Wikipedia:Teahouse

Maproom, 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

Editors creating paintings for articles

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

---

This is an odd one so I thought I would ask here, where odd questions are welcomed. Over at this version of Barbara Teller Ornelas, the infobox image is a watercolour painting of the subject, done by the editor who created the page. I'm sure we would be OK with an editor having taken a photograph and added it to an article they created, since photographs are relatively 'objective', but I am wondering what others think about the portrait being an artistic interpretation? I've asked the editor about possible COI, but that's a separate issue. Thanks. --- Possibly ☎ 00:44, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Possibly, for letting me know via my talk page that you were starting a discussion at the Teahouse. I would also like to add my input to the discussion here, as I have done on my talk page and on the Barbara Teller Ornelas talk page. I am a professional artist. Some of my paintings are in museums. I made a quick painting, I believe a good one, for the article because there was no photo. Please feel free to add a photo to the article if you find one. Maybe Wikimedia Commons and Wikipedia should establish some criteria for paintings used as portraits. Second, I have not met Barbara Teller Ornelas. There is no COI. I created the article for the WikiProject: Indigenous women. Shari Garland (talk) 04:39, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

It seems like the discussion has taken root on the article talk page, which might be the best place to respond if anyone is interested. --- Possibly ☎ 04:42, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Here is my representation of Barbara Teller Ornelas for those who might want to know the source of this topic. Shari Garland (talk) 16:47, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Questions remain:

1) Should I, as a professional artist, continue to make watercolor paintings and upload them to Wikimedia Commons for Wikipedia articles?

2) Should my watercolor portrait of Barbara Teller Ornelas be added back to the article Barbara Teller Ornelas?

3) If the answer to question 2) is yes, then who should add my watercolor portrait of Barbara Teller Ornelas back to the article?

Shari Garland (talk) 18:41, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Barbara Teller Ornelas State Department portrait

I'll give you my opinion: 1) No, based on your painting and the photo I don't think interpretations like this are useful in the WP-context. 2) No, not unless it has coverage in indepentent WP:RS, and if so, not as leadimage. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:54, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Gråbergs Gråa Sång, Why would an artist's own watercolor painting image need to include a reliable source when an artist's own original photography image would not? Shari Garland (talk) 19:03, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

A photo, even if burdened with artistic intentions, will probably resemble the topic. A painting by a random netizen is less likely to do so, and without any independent attention, adding it fails WP:PROPORTION. I see no use in adding, in this case, an image with the text "2021 Watercolor portrait of Ornelas, by pseudomynous Wikipedian/User:Shari Garland." That is my view. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:32, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Gråbergs Gråa Sång, 1) A painted portrait by a professional artist from any era including and in between ancient and modern times is accurate enough to use as an infobox image for a biographical article on Wikipedia. 2) Shari Garland is not a pseudonym. Shari Garland (talk) 21:18, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

1) Disagree. 2) "by User:Shari Garland" still fails WP:PROPORTION. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:42, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Gråbergs Gråa Sång, The preferred visualization is a photograph. However, paintings should be acceptable when a photo free of copyright is not available. A painting is so much better than nothing. Shari Garland (talk) 22:54, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

We disagree. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:28, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Another opinion: 1) No. 2) No. (A photograph has been added.) David notMD (talk) 00:12, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

I'll disagree. I think a portrait is fine. We use portraits all the time for people of whom there are no photographs, and I believe I've seen them in articles (not as the main image) that we do have a photo for. At minimum I think @Shari Garland should feel free to upload these images to Wikimedia Commons, but let some other editor decide whether to use it in the article or not. I don't see this as any different than an editor making any other image. Editors at a given article may disagree on whether to use it, but they may all love it, too. Personally I think that painting is wonderful. :) —valereee (talk) 14:47, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Excellent input and insight from —valereee: "I don't see this as any different than an editor making any other image." I agree with that statement because photography and watercolor are both types of art. Both art types are crucial modern means of communication. Shari Garland (talk) 18:49, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

At risk of repeating what I've already written on the talk page: Yes, I love the painting too. Yes, I see a role for drawings analogous to courtroom sketches, to avoid a legal difficulty (in this case, the problem of obtaining images with appropriate copyright permission). But No, I don't think this is a great idea. There is a very real risk that wannabe artists will use WP articles as personal galleries to promote their work (and WP suffers quite enough from autobiographical self-promotion already). We also have a duty to the subjects of our articles. If someone doesn't like what's written about them, we can check that the references support the text. If they don't like a photo, at least the image isn't a matter of opinion: it's simply what was in front of the lens. But what do we do if an actress complains that a drawing makes her look old and ugly, or a politician says the sketch makes them look shifty and unreliable? How can we possibly assess whether their complaints are valid? Elemimele (talk) 21:40, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Elemimele, Most people feel flattered when they realize that someone took the time to make a painting of them. I read a lot of books. I can not tell you how many published biographies I have read that are replete with paintings. Paintings are used to communicate information on book covers and in picture sections of biographical works. Shari Garland (talk) 22:43, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

@Shari Garland: No, I'm sorry, that's not at all relevant to this encyclopaedia project. I realise I am late to the party, and that there has been a longer discussion over on the relevant talk page, but my view is that there is no place on Wikipedia for artistic impressions of minor notable people, and absolutely none whatsoever if the artist themselves is not a notable person on Wikipedia. Your picture added nothing encyclopaedic to the article, and there are far better social media platforms to share artistic impressions of people where they can feel flattered. Of course, were there to have been a strong, well-cited linkage between the painter and their subject (e.g.John Lennon drawn by Yoko Ono and not John Lennon drawn by me), then that might be a different story, and one worthy of further discussion. Or perhaps a self-portrait in fabric, woven by the subject herself. Otherwise, there's no place for such fanciful imagery here, sorry. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:16, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Nick Moyes, My illustration was simply that, an illustration when there was no picture in the image field for the infobox for the article I wrote. The picture was, because a picture is worth a thousand words. It was to be informative for the public. Why would photographers on Wikipedia not have to be notable but the painters on Wikipedia would have to be? Why would photographers not have to photograph strictly highly notable people to the exclusion of minor notable people but quite the opposite for painters? Photography is a type of art. Why must some types of artists be notable but writers on Wikipedia do not have to be notable? Further, what you mentioned, an artwork with "well-cited linkage between the painter and their subject" would be considered COI on Wikipedia if an editor such as myself who is also an artist were to paint a portrait of a subject for an article. Shari Garland (talk) 00:44, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

@Shari Garland I’m just going to simply say I reject all your points, and that you seem to fail to understand how Wikipedia works, and we’ll leave it there. Goodnight. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:18, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Nick Moyes, A painting two hundred years from now would be more encyclopedic than nothing. Shari Garland (talk) 01:37, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

There is also a copyright issue to be sorted out. A painting or sketch made from a photograph is a derivative work, and must be authorised by the copyright holder of the original work (or someone to whom they've delegated the role). I don't know much about Wikicommons, but I think this means that they'd have to be super-careful about paintings submitted by editors, who may not be aware that they don't have the right to do it, unless they drew/painted the subject from a life-sitting or from personal memory of seeing the individual. A drawing or painting derived from seeing magazine articles or images on the subject's website isn't okay. Ironically, just about the only source where it would be safe to use a photo to create a painting without getting into derivative-works issues would be Wikicommons. Elemimele (talk) 16:51, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Elemimele An artist does not have to have a "life-sitting" or "personal memory of seeing the individual" to produce an original artwork to which they are the copyright holder or donor. Besides, if an artist were to have such a set-up, a COI would be highly likely. Shari Garland (talk) 17:12, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it's an original artwork, possessing its own copyright which the artist owns. But if the artist drew or sketched from a photograph, then the original photographer's copyright additionally still extends to the derivative work. Here's a link for the UK situation [1]. The painting is covered by two people's rights, the painter 'sand the original photographer's, and both must agree before the derivative work can be used. You'll see that in this reference, paintings derived from photographs are given as a specific example. What I'm not clear about is the situation where the artist has never met the celebrity, and therefore must have derived their impression from (copyright) photos, but draws/paints something that is a synthesis not specifically related to any individual photograph. But I see a lot of disappointment in this direction, because the moment someone comes across a professional photo showing the subject from roughly the same angle in roughly the same clothes, they're going to flag the painting as a potential derivative work, and it'll get speedily-deleted, followed by massive arguments and ill-feeling. Elemimele (talk) 17:56, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Elemimele, It is not a problem to upload one's original artwork to Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia Commons clearly states that the photo must be your own work, and that you are relinguishing rights to it. Shari Garland (talk) 19:46, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Impression of Barbara Teller Ornelas

@Elemimele It's pretty obvious that this painting that we have been discussing at length is derived from this photograph of the subject, but there the similarity ends. It is sufficiently far from the original picture that I'm not convinced it would ever be described as 'derivative'. It is also so utterly far away from representing the subject that it and others like it have absolutely no place on Wikipedia in my opinion. I would not want to encourage every artist - be they amateur or professional - who wanted to see their pictures used on Wikipedia from uploading such material to Commons. But unfortunately @Shari Garland seems steadfast in her unwillingness to accept that her impressionistic artworks of people don't add value to this encyclopaedia. Time to WP:DROPTHESTICK. I applaud their work in helping to redress the balance of too many male-focussed articles here, but not to the extent of pushing pictures they've done of people in this way. Nick Moyes (talk) 19:21, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Photos are preferred, but a painting is better than nothing. So you think we should call it a "draw," Nick Moyes? We can try to do so, however, the public prefers paintings rather than nothing. Shari Garland (talk) 19:46, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes & Shari Garland, I'm happy to drop sticks and move on, I'm not sure there's much more to be said on the issue. I'm sorry to have written some rather lengthy replies. Elemimele (talk) 19:51, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Elemimele, Please do not apologize for your "lengthy replies." They have all been very interesting. One last thing, Nick Moyes, what exactly did you mean when you said: "I applaud their work in helping to redress the balance of too many male-focussed articles here, but not to the extent of pushing pictures they've done of people in this way." Shari Garland (talk) 21:12, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

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

Is there a new policy - revert IP users with impunity?

This is happening increasingly: I make a reasonable - but, I accept, as always, debatable - edit, which is reverted so fast, that I can only think that it was done without any kind of checking. (I mean, the edit of mine above, as with similar recent incidents, does not scream "disruptive edit" on the face of it, I believe - So should deserve at least a cursory look to check.)

As in this case, when I check the reverter's history, there are masses of reversions, often solely, or nearly so, of IP editors. There is generally a mix of good and bad reversions, as in this case. It is also quite commonly an editor who does not use edit summaries.

I accept that if I choose not to register, I have to take the rough with the smooth, and I see lots of implicit and explicit suspicion of IP editors. I know there are reasons, too. That has never worried me (too much!), but there seems to be a noticeable upsurge in this kind of thing. And it's getting disheartening. Could there be any special reason for this taking off in the last few months? For example, are there special anti-vandalism projects that newly registered users are encouraged to undertake? Or something like that? Any ideas? I'd like to know how long to lay low for, giving WP a bit of rest, if I have to ride-out an anti-IP reversion campaign. But editing has been a real life-saver for me throughout the pandemic, restrictions, etc.

Also, can anything more be done to try to encourage habitual non-users of edit-summaries to a more collegial approach? I find the discourtesy of being reverted with no edit summary whatsoever, quite in-your-face hostile. I would never behave that way to others on WP, so find it really objectionable in registered users - some of whom seem to think they're superior creatures to troublesome varmint IPs.

Rant ended. Thanks for listening. 49.177.69.7 (talk) 12:04, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I opened a report on ANI about this particular editor about an hour ago here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Safari web - mass reverting IP edits without explanation because they seem to be making a significant number of problematic reverts. New editors jumping into anti-vandalism work with little idea of what they're doing is a common problem, you really need a decent grasp of Wikipedia policies before doing it but for some reason it's advertised as being a beginner friendly activity. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 12:11, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

UPDATE: User:Safari web indef blocked as a sockpuppet. David notMD (talk) 13:10, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

The reported case is an outlier, but the underlying problem is real. It is certainly the case that

1. some users are a bit too quick to hit the revert button (especially with automated tools)
2. some users take less precautions when interacting with IP editors

I have no idea if those problems are on the rise, and I do not think anybody has a solution. It occurs from time to time that someone comes to complain about being reverted without an edit summary, we ping the reverter, and they come here to apologize. In the defense of those people, when you have spent the last 99 clicks reverting promotional material, you are not in a mood to carefully analyze the 100th edit that comes through the list, even if you ought to be as cautious as when you started out. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 13:41, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, as this reverter appears to have been blocked, they were clearly an anomaly. The occasional over-correction is understandable, and I do not begrudge that from the people you mention in the sort of circumstances you describe. I am concerned that it appears to be accepted that editors exercise less care when reverting the edits of IP users (compared to registered users). I say that, while aware that unregistered users are known for disruptive and clueless editing. I don't think the fact that a disproportionate number of such edits come from IPs should be the basis for a kind of creeping disrespect for all IP users' contributions, though, nor a preparedness to accept this sort of differential approach - even if there are reasonable grounds to develop this kind of implicit bias.

One of the things I was also trying to say, though, was, far from "careful analysis" on the 99th or 100th click, all that was needed was a very quick glance. The edits of mine - and of a few other IPs I've seen - that I have been discussing here, do not even remotely look like disruptive edits. It appears at times, that the extent of the process has been: 'IP made edit; can't see what for in first millisecond; must be bad, even if not, who's gonna pick me up on it?"

I don't want or expect an apology with such events; these things happen, even with the well-intentioned editors who seem to do this. It's just one of those things, but I thought I would bring up how cumulatively demotivating and disheartening it is. With all the massive work done on WP in holding back the tide of low-quality material, while trying to widen the scope and enhance articles, I realise this is very small beer indeed, perhaps to the point of being irrelevant. I thank you all for your attention and responses. 49.177.69.7 (talk) 03:21, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

If anyone with the "rollback" user right is abusing it consistently (not just making an honest mistake now and then), that should be reported at WP:ANI or to the administrator who granted the right. Rollback should be granted only to users who can be trusted with it. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:27, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Errors will of course occur - I make more than my fair share! - but that seems more of an argument for the use edit summaries when reverting - always. And I am not certain if "rollback" was used in the cases I am thinking of. But, even when editors use WP tools to revert, is there still the capacity to briefly mention the perceived issue in the ES?

As for "occasional mistakes": It's more about patterns of reverting and communication (or lack of) that I am thinking of, and what that suggests about WP's real-life approach to unregistered editors. Just to give a flavour of what I mean, note the edit summaries employed by this editor. They extensively revert, for sound reasons from what I can tell, and they are always quite terse in their ES. However, when it's a registed user, there is some brief effort to explain. When it's an IP user, there is only ever one explanation: "Revert IP". And that is my concern, (not from this editor, to be clear, just using them as my example.) I note in passing that I asked on this editor's talk page - and then later, on mine - to discuss a reversion they made; I received no reply, so re-instated the reverted reference repair. (While not very talkative, this editor does usually reply to questions from registered editors on their talk page.) But that experience echoes several I have had. I realise there's no "fix" to all this: I guess I just hoped to raise awareness.

