Jump to content

Wikipedia:Teahouse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 2001:4451:871f:fe00:5de3:f3a8:7a19:b8e1 (talk) at 00:19, 25 September 2021. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Skip to top
Skip to bottom



FAQ


Help Me

 Yomamajoy (talk) 04:50, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Yomamajoy, what do you need help with? Be specific.  Ganbaruby! (talk) 04:53, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your draft User:Yomamajoy/sandbox/VA-AV Comedy has no potential to becoming an article because the person does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability. Give up. 157.157.65.34 (talk) 16:08, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Don't tell them to give up! Just because 1 thing doesn't have potential doesn't mean that they should just give up all together. ― Blaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#0001 16:09, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I Just Want My Wikipedia Page To Publish

Declined three times and not going to be approved. The person the article is about started YouTubing in July. Has some followers, and no one is writing about him (hence no references). See WP:TOOSOON. 31.209.146.55 (talk) 23:53, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Declined draft

Hi my post was declined because of lack of reliable sources. I included three sources...really the only sources that I could find on the Company and Product. These sources were from the Company's website. Ty. Tfalfano (talk) 14:04, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So what is your question? If there are no reliable sources independent of the subject, there can be no article. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:13, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Our policy requires third party sources. This means that the company is probably not notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Ruslik_Zero 14:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tfalfano, please understand that Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. --ColinFine (talk) 14:40, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

this username is the same as the name of the person who actually registered the Apsco company. If this is your own company, creating a page about it yourself is likely a wp:coi as a note — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashoursmile (talkcontribs) 21:32, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Help removing flags

Hi, We are aiming to update the Dassault Systemes page in order to have this tag removed: This article relies too much on references to primary sources. (June 2016)

We've done the research to obtain 3rd party sources and proposed changes on the Talk page here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dassault_Syst%C3%A8mes. We'd like to know if it's OK for me to make these changes or if an editor can assist.

Thank you. 3DS Patrick (talk) 15:16, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@3DS Patrick: You saying "we" makes me think that your account is a shared account, which is not allowed per Wikipedia's policies. Also, if you've proposed the changes then you will have to wait for another editor to make sure they are good to be added. ― Blaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#0001 15:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The account states that it belongs to an Employee of Dassault Systèmes, breaching WP:COI and WP:POV Signed,Pichemist (Talk) 16:00, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Disclosing the COI on the user page is required, and the username itself is ambiguous enough to not be promotional, I think. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 16:11, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pichemist, that is a very combative way of interacting, and in particular the OP has properly requested changes on the talk page, so POV doesn't arise. Please AGF. 3DS Patrick, thank you for disclosing your status on your user page: WP:PAID recommends that you use the template {{paid}} to do this. Thank you for wanting to improve the article (Wikipedia would like all its articles to be properly referenced, though it does not have much interest in whether this will benefit the subject of the article or not), and also for proposing changes on the talk page rather than directly editing the article. In future, I suggest you use the {{edit request}} template on the talk page: that will put your request on a list of such requests, so that editors who look at that list will see it and you won't need to ask here. --ColinFine (talk) 16:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I will also note that the requested edits are fairly innocuous: they do not touch the text, but instead change the sources (and in a good way, using newspaper articles instead of company press releases). An edit request would likely be accepted. TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 10:21, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

inserting photos

I have tried adding photos, that I took myself, to my article, but every time Wikipedia will not allow it. There is always some message that says they don't know if it is a proper source and recommend I use my own photos...which is what I have been trying to do. How do I insert photos?  Escooter21 (talk) 17:14, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Escooter21, and welcome to the Teahouse. I can't find anywhere that you have tried to upload photos: how have you tried to do it? I suggest using the upload wizard: if you took the photos, you shouldn't have any difficulty doing so. When you have successfully uploaded them, then you can add them to articles. --ColinFine (talk) 17:38, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ColinFine: whenever someone mentions that they failed to upload a photo, I have a look at the commons Abuse log, since most often the source of the problem is their Filter #153, better known by his description, Crosswiki upload filter. Escooter21 Assuming you hold the copyright of these images (which usally means that you took them yourself, not just downloaded from some website), please upload them using the Upload Wikzard over at our Media Reprository Project called Wikimedia Commons. Victor Schmidt (talk) 18:48, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
First, work on getting your draft accepted. Photos do not contriburd to confirming notability. 157.157.65.34 (talk) 21:30, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ColinFine: Thanks, I did find out that I needed to upload them to Wiki Common first, I was trying to just insert them from my laptop directly into my article and it would not let me do that. Escooter21 (talk) 13:57, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tracking Conversations in Article Talk Pages

