Wikipedia:Teahouse

Tigraan, 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

How can I retrieve a deleted help message?

I just deleted by mistake someone's message in response to a request for help on a certain topic, and I really want it back. It happened because I didn't realize clicking on a blue circle would delete the message. I wish that had been shown near the blue circle.

I think the person who wrote me some important information was named something like RedRudolph, but I don't know how to see a list of the names of all editors so I could try to contact him or her directly.

The information that editor gave me was in answer to my question as to whether requests for completely replacing an existing article might ever be considered. I remember that editor sent me a link to a help article on this subject with something like "blowing up an article" in its title.?

Augnablik (talk) 22:04, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

@Augnablik: I'm happy to help you, but I need a bit more information. (FYI, the editor you refer to is almost certainly RudolfRed).

• Where did this take place? Like, what page?
• What is the blue button?
• When did this happen? Today, yesterday, earlier? Whatever you did, it will show up in your contributions.

🌺 Cremastra (talk) 22:12, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

@Augnablik: Is Wikipedia:Help desk#Full replacements what you're talking about? RudolfRed is one of the commenters there. Deor (talk) 23:30, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Cremastra and Deor, thank you for replying. My original message was apparently at the Help Desk on the 8th. The blue button seems to have been on an Alert message ... over at the top right of the message. Happy to hear that there is a RudolfRed among the editors, as that should be a very helpful piece of information in tracking him or her down. Augnablik (talk) 02:33, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

@Augnablik: Are you referring to notifications that you can access by clicking at the top of the page? Clicking on the blue dot only marks it as read. You'll still be able to read it. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:04, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

All I know is that it disappeared when I clicked on the blue button. Augnablik (talk) 03:46, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

That happened to me once, but it was for a cross-wiki notification. Have you tried clicking on the "> All notifications" button at the bottom that shows up when you click the bell icon? HansVonStuttgart (talk) 08:18, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Will try. Augnablik (talk) 04:34, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Are such Userpages allowed?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Does User:Praxidicae's userpage violate Userpage Guidlines like "...you should avoid substantial content on your user page that is unrelated to Wikipedia...."? (Note: I don't have any problem with User:Praxidicae and/or Black Lives Matter, but simply confused as User:Praxidicae seems experienced user. Also I am not asking this on their talk page as it may lead to bias.) ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 13:32, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

ExclusiveEditor, this encyclopedia covers the incidents involving the people listed there. In addition, Praxidicae has not edited in six weeks. Cullen328 (talk) 20:10, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

What about my userpage is objectionable to the point it doesn’t warrant a discussion? I am an experienced user, you are correct. And as such, you should probably approach users when you have issues as long as they aren’t egregious (ie. harassment). GRINCHIDICAE🎄 17:47, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

@Praxidicae: There are numerous examples of such user pages on Wikipedia, I took yours just as an example, and treated this question from a general perspective. Although I already mentioned why I tried not to discuss this on your talk page. Regards, ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 14:21, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

@ExclusiveEditor, I think the answer is towards the end of that section:

"The Wikipedia community is generally tolerant and offers fairly wide latitude in applying these guidelines to regular participants. Particularly, community-building activities that are not strictly "on topic" may be allowed, especially when initiated by committed Wikipedians with good edit histories. At their best, such activities help us to build the community, and this helps to build the encyclopedia."

Providing some personal information (e.g., you are busy in real life, you are interested in STEM, you are using Google Chrome) might not be obviously "on topic", but they can be helpful to the community. For example: Don't be surprised if the busy person doesn't reply immediately. You are interested in science, and Praxidicae is interested in Black Lives Matters, so take the science question to you and the BLM question to Praxidicae. You are using Google Chrome, so if you ever report a software problem at the Wikipedia:Help desk or Wikipedia:Village pump (technical), then we won't have to ask you for web browser information. This is ultimately helpful to the community in a way that, say, a fanfic story or an advertisement would not be. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:03, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Teahouse restrictions ?

The Teahouse in action - one lump, or two?

If the Teahouse is mainly for new editors, is there a limit on how long after new editors begin doing things on Wikipedia can they use the Teahouse rather than other ways of getting help? Augnablik (talk) 21:29, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

@Augnablik Nope, you’re always welcome and free to use the Teahouse for as long as you wish. Obviously, were you to ask a really technical question, we might refer you to another forum. But we’re dead friendly here, so it’s the best place to come for help. (We’re even known to serve tea, too) Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:03, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, Nick. I'll assume that if the Teahouse is "dead friendly," the lumps referred to in the the photo are sweet rather than otherwise ... Augnablik (talk) 16:09, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

@Augnablik, one Wiki trick you might like to know as a new(ish) editor is that a lot of the time if you type WP: and then a word that describes what you want into the search bar, you'll be taken to a page that covers that thing. Or if you didn't get the word quite right, there's often links to point you in the right direction! Here's some, for example: WP:CITE; WP:RELIABLE; WP:NOTABLE; and of course the extremely useful WP:TEA!

(I know you've been here for a while, but I only learned the WP: thing recently and it's so useful I wanted to share) StartGrammarTime (talk) 06:52, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, StartGrammarTime. I hadn't heard of that trick. This is the sort of thing that could be helpful if placed in a "Did you know?" box somewhere.

Also thank you for the designation of newish editor, as that sort of fits someone like me who's been connected with Wiki for two years but off and on with activity. Somehow, new editor didn't seem to fit any more, but neither did anything else — certainly not senior editor. Augnablik (talk) 16:19, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

@Augnablik Did You Know... that you can add {{Totd3}} to your userpage and discover all sorts of hints and tips? One per day, in fact! Nick Moyes (talk) 21:27, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

That would be great if I could do it, Nick. Now as a newish editor I have to ask HOW. Augnablik (talk) 01:21, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

@Augnablik That one's easy! Edit your userpage the same way you would an article, and just put the code Nick has given you somewhere - maybe up the top to make it easy to find. I'm going to do the same, actually, so thank you @Nick. StartGrammarTime (talk) 03:18, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

@Augnablik Looks like you've sorted it - well done! Nick Moyes (talk) 09:26, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Christian persecution complex page and edits anti-Christian

Take it to the articles' talkpage please, or don't. Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:08, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
How many Christian church and school shootings will it take to remove or edit the page: Christian persecution complex - Wikipedia? It should instead be edited to something similar to: Holocaust denial - Wikipedia article. 2601:1C2:4C00:F7E0:E15D:36F:2FE9:E905 (talk) 04:42, 13 February 2024 (UTC) I love Wikipedia, ascribing to and perpetuating the "Christian persecution complex" belief is a clear situation of gaslighting. 2601:1C2:4C00:F7E0:E15D:36F:2FE9:E905 (talk) 04:52, 13 February 2024 (UTC) however I love Wikipedia; however, ascribing to and perpetuating the "Christian persecution complex" belief is a clear situation of gaslighting. 2601:1C2:4C00:F7E0:E15D:36F:2FE9:E905 (talk) 05:20, 13 February 2024 (UTC) This sounds very similar to a recent disruptive account... EvergreenFir (talk) 05:25, 13 February 2024 (UTC) It's not, I'm not affiliated with any group or previous posts. I'm just someone genuinely concerned about this page, I've never felt compelled to edit a Wikipage before, but this page is promoting a wrong view of Western Christians. I tried to edit and was told it wasn't "constructive." 2601:1C2:4C00:F7E0:E15D:36F:2FE9:E905 (talk) 06:27, 13 February 2024 (UTC) Another page to consider formatting after: Napoleon complex - Wikipedia which characterizes the complex as a "purported condition" and "derogatory social stereotype," which I believe the "Christian persecution complex" is. If people in Christian schools and churches are being shot in the West, it's not "just in their heads," saying it is, is cruel, untrue, negligent and dismissive, a.k.a. "gaslighting." 2601:1C2:4C00:F7E0:E15D:36F:2FE9:E905 (talk) 06:40, 13 February 2024 (UTC) Something may be "a clear situation" to you, but not to other people. To demonstrate that it's a clear situation to most, perhaps all people, you need to produce one or more reliable sources that say so. When you caused the article Christian persecution complex to start by saying that the complex "is an anti-Christian gaslighting belief about Christians", you failed to provide a reliable source (or indeed any source) for the assertion. -- Hoary (talk) 09:18, 13 February 2024 (UTC) Links: Christian persecution complex, Napoleon complex.   Maproom (talk) 09:32, 13 February 2024 (UTC) I'm new to editing Wikipedia. I'm curious if the editors/authors of the Napolean Complex asked for a source to denounce the idea that short statured people have a certain temperament. The post is anti-Christian, if there are people who have a Napolean Complex and there are people who a Christian Persecution Complex, great, but these pages shouldn't be written in a way that says all Christians or short people are "this way" and in fact these ideas about short people and Christians are derogatory. The Napolean Complex page is generous and fair to make the distinction, I ask the Christian Persecution Complex page does too. I'm sorry I didn't edit it to the Wikipedia standards, but please have someone edit it. Here are a few documented examples of Christian gun violence in America, to quell the disbelief in Anti-Christian violence: Recent Sunday, February 11, 2024 Lakewood Church in Texas was targeted with gun violence. March 27, 2023 a Christian school was targeted with gun violence, it's documented in the 2023 Nashville school shooting - Wikipedia page 1980-2018 HOUSE OF WORSHIP SHOOTING VICTIMS, source: VOA Special Report | History of mass shooters | House of Worship shootings (voanews.com) ◾ JUNE 22, 1980 Gene Gandy (50 years old) • Mary Regina “Gina” Linam (7) • James Y. “Red” McDaniel (53) • Thelma Richardson (78) • Kenneth Truitt (49) ◾ MARCH 10, 1999 Vaniaro Jackson (19) • Carla Miller (25) • Shon Miller Jr. (2) • Mildred Vessel (53) ◾ SEPT. 15, 1999 Kristi Kathleen Beckel (14) • Shawn Brown (23) • Sydney Rochelle Browning (36) • Joseph Daniel “Joey” Ennis (14) • Cassandra Fawn Griffin (14) • Susan Kimberly “Kim” Jones (23) • Justin Michael Stegner Ray (17) ◾ MARCH 12, 2005 Gloria Sue Critari (55) • Harold Diekmeier (74) • James Isaac Gregory (16) • Randy Lynn Gregory (51) • Gerald Anthony Miller (44) • Bart J. Oliver (15) • Richard Reeves (58) ◾ AUG. 28, 2005 James Wayne Armstrong (42) • Ernest Wesley Brown (61) • Holly Ann Love Brown (50) • Ceri Litterio (46) ◾ MAY 21, 2006 Erica Bell (24) • Gloria Howard (72) • Leonard Howard (78) • Doloris McGrew (67) • Darlene Mills Selvage (47) ◾ DEC. 9, 2007 Philip Crouse (22) • Tiffany Johnson (25) • Rachel Elizabeth Works (16) • Stephanie Pauline Works (18) ◾ AUG. 5, 2012 Satwant Singh Kaleka (65) • Paramjit Kaur (41) • Prakash Singh (39) • Ranjit Singh (49) • Sita Singh (41) • Suveg Singh (84) ◾ JUNE 17, 2015 Sharonda Coleman-Singleton (45) • Depayne Middleton-Doctor (49) • Cynthia Hurd (54) • Susie Jackson (87) • Ethel Lance (70) • Clementa Carlos Pinckney (41) • Tywanza Sanders (26) • Daniel Lee Simmons Sr. (74) • Myra Thompson (59) ◾ NOV. 5, 2017 Keith Allen Braden (62) • Robert Corrigan (51) • Shani Corrigan (51) • Bryan Holcombe (60) • Crystal Marie Holcombe (36) • Emily Rose Hill (11) • Gregory Lynn Hill (13) • Karla Plain Holcombe (58) • Marc Daniel “Danny” Holcombe (36) • Megan Gail Hill (9) • Noah Grace Holcombe (1) • Dennis Johnson (77) • Sara Johnson (68) • Annabelle Renae Pomeroy (14) • Haley Krueger (16) • Karen Sue Marshall (56) • Robert Scott Marshall (56) • Tara E. McNulty (33) • Ricardo Cardona Rodriguez (64) • Therese Sagan Rodriguez (66) • Joann Lookingbill Ward (30) • Brooke Ward (5) • Emily Garcia (7) • Peggy Lynn Warden (56) • Lula Woicinski White (71) ◾ OCT. 27, 2018 Joyce Fienberg (75) • Richard Gottfired (65) • Rose Mallinger (97) • Jerry Rabinowitz (66) • Cecil Rosenthal (59) • David Rosenthal (54) • Bernice Simon (84) • Sylvan Simon (86) • Daniel Stein (71) • Melvin Wax (88) • Irving Younger (69) 2601:1C2:4C00:F7E0:E15D:36F:2FE9:E905 (talk) 06:53, 14 February 2024 (UTC) Additionally, it's probably more accurate to edit the page "2023 Nashville school shooting" to "2023 Nashville Christian school shooting." Not including "Christian" is misleading and makes it sound like it was a state/county/city district school with government funding and erodes the identity of those who perished and the reality of the Anti-Christian violent crime. 2601:1C2:4C00:F7E0:E15D:36F:2FE9:E905 (talk) 07:03, 14 February 2024 (UTC) I would edit it, but it says: This page is currently semi-protected so that only established, registered users can edit it. I'm not a registered user. 2601:1C2:4C00:F7E0:E15D:36F:2FE9:E905 (talk) 07:05, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

i work for the marketing team of a temple

Why is it a conflict or interest if I edit the wiki page with the history of the temple. where do i have to update this detail?

