Wikipedia:Teahouse

Bonadea, 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

need article edited

Hi, I have an article in my sandbox which I like to see instead of the one at 'Gympie Pyramid'. I hope someone has the time to have a look, edit or change what he doesn't like and post the remains. I could upload, but in my experience even with the smallest and well founded change someone comes along and interferes, does the change himself. So I need help if Wiki policy is, that no newbie can change anything. Wikigetsme123 (talk) 07:18, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikigetsme123, this is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Feel free to be bold. Firestar464 (talk) 07:22, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Wikigetsme123. There is already an article Gympie Pyramid, and the best course of action is to make incremental changes to the existing article instead of trying to write a completely new version of the article. That may be perceived as disrespectful to the previous editors who worked on that article. That could possibly lead to arguments with the prior editors. I suggest that you gradually add impeccably referenced new content, and gradually remove content you believe to be poorly referenced, explaining why in edit summaries. That's the best course of action, in my opinion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:46, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Cullen328, and I would add that if any of the other editors have an issue with the changes that you are making, you should pause and discuss on the article talk page. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 07:50, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

What's new in User:Wikigetsme123/sandbox is largely unreferenced. As you add material to Gympie Pyramid, Wikigetsme123, make sure that each part of it is clearly linked to a reliable, independent, published source. This is slightly complicated here, because as it stands the article cites what we can politely call "fringe" sources. Articles normally shouldn't do this, but it can be permissible (even commendable) in some circumstances. Certainly the reader shouldn't get the impression from the article as a whole that a "fringe" interpretation is the most convincing one. -- Hoary (talk) 08:13, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks everybody for the input. This a well written article with poor information in it. The photo was wrong and two web links were dead. Nobody cares ... until I change a little thing. So I will add my additions to this existing article and really hope that no one of the experienced editors here reverse it just because of... Lets see. The information comes straight out of online publications, all with references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikigetsme123 (talk • contribs) 07:08, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

The bulk of your materials, Wikigetsme123, can expand the Theories section of the existing article (provided they are sourced, of course). Good luck. Darwin Naz (talk) 00:02, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

User-boxes

How do I make and add user boxes. I have seen them on other profile pages and I have been wanting to upgrade my user page. Any help would be appreciated. Gandalf the Groovy (talk) 00:07, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Userboxes and the links therefrom. -- Hoary (talk) 00:36, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

|@Gandalf the Groovy: If you need any help I might be able to help. Im available til tommorow. Prairie Astronomer ^Talk 14:59, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Search history on Wikipedia app on iPhone

I am using the Wikipedia app to browse through Wikipedia. It really annoys me that it saves your search history. I know how to clear my search history in the app, but I would like to how to prevent the app from storing my search history so I don’t have to keep clearing it. Same goes with the article viewing history. I asked this at WP:VPT 4 days ago, but got no response. Thanks, Interstellarity (talk) 15:28, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

@Interstellarity: Welcome to the Teahouse! You might find the right contact info at List of Wikipedia mobile applications. Good luck! GoingBatty (talk) 03:12, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

@GoingBatty: That link doesn’t help. It just gives a list of Wikipedia mobile applications. What I am looking for is the steps needed to stop the Wikipedia app from saving my article viewing history and search history. Interstellarity (talk) 12:48, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

@Interstellarity: Try scrolling down to the External links section of the article to find a link to the appropriate help page related to the app you're using. Hope this helps! GoingBatty (talk) 22:35, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

@GoingBatty: Thanks. I'll look into it. Interstellarity (talk) 18:30, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Xtools

Under the xtools section it has information if our small edits and large edits but only the last 5K edits is there I way ai could find out life time Fan Of Lion King 🦁 (talk) 17:46, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

If I understand you question correctly, you can navigate to any user's page, click on the menu item to the left ("User contributions") and then, at the very bottom of the page that appears, click on "Edit count" and you should see a full breakdown for that user. Your personal one is "at this URL". Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:08, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah done that and it says ‘’Data limited to the past 5,000 edits‘’ I wanted to know my lifetime total not just my last 5 thousand edits Fan Of Lion King 🦁 (talk) 18:13, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Fanoflionking this is not possible with xtools afaik, would take too long to process. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:23, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

@Fanoflionking and Elli:. Not so. The stats (at the URL I linked) say (top left) you have 15,106 edits. The part that says the data are limited to the last 5,000 edits is next to an asterisk that just refers to the pie-charts nearby. Presumably that's not just for processing time reasons but because most people won't dramatically alter the pattern of their editing over time. Mike Turnbull (talk) 08:53, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Michael D. Turnbull I'm pretty sure that's exactly for processing time reasons. Some counts are faster to run than others, I'd assume counting byte size is more intensive than just asking for the namespace totals or whatever. Elli (talk | contribs) 09:01, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, exactly, @Elli:. On any sensible relational database SELECT COUNT * WHERE (condition) is always much much faster than any query that needs to process the individual rows returned. Mike Turnbull (talk) 09:05, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

How to remove COI/Charles DeLisi

Hi, there is this article Charles DeLisi. What possible steps must one take so they can remove this tag forever without it having to appear again. Please assist in this case. Thank you. (Precariousman123 (talk) 20:44, 4 March 2021 (UTC))

Welcome to the Teahouse, Precariousman123! Please see WP:COI for information. SoyokoAnis - talk 21:34, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Precariousman123. Generally, any editor can remove a maintenance template from which has been added to an article as explained in Help:Maintenance template removal as long as they feel they have addressed the reasons why the template was added in the first place. If someone else disagrees and re-adds the template, then things can be discussed on the article's talk page. For templates added for WP:COI or WP:PAID reasons, however, it's probably not a good idea for the editor who is considered to have the COI or PAID relationship to the subject of the article to remove such templates no matter how good their intentions are. It would probably be best for you to either start a discussion about this on the article's talk per WP:ER, or maybe at a noticeboard like WP:COIN or WP:NPOVN to see what other unconnected editors might think. This might seem a bit unfair perhaps, but it probably best to be WP:CAUTIOUS in a case like this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:51, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Indeed I would note that the page linked above says that "Any user without a conflict of interest may remove a maintenance template in any of the following circumstances:..."--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:00, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, all of you. I really appreciate the helpful responses. (Precariousman123 (talk) 11:23, 5 March 2021 (UTC))

2 questions

1. When was a page office protected before?
2. Does uploading a logo of your company on WP count as COI? 🔥LightningComplexFire🔥 20:54, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

   LightningComplexFire to answer your second question, you should upload it to Wikimedia Commons. If you own the logo you should be able to release it under a free license - making this clear on say, your company website, will prevent the logo from being deleted. Provided your company has an article, uploading the logo is acceptable. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:11, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

@LightningComplexFire: goto Special:Log and select Protection Log from the drop down and put in the page you are interested in and it will show you when/if it has ever been protected. RudolfRed (talk) 21:17, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Elli, that is not helpful advice. LightningComplexFire, Elli's advice is only correct in the (very unusual) situation that the company is willing to license the logo in such a way that anybody may reuse or alter it for any purpose, commercial or not (or the slightly less unusual case that the logo is simple enough that it does not meet the threshold for being copyrightable). For most logos, you do not upload them to Commons, but to Wikipedia itself, making sure that the use meets all the non-free content criteria: more detail is given in Logos. (Note that the criteria require that the media be added to at least one article, and that it be essential to that article, so in practice, this can be uploaded only to be added to a published article about the company, and not for any other purpose.

Uploading the logo and adding it to the article about the company is technically COI editing: in my view it is acceptable, but I don't know that everybody would agree. An alternative approach is to make an edit request on the article's talk page, giving a URL for the logo, and asking somebody to upload as non-free and add it to the article. --ColinFine (talk) 21:43, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

ColinFine if it's your company, then you can license the logo however you want, because you own it. I'd advise them to release it under a free license.

It's like if a person comes here and asks "can I add a picture of myself to an article about me?" Yes, release it under a free license. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:23, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Most people would never want to release their business' logo under a free license. (Many big companies spend huge sums of money on essentially the opposite; zealously protecting their intellectual property from use by others, their logos, trademarks, etc.) On the other hand, by the very nature of what fair use is, a person who owns copyrighted content cannot claim fair use—only a third party can. There is a catch-22 there, of course.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:13, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Trademarks != copyrights. And besides, most photographers wouldn't release their pictures under a free license - but that's what we encourage them to do here, if they'd like to share their images. I don't see the issue with applying the same standard to others. If you'd like your images included, release them under an appropriate license. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:19, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Elli, after mentioning intellectual property, I said "logos, trademarks, etc."; do you see the comma? Anyway, the equivalence you're drawing between photos and a business logo is utterly inapt. It's like saying "people give blood all the time; can we have your liver?"--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:11, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

@Fuhghettaboutit: yes, I did - my argument is that the copyright status doesn't, or shouldn't, matter to them. Many companies pick logos in the public domain already - like Google - and there is no issue there, they can still go after trademark infringements. Elli (talk | contribs) 03:15, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Google didn't choose to put their logo in the public domain; the logo they chose was too unoriginal for copyright protection. That doesn't imply if they had a logo that met the threshold of originality they wouldn't spend a billion dollars protecting it. But the real point is that you're actually, empirically wrong about how the vast majority of those who have copyright protected logos feel about protecting them, and how that interfaces with your advice. Yes, some small portion of people are willing to release their original logo. The vast majority would say are you f*ing kidding?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk)

Elli, Ok, I would just put it under a fair use license, or if I'm wrong, any license that allows the image to be on WP, but cannot be used except for the subject page. I'm not an expert on copyright, so I mess up which licenses are which. 🔥LightningComplexFire🔥 15:58, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Uploading documents to prove/support an allegatio

I please would like to correct some glaring errors in the Wikipedia article about myself - this includes statements that incorrectly portray my beliefs or cause the public to have a mistake notion about myself. In addition, this page has not been updated in ages, and I have written several new books since it was written, released two music albums, and received additional awards and international attention.

Laurence Galian

My specific question: I have many physical documents, such as an Award from the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts (and letters written to support my claims and assertions). But I do not know how to upload such an item, even I don't know where I would send such an item. But the physical document is part of the evidence that I received this award. Does Wikipedia accept PDFs, JPGs, and so forth? And if so, how would I make them available to those who review such things for inclusion on my page - do I put it onto Google Docs - and if so to whom do I give permission to view such a document?

Thanks. Laurence Galian

2806:2F0:7000:1E40:E9D5:587F:5A9C:E391 (talk) 23:15, 4 March 2021 (UTC) 2806:2F0:7000:1E40:E9D5:587F:5A9C:E391 (talk) 23:15, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state about article subjects. If the sources in the article about you are incorrect, please make a formal edit request(click for instructions) on the article talk page, Talk:Laurence Galian, offering independent reliable sources to support your proposed changes. That doesn't include primary sources. Wikipedia does not store source documents, preferably sources that report on those documents are desired. 331dot (talk) 23:28, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

For clarity: this means that we might mention an award if we have a link to the official website, or (ideally) to a respected newspaper which mentioned that you received the award in an article. The same is true of more recent books, albums and other activities you have been involved with. We do not mention information that has not been published, per our verifiability policy. As 331dot says, making an edit request (by following the instructions at the link they gave) is your best way to go about this, and you can ask me at User talk:Bilorv if you are struggling to follow these instructions. — Bilorv (talk) 15:33, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Artist Notability

Hello. I'm trying to understand the rationale of why Draft:Brad_Walls is constantly being rejected based on notability. I have multiple biopic sources (Washpost, CNN, huffpost etc) that make a substantial argument for notability. Please share any insight. Regards. Bradwalls1992 (talk) 01:42, 5 March 2021 (UTC) Bradwalls1992 (talk) 01:42, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Bradwalls1992! From your username, it appears you are creating an article about yourself the reason may be because of WP:COI. Please re-review the comments to insure the article passes. SoyokoAnis - talk 02:52, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks SoyokoAnis. I did declare WP:COI before the most recent 2 submissions and still not passing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradwalls1992 (talk • contribs) 03:05, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Bradwalls1992 I think COI editors are generally held to a higher standard than non-COI editors in what is considered acceptable. Do you have any reliable sources giving significant biographical coverage of you, instead of just a project that you've done? Elli (talk | contribs) 03:24, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Elli. Artists press is centered around released work and additionally will dive into biographical details of that artist, and that is the content within the sources listed on the draft. It is confusing as I cover the 4 main points in WP:ARTIST to be notable, and I am not really getting a good enough answer. It seems there is some bias with the editors? Thanks Bradwalls1992 (talk) 03:34, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Bradwalls1992 yeah, I feel like you probably are notable (lucky you!) I'm somewhat busy the next few days but I might see if I can publish your article.