Anyway, thank you very much, @192.76.8.74, @David notMD, @Tigraan and @Anachronist for taking the time to respond. 49.177.69.7 (talk) 03:21, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Although one isn't supposed to edit while not logged in, I have done so deliberately in the past to remind myself of what it's like to edit as an IP address. I encourage every experienced editor to try it: put in a few hours on Wikipedia as an IP address to see what it's like, see how others treat you. It gives you a new perspective that makes you think twice about how you respond in edit summaries and talk page comments, causing you to treat any good-faith editor the same regardless of whether it's an IP address or a username. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:00, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

I might actually do that. Although if I'm allowed to I would use a VPN so that my real IP address isn't revealed Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 14:03, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

@Blaze The Wolf See WP:VPN. ― Qwerfjkltalk 21:26, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Makes sense. Also you got the wrong one. It's WP:NOP Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 21:36, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Oops (I typically just guess the shortcuts and assume I'm right if it's blue). ― Qwerfjkltalk 21:41, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

It's also quite educational to stop and read the edits being carried out by IP editors. Yes, there are some really misguided IP editors, but if you just pick random edits and read them, you will also find people spotting and correcting mathematical errors in the middle of hideous formulae that only one reader in a hundred could understand, people adding carefully-written paragraphs on marine invertebrates; people sorting out historical misunderstandings in the aftermath of battles that took place in countries that no longer exist, a thousand years ago; WP is a huge resource of human knowledge, and passer-by IP editors who happen to be experts in something obscure, and happen to spot something not quite right, are an enormous benefit to the community. Really, the lesson from this, is stop trying to clock up non-existent bonus-points for reverting quicker than Cluebot; instead carefully read what's been written, and check it really is wrong. So what, if someone else reverts it first? The important thing is that our encyclopaedia remains accurate, clear, and as complete as possible. Elemimele (talk) 21:56, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

propose removal of massive unsourced content from Dogpatch?

There seem to be massive amounts of unsourced content in Dogpatch, San Francisco, and to be clear, I have no interest in making the effort to provide such citations. A repeated mantra that I hear on WP is that unsourced content may be removed without notice or discussion. But I still feel kind of cautious about this. So please provide some feedback as to whether it's really perfectly okay for me to remove unsourced content, such as from § Attractions and characteristics and § History. Fabrickator (talk) 19:50, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Go ahead and do so. If an editor disagrees with you they will revert and you can start a discussion per WP:BRD. Although if you would rather propose it then you can do so on the article's talk page. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 19:55, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Unclelam - still an active editor as recently as Sept 2020 (COVID?) - was the person who more than doubled the length of the article back in 2012, so perhaps ask that person to come back and fix stuff. In general, I feel under-referenced place articles are less urgent-fix than biographies. David notMD (talk) 20:09, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

@Blaze The Wolf: This raises a point that (based on your comment) seems to be in dispute. Because it is the responsibility of the person who adds content to provide sources, a revert of unsourced content (without having added the required sources) is interpreted as being against policy, or at the very least, is subject to itself being reverted. What part am I misunderstanding? Fabrickator (talk) 20:15, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

I.... am not actually sure. I'm a bit misunderstanding as well as WP:BRD says that if you think an edit should be made, be bold and do it yourself and if an editor disagrees they will revert which will start a discussion of the edit so a consensus can be reached. However you make a good point that it's technically against policy to revert unsourced content as it is the job of the person who added the content to source it. However this seems to not be heavily enforced as unsourced content is removed all the time and then added back by a different person with sources. So I'm not exactly sure what the correct answer would be in this situation. Maybe another editor could help answer this. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 20:22, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Fabrickator, I think you are technically sound. It is the policy as you have stated. However, I don't think the intent is to have editors running around deleted every sentence on every article that is unsourced. Maybe that is the intent of some, I guess I would be more likely to either add sources or place a citation needed template on a few unsourced sentences, otherwise I would leave it as it is unless it is a clear violation of NPOV or BLP. That is just me. I tend to leave articles alone unless I plan on working on them anyway. --ARoseWolf 20:24, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

FYI - "BLP" is Biography of Living Person, and for those, all content must be referenced, removed if not. David notMD (talk) 22:39, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Here is the sequence of edits to WP:Verifiability which introduced the sort of self-contradictory guidance, stating at once that "the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material" while observing that "editors may object if you remove material without giving them a chance to provide references".

Notice how this compares to WP:Editing policy which states "unsourced content may be challenged and removed". I would note that "challenging" is distinct from "removing". According to WP:verifiability challenges, a challenge is "a good-faith claim that unsourced material cannot be verified in any reliable source".

In the absence of there necessarily being such a good-faith claim, these statements of policy would seem to be incompatible, and one or both of them needs to be changed. Fabrickator (talk) 00:07, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

There is no significant policy conflict here, though maybe differences in emphasis. All of the relevant policies and guidelines emphasize that we are here to build an encyclopedia and that there are many alternatives to removing content, although it is proper to remove hoaxes, vandalism, WP:BLP violations, copyright violations and obviously non-neutral content immediately. Other good faith content should be kept and tagged "citation needed", unless a diligent search fails to verify the content. In the spirit of full disclosure, I have lived and worked in or near San Francisco for 49 years and worked for nine years quite close to the Dogpatch neighborhood. In those years, I drove through that neighborhood several times a week. The article states that the Irving M. Scott School is an historic school there, that the clubhouse of the Frisco chapter of the Hells Angels is in that neighborhood, and that there is a Caltrain express station in that neighborhood. All unreferenced. Less than two minutes on Google convinces me that all three claims are verifiable and true, and that the former school building is on the National Register of Historic Places, and therefore deserving of its own article, not removal from the encyclopedia. Editors who "have no interest in making the effort to provide such citations" should never remove such content. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:52, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

So what? We don't each get to decide what the rules are that would be best for the encyclopedia, we establish (through some form of consensus) a set of policies that hopefully cover all possible situations. For instance, the underlying premise is that we would like the content to be accurate, but the policy is that it must be verifiable.

Notwithstanding WP:IAR, if you think a policy is not in Wikipedia's best interest, then the solution is to propose changing the policy, not to ignore it. Otherwise, everybody has the excuse that they are doing whatever they think is best, and there's really no challenging that.

So I agree we're here to build a useful encyclopedia, but the policy is that claims must be supported by reliable sources, unsourced claims can be summarily removed (i.e. as an alternative to adding {{cn}}), and such removals may not be reverted unless a source is provided at the same time. So after I remove all this Dogpatch content, you can go ahead and put it back with citations, but if it's not convenient to you to provide citations, then we'll all just have to live without the content because I made the decision to remove it as allowed by policy. When somebody has the time to add in the citations, then they can restore everything. You don't think that's a difference? Fabrickator (talk) 05:00, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

A visit to WP:Deletionism and WP:Inclusionism might be useful. Again, my own opinion is add citations needed over deleting unreferenced content for place-articles, the opposite for biographies. David notMD (talk) 12:14, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

• You would be within your "rights" to mass-remove with an edit summary of "do not revert without sourcing", but it does not mean it would be a nice thing to do, especially if you think (by personal knowledge etc.) that the content is correct.

At the Teahouse (or Help Desk maybe?) we sometimes get someone asking to change the date of death of their wife/husband because the newspapers got it wrong. We often remove the date entirely and leave an invisible comment telling the next editors about the situation, even if the "correct" thing would be to tell them to ask the newspaper to print a correction (which is a nice way to tell them to get lost). Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 10:33, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Userpage redirects

Hello! So after Colin accidentally forgot to capitalize the T in my username, it gave me a thought. Are users allowed to create user pages that are redirects to their own if the only difference between the usernames of the user pages is the case? I feel like this can cause issues if usernames are case sensitive (so for example, if I redirected the user page Blaze the Wolf to mine, it would cause issues if another user could create an account for Blaze the Wolf). Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 19:59, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Blaze The Wolf, I don't believe redirects to cover alternative case are needed. I just tested and searching for:

User:Blaze the Wolf

or

User:Blaze The Wolf

Both provide a link to your user page.

No one else will be able to create a username which is identical to yours but just different by case (At least not without an override which is unlikely to happen)

I just did a quick review of Wikipedia:Redirect and I'm surprised to see that this is not discussed unless I missed something S Philbrick(Talk) 20:22, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Interesting. The weird thing is, when someone links directly to it User:Blaze the Wolf it doesn't redirect to my page. Is this a bug? Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 20:24, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

I know my former user name User:Tsistunagiska redirects to my current user page but it is an interesting question. --ARoseWolf 20:28, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

I think that's because when you change your username, it turns your old user page into a redirect. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 20:33, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Not at first it didn't. A sockpuppet created an account using my old user name and they had to change it and then were blocked upon completion of the investigation. --ARoseWolf 20:44, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Oh that's actually kind of interesting. They were more of an impersonator then than a sock. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 20:49, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

It was very odd. They weren't necessarily impersonating because we never edited the same articles. I have no proof but I did suspect they were watching for account name changes. I'm not really sure about the motive because I never contacted them. I wanted to be as far away from them as possible. This is my one and only account and I never want another one. It was a little unnerving until they were instructed by admins to change their name because of the connection with my account. What's even more odd is when I go to the redirect it says it was redirected the same time the change request was approved and moved. I guess there may have been a glitch of sorts or maybe they created the new account at the same time as the change was being processed, I honestly don't know, but it was weird to say the least. --ARoseWolf 20:57, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

The search bar automatically fixes alternate capitalisations (and a load of other things, like accents on letters) direct links don't and would require redirects. If you want to redirect User:Blaze the Wolf to your user page I think the best thing to do would be for you to register that account as a Doppelgänger account and leave it around unused, to prevent the redirect colliding with a later user. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 20:46, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

I just tried to do that, however it said that it's too similar to my username, so I think it's safe for me to simply redirect it because if I can't create an account with that username, no one else can. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 20:51, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure there's any point in doing that, Blaze the Wolf: nobody is going to search for that user page, and I doubt that creating it will cause a wrong ping to get to you. I've intentionally pinged you using the wrong version of your username just to see. --ColinFine (talk) 10:13, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

That is actually a good point. Nobody is or will be able to search for that specific user page because of the the search bar works. And using the wrong version of my username doesn't ping me. But luckily I don't think redirecting it is going to mess anything up in the long term. If it does I should just be able to request it to be deleted under U1. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 12:58, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Submission declined due to inline citations and footnotes

My submission has been declined due to inline citation and footnotes. I am dumb when it comes to these IT stuffs and referencing. Please, can anyone help? Jdunkwu (talk) 16:35, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Added a title for this post. Also, Jdunkwu, I'll take a look. I'm assuming you're referring to a draft at AfC. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 16:40, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

@Jdunkwu: If I'm understanding this correctly, you're referring to Draft:Peter Adinma Dunkwu, which was rejected by Theroadislong. I'll start by saying that it appears – based on the nature of the article and based on your username – that you may be the subject in question. Your username, Jdunkwu, lines up with the first initial of the subject's stated nickname honorific in the article ("JP") and the subject's last name. If this is the case, I highly suggest you read WP:AUTOBIO for why what you're attempting is not a good idea. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 16:55, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Declined, not Rejected. Autobiography is allowed, but all factual statements need to come from reliable source references. If this is about you, and you know some information about you is true, that is not sufficient to be in the article unless you can cite published content not written by you. See Help:Referencing for beginners for ref instructions. David notMD (talk) 17:27, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

@Jdunkwu: If you are Dunkwu or related to Dunkwu or have any other conflict of interest, you must declare this on your user page. GoingBatty (talk) 21:40, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

There might well be a challenge on WP:NOTABILITY grounds, even if the other issues are sorted out. Johnbod (talk) 14:45, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Starting a page for Zara Rutherford.

I was hoping to start a page for Zara Rutherford to help track her round-the-world solo flight as a 19 year old female. Is this not possible? Packers76 (talk) 19:12, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

You have perhaps not read the feedback on your user talk page, or on your draft at Draft:Zara Rutherford? In those feedback messages the words in blue are wikilinks to detailed advice. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:17, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not news (hence, not tracking her multi-month effort, and WP:TOOSOON). Resubmit only after she has completed her mission. David notMD (talk) 19:33, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Pinging Packers76.

I see some advice above by David notMD and at the draft by AngusWOOF to "resubmit after she has completed the trip". Just to be clear, this is not because completion of the trip is required, but because we tend to put a low weight on routine reporting of mildly interesting events; if new articles pop up after the trip, it would show some sustained media coverage.

Another question is where to put the article. After reading both WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E, I am under the impression that the article should be for the event (something like 2021 circumnavigation by Zara Rutherford) rather than the person. Somehow it feels wrong to me and I would rather have the article at the person name, though. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 10:15, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

edit with a source included

If I made an edit, and there is already a source included, why is the edit changed without any explanation? 73.61.22.198 (talk) 21:17, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You have no other edits associated with your IP; it is difficult to give a good answer without knowing the edit at issue. 331dot (talk) 21:41, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

When someone reverts an edit, they should explain in the edit summary their motivation. Sometimes their edit summary contains links to policies or guidelines to help you understand their motivation. Other times, it can be hard to understand. Per the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, I suggest you either ask the editor directly on their user talk page, or post on the article talk page and {{ping}} the editor to join the conversation. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 21:55, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

I have made edits in the past, so I am not sure why there is a different IP address. OK thank you for the feedback! 73.61.22.198 (talk) 22:06, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

IP addresses can change over time, even if you are using the same access device. David notMD (talk) 22:46, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

The changing of IP addresses, especially IPv4 addresses, is another of the reasons why editors are encouraged to register an account. Many new editors do not realize that an IP address is not a feature of a device or a landline, but is assigned and reassigned by an Internet Service Provider. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:19, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Encyclopedia.com

I was planning to work on the article about the cult-film journalist and author Danny Peary, and his birth information is footnoted to Encyclopedia.com. From what I read at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_279#Encyclopedia.com, Encyclopedia.com aggregates reliable-source material. Here's my question: Rather than cite Encyclopedia.com, shouldn't we cite the reliable source instead? I've seen "via=" in some footnotes. Would that apply here?

I'll be specific. This Danny Peary Encyclopedia.com page https://www.encyclopedia.com/arts/educational-magazines/peary-dannis-1949 says at the end that the material comes from the reference work Contemporary Authors, New Revision Series. So should the current footnote ("Peary, Dannis 1949-". Encyclopedia.com. 2009. Retrieved August 19, 2019.) be more like ("Peary, Dannis 1949-". Contemporary Authors, New Revision Series. Via Encyclopedia.com. 2009. Retrieved August 19, 2019.)

Also I don't see "2009" anywhere on the Encyclopedia.com article. Should the 2009 come out?

I'm sorry to keep asking questions, and thank you everyone on Teahouse for helping me many times.

Now that I think about it, I'm not sure any of this even matters. The footnote goes to the same place. Am I being too persnickety? The Horror, The Horror (talk) 21:52, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

@The Horror, The Horror My quick passing observation is that you should not cite anything unless you have personally seen and checked that the information stated can be verified from that citation. If you can't do that, perhaps you should not be the one trying to create the article. Or try to find other reliable sources yourself that do support Notability. My point being that if Encyclopaedia.com can aggregate sources, you ought to be able to go out and find those sources yourself. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:00, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

@The Horror, The Horror: On the Encyclopedia.com page, click the "Cite this article" button (which looks like curly quotation marks), and you'll see citations that are similar to your proposal (without the 2009 year). Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 22:02, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

The Horror ×2, I completely agree with Nick Moyes. I'm not sure if GoingBatty is making a suggestion rather than just stating a fact, but if there's a suggestion that you should believe what the encyclopedia.com page says about its sources and then cite these sources on encyclopedia.com's say so rather than either citing encyclopedia.com or checking its ostensible sources for yourself, then I strongly disagree. (Incidentally -- and though not relevant to your question -- I bought Peary's Cult Movies trilogy when freshly published and found the three books to be most enjoyable reads. They go into fascinating detail. However, I gradually realized that, for those films that I happened to know well, the details were rather often mistaken.) -- Hoary (talk) 22:25, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

@Hoary: Sorry I wasn't clear. I was suggesting using a citation with "via Encyclopedia.com". I would do something similar with Newspapers.com. If The Horror, The Horror wanted to make the extra effort to find Contemporary Authors and then cite that directly, that would be fabulous. GoingBatty (talk) 22:32, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Hoary likes this.

