Wikipedia:Teahouse

A lad insane, a Teahouse host

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

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

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

Help Wikipedia

Need 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)

I read both DRN requests, I've read the entire talk page, and I've read your post here. It was a lot of reading. And here is my take on the situation- you are convalescing, and have a deep personal passion for this page. You have pled your case to the editors- and they were not persuaded. That doesn't mean you're wrong and they're right- however- WP operates by consensus and consensus is against you. When you were told that- you continued to post unnecessarily long paragraphs on the talk page demanding that your POV be enacted and calling anyone who disagreed with your names "Rouge" etc. At that point- it was determined you were being disruptive (you were) and the Talk was locked down so you could go cool off. You came back and resumed the same thing and opened two DRNS without reading the rules of that page or following our very simple instructions.

My advice is this. Stop now. Consensus is against you. Multiple other editors disagree with you. Move on, find another passion- be it here on WP or elsewhere. But you are beating a dead horse at this point and consensus is unlikely to change the longer you do so. What is likely to happen is you being completely removed from WP. I would much rather see you learn to become a useful contributor to this project. But you cannot continue the way you have been. Be like Elsa and Let it go friend. Nightenbelle (talk) 15:21, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

I've been observing this article and Nightenbelle's summary is accurate, in my opinion. The only thing I would add is that the Talk page was locked, in part, because of real-world editor safety concerns. The owner of the website about which this article is about has been using his large Twitter following to dox WP editors, to threaten to sue editors, to make even more extreme personal threats beyond lawsuits, and to exhort his followers to flood Wikipedia Talk spaces with complaints about WP editors as part of a "war of attrition" [sic] against Wikipedia. Chetsford (talk) 15:28, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

I want to begin by thanking Tigraan, Nightenbelle and Chetsford for speaking with humility and not scolding me.I appreciate the kindness and all of your thoughts. Tigraan, that "how it should have looked" post was perfect and you nailed exactly what I wanted to say. I cannot thank you enough.I am referring to this below:

"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."

Chetsford-I knew about the threats of a lawsuit but I deeply hope and pray no personal threats were made because that would be horrific and they would lose my support if that happened.

Nightenbelle-thank you. You are correct. Palmer Report AND Raw Story are my two favorite websites. I feel I have debated all I can and simply cannot do anymore. For Palmer Report, I have a feeling they will be featured on many more "reliable sources" besides MSNBC so in time perhaps things will change. With Raw Story they were labeled a "tabloid" not fake news, it seems someone within the company complained so will leave it to them. As for DoctorSwagLordPHD I would not attack or bully him or any editor. I thank you again for educating me and I hope things work out for both websites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6c65:7e7f:b93e:5ccf:f891:888d:5c08 (talk) 19:28, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Now that was much more readable! If you want to stick around, consider WP:REGISTER. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:04, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

@2600:6c65:7e7f:b93e:5ccf:f891:888d:5c08 My apologize, But i rather "unsucessfully" grasp most of the points from your explanation... perhaps it's too long, even for me. but i guess, and hopefully, i understood the important things that you mention. But first of all, tq the "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." At first, i thought this is some political conflict that you were invoulved. But i think it's not the case. You did mention the thing about the correspondant Contributor whos Put the term "Fake News" there, and the Correspondant said "feel free to revert". I've alread read some discussion there, and some statements on the page stated that this Contributor was a Rogue Editor. Actually quite many do supported this claim. But Consensus is consensus, if the consensus has been reached, then it is the best choice for now. Plus there are several valid Sources that backed the argument about the status of that blog (PR) being as it is, mentioned on the Article. @Chetsford also mentioned about The owner of the correspondant website blog (PR) about which this article is describing. They has been using their large Twitter following to dox Wikipedia editors/contributors. So overall, i dont have any positive thing to say about this blog (PR), also the Wikipedia article itself covering the blog is well sourced and has many valid sources cited in it. 海之 16:41, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello, :C937. I'm sorry to hear about your knee, and hope it heals well. I think your friend may be mistaken about the dangers of using his computer to create an account, but, his PC = his rules, right? As someone who works in IT for my day job, I would suggest that you use a separate (and non-admin) user account on his PC. If that's not possible, at least use a separate web-browser profile to keep all the cookies, history, and login tokens apart. Apologies that you are being repeatedly told to create an account, it's because having one makes it a lot easier for us to communicate with you. I won't go into detail now, but if you want to know, ask. ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 07:31, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Mark 14 torpedo article minor error

I have noticed a small error in the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_14_torpedo and I don't know who to report it to. Since I don't have the references to know what numbers are correct I didn't try to edit them myself. The problem is with the weights given in the specifications table at the start of the article. It says:

Mod.0:3,000 lb (1,400 kg) Mod.3:3,061 lb (1,388 kg) As you can see, weight in pounds is higher for the Mod.3 version but mass in kg is higher for the Mod.0 version. (Excuse me for being pedantic, but in physics courses I had drilled into me that pounds are a unit of weight while kilograms are mass.) If one model is heavier in one set of units it should also be the heavier in the other units, no?

A quick conversion gives me that 3000 lb should be about 1361 kg.

Thanks ---bill rogers 47.224.51.236 (talk) 02:51, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

The explanation is that the wikitext has "| weight = Mod.0:{{convert|3000|lb|abbr=on}} Mod.3:{{convert|3061|lb|abbr=on}}". The conversion uses more sig figs for the mod 3 because the input is to more sig figs. Obviously a source is needed, then appropriate changes can be made. --David Biddulph (talk) 03:41, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Along with that, you're actually wrong (but also right) in stating that pounds are a unit of weight while kilograms are mass. In the US this is true, but practically everywhere else it isn't. In other countries kilograms are used to measure weight as well as mass (it's called the metric system). Don't worry, it's confusing. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 13:22, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, most practical weighing scales (spring, piezo) do measure weight (force of the object due to gravity), but are marked in mass units (g or kg) not force units (N), and assume a standard value for g. (Some electronic scales might have two- or even three-point calibration, so they don't need to assume, but it's been a long time since I used one of those for analytical chemistry, and my memory's a bit hazy.) Since I'm not in the US, I can happily avoid the whole lb-force vs. lb-mass thing. ;) ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 10:06, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Bill, if you're sure it's within 3000 ± 10 lb, you can use {{convert|3000|lb|abbr=on|sigfig=3}} thus: 3,000 lb (1,360 kg). ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 10:13, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Notability of the Maharashtra Lokayukta

If I understand correctly, "Maharashtra Lokayukta" is a state-wide office of a federal country. Do I correctly understand that Draft:Sanjay Bhatia (administrator) is about a person presumed to be notable per WP:NPOLITICIAN? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:59, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

I have accepted the declined and rejected article now; feel free to nominate it for deletion if I'm completely incorrect about this. I'll notify Dan arndt and Hatchens. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:12, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Not clear why you are mentioning this at Teahouse. Article in question, as draft about Sanjay Bhatia, was Declined, then Rejected, then proposed for Speedy deletion, that quashed, creating editor extensively edited, and you have accepted as article. Conscientiously, you notified the editors who D'd, R'd and SD'd. David notMD (talk) 22:43, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

David notMD, thanks for having had a look and providing two additional eyes; that's basically what I was looking for. I wondered whether I'm overlooking something, asked what I perceived to be a pretty newbie-type question about notability here, answered it myself by digging further and chose to move the article myself, relying on AfD instead of potential Teahouse objections for consensus. I could alternatively have removed my question in the moment I moved the page to mainspace. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:56, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

ToBeFree At least for U.S., there is a bias against appointed positions justifying notability except at highest levels (Supreme Court, President's Cabinet). David notMD (talk) 02:01, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:34, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Very interesting discussion. I'm just saving this discussion link for the future references purposes. Thanks to David notMD for the explaination. Thank you ToBeFree for tagging me over here. -Hatchens (talk) 12:11, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

My contribution to the article Tenor horn is being continuously erased

My contribution to the article "Tenor horn" is being constantly erased

I agree that my first few attempts to edit a section in the site named "Tenor Horn" were disruptive, due to my indignation. But after I read your notices to me, I crafted my last version which is pasted below. It too was erased, which implies that no matter what I post on the theme of tenor horn, they will keep erasing, because someone is irritated with the fact that I am expressing a different opinion. Freedom of expression can always be suppressed under the pretext of "offensive language". Please, tell me what is disruptive in the paragraph below:

"The tenor horn (It. Corno di tenore; Ger. Bassflugelhorn) – it is an instrument in B-flat. Tenors and baritones are alike, they are both in B-flat, have the same range, and may substitute for each other. The difference lies in the slightly larger bore of the baritone, which also affects the timbre. The tenor horn shall not be confused with an alto horn (It. Flicorno alto; Ger. Althorn), which is in E-flat and much smaller in size. The latter corresponds to the French horn in E-flat, still traditionally used on some European wind orchestras. To summarize, the tenor and baritone horns correspond to the tenor/baritone voice in the choir, while the alto horn corresponds to the alto voice. A short informative video from the Prince Regent’s Band: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78qCc9xk18Q"

Thank you. I wish you well, and I look forward to hearing from you. I hope you will allow this passage to be inserted into the Tenor horn article.

