Wikipedia:Teahouse

Melecie, a Teahouse host

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

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

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

Help

Wikipedia

How to create a wikipedia page for the company I work for?

The company I work for wants to create a Wikipedia page. I am not sure how to create a Wikipedia page for the company I work for. Can I directly create a page for the company I work for? or I need some permission first to create it? Stephanie.ecms (talk) 21:44, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Stephanie.ecms and welcome to the Teahouse, please have a very close look at these guidelines here Wikipedia:Plain_and_simple_conflict_of_interest_guide and Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies) and the tips you already received at your talk page. CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:47, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I am confusing that can I create the page for the company I work for. The company I work for is a technical support international Express company with a global cross-border end-to-end delivery capability. We also have like LinkedIn account. Could you advise can I create a page for the company I work for? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephanie.ecms (talk • contribs) 22:09, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

On your Talk page, Ian put a ten step process for writing about a company if an employee. It is allowed. First step is declaring your paid status on your User page. You can then create a draft and submit it to Articles for Creation, for review. Key is finding published content about the company written by people who have no connection to the company. David notMD (talk) 22:37, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

@Stephanie.ecms I worry that the advice above might encourage you. It is technically possible, but please don't try. You will very likely fail. Kind regards from PJvanMill (talk) 23:24, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

The source like this if they consider as unbiased? Could I use these sources to create an article? https://ecommerceberlin.com/ecms-express,c,1353 https://blog.shipandco.com/en/ecms/ When we introduce the company. Can we use this to show we are a qualified shipping vendor for Amazon? https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=201910090 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephanie.ecms (talk • contribs) 17:06, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Stephanie.ecms. Frankly, Wikipedia doesn't care in the slightest whether or not you are a shipping vendor for Amazon, unless an independent commentator has found that fact sufficiently interesting to mention it specifically in a published article. And "independent" means "not prompted by your company in any way". That is the kind of information which is typically important for promotion, and typically unimportant for an encyclopaedia. --ColinFine (talk) 15:33, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I read the Talk page for the steps. But I am not sure how do I fill out the template on my user page for the first step. Could you please advise? Stephanie.ecms (talk) 18:33, 10 July 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephanie.ecms (talk • contribs) 18:23, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

AAAS members listing — what to do?

Hi All,

I patrol the dead end pages category and came across this article [ List of American Academy of Arts and Sciences members (2006 - 2019) ], which seems to be just a listing of all AAAS members by year (seemingly lifted from the AAAS website cited as the source); there are a couple of other similar articles, accessible from this 'TOC page' of sorts: [ List of American Academy of Arts and Sciences members ]. I'm guessing that many of the names on the list could be linked to existing articles (which would obviously be a mammoth task if done manually!), but before I even think of tackling that, I wanted to ask for advice on this, as I've never come across a page like this.

Hence my questions:

1. Should this article be kept, or does it violate some policy? (If it's likely to be deleted, then obviously no point in expending energy on linking it.)
2. If kept, should the names be linked to articles, or should this just be left as a dead end page (whether tagged accordingly, or not)?
3. If it should have links, is there a bot or some other automated way of adding the links, or must it be done manually?

Any advice welcome, thanks in advance! :) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:08, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Pinging HRShami, who created the articles. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 07:55, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

On HRSami's Talk page there is a recent conversation with several well-respected Wikipedia editors that appears to end in favor of creating these lists even though many of the members of these prestigious organizations had not yet had Wikipedia articles created about them. David notMD (talk) 10:05, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I suppose a person could Wikilink every name one at a time to see what turns up blue or red. Alternatively, HRSami could consider doing the Wikilinking during the process of creating the lists content. David notMD (talk) 10:19, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing, HRShami, and David notMD: I was concerned that it seems to be nothing more than a duplicate of the source, with no value added, which is not really what we're supposed to be about. Looking at the discussions with Nick Moyes, DGG, and Robert McClenon a year ago (about the IEEE lists), they felt the members were all notable by virtue of the selective nature of the membership and so the list's redlinks would provide a good tool for working through those missing articles. It was suggested to add relevant info, like dates of activity and election to membership. It was also suggested that Wikidata be the repository for that additional data so it can be maintained in one place and keep both the list and the articles updated, which makes a lot of sense to me.

Linking seems to be the very least that should be done. When I have to add links to many items, I basically add all the link markup and then preview each one with the Navigation Popups gadget to make sure it goes to the right article (not someone else with that name), disambiguating as needed. It's a slow, manual, necessary process. If someone wants to move the discussion to somewhere else, please feel free – there were too many options for me to decide on. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 19:38, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

adding links to these lists is particularly helpful in indicating people about whom we need an article. Such articles are a particularly good way for beginning editors to start, because the people are certain to be notable by WP:PROF. DGG ( talk ) 20:48, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I will comment, now that the IEEE list is mentioned, that the terminology for the AAAS is somewhat different than for other comparable learned societies. The IEEE is a professional society, and membership is open to electrical engineers and computer scientists, and is nothing special. The IEEE also honors a few people as Fellows, which is covered by academic notability criterion 3. The term Fellow is also used in Great Britain in for royally chartered bodies such as Fellow of the Royal Society and Fellow of the Royal Society of the arts. It appears that membership in the American Academy of Arts and Sciences is selective, not just a matter of paying your dues. To further confuse things, there is another AAAS, which is the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which has both members and fellows, where members are simply subscribers to its journal, and being a fellow of the AAAS is a significant honor. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:01, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

That's why I created this list because being member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences is an honor and seemed to me like an honor that makes one notable. I thought it would create a good list where people can find academics to write about. I created the List_of_American_Physical_Society_Fellows and XOR'easter helped me in completing the list and linking all the people. I pinged them for their help on this as well. They might come up with an easy solution to create all the wikilinks. Alternatively, I will manually make the wikilinks. But I would like to get a consensus here first that this list does indeed belong on Wikipedia. As a few people have mentioned above, it is just a copy/paste from the source. If this does not belong on Wikipedia and would be removed down the road, I would hate to put in all the effort for creating wikilinks.HRShami (talk) 04:00, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Since no one else has linked to it, WP:LISTPEOPLE would seem to be the relevant policy here.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 11:22, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

You Guys Are Homophobes

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.

---

I put a fun fact on a wikipedia article about tyler the creator’s album “igor” about him being gay, (which that whole album is about) and it got taken down because it “wasn’t constructive” considering he is actually gay isn’t that a little offensive? i don’t understand why my edit got taken down. i’m very upset by this act of homophobia. 2600:100E:B00E:282E:4016:2787:5549:F5CF (talk) 17:01, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello, IP user: I presume you are Poophole696. We appreciate your wanting to contribute, but there were several problems with your edit to Igor (album). First, it was in the wrong place - you put it in the infobox. Secondly, while you provided a citation, you didn't format it corrently, so it appeared in the middle of the text; thirdly, the issue is already covered in a whole section in the article Tyler, the Creator. Since the section is called "Controversy", Wikipedia needs to cover the discussion, not just a single view of it. If you think you have something to add, please start a discussion at Talk:Tyler, the Creator. We, or at least I, don't appreciate being called a homophobe because an editor disagreed with your edit on an article I had never heard of. Please see WP:CIVIL. --ColinFine (talk) 17:26, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Update: Account soft-blocked for username violation, per WP:DISRUPTNAME. Nick Moyes (talk) 18:14, 9 July 2020 (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.

Author Wikipedia Page

I think there should be an article about historian and author Eric Cervini who's new book The Deviant's War: The Homosexual vs. The United States of America was an instant NYT Bestseller and is the first LGBTQ History book to make the NYT list in nearly 30 years. I do want to make sure he passes "notability" standards before spending time writing an article.

Here is the NYT review of his book: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/02/books/review/deviants-war-eric-cervini.html The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/07/the-deviants-war-frank-kameny-gay-equality-review-eric-cervini Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/how-a-stubborn-ex-federal-employee-launched-the-gay-rights-movement/2020/06/11/b7d0a6b8-a059-11ea-b5c9-570a91917d8d_story.html Anderson Cooper 360 appearance: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/2006/15/acd.01.html

Thanks! Teachinghistory (talk) 19:10, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Teachinghistory Welcome to Wikipedia and Teahouse. If you think he might pass the criteria at WP:GNG and notability and there are sufficient reliable independent sources as you highlighted above then you can begin at WP:AFC. Also you can have a look at your first article for a beginner's guide to Wikipedia editing and article creation. ~ Amkgp 💬 19:55, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Teachinghistory. In my opinion formed by some Googling, his book The Deviant's War is almost certainly a notable book, but I found much less significant coverage of Cervini himself in reliable sources. I suggest starting with a Wikipedia article about the book, which could contain a section about the author. Of course, if the book keeps getting lots of coverage, perhaps the author will as well, or maybe he will write other notable works. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:44, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Anne Kabagambe

Are there any reviewers willing to take a look at the draft above? It's been pending review for over 5 weeks now. Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 21:04, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

@Davykamanzi: I'm not a new page patroller, but took a look to get you feedback. I'm not sure the sources and her position demonstrate notability. Almost all the sources are primary sources put out by her employers, with only the French African Shapers site seeming to be independent coverage. I doubt that one article about her in a French semi-reliable publication is enough, and I'm also unsure that being executive director of the World Bank Group's Africa Group 1 constituency is enough either. I think the submission will be rejected unless you can find better sourcing. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:38, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

A reminder that Teahouse volunteers do not serve as AfC reviewers. David notMD (talk) 23:50, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

A reminder that any editor is welcome to comment productively on any AfC draft they find interesting, whether here at the Teahouse or at any other appropriate venue. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:48, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Why are all Wikipedia links within the subdirectory 'wiki' i.e. wikipedia.org/wiki/* ?