Unlike front-facing article content, the talk pages of articles seem to have a more fast and loose formatting style, and it is proving a tricky eye strain to keep track of conversations I am having with other editors. Is there a tip and/or trick to keeping abreast of the discussions I am in without manually trawling through the whole talk page each time I refresh? - Personofcanada (talk) 19:45, 21 September 2021 (UTC) Personofcanada (talk) 19:45, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Personofcanada: Unfortunately I'm fairly sure there's no where to keep track of what point you are at in the discussion after reloading the page, unless there's something I'm not aware of. ― Blaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#0001 19:47, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Personofcanada: Welcome to the Teahouse! I go to the "View history" page and select all the diffs marked "updated since your last visit", and then click "Compare selected versions". Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 19:54, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I had at least hoped someone had come up with a personal shorthand of some kind. All I can think of is opening a desktop sticky note, and then pasting my last contribution in each conversation into it for CTRL+Fing my way back to each thread. Thanks. O
On an unrelated note, how do I make my username highlighted in cool colours like that? Is it all this textual junk: "<b style="background:#0d1125;color:#51aeff;padding:1q;border-radius:5q">" - </b>Personofcanada (talk) 19:52, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ya pretty much. My signature was made by Levi_OP so if you want a cool signature like mine, I'm sure they'd be willing to help you out. ― Blaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#0001 20:10, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Personofcanada: pinging ― Blaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#0001 20:12, 21 September 2021 (UTC) [reply]
@Personofcanada: Welcome to the Teahouse. You may be interested in installing the Convenient Discussions script, which can visually identify which comments have been added since your last visit and your own comments. It also allows you to "watch topics", which I believe shows new comments as bulleted items in the page's table of contents. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:21, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Personofcanada, @Blaze The Wolf, @GoingBatty, @Tenryuu You can subscribe to talk page sections as detailed at the top of Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). ― Qwerfjkltalk 18:44, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Qwerfjkl: I've heard that you can do that however I've never seen the option that allows me to do that outside of a test of the function of that with the reply tool. ― Blaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#0001 18:45, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Watchlist

How many pages can I have on my watchlist? The Tips of Apmh (talk) 23:00, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@The Tips of Apmh: As far as I'm aware the only limit is the number of pages on Wikipedia (which is over a million and if you have every page on wikipedia on your watchlist then your watchlist is functionally identical to Recent Changes. ― Blaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#0001 23:02, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thank you. The Tips of Apmh (talk) 23:05, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Some users have reported interface problems with watchlists above 5000 to 10000 pages. I have no problems with 8000. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:39, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I regularly run 15,000 to 20,000. Graphical editing of my watchlist sometimes fails due to timeouts with very large watchlists. Meters (talk) 02:55, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I currently have 26,640 with no problems...... reduce from 50,000 that had minor load problem when set to show 500 at a time.Moxy- 03:05, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BTW the English Wikipedia has somewhere between 6 and 7 million articles, but more than 50 million pages. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:47, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

saving a draft

Doing my first article. I'm in the draft wizard (I think) and I'm not ready to "publish page". I want to save my work as a draft and add citations later. How do I do that? SharedHeritage (talk) 00:43, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SharedHeritage: The "Publish" button is actually your save button. I will add the appropriate template to you draft though so you can submit it for real when you're ready. ― Blaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#0001 01:13, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. SharedHeritage, by writing the text of your draft first, and then adding sources to support what you have written, you are making your task of creating an acceptable article much harder than it need be. The recommended method is to start with the citations, and then add text which summarises what your sources say. Maproom (talk) 07:04, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have submitted an article for a member of legislative assembly

The article i presented was not accepted and i could not understand why! I have mentioned all the required data however the article was not accepted. Could you please help me ! Panwarankit7 (talk) 06:03, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Panwarankit7, I assume this is about Draft:Vijay Singh Panwar. The draft does not cite any sources (though it does list some). So the reader has no way of telling where the information in the draft comes from, and checking it. Any draft that fails to cite reliable published sources will be declined. Maproom (talk) 06:59, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy link: Draft:Vijay_Singh_Panwar Hi @Panwarankit7, as mentioned by the reviewer your draft needs more reliable sources to prove the notability of the subject. Eevee01(talk) 07:50, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Panwarankit7 I have also noticed that you have not cited your sources correctly. Read Help:Referencing for beginners for more info. Eevee01(talk) 08:04, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Name in list

Can be a name be given multiple times in an alumni list?

I am creating an alumni list of a university. The list is divided in sections as usual. Now suppose a man abc is a scientist, he was a professor and faculty of xyz institute, also he was a Director of pqr institute. Which category (section) will he go to: scientist or academic or organisational head?

There are more instances like abc who is a businessman, also a professor of an institute also writer on Literature having books. Like the prev he can be taken in businessman, academic and also literature personalities.

So in these cases, will the name repeat in the three sections or will be taken only once and if taken only once what will be that section? AnkurWiki 06:34, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

The policy at WP:ALUMNI says It is acceptable to list someone in more than one field, provided that this is mentioned in a side note. Add something like: "(Also listed in sport)". In general, given that the people in such a list are likely to have their own article, I'd recommend using that article to confirm the main reason why that person is notable and just use that for a single entry in the list. Hence, if the list has a section for Nobel Prize winners, then the name should go there if appropriate and hardly needs also to go into the section covering the subject for which they won the Nobel. You can of course use Ctrl-F within your browser to find if a name already exists within a long list article. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:21, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can I get games on Wikipedia article

games On Wikipedia 105.112.184.254 (talk) 08:40, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which game do you want? "Whack-a-Troll"? "JarlaxleArtemis Simulator 2021 Edition"? "A Week in Hell: My Admin Request Story"? "Racial Holy War Against Those Fucking Hipster Liberal N----- K--- C---s"? —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 08:46, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Check out Wikipedia:Department of Fun#Wikitainment for fun things to do and read on Wikipedia (not just games). Minkai (talk to me) 12:19, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

