Wikipedia:Teahouse

Dbfirs, 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

anyone can help please

I'm very sad, 3 Drafts are not accepting because i am ip and not editor, all have sources, And they refuse for the same reasons. Everyone rejects drafts, nobody helps, we try hours, and they easily refuse in seconds. 1-Draft:Sherif Salama, 2- Draft:Napoleon Wal Mahrousa, 3- Draft:Ali Mansour. --41.35.85.111 (talk) 22:09, 3 August 2020 (UTC) 41.35.85.111 (talk) 22:09, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Note this was posted about 10 hours ago above at #Submit Draft:Ali Mansour. Please don't do that. If you want to add to your previous posting, just edit that section. You have been given lots of feedback on the article page itself regarding notability (and lack thereof) and unsuitability of sources like blogs, interviews, and IMDb. It has nothing to do with you being an IP editor. If others have something to contribute, they will respond in time – we are all volunteers with real lives to attend to. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 23:22, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I reviewed Draft:Sherif Salama and I am sorry but it needs work before publication can be considered. -- Otr500 (talk) 12:33, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Just make an account, and it will save the drafts, its also not the best idea to be an ip editor, because people have access to a lot of info.

I don't edit Wikipedia in English any more because of all the bad English people on here. Here is a suggestion: Edit it in your own language and nobody will bother you. Just look for your language Wikipedia on the home page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.0.60.17 (talk) 18:26, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

You are not being bullied. It's just that the sources are unreliable, and cannot be considered Wikipedia-worthy. Any language Wikipedia users will agree on that. We are not being bad, we're just doing the right thing. Nobody is attacking. I have been in your path, trust me, I have done these stuff. You learna as you make mistakes, that's the thing. You should try loosen up from accepting that the draft is not worthy of inclusion. You can message me on my talk if you need more assistance. GeraldWL 13:47, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Hidden

Source assessment table: Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG? https://elcinema.com/person/2140347/ Independent Appears to be reliable Directory entry ✘ No https://alwafd.news/%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D9%88%D8%A7%D8%B7%D9%86%20%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B5%D8%AD%D9%81%D9%89/3025076-%D8%B9%D9%84%D9%8A-%D9%85%D9%86%D8%B5%D9%88%D8%B1-%D9%85%D8%B1%D8%B4%D8%AF-%D8%B3%D9%8A%D8%A7%D8%AD%D9%8A-%D9%8A%D8%B7%D9%84%D9%82-%D9%85%D8%A8%D8%A7%D8%AF%D8%B1%D8%A9-%D8%A5%D8%B8%D9%87%D8%A7%D8%B1-%D8%AC%D9%85%D8%A7%D9%84-%D9%85%D8%B5%D8%B1-%D8%A8%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D9%88%D8%A8%D8%A7%D9%8A%D9%84 Largely what the subject said about itself, probbably interview Appears to be reliable A few sentences, most by the subject, not even a full paragraph ✘ No https://www.msr4.com/art-news/%D8%B9%D9%84%D9%8A-%D9%85%D9%86%D8%B5%D9%88%D8%B1-%D9%8A%D9%83%D8%B4%D9%81-%D8%B9%D9%86-%D8%AF%D9%88%D8%B1%D9%87-%D9%81%D9%8A-%D9%85%D8%B3%D9%84%D8%B3%D9%84-%D9%86%D8%A7%D8%A8%D9%84%D9%8A%D9%88%D9%86/ Appears to be largely independent ? I'm unsure about the reliability of this website ? More coverage than the last one, but still questionable ? Unknown https://arabic-media.com/articles/id/posts.php?title=Backstage-filming-of-Saraya-Abdeen-series Appears to be independent Probbably reliable Largely about the film, not the actor ✘ No https://dhliz.com/artist/ali_mansour/ Appears to be independent Appeas to be user-editable, at least I saw something like a rate button Directory entry ✘ No https://www.dostor.org/2616509 ? Apepars to be largely what the subject reported, but I cant say that for sure using google translate Appears to be reliable A few paragraphs. ? Unknown https://akhbarelyom.com/news/newdetails/2878459/1/-%D9%84%D8%A7%D9%8A%D9%83-%D9%8A%D8%A7%D8%B1%D8%AF-..-%D9%85%D8%AA%D8%B9%D8%A9-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B3%D9%8A%D9%84%D9%81%D9%8A-%D9%81%D9%8A-%D9%82%D9%84%D8%A8-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B3%D8%A7%D8%AD%D9%84-%D8%B5%D9%88%D8%B1 ? Largely stuff by Mansur on His works, Partially reported by the subject Appaers to be a somewhat reliable source in general Largely about the place he is, describing the wonderfull nature there ✘ No https://www.almasryalyoum.com/news/details/1392385 Largely what the subject reported Appears to be a reliable newspaper ✘ No https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1EUVGasEHWE Interview with the subject ? Youtube can be a questionable source, and without language knowledge it hard to determine the reliability 17:20 Minutes ✘ No https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgEGrMwC7AM Interview with the subject ? Youtube can be a questionable source, and without language knowledge it hard to determine the reliability 12:18 Minutes ✘ No This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}. Note:I had to use google translate to asses, which makes things rather difficult. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 05:37, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Victor Schmidt mobil, source No. 4 about the actor and tells about his role in the series. Translate the content of source: The artist Ali Mansour said that he considers himself lucky, because he participated in a work with the star Yousra, and Ali Mansour embodies within the events of the series "Saraya Abdin" a character (a French photographer) who came to Egypt to take the first photo inside Egypt, and the picture was of the family of Khedive Ismail (Qusai Khouli The mother, Pasha (Yusra), is inside the Abdin Palace garden.

• and all sources speak about Ali Mansour and what he does, you can be sure with google translate (Translate the content of sources). and source assess table shows that there are source newspaper, and sources Independent reliable. Thank you. -102.45.13.38 (talk) 16:02, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Otr500 , Okay, I will work on Draft:Sherif Salama more thanks. This is a very famous actor in the Arab world. -102.45.13.38 (talk) 16:10, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• Hi Victor Schmidt mobil, New sources "Ali Mansour reveals his role in the series "Napoleon wal Mahroussa." , Ali Mansour reveals the details of his work with Yousra elfann.com. , Ali mansour reveals his role in the series Napoleon wal Mahroussa nabd.com. -41.35.87.185 (talk) 18:13, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello Victor Schmidt mobil, I have make an account, Thank you. -Eng Mohammed Hamdy (talk) 22:11, 8 August 2020 (UTC) Hello Otr500, What about Draft:Sherif Salama now? --Eng Mohammed Hamdy (talk) 20:09, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

• Reply: I will look at it when I get a chance. If I do not get back in some timely manner you can feel free to remind me. -- Otr500 (talk) 15:24, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Have you read Wikipedia:YFA to start with? Tried The Wikipedia Adventure? Wikipedia:YFA says that biographies are the hardest to get. Try going easier like how I did with chemicals. This article was made by me when I was less than a week old in Wikipedia. Try going easy when you still have an urge to create an article, Regards. Nihaal The Wikipedian (talk) 06:35, 14 August 2020 (UTC) Eng Mohammed Hamdy The message above is for you. Regards.Nihaal The Wikipedian (talk) 06:40, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

=you should read the tag more carefully - it was not a matter of the number of references, you did not cite them in the article itself= I don't understand what he means. Do you? Negreydens (talk) 15:57, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

You have 12 refs to Theatre Program. The right way is to create one ref and use it in multiple places. David notMD (talk) 17:25, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

(courtesy reply to ping) I concur with David notMD. Giraffer (munch) 18:09, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Negreydens Also, it is not clear if ANY of the refs are to content about her at length, which is essential to establishing her notability. The ones are not behind a paywall do no more than establish that she was in these plays, i.e., her name mentioned in the cast. Concern that the image may be copyright protected, as not clear if Bell20X donated the image. David notMD (talk) 07:09, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

David notMD Giraffer Thank you for your help. I understood about the link on the program, but I dont know how fix it. can you give me an example, please?

I have the letter from Bell20X in Russian, because she is. I sent it to permissions-ru@wikimedia.org . Hope it was enough

David, miss Harding is a theatre and musical actress. During lock-down Northern Irish theatre Lyric (Belfast) streamed 2 performances where she played the one of main characters for the whole world. Just for example. I hope that the decision about her "notability" will be made by knowledgeable people, who know what is the theatre actor not only through Laurence Olivier. Thank you) But the situation is absurd. I have the digital copies of newspapers and theatre programs that I cannot provide because they are not available on the free internet.

Negreydens The sources do not have to be available on the internet. Print sources, like books, newspapers, etc. are perfectly acceptable. They are cited a bit differently, that is all. Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 04:53, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Draft: Cooper Barnes

The draft:Cooper Barnes was named and says it passed WP:NACTOR so what the remaining things it has to have before getting passed to an article. Tbiw (talk) 01:54, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Tbiw. I'm not sure what you mean by the draft was named, but it appears that draft was rejected by AfC reviewer who looked it over. It appears that multiple AfC reviewers have commented on the draft and only one seemed to suggest that Barnes might (just barely) meet WP:NACTOR, while the others still felt he was not Wikipedia notable enough for an article to be written about him. Perhaps this is a case of WP:TOOSOON in that Barnes's career has yet to take off in a way that will give him the WP:SIGCOV he needs to better establish Wikipedia notability. You can keep working on the draft and keep searching for reliable sources, but I wouldn't keep submitting the same version for review over and over again. As long as it appears to the AfC reviewers that improved versions of the draft are being submitted, you can keep submitting it for review; if, however, the reviewers feel you're submitting the same version over and over again, they will likely start a deletion discussion about it at WP:MFD. So, all I can suggest it that you keep looking for better reliable sources, particularly ones that discuss Barnes in some some detail. Look for national or regional sources, etc. to show that Barnes is receiving coverage that goes beyond run of the mill local coverage, etc. in publications with an established reputation for editorial control like major newspapers or magazines.