Snehajanfy (talk) 12:34, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

@Snehajanfy It is difficult for employees of an institution to make updates based on already-published sources (not personal knowledge) as is required by Wikipedia policy WP:NOR. Also, you may not write neutrally. So, please read WP:PAID and make the mandatory declaration of your status as a paid editor. Then make suggestions for addition to the article on its Talk Page, not directly. If you use the edit request wizard, your suggestions should be implemented by uninvolved editors quite quickly, or they will explain why the new content is not appropriate. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:53, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Note that it is acceptable for paid editors to create draft articles using the WP:AfC process. Hence you may continue to edit Draft:Peringottukara Devasthanam directly but still need to make the paid editor declaration. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:57, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

How exactly do i do this?

But where to add this on the article page?

{{paid|employer=name of employer|client=name of client}} Peringottukara Devasthanam Temple (talk) 13:07, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

You will need to add that to your user page(User:Peringottukara Devasthanam Temple), you will also need to change your username so that it represents you personally, not your temple(your real name is not required, just something representing you). I have placed instructions to do this on your user talk page. 331dot (talk) 13:14, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I have used my personal account to make edits, added the paid claim to my user page as well. what else can i do to get this approved? please help Snehajanfy (talk) 17:46, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Snehajanfy, please be aware that marketing behavior is strictly forbidden on Wikipedia, as are all related behaviors such as advertising, promotion and public relations. This is a neutral encyclopedia. Conduct yourself accordingly. Cullen328 (talk) 20:03, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Ofcourse I understand this. I have in no way tried to claim or promote anything about my client. All we want is a valid Wikipedia page for the temple. It because of this specific reason why wiki page is so important for any institution to have. I'm sorry if I may have offended anyone by using the term marketing 2001:8F8:1F3F:33E:559B:E09D:5682:ED1 (talk) 20:23, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

There is no guarantee, after doing everything correctly, that the article will be approved for mainspace. The same guidelines and policies apply as it would with any other article with regard to notability and citing reliable sources. --ARoseWolf 20:16, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I have tried to use as many reliable sources as possible. I have over 30 pr links. I'm just not sure as tow here to use them to prove our credibility. Also how do we prove notability? 2001:8F8:1F3F:33E:559B:E09D:5682:ED1 (talk) 20:26, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Simply put, you really shouldn't use those as they're not independent nor reliable to establish wikinotability, which would require quality sources that aren't affiliated with the temple. Please remember to sign in when making comments. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:38, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

• Note: As a courtesy I fixed the template on Snehajanfy's user page. --ARoseWolf 20:12, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  truly appreciate it. I'm still wondering how you fixed it. Kindly pardon my unawareness 2001:8F8:1F3F:33E:559B:E09D:5682:ED1 (talk) 20:27, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Please log in to edit. I have reviewed and declined the draft. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:07, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

HI, I am trying to resubmit my draft again. However I see AFC submission and missing template. Im unable to understad how to proceed. Kindly help Snehajanfy (talk) 17:52, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @Snehajanfy. Generally speaking, a Wikipedia article about a temple needs to focus more on facts like "It is the country's biggest and most ancient Vishnumaya temple, with a tradition of nearly 400 years" and less on the birth of divine beings. Can you find independent sources (e.g., a newspaper article, a tourist guide book, a scholarly work?) that describe the physical building and its construction? Is there anything unusual about its appearance, or are there any activities (e.g., an annual festival) that have attracted attention from people unrelated to it?

Also, searching for "Vishnumaya Kuttichathan Swami", I found Kuttichathan (disambiguation) and Kanadikavu Shree Vishnumaya Kuttichathan Swamy temple. It's possible that the birth story would be better off as a separate article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:27, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

If I made claims of it being the biggest and the oldest, it deviated from being neutral and sounded like puffery. Hence avoided it. I will definitely try and find some material about the structure of the temple and it's architectural significance. Snehajanfy (talk) 18:47, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I have now added birth story as a separate page. Hopefully that gets approved Snehajanfy (talk) 06:32, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Been called out on incidents.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:GabrielPenn4223 I have been discouraged by negative feedbacks, I did mistakes. Do you know any way to get me to improve and have less chance of being blocked? Maybe stop nominating for redirects and deletions? GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 13:31, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

As straightforward as I can say it: WP:AGF. You start a lot of your more questionable messages with "Can you explain why you..." That is a fairly aggressive way to ask a question. Despite the fact that I doubt you intended this, it sounds accusatory and personal. Also doesn't help when you say that about an edit/nomination someone did six years ago.

Also, you do nominate things fairly erroneously. Your GA, move, AfD, etc. nominations have rarely been informed decisions. Take time to familiarize yourself with the subject, the topic, and (most importantly) what actually qualifies something for these nominations.

In all, it's clear under scrutiny that you aren't trying to be disruptive or aggressive. But, I'd recommend reading the rules regarding any kind of nomination before proposing it. i.e. GA nomination requirements or notability requirements.

Don't let this discourage you from contributing though! Learn through this experience and use it to make you the best Wikipedian you can be! Dionysius Miller^talk 13:59, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Maybe stop making moves, AfDs, RfDs, etc. until I start to clearly understand what these are? GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 14:06, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Or I can read the rules first before clearly nominating and post a topic on their related discussion page? GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 14:09, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't want to be blocked again. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 14:19, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Given the high annoyance level of your more than 500 edits, yes, no more GA nominations (you already stopped), no AfDs, no RfDs, no more sprinkling "We Are Not Perfect" on other editors' Talk pages, and delete your self-serving 'essay'. And no more AfCs. Focus on improving existing articles. David notMD (talk) 14:22, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Alright, I will stop doing all of these until A. I have clearly understood and read all of these rules. I have already made a proper article or redirect. I have made constructive edits for atleast 90 days GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 14:29, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I have already added a source to the Toys R Us article of the opening of a specific store at an airport, it's a news source. Reliable? GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 14:40, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Generally speaking, not doing a thing until you have a complete understanding of it and the rules around it is a good idea, on Wikipedia and just about everywhere else (other than paying taxes). Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:43, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Also since users are supporting a CIR block, is it a good idea also to improve articles with constructive contributions and copyediting? GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 14:46, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

The GP4223 editing process: 1) do things 2) only then think about whether they were a good idea, 3) learn they were not, in fact, good ideas, 4) run away yelling "we are not perfect" and leave others to clean up 5) repeat in as many processes as possible ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:53, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

How I should actually be doing before learning a new thing:

1. Read the rules

2. Understand it

3. Clearly look into something

4. Not yell away "WE are not perfect!!!"

5. Clean up yourself

6. Once understood, do it! GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 14:55, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

The OP has been blocked indefinitely. Maproom (talk) 18:37, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Edit request for page

Request to edit semi-protected page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bubonic_plague&action=edit&section=6 with https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/feb/13/oregon-resident-caught-bubonic-plague-pet-cat in epidemiology Weavingowl (talk) 14:36, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

@Weavingowl: You should place your request on the talk page of that article, and add the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. RudolfRed (talk) 15:52, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

added the topic there though not sure i added the {{{ part correctly Talk:Bubonic plague#Request to edit page to add this Weavingowl (talk) 16:07, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

@Weavingowl: I fixed the request template, but you need to be more specific about what you are asking for. Go back to the talk page and format your request as "change X to Y" RudolfRed (talk) 19:59, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

It looks like the edit request has been marked as not done and removed from talk, saying I should use Wikipedia request page instead. Weavingowl (talk) 20:15, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Why are some date-times in my contributions crossed out?

So I was looking through my contributions and I saw that a few date-times of some of my edits were gray and crossed out, and aren't links. Can someone explain what this means? (All of them were edits to my user page or subpages, but not all edits to those pages had crossed-out date-times, so I don't really know what's going on here.) TypoEater (talk) 16:17, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi, TypoEater! That means those versions of the page were revision-deleted; that is, removed from the public archive and made so that only admins can see them. There are various reasons why a page revision might be revision-deleted, from exposing personally-identifiable information to copyright violations; you can read more here: WP:REVDEL. In your specific case, I'm guessing you're talking about your edits to User:TypoEater/Sandbox_highlights; as you can see in the deletion log for that page, the revisions were deleted for serious BLP violations. Please be sure not to make or copy similar edits, about any subject, again in the future. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:21, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Still pretty confused as that page is simply a place for me to put funny stuff people add to the Sandbox (It's only in my userspace since I proposed to add a page for that to Wikipedia:Department of Fun but they haven't replied yet) and nothing in those edits pertained to biographies of living persons in any way, as far as I know. TypoEater (talk) 16:44, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

@TypoEater: You posted some disparaging text about a potentially real and identifiable (the school she attends was mentioned) girl named Sophia. It was reverted with the edit summary "please don't copy stuff like this", and the versions containing it were revdeled. Deor (talk) 16:56, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Oh OK, I will refrain from adding entries like that. I just assumed it was nonsense. TypoEater (talk) 20:33, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

How do I do visual editing in my sandbox?

Hi I'm working on something in my sandbox, and I can't see how to get visual editing... I've looked at the help page, but my sandbox page doesn't have the visual editing option - what am I doing wrong?! Also, I can't get the citations tab to work so I can populate a citation template... again, help please! My sandbox page is here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ruthhenrietta/sandbox&action=edit Ruthhenrietta (talk) 16:22, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

it's because that's the sandbox's talk page. you can't normally edit talk pages with the visual editor without some minor jank (changing the &action=edit to &veaction=edit, like so)

on that topic, why is the sandbox itself a redirect anyway? that only makes the editing process slightly harder cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 16:41, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

sorry, I don't really understand your reply.... I'm a real novice, so need things explaining in more detail and not in wiki language! Ruthhenrietta (talk) 17:31, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

basically

• sandbox: can be edited with the visual editor without changing the url. you seem to have accidentally made yours a redirect to the article you're working on
• sandbox's talk page: can't be edited with the visual editor normally and lacks a dedicated citation button, as it's normally meant to be used to discuss whatever is in the sandbox. you seem to have accidentally written there instead of in the sandbox

in any case, i transferred the contents of the talk page to the sandbox, so you can go there to edit now cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 18:06, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much for transferring it... much appreciated... will crack on!! Ruthhenrietta (talk) 19:04, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

@Cogsan It's a minor point I'd like to pick you up on, but you are incorrect in stating that there is no dedicated Cite button available whilst editing a talk page with Source Editor. It very definitely is there, and often comes in most handy when discussing sources to put into an article. To avoid all those references appearing at the bottom of a talk page (rather than at the bottom of the particular individual thread, you can use the {{reflist-talk}} template with it. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:17, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

i meant in talk pages. not the source editor

can understand the mistake though cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 11:00, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

oh, wait

my reading comprehensions skills took a nose dive while i was typing that last reply, wow

the cite and template buttons are unavailable when using the comment function (which is what i'll assume was happening, since ruth mentioned the lack of the citation function), not editing the talk page with either editor

my bad cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 11:48, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I need Video.

I am new here. And a student. So many things are new to me. I need help and complete videos to understand Wikipedia. So that I can do well here.

Zeeshan Ali Zeeshan Adeeb (talk) 16:55, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

@Zeeshan Adeeb: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a video site. You have a welcome message on your user talk page, and it includes some prominent links to click on, to help you get started so you can do well here. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:08, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

a good place to start is WP:getting started.

its a good bit of reading, but im sure theres videos somewhere on there Natelabs (talk) 17:09, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Dear I submitted my first article in Wikipedia with carefully write but Wikipedia not except.

please tell me the write way to write and submit. Zeeshan Adeeb (talk) 17:15, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

@Zeeshan Adeeb: Regarding Draft:Azad Mehdi, if you don't want to follow the advice you have already been given, what do you expect?

You were given links to information that would help.

You were given these links in the welcome message on your talk page, and also further links in the message that declined your draft. I'll give you one more, simple and easy to read: Wikipedia:Golden rule. Your draft completely failed to abide by it.