 Chemboy545 (talk) 22:14, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

@Chemboy545: Because that's the way the wiki software chooses to organize its filesystem. If I've misunderstood your question, perhaps you can re-phrase or expand on it? —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 22:20, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

@AlanM1: I cannot integrate your response given the software is written by administrators and does not explain why the organization is as such. Chemboy545 (talk) 22:31, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

@Chemboy545: The software is written by developers who work for the WMF and others. I am not one of them, nor are many of them likely to be readers of this page. It's not clear what your question is. Perhaps you'll have better luck waiting for someone else to answer, or ask at WP:VPT, but you might consider better explaining what it is you want to know. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 22:37, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Chemboy545. You might find an answer at meta:Help:Contents. --ColinFine (talk) 22:42, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

@Chemboy545: /wiki/ identifies them as wiki pages. The following is a bit technical. The url form is determined by mw:Manual:$wgArticlePath. Wikipedia and other Wikimedia wikis set $wgArticlePath = '/wiki/$1'; in [1] and [2]. A website can have other content than wiki pages. Wikipedia is only a wiki but it also has page histories, diffs, and so on. They usually have different url's starting with https://en.wikipedia.org/w/. Our robots.txt at https://en.wikipedia.org/robots.txt says Disallow: /w/. This asks bots like web crawlers to not burden our servers by visiting url's starting with https://en.wikipedia.org/w/. They are also omitted from search engine results. The "View history" link at Example says https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Example&action=history. The /wiki/ url http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Example?action=history also works but the /w/ form is preferred and used by builtin features. PrimeHunter (talk) 07:09, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

What is the right way link to a part of a template?

Suppose I want to mention about the section 2.2 of the {{refimprove}} template page. What is the right way to link directly to that section? Datapass (talk) 23:02, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Interesting questions, Datapass. The documentation for templates is usually transcluded from a /doc page, so the answer seems to be [[Template:More citations needed/doc#{{More footnotes needed}}]]. Note that in this case, because the section header contains a link to a template, I had to use {{tl}} for it. --ColinFine (talk) 23:31, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

@Datapass: The above doesn't work. [[Template:More citations needed#%7B%7BMore footnotes needed%7D%7D]] works: Template:More citations needed#{{More footnotes needed}}. I used Help:URL#Fixing links with unsupported characters to encode the brackets so they don't call {{More footnotes needed}} instead of linking the section. PrimeHunter (talk) 06:40, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

That's weird, PrimeHunter. My suggestion does work from the "Preview changes" screen (I checked at the time, and have just verified), but not in the published page! --ColinFine (talk) 08:25, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

@ColinFine: It doesn't work in preview in the default editor. It works for you because you have enabled "New wikitext mode" at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-betafeatures. VisualEditor also gives another result than the saved page. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:14, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Understanding Why a List Was Deleted

Hi everyone,

Not sure if a content warning is necessary but as a heads up the page in question relates to child abuse.

I've read the page about the deletion of Wikipedia pages, but I feel like I must be missing something since the page in question was deleted 13 years ago and obviously hasn't been restored. So, I'm seeking a bit of clarity here before bothering the person who deleted it (thank you in advance!).

I've been recently trying to address issues on pages where children have been victimized - my goal is to help ensure that these pages are accurate, well-written, and properly sourced to respect these children's stories. I have noticed that the "See also" sections of pages detailing child abuse often have a relatively long list of related cases (e.g., the page detailing Nubia Barahona's murder). I thought it might be more expedient/tidy to create a list of incidents of child abuse. I then discovered that a page did formerly exist but was deleted in 2007 November with the admin leaving the comment, "hell no, WP:BLP".

I am a bit confused as to how this violates the biographies of living persons rules as it would be a collection of articles that already exist and (in my inexperienced opinion) appear to be well-sourced. In addition, a category to this effect already exists.

Can someone please help me understand?

Thanks again! A — Preceding unsigned comment added by ApplePiePoliceState (talk • contribs) 01:35, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

@ApplePiePoliceState: Welcome to Wikipedia, and thanks for working to make it better. Without seeing the content of the deleted article List_of_child_abuse_incidents, it would only be speculation as to what content was there. If you want to create a new list that only links to existing articles, that may be ok. I suggest using the WP:AFC process to create a draft for review. Alternatively, perhaps an admin will look at the deleted page and comment on what causes it to be deleted. RudolfRed (talk) 02:16, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

It was an unannotated list, mostly, though not exclusively, of names (mostly, perhaps consistently, the names of victims). So if it had been worth retention in anything like its existing form, it would have been more accurately retitled "List of child abuse victims". Some of the entries in the list took the form [[Incident|Name of victim]]. So hell no, WP:BLP1E. -- Hoary (talk) 04:22, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks to both RudolfRed and Hoary for helping me to understand this! I'm doing my best to wrap my head around all of the different policies/guidelines so this is truly appreciated. :) ApplePiePoliceState (talk) 20:13, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

How to link articles about the same subject in two different languages

Hi everyone, I noticed that the page about steam cracking Steam cracking exists in French fr:Vapocraquage, German de:Steamcracken and Arabic ar:تكسير_بخاري but you cannot see it. These articles do not appear on the languages section of the English article. How do you add them? Thanks and kind regards, Matbla1 (talk) 08:25, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

@Matbla1: Interlanguage link data is stored at Wikidata; however, it seems like there's two instances of the same object: Q3972201 and Q2335334. If you're certain that the two objects are actually identical (having the exact same scope, not one wider than the other), you can merge the two objects. Instructions to do so are here. ◢   Ganbaruby!   (Say hi!) 08:48, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

(ec) Matbla1, Hello! This is annoyingly difficult. I think it involves that someone on Wikidata has to merge Steam cracking (Q3972201) and steam cracking (Q2335334), but I am not at all familiar with Wikidata. I ran into a similar thing recently, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Plants#Kale_in_Scandinavia. Perhaps someone else here can be of more help. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:52, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I asked at [3]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:01, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Reversions on talk page

Hello,

I have been patrolling the edit filter and doing vandalism reversion and user warnings, etc. An IP attempted to vandalize, but it got disallowed by the edit filter. I left a level 1 edit filter warning on their talk page, followed by a level 2 after they repeated their actions a couple minutes later. An hour ago, they undid my edit adding the second warning.

I know that you can remove things from your talk page, (and that it is frowned upon), but I was wondering if it would be acceptable to add the warning back in, so that in case they continue to vandalize, all of their warnings are actually there? Or should I just leave them alone?

Thanks, Giraffer (munch) 09:11, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

@Giraffer: Hello there! As you said they vandalized a few times, it is a good idea to report the ip address to: WP:AIV, Please explain the whole case and an admin will review your case.Trains2050 (talk) 09:27, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Trains2050, they haven't reached their 4 warning limit (they only have 2, now 1 due to this issue) yet so I haven't reported them to AIV... is there anything else you recommend? Giraffer (munch) 09:37, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Giraffer If the IP stops vandalising, yust dont do anything; leave it be. If the IP continiues vandalising, yust scale up to a lvl 3 warning, and if they are beyoynd the fth, yust report. Blanking warnings doesn't mean you never go them, and I can say you that Wikipedia admins are very good at looking up such simple things. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 09:50, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok thanks. Giraffer (munch) 09:52, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Giraffer, i suggest that you give them a level 3 warning next not a level 1 warning as anyone can see the talkpage history and will understand why you gave them level 3 warning not a level 1 warning, if you want you can also put a note in the warning saying ' this is your level 3 warnings not a level 1 because you had previous warnings that you deleted'. Thanks Trains2050 (talk) 09:53, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I also feel happy to jump up one or more levels, often leaving a warning like: "this is the third bad faith edit you've made to this article" - that lets others appreciate the level of activity, even if they've not been warned before. Thank you for not warning and immediately notifying at AIV. It wastes everyone's time if you don't wait until the warning has been breached, as the report will more than likely be rejected. Nick Moyes (talk) 11:13, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Templates

Template:Chatbox





Is that ok? --DanielArtikel (talk) 09:47, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Or need I help with designing Templates? --DanielArtikel (talk) 09:48, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

DanielArtikel Hello there! unfortunately you are not allowed to use the Teahouse to promote your templates, i will now close this case, many thanksTrains2050 (talk) 10:30, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Writing a wikipedia entry for a photographer