date format on Ruth Posselt

dates in entire article are in dmy format, however person is american (mdy date format). is it advisable NOT to add mdy date template and change dates in article? i am asking for confirmation of gut feeling. — ashtamatrikas (talkcontribactions) 09:57, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I count two dmy and one mdy: whichever is chosen, it should be used consistently. Since (a) the subject is American and (b) the original creator Wrightjack initially used mdy, this seems more appropriate. I suggest you be Bold, make the changes and go on to Discuss if anyone Reverts. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.200.67.3 (talk) 15:58, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
interesting facts: article was created in 2008 with birth and marriage date in article and in footnotes with mdy date format!!! i will go ahead and amend incorrect date format. — ashtamatrikas (talkcontribactions) 17:27, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question by Rapmusiclover123

can someone help me to move my draft to the real wikipedia?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rapmusiclover123 (talkcontribs)

@Rapmusiclover123: The flow on discussion pages like the Teahouse is that new topics are opened at the bottom of the page, I have accordingly moved it. With regards to your question, I assume this is about Draft:Kah' Linda. That draft would benefit from reliable sources, which is obligatory for articles about living people, because Wikipedia is not interested in a rerun of the Seigenthaler incident. Victor Schmidt (talk) 10:50, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, why do you think "Kah' Linda lives on music planet X." is good content for a WP:BLP? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:21, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Victor Schmidt: sorry, for not posting it to the bottom, thanks for moving it, the article is about living people, there is a production team behind Kah' Linda and the singer is also a real person, her alter ego is the comic superhero though, maybe I should not have put the information about the comic in the biography field— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rapmusiclover123 (talkcontribs) 11:43, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Take the time to read WP:MUSICBIO. If you don't have the sources demanded there, the article will not be accepted. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:47, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rapmusiclover123: I took a look at the article, and it seems a bit WP:POV. You will have to fix it if you want even a chance of the article being accepted.Minkai (talk to me) 15:33, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Minkai, yes would love to get help how to make this article I have written acceptable Rapmusiclover123 (talk) 17:16, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Rapmusiclover123. Please read your first article, if you haven't already. One of the things that makes writing a new article so very very difficult for new editors is that they generally don't realise that 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. . Writing an article without first finding several independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject is like building a house without building foundations, or even surveying the ground to see if it is stable enough to build on. My advice to you would be to put this project aside for a few months while you learn how Wikipedia works by making edits to some of our six million existing articles. If you do so, then when you come back to it you may have a better understanding of what is needed. --ColinFine (talk) 20:25, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
not sure does Distrokid count as a independent record label cause that is where Kah' Linda is signed to? One of the producers has an allmusic credit list and has been on the official american charts with the band HURT, so that should count as secondary sources? Rapmusiclover123 (talk) 05:09, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have added some footnotes now as well Rapmusiclover123 (talk) 06:30, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

edits to Andia Chaves Fonnegra, apparently by subject of page

A page that I have worked on (Andia Chaves Fonnegra) has, mostly uncited, new details being added by the subject of the page. I think this is the case because the edit summary says '...where I earned...'. The IP address also added an excessive number of publications and added an unremarkable grant as an 'award'. What should happen now? From other pages, it seems like this should either be changed back to the way the page was, and/or some of the content flagged as needing citations, and/or flagged as being edited by someone who should not be editing their own page. However, I do not think I should be the one making these changes. DaffodilOcean (talk) 11:50, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted the addition, as it's unreferenced and added excessive entries to the selected publications section. I've left a message on the IP's talk page with some advice about WP:COI editing, and how to approach it. Neiltonks (talk) 12:24, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Neiltonks: Thanks! --DaffodilOcean (talk) 23:58, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How to check drafts?

How do I see my drafts? MrDude1881 (talk) 12:53, 22 September 2021 (UTC)MrDude1881[reply]

If you click on the "Contributions" link near the top right-hand corner of any page you will see your drafts, together with your other edits. - David Biddulph (talk) 13:05, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why was my wikipedia page deleted?

I wrote my first article and I don’t know exactly what I did wrong, but the page got deleted with this message:

A tag has been placed on Draft:Fixr.com, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic.

Could you please point out some specific errors which I need to improve? Thanks! OrneGuerrero (talk) 13:21, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:Fixr.com was G11'ed by Materialscientist. I can't read deleted pages and therefore cannot say how bad it was, however, one of the admin folks around here will likely repsond with more details. Victor Schmidt (talk) 14:16, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am an administrator and could read the deleted draft. It failed to establish that Fixr.com is a notable topic. The very best of the sources, the Washington Post, the New York Times and U.S. News & World Report just mentioned the website in passing. Others were just entries on a list of similar websites, with a handful of sentences giving a quick overview. I was not able to find any reliable sources devoting significant coverage to Fixr.com itself, and a lot of the content was completely unreferenced. So, it appeared to the deleting administrator that your goal was to promote this website instead of to write a well referenced encyclopedia article about a notable topic. What is your relationship with Fixr.com? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 15:59, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft on hold on the basis of lack of notability

Hello! Here I am trying to contribute with my first article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Youth_Progress_Index) As suggested by the person who reviewed my article, I would like to ask you for an opinion on the notability issue. Thanks to Nomadicghumakkad' tips, the article is already much better, but I am still struggling to reach notability in his opinion.