I did a quick Google search for Barnes and I didn't really find anything that Wikipedia would considered to be a reliable source on any of the first five pages of search results. It's clear that he's an actor, and there's lots of posts about him, but they all seem to be user-generated or other types of sources not really considered reliable for Wikipedia purposes. Please understand that the fact that Barnes doesn't have a Wikipedia article written about him doesn't mean he's not successful at what he does; it just means that he might not (at least at this time) meet the criteria for having an article written about him. In addition, lots of people misunderstand the purpose of Wikipedia and think that a Wikipedia article is a 100% good thing; however, there can be a serous downside to having a Wikipedia article as explained here, here and here that many people only come to understand until after it's too late. Negative content about article subjects can and often does in up in Wikipedia articles as long as it's added in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. It's a bit hard to create a new article about someone based totally upon negative coverage they might be receiving (unless the subject is involved in a major and widely reported criminal case, etc.) if that's the only claim being made for their Wikipedia notability, but it's not as hard to add negative coverage about someone to an already existing article if their Wikipedia notability has been establsihed for other reasons. So, it might actually better for some individuals to not have Wikipedia articles created about them since they cannot really use it to promote their careers or activities, they have no real editorial control over the content of the articles, and they might find things that they don't want people to know about showing up in the article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:40, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks man for responding to a serious issue. My believe and why i used all my day strength in editing that draft is that he is a main character of a TV show but he is not notable i will note that and try all my possible best in making it up. But if not been good again i will keep it for future purposes.Tbiw (talk) 05:28, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

@Tbiw:, agreeing with User:Marchjuly. Some years ago when I started editing, there was an issue. A person (local-level US govermt official, with a small non-profit) had been trying, for years, to get "their own WP article". Finally, enough sources (news stories) accumulated over time, and the article was written. All was well for a time, until the person was charged & convicted of a crime, which was, of course, reflected in the article. As a result, they desperately wanted the (formerly) greatly desired article to be removed. Lots of drama. WP level fame may not be such a good thing, as it can be a double-edged sword. Something to keep in mind. Even, or especially, if you "admire" a person & their good work, a WP article can intrude on their privacy. Please consider that you may NOT be doing them a favor. Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 05:29, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for all response and help.Tbiw (talk) 09:51, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

new draft/article about a film

Hello, I am new in wikipedia did some edits and wrote a first draft/article about a film.* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Spiral_(Film) I d need your help in order to see if the article is well written and being corrected. If someone can help me on that ? and then validate the article to the mainspace? Thanks and regards Cinefile1212 (talk) 08:15, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello Cinefile1212, and welcome to the Teahouse! Out of your 8 sources, 5 are IMDB, which is user-generated content. On Wikipedia, this (user-generated content) does not qualify as a reliable source. If you can find more independent, reliable sources then you should continue. Otherwise this draft will unfortunately almost certainly fail. For more info, see WP:Reliable sources, WP:Verifiability and WP:User-generated content. Regards, Giraffer (munch) 08:34, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello Thanks for your answer and help. I have just added more references and as advised independent reliable sources. Going to 16 different sources leaving only one 1 imdb source. Can you please advise if it is fine? and please validate the article and move to the mainspace as a real article. Thanks & regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cinefile1212 (talk • contribs) 10:57, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

is there a list that contains all film articles from wikipedia?

is there a list that contains all film articles from wikipedia? If yes, can send anybody the link for it. Thank you. Hans-Godzilla-Müller (talk) 14:08, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Hans-Godzilla-Müller Not a list as such, but start at Category:Films, it is subdivided into multiple subcategories by a variety of criteria. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:15, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

There is also a Lists of films. But it's probably incomplete; the category page should be more comprehensive. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 20:31, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

@Hans-Godzilla-Müller: PETSCAN is a good tool to use to traverse the category tree. This query shows we have 310026 film articles. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 22:42, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much.Hans-Godzilla-Müller (talk) 11:26, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Butch Hartman again

I was looking at the Danny Phantom page and notice a fair bit of it maybe Self-published as well as questionable sources as sources on themselves so i start looking at other pages related to Butch Hartman and notice samiler they see Template:Butch Hartman for full list of the pages. usally for his youtube channel Added on 12 August 2020 by Fanoflionking

You're asking about the article on Danny Phantom (a children's animated superhero television series) and related articles. I took a quick look at the article Danny Phantom, though not at the others. You're right. Many of the sources are completely inadequate. If there were eight days in the week, I would (i) remove any "reference" that's to a web page of a retailer (e.g. Amazon); (ii) change any remaining "reference" that doesn't purport to be a reference to a "note" if it seems to have some value, delete it if it doesn't seem to have value; (iii) remove any references or notes to Youtube videos that aren't indisputably uploaded by their copyright holders; (iv) remove anything else that seems dubious; (v) sprinkle a very large number of "Citation needed" templates on the resulting article. However, there aren't eight days in the week (and I am ashamed to confess to a complete lack of interest in kids' animated superhero television series). Perhaps somebody with more time or interest would like to implement my suggestion (or similar). -- Hoary (talk) 22:36, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

stared with DP tonight I will carry on the next few days, remove anything that looks too inadequate. Fanoflionking 21:01, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Caption text

page	remove questionable sources	time done	date done	page protect	time done	date done	tag added	date	time
Butch Hartman	yes	12:34	August 14, 2020	no	no	no	yes	August 14, 2020	23:41
The Fairly OddParents	yes	10:48	August 15, 2020				yes	August 15, 2020	10:48
Danny Phantom	yes	22:32	August 13, 2020				yes	August 14, 2020	23:44
The Magic Roundabout (film)	no	no	no				no	no	no
: Template:Butch Hartman	no	no	no

here are main pages if any one know any more where there qustionable data go ahead and added it on P+T

DP page protection was Declined for "Some dubious sourcing in the past isn't a good reason to protect it now. If they all start coming back, then it may be something to consider for a short period" so I will not requst page protection of the others and will carry on fixing the pages on the next copile of days Fanoflionking 08:49, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

The one article that I looked at cited a lot of junk sources. But it's likely that other editors would disagree, insisting that no, these aren't junk sources. You should explain what you are doing, not here but in the talk page(s) of the relevant article(s). Please write carefully and read anything carefully before hitting the blue "Publish changes" rectangle. No spelling mistakes, no grammar mistakes, just concise, intelligible, persuasive text. -- Hoary (talk) 13:02, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I have also added factual accuracy tags to the pages to notifce page readers. Fanoflionking 15:19, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

COI Help

Hi there! I am very new to Wikipedia and needing some help. I joined to help a friend. She has a page (biography of a living person?) about her, and a few months ago she asked for her daughter's help to update the page, as it was several years out of date. Her daughter added a lot of new material, which was unsurprisingly flagged by other editors for possible COI. Now there is a COI warning on the top of the page, and she asked for my help in addressing the warning. Obviously, I have COI too, but is there anything I can do to validate the page or recruit help from other editors to validate the page in order to remove the warning? Thank you for any advice! Renji.b (talk) 17:16, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

@Renji.b: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. it would help if we knew the title of the page in question.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:20, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

@ThatMontrealIP: Oh ok, sorry about that! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nancy_Gibbs

COI notices are not so much 'warnings' as a head's up that a person close to the subject at hand has had a major impact on the article. In this instance, I am guessing that we are discussing CharlotteHelena19 who nearly doubled the length of the article. In time, an editor not connected, i.e., not you, will decide that there have been enough subsequent edits - or just time passed - that the COI note can be removed. At present, a suggestion that rather than you edit the article directly, you declare you COI on your User page, and suggest changes to the article at the talk page of the article. David notMD (talk) 19:57, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

@Renji.b: See Wikipedia:Simple conflict of interest edit request for how to make an edit request with a template. Your request will get put into a list of requests, making its response time shorter. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 03:34, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

@Renji.b:, I am willing to serve as a neutral editor, as I do not have a COI, etc. I have just completed some minor stylistic/layout edits to the article. If you have new info that you want placed in the article, post it on the Nancy Gibbs talkpage, and notify me with a ping, {{u|Tribe of Tiger}}, but also use the template noted above, just to be on the safe side, in case I get hit by a bus....

I can vet the new info, etc and add it for you or whomever. Don't be concerned about the COI warning, it is not a negative thing, and "thousands" of articles feature them. The article is still valid, as the info is sourced, etc. I am pleased to help, we always need more articles on notable, professional women, like Ms. Gibbs. Regards, Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 06:40, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Please Specify the reason for your REJECTION David.moreno72

It was my first draft of course. But i had collected information on this and it took me so much time to brainstorm sentences. I know and understand that when you are rejected it feels bad but i can come over it. But there is no specific reason for your "REJECTION" statement that you have posted. Ls tell me the reason you rejected me and i request you to tell me asap. Thank You!StrwberryCheeseCake (talk) 08:37, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

The reason for rejection seems pretty clear to me, namely the topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Theroadislong (talk) 08:51, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

May I add that Wikipedia is mainly interested in what independent people have writte about the subject in sources that one could deem as reliable. Victor Schmidt (talk) 09:35, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Your draft Draft:Sis vs Bro was rejected by David.moreno72, but that does not mean he frequents Teahouse to see questions. A better option would have been to post your question on his talk page. However, you asked and were answered at Help desk and here at Teahouse, so that ends any reason to query David directly. David notMD (talk) 09:41, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

About article

Can someone help me out to edit this article, just edit if something is wrong and please don't delete this Article. User:UMAGPR/St.Mary's Church Gulmarg, Kashmir. UMAGPR (talk) 10:50, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

@UMAGPR: I've removed copyright-violating text (see User talk:UMAGPR/St.Mary's Church Gulmarg, Kashmir). Please see WP:YFA for help regarding what it takes to create a suitable Wikipedia article. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 11:28, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

It is not yet an article. Rather, it is a draft, as a subset of your User space. A better place for a draft would be your Sandbox, or as an actual draft. Where ever you have it, you can continue to work on it before you submit it to Articles for Creation. David notMD (talk) 17:14, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I'm happy to help you create the article if you have more information based on reliable sources. Meanwhile, take a look at St Mary's Church, Longfleet for a run-of-the-mill example article. Bermicourt (talk) 08:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Is it possible to change pending review article back to draft

Hi all! Is it possible to change my pending review draft back to just a draft that is not pending a review? I know I can edit it when it's pending but I want to reconsider the entire idea behind creating the article in the first place. Thanks! GhostHuang'sFan (talk) 10:50, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

@GhostHuang'sFan: Yes, you can. I presume you mean in Draft:Huang Xiaoyun? Just completely remove the top and bottom lines that have 'AFC submission' in them. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:23, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

@Curb Safe Charmer: Thanks for the reply. Just another question: Is it possible to remove/get rid of the entire draft? I suppose I can just delete the entire wikitext to do that. Thanks. GhostHuang'sFan (talk) 04:05, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

You can request that the draft be speedily deleted per WP:G7 as long as you are the only major contributor to the page. You can either add the template {{db-g7}} to the top of the draft's page or you can blank the draft. If you blank the draft, just leave an edit summary explaining why and it will be seen by an administrator as a de-facto request for speedy deletion.

Another option might be to simply leave the draft alone (i.e. abandon it); drafts which aren't edited (excluding WP:BOT or routine maintenance/cleanup types of edits) for six months or more are eligible for speedy deletion per WP:G13. So, if you just want to take a break to work on other things and then maybe come back at a later date to start working on the draft again, then this might be a better option. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:25, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

New draft/article about a film 2 / Need a validation

Hello, I am new in wikipedia did some edits and wrote a first draft/article about a film.* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Spiral_(Film) I d need your help in order to see if the article is well written and being corrected. If someone can help me on that ? and then validate the article to the mainspace? I have changed the article lately and added up to 16 references from independent and reliable websites pages Thanks and regard Cinefile1212 (talk) 11:03, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello Cinefile1212 and welcome to the Teahouse! WP:NFILM may be of general help to you. Don't use imdb or social media as sources (WP:CITEIMDB and WP:TWITTER). Per AlloCiné you probably shouldn't use that either. It may be easier to find independent WP:RS after the film is released. You may need to tweak the title a little, see Spiral (disambiguation). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:03, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

• Note there have been issues with copyvio (from IMDb) and there are currently two versions of this article: Draft:Spiral and Draft:Spiral (Film). I've addressed them at Draft talk:Spiral#Copyright and copied it to the other talk page. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 23:54, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Reference exists only in older printed newspaper

Hi there, I added new article Draft:Fahir Jahić - Šico but it was declined since I don't have any reference or reliable source online. All I have are old newspapers that were printed in Yugoslavia ( country that doesn't exists anymore ). Is there any way to submit those or something similar since there are so many articles and stories? I was writing about former Yugoslavian boxer. Thank you! Minnionnn (talk) 13:31, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

@Minnionnn: You can use those newspapers as references. You'll need to include in the reference the name of the publication, the title and date of the article and the page number. Ideally also include the name of the author. See Wikipedia:Offline sources and Template:Cite news. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:12, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

WorkIndia

Is WorkIndia a notable topic?