Your usage of English, as demonstrated by the first sentence in your reply, needs work, and giving you English lessons is out of scope here. You need to learn that on your own. Writing drafts is good practice, however. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:23, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Zeeshan Adeeb. There are some instructional videos linked from WP:Instructional material. ColinFine (talk) 17:54, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

a good possibility is that your english is faulty.

enwiki doesnt really like bad grammar that much, and will remark on it if your grammar is particularly unusual.

you might have a better chance going to the wikipedia of your native language, as most people are better writers in their first language Natelabs (talk) 21:37, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

@Zeeshan Adeeb Some listed here: Wikipedia:Instructional material Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:59, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

For an article about a living person, ALL CONTENT requires references. See WP:42 to understand references. If Mehdi has not been written about then there is no potential for your draft to become an article. David notMD (talk) 17:49, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

What "counts" as a Wiki edit

— After editing awhile as a brand new editor, I began to realize that edits that I'd spent, say, 20 minutes doing counted the same as edits I'd spent only 3 minutes doing. It struck me that if I wanted to quickly amass a lot of edits, and thus be rewarded with accolades for reaching a certain level or edits like my 100th or 1,000th, the way to go for a point-greedy editor would be to make only a few edits, stop and post, rinse and repeat. Somehow, that seemed a little unfair. I was wondering if this discussion has ever come up in Wiki editordom.

— Are our Teahouse questions and replies counted as edits? Augnablik (talk) 17:24, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Augnablik! The answer is: it depends on the context. The software considers any change to any page on the project, article space, project space (like the Teahouse), or otherwise, as an edit, so from that purely technical perspective, yes, they all count.

But if you're talking social capital, then maybe not. There are no real awards for edit count per se, so the value of the award, and thus of each individual edit, is only whatever value you decide it has. For that very reason, there are also no designated minimum edit counts for things like running for adminship, because such requirements would be easy to game. So, from that perspective, no, they might not count, or at least not as much.

Finally, let me just say: I would try to avoid thinking of your edit count as your point total. Such point-scoring is a common attitude for people new to Wikipedia to have, but Wikipedia is not an MMORPG, and many people will look askance at a user who treats it as one. We are here to build an encyclopedia, no more and no less. :) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:33, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an MMORPG lied to me! 57.140.16.1 (talk) 17:53, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

There are service awards (see Wikipedia:Service awards) you can put on your User page for milestones of number of edits and how long have had an account. These are self-rewarded. In the intro there: "Please remember that neither the number of edits nor the length of time from when an account was created is a good indicator of the quality of an editor's contributions or diplomatic ability. Hence, service awards do not indicate any level of authority whatsoever; "master" editors are not bestowed with more authority through this award than "novice" editors." David notMD (talk) 17:54, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Sort of like Scout badges, then, although self-awarded.

I can just picture Wiki editors creating badge sashes to display these awards. ;) Augnablik (talk) 01:33, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, David notMD and Writ Keeper. And now, for the first time in the Teahouse, I find myself in the delightful position of being able to add something useful to a replier's valuable insights. I just came across a Wiki essay entitled Editcountitis Wikipedia:Editcountitis, a hilarious "medical description" of the affliction of obsessive interest in augmenting edit tallies. It was 100% serendipitous, this find.

The problem that I see for Wiki editors in reading Editcountitis, however, is that it could make those with weak immune systems collapse in laughter, thus bringing about another serious medical issue perhaps even requiring admission to the ICU. Augnablik (talk) 02:00, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Refs to reliable sources online - does it matter where hosted?

I'm looking at Andrew Malcolm (author), where a number of the references - 20+ - are to documents uploaded to a website belonging to the subject of the article. Most are images or text of articles that are from reliable, independent sources; this article from Private Eye, for instance. A few are to primary sources Malcolm has uploaded, such as this letter. What's the policy on this? I'm assuming any primary sources should come out, but is it ok to leave the links to akmedea for the remaining references? For Private Eye, which is still largely print I think, the alternative would be to give the date, title, author only, as with any print ref I guess. I have tagged the article with SPS, but technically these are self-hosted rather than self-published. Thanks, Tacyarg (talk) 18:12, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Tacyarg. The point of a citation is to allow a reader to determine the origin and likely reliability of a source, so it should always contain as many as possible of author, title, date, where it was published (what journal, magazine etc). If there is a legal copy online, then it is helpful to readers to link to it, but that is not a requirement.

When linking to an online copy, the preference is, of course to a copy posted by the original publisher. If that is not available, then there are two questions that must be considered. The first is copyright: did whoever posted the material online have permission to do so? If not, or if it is in doubt, do not link to it: as a matter of policy, Wikipedia articles do not link to copyright violations. (Note that copies posted on the subject's site may or may not have permission: unless it somewhere states that they have, I would suggest erring on the side of caution).

The second point is of reliability. Has the material been posted by a reliable source, or by some random person? Of course, if it is a screenshot of the original publication, it probably hasn't been altered (though may very well be a copyright infringement). But if it is the text of an article, say, how confident can you be that it is a faithful copy? ColinFine (talk) 18:59, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Crossed in the post with ColinFine: Yes, it does matter, depending on the situation. We should not link to sites that violate copyright, hosting material whose copyright they do not own (see WP:COPYVIOEL), so with something like a Private Eye article you'd need to be sure akmedea are all above board. No matter where hosted, letters and accounts of legal proceedings are primary, and don't really belong in an article like that unless some secondary source has commented on them. If he wrote a letter to OUP, for a WP article I want a newspaper telling me about it. And the least of all the problems, in the interests of neutrality, I think it's best to use reasonably neutral sources where possible. Elemimele (talk) 19:01, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, both, this is helpful. Tacyarg (talk) 08:54, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Drama

Hi. Is there any wikidrama to take part in? I promise I will be a legitimate party, and I also do useful contributions to Wp. But just pls give me some drama. Sockpuppet investigation? ANI? Edit war? Anything will do really. Thanks. Encyclopédisme (talk) 19:25, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Encyclopédisme I'd strongly advise against going looking for drama. It'll likely only serve to make you more disgruntled with the project, increase tensions, and possibly cause you to be blocked if your comments don't help enough. Unlike social media websites, Wikipedia is a collaborative project and drama is generally bad, not good. Sincerely, Novo Tape^{My Talk Page} 19:33, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes. I can reassure you tho, I am happy to contribute positively to content dispute resolution. I actually contribute to the mainspace as well. Its really just that I want to take part, neutrally, in various inside discussions. Im far from the only one often seen on dispute resolution (or actually Im not seen there, but Id like to be). Cheers. Encyclopédisme (talk) 19:43, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

doesn't the act of going there specifically for the drama kind of ruin that? cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 19:46, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Encyclopédisme, it would be a big mistake for an editor with barely six weeks of service and 177 edits to seek out drama. Those who do usually make things worse and often end up blocked. Cullen328 (talk) 19:50, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I edit under ip longer tho, and I principally work on fr.wiki. Encyclopédisme (talk) 19:55, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Though I get it, you wont give me current discussions. No worries, il be just as happy watching drama. Cheers. Encyclopédisme (talk) 19:56, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

@Encyclopédisme: I agree with Cullen. On your username, you have lines in Wikipedia, there is no property, there is only knowledge. The goal of Wikipedia is to sum up human knowledge, drama is in none of the goals of Wikipedia. Your comments similar from this thread can be seen as trolling, or return of some previously blocked editor. I strongly recommend you to concentrate on content building, and the related activities of there-of. —usernamekiran (talk) 19:59, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Be careful what you wish for; you just might get it. One who seeks drama will usually find themselves in it. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:02, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes alright alright. My comments off of the Teahouse are all legitimate. Cheers. Encyclopédisme (talk) 20:10, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

@Encyclopédisme: If you really want to know, the drama page is WP:CESSPIT, more commonly known as WP:ANI. Another place with somewhat less drama is WP:AE. I advise against diving in there unless you really know what you're doing and are intimately familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:40, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Uploading files for citations

Do we have a guideline for best practices on uploading a file and then citing it as a source? In this instance there's a reliable website with demographics information, but the site is set up to just produce reports using javascript and then allow you to download them, so it's not possible to link to any individual report. I know for files used as the primary image for an article we have the Upload Wizard and Commons, but do we also use those for citations, or is there something better?  -- Fyrael (talk) 19:28, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Fyrael, and welcome to the Teahouse. To a considerable degree, my answer to #Refs to reliable sources online - does it matter where hosted? above will apply. On the whole, I would advise against doing this. ColinFine (talk) 19:44, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, ColinFine. Yeah, I saw that discussion and it bears a little resemblance, though in this case I would be the uploader and at least for my own part would obviously be confident that I didn't modify it. Sounds like the best option is to just cite the website of the org producing the report and just not include a link, as we frequently do with print sources. The link would've just been to save someone a few steps if they were trying to validate the information, but they'll have to make do. -- Fyrael (talk) 20:54, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you being confident that you didn't modify it wouldn't help, just as we don't accept personal recollections or knowledge: everything in an article should be verifiable from a reliable published source. I think there is a field in the Cite templates where you could give the reader instructions how to find the right information. ColinFine (talk) 22:11, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

link help

What is the difference between an external link vs a redirect link? Jude Marrero \=D (talk) 20:30, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I believe the difference is that an external link will lead you to a website outside of Wikipedia and a redirect link will take you to a different article within Wikipedia than the one you looked up/clicked on a link for. Tuna^VeniVidi_Vici 20:32, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

an external link is a link that will send you to a website outside of wikipedia (like a YT video), while a redirect link will send you to a wikipedia article that is different then the one you clicked on. Babysharkboss2!! ^{Killer Queen} 20:37, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Thinking about reworking "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_of_self-driving_cars"

Yeah, that. Any thoughts or ideas? Right now it seems like a mess of unorganized information that's biased, and I want to shorten parts of it and make it much clearer that many of the proposed benefits are stated as facts.

I think most of this hasn't been touched since 2021. I'm definitely a bit skeptical of self-driving cars, but I think I could do something that is at least NPOV and clearer. homo momo (talk) 21:06, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

... amazingly, the first section about the automobile industry doesn't even talk about self-driving cars at all. Need somewhere to rant haha homo momo (talk) 21:07, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

the beginning paragraph is a sort of introduction. itd be weird to start a story without the exposition (unless you can do it correctly) Natelabs (talk) 21:19, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

@Sawerchessread: The first thing to do is give it a WP:NPOV title, such as "Effect of self-driving cars", rather than the current pejorative "Impact...".

Incidentally, you must change your signature as it contravenes WP:CUSTOMSIG/P. Bazza (talk) 10:52, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

How to update/edit an existing Wikipedia page

I recently got editing rights. However, have no clue how to begin. I want to add additional drag queen names to this page: Category:Swedish drag queens. However, unclear when clicking on Edit how to add additional information. Thanks,

Wallaby5312 (talk) 22:46, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

You don't, you'd use a tool like HotCat to add a category to an existing page, such as RuPaul. All of the necessary instructions for HotCat will be on that page to help you with it. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 22:50, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Wallaby5312 the page you just linked is a category page. See Help:Category for guidance on how to add categories.

If you don't know where to contribute, you can always go to your newcomer homepage which can suggest edits to you. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 22:52, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Going about splitting a page for the first time

The page The Zircons came up in my newcomer feed, and i believe it should be split due to it being about 2 seemingly unrelated groups. Assuming either of these groups are notable enough, how would i go about trying to split for the first time? Powder9157 (talk) 23:08, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

@Powder9157 You'll have seen that I've left you a comment on the talk page, agreeing with the need to split the two articles. My approach would be to keep the article about The Zircons with just the relevant content about that one group, then copy over the text relating to The Zirkons to Draft:The Zirkons. (You should make that copy/paste edit by giving appropriate attribution to the authors who wrote it i.e. by simply pointing to the source article url in an Edit Summary)

I'd work to find more sources for both bands as, TBH, I really don't feel either of them look like they would meet our WP:NMUSIC notability criteria. Many very old articles were not so rigorously assessed as they are today for notability. Only when you do find the source for The Zirkons should you then move it into the main part of the criteria. Doing so too soon would render it liable to a deletion discussion.