Hi I am trying to write a wiki entry for a phootgrapher whose work is not widely known in the fine art world. He was a very respected and well established American commercial/advertising photographer who also took an amazing series of images of some of the POP artists in the early 1960s. This work has been included in many publications. My first draft was rejected and I need to know how best to resubmit including references to books and catalogues his work has been published in. Would this be consdered 'References'? Please help as I am confused about the formatting. Thank you so much, Elizabeth Ecsmith32 (talk) 10:13, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Ecsmith32 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If you represent this photographer, please read about conflict of interest and paid editing for information on required disclosures you may need to make(your draft mentions representation). Wikipedia articles should summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage state about a subject, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability; in this case, the definition of a notable creative professional. More information has been provided by the reviewer on your draft. Information on citing sources can be found at this introductory page. 331dot (talk) 10:19, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Ecsmith32, hello! In general, no. What you need is per WP:BASIC not work he has done, but books and articles that has written about him. Without that, an article will not be accepted. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:22, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

See Herb Greene for an article about a photographer working in the same era, with the caveat that while that article exists, it does not have enough references, and is at risk for deletion if not improved. David notMD (talk) 11:10, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Herb Greene is a wretchedly underreferenced article, liberally spattered with promotional language such as "iconic" and "famed". As a model for an article about a photographer, it's terrible. -- Hoary (talk) 21:50, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I've removed some junk from the article on Greene. (David notMD, thank you for preceding me in this effort.) I hope that it has lost much of its promotional odor, though I'm sure that I'll have missed some spammy slivers. But it remains a terrible model for an article about a photographer. ¶ Lopifalko is an unusually energetic producer of informative, referenced, no-nonsense articles about photographers; see his list for inspiration. -- Hoary (talk) 23:14, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

This will be why Herb Greene is such a mess, COI original research. I'm tempted to push the article back to draftspace, as it's an unsourced mess. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:26, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes indeed. Though I'm not sure if policy permits such old articles (however defective) to be draftified. An alternative (if much uglier) approach would be (i) to replace the template at the top with "Unreferenced section" templates wherever appropriate plus "Citation needed" templates where needed within those sections that are sketchily sourced, (ii) to invite help at relevant Wikiproject talk pages (pop music, photography, San Francisco? but I haven't looked), (iii) return a year later and delete anything still not sourced. -- Hoary (talk) 23:43, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Let's take a look. I see a lot of material here, and am pretty sure that the man merits an article and that what you have produced could be made into a worthwhile article. However ... after talk at the start about our man's childhood, we start to read of his photography: He began working as a photographic assistant and studio manager for the renowned Vogue fashion photographer Clifford Coffin. After his time with Coffin, Kennedy launched his own commercial career and became a very successful freelance advertising agency photographer. | His work appeared in publications such as LIFE magazine and Sports Illustrated. His advertising work appeared in campaigns for national and international clients including Avon, GE, IBM, RJR Nabisco, American Express and Xerox. (Emphases added.) Rather obviously, you never need to say that anybody (or anything) is renowned: if it's true, it goes without saying. If the renown of the time is now forgotten, it may be suggested in the (currently feeble) article on Clifford Coffin. "Very successful" according to whom, and where does this person say so? This work in Life and Sports Illustrated -- was it advertising or editorial? And either way, we need evidence. And we need independent evidence that work was done for each of those companies. (The article Jill Freedman is, I think, a better model for this kind of thing than the one about Greene.) All the best with it! -- Hoary (talk) 22:12, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

User:DanielArtikel

User:DanielArtikel does not appear to be here to work on the encyclopedia, and from looking at his contributions, appears to have been blocked at the German Wikipedia. Any thoughts on whether he should be blocked here? David notMD (talk) 11:17, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

David notMD Hello, the only thing i can tell you is that he was advertising his templates on the Teahouse, but if he has a history of vandalism he should be blocked in my opinion, thanks Trains2050 (talk) 11:37, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

He is blocked on german Wikipedia for being a sock belonging to this socking zooo. Said page on german Wikipedia says that this user wants to add a successor/clone of Tay (bot). Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 11:58, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

"DA" now cautioned on User page (thank you VS). David notMD (talk) 13:21, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

About my Draft called Draft:Pop Fun Tv

Hi can I ask if my draft is ready for review?Tommy Turnbull (talk) 12:27, 10 July 2020 (UTC) Tommy Turnbull (talk) 12:27, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

• Hi Tommy Turnbull and welcome to the Teahouse. Your article has no sources, which means it will be rejected if it is reviewed. Articles on Wikipedia need significant coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject to be published. --Jack Frost (talk) 12:44, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, Tommy Turnbull, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid the answer is, No, Draft:Pop Fun TV is nowhere near ready for review, because it does not have a single reference. You have made the classic beginner's mistake (I made it myself 15 years ago) of writing an article from what you know. Wikipedia isn't interested what you know, or what I know, or what any random person on the Internet knows: it is only interested in material that has already been published in a reliable place - and mostly, material that has been written and published independently of the subject of the article. Solid, substantial, reliable, and wholly independent sources are the starting point for the extremely difficult task of creating an article: anything you do before that - any notes you make, any text you write - is at risk of being entirely wasted if you can't find the necessary sources to establish taht the subject is notable. Please have a good look at your first article.

Also, the fact that you have created an account, and the very first thing you have done is to try the extremely difficult task of creating an article (no, it wasn't an accident that I repeated that phrase) makes me wonder if you have some connection with Pop Fun TV? If you have, please read about editing with a conflict of interest. --ColinFine (talk) 12:47, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Conflict with another editor

I wrote an article about Statue of Robert Baden-Powell, London. I have edited wikis before and I wasn't really bothered when other people edited it. But now I am frustrated by another editor who is insisting on including travel guide fluff because he wants "to keep this above 1500 characters". Part of what he wants to include is about a totally different statue. Can someone help me out, please? Swatchdog (talk) 14:47, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Swatchdog If you aren't able to resolve the dispute through the existing talk page discussion, you should move to dispute resolution. 331dot (talk) 14:49, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Can't you just read the talk page discussion and offer an opinion? Swatchdog (talk) 14:55, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

The available means of dispute resolution offer avenues to get other opinions or resolve the dispute. 331dot (talk) 15:08, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I thought "A friendly place where you can ask questions and get help with using and editing Wikipedia" meant that a human being might be willing to personally help me. But, sure, I will read that long page and try to figure out what I need to do next. Have you considered replacing Wikipedia Teahouse with a flowchart? Swatchdog (talk) 15:23, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

@Swatchdog: If you're wondering why 1500 characters, it seems like the other editor is trying to nominate the article for the did you know? section of the main page. One of the requirements is that the article must be 1500 characters in readable prose length. ◢   Ganbaruby!   (Say hi!) 15:23, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

• FWIW, We disagree on two sentences. Swatchdog doesn't think the sentences belong, though they are sourced. I have said that I believe that the sentences add context. Second, I said, if Swatchdog really wants to delete the two sentences, please add some more content to the article to bring it up over the 1500 floor required by DYK. However, Swatchdog (an editor with an account about three weeks old) who has written their first article and has only edited on this article, seems hell-bent to edit war over these two sentences. If I had known this was going to happen, I wouldn't have nominated Swatchdog's article for DYK. --evrik ^(talk) 02:55, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Juegos Y ESTATE

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pedrito2009 (talk • contribs) 14:58, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Pedrito2009 this is the English language Wikipedia, so do you have a question about the English Wikipedia? Those files appear to be in Spanish, if you have a question about the Spanish Wikipedia, their help desk appears to be at es:Wikipedia:Café/Archivo/Ayuda/Actual. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:03, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Creating of userboxes

Thanks @Ganbaruby: (Say hi!) but I couldn't find some of those userboxes.

My question is; Can I create a userbox and how do you create a userbox? Josedimaria237 (talk) 15:24, 10 July 2020 (UTC) Josedimaria237 (talk) 15:24, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

@Josedimaria237: Of course you can create a userbox! To start, go to a subpage of your userspace, for example, User:Josedimaria237/userbox1. Play around with the parameters of Template:Userbox to make something you like. Check out this one that I made as an example. To use the userbox, simply put the name of your userbox page in curly brackets, for example, {{User:Josedimaria237/userbox1}}. ◢   Ganbaruby!   (Say hi!) 15:46, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

New conflicts of interest

I know there's a noticeboard specifically for COI issues, but I'm really asking for the community's opinion rather than for some specific action to be taken. I observed the discussions leading up to Bnguyen1114 being banned from enwiki, on account of an arbitration committee opinion which the blocking admin explained as "Being part of someone's campaign team, paid or otherwise, does give rise to a COI." I found this surprising since taken at face value, this would prohibit me from editing articles about Sanders Bernie-san, Newman Marie-san and Bowman Jamaal-san simply because I did some GOTV, and since political opponents were mentioned in the above discussions I would also be unable to edit articles about anyone who ran for President in 2016 or 2020. That's why I thought I'd ask if that's really how the community at large thinks about conflicts of interest. Thanks! 209.166.108.199 (talk) 15:35, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Being a member of a campaign team and doing GOTV especially on a national and presidential level are two entirely different things. Praxidicae (talk) 15:37, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