I have written a few lines on topic WorkIndia(A startup founded in 2015) in July first week but no progress (not accepted, not rejected).

below is my draft link, please help https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:WorkIndia Lokesh 1589 (talk) 13:33, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

@Lokesh 1589: The reason that nobody had reviewed your draft is because you hadn't actually submitted it for review yet. I have just added {{Template:AFC submission/draft}} to the top. Your draft now displays a button that lets you easily submit it for review. Unfortunately once you've submitted it, there's quite a backlog of articles awaiting review at the moment, so you'll have to be patient. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:17, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

You have now submitted Draft:WorkIndia. In my opinion, as it exists, it is EXTREMELY unlikely that it will be approved as an article. All of the refs are basically versions of press releases stating that the company has received investment funding. What is needed is articles about the company written and published that are independent from the company. Also, the review backlog is not a queue, so yes, could take months, but also could be any day. David notMD (talk) 17:20, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

@Lokesh 1589: Startups, and companies in their first external funding rounds, can rarely be considered notable as the term is used by Wikipedia. There is usually just not enough written about them that can be considered independent and non-promotional. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 00:02, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

(Clarified) —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 22:33, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Making an article about my own creation

I have created some fictional shipping companies and ships, I was wondering if I could use Wikipedia to make files of them (Of course marking them as fictional to avoid confusion). Thanks in advance! Scurly07 (talk) 13:44, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Scurly07, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid the answer is a clear No! Wikipedia is not a webhost. --ColinFine (talk) 15:03, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! Scurly07 (talk) 15:36, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

How do I add ISBN numbers for a list of books I am including in my draft?

Hello, My first draft for the proposed page Draft:Trishna_Basak was declined for not providing reliable sources. I have two questions, the answer for which will help me modify the content and resubmit it for approval.

1. How do I add ISBN numbers along with the name of the books by the author? 2. Most references about the author are in Bengali printed newspapers and not online. Can those newspapers be referred as reliable sources?

Thanks in advance, Wikipagebanai (talk) 14:30, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Wikipagebanai, Thanks for the query (1) You can add ISBN number as using {{cite book}} where there is a parameter |isbn= (2) In the English Wikipedia, verifiability is required so that other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Thus, the sources may be challenged as unreliable. See Wikipedia:Offline sources ~ Amkgp 💬 15:33, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Wikipagebanai. I think Amkgp reply, though correct, is not very helpful to you. First, giving ISBNs for her books will not help towards establishing her notability: absolutely nothing done, said, written, or published by her will do that. You need independent reliable sources. Secondly, Amkgp is right that offline sources may challenged as unreliable; but so may online sources. If the newspapers in question have a reputation for editorial control and fact-checking, then they may be reliable sources. --ColinFine (talk) 17:19, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Heidelberg High School‎

Why was my edit reverted? Manta22 (talk) 17:24, 13 August 2020 (UTC) 13 August 2020 diffhist Heidelberg High School‎ 02:13 -571‎ ‎24.117.19.153 talk‎ Undid revision 972587816 by Manta22 (talk) Tag: Undo Manta22 (talk) 17:24, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Manta22 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Your edit was reverted because it had no independent reliable source to support it. All information in an article must have a citation to a published reliable source. 331dot (talk) 17:30, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

My "source material" was personal experience. I lived in Mannheim and rode the bus to Heidelberg High School in 1954-1955. How does actual personal experience and knowledge get a citation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manta22 (talk • contribs) 17:56, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Manta22, unfortunately personal experience can't be used as a source for articles as it can't be verified. Articles must be supported by published independent reliable sources Pi (Talk to me!) 18:13, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Cited material cannot always be verified either. I noticed that the article's first reference (3) refers to a Stars And Stripes newspaper article written by someone who was not there when I was and he is reporting on information that he learned from people who were also not there at that time. Also, five Notable Alumni have no references; shouldn't they have been reverted? Restricting Wikipedia information to previously published information reduces it to a text version of Google- you only find what has been published. Don't you think what I added was a valuable contribution to the history of Heidelberg High School? Omitting it leaves the reader poorly informed. Manta22 (talk) 18:25, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Manta22, Please see WP:V for more about this policy on Wikipedia. For Wikipedia to work as a project with thousands of anonymous/pseudonymous contributors, we aren't able to accept contributors' own accounts of what the facts are. Your addition may well be useful (assuming it's correct), but we have no way to verify that what you're saying (or what any other anonymous/pseudonymous contributor is saying) is right. The way we deal with this is to leave knowledge generation to other sources, and then we just summarize what other sources have published. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:38, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

It is disappointing to learn that Wikipedia is nothing more than a consolidator of published references. Regarding citations from reputable sources, how about The Chicago Tribune Nov 3 1948-- Dewey Defeats Truman? Reputable source, right? I realize that you don't want to become another bogus internet source but refusing to place trust in anything that is not published is depriving readers of valuable first-hand information. Any contributor then found to be untruthful deserves to be banished. Is anyone doing any fact-checking on those published references? Perhaps allowing the personal experiences and knowledge to be published but in italics with a caution that this has not been verified would be a good compromise. Manta22 (talk) 19:54, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

The trouble with that, Manta22, is that Wikipedia is the encyclopaedia that anybody can edit. Even if your information is correct, somebody could come along next week or next month or next year, and change it - and a reader would have no way to know whether to prefer your version or the changed version (and most readers would not notice that it had changed). Note that it makes no difference to the argument whether the change was malicious, mistaken, or honestly believed to be correct. I'm sure it's the case that most readers, most of the time, do not check the references; and some of the sources that are referenced are difficult to get hold of to consult; but it's crucial to Wikipedia's value that it be possible to check the source. --ColinFine (talk) 21:30, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

"Even if your information is correct, somebody could come along next week or next month or next year, and change it..." and that is exactly what happened. As I suggested, putting unverified contributions (unreferenced) in italics, or some other distinctive text, with a note that it is unverified would be a way of addressing this. There is a wealth of knowledge that will be lost when we old folks (I'm 81) are gone.

As George Santayana said "...when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." Manta22 (talk) 21:40, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

For all Wikipedia knows, you are not telling the truth when you say you attended HHS. The rule is truth AND verify. David notMD (talk) 22:41, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I find your comment highly offensive, David notMD. I expect an apology from you. Manta22 (talk) 22:47, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

@Manta22: We are not calling you a liar. We (including me and David notMD) are simply stating a blunt truth: that Wikipedia cannot just 'take the word' of every user who posts here without supporting and verifiable evidence of what they've placed here. None of us are mind readers. Even if you edited under your real name (which I do, and you and most other people here do not) we still don't simply take people's word for it - mine included. So, as no-one was accusing you of being a liar, you'll be unlikely to get an apology for something that didn't happen.

But earlier, you said "It is disappointing to learn that Wikipedia is nothing more than a consolidator of published references." Personally, I feel that this its precisely its strength and the cause of its success over the last two decades. We exclude all published sources that are not regarded as reliable (blogs, social media, personal accounts, private websites, unreliable news outlets, unpublished documents, hearsay, personal recollections and downright false claims) and focus only on statements that are available to anyone around the world to verify online or via a library, bookshop etc. We don't use primary sources as references, but use what secondary sources have written about those sources. The collection of references at the end of every article are the real gems here - even if most users ignore them.

By contrast, I always tell people who want to publish their recollections or family tales to use free, online resources like Blogger. They require no payment and remain live and online long after the death of the creator - unlike personal websites which disappear as soon as the yearly subscription ceases (I can cite an example if you think it might be of interest). But we won't ever be using those as sources on Wikipedia, but the stuff will be out there, and people are free to tell whatever truths (or falsehoods) they wish. Genuinely, there was no offence directed at you, personally. It was simply a 'truism' to say to you or anyone else that we have no way of telling the truth, or otherwise, of what you say. Does that make sense? Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:17, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Postscript: I've just looked at this edit of yours whose reversion you seem upset about. I would politely observe that, not only was it unsupported by any published source that someone on the far side of the world stands a chance of verifying, but it is also mere trivia in the context of this encyclopaedia. That's not to decry your personal experiences (Like you, I vividly remember my own school trip to Paris and Montmartre back in 1969, and would be happy to tell you more), but these are pure memories of a non-notable individual like me which add nothing of value to our particular school articles. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:48, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Nick, I understand what you are saying but you skipped over my suggestion that personal knowledge or unpublished information could be included but would be indicated that it was unverified. Frankly, many find that the New York Times is not a reliable source these days; the fact that something has been published is no guarantee that it is true. See my previous comment about the Chicago Tribune.

I absolutely did find his comment offensive and insulting. Manta22 (talk) 23:40, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hi Manta22. I don't think that David notMD intended to offend you with his comment. When it comes to article content, the Wikipedia community has no way of really knowing who's editing its article (as explained in On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog); so, personal experiences, etc. cannot be verified if all that's provided in support is the subject's word that it is true. For this reason, article content is expected to be supported by citations to reliable sources (ideally sources which are WP:SECONDARY) because it allows the content to be verified, and it's the WP:BURDEN of the person adding the content to provide sources in support; otherwise, it can be removed at anytime. Even though I may personally believe the content you're adding, the long-standing Wikipedia community WP:CONSENSUS has been that this type of content is not acceptable and the things I personally believe aren't verifiable unless it can be supported by citing reliable sources. This is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia and is unlikely going to always be the case unless there's a major shift made to how the project views itself. Now, you're probably not the first person to feel this shouldn't be the case, and you can (if you want) start a discussion about this at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability or Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) if you what to see this changed. You might also want to look at Wikipedia:Alternative outlets for other websites which are similar to Wikipedia, but perhaps offer a bit more freedom when it comes to the type of content they allow.

Finally, I get the David not MD's comment angered you and that you're probably feeling a bit frustrated by this experience, but try not to use "bold" markup to express your anger or frustration. The Teahouse is intended to be a friendly place where new/newish editors can come to ask question. Sometimes an answer can seem a bit brusque, but Teahouse hosts do try and keep things WP:CIVIL. You started off this thread with a bolded question which made it seem as if your were WP:SHOUTING at Wikipedia because your edit was reverted and perhaps David notMD was just responding to that. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:44, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

@Manta22: You and I had a bit of an 'edit conflict' when I added a Postscript to my reply to you. OK, I hear your question wanting to be able to add personal knowledge or unpublished information to Wikipedia, but I have no answer for you other than to say that permitting that would simply open the floodgates to sheer bias, bigotry and utter bollocks being added by absolutely anyone who wants to. It would turn Wikipedia into a hellhole of falsehoods, fakery and fudge. Do you genuinely want to see that? I certainly don't. Nobody is saying that you, as an individual, are making stuff up, but can you honestly say that you think nobody else here would? -ever? As an extreme example, we would never knowingly let President Trump or his staff contribute to his own article here, and I'm hoping you can see why that would be a sensible approach. (If you can't then I am wasting my time with you here!) In fact, we never let any subject edit their own articles without, at the very least, making a WP:COI or WP:PAID declaration. You may think it's quite OK to accuse a respected mainstream newspaper like the New York Times (which has teams of professionally paid, trained, investigative journalists with editorial oversight and control of bias) of being unreliable and thus dismiss their publications. Yet, you seem to want to set yourself up as being more reliable and believable than they are. This comes across as rather hypocritical, to me. Are you suggesting that, as an unknown and anonymous editor here, you personal and unsubstantiated contributions are to be perceived by everyone else as more reliable than a newspaper's editorially controlled and legally-liable outputs are? Sorry - that's utterly ridiculous, and not how we operate.