BTW, would you consider uploading a picture of yourself - and perhaps an example of your work - under a compatible free license to Wikimedia Commons? Elli (talk | contribs) 03:41, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Elli, I appreciate that - it's been painful. I did upload an image of myself, but it was removed by one of the editors, should I re-upload? Bradwalls1992 (talk) 03:47, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Additionally, Elli - should I re-submit the article? Thanks Bradwalls1992 (talk) 04:02, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Bradwalls1992 as for uploading the image, yes, just make sure you agree to release it under an appropriate license. And yeah, CoI editors are viewed very negatively around here - which is understandable, as most of them are non-notable and write unfairly about themselves, but that doesn't mean that all of them are bad - WP:AGF should still apply.

As for resubmitting, I'd hold off on that - I'll look at it personally soon, submitting isn't necessary for that.

(also, please keep in mind that once your article is published, it's recommended to request any possibly controversial edits with the {{request edit}} template on the article talk page, so it'll be a bit more frustrating to edit it in that case. So if you have more stuff that's received coverage you'd like to add/change, I'd recommend doing that sooner rather than later) Elli (talk | contribs) 04:05, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I'll keep that in mind Elli re. {{request edit}}, but nothing to change currently. Image is uploaded now under free license to Wikipedia Commons. Thanks Bradwalls1992 (talk) 04:32, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Bradwalls1992 great, thank you! Elli (talk | contribs) 04:33, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Elli While you're waiting I recommend you read Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:12, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Also bear in mind, Elli, that citations are there to verify something in an article — usually some fact. We call it WP:OVERKILL when multiple citations are given to back up just one piece of information. Think about the people who have to review your article. They will be much more impressed by a single good reference to a WP:SECONDARY source than they will to several WP:PRIMARY ones that may all have been based on a single press release. I'm thinking of the references 23 to 27 in the career section! Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:42, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, meant to be @Bradwalls1992:, not Elli.... Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:44, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Mike Turnbull, I appreciate the feedback. I never received this when submitting the article. The reason I did perhaps move towards WP:OVERKILL, was because I kept getting rejected for the sources not being relevant, hence I added more, which in retrospect wasn't a great idea. Thanks again! Bradwalls1992 (talk) 01:02, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

How to become a Patrol Editor?

 AdamBunyi2007 (talk) 03:03, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

AdamBunyi2007 there are multiple permissions you might be talking about. New page patroller allows you to review new pages, while autopatrolled automatically marks pages you create as patrolled, and pending changes reviewer allows you to review other users' edits to certain pages with pending-changes protection. Any of these rights can be requested at WP:PERM. Elli (talk | contribs) 03:20, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

To add to this, most of these rights are only given to users who have significant experience with Wikipedia, can demonstrate an understanding of our basic policies and guidelines, and have a direct need for these permissions in their day-to-day editing. (The exception is autoconfirmed, which you will receive automatically in a couple of days, as it just indicates that you have more than 10 edits and that your account is at least 4 days old.) — Bilorv (talk) 15:18, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Follow-up to Do Wikipedia's policies demand supporting reliable sources, even if editors know reliable sources all are in error?

The last thing I said in a thread now archived pointed out that in an environment where publishing is constrained by political censorship, nothing can be published regarding that circumstance in spite is its existence. I am surprised this does not seem to be of concern. I wonder why that is.

On Wikipedia, this phenomenon strikes me as willful ignorance or cowardice. Wikipedia relies on published sources for everything, so a degradation of the publishing world undermines the value of Wikipedia. The logical extreme would be Wikipedia would contain nothing of value if nothing of value is published.Wikoipedia's health is tied to the health of publishing. That would make political censorship something to really hate if Wikipedia is importantDanallenhtn (talk) 03:09, 5 March 2021 (UTC) Danallenhtn (talk) 03:09, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Danallenhtn what would you prefer we do? How do we know anything that we don't directly observe?

Ideally we would just know what's true, but we don't, so we use reliable sources to determine what is true or not. Otherwise, the site would be filled with constant warring as people disagree over every possible fact. Elli (talk | contribs) 03:22, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Danallenhtn If the reliable sources in an article are being summarized accurately, but you believe they are incorrect or disagree with them, you will have to take that up with the sources. Wikipedia makes no claims that its content is "true"; Wikipedia only summarizes what can be verified in reliable sources. The sources are presented to readers so they can be examined and judged by those readers as to their truthfulness or accuracy. Only you can decide what is true for you. See WP:TRUTH. 331dot (talk) 11:47, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

@Danallenhtn: I think you're wrong to suggest that this is not a concern for us. It's certainly something I regularly think about. However, in order to offer a criticism you need to offer a better solution, because it is often said that Wikipedia cannot work in theory, only in practice. Many users come to this website to maliciously add false information, and it is enormously impractical for us to check whether the information is true or not in every single instance. The site could not exist if the burden were on us to do this. Instead, a rule we can implement in practice is to remove information without a reliable source. So if you think we should not rely on reliable sources only then you need to explain how the site could be rewritten under your new suggestions, and how it would be maintained in the face of day-to-day vandalism without suffering reputational damage or falling into disuse. On the flip side, we have actively opposed some political censorship such as the SOPA initiative or censorship of Wikipedia where it interferes with our mission statement and goals. — Bilorv (talk) 15:27, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Consistent Error in the entries on individual Psalms

I've noticed that many of the pages for individual Psalms from the Book of Psalms has an error in comparing the numbering systems between the Hebrew and Greek texts. Is there a way to do a global fix or do I have to change each one? Here is the text that appears with each psalm beginning with Psalm 9. The wording is consistent but the numbering changes. This example is from the entry Psalm 53, which I have corrected on the WP page.

This article uses Hebrew (Masoretic) psalm numbering. Psalm 52 in Greek (Septuagint or Vulgate) numbering corresponds to Psalm 53 in Hebrew numbering.

This is my first post in the Teahouse!! BCPMyles (talk) 03:45, 5 March 2021 (UTC)BCPMyles BCPMyles (talk) 03:45, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

There is no "error" with the numbers used in the {{Psalm nr}} template on these pages. But the phrasing of that template might be somewhat clearer. Take to Template talk:Psalm nr. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:25, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying this. I went to Template talk:Psalm nr and did not see the template in question. I'm brand new to this so any specific direction you can give would be appreciated. BCPMyles (talk) 05:48, 5 March 2021 (UTC)BCPMyles

Another editor reverting changes back to incorrect data

I got a message from another editor that my corrections to the incorrect numbering between Greek and Hebrew psalms were creating some problem. He has reverted the changes back. It has to do with some links that are embedded. I will stop making changes and hope for some guidance because the numbering is incorrect, it doesn't even match the numbering that is used in the text of the articles. Here is the note I received: Francis Schonken 05:16, 5 March 2021 diff hist 0‎ Psalm 63 ‎ Undid revision 1010376059 by BCPMyles (talk) no, creates a blacklink, instead of a link to the article on the psalm with this number in the other numbering system. current

BCPMyles (talk) 05:22, 5 March 2021 (UTC)BCPMyles BCPMyles (talk) 05:22, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Resolved on user talk page. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 05:58, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Help with title change on draft

I’m looking to change the title of Draft:Norman R. Smith (educationist), which I’ve submitted to AFC. Someone previously submitted a badly sourced page on Norman, and I’ve (independently, not working with whoever uploaded the last thing) drafted a new potential entry for the long time college president. But I’m concerned the title of the draft is weird, as he is a university president, not an “educationist” by nature - which doesn’t reflect the thing he is notable for. Can someone please help? (I am reviewing a stipend for this work). 2605:8D80:502:9A8:4C53:4B9D:C323:4C76 (talk) 05:44, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

What would you say is a better descriptor of him? Also, could you elaborate on what you mean by "stipend"? ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 08:18, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, IP user. If "reviewing a stipend" is a mistake for "receiving a stipend", then you are a paid editor, and you must familiarise yourself with the page I linked, and make the requisite declaration. --ColinFine (talk) 13:49, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

NSE Listed GNG Criteria

What are the criteria for NSE listed website that are offering stocks. Does NSE listed contribute to Notability? Sonofstar (talk) 06:08, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

No form of stock listings help for notability. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 06:29, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Adding Citations

I am trying to cite a newspaper Article in my sandbox article on Author David Alexanian. So I did this ^[1] I put the reference name - SNAPD1 and then added an external link. Is this correct? Thank you Angelalala222 (talk) 10:48, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Angelalala222, welcome to the Teahouse! Not quite, it should look more like so: I made this using the method described at Help:Introduction to referencing with Wiki Markup/3. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:09, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

References

I wish to publish Biography of Dr TVS Chelapaty Rao 1911-1979 and seeking help. Please Guide.

I wish to publish Biography of Dr TVS Chelapaty Rao 1911-1979 and seeking help. Please Guide. Yugandhargudipudi (talk) 11:43, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

You seem to have written little, if anything, that wasn't about this one person. It's very important that you read Help:Your first article. A spoiler: please forget about TVS Chelapaty Rao until you have become at least a little accustomed to, and skillful at, improving existing articles. -- Hoary (talk) 12:29, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

One of the main principles of Wikipedia is neutrality, which means we discourage you from editing about yourself or your friends or family—these are called "conflicts of interest". Most people do not meet the criteria we have for having a biography on Wikipedia, which you can read at Wikipedia:Notability (people), and in the rare cases where they do we need to see evidence of lots of high-quality references. — Bilorv (talk) 15:15, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

ADDA52

This https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADDA52 page is deleted twice in the tag of [WP:G4] I tried to explain that the page is notable today & created based on 2020-21 news of the ban on it in Few states but people are deleting it due to 2017 discussion. Please let me what to do. To avoid spam I just created the Draft:ADDA52 for the discussion and point of view. Please check my Talk page also, it might be of some help. 1друг (talk) 12:16, 5 March 2021 (UTC) 1друг (talk) 12:16, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

The most recent deletion was because it was promotional. As for your current draft, the one sentence The company was incorporated in late 2000 and Delta Corps acquired the company in 2017 has eight references. Why? Please see Wikipedia:Citation overkill. -- Hoary (talk) 12:39, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

@Hoary: Thanks for the feedback. If someone explained me this I would have improved it till now. Can you please tell me what is the next step? I have modified the entire draft and the links. Others are also most welcome to share the feedback 1друг (talk) 15:23, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

The next step, 1друг, is to decide whether your draft satisfies Wikipedia:Notability (web). If it doesn't, then augment it until it does. If/when you decide that it does, add {{subst:submit}} to the top. -- Hoary (talk) 22:18, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

@Hoary: Awesome, I have done what you suggested. Seems very different from the way I created other pages.

Why can't we add a new thing in the main page titled "popular articles"

 Creative Name 420 (talk) 14:33, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Because it's protected to prevent precisely this. The main page can only be edited by administrators. The mainpage is a bunch of transcluded templates and the content in those templates is decided by consensus within the community. CUPIDICAE💕 14:37, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Creative Name 420. Such a major change would need consensus among the community. The current front page is designed to highlight reasonably good-quality articles and serve as a reward to editors who have done work to improve a page. For instance, Today's Featured Article reaches "featured" status by going through a very detailed process of peer review to ensure it's the best article it can be, and Did You Know? shows newly-created, newly-expanded and newly-improved articles. A list of most-viewed pages would probably not fit in with the spirit of the current Main Page and would be subject to manipulation by bots or other malicious activity. However, you can see the most-visited pages in the recent week at the Top 25 Report, see a list of the top 5000 most-viewed pages at User:West.andrew.g/Popular pages and find the pageviews of any particular page here. Thanks for the question! — Bilorv (talk) 15:12, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note also that each edition of the in-house newspaper The Signpost includes a review of the articles which have been most popular each month. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:29, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

@Creative Name 420: You can also follow the weekly updates at Wikipedia:Top 25 Report. GoingBatty (talk) 22:31, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

How to bring attention to potential COI article authorship?

I recently responded to a COI edit request on the Laurel Parmet talk page requesting that an unsourced birth year be removed. As far as I could tell, there was no previous published birth year prior to this Wikipedia article, so I removed it. This request was made by a user claiming to be the subject of the article. Although the identity was unconfirmed, I couldn't find evidence of a birth year being previously published so in light of WP:DOB, removing the birth year seemed appropriate.

