sources.

You're welcome! It's what we do at the Teahouse :).

Asparagusus (interaction) 17:00, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Template creation

Hello. How can I create a template Soccerking.greg127 (talk) 14:06, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Read the template manual on MediaWiki. A diehard editor (talk | edits) 14:19, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

For your courtesy here is a box to make a new template.

A diehard editor (talk | edits) 14:21, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Help with an issue of removed information-loop (Crayon Shin-chan)

Hello Teahouse, I would like to request some assistance. I'm new to Wikipedia, but I edited on other wiki's before. I made an account to revert an edit which was made to List of Crayon Shin-chan episodes, because there are resources there that I use from time to time and those were suddenly removed.

I tried reverting it back, but that wasn't an option because Wikipedia kept blocking this, likely because it was removed, reverted, and removed again. So I went over to the talking page to chat with the user who removed this information. Long story short there are five English dubs, all different (cast, episode/season numbers, etc.), two of them where used as basis for the European dubs, all vastly different then the Japanese original, so the list of original episodes isn't useful.

We basically agreed that the best option was to create separate pages for these dubs. I put 1-2 hours in of my own time to created this via an old revision, because I cannot request a separation of the pages anymore, since the information is removed and I cannot revert it.

And all four of the pages where declined because "This list is not necessary. Notable dub broadcast dates can be added to the List of Crayon Shin-chan episodes". Which I cannot do because I cannot revert the edit.

Does someone want to help me with it? CinnamonYT (talk) 16:51, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

CinnamonYT, welcome to the Teahouse. You have provided your rationale for wanting to reinstate material removed from a list article as: "there are resources there that I use from time to time and those were suddenly removed." In point of fact, that reasoning is not why we revert removals. The utility of an article is rated as how it serves the body of human knowledge in the context of the encyclopedia being concise and broadly useful, rather than exhaustive and trivia-packed.

Are you aware that virtually every older version of an article exists in Wikipedia and can be found by checking the article's history page to find old revisions? If you need an information resource as you describe, pull up your preferred historical version of the article, and bookmark it. Does this solve your problem?--Quisqualis (talk) 18:06, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Okay, but the information of these dubs are vastly different, you cannot get the same information by the lists that where kept, so it's a valuable addition to the site. I don't understand why it's so difficult to get information which was always there to get reinstated. CinnamonYT (talk) 18:27, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello, CinnamonYT, and welcome to the Teahouse. The reason why "it's so difficult" is that other editors don't agree with you that it is appropriate (I havce no knowledge or interest in the subject, so I have no opinion myself). This is normal for how Wikipedia articles are delevoped: see WP:BRD. ColinFine (talk) 20:16, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

@CinnamonYT "... there are resources there that I use from time to time and those were suddenly removed". As mentioned in different words in these replies, Wikiepdia is not a place to store information that you need to use from time to time. See Not a web host (click here). 71.228.112.175 (talk) 06:59, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Would my draft pass for notability?

I need some assistance, since this was my first draft that I submitted. Would my draft, Six Flags Hurricane Harbor Chicago, pass for notability?

Thank you! from yours truly, Harobouri ^{T • C} 18:42, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Clarification - I read WP:GNG but to be honest I couldn't tell if the sources I had used would pass notability guidelines. from yours truly, Harobouri ^{T • C} 21:00, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Harobouri, you've submitted it; wait and see what the reviewer says about it. (In the meantime, I'll just say that "Mega Wedgie" and "Dive Bomber" seem curiously similar to each other.) -- Hoary (talk) 21:16, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Okay, thank you! from yours truly, Harobouri ^{T • C} 21:18, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

@Harobouri I think this is one of those notability edge cases outlined in WP:NOPAGE - The topic might be notable, but it would be more helpful to readers and editors to cover the topic on the same page as Six Flags Great America. casualdejekyll 23:08, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Afar Triangle Democratic Republic

Afar Triangle Democratic Republic is New government of Horn Africa Wollo Media (talk) 20:30, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

@Wollo Media: Welcome to the Teahouse. Do you have a question about using or editing Wikipedia? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:42, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

@Tenryuu It looks like OP was asked, but not required, to change their account name. When do we ask, and when do we ask-and-block? I'm just curious. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 09:17, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Odd that this "Democratic Republic" (as opposed to the Afar Triangle itself) seems to have no internet existence other than on a couple of maps (one very crude) uploaded to Wikipedia. The Afar Region does have course have a Regional government under the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.208.90.29 (talk) 22:26, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

