Wikipedia:Teahouse

Melecie, a Teahouse host

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

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

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

Help Wikipedia

CommonsDeLinker keeps deleting my Files and Media for an Article

article in question is about Francisco lugo viña molina, a Spanish nobleman. He has a painting.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Francisco_Lugo-Vi%C3%B1a_Molina

You can look the article for yourself and edit if you want to. But is there a Way to stop CommonsDeLinker? Ive tried Three Times. I just uploaded the image to WikiData but it always gets deleted. Any help would be great! Ayyyple2 (talk) 19:32, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Ayyyple2, User:CommonsDelinker's edit summary says: Removing Franciscolugoviña.jpg; it has been deleted from Commons by Fitindia because: Media uploaded without a license as of 2023-03. Please upload your media with a license. That can be found on commons:COM:Licensing Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 19:37, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I dont know what License the Painting has, i do not own it. Its in a museum but i have no idea... Ayyyple2 (talk) 19:39, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

@Ayyyple2, you need to determine the copyright status of any image you upload before uploading it. If you need help, there is a place to ask over on Commons (which is where most images are hosted): here. There's also WP:MCQ on English Wikipedia. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 19:44, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Ill try.... ill try Ayyyple2 (talk) 07:00, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

@Ayyyple2 Since the portrait was painted about 1800, it will be in the Public Domain now, provided the image you upload is a simple photograph of a 2D painting, presumably available from the Museum's website. However, the presence or not of the portrait won't influence whether the article is accepted, so I suggest you wait and see if it is. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:17, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

It is public domain, but everytime i upload it it gets deleted for no copyright, but i selected no copyright! Can you help me Ayyyple2 (talk) 20:40, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

It's not "no copyright", it's "public domain". That needs to be explicitly specified. If you use the UploadWizard, you should be able to select that setting from a set of options in the web form. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:46, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Ill try, if it gets deleted again, i give up... Ayyyple2 (talk) 19:07, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Draft: The Ocean Foundation

Hi there! I am writing a draft page for a nonprofit organization called The Ocean Foundation: Draft:The Ocean Foundation. So far, it has been declined twice: the first time it needed more reliable sources. After I added those, it was declined again because it still needed more reliable sources, and also now reads like an advertisement (I'm not affiliated with the org and was just going off of sources I found). Would someone be able to help me out with which sentences read like advertisements, and also which sources I should take out to be more reliable and in-depth? I'm a very new editor so please be kind :). This is all just a little overwhelming. Thanks so much in advance! Wikicontributor1993 (talk) 19:37, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello @Wikicontributor1993, and Welcome to the Teahouse! I think the draft came off to the reviewer as promotional because a lot of the text was similar to what would be on a website for that organization. Your draft is very positive, and isn’t super neutral. The Neutral point of view policy may be helpful: While you have done a great job so far, the reviewer thinks the subject of the page may not be notable enough for a page on Wikipedia. Our notability rules may be helpful. Once again, Welcome to Wikipedia and the Teahouse! - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 20:59, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you SOO much!! Will try that out now. I also took away a lot of text that seemed a little more promotional once I read it over again! Wish me luck! Wikicontributor1993 (talk) 21:01, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Good luck and Happy editing! - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 21:10, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

After reading your draft again, I think it is almost ready for mainspace! However, the section titled “Conservation Initiatives” still reads quite like an advertisement. I would fix it up and submit if for review again. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 21:15, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

DONE! Thank you so much again and for taking another look! I just submited it for review 🤞 Thanks again!! Wikicontributor1993 (talk) 00:29, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Good luck! 👍 I would still keep an eye on this discussion and see if another user has more tips to increase the chance of it being accepted. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 00:30, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Great thinking, will do!! Really appreciate your help! Wikicontributor1993 (talk) 00:32, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

You are very welcome. I have approved your article and published it to mainspace. I have tagged it for maintenance, so other editors will help you improve it. Your have now created an article on Wikipedia!! - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 00:39, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you so so so much!!! Woohoooo I feel like I need to celebrate this accomplishment somehow! 💙💙 Wikicontributor1993 (talk) 17:14, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

@Wikicontributor1993 Don't break out the champagne just yet. The article has been re-draftified by Randykitty, who thought it wasn't currently ready to go live. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:20, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Just saw that 😭😭. Ok, we got this. I'm going in. Wikicontributor1993 (talk) 17:21, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Help renaming a draft

I just did my first page, but I messed up the name. It's called Draft:Initial. How do I fix it? Ai-ml-enthusiast (talk) 23:26, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello, @Ai-ml-enthusiast, and Welcome to the Teahouse. The only way to fix it is by moving the page, but you don’t have the permissions to do so. I can move the draft for you. What do you want the new title to be? - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 23:58, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I have moved the page to Draft:Signifyd. If this is the wrong title let me know, and I can move it somewhere else. Welcome to Wikipedia! - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 00:05, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Perfect! Thanks so much! Ai-ml-enthusiast (talk) 05:20, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

@Ai-ml-enthusiast Your draft would be much better if the citations used the {{cite web}} template: see that link and WP:REFB. The current use of "retrieved from..." is not how we usually do things and makes the URL visible as a distraction to readers. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:00, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Converted! Thanks for the tip! Ai-ml-enthusiast (talk) 01:19, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Marriage Date Errors of Tiko Campbell