However, when I was trying to ensure that there wasn't a previous source in one of the other references, I saw that the entire article was written by a user named Ethan Parmet, who appears to be an established editor. I assume the normal procedure for noticing something like this isn't just "post about it in the teahouse", but I'm not sure what the right forum would be. WP:COICOIN seems to be more about getting someone making repeated edits to stop, but this case might mean that this entire article should be deleted? Putterlace (talk) 17:14, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Putterlace. There are two issues: 1) does that editor know that COI editing is frowned on? 2) is the article partisan? For 1), a message on the editor's talk page pointing this out for future reference (check to see whether it's already been discussed there, or on the article's talk page). For 2) if it's neutral, do nothing. If it's not neutral, or you don't have time to check, stick {{COI}} at the top, and put a note on its talk page. --ColinFine (talk) 19:31, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up. I think there are a couple of guidelines to keep in mind here. One is that it would seem likely that User:Ethan Parmet does in fact have a conflict of interest, as you have pointed out, and should mention as such on their user page, article talk page, and/or edit summaries per WP:DISCLOSE. However, as mentioned by the notes at the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard, it is not yet necessary to escalate there, at least before bringing it to Ethan's attention. The other guideline I think is relevant is that on WP:Notability, or in particular WP:FILMMAKER. Given a quick Google I think Laurel is notable enough, since she seems to have won some awards for her work on top of her significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources per the general notability guideline. Given that, the page should stand. --Anon423 (talk) 19:37, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you both ColinFine and Anon423 for your feedback/help! And thank you Anon423 for taking to time to notify Ethan Parmet. Putterlace (talk) 21:35, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Ethan has disclaimed any conflicts of interest, which I've copy-pasted from my own talk page to his. That should be settled, I hope. @Putterlace:. --Anon423 (talk) 23:13, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

"Oracle CRM" Wiki Page - Needs Updating

I am trying desperately to update the Oracle CRM, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oracle_CRM, page. All the content is wildly out of date -- not a single product or link is correct. I made a lot of updates but all were pulled off the page from folks that are not familiar with our products. I did not note that I work for Oracle (so think that is "employee" status, but if I note that and try to make updates again -- will that work?

Thank you so much for the help! Sincerely, ghardt13 Ghardt13 (talk) 17:16, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Ghardt13, welcome to the Teahouse. If you work for Oracle, you must declare so on your user page; you may use the {{paid}} template to do so. As someone employed by the subject, it is strongly recommended that you do not edit the article directly, but rather leave edit requests on the article's talk page (Talk:Oracle CRM) and supply reliable sources that support your proposed additions or changes. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:42, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

How long does it take to have someone pick it up and make the updates? Do I have to wait hours, days, weeks? Do you have a sense?

Also, I might get paid by Oracle, but what if I am trying to make an update to the generic, Wiki Page - Customer Relationship Management? Can I not update that as well? Aren't most folks employed by someone? Can anyone that is being paid to have a career never allowed to update a wiki page? Shouldn't a Companies Product Wiki Page be something that could be updated by someone that knows the products? Thanks for all the help and insight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghardt13 (talk • contribs) 17:57, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Ghardt13 As you have been told, if you wish to make edits that are related to your conflict of interest, you may do so as edit requests. I do not make any edits about my employer here on Wikipedia and I don't even visit its article. Wikipedia content is ideally added by independent editors. We don't want companies to speak about themselves and their products here- they have their own websites to do that. Wikipedia is only interested in what others say about them and their products. 331dot (talk) 18:01, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Ok, thanks Tenryuu, If I add to the talk page, could you or others review and pick up the changes? Do you have a sense of the timing to update - is there a general amount of time we have to allot, and if not picked up, is there a channel to escalate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghardt13 (talk • contribs) 18:19, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

@Ghardt13: This is one of the double-edged aspects of Wikipedia: WP:VOLUNTEER, which means that most edits are done by editors who are interested in the subject (but not connected). There are some editors who patrol edit requests, but there tends to be a backlog, so it can be a while before they get to edit requests related to Oracle. (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.) —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:31, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Few questions.

I've been directed to seek help here. It would be really helpful if you send me few links to the following-
1. Userfication-(Zeyan Shafiq's article was deleted so they have been suggested over email to apply for userfication, i want to know what it is and how it works).

2. The Relevant policies for notability guidelines on wikipedia.

3. Any other important wikipedia policy which might be related and important to Stalwart Esports and Zeyan Shafiq.

4. Also other policy violations that should be kept in mind while writing regarding it. Abhayesports (talk) 17:17, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Abhayesports. You should read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zeyan Shafiq and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stalwart Esports. I also recommend that you read Wikipedia:Userfication, Wikipedia:Notability, Wikipedia:Notability (people) and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). As for other policies and guidelines, please be aware of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure, which I bring up because of things discussed during those deletion debates. I think that it is fair to say that many experienced editors are highly skeptical of very young entrepreneurs and new business ventures. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:46, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks @Cullen328, for the information. I have read the Conflict of interest document and the paid contribution as well. According to the document I surely do have a conflict of interest with Zeyan Shafiq, but my motive to be on wikipedia is that I've been asked by Mr. Shafiq to join wikipedia to monitor our presence on Wikipedia because i am a content writer by profession and i am an active editor at liquipedia so i have experience of wiki markup language and also because there's been many vandal attacks recently, also this was suggested to them via email from wikipedia team and since we weren't aware of the deletion discussion and we were unable to defend the allegations raised back then. So as far as i have had an idea there's been content that has had promotional tone and that's not accepted on this wikipedia. So I'd work on the page and try to trim the promotional content and cite the information that can be verified from primary sources. If there is anything else that you think i should read before i start, please let me know. Warm regards Abhayesports (talk) 18:43, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Abhayesports, please do not directly edit any article where you have a conflict of interest, or are paid to edit. Instead, make an edit request on the article's talk page. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:13, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I know that it is discouraged(not prohibited) to edit pages with a COI and i have absolutely followed this policy. I did not edit the page directly rather suggested it via talk page. But this wasn't my question here as we were already discussing it on my talk page. My question here was to obtain all the relevant policy documents and all the wikipedia guidelines related to Zeyan Shafiq and Stalwart Esports so that i make sure that i am not violating any of them, as for now i have completely read the following
WP:COI and WP:RS to understand the sources that can be used to verify statements on wikipedia i will start reading Userfication, living person biography guidelines soon. So if there's anything that you think i should read which is important for me to work on Zeyan Shafiq and Stalwart Esports please share the link to the documents.
Warm Regards
Abhayesports (talk) 05:10, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Abhayesports, have you visited the pages in the welcome template? That's a great place to start. Firestar464 (talk) 05:17, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Firestar464 Hi there, yes and that's how i was diverted to here. As far as the wiki markup language is considered so i am familiar with it since I'm an old editor at liquipedia which is based on MediaWiki and is the wikipedia for gaming, haha. So again if you could read my last response you can understand that what kind of policy docs i am looking for.

Warm Regards

Abhayesports (talk) 05:24, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Also see WP:COIU. In short, do not edit the article unless you are performing actions mentioned there. Firestar464 (talk) 05:19, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I have read this completely as mentioned above and i have followed this, thanks.

Warm Regards

Abhayesports (talk) 05:24, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

You're very welcome! Firestar464 (talk) 05:48, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

References for Sandbox

How do I submit references to support my sandbox entry Collectible & Antique Chair Gallery? Submitted in the visual edition. Thanks Bhartsfield09 (talk) 18:02, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: User:Bhartsfield09/sandbox @Bhartsfield09: I think you should read WP:YOURFIRSTARTICLE first. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:43, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Tags?

Hi there! I just had a question about tags. I have looked on the Wiki page about tags to try to get an understanding but it just wasn't helping. I don't know how to use them and what tags to use for what purposes. If someone could help me out I would LOVE IT! Thank y'all. 14thReason (talk) 18:31, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

@14thReason: This page about templates should help you. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:39, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Move file

Hello, can someone please move the photo File:Yeshiva Mesivta Chaim Berlin Kollel Gur Aryeh, Sept 2020.jpg to Commons. Thanks, Charlie Smith FDTB (talk) 19:37, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you couldn't do it, but I evidently have the "export to Wikimedia Commons" button enabled for Wikipedia:Moving files to Commons, which did the job painlessly through the FileImporter. If something went wrong (I have little experience with images) let me know. --Anon423 (talk) 21:12, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Hostbot invite to tea house logo

Hi everyone. Apparently my username, as a veteran editor, was included in the Teahouse invitation delivered to Mikeobrianjr's talkpage. He then asked a question on my talkpage (Why is the logo different in the hostbot invite message then on the tea house itself) but I don't know the answer. Help? Thanks. Rosiestep (talk) 19:47, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Rosiestep see Wikipedia:Teahouse/Hosts/Database reports/Automated invites. "If you want to be one of the hosts whose names are included on automated invites, please add your username to the list below. Then leave a message on Jtmorgan's talk page" either you or someone else added your name to that list at some point. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:08, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Elli. That explains how my name showed up in his Teahouse invite. Hopefully, someone else can answer the question about the logo. --Rosiestep (talk) 21:42, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Rosiestep, nice to see you back here again. How are you doing? I think the answer to Mikeobrianjr's question on your talk page is that the graphic was one of a suite of images originally identified when the Teahouse was designed and developed back in 2012. All these design elements can be seen at Wikipedia:Teahouse/The menu and the graphics and colour schemes here. I think it's fair to say that, after the original paid Teahouse development phase was over, we have been run purely in a voluntary capacity since then. This has inevitably resulted in some drifting away from some of those initial ideas; some elements have been removed entirely (guest book. maitre d' etc), as well as some attempts to bring a degree of coherence and colour matching back again to our headers and our template. I suspect this is just a case that no-one has especially been bothered enough, or astute enough to notice and question that difference, so top marks go for observation to Mikeobrianjnr. Whether there is a need to actually change the graphic, I'm not sure. Personally, I found our main 'tree' graphic a bit wishy-washy, but I'm not going to fuss over changing it one way or another. I suspect many of my fellow hosts would not worry too much, either, so long as the core principles of a friendly, helpful welcome at the Teahouse are actively maintained (see also here). Regarding the list of names automatically added to HostBot invites, I'm not actually sure whether they are taken directly from edits made to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Hosts/Database reports/Automated invites#Inviter_list or if it requires a request on Jtmorgan's talk page if you want it added (or removed, as I see you've just done at the automated invites page). Hoping this helps a bit, Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:01, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, @Nick Moyes:, for the warm greeting and for the explanation. I figured it might be something like that. --Rosiestep (talk) 01:01, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping Nick Moyes. Hi Rosiestep! Yes, I can take you off the inviter list (I need to make the change manually, but it's easy). Is that what you want? Cheers, J-Mo 23:23, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Jtmorgan. Yes, please. While I'm one of the Teahouse's biggest fans, I'm stretched too thin these days to be of much help here. Thanks! --Rosiestep (talk) 01:01, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

@Jtmorgan: Just a thought: would it be worth you dropping a note at WT:TH to ask if any currently active hosts would like to add their names to the Hostbot invites? And maybe we could ping and remove some of the inactive editors on your list - I've identified the inactive ones here. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:12, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

@Rosiestep: no problem! You're off the list until/unless you want to be added again. @Nick Moyes:, thanks for the nudge :) I've posted a call for additions and removals. Cheers, J-Mo 20:19, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Jtmorgan, thanks! --Rosiestep (talk) 20:24, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

WP Twitter Feed

Hi - someone able to point me to the procedure what will be published via the official Wikipedia Twitter Account!? I am aware of WP:ITN but found nothing for the Twitter Posts ... do we have any policy/procedure for this? CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:40, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Are you asking about the official m:Social Media accounts? --Anon423 (talk) 21:00, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Anon423, I did, yes, thank you. CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:06, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Page Edit gone wrong

I made changes to a persons page which included adding birth_name and other information. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Gardenhour Once I saved the changes the picture that was on the page doesn't display now and all of the personal information now reads in paragraph form at the top instead of on the right side of the page with the personal details below the picture. How can I fix this and get the picture back? I was working in Visual Editor on my computer. Thank you in advance! TruthPR (talk) 20:58, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

An editor reverted all of the changes you made. Rather than starting over, I suggest you start a discussion on the Talk page of the article. Minimally, none of the content you added had references (but then, the prior version had no references, either). Naming music videos he worked on adds nothing to his notability. David notMD (talk) 21:17, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Can someone make an article about web animation?

I know the web animation section on the computer animation article isn't enough, I want someone to an main article about web animation, The history of animations on the internet on the 1980s and 1990s and the popularization of web animations on the internet. Can someone make the main article of web animation for me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmberLovesEverything (talk • contribs) 21:27, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

AmberLovesEverything, best place for requesting an article would be here Wikipedia:Requested_articles CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:51, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

@AmberLovesEverything:, you might like to take a look at Portal:Animation and its sub-pages, where you'll find editors (and tasks) that are relevant to animation and may give more specific advice/ideas. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:39, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Impersonation

Hi, This question might sound very awkward but i've come across two profiles User:Anjumaafi- Who has proclaimed to be here to create Shafiq's article and is a pretty new account so is another attempt to impersonate Zeyan Shafiq.
Another Is User:Jeelanishafiq- who claims himself to be Zeyan Shafiq, while as he isn't. This issue has been reported by Shafiq to the wikipedia via email.