So it sounds like two people say we shouldn't cite Encylopedia.com and one person says it's OK? Am I reading that right? I apologize I'm confused. I don't want to be a bother. I just want to make sure before I do anything at the article. I can't really take time to find a library that has Contemporary Authors and go there. Maybe one of you can look at Danny Peary and see the Encylopedia.com footnote and if it's not usable take it out? I'm new and I don't want to rock the boat.

Someone said they thought I was going to create an article. Danny Peary exists. I still have to learn how to make an article. The Horror, The Horror (talk) 21:33, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

@The Horror, The Horror: I updated the reference in the article. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 22:33, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia shows 2 family name sheets for 1 genus: "Ariolimacidae" & "Arionidae" for Genus Ariolimax

FYI

 – removed broken template --Maresa63 ^Talk 05:02, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

As noted above. Regards, LWms

Ariolimax redirects to Banana Slug and only shows one family. Which article are you referring to that shows two? RudolfRed (talk) 23:31, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

@RudolfRed The point LWms (or IP 96.54.23.37) was trying to make is that the genus Ariolimax is listed as being within both the family Ariolimacidae and a member of the family Arionidae. I can only assume this is because two different taxonomic systems were referred to when these pages were created, and it certainly looks like the taxonomy has changed in recent times. It's a bit of a mess, and @LWms/96.54.23.37 you could either post on one of the family talk pages (and then linking to it from a shorter post on the other one) or perhaps, better still, post your concerns at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gastropods. If you feel brave enough, you could consult page 40 and p365 of this 2017 taxonomic revision and remove it yourself as it looks like Ariolimax is now placed in a family all of its own, and no longer in the Arionidae. (You've got to love the lumpers and splitters!) Nick Moyes (talk) 19:51, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Update: I decided I should raise the matter at the Gastropod WikiProject. See here. Nick Moyes (talk) 20:00, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Can I delete an entire section on "cultural identity" if it doesn't have a source after 1997?

I got a wikipedia and started editing some misinformation about things I care about. I can understand the impulse for people to edit in their own experiences for something as personal as Alcoholics Anonymous but I'm pretty serious about sources in general. As much as I want to delete the entire "cultural identity" section just because I know it isn't true, I think there's an argument for deleting it because it only contains three sources from 1983, 1985, and 1997. How would it be possible to have accurate information about a group's culture with information from 24-38 years ago? Can I delete this entire section while I work on a more modern section with sources from the last 5-10 years? I have a ton...see the talk page of my last edit. Thank you MxLysistrata (talk) 00:32, 23 August 2021 (UTC)MxLysistrata

@MxLysistrata: Welcome to the Teahouse! You can be bold and delete it, but it's possible that someone will revert your edit. Instead, you may want to ask this question on the article's talk page - Talk:Alcoholics Anonymous - to gain consensus and give a better explanation than you can in a short edit summary. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 00:54, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

MxLysistrata Since it’s properly sourced, it doesn’t matter how old the information is. I would simply add more updated information to the end of that section, if you can find it. We strive for balance here. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 01:18, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Personally, I think the entire subsection is crap, and warrants deletion. Per GoingBatty, can delete with a clear but concise explanation Many editors watch this article, so if you are reverted, start a discussion at the Talk page. David notMD (talk) 02:52, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

I am not sure what the basis is for such derision about this section. It has multiple sources, and not only that, the sources present different sides of the issue. Would it help to retitle the section from "cultural identity" to "effect on cultural identity"?

Rejecting content merely because you disagree with what it says, that does not sound like an objective reaction. Have there been changes to the AA program that makes these sources irrelevant to the present-day AA program? If there's a source indicating that the methodology of those studies is considered "deprecated", then that would be relevant to the article. Maybe I have a blind spot about something, but removing the current content would suggest to me that we're moving away from NPOV. Fabrickator (talk) 03:39, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

The age of sources is only one of many factors that should be evaluated when determining which sources should be used. A 25 year old academic source may be preferable to a two year old source in the popular press. This is an organization or movement that is over 85 years old so high quality sources published a half century or so after its founding should not be ruled out. MxLysistrata, you say that you want to delete the content "because I know it isn't true" but the section in question presents two different and almost contradictory views of AA, which to me aligns with the core content policy, the Neutral point of view. If you can find high quality and newer sources that address these issues, then bring them forth on the article talk page. An individual Wikipedia editor's opinion about what isn't true carries no weight, unless accompanied by solid evidence to the contrary. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:30, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

• For reference, here's a before-after diff of OP’s edits to the section, which were rather light.

I made a couple of edits myself to the whole "criticism" section. I do think the "cultural identity" subsection title is weird but it does look like a serious source (I have not performed a bibliographic search so maybe it is WP:FRINGE but the onus is on those who want to remove it to prove it). Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 10:00, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

I think the issue here is that the AA program has shifted over time, at least to be expecting that participants would hold religious beliefs. That might make those older studies less relevant, but at the very least, this historical content is itself highly relevant. But for the purpose of maintaining encyclopedic content, we should not "pave over" this fact. If AA started out as heavily based on religious beliefs and has become a completely secular program (or at least less religious), it's hard to overstate the significance of this. If we were to ignore the historic changes in an organization like AA, we would be doing a great disservice to the WP community. Fabrickator (talk) 10:32, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Removed "Cultural identity" as a subsection title. Changed order of content to chronological. Distinguished between studies and reviews. David notMD (talk) 00:54, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

More opinion on Draft:Sourajeet Majumder

Hey everyone, I had declined this draft and had requested for WP:THREE which were provided by Wikicontributor12369 here [2]. Since I am still getting back from my break, I thought it will be best to bring here for more diverse and informed opinions. Please help. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 01:39, 23 August 2021 (UTC) Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 01:39, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

I suggest WT:AFC, @Nomadicghumakkad. The banner kinda pretends it is above single drafts, but those are discussed there. The stalwarts of AFC watch that page more closely over the Teahouse which can get a lot of unrelated questions and WP:AFCHD which gets more basic questions. Of course there is no guarantee there either, since it is WP:NOTREQUIRED. You may also try pinging editors who've signed on to help with drafts in the topic area of their expertise and interest at WP:AFC/RBS,(nopinging) Titodutta, for example. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:13, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

New Pages Reviewer tag

Hello 👋

i am reviewing Special:NewPages, i need a tag that helps me on showing Articles which hasn't been Patrolled yet.

thanks. —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 05:27, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Sakura emad, You are not a New Page Reviewer and you won't be able to run the tool that helps in this process. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 06:37, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

@TheAafi, dear i think you misunderstood. —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 06:39, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

i need it for other projects. —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 06:39, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Sakura emad, I'm sorry if I misunderstood. Can you please explain in detail the thing you exactly need? Do you want to tag new articles with any related tags? For example any article being an orphan, or failing notability or cleanup tags etc. Such tags? or anything else? ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 06:42, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

or you simply want something that helps in showing articles not patrolled yet? ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 06:44, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

by Tags i meant Tag Filter, it helps me to only see unpatrolled ones, and they are marked (like that) —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 06:48, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your warm reply, i am currently reviewing new Pages on CKB wikip in special:NewPages but without the Tag it shows me all the new pages includes Patrolled ones that i don't need them. —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 06:44, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Sakura emad, So you are basically seeking assistance for another Wikipedia project. I don't think anyone here would be able to assist. But yes we use the Page Curation tool while reviewing new articles. It doesn't come up with the articles that've been already patrolled but it does show articles tagged with CSD. If that doesn't help, phabricator is the best venue to seek assistance. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 06:52, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

uhmm i think all the projects are linked together? nothing wrong with helping other projects it's wikipedia after all. —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 06:55, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Sakura emad, Each Wikipedia project is different. The only common thing is that they all are hosted by the WMF. If we have some issues here we don't ask at the helpdesk of Arabic Wikipedia. Such issues are seen at Phabricator and perhaps at Meta as well. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 07:00, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

ok i got it, sorry 🙏. —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 07:03, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

@Sakura emad the Teahouse is for help with editing the English Wikipedia. Unless someone who also happens to edit ckb and is more experienced than you happens to come through here within one and a half days that this post is going to be on this page, you are unlikely to get the help. In the English Wikipedia, it seems this list shows only the unpatrolled pages. There's a page when you change the "en" to "ckb" and press enter, but I wouldn't know if it's what you want. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:00, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes! it is (&hidepatrolled=1) thank you alot both of you. —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 07:05, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Cheers! Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:31, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

i have seen it somewhere before a way to only show Articles that's not been Patrolled yet. --—— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 06:57, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

WikiProjects

Why are some WikiProjects marked inactive? I know it's not a big deal of a doubt, but I would like to know why they happen. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 07:26, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello @Ken Tony! It does not take many people or wide consensus to create WikiProjects. When they are niche or narrow, they are liable to die, when the few editors who are a part of it stop editing or decide to do something else, or realise they didn't need to create the WikiProject at all and could have just edited under the parent WikiProject. Some WikiProjects may be so narrow in scope that they may have gone inactive because they accomplished most of what they wanted to accomplish. See WP:WikiProject. If you want to activate one, you can do it, but it's better if you have at least a few more editors willing to do it with you. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:36, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation! Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 08:57, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Can someone explain in detail what reliable secondary sources mean?

I do not understand how to find reliable secondary sources for gaming news and media that is not released outside Japan, specifically if it's printed media (I don't see any in both US and Japan for printed physical media content tbh). According to Wikipedia, secondary sources mean either books, magazines, or physical media, which I have a hard time finding (I do not see any physical magazines that have content about the game on it, nor do I know which companies/gaming magazine business still print physical magazines). I have searched the internet and online libraries for content related to the game on physical media, but there isn't anything related like Brady Games guide or some Times printed magazine that covers the game and information about it. Because of this, I am not sure how to find Secondary sources in that case. Also, for primary sources, (I believe that the reviewer for my article doesn't consider non-english sources as reliable at all, from their tag review of my submission), I do not find much information on english websites for some, but mostly Japanese/non-english (which I don't speak or understand. According to another person, the sources are reliable, so I am confused on that part as well.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_a_tertiary_source (I'm basing on this) Misser420 (talk) 07:46, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Misser420. Whether a source is considered secondary doesn't really have anything to do with its format. An electronic source could be secondary just as much as a book. Have you read WP:PSTS, which explains the distinctions between primary, secondary and tertiary sources? Cordless Larry (talk) 08:15, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

@Misser420: I assume we are talking about Draft:Tagatame no Alchemist. See above for secondary vs. primary.

Whether a source is reliable depends on what claim it is used to support, but generally speaking sources with an established reputation for a strong editorial process, issuing corrections when they get things wrong, etc. are preferred. This is true for English, for Japanese, for Swahili etc. sources.

Non-English sources are OK although English sources are preferred if available with the same quality, but they still need to be reliable. The decline comment by IceWelder says many of these sources appear to be from unreliable outlets; I do not know if that is true, but for sure it does not say or imply that being in Japanese is the problem. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 09:42, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Being of a foreign language is not a problem. In the current draft specifically, onlinefanatic.com and appzin.tistory.com are personal blogs, while myanimelist.net is user-generated (a tertiary source); these are by default unreliable. The content from some of the listed sites—sensortower.com, anilist.co, movies.yahoo.co.jp, and satelight.co.jp—are, while potentially from reliable outlets, generated from a database, rather than authored. Additionally, the Satelight one does not appear to show any content. A third of the sources are primary sources (either the dev's or the series' site), which is an issue for notability. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 10:39, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

can you tell when the wikipedia page is visible in google search ?

 Pushhkar (talk) 08:13, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Pushhkar Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Articles(not "pages") are searchable by outside search engines once they are formally marked as patrolled by a New Pages Patroller, or after a period of time(30-60 days I think). Do you have a particular need for something that you wrote to be searchable? 08:16, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

90 days if not reviewed automatically by WP:NPP but it can take longer for Google, as it’s a third party service. Overall it’s not the primary motivation for editing Wikipedia. Shushugah (he/him • talk) 10:44, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

@Pushhkar: Please also note that user pages and drafts are not indexed by outside search engines - see Wikipedia:Controlling search engine indexing. GoingBatty (talk) 13:50, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

How to message somebody on Wikipedia??

How to message somebody on Wikipedia??

Hello, 06nighthawk60. You write a message on that person's "user talk" page -- just as your own, User talk:06nighthawk60 already shows messages addressed to you. Add your message to the foot of the user talk page (not to the top), and at the end of the message sign it and date it: hit "~" four times in a row. -- Hoary (talk) 12:06, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

regarding editing chitragutavanshi kayastha

My edits regarding Chitraguptavanshi Kayastha were reverted. I want a clear explaination from the person who has done it. If it is clearly stated that person who has srivastva as his surname is a srivastva kayastha then why my edits were removed? LALAJI1234 (talk) 11:26, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

LALAJI1234, the person is SpacemanSpiff, on whose talk page you pose the same question (in a somewhat belligerent tone) but conclude "ok i have understood it". That's good to hear. I hope that part of what you've understood is that non-Indians are welcome to write about Indian subjects, as long as they do so in accordance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, just as Indians are welcome to write about non-Indian subjects, as long as ditto. -- Hoary (talk) 12:13, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

A time will come when INDIA will be a superpower and we will dicatate things on our own terms. Just wait for that day to happen.LALAJI1234 (talk) 12:46, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't associated with any specific country. Also, this seems like a threat which is against Wikipedia's policies (I don't actually remember which one). Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 14:15, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Not a threat of legal action. And by the way, SpacemanSpiff lives in Chennai. David notMD (talk) 21:37, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

IABot

Why I can't run IABot tool? It is showing here that it is unable to handle this request. Is this problem only me or is it a common problem? Waiting for a reply. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 11:28, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

@Ken Tony: The server that runs the tool is down, see Phab:T289447. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 12:21, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

I know this is a bit unrelated, but what is IABot? Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 14:06, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Blaze The Wolf It's InternetArchiveBot, and it's used to find/create archives of sites (so that if the site goes down or moves all the pages on the website around, we can still see the archived copy of it). Joseph2302 (talk) 14:10, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Ohhh! Ok. I didn't know there was a specific tool for it. I thought it simply ran automatically. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 14:13, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

How Check Editors

Hi everyone, I will like to find out how I can check and search for all editors in my community (old or new and also unknown). Thanks, Jwale2 (talk) 12:51, 23 August 2021 (UTC).

There are relevant categories at Category:Wikipedians in Ghana and Category:Ghanaian Wikipedians, but I don't believe that there is any further subdivision to specific localities within Ghana, and of course there may well be editors who have not declared their locality. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:00, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

@Jwale2:. Welcome to the Teahouse. You could also use a Google search for "ghana ip range" to find likely IP addresses that correspond to Ghana (e.g. 41.74.80.0 and so on) and look for editors here who don't have an account. However, there won't be a reliable way to find all such editors. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:17, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

I need help understanding why none of my sources qualify accord to Wikipedia guidelines.