Once both articles are in mainspace, you shopuld consider a WP:HATNOTE on each of them, pointing to the different group with different spelling. The relevant section within the Hatnote page can be found with this shortcut: WP:SIMILAR. Hope this helps, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:34, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply but i've been looking for sources and i can't find a single one. The only sources in the article are discogs and apple music, and the other two are completely unrelated. Likely doesn't meet notability Powder9157 (talk) 03:19, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Manuelle Oudar

Hi, This person was appointed to the Senate of Canada today. Definitely should be included in wikipedia (even before Senate appointment) and trying to create the page. Lots of biographical info and details at these links but I might not have cited correctly? Not sure how to do that.

https://www.pm.gc.ca/en/news/backgrounders/2024/02/13/manuelle-oudar

https://www.pm.gc.ca/en/news/news-releases/2024/02/13/prime-minister-announces-appointment-senator

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-announces-new-senator-manuelle-oudar-1.7113795 Canadianpoliticaljunkie (talk) 00:04, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Name should also be added to the chart on this page, but I am afraid to mess up the formatting: List of current senators of Canada — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadianpoliticaljunkie (talk • contribs) 00:11, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

@Canadianpoliticaljunkie: Draft:Manuelle Oudar was declined because it lacks inline citations. See WP:CITE for guidance. Summarize what the sources say and cite the sentences you write. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:13, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Is this sufficient for Wikimedia Picture posting

I believe WP:TH also handles Wikimedia questions. The Ellis Island Foundation (https:/www.www.statueofliberty.org) is part of the Nat'l Park Service. The US Gov't usually does not copyright their materials. The Foundation has a photograph of a Russian Volunteer Force (RVF) vessel that I would like to add to the RVF article. I was able to receive the following statement from the Foundation: "Hello again, The images of the passenger lists are not subject to copyright as they are documents produced by the US government for the purposes of immigration. Best, Donor Relations" Needless to say when dealing with the Federal Government it is virtually impossible to get the exact name of the person who inquiries should be referred to. Is the enough sufficient to allow the photo to be posted on Wikimedia? Thanks. Oldsilenus (talk) 00:21, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Oldsilenus most likely yes, though you may want to check at the Wikimedia Commons help desk. (The Teahouse is for using or editing Wikipedia). Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 01:41, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Sorry, I thought the last time that I asked them a question the response came from WP:TH. Another benefit of asking was that I found that a VPN I thought was removed was still present! Oldsilenus (talk) 14:54, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Why exactly does the visual editor not work on non-article pages?

Title Eightos (talk) 00:26, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

@Eightos, could you specify what pages you are referring to? CanonNi (talk) 03:38, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Eightos, the answer is that the developers who work for the Wikimedia Foundation have not yet successfully implemented that functionality, despite years of effort and countless dollars spent. Some might say wasted. I suggest that you consider using the fully functional source editor instead, which works perfectly everywhere on Wikipedia. Many people see it as "old fashioned" even though it works smoothly and has been instrumental in creating the #7 website in the world. I am no code monkey or computer geek, but still found it very easy to learn. Take a look at WP:CHEATSHEET. This is neither brain surgery nor rocket science. Any smart, focused person can learn the basics in half an hour or less. Cullen328 (talk) 09:44, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Cullen328 Sorry, I wasn't trying to attack the WMF for not implementing it. Sorry if I sounded rude or anything. Eightos (talk) 12:37, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

No worries, @Eightos. You didn't do anything wrong. Did the visual editor just disappear from articles? It's always available on all articles, but sometimes it gets 'hidden' behind a second button.

Looking at your contributions, I think you might have a preferences setting for "Remember my last editor". That means that if you start in the visual editor, it keeps going in that editing environment, until you switch to a wikitext editor (e.g., by Undoing an edit). Then it keeps going in that editing environment until you switch back.

Unfortunately, if you don't remember the one-time message about how to switch back, you might get "stuck" in the old wikitext editor. If it feels like the visual editor has disappeared from the articles, then please go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing-editor and look for a drop-down menu that says "Editing mode". I suspect that says "Remember my last". Set that to whatever you want. For example, I have it set to "Show me both editor tabs" (I get separate buttons for the visual editor and a wikitext editor), and a lot of newer editors prefer "Always give me the visual editor if possible". You should pick what you want.

If you don't want to change your preferences and just want to switch back, then here's how to do it:

1. Open the wikitext editor (in case you ever need to know, you're using one called the '2010 wikitext editor', which is also called 'WikiEditor'; you can see screenshots of many options at mw:Editor). You can do this on any article, even one you don't intend to edit.
2. Look all the way at the far end of the editor's toolbar, in the top corner, for a pencil icon. Click that, and choose "Visual editing".
3. It will switch you to the visual editor. Then you can close the tab. (You don't have to publish an edit for it to remember that you used the visual editor most recently.)

There's a matching button in the visual editor's toolbar to switch back to your wikitext editor. Sometimes people switch multiple times during a single edit. Good luck, WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:48, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

How to deal with Mobile edits from non-accounts just IP addresses

There are multiple edits made on topics referring to early Mongolian cultures, often times they refer to the same “Ashina” story, which I’ve recently learned is some Turkish nationalist rhetoric. I have done academic research of these anthropological culture that I am referring to and there is no connection at all between these cultures and the “Ashina”. Many times these edits are referring to a hypothetical language that cultures spoke, but there is zero evidence of their language in any capacity, but these IP addresses keep changing my edits. How to keep fake information off of the pages I am editing? Fact Check Mongol (talk) 00:50, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Fact Check Mongol the discussion process for IP addresses is the same as any other user. Calling it 'fake information' wouldn't be very constructive in such a discussion. In any case, you should read WP:BRD. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 01:39, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Fact Check Mongol, Wikipedia articles need to summarize what reliable published sources say. I have no expertise or even familiarity with the topic area, but I do see that the article Ashina tribe includes quite a few references to sources, that on first glance, appear to be reliable, academic sources. As a general principle, if content is added without being properly referenced to a reliable source, any editor has several choices: Find and add a reliable source verifying the content. Or, add a Template:citation needed tag if the content is plausible. Or, discuss the matter on the article talk page. Or, forget about it and move on. Or, if you are reasonably sure the content is incorrect, remove it with an accurate edit summary explaining why. You cannot edit based on your own academic research. You must summarize published, reliable sources.

We have no policies whatsoever restricting edits by IP addresses using mobile devices. They have just as much of a right to edit as anyone else, as long as they comply with Wikipedia's Policies and guidelines. Cullen328 (talk) 10:04, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

At first glance, the paper cited is a paper about some Empress Ashina, however the paper does not contain the words slab grave or anything relating to the slab grave Anthropological culture at all. Fact Check Mongol (talk) 21:45, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

You should start a discussion on the article talk page. Right now, you're reverting edits without discussion, which will make people think you're acting in bad faith. Even if you're right, edit warring is still banned. I recommend you start a thread on the slab-grave culture talk page, ping all the other involved editors, leave messages on the IPs' talk pages (they don't get ping notifications), and work to establish a consensus. WP:FRINGE, WP:RS and WP:RSHISTORY will be useful reads. You can also contact WP:Anthropology or other relevant WikiProjects for advice. HansVonStuttgart (talk) 09:18, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Placing comments on AfC submissions as a non-reviewer

Hi all, obviously I'm not allowed to review AfC submissions (decline/accept) but am I allowed to put comments? For example on Draft:Albert Aretz I wanted to mention that more non-primary sources are needed, and I often spend time at NewPagesFeed where a lot of not-very-good submissions come up. TLA (talk) 00:53, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

@I'm tla like any other draft, you can leave comments on an AfC submission's talk page, or on the primary editor's user page directly (which might be more likely to reach them). I would avoid using the AfC comment template, but there isn't any rule against it in principle. Rusalkii (talk) 05:39, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Antoneta Alamat Kusijanovic

Hi, how can I get the linked draft approved to be published? Please let me know what is needed. Thank you for your help! See at this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antoneta_Alamat_Kusijanović

The subject I'm writing about, currently has a Wikipedia page for her film, MURINA, published. See at this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murina_(film)

Thank you very much! 2AMUser (talk) 00:56, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

@2AMUser, you can't ask for an AfC submission for review – that wouldn't be fair. The subject does seem notable with the right sourcing now, but there are some formatting issues. I'll help with that. TLA (talk) 01:05, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

First of all though, please rewrite the article. It's copied directly from https://arts.columbia.edu/directory/antoneta-alamat-kusijanovic. See WP:COPYRIGHT. TLA (talk) 01:07, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

@2AMUser: For Draft:Antoneta_Alamat_Kusijanović you need to add sources that show the subject is notable. See WP:REFB and WP:N for guidance on that. After you have made those changes, click the Resubmit button to request a review of the draft. RudolfRed (talk) 01:12, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I am not 100% sure on the independence of the sources [as some look like interviews]. Also, inline citations, would make it much easier to verify claims. (Edited to remove ambiguity) ✶Quxyz✶ 02:22, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

The Talk Page for Article is a Different Topic

Ubiquitous is that which is appears to be omnipresent, as in seen almost everywhere.

However, the Talk Page for the article is the talk page for Omnipresence.

How can this be fixed? Starlighsky (talk) 02:19, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't think its really a problem that needs to be fixed. It is normal for a talk page of a redirect to be merged with the parent article's talk page. It helps to centralize discussions, since redirects do not get much attention. Ca ^{talk to me!} 02:55, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

It evolved because they were originally considered the same word.

However, there is no way to talk about the article ubiquitous at this point...as I understand this. Starlighsky (talk) 03:36, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Ubiquitous is a redirect to Omnipresence. (However, it doesn't seem to work at the moment because of the RfD notice.)

Talk:Ubiquitous is a redirect to Talk:Omnipresence. If you click on Talk:Ubiquitous, then look just under the top title of Talk:Omnipresence, you will see it says "(Redirected from Talk:Ubiquitous)". Clicking on that link will take you back to the actual Talk page for Ubiquitous. -- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 14:29, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Correction: Ubiquitous has at some point been a redirect to Omnipresence (hence the Talk page redirect), but it has been overwritten to redirect to Ubiquitous (adverb or adjective), which doesn't exist.

Yes, this is a mess. Feel free to discuss it at the RfD page. -- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 14:35, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Any office Action pages

I’ve only seen extra protct. Leninistpython (talk) 02:23, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Goodday @Leninistpython, could you clarify your question? If you are asking about the protection levels, please see WP:Protect ✶Quxyz✶ 02:27, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

@Leninistpython: You can learn more about that at Wikipedia:Office_actions and the links there. RudolfRed (talk) 02:35, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Can I have more sandbox

Hello, can I have more sandbox? I would like to test, edit and write some new articles. Thank you! Hanoifun (talk) 03:04, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

@Hanoifun: You can create as many sandboxes as you like! Any page title beginning with User:Hanoifun/ is a potential sandbox – User:Hanoifun/sandbox 1 is an example. Tollens (talk) 03:08, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Como, New South Wales

This article has a substantial amount of unformatted text that has existed for at least four years. What should be done? 76.14.122.5 (talk) 03:14, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

The preferred way is to be WP:BOLD and fix it. If you are not confortable with that, you can start a discussion on the article's talk page about it. RudolfRed (talk) 04:24, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

source code, how enter new line without space

When adding a citation in source code, I find it difficult to read, so I like to start the citation on a new line. However, that adds a space before the [n], which is not correct. E.g., ...info. [1]

Is there a code I can use that adds a new line without the space? Like <ampersand>nbsp (add space without newline), but opposite (want no space, with newline). Thanks.

Disclosure: I asked this question along with many others in another discussion but did not receive an answer so am asking it here on its own. Sunandshade (talk) 03:28, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Would it not be sufficient to format your citation like this:

...regular prose.<ref>

{{cite web|

...citation details...

}}

</ref>

It seems like a waste of space to me, but I don't see how you would get much clearer than that. -- Fyrael (talk) 04:47, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I could do that. Thanks for the info. As you say, the 1st "ref" is on the same line of the text. Then new line starting with "cite web". All the rest can be on that same line, which saves space. For me, ideal would be to have the 1st "ref" on a new line, but that adds a space so I can't do that, but close enough. Sunandshade (talk) 05:29, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia font

Hi. Does anyone know what font Wikipedia uses for its headers and body text? Thanks. CanonNi (talk) 03:56, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

@CanonNi According to WP:TYPE, Sans-serif. ‍ Relativity 04:29, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

At least in the body. The serif font looks pretty similar to headings and titles. ‍ Relativity 04:30, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

@Relativity Thanks you so much! CanonNi (talk) 08:55, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

@CanonNi: Note that the typefaces "sans-serif" and "serif" are not actual typeface names. They simply tell the browser to use a sans-serif font, or a serif font. The browser can be configured by the user to display any typeface for those categories. On Mac computers this is typically Helvetica for sans-serif, on Windows it used to be Arial but now it's Calibri, and on Linux I think it's Nimbus Sans. But the user can change it to anything. Wikipedia does not dictate what typeface to use; that's up to each individual browser. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:05, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Quick route desired

I seem to be making up for months of Wiki inaction this week in the Teahouse. Hope not to wear out my welcome. This request for help getting where I want in the Teahouse will perhaps be helpful for other new editors.

If I get a notification of a reply to a question I've raised in the Teahouse, I'm hoping there's a way within the notification to quickly go right where the reply was posted. So far I just don't see one. Is there one? Augnablik (talk) 10:06, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

@Augnablik: At least the way it is set up for me, if I click the short preview of the reply it takes me directly there. Perhaps it will do the same for you? If not, what does happen when you click the notification itself? Tollens (talk) 10:12, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Well, Tollens, I just realized that it differs depending on whether I'm on my iPhone or my computer. Neither one, though, is exactly what I want. I'm really surprised that you get where you want in the Teahouse by merely clicking on the short preview of the reply but I cannot.