Best

Mutaeditor Mutaeditor (talk) 20:49, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

@Mutaeditor, hello, I haven’t read anything meticulously but I can give you a blanket response, you see, if you add something to an article and it is removed multiple times chances are what you may be adding is already in the article or your input may not be deemed constructive, not too worry we all went through that phase in your spare time you can read WP:CTW. Celestina007 (talk) 21:14, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

@Mutaeditor basically you're getting reverted because, so far as I can see, you're wrong. Everyone apart from the Germans seems to have a horn in E-flat, which some call a tenor horn, and some call an alto horn, and which is the subject of the article. The Germans also have a horn in B-flat which they call a tenorhorn, which means some people refer to a horn in B-flat as a "German tenor horn" (e.g here [1]), but everyone else calls a B-flat baritone. The best I can think is this: nomenclature of brass instruments is such a hideous mess that no one outside the brass world really has the foggiest idea what's going on (and quite a few people inside the brass world would feel equally befuddled). For those of us who play sensible, non-transposing instruments, we just shake our heads in disbelief and ignore these strange metal items. So what Wikipedia probably greatly needs is this: an article on the nomenclature of brass instruments, explaining the potential confusions. We have an article on Brass_instrument but it doesn't really tackle the full name-and-pitch issue. Maybe get some talk-page discussion going, and see if there is such an article (it's just I haven't found it), or if there isn't, see if anyone is interested in collaborating with you to make one? Elemimele (talk) 22:15, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Lots of good points here. I have tried, quite nicely I hoped, to explain about WP:ENGVAR and the way that one person's terminology may not suit another, and how we try to work together on it, but I am not sure I have been heard. So, here is Sheona White, an eminent player of the tenor horn, in E-flat, in British English (BrE). Here is a shop selling tenor horns, in E-flat, also in BrE. We bought about 40 of those: they are quite good. Tenor Horns. In E-flat. I teach tenor horn, in E-flat, in BrE, to about 40 children, and if I were playing in the wrong key I might perhaps have noticed by now (or maybe not) but then I am not an RS, am I? And yes it's a horrible terminological mess and wildly inconsistent across the globe, but the article was coping with it quite well until this B-flat crusade started. Best wishes to all, DBaK (talk) 22:53, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

@Mutaeditor: Welcome to the Teahouse! Thank you for your efforts to improve the Tenor horn article. Unfortunately, having an edit reverted can be a common experience on Wikipedia. Per the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, your best next step is to have a conversation like the one above on the article's talk page: Talk:Tenor horn. There will be additional knowledgeable editors who monitor that talk page that don't come to the Teahouse. Thanks to those who contributed to the conversation above. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 00:29, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, all. None of this seems to be working all that well so far and Mutaeditor has not yet visited Talk:Tenor horn; I am not sure why – it could look like they prefer to ignore discussion that does not suit their, er, weltanschauung. (Altanschauung? Tenoranschauung??) but maybe that is just not fair of me, looking at what is written just above here by me and others. They've made (on their own Talk) a couple of not-really-accurate claims about what has happened in discussions so far but I thinkhope that this is probably from unfamiliarity with our (admittedly Baroque, not in a good way) systems rather than deliberately misleading. If they do ever turn up at Talk:Tenor horn then I will attempt politely to engage; if they just make the same edits again without consensus then it is looking like >3RR; I am not going to pursue it otherwise, here or anywhere. I absolutely do not want to be unkind or unhelpful and I have tried to be as positive as possible, given my view of their desired change, but there is a limit to these things. Thanks and best to all DBaK (talk) 13:11, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Would Like To Create A Page For The American Basketball Hall Of Fame

Hello,

I was asked about creating a page for The American Basketball Hall Of Fame. However, creating pages and rules on what can be published is something I'm not at all familiar with so any help or if someone could create the page for me or give me any help with this, it would be greatly appreciated. Listed below is what the page will look like. Dusties907 (talk) 21:51, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Condensed for brevity
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
American Basketball Hall of Fame American-Basketball-HOF-logo_Ink.png Established 2019 Location Inkster, Michigan Type American Basketball Hall of Fame Founder LaMont "ShowBoat" Robinson Website www.americanbasketballhof.org The American Basketball Hall of Fame is an American history hall of fame that will be located in the city of Inkster, Michigan. It will honor and tell the full history of basketball. The American Basketball Hall of Fame was founded by LaMont "ShowBoat" Robinson who played 28 years of barnstorming from 1987-2015. Robinson played in Denmark and the USBL, then with several barnstorming teams Meadowlark Lemon Harlem All-Stars, 1989 Harlem Globetrotters and Washington General Tour, ShowBoat Robinson's Harlem Road Kings, ShowBoat Robinson's Harlem Clowns. Robinson has been nominated to the Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame in 2018, 2019, 2020, and 2021. He was inducted into the American Basketball Hall of Fame Class of 2021. The American Basketball Hall of Fame will honor basketball men and women as well as coaches and give players another chance to be inducted into a national hall of fame. The American Basketball Hall of Fame will look closely at high school legends, playground hoopsters, small college players, oversea players, barnstorming players and teams, ABA, CBA, EBA, USBL, Harlem Globetrotters, Harlem Clowns, Harlem Wizards etc... The American Basketball Hall of Fame will not just honor major college and NBA players. The American Basketball Hall of Fame hosted its inaugural class on Sunday October 13, 2019 in the city of Detroit, Michigan and due to covid-19 the 2020 and 2021 live ceremonies were canceled. The American Basketball Hall of Fame did host two classes 2020, 2021 of posthumous players, that was virtual. The Goal of the American Basketball Hall of Fame is to build a state-of-the-art world class hall of fame that will be 80,000 sq. ft. that will be also one of the top premier basketball facilities in the world, with track, weight room, film room, classrooms, dormitory rooms, basketball theme restaurant and the basketball field-house will feature 6-8 basketball courts for camps, clinics, AAU tournaments and summer leagues etc... To date the American Basketball Hall of Fame has inducted 50 players, coaches and contributors. 2019 Class Sam Jones Derrick Coleman Spencer Haywood Vinnie “Microwave” Johnson Willie Burton Jalen Rose Archie Clark LaMont “ShowBoat” Robinson Al Gibson Howard White Stanly Ruffin George Blaha Curtis “Flint” Bloxson Coach Will Robinson Tim McCormick John Long Antoine “The Judge” Joubert Coach Perry Watson 2020 Posthumous Class . Dr. James Naismith . Coach John Thompson . Earl "The Goat Maguigut . Wilt Chamberlain . Abe Saperstein . Meadowlark Lemon . Curtis Jones . Kobe Bryant . John Havlicek . Marques Haynes . Pete Maravich . Coach Pat Summitt . Len Bias . Coach John McLendon . Gianna Bryant 2021 Posthumous Class Tony Tolbert Fred "Curly" Neal Roy Tarpley Howard Garfinkel Paul Westphal Connie Hawkins Dwayne "Pearl" Washington Louis "Red" Klotz John Wooden Raymond Lewis Bob Douglas Holcombe Rucker Coach Al McGuire William "Pop" Gates Edwin B. Henderson Tyron "Alimoe" Evans Terry Dudrod "Jumpin" Jackie Jackson Coach Clarence "Big House" Gaines

Dusties907 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. When you say you were "asked", do you work for this organization? If so, please see your user talk page for important information. Please understand that a Wikipedia article about an organization must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the organization, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable organization. Wikipedia has no interest in what an organization wants to say about itself. If you are able to summarize what others say about the hall of fame, you may use Articles for creation to create and submit a draft. Please read Your first article. 331dot (talk) 22:03, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Dusties907. I note that you are in competition with the Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame, but this is not a problem on Wikipedia; provided you have sources supporting an ABHoF article they can both co-exist, and ABHoF can be added to the Basketball Hall of Fame (disambiguation) list.

I would also point out that only those players/coaches notable enough (by Wikipedia's standards for basketball) to have an article about them in Wikipedia should be listed in an ABHoF article. Of course, if some are notable enough, but there are no articles yet, feel free to create the articles.--Verbarson (talk) 10:18, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Dick Sweeney

The name of this person is not Dick Sweeney. It is Richard Sweeney. I need the title of this article renamed. Can somebody do this for me?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Sweeney Joshuastrode89 (talk) 23:42, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

@Joshuastrode89:It looks like all the sources refer to him as Dick Sweeney, so this seems to be a case of WP:COMMONNAME. RudolfRed (talk) 23:46, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Ok. How do we change the name? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshuastrode89 (talk • contribs)

@Joshuastrode89: We don't, unless sources change it. The opening sentence states his real name. Everything is in order for Wikipedia. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:58, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Title left as is. First line of Lead now starts with Richard 'Dick' Sweeney David notMD (talk) 02:08, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Aaand, BarrelProof has changed it back to Richard Sweeney, along with further edits elsewhere. I do hope there is no sock- or meat-puppetry going on here. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.179.94 (talk) 19:31, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I did not change the title of the article, and I don't think the article title should be changed. I changed its opening phrase, per MOS:HYPOCORISM. See, e.g., Bill Clinton (no "Bill" in the opening phrase) and Jimmy Carter (no "Jimmy" in the opening phrase). "Dick" is a very common nickname for people named Richard. See also Dick Nixon. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:35, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Repeating Dates

Should repetitive dates (As of [Date], such is true...) be updated daily, or just with new sources in terms of new/high importance articles? The question is for Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan–United States relations. There are a few dates in the article like the US not recognizing IEA as a country/government yet that start with "As of (date)", and I want to know how often to update those dates. Elijahandskip (talk) 03:07, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

@Elijahandskip: Welcome to the Teahouse! I suggest you update the date as often as you update the reliable source for the sentence. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 04:12, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Elijahandskip, there cannot possibly be a universal standard and obviously this article is an exceptionally prominent article now. It depends entirely on how often reliable sources update the specific information, and how motivated editors are to update properly. I was editing a related article that contained the death count from the Surfside condominium collapse about two months ago. Initially, the confirmed death count was increasing frequently, and editing of the article was frenzied as well. The time came when the count of 98 dead stabilized, the most obvious information stabilized, and editing of the article declined significantly, although I am sure that improvements will be made for years to come. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:38, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

@Elijahandskip: I am a bit confused here. I am no expert on topic bans, but isn't that article pretty clearly related to post-1992 US politics, which you are tbanned from? --bonadea contributions talk 08:23, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I do not authorize a wiki page: Dorothy Ruiz Martinez

Hello, how do I report a wiki page? I do not authorize the page, it is using my personal information, and I want to remove it from Wikipedia. The page is Dorothy Ruiz Martinez. I tried to make edits to the page at least to protect my privacy, and to remove inaccurate information, but every time I publish the final edits, it reverts back to the original article. Some user Molly Polly is reverting back the page. I do not authorize any personal information on this page. How do I remove it?