Hi! First time here at the Teahouse. I would really appreciate if someone can help me with this draft I'm working on:Articles for creation: Praxis Electronic Medical Record. I thought that after my last submission the references I added met all the criteria established for notability of the subject, but the most recent review did not agree. Since I got no comments on why the sources weren't valid, I thought I'd come here to get some guidance. Any comments on how to improve the article in general is much appreciated as well. Astropolar13 (talk) 14:56, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

@Astropolar13: Welcome to the Teahouse. The latest decline seems to also raise concerns of promotional language, which the reviewer may have felt existed because of editorial words like "hence" and "finally", giving it a sense of being instructional. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:05, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

@Astropolar13, it looks like you've gotten several declines on that article. I definitely sympathize with how frustrating that is, and we'll help you out here as best we can. Creating any new page is hard, and that's especially true for company pages, where there's an extra level of scrutiny. First, could you tell us what you consider to be your three best sources for establishing the notability under our relevant guideline? We can give detailed feedback on those more easily than all 15 in the draft. Sometimes reviewers make mistakes and miss qualifying sources, but also sometimes a topic just doesn't have enough available sourcing and isn't ready for inclusion yet; be open to either of those possibilities here. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:22, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Removed a lot of content and refs that in my opinion not relevant to Praxis. Not sure if what is left justifies an article. David notMD (talk) 17:34, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

I took a look at several of the sources which appear very low quality, and almost certainly the result of public relations efforts by the company. One reference labeled Small Business News is actually Mini Business News. Interviews with company executives are not independent coverage. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:43, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Astropolar13, what is your relationship, if any, with Praxis Electronic Medical Record? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:48, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Tenryuu:, thanks for your feedback!

Hello @Sdkb:, the three most solid sources in my opinion are: Two books by Dr. Mark L. Braunstein, MD, professor at Georgia Tech. You can read more about him here: https://c21u.gatech.edu/team/faculty/braunstein - "Health Informatics on FHIR: How HL7’s New API is Transforming Healthcare" (I bought this book, it is not free online) - "Practitioner’s Guide to Health Informatics" (Found it free in Google Books) and a case study conducted in Uruguay about Praxis: - "Enseñanza de un Programa de Ortesis Mental Clínica: Experiencia con Estudiantes de Medicina en Uruguay. Memorias Del Congreso Nacional De Ingeniería Biomédica".

In addition to this, a source that was already included but was now removed by user David notMD saying that "a self-published book is not a reliable source"; the book was published by Dr. Steven A. Gold, MD, and not the company.

Hello @Cullen328:, I just explained my situation in my talk page. I don't have any relationship with the company.

Hello, Astropolar13. With regard to the book: "self-published" as used in Wikipedia doesn't mean "published by the subject"; it means "not published by a reputable publisher", and generally fails reliability, not necessarily independence. --ColinFine (talk) 20:45, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

@ColinFine: Thanks for the clarification. Could you walk me through why a book published by a doctor would not be reputable? I'm just not getting it yet. Astropolar13 (talk) 21:36, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Gold's title The Magic of Praxis suggests he does not have a neutral point of views about the company. Is it known that he has no connection to the company? David notMD (talk) 22:10, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

The Magic of Praxis is marketed through the company website, Astropolar13. It is not listed on Google Books. I was unable to find any reviews by reliable sources. There is no evidence that the book went through any professional editing or fact checking. Accordingly, it is not an independent source and not a reliable source by Wikipedia's clear standards. It may well be helpful for users of this software but it is of no use on Wikipedia. We need significant coverage in reliable sources that are totally independent of the company. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:52, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Thanks for the feedback. From what I understood, I should evaluate the sources based on the neutrality and reputation of the source and not based on how 'useful' or 'valuable' I think the content is. If it is not too much to ask, could you take a look at the three sources I listed above and see if they meet the criteria? Astropolar13 (talk) 20:42, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Astropolar13, those three sources appear to be reliable and independent to me. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:37, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

How to incorporate a video game's opening text into its wiki plot summary?

I am writing the plot summary for the game ULTRAKILL. The first sentences are as follow:

"In Ultrakill, the player controls V1, a machine that uses blood as a fuel source. After the extinction of humanity, the player descends through the layers of Hell in order to harvest the blood of demons..."

However I want to incorporate a series of computer messages that appear at the beginning of the story that serve as the game's unofficial tag-line:

"MANKIND IS DEAD.

BLOOD IS FUEL.

HELL IS FULL."

How would I best do this? Or should this just be left out? EnzoTC (talk) 18:14, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

@EnzoTC: Welcome to the Teahouse. The Manual of Style discourages an in-universe point of view, so that should be left out. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:24, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Are you usually allowed to remove entire discussions from your own user talk page?

I know that removing notices from Wikipedia administrators is not allowed, but does that apply to discussions? Someone just did it and I thought I'd revert that, but I don't know whether it is actually against policy or not. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 18:28, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello, MarioSuperstar77. You are allowed to remove such discussions from your talk page, but archiving is preferred. Please see Help:Archiving a talk page. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:31, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

@MarioSuperstar77 {{subst:Setup auto archiving}} may also help. ― Qwerfjkltalk 19:02, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

@MarioSuperstar77: as there are no removals of discussions from your talk page, I believe you must be talking about this recent removal of a discussion by another user from their talk page.

So, to answer your question within that context: yes they have every right to remove a discussion from their own talk page (except certain required notices, as you pointed out). And no, reverting that discussion on another user's Talk page is not against policy afaik, but would probably be seen as an aggressive move, as users have a lot of latitude about what should remain on their talk page. As far as your own TP, same guidelines apply. See WP:OWNTALK. Mathglot (talk) 21:23, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Newspaper Accessability

I recently got a newspapers.com account. I'm wondering if it's okay or useful for me to put block quotes from the newspaper articles I'll be citing on the talk page so other editors can read the source material regardless of whether they have access to the newspaper. Similarly, can I simply include the text in the quote parameter of the citation template, and if so, how much text is too much? TipsyElephant (talk) 18:42, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

@TipsyElephant: Hello, welcome to the teahouse! The policy you want is Wikipedia:Non-free content and Wikipedia:Quotations. Generally quotations should contain the smallest amount of text possible that still contains the relevant material from the source. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 22:53, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

TipsyElephant, I agree with the IP above. My personal guideline is that I will quote up to three sentences from a long, detailed article. If the article is short, I limit myself to one or two sentences. In most cases, I would use the quote parameter in the citation template. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:02, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

@Cullen328: is it ever appropriate to provide a blockquote containing a few paragraphs of text from a newspaper on the talk page where it could be used to expand the Wikipedia page? Similarly, I've noticed newspaper articles can be used to demonstrate notability and was wondering whether blockquoting the content on a talk page is helpful for anyone in the future who might consider an AfD. (I haven't read the entirety of the above mentioned guidelines, but I'll read through them tomorrow) TipsyElephant (talk) 00:10, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

TipsyElephant, Wikipedia is very strict about copyright. It is far better to accurately summarize and paraphrase a source instead of quoting it at great length. In one case, Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises, the US Supreme Court ruled that a 400 word quote from a 500 page book was a copyright violation. So, I recommend that you keep way below 400 words when quoting a newspaper article. This is a case where less is better. If another editor challenges the reference, then quote a bit more on the talk page, or email the editor the complete text. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:23, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

You can also describe the length and detail of the source in your own words. For example, "Newspaper A ran seven paragraphs about Person B. The first paragraph describes their recent widget-making awards. The second paragraph discusses their parents, their birthplace and birth date. The third paragraph discusses their education. The fourth paragraph discusses their early years in the widget making industry. The fifth and sixth paragraphs describes their recent widget innovations, and the seventh paragraph describes them as the most famous widget maker of the 21st century." Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:33, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

@TipsyElephant, one feature of Newspapers.com is that if you create clips, rather than linking to an image of the full page, anyone can see them, even if they don't have an account. Do that and you'll be good! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 08:28, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Submission rejected

Hi, my article draft I wrote was rejected because I included a link to an external SEC report. How can I include the report and not get rejected? I was under the impression that citing an external source is actually helping the article instead of dinging it? Please advise.

Thanks,

Tom Tnoack1 (talk) 18:48, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

@Tnoack1: Welcome to the Teahouse. You did not work on an article draft; rather, you edited If this is about Electrical Transient Analyzer Program, your changes were reverted as the additions seemed promotional. The source you used does not appear to be independent from the subject, and as such has been reverted. Please find a reliable source, and if you have a paid relationship with ETAP, please disclose that on your user page.

ETA: I'm not seeing any draft in your contributions, which suggests it has been deleted, if that is what you are referring to. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:55, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Draft:MCY.com was deleted, not because you had a link to an external report, but because the draft text was a copyright violation. Wikipedia contributions need to be in your own words. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:17, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Draft:MCY.com what was the copyright violation? I wrote the copy of the article. Please let me know which sentence or paragraph is a violation so I can correct or rephrase it. Tnoack1 (talk) 21:04, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Review sandbox article

how do I submit my article for review from my sandbox re? I'm working with the mobile view Olugold (talk) 18:49, 23 August 2021 (UTC) Olugold (talk) 18:49, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Please, see WP:AFC for detailed description of the process. Ruslik_Zero 18:57, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

My first article

 Courtesy link: Draft:SkateBird Miami
Hi, I’m a skateboarder and I’m trying to reference a new skatepark that’s being built in Miami. My article has been reviewed and not approved because I need more sources about it. I got articles in the press mentioning it … the thing is new so it’s not easy to come with references JP305 (talk) 18:50, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi and thanks for contributing to Wikipedia! If the skate park is in construction, it might be best to wait until the park is completed, before creating an article. See WP:TOOSOON Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 19:01, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

@JP305: Welcome to the Teahouse. This may be a case of the subject being written about too soon, and as such might not satisfy Wikipedia's general notability guidelines. You may wish to take the interactive tutorial if you haven't already, and read up on how to properly cite references. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:01, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

@JP305: both of the people who've replied to you are correct, and I'd add to that that sentences like "cabanas to rest and enjoy the place" read like an advert, and most (all?) of your sources are just press releases. These are not independent from the subject so they don't count towards notability (to count, it needs to be independent, in-depth and reliable). — Bilorv (talk) 19:04, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

When I tak about the cabanas it’s because usually you dont even have a bench to sit when you skateboard and want to rest. The specs of a skatepark are important to skateboarders. I visited the location and wanted to share the information — Preceding unsigned comment added by JP305 (talk • contribs)

Hi JP305. I can tell you are passionate about skateboarding. I think that is amazing and I'm very glad you are active and also able to get out in the community to visit some of these parks. Unfortunately, your experience while visiting is considered OR or original research. Wikipedia is only concerned with what reliable independent secondary sources say about the subject, in this case SkateBird Miami. As pointed out, it may just be too soon to write about the park. I'm not throwing in a lot of links because most all of the links provided by my fellow editors will get you where you need to go. What I will say is that I empathize with you and understand how important the subject is to you and that you just want to inform other skateboarders about the park and its amenities. Maybe writing your own blog about it or going to a website that features the park and sharing your experience will be better and allow you to share with others. It might just be too soon to meet the criteria here but, in time, maybe more will be written and eventually it will be appropriate to include an article. I hope this helps and I really hope you don't take offense to what my fellow editors are telling you because we all are just here to help. Be encouraged, much wikilove and happy editing! --ARoseWolf 19:51, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Calculating the elevation of a mountain and also distance between two places

1.Hello house, Please having the geographical coordinates of a mountain location, what tools can I use to measure the altitude of that mountain?

2. How do I measure the distance between two places on s map. Is there a tool to do that?Boadu Emma (talk) 19:48, 23 August 2021 (UTC) Boadu Emma (talk) 19:48, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

@Boadu Emma Please don't try to derive mountain heights yourself. This would probably be regarded as Original Research. Use reliably published sources that already refer to it, please. If none exist, try to find a source that talks about the general area and its elevation, and refer to it in appropriately vague terms. If you have the coordinates of both points, there are various online tools that a simple Google search can find for you for measuring distance. See also here. Nick Moyes (talk) 20:06, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Nick Moyes, thanks for answering me. I however, want to broaden my knowledge on how mountain's elevation is calculated. I will appreciate if anyone with such knowledge can help.Boadu Emma (talk) 20:21, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Boadu Emma, purely for your curiosity; mountains are usually calculated based on their height from sea level, but you can also calculate a mountain’s height from the base of a specific location. This is more ambiguous however, as many mountains have multiple starting points potentially even in different countries such as Mt Everest and Mt Kilimanjaro. There are additional concepts such as Topographic prominence. Happy learning and editing! ~ Shushugah (he/him • talk) 21:13, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Nick Moyes,thanks so much for your response — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boadu Emma (talk • contribs)

@Boadu Emma: A coordinate just gives you a point on the earth's surface to indicate where the summit is, not its elevation. Techniques for measuring summit elevation (albeit none of it relevant to adding info into Wikipedia articles) include classic Trigonometry, barometric pressure change, LiDAR and, of course, GPS. A quick Ecosia search gave me this, this, this, and even this. Because the Teahouse is a help forum for getting advice on editing Wikipedia, future general questions of this type should either be answered using a search engine and your own inititative, or by asking someone to do the donkey work for you at the WP:REFDESK. (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~.) Nick Moyes (talk) 22:17, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Nick Moyes, I can't find enough words to thank you. teahouse is blessed with excellent hostsBoadu Emma (talk) 22:46, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Could someone please explain

Allow me to clarify the offending links in here and I am asking for help: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=Template%3AAfc+preload%2Fdraft&editintro=Template%3AAfC+draft+editintro&title=Draft%3AThomas+Schoenberger&create=Create+new+article+draft:

The Youtube source I cited is cited as such Cicada 3301 ref 17 "Cracking the Code of Cicada 3301". YouTube. Great Big Story. Retrieved 23 May 2020 (though I changed the date to reflect my having re-watched it).

Had it not been so cited I would not have done so, and would have gone straight to IRC to ask how to do it. Is there a way you/wikipedia prefer television programs to be cited? Is there a better way to cite television programs that have aired previously but are not archived on their originating channel? Happy to cite this legitimate documentary the best possible way. Would imbd be better/ I also have imdbpro, but not everyone can access that, so it is really not fair to use it as a source?

FYI, I would never quote some Youtuber blabbing, but "Cracking the Code.." was seriously a documentary, and really good, too. Worth the watch. Thanks!

The wordpress links I use are sworn depositions in court cases which have been cited in part elsewhere for example, by The Daily Beast. Should I add additional links to Trellis, the lawsuit archive site to show they are real lawsuits?

The therealsamizdat is backed up by other sources like the The Great Big Story documentary above, news sources, etc.

I removed the weebly links.

Any other suggestions?

Thanks! PatSeeYou (talk) 20:56, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

See {{cite episode}}. As for the court papers, we consider those to be primary sources and thus of very limited use; they can't help for notability in any case. This applies to pretty much any other government document. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 21:02, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy: Draft:Thomas Schoenberger David notMD (talk) 21:56, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

WHY WAS MY PAGE DELETED ? I AM A PUBLIC PERSON, SOMEBODY HELP ME PLEASE ? THANKS

WHY WAS MY PAGE DELETED ? 2603:8001:B301:3F7D:10E9:B99D:B57E:5249 (talk) 00:01, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi and welcome to The Teahouse. What page are you referring to? I see no page/article that you created. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 00:04, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

IP editor, please do not type in all caps. That is like yelling. Give us the exact name of the deleted article. Just being a "public person" is not enough for a Wikipedia biography. Please read Wikipedia:Notability (people). Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:10, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:SHOUT. ― Qwerfjkltalk 10:11, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

new articles

Please let me know how long we should expect to get an approval once we publish content? Also, how can I be added as a regular writer/contributor? Schwartzemg (talk) 01:48, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Registering an account makes you a regular writer/contributor. Editing an existing article is immediate when you click on Publish changes at the bottom. If you are creating a new article, i.e., a draft, "Publish" means save to draft, not publish to mainspace. Please do not use "we". Accounts are for individuals, not groups. The Welcome on your Talk page has a link to how to create an article. David notMD (talk) 02:03, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Help with starting article?