@Praxidicae: That seems like common sense and I agree. However, it seems like the blocking admin, in the discussion I linked to, disagrees that there's a meaningful difference between the two things you mentioned. That's why I'm trying to figure out what others think... 209.166.108.199 (talk) 17:09, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

edit warring from someone using two IP addresses, unsure how to report to Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Hi,

I'm a "learner" stage editor, and just manually reverted several edits by someone who is using two IP addresses for ID. I'd only ever reverted vandalism and 1 instance of minor info in a lead, and I wasn't familiar with the 3RR rule and mistakenly edited 4 comments. I won't edit further, but need help dealing with that editor's edits, and s/he's repeatedly putting claims in the lead that aren't in the body / aren't sourced, some of which are also factually mistaken, and some of which I doubt belong in the lead at all. S/he has also reverted the reverts by me and another editor, considerably exceeding 3RR. The page where this is occurring: United_States_v._Flynn. I would have posted this to the WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, but that says to let the other editor know, and I'm not sure how to do that when the person is using IP addresses for ID. This editor introduced a new section on the talk page about something else, and I decided to post a reply there – Talk:United_States_v._Flynn#We_need_to_describe_Turkish_firm_opinion – in an attempt to stop the edit warring and address the issue where there's sufficient space for discussion (s/he seems to want to discuss it in edit summaries). I haven't encountered this problem before and am not sure if I'm responding in the most productive way (e.g., to get the person's attention and shift it to discussion on the talk page), as I don't have a good handle on how people using IP addresses do/don't get alerts. I also don't know if I should have instead started a new section titled something like "edit warring." I'd appreciate some guidance. Thanks! -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:48, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

@FactOrOpinion: Step one is to contact the user directly at their Talk pages. You could use template {{uw-ew}} if you wish. I would place them on both user talk pages. A customary section title is == July 2020 == but you can use what you want. If you're quite certain it's the same person behind both IPs, then I would add a note with a link to the other IP's user talk page, in each case, but hedge your bets in case you're wrong, per WP:AGF: "you appear to be the same editor as the one who...", or, "your edits at ARTICLE are very much like those of IPUSER...". Hope this helps, Mathglot (talk) 19:34, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

@Mathglot: I just noticed that the edits come from by 3 IP addresses, not 2. None has a talk page created, so do I create talk pages for all 3? I will look at the template, thanks. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:49, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

@FactOrOpinion:, in theory, yes. Note that if they are IPv4-style (dotted decimal; like, (123.45.67.89') then it's worth doing. If they are IPv6 (the longer ones with letters and digits) then they are highly dynamic, meaning next time they sign on, it might be a different one. You could still create the User talk pages anyway; it does provide admins someplace to go find a record of what happened; in theory it's available in the history, but could be scattered. Another possible approach, especially if the problem continues/gets aggravated, is open a discussion on the Talk page of the article itself, entitled, "Edit warring by IP users" (or, "by anonymous users" is a synonym), and briefly state what you found, and list all the IPs there, in one place. If that's too burdensome, just give a date range: "from hh:mm on date, to hh2:mm2 on date2" and admins will be able to figure it out if they need to. If it keeps up, then post at the edit warring noticeboard, linking to any previous discussion you've had about the issue. Mathglot (talk) 20:12, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

@Mathglot: Thanks lots. They're IPv6 addresses. I created a talk page for one of them, referring them to a comment that I'd already posted to the US v Flynn talk page and asking them to join me in resolving it there, and adding the edit war template you pointed out. I decided to create a new section header for the comment I'd already posted to the talk page re: the edit warring, and I'll add a bit more info there re: the timestamps. So hopefully we can resolve it there, and if not, I'll follow up at WP:AN/EW now that I've created a talk page and left a comment about it for one of the IP addresses. Thanks again. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:33, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Yw; good luck! Mathglot (talk) 20:35, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

So, one of your admins blocked whole IPv6 prefix /33 from our biggest provider that also has IPv6 SLAAC turned on (!) by default. So yes, every device has ipv6 and it is in priority. https://bgp.he.net/AS8359#_prefixes6 I think it is a rather bad idea! And after all, he did not manage to block me. WWG1WGA! 213.87.152.162 (talk) 00:40, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Drmies: regarding your recent blocks of two IPv6's (here, and here), please see the remark immediately above this one (perma). Not sure if 213.87.152.162 is feeling left out, and sorry he wasn't blocked, or what. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 02:54, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Drmies: please also see the related comment from 213.87.156.221 here: [4], as that comment self-identifies as the same person. Thanks again for your help. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 07:41, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

FactOrOpinion, I apologize to the Moscow IP for leaving them out. Please see the range 213.87.144.0/20 , and you will find a whole range of disruptive edits, and together they all add up to disruption. Drmies (talk) 20:27, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

More references templates

Hello. Is it appropriate to remove the "needs additional citations for verification" template after adding references from RS, while leaving individual "citation needed" tags within the article? Or phrased another way, can an editor add RS references to an article, remove the broad banner at the top, and leave the individual citation needed tags? I sometimes feel that an article, in general, is adequately sourced after I add more references, but that old "citation needed" tags remain, often from years ago, both legitimately, and in some cases, due to edit warring, petulance, etc. Thank you. Caro7200 (talk) 16:14, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

@Caro7200: Yes, that is fine. The banner is if the entire article needs more citations. If most of it is cited except for a few places, the inline template is less obtrusive and more helpful. ◢   Ganbaruby!   (Say hi!) 16:22, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! Caro7200 (talk) 16:24, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

@Caro7200: See also WP:WTRMT (should be linked from the template itself). Mathglot (talk) 19:39, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Constitution of India citation

Dear fellow editors, in the article of <<Constitution of India>>, the preamble

has the ta"full citation needed". Can you explain what type of citation needed ?

Cheers... Anupam Dutta (talk) 16:21, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

• Courtesy link: Constitution of India (please try to do this when referring to a wikipedia page). —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 18:11, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

User is referring to the tag following Note 12 at the article. Mathglot (talk) 19:44, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

@Anupamdutta73:, they are asking for details about this journal article, in order to properly fulfill the requirements of Wikipedia's WP:Verifiability policy. The reference currently is coded this way:

{{cite web | title= Constitutional supremacy vs parliamentary supremacy | url= http://www.cesruc.org/uploads/soft/130306/1-130306154F7.pdf | accessdate= 12 October 2015 | archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20151208060028/http://www.cesruc.org/uploads/soft/130306/1-130306154F7.pdf | archive-date= 8 December 2015 | url-status=dead }}

That's a good start, but it doesn't identify the journal name, the title, or other important features. Also, {{cite journal}} is a better template here, than {{cite web}}. Please fill out the following model, place it between <ref> tags, and use it as the reference:

{{cite journal |journal= |last= |first= |title= |url= |publisher= |date= |volume= |issue= |pages= |doi= |access-date= |url-status= |archive-url= |archive-date= }}

If you have questions about the fields, see {{cite journal}}. Mathglot (talk) 19:54, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Kallars described as theifs

Kallar is holifying name whereas the God Kallalagar was worshiped in southern parts of tamilnadu. There were many people " piraimalar kallar" who has fought for freedom of india , the well-known fight with british by piramalai kallars. They are the descendats of King Raja Raja Chola.Pudukottai thondaiman kings . Kallars are majorly found in southern districts of tamil nadu like Madurai ,theni ,pudukkottai ,thanjavur and Dindigul.

There is a word od difference between Kallar and Kalvar - Theif Raajadheeben (talk) 16:23, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

@Raajadheeben: If you have a change you would like to make to an article, please raise the issue on the article's talk page. Note that any substantial change (like the area you are discussing) requires a reliable source (see those blue links for more information). —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 18:14, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Convenience link: Kallar (caste).   Maproom (talk) 08:20, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Full Length Feature Black Lives Matter Film

Full Length Feature Black Lives Matter Film Edit Hello my name is BK Wilson, owner of Name Day Studios LLC. I've advocated for black rights for over a decade and currently on Amazon Prime with my short #BLM film, Dichotomy Brewing.

I am campaigning to create a feature film to educate everyone in America and beyond about the expendability of black people currently in the USA. Change has to come and alot of potential supporters are confusing the Black Lives Matter movement to the Black Lives Matter website that contributes to ActBlue, a political organization.

My film will be a unbiased report on this issue and the movement surrounding Black Lives Matter. I recently made the front page of the paper, Tuesday June 23 this year in the Daily/Sunday Review serving NEPA and upstate NY.

My purpose for requesting your help is to hopefully appeal to your better Angels regarding the systemic racism keeping artists that work as hard as I am from being heard on the same level as anyone else that works as hard and for this long. I primarily would like to not be confused by potential donors with the ActBlue website while fundraising on Facebook and other sites. Wikipedia gives this film and our cause legitimacy.

Please consider my request for help. I tried to write an article myself but was told it was not valid and only people with news articles about them are included on Wikipedia. Now that I have made the news can your website please grant me the same public acceptance as IMDB.com, The Daily/Sunday Review and Kickstarter.com granted my films.

