Wikipedia:Teahouse

Shantavira, 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

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)

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)

I realize this is meta, but I think Wikipedia mishandles requests to delete BLPs when the subject objects. We seem to want the subject to prove they are not notable, and that's not quite right. It is paramount to respect Privacy here, a human right, and our presumption should lean towards privacy, not away from it. Rklahn (talk) 02:03, 1 September 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)

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? [2] ― 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)

@GoingBatty: Thanks for the quick reply! I'm still a little confused. I went and clicked around a few places and I'm not making the connection. So, for example, [Pro (4th gen)] has a talk page (obviously), but I can't find the corresponding talk page for its infobox. SilmarilElwing 22:46, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

@SilmarilElwing: Looking at the code of the iPad Pro (4th generation) article, I see it uses {{Infobox information appliance}}. The corresponding talk page is Template talk:Infobox information appliance. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 02:08, 1 September 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)

We have added red links for upload files for Talk:List of road routes in Victoria, can you do it? Mlik point (talk) 01:42, 1 September 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)

My grad and post-doc publications (late 70's, early 80's) were also "most work goes first." On a few, the articles ended up with an extra name in the middle of a researcher visiting from Europe, because that person had done a similar favor for the senior person in our lab group during a visit to Europe. David notMD (talk) 20:19, 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, 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)

@Fyrael, hello, my senior colleague Cullen328 has done justice to your question. Please next time you might want to use WP:SPI For reporting possible sockpuppetry and no a suspicion of sockpuppetry isn’t enough to open an SPI but having said, you also do not need an inordinate amount of evidence to initiate an SPI. In-fact if a pattern can be established between two users who have similar style of editing a WP:DUCK test is evoked. Celestina007 (talk) 21:43, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks very much to you both! -- Fyrael (talk) 21:57, 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pancakesmelon (talk • contribs) 19:26, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Pancakesmelon, I've added a comment to the draft. -- Hoary (talk) 22:43, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Suggestion for a change to a template

Is this the wrong place for me to offer a suggestion?

If so (OR, if this idea has already been "considered" and rejected ... or if I have committed some other faux pas ... then) please forgive me.

The suggestion is: to allow a field value called "paywall" for the value of a "url-status" field.

The "EDIT comment" for THIS edit:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Political_family&diff=prev&oldid=1041653991

contains a "NOTE:" that is intended to illustrate the motivation for the suggestion.

The suggestion is also [sorta] contained (or maybe ...'explained') in a comment inside [the value of] the "url-status" field of the 'ref' tag that was modified during that edit.

-- Mike Schwartz (talk) 19:36, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

@Mike Schwartz: Welcome to the Teahouse! There's already a parameter called |url-access= for this - see Template:Cite web#Access indicators for url-holding parameters. If you go to Template:Cite web and click on the "Talk" tab, you'll be redirected to Help talk:Citation Style 1, which is the proper place to offer a suggestion for citation templates like {{cite web}}. In this particular case, I'm not sure the |url-access= is appropriate, as I can access the URL as 1 of 3 free stories this month. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 20:08, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Which article that I wrote was faulty and what was wrong with it?

<redacted> left a message at my page

<redacted> (talk) 21:48, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Yet I see that <redacted>"no longer exists". I would like to learn from my mistakes so please help me out. --Wikkrockiana (talk) 20:16, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

The message they left was about the speedy deletion of the article Robot Pro-Wrestling Dekinnoka (which no longer exists). It was deleted per A7. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 20:19, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

@Wikkrockiana: (edit conflict) Looks like it was Robot Pro-Wrestling Dekinnoka. According to the deletion notice, it was deleted because there was no credible claim of significance. <redacted>> is still around, they just changed their username to Deepfriedokra. --bonadea contributions talk 20:23, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

That was four years ago. There is information in the deletion notice that might prove useful. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:56, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Publish Saaki page

Why page on Saaki is been deleted? It should be there. IAmSaaki (talk) 20:26, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

@IAmSaaki: Saaki has been deleted, amongst other reasons, becuase it was a copypaste of a coprighted internet site. If you are this person, read WP:AUTOBIO. Victor Schmidt (talk) 20:29, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Saaki has been deleted five times, each time with reasons given. Please stop trying to create an article about this person (presumed to be you). David notMD (talk) 20:47, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

What is "constructive"?