— On my iPhone, I click either the phone icon or "On web" and I'm taken to the top of the Teahouse. Once there, I find NO way to search the Teahouse with a search word, such as my replier's name or a unique word in my question.

— On my computer, although I'm again taken to the top of the Teahouse I can at least do a search of the Teahouse (Command-F on my Mac) and all instances of the search word will be highlighted for me to see. Eventually, I'll get to the place I want, but that's so cumbersome. Augnablik (talk) 12:05, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

@Augnablik On my PC, if I "subscribe" to a thread like this then I am alerted when someone else replies and these alerts provide clickable links straight to the correct section. I have alerted you by the WP:PING system, so there should be a similar link for you there. Alternatively, if you look in your contribution history and cast your eye onto the part where it shows your contribution to "Teahouse/Quick route desired" then clicking on the latter part should take you straight back here (unless the thread has been archived). Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:46, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

You guys think this article is complete?

To everybody who reads this message, don't actually accept or decline, but if you have time, can you check to see if the Draft:U.S. Route 83 in South Dakota article is ready for the mainspace? I feel like it has enough sources, there's a detailed route description, and a history and future section is also put in there. Ping me to let me know how it looks. Thanks. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 11:23, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

NoobThreePointOh or you could just wait until a review. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 13:43, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

@Sungodtemple I guess. I've already submitted it for review and waiting. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 13:44, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

In my view it's about Start level right now. In Future and History you have a single short paragraph under a header, but that's not particularly preferred. MOS:PARA discourages that. I think if you combined them into a longer, broader section or found a way to reasonably expand those two sections it could be C Dionysius Miller^talk 13:46, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

The weird thing is that trying to find information is extremely scarce since the route is extremely rural and lonely. I guess if it gets accepted, we could try to improve it a bit more. Not sure, but could use some brushing up. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 13:48, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

@NoobThreePointOh, In case you haven't seen it, this may interest you:Why Wikipedia’s Highway Editors Took the Exit Ramp Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:40, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång Thanks. I will look at it later. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 17:16, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Maps

What software will allow me to generate a new map and release it under a free license? 20 upper (talk) 12:19, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

If you don't receive an answer here I suggest you ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Maps. Shantavira|^{feed me} 13:32, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi @20 upper! Many maps of the sort that we would want to use on Wikipedia are ineligible for copyright, so the licensing should not be a concern unless it includes satellite imagery or some other copyrightable component. I second the suggestion to ask the maps project. Cheers, Sdkb ^talk 21:16, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

WP:LEAKS

@Walkersam started Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources#WP:LEAKS and @WhatamIdoing replied. I used the TALK and other pages to start WP:LEAKS essay. Draft is Draft:Leaks_are_questionable_sources Softlem (talk) 12:49, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

This does not seem to be phrased as a question. Were you looking for some feedback on your essay? From a cursory glance, everything in it seems solid. Ca ^{talk to me!} 15:12, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Were you looking for some feedback on your essay? yes. sorry. i want feedback before i move it from draft Softlem (talk) 16:36, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I think there are a few little bits that would benefit from revision (e.g., a press release isn't a leak), but I think you should put it in the Wikipedia: space now. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:00, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

@Softlemonades Your draft looks good to me but note that the shortcut WP:LEAKS already exists, linking to part of WP:RS, so you need to invent other shortcut(s). Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:03, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

... sorry, you probably already knew that! Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:05, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I think the intent is to replace the existing WP:LEAKS shortcut, due to its shortcomings I pointed out at the talk page. As to the piece, I have three points of feedback:

• I think it might be prudent to define "leaks" explicitly in the intro rather than merely linking to the data breach page (though I do think there is a good definition there, really only the last sentence of the intro paragraph is needed).
• We should acknowledge that leakers are often also whistleblowers - the tone of the piece overall reads quite critical of "leakers"; I think we might be able to acknowledge that leakers can have good intentions while nonetheless accepting that they are not WP:RS.
• Lastly, I left a bit confused by the references to "promotional" and "self-published" leaks, maybe because I simply haven't encountered this genre. Perhaps you have an example or two that could be referenced?

I'd like to thank @Softlemonades for your effort - it's a marked improvement on the status quo and I expect it will serve as a valuable reference for many editors to come. Walkersam (talk) 00:04, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I think the intent is to replace the existing WP:LEAKS shortcut, due to its shortcomings I pointed out at the talk page. Yes. Replace shortcut, and put the nutshell unless reported by a reliable source, leaks should not normally be used or cited directly in articles on WP:RS

I think it might be prudent to define "leaks" explicitly in the intro rather than merely linking to the data breach page (though I do think there is a good definition there, really only the last sentence of the intro paragraph is needed).

We should acknowledge that leakers are often also whistleblowers - the tone of the piece overall reads quite critical of "leakers"; I think we might be able to acknowledge that leakers can have good intentions while nonetheless accepting that they are not WP:RS.

Good ideas

Lastly, I left a bit confused by the references to "promotional" and "self-published" leaks, maybe because I simply haven't encountered this genre. Perhaps you have an example or two that could be referenced?

If you put leaked Wikipedia admin talks on web page, that would be self-published. A lot on twitter and blogs.

If you put leaks somewhere that said you were good and smart or had big enemies, that would be promotional.

I just edited to try to make clearer diff Softlem (talk) 12:01, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Error: No valid link was found at the end of line 6.

In the section on Emancipation Proclamation in Abraham Lincoln appears the statement "Error: No valid link was found at the end of line 6." That was not true, because, although the first link in footnote 225 did not work, the archived link did. But I edited the footnote to get rid of the first link. Now I'd like to get rid of "Error: No valid link was found at the end of line 6," but I don't see it when I go to "Edit source."

Also, I've never before seen "Error: No valid link was found at the end of line 6." I've often seen . Is there a reason to use "Error: No valid link was found at the end of line 6" rather than ? Maurice Magnus (talk) 13:34, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Maurice Magnus the error was not due to a reference, it was due to an WP:Image map. I have fixed the error and restored the previous citation. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 13:48, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Review help edit warring

Here is the edit where my revert was again reverted: [1]. I just noticed that this was the same person I had a conflict in the past on the same article and other articles thus, I am not going to revert back myself. But I am here to seek a opinion whether this person edits are justifiable or not. Thank you 456legendtalk 13:54, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I am also attaching the previous notice regarding the same user edit warring [2] since that went un noticed. (I don't know how to attach the archive, kindly excuse me for that) 456legendtalk 14:00, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

@456legend, are you trying to keep sentences such as:

• "He was arrested by the Crime Investigation Department (CID) police of Andhra Pradesh in a multi-crore scam"
• "He suffered a major political set back in the 2019 Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly Elections where he won only 23 seats out of the total 175 seats"
• "This was also Telugu Desam Party's worst ever defeat."

out of this Wikipedia article?

@Alalch E., I see you were in a discussion a year ago on the talk page. I wonder if you could help this editor with this concern. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:07, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. This version of an exclusively positive-POV lead was created on 10 November 2023: Special:Diff/1184040086/1184386766 by Fostera12. Content was moved from the "Recognition" section (read: the praise section) to the lead, in clear contravention of the policy that content must be written from a neutral point of view. In a sense, Chinnusaikrish reverted this, except that he lumped that content together with the awards, where it doesn't belong (to be clear, the former "Recognition" section wasn't good either). So it's not a good edit, but any edit which would revert that and restore the ridiculously non-policy-compliant lead would only be a worse edit. It takes a good edit to fix a non-good edit, not an even worse edit.

So do not revert.

The way forward is to separate out the content in the awards section that isn't about any particular award, and see what should be done about this content (the best thing would be to integrate it with the main chronological account of his political career). Then the lead can be worked on to properly summarize the body per MOS:LEAD. The lead needs to be neutral. The current lead that sums up the individual's political career in what's barely three sentences and puts so much weight on a "major polictical set back" and "worst ever defeat", and him being arrested is not neutral either. But the body should be worked on first to enable us to write a good lead, because a good lead can't be written if the body isn't good. —Alalch E. 20:23, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing That wasn't my intention. My point here is to whether the entire article summary needs to placed in the main lead or not? Is he only arrested in his entire life and there is nothing more to be summaried? I don't oppose adding his arrest and other criticism in the main lead but at the same time I also do not support removing the other sumarised content from the main lead. Anyways I am planning to not edit articles where this particular user is involved since he isn't ready for a proper discussion and either some false statement on me. Anyways thank you for your time. 456legendtalk 02:17, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

You ask a question with a false premise. You also skipped my reply entirely, and I gave a relevant response about what to do with the lead. The false premise is this: the other sumarised content from the main lead. There was no such content. The "Recognition" content being moved from the body to the lead does not cause anything to be summarized, obviously, and the current lead summarizes only some sections, but the summary needs to be much more complete. There is no summarizing version of the lead in the article's recent history. It needs to be written. —Alalch E. 08:07, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I felt compelled to fix the lead issues in this BLP, so I did my best to actually summarize the article, see Special:Permalink/1207815917. @456legend and Chinnusaikrish: How does this look to you? (You can also answer on the talk page with a link to this discussion.) —Alalch E. 20:17, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

@Alalch E. To be honest, if you feel I have posed a question here with a false premise, then I am sorry because that wasn't my intention. Regarding your summary edit, personally as a Wikipedia editor, I am not satisfied with the summary. I am of the opinion that it is highly focused on his failures rather than maintaining a neutral tone. By reading your summary in the first instance, I feel he is portrayed as a failed politician. This may be my opinion alone, thus I wish not to continue editing any further on that particular article to avoid conflict with you and the other editor. Thank you for your contributions. 456legendtalk 01:41, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

No Discussion, move?

If I initiated a move discussion, and advertised(notified) about it on the WikiProjects 1 2 and other things, but still the discussion seems inactive, should I be bold to move it? There is no response on Requested moves too. ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 14:38, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to not be bold. Go for it! Ca ^{talk to me!} 15:09, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Sorting a list

List of UEFA Champions League hat-tricks is an article I've been working on. The sorting part of the clubs is slightly mistake. it sorts alphabetically on the club's nationality and not the club's name itself.

Can anyone help with an edit. it may be too long. So could anyone edit edit the source of at-least 1 player. I'll take the idea and edit the rest Atlantis77177 (talk) 15:55, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Atlantis77177! Would Help:Sortable tables § Specifying a sort key for a cell have the information you're looking for? Sdkb ^talk 21:11, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Sdkb! I tried with what u said. but it didn't work. could u just edit 1 row for me. I'll catch the blueprint from it.

The table formatting is broken. Sdkb, are you able to sort this out? I don't think it's reasonable for even a moderately experienced editor to handle this problem. I don't know what the first couple of lines are supposed to say, or I'd fix it myself.

Atlantis77177, please don't touch the table until we fix this problem. Once the table's structure is sound, you should open it in the visual editor (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_UEFA_Champions_League_hat-tricks&veaction=edit ), select a row that you'd like to move to a different place, and then use the > menu to find the Move up/down options. Do that repeatedly until you've got everything in the order you'd like (but not just yet!). WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:52, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Ah, my apologies. Yes, as an overall matter, table formatting is regrettably difficult. I started off by restoring a stable version of the article with nothing broken. If I accidentally undid any content edits you were making, Atlantis, feel free to restore them. I share the recommendation to use VisualEditor for tables when possible, but unfortunately for many more advanced table edits (including sorting) it is not possible.

I then added sorting for the first three rows as an example. What I might suggest, Atlantis, is to copy the entire table into your sandbox, where you'll be able to work on it without worrying about messing anything up. Once you have it sorting correctly, you can copy it back to the article. Also, of course, feel free to ask if you have any trouble copying the examples or if any further questions come up. Cheers, Sdkb ^talk 04:17, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

@Atlantis77177, it's safe to edit that table now. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:32, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Issues with timelines, but no error messages?

I think there's an issue with EasyTimeline but for the life of me I can't figure it out, nor do I know where to report the issue....

If you try to change anything whatsoever on a timeline (a person's date, color of an instrument, anything at all), such as here or here, it will display as if there's no image. There's no error message or anything.

However, on timelines such as here or here, it's perfectly fine and displays as normal when something is changed. But the latter two were created in the same way as the former two.

I have absolutely no idea why this is affecting some timelines but not others. I cannot find any major differences between the first two and second two examples, and I've even tried copying the attributes (timeline size, colors, etc.) of a working timeline into a broken one, and it still doesn't work. It's random and I don't know the cause of it. Xanarki (talk) 16:51, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

@Xanarki, you might want to ask this question at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:28, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Xanarki (talk) 17:47, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unification_(computer_science)

Added twice a section and did a SAVE. The additions did not show up or disappeared the next day. What do I do wrong? Please reply to temp AT ontooo.com Thanks Ddccc (talk) 18:17, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Ddccc, welcome to the Teahouse. You added content in this edit. Another editor, Jochen Burghardt, summarized your addition in a different place (see this edit) and then removed your original contribution (see this edit). This can all be seen in the page's history. If you want to contest their change, you can start a discussion on the talk page, Talk:Unification (computer science). 57.140.16.1 (talk) 18:24, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Ddccc, and welcome to the Teahouse. I only see that you once added a section. If you look at the article's history, you will see that Jochen Burghardt reverted your edit, but their edit summary says that they moved it up to another paragraph.