I thought this post sounded familiar.--Quisqualis (talk) 00:15, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Heinz Tomato Ketchup and Wikilinkswikilinks to cities and countries

I removed several links to cities and countries. I also removed hyperlinks to common words like french fries hamburgers, hot dogs, sugar, mayonnaise, jalapeno, balsamic vinegar, mustard, BBQ sauce, relish, clothing, mugs, cosmetics, cookbook, department store, jigsaw puzzle, and ferment. I also removed winks to commonly known social media sites Twitter and Instagram. The edits were undone with no explanation. Absolutely Certainly (talk) 21:19, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely Certainly Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Have you asked the editors who reverted your edits for an explanation? You can see who did it in the relevant article Edit History. If you have a Wikipedia policy to support your edits, be prepared to cite it. 331dot (talk) 21:24, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

@Absolutely Certainly your edits on Heinz Tomato Ketchup look fine to me, in that you removed a lot of WP:OVERLINK links. I would ask @Top5a to explain why they reverted your edits, either on the article talk page or on the user's talk page. CodeTalker (talk) 22:00, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello - in an article based on a food condiment, links to other food condiments and basic ingredients/components therein appeared appropriate; therefore, their blanket removal appeared overzealous. While citation edits and cleanup are indeed helpful (thank you for those), reducing internal links that may be helpful to readers does not appear to be constructive. Top5a (talk) 22:53, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Should probably add that, after checking the user's talk page, this is not the first time that there have been notices or warnings (even blocks) regarding the user's behavior. Top5a (talk) 23:00, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Hm, checked the citation edits, and the user simply removed a reference to a book source without stating why, then added dead link references to pages without checking archives such as IA, nor simply searching for an adequate source replacement. Reference mangling isn't exactly something that should be encouraged, is it? @331dot @CodeTalker Top5a (talk) 23:21, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Keyword... Common. Which means a reader would easily find them,if inclined hence no need for the excessive links. Slywriter (talk) 23:39, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely Certainly, I understand what you are trying to do, but WP:OVERLINK says, try to be conscious of your own demographic biases – what is well known in your age group, line of work, or country may be less known in others. There are many English speaking communities where words like jalapeno are not commonly used, and vinegar in general, especially Balsamic vinegar, is rare in India in particular, except in Portuguese influenced Goa. Cullen328 (talk) 00:05, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

With all due respect, by your definition there should not be any wikilinks, correct? My rationale is that the user was making edits for the sake of making edits (as you can also see from their reference mangling). They were removing wikilinks to condiments and basic food items/ingredients/components within an article *about* a basic food item/ingredient/component. Top5a (talk) 00:40, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

To further clarify, @Slywriter, if an article is about advanced particle physics, then we would not expect a wikilink to the word "atom." But, in an article about ketchup, it is reasonable that other basic components such as "high fructose corn syrup" would be wikilinked, in addition to common food items on which the ketchup is used, such as "chips" and "hamburgers." Also recall that someone from a culture in which ketchup is not a familiar food item may also be unaware of, for example, these chips or hamburgers. Furthermore, one should remember that this judgement call was not made by an editor adding information to the article, but rather by an editor removing wikilinks merely for the sake of altering an article. I do not believe such "non-edits" are encouraged, but please correct me if I am mistaken. Top5a (talk) 00:48, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

"Non-edits" are edits, they are not discouraged. Here they increased readability by reducing sea of blue. While there may be some judgement calls, the article suffers from an excess of wikilinks. Maybe High Fructose needed a link but did sugar a word before it need one? There was more good than bad in their edit, so blanket reversal was not ideal. Slywriter (talk) 01:00, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

The more I look, the stranger it gets. South Korea and South Africa were countries in 1907. It should be uncontroversial to remove these factual errors. Absolutely Certainly (talk) 22:31, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

With all due respect, by your definition more words should be linked because 'someone from a culture may also be unaware' of the terms 'market share', 'exporting', 'slogan', 'touts', 'mainstay', etc. I noticed that since your reversion, someone removed links to many familiar countries. Once I read those edits, I noticed that the original sentence states that: In 1907, Heinz started exporting their product to South Korea. South Korea in 1907? My first inclination was just to remove the list of countries. I relented and just removed the links. I also added the reasons why the links were removed and contrary to your assertion I added information for clarity. I changed 'chips' to 'potato chips', since the link led to potato chips. In the UK chips are a variation of french fries. I wanted our UK followers to understand that there are ketchup flavored crisps (the term used over there for potato chips). Absolutely Certainly (talk) 21:16, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

> With all due respect, by your definition more words should be linked because 'someone from a culture may also be unaware' of the terms 'market share', 'exporting', 'slogan', 'touts', 'mainstay', etc.