I based the draft on the Youth Progress Index(YPI)'s big brother Wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Progress_Index). Basically, the YPI is a specification of this methodology. If compared, I think that the page we are drafting is even more thorough with a more detailed explanation of data sources. In my opinion, it seems solid since the explanation of data collection and analysis seems convincing and well-supported. Moreover, it has been endorsed by institutions and well-know research groups (the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (International IDEA), the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR), the Social Progress Imperative, and the International Organisation of Employers).

It is undeniable that there is a lack of tons of sources on the subject out there, but still, the draft seems legit to me. All the indicators are explained and the data have been collected using a great number of solid sources.

Could you have a look into it and help me understand how to make it better?

Thank you to this wonderful community. FBMR94 (talk) 13:59, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, FBMR94. The challenge for a reviewer is that your draft has 68 references and it is fairly obvious that many of your references are not independent of the topic. Notability comes from truly independent sources devoting significant coverage to the topic. So, I suggest that you identify the three best independent sources so that an uninvolved editor can easily gauge notability instead of having to wade through all 68. User:RoySmith/Three best sources is an essay that describes this concept. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 15:36, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

linking in edit summary

How do I link to WP articles in my edit summary? The Tips of Apmh (talk) 14:33, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@The Tips of Apmh See Help:Cheatsheet. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:42, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Same as in a Wikipedia page. Within double square brackets: [[Article name]]. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:42, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, it works now. The Tips of Apmh (talk) 14:48, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Articles on some creature automatically notable?

Hello! So while looking through Special:Random I've come across many article about creatures that are basically only 1 sentence with only 1 reference. I tried deleting one of these before however I was told an article about a creature/animal cannot be deleted unless it's an obvious hoax. This seems a bit silly to me because some animal only have 1 reference that proves they aren't a hoax. Could someone explain this reasoning further to me? ― Blaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#0001 15:47, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability (natural sciences) is a failed proposal, but might present some useful thoughts on the subject (see also its Talk page).
My personal feeling is that any 'creature' ought to be notable, so if the article on it has only one reference, it's likely that others exist out there somewhere, and one should search for more of them rather than seek to delete the article. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.200.67.3 (talk) 16:11, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Blaze The Wolf. I suggest that you read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes which describes longstanding consensus on the notability of broad topic areas. This is what it says about species: "All species that have a correct name (botany) or valid name (zoology) are inherently notable. Their names and at least a brief description must have been published in a reliable academic publication to be recognized as correct or valid. Because of this, they generally survive AfD."
Correct name and valid name are scientific terms. If you search Google Scholar for a species name, you will commonly find discussion in the academic literature that would allow you or another editor to expand these stubs. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 16:12, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah ok thank you! I've always been a little confused as to why they are able to stay because it seems like someone who just found a new animal could have it added to Wikipedia as long as it can't be proven as a hoax. ― Blaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#0001 17:44, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Talia Oze page

Hello My name is Alex Bazaare, Iam working on a page for Anna Talia Oze a Ugandan Public figure in entertainment. I need help on how to edit the article and add pictures, can someone help me on this? Thanks. Alex Bazaare (talk) 16:09, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:Anna Talia Oze   Maproom (talk) 16:47, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Alex Bazaare: Welcome to the Teahouse! At the top of your draft is now a gray box with links to instructions for creating footnotes within your draft. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 17:13, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Editing without knowing coding

How to edit in Wikipedia without knowing coding? Nishānt Omm (talk) 16:38, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nishānt Omm: You don't need to know coding to edit Wikipedia. (I'm certainly proof of that.) If you familiarize yourself with the material in Help:Cheatsheet, you should get along fine. If you need more detailed help, the links on that page will lead you to it. Deor (talk) 16:44, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nishānt Omm: Welcome to the Teahouse! You can also use the Wikipedia:VisualEditor to edit articles by clicking the "Edit" tab (instead of the "Edit source" tab), so you don't have to see the source code. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 17:16, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
... but for those whose preferences are set up like mine, the "Edit" tab goes to the source editor and I don't have an "Edit source" tab. I don't use the Visual Editor. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:44, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Earning from Wikipedia

Can anyone earn money by editing on Wikipedia ? Nishānt Omm (talk) 16:51, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The vast majority of editors here are volunteers. There are also scammers that will take money but not deliver on promises. Some people edit Wikipedia on behalf of their employer, and must abide by WP:PAID rules. RudolfRed (talk) 16:54, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unless I'm mistaken, technically you can be awarded money by other users by completing certain requested tasks. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 18:46, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An article named Sangeeta Chauhan that redirects to Sangeita Chauhan

There is an Article of Sangeeta Chauhan which redirects to Sangeita Chauhan. May i fill up the details of MLA of Naugawan Sadat (Assembly constituency) in Sangeeta ChauhanBihariboy Rahul (talk) 16:51, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bihariboy Rahul: Welcome to the Teahouse! Presuming that MLA Sangeeta Chauhan meets Wikipedia's criteria of notability and you have sufficient independent reliable sources to write an article, you can write the article at Sangeeta Chauhan. If you do so, I suggest adding an {{about}} template at the top of each article.
  • On Sangeeta Chauhan, you could add {{about|the politician|the actress|Sangeita Chauhan}} which will generate:
  • On Sangeita Chauhan, you could add {{about|the actress|the politician|Sangeeta Chauhan}} which will generate:
Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 17:22, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FTR, All MLAs are notable per WP:NPOL. Usedtobecool ☎️ 17:52, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You User:GoingBatty. I will do the same Bihariboy Rahul (talk) 17:25, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse for Hindi language