You have started discussing the matter on Talk:Unification (computer science), but you didn't WP:ping that editor, so they may not have seen your post there; however, I have pinged them here, so they should see this discussion and hopefully will go to the talk page to explain to you why they made the change.

Nobody will be contacting you by email: that's not how we work. ColinFine (talk) 18:25, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi!

Hi! How do I create a meetup editathon page? Do I just create one in my sandbox and then link it somehow? Bumusiclibrary (talk) 19:05, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

@Bumusiclibrary All the information and instructions are to be found at WP:MEET. Mike Turnbull (talk) 21:15, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

The page instructions say create a page, but don't explain how to create a page. Bumusiclibraryblackcomposereditor (talk) 21:17, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

You create a page by typing its full name (which in this case will start with either Wikipedia: or User:Bumusiclibraryblackcomposereditor/) into the search bar, and when it says it can't find it, it will offer you the option of creating it. ColinFine (talk) 21:42, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

ok perfect! Thank you so much! Bumusiclibraryblackcomposereditor (talk) 21:44, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

The instructions suggest you should use the tools at Programs and Events Dashboard Mike Turnbull (talk) 21:44, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

list of draft deletion proposals that make no sense today

i remembered that somewhere there was a page in the wp namespace about article drafts that got deleted for reasons that would be silly today (like iPhone)

can anyone help me find this page Natelabs (talk) 20:02, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

@Natelabs: Perhaps Wikipedia:Before they were notable? DanCherek (talk) 20:04, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

yes, this is the exact page i was looking for. thank you! Natelabs (talk) 20:04, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

The draft I created in Sandbox yesterday is no longer there

Hello, I was working on my page Susana Tubert/sandbox last night and wanted to finish it today but I had to log in again and now I don't see the page there anymore. Was it deleted? Do I need to start all over again? How do I save my work to make sure it does not happen again.

Thanks for your help!

Susana. SusanaTubert (talk) 21:59, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi @SusanaTubert, welcome to the Teahouse. The above appears to be the only edit you've made with this account, and your account has no subpages. Did you click Publish page or Publish changes at any point while working on your draft? That is the only way to 'save' anything to Wikipedia. 57.140.16.1 (talk) 22:04, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Oh shoot. No, I thought that by clicking on "Publish" it would be reviewed by the team that reviews new pages and I had not finished my draft so I did not click on it. Fortunately I saved a copy - so would I be able to copy/paste it again? And should I click Publish every time I want to save a work in progress draft? SusanaTubert (talk) 22:13, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, @SusanaTubert, you'll need to click the Publish button in order to save any changes you make. It simply makes your page active on Wikipedia - it doesn't put the page into a reviewing queue. Once you make the page, if you ask for help here someone will be able to add the submission template, which will have the button for putting the draft up for review. 57.140.16.1 (talk) 22:15, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing this super helpful information. May I take the opportunity to ask you a couple of other questions ...or do I need to start a new thread/topic? SusanaTubert (talk) 22:22, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Probably easier to keep it all in one place, unless you want to ask something entirely new and unrelated - inquire away, @SusanaTubert, that's what we're (not) paid for! 57.140.16.1 (talk) 22:24, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Ha-ha! Love that! You're awesome... even though I don't know your name so I cannot thank you personally. (Sorry!) Sp, I just copy/pasted the article back onto sandbox. I clicked on Publish and now ...poof! the page is gone again ...? Or am I not accessing it through the proper means?

Also: I don't see the links anymore ... or the citation sources below. Do I have to reconstruct everything manually? SusanaTubert (talk) 22:30, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

@SusanaTubert, it's at User:SusanaTubert/sandbox. I'm afraid you'll indeed need to reconstruct everything, and since you're apparently writing about yourself, you should review our policies on editing with a conflict of interest (WP:COI). You can call me 57.14 or IP editor or Tarlonniel or anything you like - I'm not picky. 57.140.16.1 (talk) 22:35, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

@SusanaTubert It seems that you have some footnote references, but when you copy and paste, you only copied the text and didn't copy the references. Perhaps try "edit source"? Also I agree with the IP editor above: it is discouraged to write about yourself on Wikipedia. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 22:37, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

@SusanaTubert To warrant an article here you need to show how you are wikinotable. Your award from the Themed Entertainment Association will help do that but you must write with a neutral tone, without any hint of promotion, which is very difficult for someone writing an autobiography, which is why we strongly discourage that. Mike Turnbull (talk) 22:48, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

does anyone know where to hire for article writing?

does anyone know where to hire for article writing? Looking to hire for something that is plenty detailed in references and links and cross references. TIA Tetelestaidudes (talk) 22:09, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Tetelestaidudes, welcome to the Teahouse. There are no 'official' writing services, and the vast majority of the unofficial ones are scams. Beware anyone who contacts you offering to get an article published in exchange for payment. You might want to read WP:SCAM. 57.140.16.1 (talk) 22:12, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello. I doubt you will get much advice on where to hire someone; though allowed if disclosed, paid editing is generally not looked upon too favorably. If you choose to do that, don't hand over any money until you see the finished product. They cannot promise you anything(such as writing an article that will not be deleted). See WP:SCAM as well. For what reason do you want to hire someone? 331dot (talk) 22:15, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Tetelestaidudes. As well as what the others have said, I recommend you read an article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. ColinFine (talk) 22:32, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

That said, there are paid contributors here who do good work, fully disclose their clients, and are meticulous about abiding by Wikipedia policies and guidelines, especially avoiding directly editing articles and instead discussing improvements on talk pages. I recall interacting with one such person in the past on a BLP talk page, and that editor is in good standing on Wikipedia. They tend not to list themselves on category pages so they aren't easy to find. Some are listed at Wikipedia:Statement on Wikipedia from participating communications firms including the editor I just mentioned. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:19, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

It appears that last spring you created a draft about a band Tetelestai, the draft being deleted for inactivity six months later. Before trying again, see WP:NMUSIC for establishing notability for music topics. David notMD (talk) 12:31, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

copyright of public domain material in non-free books (UK)

Would public domain photos, illustrations etc extracted from copyrighted books still be in the public domain or would they be under the same copyright as the book which they were extracted from? Both book and photo/illustration were published/created in the UK. Goldclock (talk) 00:02, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure of what it is that you're asking about, Goldclock, but I'll have a try. Gin Street is in the public domain. I may publish a book about Hogarth, gin, moral panics, stoops, or whatever, and within this book reproduce Gin Street. I'd almost certainly copyright my book. You could then decide that the reproduction in my book of Gin Street is superior to that in Commons. My copyright claim doesn't apply to the reproduction of Gin Street. You may scan the reproduction and upload it to Commons, as in the public domain. Does this answer the question? -- Hoary (talk) 00:35, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, thank you very much. Goldclock (talk) 01:07, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Creating a company's page and declaring the "conflict of interest statement"

Hi everyone,

I am creating Wikipedia page for one of my previous company. Yes I have a connection with the company owners, but still I have managed the neutral point of view in the content. Also I have added the reliable sources.

Now I want to declare the conflict of interest statement in that. Can anyone help me ensure that how can I do this? WriterPankajRai (talk) 04:43, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

@writerpankajrai: see here for instructions. ltbdl (talk) 05:59, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Ltbdl

I have used "{{ c o nnected contributor }}" command to declare my self as a connected author with the topic/company.

I'm also going to follow the instructions that you have shared.

Can you let me know if It is possible to get a company page (that is popular and have reliable PR sources) created on wikipedia even if I’m connected as an employee or past employee? WriterPankajRai (talk) 06:38, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Press releases are not acceptable sources, as they are the company speaking about themselves. Wikipedia wants to know what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a topic like a company- not based on materials from the company or prompted by the company.

The connected contributor notice is for the draft talk page, not the draft itself. You should also make a disclosure on your user page, see WP:COI for instructions. If you work for this company, you must instead make the stricter paid editing disclosure, a Terms of Use requirement. 331dot (talk) 08:59, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Using AI for editing and creating Wikipedia articles

Hello everyone, my name is Hanoifun. How can I use AI for editing and creating Wikipedia articles? Hanoifun (talk) 05:51, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

@hanoifun: don't. see wikipedia:large language models. ltbdl (talk) 05:57, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Hanoifun, simply, you do not use AI. You use your own intelligence instead. -- Hoary (talk) 06:01, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

@Hoary, @Ltbdl, Ok thanks! I will do by myself. Hanoifun (talk) 06:05, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Did You Know

Apologies, but is the “Did You Know” template on the front page available for public use? I would want one that instead lists new facts for every time the cache is cleared, this is for a Fandom wiki I’m on, if it isn’t for public use nor is it free to use, I’ll ask other users on Fandom instead and see if I get any help. Cometkeiko (talk) 06:07, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Cometkeiko! Wikipedia:Did you know is a complex system. The actual code is at Template:Did you know, but it relies on subtemplates, etc., so it might be difficult to copy. Something like Template:Random portal component would be able to achieve the behavior you're seeking on clearing the cache. You're free to copy anything on Wikipedia so long as you abide by the terms of the license. Cheers, Sdkb ^talk 06:19, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Downgrading an article

Hi. I'm working on this article and have a question. Can a article be reassessed and downgraded? I think the article no longer furfills the FL criteria. If a downgrade is possible, how can I do it? Thanks. CanonNi (talk) 07:58, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello, CanonNi. If you think that a featured list needs to be improved or expanded to better meet the criteria, then your very best option by far is to improve or expand the list. All other options pale in comparison. I see no edits by you to the list since last December 9, and I see no discussion by you on Talk: List of skyscrapers in Shanghai. This is, after all, a list article where the inclusion criteria are clear and reliable sources regularly cover the topic area. If you have not yet made a good faith effort to improve and/or discuss any shortcomings, why do you think that other editors would agree to downgrade the list. Am I missing something? Cullen328 (talk) 08:13, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Please check my article

Hello everyone, dear participants! Please check my article about the Kazakh petition site. Thank you.

Draft:EGOV.PRESS Zzremin (talk) 08:06, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Zzremin, it looks promising, but (1) Please change "EGOV.PRESS" to either "egov.press" or "Egov.press", and likewise for "ALASH.ONLINE". (2) What/where is "ENU"? (3) "[O]nly the most relevant and resonant initiatives": Relevant to what? What is meant here by "resonant"? -- Hoary (talk) 08:33, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Everything is fixed. I wanted to ask you, as an experienced participant, how can I add links to pages on social networks? It is allowed? Zzremin (talk) 08:51, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

If my article follows the rules, please move it to the main category. If not, then I am ready to refine and correct the article. Thank you. Zzremin (talk) 08:58, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Zzremin The draft was declined, with reasons given. You can work on improving the draft and resubmitting. While some of the Teahouse Hosts are also draft reviewers, asking here does not speed the review process. There are many drafts waiting for a review, so the process can take weeks. David notMD (talk) 12:41, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Please help me!

Dear participants! My article was rejected because it looked like an advertisement. I didn't want to write it this way, but it turned out differently. Please help me complete the article!

Draft:EGOV.PRESS Zzremin (talk) 09:31, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

@Zzremin One reason it looks like an advert is because it has multiple external links to egov.press in the body text, which look like spam links. Remove them all (see WP:EL). Incidentally, your draft was declined, not rejected, which means you can continue work on it and re-submit. You need more sources meeting these criteria, as well as adjusting the tone. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:01, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I'll try to improve it. Zzremin (talk) 10:47, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Archiving Talk pages

Hi I'm not strictly new but I have a question which I think comes under etiquette but definitely under markup so I'd appreciate the Teahouse's wisdom.

I am a conflict of interest editor who has been making requests on behalf of an individual since late 2022. They are starting to clutter up the Talk page and as the conflict of interest request backlog is recently starting to creep up again (it's still under 100 requests but I remember how high it can get and I'm hoping to help keep it manageable from my side at least), I wondered if it would be cleaner and easier to read for the volunteers who kindly take on these requests if I were able to archive some of the older conversations. Is that something I would have "permission" to do? I was thinking of leaving just the two most recent conversations live (as the newest request has some relation to the one before it).

If this was appropriate, I have never archived a Talk page before so any advice or help would be great. The Talk page for the article I request on is Talk:Bulat Utemuratov. Podsought (talk) 10:04, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello. I might gently suggest that you post a COI declaration on your user page(User:Podsought); I see it on the article talk page, but someone looking for it might not know it is there. 331dot (talk) 10:22, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi @331dot I have done that now, thanks for the suggestion and replying to my question. Podsought (talk) 11:55, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Question about AfD relisting

Hi Teahouse peoples.