Tiko (Frederick) Campbell was married to me, Starletta Flowers of Philadelphia, PA. We were married on July 3, 1971 and divorced March 12, 1974. There were no children born to the marriage. This was Tiko (Frederick) Campbell’s first marriage. This was prior to his marriage to BeBe (Elizabeth) Moore Campbell. I have official documents to substantiate this information. Starwmson08 (talk) 23:43, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello, and Welcome to the Teahouse! It appears you have a conflict of interest in this subject, meaning you are related/involved in it. I would recommend making an edit request on the talk page of the article and providing reliable sources, not original research, to support your claims. Once again, Welcome! - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 00:02, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

@Starwmson08: Hi there! You may wish to use the Wikipedia:Edit Request Wizard to make your suggestion. Note that Wikipedia prefers independent sources that can be independently verified, such as books, newspapers, magazines, or websites. GoingBatty (talk) 00:58, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Several online sources state Tiko Campbell was married to Bebe Campbell from 1970-79. As a separate issue, it is not clear that Tiko meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability, so the article may be nominated for deletion. David notMD (talk) 08:49, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Question regarding Draft submission

if a draft declined and again it is in resubmission process can we again make it as new draft? 42.105.138.188 (talk) 03:45, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Judging by your IP's geolocation you're probably the same user or at least asking about the same draft as the later question which has already been answered, but still: you're welcome to submit a new draft on a new topic while your earlier draft is awaiting review (although this may not necessarily be the best idea, for the reasons given by 331dot), but you should not submit another draft on the same topic as it will only be declined as a duplicate (and, if you keep doing that, may eventually get you into trouble). HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:03, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Is it a violation of WP:PRIVACY if you trace someone's IP and mention the university in talk?

I came across a comment on a talk page where an editor traced an unregistered IP editor to a university and referred to them explicitly:

I want to thank the Duke University IP address(es) for this opportunity to re-examine the Wikipedia article about GISAID from his/her perspective.

-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:GISAID#A_response_from_an_experienced_editor

Is this a violation of WP:PRIVACY? Looking up an IP is not difficult, but it's not necessary and makes the IP editor potentially identifiable by others who come across the page. AncientWalrus (talk) 06:11, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi AncientWalrus. I don't think it would be since it doesn't specifically identify an account with an particular person. An IP address is public information and as you say anyone could look it up if they want. When someone edits using an IP, they are essentially making themselves potentially identifiable by others who come across the page as soon as they click "Publish changes"; so, they seem to be sort of WP:OUTING themselves in a sense. Having said that, you could ask about this at WP:OVERSIGHT or WP:AN to see what an oversighter or administrator might think. I'm neither, but I don't think this is something they would consider a violation of OUTING. Finally, for future reference, if you do come across anything that really seems like OUTING in the future, it's probably better just to seek oversighter or administrator assistance right away (preferably by email if possible) instead of possibly creating more stuff that may need to be cleaned up later by posting about it in too much detail on other Wikipedia pages or general noticeboards like the Teahouse. Oversighters and administrators are able to revision delete or suppress content that is a serious violation of Wikipedia policy and shouldn't be publicly visible, and they will be better able to limit the cleanup that needs to be done. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:52, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

@AncientWalrus: I'm an administrator, and in my view, there is nothing wrong. An IP address location is public information. At the bottom of every IP address talk page is a "whois" link to look up information about that IP address; Wikipedia is actually aiding you in doing this, if you choose to do so. You are actually more anonymous if you create an account. ~Anachronist (talk) 07:20, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! Understood! So not considered doxing, but there's still the question why one would bring it up. It's still a personal attack. But that wasn't mh question. AncientWalrus (talk) 14:16, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

It may not violate privacy concerns, but it is part of a pattern of pretty aggressive behaviour of that particular editor on that talk page. You may want to raise those issues at the appropriate place. Random person no 362478479 (talk) 19:16, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Can you recommend what the appropriate place would be? AncientWalrus (talk) 00:28, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I am pretty new, but I think if you believe that there is a chance to get the person to engage in a civil discussion it would be Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. And if there is no real hope for that Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard/Incidents. Random person no 362478479 (talk) 00:48, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I once wrote on an article talkpage "Hello IP:s from Maryland!", thus indicating that since the subject was from Maryland, maybe... Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:46, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry I don't understand, can you explain?There's maybe a difference between saying: it's someone from Maryland or from a specific university. That restricts people quite a lot in a narrow field (virologyl/bioinformatics). AncientWalrus (talk) 14:14, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

@AncientWalrus Sorry, that was pretty obscure. Here:Talk:Catherine_Nakalembe#Hello_IP:s_from_Maryland. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:14, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Ah, now it makes sense :) AncientWalrus (talk) 16:21, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

It may not be against the rules, but it's kind of creepy. Smallchief (talk) 14:30, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Regarding article for creation

Can we create a new draft when the older one was declined and again is in reviewing process? The first review was quick but now it is taking too long to review my draft again. I think creating new draft will be quicker?