Thank you for your time in this matter, B.K. Wilson 2601:98A:8180:17E0:B023:CE37:BFB8:B4EB (talk) 17:06, :Hello Unregistere3d editor 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Unregistered editor B.K. Wilson

Wikipedia is not the place to campaign for anything, to tell the world about anything. Wikipedia is not present to help raise funds for anything (except to a limited degree for Wikipedia itself). Also, as per WP:CRYSTAL, Wikipedia rarely covers things that have not yet happened. Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources have already published about notable topics, not what people or organizations say about themselves. When reliable sources are systematically biased Wikipedia will inevitably inherit some of that boas, as it will not have articles about topics not covered by sources.

If you individually been covered in some detail by independent published reliable sources (which are not limited to news articles) then there could perhaps be an article about you, but it would be best if someone else were to write it. I might add that the IMDB, in particular, is not considered a reliable source here. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:27, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Unconstructive edits at Pandemic article

question about my edits that ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia

‡ Єl Cid of Valencia, why do you not consider my edits at Pandemic constructive? – — ° ′ ″ ≈ ≠ ≤ ≥ ± − × ÷ ← → · § 2604:3D08:D180:4500:F070:7D6:EC27:ABF5 (talk) 17:54, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I have reviewed your edits and it is not considered constructive because YouTube is not a reliable source and also racism is not considered an infectious disease pandemic , see WP:RS for more info. Trains2050 (talk) 19:26, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

2604:3D08:D180:4500:F070:7D6:EC27:ABF5, I have left a message on your talk page explaining why your edits were undone. But to summarize here, you added racism to the pandemic article, listing it as a current pandemic in the article's lead. Although some may consider racism a pandemic, the article in question is about infectious diseases, which racism is not. Therefore your edit was undone. Also, in future, if you have an issue with something an editor did please take it up on their talkpage. The Teahouse is a place to ask about editing, not about resolving disuputes. Regards, Giraffer (munch) 19:30, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, this issue will likely come up again as various governments and NGOs are declaring racism to be a health problem. Discussion over the appropriate terminology is likely to continue. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 21:00, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

E.g., "'We are Living in a Racism Pandemic,' Says APA President". American Psychological Association. 29 May 2020. Retrieved 10 July 2020.

—[AlanM1 (talk)]— 21:03, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

A psychologist may title an editorial so, to make a point. Does not mean that racism is an infectious disease. David notMD (talk) 21:08, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm not taking a stance on the issue (certainly not here), just noting its notability. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 21:12, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Toni Morrison and Literature of the American South

I realize that Toni Morrison's origins are in Ohio, but it seems to me that the concerns she raises in her work about the experience of African Americans are deeply rooted in the South and share themes with the canon of Southern Literature. I wonder why she is not mentioned in that article. Camiloraoul (talk) 20:01, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Camiloraoul. I'm afraid I am unable to ascertain what article you might be referring to, as you failed to supply any page link, nor have you previously edited any articles from this account. In any event, we would have suggested that any concerns you might have over bias or lack of content in any article is expressed on the talk page of the relevant article, along with any necessary links to sources for others to check out. Just look for the 'Talk' tab and post your comments there, please. Nick Moyes (talk) 20:46, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Maybe Southern United States literature. Allows for authors who live/lived in the South or wrote about same. You could consider adding one of her books to the Notable Works list. David notMD (talk) 21:10, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Toni Morrison was born and raised in Lorain, Ohio, a multi-cultural, multi-ethnic industrial city which is in the very northern part of Ohio, on Lake Erie. She was connected with and very fond of Lorain her entire life. Her early novels were set in Northern states such as Ohio, Michigan and Maine. She spent most of her professional life in New York and at Princeton University in New Jersey. Yes, her most successful novel was Beloved, a novel of slavery in the south, but even that book was part of a trilogy, and Harlem was a major setting of that trilogy. She was an African-American woman writer, one of the very best, but in my opinion not really a "Southern writer". Other opinions may vary. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:37, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Beloved (novel) won a Pulitzer and other accolades (and became a movie). My opinion is that it is worthy for addition to that list. David notMD (talk) 01:45, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Indian Hate Propegenda against SIKHS For JUSTICE

Sikhs for justice page is semi protected and contains all the wrong facts and hate language against this human rights advocacy group that is fighting peaceful and democratic fight for the freedom Punjab according to UN Charter. Please an senior international editor must pay attention to this page. Indian State and its Online propaganda machinery is keeping close eye on this page. PLease HELP!! Openthedoor799 (talk) 00:15, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

You are writing about the article Sikhs for Justice. The place to discuss this is Talk:Sikhs for Justice. I notice that you have already been there and have tampered with another person's signed comment. I have undone this tampering of yours. Do not tamper with other people's comments. If you do so again, you will be prevented from making any edits, anywhere. Now, please return to Talk:Sikhs for Justice and make your suggestions for the article, calmly and persuasively, citing published evidence. -- Hoary (talk) 00:27, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Linking

Is linking a person (who doesn’t have a Wikipedia article) to a wikidata page acceptable? My query is regarding actions on Lucas Matthysse and Walter Matthysse; there’s a strange occurrence of multiple new accounts insisting on adding a mention of Walter Matthysse Jr. with a link to a wikidata page in the lead sections of both articles (diff) (I’ve reverted attempts on the grounds that, while he may be their relative, he’s simply not notable so should be mentioned elsewhere). Is the wikidata link an acceptable thing? I haven’t been editing all that long but I have yet to see a person being linked to a wikidata page. It seems unnecessary and quite frankly, rather pointless. – ².O.^Boxing 00:25, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Linking a person's name, or a term, to a WikiData page can be worthwhile. I often do it myself (see for example the article Teikō Shiotani). I do it because the WD page helpfully links to a pages about the linked term in at least one other Wikipedia. I looked in one of the pair of articles you point to. The last sentence of the lead read (in an earlier version) "And his nephew is Walter Matthysse Jr.who is also a professional boxer." If this is necessary anywhere, it's certainly not necessary in the lead. I suggest that it's not necessary anywhere. And the WD page doesn't link to an article about Junior in the Wikipedia of any language. I don't know what the motivation was for creating Q96745630 or mentioning this man within articles that are supposed to be about other people, but the possibility of promotion does occur to me. -- Hoary (talk) 01:16, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I took a look at the article you linked and can see the advantages it can have. Thank you for making me aware. Slightly off topic but still related, is there any point of this being around? – ².O.^Boxing 01:36, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

It is a (not good) draft about the son. Up to the creator and other editors to improve it before submitting to AfC. David notMD (talk) 01:41, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Okie doke. Thanks. – ².O.^Boxing 01:50, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia aware its shyness about using visual images causes people to go to other websites?

First of all, let me say that I love Wikipedia and happily kick you $100 annually. I'm a blogger about Japan and anime and often use it to beef up my research on topics I write about.

I was researching an idea for a blog post based on the history of "hentai" anime, reading the Cream Lemon Wikipedia page. Seeing this page reminded me of a long-standing limitation I have sensed with Wikipedia — not so much with this page specifically, as it's about 18+ anime, but with many topics, such as a more general anime, such as Gundam. That limitation is that there are often no images, or only the bare minimum of images, because (as I perceive) institutional shyness about not wanting to use any copyrighted image that isn't clearly in the public domain, despite it clearly being okay for an educational source such as Wikipedia to use any image of Amuro Ray (for example) that was from the show itself (e.g. not fanart).

One common use case for doing internet searches for me is google the characters of an anime so I don't make a mistake, referring to a character with the wrong name, which would embarrass me. If I needed to hit the List of Mobile Suit Zeta Gundam characters page to check a character's visual image, well I'm not going to be rewarded as there are no images there. And so I have to google "Wikia mobile suit zeta gundam characters" to get actual visuals of the characters I need. Wikia type sites offer a lower quality than Wikipedia to my mind, but they are more useful as they're not "institutionally shy" about showing images.