This is my first question so please forgive me. An article I worked on recently was up for AfD review and after the first 7 days it was relisted because there was no consensus, with some editors voting keep and some editors voting delete.

I tried to find what the protocol is for this Round Two. Do I revote Keep or do I just comment again why I voted to Keep and hope new editors pop by and contribute to the decision making process?

Question 2 - Is there a protocol for relisting? I thought that if there was not a consensus, the article would stay, and the recommendations for not delete-worthy fixes would be moved to banners. I will admit this page needs work but I hesitate to invest more time in it than I did last week until its in the clear and not subject to removal evaluation.

Thanks in advance for any advice you can give. avignonesi (talk) 10:42, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello Avignonesi and welcome to the Teahouse!

Remember that entries into the discussions at AfD are not exactly "votes". In fact, you'll see many editors saying !votes to emphasize this aspect of the process.

No consensus is a less desirable outcome than a consensus, whichever way it goes. It is often the case that a discussion will be relisted - actually, just continued - when there is no clear outcome in the first week. You don't want to vote again. You could revisit what you said before if you think you can improve on how policy-based your first comment was. The ultimate decision is not based on counting yeas and nays; instead, it's an evaluation of the policy-base arguments. Comments like "delete per nom" are essentially useless, since they advance no policy basis. If instead, you can honestly say "delete - I examined the article's references in detail and none of them appear to be independent" you are adding a valid reason why you are in favor of deletion even if you can't also say you've done a thorough search of online and offline sources and found nothing better.

On the other hand, adding fixes to the article while the discussion is underway is welcome and you could point to those fixes in your comment to argue for "keep". — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:04, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Maybe I should have looked at WP:Articles for deletion/Association for Research into Crimes against Art first. Adding lengthy rebuttals to nearly every !vote is a discussion in a poor approach to AfD. Make your case once, as concisely as you can, then let the process proceed. You have to trust that the closing admin is properly evaluating the policy arguments. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:16, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Dear @Jmcgnh Thanks for your help, and sorry if I used the word vote. I did know it is not a sum count but I just wasn't sure if I needed to restate my decision again in round two. Your feedback answers that and it also helps me to understand that less is more. I was just hoping to get the feedback needed to fix the article and remove concerns. I tend to be blabby by nature, and more so now that I am retired, but I will heed your sage wisdom and stay mum, and refrain from treating the discussion as a chat room. Still relearning Wikipedia-land as a lot has developed since my hiatus. Thanks for making the teahouse available so I can (re)find my way. Avignonesi (talk) 19:15, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Think of relisting less of as a "round 2" and more of as a method of making the discussion more uniform and less confusing, as well as a way for more editors to get involved. Industrial Insect (talk) 19:48, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Unable to Get the draft Published

Hi, I was trying to get the draft published for Insurancedekho. But, it was rejected. It was a neutral content and tried to keep the reference links for all the major points. Is there any specific things to be kept in mind for approval? Ashutosh2097 (talk) 13:46, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Ashutosh2097. It wasn't neutral content if it was speedily deleted as promotional.

Please very carefully read WP:NPOV and understand that only organisations who meet our notability criteria merit an article. Wikipedia is not a business directory. Qcne (talk) 13:59, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

How do I get to the site for Chickasa, Oklahoma

I just became a member of this site but don't have a clue on how to get to the website for Chickasa, Oklahoma Beckonwood2 (talk) 14:59, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Do you mean Wikipedia's article about Chickasha, Oklahoma. Click that link. There is a link to their official website at the bottom of that article. Shantavira|^{feed me} 15:05, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Please check my revised article!

Hello to all participants! I have corrected the article in accordance with the rules. Please, please check it out.

Draft:EGOV.PRESS Zzremin (talk) 16:00, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello,Zzremin. You have resubmitted the draft, and in time a volunteer reviewer will look at it. Please be patient. ColinFine (talk) 19:31, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

The backlog of drafts awaiting review is not a queue. Reviewers select what they want to review. Thus, it could be days, weeks, or even months for your revised draft to be reviewed. David notMD (talk) 23:42, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Simple English Wikipedia

I think I am a loyal supporter of Wikipedia, but I have recently become worried about you! I am concerned that the"simple english" version means less information, or selected information, or censored information,rather than just making the information easier to understand. For example, if I google Dustin Hoffman filmography wikipedia, I expect to be able to see a list of the films in which Dustin Hoffman starred, not a list of his key films, or most popular films, or excluding controversial films such as Straw Dogs. It's the principle of the thing. So that's why I am worried about you. Robinhowell (talk) 16:20, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

It's a completely different project, @Robinhowell. What happens there does not affect this Wikipedia. You may find incomplete information in any of the Wikipedias, because they are works in progress. English Wikipedia generally has more comprehensive coverage but there's no guarantee that will be true in every single case. Wikipedia does not censor information that belongs just because it's controversial. Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:39, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Right now, the English Wikipedia has 6,784,397 articles, while the Simple English Wikipedia has only 247,734, less than 4% as many, so of course its coverage is not as extensive. The English Wikipedia has a Dustin Hoffman filmography article, while the Simple English Wikipedia does not. If you feel like creating one, you are welcome to do so! CodeTalker (talk) 00:50, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

many minor edits vs not a lot of big edits

is editing frequently, but changing only characters or words at a time, better, worse, or equivalent to editing sporadically, but adding entire sections to articles at a time? natelabs (talk) 16:28, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

@Natelabs, most of the time, it does not matter. If an article is on a controversial topic and/or has many watchers, you will have to find a balance. Small edits are easier to review and discuss. Large changes are almost always reverted wholesale because someone will disagree with some parts of them. But, if there are ten typos to fix, better do it in one edit instead of ten so people don't have to go through ten edits only to find out there was nothing worth reviewing even. If you are editing pages that are watched by many and also edited a lot, it's best to only edit them when you have something useful to add, and it's best to make your comment in as few edits as possible. If you make a comment at the administrator's noticeboard, and then make ten more edits trying to copyedit your own comment, you will really really annoy others and may even mess up other people's attempts to post. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:58, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Always helps if your Edit summary clearly explains what you did. Consider copying a section to your own Sandbox, editing there, then pasting back in. David notMD (talk) 23:44, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Enter-key-like symbols in wiki pages?

For some reason, in some pages there are enter-key-like symbols such as in this wiki page. It only shows in edit mode for some reason. Is this some special character that MediaWiki uses or something like that? AverageWikiContributor (talk) 16:44, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

its a hidden newline in the source. you can tell this by going to the source editor natelabs (talk) 17:18, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! AverageWikiContributor (talk) 19:39, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Can these information be included in an article?

My question is regarding this article. Does the following information fall within the scope of the article?

1. The band's reason for switching to writing original songs - A member of the band in an interview published in Young Guitar Magazine has stated: "At first we were copying songs like ELLEGARDEN and BLUE ENCOUNT that didn't have shouts in them because we thought we couldn't play in a loud [rock] band yet, but somewhere along the line, we all got a bit pissed off and decided to give it a try, so we started copying songs by Maximum the Hormone and others. In the process, we ran into a wall in terms of skill level, but we thought, why don't we just make our own heavy songs that match our skill level?" (Source)
2. The inspiration for their first original song - They started off as a high school band. Their teachers were not cooperative and called their music "noise". They also didn't get their desired club room resulting in confrontations with the teachers, the frustrations over these events were the inspiration being the lyrics of their first song.
3. Tour details - The Japanese version of the article includes a table of their performances, venues, supporting acts, can these be mentioned in the English version of the article as well?
4. Appearances in media - The band has appeared in CTV talk show Roomic, various radio shows, and on the cover of various well know music magazines including Metal Hammer and Headbang Magazine. Their songs have also been used in TV shows. Can these be mentioned on the article and under which section?
5. Endorsements - Can endorsements, sponsorships and other commercial tie-ins be mentioned on the article? I saw some articles like BTS have those mentioned.
6. Charity work - The band has raised money for earthquake victims, but it's the only such act by the band which got media coverage, is this enough for a "Philanthropy" section?
7. Their original genre 'Harajuku-core" - The band has used the term to define their music and it also finds widespread use by media outlets covering them. (eg: Tokion Wall of Sound and many others including their artist page on Sony Music Japan's website). Should the term get a section or sub-section? The band has also talked about the origins of the term, should it be mentioned as well?
8. Appearances with other notable artists - They have toured/played with a number of well-known artists; can this be mentioned in the introductory section?

Sorry if this is not the right place ask this, but I have asked this on the article's talk page (only the first point though) and did not get a reply for months and I also tried to look in Wikipedia guidelines about style, notability etc. I don't know where else to ask. If there are any articles regarding specific guidelines on what can or can't be included about artists/bands, then please do let me know. Any help would be much appreciated. Thank you for your time. Lucems (talk) 16:59, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Lucems. Although I rarely deal music-related articles, I feel that all the above would be perfectly OK to include, provided a) they can all be supported with RELIABLE SOURCES that allows anyone else to VERIFY the statements, and that b) that they are not trivial mentions.

Thus, if they gave $50 to a local cat's home, I'd say that is TRIVIA and should be left out. But supporting major causes can be mentioned providing you have good, independent sources to corroborate the statement you want to add. I think one act of 'philanthropy' doesn't necessarily require a separate sub-section unless there's lots of detail in sources that merit it.

I don't think Harajuku-core necessarily needs its own sub-section within the article, unless there is in-depth writing about this in mainstream media. I hope this helps, but others with more experience of music-related articles might give you a different opinion. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 17:27, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Promotional content in articles

I'm looking at this page for copyediting. The banner says it has promotional content/is written like an advertisement but I can't put my finger on what the problem is here. I've read through WP:ADMASQ, but the examples there are pretty exaggerated and I don't think they apply to what I'm looking at— I think the worst of it is a detailed description of what the company offers with citations. If anyone could give me a hand or lend some pointers for the future, I'd really appreciate it!

Donut Sprinkle (talk) 17:23, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Donut Sprinkle - I think one egregious issue is "Its mission is to provide internationally recognized higher education for professionals, universities and high school graduates." Good articles on companies do not generally include the company's "mission" in the intro. I would add that the company is for-profit. (See [3]) The emphasis on the scholarship program throughout the article is also weird and seems promotional. Also, "The number of students was estimated to reach 100,000 by 2026." is sourced to the company's own statements in a 2016 article. That is not appropriate, and it should be deleted. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:30, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much! All of those points make sense to me. I can likely fix the first and last points you've made, but I think the scholarship mentions are a little trickier. Maybe I have it mentioned once in the article and then the rest of its mentions removed?

I'll see what I can do. Thanks again :)

Donut Sprinkle (talk) 17:36, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @Donut Sprinkle. I think a useful way to look at this is to ask what the independent sources have said about the company. (There must be independent sources, or the subject does not meet the criteria for notability). If an independent source talks about the company's "mission", then it may be appropriate to mention it (especially if the source says something substantive about this mission - criticises it, or praises it, or discusses how far the company lives up to it). On the other hand, if no independent source discusses the mission, then it certainly does not belong in the article. Similarly, anything about the company's goals, ethos, partners, campaigns, customers, or even products, that no independent source has mentioned, should not go in the article. Uncontroversial factual information like places and dates can be sourced from the company's own publications (but if they are the only information available, then again it is not notable). ColinFine (talk) 19:43, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

This is incredibly helpful, I appreciate it! I do feel like a lot of pages I come across don't have that notability criteria, but I don't think I want to stick my nose in that just yet. I'm definitely going to take a more in depth look at a page's reflist as I'm editing in the future, especially for admasq ones!

Donut Sprinkle (talk) 19:53, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Seeing as Wikipedia has thousands upon thousands of stubs, unnotable articles, and etc., it would be preferable to put all those in an Afd discussion. But seeing how much these discussions take (1-week if no one raises objections), most of these will stay here. Anyways, happy editing! ''Flux55'' (talk) 05:28, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

No more archive messages

Why I don't receive Teahouse thread archive messages for Muninnbot anymore? I have not even opted out and there's no {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} on my talk page. I want them, what do I do? ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 18:17, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for raising this, @ExclusiveEditor. Looking at @Muninnbot's contributions, it appears to have stopped operating in August 2022; did we just miss this? There's a recent note on the talk page of the operator, @Tigraan, but they do not appear to have been active in a few months. Another bot operator may need to pick up the task. I will open a thread at the Teahouse talk page so we can be sure to follow up on this. Cheers, Sdkb ^talk 19:30, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Problem with dates

Greece followed the Julian calendar until 1923. The articles having been written by different authors each have a different date. I want to apply a single chronology to all articles on politicians and governments. What should I do?

to write down both dates?

to write old style up to 1923?

to write downnew style

Is there a specific policy about that? D.S. Lioness (talk) 18:19, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers could help. Industrial Insect (talk) 19:43, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

@D.S. Lioness: Please see MOS:OSNS. In short, the date method should follow that of reliable secondary sources. This would probably mean using old style for those before 1923, and new style for those after 1923. If it's not clear which method should be used, you can use {{OldStyleDate}}. —Matrix(!) (a good person!)_{[Citation not needed at all; thank you very much]} 19:50, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello, DS. Lioness. Specifically, within the page Industrial Insect linked, see Julian and Gregorian calendars. If that does not answer your question, I suggest asking either at the talk page of the MOS page, or at WT:WikiProject Greece. ColinFine (talk) 19:51, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Updating Talk page reply

Sometimes I realize I should add something to a talk page reply. When should I edit my old reply or add a new reply? Sophon96 (talk) 19:53, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Sophon96; good question! This is somewhat a matter of personal preference, and there's no hard-and-fast rule (if there was it'd be at Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines) so long as you're trying to communicate clearly.

