Wikipedia:Teahouse

David Biddulph, 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

Just for fun

Can I add a more lighthearted page to Wikipedia, like "List of countries by how fun their name is to say"? I know the answer's probably no, but I just want to make sure because I think that would make Wikipedia more interesting. Calicopenguin1112 (talk) 13:43, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Calicopenguin1112, agghhh I would want to see them alive. But no, you can get in trouble man. :( GeraldWL 13:47, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

No, You cannot. Wikipedia is an Online encyclopedia and the content should be professional. Such things for fun is not acceptable on wikipedia. please do not even try this because sooner or later your article will be deleted. Anonymous Cuber (talk) 13:59, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Calicopenguin1112 You might like to read the essay WP:HUMOR which gives some views on this and points out there is a (limited) use for humour, for example on Talk pages. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:10, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Calicopenguin1112. I agree with what's said above. However, you can select a "fun" subject to write about – and then write a "serious" article that's "fun" just because of what it's about; maybe something that ends up at WP:WEIRD. One of my favorites (that I had a very small hand in), is William Windsor (goat). Researching and adding this detail, for example, was fun for me. The takeaway though is that this was a notable topic, worthy of a stand-alone encyclopedia article, and everyone contributing followed our inclusion and writing policies and guidelines to create it, such as sourcing the content by citing reliable, secondary, independentTemplate:Z21 sources. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:57, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

@Calicopenguin1112: Another example is longest words, containing the Māori placename Taumatawhakatangi­hangakoauauotamatea­turipukakapikimaunga­horonukupokaiwhen­uakitanatahu. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 22:57, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Calicopenguin1112, A semi-serious suggestion is to do that on Uncyclopedia, which is dedicated to that kind of objects. JJP...MASTER!_{[talk to] JJP... master?} 17:53, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Calicopenguin1112 Wikipedia is a serious project and thus doesn't accept content purely intended for humor. Very rarely, exceptions are made under WP:HUMOR, but you're better off creating the article in your user namespace, such as User:capsulecap/Article_Name. Capsulecap (talk) 01:50, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

How to talk sense into a bot

A colleague is using a "trick" he came up by himself to stop a bot from doing damage. I have been using on several pages, under "See also", the following link:

• Zev Wolf disambiguation page
  

Should the nasty bot mess up with it here too, here is what I wrote: asterisk / Zev Wolf [between straight double brackets] / disambiguation page
Our friend The Banner modified it to

• Zev Wolf (disambiguation page)
  

that is: asterisk / [open straight double brackets] Zev Wolf (disambiguation) / | / Zev Wolf [close straight double brackets] / (disambiguation page)
which is doubling every word in it. He explained to me that that isn't useless ballast, because "sometimes you have to use a trick to tell that robot that the link is valid, although it is pointing to a disambiguation page. What I was doing was adding that trick." (see here).
I am still not sure that the "trick" is needed, and if it is, can we not contact whoever is in charge of that bot and have them modify the code, so that it stops doing whatever it's doing wrong (I didn't understand what that is)?
I sometimes use links to disambiguation pages in the articles intentionally, because they contain good, useful info that helps the user. The next day I'm getting an email asking whether I've linked to the disambiguation page intentionally. If I don't react to it, it lets go and the link stays put, no problem. What is different in this case? Or is it? Thanks, Arminden (talk) 01:24, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

@Arminden: Please let us know which page this happened on and/or the name of the bot that made the edit. RudolfRed (talk) 01:39, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

@Arminden: I agree that contacting the bot owner is in order. I know next to nothing about bot programming (did I say "next to"? shameless puffery; let's just call it "zero") and yet it seems to me it would be superbly easy to craft a rule for any bot to fix this issue, given how many bot rule exceptions I've seen discussed for things that appear much more convoluted, and that then were actually programmed. (For example, a rule that if it finds "disambiguation page" written in parentheses within a few spaces of the end of the link markup, to ignore fixing the preceding link.)

Anyway, the main reason for my post is to hopefully provide a little trick that you might find helpful in the future. If you want to write something like you have above, and not have it format (so that you can avoid the circumlocution you engaged in of describing the way the link was formatted in prose), just place nowiki tags around the content. Here, for example

<nowiki>* [[Zev Wolf (disambiguation)|Zev Wolf]]</nowiki> (disambiguation page)

produces when you save

* [[Zev Wolf (disambiguation)|Zev Wolf]] (disambiguation page).

Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:27, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

@Arminden: See Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Links to disambiguation pages. The bot reporting the link and The Banner changing it are both doing the right thing. There are also human editors going through pages like Special:WhatLinksHere/Zev Wolf to find and fix inappropriate links to disambiguation pages. They waste time checking intentional links like [[Zev Wolf]] (disambiguation page). To avoid this, the link should say [[Zev Wolf (disambiguation)|Zev Wolf]] in article text. As far as I know there are no bots trying to automatically change links like [[Zev Wolf]]. They are just reported for evaluation by editors. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:54, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

What I told him was that a bot (dplbot) is maintaining the page "Articles With Multiple Dablinks" and that the articles was showing up there. And that with the extra "(disambiguation)" DplBot would see the link as okay. The Banner talk 10:29, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I understand bots aren't smart, that's easy; but I don't get it a) why it doesn't apply here what I know from many years of receiving emails from such bots that ask me to check whether it was intentional or not, and it's up to me to leave it as I intended to; how is this different?, and b) why, if there are such bots that run amok, their "handlers" cannot be addressed in order to fix them. I keep on getting replies which are not answers to my questions. If there is a glitsch somewhere, why combat it with acrobatic improvisations and not go to the source? That some editors aren't logical either and feel compelled to remove all wikilinks to ambig. pages by hand, w/o looking at the sentence or wider context, that can't be helped; not with tricks, that I'm sure about. That's called compulsion, or obsessive–compulsive, it's a serious matter and can't be part of our considerations here. But whatever, this is going nowhere. Arminden (talk) 13:51, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Some people just want to help Wikipedia by doing maintenance work. They should not be awarded a kick in their sitting device just because they do that.

And yes, I do it manual. Just to be able to look at the wider context. The Banner talk 21:14, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Preferred way of dealing with sites blocked due to GDPR

Asking here because I wasn't able to find this info anywhere else – do we have a preferred way of handling links that block all visitors with European IPs due to non-compliance with the GDPR? I do have a VPN which I can use to access them, but this is hardly an ideal arrangement, especially since I have to turn it off again when I actually want to be able to make an edit. I almost feel inclined to mark these links as dead and redirect them to an archive, but since that's technically incorrect and may be confusing to non-European readers, I'm more than hesitant to make this my modus operandi – after all, it's a safe assumption that the vast majority of readers who will want to read up on the details of U.S.-based articles will themselves be American. So, to get to the point, is there any secret approved way of solving this dilemma, or do I just have to live with it? AngryHarpy‍^talk 11:42, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

AngryHarpy, if you can find a better reference, not protected by GDPR, you can use that instead. But a source that's easily available to over three-quarters of English-speaking readers, and with some difficulty to the rest, is fine. After all, it's ok to cite a book in a library in Osaka, even though most of us have no way of getting there, and wouldn't be able to read it anyway. Maproom (talk) 13:09, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Alright, that's about what I expected. Thanks for the reply! AngryHarpy‍^talk 13:21, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

@AngryHarpy: Perhaps it's worth suggesting another value for |url-status= in {{Citation}} templates to mark those so it will act like |url-status=unfit for users that set a (new) preference flag that indicates they are affected by it (i.e., European users). That's assuming there's just one (or a very small number of) such class of user and website, and not different websites that block different countries (at least for this issue).

I think there is a way you can be granted an exemption to allow you to use your VPN to edit so you don't have to remember to switch back and forth. Perhaps an admin will comment. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 21:41, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

AlanM1 Having skimmed through WP:EXEMPT I rather doubt this is something I could reasonably hope to qualify for, especially since this is not an issue I encounter on a daily basis. Having to connect to and disconnect from a VPN via a modern client just to access a single website is annoying, but I wouldn't exactly call it an unreasonable hardship.

Your notion about a possible additional value for |url-status= is really interesting, though I do wonder whether a template checking an IP's location is viable on a grander scale – or rather, whether the fairly minimal improvement to the user experience would make this worthwhile. But still, thank you for giving me food for thought. AngryHarpy‍^talk 14:18, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

@AngryHarpy: I wasn't thinking of having the template do the checking for the reader's IP – that would present some issues. I thought it would just allow users to self-identify in their preferences as someone blocked by these restrictions. When someone with this preference set is shown a reference that has |url-status=GDPR-blocked, it would act the same way as a dead (or unfit) URL – linking primarily (or only) to the |archive-url= value instead of the |url=.

Another interesting option would be to create/maintain a list of sites with this problem so individual citations wouldn't need to be marked with the special |url-status=GDPR-blocked. I wonder if this is something temporary, that a site usually fixes, or whether it's just too burdensome in some cases, and therefore permanent. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 00:17, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

AlanM1 Now I finally get where you're coming from. And yes, these notices are supposed to be temporary, but many regional publications which only receive a negligible amount of views from European countries seem to have settled on it as a permanent solution, and I wouldn't necessarily blame them for it giving the fairly daunting compliance checklist. It's possible that some may still change their mind in the future, perhaps upon the possible introduction of a similar ruleset in the U.S., but for now it seems highly unlikely in most cases – fergusfallsjournal.com, the website that led me to posting this thread in the first place, would be a typical example. With that in mind, I would personally prefer a centralized list (perhaps at WP:GDPR) over a |url-status=GDPR-blocked option, as this would make the updating of the status of a website that has become GDPR-compliant after all a matter of seconds, rather than a task requiring possibly thousands of minor edits to the article space. AngryHarpy‍^talk 09:58, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

You might already be aware of this option, AngryHarpy (I noted your archive comment), but I've had some luck with using Wayback Machine links to get around these blocks. See the reference I added here, for example. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:30, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Cordless Larry I'm indeed aware of the option and I really ought to be, given that it's arguably at the core of this entire affair ;) – so, to clarify, what this feature proposed by AlanM1 would do is allow editors to self-identify as European and be directed straight to an archive for all links marked as affected (assuming, of course, that one is provided in the citation – perhaps an idea for a new maintenance category?). For editors in the U.S. and elsewhere, nothing would change. Of course, judging whether |url-status=GDPR-blocked or a centralized list would be the more feasible option is a little beyond me. AngryHarpy‍^talk 14:47, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Feels like hounding

I feel like being hounded on my talk page, here there and elsewhere on Wikipedia by a group of users.

The help template didn‘t help.

What can I do? Can anybody give me an advice or help? Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 14:47, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Chip-chip-2020, it's hard for me to understand the context. The second one, I can see why such comments may dismay you, and I would also be offended by such comments. But to someone to open the possibility of a meatpuppetry is not being hounded, it's a step of WP:SOCK, and if it is clear that your account isn't used only to write that Chopin is gay blablabla whatever you guys are talking about there, you are good to go; however if it is indeed that you use your account mainly for that, RIP dude.

Pinging inquirer's Exhibit A Mathsci, and Exhibit B Smerus. GeraldWL 14:59, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

And also Exhibit C Praxidicae. GeraldWL 15:00, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not really involved in this, I just get pinged on IRC when help templates go up and this was an inappropriate use of it. I'd also suggest that Chip remove this entire thing as this isn't the place. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 15:02, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

One-track, single-issue, repetitive, editor who objects to other editors disagreeing with him/her. And failing to convince them seeks to present self as victim in the hope that this may advance his/her cause.--Smerus (talk) 15:20, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Dear GeraldWL, my account is not at all ‚mainly for that’, but since these users keep deleting my sourced work (without good reasons), I can‘t go on with the improvements I‘m preparing for other articles. So what can I do?--Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 15:26, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Chip-chip-2020, I'll look in your logbook to understand more about this. GeraldWL 15:50, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

There have already been multiple reports on noticeboards concerning Chopin and his sexuality. User:Chip-chip-2020 already requested a hearing at WP:DRN. In a nutshell, following radio broadcasts by Moritz Weber, a journalist based in Zurich publicised his theory that Chopin was gay (on the basis of adolescent letters). On 12 November, 2 Zurich IPs added content directly related to Weber's article, which even complained about de.wikipedia.org's unwillingness to respond to the material. It appears that User:Chip-chip-2020 is almost certainly linked to those Zurich IPs. Their editing has so far had a single purpose, namely that Chopin's schoolfriend Tytus Woyciechowski might had been lovers and that any infatuation between Chopin and women was a sham. The article on Frédéric Chopin is a WP:FA. It is concise and extremely well-written (User:Smerus has been the main contributor). The other main editors have been User:JackofOz, User:Toccata quarta, User:Nihil novi and User:Kosboot. Since the Weber article, User:Chip-chip-2020 has made edits to en.wikipedia.org, pl.wikipedia.org, de.wikipedia.org, fr.wikipedia.org, it.wikipedia.org and es.wikipedia.org, all in the same narrow topic. The Polish wikipedia article has reverted all their edits. The Italian wikipedian article has copied the new content on sexuality word-for-word from the article in en.wikipedia.org.