How do I do it? DrumFromTheHeart (talk) 01:51, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Instructions are in the Welcome on your Talk page. That said, you will have a better change at creating an article if you first learn by editing existing articles. David notMD (talk) 02:00, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

How can I add a page from a different language translated over? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrumFromTheHeart (talk • contribs) 02:06, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

@DrumFromTheHeart: Welcome to the Teahouse! Creating a new article is one of the hardest things to do on Wikipedia, even if you're translating an article from another language Wikipedia. You'll first have to make sure that the subject meets the English Wikipedia's criteria for notbaility, since other Wikipedias may have different criteria. See Help:Translation and Help:Your first article for lots of detailed information. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 04:28, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

How to Suggest

Hi Wikipedians,

There is an article with an image that I believe is slightly unsuitable and should be slightly modified. But I don't think I can do it so can I suggest changing this image? Thanks, It'sBirdy (talk) 03:35, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

It'sBirdy, you can have an image modified to your specifications at the WP:Image lab.--Quisqualis (talk) 04:15, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Notability for record labels

Is there a notability guideline for record labels? I'm writing a draft article about Disciple Recordings, and would like to know if there is anything I should add to make a valid claim of significance. This draft is far from complete, I plan to build on most of the content that is already there. Thanks! EDM fan 2 (talk) 03:53, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

@EDM fan 2: Welcome to the Teahouse! I don't think there's a specific guideline for record labels - they would fall under Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 04:31, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Policy On Deletion of Content in an Article

I am currently involved in an editorial dispute regarding a statement in an article. Basically, I believe the statement is useful and should stay, and another editor has deleted it. I am wondering what the policy is regarding these sorts of disputes. Is there a preference for original content and the onus is on the remover to prove that the content removed is not according to policy? I am aware of WP:TASTE and WP:IDONTLIKEIT, but was wondering if there were any specific guidelines I should look into in addition to these. Koikefan (talk) 03:56, 24 August 2021 (UTC) Koikefan (talk) 03:56, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

The place for discussion is on the talk page of the article. If consensus isn't reached there, options are at WP:3O and WP:DR. --David Biddulph (talk) 07:39, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Talk:Jeremiah Lisbo Theroadislong (talk) 07:48, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

That article has been nominated for deletion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeremiah Lisbo. So the more immediate place for discussion is the AFD page. I have already declined a request to discuss at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard because there is already discussion at the AFD page. I am not at this time expressing an opinion on whether the article should be deleted or kept. However, the AFD discussion somewhat changes the matter of how to discuss the content of the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:38, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

David Biddulph Robert McClenon, thank you for the input. I think my posting here has been misinterpreted to mean that I am trying to solve the dispute through the Teahouse, but my question here is merely a question about process. Let me clarify by giving proper context: the statement in dispute was originally in the article, then it was deleted. A few back and forth reversions occurred and I was given a warning about edit warring (and the other party was not). Therefore, I ceased editing the article and now the current article has the statement deleted. Essentially, it is simply a matter of chance and the fact that I stopped editing that the statement's deletion "won out." Therefore my question is: if the dispute process runs its course, and no consensus is still reached, is it Wikipedia policy that the statement should be put back because that was the original state of the article? I.e. is the policy for these disputes similar to AfD discussions, where if there is no consensus the original article stays? Thank you for the help. Koikefan (talk) 17:07, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Koikefan - You certainly have brought either the content dispute or questions about the process of content disputes to multiple forums. I see that you now have a Request for Comments pending, and that is the method of reaching a consensus. I will ask you the same question as I have asked at WP:ANI, since you are in so many forums. Do you have any conflict of interest with either Jeremiah Lisbo or Star Cinema? If so, declare it. If not, you are creating a tempest in a teapot. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:15, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

This discussion is only tangentially related to the dispute and your continuing to bring it up and making it seem that way is extremely disruptive, inappropriate, and a demonstration of an assumption of bad faith. Not sure why the Rfc is a surprise, that has been in existence for 24 hours, no? (I see now that you acknowledged the Rfc in the other thread so you evidently already know about it. So why are you now pretending to be surprised about the Rfc? What strange behavior!) It seems as though you desperately want this discussion to be about the dispute by your continued attempts to bring up the dispute for some reason? I have answered your queries in the other thread. Asking them here again is pointless and, again, seems like your attempt to stir the pot. Please don't ask the same questions over and over again in different fora, as it might be construed as you creating a tempest in a teapot. Koikefan (talk) 05:19, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

"You certainly have brought either the content dispute or questions about the process of content disputes to multiple forums." <-- I have brought up my specific dispute in multiple forums, as these were suggested to me one by one. I.e. I followed the advice that was given to me. I have only asked about the process of disputes, as a general matter, in one forum: the Teahouse. Your attempting to conflate the two makes it seem like you just want to create problems where none exist (in addition to restarting discussions that were over and then subsequently complaining that discussions exist in multiple fora. Hint: they wouldn't exist in multiple fora if you didn't continue them in multiple fora.) Koikefan (talk) 05:31, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

New content

How to add new row in table of contents in a article Chaitanya Sure (talk) 04:00, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

@Chaitanya Sure: Welcome to the Teahouse! When you add a new section header, Wikipedia will automatically adjust the table of contents for the reader. For more information, see Help:Section. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 04:38, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Is there a way to find my article count?

I would add 1 to my {{User humility}} template, but I think I lost the track in between. Excellenc1 (talk) 04:16, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

@Excellenc1: Try the edit counter available on wmflabs https://xtools.wmflabs.org/ec/en.wikipedia.org/Excellenc1. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 04:29, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

This slightly different xtool link has the articles you have created: [3], it says 68 with 1 deleted, which is a little different than the count on your user page. RudolfRed (talk) 05:03, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

@RudolfRed: It doesn't count some of my articles like Thierry Lataste (which was actually another user's deleted draft which I continued) and Regional Council of Pays de la Loire (whose draft was made by me but was later merged to a pre-existing article which was made by another user while I was making my draft) and maybe a few others. Excellenc1 (talk) 11:27, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Adding a sentence to edit protected article

I requested someone to add a sentence to a semi-edit protected article here but nobody did. I can wait to get auto-confirmed and do it myself but is there a faster way (I am asking them to use the Washington Post, a reliable source)?-- Baamiyaan2 (talk) 04:38, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

The quickest way to edit a semi-protected article is to become auto-comfirmed. ― Qwerfjkltalk 10:16, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Baamiyaan2, the talk page consensus is that the sentence you suggested (using another account, and an IP) should not be added to the article. That means that you may not add it even when you are autoconfirmed. bonadea contributions talk 06:05, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia Content Live

 Arindam Roy Odisha (talk) 06:58, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

HOW TO VERIFY MY CONTENT & GET IT LIVE IN WIKIPEDIA. EVEN EARLIER TOO I WAS HAVING A WIKIPEDIA CONTENT LIVE BUT SOME HOW IT WAS DELETED AND POST To THAT I CREATED THIS CONTENT.

First, turn off Caps Lock and stop yelling at us. Second, your draft cites no usable sources. this isn't acceptable. Third, we have little and less tolerance for autobiographies. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 07:14, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

@Arindam Roy Odisha, start with WP:TUTORIAL. If you are trying to start a WP-article, see WP:YFA. If it's about a living person, also read WP:BLP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:15, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

See Vimal (actor) as an example of the style and content and referencing for an article about a person in the film industry in India. David notMD (talk) 11:14, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Citations

Can I use a book for citation, If it don't have ISBN number? And how to cite same book, many times in a article without writing same information again ? And can I add citation of Marathi language books. Newton Euro (talk) 07:05, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

1) Use the WorldCat number instead. 2) See Help:Footnotes#Footnotes: using a source more than once. 3) Yes; we accept non-English sources. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 07:11, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

@Newton Euro, Welcome! On "many times," If you use the method described here: WP:INTREF3, you can give your ref a name the first time, and to re-use it you click "Named references" in the toolbar. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:21, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Page move bug

Hi there! I would like you to fix this issue where for e.g. we make a page move for a page and move it to another page and again repeat the process for the third time, if we would like to move it to the original title(i.e. the first one), we can no longer do that. It gives an error message that the page already exists. It would be very helpful if you could fix this rather annoying bug. Thanks! Username006 (talk) 07:12, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Username006, it is not actually a bug, but a result of the fact that when you move a page, you create a redirect from the old title. You can request a move back to the original title at Wikipedia:Requested moves. --bonadea contributions talk 07:46, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

@Bonadea: No, because when you do the page move only twice, that time you can revert it. Username006 (talk) 07:48, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

@Username006: That's how it's supposed to work. As a normal user with no user rights you can delete single revision redirects when you move a page as long as the redirect is targeting the article you are moving. if you move a page from A to B you leave a redirect at A pointing to B, so you can delete the redirect and move the page back. If you move A to B then to C you're left trying to move C over a redirect pointing to B which you're not allowed to do. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 07:55, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

@192.76.8.74: Oh okay. But the error it gives is a bit misleading.Username006 (talk) 02:44, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

When will the article shown in the sanbox get published?

Hi. I would like to know when will the article contributed by will get published? Vaiga Manoj (talk) 07:52, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Vaiga Manoj/sandbox has not yet been submitted for review, but it would be pointless to submit it in its current state as it has no references. Please read the advice at WP:Your first article. --David Biddulph (talk) 07:56, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Vaiga Manoj, it would be pointless to submit it, or anything like it, because it's blatantly promotional. And that's why I have deleted it. If you want to broadcast an advertisement for this fellow (or anyone else), please do so on some other website. -- Hoary (talk) 08:29, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

How to be the first one to create an article on a current event?

Like the ones which come in the main page's 'In The News' section... Excellenc1 (talk) 11:22, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

@Excellenc1 Creating an article on an unfolding current event is very difficult. It requires good understanding of WP:NEVENT and WP:NOTNEWS and the ability to find sources that are highly likely to change hour by hour which in themselves show that an event is worthy of an article here. See also Wikipedia:In the news and Wikipedia:News sources. I remember being up rather late one evening a few years ago (doing WP:NPP work), and saw a brand new page about a fire in a London building that had just been reported. It did not seem notable to me, as so few fires would be. But I decided to give it time, and also turned on UK TV News in case there was any coverage. There was - and it became the Grenfell Tower fire article, and I was pleased I didn't reject it at the time. Personally, I would advise staying away from that kind of breaking news environment unless you are really passionate about such topics and want to edit in a dog-eat-dog scramble to start new pages about such events. Nick Moyes (talk) 12:57, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Excellenc1, the advice you got from Nick Moyes is excellent. I will add that breaking news on underrepresented areas of the world may be an exception to the general rule about editing frenzies. So if you're interested in current events, I would recommend staying abreast of news in the developing world. Many important events that happen in Africa, for example, are not covered at all--or not covered well--here. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:15, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

That's a very good point. Sadly, we do seem to have a bias towards articles about events and topics in English speaking and 'first world' countries. The difficulty of finding 'reliable sources' must increase exponentially when we're working in a foreign language in those less written-about parts of the world. Nick Moyes (talk) 16:43, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Koli and kshatriya koliya are different

koli are different from kshatriya Thakor and koli because I have read some where in the koligstan page that they are different and whenever I make a new page for kshatriya Thakor it always get deleted you Wiki I have some proofs of old book pages If you want then I can show you also An indian ancient philospher (talk) 12:01, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

@An indian ancient philospher: So, if I'm understanding correctly, you tried to create a page and it got deleted? What was the title of the page you tried to create? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 15:32, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

The Star of (the?) Backstage

Hello, I'm not sure if should I use The Star of Backstage or The Star of the Backstage per English grammar rules. Could you help? Thanks! Patrik L. (talk) 12:15, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

That would depend on context. If you are asking about the Simpsons episode, then the correct title according to The Simpsons (season 33) lacks the definite article. If you think that is wrong, you can discuss it on the talk page of that article.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:45, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

zh:中华人民共和国反外国制裁法

Hello! Could you translate from Chinese or use Google transleter? Help me, please--Станислав Савченко (talk) 12:27, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

@Станислав Савченко Welcome to the Teahouse. See WP:TRANSLATE for information on how translation between different language Wikipedias can be done most effectively. Nick Moyes (talk) 12:49, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Or use Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language GrahamHardy (talk) 14:14, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you everyone for your help!--Станислав Савченко (talk) 14:31, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Would it be a COI if...

If I edited a page for the town I live in? It seems like it would be but I"m not exactly sure. I'm not the mayor of my town so maybe not? Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 13:05, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

If you're working for the town council/town tourism board (or are editing on behalf of one of those people) and wanting to use Wikipedia as a means of promotion/advertising, then it would be a COI. Otherwise, no it's not a COI to edit on the town you live in, and it makes sense to edit something that you're interested in and presumably knowledgeable about. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:16, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

... but of course the edits should be based not on your own knowledge, but on published reliable sources. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:19, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

@Blaze The Wolf If you are someone who values your online anonymity, consider avoiding editing things such as your local school or college articles - these could theoretically help someone work out where you live, where you went to school and who you might be. Personally, I don't care, but I know many others here do. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:21, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

As far as I know my local school is not notable enough to have an article. But thanks for the heads up. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 13:42, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

/'

 86.26.112.191 (talk) 13:29, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse! Did you have a question that you would like to ask us? Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 13:40, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Archiving talkpage

How can I archive my talk page? Hyderabadi (talk) 13:49, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

For help on archiving a talk page, see Help:Archiving a talk page. - David Biddulph (talk) 13:53, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

To quickly set it up, add {{subst:Setup auto archiving}}. ― Qwerfjkltalk 18:32, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Is a 23rd great grandson still a conflict of interest?

There is no article for Hans Landis, the last Anabaptist Martyr in Zurich. He is a distant relative, 23rd great grandfather, so would creating an article for him be a conflict of interest? Beelzebub's Brother (talk) 13:59, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

@Beelzebub's Brother: writing a draft and submitting it for review is the only viable venue on Wikipedia for an editor with a conflict of interest to write an article. See Wikipedia:Articles for creation and follow the instructions there. I'd say that a "distant relative" probably doesn't cross the line into a conflict of interest, but Articles for Creation is still a good idea for new editors, because you can work on your draft in a safe space and take your time on it, without worrying about someone coming along and deleting it because it isn't ready for publication. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:49, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

@Beelzebub's Brother: I'd say probably not. Here's the test: ask yourself honestly, if you came across negative information about the person, would you hesitate to include it in the article? If yes, that's a COI. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 15:29, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

@Beelzebub's Brother: Sdkb's test is a good one. It depends about how you feel about your 23rd great grandfather. If he's a family tradition who has been celebrated every generation since, of whom the family are deeply proud, who is the subject of conversation every time two aunts are gathered together, then probably yes, you're too close. But if he's just an ancient relative who you happen to be aware of as something someone mentioned once, then no, it's not a conflict. I personally (very risky statement coming up) don't care much about conflict of interest editing, because if someone writes good, balanced encyclopaedic stuff, I cannot tell whether they have a conflict, and the result is the same as had it been written by someone unconnected. The problem is that it's very difficult for someone to write good, balanced encyclopaedic stuff about their own brother. So I'd agree with Anacrhonist: if you think your ancestor is notable, and you think you can write a good, referenced and balanced article, give it a go. The worst case scenario is someone will think you're biased and nominate it for deletion, so if you can cope with that risk, why not try? Elemimele (talk) 16:59, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Is this article notable?