Why isn't there a Teahouse in Hindi language ? Nishānt Omm (talk) 16:57, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Other language Wikipedias don't necessarily distinguish between help for new users and more general help. On hiwiki you can start with help at hi:विकिपीडिया:सहायता. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:04, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

is there any script or settings or gadget to find external link: [https://ex.ec rt] in body of articles. User:Ashtamatrikas/sandbox contains link https://yanggongqian.com/ Gong Qian Yang — ashtamatrikas (talkcontribactions) 16:59, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Each external link is wrapped in a span tag with the specific class. So, you can use CSS to customize their appearance. Ruslik_Zero 17:07, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ruslik0 xcellent suggestion. resolved by adding code .mw-body-content a:link.external { color: #3366BB; } /* external links */ given at Help:Link color on my custom css page. simple and can be tuned as i use it more. — ashtamatrikas (talkcontribactions) 18:14, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Fashionpolice007

 – Added section header. GoingBatty (talk) 17:41, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Upon review of the materials you provided, we are interested in understanding how we go about developing a company page so that it's in compliance with your terms of service. If this requires the paid editing declaration, can you advise on costs and template for getting that underway?

Referencing this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:LTK_(company) Fashionpolice007 (talk) 17:25, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Fashionpolice007: Welcome to the Teahouse! There is no cost to edit Wikipedia, and be wary of any companies that charge money to edit on your behalf. See WP:COIPAYDISCLOSE for information on how to declare your conflict of interest on your user page. Also see Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing and Help:Your first article. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 17:45, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, remember, "Oxfords, not Brogues" -Roxy the sceptical dog. wooF 17:47, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Fashionpolice007: Much more important than choice of shoes, the main thing to remember/understand is that there's no such thing as a "company page" on Wikipedia. There are encyclopedia articles about companies that are sufficiently notable and have sufficient independent sources writing about them that someone--again, independent--has undertaken to write such an article. The result might or might not be to the company's liking. Uporządnicki (talk) 11:34, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

protect a page as non-admin

Can I add protection to a page as a non-admin? If not can I request a page to be protected? The Tips of Apmh (talk) 17:36, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi The Tips of Apmh! Only administrators can apply protection to pages, but anyone can request protection at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. DanCherek (talk) 17:39, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure which Infobox template to use

Creating an Article about Paul Buccieri

Hi, I saw a red link on the A&E Networks page which suggested that a page might be needed for the company’s president, Paul Buccieri. I submitted an article creation for him, but was told to gather more opinions. There’s information included in the draft giving an overview of his life and career. Everything is sourced from pretty major publications (Adweek, Hollywood Reporter, Variety, etc.) and written as neutrally as possible. Could anyone else weigh in? Thanks, Sabillbr (talk) 20:45, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sabillbr (talk) your draft states that Buccieri is with A&E, but doesn't show why that's important. Do many people watch the network, so that it would be considered notable to be named president? Is he making improvements to the network? I see one of your references says he's responsible for a show called Live PD, which is apparently popular, but you make no mention of that in your draft. I would suggest you look for more such articles, showing that Buccieri is responsible for bringing popular and/or prestigious shows to A&E, or that the network's rating are improving, any accomplishments to show that he is a good president. Karenthewriter (talk) 23:43, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Block durations

Why are many blocks on IPs for vandalism given a 31 hour duration? Is there anything special about a duratoin of 1 day and 7 hours? dudhhrContribs 21:14, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's so that they can't just come back after strictly a day and resume the same crap. Helpful against vandals editing from specific spots (i.e. schools, libraries, businesses). —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 21:19, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dudhhr, Jéské Couriano is correct. The 31 hour duration is part of the standard pull-down menu that administrators use when setting up blocks and has become a popular option for short blocks. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 15:48, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I actually kinda wanna see what the admin pull-down menu looks like just so I can understand what an admin's options are when performing admin actions.Blaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#0001 15:51, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking from experience, it's not very exciting.A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 15:59, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Blaze The Wolf: The pull-down menu for block duration contains a variety of options for numbers of hours, days, weeks, months and years, as well as "infinite", but an admin can enter absolutely any time by hand even if it's not on the menu. Deor (talk) 16:36, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
interesting. Honestly, if I were to ever become an admin (which probably won't happen for many years) my first action would be to block myself for a few seconds if that is possible and allowed. Blaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#0001 16:38, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adding pictures to the Twyford Motor Car Company article