Anyone with experience please reply. 117.215.150.205 (talk) 07:32, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. There is no numerical limitation on the number of drafts you can have in the process, but my suggestion would be to wait until your first is accepted before you create another, so that if you made mistakes on the first, you don't repeat them on the second. 331dot (talk) 07:50, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

No, you shouldn't create a second draft on the same subject as the first if you have the first in review. It takes as long as it will take. Wikipedia has no deadlines- are you under some sort of deadline? 331dot (talk) 07:53, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

If you create a second draft about the same subject it will simply be rejected as a duplicate. You should continue working on only one draft per subject. You are welcome to go on improving the draft while it waits for review. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:14, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

There is always a backlog of thousands of drafts waiting for review. The system is not a queue. For any draft - including your resubmission - could be days, weeks, or sadly, months, before a reviewer decides to review it. Submitting the same draft with a slightly different title just pisses off reviewers. David notMD (talk) 08:53, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Nevada State Museum website permission

I have been in contact with the Nevada State Museum, Las Vegas, to post some of their collection images on Wikipedia, specifically concerning items related to Folies Bergere at The Tropicana Hotel Las Vegas. They expressed interest in participating in this article and sent me a permissions form with a section on websites. The form seemed more generic and did not use Wikipedia Creative Commons terms. Do you have any suggestions on how to move forward with the museum? Gumballhead1of2 (talk) 09:47, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi Gumballhead1of2. You could try sending the museum something along the lines of WP:PERMISSION or c:COM:EMAIL and see if they'd be willing to release their content as explained on those pages. While CC license are easily to use for Wikipedia purposes, the museum might be able to craft it's own license if its own words as long as it's compatible one of the acceptable license found at c:COM:CC. The two main things that are going to be need to be sorted out. The first one is the provenances of the images; in other words, whether the museum actually is the copyright holder of the images in question. Having possession of an image doesn't necessarily make one the copyright holder of the image. If the museum got the images from someone or somewhere else, then they might not be the original copyright holder of the images. If they took a bunch of old images of unknown provenance and just digitalized them, then whether that's sufficient to establish a new copyright on their version seems to be a gray area and might be seen as some as copyfraud; so, the more you can find out about the provenance of each image, the better for Wikipedia or Commons purposes. The next thing is, assuming the museum is the copyright holder of the images, going to be to see whether the museum is willing to release the images without any restrictions on commercial or derivative reuse. Non-commercial (NC) and non-derivative (ND) types of licenses are unacceptable for Commons purposes as explained in c:COM:LJ and there's pretty much no way around that since Commons doesn't accept any type of fair use content as explained in c:COM:FAIR. Wikipedia does, however, allow such content to be uploaded locally as non-free content, but Wikipedia's non-free content use policy is more restrictive than fair use as explained in WP:NFC#Background and there are quite a lot of restrictions placed on such use. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:27, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the detailed feedback. I will follow up with the Nevada State Museum. Gumballhead1of2 (talk) 10:46, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Where to report a IP if it caused disruption ?

A IP user https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1145916816 here did disruption, By removing well ref material. He should be blocked from editing, how can he remv data without explaining in summary? Rock Stone Gold Castle (talk) 10:28, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi Rock Stone Gold Castle. I'm not an administrator so I might be missing something here, but I'm not sure I would call the IP's edit vandalism, at least not per Wikipedia:Vandalism#What is not vandalism. The edit, for the most part, seems to have be mainly syntax tweaking, which might've been unnecessary but is certainly not a blockable offense. The IP did remove sourced content from the infobox about Sharma's former partner, but that could've just been an oversight on their part, which again is not a blockable offense. Accounts usually only get blocked when they're being used for some serious disruption that's typically been going on for quite awhile; this IP account has made five edits since August 2020 and the last edit it made before the one you saw was more than six months ago to a soccer article; in other words, it doesn't seem to be focusing on the Sharma article and trying to be disruptive. It's also quite possible that the edits were made by different persons using the same IP address. Anyway, you restored the information that was removed and probably nothing more needs to be done. If the IP comes back to remove it again, then maybe administrator involvement will be needed. If that happens, don't edit war over the content with the IP, but instead try and follow WP:DR and figure out why the IP has removed the content. If you try that and the IP still doesn't stop, then seek assistance from an administrator. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:55, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I corrected the part according to a comment of a Wiki editor, would you check it?

Hello! There is a comment on a article (Thomas Maurice Rice, Wikipedia) (Achievement on the mechanism of superconductivity) I wrote, but I don't know how to do it. I am not expert on Wikipedia and am not understand the comment itself. I am hesitate if I delete the article all or not.

Today morning, I corrected the part through deleating a reference and change of reference position according to the comments. Would you please check my correction? If it is right, would you please delete two comments in head part and the subsection part of 'achievement of on the mechanism of superconductivity". Best regards Composer 2600:8805:3F8A:2E00:8590:8090:AE17:C0EE (talk) 14:11, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Thomas Maurice Rice I do not know enough about the article or have the time/interest to read the specific references, but if someone disagrees with you, they can discuss it on Talk:Thomas Maurice Rice or edit directly. Asking in Wikiproject WP:PHYSICS may yield more subject experts. Please read WP:NACADEMIC for best practices on Articles about academics. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 17:17, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

جنية مصري 102.44.96.44 (talk) 14:30, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Copyright Image [?]