Just curious to know why supply of a requested citation and ensuing refinement of a sentence to better reflect a critical appreciation of the accuracy of its sources might not be considered as "constructive". This related to recent minor edits to the article "Professor". Any ideas? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Protestant Revival (talk • contribs) 21:42, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

@Protestant Revival: Welcome to the Teahouse! Thank you for your efforts to improve the Professor article. Even after reading your edit summaries, I don't understand why you added information about real people to the "In fiction" section of the Professor article. Per the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, you can discuss your edits at the article's talk page - Talk:Professor - to come to a consensus with other editors on how to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 21:53, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks GoingBatty. The issue related to examples of a "non-academic" use of the title "professor". There are other real people listed at the end of this section who used the title "professor" for non-academic roles. Accordingly, the additional example I provided appears to follow logically in this sequence. However, should this be a new section for all of these together, instead of the "professor" for a Punch and Judy puppet show also appearing under fiction? Clearly the narrative of a Punch and Judy puppet show is fictional but the performer is not. Any suggestions for better overall consistency in this regard? Protestant Revival (talk) 22:02, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

@Protestant Revival: Interesting that the "In fiction" section ends with saloon pianists and puppeteers, who are not fictional. Again, I suggest discussing on Talk:Professor. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 22:16, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Protestant Revival A 'constructive' edit is one that improves the encyclopaedic nature of any article, and does not detract or render it of lesser value than before the edit was made. You made four consecutive edits (see here), which were reverted en block because one or more of them added pointless information about one specific theological college. That was not acceptable or relevant to the article, but it is unfortunate perhaps that, as a result, your other edit about Punch and Judy was included in that removal. The cited Guardian source appears to support your claim about 'professorships' for Punch and Judy entertainers, and was probably constructive,. But the other definitely wasn't, and sounded as if you had some axe to grind. Perhaps a little more critiquing of the global relevancy of each edit could be useful. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:01, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Nick Moyes. In that case, I can restore the cited Guardian source but I am just wondering if anyone can provide another example of an explicitly "non-academic" role that carries the title of "professor"? I merely added an extra example of which I had recently become aware alongside those of real life performers in the arts. Is there any other precedent for a "non-academic" professor in a third level institution? If not, then the example I cited appears to be a curious novelty and I would have thought mention of this with appropriate supporting references might be accordingly constructive. If there is a better way to do this, please let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Protestant Revival (talk • contribs)

@Protestant Revival: Your questions about improving the article are best addressed at the relevant talk page, not here. But I'm afraid one esoteric example of a title's usage in one minor, inconsequential college in one part of the world is so irrelevant to a global encyclopaedia, that it is not helpful to include it. Curious novelties are just that, and, unless significant, should be left out of Wikipedia articles. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:15, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Nick, much appreciated. The person who reverted my edits hasn't got back to me yet but had sent me a message suggesting I discuss the matter here. Protestant Revival (talk) 23:38, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

unsure how to proceed with a page I created

Hi, I'm an academic and I noticed that several of my colleagues have Wikipedia entries, so I thought I needed to create one for myself (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Peter_J._Rentfrow). It wasn't until after I submitted a draft of the entry that I learned that individuals are strongly discouraged from submitting a page about themselves. A contributor pointed this out to me and I regret not knowing beforehand. However, McMatter indicated that I may meet the criteria of NACADEMIC. Given that I should not be creating my own page, I don't know if I should just delete the material I provided or if I should provide the information needed to determine if I meet the criteria.

I very much appreciate this community and don't want to violate any more rules. Hence my request for guidance on how I should proceed.

many thanks, Jason Pjrentfrow (talk) 21:45, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Welcome and thanks for contributing to Wikipedia! We're glad you're here. McMatter's comments sum up some of the issues with the draft. If possible, try to address those by relying less heavily on synthesis of primary sources, and looking instead for secondary sources covering or presenting an analysis of your work. And it looks like a source for your fellowship was requested. I would work on gathering as many additional secondary sources as you can. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 22:27, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

@Pjrentfrow I would agree with Pyrrho. We do have rather an imbalance of articles about academics, especially female ones, which is why WP:NACADEMIC was written (because most academics tend not to hit the headlines in the way many other people do, yet can be highly notable in their own way). I'm guessing you may have looked at the Criteria for 'notability' there and felt you might not meet them at this time? There is certainly no shame in being honest and owning up to creating an article about yourself ....many do it intentionally, and on very weak grounds, and there's no need to request deletion. Any draft not edited after a period of 6 months is automatically deleted anyway, but you might wish to assess whether you are likely to meet our criteria or not, and whether to proceed. We do accept biogs on University websites, even when written by the staff themselves, because there is a presumption that the University has had some editorial oversight on what is there (unlike many a glowing hyperbole-rich biography on LinkedIn, which could easily be totally fabricated).