Thank you! Rafaela Mars (talk) 05:27, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

@Rafaela Mars: Welcome to the Teahouse! I'm sorry you're having problems with the Dorothy Ruíz Martínez article. The information at Wikipedia:Contact us/Article subjects might be helpful. It's common for people to find that their edits have been reverted. Per the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, it's helpful to share your concerns on the article talk page: Talk:Dorothy Ruíz Martínez (with reliable sources, if possible). Since you have a conflict of interest, I suggest using the {{request edit}} template to ask other editors to help you improve the article. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 06:04, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! GoingBatty — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafaela Mars (talk • contribs) 06:14, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

@MollyPollyRolly, please remember to respect the privacy of personal information when dealing with non-public figures. The edit by @Rafaela Mars appears to have removed only unnecessary private information that is not of benefit to the reader, in addition to condensing down some parts that were overly wordy. If you have a problem with their edit, I suggest recovering the portions you don't agree with removing, rather than undoing their entire edit. ––FormalDude talk 06:08, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

@FormalDude: And please remember that when anybody removes references, that constitute usually as a form of vandalism and therefore was in need of being restored. I might be wrong in assuming bad faith of Rafaela Mars, but lets be honest; she didn't introduced herself as Dorothy Ruíz Martínez.--MollyPollyRolly (talk) 17:48, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

@MollyPollyRolly: Actually it's not a form of vandalism as explained here, particularly when you see an edit summary such as this; it might not have been the correct way for Rafaela Mars to try and approach things, but also automatically assuming that the disputed content automatically needs to be restored is also not automatically correct each and every time per WP:BLPEDIT. These types of situations happen more often then not, and sometimes it's better to try and slow things down a bit and get others involved to try and sort them out. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:58, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Rafaela Mars. Authorization by the subjects of Wikipedia biographies is not required and there is no process for that. Wikipedia contains biographies about people that Wikipedia editors conclude are notable, and we summarize what reliable, published sources say about various people. At this point, we have no way to verify that you are actually Martinez. If you want to verify your identity, you can contact Wikipedia:Volunteer Response Team. You are free to leave an edit request at Talk:Dorothy Ruíz Martínez as mentioned above noting inaccuracies in the article or anything that genuinely violates your privacy. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:25, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Rafaela Mars Much of the disputed information appears to have been sourced to an interview of Martinez, published in Familia in 2014. The reference is still used (#1). Whether any of that information is germane to an article about her life and career can be questioned, but there does appear to be a source. It is very common for articles to have a Personal life section in which spouses are named and number of children provided (but not named). David notMD (talk) 11:31, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi Rafaela Mars. Please take a look at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Relationship between the subject, the article, and Wikipedia for more information, but there are ways for the subjects of articles to seek assistance from others when they have concerns about article content. It's also important to understand that Wikipedia articles are written about subjects and not for subjects, and this means that the subjects of articles have no claim of ownership over the article. That doesn't mean that anything goes, but it does mean that article content is going to be assessed in terms of relevant Wikipedia policy and guidelines and not based upon what the subject might want. This is one reason why the subjects of article are typically encouraged to seek assistance from the Wikipedia community at large when they have concerns about what's written about them; the subjects of articles might mean well but they just might not be familiar enough with Wikipedia to successfully correct any problems they think need fixing, which might actually not be problems at all from Wikipedia's viewpoint. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:58, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Questions about Pictures. YMCA Youth Parliament

Hi folks, and thank you for always being so helpful.

So I'm working on Draft:YMCA Queensland Youth Parliament and have tried to put 2 pictures in, the logo and a swearing in ceremony.

The first one was removed by a bot, I believe in error (Logos are stated as an exemption to non-free policy)

The second one is File:Queensland Youth Parliament Swearing In.png. I'm a bit lost about the whole liscnencing thing but I feel like this should be allowed. Can someone please have a look and put the correct licencing.

I understand that some pictures cannot work so if that's the case please tell me. I just want to make a good article, I'm not trying to breach copyright or get deleted.

Thank you! Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 07:06, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Tomorrow and tomorrow. Non free logos and non free images in general are not permitted in drafts. They are permitted in main space encyclopedia articles only if they are in full compliance with all the conditions of WP:NFCI. As for the photo, the copyright status is dubious. If you are "a bit lost about the whole licencing thing" then how can you possibly "feel like this should be allowed"? Copyright status has to do with complicated verifiable facts and not feelings. If you want to use the image, then it is up to you to be 100% sure that the licensing status is completely correct. Images are not required and other issues are vastly more important when writing an acceptable draft. Images or the lack thereof have no effect on the acceptance of a draft. They can always be added later. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:52, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi Tomorrow and tomorrow. Logos are not an exemption to non-free policy at all. Non-free logos can be used and are often OK to use per item 2 of WP:NFCI, but each use of such a logo would still need to comply with all ten non-free content use criteria listed here. Non-free content is not allowed to be used in drafts per non-free content use criterion #9 and Wikipedia:Drafts#Preparing drafts; so, that's why the bot removed the file. Since File:Queensland Youth Parliament emblem.png is currently unused, it also fails non-free content use criterion #7. This means that it will be tagged (most likely within the next day or so) for speedy deletion per speedy deletion criterion F5. A notification about this should be added to your user talk page once that happens, but don't panic and re-add the image when it does. Once the draft has been approved as an article, you can re-add the logo. If you try to do so before then, the file will keep getting removed. If you try to do so too many times, you might find yourself being blocked by an administrator. If the file ends up deleted before the draft is accepted, don't reupload the file. Files which are deleted aren't gone forever, but rather are only hidden from public view. Files deleted for F5 reasons can be restored (usually quite easily) by either posting a request at WP:REFUND or by asking the administrator who deleted to do so by posting a message on their user talk page. As for the other photo, as Cullen328 posted above, if you're not reasonably sure about an image's copyright status, don't upload the file. It won't be the end of the world if you do and it turns out you're wrong, but you probably should try to avoid that whenever possible. Instead, try seeking other opinions at WP:MCQ or c:COM:VPC. My personal opinion is that it's probably going to be quite hard (near impossible) to justify File:Queensland Youth Parliament Swearing In.png as non-free content; so, I don't think that's a realistic option and a consensus can be established for such a license. That means it's sort of a free license or bust kind of thing in which you're going to need to get the WP:CONSENT of the person who took the photo, unless there's some reason this might be within the public domain per c:COM:AUSTRALIA. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:29, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

empty tables policy

Is there a policy about adding tables with no information? Govvy (talk) 09:52, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi Govvy I don't know if there's a specific policy or guideline other than what you might find at MOS:TABLES, but there seems to be no encyclopedic value in doing so much in the same way there isn't (at least in my opinion) any encyclopedic value in adding empty sections (i.e. section with only headings and no content). Some people don't like to work in their user sandboxes and instead prefer to "create" content in stages in the article namespace. So, it could be a case where someone adds the table syntax one day, but intends to come back the next day and fill in the table. In such a case, it might be best just to hid the syntax until the table is complete (or at least partially complete). On the other hand, if the table has been "empty" for quite sometime, being WP:BOLD and removing it seems reasonable. The syntax will still be in the page history and can be easily restored as needed at some later date; so, no information will really be lost. Regardless of whether you hide or remove, you probably should make your reasons clear in an edit summary and also possibly on the article's talk page. It's also something that's unlikely going to be considered an exemption to three-revert rule; so, I wouldn't edit war over it. If you're reverted, start a discussion on the article talk page and try and resolve things that way. One last thing would be that there's some editor simply going around adding empty tables to articles without any rhyme or reason. In this case, you'll have to assess whether this is just a new editor (not only a new account but also not an very experienced editor) who might mean well. If that's the case, perhaps a friendly message of their user talk page would be a good first step instead of a more scary sounding user warning template. If there's no response and they keeping on doing the same thing, then perhaps more serious warnings and then seeking administrator assistance would be warranted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:42, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: k, It's when I came across the statistics tables on 2021–22 SBV Vitesse season which was just removed again. Even at 2021–22 Sparta Rotterdam season, I really don't get the need for adding tables with no information on! I'd probably get reverted there if I removed them! lol. Cheers know. Govvy (talk) 10:58, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

@Govvy: Since there appears to be some disagreement about this between you and another editor at least at 2021–22 SBV Vitesse season, trying using the article talk page instead of WP:REVTALKing to each other. You also can always seek input from WP:FOOTY by starting a discussion on the article talk page and then adding a {{Please see}} to WT:FOOTY. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:14, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: I was just looking for a policy to base my argument on! I already pointed out the issue at the footy project. I thought someone here might know more about the policies than I do. Govvy (talk) 12:13, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I believe this link is corrupted. I'm interested.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagar_Films I believe the link to this official website from the Wikipedia page is corrupted to usurp the rightful owners being paid.2600:1005:B11B:515F:6448:1E92:F0B4:80F6 (talk) 10:56, 29 August 2021 (UTC) 2600:1005:B11B:515F:6448:1E92:F0B4:80F6 (talk) 10:56, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi IP 2600:1005:B11B:515F:6448:1E92:F0B4:80F6. Sometimes an official website will become a dead link for some reason, but this isn't always for nefarious reasons. Moreover, the subjects of Wikipedia articles don't WP:OWN the article and don't receive any payment for having an article (at least not from Wikipedia) written about them; so, I not sure how that applies to Wikipedia. If you're referring to the subjects being compensated in some way by the number of people who visit their website, then that's not something Wikipedia controls and is not something Wikipedia is concerned with. If the current "official website" link in the article is incorrect, the you can add the correct link yourself if you want. If you're somehow unable to do so or are a representative of Sagar Films, just post a request at Talk:Sagar Films asking for the link to be updated. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:08, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

How to create good articles? (Help needed)

Hi! I am creating certain articles, with reliable sources. I want to know how I can learn and to improve. Nasitasa (talk) 11:16, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi Nasitasa. Maybe a good place to start would be look at Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. You also find some helpful information in Help:Your first article. Creating articles, however, can be quite hard and it isn't the only way to contribute to Wikipedia as explained here; sometimes, you can learn a lot more about Wikipedia much faster by working on improving existing articles instead. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:31, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi Marchjuly, thanks! I like helping, but also creating. As you can read on my user page, I want to create articles to help math development. Is that okay?--Nasitasa (talk) 11:33, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

It's not "not Okay" to want to create new articles, but creating proper articles can be quite hard and bit discouraging if you're not very familiar with Wikipedia's various policies and guidelines. Since you're interested in math, maybe take a look at WP:WPMATHS and see if you can find some editors to discuss the articles you want to create with, and also see if there are other way you can help "math development" that do not involve creating new articles. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:38, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Nasitasa PLEASE STOP CREATING DRAFTS. Yes, I shouted. From looking at your User page and Contributions, since creating an account on 28 August, you have had two drafts declined, have at least five that have been submitted to AfC, awaiting review, and have created more than 20 drafts not yet submitted, 21 listed at Category:Countries participating in the International Mathematical Olympiad. None of those drafts have references. Example: Draft:Brunei at the International Mathematical Olympiad. While I am not in the maths field, I consider it very unlikely that these will ever become accepted as articles. You are potentially creating a tremendous amount of work for volunteer reviewers. Furthermore, I believe that your draft Draft:2021 International Mathematical Olympiad is a copyright violation. In direct answer to your initial question, do not attempt to create an article unless you have references (plural) to substantiate its notability. David notMD (talk) 13:06, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

UPDATE: Blocked as sock, and Materialscientist did a massive Speedy delete. David notMD (talk) 15:02, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Senior advice for Wiki

Hi and thanks for giving me the chance to ask a question here. I have submitted a wiki but been declined. I don’t understand how to change it with what’s requested. Any experienced wiki reviewer please, many thanks. Goldstriker (talk) 11:37, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

On the draft page and on your user talk page there is feedback, in which the words in blue are wikilinks to specific advice. Was there some particular part of that advice which you didn't understand? --David Biddulph (talk) 12:59, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Regarding confirmation!