I am asking because supposedly AI-Generated images have no copyright infringement, I uploaded https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/28/Cat_on_Skateboard_AI.png is this okay? 多多123 (✉ • ✎) 15:42, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

@多多123 Actually, I don't think so. Per [1] you made this with something called https://www.bing.com/create (I get to see a Swedish-language version). That page has a link to terms of agreement (again, Swedish for me), which states that you can use the creations outside their online services, for personal, non-commercial purposes. "Non-commercial" kills it, Commons-wise, and perhaps "personal" kills it even more. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:01, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Oh, okay, I will get to deleting it. 多多123 (✉ • ✎) 16:02, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

How do I delete an image on WikiMedia? 多多123 (✉ • ✎) 16:03, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

@多多123 At [2] you should see "Nominate for deletion" in the column of links on the left. At least if you're on a laptop or in "desktop view". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:45, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I found it 40 minutes ago, it will at least take a few hours. 多多123 (✉ • ✎) 16:50, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Speedy deletion is an option. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:01, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Can you do it instead, if possible? 多多123 (✉ • ✎) 17:07, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

The image was correctly nominated for deletion. I added my delete !vote. All we can do now is wait. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:08, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Like always. 多多123 ( ✉ • ✎ ) 18:13, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Do I need to put Wikimedia commons copyright on TWA badges which I use in an image? [3] (Imgur link) 多多123 (✉ • ✎) 19:07, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Fixing a link

Hello Teahouse,

I was looking to fix what I think is an incorrectly captioned link on this page: Quinametzin. I posted on the talk page about a month ago and I haven't heard anything back. Is it okay for me to make this edit? FlapjackJones (talk) 17:03, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

@FlapjackJones welcome to Wikipedia! I actively encourage you to be WP:BOLD and fix it yourself directly! If someone disagrees with you, then discussing on talk page per WP:BRD makes sense. I do think it's nice to ask on talk page before directly editing, when I am worried an edit will be potentially controversial. Happy editing! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 17:12, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, Shushugah! I've gone ahead and made the edit. FlapjackJones (talk) 17:23, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Question about uploading a photo

Hi,

I recently wrote Dr. Swett's Root Beer. The brand was active in the early 1900's, the company basically folded in the 1950's and the trademark expired in 1990. I found some old ads of theirs in early 1900's newspapers and I was assuming that it would be okay to upload an image for this. I'm thinking there really can't be any possible issues with this, but does anyone have any ideas?

Thanks KatoKungLee (talk) 17:20, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

@KatoKungLee Anything published before January 1, 1928 is in the public domain in the USA, which is likely to be where the relevant newspapers were published. Hence provided you use scans of something earlier than that, you'll be fine to upload to Wikimedia Commons. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:24, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Mike Turnbull - Wonderful, thanks.KatoKungLee (talk) 17:27, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

@KatoKungLee P.S. Use the tag {{PD-US-expired}} on the files. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:30, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Got it, thanks.KatoKungLee (talk) 17:31, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Billy Rautenbach

Have removed quite a lot of PR + spin from Billy Rautenbach, can some experienced editors review this article, has it has many issues + needs more tidying up. Regards --Devokewater 17:45, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

hello my family and real friends

how are you guys doing sorry about everthing i was sleeping it seems i nee help with money but got no where to find it i work since i was 14 years old they stole everthing from me Mob780 (talk) 18:31, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

This is Mob780's only edit. To Mob780: The only function for Teahouse is to advise editors (new and old) on questions they have about editing Wikipedia. David notMD (talk) 22:07, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Where to report vandalism ?

A person removed data here [4] and added spam links. Rock Stone Gold Castle (talk) 18:43, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Usually you can just revert the edit and leave a notice on their talk page warning them to stop. If they don't stop after being warned, you can post a report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:15, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Category move help

Hi, can someone move en:Category:Telangana ministry to Category: Telangana ministries similar to the other categories under this big category - en:Category:Indian state and territorial ministries for consistency and accuracy. Thank you. 456legend(talk) 18:53, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

@456legend: Welcome to the Teahouse! To request the renaming of a category, see WP:CFDS. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 01:54, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

@GoingBatty Thank you 456legend(talk) 13:30, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Notability of football athletes

What policy page currently governs the determination of whether an article about a football (non-American) player should be deleted because of that person's not being notable or, potentially, the absence of an A7 claim of significance? The problem is that WP:ATHLETE claims that a very broad class of people are notable for certain sports, but not football (and, say, rugby), and says that sports not named are only subject to WP:SPORTBASIC. Meanwhile, WP:SPORTBASIC alone doesn't justify the thousands of pages about football players one can find at e.g. Category:England international footballers. Wuffuwwuf (talk) 19:26, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Am I right that it's WP:NSPORTS2022? If yes, what (I'm seriously asking) is the reason such articles have not been deleted by now? Wuffuwwuf (talk) 19:34, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Wuffuwwuf. There used to be a specific notability guideline for association football commonly called "WP:NFOOTY", but after a monumental and somewhat bitter discussion, that guideline was removed and WP:SPORTBASIC is currently the applicable standard. Cleaning up the massive number of stubs about non-notable footballers will take years. Cullen328 (talk) 19:40, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, you found the discussion. Existing articles need to be evaluated on their merits, which is a lot of work, and there remains widespread opposition to deletion. Cullen328 (talk) 19:42, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. Wuffuwwuf (talk) 19:44, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