Today I learnt a new word—straightwashing. The article on Frédéric Chopin is about his life and music. We write about Scherzos (Chopin), Ballades (Chopin), Barcarolle (Chopin), Valldemossa Charterhouse, etc, etc, not about "sexual politics". User:Chip-chip-2020 has been attempting to add biased content to wikipedia, which is not properly supported by WP:RS. There is currently an RfC which should continue until 25-26 January.

I noticed that User:Chip-chip-2020 just now started editing Frédéric Chopin in a tendentious fashion, targeting me. The article Scherzos (Chopin) was created by me a while back; I consulted User:Nihil novi to check on the naming. Scherzos is the correct plural according to the Library of Congress and wikipedia, although Scherzi is another possibility (e.g. for the G. Henle Verlag edition). User:Chip-chip-2020 also claims Smerus has hounded them, I recommend that Smerus is consulted. The sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry issue was already raised at WP:DRN in December, but, with only one registered account, nothing can really be said. Only by looking at the the global edits of User:Chip-chip-2020 can the full picture be seen for "Chopin and sexuality". Mathsci (talk) 16:30, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

GeraldWL, see what I mean? Thank you--Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 16:38, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

One-track, single-issue, repetitive, editor who objects to other editors disagreeing with him/her. And failing to convince them seeks to present self as victim in the hope that this may advance his/her cause. I agree with Smerus, classic WP:SPA. Mathsci (talk) 17:22, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the summary, Mathsci. Chip-chip-2020, I've read Mathsci's summary and looked through your contributions log. If using Snope's fact check ratings, "These users are hounding me" is:

 Mostly false (meaning: "the primary elements of a claim are demonstrably false, but some of the ancillary details surrounding the claim may be accurate.")

DISCLAIMER: I am not hounding you here. Please note that.

First, let's start with Talk:Waltzes, Op. 70 (Chopin). A set of misadventures lead you to being questioned by an editor if you are a sockpuppet or not. This is hinted by various coincidences or time gap shortness, and the manual of style the IP editors and you follow. You then linked to WP:HOUND, assumingly that you felt the editor is stalking you. This is not stalking, but rather a part of the process on sockpuppet investigation. I've never been suspected as one and I'm sure it is shocking to be accused as such, however it is not suggested to fire back at others and lead the discussion to no-man's land. Thus, the discussion at Talk:Waltzes, Op. 70 (Chopin) is not a hound.

Then let's go to the grande finale, the Chopin thing. The section "Chopin’s sexuality" is confusing and convoluted so I can't grasp a lot of the users' minds there. But luckily Mathsci has given me a summary. I need to know if it is true that the sources you cite are basically his adolescent love letters towards his friend Tytus. Here's the thing: adolescents? I have had wet dreams about my same-sex friends and have no interest towards them; if I say that somewhere does that make me gay? Don't think so. It is merely a theory, and thus must be given less weight. But to be more specific, those are allegations, very very deep theories. And I don't see the need of inclusion, until the ghost of Chopin tells the world "Hey, me and Tytus are now married in Heaven Society."

Although I slightly disagree with Kosboot's claims that Chopin's subject of expertise makes news articles unreliable, I can agree if only he says instead, "Not all news articles are reliable." Because that's true. The New York Times passing the RS test does not make all of their works reliable. A post can be a blog and still be reliable. Context matters. With clinging uncertainty yet consensus on Chopin's emotional heart, it would be controversial to state that Tytus is Chopin's crush.

Again, nobody in that section is harassing you, although Kosboot certainly did attack an IP, wherein I have warned them about it.

You wrote in an RfC at the talk page that "there is no reliable and/or written proof" about Chopin's relationships with those people, when it has been added. How are you certain that they are not reliable?

You have also inquired several rhetorical questions, whereby you are using the format of a question to say a personal opinion. This can be manipulative to some and is discouraged. If you want to say a personal opinion, say it in form of an opinion. Those criticizing you for this are also not bullying you.

On your above reassurance that your account is not mainly for that, I can probably agree with you. This is shown by the last page of your contributions log, whereby only some contribs are directed towards the Chopin topic. Once your edit was disputed, that's when your log is littered with Chopin-related pages, as well as some noticeboard pages, eventually leading up to here, the Teahouse. However not all editors are as attached to an article like you do, so it may be suspicious. But this is not at all hounding. This is the magic cure to your chagrin:

This is part of the process.

The summary Mathsci gave to me was much to your chagrin, in which you state, "see what I mean?" And I don't see what you mean. None of Mathsci's words are hound, let alone harassment. This is all part of the process, as I stated. This is part of the process on reaching a penultimate (hope I'm using that word right) consensus. Trust me, the more you edit controversial articles and stumble upon an RfC, whether formal or informal, you may stumble upon a dispute and argument with editor(s). This will cool down in the aftermath, but is currently boiling, and writings in the fashion of Mathsci's summary is expected: referring to statements like "[Chip] has been attempting to add biased content to wikipedia, which is not properly supported by WP:RS."

Why do I mark your claims "mostly" false? Well it's because although the foundation of your claims are false, some details of your claims sheds light to some of the misdoings other editors have done amidst the process.

I would stress that saying certain sources "not supported by RSes" is NOT straightwashing, an attempt of portraying LGB people a hetero. And I am firm that all editors involved assume good faith, at least on you. You have to be grateful some are still willing to seek a civil discussion with ya.

I hope this debate ends, and I wish you a better near future in the world of editing Wikipedia. GeraldWL 17:37, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

@Gerald Waldo Luis: Thanks for giving such a comprehensive answer. However, far from being a victim. User:Chip-chip-2020 is now harassing me. They were not apparently satisfied with your response, so have asked an administrator who has blocked me previously.[1] Their request is an example of WP:OTHERPARENT. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 19:41, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

---

---

Comments

Imho, the Teahouse is likely not the best of venues to assess or sort editor behaviour complaints. This is excellently illustrated by Gerald Waldo Luis (GWL)'s 17:37, 8 January 2021 wall of text above: they start with assessing whether Chip-chip-2020 (CC2) is right on content, and then attempt to deduce whether or not there's something wrong behaviourally, based on that content assessment. Which brings me to the next point: the Teahouse is likely not the best of venues to assess content issues (as is, the above analysis on content is a second forum on a content issue that is being discussed in an open RfC – note that the second forum on the content issue was not opened by the OP, but in the responses they got from GWL).

I think the Teahouse is excellent to give newbies some advice on avoiding common pitfalls:

• CC2, the WP:SPA type of scrutiny on your edits won't go away until you start to edit articles that have nothing to do with Chopin, nor with gender/sexuality-related topics. That is, extensively (as in, not some window-dressing to just cover up the SPA nature of your account). I don't say SPAs can't be useful editors on Wikipedia (e.g. subject-matter experts), but the *scrutiny* won't go away, and will, more likely than not, in the end start hampering your editing.
• CC2, the argument that others are preventing you from proving you're not a SPA is evidently bogus: start editing articles that have nothing to do with Chopin, nor with gender/sexuality-related topics. Show that there are other topics that interest you, and that you can contribute constructively to the encyclopedia on these topics.
• CC2, opening discussions elsewhere that can be linked to an active (i.e. open, not closed) discussion on another page is usually counterproductive (see, e.g., WP:FORUMSHOP and WP:CANVASS). Wait till the first discussion ends: in an RfC, usually someone uninvolved would close the discussion, and usually, they would in their closing report suggest next steps (if any), in which case such next steps can then be acted upon.
• WP:SOCK type of scrutiny can not be operated in the Teahouse: if there are substantial reasons to suspect socking, this should go to WP:SPI. A newbie editor should not be drawn through something like that (basically WP:ASPERSIONS) in a venue not suited for it.

--Francis Schonken (talk) 09:27, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

That was quite a strong cup of tea here. I was actually just looking for help, since the help template didn‘t work as I thought; thought this was a friendly place. But thank you Francis Schonken for your hints, some are really helpful for me as a newie! And if we talk about time: I don‘t know what other wiki-users are doing in the real world, but I for my part just can‘t edit all day and night long since I have a normal job and a life in reality. So I do one thing after the other normally, since one also should be prepared to work on wiki and deliver good and sourced content, which I did. I actually thought wiki would be a nice hobby besides normal life in an openminded online community, but it turns out to be quite time-consuming, when I see all these discussions.--Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 08:27, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I regret editing has been made harder on you than it should have been (see WP:BITE). The classical music area of editing has, alas, a rather bad name in Wikipedia for its rather hostile editing environment. Gender- and sexuality-related topics are, twice alas, probably not much better (a long-term editor in that field has recently retired for the hostility they were subjected to). Some suggestions: there are wikiprojects such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music, Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers, Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies, and likely others relating to whatever interests you may have. You may take an interest in the discussions on the talk pages of such projects (which may give an inkling of how editors in these areas of interest address issues), and/or list yourself as a member of these projects. This may make editing in these areas easier. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:05, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Reply to User:Chip-chip-2020

As other editors have already said, this is not the proper forum to discuss conduct allegations. It is a reasonable forum to make an initial inquiry about how to deal with a conduct issue. The answer to that question is to first read the boomerang essay, and then, if necessary, report it at WP:ANI. However, the large majority of reports of hounding are by editors who are disagreed with and don't like being disagreed with (which is why you should first be sure that you will not be seen as causing the problem).

I tried to be a neutral mediator in the content dispute, and I thought that it was a straightforward content dispute, rather than a content dispute complicated by conduct issues. The content dispute was discussed at length at DRN, and I concluded that a Request for Comments was necessary. I had difficulty in getting the editors to summarize concisely how they wanted the article changed, but I thought that I had finally worked out the RFC. I see that the article is being edited while the RFC is running. That is not helpful. I gave the usual instructions not to edit the article while DRN was in process, but apparently the OP is editing the article now while the RFC is running. That is not helpful. Let the RFC decide the content.

I will repeat my advice, which is that hounding should be reported at WP:ANI, but that the conduct of the filing editor may also be examined. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:48, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Using Wikipedia Contents

Question if I use wikipedia Contents do I still need to credit it?

And also is Linking a Link to the wikipedia page were I wrote the contents into my own words Consider Giving Appropriate Credit --Cocopuff2018 (talk) 03:06, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

 Cocopuff2018 (talk) 03:04, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

• Note: Fuhghettaboutit wasn't hallucinating below. Erroneous content posted and later removed by SenatorLEVI. Please don't remove a post after others have responded to it – use <add>...</add> and <del>...</del> instead (see WP:REDACT). —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 07:16, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

@Cocopuff2018: You can use it, but you must provide attribution per the terms of the licence. See Wikipedia:Reusing_Wikipedia_content RudolfRed (talk) 03:59, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Cocopuff2018. With my regrets to SenatorLEVI, the above is incorrect. You must provide copyright attribution when reusing Wikipedia Content (not because Wikipedia owns the copyright, but because its editors do). Because of the free copyright licenses Wikipedia's content is released under, however, all this mostly means (it depends if there's modification, etc.) is that when you use it, you must provide a hyperlink to the Wikipedia page upon your reuse (from which the contributors can be accessed through the page history, this provides the suitable credit as required under the copyright license all us editors (with some minor exceptions) agree our content is licensed under and is given credit through), together with hperlinking to the copyright license borne by the content, or posting the text of the license. See more at Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content.

One other thing to be careful of. Some content you may see used here – for example quotations from copyrighted, third-party works, and certain images – are being used here under a claim of fair use. When that is the case, the content is not Wikipeda's at all; much of it is fully-non-free copyrighted, and cannot be used at all, unless your use meets its own fair use exception to the default exclusion of copyright law. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:06, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the help Last Question Is this Page Considered appropriately Credited since I put This page is Rewrite From wikipedia and put a link to it's wikipedia Page on the bottom of the page of my wiki? --Cocopuff2018 (talk) 04:36, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Cocopuff2018, as far as I'm aware you can do that, but usually a link in an edit summary to a revision is usually enough. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:41, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Soo much I just hope I have given wikipedia Enough Credit By adding a link --Cocopuff2018 (talk) 04:47, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Pretty good job Cocopuff2018. You have done most of what is necessary (many people don't even try), with one exception. You have hyperlinked the Wikipedia, page, suitably stated that as the source, and stated it was modified, as required.

However, the page does not, as is required, either hyperlink to the copy of the the CC-BY-SA-3.0 license, or post it text (much rarer). The page states at the bottom it's content is under CC BY 4.0. That is not the same license. Again, please see Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content#Text content --Fuhghettaboutit (talk)

@Fuhgettaboutit: So, the way I read Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content#Re-use of text under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike, the problem is the lack of "SA" in their stated "CC BY 4.0" license and the failure to link the license as CC BY-SA 4.0 (the later version is allowed per you must license them under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share-Alike License 3.0 or later.), right? —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 20:31, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

@AlanM1: Yeah, I should have, and couldn't have said it better. See above!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:12, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

how to source "notable publications" in a biography page for an academic?