Looking at your entry at Cambs Uni, it was unclear if you hold a prestigious professor-role, so that might not meet our NACADEMIC criteria, yet your Fellowships to prestigious societies (provided election is on merit and not payment) would support notability, as might your editorial role within academic journals. Citing sources which directly support your notability here would be helpful, as would removing from the references all or most of those papers you've published, instead placing them in a 'Selected publications' section. Avoid saying anything about yourself which cannot be substantiated by reference to proper citations (even if you know it as fact!). You do recognise that you have a Conflict of Interest in drafting this - something we do permit, but generally strongly discourage, and if you do want to continue with editing it, it would help if you followed the guidance on that page in declaring on your userpage who you are, and your connection with that draft. I hope this is helpful. Obviously, you may simply stop work on it and in time it will be removed. But there is merit, so feel free to proceed cautiously and either return here for advice or resubmit at Articles for Creation once you've addressed the points raised. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:50, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Pjrentfrow, thank you for your candor and openness to suggestions. Well, as a ferinstance: Geographical psychology is an emerging field concerned with the spatial organization of psychological phenomena and the mechanisms that are responsible for their organization. Rentfrow's research in geographical psychology demonstrates that social influence, ecological influence, and selective migration are key mechanisms that contribute to the spatial clustering of psychological characteristics. Geographical psychology is best explained in an article, Geographical psychology; but this doesn't (yet) exist, so OK. (Incidentally, please don't [yet] create a draft for such an article.) The assertion that Rentfrow's research in PQR demonstrates XYZ is something that needs to be backed up by a third party; as it is, you've sourced it to a paper by Rentfrow et al; so really, this says little more than "Rentfrow claims that his research in geographical psychology demonstrates XYZ", which clearly is unsatisfactory. The next section says that Personal tastes and preferences – whether for music, film, television, or clothing – serve to satisfy individuals’ social and psychological needs. A central aim of Rentfrow's work in this area seeks "is"? to understand the degree to which personal preferences reflect and effectively communicate information about people’s psychological characteristics. Well, all right . . . but what steps has he made toward achieving this? Also, four references are given, yet each is by Rentfrow, et al. What we need are one or two references by psychologists independent of him. -- Hoary (talk) 23:03, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Pjrentfrow you may want to read An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. Karenthewriter (talk) 03:12, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi

helloSpaceman6651 (talk) 21:51, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

@Spaceman6651: Hi there, and welcome to the Teahouse! Did you have a question about editing Wikipedia? GoingBatty (talk) 21:56, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

No I was just trying to be politeSpaceman6651 (talk) 21:59, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Welcome! Thanks for spreading WIkiLove. This is a place for questions, but you might enjoy the Kindness Campaign. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 22:08, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

@Pyrrho the Skeptic I think Wikilove messages are OK when a user has actually interacted with another user, and wants to acknowledge something. Random message left by brand new users seem unnecessary and a little suspicious, and I would not want to encourage that too much. I have politely mentioned this on Spaceman's talk page. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:18, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough. I try to assume the best and deal with actual bad or annoying behavior when appropriate. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 22:31, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

help

Can you help me find some sites that are meant for history searches? Spaceman6651 (talk) 22:04, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Try Wikipedia. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:14, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

@Spaceman6651: If you're looking for sites that could be used as reliable sources, many Wikipedia articles have helpful links on the article's talk page (e.g. the Find sources line at the top of Talk:History). Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 22:19, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Spaceman6651, I suggest that you read some Featured articles and Good articles in the broad topic area of history. Those articles have successfully undergone peer review. Look at the type of references used in those articles and seek out similar ones. In general, for history topics, books written by notable, respected historians and published by university presses are the best. Articles by recognized academics published in peer reviewed academic history journals are also very good sources. Other sources may be acceptable depending on their reputations for reliabilty but I am describing the gold standard. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:03, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Spaceman6651 Per Cullen328's suggestion, see Category:FA-Class history articles and Category:GA-Class history articles. Happy reading! GoingBatty (talk) 03:14, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Reaching out

...reaching out to someone who patiently will guide me through my first process of creating and posting a wki page; fast learner here. thank you! R Chefraphael (talk) 22:41, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Chefraphael, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia. The guidance I will give (which might not be what you want to hear) is that your question is a bit like "Hello, I've just started learning the building trade. Who will patiently guide me through my first process of building a house from scratch?" My answer is "Spend a while - at least a few months - learning the trade before you even try it". I can almost guarantee that you will have a frustrating and disappointing time if you try to create an article (not "post a page") before you are ready. But Your first article is there to give you some pointers when you decide to try. --ColinFine (talk) 23:04, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Chefraphael Further to Colin's sound advice (akin to "Who will teach me quickly to be a great chef?"), Wikipedia only accepts articles about topics that meet its Notability criteria. Please read that as well as WP:NBIO. We would need independent, reliably published sources that talk in detail and in depth about a subject for those notability criteria to be met. If you don't meet them, then there is no chance for an article here. We do not accept IMdB as such a source, as it is user-generated, with no editorial oversight. We also discourage people from creating articles about themselves, as they have a Conflict of interest which makes them the worst person to write about themselves encyclopaedia. See WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY for further advice, then read Your First Article and Referencing for Beginners. Hope this helps a bit. Happy reading! Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:07, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

One more for the reading list: An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. -- Hoary (talk) 23:12, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Super happy with the many reflections - all makes sense... shout out to @DavidnotMD: you have a fascinating profile... seemingly we share a rare love for nutritional (correct) science in common... I'm probably overstepping multiple wiki regulations for even responding in this matter... I'll take it as a bonus learning experience! yet, I'm okay trying to get a wiki page up; stumbling along. so, ill remove the hyper links and the IMDb link... but can I "mention" it? and, what is the correct "reference" if not linking it to another site? cheers group (am I allowed to respond to someones post? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chefraphael (talk • contribs) 01:53, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

@Chefraphael: Check out Help:Referencing for beginners to see how references are formatted on Wikipedia. Note that the reliable sources Wikipedia is looking for are secondary and independent of the subject. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 07:17, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Nancy Kassebaum

I want to make major changes and additions to the Nancy Kassebaum page to correct factual errors in the current version and greatly expand sections on her life, elections, and record in office.