Hi I didn't got confirmed access ECN001 (talk) 12:47, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Your account became autoconfirmed an hour or two ago when it reached 4 days old. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:52, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: OP blocked for Socking by Bbb23. Victor Schmidt (talk) 14:27, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Copyright material uploading process

How can I submit a copyright information, which I have the authorisation to use in Wikipedia in whole or in parts Abmsarwer (talk) 13:45, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Authorisation just to use in Wikipedia is no use. Needs to be available for use by everyone, including for commercial use. See WP:Donating copyrighted materials. - David Biddulph (talk) 13:48, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Useful Tools

Hello, I am preparing and article in my sandbox to submit for an editorial review. I understood that there was an option called "useful tools". I cannot find it, but specifically. I am looking for the table of contents code and information box. Thank you in advance . . . JHKimAnalyst (talk) 14:18, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello, JHKimAnalyst, and welcome to the Teahouse. I don't know of an option called "useful tools" (but somebody else might). Table of contents is automatic, and draws all its information from the headers you have provided. For information about infoboxes, see WP:Infoboxes - it's often easiest to find an article which uses the same infobox that you need, copy the source code, and then change the parameters appropriately.

However, a quick look at your sandbox suggests that an infobox is not what you need to worry about at present - it's like painting the windows when you haven't solidly built the house. At the moment, your draft doesn't seem to know whether it is about Nance or about his theory, and it seems to rely much too much on what he says or wants to say. 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. Please read Your first article if you haven't already. And if you have any connection with Nance you must declare it: see COI. --ColinFine (talk) 16:48, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello, ColinFine thank you for information on the table of contents and information box. The "useful tools" was seen on YouTube in a demonstration after I could not find it in any of the available options on the page. I will review the first article. After editing other articles, I decide to write on the subject after learning of his latest accomplishment after gathering some information in the public domain and others who know the subject. Leadership is a very important topic for many reasons watching what is going on in the world today. I was using two articles accepted as a guide for three reasons (1) already accepted, (2) One is about the person who attempted what the subject accomplished, and (3) the things in the draft are corroborated by credible sources including 5 editors . Both articles talk about the subjects of the article and what they attempted to do or did. The theory based on the sources is a first, so I want to be the first about a first. COI should be no problem and eventually others can have the opportunity to contribute or read.--JHKimAnalyst (talk) 18:48, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

References

Hello, JHKimAnalyst. I'm no wiser about "useful tools", but WP:Tools might be helpful. I accept that leadership is an important topic in the world today; but a particular theory may or may not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability. "Importance" is not per se enough, nor are things such as influence, popularity, or innovation: what matters is that a subject has been written about in reliable published sources by people who have no connection with the subject. If LGT is "a first", it may well be WP:TOOSOON for an article. An article on it must not be based on anything written by Nance or his associates, but entirely on material about the theory that is created and published entirely independent of him: if such material does not yet exist, then there cannot be a Wikipedia article on it. (An article on Nance similarly requires independent sources about him, not his own or his associates' publications).

As for existing articles, please read other stuff exists. The other articles you are referring to may be excellent, and have been accepted after review; or they may have been created before we became as careful about standards, and number among the tens of thousands of seriously substandard articles which ought to be improved or deleted. An article should not generally be about both a person and their invention: if both are notable, there should be two separate articles; if they are not (for example, if the theory is notable, but there has been little independent published information about its originator) then there should be an article on one which has brief information on the other.

I am happy to accept your assurance that you have no COI (except that "I want to be the first" is itself a kind of COI!); I wondered because of your username (...Analyst) and because of the non-neutral way you wrote about him. I suggest you put a statement on your user page explaining your interest but that you have no connection with Nance, to avoid other editors getting suspicious. --ColinFine (talk) 19:53, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Page declined

FYI

 – Heading added by Tenryuu.

I want detailed imformation that why this page is declined https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Brij_Kishore_Sharma please reply in easy language why this page has been declined 49.36.45.121 (talk) 14:25, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. As the reviewer states, the draft doesn't satisfy one of Wikipedia's notability guidelines (WP:NAUTHOR), as Sharma would require significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject and are secondary sources. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:30, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

FYI - page is now gone due to editors having been blocked. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 01:12, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Why is it called courtesy vanishing?

Why is it called courtesy vanishing? Is it because vanishing is offered as a courtesy to the user? I’ve been lurking here for a while and only recently registered an account. I know this question isn’t about the articles themselves, but I am curious. Thanks for any insight. The Council of Seraphim | speak before the Council 16:14, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

For information about courtesy vanishing, see Wikipedia:Courtesy vanishing. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:54, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Pretty much yeah. WP:VANISH isn't something granted by the Terms of Use, but is sometimes granted anyway, hence "courtesy". Compare Commons' Courtesy deletions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:04, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Ah, okay. That makes sense. Thanks! The Council of Seraphim | speak before the Council 22:39, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

cite a website

HI Ive read the templates etc and I just cant figure out how to cite a newspaper article. Is there any way this can be simply explained to me? Thanks, Palisades1 (talk) 16:26, 29 August 2021 (UTC) Palisades1 (talk) 16:26, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Palisades1, and welcome to the Teahouse. When you are citing a newspaper article, the article is what you should cite: bibiliographic information such as the newspaper, date published, title, author, and maybe page number. If the article happens to be available online, then it is really helpful to readers to include a URL, but that is a convenience, not an integral part of the citation (and if the publishers haven't put the article on line, then it can't be provided). An easy way to do this is to use the template {{cite news}}: follow that link to the documentation for the template, to see what the parameters are, and some examples of their use. For more general information about citing, see CITE. --ColinFine (talk) 16:34, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Adding images.

Hi!

I am currently trying to build a wikipedia page on [wikispooks.com/wiki/wikispooks WikiSpooks] and I want to add an infobox because it is a wiki and it would give out fast information on it but I am having trouble on how to add the icon of the website. Do you know how I can do that? Thanks. ButterSlipper (talk) 17:08, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

@ButterSlipper: Welcome to the Teahouse! To upload the website icon to Wikipedia, you can use the Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard and click "Upload a non-free file". Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 18:19, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Here's a ref you can use: [2]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:43, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

@ButterSlipper: Properly uploading and using images can be a tricky thing to do. Perhaps it would be better for you to wait to upload any files until you've taken some time to look at Wikipedia:Image use policy, Wikipedia:Copyrights#Guidelines for images and other media files and also c:Commons:Licensing. Articles aren't required to have images and there are quite a lot of restrictions on how certain types of images may be used; for example, non-free images can only be used under if they satisfy certain specific criteria. So, if you're going to try and create a new Wikipedia article, then may wait on the images until you actually do so. New article creation in and of itself is quite hard and there are many things completely unrelated to images that need to be done for the article to avoid ending up deleted; so, focus on creating the article first, and then figure out the images later on. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:12, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Formatting/Reference Problem

 Courtesy link: Alex Berenson § Opposition to cannabis legalization
The Alex Berenson section Opposition to Cannabis Legalization has a bunch of references gobbledygook that needs fixing. I'd do it myself but I have no idea what it would entail.

 Ethphonehome (talk) 19:07, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Ethphonehome, whoever concocted this expects us to believe that each of its cited (and quoted) nuggets appears on page 1 of whatever. Possibly this person believed that p was an obligatory field of Template:R and that "1" was the most innocuous value for it. However, p is not an obligatory field, and it's safe to remove each instance of "p=1 |". (I'd guess that all are meaningless, but of course it's possible that one or two of these really are on page one of whatever it is.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:00, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

How can i change an article's name after moving it to main space

Hey guys so i recently creat an article and i accidently wrote the in title wrong after releasing it to main space what can i do guys any help??. talk 19:34, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

@HellmuSa: Welcome to the Teahouse! It appears you moved your page from your sandbox to Abdeljabbar Louzir. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 20:51, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

HellmuSa, in order to rename it, click on the "Move" option and answer the questions you'll be asked. Incidentally, I don't understand "his father worked as a shovel". -- Hoary (talk) 23:46, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Dave Clark Five and Ron Ryan

What can be done to determine the validity of these claims that someone named Ron Ryan wrote the songs credited to Dave Clark of the Dave Clark Five? JoeBotterill (talk) 20:11, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

@JoeBotterill: Welcome to the Teahouse! There is a discussion on this topic on Talk:The Dave Clark Five, so you might want to participate there. Since the claim is also mentioned on The Riot Squad article, you might want to post on Talk:The Riot Squad to ask interested editors to participate at the discussion at Talk:The Dave Clark Five. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 21:04, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Correction to Grace Lee Whitney Filmography

Grace Lee Whitney (Actress) appeared in an episode of Kraft Suspense Theatre - Episode Title "The Name of the Game" - Season 1, Episode 10 on Dec 26, 1963, yet it is not listed on her Wikipedia page filmography. Don't know how to correct it myself (would be hesitant to do so). Anyone with skills is welcome. Thank you. 2603:8080:2940:3C:1184:2060:1F0D:867E (talk) 23:37, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

The skills needed aren't at all advanced; but I'm not going to do it because you give me no evidence for it. (I could google for evidence, but I plead laziness.) Please make the suggestion, citing a reliable source, at the foot of Talk:Grace Lee Whitney. -- Hoary (talk) 23:42, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! IMDb lists Kraft Suspense Theatre and 50 other credits that aren't on the Grace Lee Whitney article. However, IMDb is not considered reliable because the content is user generated. I suggest you post on the article's talk page Talk:Grace Lee Whitney do see what consensus they have for which roles get included in the Filmography section. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 00:59, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Quoting and full stop/period

Not new here, wanted to ask if we include the full stop/period inside the quote or outside the quote if what I'm quoting is a full sentence? For example: "abc...xyz.". or "abc...xyz". which is correct or there is a case-by-case basis? — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 02:20, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

@Paper9oll: Welcome to the Teahouse! See MOS:INOROUT for lots of examples. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 02:25, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

@GoingBatty Thanks you for the reply. Happy editing! — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 02:31, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

"Education" or "alma mater"?