Good attempt at acting snarky, yet, if you had spent that energy attempting to read what I typed, you would have understood how words such as 'market share', 'exporting', 'slogan', 'touts', 'mainstay' are not basic food/condiment-related/relevant, i.e. irrelevant to the majority of the list you complained about here in your post, and which comprised the lion's share of your initial reverted edit. As for the removal of wikilinks to countries, I did not mention any issue with removing those. I am not sure what you are driving at by making useless edits, then furthermore wasting the time of other editors with pointless discussions. Judging by your behavior here and on your Talk page, if you merely wish to argue with other editors, I would like to point out that there other websites which may serve you better than Wikipedia. Top5a (talk) 21:32, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Do we agree to remove South Korea? 1907? Absolutely Certainly (talk) 21:49, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia, the term South Africa was first used to describe a country 1910. Time to remove that also. Do we agree? Absolutely Certainly (talk) 22:00, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

With all due respect is snarky. Since forever. Instead of arguing the merits, you appeal to the ad homonym. Are we here to make a good wiki? With verifiable facts? Absolutely Certainly (talk) 22:53, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Update Houston, Texas, USA page

Hi! I am requesting a land acknowledgement for Houston, Texas, USA. Here are some resources that may be useful for creating one. A guide to Indigenous land acknowledgment - Native Governance Center, < nativegov.org/news/a-guide-to-indigenous-land-acknowledgment/ >. And this map, < native-land.ca >. To dive deep into the histories of the displaced Indigenous people of these settler colonial territories. Houston, Texas would not be what it is today without Indigenous people, and I hope we can honor that. 73.32.26.13 (talk) 00:29, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello, IP editor. Houston includes a paragraph about the native peoples who lived there before settlement by people of European origin. Certainly, this section can be improved. The best place to discuss it is Talk:Houston. Cullen328 (talk) 01:45, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Unclear publication date

What do I put in the source date field for a reference when the exact day is unclear? I'm particularly curious for this Mother Jones source that I cited for Blood and Politics and this Bookforum source that I cited for Draft:Bring the War Home. In both cases, these were originally print publications and were digitally republished. As far as I can tell, both are magazine issues that include two months. For instance, the May/June issue and the April/May issue. I don't even know what month to use. Should I use the cite web template or the cite magazine template? TipsyElephant (talk) 01:21, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello, TipsyElephant. Magazine publication dares are notoriously inaccurate. It is commonplace to see a magazine with a May publication date on sale in April. Do not worry at all about that. Just use the first listed month for six times a year magazines. So, the Mother Jones date should be May 2009. Cullen328 (talk) 01:55, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Why do we need to cite sources?

I've always been not sure about why you have to cite a source for everything on a page, I mean, this is an encyclopaedia, why do we have to cite sources, and why do they have to be reliable? MinecraftFan23 (talk) 03:37, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

@MinecraftFan23: See Wikipedia:Verifiability RudolfRed (talk) 03:45, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Okay now I know, thanks for the help! MinecraftFan23 (talk) 03:48, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. This question seems like bait, but I'll take the hook. Wikipedia needs to cite sources or else the project probably would've failed a while ago. With no sources, you don't know what's vandalism or a hoax. If anybody could add potentially unreliable information to Wikipedia, it just wouldn't work.Asparagusus (interaction) 03:47, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

MinecraftFan23 Yours was actually a two-part question. Sources support verification. Sources that have the potential for not being reliable include blogs, vlogs, interviews, press releases, the subject's own website, newspapers known to publish false information, etc. David notMD (talk) 04:59, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

See WP:RSP for a list of frequently discussed sources. Oh and add wikis to the list by David notMD. Victor Schmidt (talk) 06:16, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

That includes that Wikipedia articles cannot be used as references in Wikipedia articles (because anyone can edit Wikipedia articles). David notMD (talk) 12:11, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Sources in another language reason not to be trusted?