So I'd like to ask what policies to follow for impersonation and how do i request protection for Zeyan Shafiq so that no new editor could harm it because i am currently reading all the policies regarding biography and notability and after I'm done i will be working on that article.
Warm Regards
 Abhayesports (talk) 22:48, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Update Take a look at this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Alyo#Help , this person is trying to prove as if he works for stalwart and most probably by mentioning "Paying" part he wants other's to realise that Stalwart Esports is violating wikipedia's policies. Definitely something that is unethical and hasn't been sent by us (Stalwart Esports), definitely part of some campaign. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhayesports (talk • contribs) 23:31, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Admin note on the first two accounts, both have been globally locked. For the update, it looks like Newslinger has blocked per the username policy — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:59, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Anjumaafi is blocked because of misusing my name. Also, there's huge SP farm associated with this article. Experienced editors shouldn't entertain any such request. Thanks. ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^(talk) 06:23, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Why is it called the Teahouse?

 ButterCashier (talk) 23:09, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Actually don't worry, I've worked it out. Just thought I'd write something here, but in the few seconds since asking I've found the answer. Thanks anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ButterCashier (talk • contribs) 23:10, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

No problem, ButterCashier, but "welcome" anyway! Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:43, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Review

Hello, I have made all adjustment as pointed at on the comment section on Draft:Oxlade (singer), rewritten to meet WP:NPOV, with reliable sources to establish WP:GNG and also left a message on the talk page as directed by Timtrent to justify the use of the interviews and I strongly believe it meets WP:SINGER. JudeJnr (talk) 23:39, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

@JudeJnr: You've submitted it for review. Please be patient, a volunteer will get to it hopefully soon. Drafts are reviewed in no particular order. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 02:53, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

@Ganbaruby:, Alright thanks. I also just updated it, by removing all the WP:BOMBARDMENT--JudeJnr (talk) 03:13, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

summary

do we have to provide summaries for what we just wrote, because it keeps prompting me? Lovin'Politics (talk) 01:28, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

@Lovin'Politics: I assume you're referring to edit summaries. While not required, it's good practice to do it because it lets other editors know what you are doing without having to actually check the diffs between edits. When you go to a long edit history page, the edit summaries help us find the revisions a lot easier. Edit summaries can also be used to provide a short explanation for a change (longer explanations should go on the talk page). ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 02:52, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

CHARLES SWAINSON article for review

I've added all my references. Thank you for all the feedback so far, is this ready to publish on the mainframe or do you have any advice about any further work I need to do? Paranoid Numanoid (talk) 01:29, 6 March 2021 (UTC) Paranoid Numanoid (talk) 01:29, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy: Draft is at User:Paranoid Numanoid/sandbox/Rev. Charles Swainson, M.A.. David notMD (talk) 01:34, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

@Paranoid Numanoid: The structure seems a bit odd. There are four sections about books that mention him, but no section on his book. I get that you are trying to demonstrate notability, but I'd like to see his book a bit more prominently. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 01:42, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Ok thanks Tim, maybe I got a bit waylaid trying to demonstrate notability!! I'll get working on that, and keep it brief. Paranoid Numanoid (talk) 01:46, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I think I have fixed this, any feedback? Paranoid Numanoid (talk) 02:25, 6 March 2021 (UTC) PS I have also "submitted for review" but not sure if it's ready for that. Someone will let me know I'm sure. Paranoid Numanoid (talk) 02:41, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

The draft in your sandbox does not appear to have been submitted to Articles for Creation, for a review. If you believe it is ready, someone here will explain how. David notMD (talk) 02:47, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Oh dear, thanks for letting me know. I don't know what step to take next in that case. I shall wait and see who drops by the tea-house! Paranoid Numanoid (talk) 02:59, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Paranoid Numanoid I have added the appropriate information to your draft to allow you to submit it for review. If you use Articles for Creation to create future drafts, this information will be added automatically. 331dot (talk) 03:02, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Voila! David notMD (talk) 08:49, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your patience guys! I must have submitted a wrong page? I hope I have resubmitted correctly this time, a few seconds ago. Paranoid Numanoid (talk) 09:37, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

PS there's a "warning" (on the "Article Submitted" box) to move it to Draft:Rev.Charles Swainson, M.A. Should I press that button? I'm inclined to leave it as I know you editors now know where it is! Paranoid Numanoid (talk) 09:45, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions

hi. I just got a message from my talk page about me writing things about post-1992 US politics which I am very much interested in. However, I don't know why I was prompted with it Lovin'Politics (talk) 01:32, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Lovin'Politics probably because you edit in that area. It's nothing to worry about as long as you follow the guidelines it lays out (basically, don't edit war, and be civil). Elli (talk | contribs) 01:35, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Elli what do you mean don't edit war? (talk) 01:39, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

@Lovin'Politics: see WP:EDITWAR. CanadianOtaku ^{Talk Page} 01:46, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

How do you properly re-use a source?

As in, not make two different sources with the same thing, in the wikitext editor. CanadianOtaku ^{Talk Page} 01:42, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Where you have <ref>{{citation template}}</ref>, use <ref name=":0"> at the front (autogenerated label from Visual Editor) or <ref name="Meaningful_label">. Reuse a citation by simply inserting <ref name=":0" />, or <ref name="Meaningful_label" />. --Anon423 (talk) 02:03, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. CanadianOtaku ^{Talk Page} 02:04, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

References

B-24 Liberator page: factually incorrect statement needs changed.

In https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consolidated_B-24_Liberator: "A total of 177 B-24s carried out the famous second attack on Ploiești (Operation Tidal Wave) on 1 August 1943. This was the B-24's most costly mission. In late June 1943, the three B-24 Liberator groups of the 8th Air Force were sent to North Africa on temporary duty with the 9th Air Force:[13] the 44th Bomb Group joined the 93rd and the 389th Bomb Groups. These three units then joined the two 9th Air Force B-24 Liberator groups for low-level attack on the German-held Romanian oil complex at Ploiești. This daring assault by high-altitude bombers at tree top level was a costly success."

The raid was a costly FAILURE. 30% of the attacking force was shot down, and another 30% was damaged. Oil production was nearly unchanged after the attack. The article should reflect that fact. While wartime propaganda depicted the raid as a success, neither side's leadership considered that to be true. Brucelucier (talk) 03:29, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Brucelucier the Teahouse tries to help with issues with regard to wiki-related problems. we don't work with factual errors. you could help edit it. (talk) 06:07, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

If you dispute the accuracy of sourced content in an article, start a discussion on the article talk page. You'll need to provide reliable secondary sources that back your position, and attempt to form a consensus for what to say based on what all sources say. Ypu may or may not succeed. Content is based on a consensus view of how to treat the applicable sources. 174.254.198.242 (talk) 06:12, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Brucelucier I agree with Brucelucier. The article in question Wikilinks to Operation Tidal Wave - about this specific mission - which clearly states (with references) that oil production was not significantly impaired. A ref or refs can be copied from there to justify a change to "costly failure" without a need to discuss at Talk first. David notMD (talk) 08:58, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Help to resolve copy-editing issue

Namaste I recently submitted a Draft: Jalgaon District Court draft to AFC but they declined by saying NEED BIG COPY-EDITING.I new , I don't know how to do it.Can someone here look at my letest drafts and do appropriate changes so no reviewer will decline it.They are - Draft: Maroti Temple of Shirsada,Draft: Ghodasgaon (District - Jalgaon) , Draft: Kothadi ,Draft: North Maharashtra , Draft : Jalgaon housing scam.These are some notable palaces and things around my district that need WP articles.I add reliable citation, references in them and wrote with WP standards.If you take a look ,and helped it will be nice. 27.57.240.61 (talk) 06:05, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

27.57.240.61 first of all they did not say that you needed big copy-editing. under the Jalgaon District Court draft that you submitted the reason for which it was rejected was because it was copy and pasted for the most part, under my understanding Lovin'Politics (talk) 06:11, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

To recycle the section header directly below this one, Lovin'Politics, "what are you talking about"? The chief draft they are here about, listed and linked by the person, says in its decline: "Major copyediting required" and having looked at this person's various drafts (having worked at great length with one of them), there are no copyright violations whatever, so seriously, why would you invoke something like that, when not present? We have enough real copyright violations. Yes, 27.57.240.61, you have done a great job in all the drafts I've seen of citing your sources, but they all require a copyedit by a native English speaker. Per your request at my talk page yesterday, I will try to do a basic copyedit pass, if no one else does, but it may take me a fair while. Having said that, please don't expect me to do what I did at the housing scam draft. I decided to do a deep dive on it, and did, burnishing it to a high level. I expect on these others I would do something much more basic. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 08:51, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Fuhghettaboutit Thanks sir , Your editing at Jalgaon housing scam draft was great. I learnt lot from your editing. I didn't did any copy paste. I am not that new ON WP. I know rules and regulations of WP. Infact at my one Draft: Maroti Temple of Shirsada I added a photograph of Idol. Which I took in 2020 by my smartphone camara. But problem was that I uploaded that photo on Google maps. Yesterday I took screen shot of that photo and uploaded ON WP commons and uploaded on that draft. But I thought Is I'm doing some copyright breach. B'cause the photos , I think Google maps property.so I removed that photo from that draft. I do whatever do with good intentions and it takes lots of time to do. Lots of research , understanding of subject. If someone interested feel free to edit. 106.195.7.13 (talk) 09:49, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

IP editor, you have contributed using several different IP addresses over the past couple of weeks; have you also had a registered account with a username in the past? --bonadea contributions talk 10:08, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

contributions Nope , What is copy-editing can you explain?Is that mean I copied somewhere and pasted on WP? You can check citations I added and decide your self , Is I copy pasted? Cheers106.195.7.13 (talk) 10:20, 6 March 2021 (UTC) under my understanding Lovin'Politics Hi , I think your speaking without looking my Draft: Jalgaon District Court , the reviewer clearly saying that "The draft need major copyedit" thy did't mention anywhere that "You copy pasted in this draft" .I think Copy paste is different thing & Copy-editing is different thing. Do not mis lead new editors. At least now take a look , these drafts. 106.195.7.13 (talk) 10:57, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Copy editing is basically proofreading written content and making corrections. Most of the time it's spelling and grammar mistakes, but it can sometimes involve some rewording to make the sentences read better and sound more natural. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 11:14, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Need help from native English speaker editors

Namaste My article Draft: Jalgaon District Court is declined by a reviewer and he's saying you need major COPY EDITING.I am new to WP.Can you take a look and edit these drafts.so reviewers will accept them.These drafts are Draft: Jalgaon District Court is the draft declined by a reviewer. Other which are waiting for review are Draft: Kothadi, Draft: Kothadi , Draft: North Maharashtra , Draft: Jalgaon housing scam ,Draft: Ghodasgaon (District - Jalgaon),Draft: Maroti Temple of Shirsada .I am not native English speaker , according to some admin my English is broken.So if you have time , go on fix them.If need rewrite your free to rewrite.106.195.7.13 (talk) 11:13, 6 March 2021 (UTC) 106.195.7.13 (talk) 11:13, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Consolidating similar discussions. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 11:52, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello Maharashtra-based IP editors! I spent a few minutes working through the English at Draft: Jalgaon District Court. The English in the original source was so badly written that I ignored it and simply tweaked it and removed a small amount of irrelevant information. I hope this helps. I have only ever once (out of desperation) attempted to draft an article in another language, and don't think you did too bad a job on this one. It's never an easy job. I will leave a welcome on your talk page, and recommend you register for a free account, which makes communication and editing so much easier. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk)

Mr.Moyes if you're mentioning about Eng then you have to see , thousands of articles made by Indian editors and about Indian places,Film stars , Cricketers and politicians majority of them looks like they're written by their fans.The article just glorified them.Not mentioning their arrest , frauds and loan defaulting or crime conviction about them. Ex.Suresh Jain - He is a big Shiv sena politician in Jalgaon district two times minister of state.He was convicted in 1996 Housing scam.Dhule court sentenced him seven years of Jail & 110 Cr.rupee fine.But no Indian or outsider editor wrote about that on his WP article.Why? Why? why? . District Court's conviction in 110 Cr scam is a small thing.He looted public money.But no one wrote about it.I created a article about that scam Draft: Jalgaon housing scam.It these article are WP standards. If you are talking about WP standards and Eng in them. I link some articles see them, watch their writing style , wordit Gulabrao Devkar,Raksha Khadse,Devendra Fadnavis ,Amitabh Bachchan. 106.195.7.13 (talk) 13:16, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what point you're hoping to get across to me. Yes, I am aware that many people use Wikipedia to promote their favourite people or companies. I, like all volunteers, have to choose which of our 6.2 million articles I work on. I felt it would be helpful to assist you on that one draft. I am sorry if I am unable to address the myriad of other outstanding issues you are rightly concerned about. These are matters you can, and should, flag up yourself by adding appropriate templates to the pages, or by posting your concerns and links on the articles' talk pages. Criminal convictions, if supported by Reliable Sources (and if not irrelevant or UNDUE) can also be included in articles. You will certainly find it easier to automatically watch edits to articles you're interested in if you create a free Wikipedia account. That way you can even choose to get an email to notify you of changes to any page on your WP:WATCHLIST. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:20, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I have just completed basic copyedits of each of the drafts.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:43, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi again. Regarding your post above, it seems to me, 106.195.7.13, you're just not taking into account the volunteer nature of Wikipedia and its lack of any central authority – and all that that implies. We each essentially write about what we're interested in. Gaps in coverage of all topics are filled because some volunteer decided to get busy in filling it in. Here, the gap on coverage of this scam, to round out the coverage on the government authorities involved, happened because YOU saw a gap and decided to not leave it unfilled. That's the way everything happens. On the other hand, because a large portion of our editors are from the US, UK, Australia (etc.) and far less from India (and India is huge), India topics get less coverage, on balance, I think. Do you think I, as a U.S citizen, ever saw any coverage of the Jalgaon housing scam to spark my interest, before I saw your draft? It's just the nature of the beast.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:00, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Fuhghettaboutit Yeah , I completely understand what your saying. But like you mentioned in housing scam article. Their is lengthy info under Infobox. Similar situation I saw in highly traffic articles like Amitabh Bachchan article. Amitabh Bachchan sir is biggest movie actor in India. But look his WP article. So much info under Infobox. Everything is looking stuffed in small place. And check language of Indian articles. I am sure you will not feel satisfied by seeing them. 106.195.7.13 (talk) 15:42, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

What are you talking about.