But how do you reconcile your personal views on that newspaper with the idea that we let any old Tom, Dick or Harry add any old stuff that they wish? Honestly, if you're going to accuse a mainstream media outlet of being unreliable (but see below), then you have no absolutely no grounds or sensible rationale to suggest that we let unknown, anonymous individuals add whatever they want to to Wikipedia. If that day should ever come, I will cease contributing immediately. In the false news world that we live in, there are many who cite Wikipedia's volunteers as contributing to a bastion or truth and reliability, in the face of a world of fake news and 'spin'. So let's get real, please. Your word and mine have no place here on Wikipedia. (That said, I'm personally pretty irked that I am no longer able to utilise innocuous reporting of alpine mountain stories (a personal interest of mine) from the Daily Mail when the Wikipedia community has decided that this particular mainstream UK newspaper has told so many false and untrue mainstream stories over so many years that it can no longer be regarded as reliable for any reported event on Wikipedia (see WP:DAILYMAIL). But the upside of that is that I am confident in our community's efforts to prevent unsourced and fake news entering this site. I'm sure you really are, too!) Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:54, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I was originally asking why my edits had been reverted without explanation or by whom. How friendly was that? I won't sully Wikipedia any longer with my "unverifiable" input. Adios. Manta22 (talk) 00:04, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Since I didn't see it mentioned, I'll also comment that eyewitness testimony is not always reliable either, especially depending on the environment at the time of the event, and the amount of time between the event and recollection. As someone who has what I consider to be a fairly accurate memory, I was recently disappointed to realize that I had conflated two very vivid recollections from early adulthood, for reasons I cannot determine. Anyway, as has been said, there are lots of places on the web where people are free to share their experiences and contribute to the "institutional memory" of civilization – Wikipedia and those of us who work on it have chosen a different path. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 01:16, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Belatedly, and obviously too late, I apologize for my choice of words, but not my intentions, which were to explain that Wikipedia does not accept undocumented content. David notMD (talk) 01:19, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Basically Wikipedia is not competent to judge whether something is true or not, only whether someone wrote that something was true. So it merely reflects the fact that if enough people write the same thing down, it becomes 'true'. Add in the fact that editors bring their own world view to articles, it is also biased towards the prevailing world view of its average editor, which I'm told is a young to middle-aged American man. So Wikipedia is never going to be "a bastion of truth"; only an unfinished repository of its editors' views on what has been recorded in the world. That doesn't make it un-useful, but it helps to understand its limitations. Bermicourt (talk) 08:08, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

How easy is it to move an article from the sandbox to the public space?

 NeilBamping (talk) 17:46, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

You need first to write a reasonably good article with a sufficient number of reliable sources. Ruslik_Zero 18:01, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

If the draft User:BBCMDocu/sandbox was moved as it is, it would be nominated for speedy deletion as an advert. Theroadislong (talk) 18:30, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Newbie

Hi folks. I am brand new here. I edited my first piece yesterday and had a good time doing so. Any advice on how to get started/involved? Yesterday, I simply made a piece more readable. I look forward to the thrill of fact-checking and actually adding "content" to a piece. Horswispr (talk) 19:37, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Horswispr, I'd have a look at Wikipedia:Community portal. Good tasks for beginners include copyediting (Category:Wikipedia articles needing copy edit) and adding appropriate wikilinks (Category:All articles with too few wikilinks). Help:Your first article has a lot of good advice in it for beginners. I'd recommend against starting new articles, at least until you are more experienced, but that page has advice that is also helpful for improving/expanding articles (which is an intermediate task once you get the hang of the copyediting/wikilinking). Most Wikipedia articles can be improved in some way, so I'd just think about a topic that interests you, read the article, and see what you think is missing or could be better. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:43, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Editing a draft page in VisualEditor

Hi. I've written a draft page and submitted it for review. I see now there are several things I would like to modify, however, I seem unable to get back to VisualEditor, where the original draft was written. My draft page menu bar gives me an "edit source" option but no "edit" option as in visual editor. Thanks - signed, stuck. VictorMooney (talk) 19:50, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I've found the solution in prefs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VictorMooney (talk • contribs) 20:27, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

How To Find My Page

He Hello, The only way I've been able to find my page is by typing User: Kenneth L. Kieser. Will that ever change so typing in my name is enough? Will I be allowed to post photos on my page? What must people type in to find my page? Thank You! 2600:1700:7F10:6640:B4ED:68E8:74DB:BB5D (talk) 20:30, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Your page has been deleted because you were misusing Wikipedia as a webhost. Your userpage is for a short description of who you are as a Wikipedia editor -- not a page to advertise yourself. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:03, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello Kenneth L. Kieser. Please log in before editing. I suggest that you read Wikipedia:Autobiography and also read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Your deleted userpage which masqueraded as an encyclopedia article was not acceptable for this neutrally written encyclopedia. You can also read Your first article to get a better sense of our policies and guidelines. As a professional writer, you need to do your homework first. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:20, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Need help! How do I move this page into review for creation of a publicly accessible page?

Hi, I've got this article in my sandbox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Meowmeowman85/sandbox. How do I move this page into review for creation of a publicly accessible page? Thanks in advance for your help. Best regards Meowman Meowmeowman85 (talk) 00:00, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Meowmeowman85, I've just put a button on the top of your sandbox, which should let you submit your draft for review. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 02:07, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Welcome to the Teahouse, Meowmeowman85. You would simply click the blue button, labelled, "Submit your article for review", having first assessed whether or not the citations you've given, thus far, prove beyond doubt that she meets our Notability Criteria for people. Nick Moyes (talk) 02:08, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Awesome, thank very much to both of you. Nick added some more details and references after your comment about notability. Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meowmeowman85 (talk • contribs) 02:46, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Need help to improve a declined AFC.

Hello, I am working on a declined AFC, I have added a lot of things, but I guess, it could be made better. If anyone wants to help, then please do! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:WOO!_Tungsten Many thanks, Ablasaur (talk) 04:04, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

• @Ablasaur: The first order of business is to show that this company is "notable" under Wikipedia's specific meaning of the term. This usually means that you can find multiple sources that are simultaneously (1) reliable, (2) independent of the subject, and (3) talk/write about the subject at length. This usually means newspaper articles, but note that (2) excludes interviews and press releases. If the company is not notable, it does not matter how well the article is written, it will not pass AfC.

Looking at the sources currently in the article, ref 2 might be a good source (assuming it is not a press release passed as independent publication, like ref 3 and 4 are). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 13:35, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

How do I create my own article

 Mthobza Nyabza (talk) 05:49, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

@Mthobza Nyabza: Please read WP:YFA. Or better yet, gain experience with editing existing articles first. Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:59, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

regarding bhonsle

I am a maharashtrian marathi person and have some problem regarding the bhonsle page.it is having some incomplete and wrong info. KD TALEKAR (talk) 06:14, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi KD TALEKAR. It appears that some recent edits you made to Bhonsle were reverted by another editor named Greyjoy. So, now probably the best thing for you to do would be to follow Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and start a discussion at Talk:Bhonsle about the changes you think should be made to the article and see what other editors think. If your reasons for wanting to make the change are in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, then perhaps a WP:CONSENSUS will be established in favor of making them. Part of the reason your edits seem to have been reverted was because you didn't leave an edit summary explaining why you removed certain content. So, you should explain your reasons for doing so on the article's talk page and give others a chance to respond. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:03, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Any way to restrict ip edits?

Hello All I wish to bring to knowledge to all fellow wikipedians that social media in India is filled with all kind of rumor's related to wiki edits by anonymous ip's. Do we have a way to restrict this? Why i'm asking this can be understood by 1 Twitter link i'm sharing

please do see the snapshot being shared related to fake news. If i could be helpful in any way, please do let me know. Thanks All Shekhar in (talk) 06:26, 14 August 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shekhar in (talk • contribs) 06:29, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Shekhar in. See Wikipedia:IPs are human too and WP:FREQUENT#Prohibit anonymous users from editing for some of the reasons IP edits tend not to be restricted more than registered accounts. However, being an IP editor doesn't mean that the account doesn't have to comply with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and an IP account can be blocked by an administrator if it's engaged in WP:DE or otherwise problematic editing. I'm not sure what the WP:DIFF you provided above has to do with IP editing though. It's for an edit made in 2012 by a registered account; moreover, that account has been indefinitely blocked by Wikipedia administrator named Newslinger. I'm also not sure why you're providing a link to someone's Twitter account. Please be very carefully in trying to connect Wikipedia accounts to real people for the reasons explained in WP:OUTING even you just mean well and are trying to help. If you believe that there's a problem like this that needs administrator attention that involves posts people are making on their social media accounts like Twitter or Facebook, then the best thing to do is to try and discuss your concerns with an administrator via email and not post any personal information about other editors anywhere on Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:53, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting me, I've deleted the link provided.

Ofcourse I understand to maintain privacy of any editor but it is the editor who is making it public.

Yes my only concern was & is to maintain serenity of contents, which anonymous IP's keep editing to show on social media that "Wikipedia says this" kind of fake news quoting us. This blocked editor did the same.

I got the point which i felt sharing for good.