I am in a big dilemma. Please help me. Yesterday I wrote the following comment on the article [1] I've been working on so far, quote: "Regarding the two wordpress sources. These have been changed with reliable sources. Regarding the commercial source. This was suppressed, not being necessary anyway, since it is clearly shown that the book mentioned by Borbely was published in France, being an additional reason for notability to announce the future appearance of a book. What I can't understand is something else entirely. This time I ask for your help as a user because I am in a dilemma.Entered the URL address along with the name of the person who reviewed, but also the title of the publication and the page where the review is located, thinking that it is enough. I did this because I understood that it does not matter that the reviews are written in another language. I thought it was easy for anyone to put the review on google translate and find out what is written there. The sources I indicated represent the most important Romanian cultural publications. I don't understand why you put the label with: "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified", once that the sources posted by me are reliable and especially can be very easily verified. Can you show me one source out of many that would not be reliable? The fact that those who have to give a solution do not want to read the sources on the grounds that they are in another language does not mean that the sources are not reliable. Those who wrote the reviews to which there are URLs are the most important literary critics of Romania, recognized as such by Wikipedia. Their reviews are in the most important Romanian publications. What is written in them shows facts that support Cerin's work. Each review clearly and unequivocally shows the book it refers to and claims special things about it. You just had to download them on any google translate and you would have immediately had the review in English. Let me understand that if I entered the titles of the books that the reviews refer to and two or three words about what they say, wouldn't you have translated the reviews to see what was written in them and would you have made the decisions only after some words? If you had translated them, why don't you translate them now and you would have exactly the same result? How can you say that the sources that lead to the reviews are not reliable once you have not even translated to see what is written in those reviews that the sources lead you to? Sorin Cerin is currently the most appreciated writer by the most important literary critics. The reviews about Cerin are not just passing passages, they stretch over pages of literary criticism, showing that Cerin is one of the most important contemporary writers. I wrote all this because Wikipedia asks us to let the reviews about the writers speak for themselves, thus reinforcing the neutral point of view. Once the literary critics write about Cerin's work more than laudatory, how can I show all this? Isn't it better for the reader to access the respective review and make up his own mind?. The dilemma is all the greater as those who write about Cerin have praised him. Asking me to write what exactly these literary critics write about Cerin would mean praising Cerin, even in the two or three words, a fact that goes against Wikipedia and the neutral point of view. Please also give me your opinions on those written by me" end the quote.

Can someone explain to me how to write the few words from the existing reviews about this author, but especially how to place the books that the reviews are talking about? Should I write next to each review the books it refers to, and if several reviews also refer to the same book, should I repeat the title of the respective book? When I mean how to write the few words about the review, I want to know if they can be laudatory as well as the respective review or not? If no, it does not mean that it does not reflect what is written in the review, and if yes, it means that I am breaking Wikipedia's rules regarding the neutral point of view. Thank you for your help.Bineart (talk) 05:10, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Bineart, your first paragraph above is dismayingly long, especially if it's about Draft:Sorin_Cerin, which has very much less text. I therefore haven't bothered to read it. On to your second paragraph. I think that the relevant sections of the article Morris Bishop exemplify a decent way of using specific reviews to describe the books that they're reviewing (which isn't to say that those sections can't be improved). Neutrally summarizing laudatory coverage is neutral. Picking among mixed coverage, summarizing what's laudatory and ignoring the rest is not neutral. -- Hoary (talk) 05:49, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Bineart. I, too, am having great difficulty understanding much of what you wrote. But I do see you asking whether references to sources not in English are acceptable. The answer is that yes, they are. For some topics, there are plenty of high quality English language sources, and they should be used in such cases. For other topics, the best sources are in other languages, and in these cases, references to non-English sources are perfectly acceptable. I hope that this helps. Cullen328 (talk) 06:48, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Wikidata isn't updating a software version

I used Wikidata to add a newer software version, but the Wikipedia article that references Wikidata hasn't updated.

• Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kubernetes
• Wikidata: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q22661306

The relevant field in Wikidata is the software version identifier. I've added a newer version 1.25, but the Wikipedia article still shows 1.24.4 as the Stable Release.

Question: Why isn't the Wikipedia article updating with the latest data from Wikidata?

EDIT: I solved it on my own. It turns out that I had to set the "rank" field of the new version to "preferred." I also had to set the "rank" of the previous release to "normal." This rank thing appears to be some concept that's unique to Wikidata.