I received an email saying my posts re: Darbyville had been removed . WHAT POSTS ???? I have never posted to Wikipedia . I live some miles from Darbyville, Ohio? but have never posted anything. What the H is this all about ??????? Who are you people ??? I don't know anything about URLs or whatever you want me to reference. I have no ida what is going on here . Have you hijacked me??? 74.113.40.72 (talk) 06:56, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not really sure. you could try to report this to wiki administration. maybe it's a hack or something. User:Lovin'Politics (talk) 07:05, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello IP editor. You are using an IP address that can be shared among multiple people in your area. On February 1, 2021, someone using your same IP address engaged in some minor vandalism of Darbyville, Ohio. It probably wasn't you. If you want to avoid these messages, you may want to register a free, anonymous Wikipedia account. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:18, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

its certainly not a 'hack' or a 'hijack' or something Paul ❬talk❭ 08:53, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

How would an IP address editor get an e-mail? That doesn't make any sense. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 06:01, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

COI on an article, can i have another opinion?

 Courtesy link: Jacob_Teitelbaum

Is there a better place to ask for a 2nd opinion? Annemaricole (talk) 07:15, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Annemaricole could you care to elaborate? User:Lovin'Politics (talk 07:17, 6 March 2021

This Jacob Teitelbaum (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) would seem to be the article in question. MarnetteD|Talk 07:31, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

ForeverBeach has been editing that article - and pretty much only that article - for years - and then removed a COI tag, I agree 100% with your restoration of the COI tag. David notMD (talk) 09:07, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Furthermore, the article is utter promotional crap of his businesses and books. Most of the references are to stuff written by Teitelbaum or interviews. The science support for his treatment theories appears to be one clinical trial, conducted by him and published back in 2001 (https://doi.org/10.1300/J092v08n02_02). Clearly not WP:MEDRS. Whether he is noteworthy is debatable, but his 'science' does not meet Wikipedia standards. David notMD (talk) 09:22, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Annemaricole, thank you for bringing this up to the Teahouse. Promotionalism is a scourge on Wikipedia. Ganesha811 (talk) 13:25, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I've nominated the article for deletion, after a WP:BEFORE. — Bilorv (talk) 14:44, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks!--Annemaricole (talk) 19:07, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Can anyone explain why the article was allowed to be created in the first place? --Annemaricole (talk) 19:17, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Does wikipedia have a method to prevent advertisers from just undeleting the article? If not, what's the point of even deleting articles?--Annemaricole (talk) 19:23, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Answered at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacob Teitelbaum. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 20:56, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Annemaricole In answer to your first question, drafts submitted to Articles for Creation are reviewed by an experienced reviewer, and then accepted, declined or rejected. However, Wikipedia allows editors to by-pass AfC and create an article directly in mainspace. (An option often used by experienced editors.) There is a safety net procedure, in that nowadays (not in the distant past), all new articles go through a new pages review. Seriously flawed articles can be Speedy deleted, kicked to draft, or sent to Articles for Deletion (AfD) review. There exist tens of thousands of articles that do not meet today's standards for various reasons (example: no references), and are deletion-worthy. David notMD (talk) 22:05, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Vandalism

What do I do about vandalism by an editor named RMSTitanicInc. who is including slander in his edits? Why is this allowed? I had to take out his vandalism on the bio page of Renee Harris, Producer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renee_Harris_(producer). I don't want him coming back every day and changing it back. Gjsfca (talk) 08:33, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Gjsfca, welcome to the Teahouse - please have a closer look at WP:RVAN CommanderWaterford (talk) 08:37, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

@Gjsfca: You should at least place a wanring template on the user talkpage, so others know what's on and the user has a chance to stop. Especially when edits are reverted in a manual way, user's often don't see the reversion and just redo their edit because "it magically disapepared". If he vandalises past the 4th warning, raise it at WP:AIV (for vandalism and plain spam) or WP:ANI (for nearly everything else) Victor Schmidt (talk) 11:22, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Actually, that content was flagrantly inappropriate and clearly malicious. I've blocked the editor indefinitely. DS (talk) 18:59, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

My article was rejected. Really need some help!

My write up Draft:Bangalore Sisters ‎was rejected and I really need some help. I have edited the draft again to sound neutral. I dont mean to promote the musical duo. I have included citations from the newspapers and independent sources. The only other sources I have, to prove the content are promotional music streaming websites or Youtube. All their performances have been published online by the production houses for purchase however that comes under unreliable sources as per wiki standards.

I have read the help options and also visited many other wiki pages of musicians to learn. I am just not sure where else I am going wrong. I request help in reviewing my article and pointing out exactly to what needs to be changed before i request for re-submission please. ShravanthiRK (talk) 08:53, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

ShravanthiRK Ola , Senior I am not admin nor I am a host on WP: Teahouse. But I want to suggest you read first how WP works. Your article is not even close to WP standards of article. You have to look articles about international music artists like Michael Jackson understand this article and then rewrite on WP: sandbox.Read how to write a article on WP :My first article106.195.7.13 (talk) 11:23, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I have included citations from the newspapers and independent sources.

Do they provide significant coverage of the sisters? If so, they may help show the subject meets English Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. Do they merely mention the sisters in passing? If so, you can only use these to support statements in the draft. Those sources do not show that the subject meets inclusion criteria.

The only other sources I have, to prove the content are promotional music streaming websites or Youtube.

Then you can only wait for several reliable sources to give them more attention. That is what what needs to be changed before...re-submission. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 12:06, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

The suggestion that you compare this with the article on Michael Jackson seems extraordinary. Jackson was at the centre of an international business; and various, increasingly bizarre aspects of his "private life" became more and more salient. The sisters' fame seems to be local and there's no suggestion that they keep pet chimps, run private fairgrounds, alter their noses, or worse. ¶ The draft looks interesting. However, there are various oddities. Here's just one matter. "They have rendered over 10,000 songs in different languages for private music albums": what is a "private music album"? The "discography" is long, but contains far fewer than 10,000 items. What are these? (What's the format, publisher and year of publication of each?) -- Hoary (talk) 12:14, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Deleting Wikipedia Account

Is it also possible to delete the account, if someone doesn't want to be a part anymore?Sonofstar (talk) 09:16, 6 March 2021 (UTC) Sonofstar (talk) 09:16, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Sonofstar, While accounts themselves cannot be deleted, you can be renamed and have your user pages removed. See WP:DELETEACCOUNT. CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:39, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

On top of this, there are some administrators willing to block accounts on request, which would prevent you from editing with that account, but I think the answer to your question hinges on the reason you would want the account to be deleted. — Bilorv (talk) 14:06, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Article Rejected.

I'm very old and very baffled. Submission was rejected for no references - but I did provide a reference - an INDEPENDENT Reference to an Oxford University Press book - that, needless to say I did not write......!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:95.148.34.238 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.148.34.238 (talk) 13:39, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for the question. The first and simplest reason articles need references is to show that the information is true ("verifiable"). Alright, I'm sure the OUP book does that. The second reason is to show notability—Wikipedia-specific jargon meaning "evidence that the topic is substantially discussed in serious literature enough for us to hold an article on the topic". Articles need multiple independent references for this purpose. The one you have provided looks good to me, so what's needed now is a few more. — Bilorv (talk) 14:02, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I looked at your draft, and Kyrewood Priory seems notable, you just need some more good references. You should have at least three reliable published sources. If you have access to Tenbury - Some Record Of Its History look at the bibliography or notes section to see if there are any published references that may tell about the priory, and then see if you can obtain a copy of those references. Sometimes old books and articles can be read online, you won't know unless you search for them.

Your draft has many internal Wikipedia links (good job adding those!), so I went to Tenbury Wells, and saw a link to a local museum -- https://www.tenburymuseum.org.uk. You might want to send an email to Tenbury Museum, say you need published references for Kyrewood Priory, and ask if they have any books or articles about it in their collection, or if they know of someone who might be able to help you. It's possible they could email copies of a few pages, plus give you the proper reference citation to use. If you're able to get a few more good references look at your draft where someone noted a citation is needed, and see if you can find what is needed in your sources. You are able to use a reference more than once in your article, if you can find what is needed in a book or article. You've done a lot of good work, so don't give up now. Best wishes in finding some more good references. Karenthewriter (talk) 23:00, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Reliable Net Worth Source

Which source is more reliable for adding Net Worth- Forbes or Bloomberg or any other? ExclusiveEditor (talk) 14:05, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

See WP:RSP for a list of some common sources and summaries of the community's latest position on them. Forbes has two different editorial processes for its staff articles and its contributor articles (you'll see "Contributor", "Senior Contributor" etc. in the byline of the article in the latter case). Bloomberg is generally reliable. However, I gather that net worth is a somewhat amorphous concept which can generally only be estimated rather than measured exactly, in which case providing both figures—and mentioning in prose that they are estimates from Forbes and Bloomberg—or giving a "range" of net worth estimates (e.g. $50–100 million) could be the best outcome. — Bilorv (talk) 14:09, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

@ExclusiveEditor: Note that The Sunday Times in the UK produces a list of 1,000 top-net-worth individuals on an annual basis and is also a reliable source, although, again must be an estimate. See "their website for the full 2020 list". Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:28, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

"Season 15" (of what? — you may well ask!)

I came across this Season 15 in the uncategorised articles list. I think the name is far too generic, and I wanted to move it to Bigg Boss (Hindi season 15) instead, so that it's also in line with the previous seasons. However, there's already a redir at that name, pointing to the parent article of the programme in question, and I didn't want to go ahead and remove the redir as there's been some to and fro regarding it already. In any case, the Season 15 is just an unsourced stub, so I'm not sure it's quite good enough to replace the redir. Any ideas? Thanks, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:06, 6 March 2021 (UTC) DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:06, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I've moved this to draftspace because it appears that the season has not begun; rather, it was just announced after the recent season 14 finale, and there's no real production that has started. In this case the usual outcome is to find the topic non-notable per WP:CRYSTAL. If this were a season that had begun, I might still move it to draftspace due to a lack of sources (though the program looks big enough that sources should exist when the season begins, and the ideal would be to find and add those sources), or move it to Bigg Boss (Hindi season 15) and then redirect it to Bigg Boss (Hindi TV series). — Bilorv (talk) 14:15, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

@Bilorv: makes sense, ta muchly! :) --DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:18, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: I've just deleted the original title as it made no sense and shouldn't redirect to a draft article. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:23, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Problem with downloading an Image from Wikimedia Commons

With thy Sweet Fingers by Edith Hipkins

I am trying to download the following File:With thy Sweet Fingers by Edith Hipkins.jpg into an article but not succeeding. However, if I put tlx (followed by a vertical line) before File, I get a huge image. What am I doing wrong? BFP1 (talk) 14:50, 6 March 2021 (UTC) BFP1 (talk) 14:50, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi BFP1. I attempted to see which article you tried to add this to, but a quick look at your contribution shed no light. I am betting the problem is that you didn't use "thumb". Here's the basic markup for placing an image (used outside an infobox):
[[File:Name.jpg|thumb|Caption text]]
To force a different image size, you can add a px parameter:
[[File:Name.jpg|thumb|100px|Caption text]]
See more at Help:Pictures. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:15, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @BFP1: It seems to be working here; feel free to go into source editing and copy the syntax. I suspect that you're using the wrong kind of brackets. Images are added using square brackets just like normal links, while curly brackets are for templates. Template:Tlx shouldn't be used here; that's for linking to other templates, not images. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 15:18, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I was using the wrong brackets. I need new glasses! Thanks @Fuhghettaboutit: and @Ganbaruby:. BFP1 (talk) 17:40, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm glad you got this resolved, but one minor point: you don't actually "download" a picture from Commons -- you simply link TO the picture (which is, indeed, at Commons) from the article. Sorry to get pedantic, but the right terminology makes things a bit clearer. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 06:21, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Question from User:Cancersign