I would like to add some pictures to the article. The pictures come from the Jefferson County History Center archives. Is this permitted, and if so, what steps do I need to do so? The pictures were taken in 2005. KristonScott (talk) 23:22, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Almost certainly not. The most important thing to understand: copyright is complicated. Photos taken in 2005 are still under copyright (with some specific exceptions, all photographs taken in the US are copyright of the photographer), and so you would have to get permission from the photographer to put the images on our sibling project, Wikimedia Commons under a Wikipedia-compatible license - and we require a very, very broad release of rights (and therefore we would need proof that the photographer said it was okay). Unless these are photos of historic events, or of buildings that no longer exist or people who have since died, in which case there's a solid argument that we can use them without getting permission as long as certain very stringent requirements are followed . Tell me more about the photos? DS (talk) 00:01, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@KristonScott: Welcome to the Teahouse! Whomever owns the copyright to the photos could follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. Hope this helps! GoingBatty (talk) 02:04, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have two photographs, which show the Twyford replica being moved into Jefferson County History Center museum. I would consider this an historic event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KristonScott (talkcontribs) 13:25, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KristonScott, I think that it is a real stretch to argue that moving a replica of an antique car into a museum is an historic event. Do reliable sources widely describe it that way? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 15:59, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the photographs were originally taken by a reporter for the Jeffersonian Democrat. Would the current editor of the newspaper be the copyright holder? If so, would his permission be enough and how would he give you the permission? — Preceding unsigned comment added by KristonScott (talkcontribs)

KristonScott, it would be very unusual for the editor of a newspaper to be the copyright holder of photos taken by a reporter/photographer. Almost all the time, copyright is held by the actual photographer. In some cases, the photographer may sign a "work for hire" agreement with the publisher, and assign copyright to that publisher. There needs to be a formal written legal document signed by both parties for such an agreement to be valid. So, unless you have strong evidence to the contrary, the copyright holder is assumed to be the photographer, or their estate if they have died. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the formalities. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:22, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What do I do when my submission is undone for appearing not constructive?

Hello, my most recent submission on "Situational Quadruple Nexus" was immediately considered to appear not constructive. Well, I thought it was a very useful piece. I would appreciate help please. I could improve it with some guidance. Ameh Abraham (talk) 00:02, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Ameh Abraham:, welcome to the Teahouse. Your edit was undone because it blanked an existing page to write an article on something else, and that's not allowed here-- hence the notice on your talk page. However, we're not opposed to new articles-- we encourage them. If you'd like to work on a new article, you have your own personal sandbox to develop it before submitting it to mainspace. You can access your sandbox by logging into your account and clicking the button labelled "sandbox" next to your talk page. Happy editing! Helen(💬📖) 01:56, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft rejecred several times

I made a draft and it got rejected several times even though I have edited it. I wanna know how to improve it so please give me some tips or edit it for me https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Gulled_Simba Nature116 (talk) 00:28, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nature116: Welcome to the Teahouse! Which of the 12 notability criteria at WP:MUSICBIO does Simba meet? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 02:07, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was told he hasn’t gained significant coverage in third-party sources independent and does meet WP:NMUSIC, so i'll just have it deleted.Nature116 (talk) 18:38, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I know I'm not exactly a newbie, but I have one more question

Hello, Macadamia here. Quick question: In the 'edit count' part of the infobox for Wikipedia users, is there a way to use a template so I won't have to change it every time?

Thanks, Macadamia of the LeafWings | HEAR ME ROAR!! | Contribs | My Guestbook📖 01:12, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Macadamia of the LeafWings: Welcome to the Teahouse! Looks like the |edit_count= parameter in {{Infobox Wikipedia user}} has to be populated manually. In addition, it seems that all the userboxes at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Wikipedia/Stats and tools/edit count require you to enter the number of edits. You could try using {{Service award progress}} if you like. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 02:18, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

how to edit page

how to edit a page please answer Person1662626271717 (talk) 03:27, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Person1662626271717: Welcome to the Teahouse! You might enjoy Help:Introduction and Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Adventure, a training adventure game. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 03:40, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

UTC+14:30

I'm planning to create the unofficial time zone UTC+14:30 can you help me creating this article? M9034w (talk) 04:48, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Have you found reliable, published sources that discuss it in detail, M9034w? And if you have, what kind of help are you looking for? -- Hoary (talk) 05:51, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@M9034w: This would definitely not be accepted as an article because as you said, it's an unofficial time zone, meaning you just made it up. ― Blaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#0001 13:32, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shortcut

Hello. How can I create a shortcut (like WP:GNG for example) to a guideline? Can I just "do it" without prior "authorization"? Paul Vaurie (talk) 04:54, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Paul Vaurie: You can create a redirect, but the question should be "should you?" I'd go to the guideline page you want to do the redirect for and start a discussion on the talk page. The redirect may have been proposed or discussed already, and rejected. It would have to be a common and intuitive redirect term that no one else thought of yet, but that others are using thinking it's the correct one. A tough reach. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 05:02, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's a very minor, particular page on a WikiProject that has gotten four (!!) views in the past 30 days, so I doubt there would be much controversy or even any contributions in the talk page. I would like to redirect WP:STADIUMSN to Wikipedia:WikiProject Event Venues/Sports task force/Notability. What do you think? Paul Vaurie (talk) 05:08, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SPORTSVENUES could also be a redirect. I just want at least one redirect to this page, because I find its content useful in AfDs. Paul Vaurie (talk) 05:12, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Paul Vaurie: How about WP:NVENUE? It's unused and short, and follows the convention for notability redirects. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 07:40, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