 Excellenc1 (talk) 15:14, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

@Excellenc1: Highly doubtful, and if it is, the present sourcing (only one primary source) certainly doesn't establish it. I've gone ahead and placed a WP:PROD tag on the article; thanks for the find! {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 15:24, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Creating a New Wikipedia page

How do you create a new wikipedia page? BalancePublicRelations (talk) 15:29, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! Thanks for your interest in contributing to Wikipedia. Check out this guide to start creating an article. Fare thee well! Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 15:44, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

BalancePublicRelations Before you do so, I would advise you to read our guidelines for conflict of interest editing, paid editing and the username policy. Pahunkat (talk) 15:53, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @BalancePublicRelations: Greetings, and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia doesn't have "pages", per se--we have encyclopedia articles on subjects deemed to be notable, in Wikipedia's particular sense of the term. See Wikipedia:Your first article for details. But please note several things:

• Your username does not appear to meet our username policy as it represents a company and implies shared use. Please create a new account representing only you as an individual.
• Regardless of your username, you are required per the Terms of Use to which you agreed when creating your account to disclose any paid relationship you have with the subjects of any article you are editing.
• Encyclopedia articles need to maintain a neutral point of view, and therefore whether paid or not, we strongly discourage editors from working in areas where they have a conflict of interest, because it is difficult for such editors to maintain this neutrality.
• Articles should primarily draw their sourcing from reliable sources which are independent of the subject--we care very little about what a subject has to say about itself, and any language which can be seen as promotional will likely be removed.

Please peruse the various links to policies and procedures which I have provided above, and please feel free to ask further questions. Thanks, and happy editing! --Finngall ^talk 16:07, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Why doesn’t Wikipedia use advertising to pay for its content, like so many other platforms? I.e. YouTube. They would never have to ask for money.

 73.71.173.85 (talk) 16:00, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Great question. You might enjoy reading this page for the historical, ongoing discussion around this topic. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 16:07, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Advertisements are anathema to our values. Wikipedia is built by people like me who have dedicated thousands of hours of completely unpaid volunteer time, and I would seriously consider leaving if adverts were introduced. They would violate our neutral point of view policy, because advertisers would start trying to use that as leverage over us about what we can and cannot say. If you become financially reliant on a company and they notice that your encyclopedia article about them covers the parts of their history they wish to whitewash, then that company is going to threaten to withdraw support, and you will either have to violate your principles or find a new source of revenue.

As it is, the Wikimedia Foundation are completely able to support Wikipedia's servers and many other projects if you choose not to donate (despite the misleading banners that they place on our website during donation drives). I believe I am not alone in much preferring people to donate volunteer labour time rather than money, because we are in dire need of new volunteers and largely unable to complete many basic maintenance tasks that we need to keep our positive reputation and quality standards. — Bilorv (talk) 17:42, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

How can I add further references?

What are you looking for, media articles? I had included first rate international museums and collections that hold the artist's work (Vatican, White House, Portuguese Presidency Museum), as well as major internatinal private art collections (eg. Doria Pamphilij) ...so I really don't understand what it is you require exactly.

 Leonel Pedro Gonçalves (talk) 16:30, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Which article/ draft are you talking about? If it's Draft:Barahona Possollo, you have no references at all. Try reading the advice at WP:Your first article and the links therefrom. Also, please read the feedback, on the draft page and on your user talk page. The words in blue are wikilinks to further advice. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:36, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

@Leonel Pedro Gonçalves: Wikipedia has a very stringent policy for biographies of living people. For example you say "He has had an almost inexplicable attraction for ancient Egypt" but give no indication of who said so or why that's an important fact. All facts in such a biography must be supported by a reliable source so that readers can confirm that this is not just some random comment. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:51, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

@Leonel Pedro Gonçalves:This draft looks like a PR piece written by the artist's own public relations representatives, and would need to be completely rewritten to be turned into a proper encyclopedia article. As such, I have tagged the draft for speedy deletion as blatantly promotional. Please start over, using only verifiable references to reliable sources which are independent of the subject. If these cannot be found (and they don't have to be in English, as long as they can be properly cited), then there is literally nothing upon which an encyclopedia article can be based. --Finngall ^talk 17:09, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Leonel Pedro Gonçalves, 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. --ColinFine (talk) 18:40, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

First Article

Hello, I have been making minor edits for a while now. I made a draft on a subject that needed an article. I am by no means an expert on the subject. And as this is my first article, I would like some input please. Bulletinbored (talk) 16:57, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

You need to read the advice at WP:Your first article, and the links therefrom. In particular, you need to learn how to include references. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:01, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

thank you. Bulletinbored (talk) 17:06, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:Acala Cotton

@Bulletinbored: Have you considered adding this paragraph to the existing Gossypium hirsutum article instead? GoingBatty (talk) 22:45, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

@GoingBatty: It might be better just to have it redirect, as Acala Cotton is already mentioned in the existing article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bulletinbored (talk • contribs) 23:12, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Who wrote this article

Malayal 41.116.94.252 (talk) 17:21, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

You have not named or linked to any article, so we can't tell you. In general, most Wikipedia articles have been written and edited by many different contributors, sometimes hundreds. You can see the complete history of all edits (additions, changes and deletions), including its initial creation, made to an article by clicking on the "View history" tab at the top of the article page. Hope this helps. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.121.162.207 (talk) 17:31, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

[As there was no article so-named, I assumed in my response above that "Malayal" was intended as a signature. Apologies for the misinterpretation. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.121.162.207 (talk) 12:34, 25 August 2021 (UTC)]

(edit conflict) I don't see an article with that title, although there is one for Malayali. As with all Wikipedia articles, it is likely to have had a number of editors whose contributions can be seen using the "View history" tab for the article. There is also a tool to summarize the contributions, showing who added most material, which you will find using the "Page history" link on the top of that tab. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:32, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

My reference In Popular Culture was deleted?

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

Note to self: Apparently editing is NOT a collaborative effort. Got it. Didn't realize pages are "owned" by individuals. When did that change as I was thanked previously for my first edit? Good to know for future attempts which may or may not happen. Thanks Wikipedia (Considering canceling my monthly $$ amount)Alden Street (talk) 17:24, 24 August 2021 (UTC) Alden Street (talk) 17:24, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

@Alden Street: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia so that means that we only collect facts that have been reported in reliable sources. There are many other reasons we require all facts to be sourced, such as that lots of trolls come here to add deliberately false misinformation and that readers should be looking at our references to check facts they need confirmed. You can cancel your donation if you want—certainly no-one reading your message is receiving the money. I, at least, prefer people to volunteer time rather than money, but working in a collaborative environment means that you should not respond with anger or hurt when somebody informs you something new about the way Wikipedia works, and conflicts should be resolved by polite discussion (you could have contacted the person who undid your edit to ask for further explanation). — Bilorv (talk) 17:36, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to The Teahouse. Please don't get discouraged. It appears your edit did not include a cited source. Please try again but include a source for your edit(s). Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 17:36, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Bilorv If I knew who undid the edit I could have reached out to that person, but I don't know how to find that person. And as far as citing a source, I cited the season and episode that mentioned the Nambu pistol. How does one include a source citation for a TV show episode? And, BTW, EVERYONE in Wikipedia is receiving the money. QED. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alden Street (talk • contribs)

I will note that the edit summary gives the impression that WP:MILPOP is Wikipedia policy but it is not. It is part of the essay WP:MILCG which clearly notes it is not policy. However, WP:N and WP:V are policies and WP:MILPOP is based on those policies. To Alden Street: Please don't get discouraged. See if you can find a reliable source to your statement. If you can then you may re-add the content with the source in the form of an inline citation as the only issue presented is that it was unsourced. My fellow editors, @Pyrrho the Skeptic and @Bilorv, have pointed out some links you might be interested in should you decide to continue editing here. --ARoseWolf 17:51, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

[Edit Conflict] Your two latest edits were correctly amended and reverted by Loafiewa, the first because you made an incorrect wikilink to a wrong or ambiguous target, the second because you did not cite any source for the information. Wikipedia is collaborative, but contributions have to be both accurate and in accordance with our (admittedly quite complex and extensive) rules and guidelines, painstakingly evolved over sixteen-or-so years.

Reversion of an edit is just part of our Standard Operating Procedure of "Bold, Revert, Discuss." You Boldly made some edits, Loafiewa thought they were not correctly done, and amended or Reverted them, the next step is for you to Discuss the reverted one with Loafiewa (and others who may choose to join in) on the Article's Talk page, or on Loafiewa's Talk page, or on yours, whichever you prefer. Most likely you will agree on how to properly link or cite that contribution. This is all normal and no animosity or ownership is involved.

Donations are made to the Wikimedia Foundation, which runs many activities and projects, not just English Wikipedia. All editors on Wikipedia are unpaid volunteers who have no access whatever to any information about donations, so are not influenced by them (or their absence).

To find out who made a revertion or other edit to the article, just click on the "View History" tab, where the reason for the edit should be given following the linked signature of the editor. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.121.162.207 (talk) 17:57, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Pirzada Shakir

Pirzada Shakir is a Journalist based in Jammu and Kashmir India. He is working with The Kashmir Walla Magazine and contributing to several news organistions 169.149.11.36 (talk) 18:17, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Did you have a question about Pirzada Shakir in relation to Wikipedia? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:19, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Not a new editor, but I could use some help

The Otokonoko page and the Glossary of anime and manga are both caught in the crossfire of... well, I suppose it's a content dispute, though I hesitate to label it as such. One user, who I'm suspecting more and more of being a WP:SEALION, is insistent on adding a particular term ("trap") to both articles. Thing is, there's only one even remotely reliable source linking the term to the articles' subjects, and the term itself is a real-world slur.

I personally don't want it included because 1) sourcing linking it is sketchy at best, and 2) real-world slur, but I am willing to compromise by including it with the source while noting that it's offensive. I'm having a heck of a time communicating with the other editor about this.

I'd really appreciate it if someone (or several someones) could have a look at the edit history of the two articles I mentioned and at their talkpages, and if said someone/s would be willing to review my conduct. I've been an editor since 2014, but as I mostly gnome, I'm not as familiar with the intricacies of being in a content dispute and I'd appreciate fresh, uninvolved eyes having a look to see if I've missed something obvious or if I'm being a jerk.

I have a sneaking suspicion the next step is going to be dispute resolution, so I'd also appreciate any guidance for that, since it's also pretty new to me. Thanks in advance for any help you can offer! NekoKatsun (nyaa) 21:14, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Oh, man. I've read the last two sections of the Otokonoko talkpage, time that I'll never get back. (Can't face reading the other talkpage as well.) NekoKatsun, it seems to me (as it apparently does to you) that going on as you are is not an option. I suggest you use Wikipedia:Third opinion to assist in forming a consensus. An RFC is another option, but it seems a little ridiculous for this kind of thing, and might not attract much interest. If WP:3O doesn't do it, feel free to contact me on my page and I'll see what I can do; maybe protect the article. Bishonen | tålk 23:04, 24 August 2021 (UTC).

Yeah, it's... a lot (thank you so much; I know how exhausting that must've been). I'll have a look at WP:3O, I appreciate it! NekoKatsun (nyaa) 23:13, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Reverted edit: What did I do wrong?

Hi, newbie here

I added a table to Euler angles and the change was reverted shortly after, and the admin who did it left me a message on my talk page about "disruptive editing" and vandalism.

I'm not sure what I did wrong, and I'm not sure the person who reverted my changes will answer (or do people usually take days or weeks to answer on Wikipedia?)

So, what did I do wrong? Dragorn421 (talk) 21:25, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

See your talk page someone answered your question: (( here )) —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 22:01, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

and sorry about mentioning it as "answered" they've told you how to Ping a specific user. —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 22:02, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

if you need anything else just ask here, you'll shortly be assisted by someone professional. —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 22:04, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello @Dragorn421! Welcome to Wikipedia! It's unfortunate that you got into a confusing situation at the very start, but it was probably a mistake. You can post your query to User talk:Bbb23 to ask the editor directly, since the ping seems to have been missed. Alternatively, you can post to Talk:Euler angles, something along the lines of "I had added [describe] table to the article which was reverted as vandalism, but since it is not a vandalism, I am assuming it was a mistake and trying again" and add back the table to the article with a clear edit summary along the lines of "It was not a vandalism; please discuss this with me at the talk page where I have started a discussion". Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:36, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Please Approve or Ban me Permanently

Hello Dear Admins, As always satuition in Afghanistan so Bad, Just killing and Kilings... I am also one them the people who living in Afghanistan. I thought i would be helping my country people and copmanies those are Known to create pages as much i can, Cause our people are not familar with Technology and they can't. But here in wikipedians really didn't helped me, Instead of Few of Them were asking for money to approve my page, But i told them i need ligit work and want to learn. I am seeing there bunches of pages those don't have even on Reference as well but still approved, but in case admins like they having personal issues with me. They don't feel in how much struggling i am trying to work, I spent more than Hurdred Hourse on my article, and i have good refrences than many pages, but still not approving.

PLEASE MAKE DECESION NOW, APPROVE MY PAGE, OR DELETE DELETE MY ACCOUNT PERMENETLY ImanSalvador (talk) 21:45, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

sorry to hear that i will tag an administrator immediately —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 21:52, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

• It is not possible to delete an account, but you may abandon it. 331dot (talk) 21:54, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

hello dear @Oshwa sorry to bother you, but i thought you have to hear that! according to @ImanSalvador she/he wants to create Articles that's Totally legit and it's their right, but someone tries to ask for money for that, i think the problem shouldn't be neglected that's why i am informing you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sakura emad (talk • contribs)

thanks for accepting it. —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 21:55, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

@ImanSalvador: Welcome to the Teahouse. As terrible as the situation is in Afghanistan, Wikipedia does not make concessions for regions in conflict, and new articles must still follow the encyclopedia's policies and guidelines. The reviewers who reviewed your draft, Draft:Zwak News, are not admins. The biggest concern that reviewers raised is that the references do not establish notability as Wikipedia defines it from reliable sources. I see the draft being written as ad copy, which is not the tone that Wikipedia goes for.
Wikipedia has been around for two decades, with existing guidelines and policies enforced and created years after the project's creation. This means some articles have slipped through the cracks, and would very likely be deleted; however, the project is vast, and people edit where they want to edit, so it isn't surprising some articles are neglected.
If someone is asking for money to approve [your] page, report them to paid-en-wp@wikimedia.org; articles are not held hostage for approval. It is most likely a scam and should be reported.

Wikimedia accounts cannot be deleted, as edits need to be attributed to one. You can abandon the account and never use it again if you wish to stop editing Wikipedia. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:13, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

• If ImanSalvador has really run into people here who are "asking for money to approve my page", those people are CROOKS and must be ignored. But I'll help you ping @Oshwah:, Sakura emad; you misspelled the admin's name, which means your ping won't work. Bishonen | tålk 23:13, 24 August 2021 (UTC).

  😪 omg my bad, thank you for helping @Bishonen. —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 23:31, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

• This user has been a regular in -en-help and AfC/HD. His draft existed before the Afghanistan crisis started and has consistently never had anything near acceptable sources, to the point that they evidently fabricated a source (rather clumsily) in an attempt to bypass our sourcing requirements. I'd actually look into this user's history; I have a feeling they have a high conflict of interest here and the attempts at fabricating sources, emotional manipulation, etc. are the signs of someone who shouldn't be editing Wikipedia full stop. As to the draft itself, it's at MfD due to repeated resubmissions without addressing the issues reviewers keep pointing out. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 05:25, 25 August 2021 (UTC) (Edited 05:27, 25 August 2021 (UTC) to link MfD)

be bold?