FYI

 – Added header. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 15:12, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

What is required to learn to be a good Wikipedia contributor? also, what are the things one needs to learn to write a good article on Wikipedia. Please guide me on these questions. Cancersign (talk) 15:10, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

@Cancersign: Welcome! For beginners, I recommend going through The Wikipedia Adventure, which is an effective tutorial about editing. Help:Getting started is a helpful directory of links to read if you're lost. Help:Your first article is a guide for writing new articles, though I would not recommend trying to write a brand new article yet; rather, you should try to improve existing articles and gain more experience editing around here. Remember, Wikipedia is a collaborative project, so always try to reach a consensus if you're in a disagreement with another editor, and also assume good faith. Don't hesitate to ask another question here if you hit a problem. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 15:25, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Cancersign there are two main things required on a large scale: being here to build an encyclopedia, and some level of competence. As long as you're here in good faith, and able to follow guidelines, you'll be fine - if what you're doing improves the encyclopedia, you're doing it right. Elli (talk | contribs) 03:27, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

@Cancersign: in my opinion, patience and politeness. Wikipedia can be difficult to navigate in many different ways and it takes everybody some time to learn our rules and where they can help out. This means that you'll make mistakes at first, and people will sometimes undo your changes or say that what you are doing is not right. If you can listen to people who do this and learn from them then you can become a great contributor with time. Almost everybody here is willing to go the extra mile to help somebody who is polite, here to improve the encyclopedia and learns from guidance they have received in the past. — Bilorv (talk) 18:03, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Experience

Do You Have Any Experience? Ethanchandlershaw (talk) 15:52, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Ethanchandlershaw. Yes I own a whole raft of Jimi Hendrix albums. Do you have a question about editing Wikipedia?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:14, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Is it possible to count my contributions to Wikipedia, and other Wikimedia projects, by a certain timeframe?

For example, if I wished to know how many contributions I did during February, 2021, is there a tool to see how many contributions I did during that particular time? User:Tetizeraz. Send me a ✉️ ! 18:04, 6 March 2021 (UTC) User:Tetizeraz. Send me a ✉️ ! 18:04, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

@Tetizeraz: Xtools does that, more or less.--- Possibly (talk) 18:15, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Help on Reliable Sources When Your Topic is Somewhat Obscure

Hi,

I recently submitted a draft for a new article about a somewhat-obscure so-cal rock band from the late 1980s to the early 1990s, and thought I had a good article submission with two newspaper articles as verifiable sources... but my submission was denied by someone for reasons of needing more verifiable sources.

I am not sure what to do because there is a dearth of "official" sources for this band online... there are plenty of commercial sites with discographies, there is someone managing a "legacy" kind of page for the band on Facebook, there were two articles from the L.A. Times that I had as external links, and one magazine interview.

I really want this page to be published: is there anything that I can do, anyone who could give me some pointers in this regard? Ramborose (talk) 18:56, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

@Ramborose: I took a look, and Decibel and LA Times are reliable sources and seem to me to provide enough coverage of Tender Fury to support an article. (I note the lead singer, Jack Grisham, already has an article.) It might be that the LA Times links were missed because they were in "External links" and not "References" (with Decibel). I would just raise the question at the reviewer's user talk page and see if they missed the LA Times links, and maybe they think it's a pass on a second look, or maybe there is some other issue with the sourcing. Levivich ^harass/_hound 19:04, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

@Ramborose: Note that reliable sources don't have to be online. You can use magazine and newspaper articles as well as books that are not online. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 23:49, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

References and links

I created a new article for the Swedish company Mathleaks. Twice the piece was rejected even with what I thought were the right fixes (adding more references, some of them from Swedish publications, in Swedish). Can someone help me address and fix whatever errors I have been making? Thanks!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Mathleaks HermesBaby (talk) 23:27, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

@HermesBaby: I added a few {{citation needed}} templates for you. In general, it would be helpful to add more independent sources. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 23:48, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, GoingBatty. The piece has independent sources/quotes. But they are in Swedish Is that the key ssue?

What the company says about itself does not belong in the article. No vision statemnt. No "Mathleaks understands..." David notMD (talk) 23:50, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

HermesBaby, I don't see a single source there that is all three of reliably published, independent, and containing significant coverage of Mathleaks. Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. News stories based on interviews or press releases are not independent. --ColinFine (talk) 01:07, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Article Draft Notability

I am writing an article draft with a topic from the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_articles. It is Antarctica in WW2. Is it notable enough. I have found 4 major things that should be included and they all have articles so all the subjects in it are considered notable. I want to know before I start work. Advice? Gandalf the Groovy (talk) 00:07, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Gandalf the Groovy I can't guarantee you that your submission will be accepted, but here are the main points you want to realise before you start writing it. Make sure you properly cite your sources, and don't just copy and paste it from the articles, try to make the article inspired about it. User:Lovin'Politics (talk) 00:39 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Gandalf the Groovy if you can write a reliably-sourced article, then odds are it's considered notable (just avoid WP:SYNTH). Elli (talk | contribs) 08:25, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Sources

Are you allowed to use sources from other articles if your writing something on the same subject? Gandalf the Groovy (talk) 00:22, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Gandalf the Groovy you'll have to re-insert the citation, or you could just copy the link but yes. User:Lovin'Politics (talk)

If using content (text and refs) from a Wikipedia article, your edit summary should acknowledge the article it was taken from. If a largish amount, consider creating a new section on the Talk page of the article explaining what you did. For example. see what I did at Talk page of Shellfish allergy. David notMD (talk) 00:58, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Also note SAYWHEREYOUREADIT, Gandalf the Groovy: if the source in the other article is available to you, so you can read it yourself, you can cite it. You should not cite a source that you personally have not seen, even if it appears to support exactly the same information as you are putting in an article. --ColinFine (talk) 01:11, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Re-writing an article

How could I go about re-writing an article fully? I would like to keep it private until it is ready to be published/reviewed. Can anyone help with how I can go about that? Mdavies1 (talk) 01:45, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Mdavies1, welcome to the Teahouse. Unless the article really needs to be blown up and rebuilt from scratch it's generally preferable to repair it piece by piece in situ. That keeps the edit summaries together, shows your thinking and encourages collaboration. If you're convinced it needs to be rewritten from scratch, I would suggest creating a subpage of your userpage to write the draft in.

You can do that by navigating to the non-existent page as if it did exist, e.g. User:Mdavies1/Article draft (but give it a proper title), and clicking 'Create source'. When you've written a draft you're happy with, it would be very sensible to open a discussion about it on the talk page for the original article to ask other editors of that page for their input. I'd say it's important to do that before replacing the original. If the other editors agree, or you get no feedback, you can carry out the replacement. It would be helpful for you to mention in the edit summary when you do so where the replacement was drafted so that people in future can consult the edit summaries you will have given in writing the draft.

Rewriting an article entirely is bold, so it's encouraged but also a big undertaking. If you go for it and have more questions, you'll be welcome here to ask them. I'll add a standard welcome template to your userpage which includes some useful links, e.g. to Help:Your first article. Some of that advice won't apply as an article already exists but, especially if you're new to it, writing an article involves a steep learning curve and there's some very useful guidance there. All the very best › Mortee _talk 02:14, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I'd agree with all of what Mortee says. Further, it appears that you have no experience of editing Wikipedia, so you'd be better off making minor improvements to existing articles and thereby getting accustomed to Wikipedia. Having done that, you'd be better prepared to make major edits. (OTOH your very first edit was to your user page, which suggests a returning editor.) -- Hoary (talk) 03:24, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

There's also the interactive tutorial that may also help the OP get their bearings. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 07:46, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I've only done this sort of thing once, Mdavies1 and the process I used was to state my intentions at the Talk Page of the article (Talk:Cobalamin biosynthesis in my case) to see if anyone objected, which no-one did. If you look at the dates of individual edits on the Cobalamin biosynthesis page you'll see how I progressed after that: first adding my nearly-all-new material without removing much that was already there before finally removing most of what had been there. Hence all the previous edit history was preserved and no-one objected at any point over the 4 months this was going on. Even if someone else had been interested, I would have welcomed their collaboration and peer review / copy editing. After all, the whole point of WIkipedia is that it is a collaborative effort. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:36, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Is it okay to ask someone here to create a page for me that I may have a COI with?

Hello, I am a new Wikipedia editor, and I was about to create my first new article for the encyclopedia when I discovered that Wikipedia would consider me to have a conflict of interest. (I am an active member of the society about which I would like to create an article.) The notability requirement has been met, as the society and it's founder have been noted in the Guinness Book of World records several times. I have already drafted the text for the short article page, complete with a list of verifiable references. I am confident that I have written the text in a neutral tone; however, creating the article with my disclosure of the COI would take up to six months, apparently, due to the review process. Is there an established Wikipedia editor in this group who would be so kind as to consider creating this article in my stead? I would be happy to forward my short article draft and the list of verifiable references. Thank you! ThousanderISPE (talk) 03:28, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

ThousanderISPE I'd recommend posting the article in the Draft namespace, like at Draft:Your organization name, then submitting it for review. While the review process can take a while, that doesn't mean it necessarily would - and it'll be faster than asking another contributor here to write the article from scratch or submitting yours. Elli (talk | contribs) 03:39, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! ThousanderISPE (talk) 03:41, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

The backlog of drafts at AfC is not a queue. Reviews can happen in days, weeks, to (sadly) months. Declare your COI on your User page, and proceed. David notMD (talk) 09:08, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

@ThousanderISPE: If you haven't done so already, please see Help:Your first article. GoingBatty (talk) 22:22, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Fly fishing

I have been working on articles about Fly fishing and Fly tying. It would help if there was an active WikiProject that covers this subject. This would help keep track of the assessment class and importance of the many articles in these topis. These topics have been under Wikipedia:WikiProject Water sports and Wikipedia:WikiProject Fisheries and Fishing, both of which don't appear to be active projects. Should there be a separate project for Fly fishing? I created a template:Fly fishing to keep track of the important articles and show related articles. There are several wikipedians working actively on fly fishing. Fly fishing is a sport and an artform of sorts. Appreciate any ideas on where to go from here. -- Talk to G Moore 04:57, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

@G. Moore: You could, but the topic is a little to niche for it to be sustainable IMO. WikiProject Water Sports is a subproject of WikiProject Sports, which is to my knowledge very active. Why exactly would you want the separate WikiProject to do, aside from handing out ratings? (To be fair, ratings don't matter that much) How many active editors are editing in this area? If there aren't that many, just visiting each other's talk pages is a good enough form of communication; you don't need a WikiProject talk page to do that. How many articles are in its scope? I'd say you're better off spending that energy into actually improving the articles and maybe get them to GA or FA status. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 05:26, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

@Ganbaruby: Thanks for the quick feedback. You are probably right about too narrow of a niche on the grand scale of WikiPedia. There are some missing articles and lists that should be added so that existing articles are more focused. Should I keep using the WikiProject Water sports to put an assessment on the article to let others know how far along the article is? We can use the talk pages to get ideas on how to improve the articles. -- Talk to G Moore 05:52, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, G. Moore. Here's my impression as a highly active Wikipedia editor since 2009: The vast majority of the WikiProjects have been inactive for many years and are mostly relics of the rapid growth period in Wikipedia's history that peaked around 2007. A small number of WikiProjects are still active, but not Wikipedia:WikiProject Fisheries and Fishing. Military history and creating articles about women come to mind as currently active projects. Long ago, I joined projects about wine, glaciers and mountaineering. The wine project was somewhat active but died away when the most active editor greatly reduced her editing seven or eight years ago. The other two projects have been inactive for many years although individual editors keep working on those topics. In my opinion, for the most part with a few exceptions, WikiProjects were a 2006 thing and are not a 2021 thing. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:34, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikiprojects are useful for organizing resources and gathering opinions - even the ones which are less active can be a better solution than dumping stuff in user-space. Elli (talk | contribs) 10:49, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Vandal in my talkpage

 Treekangaroosandlions 2 (talk) 04:58, 7 March 2021 (UTC) So recently, there's been this person who has been vandalizing my talkpage. They've added nonsensical sentences to my talkpage, like this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1010712221, or this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1010581201 for example. Can any administrator block this user? Thanks.