I honestly don't expect much to change about Wikipedia. You are a big institution and have a certain way of thinking, and I've butted heads with your editors enough to know there would be resistance to making changes. I just wanted to point out what I consider to be the biggest limitation of Wikipedia, the general lack of useful visuals in many cases, which limits the kind of research I can do, and/or causes me to cross-reference research with other websites. Peter Payne (talk) 02:10, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

@Ppayne: Welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for your thoughts. The standards here are more strict than the legal threshold of fair use. To use a non-free image, it must meet all the criteria at WP:NFCC. RudolfRed (talk) 02:29, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Ppayne. Think of it this way: Wikipedia strives to be a source of free knowledge that can be freely shared as widely as possible, both its text and its images. Non free images should be kept to a bare minimum and limited to low resolution images that indisputably contribute to encyclopedic knowledge. Not for decoration of Wikipedia articles about popular culture, when anyone can use Google Images to find copyrighted images off Wikipedia of their niche interests. Our sister project Wikimedia Commons has roughly 50 million graphic files that can be used for any purpose anywhere. You can help increase that number by freely licensing images that you have created. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:45, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Ppayne. Thanks for your thoughts. I notice you say "causes people to go to other websites" as though that were a problem. I don't see it that way. Wikipedia is a resource that is created collaboratively, and I see it as a part of a larger collaborative (not competitive) world. There are many kinds of information that Wikipedia, as a matter of policy, does not hold, but it is fine for it to hold links to that information, within certain limitations. I agree that the limitations on images (and audio and video) are disappointing, and I'm sure that these limitations are there mostly for legal rather than editorial reasons. But if a limitation sends people to another site, I don't see that as a failure. --ColinFine (talk) 11:44, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

My first article

I am a guest editor, overseeing a group adding theatre articles. I just wrote my first article but this was the message I received: "This is not a Wikipedia article: It is an individual user's work-in-progress page, and may be incomplete and/or unreliable." And it said that it may take 7 weeks to review the article before it's added. Am I following the correct process? Ruth RuthieLawrence (talk) 02:20, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for asking. Virtually everybody is a guest; some stick around for longer than others. You have written a draft, Draft:Newfoundland Travelling Theatre Company. It is indeed not an article. You're following the correct process. (However, I think you have quite a bit more work to do on your draft.) -- Hoary (talk) 02:36, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Reviewed - and declined. The reviewer provided a comment on what is needed before resubmitting. The review process is not a queue, so it can truly be days to months. I put one of the refs in a proper format. You can use that as a model to fix the other refs, as Wikipedia prefers that refs not be 'bare URLs'. David notMD (talk) 10:59, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Minimally, you want three (rarely, two) references that are AT LENGTH about the theater company. Brief mention refs can be cited if those contribute factual information, but a slew of brief mentions is not a substitute for high quality refs. David notMD (talk) 13:44, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Category:Treaties of the Kingdom of Italy (1861–1946)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Treaties_of_the_Kingdom_of_Italy_(1861%E2%80%931946)

Hello, I am writing because there appears to be information lacking from the given page. Specifically, there is no mention of the Italian treaty with Hawai'i from July 22, 1863. I would be grateful if someone could look into adding this information, and hearing back. Thanks! 2601:249:1680:F040:387F:492D:6B05:468F (talk) 03:27, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

A category page will only contain other categories or articles. There are many entries on the List of bilateral treaties signed by the Hawaiian Kingdom, but only one of them has an article.--Quisqualis (talk) 04:43, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Re: Future Events

Wanted to get some inputs on if there are any additional actions that are required from my end when trying to mark an article for deletion.

The article under question is 2020 Super Start Batteries 400. This is about a future event, but sections of the event have been written as though the event has been completed. E.g. the commentators who have called the race. Also, the article has empty tables for the starting grid, ending leaderboard etc.

I initially marked it with a proposed for deletion tag, and left a comment at the author's talk page, and when that was deleted, I placed the AFD tag and added my notes in the page where discussion was supposed to happen.

Is there something else that is required from my end.

I had to do something similar in these pages as well.

2020 Super Start Batteries 400

2020 FireKeepers Casino 500

2020 Consumers Energy 500

Thanks much,

Kaisertalk (talk) 05:09, 11 July 2020 (UTC) Kaisertalk (talk) 05:09, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello Kaisertalk, and welcome to the Teahouse. There were a couple of key steps which were missed, however I have fixed those up for you. There's some simple instructions at WP:AFDHOW on how to properly list articles for deletion; all three steps listed there need to be completed for the article to be properly listed. Alternatively, you can install and use Twinkle which is a semi-automated tool which can do these steps for you. Happy editing, --Jack Frost (talk) 05:27, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you so much Jack Frost. Just tried Twinkle and it looks great. Thanks. Kaisertalk (talk) 06:03, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Taxoboxes for dummies

I had planned to create a new page from scratch for a recently-described genus of linyphiid spider, but I could not figure out how to properly code in a taxobox. I tried referencing the code from another page to see how the taxobox was structured and then implement it on the new page, but my efforts were for naught.

I might be missing the mark as far as troubleshooting goes, but it seemed that since the genus itself didn't have a linkable page yet, I couldn't get the taxobox for that same genus to work.

Anyone out there who can lend a hand to a novice wiki editor like me in regards to this issue? Teal Reverie (talk) 06:16, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Teal Reverie, and welcome to the Teahouse. I am really sorry you had to wait so long for a reply. I started this reply earlier today, but got rather distracted IRL, though your issue now looks to have been resolved since then. The article you are referring to is Draft:Yuelushannus, and the problem was that you've deployed the automatic taxobox which will - as the name suggests- automatically prefill it with existing data.

If you look at another Genus of spiders in the Linyphiidae, such as Savignia you'll see, it too, uses an automatox taxobox. If you click the red pencil icon at the top of its taxobox, you'll be taken to the template which populates it: Template:Taxonomy/Savignia. The problem was that this is a newly-described taxon, so until that entry for the Genus is created, the taxobox won't function as it should. Luckily, Umimmak has now just created that template, so your taxobox seems to work fine now. For more information, see Wikipedia:Automated taxobox system/intro.

By the way, you might like to make sure your draft includes a url directly to the actual pdf describing the two species, and not just to the abstract. It's at https://europeanjournaloftaxonomy.eu/index.php/ejt/article/download/931/2237 All the best, and keep up the good work! Nick Moyes (talk) 00:55, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Riggy Marz

Stephen Melnick (born late 80s) better known by his stage name Riggy Marz, is an American Rapper from Los Angeles, CA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monkey Canyon B4 the fires (talk • contribs) 08:07, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Do you have a question? -- Hoary (talk) 12:00, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Files across different language Wikipedias

How do non-free files work across different language Wikipedias, provided they are for the same use? WDM10 (talk) 09:09, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi WDM10. A non-free file may not be uploaded to Wikimedida Commons which is the only way to display a single upload at multiple wikis. It has to be uploaded separately to each wiki where it is used, assuming the wiki allows the use. Rules vary and some wikis don't allow any non-free files. See meta:Non-free content. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:32, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: Thanks. Can you please just make sure I've done everything right here? WDM10 (talk) 09:54, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

@WDM10: 500 × 500 pixels breaks Wikipedia:Non-free content#Image resolution. A square image should be at most 316 × 316 pixels to stay below 100,000 pixels. It's displayed smaller in the infobox anyway. I have added {{Non-free reduce}} to the file page. This should fix it soon without further action. I see the Russian Wikipedia also has it at 500 × 500 pixels. I don't know the language or their policies. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:17, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: Thanks a lot for your help. WDM10 (talk) 10:19, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Create a page

How I create a page Abhilash2001kar (talk) 11:00, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Abhilash2001kar Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia has articles, not mere "pages". Successfully creating a new Wikipedia article is the absolute hardest thing to do on Wikipedia. It takes much time and practice, and diving in without at least a basic understanding of some of the process usually results in disappointment and hurt feelings as your work is mercilessly edited and deleted by others. I don't want you to have bad feelings, so it is a good idea for you to first spend time editing existing articles in areas that interest you, to get a feel for how Wikipedia operates and what is expected of article content. It's also a good idea for you to use the new user tutorial to learn more about using Wikipedia.

If you still want to attempt to create a new article, you should review Your First Article and then go to Articles for Creation to create and submit a draft for review by another editor before it is formally placed in the encyclopedia. This way you find out problems first, instead of afterwards when it will be treated more critically. 331dot (talk) 11:06, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Abhilash2001kar You have created Barabatia, Bhadrak by by-passing the review process. At present it has no references. You should add references, if such can be found, or else it is at risk of being nominated for deletion. David notMD (talk) 13:52, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Section I placed in around last Aug was removed July 2, 2020, possibly ill-considered. Can you tell me the procedure for disputing?

Regarding this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act , around last August I had stuck in a section called "Problems", specifically focusing on problems with how the ACA was working.

About a month later, there was a lot of back and forth between myself, and user:Newslinger over the content, resulting in an RFC, and several Teahouse visits. (As part of this, Newslinger had placed, at the initial stage, tags "biased", "original research", and "some unsound references", which have not been removed.)

In the end, no other editor sufficiently knowledgeable on the ACA structure was available to get involved or even made comments, so it was deadlocked between Newslinger and me, it was agreed between he/she and I that I would make removals, and remove less-reliable, redundant references, and also remove some numerical dollar-amount calculations, but the section would stay.

After making those changes, this was the section: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act&oldid=965614011#Problems

(pulled from archive).

The section stayed in since then, until I noticed it was removed July 2, 2020 by user:somedifferentstuff, (removal here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act&type=revision&diff=965614396&oldid=965614011), with the reason note Problems: "Rmv mainly primary sourced section tagged for a year"

My assumption is this likely was sort of an accident by somedifferentstuff. The year old tags "biased", "original research", and "unreliable references" seemed to have caused the removal, without consideration as to the actual content. (In fact, "unreliable references" I should have removed myself, since I did remove those references as identified by Newslinger.) The other two I did not remove, nor did Newslinger. I did not remove them in order to truthfully leave visible to readers the view of one editor, Newslinger, that the content may have had those problems, even though he agreed to keep the section in.

In any case, those unremoved tags seem to have caused user:somedifferentstuff to delete the section. (As far as I can tell.)Though he/she may have had different reasons.