While browsing the wikipedia pages of various notables, I see in their little infobox that the term "education" is used about 90% of the time in describing the notable's alumni status, while the term "alma mater" is used the other 10% of the time to describe the same thing. Which term should be used? Are they both ok? Should we actively edit one to make it the other? Please let me know. Samuuurai (talk) 04:31, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

@Samuuurai, welcome to the Teahouse! Quoting from Template:Infobox person:

• Education, e.g., degree, institution and graduation year, if relevant. If very little information is available or relevant, the |alma_mater= parameter may be more appropriate.
• Alma mater. This parameter is a more concise alternative to (not addition to) |education=, and will often consist of the linked name of the last-attended institution of higher education (not secondary schools). It is usually not relevant to include either parameter for non-graduates, but article talk page consensus may conclude otherwise, as perhaps at Bill Gates.

Hope that helps. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:53, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I see more use of alma_mater than education, but that's pertaining to television actors and folks not in academia/research. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 19:42, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Will adding to a draft that is pending review slow down the review process?

Hello, I've created a page and submitted it for review, but there is much more to add. Can I keep adding to the draft without losing my place in the queue? Or is it better to wait for the draft to be approved before making any more changes?

This is the page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Angelina_Pwerle Akkeri (talk) 04:40, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

@Akkeri: Welcome to the Teahouse! The message on the yellow draft template stating "drafts are reviewed in no specific order" is intended to let you know that there is no queue. Yes, you can keep working on the draft while you're waiting for it to be reviewed. In the first paragraph you mention "Kathleen Ngale", and I was very confused: Is Angelina also known by Kathleen? Is there a typo? Then the "Life" section tells me that Kathleen is Angelina's sister. But then back to the third sentence, "her work is held": is "her" Angelina or Kathleen? I hope you can reorganize the draft to make this more clear. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 04:56, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

@GoingBatty: Thanks for the prompt response and for explaining the process! Yes, it's a typo... I will continue editing! Akkeri (talk)

Akkeri, genuine, substantive improvements to a draft improve its prospects for a quicker review; they do not slow it down. To repeat, there is no queue. Reviewers select drafts to review based on their own personal interests and expertise, and their first impression of the quality of the draft, not based on any type of queue. Every reviewer just loves to approve well-written, fully policy compliant drafts. Resolve the confusion between the two sisters described by GoingBatty above. That sort of thing is a major red flag for reviewers. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:08, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Got it, thanks. I will continue editing! Akkeri (talk)

A help

Hi. I want to make uncollapsible section in mobile view. I want to uncollapsible it but the heading of sections must have the horizontal line. Waiting for reply! Thanks. ➤ Tajwar – thesupermaN! ^{【Click to Discuss】} 05:49, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Tajwar.thesuperman Hello and welcome to the Tea House! Can you link a specific Wikipedia Article you have this issue with? If I am understand you correctly, there is no easy way to prevent sections from being automatically collapsed. An alternative, would be to use the "desktop" version of the website on your mobile device. On the bottom of any page is an option to select "Desktop" version. @Cullen328 has written an essay about this and mobile editing more broadly which you can read here: User:Cullen328/Smartphone editing. Happy editing! ~ Shushugah (he/him • talk) 08:30, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

In addition to the above, some mobile web browsers have the option to force the page into desktop mode. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 15:04, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

How to

How to post Knowledgeble content and inspiration stories to beneficial for individual or communities  Vinaychoudharyofficial (talk) 08:11, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Vinaychoudharyofficial Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. One of your edits was reverted for being promotional- promotion and advertising are not permitted on Wikipedia. Please read about the Five Pillars and use the Wikipedia adventure to learn more about what Wikipedia is and what we do here. 331dot (talk) 08:20, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Vinaychoudharyofficial, this is an encyclopedia. It presents factual information to its readers. It's factual in that it's based on reliable, independent sources. This factual information may inspire its readers or it may do the reverse; "inspiration stories" are not what an encyclopedia is about. It's also not for advertising yourself or anyone or anything else. Please start by making minor additions and corrections to articles that already exist, always clearly citing your (reliable, independent) sources. -- Hoary (talk) 08:21, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Creating a Norwegian Wikipedia site

Hi, I wish to create a Norwegian wiki page so I can refer to Norwegian references without using a interøanguage link. How do I proceed to make a NO page and how do I save my draft in the sandbox without publishing? I don't see a save button. Have also tried to create a userspace without understanding how to save.

Thanks in advance!

Best May MaySundAnd (talk) 08:37, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

@MaySundAnd: "Publish changes" means "save changes", not "publish this to the encyclopedia". The button is labeled this way to remind you that everything here is public, if one knows where to look for. If you want to create a Wikipedia article in norwegian, you have to do so at the norwegian Wikipedia. Their pendant of our Help:Your first article seems to be no:Wikipedia:Din første artikkel Victor Schmidt (talk) 08:46, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

@MaySundAnd: note that there are two "Norwegian" wikipedias: the Bokmål one at no.wikipedia.org and the Nynorsk one at nn.wikipedia.org, so you need to choose your dialect/political leaning! Peter coxhead (talk) 09:18, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick and informative reply ::@Peter coxhead:. The reason I asked about the "publish changes"/how to save is that I have gotten a note that I/the person I write the article about, might be blacklisted on Wikipedia for publishing too many times. However, I have only sent the article to review 1 time. So that's why I am nervous about this. Is there anyone I can contact to make sure to not get blacklisted? If it has been published several times it must have been a mistake from my side, but as mentioned I have only sent it to review once.

Best May

Hello, MaySundAnd. It sounds as if you're talking about an article that has been salted: this happens on repeated attempts to create an article that are all unacceptable, usually because the subject fails to meet the criteria for notability. But if more material is published, so that the subject does now meet these criteria, then it is fine to create a draft and submit it for review: if the reviewer agrees that the subject is now notable, they can arrange for the salting to be removed and the article accepted. It's worth looking at the deletion discussion(s) for previous attempts, to make sure that you are addressing the reasons why it got deleted - you can find them at Special:log/delete. (All that I've written relates to English Wikipedia: the Norwegian ones may or may not be the same in these respects). --ColinFine (talk) 12:30, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

• Just to add re your comment "can refer to Norwegian references" - it is perfectly acceptable to use non English references here on the English language Wikipedia. ϢereSpielChequers 09:12, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Changes in wiki - when can I expect the changes to be visible?

Hi, when I make a change in wiki, do you then know when I can expect the changes to be visible in our Google company add (placed right side) when a company name is searched? Can I do something so the changes will be visible right away in the Google add? Berbel Bruun Hansen (talk) 09:45, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

The speed with which Google responds is down to them, not to Wikipedia. I see from this edit that you are making edits on behalf of the company. You therefore need to read about conflict of interest, and you must make the mandatory declaration of paid editing. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:59, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Changed birth date - reliable source?

hi! Im new here, I changed birth date from Jessie Reyez from 13 to 12, as this is the information I can find on her. But not sure if this source is reliable enough?

https://www.allmusic.com/artist/jessie-reyez-mn0003564213/biography

I could not find any linked source that confirmed the date should be 13.

Would love your help learning how you would act in this situation and if I edited correctly?

Netanya9 (talk) 11:15, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks so much! Netanya9 (talk) 11:13, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

If you are not sure/cannot find a reliable source confirming her date of birth, then omit it. ― Qwerfjkltalk 12:10, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

- Thank you. The date was already there, felt inappropriate to delete birth date? And I did find a source, just not sure if Wiki considers it reliable? Netanya9 (talk) 12:16, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

@Netnaya9: You can check WP:RSP#Sources and if it's not there you can discuss it at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard to make sure it's reliable or not. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 15:02, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

@Netanya9@Blaze The Wolf when in doubt about information that is potentially wrong or undue in Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, delete it! It can always be re-added once consensus/appriate sources are added. ~ Shushugah (he/him • talk) 17:23, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you @shushugah I see you deleted! :) Made note on talkpage. Netanya9 (talk) 20:04, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Redirects

Why are there so many random redirects in articles? [3] ― Qwerfjkltalk 12:08, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

In the case of Panama Wedding, Qwerfjkl, because an IP user added them in this edit last December, apparently under the impression that that was how you create a Wikilink. I have corrected that article, but I haven't looked further. That particular IP address did not appear to have made the same mistake elsewhere at that time: I'd guess that some of the others were the same editor using a different IP address, but it may be other editors sharing the same misapprehension. --ColinFine (talk) 13:47, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Lancaster City FC

Hi, I'm hoping you can help me. For around 14 years I have been editing and updating the page on Lancaster City F.C. albeit anonymously. As a lifelong supporter I've updated and edited the page regularly. However, recently a registered user who goes by the name of Seasider53 has been deleting large sections of the page, sections that have been there for years. I've since created an account but the page has now been protected and as such I can't access the page to edit it. It seems very petty as the page was there to provide football supporters with up to date information regarding Lancaster City F.C. Please can you help as I've spent years keeping this page updated only for some jobsworth keyboard warrior, with no links to Lancaster City I would imagine, to come along and wantonly vandalise and ruin what was a very informative article. DoctorJimmy123DoctorJimmy123 (talk) 12:17, 30 August 2021 (UTC) DoctorJimmy123 (talk) 12:17, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy: Lancaster City FC. DoctorJimmy123, the editor Seasider53 is not disputing the content, only that it exists without a reference to verify that it is true. What you know to be true is not sufficient, nor is how long content has been in an article. Repetition of reverting changes is called 'edit warring', and can lead to a temporary block. The proper option is to make your case on the Talk page of the article, with reliable source references. Invite Seasider53. If a consensus can be reached, then that editor or another will restore the content to the article. Lastly, but essentially - contest content, but do not insult editors. A disagreement on content does not constitute vandalism, which within Wikipedia has a specific definition. David notMD (talk) 12:38, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