@Treekangaroosandlions 2: You could hand out Template:Uw-vandalism1 and related templates, and if you reach level 4, report at WP:AIV. However, since this isn't the article space, I'd say just revert and carry on and hopefully they'll get bored too. If they are getting more disruptive after the warnings have been handed out, then a trip to AIV would be warranted. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 05:29, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

@Treekangaroosandlions 2: I've left a level 2 warning for them. As Ganbaruby says, this is a new user who'll probably already got bored messing around. Nick Moyes (talk) 05:35, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

@Ganbaruby: @Nick Moyes: Alright, i've reverted an edit by them. Another user by the name of Matttest has also reverted the confusing edits. Thank you! Treekangaroosandlions 2 (talk) 05:41, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia page for my father

How can I create a Wikipedia page for my father? Gmelikyan (talk) 05:35, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

First - sources. No sources, no article. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 05:45, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Assuming I have the sources, what's the next step? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gmelikyan (talk • contribs) 06:05, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Gmelikyan you'll have to see if your draft gets approved Lovin'Politics (talk)

Understood. Is there any fill-in-the-blank template where I can fill out information such as "summary","personal life", etc., or does all of that have to be entered manually? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gmelikyan (talk • contribs) 06:11, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Gmelikyan you could use templates like infoboxes

Gmelikyan There isn't, as articles have different sections depending on their scope; an article about a person is structured differently than one about a chemical element. You can peruse similar articles to get an idea of how the article should be structured, but that would depend on what reliable sources you have on hand. Infoboxes should be used to summarise and note key points that are stated in the article. If you are going to create an article about your father, please read Your first article and understand that you have a conflict of interest due to your relationship, which can hamper your ability to edit it if it makes it into articlespace. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 07:41, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Compare and contrast list

I want to make a two column list, each with a separate heading, comparing each item in one list to an item in the second list. I've read the instructions on lists and can't get it right, can you help? It's just for my user page. Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:05, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Jenhawk777, are you trying to make a table? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 07:43, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I was looking at lists and think didn't have the right category which is tables. I will read this - it looks like it will work. Thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:56, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Creating a Wikipedia like website

How can someone start a new website that uses the MediaWiki software/Wikipedia "style" engine for any topic of their choice? I know there's dozens in existence but how is one created? Like for example https://conservapedia.com/Main_Page and https://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Welcome_to_Citizendium 47.150.227.254 (talk) 07:54, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I think you might get some useful information at mw:Manual:Installation guide, though it's a bit technical. The software is free and anyone can install it. There are also wikifarms you can use, such as Miraheze, which provide the hosting for you but still allow you some level of control over your community. Elli (talk | contribs) 08:23, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

How to add ' How to Pronounce🔊' sound files in WP article

Hi ,I saw may international GA on WP have speaker symbol ,and reader can hear sound about how to pronounce a name.can you explain me whole procedure.How to do it ? 106.193.189.54 (talk) 10:08, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Audio files need to be uploaded first, either to Wikimedia Commons (preferably) or locally. You can then add the name of the audio file to the {{IPA}} template that generates the IPA pronunciation information as another parameter. See Template:IPA#Supported languages and templates to find the template for the language you need. These template pages will also contain examples on how to add the audio file as another parameter to the template in question. Regards SoWhy 10:34, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

WhyHi tried to do what said but , not able to do that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Research Voltas (talk • contribs) 14:06, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Help with adding multiple images

I want to add two images of paintings from Wikimedia Commons to the article Edith Hipkins. I am using the multiple image template. I have been practising this in my sandbox and thought I had cracked it. However, on clicking the images nothing happens (no enlargement, no transfer to the Commons. There is no little square in the right hand lower corner). Can a helper access my sandbox to see what is wrong or do I have to transfer the faulty edit into the article so that it can be accessed? BFP1 (talk) 10:47, 7 March 2021 (UTC) BFP1 (talk) 10:47, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

BFP1 your issue was keeping around |link1= and |link2= - they overrode the links to expand the image that you wanted. I've removed them, so it should work. (empty parameters override, while no parameters don't, it's something weird but you'll figure it out the more you work with templates) Elli (talk | contribs) 10:53, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

@BFP1:(edit conflict) I have fixed it in your sandbox. If you want the images to link to the image description page (which is the default behavior) don't specify |link1= or the respective parameter. Specifying an empty param (as it was here) will remove the link. Victor Schmidt (talk) 10:55, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

@Elli: and @Victor Schmidt:. Thanks for your prompt help. BFP1 (talk) 11:36, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

How to ask for a page with a notability question to be reviewed

Hello, I have been updating the page François Picard (journalist) and have been adding references to ensure that they are external, reliable sources. I have a conflict of interest so cannot remove the notability template. I have asked this on the talk page, but not sure if that is the right area? How do I get this checked again in the hope that the template may be removed? Many thanks for your help. Factelf4 (talk) 12:45, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Factelf4 I've fixed your link. Yes, the talk page is the correct place to ask. You will draw more attention to it if you make your comment a formal edit request(click for instructions). 331dot (talk) 12:47, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Factelf4 uh, you've added waaaaaaaaaaaaay too many references.

Can you point out, say, two or three that provide significant biographical coverage? It doesn't matter how many passing mentions they get and I don't want to check 56 references. Elli (talk | contribs) 12:49, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Elli Thanks for the tip. Should I remove some of the references or just point out the main ones? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Factelf4 (talk • contribs) 12:55, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

@Factelf4: I'd remove any references that are redundant - and only keep ones that back up unique content, so the number of references is minimal, but everything is verifiable. Elli (talk | contribs) 13:13, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

See also advice at WP:OVERKILL. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:21, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

@Factelf4: Since you have a conflict of interest, you should not be directly editing the article. Instead, you can make edit requests on the talk page as 331dot mentioned above. GoingBatty (talk) 22:56, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

How to add reference , citations from physical books ❔

Hi , will anyone guide How to insert citations from physical books to WP articles? Research Voltas (talk) 13:45, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Research Voltas. In general we use a template whose documentation is given at Template:cite book. There are great gadgets like the WP:Citation expander which mean that all you usually need is the ISBN plus page numbers. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:53, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

talk Hi , But how can a reader verify the physical book by just ISBN number ? Research Voltas (talk) 14:03, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Research Voltas you might want to read the policy here: Wikipedia:Offline sources. tl;dr offline sources are allowed, and if users can't verify, well, that's really quite unfortunate, but the content remains. Elli (talk | contribs) 14:10, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

What I meant is that all you need to give the citation expander is {{cite book |isbn=9781138401570 }} and it turns it automatically into the full text ready to go into the references, which in this case would be Rao, V. S. (29 June 2017). Principles of Weed Science. ISBN 9781138401570. and then I'd add |pages= to refer the reader to the specific pages where the item I was citing for the article could be verified. Obviously not all readers would have access to the book but that's not the point: they could in principle buy it or borrow it from a library or use Google books to see an extract, for example. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:47, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

This is correct. verification only requires that someone be able to confirm, not everyone. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 18:29, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

How to make my talk page attractive ❓

Hi , I want to know ,How can make my talk page with intresting info. Research Voltas (talk) 13:47, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I think you probably mean your User Page, not your Talk Page, since you'll be using the latter to communicate with other editors and won't want to clutter it with general stuff. On your user page, tell the community a little about yourself and what you hope to do here. Try looking at the pages of others who are editing articles of interest to you to see the sort of things you could add. Overall, I'd advise to keep it short: after all we are here to add to the encyclopaedia, not to boast about ourselves. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:56, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Mike Turnbull Hi , understood. Yeah I wanted to ask about user page. Can you show me simple coding to do that?

(Edit conflict) Hello Research Voltas, welcome to the Tea House! So talk pages are a place where users are able to discuss things with each other. There really isn't a way to make it interesting. You can make your User:Research Voltas as interesting as you want! For example, on my user page, I have some things about me, some things to help me reference while I edit Wikipedia, and I have some things like barnstars that were given to me by other editors. Your user page can be formatted however you want, and really, it is your preference to what you put on it and how you design it. Hopefully that help! Elijahandskip (talk) 14:01, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Research Voltas I might suggest that you not worry about any special coding, and just use the page, if you wish, to tell a little about yourself as a Wikipedia user. It's not required that you have anything on your user page at all, many users never create one, so don't feel that you have to. 331dot (talk) 14:06, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Research Voltas, you can find some templates and interesting things to put on your userpage at WP:Userpage design center. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 15:02, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Moving draft:Aaron Andreu to main article space

 Barongreylight (talk) 14:21, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Barongreylight Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I regret to say that your one-line draft is far from suitable as a Wikipedia article, and if you moved it there, it would be removed quickly. New users are unable to directly create articles, but they may use Articles for Creation to create and submit a draft for review. This is a good thing to do, so you get other eyes on it first, instead of once it is formally part of the encyclopedia when it would be treated more harshly. I would suggest that as successfully creating a new article is the hardest thing to do on Wikipedia, that you first spend time editing existing articles in areas that interest you, to get a feel for how Wikipedia operates and what is expected of article content. Then, after reading Your First Article, you would be ready to create and submit a draft using AFC. Doing this will lead to much less disappointment and hurt feelings- which no one wants you to have. 331dot (talk) 14:25, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Notability based on one or two sources

I was curious whether some articles that I've started drafts for meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. I was hoping to get an answer so I don't waste time making similar articles in the future. I have previously been given pretty vague answers at the Teahouse about needing at least one or two decent articles, and I recently came across WP:100W.

The particular articles I'm looking for answers on are Draft:The Mystery of Easter Island and Draft:The Magnificast. Both articles clearly have sources that have 100 words, but I'm not sure if they are considered reliable secondary sources or not. The Cleveland article has nearly 600 words, The Cleveland Scene article has about 200 words, and the People's World article has over 2,000 words. However, I'm unsure whether these publications are considered reliable secondary sources or not. The Cleveland Scene's and The Cleveland's publishers have Wikipedia articles (Euclid Media Group and Advance Publications) and People's World has their own article as well (I'm not sure how that factor's into their reliability, but I figured I'd mention it). TipsyElephant (talk) 15:42, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

TipsyElephant, I'm not a draft reviewer, but looking at the drafts it does seem that the sources you have provided prove that they are notable. βӪᑸᙥӴ • Talk • Contribs 17:19, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

As you can see, TipsyElephant, opinions on this will differ between editors, but I don't think these two drafts (particularly the latter) demonstrate notability and I wouldn't accept the draft were I reviewing it (and I do review drafts at Articles for Creation). For a self-published, widespread form of often-amateur media such as a podcast (of which there must be hundreds of thousands, and only a small proportion are notable), I'd be looking for two or more reviews in mainstream, national publications. Works like People's World seem a bit niche and potentially unreliable; Cleveland-specific news articles are fine but don't do much for notability due to their regional scope. The Austin Film Festival finalist is a good claim to significance but you need a few of these types of claims for something to be notable. WP:100W looks like an essay which only reflects the view of the editor who created it, and I can see that it could be a good standard for some types of topics but I wouldn't take it as good advice here.

I wish there was an easy rule I could give you but these sorts of things take years of experience and learning to get the hang of. I would recommend you look to existing articles, but the problem is that I can imagine quite a lot of our existing podcast articles are in bad shape and many should not have been created in the first place. I can't say much beyond the vague WP:GNG. Perhaps if you take a look at WP:AFD, you can find specific examples of deletion discussions in the last year relating to podcasts and learn more about what the community standard in this area is. — Bilorv (talk) 17:44, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Date

What is the proper way to write the date? I've seen this 17 December 1938 and this December 17 1938. Is there a preferred way? Does it matter? Gandalf the Groovy (talk) 16:56, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Gandalf the Groovy, Both are considered fine, but you should try to keep it consistent within an article βӪᑸᙥӴ • Talk • Contribs 17:10, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

@Bop34: I think it's slightly more complicated than that. See MOS:DATETIES. In the U.S., you would normally write "December 17, 1938" in accordance with their M/D/Y date formatting. In most other parts of the world I gather that D/M/Y is used, so "17 December 1938" might be preferred. As with regional spellings ("color" vs "colour"; see WP:ENGVAR) we generally use a regional version if the topic has a strong connection to one country, and in other cases the choice is arbitrary and just decided by the person who creates/expands the article (and from then there's no reason to change it). — Bilorv (talk) 17:13, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Documenting Ebay Antiquities transactions

Hello!, please and thank you accommodate my question which is to develop a Wikimedia foundation system to document artificial bids on Ebay antiquities that may be used in parallells to bump out investments in wartime authentic and counterfeit Nazi literature and memoribilia.