About wikidata after the merge is complete

What should I do with the wikidata after the merge is complete? See wikidata:Q7308961.--SilverMatsu (talk) 06:29, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SilverMatsu: You can request the wikidata items be merged. See Wikidata:Project_chat#Merge for a recent request that's been fulfilled. You want to merge with wikidata:Q11235244, I think. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:26, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Michael D. Turnbull: Thank you your reply. I'll try it.--SilverMatsu (talk) 22:36, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There was a reply on wikidata; The sitelinks to the Portuguese Wikipedia, and , are also blocking a merge. --SilverMatsu (talk) 04:15, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see the search button has been removed. How do we search for things now? (I could stick a nonsense string in the 'go' window and it will take me to the search page, but I assume there's a more straightforward way.) — kwami (talk) 10:05, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi kwami. What is your skin at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering? I see a "Search" button in all skins which have a "Go" button. Do you have a search button in safemode? PrimeHunter (talk) 12:09, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have a similar problem, Monobook skin, Firefox 92. For me the search button shows up, but then disappears if I focus on the search text box. Happens also with safemode, and also in different language Wikipedias. MKFI (talk) 14:03, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is phab:T291272: "Search" button disappears when clicking search box in Monobook. It also happens for me with Firefox 92 in MonoBook. The same happens in the officially unsupported Modern and CologneBlue. Until it's fixed, you can start a search with a tilde ~ or click "Search for pages containing" below the dropdown search suggestions. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:47, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Monobook, responsive mode.

Huh. I see a search button on the 'Preferences' page, not just on the page in safe mode. It disappears if I click in the window, but it reappears if I refresh the page or leave and come back. The safe-mode page has the same behaviour. On the WP main page, as on regular articles and talk pages, the search button is just there for a fraction of a second, and then disappears even if I don't click in the window, and it reappears for just a fraction of a second if I hit 'refresh'.

Didn't know about (or didn't remember) the tilde. Thanks, that's handy. I don't see an option for "Search for pages containing" (no button or dropdown menu), but the tilde's enough. — kwami (talk) 18:52, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone help me please in writing an article about myself?

Hello everyone Can someone help me please in writing an article about myself? I have a published research on Cuckoo Search for Portfolio Optimization. I was on TV for on multiple channels. I have a notable invention in the field of education I'm ready to provide you with any reference or link Thank you MohammadElMedawar (talk) 11:16, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:COI for an explanation as to why you can't generally shouldn't write an article about yourself. In short - assuming you're actually notable - you have a massive conflict of interest, and as such cannot be relied upon to be neutral in your prose. Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:27, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Chaheel Riens: To be pedantic (and as stated at WP:COISELF), one isn't forbidden from writing about themselves; they're just strongly discouraged. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:47, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See also WP:Autobiography. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:34, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Excluding any reference to your publications, interviews of you, your invention, etc., as not confirming notability, can you identify at least three published articles about you? If yes, you can attempt an article about you. See WP:YFA for how to start. Teahouse hosts guide, but are not co-authors. 31.209.146.55 (talk) 17:58, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
MohammadElMedawar (talk) you may also want to read Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. Karenthewriter (talk) 21:54, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Focusing on constructively editing to build on Wikipedia

Hello. I am a an long time IP editor that recently decided to make an a account. I focused on fighting vandalism for the most part, but I want to branch out and be able to help build on Wikipedia's content. However, I need a place to start as someone who is very unfamiliar with this. Thank you in advanced for your replies. CosmicJacuzzi (talk) 14:20, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@CosmicJacuzzi: Hello Cosmic a cosmic jacuzzi sounds very pleasant I'd be glad to assist you with figuring out how to help build Wikipedia! Just leave a message on my talk page! ― Blaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#0001 14:37, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How do create my page?

 WikiChowdhury (talk) 16:09, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiChowdhury, Hello! If you mean that you want to create a WP:USERPAGE, click the red link "WikiChowdhury" in your signature, type something and publish. If you mean you want to create a WP-article, first make sure you have the sources demanded at WP:GNG. Then read WP:YFA. Trying to create a WP-article about yourself is generally a waste of time. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:56, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"This is a glitch" "This is a bug"

Hello! So I noticed that sometimes when an IP edits they will be like, "This is a glitch, I shouldn't be able to edit this and yet somehow I can" which confuses me because I thought the majority of people know that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia anyone can edit. Anyone have an explanation? ― Blaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#0001 16:12, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly a misunderstanding of the protection policies, and how the are not meant to be preventative? CosmicJacuzzi (talk) 17:02, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@CosmicJacuzzi: I don't think so, as from my knowledge most IPs aren't even aware of protection policies. HOwever for registered users that have made a few edits that might make sense. ― Blaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#0001 18:03, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's kind of my point. They know the page was protected, because they are unable to edit it. They don't understand why it's protected, and fall under the false presumption that all pages and articles on Wikipedia are protected. When they find an unprotected page, "I found a glitch. There's a page that can be edited by anyone that's not logged in". When in actuality, Wikipedia can be edited by anyone and page protections are not meant to be preventative. CosmicJacuzzi (talk) 18:09, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Help! Someone accused me vandalism for correcting my mother's biography page!