However, I served as a senior aide on her staff for years and have an obvious conflict of interest. As a former journalist I am well versed in the need for neutral, verifiable content but have no problem having any and all my changes vetted by others.

Since I have never contributed to Wikipedia before I would like advice on how to proceed. Sagamore83 (talk) 00:04, 1 September 2021 (UTC) Sagamore83 (talk) 00:04, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello and welcome! The best way to proceed is to bring these questions up on the article's Talk Page. Please make sure to disclose your conflict of interest there, just as you did here. Let us know if you have further questions. Happy editing! Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 00:09, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

@Sagamore83: Welcome to the Teahouse and thanks for disclosing your relationship here; please also do so on Talk:Nancy Kassebaum. Your proposed additions and corrections should use Wikipedia's edit requests system. You can submit one on the article's talk page; each change should be done in an "X to Y" format and supplied with a reliable source. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:14, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

@Sagamore83: Welcome! I recommend you start small, as some editors get scared off when being asked to make major changes all at once. Suggest a change for one factual error (with a reliable source) and let that get fixed. Then keep working through the issues one by one until they're all fixed. It may take a while, since we're all volunteers and there is no deadline. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 02:17, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Can you write an article for me?

Can you write an article for me? Thelandof100rulers (talk) 00:57, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

@Thelandof100rulers: No. Wikipedia editors are volunteers who write about what we're interested in. If you want an article written, tell us why it's important for an encyclopedia and someone may decide to write it, or you could try to write it yourself (although it's not easy). {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:33, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

@Thelandof100rulers: You can try posting a request at WP:Requested articles (with a few reliable sources), but there's no guarantee that anyone will ever write the article. GoingBatty (talk) 02:19, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Colors Telugu and Viacom18 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viacom18

 Icecreamland (talk) 03:32, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

@Icecreamland: Welcome to the Teahouse! I'm sorry you're having a hard time with your edits to the Colors Telugu and Viacom18. In order for Colors Telugu to be changed from a redirect to its own article, you'll have to find multiple reliable sources showing that it meets Wikipedia's notability criteria. You may wish to create Draft:Colors Telugu to work on the article, and submit it through the Articles for creation process. See Help:Your first article for lots of good information. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 03:56, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

How can i improve my draft tone

How should I improve my draft, Deborah mannas and will Roberts Nihara.widefy (talk) 03:41, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

 Nihara.widefy (talk) 03:43, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

 Courtesy links Draft:Deborah Mannas and Draft:Will Roberts (actor). GoingBatty (talk) 04:00, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

@Nihara.widefy: Welcome to the Teahouse! Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography has the guidelines for how articles about people should be structured, including the importance of what information should be included in the first sentence and the first paragraph of an article. Proper capitalization, spelling, and punctuation is very important. Song titles should be in quotation marks, while albums/magazines/movies/TV series should be italicized. You should refer to people by their last name (e.g. "Mannas", not "Deborah") per WP:SURNAME. There should not be any external links in the drafts, except for references or a dedicated "External links" section. Section headers should not contain any references. Sentences such as "will roberts is a renaissane man to say the least" seem very promotional, and not encyclopedic. Hope this helps! GoingBatty (talk) 04:13, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

@GoingBatty: thank you for your help — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nihara.widefy (talk • contribs) 06:10, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Help with correcting Wikipedia entry

Hello, this entry breaks a lot of the guidelines that would normally get an entry flagged, banned or removed.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tether_(cryptocurrency)

For some reason, it had not been addressed despite areas where citations are not provided, information is unverifiable, content is biased and violates Wikipedia guidelines.

I request editors give this a proper review. Meebz (talk) 04:10, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

@Meebz: Welcome to the Teahouse! Thank you for your efforts to improve the Tether (cryptocurrency) article. I see you have already started a conversation on the article's talk page. I suggest you post specific details of the issues you see that you cannot resolve yourself, so that you can collaborate with other editors to develop a consensus. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 04:18, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

@Meebz: I see your edits to remove large amounts of information that contains references have been reverted. Per the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, your next step should be to discuss your specific concerns on the article's talk page. Hope this helps! GoingBatty (talk) 04:25, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

LOOKING FOR A WIKIPEDIA MENTOR WITH BACKGROUND KNOWLEDGE ABOUT JAPAN

FYI

 – converted first sentence to Header --Maresa63 ^Talk 05:42, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

For one on my university English classes, I had students translate some Japanese Wikipedia articles into English. I have 5-6 translated articles and would like a veteran Wikipedia editor to help me upload, format, and edit the English articles. I know HTML and basic coding, but am not yet used to the Wikipedia format. One sample article I worked on is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:TNewfields/sandbox

Thanks in advance for any guidance. TNewfields (talk) 05:07, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