I am interested in knowing more about the trade of counterfeits from an OSS learning perspective. I seek more human knowledge on the NAZI files here at WikiAssange and would consider adding counterfeit information concerning local knowledge of the trade of plates and belts. EntertainingDollopOfGel (talk) 17:10, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

EntertainingDollopOfGel, welcome to the Teahouse. If you're thinking of creating a new Wikimedia project, you should take a look at Proposals for new projects at Meta-Wiki. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:13, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

@EntertainingDollopOfGel: by "WikiAssange" do you mean "WikiLeaks, founded by Julian Assange"? WikiLeaks is not affiliated with Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation in any way; we have no connection to it. The word wiki comes from a Hawaiian word meaning quick and refers to a type of website which is written by its readers. — Bilorv (talk) 17:27, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, EntertainingDollopOfGel. That sounds very much too specific for the Wikimedia Foundation to be interested. I suspect that what you are looking for is to create your own Wiki for that purpose. If you have a suitable server, you can download and install the Mediawiki software here. Alternatively, there are many Wiki hosting services, where you can set up your own Wiki easily: see mw:Hosting services. --ColinFine (talk) 17:30, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anxhela_Peristeri

Hallo there, my name is Aneglos-Philip Mitsis from Cologne /Germany. I have a huge problem with an editor/administrator(?). His Name is laof2017. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Iaof2017) I have added documented information to an article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anxhela_Peristeri) that her father is of Greek origin and this is also proven with the link to an interview with her:

https: // eurovisionfun. com / en / 2020/12 / anxhela-peristeri-karma-will-remain-in-albanian-for-eurovision-video /

The administrator / editor laof 2017 deleted the change! That was an important information about the singer's biography !! Please help me!

he wrote me that I hade attach proofs in albanian language allthogh I wrote ir in the englisch version of wikipedia! He attacked also with inappropriate words in german,what you can see in his disskussion site! I am new here and I thought Wikipedia has nothing with prejudice or hatred.He rejected my amendenment because I am greek.. I feel desperate,pleas help me..whta can I do..?

my regards A.Ph. Mitsis

--Angelos-Philip M. (talk) 17:12, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Angelos-Philip M., Iaof2017 is not an admin, but I do note that you issued legal threats to them in German, which is a blockable offence. They (as far as I can tell) have not asked for administrative action, so do not do this again. An actual admin has protected the page for disruptive editing. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:19, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Angelos-Philip M., the user you've mentioned is not an administrator. The majority of people here (admins included) are volunteers who work together to write and improve content. I notice your comments towards Iaof2017 have been quite threatening, though I don't speak German very well. Conflicts like this should be resolved by polite discussion: making immediate assumptions that other people are acting in bad faith or have some agenda against you are not acceptable. If you do not understand somebody's reasoning then you should ask them politely, explaining exactly what you are having trouble understanding. — Bilorv (talk) 17:20, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

How do I change the title of a draft?

There isn't a "more" thing to change the title of it. How do I change the title? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnnatas1 (talk • contribs)

@Johnnatas1:, I've moved your draft to Draft:Baron Frolik. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 17:33, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

New pages for review

When will my new pages be ready after review so that they are live on wikipedia? カーヤスタ・シロマーニ (talk) 17:31, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

カーヤスタ・シロマーニ As noted at the top of your draft, "This may take 4 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 4,911 pending submissions waiting for review." 331dot (talk) 17:34, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

カーヤスタ・シロマーニ, I saw your draft (Draft:Niraj Sinha) in the Articles for Creation Feed but I stopped to review it, because it is out for my interest. We've 4k+ pending submissions at the AfC, and thus it could take four months or more for the review. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 17:36, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

The Afai, is the structure and references ok?

331dot, should I continue making other pages? Can I do anything to speedup the review? — Preceding unsigned comment added by カーヤスタ・シロマーニ (talk • contribs) 17:39, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Can I approach someone on the review committee?

Reviews are made by volunteers, who can choose what they do and do not want to review (e.g. some users might be specialists in certain topics). Volunteers in this area specifically are very overworked and it is not helpful to approach anybody directly. I can confirm that the drafts are in the queue, so someone will get around to it eventually. — Bilorv (talk) 17:57, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

You submitted Draft:Sachidanand Srivastava and Draft:Niraj Sinha on 7 March. The AfC system is not a queue. Reviews can take place in days, weeks, and (sadly) months. In my opinion, neither of these drafts establish notability, as the people hold appointed (not elected) positions in an Indian state government. However, a reviewer may see differently. David notMD (talk) 19:13, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Neither of those drafts is likely to be accepted when reviewed. It seems to me that they offer little evidence that their subjects are notable, and it's unlikely there's anything you could do to change that. I would advise against creating further such drafts. Maproom (talk) 20:32, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

How can I upload a logo for a company?

When pasted in, it shows up as the file name, not the company logo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnnatas1 (talk • contribs) 17:41, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Johnnatas1! You can sign comments in discussions by adding the code ~~~~ at the end of the comment. Company logos are copyrighted by default, but Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia and only uses copyrighted images in a small number of cases. If the company has an existing article then it is possible that using the logo may be acceptable—point me to the specific page and I can give you more information. If this is about a draft then the image should not be uploaded at this point. A rare exception to this advice occurs if the logo is so simple (e.g. if it was just a red square) that it is ineligible for copyright (and if you tell me the company name then I can probably tell you whether that applies or not). — Bilorv (talk) 18:20, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Isupport

I need help 41.13.64.46 (talk) 17:48, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello. What is it you want help with? 331dot (talk) 17:54, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

copyright

can i use photos which appear on Wikpedia without getting the owner's permission? 178.147.207.26 (talk) 18:44, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Depends on the image. For most images uploaded to Wikipedia directly, no because those are under fair use. Anything on Commons can be used in this way provided you adhere to any licence restrictions. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 18:45, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

AFC vs Direct

What is the difference between creating the page via AFC and publishing directly? What type of pages must be created via AFC? 1друг (talk) 18:56, 7 March 2021 (UTC) 1друг (talk) 18:56, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

@1друг: people who do not have an account, or whose accounts is less than four days old or has fewer than 10 edits (i.e. is not autoconfirmed), are unable to create new articles directly. People who have a direct connection with a subject, such as being an employee of the company they are writing about, are required by our conflict of interest guidelines to go through the AfC process. Other editors can choose. If you've created some articles and you're confident you understand the notability rules in the specific topic of the article, you can create the page directly. I chose to submit my first article through AfC to get some feedback and a sign that it was okay. With AfC, the draft is at worst declined and there is less of a deadline, whereas if you create a page directly it can be speedily deleted (if it's really not up to scratch), proposed for deletion, nominated for a deletion discussion or simply moved to draftspace by a patrolling editor. This is because if you create a page then it's front-facing content immediately (e.g. someone hitting "Random article" might stumble on it). — Bilorv (talk) 19:06, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

@1друг: I would also not recommend starting a new page from scratch (aka not using Afc) until you get to around 500 edits. That will allow you to get the feel for how articles are + how WP:RS works. I have over 3000 edits and I do occasionally create articles from scratch, but that can get you into problematic situations depending on the topic. For example, if you try to create a new article really quick on a new controversial topic, you might have a lot of editors mad with you (talking from experience). I would recommend either using Afc or just creating a draft directly that in the future could be moved into main space, skipping the Afc waiting time period. Just like how you would search from an article and then create it via the red link where Wikipedia says "You may create the page "(name)"...", just type "draft:(name)" and the red link will allow you to create the draft version of the article you want. But to answer your question, at your current editing status, you can create any topic via a direct creation, however, I don't recommend it until you get some more editing experience. Hopefully that helps! Elijahandskip (talk) 19:12, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

@Elijahandskip:, @Bilorv: Thanks for the wonderful answer. I feel kick to create a page of what I like. I read the notability guidelines 4-5 times. Wikipedia is much interesting than blogging. I already created 2 pages, which are live. Can you please about Draft:ADDA52 I feel I created properly. Also, who approves or rejects it? What are the other things I can do on Wikipedia?. As of now, I understand adding sources, creating pages, improving grammar, and adding some templates at the top. I am a fast learner, you can tell me any hard thing.1друг (talk) 19:39, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

@1друг: so the first part of your question was about Draft:ADDA52. It appears that it is a business, so Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) applies in the draft. I personally don't know enough about how reliable the majority of those sources are, so I can't speak about that aspect of the draft. Adda52 (based on a google search) seems to notable due to the amount of searched and new articles on it, so I think you could create it. Since it is a business though, you need to make sure you find the information that is needed to show a business's notability. Read that notability link above to help understand it. I really don't have that much experience in articles about businesses, so I can't be a lot of help in the draft's aspect. So the other question you had was the part about what else you can do on Wikipedia. Well for starters, you might be interested in joining a WikiProject. WikiProject's are groups of editors who want to improve a certain part of Wikipedia. For example, I am a member of The Current event WikiProject, which helps work on the Portal:Current events as well as improve articles that are current events (or topics in the news). There are hundreds to thousands of WikiProjects, and each has a unique goal in mind. For example, The WikiProject of Meteorology has to goal to improve all weather related articles on Wikipedia. They "manage" over 10,000 articles and out of those articles, only 1,300 of them are classified as "good/A+" articles, which is the highest levels of quality that an article can go. So if you want to help out more on Wikipedia, feel free to join a WikiProject. (Small self promo, if you like Current events, feel free to join the Current Event WikiProject.) Hopefully that helps! Elijahandskip (talk) 20:06, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Authetication

I am going through my Mother's things and have been updating a few pages as I find information. I forgot my previous name registed at the same email address so I hope that does cause a problem. Two of the updates i made were taken down immediately. Do I need to upload the doucments I based them on? AnastasiaSeth (talk) 19:11, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Which articles is this about? In general, unpublished documents such as letters cannot be used as references. David notMD (talk) 19:23, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

AnastasiaSeth has been trying to add a detail to Charles de Gaulle concerning a niece of his.

Anastasia, all non trivial information added to Wikipedia must be cited to material that has previously been published in what we call a Reliable source (think along the lines of respectable newspapers and magazines, academic journals, books from well-established publishers with good editorial control, and so on). This is so that an interested reader could in principle check that source to confirm that it does indeed support the information. Unpublished documents cannot be used, nor do we want copies of them uploaded, because on the internet it is so easy to fake things — I'm sure you would not do so, but others with dishonest intentions unfortunately do try such things.

If the information you want to add has already been published somewhere (in what is called a secondary source) then it should be cited to that published source, not to primary sources such as personal letters.

Now, if you were to show your documents to a historian or a publisher, and they were to write and publish a book (for example) that used the information from them, then we could cite that book as a source. I hope this helps. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.125.75.168 (talk) 23:12, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello

How is everyone doing? Thanks for inviting me here!

Question: is there a place where I can meet contributors who may have similar interests? Marathonmutig (talk) 20:12, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello Marathonmutig, Welcome to Wikipedia! Yes there is a place to meet other editors who have similar interests. You can join a WikiProject. WikiProject's are groups of editors who want to improve a certain part of Wikipedia. For example, I am a member of The Current event WikiProject, which helps work on the Portal:Current events as well as improve articles that are current events (or topics in the news). There are hundreds to thousands of WikiProjects, and each has a unique goal in mind. Hopefully that helps! Elijahandskip (talk) 20:15, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Issue with vandal

I was monitoring recent changes and reverted an IP user for vandalism, but he reverted me and called me a "wikilaywer". Am i at risk for an edit war? Article in question is Capitol Hill Organized Protest.  Nightwolf1223 (talk) 22:15, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Nightwolf1223, no you are not - please see Wikipedia:How to deal with vandalism and you could bring this to attention at WP:AIV, for information about the termi Wikilawyer see here Wikipedia:Wikilawyering. CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:48, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't have called it vandalism (rather, it's POV oddity), and I see no wikilawyering. If the IP continues to feud with editors, avoid additional reversions and instead take the matter to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Meanwhile, be careful to limit use of the term "vandalism" to mean wilful destruction. -- Hoary (talk) 22:56, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Roll over words

What are roll over words in the copy edit drive? Gandalf the Groovy (talk) 22:19, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Guild_of_Copy_Editors/Backlog_elimination_drives/March_2021

@Gandalf the Groovy: The link on the page leads to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Guild_of_Copy_Editors/Backlog_elimination_drives/January_2021/Barnstars there is a table there with the rollover number to fill in. For more details, ask at the project's talk page. RudolfRed (talk) 22:25, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

@Gandalf the Groovy: --> Wikipedia:WikiProject_Guild_of_Copy_Editors/Backlog_elimination_drives/FAQ#Rollover_words CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:52, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Questions about YouTube's Top Videos in a Wikipedia page

Questions about YouTube's Top Videos in a Wikipedia page I have questions regarding a Wikipedia page on YouTube's Top Video here

1. How do I contact the author of the Wikipedia page?
2. How does the author get the table of YouTube's Top Videos?
3. Is there an API available to get the history of a Wikipedia page?

Thank you  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.7.154.134 (talk) 22:19, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi IP-User and welcome to the Teahouse - I would say best to get answers to your questions would be to leave a message on the authors talk page wich you can find here User_talk:Toccata_quarta CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:40, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

You can contact the authors (plural) by writing at the foot of Talk:List of most-viewed YouTube videos. No API is needed: the history of the page starts at the present, with links taking it back into the past. -- Hoary (talk) 22:45, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Click the "View history" tab at List of most-viewed YouTube videos for human reading. See mw:API:Revisions for the API. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:48, 7 March 2021 (UTC)