So, I'm trying to get the section restored, within Wikipedia democratic rules and procedures, of course.

I've started by placing a section in the ACA talk: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act#Removal_of_ACA_Problems_Section_7%2F2%2F20--Questioning_That%2C_especially_pre-election

which, if I understand it, will "ping" user:somedifferentstuff for discussion. Also, other editors knowledgeable about the ACA may chime in.

However, if somedifferentstuff doesn't get back in a few days for discussion, can you tell me the next step? (I see there is an "undo" button on the changes, but I'm certainly not going to click on that without following authorized democratic Wikipedia procedures.

Thanks. NormSpier (talk) 17:26, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

The right place for discussion is the article talk page. If you can't reach a consensus there, see WP:Dispute resolution. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:30, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks David Biddulph for your quick response.

Since I see the question here will be archived in two days, to avoid an anticipated problem (no one got involved on the Talk page last year for over a month when newslinger and I had our conflict and we then had to proceed to "conflict resolution" procedures to break the deadlock), can you or someone else tell me how long to wait (via procedure or common sense) for a response on the Talk page before proceeding with further "dispute resolution" procedures.

Thanks.NormSpier (talk) 19:40, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Adding just a little more to the question for David Biddulph to try to avoid repeat questions here later, from looking at the "edit-warring", which I of course want to avoid, if I don't get any response from somedifferentstuff in a few days on the "Talk" page, it sounds to me like it would be reasonable to hit "revert" on the history page, a single time (not the limit of 3), which would at least get the ACA "Problems" section placed back until further discussion, from the group editing and/or somedifferentstuff.

Does that sound correct to you?

P.S. (I have not had interaction with user:somedifferentstuff, and information on his own Talk page suggest he is a right, honorable person seeking to get an accurate, standards-complying article on the ACA. I am just clarifying procedure in case he has gone on vacation, or taken a break from editing Wikipedia for a while.)NormSpier (talk) 19:57, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Making articles

Can you make articles? SesameCudy9 (talk) 18:26, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

@SesameCudy9:, yes! Anyone can create an article if it fits our inclusion criteria and follows the content policies. I strongly, strongly suggest reading Your First Article before getting started, though. Creating new articles is actually a difficult process and oftentimes not the best place for new users to start contributing. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:55, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

SesameCudy9, Also see Wikipedia: A Primer for newcomers, a hand reference tool. ~ Amkgp 💬 19:11, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Comments not in good faith

I gave someone some comments on a photo which they posted in the 2020 United States House of Representatives elections and told them on their talk page to look at my comments on why I was removing it. I was very friendly about it, but the photo just didn’t fit in. Then, the person gave me a false quote saying that I only didn’t want it there because I disliked it. They also said to stop lecturing them. On top of that, they added the photo again. I tried explaining that I was not lecturing, but instead explaining my reasoning. Also I told them it was irrelevant (the photo) and that it was not just because I didn’t like it. I finally explained what edit warring was and how they should not add it again until a consensus has been reached. Then I got this message on my talk page, with the title ‘what is wrong with you’: “Are you somehow a bit out of your mind? I requested you to stop lecturing me, yet now you come back to my Talk page to lecture me again, while in the meanwhile somebody already removed the photograph and I, like I said, would and did not complain about it. What is wrong with you? Please stop your personal freak show and stop harassing me, or I will have measures taken against you. Who the hell do you think you are?” My question is if this person should be reported and if they broke any policy. Also, am I somehow in the wrong? I know that I didn’t do anything to get blocked, but maybe I didn’t follow procedure correctly. Personally I think this person is not editing in good faith and doesn’t want to work with other editors. Yes, the photo is gone, but this comment is too unnerving for me to just let it go. If anyone has any input, please let me know. Sorry for being so long, I wanted to make sure I told the entire story. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 19:04, 11 July 2020 (UTC) Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 19:04, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

@Lima Bean Farmer:, I don't see that your comments either at Talk:2020_United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections#Early_voting_photo or at Eissink's user talk (diff 1, diff 2) were in any way uncivil or otherwise policy-violating. I have dropped a civility warning to Eissink's talk because their post on your talk was certainly an unacceptable personal attack. Maybe that will help. If it doesn't, then there are other options which Eissink is already aware of. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:24, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

The quote I gave was by heart and I made a mistake there, but it wasn't even far off, but more important: the point was that I find it rather presumptuous to point someone else to a Talk page, when you were the one who did the first revert. I find it rather arrogant that someone comes to my Talk page to more or less summon me to go to another Talk page to explain myself. But I did: I said if there are more voices than just one, concerning that nice image that I added there in total good faith, that than I would not revert again. It happened that someone didn't find the picture appropriate there too, and removed it. So that was it – I thought. But no, here comes Lima Bean Farmer to my Talk page again, telling me what edit warring is (as if I wouldn't know, with many years of experience on many projects), and that I should read his message on the other Talk page again – this all while everything was already over and done! I am sorry, but the above "Sorry for being so long" is perhaps indicative for the total misunderstanding here, but don't blame it all on me. If you want to stalk me over something already past and done, something that even turned out in your favor, than I wonder who is the one lacking good faith here. Greetings, and I really hope this was it. Eissink (talk) 20:56, 11 July 2020 (UTC).

@Eissink:, not to belabor the discussion, but you might want to review the generally-accepted editing cycle. You made a bold change and LBF reverted. At that point, discussion of the change on the talk page is a normal step for getting agreement. As an experienced editor, none of this should be a surprise. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:23, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

@Eggishorn: I appreciate your answer, but as you know, I hope, WP:BRD is not policy, nor is it an accepted guideline, and it might be no surprise that I do not agree with a proposal that discourages Be bold in favor of "I'm bolder, sorry you lose". Please contact me again if you somehow experience trouble in relation to my edits, but I hope we can end this discussion now – let's keep seeing things in their right proportions. Thanks, Eissink (talk) 23:00, 11 July 2020 (UTC).

@Eissink: Keeping things in proportion is very sensible. Keeping things polite is a requirement. Do please remember that in your engagement with other editors, no matter how put out you may feel. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:12, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I guess I must misunderstand you, Nick Moyes, or are you really saying that I have given you the impression that I felt "put out"? I'm not sure if I like where this is going. Eissink (talk) 23:32, 11 July 2020 (UTC).

@Eissink: No, you don't misunderstand me. One of your edits did give me the impression that you were 'put out' (i.e. upset) by another editor interacting with you. Otherwise I can see no rational explanation at all for this not very pleasant edit you made, in which you said "What is wrong with you? Please stop your personal freak show and stop harassing me, or I will have measures taken against you. Who the hell do you think you are?". Because anyone can see that you and the other editor have had very little interaction, your immediate accusation of harassment and your threat to take 'measures' was extremely uncivil and unreasonable. Hence my observation that keeping thing WP:CIVIL is a policy requirement. I hope I have clarified things for you. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:32, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Notabillity

I'm considering to make a article about Dunbar Theatre(In Vancouver, BC). The only issue is that I'm not sure if it would meet the notability guidelines. There are articles about it from Straight.com a media in Vancouver and sections from CBC and CTV. The creeper2007^{Talk! Be well, stay safe} 20:07, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello again The creeper2007

Is Straight.com a reliable source? Does the article in Straight.com and the CCC and CTV sections each offer significant coverage? Can one or two additional good sources be found? if yes to all three go right ahead. If no, think a bit. That is my advice. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:17, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

@DESiegel: The thing is that I can't determine wether if straight.com is a reliable source. The creeper2007^{Talk! Be well, stay safe} 00:59, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Comment I would say The Georgia Straight is reliable, but it’s a Vancouver-specific paper so I’m not sure how useful it is for demonstrating general notability for Wikipedia. If a national source like the CBC has provided significant coverage then that’s a good sign though. Umimmak (talk) 01:11, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

• The creeper2007, one option is to add a note about the venue to the Vancouver article, and create a redirect to where it sits in the article -- I'd suggest in the "Film" section -- marking the redirect with template:R with possibilities. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:11, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

You could always post a query at WP:RSN but I tend to agree with Umimmak here. Or youy could look for one more national or good regional source, The creeper2007. If there is none at all that is not a good sign. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:18, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia Articles

Are Wikipedia articles boring?🤔 SesameCudy9 (talk) 20:38, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder ;) Kaisertalk (talk) 22:45, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

@SesameCudy9: Wikipedia is a good representative of life in general. Some articles are interesting and some are boring. But for many it's exciting to have a knowledge gap and be able to fill it so easily. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:33, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Making Wikipedia Articles

How can you make articles? I been stuck for 15 minutes. SesameCurdy9 (talk) 23:02, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello, SesameCurdy9 and welcome to the Teahouse.

Creating new articles from a blank start is one of the harder tasks on Wikipedia, perhaps the hardest an inexperienced user is likely to face. In future I urge you to use the Article Wizard to create a draft under the Articles for Creation project. There, an experienced editor will review your draft once you think it is ready. Only when a reviewer approves will the draft be moved to the main article space. This avoids the situation where a deletion is requested soon after the initial version of an article is posted.