If you continue to tag clearly notable articles (such as England international footballers) for deletion, you will be blocked. GiantSnowman 10:56, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Wow! How many venues did you post this message to, anyway? Wuffuwwuf (talk) 13:55, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

my article is got declined

Can you help me what i have to do get approval for my articles. Evenyaro23 (talk) 19:37, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Evenyaro23. Your draft User:Evenyaro23/sandbox is an unreferenced biography of a living person. That's a policy violation. It is written in a non neutral, highly promotional tone. That's also a policy violation. Read and study Your first article to understand the changes you need to make. Cullen328 (talk) 19:48, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

See also WP:BACKWARD. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:30, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Given its promotional content, expect it to be nominated for Speedy deletion and then quickly deleted, leaving no trace. Per the advice above, neutral wording and references required. David notMD (talk) 22:10, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Unusual ISBN

The ISBN which appears at https://archive.org/details/caligulacorrupti0000anth/page/n7/mode/2up is CN 6816 resulted in "the appearance of {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help)" after I entered it the ISBN field and clicked Publish changes. Since it isn't a standard ISBN I wasn't surprised. I deleted it but wondered if there's a way it can be included anyway. Mcljlm (talk) 20:14, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Mcljlm. Template:cite book says "In very rare cases, valid identifiers (f.e., as actually printed on publications) do not follow their defined standard format or use non-conforming checksums, which would typically cause an error message to be shown. Do not alter them to match a different checksum. In order to suppress the error message, some identifiers (|doi=, |eissn=, |isbn=, |issn=, and |sbn=) support a special accept-this-as-written markup which can be applied to disable the error-checking (as |<param>=((<value>))). If the problem is down to a mere typographical error in a third-party source, correct the identifier value instead of overriding the error message".

I think it is saying you can use isbn=((CN 6816)). ColinFine (talk) 00:13, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

@Mcljlm: That is not an ISBN number. Guild Publishing has their own system of CN numbers. Somebody screwed up and wrote ISBN right before it. https://www.abebooks.com/Caligula-Corruption-Power-Anthony-A-Barrett/16652207621/bd says "ISBN 10: 0300046537 / ISBN 13: 9780300046533", and later "Guild Publishing Edition : CN 6816". Your link says 1989 but several book sources at ISBN 9780300046533 say it's from 1990. Maybe your link is from an early version before it actually got an ISBN number. I imagine somewhere it said "ISBN [large blank space] CN 6816", and some intern (always blame the intern) changed it to a single space. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:53, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

1989 is the date of the UK edition (see the British Library entry). I changed the citation from the 1990 US edition to the 1989 edition in the Historical accuracy section of Incitatus. Looking at the Secondary sources section of Caligula now I notice 978-0-7134-5487-1 appears as the ISBN. Would it better to enter that, leave the citation as it is now, or do something else? Mcljlm (talk) 12:38, 26 March 2023 (UTC) Mcljlm (talk) 12:38, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

This search shows a number of books, from different publishers, presented with that odd "ISBN: CN xxxx". ColinFine (talk) 15:26, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

References

Talk Page colors

Hey y'all. This is not a question of technicality or the like, but I would like to ask why are templates in the talkspace are colored sepia instead of the default white-grey? Crusader1096 (message) 22:39, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Which templates? Where? A template has no colour unless it has been defined as such. ColinFine (talk) 15:27, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

@ColinFine: Hi there! @Knightoftheswords281 might be referring to templates at the top of articles (e.g. {{orphan}}) vs. templates at the top of article talk pages (e.g. {{WikiProject Biography}}). GoingBatty (talk) 16:03, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Banning vs Blocking

Hey y'all. I've never understood the difference between blocking and banning on Wikipedia. Apparently, a block is a technical removal of editing rights while banning is a formal one, but that just seems to be redundant. Crusader1096 (message) 22:40, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

You might want to look at WP:BLOCKBANDIFF. I'd summarise the main current difference as this: Admins can lift blocks. Bans can only be removed by groups of people. Generally speaking. For topic bans it can be a bit more complicated. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:00, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Tropical cyclone Bopha (2006)

help edit my draft pls ok Draft:Tropical Bopha (2006) 122.2.116.213 (talk) 02:02, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

2006 Pacific typhoon season already has a well-referenced section on Severe Tropical Storm Bopha. You can copy that into your draft as long as you acknowledge in your Edit summary where the content and refs were taken from. The real question is can you add more detail to your draft. The season article has a few links to separate articles about other tropical storms. Those may be models for the type of additional information you should seek. Those details may be in the existing references, or you may need to find more references. David notMD (talk) 08:44, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

@David notMD: edit ok 122.2.116.213 (talk) 08:51, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

@David notMD you not vandalize me and not blocked 122.2.116.213 (talk) 09:02, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I am not the editor who reverted some of your edits. I am not the editor who warned on your Talk page that you may be blocked. David notMD (talk) 09:06, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

@122.2.116.213 not vandalism edit and @David notMD ok for Draft:Tropical cyclone Bopha (2006) 122.2.116.213 (talk) 09:36, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I am also not a reviewer. David notMD (talk) 16:50, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Anti-LGBTQ+ statement on User Page

Hello Teahouse. Is it allowed for someone to have the following on their User Page: "I have strong views against the LGBTQ+ community"?