Hello everyone

hope you have a great day, i have question in your perspective what is the meaning of "Be bold" in Wikipedia?

i want each individuals opinions, each of them is precious and has their own weight

hope you answer thanks. —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 21:48, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

"Being bold" is the act of doing something yourself instead of waiting for someone else to do it or asking for consensus. In my opinion, it's actually a great thing as it encourages people that if they want something to change then they must do it themself or it won't happen. The only problem is the fear of getting your edit reverted which is probably what keeps people from making bold edits. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 21:57, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion, it is precious and helps me to understand more about wikipedia through other individuals experience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sakura emad (talk • contribs)

there so many things that discourages you to be bold, for example unfriendly People, short tempered People, as everyone make mistakes they should be Advised and give them the opportunity to learn more, but sometimes i see the opposite. —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 22:10, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Formally, Bold is part of BRD: Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Be bold, but if reverted, start a discussion at Talk. David notMD (talk) 22:31, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, Sakura emad. That's a good reply from Blaze The Wolf. You can read more about Being bold at WP:BEBOLD. It is never nice having one's bold edit reverted, but if that happens it is hoped that editors will not suddenly revert it back, but would then start to discuss the issue, and work out the best edit to actually make. One may mention certain Wikipedia policies that they've based their action on, and the other might counter with supporting evidence or an alternative interpretation. In the end, it is hoped that a consensus would prevail through discussion. But doing so by plan text can always sound harsher than it is meant. You are absolutely right that the way we some of us communicate here can be off-putting (and I'm sure that applies to me, too, sometimes). So, I am sorry if you have ever felt intimidated or bullied by other editors speaking frankly or abruptly. I do hope that is offset by those others who speak kindly to you, and I see from your talk page that that has indeed been happening. Please try to understand that the more silly or inappropriate the edit or action appears, the more likely someone is to add a bluntly-worded edit summary, and come across as a bit rude. But if that happens, rather than be upset, you can quite simply go to their talk page and ask in a pleasant tone for an explanation, perhaps stating that you are new and want to learn. My hope would be that you would receive an explanation that will help you learn yet another of the innumerable and very intricate way we operate to keep our 6.2million articles in the best shape as possible. We need more female editors like you, so do reach out to Hosts and other users here if you ever feel confused or intimidated, and need help. That's what we're here for. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:34, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Dear @Nick Moyes i appreciate the way you advice and understand me, it is ok if my edits be reverted (with explanation) it likely happen when i edit in a wrong way, and i really appreciate the soul who gives me the right way to learn and understand more about the environment, as you said yes some mention Wikipedia policies ( as i did) some mention how their work is independent and how reliable their sources are, i believe both parties trying their way to help wikipedia since our goal is to build free, accessible encyclopedia, and i am really sorry you don't need to apologize in anyone's behalf, i think you did and you're trying to do the right job (that's very kind of you), to be honest i felt unfriendly in my first days here, but i understand that everyone tries their best at least in their way to build a better and greater community and for the sake of, i am happy 😊 about it, in the end i appreciate your Hardworks and your Tools that've been used to protect the community, thanks for encouraging me as a Female User to participate on the Wikipedia i am sure it applies to other Female Users too, My Respect for you and her Majesty :) . —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 23:14, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

@David notMDThank you, i think it is important then i planning to read it. —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 23:16, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Help me, I would like to add a vancouver doctor onto wikipedia

 Hiyaitsvanessa (talk) 22:22, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Hiyaitsvanessa, does this person satisfy WP:PERSON? If the answer is yes, then what help are you looking for? -- Hoary (talk) 22:31, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Needing Formatting Help with New WikiProject

So a few months ago, a WikiProject proposal was made for a 2010s decade WikiProject. Earlier today, it was formed as the WikiProject Twenty-Tens decade. I haven't really messed with much of the behind the scenes stuff on Wikipedia. I just spent 25 minutes creating the banner for it. Any chance someone would be willing to help with the formatting and template stuff to get the WikiProject off to a good start? Thanks for any help in advance! Elijahandskip (talk) 22:30, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

@Elijahandskip welcome to the Teahouse. Goodness, that's an incredibly broad subject area - probably far too broad to be really practicable. However, the best place to seek help and advice is Wikipedia:WikiProject Council and its corresponding talk page. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:55, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Ah thanks for the help. Actually, the proposal had 6 other experienced editors support the idea. The WikiProject will be a part of thousands of articles, but in ones that go outside the decade (like Covid-19 pandemic), the WikiProject only focuses on improving the part inside the decade (aka 2019 for that article). Elijahandskip (talk) 23:54, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Need help with rogue editor. Was referred here by dispute resolution.

This is about the page, The Palmer Report. I was told when I lodged a complaint on the dispute board, to come here. There is an edit war raging and luckily, it stopped in July. But a rogue editor has stirred the pot again and locked the page down and "talk" as well. Palmer Report is a Left-wing blog. It offers Political news and often analysis.

The founder once ran a site called "The daily News bin." The editor I refer to is Dr. Swaglordphd. I do not wish to speak bad of him but he is the one who will not let this go. Apparently, Swag changed PR header to say it is a fake news site. This produced hard feelings. Swag did say in his edit "feel free to revert." The problem is he's got alot of friends on here and some editors were pissed that this started up again so they locked the talk page. I read every comment, I made some of those comments and no threats were made, just pleas to please take "fake news" out of the header. This is not a fake news site and in fact was just featured on MSNBC the other night with Brian Williams. MSNBC is a recognized source. It would appear to me that some are just interested in "winning" versus really thinking about the issue. If you look at the talk page, several editors agree with me. Several. One even went so far as to say by stating that calling PR fake news one is basically calling them b-sh#t. This is not a non-biased thing and anyway Dr. swag must have known this since when he did his edit he invited anyone to revert it back. Dr. swag has also been complained about by Raw story for basically doing the same. They are also left-wing.It would seem he wants to as one complaint put it, push down the good stuff and push the bad stuff upward. I am hoping SOMEONE will take this seriously and even if the term fake news must remain there is no reason why it must remain in the header. I invite anyone to read what has been going on there and lastly -- Dr. swag now wants to change it AGAIN and wipe out the word "website" explaining that PR has always been the daily bin and that they are the exact same thing. This does not come from a reliable source. It comes from Dr. swag's preconceived notions. In fact I am and was a reader of both and they are two completely different sites. Here are his words that speak for themselves.I ask for help from a kind and non-biased editor or editors.

Swaglord: 4) For all intents and purposes, Daily News Bin is the Palmer Report. There is no difference in content or ownership between the two. Palmer literally just changed 2600:6C65:7E7F:B93E:3992:37A7:BB99:C937 (talk) 22:56, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy link: Palmer Report. Karenthewriter (talk) 23:02, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Person using a very long IP number, your post above is very long. I confess that I haven't read it with care. (I really doubt that anyone will. In order to be persuasive, you must first be read; and in order to be read, you must maximize the signal/noise ratio.)

• You seem to have a content dispute. There have been content disputes about the article in its talk page, Talk:Palmer Report. You don't seem to have participated. Participate, persuasively. (Tip: Before hitting "Publish changes", try reading what you've written, aloud. Cut the flab.) If the discussion is problematic, look at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for tips on what to do and how to do it.
• Incidentally, while you're free to participate without being logged in, it's likely that what you say will be taken more seriously if you are logged in as such-and-such a user ID.
• In recent days, you (or somebody resembling you) have twice attempted to bring this up on Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. The first time, you were told "the filing editor did not correctly list any other editors and did not notify any other editors". That shows that you ignored (or didn't bother to read) the instructions at the top of that noticeboard. But that comment seems to have had no effect on you, because the second time: "Closed for failure to read instructions or follow the listing rules." Transporterman added: "The filing party [that's you] is obviously struggling with limited resources and the complexity of Wikipedia and is advised to seek help at the Wikipedia Teahouse which is intended to help newcomers." (I'll attempt to help by suggesting that you get a user ID, log in under it, and participate in the discussions on the page Talk:Palmer Report.) Meanwhile, don't kid yourself that the "Dispute resolution noticeboard" offers a way to avoid the need for meticulously worded statement. See "Psychology" on that noticeboard for an example of how a complainant should set out a case there.

-- Hoary (talk) 05:08, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Complaints about rogue editors in Wikipedia are common, and usually have either of two effects. Either they are simply ignored, or they result in a boomerang being thrown back at the complaining editor for the personal attack. Civility is the fourth pillar of Wikipedia, and does not just consist of the avoidance of "bad words", but of treating other editors with a minimum amount of respect and dignity because they are human beings. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:25, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

@Hoary: I would remind you that IPs are human too, even when they use IPv6 (person using a very long IP number). Furthermore, one should not have to register an account (never seen the term "user id" before btw) to get taken seriously; if some people are dismissing OP’s queries based on their IP status, they are the ones in the wrong. Of course, your other points about brevity still stand. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 12:14, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Tigraan, I do understand that IPs are human too; I dismissed the detail of this effusion not because its writer wasn't logged in but because of its prolixity. (As I glance below, I get the impression that you and I agree at least partially.) I didn't dismiss it as a whole; indeed, I responded to it (or anyway to certain aspects of it). -- Hoary (talk) 12:31, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

OK. I am going to respond and this post maybe long but that's just the way it is. You do not have to read if you choose not to. First off, I have participated so you are wrong about that. They locked the talk-page down. Then I went to dispute and was referred here. All rules followed! I DID let editors know. Wiki said to go to their talk-pages and that is exactly what I did. There was one editor who seemed to be anonymous but I posted on at least three editors talk-pages. I have said (about 50 times now) that I am recovering from a broken knee. I am not asking for sympathy for that but that IS the reason I cannot spend alot of time on here and the only reason I keep speaking about my broken knee is because everybody keeps ignoring me and asking me to create an account. I cannot due to the knee and the fact that the person whose computer I use is frankly not a fan of Wiki and does not want me to make an account using his computer which, being a kind and understanding soul, I understand.I am grateful he let me use it at all. I have tried being polite and kind and specific and I do not like nor do I understand being accused of a personal attack on an editor. I am sure he is a very nice person. I have a disagreement with him. I asked for help. That's all. It also boggles my mind. Free speech is a thing. Are you telling me that questioning an editor's judgement is considered a personal attack? So, this place that is supposedly opened to the world is in reality not because if one cannot have meaningful discussions and communications without being scolded then where is the free speech? I am on here because two blogs I love--Palmer Report and Raw Story--are being lied about. Sorry to be politically incorrect but when I am sweet and docile and polite I am labeled as not being courteous to the editors. An analogy would be like complaining there's a big in your food and being scolded by the manager for being impolite to bring it up. I am educated and as such I know when avoidance is happening. I think that is called the strawman's argument? I wrote with politeness and instead of actually addressing the issue you make it into something else. I read every comment including from many people who are not me and all I saw were many generalizations and no addressing the core principle--which is the heading of the article itself. A few )brave) editors tried but there seems to be a "good ole" system going on. It is quite a disillusionment. Did you know when I went to write this, a request from Wiki for money popped up? You have rules that are to deep, corporate and unyielding for any non-regular to be able to follow coherently. It is an exercise in futility. The fact that nobody has still addressed my question nor answered complaints on Raw Story as well as Palmer Report tells me the general consensus is non-caring about fairness and frankly honesty. Many of the editors on here are very smart and have been around quite a long, long time. That does not make my opinion any less valid. This is not said with anger but I understand it will be labeled as such because there appears to be no way to have an honest and fair conversation with many of the editors on here. (Not all.) In closing, ask yourself this: why are less and less people giving to your organization? Why is Wiki's reputation so awful? Why are there so many unresolved complaints? Even the smartest people have competency issues. I obviously cannot go to talk on a locked-down page and obviously if you had given even a cursory glance at my first post you'd know and understand that. I resent being called unwilling to learn---I came on here for one question. And it never was answered. In closing I will not bother you again but you will most likely continue to receive complaints, continue to rebuff anyone new or unaware of how the system works (or lacking in the means to spend much time learning.) I hope this is not considered an attack. It is not. You know what it is? It's called feedback. Yes, even Wikipedia editors are not immune from that. And sometimes feedback involves length and specific answers to questions which you seem to interpet as not being polite. I will leave you to your loftiness and please refer to this post if you ever want feedback, not anger. Bye, Someone who tried. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6c65:7e7f:b93e:3992:37a7:bb99:c937 (talk) 06:24, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

There is no freedom of speech on Wikipedia, any more than freedom of speech lets me rewrite an article in CNN when I don't like it. This is a privately owned website and the owners, the Wikimedia Foundation, just so happen to be kind enough to let the Wikipedia community decide by consensus what the boundaries for acceptable communication are. — Bilorv (talk) 10:05, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

• Writing long posts when one could have shortened them is not being polite. It has been part of the etiquette of letter-writing for centuries that you should take time to shorten what you write out of respect for the time of the reader. In the case of internet forums, this effect is even stronger because what one person writes is read by many, therefore the one person should be aware that whatever waste of time they cause is multiplied by the number of people reading.

Here’s what your first post here should have been: I have an edit dispute with User:Dr.Swag_Lord,_Ph.d at the page Palmer Report. They changed the header [lead] to say it is a fake news site. The page was locked [semi-protected] afterwards. I have an MSNBC source proving that the Palmer Report is not fake news, but Dr. SwagLord will not allow it because they have a bias.

I added in [brackets] the Wikipedia-jargon terms, but it is OK to not know these. Notice how this "summary" drops any discussion of the inner motives of other editors (left/right-wing bias, preconceived notions, etc.) which is irrelevant in any case, or the detailed history of the dispute (which can be found on the talk page of the article). Notice also how it is one short paragraph and will be read entirely by anyone coming across this noticeboard.

I suspect your latest post was also particularly ineffective. If I may do some mind-reading of Bilorv, they appear to have read up until your mention of "free speech" and then typed their reply without reading the rest. Having read the rest of your post, I know that the free speech thing (while a bit silly) could have been safely ignored; however, you only know that if you commit to reading the whole thing, which is not a very productive use of one’s time.

Finally, you said I came on here for one question. And it never was answered.. If you can cite a part of your initial post that is less than 50 words and that asks a question, I would be very impressed, because I do not see it. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 12:14, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Delete image

Please how do I delete an image from draft Olugold (talk) 23:18, 24 August 2021 (UTC) Olugold (talk) 23:18, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

The draft will read [[File:This is the image I don't want.jpg|optional stuff]] or similar; you simply delete this. (I'm assuming that you're editing the "source", not using the "visual editor"). -- Hoary (talk) 23:49, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

@Olugold: Welcome to the Teahouse! If you're referring to Draft:Benneth Nwankwo, and you're using the source editor, the code for the photo is [[File:BENNETH NWANKWO.jpg|thumb|Benneth Nwankwo]]. If you're using VisualEditor, click Edit, click on the photo, click your delete key, and save your change. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 03:15, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Hoary and GoingBatty thank you for your swift response. I will edit immediately

Didn't nominate a hook to DYK because I didn't know how to do so

Hi! I've been working on Articles on the First Carlist War for the past 2 weeks as a beginner project. I found a cool fact about one of the battles of the war and added it to the article but didn't know I could nominate it to DYK and so the 7 days have passed (the edit is 12 days old). Is the fact just lost now? I'll still be working on the article and hope to get it to B-class someday but it feels kind of bad that a possibly interesting DYK was lost cause I didn't know about the process. For reference, the DYK can be found here (I didnt add it to the nominations list). A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 23:29, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

A. C. Santacruz, I haven't investigated whether the article really has been "5× expanded"; on the other hand, I note that you write "I still have to review another nomination and will post this here once it's done", but if you're new to "DYK" you do not have to review another (or do a "QPQ", as it's cryptically called) when nominating your own. Indeed, if you're very new to the DYK business I advise you not to review another nomination; despite the best of intentions, you could easily make mistakes. Better to propose two or three of your own, paying attention to what reviewers and others say about each, and only then start your reviewing. -- Hoary (talk) 23:53, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Hoary, thanks for the reply! According to wmflabs I have authorship of ~80% of the article, with the second author (if that is correct to say) having an additional ~13% but having made their edits when creating the article in 2008. Would the last significant edit before mine being made 13 years ago affect the process or no, for future reference, as there are many battles in the Carlist War whose articles were created in the 2000s but are stubs. I tend to work slowly and adding information as I read through sources and am concerned with going past the 7 day period where I've 5x expanded the article by the time I find a cool fact to nominate for DYK. --A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 00:01, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

@A. C. Santacruz Assuming I have interpreted your question and the history of the articles correctly, I fear you may have misunderstood the DYK process. It's been a little while since I did a few Did You Knows for new articles that I had either created or expanded. But there is definitely a hard cut-off time between when you created/significantly expanded an article/or got it to WP:GA status, and the point when you submit your DYK nomination. If you pass that 7 day cut-off, your nomination will be rejected. The way around that is to develop any article in your sandbox or as a DRAFT. This is because the DYK clock starts ticking from the point the page is in mainspace, not when the draft was started. So you can work on it in draft space or your sandbox for years if you wish, but, having moved it into mainspace, you then have 7 days to make your DYK nomination.