Thanks for the guidance

Shekhar in (talk) 07:08, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

RfA

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 want to request for adminship. Please tell me how to do that. Nihaal The Wikipedian (talk) 07:19, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Nihaal The Wikipedian, your account is 5 days old and has 59 edits. You have to have minimum 500 edits and an account age of 30 days but most people require a few thousand edits (some expect over 20,000) and a couple of years experience in various areas to even think about voting support, so your RfA would almost instantly fail. Also, one of your recent edits just got oversighted, or removed from public view for privacy breaches. Don't focus on trying to get higher user permissions otherwise you will be seen as WP:HATCOLLECTING. Focus only on the tools you need to get done. There are editors who have been here for 15 years with hundreds of thousands of edits who have never requested a user right. If you're interested in how RfXs actually work, see WP:RfA. Regards, Giraffer (munch) 07:34, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello Nihaal The Wikipedian. You have only 53 edits and so your chances of becoming an administrator at this time are zero. The expectation is well over a year of editing with thousands of productive edits creating high quality content and showing deep knowledge of policies and guidelines in a constructive and helpful way. I am an administrator but I spent eight years contributing before applying. I recommend at least a couple of years of highly productive and non-controversial editing. Good luck and thank you for contributing. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:42, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

@Nihaal The Wikipedian: One question guaranteed to be asked in an RfA inquisition (and I use that term accurately, intentionally) is "why do you want to be an admin?" Just for the sake of curiosity, would you mind telling us? Perhaps it's based on a misunderstanding. This pattern of new users wanting to become admins occurs often enough to make some (including me) wonder whether there is some misconception being circulated out there in social media. Can you shed any light on this? Thanks. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 08:09, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Nihaal The Wikipedian I would further add to the excellent points above that you can do 95% of tasks here without the administrator tools. Just concentrate on being a good editor, and the rest will happen naturally. 331dot (talk) 08:24, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) AlanM1, of course I'm not Nihaal but maybe I can shed some light. Of the (extremely few) people I have told I am a Wikipedia contributor all of them (within the first five minutes) have asked if I am an admin. Most people who use other parts of the internet are familiar with admins as controlling the website (i.e. Reddit) but those sites operate on the basis of discretion as opposed to consensus. Also, being one of ten admins on a site with 10,000 pageviews monthly is still waaaay smaller than the number of monthly pageviews per admin on WP. To give an example, on other parts of the internet they think of an admin as your boss compared to you but on Wikipedia we think of it as cardinals versus bishops. Cardinals are bishops, but just with extra responsibilities. Just because they have more powers doesn't mean they can control what everyone does.

This combined with the fact that 90% of internet users are hat collectors means that there is some kind of prestigious aura around the role - which people want. I highly doubt if you asked a non-wikipedian if they wanted to have one of the most influential roles on the internet they would turn it down. These are just my thoughts (and partially findings) but maybe Nihall The Wikipedian has a different answer. Hope this helps, Giraffer (munch) 08:47, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

@331dot, AlanM1, and Cullen328: I have really good editing skills. I created this article. I understand all the admin powers and know when to use them. (unsigned by Nihaal The Wikipedian but pinged by Giraffer due to editing conflict) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nihaal The Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 08:37, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Nihaal The Wikipedian I will repeat what I said above, which is that you only have ~60 edits and your account is 5 days old. Even if you wanted to, you couldn't apply because the minimum is 500 edits and 30 days. Also, people expect thousands of edits and years of experience, in content creation, deletion of articles, vandalism reversion, speedy deletion tagging, dispute resolution, the ability to communicate well and at least a year of no blocks, oversights or bans. Yes, you have created one article, but it is a stub - the lowest class of article, and most people expect a handful of good articles (GAs), which look like this, this, or this, if not more. You say you understand all the tools - but you have never nominated an AfD or tagged for CSD, amongst other things. How do you expect to know all the tools if you have never done anything in their fields? (Edit:Forgot to sign - looks like I'm not becoming anything soon...) Giraffer (munch) 08:58, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Nihaal The Wikipedian As noted, your chances of the community agreeing to give you the toolset now are just about zero. Creating one article is not enough of a history. You cannot demonstrate that you have significant contributions to this project, good judgement, and a good understanding of policies at this time. Unless you are the most fantastic admin candidate in the entire history of Wikipedia and can show it, you frankly have no chance of being given the powers right now. Why do you want them so badly? 331dot (talk) 08:55, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Comment: It had not occurred to me before, but having read the comments above, it would seem that if someone has to "ask the question", then they don't know enough about WP to be an admin. I hope our new editor will tell us why they want to be an admin, and stay with us and one day become one! Welcome, Nihaal The Wikipedian, you can accomplish a great deal and earn the respect of your peers even if you are not an admin. To become one, you must first be well-known and respected. However, the work they do is commonly referred to as "wielding the mop", because it consists of a lot of housekeeping and janitorial duties. "I am a janitor at WP" doesn't sound as exciting, I suppose.Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 09:54, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Is AfC stronger than admins ? Which field am I best in. Teahouse host,Admin or AfC member? Nihaal The Wikipedian (talk) 11:19, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Nihaal The Wikipedian Please listen to what we are telling you. I would strongly advise you to not worry about this right now and just focus on being a good editor. 331dot (talk) 11:28, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Case closed.Nihaal The Wikipedian (talk) 13:40, 15 August 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.

Submitting a draft for review to be published

Your input is much appreciated https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:The_Pearl_Protectors Oceanic812 (talk) 08:35, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

@Oceanic812: I have added a submit button for you, allowing you to submit the draft for review. From a first look, I see that this article has very many external links. The youtube video is a primary source. Victor Schmidt (talk) 08:56, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

@Victor Schmidt: Thank you so much. I removed primary sources and looking into external links.

Who can give pages WikiProject templates?

Hello! I'm just wondering do you have to be an admin to give a page a WikiProject template? For example, if I create an article about the life of a dead person, can I then add the "WikiProject Biography" template in the Talk Page? Or is that someone that only Admins can do? And connected to that, who can rate the quality and importance of an article?

Thanks a mil! CáitChrainn (talk) 08:53, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello, CáitChrainn and welcome to the Teahouse. The answer to your question is simply nope! Anyone can add the WikiProject template to a talk page, although most times there will be people from those WikiProjects going around adding the appropriate templates. But if you know of a page that should have a certain WikiProject template that it currently doesn't (such as your example above), then feel free to add it. Regards, Giraffer (munch) 09:00, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

@Giraffer: Perfect. That's very useful to know! Thanks for answering!

CáitChrainn (talk) 09:06, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Happy editing. Giraffer (munch) 09:07, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

 105.112.112.46 (talk) 11:52, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Indiscriminate AfD and a COI Accusation

Hi All,

I woke up this morning, to find almost all of my articles that I created going back to alteast a few years, suddenly marked for deletion (AfD) by the same person. I can definitely go and type up the AfD responses for why they should remain. But, one thing caught my attention in that it was by the same user, and likely someone whom I had interacted on a different AfD.

More importantly, one of the folks there has marked a COI and paid editing tag on my page. More than the indiscriminate AfDs, this one worries me a lot, since as a matter of personal principle, I absolutely ensure that I have no COI on any of the topics that I edit, and also absolutely no financial consideration for anything that I do online.

Additional details can be seen here User:Ktin

Greatly appreciate pointers on how I should be dealing with this situation, particularly the second one.

Thanks in advance.

Ktin (talk) 14:28, 14 August 2020 (UTC) Ktin (talk) 14:28, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Update 1 - I have posted this message (User talk:Ktin#August 2020) on my talkpage as a response to the COI charge. Please can someone see this and let me know if this will suffice. User talk:Ktin#August 2020. Thanks in advance, all. Ktin (talk) 14:37, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Update 2 - I exchanged a few messages with the editor who posted that note, and had a good discussion here . While I was shaken this morning to see the charge, I think I am better now. Thanks everyone. The AfDs - I will have to go to each one of them and frame my responses as to why I believe they deserve to exist. I will do that over the weekend. Cheers Ktin (talk) 18:47, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Wikipeadia

Gina Linette (talk) 14:38, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello Gina Linette. This is the help forum for new editors to Wikipedia. So, if you need to know something about the process of contributing to articles, you are in the right place. Just ask away! (I have left a welcome message for you on your userpage, too, which has a few useful links to get you started.) Nick Moyes (talk) 15:22, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Controlling and responding to repeated partisan defamation

I understand that it's bad form for individuals to edit their own wikipedia pages. Alas, as a former political operative, I made a lot of partisan enemies who periodically seem to enjoy posting defamatory entries to my wikipedia page. This is a difficult situation, because it is true that I was arrested three times in a year as a result of my work with American Bridge. In each case, my political adversaries did not like the questions I was asking, so they imposed to have me arrested by police on false charges. Fortunately, in each case I had video of what actually occurred, so I was able to contest the charges. In the first two cases (Virginia and Washington DC), I successfully presented evidence in court that resulted in the case being dismissed. The third case (Las Vegas) is currently under appeal.

Anyway, wiki editors have published entries relying on reports from Brietbart and other unreliable partisan sources. These entries are untrue and defamatory. As an attorney that relies on his reputation to acquire work, when these posts appear as the first search result on my name, I'm obviously disadvantaged.

I have court transcripts, videos and other documentary evidence supporting these claims.

What I'd like to know is 1) What is the proper way to edit a page to honestly reflect my career as an activist? and 2) How can I keep my page from being vandalized by partisan opponents? 70.191.130.19 (talk) 15:14, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

@70.191.130.19:, do you mean Mike Stark? Generally, per our COI guidelines, you should avoid making anything but very minor factual corrections to many page you are involved with. Second, the talk page is for the article is the best place to request edits and changes, or bring up concerns. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:25, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello, IP user. There is guidance for people in your situation at WP:AUTOPROB. --ColinFine (talk) 15:32, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello Mike Stark? I hope the above advice is a helpful and reassuring start to you. Might I also suggest you register for a free Wikipedia account? That would then keep all your edits or concerns together in one place, and it even potentially enables you to prove to our "behind the scenes team" who you are (should that ever be necessary.) Having made an account, I'd suggest you then put a declaration of who you are on your userpage. There is guidance on doing that here: WP:COI.

Now, it is deeply concerned that any biography of a living person has unreliable content, lies or falsehoods placed on a page about them. Yes, it does happen, and we have policies that demand their removal (see [[WP:BLP|this page]) and others to protect a page if vandalism is sustained and ongoing, and mechanisms to block malicious persons who continue to cause havoc. So, the baseline is that anything about a living or recently deceased person must be verifiable and reported in reliable mainstream sources. I have not yet checked the article, but if content came, as you suggest, from Breitbart News, then it should be removed immediately. The Wikipedia community have agreed that Breitbart News cannot be regarded as a Reliable Source, and we have a page dedicated to listing perennial questions about reliable media sources. See WP:BREITBART, which says "Due to persistent abuse, Breitbart News is on the Wikipedia spam blacklist, and links must be whitelisted before they can be used. The site has published a number of falsehoods, conspiracy theories, and intentionally misleading stories. The 2018 RfC showed a very clear consensus that Breitbart News should be deprecated in the same way as the Daily Mail. This does not mean Breitbart News can no longer be used, but it should not be used, ever, as a reference for facts, due to its unreliability. It can still be used as a primary source when attributing opinions, viewpoints, and commentary."

If, as sometimes happens, one editor has dug out some statements that you personally know to be untrue, yet which have been reported in detail by a normally reliable source, then Wikipedia is probably going to report that statement until such time as the source (e.g. a national newspaper of good standing) publishes a retraction. To counter that situation, another editor might then dig out another reliable source which reports on those accusations as being scurrilous and untrue. Wikipedia might then report (in a neutral, encyclopaedia voice) that source A reported Claim X but that source B reported that it had been fabricated. We would not expect volunteer Wikipedia editors to wade through private court documents to establish the truth, but would expect the person to have taken action against the Source A to demand a retraction. Of course, if one of our editors here made those malicious claims directly against you with no evidence whatsoever, and with intent to cause you harm then that would be a different matter, and your issue would be with us and with the actions of that editor. I would hope we would, as a community of volunteers, take action to prevent that person ever doing that again. Sadly, as Wikipedia grows in popularity and reliability, it does become an effective means of attacking or 'bigging up' one subject or another for their own ends. And we try our level best to stop that happening.