Hi, there! I haven't been quite able to figure out the best practice on this yet - for notable publications for an academic researcher, should I be sourcing as a wikipedia citation to a website for the paper/book, or linking to an "external to wikipedia" link? I've seen it done both ways when I checked out other wiki biographies of academics (and some pages do both). This is specifically for this draft page for Jiquan Chen. Thanks for any advice! Csoconn (talk) 15:13, 9 January 2021 (UTC) Csoconn (talk) 15:13, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Csoconn! Using Wikipedia's book citation format with an ISBN and potentially an LCCN as well is preferable for a book and e.g. a DOI, JSTOR, etc., for an academic journal. Linking to the source is a good idea if e.g. the Google Books or Internet Archive copies are accessible, though linking to a storefront such as Amazon is strongly advised against – if not expressly forbidden. Likewise, if the journal article is open access, linking directly to e.g. a PDF can be a good idea. Something I noticed is that all of your citations are written out in source text instead of using e.g. the {{cite book}} or {{cite journal}} templates, depending on the publication. Using these will save yourself and future editors a lot of time if they want to add or modify this list. I believe MarioJump83 declined your article submission because the notability of the publications wasn't sourced, but if you can source the notability, using these templates could definitely make things easier. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 17:54, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, TheTechnician27! Sorry, do you have a link to an explainer for the {{cite journal}} template? That's new to me. Many thanks for your help thus far! Csoconn (talk) 17:46, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Response to WP:TH invite

Dear friends, thank you very much for invitation. I am PhD in Biochemistry from Russia. I am satisfied when I have the questions to ask you. Petrov Russia (talk) 16:13, 9 January 2021 (UTC) Petrov Russia (talk) 16:13, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Petrov Russia, you're welcome! Don't hesitate to ask us anything about Wikipedia editing if you have one. GeraldWL 15:44, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Dear Gerald thank you very much. I make edition in Water Cluster Petrov Russia (talk) 16:11, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Music album notability & which publications are suitable

I'm trying to start an article for a high-profile album recently released, but I keep getting my drafts rejected on grounds of notability. I read WP:NRVE, but it doesn't make clear what qualifies or point to any lists of "peer-reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources generally." Can you help me understand which sources Wikipedia is looking for? That way I can point out which notability criteria are present in the article. Souldier77 (talk) 22:40, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello Souldier77. Acceptable sources have a professional editorial review process, and a reputation for accuracy. Please read WP:Reliable sources. You can always search the archives at the Reliable sources noticeboard and open a new thread if the source has not been discussed previously. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:57, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Souldier77, I just looked at the draft. The New York Times source is excellent. The Amazon sales listing is unacceptable and must be removed. Twitter is not a reliable source. Links to her performing are of no value in establishing notability. Vulture is a project of New York magazine and appears OK to me. Eliminate the weak sources and include only information from strong reliable sources. Quality is much more important than quantity. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:10, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:13, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Given that the album in question was reportedly only released on 08 January 2021 (though the lede incorrectly says 2020), i.e. less than 48 hours ago, it's likely that many potential reliable sources simply haven't yet had time to publish reviews, etc., of it. Many print-based music journals and the like publish on a weekly or monthly schedule – give it a few weeks and further, suitable sources may become available. Remember that WP:TOSOON may and WP:DEADLINE does apply. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.200.40.9 (talk) 00:58, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

90.200.40.9 I'm not sure if it makes a difference, but I really was only trying to establish a good basis on an article in the stub, so that others can add to it as it makes its impact. I don't remember the process being so challenging the last time I added an album for an established artist. :-/ Souldier77 (talk) 02:54, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, I made changes suggested by Cullen328 here at Teahouse, removing weak sources and pulling more information from the high quality sources. I also added a couple others that were highlighted green from Wikipedia's list of reliable sources, as well as reaching out for live help. Someone from live help suggested I ask you whether Sullivan might meet the general notability guideline (GNG). I'm not familiar with that. Can you tell me more? Souldier77 (talk) 02:54, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Souldier77, User:Cullen328 - The draft is Draft:Heaux Tales. It would be helpful to identify the draft that you are asking about; I review a lot of drafts. I did not ask about the quality of sources. In my review, I asked you to tell me which of the musical notability criteria the album satisfied. Please read the musical notability guidelines and address the guidelines. After you have identified what criterion the album satisfies, then provide one to three sources that address that criterion. But I said that I was declining because I had notability questions, and I wanted the notability questions answered. Sometimes if a reviewer says that they are not primarily asking about the sources, they may mean that they are not primarily asking about the sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:43, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Souldier77 - There is a myth in Wikipedia that if a draft is declined, the key to getting it accepted is always to add more references. References are a necessary but not a sufficient condition for acceptance. Some reviewers sometimes ask questions about notability aslo. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:43, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Robert McClenon: You did not ask about quality of sources in your review, but a previous reviewer, Dan arndt, did in his. I thought you might have taken note of that part beneath your comment. No worries either way. I added the answers to your questions about notability to Draft talk:Heaux Tales including direct hyperlinks. Have a great day. Souldier77 (talk) 19:26, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you greatly! I moved it over to the draft. Wordsthatsay (talk) 02:32, 11 January 2021 (UTC)Wordsthatsay

Removing references

I have submitted an article for review and now realize that it has too many references, so I want to remove some. I can retrieve the article and edit it all right for resubmission, but I don't know how to remove these references. How can this be done? Jljm09 (talk) 01:50, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello Jljm09. First of all, your Draft:Deer Fence has not been submitted for review. I looked over your draft and a lot of your references look pretty solid at first glance. However, some of them are sales sites and should be removed immediately because commercial sites like these are simply not allowed as references. Also, a lot of the references are do-it-yourself websites. According to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia should not contain how-to manual content. Our job as editors is to neutrally describe things, not to teach people how to do things.

In order to remove these references and that type of content, simply go to your draft, click "Edit", remove those references and that type of content, and click "Publish changes".

Take a look at Agricultural fencing, which has a brief unreferenced section on deer fences. Once your article is done, a link to it can be added from that article. You have made a good start. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:23, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Jl. I believe you're referring to Draft:Deer Fence. Removing a citation in visual editing mode is as easy as clicking on the inline citations and deleting them, or if they aren't inline citations (I see about a couple dozen at the bottom that aren't inline), just deleting them like you would normal text. I should point out that there are a few issues with the draft that could prevent it from being approved if submitted in its current state, but none that couldn't be ironed out. Probably the biggest one is that the article – while highly informative and ostensibly well-sourced – reads more like a very well-made guide/manual for setting up a deer fence than an encyclopedic entry for what a deer fence is (for more information, the blurb at WP:NotGuide explains it better than I can). If it's okay with you, I could hop over to the draft and try to bring the article more in line with Wikipedia's Manual of Style for things like formatting. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 02:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Add that many of the references are to your website. David notMD (talk) 02:23, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Specifically, refs 9, 13, 16, 18, 20, 21, 23, 24, 26, 28, 29, and 34 are to your website. This is promotional. David notMD (talk) 09:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Non-living templates necessity

Hello. Is it necessary to have a template instead of a simple raw date written like this: "29 January 1936" for biographies of non-living persons in the infobox for the birth & death dates? Because we know for sure once a person is dead, these will not change, therefore having the Birth date and age template is not really useful, we can just put the raw birth date and the raw death date with the (age whatever) in parenthesis. Thoughts? Paul Vaurie (talk) 04:40, 10 January 2021 (UTC) Paul Vaurie (talk) 04:40, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Such template are not required but by the reasons articulated at {{Birth date}} may be useful. Ruslik_Zero 08:48, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Paul Vaurie. See also {{Death date and age}}. Special:ExpandTemplates can show the full output of a template. {{birth date|1936|1|29}} currently produces: <span style="display:none">(<span class="bday">1936-01-29</span>)</span>January 29, 1936. PrimeHunter (talk) 08:55, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Requesting translation of the article on invisible disability in many language

The article invisible disability is available in only 4 languages. It is such important topic that it encompasses all of life who experience this. There are too much ignorance about invisible disability in society. I plea the article should be translated into multiple languages so that people from all corner of the world can know about this. If there is a meta-wiki forum or thread on translating this, please mention it there. Inform me also if there are any such forum or thread. This is a very keen request. SimpleSilly (talk) 07:14, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

SimpleSilly, the many languages an article has depends on the willingness of editors. If you can translate them to a language, your contributions would be appreciated. Many editors have other things to do on Wikipedia, so it's all about luck-n-time. GeraldWL 07:49, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

SimpleSilly As someone affected, I don't disagree that it's an important topic for many. However, please keep in mind when you are editing that Wikipedia is not here to right great wrongs or to promote any cause, no matter how worthy. Editors should maintain an encyclopedic tone and neutral point of view. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 20:53, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

My Edit disappeared, was removed. It had no controversial content.

I did my first edit on a page called TOORBOS. There was just one sentence about what this movie was about. I wrote a longer section on what it was about, published it and then SAW my edit appear on the Wiki page. Then when I looked again hours later, my edit had disappeared. No controversial content at all. Please explain, someone! Thanks Elder's Pen (talk) 08:26, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Elder's Pen, your edit's reverted by Lugnuts. This is because the Synopsis section is supposed to be about the movie (in here we call it film) and not the novel it's based on. Your "plot" also has some flaws: it has "..." and subjective terms like "complex". I suggest you read film articles and read their plots to see how a plot summary is written. WP:FILMPLOT may help. GeraldWL 08:43, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

My words simply said that the movie was based on a book. This does not mean that I am writing a synopsis about the book, not the movie. What kind of illogic is this. Secondly, Complex emotions is not in the least a subjective notion. If one has one strong feeling about something, that is simple or simplex. If one has mixed feelings, and many different feelings about different aspects of something or some person, that is "complex feelings". So once again, if these two reasons are the real reasons why my simple non-controversial writing was rejected, I can only gaze in amazement at the stupidity of it all. It does not inspire me to ever write again for Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elder's Pen (talk • contribs) 17:29, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Elder's Pen, I'm sorry that you felt stricken seeing your edit (that I know you do in good intention) reverted. But please do not take it personal, or see it as an attack. It is not, as we are just maintaining Wikipedia. The fact remains that the synopsis section should only discuss about the summary of the movie. You can take the example of Wonder (film)'s plot section— it is a movie based on a book, but is not obliged to say the origins of the story. It is just a summary of the film.

Next, it is not our job to convey the emotions of the film. During the sad scene at Up (2009 film, the plot only reads "Suffering a miscarriage and unable to have children", not " A very emotional scene appears when it is revealed that she cannot have children. It makes the audience cry." This is unless the character display such, for example if the character is crying you can say "Johnny becomes emotional."

Keep in mind that plot summaries must be only about the main points of the movie. You shouldn't describe every scene, unless it's a short film and every shot is important as hell. If you have watched Contagion (2011 film), the plot summary can be a good learning tool to understand how a plot is written.

As I said, please do not see rejection of edits as an attack, unless the user is ACTUALLY bullying you. If you have any more question, don't hesitate to ask. GeraldWL 01:48, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Elder's Pen, PLEASE do not reinstate the edit back. PLEASE discuss it at the talk page. GeraldWL 06:03, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Stallone-Schwarzenegger rivalry

I have created Stallone-Schwarzenegger rivalry. I request the Teahouse editors to tell me on how I can improve it.--Atlantis77177 (talk) 09:00, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

@Atlantis77177: One thing that's not fully clear to me from reading the page is how much the rivalry was just in jest versus genuine. Public figure rivalries often have a performative element to them, but per WP:INUNIVERSE we should document the reality of a situation and identify performative elements as such. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 09:13, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

@Sdkb: I didn't get you. Could you please explain.--Atlantis77177 (talk) 09:17, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

@Atlantis77177: The article needs to document what reliable sources say about the extent to which there was genuine hatred between them vs. just something they played up to try to get their fans more engaged. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 09:25, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I deleted a lot of content that had nothing to do with the purported feud, such as listing movies they each starred in separately. David notMD (talk) 09:32, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Citation questions for my first article

Hey folks. I am currently drafting my first article on a person I believe is of note and had a few questions regarding citations I would greatly appreciate your insight on. I've read the referencing for beginners guide as a first step.

1. An achievement I wish to cite is mentioned in a respectable mainstream newspaper online (A). In addition to this, the person who the article is about has also written a blog post with more detail on the achievement (B). Am I correct in understanding I should focus on just citing (A) but exclude (B), because it falls under user-generated content? This is primarily a question for completeness.

2. A recent achievement I believe is of note is only referenced in third-party blogs (e.g by individuals in this person's industry) but was not picked up by popular news sources. If I cannot find a citation for this work referenced in mainstream newspapers or books, should I exclude the achievement and focus on those with stronger data?