Pcgeek86 (talk) 07:22, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

I want to change article

When I am changing any article someone make change again Shree ram divoties (talk) 09:03, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello Shree ram divoties and welcome to the Teahouse. Your edits to Raghupati Raghava Raja Ram were reverted - twice - by Materialscientist because you did not cite any sources, and indeed removed citations that were there. Repeating a reverted edit without discussion is edit warring, and is regarded as disruptive, so you should discuss the matter with Materialscientst (and any other editors who are interestd) on the article's talk page before you do anything else.

But, I would urge you first to read the discussions already on Talk:Raghupati Raghava Raja Ram. ColinFine (talk) 10:17, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Report

i have been having this constant problem something about error detected but i dont see anything wrong with it although i ve gotten captcha correct FajarAesthetic (talk) 11:30, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I am afraid you have to be more specific with what error message you are encountering when saving (?) edits. "error detected" is too generic to track down the source of the problem, maybe try copying the error message here when you encounter it next (You can edit this section by using the edit link in the section header, or the [Reply] link behind my post if its there) Victor Schmidt (talk) 12:58, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia article is not neutral

There is a wikipedia article that is about a politicized issue. There are two opposing sides: for example one side says a certain animal exists as a distinct species - call it the Distincter group and another side asserts that it is the same species as another animal- call it the NoSpecies group. The article is about the Distincter group, but the lead off sentence is written as a negative- e.g. "The Distincter group persists in the mistaken notion that Animal A is a distinct species". The second sentence in the article presenters the Distincters argument as a falsity - "The Distincters believe or assert that what they stand for is that the animal is a distinct species". This is not neutral because it presents up front and with false implications that the Distincters are wrong. The false implications are that yes, there are citations for the NoSpecies position, but those citations simply present the side that the Distincters are wrong- not actual facts about why they are wrong. Sorry for the long question but I want to ask how to make an edit to such an article. I read that there are edit wars in Wikipedia and this is discourage. This particular topic would be subject to an edit war from the NoSpecies group. I think it is important to present neutral information but the very topic between the sides is presented as a fait accompli in the first sentence, as if the Distincters are proven wrong. The whole article is then slanted against them. How would Wikipedia editors ask us to bring this up? I don't want to provide a link because I would like a neutral answer by the way. I fear, and I use that word with purpose, that presenting the actual page would prejudice the answer. Ruth Berge 16:22, 28 August 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rberge0108 (talk • contribs)

Hi Rberge0108. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Giving "equal validity" can create a false balance and Wikipedia:Fringe theories may be relevant. It's hard to say more without knowing the page. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:51, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Rberge0108, and welcome to the Teahouse. You are unlikely to get a "neutral answer" that is much use to you: questions that are general and do not identify the particular case are usually a waste of everybody's time. By not telling us which article, you are in effect saying "My view of how this article should be is the right one". It might be that if we looked at it, we would all agree with you; but since you haven't told us, we don't know.

A note on edit warring: it takes two to edit-war. The first thing to do is to engage with discussion with them, according to BRD. If you are unable to reach a consensus with them, then dispute resolution tells you how to proceed. If they persist in editing against consensus, or are otherwise disruptive, then an issue can be raised (about behaviour, not content) at WP:ANI. --ColinFine (talk) 17:09, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Purely for interest: within Biology and other fields, the terms informally used for those who generally favour recognising fewer distinct species or other categories and those who favour recognising more are ""Lumpers" and "Splitters". {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.208.90.29 (talk) 17:11, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Issue with sources for footnotes

I recently submitted a Wikipedia article about an entertainment lawyer I have worked with which included several supporting footnotes that refer to sources like Google, IMDB, and Wikipedia to provide evidence of various film projects and events that she has been involved with and the entry was rejected because these sources are not considered reliable, independent sources. In most cases, these materials are the only existing evidence that she has received credits in films she's worked with and of events at which she has spoken. Each footnote is meant to support a statement of fact in the article and if I remove all of them, these facts will be unsupported, which I imagine is another reason for rejecting an entry. Do you have any suggestions of how to resolve this issue? I have included a copy of the article, with notes, for your reference.

Buster10 (talk) 16:56, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

No need to post a copy of the draft here. Just provide a link: Draft:Laverne_Berry RudolfRed (talk) 17:11, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

@Buster10: Welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia operates on its own definition of notability. You'd have to show how Berry satisfies it with reliable sources, one of the criteria is that it isn't user-generated. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:14, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Buster10, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid the answer is that if you cannot find substantial, independent, reliable sources about your colleage, then she does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and no article about her is possible. Please see WP:AMOUNT.