Although, as you recognise above, we do not like to have people editing articles about themselves, you are nevertheless entitled to remove defamatory or offensive content. Clear edit summary and an explanatory note on the Talk Page will help a lot. So, again, having a registered account makes your actions more - shall we say - 'understandable'. But, be prepared for another editor to assume you're just a troublesome IP editors and feel that content is simply being removed on a "I don't like seeing that true story about me or someone else being reported on Wikipedia". Again, the advice and email contact to approach with direct concerns should allay any fears you might have that we don't care about you. If a story appears to be sourced, but someone feels it comes from an unreliable sources that we don't often see, we also have a mechanism for allowing the community to give their assessment on the reliability of the cited source. This can be done at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Any editor with serious concerns can gain the attention of a bunch of administrators by raising their concerns here - though this is perhaps usually seen a a 'last resort', and best avoided if possible.

The bottom line is that Wikipedia does not allow any biographical article of living/recently deceased people to contain any contentious statement which is not given an inline citation to a WP:Reliable Source, and expects any uncited content to be removed. You might wish to see the rather wordy policy via this shortcut: WP:BLP. It clearly states "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing.".

All this has been said without looking at the content of the article about you - I just wanted to reassure you that Wikipedia editors aren't some bunch of uncaring nerds who couldn't give a damn about the feelings of the person about whom we have pages here. We collate reliably sourced facts about a subject (whether they are complimentary or quite the opposite), but we never want to be seen as promoting lies or false information. There are plenty of other institutions out there capable of doing that. I hope this helps a bit. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 16:52, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes:, I visted the Mike Stark article and noticed the "dreaded red letter notes" in three of the cites. I was able to correct two of them (16 & 17), but I cannot discover the problem/solution for ref #3. Any ideas? I work with refs a good bit, so I am frustrated here... and wish to learn. Thanks, Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 02:50, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

@Tribe of Tiger: I've fixed it by puttting the date in the right(=sensible) order of day, then month, then year, and added an access date in the same format. A trick you could have tried was to simply have used the Cite template and autofill function, then previewing the results to see the dirrerence it makes. It's great to see editors like you wanting to understand why something isn't working properly and trying to fix it. Best way to learn, in my view. Thanks. Nick Moyes (talk) 12:03, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Mike Stark here (yes, the original questioner). I've received a lot of help and have much to learn from the links folks dropped for me. I just wanted to stop in again to say thank you to everyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.89.101 (talk) 15:35, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Drafts

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.

---

Header inserted by --ColinFine (talk) 16:34, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Change the four Draft Articles Bovoidea, Cervoidea, Giraffomorpha and Cameloidea to Normal ones Pillowquilt (talk) 16:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: these four drafts were all created by User Pillow6, now blocked as a sock of Pillow4. --ColinFine (talk) 16:44, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

As is the OP Neiltonks (talk) 22:31, 14 August 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.

Demon's on Wikipedia

Hello,

There are a lot of Demon's, Fallen Angels and Spirits on Wikipedia. But they are all marked different. There are Demons marked as project Christianity, Mythology and Occult.

How do I know what is the correct to use? I would say Occult, but if you take Mythology as a wide concept that would work also. Besides Satan most of them wouldn't really fit Christianity? Ziminiar (talk) 16:52, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Ziminiar, I see you asked on the talk pages of the Occult and Mythology projects. There's not necessarily going to be a uniform answer, and (not knowing anything about demons) I imagine that it depends on what the characteristics of the particular demon are. You could also ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard about Christianity-related demons. Each Wikiproject sets its own boundaries, generally speaking, and they may overlap, so it may be the case that some/many/most demon articles should be tagged with more than one Wikiproject. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:58, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

So something could fit multiple projects without an issue? I was reading it like it should fit one, and only one. Ziminiar (talk) 21:16, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Ziminiar, correct. Plenty of articles are in more than one project. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:45, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Sources

I added some sources to an article but when I click on them it says “oops we can’t find that page” or something like that. Is there a reason why? Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 18:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

You didn't tell us which article or which ref, but was it the one where I've made a small change to the ref url?

@David Biddulph: Wonderful! That is the page I was referring to. The other two on that page were Karyn Polito and Susan Collins. Could someone please help out with these too? Thank you! Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 18:34, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Sources 2

The sources are on this page and are for Susan Collins (senator) and Karyn Polito (Lieutenant Governor). Thank you! Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 20:58, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Just added Christine Todd Whitman (former cabinet official) and the source doesn’t work there either. I don’t know what’s up with this. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 21:49, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I’ve added the reflist template -has this made a difference? Neiltonks (talk) 22:25, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Neiltonks, that did not help. The three links still do not show the article. I’m still not sure why. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 22:31, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

@Lima Bean Farmer: spurious amp in the URLs. I'll remove them when off mobile. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 22:50, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Wonderful! Thank you Rotideypoc41352! Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 23:00, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Sources 3

The one for Whitman was fixed but Susan Collins and Karyn Polito still need to be changed. I don’t know why or how to change them, but I’m hoping someone can fix it this time. Thank you! Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 03:10, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Fixed - If you find a link doesn't work, try searching the relevant website (or search the web if the website doesn't work) for the relevant page title so that you can find the correct url. --David Biddulph (talk) 03:26, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

@Lima Bean Farmer: since we're seeing a pattern, please avoid copying from the browser's address bar. Instead, use the website's share function (i.e. "share this article" button/link/icon). If you can't find one, try the browser's share function. For example, on Safari on iPhones, you can tap the icon with an arrow pointing up from a box, then find "copy" in the resulting menu. These may more likely than not generate a non-AMP link without extraneous parameters. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 13:05, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Rotideypoc41352 for the advice! Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 14:58, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Someone plz correct 1st diagram in article re "Bayesian Network"?

To some stat-head Wikian who's also good at revising WikiMedia diagrams:

Plz correct the numbers in the 1st diagram in the article on "Bayesian Network"?

-- Tx !

Details:

The diagram's caption is "A simple Bayesian network with conditional probability tables".

The diagram shows three "T-or-F"-style tables of the probability-figures of the truth or falsity of each of three partially-inter-dependent sub-states within a particular hypothetical situation:

1: of it raining; 2: of the grass' sprinkler being on; &, 3: of the grass being wet.

It is the resultant probability-figures for #3 that need correcting.

-- For all of us, now & to come, thanks again! 2605:6000:1516:4565:4488:EED6:4E7A:4FB4 (talk) 18:48, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I'd recommend posting at Talk:Bayesian network with your specific suggestions -- which exact numbers need to be changed, and to what? Once you've established that others agree with you, or if no one chimes in, someone can request at WP:GL/I that a Wikipedian fix the image. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:52, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I could easily fix that diagram, if I knew what to fix it to. The arrowy bit, and the "sprinkler" and "main" tables are clear to me (though I would prefer them swapped around). But the "grass wet" table seems such garbage that I can't even guess what it's trying to be. If you (maybe after discussion) are confident in what it's meant to be, ping me and I can fix the diagram. I might make the fonts a bit bigger while I'm about it. Maproom (talk) 19:11, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree that it's a mess. Interestingly, my first observation was to swap them around, along not 100% sure I mean the same thing as you. I would put the rain truth table on the left, and the sprinkler on the right.

Yup, that's what I meant. Maproom (talk) 20:03, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

However, the more I look at it more I think it's a mess.

My interpretation of the arrow between the sprinkler and grass wet is that if the sprinklers on them we expect the grass to be wet. Similarly, the arrow between rain and the grass wet I interpret to mean if it rains then the grass is wet. I'm still struggling with the arrow between rain and sprinkler. In fact, that troubles me enough that I'm not quite sure that I've interpreted the other two arrows correctly.

I'm a big fan of using examples to illustrate concepts. I confess and sometimes a victim to being a bit too clever, while understanding that in a pedagogical sense, clean is better than clever.

If you are trying to illustrate a concept, stick to a clean example, rich enough to illustrate the concept but not so complicated that one gets lost.

While the suggested question "What is the probability that it is raining, given the grass is wet?" technically makes sense, it's a bit silly. If I want to assess whether it's raining, I'll use my eyes or maybe stick my hand out. I can figure out whether it's raining simply — I don't need to check the wetness of the grass and do a probability calculation. What they probably mean is "what is the probability that it rained within the last few hours, given that the grass is wet." That's a more reasonable question, and arguably consistent with the probabilities. They have a probability of 40% that the sprinkler is on, which sounds very high. In contrast, a probability of 40% that the sprinkler was on sometime in the last few hours seems like a plausible number. But if were going to change the problem, we need to do some cleanup of the discussion.

As an additional complication, they throw in a 1% chance that the sprinkler is on if it's raining. This is what I mean by being too clever, they want to factor in a problem, namely that it might rain, and the sprinkler is not supposed to go on (but note this is implicit not stated), but due to some failure in the system the sprinkler goes on even though it's raining. Maybe the sprinkler started when it was not raining and it stays on even though it's raining. Again, these are complications that detract from the educational nature of the example.

The example then goes on to ask a silly question "what is the probability that it would rain, given that we wet the grass?". Obviously, if the grass is wet that won't cause rain, but I think this example is trying too hard to make a point. I haven't even checked the map to see if they did that right but I think that's outside the scope of a simple example.

I think this example doesn't makes sense in terms of plausible probabilities unless we assume that we are talking about the grass being wet after either sprinkler action or rain, but the example doesn't discuss how long grass would stay wet after those two events, and whether the length of time is the same(not likely). If we are literally talking about observing that the the grass is wet and wondering whether it's because it is raining now with the sprinklers are on, that's a silly question. A more meaningful question is what we conclude if we see the grass is wet – was it raining earlier over the sprinklers on earlier but if we want that more sensible example we need more information.

I think would be better off rethinking the whole example.S Philbrick(Talk) 19:51, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm certainly not going to waste any brain power on the text. If there's ever a consensus on improving the diagram, ping me and I can do it. Maproom (talk) 20:03, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Query about DISPLAYTITLE

Article Planter class has the following as its first line:

{{DISPLAYTITLE:Agrarian enslaver class}}

I have looked unsuccessfully at Template:DISPLAYTITLE trying to understand what this template is doing, if anything. Is it an error? Thank you. deisenbe (talk) 19:29, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

It's meant to format the title in a different way, such as putting part of it in italics. In this case, since the displaytitle text doesn't match the actual title, it's ignored. The article was never called "Agrarian enslaver class", as far as I can tell. So yes - likely a mistake.TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:41, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I've removed it. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 22:16, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Can someone please help me on writing an article or page ...?

Hello, I would like to request help to write an article or page for a contemporary Costa Rican artist, who has been providing a valuable contribution to culture for more than 30 years. Currently, he is one of the most important visual artists in Costa Rica.

I have already wrote the article but it was deleted, even when i used real and original pictures, all the information about the artist was based on the his history, taking notes from books, interviews and other articles.

Here is the link of the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Adrian_Arguedas_Ruano Draft:Adrian Arguedas Ruano.

I am really confuse about the way I have received such a negative feedback about this article.

I am an Art promoter and I am trying to add a good article to the Wikipedia encyclopedic data, at the same time, I am trying to included this artist because, I have read articles about other contemporary artists, that I have known, but they do not have the half of importance and trajectory of this artist I am reffering to, never the less, Wikipedia have published articles or pages about them.