If not, where should I report this please? Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:54, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

@MrsSnoozyTurtle: I view a statement like that as a disclosure of a conflict of interest, and such disclosures are encouraged for every editor. An editor with a conflict of interest should stick to the talk page for articles having topics related to the conflict of interest. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:29, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I think this might be WP:POLEMIC? -- asilvering (talk) 04:50, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

@MrsSnoozyTurtle I found the person you are talking about. While it's disappointing that they have such views, I looked through their activity and it's 90% on their user page and probably about 10% biographies of engineers. They at least don't seem to be actively promoting anti-lgbt ideas. They kinda come off as a possible sockpuppet though. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 05:34, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Ask them to remove it. If they don't, WP:ANI is right that way. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 08:10, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

• Agreed, request them to remove it and report at ANI otherwise. One of our pillars is WP:CIVILITY and homophobic editors should keep it off Wikipedia or find another platform. The fact this doesn’t seem to impact their main activity is promising to hear, but all the more the reason why their views on LGBTQ community are not relevant to Wikipedia. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 09:13, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

People have all sorts of userboxes that aren't relevant to their activities on Wikipedia. It doesn't matter. Thornfield Hall (talk) 12:22, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Bigotry isn't accepted, though. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 12:23, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you everyone for your help. I have asked the user (DiscreetCharmOf Bourgeoisie) to remove the text, so we'll see how that goes. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:51, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

bots

i made an edit that was not vandalism that i know is true and a bot got rid of my edit Pastalavist (talk) 03:34, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

@Pastalavist: Your edits used poor grammar or punctuation, and made a claim about a living person without citing a reliable source. It isn't sufficient for an edit simply to be "true". ~Anachronist (talk) 04:34, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

that i know is true Sorry your contribution was deleted by a bot. One solution here is to find a source that covers the topic. You can then put the verifiably true material into an article with the source. For a brief introduction to references check out this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Referencing_for_beginners

Good luck, Rjjiii (talk) 05:35, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Getting New Page Reviewed

I created a new page on March 16 and it's yet to be reviewed. What's the process for it getting reviewed? Apologies if this is the wrong place to post. In future, if I have questions about the review process, I should post them at Articles for creation help desk? Thank you. MaskedSinger (talk) 04:02, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

@MaskedSinger: The process is to wait. Reviews are not done in a queue, the topics for review are chosen by the reviewers from the entire pool. It can take several months. What draft are you referring to? ~Anachronist (talk) 04:32, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

@Anachronist: Oh I see. Thanks for explaining. Such being the case, is it better to submit new pages via AFC? Or it's ok to just create and then wait for it to be reviewed? It's Matthew Belloni.MaskedSinger (talk) 04:34, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

@MaskedSinger: The article Matthew Belloni hasn't been reviewed because it isn't a draft waiting to be reviewed, it hasn't been submitted for review via WP:AFC, it's an article in article space. Do you want it to be a draft that you submit for review?

I'll say for now that you have several redundant citations that should be consolidated. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:41, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

@Anachronist: What's the difference between an article waiting to be reviewed vs a draft waitiing to be reviewed? I don't know how to consolidate redundant citations. MaskedSinger (talk) 04:51, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

@MaskedSinger: See for example Draft:Jayant Biswas, which has a big yellowish banner at the top saying it's waiting to be reviewed. Once it is reviewed, it is either declined for further improvements and the author can re-submit it, or the reviewer approves it and moves it to article space.

Experienced editors usually create articles directly in article space, bypassing the review process. Most of my articles are like that, but occasionally I'll write a draft and submit it for review if I'm not confident about it, to get suggestions for improvement.

If you publish in article space directly, as you did, it's assumed to be publishable; that is, it meets the notability criteria for inclusion, it cites sources meeting the WP:Golden rule criteria, and it's reasonably well written and formatted. The risk of doing this is that your article may be deleted because the topic may not actually be notable, the sources may not meet all the requirements of providing significant coverage, reliability, and independence of the subject. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:14, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

@MaskedSinger: I just consolidated the duplicated references for you. The topic looks notable, but sources that are not independent of Matthew Belloni should be removed if possible. This includes profiles on employer pages and press releases. I didn't check the sources, I just consolidated the citations. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:22, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! MaskedSinger (talk) 05:40, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Swedish newspaper source access

I would like to access some Swedish language newspapers to expand and improve an article. The Ängelholm UFO memorial has several reliable sources that are behind paywalls or partial paywalls where only the introduction is visible. I'm familiar with Wikipedia access to newspapers.com and the Wikipedia library, but these Swedish newspapers do not appear to be included. I attempted to sign up for a trial month using machine translation, but this appears to be available only to residents of Sweden. The specific source links are:

• https://tidningar.kb.se/1865536/1972-09-29/edition/170058/part/2/page/1/
• https://www.hd.se/2022-07-11/guidade-turer-vid-ufo-monumentet?utm_campaign=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_source=site-feed
• https://www.hd.se/2015-07-20/nu-rojs-det-kring-ufot
• https://tidningar.kb.se/1865536/1972-09-29/edition/170058/part/2/page/1/