Incidentally, if you have worked with Berry, you ought to consider whether you have a conflict of interest in working on an article about her. That doesn't forbid you from doing so, but you need to be aware of Wikiepedia's position on COI. ColinFine (talk) 17:14, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:Laverne Berry (edit conflict) I have removed the draft copy from here, it is not nessesary to duplicate it. IMDB, Facebook, Google Sites and Wikipedia (including other-language versions) are not considered a reliable source here. Note that normally no source is nessesary to prove that Laverne Berry produced a particular film, unless she was credited under an anonymous pseudonym. Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:17, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

All of the refs are URLs rather than complete format; some of the refs are an in-name-only mention of Berry, meaning that those can establish a fact as verified, but do not constitute published content ABOUT her. David notMD (talk) 21:04, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Error in wikipedia article on the Trinity

There is no significant tendency among modern scholars to deny that John 1:1 and John 20:28 identify Jesus with God.

This is not true. An increasing number of credible Bible scholars are now saying that John 1:1 is a mistranslation. I would like the article to reflect that so as not to mislead others. Here is a credible source on the matter: https://www.patheos.com/blogs/kermitzarleyblog/2013/07/your-gospel-of-john-says-the-word-was-god-but-that-translation-is-really-quite-odd/

How can I make an edit to reflect this which will not be deleted? Tedw2 (talk) 17:54, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Tedw2, and welcome to the Teahouse. The only way to get such an edit to stick is by citing a reliable source which says what you are wanting to add. Blogs are almost never regarded as reliable. Furthermore, since it is pretty clear that what you want to add is controversial, you are stongly advised to get consensus by discussing it on the article's talk page before making such an edit. ColinFine (talk) 18:09, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Tedw2. The author of that blog post is Kermit Zarley, a retired professional golfer with highly idiosyncratic and unorthodox views on religion. He is by no means an academic theologian or a recognized expert in translating Koine Greek. In short, his blog is not a reliable source. Cullen328 (talk) 18:20, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Help in writing article

Hi All, good day to you. I have joined wikipedia just today. I will appreciate if someone can help me in writing article and self biography on wikipedia.

Thanks a lot Asghar Kamal Butt Libra239 (talk) 18:18, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Libra239. Please read WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. You are advised in the strongest possible terms not to try to write an autobiography. The vast majority of the time, such efforts fail, and the effort turns out to be a frustrating waste of time for the writer and for those who have to review and delete the content. Cullen328 (talk) 18:25, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

I see that User:Libra239 has already been deleted. That was a curriculum vitae or résumé and was entirely inappropriate for this encyclopedia. Your user page is to tell your fellow editors about your contributions and goals as a Wikipedia editor, not to promote your career. Cullen328 (talk) 18:31, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Libra239, and welcome to the Teahouse. Telling the world about something - especially about yourself or your own activities - is fundamentally not what Wikipedia is for. Wikipedia is only interested in subjects that the world has already been told about. See WP:NOTPROMO. ColinFine (talk) 19:31, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Requests to edit semi-protected page

I posted on the talk page for the Capital Punishment article twice, not realizing that I needed to use the "request edit to protected page" format the first time I posted: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Capital_punishment#Remove_number_of_people_killed_by_Henry_VIII I would like to make the edit myself, but I'm still learning how to use Wikipedia. Will my edit request go through? Is there a way to delete the duplicate request?

Second question: is the "request edit to semi-protected page" option good if I can find some actual sources to discuss capital punishment in medieval Europe, since the page is sorely lacking in proper scholarly discussion of the topic? Chucklehammer (talk) 21:29, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello Chucklehammer, and welcome to the Teahouse. Although I've just deleted your first attempt at an edit request for you, you could just as easily have done it yourself. You could have done that in one of two ways. Having made an edit you regret making, one can go to the 'View History' tab and look for the row at the top which will show your recent edit and simply click 'undo'. OR, you could have gone to the thread you started, click 'Edit source' which is next to it and then deleted (blanked) the content of just that one post. Leaving an 'Edit Summary' which explains why you're deleting it is always helpful.