@TNewfields: I took a look at the content in your sandbox. Wikipedia is not a travel guide, and yours currently reads like one. All articles must also be sourced to reliable sources (see Help:Referencing for beginners, which yours lacks. I also don't think Hakone's hot springs deserve a separate article from Hakone (per WP:FORK). If you have any question about editing Wikipedia, you may always ask here. However, most editors will not write articles for you. Instead, you might want to check out the resources at Wikipedia:Education program. I also suggest you to complete The Wikipedia Adventure, which will give you a crash course on how to edit Wikipedia to be more familiar with how things work here and teach your class better. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 06:48, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

TNewfields, you don't have the (considerable) skills necessary to create articles on en:Wikipedia, but you're expecting your students to create such articles? Or, you're asking your pupils to supply the raw text for such articles, and expecting volunteers here, with both the necessary Wikipedia skills and a knowledge of Japanese, to do the difficult stuff? Either way, I doubt it's going to work. Maproom (talk) 06:57, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Er, Maproom, TNewfields says that these are translations. The example is, as it says, from ja:箱根温泉. So for the students, it appears to be a translation task. TNewfields is asking people here "to help me upload, format, and edit the English articles". Background knowledge of Japan isn't really necessary; but it is desirable, because when ameliorating some infelicitous prose, background knowledge will help to get the meaning right. So what do you have to do, TNewfields? First, strip the contents list and section numbering (Wikipedia will automate such numbering). Add the references. As is unfortunately normal in ja:Wikipedia, there's little referencing in the source article: you (singular/plural) will have to provide more. Italicize where appropriate by putting a pair of (non-directional) single quotation marks ('') in front of, and a second pair after, what you want italicized. Provide internal links by putting "[[" in front of, and "]]" after, what you want linked. 難しくないですよ。大学教員でもできます。 Then move the result to the draft area. Oh, and your very first edit of a translation should have an edit summary acknowledging that it's a translation and specifying the source; see this. -- Hoary (talk) 07:48, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Without references, none of these will be accepted, regardless of how good you or your students get at formatting. English refs preferred, but Japanese accepted. All factual statements must be supported by references - verification is essential. David notMD (talk) 08:08, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

I exaggerated somewhat. The original has 20 references, to 14 sources. But these shouldn't just be added; they should be checked, their content confirmed, and then added. Help:Referencing for beginners will explain. -- Hoary (talk) 08:16, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

how save edits in source code mode?

how do i save edits? there is only publish, preview and changes. for example, if i am unsure about changes so that i can find and learn from documentation? it will save a lot of data for me. 28au21 (talk) 05:27, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

@28au21: Welcome to the Teahouse. You have to press the Publish changes button to save them. It used to be "Save changes" but people didn't know that any changes made were publicised published. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:38, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @28au21: I'm assuming you mean that you're working on improving an article and you want to save unfinished work. I suggest you to go to your sandbox at User:28au21/sandbox, copy and paste your work in progress source code, and click "Publish changes". That sandbox is your own personal space, and you may save there as many times as you'd like. Alternatively, you may want to copy and paste that code into an external software like Microsoft Word and save it there. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 06:40, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

@Tenryuu: @Ganbaruby: i was not clear. i want to save edits locally and publish later (after few minutes). saving temporarily will save unintended changes or i can look for docs (if i have doubt or thoughts after making a change). -28au21 (talk) 06:45, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

@28au21: There is no way to "save locally" on a Wikipedia page. You should use your sandbox if you're still working on something that you do not want to go public yet, because saving there has no effect on actual Wikipedia articles. When you feel like you're done, use the "show preview" function to check if the article looks as intended, and then copy that into the live Wikipedia article. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 06:54, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

@28au21: Another option is to save the wikitext to a text file on your computer. I do this often when I need to step away from the computer but have an edit that's only half done. Be sure to give the file a descriptive name and make sure that the article hasn't been edited since your save, otherwise you'll have to make sure to reconcile your version with any changes made. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 15:16, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

How we can contest unrightful post rejection?

Hi,

We have worked years to gather all the information we have, our clan was closed for over 400 years since it served the Shogunate, now in past years we have opened to public, with information sharing, knowledge management and much more on the warfare arts.

We have made properly argumented post that was rejected by someone who is not even a Japanese person, nor knows anything about true Ninja/Samurai development when he rejected out of no foundation our post here.

Viorel Cosmin Miron 05:44, 1 September 2021 (UTC) Viorel Cosmin Miron 05:44, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello, 柴田バネッサ. You keep talking about "we" and "our". Shared accounts are not permitted on Wikipedia, so you should talk about "me" and "my". Your references are formatted improperly. Take a look at Referencing for Beginners. That's a start. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:00, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Also, vast swathes of your draft are unreferenced, in violation of the core content policies Verifiability and No original research. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:07, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Pinging SIRavecavec, the one that actually wrote the question. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 07:12, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

You are so wrong, I know the people who have individual accounts, again if you had nothing constructive to add, please refrain next time! Viorel Cosmin Miron 18:45, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

@SIRavecavec: No, Cullen328 was correct. You come across as one account shared by multiple people, and you did not format your references properly. Nothing was "so wrong" about that. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:33, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy: Draft:The Order of Musashi Shinobi Samurai. Personally, I agree that the Rejection was not appropriate. A Decline with guidance would have been better. That said, I recommend removing both galleries and a lot of unreferenced content about what individuals were doing. The article Samurai has links to articles about clans - these may serve as models for your efforts. David notMD (talk) 08:21, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

I also agree that outright rejection was inappropriate. I have replaced it with a new submission template. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:25, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Best Way to Revive a Deleted Article?