Any guidance is appreciated, Rjjiii (talk) 05:23, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

@Rjjiii, welcome to the Teahouse. Like you said, the hd is paywall, and the kb says "Copyright protected material, can only be read digitally at the Royal Library and at a few other libraries." You can try WP:RX or asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sweden. @Bonadea, perhaps you know something helpful? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:52, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

My edits have all been completely removed bc of a coi(declared)

my edits have all been removed. I think that a complex legal case should show all arguments. I have a declared interest in this case, however it was very one sided before, and so I eventually jumped into the article. No-one had an issue for nearly a month,until this individual who seemed to come from nowhere, and in that time it had been amended, looked at, sources tightened etc. Someone who was not previously involved has just taken it all away, and has now taken complete dominance of the narrative, unchallenged. No real exploration of all sides. I added genuinely verifiable sources including the judges findings and reasoning and the decision-making process of both the defence and judges. Just all removed by one person. I'm really upset by this. I spoke to the person involved in their talk page not the talk page of the case. That was a mistake, maybe they didn't see my explanation? I've since spoken on the article talk page but they are not interested now. They've completely removed all of it, I think that at least some must have merit, but they've chucked the lot, including amended bits by other editors. No-one else thought there was a blp issue with my contributions when they looked at it, and it was looked at by everyone previously involved. I think everyone's given up now, and so this person who disengaged from discussion will now get their way. This doesn't serve Wikipedia, or freedom of information. There was a coi, which was pointed out I then declared, and the person who pointed it out was happy to leave my contributions in place thereafter, because it's all verifiable and true. The other person who was so determined to remove this, has disengaged from the talk page, so I'm not sure what to do. No-one else found any blp prob, and had no issues with my contributions. It's a complex legal case and I think that more information about it the better, in particular the judges findings. I didn't delete anyone's contribution,( even those by a prolific sockpuppet), which bizarrely this person has left. Npov comes from both sides being given. I agree with freedom of information, I think everything should be shown.what should I do. I'm feeling harassed, but better for talking about it. Beautiful Rosie (talk) 08:30, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Beautiful Rosie I looked over the talk page discussion and it was handled appropriately and respectfully. The advice other editors gave you was helpful. Seek to establish consensus and make a {{request edit}} on the talk page if you have specific changes that are compliant with Wikipedia tone. We are seeking a neutral summary of verifiable sources, not neutrality for its own sake. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 09:08, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Just to add to this, the content was not removed solely because of a conflict of interest issue. Please see the talk page discussion for the reasons why your additions were reverted Talk:Murder of Don Banfield#Beautiful Rosie. Thank you. ErraticDrumlin (talk) 09:11, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Request for changes in the page

How can I request for extensive expansion or reorganization of Meena page? -- Karsan Chanda (talk) 10:08, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello @Karsan Chanda, and Welcome to the Teahouse. I would recommend requesting substantial changes to Meena on its talk page using an online edit request. The Edit request wizard will help you do this. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 10:23, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Ok -- Karsan Chanda (talk) 12:43, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

how can my article be approve

please i need contact of a good writer Gkingmusik (talk) 10:54, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello Gkingmusik. Your draft was rejected, which means that it is not a suitable subject for a Wikipedia article, no matter how well written. See WP:PROMO. Also your username is in violation of WP:ORGNAME. Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:26, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

User blocked. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 12:34, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

IP Vandal help

Hi, can someone provide me the forum to report ip vandalism. multiple ip's (ig they belong to a single user) are vandalizing the pages by removing the content unexplained (blanking). see: Category:Assembly constituencies of Andhra Pradesh 456legend(talk) 12:52, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Vandalism reports go to WP:AIV, regardless wether its a registered user or an IP adress, after the editor in question has been sufficiently warned. That being said, the only IP adress in the page history of the linked category hasn't edited since 2014, so the issiue is long stale. Victor Schmidt (talk) 13:08, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Victor Schmidt thank you for guiding me to the reporting page. I didn't mean the ip editor in the history of the category page but the pages in the category. (see the history of the pages in the category and not the page of the category. I hope you understood what I mean here) 456legend(talk) 13:29, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Copying between projects

Hi, can I create an article by copying all the information from another Wikipedia that has the page, then translating it to English ? I'm wondering if it's possible to copy/transfer the whole article to the English Wikipedia. Dancing Dollar ^{(let's talk)} 15:16, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

@Dancing Dollar: Welcome to the Teahouse! The answer is yes - see WP:Translation. However, the translated article still needs to meet the English Wikipedia's criteria for notability. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 15:53, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Adil Qadri

I am writing to request a correction to the article on Adil Qadri. In my previous edit to the article, I mistakenly included some inaccurate information that I would like to correct. BizWriter2023 (talk) 15:29, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

@BizWriter2023: Welcome to the Teahouse! Your edits to the article have been reverted. The article has been nominated for speedy deletion. GoingBatty (talk) 15:51, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

What is the American Declaration for the Rights of Indigenous People In The United States

oas.org Yeamaya9 (talk) 17:13, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

@Yeamaya9 seems like an indigenous rights organization. I have no idea whether it is notable, but if it is then feel free to make an article on it, or a draft if you are unsure Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 19:24, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

This seems like more of a question for WP:REFDESK. Justinwsk (talk) 01:27, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Collaboration?