If you wait 4 days and do 10 edits, you will be able to edit the article. You can place edit requests on the article's talk page in the meantime. Alternatively, you can ask for the confirmed permission at WP:PERM/C, and explain your situation and history of editing. ― Qwerfjkltalk 12:39, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

It was pointed out at User talk:95.150.221.4 and at User talk:95.151.172.200 that you must not include content without citing WP:reliable sources. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:52, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks guys I really appreciate your advice. However I can't get over how petty this is, and inconsistent as well. Surely if all this is about is reference sources then wouldn't it have been better just to have deleted the whole article instead of picking and choosing which sections. And then surely the right thing to do would be to go onto every English non League football club page on Wikipedia and delete ALL the sections that are unsourced, of which there are thousands? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DoctorJimmy123 (talk • contribs)

Yes. please list those here. Less sarcastically, with over 6,000,000 English language articles, there are tens if not hundreds of thousands that do not meet current standards. Many are so flawed that they deserve nomination for deletion. P.S. remember to sign comments. David notMD (talk) 13:09, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

@DoctorJimmy123: In case you haven't seen it before, Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues keeps a list of fully professional football leagues worldwide, so a team in those leagues would be presumed as notable. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 13:50, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Doctor Jimmy comes and goes under various accounts. Back in 2007, during the lifespan of one of those accounts, this was the state of the Lancaster City F.C. article. Not a single reference in sight. 14 years later, I'm still trying to get the message across to him. - Seasider53 (talk) 13:59, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

If you are Doctor Jimmy, you are reminded of Wikipedia's rules about the use of multiple accounts. David Biddulph (talk) 14:06, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Help needed at Kataklik Kangri

Hello. I just created a page for Kataklik Kangri - a group of two mountain peaks located in Aksai Chin/Ladakh. But, I am only able to add one peak's coordinates in the infobox? Is there any way around? RPSkokie (talk) 13:07, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

@RPSkokie: Hi there! Looking at Template:Infobox mountain, it appears there's only one parameter for |coordinates= and one parameter for |range_coordinates= (along with a corresponding reference parameter for each). If you don't receive a response to your post at Talk:Kataklik Kangri or here, you may wish to ask at Template talk:Infobox mountain. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 15:10, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

@GoingBatty thanks for the help. But even if I use the range coordinates I am getting this error - coordinates cannot have more than one primary tag per page. I want two separate peaks of the same range to be incorporated in the infobox. RPSkokie (talk) 04:21, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

@GoingBatty I used - OSM Location map infobox - within the body of the article. Earlier I used it at Shigatse Peace Airport's page. Does this kind of editing comply with Wikipedia rules? RPSkokie (talk) 04:33, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

@RPSkokie: I looked at Template:OSM Location map and Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps/Conventions/Location maps and Wikipedia:WikiProject OpenStreetMap and don't see any restrictions on where the map can be used. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 12:55, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

@GoingBatty thank you for helping! RPSkokie (talk) 16:30, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

I am in Extreme Problem

I am in extreme problem Please I beg you please read this full I am Harsh Vardhan Sharma "Tara" I have created many articles for my father, at that time when I was a kid, so I don't know about refrencing, but this time i got all reliable referencing content but I have blocked by other users because when I was kid I don't know about refrencing and after I know about referencing so I create a wikipedia page for my father who is politician but whenever I submit it for review users delete the page which has good reference and good article but they remove it because i am a blocked and banned user but at that time I don't know about the blocking policy so I create many articles for my father but this time I have reliable references but whenever I create the page in good faith then they delete it so what i do please answer what i have do i have been indefinitely blocked from wikipedia without an expiry set so please help me how to make a wikipedia page for dad Please help me to create wikipedia page I have never abuse Wikipedia I only want to add my father's name in wikipedia who is politician but that time I have nothing for refrence but this time I have so please help me to create page for my father please I beg you that time I was kid so I mistakenly abuse wikipedia by adding my father name many times without any refrences so please help me please sir47.247.196.235 (talk) 13:43, 30 August 2021 (UTC) 47.247.196.235 (talk) 13:43, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

You have asked the same question at WP:Help desk. Please don't ask the same question in multiple places as it wastes the time of vounteers answering questions which have already been answered. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:50, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Writing about your family members is an inherent conflict of interest - please don't do it. If your father is genuinely notable according to our notability criteria for politicians, then someone else who doesn't have a personal or professional connection to him will eventually write an article about him. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 13:53, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Your only option to be able to do any article editing or creation is start at User talk:HARSH VARDHAN SHARMA "TARA" and appeal your block. Every time you try to create an article about your father, either as a new account or not registered, is more reason why your block will not be lifted. Until you succeed in appealing your block, no one will help you, and all attempts to evade the block will be vanished without a trace. David notMD (talk) 18:23, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: He will not be able to edit User talk:HARSH VARDHAN SHARMA "TARA" at any time soon, because the account is globally locked as a lock evasion of Wikibot Research of Reverted Edits (talk · contribs · central auth · count · email). He would need to appeal the global lock first. Victor Schmidt (talk) 21:13, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Wow! Twelve confirmed sockpuppet accounts!! David notMD (talk) 21:21, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

And you can also add 49.35.250.10. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:35, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

I add it to get help from wikipedia49.35.250.10 (talk) 11:43, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Add also User:Indian Wiki User CG, not yet identified as a new sock. David notMD (talk) 14:06, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

I am convinced some people just can not understand the rules no matter what is said and they will continue to be disruptive no matter how many people try to explain it. It's not an assumption of bad faith because they are not acting from a place of bad faith intentions so much as lacking the ability to comprehend and critically evaluate/process the rules here specifically. Nor can they understand the difference between gratis versus libre and free speech. --ARoseWolf 14:22, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Category: artists who paint birds

Am I crazy, or is this a stupid category?: Category:New Zealand bird artists.

The three current artists seem to predominantly paint birds, and are of course best known for painting birds, but there are (surprisingly) many New Zealand artists who are best known for their work on birds. Of course, most of the other candidates (eg, Don Binney) are known to work on other subjects, but what is the cutoff mark? I'm somewhat new to categories in general, so I'm not sure if this is a stupid question or one that's been rehashed a ton before. Many thanks! — HTGS (talk) 14:24, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

@HTGS Hello and welcome to Tea House, this sounds like a case of WP:NARROWCAT. You could nominate the Category for discussion over at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion ~ Shushugah (he/him • talk) 17:21, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

2^64-1 Proven NOT prime about 1902. Cannot find the reference. Would like to see it added to powers of 2 page. or primes page.

see headline. Randycorvette (talk) 14:39, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

@Randycorvette: Welcome to Wikipedia, and thanks for wanting to make it better. Anything you add to the article needs to have a reference, so if there is no reference for the new info you want to add, it can't be added. RudolfRed (talk) 15:04, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

@Randycorvette: Welcome to the Teahouse! You can post your suggestion on the article's talk page (e.g. Talk:Power of two), and other editors can help determine if it would be a good addition and help find a reliable source. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 15:13, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

If you read Mersenne prime you'll find the general case. 2^n-1 can't be prime unless n is prime and even then most cases (e.g. n=11) are not primes. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:21, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

It might be, however, that this was not known in 1902, and that M_64 being not prime was a historical advance then. Without a ref, we will never know though...Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 17:10, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

@Randycorvette: Were you thinking about M₆₇? No factor of that was found until Frank Nelson Cole showed them in 1903? See Cole, F. N. (1 December 1903). "On the factoring of large numbers". Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society. 10 (3): 134–138. doi:10.1090/S0002-9904-1903-01079-9.. M₆₄ is obviously composite since it = (2³²)² - 1^2,=(2³² + 1)(2³² - 1). Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:26, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

even more obviously, 2⁶⁴ is 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 — which means that (2⁶⁴-1) is 18,446,744,073,709,551,615. DS (talk) 03:35, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

For all positive n, 2⁴ⁿ must be 6 modulo 10, so 2⁴ⁿ-1 must be a multiple of 5. Maproom (talk) 07:14, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

and more generally, for any n>1, 2²ⁿ-1 = (2ⁿ+1)(2ⁿ-1) and so is not prime. This should have been obvious to any competent number theorist long before 1900. Maproom (talk) 13:28, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Marking errors for others to fix?

So, I was skimming through the Norwegian page on Transhumance, and noticed an error. I tried reading the english version and googling a bit, but I realize I don't have time for this right now, and I'm ADHD/I have too low interest in this topic to find the answer anytime soon. D:

Is there a way to mark/tag this page/sentence so that other editors who might be better suited for the task hopefully will see this sooner?

Thanks. SkoolWasaB (talk) 15:23, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Tea House! Unfortunately templates are usually unique to each language edition of Wikipedia. For English Wikipedia you can check out the various templates here: Template:Cleanup template documentation see also section generic list. For other language Wikipedias, the simplest step would be to write a comment on the "Discussion" page, happy editing! Shushugah (he/him • talk) 15:32, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

The spritual realmi

 119.2.118.110 (talk) 16:11, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Did you have a question about editing Wikipedia? - David Biddulph (talk) 16:12, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

how can I publish a new page?

Hi I'm new to Wikipedia, I create a new page today and I can't see it when I search in the google. What's the procedure? Will it get automatically published later? Vinul Fernando (talk) 17:58, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! We're glad you're here. New articles often take weeks or months to appear in Google search results, depending on when the article is indexed by the search engine. See DavidnotMD's comment below. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 18:20, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Vinul Fernando::Confirming you created Lal Fernando today. Parts are not referenced, especially awards, so continue to improve it. My understanding is that a new article must either be reviewed by New Pages Patrol or 90 days must occur before opened to search engines such as Google. However, if searched within Wikipedia, it will be seen. Question to you: did you in fact take the photograph used in the article? Second question: Are you related or connected to Lal Fernando? David notMD (talk) 18:32, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Vinul Fernando, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia. New articles are not indexed by search engines until they have been patrolled (or for 90 days if they don't get patrolled in that time).

Well done for creating a good-looking article as a new editor; but unfortunately, I'm not sure that you have established that Lal Fernando meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability, since most of the references appear to be from the army, or other institutions that Fernando is part of. 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.