An article for a movie was deleted a month ago due to lacking notability. A month later, the movie has now received coverage from Teen Vogue, Tatler, and Digital Spy, so I'm pretty sure it now meets the minimum level of notability requirements. I was wondering what is the best way to "undelete" the article. Should I simply undo the last edit on the article (the deletion) or should I start a completely new draft of the article and submit it that way?

Thanks for the help. Koikefan (talk) 06:42, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Koikefan, if you make a request on the talk page of the admin who did the deletion, they'll probably restore it for you as a draft. However, as you're confident there are now good sources for you to cite, you should find some such sources, and write a new draft based on what they say. That will be easier than trying to get the deleted version into an acceptable state (I speak from experience – see sunk cost). Maproom (talk) 07:11, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Well, it depends on the state of the draft. Koikefan, if you have trouble finding the name of the admin, let us know the name of the film and we'll help. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 08:12, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

SUGGESTIONS TO WRITE ABOUT AN ORGANISATION, WITHOUT BEING BLAMED FOR PROMOTION

How do i write about an organisation without being blamed for promoting the organisation. Please suggest me some points i should keep in mind. Liveit1 (talk) 07:02, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Liveit1. Start by reading Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) and then go on to read and study Your first article. For understanding about how to write without promotionalism, please read about the Neutral point of view. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:15, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Liveit1, please also avoid posting the content at User:Liveit1 (that's your userpage) and instead create it as a draft article. If you have some link with the organisation concerned, please review Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:21, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

@Liveit1: Please dont shout, it makes you sound like your mad at us. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 14:34, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Liveit1, I would suggest not writing about it if you have any association to the organization via self, family, friends, rivals, etc.. If the organization is notable enough, it should have news articles describing the group in detail that are not press releases, routine news announcements (funding rounds, leadership changes), or promotional in nature. I would stay away from the official website except for just key facts like leadership structure. I would also check if the group is notable beyond the local area per WP:MILL. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 16:28, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Embedding of Youtube and Military details in infobox

Hi, I wanted to know that has there been any discussion in past on inclusion of Youtube or Military details in the infobox of a person when it is/was not their primary work of area. I myself feel that it should not be included and want to remove from some pages but I don't have anything to support my edits. -ink&fables «talk» 08:26, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

@-ink&fables We should include at most one Wikipedia:External links in the Infobox to help identify the organization, so without further context I'd generally agree that adding youtube links is likely wrong. What do you mean by military details? Can you list which articles you have in mind? ~ Shushugah (he/him • talk) 14:40, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

@Shushugah: For example, Lee Seung-gi, I mean every man in South Korea is mandate by law to serve in army. Does we need to add it in infobox? I even had an edit war with an user few weeks ago over its removal from infobox. -ink&fables «talk» 14:51, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Old editor moved my comment without permission.

In Talk:Caretaker Government of Myanmar (2021), Mr/Ms Tartan357 moved my comment without my permission. I added a comment again, but it was reverted. Is this the culture of this community? Unrestricted-Warrior (talk) 08:58, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Unrestricted-Warrior, why is this a problem? The whole discussion has been moved to another page (see the move template at the top of the thread). ― Tartan357 ^Talk 09:10, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

When there is an active Merge proposal, the discussion takes place at only one of the articles. In this case Talk:Management Committee of the State Administration Council. Make your position there. David notMD (talk) 09:21, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Then, I hope to move all the discussion, including you and the other two. - Unrestricted-Warrior (talk) 09:31, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Edit not appearing

I edited an article to add content along with a different point of view. The edit has two sources, but a month later it does not appear. Why is the edit being blocked? RonWillow (talk) 09:25, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Assuming you mean your edits to Betsy Ross flag. Those were reverted (click on View history, top menu), and the reverting editor pointed at an ongoing discussion on the talk page of the article as a place to make a case. Before you start there, also review extended discussions on same topic at the Archive of older Talk content. David notMD (talk) 09:30, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

edit being reverted due to no reason

hi, i have been making a few edits on the pages of some elite universities highlighting the massive admission scandals that took place, which allowed students to bribe their way in. i had done everything right, but some clearly biased people are removing my edits saying that the source wasn't reliable (it clearly was). what can i do about this?  Virtue1234 (talk) 09:42, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Virtue1234 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. (as an example) The edit was removed partially because you placed it in the lead of the article about Yale, over-emphasizing what historically speaking is a minor event in the history of the university, placing undue emphasis on it. The source was also only provided as a weblink and not a properly formatted citation(see WP:REFB for information on writing citations). Please discuss your concens on the article talk page, to arrive at a consensus. The article won't be whitewashed, but it also won't be made biased the other way against the university. 331dot (talk) 09:50, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Virtue1234 Once your posts are replied to, they shouldn't be removed. 331dot (talk) 09:53, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

sorry my bad, i am new to this stuff. won't happen again Virtue1234 (talk)