Yes, use the 'edit request' process if you wish. But in just a couple more edits you will be 'auto-confirmed' (account over 4 days old and has made 10 edits at least). You can then edit semi-protected articles directly. You may then BEBOLD and edit the page directly if you wish. Does that make sense? Nick Moyes (talk) 21:46, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for your help! I didn't realize how quickly it would take me to reach 10 edits. Chucklehammer (talk) 22:14, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Chiclehammer, and welcome to the Teahouse.It seems to me that a change like that, that involves questioning the reliability of a source, was best discussed on the talk page first anyway, whether you can technically edit the article directly or not. Making an edit request will put it on a list that may get more notice; but the problem is that the people who look at that list are general editors who choose to process edit requests, rather than people with particular knowledge or interest in this topic, so making it into an edit request may not achieve anything. (My guess is that the people who look at requests will be inclined to look at it, and say, Erk, I don't know anything about that, and leave it for somebody else. I may be wrong though).

What might be more effective than making it an edit request in this context is to bring it to the attention of an appropriate WikiProject: maybe WP:WikiProject History or WP:WikiProject England. Alternatively, you might ask at the reliable sources noticeboard. ColinFine (talk) 21:47, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! I ended up getting auto-confirmed (a quicker process than I thought it would be) and making the edit myself. I also have started joining a bunch of WikiProjects based on your suggestion, so thank you for that! Chucklehammer (talk) 22:16, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Atmospheric pressure, Gravity and Sea level

Does a Sand timer's Hourglass time spend differ with altitude or sea level. (Sorry for bad English) 115.186.169.15 (talk) 00:09, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Not with pressure. Since the 18th Century sandglass timers have been sealed, so atmospheric pressure is irrelevant. Meters (talk) 00:16, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, hourglass timers are affected by height. Gravity decreases with height so the timer will slow down with height. At the limit, with no gravity, the timer does not run at all. Meters (talk) 00:26, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Gravity of Earth#Altitude says: "All other things being equal, an increase in altitude from sea level to 9,000 metres (30,000 ft) causes a weight decrease of about 0.29%." I don't know how much this affects a typical hourglass or how accurate it is to begin with. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:02, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Can you add porn?

explicit 41.113.230.137 (talk) 05:03, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps you should tell us what it is you want to add, what the sources are for the material, and which article you want to add it to! --Bduke (talk) 05:32, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia has encyclopedia articles about notable porn actors and porn films. That does not mean that the content of those articles is explicitly pornographic. In recent years, most editors interested in content about pornography have gotten much stricter about what is notable and encyclopedic in this topic area, and many porn related articles have been deleted. This is part of a general trend of not accepting poorly referenced articles created by enthusiastic fans, and it also includes articles about obscure footballers, cricket players and "villages" with no significant coverage in reliable sources. Cullen328 (talk) 05:44, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Why is their pornography on the pages?

Why are editors allowed to upload pornography to Wikipedia, Wikipedia is supposed to be a site for everyone to use, Wikipedia isn’t pornhub. MinecraftFan23 (talk) 05:49, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Which specific pages are you talking about, MinecraftFan23? Wikipedia is not censored but content should serve an encyclopedic purpose and should not be gratuitous. You are correct that Wikipedia is not Pornhub but I very much doubt that you will find Pornhub-style content on Wikipedia. Be specific. Cullen328 (talk) 06:06, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

See Help:Options to hide an image and Wikipedia:Content disclaimer. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:59, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Strange activity by user VickyBenz

I was going to report this at WP:ANI, but figured Teahouse might be a better place first (if I figured wrong and such cases belong to WP:ANI or elsewhere, please let me know).

I spotted by chance a user whose whole activity (I checked ca. 20 edits) is either changing correct grammar and punctuation to incorrect, or making unnecessary wikilinks (often self-referencing an article). My request to stop damaging WP seemed to have effect – there was no response, but this daily activity has stopped so far: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/VickyBenz

There are a couple of points I'd like to raise in this regard.

1. While many of his/her edits were reverted by now, many are still there – not because they are all good, but rather because noone noticed or doesn't care. I think all remaining edits must be reverted (I haven't seen a single good one, recent and first edits included).

2. Doesn't software which WP runs on include a utility which would analyze edits and report suspicious activity to draw attention to them, so a human admin can notice it immediately and cut it short, preventing massive damage as it happened with this user? Cases like spoiling grammar or bad wikilinking (at least self-referencing) are fairly easy to catch, after all, and a good tracker can cover much more than such trivial cases. 188.66.34.125 (talk) 07:29, 29 August 2022 (UTC)