3. How many citations is too many? I wish to write that the person in question has spoken at a number of instances of a particular conference which has its own Wikipedia page. Should I be referencing 1-2 talk examples as citation? 4-5? I haven't been able to find a good example of how to tackle this yet I'm afraid :)

Thank you for your guidance in advance! Dan.franklin.fe (talk) 09:58, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Dan.franklin.fe: (1) You should use the respectable mainstream source. You should not use the blog. (2) While you have no reliable source, you should omit the statement. (3) Your sandbox draft has far too many citations. When you cite six sources for an uncontroversial statement, readers will assume that you are up to something fishy. And if you want your draft to be accepted by a reviewer some day, you should make the task easy for them. Their main concern will be to confirm that the subject is notable, by finding several reliable independent sources that discuss the subject in depth. When they check the first ten citations and find that none of them qualify, the will have to choose between wading through the next sixty, or giving up, throwing the draft back in the queue, and moving on to a more promising candidate. I strongly recommend you to remove all the garbage citations, so that a reviewer can easily find the good ones (assuming there are some in there). Maproom (talk) 11:27, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Delete all the Youtube refs and all the refs that are press releases or announcements. Delete interview refs. Convert all the naked URL refs into valid format refs. David notMD (talk) 12:10, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

David notMD, I strongly disagree with the explicitness of your response. Interviews can be valuable, although if a better source is available that is encouraged. Without interviews, a lot of information in various articles cannot exist. For example, if interviews are not recognized in film articles, infos about production may not even exist. However I agree with your last sentence. GeraldWL 12:25, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I over-stepped. David notMD (talk) 18:36, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

@Gerald Waldo Luis: Just to back-peddle a little, I don't think the metric is or should be that "content cannot exist without a particular type of source". The question is whether the source is reliable for the stated content or not. People lie or, to be kind, exaggerate, especially when it's aligned with their interests. Interviews contain more of this than other kinds of reporting because it's harder to edit out the stuff that's borderline and there's less fact-checking on quotes because it's not in the author/publisher's voice. I don't think Wikipedia is meant to settle for having lower-reliability content just because we can't find a better source. We should rather do without such content. (My comments are regarding the general concept of settling for the best source available, not necessarily a comment on this particular case.) —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 21:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Article

How to improve my skill in article 2402:4000:2381:621C:99AE:F65:6B36:D710 (talk) 11:15, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

The first step would be for you to create an account, since IP editors such as yourself cannot make new articles. Then I would advise you to go through WP:YFA, to understand what making articles require and some rules and requirements of the same. SenatorLEVI 11:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

SenatorLEVI I would correct you in that while it is true IP users cannot directly create new articles, they are allowed to submit drafts using Articles for Creation. 331dot (talk) 11:22, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I understand, but I still think its best for any user to create an account before submitting a draft for WP:AFC. SenatorLEVI 11:23, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Actually, new-to-Wikipedia editors are strongly advised to learn how to do stuff by editing existing articles rather than first efforts being at creating an article. This Help:Introduction may help. David notMD (talk) 12:13, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Having a wonderful poem how to share here

Want to join a poem 2402:4000:2381:621C:99AE:F65:6B36:D710 (talk) 11:21, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia is not for sharing poetry; this is a project to write an encyclopedia. If you just want to post your poetry to the internet, you might find an alternative forum where that is permitted, or you may use social media. 331dot (talk) 11:23, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Possible vandalism.

Hello. I am unsure of what to do here, since I haven't seen this happen before. An IP is user is making repetitive edits to an article which render the article almost void of any information. Can someone please take action or tell me what to do? Thanks.

 Courtesy link: Maridhas

SenatorLEVI 11:42, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I've warned the user for unexplained blanking. 331dot (talk) 11:50, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm abiding only be the policies. The content had no citations and that's why I removed them. I also commented on the talk page about this issue. 157.51.22.191 (talk) 12:03, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I am satisfied that this is not vandalism. 331dot (talk) 12:11, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Information Blocked re: Belching Beaver

I attempted to include a comment regarding the origin of the Belching Beaver Brewery's name, and my information was excluded because it "wasn't helpful.". I know for a fact, from an insider, that the name of the brewery is another way of saying a "queef" i.e. a vulgar term about the expulsion of air from the vagina. I didn't make it up . It's a FACT! 2600:8801:DE00:2D1F:909B:ABB6:B86:E1AC (talk) 12:43, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi, IP editor, and welcome to the Teahouse. Facts added to Wikipedia articles should always have an existing reliable, published source. We can't go ahead and add things we personally know, unless we can support the information with sources. This is one of the basic principles of Wikipedia: verifiability, that readers should be able to verify the information. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 13:36, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Article Declined:

FYI

 – New Topic --Maresa63 (talk) 13:26, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Benutzer:BFRQs/MelSchweickardt Why was the article declined? The songwriter has written over 100 songs in her career, and she has been semi-finalist in the International songwriting competition 2013. She is an active ambassador for fighting for gender diversity in the music industry. Considering that in the whole music industry across all genres are only 12,5% female songwriters, to the genre of metal/rock it is only about 3-5%. Mel Schweickardt is a genuine rarity in this domain and therefore a notable person - even if she is not globally famous, but according to wikipedia's guidelines in the sense of being famous or popular is anyhow secondary. Thank you for clarification. BFRQs (talk) 12:58, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

This is about Draft:Mel Schweickardt. The reason it was declined is stated in the gray box within the pink decline notice at the top of the draft. The citations do not include enough reliable independent published sources discussing the subject, to establish that she is notable in Wikipedia's sense. To establish that she's notable, you'll need to find and add such sources – praising her here won't help at all. Maproom (talk) 13:55, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

One of the main sources is the national library of Switzerland, a national institution. Is there a way to make such a source "Wikipedia-proofed"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:DA:F734:9300:58D5:B7FC:15B9:8CC1 (talk) 15:33, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand what yhou mean by "Wikipedia proofed". There are three requirements for sources to establish notability: 1) that they be reliably published|, that they be independent of the subject, and that they contain significant coverage of the subject. The sources currently in Draft:Mel Schweickardt might be reliable and independent, I haven't investigated, but none of them contains significant coverage, so they do nothing to establish notability. How is the national library a source? Something published by the library would presumably be regarded as reliable, but whether it met the other criteria or not would depend on what it was. If you are talking about something that is held in the library's collection, then the library is irrelevant. It is either something that has been published, in which case it is its publication that is relevant, not the library; or it is something unpublished in the library's collection, and then it cannot be used as a source anywhere in Wikiepdia. --ColinFine (talk) 17:31, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Adding image in existing page

I have added two images in wo different existing pages (Aminul Islam (academic) and Syed Muhammed Abul Faiz and not sure about the possibility of deletion. Please help or advice. Freedomage (talk) 13:22, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

@Freedomage: Wikimedia Commons accepts only freely licensed media files. Note that for the purpose of this rule, Wikimedia Commons considers images not released under a siutable license unless clearly stated otherwise. In these two instances, neither source mentioned any free license. As such, I had to tag both files for speedy deletion. If you are unsure about the license of a particular media file (image or otherwise) please ask before uploading. Victor Schmidt (talk) 13:34, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I edited a page. But you did not published it. Can I ask why?

 202.5.157.230 (talk) 14:48, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I assume you're referring to this edit. There is a number of reasons it was reverted; firstly, the values you changed should usually (if not always) correspond to the article name – Indian Rebellion of 1857. Secondly, by changing the |image= parameter, you tried to link to a file that does not exist on the English Wikipedia, meaning that instead of the map currently on display, only a redlink would be shown. Thirdly, you misspelled independence. AngryHarpy‍^talk 15:01, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello, IP user, and welcome to the Teahouse. AngryHarpy has addressed the technical issues, but there are deeper issues here. I think I understand why the name of the article is important to you, and there may be good reasons to make it. But 1) Wikipedia's policy on naming articles is to use the most common name in English sources even if that is not the official or most appropriate name 2) It was fine for you to make a bold change, and fine for another editor to revert that change if they thought it was not appropriate. The next step, rather than reapplying your edit, should be to open a discussion on the talk page Talk:Indian Rebellion of 1857, and see if you can persuade other editors to agree to the change. See our policy on Bold, revert, discuss. 3) In any case, you provided no sources for the material you wanted to insert. Wikipedia works on the principles of verifiability and consensus. So what you need to do now is to open a discussion on the talk page, arguing for the changes you want to make, with citations to reliably published sources for the information, and see if you can persuade other interested editors that the change is appropriate and in accordance with Wikipedia's policies. Besides the various policy and discussion pages I have already linked in this answer, you might find it useful to read RIGHTINGGREATWRONGS as well. --ColinFine (talk) 19:25, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Galilei´s, Newton´s, Einstein´s motion

What did I do wrong? AE1851 (talk) 15:13, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

AE1851, can you explain what happened? Maybe share a link? GeraldWL 15:43, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

AE1851, you're going to have to give us more information; the only mainspace edits you made were adding references more than a year ago. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:56, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I think this refers to an article in the user's sandbox which has been deleted for copyright violation. The user's Talk Page at User talk:AE1851 gives details of the problem with infringing the policy on copyright. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:58, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

question about notability

Hi- I created this page a few months ago. It was not initially accepted, and I am trying to understand whether the primary issue is that the reviewer felt that the artist's awards and exhibition history did not qualify as "notable," or whether the problem was primarily that the cited sources were not adequately independent of the organizations that granted the awards. I am new to Wikipedia, so it's not clear to me how to respond to the reviewer's message to ask this question, but I'd also like to get a second opinion. Thanks!

Draft:Sarah McKenzie (artist) Painter80302 (talk) 15:31, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Painter80302 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The issue is that the artist, at least based on the sources currently offered, does not seem to meet the Wikipedia definition of a notable artist. Awards do not usually contribute to notability unless they are highly notable awards that merit articles about themselves(such as the Oscars or Grammy Awards, as anyone can give out an award based on any criteria. Descriptions of exhibitions also do not necessarily contribute to notability unless things like independent, unsolicited critiques and descriptions of influence are part of them. I'm curious as to how you came to write about this artist. 331dot (talk) 15:41, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for that feedback. I initially created this article as part of a Wikipedia Edit-a-Thon event, held in Denver, Colorado to try to correct the under-representation of women artists on Wikipedia. The Joan Mitchell Painters and Sculptors Grant is a highly competitive, notable award within the American contemporary art world, which includes a $25,000 grant. The artist's exhibitions have been reviewed ("critiqued") in numerous independent journals and newspapers, which were cited as sources in the article. So I remain confused. Is it possible to request a review by a different editor, since judging notability is obviously somewhat subjective, and is best left to an editor who actually works in the field? Painter80302 (talk) 16:09, 10 January 2021 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Painter80302 (talk • contribs) 15:53, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Painter80302, The issue isn't whether the artist "qualifies" as notable, it's whether the sources cited in the draft demonstrate that she's notable. Which four of the sources cited do you do believe do most to demonstrate that she's notable? (You might do well to make a reviewer's task easier by removing most of the others.) Maproom (talk) 16:35, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Painter80302 If the award is the "main claim to fame" it should reference an independent source. Currently you cite the award-giver and an exhibition venue. Neither are independent as they are motivated to promote the award and the exhibition respectively. If that award is really a big deal there should be newspaper or art magazine articles about it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:54, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

OK this is helpful. Thank you for your input! Painter80302 (talk) 16:33, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Painter80302 Note that most editors are not experts in the fields that they write about, and it isn't required that they be so, as Wikipedia is meant largely for lay people. 331dot (talk) 16:35, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

re: Placeholder

I'd like to ask, how do I curate pages that comprise entirely of "coming soon"; do I draftify them, or tag them for deletion? JJP...MASTER!_{[talk to] JJP... master?} 16:22, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

If it's in mainspace and there's no meaningful content it could be proposed for speedy deletion per WP:A3.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 16:29, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

@JJPMaster: That is good advice. There was a similar question posted a day or so ago, see above. ¬¬¬¬

happy

how do i contribute Andrea yolis (talk) 18:49, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello Andrea yolis. Try The Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive learning game. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:58, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Edit filters 'warning' users

I've been watching edit filters for a while, and often I see that they have prevented an edit and 'warned' the user (e.g. Special:AbuseLog/28577885). What exactly does this 'preventing an edit' and warning look like on the user side? If I were to trip an edit filter, what would Wikipedia show me? Zupotachyon _{Ping me} (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:36, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

@Zupotachyon: Both options show a message to the user that can be specified for each filter. The default is MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning (for warnings) or MediaWiki:Abusefilter-disallowed (for disallowed edits). The difference between the two options is that "warning" will allow the user to save the edit by hitting publish changes again, while "disallow" will cause the edit not to get saved, no matter how often you smash publish changes, unless you change the edit text. Victor Schmidt (talk) 19:55, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Ahh, I see. Thanks a lot! Zupotachyon _{Ping me} (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:02, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

How to create a ref template page to 'redirect' redlinks in bulk

I'm an editor / admin on a wikia FANDOM site for a TV show. I was wondering if it was possible for me to redirect non-existent article pages by way of creating a "template link" or whatnot.