Virtue1234, the Teahouse is here for that expressed reason, to help and assist both new and experienced editors with any issues or questions concerning Wikipedia and editing. You learn by being bold and adapting when you make a mistake. It's a win-win for the encyclopedia. Happy editing! --ARoseWolf 13:43, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Delete My account

I want to delete my wikipedia account so please to delete it because of too many problems. Randubaba (talk) 12:32, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi Randubaba. If you’re having problems editing, then maybe a Teahouse can help you sort them out if you can explain what the issues are. Wikipedia accounts, however, cannot be deleted for the reasons given here. The best that you can do is simply stop using the account if you no longer want to edit. — Marchjuly (talk) 12:38, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

@Randubaba: There is a way. See Wikipedia:Courtesy vanishing. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:37, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Searching the Teahouse questions archive

Hi. Is it possible to search the Teahouse questions archive for questions I've had answered in the past ie search by my user name? Thanks. Buckland1072 (talk) 13:09, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

@Buckland1072: I believe this search should cover all of them. Victor Schmidt (talk) 13:17, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Esav Marrakech

Hello guys lately I have created a page for a non profit private school in Marrakech and it been 2 week now when i submited to review but i got no reply from the team so i hope you guys can review it as soon as possible. talk 13:16, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Drafts are not reviewed in any order or on any deadline, sorry. DS (talk) 13:32, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Be patient. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 14:24, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Teahouse volunteers are not also reviewers. Well, a few are, but that is not why they are here. David notMD (talk) 14:57, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Submitted 8/24. Declined 8/25. Revised and resubmitted 8/25. I count that as one week. David notMD (talk) 15:03, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:There is no deadline. We are all volunteers here, and we all must decide on the best way to spend our time here. It will be reviewed when someone gets around to it. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:42, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

I cannot figure out why my page is continually rejected for submission

I am the creator of a Wiki page for the Institute of Child nutrition Draft:Institute of Child Nutrition. I have been working on it for over a year and have been rejected various times, despite adhering and complying to Wiki rules and regulations. Any help would be fantastic. Thank you. Wshammon (talk) 15:26, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

SL93 put this as their reason: "This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies." Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 15:32, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Wshammon Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia is not a place for organizations to tell the world about themselves and what they do; that's considered promotional here, you don't have to be actively soliciting. A Wikipedia article about an organization should summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the organization, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia defintion of a notable organization. Wikipedia is not interested in what an organization says about itself, or in merely telling what it does, such as through press releases, announcments of routine activities, brief mentions, or other primary sources. The sources you have offered simply tell what your organization does.

To be successful in writing about your organization, you need to set aside everything you know about it, all materials put out by the organization, and all inappropriate sources, and only write based on the content of independent reliable sources that have chosen on their own to write in depth about your organization. (I fixed your link, the whole URL is not necessary) 331dot (talk) 15:33, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

@Wshammon: Also note that your draft was declined, not rejected. They mean very different things here on Wikipedia. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 15:33, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

From what I can see, the topic probably warrants an article, and the article is written at least well enough to be a good start to an article. I'll see what others say, but because of conflict of interest, I might suggest you submit this to Requested Articles. If you do, ping me I will gladly take a look and help create it, if warranted. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 15:40, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for responding so quickly. This is very helpful, and thank you for clarifying that being "denied" is not being "rejected." I will gladly submit this to "Requested Articles" as (talk) stated. I would love some help on this! How do I ping you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wshammon (talk • contribs)

On second thought, since the article draft has already been created, I reached out to the reviewing editor to offer my help with this article, and will proceed to help pending that discussion. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 17:32, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Wshammon Looked at it (and poked it a bit). Needs a section about what the Institute does, published in sources other than those associated with U Miss. The History section confirms it exists, but not what it does. David notMD (talk) 18:40, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

The opening section ("the lead") should summarise the body of the article, saying briefly what the organisation is and does, and when it was founded. The boring stuff about section 21 of the ... School Lunch Act should be moved to the body of the article, if it's worth keeping at all. Maproom (talk) 18:53, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Removal of maintenance template from published article

The article concerned is a biographical article: Josef Josten. The maintenance template recommends improvement with additional citations. I have added several citations and now believe that all the material facts in the article are covered by the sources quoted. Note that where multiple items are covered by one source, I have normally inserted the citation just once within or at the end of the paragraph, so as not to clutter up the text. Is it now reasonable for me to removbe the maintenance template? Thank you in advance for your advice. Honza Giles (talk) 15:55, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

You could ask on the articles Talk Page first, to ensure other interested editors have a chance to review the sources, but it looks like you've (probably) added enough citations to warrant removal of the tag. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 16:16, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi Honza Giles - often, the best person to ask about removal of a template, is the editor who added it - in this case User:Marchjuly. He can then agree, or explain what he thinks is still outstanding - this avoids edit-warring over a template - Best wishes - Arjayay (talk) 16:46, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

What language should I be using?