Hi, is anyone interested in collaborating with me to bring in standardization in the articles listed under this category: Category:Assembly constituencies of Andhra Pradesh WP:TEAMWORK 456legend(talk) 17:32, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

The Teahouse isn’t the best place for this. The Help desk or just asking users on their talk pages may be a better option. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 23:36, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Okay. 456legend(talk) 00:47, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

@456legend: You could also try asking on the talk page(s) of the category's WikiProject(s). Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 04:43, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Okay thank you for the input. 456legend(talk) 04:58, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Where to ask for considering restoring an article deleted for G5 based on a new draft.

Hello,

I am the subject of an article that, after several months of being accepted by a new page reviewer, has been deleted for G5.

I apologize for having created multiple accounts, and behaving as a sockpuppet. I didn't know that creating a new account to propose a draft for inclusion, via article for creation, would have been a problem. I have tried to create a good article that I believe would be a good addition to the encyclopedia, especially in terms of the legacy of the Strasberg Method , Sustainability in the Arts, and Climate Change Theatre.

I believe readers interested in topics, such as Film & Theatre , Climate Change, and Art & Culture would benefit from this article.

I have created another draft avoiding promotional tones to comply with NPOV.

The draft is supported by reliable sources including from Enciclopedia Italiana and I would like to ask if it is possible to share it with the community to consider if it is a good addition to the encyclopedia. Please let me know if that is ok. Thank you for your patience.

Giomoras (talk) 18:43, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

G5 is "Creations by banned or blocked users" As you wrote above, you had created multiple accounts and were blocked, which means one has to conclude that Giomoras is a new account. In order to have the G5 deletion restored, you first have to sucessfully appeal the block to your original account. You also mention that you have created another draft. Has that been submitted? The title? Regardless, until you remedy the block, nothing can happen. David notMD (talk) 19:39, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for your reply. The draft has not been submitted. I wanted to ask for permission first. I could share it if it is ok so other editors can take a look but if I need to remedy the block fist I would try to do that. Shall I ask to be unblocked. Where do I do that  ? Giomoras (talk) 19:56, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Do not share the draft. It's quality and claim for notability are moot until you resolve the original account that was blocked. See Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks. David notMD (talk) 20:06, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Ok. I made a request here . Is it ok ? Giomoras (talk) 20:27, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I'd advise you to stop posting here and log out your new account, you are evading your block simply by asking questions here. MrOllie (talk) 20:32, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

ok Giomoras (talk) 20:33, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

which template to use?

I created this page: Anton Schaaf and I'm trying to get a template, which template should I use? Vamsi20 (talk) 19:17, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I mean like an infobox Vamsi20 (talk) 19:17, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Template:Infobox officeholder seems appropriate. As a general tip: I like looking at comparable pages to get a better idea of how to use an infobox best. So in this case I'd look for a politician who was both an MdB and an MdL at some point in his career. Random person no 362478479 (talk) 20:47, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I just saw he only ran for MdL, he didn't get elected. So you can just take any MdB's page as model. Random person no 362478479 (talk) 20:50, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Tropical Bopha (2006) edit

How to edit teahouse hosts

link → Tropical Bopha (2006)

1. add 10 more ref
2. add 10,000 bytes in history
3. click a Finished drafting? Submit for review!
4. done

112.208.249.82 (talk) 04:01, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! Instead of asking for assistance here, you might be more successful by asking on the talk page(s) of the draft's WikiProject(s). Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 04:46, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

@GoingBatty put Cite journal here https://severeweather.wmo.int/tcc/39th_session/document/creport/Review_of_the_2006_Typhoon_Season(China).doc to make a citation in Visual 112.206.201.247 (talk) 07:02, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Uploading Image of a living person.

Hi

I found an article about a living person that can use his image for better understanding and originality. The person has provided his image for public display on his own private website. Can i source his image from there and use it on wikipedia article?

Do i need a written permission from him for doing so? Jatin1219 (talk) 05:55, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Jatin1219. You must assume that any photo you find on the internet is restricted by copyright laws, unless you find solid evidence to the contrary. Any photo of a living person must be either freely licensed or in the public domain to be used on Wikipediah. Anything you find on Wikimedia Commons is OK to use. Photos taken by employees of the U.S. federal government while performing their job duties are in the public domain. A small percentage of photos on Flickr are freely licenced. The vast majority of other photos of living people are copyright restricted and cannot be used on Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 06:21, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Also be aware that, in most cases, the photographer holds the copyright, not the subject of a portrait, unless there is a written legal agreement reassigning the copyright for money. People are rarely willing to give away for free rights that they paid money for. Cullen328 (talk) 06:24, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

When my new article be available on Google search

I created an article two days ago and it still is not availabe on any google search. I want my new article on google search. Did i do something wrong with my article because it is not showing on google? 59.98.188.235 (talk) 06:06, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Which article are you asking about? We may be able to answer the question then. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 06:22, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Controlling search engine indexing. New articles are not indexed for search engines unless the page has either been reviewed by the Wikipedia:New pages patrol, or 90 days has gone by, whichever comes first. This is a basic quality control measure to prevent complete junk on Wikipedia showing up in Google or Bing searches. Cullen328 (talk) 06:34, 27 March 2023 (UTC)