To clarify, this is my exact problem. Episodes are frequently referred to by: season # x episode #; so i.e.: 0x01, 1x12, 2x07, 3x09, 4x06, 5x02 etc. instead of the actual episode title i.e "Wondering Through the Trees" etc.

I currently do not have pages created for the episodes in the format of their referred to numbers. So, I don't have an article page named i.e 1x08.

I want to make the redlink [ [ 1x08 ] ] 'functional' by turning it into { { 1x08 } } which automatically redirects the value combination of "#x##" to their corresponding episode article page.

The reason I want to create a reference template page (with the function of "#x##" = "this article title page" ) is so that I can reference list all of the number combos I want on that single template page as I do not want to create upwards of 60+ new pages just to redirect each of them back to their corresponding / associated title page.

I'm asking for help in creating this as do not know how to make a template looking like this: {{#x##}} to accomplish this task. SpiritHawk7 (talk) 19:40, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

@SpiritHawk7: This page is only for questions related to Wikipedia. We can't help you with your Wiki. If your Wiki is using MediaWiki software, then you can ask at [2] RudolfRed (talk) 21:17, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

@RudolfRed: It does use MediaWiki software. Thank you for the referral. SpiritHawk7 (talk) 21:49, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Trying to understand "sources" and "references"

To begin, I am old so I don't know a lot about programming and what is required for my article to be accepted. I understand citing sources, and I tried to, but I don't understand your tutorial instructions. I really don't want to spend days stumbling through this process. Can someone take a look at my draft and tell me how I got a citation linked to a reference or what I am doing wrong. Thanks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Charles_A._Stix KLynn-geni (talk) 21:40, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello, KLynn-geni. I have tidied up your draft a bit, but you really don't need to be worried about being 'old' - lots of editors here, like me, are retired, and none of us know anything about programming. You don't need to! What we do ask for is that anyone wanting to create an article from scratch spends the time beforehand to learn the basics of editing. It's really not too difficult - it's rather like driving a car. What's unreasonable to expect is that someone can take that car out the very first time and drive safely for 200 miles up the motorway to their destination without encountering a few difficulties en route. Maybe you should read Help:Your first article, then Help:Referencing for beginners, but maybe before that you might like to take our interactive tour called The Wikipedia Adventure to get a sense of how to do things here. It might be better if the information on the found of Stix Baer & Fuller is included in that article, and not in a separate article at Draft:Charles A. Stix. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:07, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I concur that information about Charles A. Stix better placed as content added to the article about the store versus a new article about Mr. Stix. David notMD (talk) 03:54, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Nick for the links and clean-up. I think I am getting the hang of it now. RE: including bio content on SBF page. My main focus is Genealogy and if there is a notable person in one's line they should be able to go to Wikipedia and find other sources that flesh out that person's story. Charle's cousin Thomas has a page. Also, the architect of the SBF building has a link within the SBF page so I would think that the founder of SBF should have a link on his own company's page, so I am going to disagree. If I was doing research on the company I sure wouldn't want to wade through bios of the founders when, in my mind, a link to his bio would be more pleasing to look at, especially since it makes his name searchable and allows me more room to expand his story. Open for discussion.--KLynn-geni (talk) 19:03, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest

How can I make my article "notable" and accepted by Wikipedia when I have a conflict of interest? Klamer1446 (talk) 23:09, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Klamer1446 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You cannot "make" the subject notable by editing. A subject is notable if it receives significant coverage in independent reliable sources that have chosen on their own to write about it and show how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of notability. If the subject does not have such sources, it will not merit an article at this time.

While not impossible, it is usually hard for those with a COI to write an article, as in essence one needs to forget everything they know about it and only write based on the content of independent sources. 331dot (talk) 23:16, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Check draft?

FYI

 – Heading and courtesy link made by Tenryuu.

 Courtesy link: User:Hotstar90/sandbox

I'm not an editor I'm a drummer that's been playing drums for 60 years - my question is there anyone out there that can straighten out my submission I wrote for this site - I can copy and paste the submissions if you want - lmk - Ross Hotstar90 (talk) 03:22, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Your draft is written like a first person memoir (we this, we that). And it has no references. Look at articles about musicians to get an idea of style and referencing. Probably best if you delete everything you have and stat over. David notMD (talk) 04:02, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

how to edit like a pro

how can i edit properly enrique Enrique1802 (talk) 03:46, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Enrique1802, welcome to the Teahouse. You may be interested in the interactive tutorial, The Wikipedia Adventure which provides the basics to editing and interacting with other users on this site. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:04, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Nepali Flag not being shown when hovering over a Nepal link

I know that the Nepali flag is very interesting but complicated and has many mathematical magic, but I'm just here for people to know that instead of the Nepali flag displaying when hovering over the link, the emblem of the country is shown instead. Is there any way to fix this issue? PyroFloe (talk) 04:22, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

PyroFloe, idk but this MediaWiki page might resolve your worries. Happy 2021 Eumat114 (Message) 04:30, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

• Per Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups, you can set the "primary" image for the article by adding an HTML comment <!-- popup [[File:Flag_of_Nepal.svg]] -->. However I wonder if this can be fixed in general by changing the ordering of the infobox template. Since the flag is shown before the emblem, it makes sense that it should be considered the "first" image for the purpose of link previews. AnonQuixote (talk) 04:35, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it did not work. PyroFloe (talk) 04:49, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Not sure exactly how the media previews work, maybe there's some caching involved and you didn't wait long enough before reverting? AnonQuixote (talk) 04:53, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I raised this question here and here. AnonQuixote (talk) 04:53, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

There are multiple page preview / navigation pop-up features, so the first thing to figure out is which one this editor is using. If it is Page Previews, this link partially explains how images are ranked for appearance in the preview. I dug into this a month or two ago and posted an explanation somewhere else, but I have been unable to find it in my contributions. – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:20, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

We have two preview features with different functionality. PyroFloe is not using "Navigation popups" at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets. It shows the flag for Nepal. The other feature is "Enable page previews" at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering. Logged out users get that. The feature is mw:Page Previews, previosuly called Hovercards. It shows the image chosen by mw:Extension:PageImages#Image choice. It shows the emblem for Nepal because PageImages uses code which rejects images displayed with a width ≤ 119px. The flag is displayed at 90px because it's relatively tall but displayed with around the same height as the emblem next to it. The emblem is displayed at 120px so it's exactly allowed by PageImages. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:34, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I meant PyroFloe is not using Navigation popups. I have corrected it above. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:51, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

@Eumat114:, @AnonQuixote:, @PrimeHunter:, @Chipmunkdavis: I have now fixed the problem, apparently its both the image size being 90px as said above and also the image resolution of the emblem being particularly small sized compared to other coat of arms, I thank you all for your help. This flag was really weird but I managed to fix it. With regards, PyroFloe (talk) 12:57, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

PyroFloe, why is it needed that an emblem be shown instead of the flag anyway? GeraldWL 15:38, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Gerald Waldo Luis, you must have misunderstood, I was asking about the opposite actually. I have fixed it now and the flag is the one that renders instead of the emblem PyroFloe (talk) 15:51, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

How to close an RfD item?

I created a discussion about some redirects here: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 4 § Deprivation

It's been about a week and I think the last comment gives a convincing reason to undo the initial change I had made to turn a disambiguation page into a redirect, which kind of renders the question moot. Once this is done then I'd like to make some edits to improve the dab page.

How does an RfD discussion get closed? Can I do it myself? AnonQuixote (talk) 04:28, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi AnonQuixote. You shouldn't close such discussions yourself if you're involved as explained in WP:CLOSE#Closure procedure and WP:NACINV. Someone should eventually get around to doing so, but you can also request an administrator to do so at WP:AN. — Marchjuly (talk) 04:44, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll wait another day or so and then request it. AnonQuixote (talk) 04:57, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Just noting: the discussion has now been closed by a third party.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:13, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

For RfD, they usually get closed (or relisted) within a few hours of being over 7 days. Looks like this one has been done. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:31, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Article/category idea

I had an idea for an interesting article/category about notable incidents happening in Massively Multiplayer Online Games such as the virtual pandemic in World of Warcraft of the thousand-player battles in EVE Online.

I am wondering if anyone knows any other articles or incidents that could be added to this hypothetical category, and if said category should even be made in the first place. Painting17 (talk) 04:58, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

This article lists a few more:

• The assassination of Lord British
• Leeroy Jenkins
• The "Guiding Hand Social Club theft" in Eve Online
• The "death of The Sleeper" and "Fansy the Famous Bard" in Everquest

I suppose you could create a List of notable in-universe events in MMO games, but it might be the type of thing that would attract lots of low-quality content, like people adding non-notable events that they personally felt were significant. AnonQuixote (talk) 05:14, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

About my article javed Khan magician

 Courtesy link: Draft:Javed Khan (magician)

I mean I can see lots of celebrity people from television business having Wikipedia article. So many article are in news and online about myself still I get feedback not enough resources ? Any help would be appreciated. I have been on multiple shows in India on television and numerous article still why cant ? Sorry If I am missing out on anything.. Javed khan39 (talk) 06:12, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

@Javed khan39: Welcome to the Teahouse. I'll leave it to the reviewers to determine whether the three sources you used are reliable for Wikipedia's purposes, but I'll let you know that writing about yourself is strongly discouraged on here; it's incredibly difficult for subjects to write about themselves neutrally, which is required for Wikipedia. I also suggest taking a look at other, similar articles in mainspace to see how they're written; there are quite a few style errors from what I can see at the draft. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:58, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Javed khan39 - Your post on my talk page is incomprehensible. I didn't say anything about your qualifications, certainly not about your involvement with IT. I only said that if your draft is accepted, an entry should be included in the disambiguation page, Javed Khan (disambiguation). You seem to be having difficulty in reading and writing in English. Have you considered using another language? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:47, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon:: that’s called an error Instead of asking Angus I posted on your page My mistake , it’s the same way you wrote my name wrong as Jared khan mistake happens with everyone, chill man No need to get offensive and suggest me what language I should use and maybe you should get another hobby if you don’t like to help people or don’t know the difference between a mistake and not knowing a langauge. Regards, Javed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.216.69.54 (talk) 18:03, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Imo

What next I have to do for my first article? Draft:Imo_(app) Is it really written as an advertisment. I understand this is not written perfectly. Sonofstar (talk) 08:51, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Sonofstar, I am concerned about the sentence "It empowered people to message using multiple platform under one central interface. The fact that it was web based, enabled those on OSes like Linux, for example, to still chat, even as most messenger services only had software for Windows and Mac. This also helped users to save chat history which is very handy for the future references." It is so promotional, and has no source. "It helped family and friends stay in touch" also needs a rewrite. GeraldWL 15:36, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Gerald Waldo Luis thanks to guide me, I updated the page as per your suggestions. Is there anything else in it?Sonofstar (talk) 07:01, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

It is a duplicate article which is already written Imo (software). DrJNU (talk) 11:59, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

question

Thanks for directing me here, but surely am still lost on how to create a living biography of a musician i don't know how i can be guided Ronard Economist (talk) 08:57, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I assume this section refers to this. If so, you have written to Draft:Sandbox, which is intended as a Testing spot, and thus regularely cleared. Luckily, the edit is still available. You can still recover the text by [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Sandbox&action=edit&oldid=998876954 copying all the text in the old revision and pasting it into an actual draft(for example Draft:Nicky Jizzy). You might want to have a look at WP:YFA. Inline citations belong directly after the content they support. Victor Schmidt (talk)

@Ronard Economist: fix ping Victor Schmidt (talk) 09:22, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

What is the best way to approach edits?

 DdLiam (talk) 11:52, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi, DdLiam, welcome to the Teahouse. An often recommended way to approach editing is bold, revert, discuss. I don't know if there is merit in the SPI against you, but I'd advise that starting a new account to avoid scrutiny in a subject area isn't a good idea. If you disagree with the local consensus then it's tough luck I'm afraid. Regards, Zindor (talk) 12:11, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. This has been noted :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DdLiam (talk • contribs) 12:27, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Images in Page Previews.