Initially, I had edited and corrected Wikipedia articles using British English. Should I be using British or American English? GentianGashi (talk) 16:07, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

In general, either one is fine, as long as it's consistent throughout the article. Articles with strong national ties are a different story. Happy editing! Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 16:12, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Fixed Pyrrho the Skeptic's link to Wikipedia's Manual of Style. GoingBatty (talk) 16:15, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

To expand on the above, if an article uses British, do not switch to American, and vice versa. Even if you are careful to consistently change it throughout the article, that is still frowned upon. The same is true for other things. For example, Wikipedia is neutral as to use of the Oxford comma. If an article consistenty uses it (or consistently doesn't use it), don't change it. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 18:54, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

@GentianGashi: The policy here is WP:ENGVAR. Articles with ties to a specific variety of English should be written in that Variety, e.g. Articles on British politicians should be written in British English, articles on Indian villages should be written in Indian English, and articles on American laws should be written in American English. For articles that do not have ties to any specific country the editor that starts the article gets to choose which version of English to use, which all subsequent editors should follow. (The same general principle applies to other formatting choices, like what style of citations to use). 192.76.8.74 (talk) 19:16, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Also, sometimes an article evolves in how things are spelled. For example, the Cider article started out as American English, and then had a mixture of American and British spelling for years, and then all the American spelling was removed. Talk:Cider/Archive 1#WP:ENGVAR tells the story. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:50, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Queries regarding block account

  Why My Hindi Wikipedia page is Blocked? Why my IP Address is blocked? How can I unlock my Hindi Wikipedia page? I'm facing a problem creating a new Wikipedia Account. Please tell Why? &watiMi&hra (talk) 16:14, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

@&watiMi&hra: Welcome to the Teahouse! This is a place to ask questions about the English Wikipedia. For a question about the Hindi Wikipedia, please ask there. Please note that your Draft:NewsGram Hindi on the English Wikipedia will not be approved unless it is translated into English. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 16:19, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Each Wikipedia is a seperate project, and has its own rules on blocking and unblocking. You will need to find the Hindi Wikipedia for a page on blocks. The English page is here Wikipedia:IP_block_exemption, check the sidebar to see if there is a corresponding page for Hindi. RudolfRed (talk) 16:21, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

If your account is blocked on the Hindi Wikipedia, you will need to address that there using whatever process they have to do so. 331dot (talk) 16:22, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

@331dot: They were blocked on the Hindi Wikipedia for link spamming, and it looks like they need an enwiki block because all their contributions here have been doing the same thing - spamming random links to the same website dressed up as citations into various articles. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 16:38, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

tsk, tsk, tsk --ARoseWolf 18:35, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Also as I noted on Ohnoitsjamie's talk page this account is obviously the same person as RaiKashish, who has spent the last year spamming links to newsgram.com into various articles. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 19:07, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

About my sandbox after moving the article

I created an article in my sandbox. After that, I was able to move the article successfully, but my sandbox was used for redirection. I want to create another article in my sandbox. Can I delete what is written in my sandbox without permission? Could someone please tell me what I should do? Murasakihitsuji (talk) 17:28, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

You can either edit the redirect, and replace it with the article, or create a new article at User:Murasakihitsuji/sandbox2. ― Qwerfjkltalk 17:40, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

@Murasakihitsuji: You can add {{db-U1}} to any page in your own user space and an administrator will delete it for you. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 19:10, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

@192.76.8.74, I don't think Murasakihitsuji wants to delete the page, just the text. ― Qwerfjkltalk 19:35, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

@Qwerfjkl: I thought they were asking how to delete the redirect that was left over from the page move. Both will accomplish the same thingc just depends if you want to have the redirect's page history in your new draft. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 19:39, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Where can I find more articles regarding film and television to edit?

I want to edit film and television articles where can I find them? २ तकर पेप्सी (talk) 19:54, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

@२ तकर पेप्सी, try these links: Category:Film and Category:Television shows. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:11, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

@२ तकर पेप्सी: You could start by reading the articles for your favorite films and TV series and making updates as needed. You can also visit the WikiProject Cleanup Listings for "Films" and "Television stations" (either "alphabetic", "by cat", or "CSV") and find articles with issues that need to be fixed. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 20:15, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

I request senior experienced to check this article

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Trane# Thomas Trane has no reference nothing. I did some minor edits which I think I need to do but I think this article is not matching Wikipedia guidelines. Requesting any experienced Wikipedian to check it out Thankyou. २ तकर पेप्सी (talk) 20:29, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Tagged for CSD A7. 2405:201:4013:80AA:1081:181A:60BA:31C1 (talk) 20:36, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Technical help for an editor

There's a user with a {{help me}} request that's been languishing, likely due to the technical knowledge required to answer it. Please check out User_talk:TerraFrost#Help_me! and help out if you can. I will likely remove this notice when it's been handled. Primefac (talk) 20:35, 1 September 2021 (UTC)