Personally, I'm more likely to edit my comment rather than add a new one if the comment is recent and the tweak is minor. If it's more substantive (e.g. a new thought) or the comment was made a while ago, I'll add a new one. I try not to edit my comments (beyond uncontroversial things like typo fixes) after someone else has replied to them, since it can be confusing or unfair to alter the record like that.

For particularly sensitive edits, it's possible to cross out text (use the code <s>text</s>), underline added text (<u>text</u>), and add an addendum to your signature (e.g. [[User:Sdkb|Sdkb]] ([[User talk:Sdkb|talk]]) 14:07, 15 February 2024 (UTC)<sup>Edited ~~~~~ to clarify my point</sup>; the five ~ insert the timestamp) to help make it clearer to others what has been changed. But that's not normally needed. Cheers, Sdkb ^talk 20:41, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Others in the discussion are more likely to notice if you leave a new comment than if you edit an existing one, so one question to ask yourself is: Is the thing I'm adding something I'd want to be sure others who read the initial comment see? Sdkb ^talk 20:45, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed explanation! That makes a lot of sense, and I’ll keep this in mind for my stay at Wikipedia. Sophon96 (talk) 22:33, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Loss of my Work in Sandbox.....what happened?

Hello Teahouse! Still learning about the Wikipedia process. It looks like there is a bit of a learning curve for me! Somehow I lost my edit of a bio I was working on in my sandbox. I never hit any kind of delete button. Last time I saw it, I had put it up in my tabs and then it got X'ed out. Would that delete my work? I am thinking that I should do my rough draft in my word processor. Any ideas or help would be greatly appreciated! Many thanks for your thoughts...... Creative Lizzie (talk) 20:42, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

If you don't publish your changes to your sandbox, it unfortunately won't be saved. That's likely what happened here. You can see someone else who had this issue here. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 20:46, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

For sure, that is exactly what happened. Thank you for your thoughts on this. I so thank you for your input and now feel my rough draft needs to be developed in another location until it is molded then smoothed into something that makes sense. Then I will put into Wikipedia for publishing.:) Creative Lizzie (talk) 22:54, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi @Creative Lizzie! Sorry to hear of the difficulties. Your contribution history is here. I'm unfortunately not seeing anything in it that looks like saving a draft, so Commissar Doggo's hypothesis is likely what happened. The pages here (for the source editor) and here (for VisualEditor) provide instructions on saving your edits. Best, Sdkb ^talk 20:49, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi Commissar Doggo, Many thanks for your input and links! I saw "Publish" a while back but was asked to wait for publishing by another consultant. Besides that,

I had thoroughly moved the print around and added all kinds of thoughts plus additions. No one would have understood most of it. I think it would be nice to have an "In Process Save Writing/Rough Draft" button that maybe would last for a week or ?. I would not have wanted to publish what I had done yet. The bio I am working on requires lots of research and citations which takes a lot of time. So at the present, I believe I have to start anew in my word processor but I fortunately saved a lot of my sources. I will have to put the finished work into Wikipedia when done.This one needs thorough citations to support my writing. All the best and thanks again!! Creative Lizzie Creative Lizzie (talk) 22:28, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

@Creative Lizzie: - I will add my voice to the chorus saying it's a pity this happened. I think we have all been bitten by it at some stage. The lesson is to save your work regularly - don't spend hours of crafting something and risk losing it if it doesn't get saved for some reason.--Gronk Oz (talk) 22:31, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Even if you hit the "publish" button, if the page you are editing is in your sandbox, the only people who will see it are you and anyone checking the recent changes on Wikipedia. Of course you can work in a word processor as well to be safe, but writing piecemeal in your sandbox makes it easier to ensure formatting and references are consistent. Published work can always be edited. Reconrabbit 22:34, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Creative Lizzie (talk) Hello Gronk Oz and Recon RabbitCreative Lizzie (talk) So enjoy hearing your voices. It made me feel a bit better to hear others have been bitten by this one. There was definitely some crafting but hopefully it will come back even better. I agree working piecemeal would be the best; I assume everyone would understand that the bio is in development and needs a major amount of citations? I hope nobody will want to redo my beginning efforts in the sandbox. This one definitely needs time. Many thanks to all of you for your time, explanations, links and effort with my loss!! You are the best!! Cream Creative Lizzie (talk) 23:05, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Can sandbox writing can be edited when published? I assume it can but how is the writer supposed to develop it in sandbox with other edits? That would be very confusing at first! Creative Lizzie (talk) 23:16, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Double check to make sure you click publish. There is also show preview. A thing should saying your edits was published when clicking publish. Cwater1 (talk) 00:00, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Creative Lizzie. I have used sandbox pages extensively for close to 15 years. I publish my sandbox pages frequently because, like you, I do not want to lose anything. Often, my first edit to a new sandbox is a single bare URL to a reliable source. I publish it. Then I add more bare URLs, publishing each as I go. Then, I transform each URL into a reference with full bibliographic details, and I publish, publish, publish as I go along. I reach a point where I have perhaps six fully formatted references and not a single word of prose. Then, I started summarizing in my own words what the reliable sources say, publishing frequently. I rearrange, add section headers and perhaps images, format things properly, and copyedit. I may hit publish 50 times during this sandbox process and that's OK. Only then do I move the sandbox to the main space of the encyclopedia. Not one of my new articles has ever been deleted. My personal opinion is that trying to write articles in a word processor is a frustrating waste of time. Developing content in a sandbox enables you to constantly see what the work would look like as an actual encyclopedia article, which I find very helpful. Cullen328 (talk) 23:57, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi, my response to Cwater1 was meant for you!! This shows you a bit of my learning curve! Your ideas are wonderful and i am going to use them!! Creative Lizzie (talk) 00:27, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I wonder if our interface ought to be saying "save" rather than "publish" when creating draft or sandbox pages. Would that have made it clearer? Sdkb ^talk 00:32, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I think that could possibly be easier to understand. Maybe "Save" and maybe "Publish" for the final work. I think "Publish" is a bit confusing. For me, being a newspaper man's daughter, publish means going to press!! Creative Lizzie (talk) 00:36, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

However, publish edits and final copy mean 2 different things to me. It is a language issue for sure. Creative Lizzie (talk) 00:38, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

But then some people who'd "saved" would complain that what they'd saved was merely a working draft and that they'd no idea that others could actually see it. -- Hoary (talk) 00:39, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

That is exactly why the Wikimedia Foundation changed "Save" to "Publish" several years ago. Some editors were writing angry, threatening screeds in their sandbox pages, and were surprised to learn that other editors could read what they wrote. Cullen328 (talk) 00:44, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply.I am understanding more about wikipedia all the time!! Creative Lizzie (talk) 01:47, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply! There are definitely issues either way. Creative Lizzie (talk) 01:46, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Different strokes. I'd never use a word processor for composing an article (it would try to be "helpful", in undesirable ways), but I routinely use a text editor for this purpose. My own choice is Geany, but most are OK. (For Windows, Notepad++ is good.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:54, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Issue?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Issue fixed. Cwater1 (talk) 04:25, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

---

Is there an issue? See Talk:Erin_&_Aaron#Issue. Cwater1 (talk) 22:11, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Update: Fixed Cwater1 (talk) 22:49, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Wow! Thank you so much for this great way to get started! I can see how that would work for me. Working with a word processor is a backward way to go but I could not figure out an alternative. Now I have a plan with steps. Very smart indeed! My hope is that this work will bring supported knowledge of a great American and make sense sequentially. Again, I appreciate the time and effort you took to write this......very grateful for your sharing! Creative Lizzie (talk) 00:22, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

So sorry Cwater 1, this was meant for Cullen328. Thank you for your understanding. Creative Lizzie (talk) 00:28, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

It's fine. So many things going on I imagine. Closing discussion anyways since the issue I was facing is fixed.Cwater1 (talk) 04:25, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

editing an article

Hi

I have made a few edits to a couple of Wikipedia pages recently - in good faith, but sadly to no good end.

It is a huge disappointment to see that they have all been taken down, without any good reason as far as I can see.

It is a great shame, as I spent a long time researching and fact checking the information. I can imagine that this will strongly discourage further contributions.  

I do not expect a response, but I think that it is rather dispiriting to have contributions dismissed in this fashion.

Best regards

Richard M Richard Move (talk) 23:23, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, while your edits seem constructive, some of it is either unsourced or poorly sourced (such as to fandomwiki sites, something that goes against the policy on user generated content), leading to otherwise constructive edits (such as breaking up paragraphs into more readable chunks) being reverted due to them also containing stuff that is deemed unconstructive. Another reason why your edits may be judged more harshly is because they're on a featured article, and are thus held to an incredibly high standard.

It's very clear to me that you want to work constructively, and I'd really hate for poor experiences now to push you away so please, if you have any questions at all about Wikipedia policies or just general editing then please feel free to leave a message in the Teahouse or on my talk page. I'm sure anyone would be more than happy to help. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 23:39, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Richard Move, one or two comments on your user talk page, though undoubtedly well-intentioned, do seem somewhat gruff. Newcomers may be inclined to mark their edits as "minor" from a certain modesty ("I am making no major claims for this edit"). But that's not at all what "This is a minor edit" is for. (If I were to write "well-intensioned", save the result, and then think "oops!" and edit a second time merely to change the "s" to "t", this second edit would rightfully be "minor".) -- Hoary (talk) 00:33, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Which template should be used for unesco documents?

Just now i read Wikipedia:WikiProject United Nations/UN references, there is link to visual editor. Which template should i use? Id,Ik'+(&sZP4^m (talk) 01:52, 16 February 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Id,Ik'+(&sZP4^m (talk • contribs)

How do i use CC licence?

I don't know how to use CC licence. I want CC BY Attribution licence

please explain how to obtain and use CC licence. it's important because I'm uploading a picture to Wikimedia Commons Akhinesh777 (talk) 04:46, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

If you are the copyright holder of the image, you can simply select the CC BY 4.0 license when you upload the image via the Upload Wizard. It is also advisable that you read Commons:Licensing before uploading anything.

Additionally, in the future, if you have any questions relating to Commons, it's probably better to ask them at Commons:Help desk. — Toast for Teddy (talk) 05:00, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Do i have to save the License Text Code in pdf, is it important? Akhinesh777 (talk) 05:54, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

No, no such action is required on your part. The license is freely available to read at the link above, and the file being tagged with the license on its commons page is all that is required (assuming you are the file's copyright holder). — Toast for Teddy (talk) 05:59, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Wayback Machine behaving weirdly

Can someone else please try archiving this link for me. The Wayback Machine said it successfully captured a snapshot, but it just keeps sending me back to the "this page has not been archived, but it is available on the web" page, and it won't let me try and archive it again. — Toast for Teddy (talk) 05:05, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

You can use archive.ph or archive.today if the problem keeps occurring. ''Flux55'' (talk) 05:23, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

List of all articles

Is there a category or page which contains a list of all articles on this site? ''Flux55'' (talk) 05:21, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Help Needed Regarding New Article

Hi, I am working on this page - Draft:Eshal Fayyaz

I need help deciding what more improvements are needed to publish this. Leezaroy (talk) 05:41, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Changing the official logo of a school

Hello, I am looking to change the official logo of a school: Singapore Chinese Girls' School, to better reflect the official logo.

Disclaimer, I am an employee of the school and the current logo on the page is outdated. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singapore_Chinese_Girls%27_School SCGSS ICT (talk) 05:55, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

@SCGSS ICT is there a change of the logo? The official website looks the same as here? – robertsky (talk) 06:25, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Bye

It's Akhinesh and i decided to stop creating Article and editing on Wikipedia. I think the administrators are jealous for i creating an article. I provided reliable sources to an article that i created it was decline yesterday by @Encoded. I said to him that i provided Reliable sources to it but he didn't respond Akhinesh777 (talk) 06:29, 16 February 2024 (UTC)