Many users like a picture displayed while looking at a page preview, in order to understand better the subject of the page. In my article, the Army of the Kingdom of Naples (Napoleonic), I cannot see any image on the page preview when I hover my mouse over the blue lettering (while there are, in fact, several images on the page). How do I fix this? AdonisWW2 (talk) 13:22, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi AdonisWW2, welcome to the Teahouse. We have two preview features. I see File:Battle of Tolentino.jpg from the infobox in both of them. Try to bypass your cache on the page you are viewing it from. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:01, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Reliability of NYS Professions database

Hello, I'm working on the Vladimir Zelenko article and was looking for a reliable source with information on where he attended medical school. This website from the New York State Education Department provides information from their Professions database, but they specifically mention "primary source", which gives me pause. Unfortunately, I can't find any other reliable sources that mention his education, so I wanted to get an opinion on whether that database would be considered an appropriate source for Wikipedia. Otherwise, I'll just leave that info out of the article for now. —DanCherek (talk) 15:28, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

DanCherek, I would consider that a reliable source. It's primary with regard to the NY State Education Department, but not primary with regard to Zelenko, as Zelenko can't just edit it to change his school. So you're good to go! {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 15:55, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good. Thank you! —DanCherek (talk) 16:23, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi DanCherek. This is a perfectly appropriate use of a primary source – for verification of "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." Actually, being from NY, and having a fair amount of experience with licensure in that database (though not with medical professional), I can tell you that much of these background details for many people – where the individual attended school and the like – has its origins in the person's own reporting (though there's a lot of reasons why it would be a very, very bad idea to report incorrectly -- i.e., a defined crime), but that still meets the ambit of the above-quoted language.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:39, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Fuhghettaboutit, that's very helpful and I've added the information to the article. I want to be sure I fully understand Wikipedia's policy that it should be verifiable "by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge", as I'm sure this won't be the last time I have a question like this. In this case, does this mean that anyone should be able to verify that he attended medical school at SUNY? The only sources I found were this database, a bunch of WebMD-like websites, and some unreliable opinion-based websites, so I'm not sure the verification would be here (other than contacting the registrar or medical board, etc.). —DanCherek (talk) 16:55, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

@DanCherek: Yep, see WP:PRIMARY, which, on the negative ends, prohibits any "interpretation of primary source material." That requires "a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." Where someone went to school, what year they graduated, et al., are quite straightforward facts that require no interpretation, analysis or synthesis to report.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:40, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Alter an inaccurate sentence on a semi-protected page.

The second line of this article, 2021 storming of the United States Capitol, is wrong, and needs to be changed. How do I do that?

The sentence reads, "It was incited by US President Donald Trump in an attempt to overturn his defeat in the 2020 presidential election."  This sentence is wrong.

It is a legal question whether the riot (not the march) was INCITED by Trump, and the protest (perhaps excluding the rioters) was NOT a direct attempt to overturn Trump's defeat. It was a show of support for Pence, Cruz and others, in the face of huge negative pressure, to proceed with confidence through a legal process of considering alternate slates of electors in 6 states, and/or lawfully arguing for another 10 days to review potential election fraud in those 6 states before certifying the outcome. The outcome of THAT review would have been accepted.

Wikipedia, which is supposed to be unbiased, is furthering a false narrative, throwing gasoline on the fire, as it were. This is WRONG. Msfry0 (talk) 15:39, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Msfry0 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. To request an edit to a protected article, you may make an edit request(click for instructions) on the article talk page, detailing changes you feel are needed. Please note that Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state. If reliable sources state that Trump incited the riot(which most are), you will have to speak with those sources to get them to issue retractions if they are incorrect, or offer your own independent reliable sources that say differently to arrive at a consensus as to what the article should say.

Wikipedia actually does not claim to be free of bias. Any bias in sources will be reflected in Wikipedia. Those sources are presented to the readers so they can evaluate and judge them for themselves as to any bias. Wikipedia tries to have a neutral point of view, which is different.

There is video evidence of rioters wishing to seek out and harm, capture, or kill members of Congress and even the Vice President. [3] If that is not wanting to overturn an election or overthrow the government, I don't know what is. 331dot (talk) 15:47, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Thomas Masterson - Midshipman, Virginia State Navy

I am the copyright holder of an article which has appeared online. When I tried to create a submission, which was similar but not identical to my previous work, it was rejected for copyright infringement.

As I am the copyright holder, and told this to the person who flagged my article for "speedy deletion", why was my work rejected?

Does anyone have a suggestion that might help?

Thanks! Michael MMWOOD1958 (talk) 15:54, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

MMWOOD1958 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Please follow the instructions on your user talk page under the header "Speedy Deletion Nomination of Draft:Thomas Masterson" regarding what to do about this copyright issue. If you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text(which also means that you would be allowing other people to use it for any reason, including commercial purposes, as long as they give attribution), you can donate the materials. 331dot (talk) 16:01, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Citing the same source multiple times in the same article

Good day fellow tea-lovers. I'd be grateful for your help with a problem that's been bothering me for some time. In short, I want an article to include several citations to a certain book, with each citation referencing a different page number. I've studied several Wikipedia Help pages that aim to address this issue, but I have found the information confusing and sometimes contradictory.

You can see an example of what I am trying to achieve in the article on Morningside, Edinburgh. As you will see, this has several citations to a book by Charles J. Smith. The first citation give the full bibliographic details for the book. I created that first citation like this:

<ref name='Smith (1978)'>{{cite book |last1=Smith |first1=Charles J |title=Historic South Edinburgh Volume 1 |date=1978 |publisher=Charles Skilton Ltd |location=Edinburgh |page=146}}</ref>

And that shows like this, which is what I want.

I formatted the subsequent citations to that book like this:

{{sfnp|Smith (1978)|p=148}}

and they rendered like so: Here, the author's name looks like a hyperlink, which I would expect to lead to the full citation. But although it is correctly formatted as a hyperlink (and I can see in the page's source that it is indeed an href), it does not lead anywhere. Nothing happens when you click on it.

Am I doing something wrong, or is what I'm seeing the correct behaviour?

I have tried several combinations of {{sfnp}} and {{sfn}}, with and without page numbers, and several ways of doing the ref name, for example with and without the year of publication, but I get the same result every time.

I'd be grateful for any help with this issue. Mike Marchmont (talk) 16:36, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Mike Marchmont, welcome to the Teahouse. Have you tried adding {{rp}} after your citation as a more visual representation of page numbers? It renders like this: when I type {{rp|30}}. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:03, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

References

Tenryuu, thanks for the suggestion. I didn't know about {{rp}}. For now, I wil focus on Fuhghettaboutit's response, but I will keep your idea in mind. Mike Marchmont (talk) 08:43, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

(e/c) Hi Mike. For overview pages, please see WP:CITESHORT and Help:Shortened footnotes. The issue you are having is that you need to have a section for listing the full works, that is separate, and placed after, a section where the short citations are populated. For example, you would have a ==Notes== section, containing {{reflist}}, followed by a ==References== section containing a bulleted list of the full references, placed using standard citation templates. Now, when the shortened citations link, they have somewhere to link to. So for example, I am going to end this sentence with two shortened citations, and mock up how it should work in the article (this is taken from Glossary of bird terms, where I use a "Bibliography" section to head the full citations, and "Citations" for the shortened citations and other footnotes).

==Notes==

References

==References==

• Lovette, Irby J.; Fitzpatrick, John W. (2016). Handbook of Bird Biology. Wiley. ISBN 978-1-118-29104-7.

Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:06, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Fuhghettaboutit, that's fantastic. You have explained in a couple of concise sentences what several Help articles failed to get across. I have now tried your suggestion, and it works perfectly. I will now get to work putting right all the incorrect citations I have inserted since I started editing last year. Many thanks for your excellent advice.

Mike Marchmont (talk) 08:43, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

@Mike Marchmont: Wonderful! Thanks for the kind words. Glad to help. BTW, open invitation: Please fee free to drop by my talk page and ask me anything, anytime. I'll try to assist, if I can.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:43, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

What happens when you can't reach consensus on an edit or end up in an edit war?

I'm talking about pages basically handled by one or two editors, is there some admin or high ranked editor you can summon to make the decision on who's right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMassEffector (talk • contribs) 17:33, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

TheMassEffector Hello and welcome. Admins do not settle content disputes. If you are unable to arrive at a consensus amongst yourselves, there are avenues of dispute resolution to make use of. Edit warring usually leads to the participants being blocked; you should not edit war even if you think you are correct, as everyone in an edit war thinks that they are correct. If someone else is edit warring, you may make a report at WP:ANEW, but be advised that the behavior of you and others will be looked at as well. 331dot (talk) 17:36, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

TheMassEffector, welcome to the Teahouse. If you're unable to resolve a dispute, you may want to ask a volunteer to help do so over at the dispute resolution noticeboard. Please use that venue before you consider submitting a report to the edit warring noticeboard for reasons that 331dot has pointed out. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:40, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

"Banning" from user talk page

Hi there Teahouse hosts! I came across a baffling notice on a user's talk page that stated Everyone is banned from my talk page (except for mandatory notices, of course) until further notice. And do not ping me. This may be a WP:ANI issue, but I didn't want to escalate it. In short: is that allowed? I'm aware of some editors (especially vandals) who blank their pages whenever a notice is applied (such as for NPOV, unsourced additions etc), but this isn't exactly the same.

Sdrqaz (talk) 17:41, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Hey Sdrqaz. Though there's nothing I see at WP:UP directly on point AFAICT, this feels problematic. We need to be able to engage in discussion; to interact with people about aspects of editing without the nature of a talk page itself placing anyone who has a reason to contact the person in a hostile environment. I suppose if I had to point somewhere to reference, I'd cite WP:UP#OWN combined with WP:CIVIL. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:03, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Sdrqaz A user can request specific persons stay away from their user talk page, but I don't think that they can blanket close it to all persons, as communication is required. 331dot (talk) 18:16, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses, Fuhghettaboutit and 331dot. I am aware of editors asking specific users to stay away from their talk pages, but I am quite uncomfortable with that; unless the other editor is clearly a troll, it strikes me as being quite uncivil (interaction bans notwithstanding, of course). What is the suitable course of action here? I don't have anything to say to the editor (I've not encountered this editor prior to today), but I think that something has to be said about the notice. Sdrqaz (talk) 18:32, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Sdrqaz It's not a formal policy, but you could point them to WP:ENGAGE which summarizes policies related to communication. If you feel uncomfortable with doing it, I would be willing to(though I completely understand if you don't wish to share the user-in-question's account publicly, at least not yet). 331dot (talk) 18:38, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer, 331dot. I don't really like contacting other users off-wiki, so the user in question is [redacted]. Feel free to redact or RevDel that following reading, but I don't think there are any outing concerns by any means. Sdrqaz (talk) 20:30, 11 January 2021 (UTC) redacted 11:48, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Just a question

Is Draft:List of YouTube videos with over 1 billion views an appropriate list? I don't want my next draft AfD'ed --🔥LightningComplexFire🔥 18:02, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia already has List_of_most-viewed_YouTube_videos#Top_videos, so such an article would need considerable added value, and I'm not sure where that would come from.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 18:10, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Shantavira, Well, I would say we should expand that list 🔥LightningComplexFire🔥 18:26, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

What is it like being a Bureaucrat, Administrator, and Steward?

What is it like? [[User:SoyokoAnis|<span style="color: skyblue">SoyokoAnis</span>]] (talk) 19:10, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

It is mostly cleaning up messes. When you become an admin it is called "getting the mop". RudolfRed (talk) 19:37, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Citing Sources, Categorizing Page

I am creating a page, and I am not able to figure out how to get the sources to show up on my page. I have the links to the sources I used listed at the bottom of my page if you want to take a look, or edit. The link is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:The_2002_NFL_Expansion. I also am wondering how I can add my page to categories to get more views. 208.66.88.194 (talk) 19:24, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Drafts don't go into categories until they are moved to article space. Any category links you add to the draft need to be disabled. See WP:DRAFT on how to do that. RudolfRed (talk) 20:02, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

(e/c) Hi. I have done some reformatting to make the page display better (including removing initial paragraph spacing; spaces before text make it display very wonky and is to be avoided; skip lines between paragraphs instead), and added a section for the references to display, with a template there ({{reflist}}) that will make them display, once you add footnotes in the text that verify the content and demonstrate the topic's notability through citing reliable, secondary, independentTemplate:Z21 that treat the topic in substantive detail.

I have also left a commented out note in the references section (i.e., a note you will only see it when you are editing), that refers you to the page Help:Referencing for beginners. Please review that page, as you will need to cite the source using inline citations, before submitting the page for review by experienced editors. (In that regard, please note that when you are ready to submit it, add {{Subst:Submit}} to the top of the page, and save.)

As to categorization, until the draft's submitted for that review, we generally don't allow any mainspace article categories to propagate. However, I note that the "submit" template I referred to above, provides the following text about categories, in the context of tips for speeding up your chances of an earlier review:

"To improve your odds of a faster review, tag your draft with relevant WikiProject tags using the button below. This will let reviewers know a new draft has been submitted in their area of interest. For instance, if you wrote about a female astronomer, you would want to add the Biography, Astronomy, and Women scientists tags."

In order to take advantage of that Wikiproject categorization facility, please visit this link. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:10, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Draft-sorter

Where is the gadget for it? 🔥LightningComplexFire🔥 20:42, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

@LightningComplexFire: I don't see it at Special:Gadgets. Where did you learn about this gadget? RudolfRed (talk) 20:47, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

RudolfRed, Sorry, I meant user script 🔥LightningComplexFire🔥 20:50, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

An automated summary on Draft talk:Miraheze --🔥LightningComplexFire🔥 20:50, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

LightningComplexFire, are you looking for User:Enterprisey/draft-sorter? You can find scripts at Wikipedia:User scripts/List. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:55, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Am I allowed to create my own WikiProject?