Here at the Teahouse, we always tell people that creating an article from scratch is the hardest thing anyone can do here. Personally, my experience was that understanding how to make a proper DYK nomination was far harder to understand and follow correctly than creating an article. (You may find this of help in future: Instructions for 'Did You Know' that a normal human being can understand)

I really can't see on what basis you'd nominate First Carlist War for DYK. It hasn't reached Good Article status; you haven't just created it, nor have you expanded it size by five times at all, let alone in the preceding seven days. I'm sorry if you missed the cut-off for expanding Battle of Alsasua, but as long as the fact mentioned in your hook is within that article, it won't be lost. That siad, DYK exposure brings huge attention to newly created or improved articles, and that, of course, is its purpose. Better luck next time. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:08, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply! I'll make sure to use drafts more often ^u^ --A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 09:05, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Let's see if we can get this straightened out. First Carlist War exists and you have done very modest editing. Secondly, you copied the article into User:A. C. Santacruz/sandbox where you have roughly doubled the length. You have not yet copied your revised version into the existing article. The DYK 7-day clock will start ticking when you merge your new content into the existing article. HOWEVER, your additions do not qualify for the 5X size expansion, so no DYK allowed. You could considering nominating it for Good Article status. If you succeed, that qualifies submitting a DYK. David notMD (talk) 01:54, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply :) --A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 09:05, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Should all Latin America-related articles use DMY dates?

As a Latin America fanatic, I've come across a few articles written in MDY date format even though all Spanish- and Portuguese-speaking countries use DMY instead. Should the DMY date be mandatory on all English-language articles associated with events in Latin America? 2001:8003:3447:9F01:E01E:E556:BC21:FA42 (talk) 23:30, 24 August 2021 (UTC) 2001:8003:3447:9F01:E01E:E556:BC21:FA42 (talk) 23:30, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

As far as I know, the most important thing is consistency within the article. I can't think of a logical reason to use the format that's used in that country for the English article, as there is no reason to assume that readers of that article would be mostly residents of that country and therefore confused. I could be wrong, though. Great question and happy editing! Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 23:52, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, IP editor. This seems to be in the purview of retaining the existing style. MOS:DATETIES offers guidance on English-speaking countries, but not those that predominantly speak another language. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:52, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

I found MOS:BADDATE which says explicitly Do not use dd-mm-yyyy, mm-dd-yyyy or yyyy-dd-mm formats, which I assume is what the OP meant but MDY/DMY dates; so the answer is neither, only YMD is allowed for numeric dates. However, in article text, we usually write out the months, in which case Tenryuu’s advice above works (i.e. keep consistency and check the local variety of English to choose between July 4, 1976 and 4 July 1976). Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 11:33, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Tone of Draft

Hello! I am working on an article that I submitted for review and was declined for "praising subject," could someone read over it and point out specific areas?

This is the link to the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:James_E._Stewart

Thank you! JorodHistory (talk) 01:07, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

@JorodHistory For starters, the 2nd sentence should not be in the lead. It says Stewart was noted for “his ability to work with almost anyone, regardless of religion, color, or political belief” and for never backing down from what he believed, but always standing his ground “in a manner which commanded respect. That is not something a reader needs to see immediately, as that description fits innumerable people. Put it further down on the page, please. I'd also suggest that we don't need to know who gave Stewart a particular job - just say he got the job, and let readers find that level of detail by reading the reference if they so desire. On the whole, it doesn't look too bad to me, but maybe others might wish to make comments

. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:15, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Back in July you were asked on your Talk page if PAID or COI applied. You must answer. If not, state that on your Talk page. It yes, state the nature of your connection on your User page. David notMD (talk) 02:35, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Error with content translation tool.

I got an error when trying to translate from English to Spanish a web page. It says that there is another user translating it. How can I contact that user? The user is Threedotshk. Marce.Vilanova (talk) 01:24, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

@Marce.Vilanova: Welcome to the Teahouse. Is this about something happening on the Spanish Wikipedia? You'll probably get a better answer there. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:27, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

if numberblocks had a spinoff after alphablocks, what should its name be?

 5944alsas (talk) 02:10, 25 August 2021 (UTC) hey! alphablocks ended and i definitely like numberblocks, so what would its spinoff be 8 years after alphablocks ended? (example: colorblocks)

@5944alsas: Welcome to the Teahouse, a place to ask questions about editing Wikipedia. Do you have a question about Wikipedia? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 03:18, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

My account's email.

I registered a new account with the email of an old account, and now I'm not getting email notifications for pages I'm watching. What do I need to do? SweetTaylorJames (talk) 06:11, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Have you enabled the relevant option in your new account's preferences? See Help:Email notification. - David Biddulph (talk) 06:22, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

assamase

 47.29.158.191 (talk) 09:21, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello IP editor. Do you need help or advice in editing Wikipedia? That's what we're here for. Nick Moyes (talk) 09:42, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

How to generate consensus?

I requested someone to add a sentence to a semi-edit protected article here but nobody did. An editor asked me to generate consensus for it (I am asking them to use the Washington Post, a reliable source), how do I do that? Baamiyaan2 (talk) 09:40, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

@Baamiyaan2: the problem with saying "here's a reference, add it" is that it puts all the burden on the person who has to implement the edit request: it takes you maybe 20 seconds to write that, but it takes me 15 minutes to read the source in full, decide what's useful information, work out whether that information is already in the article by reading it, then work out where the new information should go and whether any other sections need restructuring or adapting to this new information and so on. When we get hundreds of edit requests and big backlogs pile up, I simply can't do that. I'll reject the edit request and go onto one where the requester put 10 minutes of effort in and I only need to put in 3. That's why the rejection comment you got says Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.

We have additional problems in that the article has been protected because this is a very intense topic where things get heated and lots of unregistered or new people come here demanding something that violates neutral point of view, such as by showing bias towards the Taliban or the U.S. government of the Afghani government.

It seems to me that you suggested a sentence but you've not really understood the reasons it was contested. The claim you're trying to make is enormous—that Pakistan's government have been helping the Taliban. Now I don't really know much about the topic (and I'm one of the volunteers who read through edit requests) but if that's inaccurate, or a minority opinion, or a U.S.-centric approach to the topic—well, there are hundreds of millions of Pakistanis who would be incensed by us getting it wrong. So one Washington Post article marked as "Analysis" isn't enough. We'd need a much bigger diversity of sources all claiming the same thing. We need to work out how widespread a view it is, so we can see whether it needs to be stated as fact, or stated as opinion ("Some journalists such as Washington Post contributor Ishaan Tharoor argued that..."), or doesn't even rise to that level and can't be included.

This is a very difficult topic area to begin contributing to Wikipedia here and I understand that it feels like you've asked for a very simple thing to be done, but what our article says on this topic is really crucial to millions of people who read it and are likely to take it as reliable fact, so we have to be really careful when someone comes along saying "summarize this source" because we don't know what their agenda is or whether that one source is representative of a worldwide perspective.

If you wish to push forwards in this approach then I'd recommend gathering all the sources you can find on the topic of the Pakistan military/government's involvement and say in a new talk page section "here's the consensus in the literature, here's how it differs from what the article says—do people agree with me?" Then you listen to what others think and when enough people have weighed in, someone will be able to implement what the community there decide is the right outcome. — Bilorv (talk) 10:22, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Sometimes, in a very contentious situation, you may find that sources we normally regard as 'reliable' differ in their opinion. In this case you will probably not get consensus to present a single point of view. It may be that instead of requesting insertion of the text "X did this" you will have to see if you can get consensus to add the more arm's-length "The Washington Post reports that X did this", which can stand alongside other referenced statements "X didn't do this", leaving the reader to decide which they believe, or whether they want to look into the original sources themselves. Elemimele (talk) 10:41, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Referencing

FYI

 – Heading added by Qwerfjkl (talk) 11:18, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

How do I give a reference?

 TechnoTiger2008 (talk) 10:30, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

@TechnoTiger2008, try these guides: WP:REFBEGIN and WP:TUTORIAL. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:34, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Ecological Overshoot

I submitted 'Ecological Overshoot' as a new topic on August 10, no response as yet, I'm wondering whether I submitted it properly Global Aspiration (talk) 11:16, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:Ecological Overshoot ― Qwerfjkltalk 11:19, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi, as the notice at the bottom of the article says,
This may take 2–3 weeks or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 846 pending submissions waiting for review. ― Qwerfjkltalk 11:22, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Global Aspiration First, you will be asked to change your User name, as User names are not allowed to be organizations or companies, etc. Second, your draft will be declined. It is a wall of text with very few references. Sprinkled throughout are hyperlinks. Hyperlinks are now allowed. It may be possible to convert some to references. At the end, there is a long paragraph in quotes, without a ref. Try to fix as much as you can before a reviewer declines it. If declined, resolve what the reviewer identified as problems before resubmitting. David notMD (talk) 12:53, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

As a separate, important issue, the last two paragraphs, including that long quoted paragraph, appear to be via hyperlink to your own website. This is a no-no. Your website can be an external link, but not a ref. David notMD (talk) 13:03, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

@Global Aspiration As well as agreeing with the points above (though I am unclear whether your username is actually a company or organisation, or just a gentle awareness-raising name to reflect your interest?), try to split the article up into different elements. In particular, the very first sentence should define what the subject is, rather than starting with the preamble. It's not a bad start for a new article, but there's a fair bit of work to do to get it into shape for an encyclopaedic article, and making it look less like a university essay. (Oh, and if you are directly involved with any of the organistions mentioned, do please follow the guidance at WP:COI to help you declare any conflicts of interest you might have.) Good luck. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:14, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

It appears this is their 2nd username that they've had. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 14:04, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't know how to make a template

Moved from Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) § I don't know how to make a template

 –  ― Qwerfjkltalk 11:35, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Help me create a template or else — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brothernotuser1 (talk • contribs) 11:28, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Blocked as a sockpuppet of JustAUser201468. -- Hoary (talk) 12:05, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

NOt only that but they basically just made a threat. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 13:08, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Notable enough?

I want to create a wiki page for singer/songwriter Tom Fairnie. Can anyone tell me if he’s “notable” enough for inclusion based on these links please?

https://darrensmusicblog.com/?s=Tom+Fairnie&submit=Search

https://ukcountryradio.com/artists/tom-fairnie

www.scotsman.com/whats-on/arts-and-entertainment/interview-tom-fairnie-singer-songwriter

https://www.eastlothiancourier.com/news/18514008.singer-releases-new-album-following-trip-lifetime-usa/

https://musicscotland.com/products/tom-fairnie-lightning-in-the-dark

https://americana-uk.com/tom-fairnie-lightning-in-the-dark-independent-2020

http://www.haddstock.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Tom-Fairnie-Band-Exclusive-Making-of-Lightning-In-The-Dark.pdf

timepastandtimepassing.wordpress.com/2020/07/21/tom-fairnie-lightning-in-the-dark-2020-self-release

https://hudba.proglas.cz/noklasik/folk/tom-fairnie-skotsky-pisnickar-hraje-americanu/

https://www.liverpoolsoundandvision.co.uk/2020/05/12/tom-fairnie-lightning-in-the-dark-album-review/

https://folking.com/tom-fairnie-lightning-in-the-dark-own-label-esk010/

https://sonichits.com/album/Tom_Fairnie/The_Journeyman

m.sn-online.de/amp/news/Schaumburg/Sachsenhagen/Woelpinghausen/Tom-Fairnie-bringt-Verstaerkung-mit

http://www.chapel-cottage.com/RaglanFestival2006/2005/pdetails.html

http://www.macarthurmusic.com/waverlies/

https://www.fatea-records.co.uk/magazine/reviews/TomFairnie/

http://www.folkworld.eu/73/e/cds9.html

www.scotsman.com/whats-on/arts-and-entertainment/gig-review-scottish-songwriters-round-st-cecilias-hall-venue-31-edinburgh-1614908%3famp

https://edinburghfestival.list.co.uk/event/410035-foakies/

https://www.bloech.de/?m=201509

https://www.localbarsfinder.com/GB/Edinburgh/172751729472496/Leith-Folk-Club Mel1425 (talk) 12:03, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

No I'm not going to look at all of those, and I doubt that anyone else will, sorry. (Life's too short.) Please indicate which among this list are the best three; then someone here will look at those three. -- Hoary (talk) 12:07, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Without even clicking the links, I can predict that some of those will fail at least one of the criteria at WP:GNG: darrensmusicblog.com and timepastandtimepassing.wordpress.com are likely to be blogs written by some random guy/gal and therefore not considered "reliable"; localbarsfinder.com or edinburghfestival.list.co.uk sound like listings of stuff (bars or Edinburgh festival events) that are never considered "significant coverage". On the other hand, I know the The Scotsman is a reputable newspaper, so a review in it might be quite a good source proving notability (but I would need to click the link to be sure it is an actual in-depth, independent review of the subject of the draft article). Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 12:23, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

You've done the right thing, by collecting possible references first. I suggest you create a short draft with a handful of what you think are the strongest reliable source references. Be sure that those are ABOUT him, as confirming his musical output, or what he has said in interviews, or what concerts per performed at, or who with, adds naught to confirming notability. (Music output worth listing, but not enough in and of itself to confirm notability.) David notMD (talk) 13:14, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

To explicate what David notMD said, Mel1425 (since I had to read it three times before I was clear that he was saying what I thought he intended): "confirming his musical output, or what he has said in interview, or what concerts [he has] performed at, or who with" are all things that don't contribute to establishing that he is notable. 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. --ColinFine (talk) 14:34, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, that. David notMD (talk) 14:43, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you all. I was just doing what wiki suggested by asking in Talk and I’m (obviously) not a seasoned user. I didn’t expect anyone to read all of the links. You’ve been most helpful, appreciated.

Issues with "promotes or publicises someone or something"

I am having issues publishing a page for a British Entrepreneur being met with the violation that it promotes or publicises someone - however it has been written very factually, using similar pages (eg. Peter Jones, Theo Paphitis) for reference. How do I overcome this? JimboJamesSinclair (talk) 14:20, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

JimboJamesSinclair Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You edited your user page, which is not article space or space to draft an article; you may use Articles for creation to submit a draft.

Please read other stuff exists. That other similar articles exist does not mean that yours can too. It could be that these other articles you have seen are also inappropriate. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inappropriate articles to get by us. We can only address what we know about.

Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about someone and what they do. An article about a person must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the person, showing how they meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable person. Your draft was completely unsourced. Please read Your first article. 331dot (talk) 14:37, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

If you want to use other articles as a model, make sure that they are classified as a "good article" on the talk page. 331dot (talk) 14:37, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

@JimboJamesSinclair: In addition to the above replies, please disclose any conflict of interest you might have with respect to that person. In particular, if you are paid to edit Wikipedia on behalf of that person (or expect to be paid, or are doing this as part as your regular job), you must disclose it in the manner described at the link WP:PAID. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 14:46, 25 August 2021 (UTC)