You created that article by copying the content of your sandbox: this is not the best way to move a page: moving the sandbox would be better; but better still, especially for a new editor, would have been to submit the draft for review. I also notice that your user name suggests you may be connected with Fernando. If that is the case, please read about editing with a conflict of interest, and declare your status. --ColinFine (talk) 18:39, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi thanks for the tips everyone! To answer David notMD, the photograph took from the one of the references and I'm aware of the copyright issues. I'll remove and change it. And yes the article is about my farther.--Vin97 18:50, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

@Vinul Fernando: The issues are worse than ColinFine mentioned, as 6 of the 7 references do not seem to mention your father at all. The purpose of the references is to show where you read the information. Anything about your father that cannot be verified in a reliable published source needs to be removed. GoingBatty (talk) 18:57, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Moved to Draft:Lal Fernando. Vinul has declared COI (draft about his father). David notMD (talk) 21:09, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Why

why Ayomuchachos (talk) 18:14, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Why not? Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 18:17, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Because.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 18:28, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Uh... ain't nothing but heartache? Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 18:33, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

See Why. David notMD (talk) 18:41, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Zee (or Zed). GoingBatty (talk) 19:08, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Ayomuchachos In all seriousness, every one of your edits except this one has been reverted. You are close to getting blocked, as you've been warned on your talk page. WP:NOTHERE. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:09, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

how to

Help Bot2213 (talk) 18:58, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to The Teahouse. Is your question related to your username warning or one of the articles you recently edited? Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 19:00, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Did not leave an edit revert summary

I reverted an edit for Campaign to Electrify Britain’s Railways back to UK English but golden rule is always leave an edit summary ESPECIALLY for a revert. I did not do this. Is there a way to correct my rookie error please? GRALISTAIR (talk) 21:39, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

You could make a follow-up WP:DUMMY edit with an explanation "my previous revert was because blah blah blah" Leijurv (talk) 21:43, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Sorted thanks GRALISTAIR (talk) 02:19, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

How to create a Biography Page

Hi, I am trying to create a biography page that I can edit and am confused on how to do it. However when I put in the code (subst:Biography) I don't get an edit button to be able to format and change what needs to be changed.

Also, just to clarify when you create a page will it be checked before it's published or once it is created and edit it can you just publish it?

Is there a instruction step by step guide on how to do this? Carolina Ski (talk) 22:11, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Carolina Ski Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Successfully creating a new article (not just a "page") is probably the hardest task to perform on Wikipedia. It takes much time, effort, and practice. It's usually recommended that users spend much time editing existing articles first, to get a feel for how Wikipedia operates and what is expected of article content. I'd suggest using the new user tutorial.

You may visit Articles for creation to create and submit a draft for review. You will want to gather at least three independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject to summarize.(not brief mentions, press releases, interviews, or any materials put out by the person) You will want to make sure the person meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable person(or one of the more specific definitions for certain career fields). 331dot (talk) 22:35, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

@Carolina Ski: Welcome to the Teahouse! Two more great resources are Help:Your first article and the Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 02:57, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

If you want to invoke the relevant templates with the string "subst:Biography" you need to put it inside curly brackets, thus "{{subst:Biography}}". --David Biddulph (talk) 05:51, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Post Deletion Follow-Up

Hello,

I am reaching out to confirm a bit more clarification on Nedra Tawwab's article that was denied. The article was written in suggested format as requested by Wikipedia and was structured similar to many of her colleagues that have approved Wikipedia articles. If we can get a more understanding or recommended advice on what should be updated in the article that would be helpful. We appreciate your guidance in advance. 2600:8801:DE00:BD:70B5:130C:424F:EBB2 (talk) 00:13, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Does the draft still exist? Name? Or was it Speedy deleted, leaving no trace? David notMD (talk) 02:15, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

I assume this refers to Draft:Nedra Tawwab, which was speedy deleted under G11 on the 28th. Victor Schmidt (talk) 05:03, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

I used my admin tools to look at the deleted page, it was blatant spam, nothing worth saving. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:20, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

The fact that similar articles exist on Wikipedia is not an accepted rationale for a contested article. There are tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands of articles that do not meet current standards, either because those were created years ago, or editors created the articled without going through the Articles for Creation review process. David notMD (talk) 11:17, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

A Question Regarding Notability

Hi, if the subject of an article doesn't have that many feature articles, but has been cited and interviewed extensively as an expert on a particular subject, does that count toward notability? I am not talking about academics in particular. BettytheBeth (talk) 00:18, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your question. This is still a big "depends" type question. There is no guideline that coverage must be feature articles, to my knowledge. However, given the many PR and marketing tactics employed for clients to get quotes and interviews, the expert quotes and interviews should probably be organic (unpaid) coverage in reputable publications. Do you have examples? Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 00:27, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Pyrrho the Skeptic:, thanks for responding. Can I add them to the concerned draft's talk page and get back to you on your talk page? I won't be able to do it today and I believe this discussion will be archived by then. BettytheBeth (talk) 00:31, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely. I'm happy to provide my thoughts and/or point you to the next step. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 15:25, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

• BettytheBeth, hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Your question appears a tad bit too vague and might be open to multiple interpretation so I would define notability for you, articles retained on mainspace are there because they are notable, how do we decide notability? More often that not the answer is found in WP: GNG, the subject the article should possess in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. You may choose to see what constitutes significant coverage in WP:SIGCOV and what constitutes a reliable source see WP:RS. I hope I have been of help if not do allow me know by stating otherwise. Thank you. Celestina007 (talk) 00:33, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Celestina007:, thanks for the clarification and the welcome. Perhaps it would be better if you and @Pyrrho the Skeptic: could take a look here at Nicole Ellis' talk page. Thank you so much! BettytheBeth (talk) 16:44, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

@BettytheBeth: I added a comment on the draft Talk Page. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 18:37, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Infobox Editing

Hello!
I'm doing some research in how to mark a repairability score to electronic devices that are listed. Originally I wanted to make a project to add it in the articles, but another user suggested that we work on adding it to the infobox. My first question is how do I go about doing that? The second was that they (the user who made the suggestion) said it needed to be discussed by the community before making any changes like that. Where, specifically, would I start that conversation? Is there somewhere I could read up about that process?
Thank you!
 SilmarilElwing 00:21, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

@SilmarilElwing: Welcome to the Teahouse! Each infobox template has a talk page for discussion. For example, if you were thinking about adding the {{Infobox computer hardware}}, you could discuss your idea on Template talk:Infobox computer hardware. Be sure to provide a reliable source for the "repairability". Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 03:01, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Miss michigan teen usa PAGE

Winner 2020 "aneesa sheikh" her correct age was 17 when she won... the current age is incorrect as it states she was 18, when she was 17. Sharkqueque (talk) 01:48, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

@Sharkqueque: Welcome to the Teahouse! Thank you for your desire to make Wikipedia better! I suggest you post your edit request on the article's talk page - Talk:Miss Michigan Teen USA - along with a reliable source for her age at the time she won. Thanks, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 03:08, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Need help finding content

Good day. I am conducting a large amount of historical research and consult Wikipedia quite often because I find their media of World maps depicting territory and Empire boundary changes through each decade incredibly helpful forming a mental picture of the time period I am researching. To make things easier for myself I have been trying to locate an archive of all such media so that I can browse through maps and conduct research more quickly. Does such an archive exist, and if so how and where can I locate?

Thank you,

Carrow Carrow94 (talk) 02:01, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

@Carrow94: You might have luck asking on the talk page of the Maps Wikiproject. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 02:49, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Carrow94, and welcome to the Teahouse. Timtempleton has suggested one approach. Another is to find some appropriate categories on Wikimedia Commons (which is where most of the maps are hosted). Examples are Commons:Category:Maps of the history of Europe by former country and Commons:Category:Maps of empires. --ColinFine (talk) 09:21, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Article Declined // Mosquito Bites

Hello, I was wondering why my article was declined under the reason that it does not qualify for a Wikipedia article, with the decliner saying "There's already a section on bites. Please discuss on the talk page whether it needs to be a split article." Usually, insect bites earn their own articles, such as bee stings, which has an article and a section on the main page. After an exchange with the person who declined it, they suggested I consult the mosquito talk page, whose questions don't get answered often. I'm not sure what to do now, as the creator for the bee sting article never had to ask permission on the bee talk page despite very similar situations. Please help me resolve this issue.

Thank you, Eye ay en (talk) 03:40, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Ian, although you say that "Usually, insect bites earn their own articles", I see no evidence for this when I look in Category:Insect bites and stings. Insect bites and stings is a short article that could easily be expanded. If you'd like to ask about it, try Talk:Insect bites and stings; if there's no reaction after a week, try inviting people there from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Dermatology task force. -- Hoary (talk) 04:51, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

@Eye ay en @Hoary There is Bee sting, Spider bite (not an insect I know I know) and Bed bug which are almost exclusively about bites. I also think articles like Malaria may be worth looking into. I agree that Insect bites and stings would likely be overwhelmed with a huge mosquito section and Hoary's advice is really good. Seems some people mixe up Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers with Wikipedia:Please bite the newbies 😬 ~ Shushugah (he/him • talk) 08:29, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. Are you saying I should add my article to Insect bites and stings? Or argue for it at the talk page of insect bites and stings

--Eye ay en (talk) 05:57, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Eye ay en, I was going to recommend the former; but then I looked at your draft (for the first time) and realized that it's quite long, so it would rather overpower the article Insect bites and stings. I wondered about putting it into the article Mosquito, but then looked at that (again for the first time) and realized that it's very long and that there's quite some overlap with what you've written. Frankly I'm not entirely sure what's best; but this may be obvious to somebody who, unlike me, knows about entomology, dermatology, or preferably both. On balance, though, I agree with AngusWOOF. What I am certain about is that this needs more work. In this edit, I've just looked at the introduction, primarily removing internal links. Once you've linked to, say, Mosquito, you don't need to do so a second time in the same section, or perhaps anywhere. Also, if somebody's reading about mosquito bites, it's unlikely that when they come across mention of (linked) September they'll think "Ah yes, September! I've always wondered about that. Let's find out more"; and therefore it doesn't need to be linked. Depending on the context, some terms and concepts cry out to be linked, some absolutely don't; the border is very fuzzy and I doubt that AngusW (for example) would delete exactly the same links that I did, but my guess is that he'd have deleted a lot. I've also amateurishly tried to neutralize an instance of what looked like (absent-minded) temperate-northern-hemisphere-centrism. (This of course can be a danger of dependence on US, Canadian, Irish, British, etc sources intended for "domestic" consumption.) Please keep working on your draft, and then people will be more inclined either to shovel parts of it into the Mosquito article or to promote it to the status of freestanding article. -- Hoary (talk) 07:17, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