I want to create one dedicated to Signatures?

SoyokoAnis 21:08, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Our building switched from an office building to a hotel and the current wikipedia page is causing a lot of confusion. How do I update this as I do not manage the page?

 207.250.171.3 (talk) 21:28, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

No one "manages" a Wikipedia article. You can post suggestions for improving the article on that article's talk page. RudolfRed (talk) 21:37, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Improving Draft

Can anyone find more notability or have any other advice?

--HistoricalAccountings (talk) 22:16, 11 January 2021 (UTC) HistoricalAccountings (talk) 22:16, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

death date mistake

Julie Strain did not die on January 10th, she is still living. Remover her name from the recent deaths page. i tried but was unable to. This article makes it clear the death reports were false. https://www.distractify.com/p/julie-strain-death Kudzuman84 (talk) 23:25, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

@Kudzuman84: I added a header to your question. The article Julie_Strain does not mention her death. If you saw it somewhere else on Wikipedia, please link to it. RudolfRed (talk) 23:39, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Kudzuman84. Your source says "Updated 12 months ago". It's about an earlier claimed death in January 2020. Our editors are trying to find out whether it's real this time. She has currently been removed from Deaths in 2021. It's discussed at Talk:Deaths in 2021#Julie Strain. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:43, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Need Help with this draft

Need Help with this draft, i am new to wikipedia and this is my first article. can someone help me with correcting and adding some more information and publishing the article?

Link:- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Zeyan_Shafiq Hums4r (talk) 01:06, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I have shortened your title here; I hope you don't mind. What notability Zeyan Shafiq has seems to come from Kashbook. If a draft about Kashbook can be created from multiple reliable, independent, published sources, then you might create the Kashbook draft first, and then, after that has been accepted as an article, resume working on your Zeyan Shafiq draft. -- Hoary (talk) 01:22, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Need Help to publish this draft to main space.

FYI

 – Section transplanted by Tenryuu.

I have checked the draft multiple times, kindly assist me if there is something missing in it, i have followed all the guidelines from wikipedia. i have added all the reliable sources for the notability. There isnt just a single notability source of kashbook, this person is also notable for starting and founding "stalwart esports" as well.

Link:- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Zeyan_Shafiq

Thanks sir. Hums4r (talk) 02:17, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Your list of contributions shows that you have sent an identical message asking for help to a number of people. Better to discuss the matter here.

If I understand the draft correctly, and if the content of the draft reflects Zeyan Shafiq's achievements, then his major achievement is with Kashbook. I've already (above) suggested that you first write a draft about Kashbook and have that accepted as an article. Dl2000 has made a similar suggestion on your user talk page.

Your draft comes with a photo of Zeyan Shafiq that you describe as your "own work". And there's another photo of Zeyan Shafiq that's described in the same way. It appears from the combination of (i) the nature of the photographs and (ii) "own work" that the photographer (you) and Zeyan Shafiq know each other. Do you know each other? -- Hoary (talk) 08:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Hoary for bringing the issue here. The way Hums4r left messages on my talk page are clear-cut indications that this is the best "COI piece". ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 08:58, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

And perhaps it's no coincidence that another contributor to the draft has the username Zeyan. -- Hoary (talk) 09:14, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Request

Please remove the tag "Require administrator access" to create "Dytto"(Singer and youtube personality) from wikipedia. I am planning to create an article about her. Thanks! —Big Hero 01:31, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

@Big Hero: Create a draft first, following WP:YFA. If the draft is approved, someone will move it to main space. RudolfRed (talk) 02:02, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

@RudolfRed: Would you mind telling me who will get the creator credit if follow the draft process?—Big Hero 12:40, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

@Big Hero: If you create the draft, then you that will be you. RudolfRed (talk) 16:02, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Manual operated anti-vandalism tools

I am currently working on a tool that could be used for anti vandalism purposes, I have already made local tests, and I understand that I will take full responsibility for the edits I make using my tool. Am I allowed to use it? Also, I am not auto confirmed, and it would function similar to Twinkle ThatIPEditor (talk) 04:24, 12 January 2021 (UTC) ThatIPEditor (talk) 04:24, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

You can use whatever tools you want, just remember that it's your account. Edits are edits, no matter how you make them. WhoAteMyButter (📨│📝) 05:42, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi ThatIPEditor! Please see WP:BOTPOL for the policy and guidance on using bots and other automated processes on Wikipedia. Orville^talk 07:09, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Re: Imdad Hussaini

Imdad Hussaini is linked in Deaths in August 2020 as having died August 27, which to my knowledge, was never challenged. This is the source used. Foreign language Wikipedia articles show him as deceased as well such as this one Instead of getting in an edit war, I thought I'd bring it here. According to the editor that reverted me, claims the poet is alive. I'm not sure given the sources are in a language I can't read. Snickers2686 (talk) 04:48, 12 January 2021 (UTC) Snickers2686 (talk) 04:48, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Snickers2686. I have no expertise here, but I popped into Google "pakistani english newspapers", ran some searches and quickly found this - an article from November 2020, stating "Writers, scholars, artists and journalists expected to participate in the sessions, according to the schedule, include ... Imdad Hussaini..." Not definitive, but an indication that news of his demise may be exaggerated. I advise a post to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pakistan.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:28, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Pinging Hammad and Obaid Raza. Perhaps they may help. ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^(talk) 11:48, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not believe in doing good things?

Wikipedia says it has a neutral point of view, does that mean that Wikipedia does not believe in doing good things. 103.139.171.14 (talk) 07:03, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

That's not what neutral POV means. Neutral POV means that we don't get opinionated (like "Clowns are bad"). We do however, say that a person is criminal IF sources say so. If something is unlawful, we say it is unlawful. This doesn't mean editors get to express their thoughts on "right or wrong". GeraldWL 07:14, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Per above. Bit of confusion there. Wikipedia reports factually and dispassionately; which is what makes it have a neutral point of view. We use reliable sources, and a preponderance of them where possible, to present the most factual, observably "true" (per those experts) version of whatever is being discussed.

So no, we wont promote BLM for example. Wikipedia as an organisation may, many editors may support it even, but the encyclopedia is written from the perspective of being an independent authoritative source where claims are attributed, and evidence/argumenys directly supporting a conclusion is included when it is done so by the consensus only. Koncorde (talk) 07:15, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

One could consider making a free online encyclopedia to be a good thing. Not everybody does. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:50, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Editor status

Confirming knowledge on a specialist status I am club historian for my football team, a small semi-professional outfit in Manchester, England (Ashton United) - the club is 146 years old but has not had books written about them and receives limited press coverage. I have a proven history of editing their Wiki page from information found in my research which I cannot often corroborate through publications or online resources, and there are errors on the page which I cannot easily correct as they are wrongly corroborated to other data sources. is there the opportunity in Wiki that allows one to have some sort of approved editing status on a limit area of expertise? TIA Robin ashton (talk) 08:17, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Robin ashton, hi there. Wikipedia uses reliable sources like news, magazines, or journals, or reliable audiovisual material, but not the person involved. Relevant policies include WP:OR and WP:COI. There is no approved editing (i.e. peer review) and editors are not limited to editing articles only on their expertise. There are, however articles tagged for pending changes, meaning that IP or non-autoconfirmed users cannot get their edits approved directly unless approved by a professional editor, given for articles with persistent vandalism. GeraldWL 08:24, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

NB: By professional we mean experienced, not qualified. Everyone here is a volunteer. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 09:47, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Qualifier: Yes, "experienced" refers to editing experience, not subject experience. GeraldWL 10:12, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

How do I add this to an AFD discussion?

How do I add "Note: This discussion has been included in the list ....." to an AFD discussion? Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 08:36, 12 January 2021 (UTC) Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 08:36, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Hey Aceing Winter Snows Harsh Cold. There are automated tools to assist with doing this, as well as templates that can help. However, here's the manual approach:

1. → Go to an existing AfD discussion that has a few of those notes (e.g., randomly from the many to choose from at today's AfD log, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avaye Honar);
2. → see where such notes are inserted within the contours of that discussion, and how they are formatted, by viewing it in 'edit mode' (click "edit this page" at the top of the page [source editing; not visual editor]);
3. → noting that location, copy the formatting of one such note;
4. → click edit this page at the AfD your question is about;
5. → paste copied note into correct part of that AfD;
6. → tailor for your specifics (making sure to replace the person's signature w/time stamp, before the ending markup, with your signature w/time stamp [e.g., "~~~~</small>; and
7. → save ("Publish changes").

If you just want to do this once or twice, then the above is likely all you need. If you plan on doing this regularly, you'll probably want to carefully read and take advantage of the resources and instructions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting, such as installing User:Enterprisey/delsort and/or User:Fox Wilson/delsort, make use of {{Deltab}} etc. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:18, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Making changes to brand pages

Hi, just wanted to check if there are any guidelines for brands to update their wikipedia page? 203.184.213.11 (talk) 09:18, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

@203.184.213.11: yes. Apart from the usual content policies, they must comply with WP:COI and WP:PAID, the latter being a Terms of Use requirement. I strongely recommend that brands review at least the Terms of Use and the content policies before posting anything, as things often go sideways... Victor Schmidt (talk) 09:26, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I would also note that any Wikipedia article(not just a "page") about a brand or company does not belong to that brand; they have no special rights to it as the brand. They are welcome to submit edit requests on article talk pages related to their brand, and should avoid directly editing the article. 331dot (talk) 10:38, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Further, a Wikipedia article is not for the benefit (or detriment) of its subject. The subjects of many articles do get some benefit from the articles, of course, but that is - and must be - no part of Wikipedia's purpose. That is why conflict of interest is so important. --ColinFine (talk) 12:17, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

My article is a mess. I need help formatting it before the submission is reviewed.

Hi, I have created an article, but the format isn't as same as the page I copied it from. Everything is same, but it still displays differently. I have submitted the article for review, can anyone format it better??? Thanks in advance! Callmejones (talk) 10:35, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Also, I got an error saying references like YouTube are discouraged. But they are acceptable from official channels, right? Because this person is an online personality, all of his events were published on social media only.

Courtesy: draft is at User:Callmejones/sandbox. What do you mean by "...the page I copied it from"? Do you mean format or content? David notMD (talk) 10:43, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Callmejones, welcome to the Teahouse. I have removed an extra }} from the infobox.[4] PrimeHunter (talk) 10:58, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I copied the codes from here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoella

Thanks for your help! PrimeHunter David notMD

Who's going to review the article? Is the language okay? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Callmejones (talk • contribs) 11:30, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Callmejones, it seems a reviewer has declined the draft due to unsuitable sources. You may want to take some time to read WP:RS as many of the sources provided are not appropriate for Wikipedia's use. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 11:34, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Question to Teahouse hosts: The declining reviewer left this comment: "Amazon, Twitter, YouTube, Instagram and Facebook are not suitable reliable sources." Given that the subject of the draft is known solely for his YouTube persona, can the YouTube references be sufficient to convey notability? David notMD (talk) 12:57, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

The main problem is that YouTube is not considered a relaible source, per WP:RSPYT. According to our List of YouTubers, "A YouTuber is considered notable if they have received significant, non-routine coverage in reliable sources for more than one event. If a YouTuber has not received significant, non-routine coverage in reliable sources for more than one event then they are not considered notable, even if they have 100,000,000 subscribers."--Shantavira|^{feed me} 14:40, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Requesting for help editing

Hello, My article Draft:ESam has been declined. How can I modify it in terms of wording and tone? Ahassannezhad (talk) 11:17, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ahassannezhad, welcome to the Teahouse. The sentences are choppy; they are missing a "flow" from one sentence to other. This problem can be fixed by joining some sentences together with commas or semicolons. There are a few other things that pop out to me:

• Contractions. Pretty good with not using them, but there's one up in the second sentence: It's one of the online shopping in Iran (emphasis added, links removed).
• Incomplete descriptor. The same sentence also uses "one of" to describe what is after, which means that it has to be countable; online shopping is not countable. This can be fixed by adding a word after "shopping"; it might be website or company.
• (Unconscious) bias. It's subtle, but the draft seems to support the subject and portrays them like an underdog. It could definitely be described from a more neutral point of view. Does the reader need to know the company was initially facing a major crisis? Maybe not.

You should also probably ask the reviewer who declined Curbon7 what parts of the draft they were concerned with that do not fit Wikipedia's tone. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 11:32, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Are here any Australians?