I have never wrote an article like this before, but i would like to learn and maybe I would be able to continue adding information and editing in the future.

Joannych Joannych (talk) 23:07, 14 August 2020 (UTC)  Joannych (talk) 23:07, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Adrian Arguedas Ruano was Declined, not Rejected (more severe). There are large section of text without references. David notMD (talk) 23:52, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

@Joanny C.Chavarria: I have completed some editing on the article, and plan to do more. However, the main problem, as I see it, is the lack of inline references, as noted above. If you have access to the sources, please add them. WP requires specific references/sources for the various portions (text) of information in an article. There is a great deal of information in the article, but only four sources. Where did all the information come from? You need to show this in the article. We can work with any other problems, but WP must have the sources listed for the information, otherwise, the article will not be accepted. People here at the Teahouse are willing to help you, and I will help you too. Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 03:23, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Huang Xiaoyun Where can I improve?

Hi everyone, I am fairly satisfied with my current pending review draft Draft:Huang Xiaoyun. However, as a newbie, I am sure there may be many errors or other areas to improve on that I am not aware of. Can any experts please point these out? Do you think this article will be accepted? Otherwise, it really isn't worth the wait... Thanks! Note: as a result of being translated from a Chinese Wikipedia article, most sources are in Chinese, but I provide translated titles and I can ensure you that they are published from well-established Chinese news agencies. GhostHuang'sFan (talk) 23:44, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Can a Categories of Discussion nomination be altered due to a change in a involved category?

I made a nomination (listed here) for several mergers and renamings of categories. However, due to some speedy renamings, some of my merges are inaccurate as a redirect was not listed. Can I change the original nomination? (Oinkers42) (talk) 01:14, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm new and learning, "This article has multiple issues."

Some of the articles I'm working on have a warning box at the top "This article has multiple issues." First, these are not my articles, I'm just editing them. They say "Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page." However, the talk pages are blank or nearly so. It doesn't look like they have current activity. I want to help the articles but I don't know how. I did click through to the help pages linked in the warning boxes. They are very general on the policies and procedures. How do you find out what specifically is wrong with an individual article? For instance, one says "The neutrality of this article is disputed." I don't see anything that specifically jumps out as bias. Are there certain words or topics that trigger these warnings? How do find them? How do you know if the problem has already been edited out/fixed? For instance, another article said it was a stub, but it was rather long, page down 3-4 times to get to the bottom. Does that mean it was already fixed? Or that it is missing something that is required? If so, what? And how do you find out?

Forgive me if these are sort of dumb questions, just trying to learn how this works. Thanks Katrazyna (talk) 01:24, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Katrazyna, thanks for your questions - as a rule of thumb, these "multiple issues" headers should be used as guidance on which areas to improve in the article as usually major issues are reported in banners like that. In general, if you think you have fixed the issue, you should feel free to remove the appropiate template at the top of the page which will remove the issue banner. The talk pages are pretty much always blank, and it's up to you to start discussion regarding fixing issues there, but there is no guarantee of response, especially on smaller articles. The issue tags can be added by anyone, so it can be difficult sometimes to exactly determine some issues if they're not pointed out specifically so check the talk page and the page history for anything that could help, else just try to resolve the issue yourself if you can, and if you can't find an issue, feel free to remove the template. Hope that helps :) Ed talk! 02:56, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

@Katrazyna:, Oh, ho...you have brought up one of my pet peeves regarding tags. Step #1- I have rarely, if ever, seen a comment on the talk page, in reference to a tag. Step #2- The tags are dated. Open the edit history and go back and look at the article as it appeared when (or about when) the tag was originally placed, and compare it to the current article. Then you can make your own good judgement as to whether the problem has been resolved, and remove the tag.

I can't pull up an example, just now, but as a new editor, the tag removal language (don't remove this tag, etc.) was so foreboding that it caused me to think that the removal of a tag was a big deal. As in, lightning would fly from my computer, and strike me dead! And over the years, I have concluded that others felt the same. In so many cases, it was obvious that the problem had been resolved, YEARS ago, but "we" were too intimidated by the tag msg to remove it.

The lack of commentary on the talkpage is, no doubt, the result of drive-by tagging: WP:DRIVEBY. Frankly, I think that taggers should be "required" to post some info regarding the more complicated tags, like Multiple Issues, on the TP. However, as you are a concerned editor, you can probably see problems, esp. if you do a comparison. Perhaps they have already been resolved. Well, thanks for letting me vent, and I hope this helps.Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 05:11, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

@Katrazyna: you've received some great answers, so I'll answer the implied question: what are some simple ways for a beginner to help? Wugapodes suggests adding alt text to images for those using screen readers or who've turned off images on their browsers. Since you seem to have a decent grasp of English language mechanics, you may want to check out the guild of copyeditors. You can also add more info to citations that only have a URL to prevent link rot. In my experience, these tasks serve as a smoother transition into Wikipedia editing. They will allow you to see a variety of articles and familiarize you with the ins and outs of Wikipedia. With a better understanding of policy, the tags at the top of articles should make more sense. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 13:24, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi Protection Pages

When I try to put the new voice actor of Dashi into the characters section of Octonauts, it said that it's semi protected so that auto confirmed users can edit it. I was wondering that am I an auto confirmed user? Leapfrog009 (talk) 03:23, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello Leapfrog009, and welcome to the Teahouse. You are, in fact, autoconfirmed. Any registered editor with more than 10 edits whose account is also more than 4 days old is autoconfirmed. Anyone who edits The Octonauts will see that message, even an Admin. You may make such an edit if you see fit. Of course, i trust6 you will have a proper source for the statements being added to the article. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 05:22, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Christian Dominionism, White Supremacy, Indigenous History, Jewish Studies, Oregon History, Manifest Destiny, Neutrality, Verifiability, and Systemic Bias on Wikipedia

Buenas Dias, Mundo. I'm a new user, and unprepared for an edit war with an experienced and highly decorated WP veteran. Please someone visit my contrib list. Promised Land (sculpture) and Spanish-American War Soldier's Monument. Please more editors give some attention to these pages, it is very pressing issue in Portland, OR at this insurrectionary moment in the nation's history, and he and I cannot be trusted to maintain the WP Neutrality and Verifiability unless there are several other editors involved with some experience in the both the subject matter and the WP guidelines. Please restore or improve the edits that reverted by this person, or consider tagging his articles with Systemic Bias. I genuinely think they violate the neutrality policy. Can I get a witness? Reverting a persons edits without explanation and then refusing to speak about it on the talk page, is also contrary to WP culture, from what I've learned so far. Have a good weekend all, and thanks for the teahouse! I'll be back next week. WP:BRD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaredscribe (talk • contribs) 03:36, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Note, the link should read The Promised Land (sculpture) Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 05:18, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

@Jaredscribe: Perhaps I missed it, but I don't see where you have properly notified Another Believer, either on their talk page or on the article talk page with a ping to them, so they know you want to discuss it. In other words, you need to either post at User talk:Another Believer or (better) post at the article talk page (which you did at Talk:Spanish–American War Soldier's Monument), starting it with {{Re|Another Believer}} and ending it with ~~~~ (similar to what I did here to notify you).

The only other article you've edited is The Promised Land (sculpture), so what's with all the other names you have mentioned in this section heading? Did you edit them while logged out or under another username? —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 05:28, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

@AlanM1:, they also edited at Spanish-American War Soldier's Monument Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 06:05, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

@Jaredscribe: The edit that you made to Spanish-American War Soldier's Monument had a malformed ref/source, so the edit could not be confirmed. On The Promised Land (sculpture), no source was provided at all. In regards to the info you wished to add, WP needs verifiable sources WP:V and WP:RS. Also, it is advisable to use the "show preview" button...as you have posted a long list of items as your section header, here at the Teahouse, instead of noting only the two articles you wished to address. Posting/supplying good sources for info will put you on a good footing, so that you can discuss your proposed additions on the talk page of each article. Talking to other editors on the talk page, if you have a problem, is Always the first course of action! Regards, Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 06:03, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

@Jaredscribe:, you included "@Another Believer" in the section heading of your post on Talk:Spanish–American War Soldier's Monument. On some sites, that would notify the editor. Here it does not. You must use one of the tempaltes listed in WP:PING or one that makes a similar link, such as {{U}}, {{Re}}, or {{ping}} (there are others. Secondly, you must sign the comment in the same edit with four tildes (~~~~). An unsigned ping does not notify the other user. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 06:56, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Islamic religious writing presented as Jewish history, while there is absolutley no Jewish account to this story.

The Islamic writers might have wanted to arase the fact that Babylonian Jews were the reason that many Jews were still living within the Abbasid Caliphate. Their Islamic writings have no prior Jewish historical evidence.

That was my addition and one of the editors arased it. How do I take him to task? I am new to this editing, while obviously the distinguished editor does not recognise the historic importance to this edit. Leonperetz (talk) 06:15, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Leonperetz, I recommend discussing your proposed edit at Talk:Jewish tribes of Arabia and providing sources to support it. Calliopejen1 (talk) 06:42, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Leonperetz. While I don't think your edit was really a case of vandalism, I also don't think that the WP:REVERTing of it was incorrect. First of all, you're edit wasn't what Wikipedia would consider to be a WP:MINOR edit; perhaps, you just mistakenly marked it as such, but it's not minor at all. That, however, is not the main reason why I think your edit should've been reverted though. Basically, you tried to add an WP:UNSOURCED claim (that seems potentially quite contentious) to the MOS:LEAD of an article. Perhaps you really believe the claim to be true and maybe it's true, but Wikipedia requires a much higher standard than "being true" as explained in Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Righting great wrongs. In addition, the lead of an article should reflect and summarize content that comes later in the body of the article; it's not really the place for adding unsourced claims or possible speculation about the subject of the article. So, if you can establish that the content you want to add is something that is discussed in WP:RELIABLESOURCES and is not WP:UNDUE, then perhaps there is a way to incorporate such information into the article and then reflect that in the lead. The thing for you to do would be to start a discussion about this at Jewish tribes of Arabia and see what other editors think. If you're able to establish a WP:CONSENSUS in favor of adding the content that's in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, then it will be added; if not, it won't. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:24, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I would like some assistance with writing an article

Hi, I would like assistance to start a page about a "notable"[Wikipedia's words] person. I have written the facts in a neutral perspective and have examples of various references were I obtained these facts. Some examples of these sources include , from F.I.R.S.T., , and .

I think that these are reliable sources, however, I thought it best to check with a volunteer before I continue.

The specific question that I want answered is, "May a volunteer assist me in starting a page and tell me whether the sources that I have provided are appropriate?" Thank you. AmonTon707 (talk) 07:21, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

References

@AmonTon707: Those are not reliable sources. User generated sources (which includes pretty much anything with "wiki" anywhere in the address line) are almost never reliable. What you need are professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources that are independent of the subject but still provide in-depth coverage about the subject. You can find step-by-step instructions at the section "How to write articles that won't be rejected or deleted" of this guide I wrote. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:32, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Teahouse hosts are here to advise, but never (rarely)to co-create articles. In addition to what Ian provided, WP:Your First Article provides guidance on how to get started. If you find information in a Wikipedia article you want to use in your draft, look to the references in that article. You can copy the information AND the accompanying references to your draft as long as you acknowledge in your Edit summary where you got the content from. For example, I created Fish allergy by copying extensively from Egg allergy. David notMD (talk) 09:39, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Article Creation

Hi,I really love writing and reading. So far I've written about 10 dialogues and compositions and I want to create an article. The problem is that I don't know how to. Lady Pakun .k (talk) 11:36, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Lady Pakun .k, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Please see #Article Approval inquiry below, where I answered much the same question for an unregistered user. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 13:27, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Requesting article

At the Request article section, I requested that the FC Barcelona 2–8 FC Bayern Munich match be created.