Also, please read Wikipedia's Golden Rule and Your First Article, if you have not already done so. The advice there can be very helpful, in my view.

Here are soem steps that, when followed, often lead to success in creating articles:

• First, review our guideline on notability, our policy on Verifiability, and our general notability guideline (GNG). Consider whether your subject clearly meets the standards listed there. Also, check if the topic is already covered, perhaps under a different spelling or in a section of an article about a wider topic. You will waste a lot of time, if you create a new article, and then find that the encyclopedia already has an article about that.
• Second, read how to create Your First Article and referencing for beginners and again consider if you want to go ahead.
• Third, If you have any connection or affiliation with the subject, disclose it in accordance with our guideline on Conflict of interest. If you have been or expect to be paid for making edits, or are making them as part of your job, disclose this according to the strict rules of the Paid-contribution disclosure. This is absolutely required; omitting it can result in you being blocked from further editing.
• Fourth, gather sources. You want independent, professionally published, reliable sources with each discussing the subject in some detail. If you can't find several such sources, stop; an article will not be created! Sources do NOT need to be online, or in English, although it is helpful if at least some are. The "independent" part is vital. Wikipedia does not consider as independent sources such as press releases, or news stories based on press releases, or anything published by the subject itself or an affiliate of the subject. Strictly local coverage is also not preferred. Regional or national newspapers or magazines, books published by mainstream publishers (not self-published), or scholarly journals are usually good. So are online equivalents of these. (Additional sources may verify particular statements but not discuss the subject in detail. But those significant detailed sources are needed first.)
• Fifth, use the article wizard to create a draft under the articles for creation project. This is always a good idea for an inexperienced editor, but in the case of an editor with a conflict of interest it is essential.
• Sixth, use the sources gathered before (and other sources you may find along the way) to write the article. Cite all significant statements to sources. Do not express opinions or judgements, unless they are explicitly attributed to named people or entities, preferably in a direct quotation, and cited to a source. Do not use puffery or marketing-speak. Provide page numbers, dates, authors and titles for sources to the extent these are available. A title is always needed. Submit the draft when you think it is ready for review. Be prepared to wait a while for a review (several weeks or more).
• Seventh, when (well perhaps if) your draft is declined, pay attention to the comments of the reviewer, and correct the draft and resubmit it. During this whole process, if you face any unresolvable editing hurdles, or cannot comprehend any editing issue, feel free to post a request here or at the help desk and ask the regulars. Repeat this until the draft passes review.

Congratulations, you have now created a valid Wikipedia article. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:09, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Question about rejection

Hi! I tried adding an article about the musician Davy Nathan and got rejected twice. The second time the reason was that 'This draft has been resubmitted without any visible improvement, or with very little improvement.' I did however added footnotes and references as asked by the first rejection. The second rejection also said 'This draft does not appear to indicate which of the musical notability criteria is satisfied.' I included 3 articles of note about the subject, however they are in Hebrew. I also included credits and discography links from various respected websites.

Thank you! any help would be appreciated. Mybrighteyes28 (talk) 00:33, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

@Mybrighteyes28: You need more sources like 13news.co.il and Isreallycool, but even those don't really provide any in-depth coverage beyond "Davy Nathan is an Israeli musician who competed on the X Factor and played for the RNC." Discogs is not a reliable source and directory listings like Broadwayworld don't establish notability or really provide any information besides "he exists." Ideally, you should write articles by finding in-depth reliable sources first and then just summarizing those (for more on that, see "How to write articles that won't be rejected or deleted" in this guide I wrote). Ian.thomson (talk) 00:46, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Mybrighteyes28. The draft article is heavy on name-dropping which is a negative, and very light on references to independent, reliable sources that devote significant coverage to Nathan. The two sources that look independent are both brief. The Hebrew language source quotes Nathan himself, so is more of an interview than a truly independent source, and is only four short paragraphs long. The draft article is full of unreferenced assertions which must be removed if references to reliable sources cannot be provided. A minor point is that the draft refers to Nathan by his first name, which is a violation of the Manual of Style, which says we refer to people by their surnames after first mention. I suggest that you read and study Your first article. Based on the current state of your draft, I do not believe that Nathan is notable at this time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:00, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

QUIERO SUBIR LA BIOGRAFÍA DE UNA PERSONALIDAD VIVA A WIKIPEDIA

Hola! soy nuevo editor ¿como hago para subir / hacer una nueva biografía de una personalidad viva a wikipedia? Sil Gamarra (talk) 00:55, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

@Sil Gamarra: Welcome to the English wikipedia. If you are not comfortable with writing in English, try the Spanish Wikipedia. The help desk is here: [5] RudolfRed (talk) 01:00, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Sachin Pilot

Hi! Please anyone how to stop people misusing wiki ? Someone is playing with Sachin Pilot and making unnecessary changes. He is being depicted as

the new Chief Minister out of context. People in India are taking snapshots & it's #2 trend on Twitter India.

Do we have a mechanism to monitor who is using this platform for wrong reasons ?

Thanks Shekhar in (talk) 01:17, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Shekhar in, and welcome to the Teahouse. If someone is editing to make the article incorrect or unclear, the place to discuss this is Talk:Sachin Pilot. Please cite reliable sources for your view there. Please follow the Bold, revert, discuss cycle, but you can start the discuss phase early. Please indicate on the talk page as exactly as you can what you think is wrong with the edits or the state of the article.

Wikipedia does not normally reveal any information it has as to the identity of editors, even if they violate Wikipedia policies. People who engasge in seriously improper activities may be blocked or banned but this is usually done only in serious matters and usually only after warnings. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:26, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for guidance. I will follow as guided. Shekhar in (talk) 01:33, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Needed to practice and understand how neutrality is addressed here at wikipedia.

To understand how neutrality works at wikipedia in actual, I needed to see the ongoing neutrality edits by myself and offer my opinions whenever necessary. Where can I get to see them? I guess they may have been classified. Gub Sub Dub (talk) 01:44, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Gub Sub Dub, and welcoem to teh Teahouse.

No such edits are not "classified" (a term Wikipedia does not use). Only a few edits are hidden from view via Revision deletion, mostly for such serious reasons as copyright infringement or blatant violations of the WP:BLP policy. But edits to restore or achieve neutrality may not be clearly labeled as such. It may be done as part of copy editing, or a summery of "rm puffery" may be used. Or other terms may be used in the summary. I will try to link to soem examples if I9 can think of any, or others may be able to provide some for you to see. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 02:18, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

@Gub Sub Dub: I'm not sure I understand. Are there specific edits you've made that you are concerned about? —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 06:54, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Edit Question

I have a question regarding a review that was added to this article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Call_of_the_Wild:_Dog_of_the_Yukon

The Call of the Wild: Dog of the Yukon

The TVGUIDE.Com review for this title was published on May 10th, 2020. The film was released in 1997. The reviewer did not even get the release date of the film correct (they said 1996, but it was actually 1997). The reviewer took a line from the original New York Post review and poked fun at the film and the NYP review - more than 23 years later. I don't see why a review of a film - made 23 years after its original release - should be included in this article. Film tastes and styles change over the years, as do audience tastes and styles. It has been my experience that Wikipedia includes pertinent reviews of a film made just prior to - or shortly after - the film's original release, not more than 23 years later. This seems irregular, unfair to the original filmmakers and mean-spirited. I tried to remove the additional reference, which was reversed by user Marchjuly. I'd sincerely like to know why. RandySWT1 (talk) 06:00, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

MarchJuly provided an explanation in the Edit summary. With the TVGuide review, the Reception section has a positive and a negative review. There is no valid reason to remove the negative one. David notMD (talk) 07:38, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Subject - Wikipedia page has moved for revision

I got the message that the Wikipedia page: "Ultrasonic algae control" has been moved on 11 July 2020 by XXX, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ultrasonic_algae_control for the current revision. Editor's summary: Quarantine SEO spam

A friend made me the page and I would like to have it online again, with the removed SEO spam, but what exactly it caused I do not know. As a newbie I have really no clue what's going on and how to restore the page. Help is kindly appreciated :) SB2BC (talk) 07:13, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

SB2BC Your friend has been blocked as a sockpuppet, and if you are coordinating edits off wiki that would make you a meatpuppet. If you have any association with the subject of the article, you need to disclose that per the conflict of interest policy. If you are an employee or otherwise paid, you are required by the Terms of Use to comply with the paid editing policy and formally declare that. 331dot (talk) 07:28, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

The article itself is now at Draft:Ultrasonic algae control. David notMD (talk) 07:43, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Navigating what to do when receiving insults and personal attacks

Is there a process to address when another editor frequently insults you personally? I have had multiple encounters where I have tried to ask that we stay on the issues and propose consensus-based solutions to editing disagreements, but the editor usually just attacks me. SeminarianJohn (talk) 07:31, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I want to know why I can't create a page biography

 Cornelius pam (comedian) (talk) 07:46, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

How can I create a page biography here on Wikipedia

I want to create a page biography here on Wikipedia and I'm a user here so I think I have the right to upen a biography of someone. So please don't stop me