I was mainly asking for it to be discussed as a split out of the material since Mosquito bite currently redirects there. If there is consensus that it should be its own article, then it can be created. Whether it's discussed at Mosquito or Insect bites and stings or WP:INSECT or the draft doesn't matter. It can be somewhat paintful, but doable, as done with splitting out dog harness from Pet harness. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 14:17, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

I think it's a promising draft and could easily be its own article. Eye ay en, don't be discouraged. Creating an article from scratch is a very difficult task for a new editor, and it sometimes takes some time. —valereee (talk) 15:40, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

need help with rot link

Could someone please help me with this rot link (ref 9) on Marie Forleo page? https://www.girlboss.com/read/marie-forleo-podcast-interview

I tried Wayback Machine, doesn't seem to work, but not sure if Im doing it right. I understand we can not delete the rotten link, so what should I do? Thank you! Netanya9 (talk) 08:01, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

I find this help with references. You can tag it with {{dead link}}. ― Qwerfjkltalk 08:13, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

@Netanya9: The dead URL is supporting the sentence "Forleo hosts and stars in MarieTV, a YouTube web series, and The Marie Forleo Podcast." A quick Google search should find an up-to-date reference (or references) you can use that MarieTV and the podcast exist. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 13:12, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

How to using Wikipedia

How to cheat on Wikipedia during exam so you don't get caught? 36.80.195.168 (talk) 08:34, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

You don't. There are multiple ways for teachers who know about IT to verify what the students do, including but not limited to simply shutting off the school wifi during exams. Victor Schmidt (talk) 08:53, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Don't. Do your exam legitimately. You'll learn more from not cheating. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 13:29, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Trying this will lead to a fail of the test at least and expulsion for academic dishonesty at worst if discovered. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 18:16, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Article Levels?

Hi! I was researching Thomas Sankara and noticed that at the bottom of the talk page, it said "List of Level-4 Articles in People.

What is a level-4 article? Are there more levels? Level-4 goes from Sankara to Neil Armstrong to the founder of the Baha'i Faith. How are articles ranked? The Voivodeship King (talk) 10:19, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, The Voivodeship King. There's an essay on article assessment you might like to read. Detailed criteria are usually set by the Projects interested in given articles (see on their Talk Pages). Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:41, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

More shields needed in List of road routes in Victoria

Hello there, we need more shields in List of road routes in Victoria's list, can you add it? Mlik point (talk) 11:11, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

You appear to be successfully editing the article. Carry on. David notMD (talk) 11:26, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

There are shields needed for:

• A30
• A77
• A96
• B40
• B44
• B92
• B401
• B840
• B861
• B870
• B989
• C259
• C308
• C655
• C989
• C996

Can you upload it for me? Mlik point (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Mlik point, and welcome to the Teahouse. You are asking a selection of volunteers, most of whom have no interest in Victorian highways, if they will do a job that you can do yourself. If you look at File:AUS Alphanumeric Route A39.svg, you can see where that one came from, and the justification which ws used for uploading it to Wikipedia. You can use the upload wizard to upload the others. Alternativbely, you might find somebody at WikiProject Australia who is interested in working with you to do it. --ColinFine (talk) 13:04, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Number of authors in citations

Hello, is there a max amount of authors that are listed automatically using the citation tool? In papers with more authors, usually only the first 12 names are mentioned and hence the "important" last author is omitted. Many thanks for your comments! Best, Quaenuncabibis (talk) 13:24, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Personally, I limit authors shown in the Wikipedia references to six. However, clicking on the link to the journal article will show the full list of authors. People with a research science background will know that the 'senior' author in who's lab the work was conducted is typically the last author. David notMD (talk) 13:39, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

@David notMD: People with multiple research science backgrounds will also know that the ordering of authors is highly variable depending on the field. Anecdotically, I am the last author out of eleven for a paper from the lab where I did my bachelor’s internship (one and a half month of undergrad-level work). The ordering in that field / journal was "most work goes first". Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 14:35, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Syed Hasan Askari, historian

Recently someone deleted the article for this subject citing it was a dup of Muhammad Madni Ashraf Ashrafi Al-Jilani, which is puzzling. Professor Syed Hasan Askari and Muhammad Madni Ashraf Ashrafi Al Jilani are two different individuals with no similarities as per their biographies on official website, Sufinama and Wikipedia. Prof. Askari was born in 1901 in Bihar, India while the other one in Utter Pradash, India in 1938. Their photographs are different. One is a historian of medieval India while the later is a religious scholar. Who do I contact for this as the editor who deleted the page does not respond? 174.87.228.255 (talk) 14:16, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! It appears that the Syed Hasan Askari still exists. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 14:38, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

It appears a user requested a speedy deletion, however MaterialScientist (i think that's their username) reverted it as it constituted vandalism. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 14:41, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Actually, it appears the speedy deletion was in good faith as a now blocked user turned that article into a copy of Muhammad Madni Ashraf Ashrafi Al-Jilani that's a mouthful which has since been reverted. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 14:44, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Looking at the log, the article Syed Hasan Askari was indeed deleted as duplicate by Materialscientist on Aug 24, and restored today (Aug 31) when you brought it to their attention on their talk page. The history of the page looks messy, so I am ready to believe their explanation (the page was turned into a duplicate, then nominated for deletion, which they granted without checking the history carefully).

If the timestamps are correct, they replied to you within seven minutes after you left the talk page message, so it is a bit unfair to say that "the editor who deleted the page does not respond". Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 14:47, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Politicians of ethnic origin categories.

I while back, I decided to create three new categories for American politicians of Asian descent. The ethniitites in question were for Thais, Cambodians, and Bangladeshis. These categories were recently deleted per a consensus from last year. I created these categories because I believe that they will become more relevant I'm the near future as more people of these ethnicities will be elected into office. I thought that, as this will inevitably come to be, more of these categories should be created for the purpose of identifying American people in office of these ethnicities. This was most certainly the case for not only the current Asian Americans categories, but also Hispanic, African, Native, etc. They started off small but then existing or newly created pages were added to them.

One of the main reasons as to why they were deleted was because the groups mentioned do not "constitute a distinct and identifiable group with a specific cultural and political context." However, Cambodians have a very noticeable present in Massachusetts: specifically Lynn and Lowell, the latter of which's population is well over 10% Cambodian. Along with a noticeable presence in Long Beach, California. Bangladeshi Americans make up almost 1,000,000 people in the country according the the latest Census statistics. That is a little less than all of the Pakistani, Hmong, and Taiwanese Americans combined and these three have categories for politicians. Thai, I will admit, does not have that much of a notable presence as the other two. However, I still maintain that this will not be the case in the near future.

If you can please give me good reasons as to why, at the very least, these categories should not be created as of now, I would very much appreciate it as it will help me for future edits. Thank you. GrayEquinox951 (talk) 16:44, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Template:GrayEquinox951. The Teahouse is really not a good plase to ask people to "give [you] good reasons" why something has happened in a particular area of Wikipedia. I suggest raising this at WP:CFD. --ColinFine (talk) 18:16, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Maybe sockpuppetry?

Apologies if this isn't the right place for it, but I was hoping for opinions on whether some weird editing on a few pages is worthy of opening a sockpuppet investigation. The articles Springfield Model 1861, Model 1795 Musket, Springfield Model 1892–99, and maybe others have a very similar spate of edits from the same clump of users, several of which have account names that might link them to blocked account SpringfieldSavy1795. I've never done anything on SPI before and it seems like they might require more evidence than just the suspicious patterns here. Any thoughts or suggestions welcome.  -- Fyrael (talk) 16:50, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Fyrael. This is being discussed at the talk page of the blocking administrator. Feel free to comment at User talk:Widr. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:03, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Propose deletion of page on Spanish Wikipedia

Hello hosts, do the same WP:HOWTODELETE instructions apply for proposing deletion of a page on the Spanish version of Wikipedia? Or do I have to set up the deletion 'tag' in Spanish? The page in question is https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ollie_Wride. The articles used as references for this page are not strong candidates to show notability and in my mind require several in-depth pieces from independent, reliable sources to show it passes either WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. I am a noob around here but I am passionate about correct representation of synthwave music artists in the wiki space. Thisismeandhistory (talk) 16:52, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Thisismeandhistory. The Teahouse provides information about editing the English Wikipedia only. You will have to ask questions about editing the Spanish Wikipedia at that project, which has its own standards. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:56, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Thisismeandhistory, I don't speak Spanish, but you might find their AFD page helpful - looks like they follow a similar process to the English Wikipedia. I'd suggest finding a bilingual partner there, as you won't be able to argue effectively unless you're fluent in Spanish as well. es:Wikipedia:Café appears to be their version of the teahouse, a good place to start. ASUKITE 17:03, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Super thank you both for the quick responses.Thisismeandhistory (talk) 17:06, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Article not indexing on google page

Hey everyone I'm a new wikipedian here. I created an article Rishton Ka Manjha which is not showing on google. Can anyone help me ' খানকির চালে (talk) 17:00, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello, খানকির চালে. New articles are not indexed for a Google search until either they have been reviewed by a new page patroller or 90 days has gone by. Please see Wikipedia:Controlling search engine indexing for complete details. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:08, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Cullen328 I think it has been reviewed by an Patroller but still not indexing on google. খানকির চালে (talk) 17:12, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Then it will be added once Google's cache on their end updates. Just because it'll be indexed doesn't mean it will be indexed immediately given Google's extensive use of caching. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 17:38, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

What's the hurry? Indexing will happen when it happens. Why do you keep posting in different places asking for preferential treatment? --bonadea contributions talk 17:50, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AnonymousIndiaz refers. - David Biddulph (talk) 18:54, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

artist notability

Hello, I am trying to prove the subject's notability but I'm having a hard time. The topic already exists in a different language so it isn't like this topic isn't notable but even with references it doesn't seem enough to be approved. I'm not sure why a stub won't suffice. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Sebastian_Masuda Pancakesmelon (talk) 19:02, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Other language Wikipedias have different notability criteria from ours. The existence of an article in another language is no indication that the subject is notable under the definition here at enwiki. - David Biddulph (talk) 19:06, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I know that. Thanks for the advice.