Hi, dear people, i'm searching for an Australian, who could help me with one question concerning football? --Gyanda (talk) 12:10, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Gyanda, perhaps HiLo48 may be able to help you. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:41, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Depends which "football" you mean: we have Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian rules football for Aussie rules football, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Football for soccer. Both of those projects have talkpage where you can ask questions. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Joseph and Gråbergs Gråa Sång. I wanted to know whether this game is equivalent to "Soccer" as we play it here in Germany, but as i read there are 18 players (we only have 11) it must be something different. I will link the term "football" to the Australian rules Football - a page which also exists in Germany. I'm on my last sentences for my new article for the German wikipedia on Vincent Namatjira, and he won the Archibald-Prize for a portrait of Adam Goodes. Thank you for your quick responses. Kind regards, --Gyanda (talk) 12:59, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Moving Article Out of the Sandbox to Publish

Hi! I have written an article a few months ago that I now feel is ready for publishing. The only problem is that I can't figure out how to move it out of the sandbox and publish it. What pulldown menu near the search box are they talking about? I don't have an option to "Put the title into the 'to new title' input box." Help! :) CamilleSparkman (talk) 12:16, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

CamilleSparkman, welcome to the Teahouse. You appear to be WP:AUTOCONFIRMED, so there should be a dropdown menu labeled "More". Hovering over it should reveal its contents, the first of which should be "Move". —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 12:23, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! It's excited to know the option is there now.

Hello, CamilleSparkman, and welcome to the Teahouse. This was your tenth edit, so you should now be autoconfirmed and able to see the "Move" button. But don't move your draft to mainspace now because it will be a waste of everybody's time. Your draft User:CamilleSparkman/sandbox is nothing like a Wikipedia article, and will very quickly get either deleted or (at best, if somebody thinks that it is salvageable) moved back to Draft space. A Wikipedia aritlce must have citations to reliable independent sources. Please study your first article. --ColinFine (talk) 12:24, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I will read that link and continue working on it!

Establishing a page presence / sorting out one that didn't go down well before

I wonder if you can help me? I have just joined my company (Kreston International) and am trying to work out why we don’t have a Wiki page whereas all our competitors do ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accounting_network).

We seem to have fallen foul of some Wiki users -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kreston_International_Limited.

How can we start again with a simple factual page. Many thanks for help in doing this. MarketingKreston MarketingKreston (talk) 12:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC) MarketingKreston (talk) 12:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

MarketingKreston: no, it's not Wikipedia users your (incompetent) predecessor fell foul of, it's Wikipedia policies. You're welcome to start again. You should start by ignoring what you know about the company, and what your colleagues and bosses tell you to write. You should instead look for reliable independent published sources that discuss the company, and base your article on those. Maproom (talk) 13:00, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

MarketingKreston in addition you will need to request a name change and forget ANY idea of "marketing" your company here. Wikipedia only has articles on notable topics see WP:NCORP for the criteria. Theroadislong (talk) 13:12, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

MarketingKreston That your competitors may merit articles(if they do) does not automatically mean your company does as well. Each article is judged on its own merits. See other stuff exists for more information. It could be that the articles about your competitors are inappropriate. In addition, such articles were probably not written by company representatives. 331dot (talk) 13:15, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi MarketingKreston. Since you've titled your post as Establishing a page presence and seem to be worried about your competitors having Wikipedia articles written about them, it seems like you might be misunderstanding what a Wikipedia article is intended to be. So, you might want to read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia:Ownership of content, Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything and Wikipedia:Article for some general information about Wikipedia. Once you've done that, you probably should take a look at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies); this last page, in particular, will explain the kind of things Wikipedia is looking for when attempting to create an article about a company. If after reading all of those pages, you still feel you can still create an article about your company which will have a good chance of avoiding WP:DELETION as second time, then I strongly suggest you start with a WP:DRAFT and submit the draft to Wikipedia:Articles for creation for review when you think it's ready.

Finally, I also suggest you take a look at Wikipedia:Username Policy#Inappropriate usernames because there are a number of issues with your username that you're going to need to resolve if you intend to try and create an article about your company or just continue editing in general. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:18, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Rights: ... read pages (read)

Moved to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) § Rights: ... read pages (read)

 – JJP...MASTER!_{[talk to] JJP... master?} 13:42, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Canadian Pizza Restaurants

How do I make edits without having them reverted? I am trying to add a restaurant to a list of Canadian pizza restaurants? 142.177.183.128 (talk) 14:14, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. List articles like that one are not for every possible member of the list; only those restaurants with preexisting Wikipedia articles may be included in the list. For this restaurant to merit a Wikipedia article, you must show with significant coverage in independent reliable sources that have chosen on their own to write about the restaurant that it meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable company.

If you work for this restaurant, you must review conflict of interest and paid editing for information on required formal disclosures. 331dot (talk) 14:17, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Is this suspicious behavior, or am I not understanding something about how editors monitor pages?

So I recently noticed this[5] edit on the Poppy (entertainer) article. The content of the edit isn't what I'm asking about here. Rather, when I looked at the edit history[6] of Room330, I saw that they had only edited Poppy's article, and nothing else. I noticed that yesterday. By itself, that seemed a little weird, but not that crazy, I guess. Today I noticed that the edit, by Room330, undoing the deletion came just 16 hours after someone made the deletion. But, Room330 hadn't made any other edits in the last 3 months. It just struck me as odd that someone would not edit anything for three months, and then, mere hours after someone deleted content that they had added in the past, they were right there to undo it. It seems like a lot of coincidence. Am I crazy? Am I missing something about how editors monitor changes to pages? Wes sideman (talk) 14:46, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

You can set up your watchlist to email you when specific articles are changed. It might be that. Or just have a very short watchlist. Not suspicious in itself. Johnbod (talk) 15:06, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Ah, I did not notice that you could ask for email when an article on your list is changed. Thank you. Wes sideman (talk) 15:59, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

request

i piblished an article about my self but ir declined,i only want how i get an article from wikipedia? for more : https://www.karzanhisham.com/ https://www.youtube.com/KarzanHisham https://www.instagram.com/karza0n/ Karza0n (talk) 14:54, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Karza0n, The answer is that you cannot. For more see WP:Auto S Philbrick(Talk) 14:57, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Are you allowed to create your own Wikipedia:Project Page?

Just so you know it's not dedicated to me or myself. SoyokoAnis 15:13, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

SoyokoAnis, what specifically are you looking to create? If it's a WikiProject (i.e. a collaboration dedicated to a specific topic), see WP:WikiProject Council. If it's a personal page just for you, you can create it as a subpage in your userspace, e.g. User:SoyokoAnis/THEPAGENAME. If it's a generally applicable essay or something similar, you can create it at Wikipedia:THEPAGENAME, but if it's a duplicate or otherwise undesired it may be deleted or merged. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 16:02, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

@SoyokoAnis: There are links at WP:Project that will lead you to info on how to create a project. Also, you just asked this question recently. Please give some time for answers rather than reposting the question. RudolfRed (talk) 16:04, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

RudolfRed this is not a repost. Those were two different questions.

Recommend destination

I want editors to review a notability guideline. What's the destination? (Ex- Village Pump?) Pesticide1110 ^{Lets wrestle!} 15:30, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Pesticide1110, hmm, I'm not 100% sure about that. WP:VPP would be my thought. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 15:54, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Renaming my account

Where can I apply to rename my account? A.889 (talk) 15:52, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

A.889, see Wikipedia:Changing username. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 15:55, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks--A.889 (talk) 16:02, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

ADD A PHOTO THAT I HAVE TAKEN

FYI

Moved the question from the previous section.

how do I indicate that I took the photo? WikiUName (talk) 15:43, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

WikiUName, for a photo you took, you should add it to Wikimedia Commons. The upload wizard there will allow you to add a license indicate that you took the photo. Once the photo is on Commons, you can use it here, and you don't need to do anything else to indicate you took it. People who click on the photo will be able to see that it's yours from the license. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 15:58, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I need help in reviewing my article

This is my first article, i submitted it for publishing, but i got a notification that it would be deleted because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person.

This is totally false, the articles is not advertising or promoting anyone, rather it only highlight educational background, achievements, appointments of this civil servant who is a permanent secretary.

Please i need help if someone can help me proof read and possible point me in the right direction. Thank you so much Nigeria Bulk Electricity Trading (talk) 16:57, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Nigeria Bulk Electricity Trading. Assuming you choose a non-promotional user name and get un-soft-blocked, if the article remains at all you will need to remove all the extremely promotional, corporate PR ad-speak and peacock language from the draft, as well as the résumé-like content (and then continue to add citations to reliable, secondary, independentTemplate:Z21 that demonstrate the notability of the subject by treating him in substantive detail, if those sources exist).

If those sources and depth of treatment in them don't exist, no acceptable article will be possible. Anyway, since the article requires a fundamental rewrite, a deletion would not be so bad right now. It will allow you to restart on the right foot. (But don't waste your own time if the necessary sources don't exist.)

Please note that your intent is not the issue. The notices you refer to are not false because, regardless of what you intended, the draft reads like it was taken directly from the subject's linkedin page. It simply is extremely promotional because of the content and writing. As an example "He has anchored and implemented key initiatives within the civil and public service which led to several innovative launches" is just chock full of evaluative buzz word panegyric praise, in Wikipedia's voice. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:38, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Help - my article/page was rejected

Posting an article/page in English about my former teacher at the school of architecture but it was rejected, what should I do differently? Christopherhjortholt (talk) 17:05, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Christopherhjortholt Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. To merit an article, your teacher must receive significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources that have chosen on their own to write about the subject, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. The one source you offered seems to be an interview with the subject, which is not an independent source. Please read Your First Article for more information. 331dot (talk) 17:10, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

He might well be notable, but why doesn't he have an article in the Danish Wikipedia, I ask myself? Johnbod (talk) 17:34, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh, he does, and that has a good few references - probably enough, if you add them. Johnbod (talk) 17:36, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Can i add commons.wikipedia.org images in my website posts?

Can i add commons.wikipedia.org images in my website posts? If yes then how to add it? please help answering this question. 103.91.123.136 (talk) 17:26, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes. Images on Commons are may be reused for any purpose. Some are public domain and some have a license with requirements such as attribution notice. If you click on the image you want, it will show what the license is. You can download the image from commons and then add it to your website. RudolfRed (talk) 17:31, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Talk Page for Article

I am having trouble locating the talk button for the article which I'm editing Diomedes Agonistes (talk) 17:37, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

@Diomedes Agonistes: The link will be at the top of the page. Based on your most recent edit, it is here: Talk:Hotel_Continental,_Ho_Chi_Minh_City RudolfRed (talk) 17:52, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Cheque Payment

A request from Germany: Some weeks ago, I got a FoIA request approved by the CIA. The problem is now payment, as the CIA allows only cheque or money order. And these two are almost extinct in Europe, so I could not find a bank to pay it. Question to the readers here, is there a possibility to pay in this pay from Europe?--Antemister (talk) 17:47, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Antemister Hello. This is the Teahouse, a place for new or inexperienced users to ask questions about using Wikipedia. It is not a general help forum; you may wish to try the Reference Desk. 331dot (talk) 17:48, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

OK, will move (in Germany, there is the Café for such questions, so I went here).--Antemister (talk) 18:03, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

elizabeth erin walsh? -since she was fired by trump 2018 for interfering with the trump brand in China and ending sanctions on chinese telecom. what has Elizabeth Erin since?

 65.129.51.111 (talk) 17:57, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over 6.8 million articles and thought we were affiliated in some way with that subject. Please note that you are at Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and this page is for asking questions related to using or contributing to Wikipedia itself. Thus, we have no special knowledge about the subject of your question. You can, however, search our vast catalogue of articles by typing a subject into the search field on the upper right side of your screen. If you cannot find what you are looking for, we have a reference desk, divided into various subject areas, where asking knowledge questions is welcome. Best of luck. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:26, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Hoax article - Madrigal Shipping Lines

Following the deletion discussion at WP:Articles for deletion/Madrigal Shipping Lines how can I get this added to WP:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia Lyndaship (talk) 18:00, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Stuck & need advice

I wrote a piece on Scott Nathan, a prominent and influential celebrity photog and lighting innovator. Bofore I could even submit the article a moderator nominated it for deletion. (The same moderator did the same thing on another article I wrote) I defended the subject and I reached out to the moderator to debate notability. It seems now he is bailing and asking me to go another route. I am trying o understand the process and need a third-party to independently assist. Thank you! ConstellationTeam (talk) 18:13, 12 January 2021 (UTC) ConstellationTeam (talk) 18:13, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

ConstellationTeam Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Is a single person operating your account? Each account is for the exclusive use of a single individual; group accounts are not permitted. You may need to visit Special:GlobalRenameRequest to change your username. You may also need to read about conflict of interest and paid editing. 331dot (talk) 18:19, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank but I only use this login account. It has it correctly at the top. I do not know what you mean other than that...are you referring to the word team? ConstellationTeam (talk) 18:24, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

ConstellationTeam Yes, the word "Team" suggests that your account is a group account. 331dot (talk) 18:25, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh ok I was unaware that was an issue. Can you point me in the right direction to resolve? Thank you ConstellationTeam (talk) 18:32, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy: Draft:Scott Nathan is currently an unsubmitted draft. David notMD (talk) 18:29, 12 January 2021 (UTC)