Is that the appropriate way to request an article and is the article good to be requested? Josedimaria237 (talk) 12:08, 15 August 2020 (UTC) Josedimaria237 (talk) 12:08, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Josedimaria237 and welcome to the Teahouse.

Yes, your addition to Wikipedia:Requested articles was proper, althoguh it would be better if you added links to some reliable sources which coul;d be used in writing such an article. But there are a couple of issues you should be aware of.

• First, most individual soccer matches are not notable and so Wikipedia will never have an article about those matches. There are some exceptions, but a match would need to be significantly out of the ordinary to have its own separate article.
• Secondly, while anyone may use Wikipedia:Requested articles as a basis for creati9gn an article, few people do so, and particularly not when no sources are given. Indeed it is so rare I think it is a waste of even the minute or so it would have taken you to add the request. Unless you can interest a specific experienced editor in this topic, I fear you will have to try it yourself if it is to be done. You might try Wikipedia:WikiProject Football, or one of its sub-projects, where editors interested in this topic might be found. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 13:40, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Help

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Yash_Dudhani — Preceding unsigned comment added by Technoto (talk • contribs) 12:16, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Technoto, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval is for asking for approval to run an automated script, or "bots" (short for robot), on Wikipedia. You seem to have placed a draft for an article there, where it will not be likely to be approved or helped in any way. What exactly are you trying to do? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 13:44, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Article Approval inquiry

hello, sir, I hope you are doing well. My question is about Wikipedia article writing I want to write an article so kindly guide me what should I avoid so my articles got approved. 39.42.16.109 (talk) 12:43, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello, unregister3ed editor (...16.109), 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. It is usually best to work on existing articles for a while before starting an attempt to create a new one. 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 some steeps which, if followed, often lead to success:

• 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} 13:24, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Inlinks refer differently in text

Hey! Some of the inlinks in my text goes directly to the wikipedia page and som go to the reference list. Is it supposed to be like this or do I have to fix it? In that case, how?

Thanks!

Best, May MaySundAnd (talk) 12:51, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

MaySundAnd, I found your draft. Having found it I have no idea what your question relates to. Please (a) link to your draft and (b) explain your question so that we can understand what you mean. Fiddle Faddle 13:28, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Article Vietnamese phonology

How to put some remarks in the Article Vietnamese phonology, link: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnamese_phonology

Hi. I am sorry. I need again some help. There is no "talk page". So I have no idea, how to put remarks into the article. It is about the Article Vietnamese phonology, link: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnamese_phonology.

Thank you in advance. Beautiful Bavaria (talk) 15:04, 15 August 2020 (UTC) Beautiful Bavaria (talk) 15:04, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Beautiful Bavaria. The article’s talk page can be found at Talk:Vietnamese phonology. What do you mean by “remarks”? Personal comments or remarks shouldn’t be added to articles. — Marchjuly (talk) 15:15, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

+++++++++++++++++ Ups. I don´t want put remarks into the article, but into the "talk page". Beautiful Bavaria (talk) 15:55, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Beautiful Bavaria, the normal or "desktop" Wikipedia article Vietnamese phonology is at —

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnamese_phonology; and it has a Talk page.

The article you have been looking at is at —

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnamese_phonology – do you see the extra "m"?

That's a version of Wikipedia reformatted for better display on a mobile phone, which lacks Talk and other pages. I believe one can switch to the "standard" or "desktop" version on a mobile (because other editors have said they do most of their editing that way), but I've never done so myself. Hope this helps. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.218.15.230 (talk) 17:50, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Is there a way to get help with foreign-language sources?

Greetings,

not sure if this is the right place, as this is not necessarily a "complete beginner" question...

So I've edited a bit here and there, and am currently working on my first larger articles. While I'm starting to feel comfortable with general Wikipedia stuff (and already having received helpful inputs from various people), I occasionally stumble upon a problem related to sources:

My personal agenda is shaping up to be about improving the English Wikipedia especially in areas that fall outside a good current coverage, and that quite often means anything outside the Anglosphere. But that means that quite often, important sources are available only in languages other than English. And while I speak one other language (German), for all others I need to rely on Google translate to give me an idea what the source states, which quite often feels insufficient to me. Even worse, quite often it seems almost impossible to even find sources because if the keyword is needed in a foreign language, I don't even know what to type into Google to get results.

So, to get to the point: Is there a centralized way to find other Wikipedians with language skills, who are willing to collaborate on identifying, translating and verifying sources in languages other than English?

There certainly is Babel, but it doesn't seem practical to just ask everyone in a language category individually whether they could and want to help.

Regards, LordPeterII (talk) 15:19, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

User ID Confirmation Request

How should i confirm my user id?? because i am new to wikipedia Shusshi Teishi 15:21, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Shusshi Teishi. I'm afraid I am not clear what you are asking, or indeed why. Once you have your user account and password, and are logged in, the only time I could imagine ever being asked to confirm who I actually am is if I were to be challenged over a picture I uploaded, of if I were being accused of pretending top be someone famous and needed to send an official email to our WP:OTRS team. But that is a rare thing to have to do - especially for a new editor - so could I ask you what page you were on or what action you were performing where you needed to give some form of ID Confirmation? Many thanks, Nick Moyes (talk) 15:45, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Just curious

I don't know if this happens, but how do you know someone is currently creating an article you are also creating at the same time? I'm asking so as to save me the stress of unknowingly creating an article again. Especially articles about current events or big articles.

Josedimaria237 (talk) 15:49, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

That's an extremely good question, Josedimaria237. I had to do precisely that the other day when creating a page for wartime heroine, Monique Hanotte, based on a very recent Daily Telegraph newspaper article. I used our search function not only to look for that person in the main article space, but also in other likely places (called 'namespaces') which are not included in searches by default. Namely the Draft namespace and the User namespace, plus their associated Talk pages. I added those namespaces to my search and found no returns, so felt able to continue without conflicting with someone else. (more to follow...) Nick Moyes (talk) 16:09, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: Actually I'm not talking of when you are about to create an article, but when you are already creating the article. You may search if the article you're about to create is existing and it's not, then go ahead to create it without knowing that another user is 'currently' creating the same article. How do you know that?

Josedimaria237 (talk) 16:22, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

@Josedimaria237: I'm not exactly sure what you're getting, but the principle is the same as I was about to outline. You search mainspace, and then you search draft and userspace before starting. But then, as you proceed with your draft, and might you suddenly think, "gosh, I wonder if someone else might be drafting a page about the same thing, too, albeit with a different title", then you should search for logical keywords that another person might also be using in draftspace or mainspace.

There's no way to magically know that another person is rushing to start a new page on the same thing - or has already started whilst you were working away on your new page. If that happens, chances are someone at WP:AFC or WP:NPP will spot the similarity (assuming you haven't). When that happens, I think priority would be given to the article that was created first, and it would be proposed that the contents are merged together. The two editors, having both learnt that they're not alone in wanting to create this new page would then need to collaborate on the first-to-be-created page. Assuming you've used different, but sensible titles, one would become a WP:REDIRECT to the other. If, having created your new article, you were paranoid that someone else might then start one, you'd simply have to keep searching mainspace, draftspace and userspace until you spotted something similar, and than make an approach to the other editor. It is worth adding that it is better to start a new article in draftspace, than to keep working on it in your sandbox for a long time - just in case that other person 'pips you to the post'. Does that help? I presume you don't now need me to post the guidance I had prepared on how to search within draftspace and userspace? Nick Moyes (talk) 16:41, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

@Josedimaria237: Addendum: On thinking about this further, perhaps the best way is for you to keep an eye on all newly-created pages at Special:NewPages (this would be more effective than monitoring Special:NewPagesFeed. You might also like to read WP:BREAKING and this essay on taking care when covering breaking news that might, or might not, become a big story. Nick Moyes (talk) 16:55, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: I now understand, I'll be checking the Special:NewPages section as I'm creating the article for the article is likely to be created by another user anytime soon. Thanks

Josedimaria237 (talk) 17:39, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Usage question

Hello all, I want to be certain I can use Wikipedia articles on my website. Is this legally OK? It seems to be but I want it ask those more familiar with this encyclopedia. MrsLibertyisSinging (talk) 15:52, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

MrsLibertyisSinging, you can see Wikipedia's content license at WP:CC BY-SA. In short,

You are free:

• to Share—to copy, distribute and transmit the work, and
• to Remix—to adapt the work

for any purpose, even commercially.

Under the following conditions:

• Attribution—You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work.)
• Share Alike—If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same, similar or a compatible license.

With the understanding that:

• Waiver—Any of the above conditions can be waived if you get permission from the copyright holder.
• Other Rights—In no way are any of the following rights affected by the license:
  • your fair dealing or fair use rights;
  • the author's moral rights; and
  • rights other persons may have either in the work itself or in how the work is used, such as publicity or privacy rights. Ed talk! 17:00, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Crunchbase?

Hi, I'm currently writing an article about a business, and hopefully the owner as well (later on) *I have no connection to either for the record, and have read all of Wikipedia's guidelines* I have found their profile on Crunchbase, is this an external link or is it a reference, thanks in advance. Paul. Strayas12 (talk) 17:11, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Strayas12, and welcome to the Teahouse. As it says at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources:

In the 2019 RfC, there was consensus to deprecate Crunchbase, but also to continue allowing external links to the website. A significant proportion of Crunchbase's data is user-generated content.

This means that Crunchbase should never be used as a source, that any statement in a Wikipedia article should be supported by a source other than Crunchbase. However, it can be OK to include a link to a company's Crunchbase profile as an external link if it provides information not already in the article. See WP:EL for more on how to use external links.

I hope this is helpful. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:13, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Citing Law Suits in a BLP

1. Trying to add a Legal Citation copied a paragraph of the actual Judgement and wiki editors keep deleting it saying it's a "Copyright violation" the thing is the Source is a Official Legal Public Data base (Canlii) and specifically allows copying and citation which I properly cited.

"...legal materials published on the CanLII website, such as legislation, decisions and commentary, including editorial enhancements inserted into the documents by CanLII such as hyperlinks and information in headers and footers, can be copied, printed and used by Users free of charge and without any other authorization from CanLII, provided that CanLII is identified as the source of the document."

2. How to add the Law suits including a copy of the Judgment Paragraphs into the BLP,

3. The BLP is Non Neutral as is without the addition of Legal citations and currently includes a Lawsuit that the BLP "Won" but none of the other and some related Lawsuits which I want to add.

An not related to the party am aware of the industry and law suit cited in the original article and trying to contribute a balanced in context info. Please advise. DragonFireWar (talk) 18:54, 15 August 2020 (UTC)