I found errors on my mother's page, which I corrected. Then this dude reversed them, and sent me this message, which I have no idea how to reply to: "Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Elzbieta Ettinger. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Pachu Kannan (talk) 16:00, 23 September 2021 (UTC)" Maiway2021 (talk) 16:14, 23 September 2021 (UTC) Maiway2021 (talk) 16:14, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Maiway2021: Hello Maiway! I understand your concern (and don't believe the editor was assuming good faith since they didn't welcome you before leaving a warning), however 1, it appears you have a WP:COI with the page in question and 2, your edits would've had to have reliable sources as we can't just take your information as factual because we need some way to prove that it is indeed factual. ― Blaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#0001 16:19, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Maiway2021. Wikipedia articles summarize what published reliable sources say about the topic. Unpublished personal memories of family members are not appropriate for Wikipedia biographies. The specific details of her death known only to family members are especially inappropriate. If you are aware of published reliable sources that provide better information, then please make an edit request at Talk: Elzbieta Ettinger. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 16:27, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi; I'm sorry that you've had a frustrating and possibly upsetting experience. I'm going to go slightly out on a limb here. Yes, everything written above is correct. Wikipedia's definition of "true" is "supported by reliable sources", so if a good newspaper says it's true, we treat it as true - even if someone pops up who knows better, from personal experience. But this is where I'm going to go out on a limb: Wikipedia editors generally do care passionately about the larger truth, and accuracy. We don't actually want an inaccurate encyclopaedia. Normally, if you didn't like something about an article where you have a strong conflict-of-interest, you'd be expected to state very explicitly on the Talk page exactly what wording you want to change, and with a good reference. This remains the best approach. But if you know something to be untrue in the article, I would advise you to say so on the talk page anyway, even if you can't at once find a good reference. There are some limitations on what you can do with a Talk page (no defamation of living people etc.) but basically a talk page is what it says on the tin: it's a place to discuss problems with the article. Inaccuracy is a problem. It might be that some editor will be motivated by your comment and will find a reference that supports it. Or alternatively, it may be that a few editors will agree that while your fact can't be inserted in the article (because there is no supporting reference) an existing fact on which you've cast doubt can be removed because it's not actually essential. Where you will struggle is in persuading anyone to remove a fact that is important, wrong, but supported by a good reference, and that's where you have my sympathy. Certainly, you can serve a very useful purpose on this article even though you have a conflict of interest. Whenever something interesting and useful is published that is relevant (for example, if someone writes a biographical article on your mother's life) you can bring it to others' attention at the talk-page, and suggest where the article can be improved in the light of the new source. This is super-useful as there simply aren't enough people to notice such things otherwise, and keep articles properly updated. Elemimele (talk) 20:20, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moving old user space draft

Asking for a friend: does anyone think it would be problematic to move a five-year old user space draft to draftspace? User's last edit was June 2016. --- Possibly 16:26, 23 September 2021 (UTC)  --- Possibly 16:26, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Possibly: Yes it is problematic. Drafts in draft space are subject to deletion after 6 months of no activity. That does not apply to user space drafts lacking the AFC template. RudolfRed (talk) 16:35, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What about a copy-past move, with attribution, leaving the userspace draft in place? It's an interesting situation. --- Possibly 16:56, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly what is the purpose of doing this? Why you want to move it is relevant to whether is could be done. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:35, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Dodger67: Someone asked me about this, and I am also curious about what the answer is to moving it. The purpose is to edit it and develop into a proper article. Gertrude Moakley is mentioned four times on wiki, three of which are currently redlinks. The user space draft is not going anywhere as it is, and it has been sitting idle for over five years. --- Possibly 19:50, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The page on copying within Wikipedia seems to say that copying is fine, one just needs to give attribution. Correct? --- Possibly 20:16, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've answered my own question by copying the new page from the userspace draft with proper attribution, per copying within Wikipedia. Thanks. --- Possibly 20:33, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

General question about how vandalism is managed

How is vandalism managed beyond measures such as ClueBot, watchlists, etc.? I understand that there also exist people who watch recent changes for disruptive edits but surely there must be such a massive volume of vandalism that will go unnoticed, especially small but bizarre examples, or on obscure pages. I understand that there is probably not a singular answer to this question, and never will be, but I am curious as to how experienced editors and users of Wikipedia go about this task of preventing vandalism in general. Tamptonato (talk) 17:21, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Tamptonato. Please take a look at Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit and all the links that you can find there. The combination of highly effective bots and human editors who watch frequently vandalized articles is effective if not perfect. You may also be interested in Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit/Subtle Vandalism Taskforce. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:36, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Welcome to the Teahouse, Tamptonato. You should probably read the article at WP:VANDAL and see whether that suggests more specific questions. Some editors get involved with the recent changes patrol which augments what the bots do. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:37, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Tamptonato: (edit conflict) it isn't actually that common that vandalism goes unnoticed, because there are several lines of defense.
  1. The edit filter stops a bunch of obvivious vandlism from being saved in the first place. Example filters are Filter #3 (article blanking), #31 (ASCII art), or #255 ( vandalism in all caps). these aren't all filters, just a few examples.
  2. the list of recent changes, which can be filtered for new users, for example (old user accounts are less likely to vandalise, apart when compromised)
  3. ClueBot NG, which reverts edits automatically
  4. A bunch of semi-automated tools can help with patrolling, such as Huggle or RedWarn. They usally filter good edits out before showing them to to the user (becuase that is not the purpose of that tools)
  5. Users might add articles to their Watchlist, which might also help with reverting vandalism, particularely if the article is less common
  6. Some high-potential topics will be protected relatively soon, particularely if they are subject to discretionary sanctions or general sanctions, even if the actual amount of vandalism is not as much
Also, fighting vandalism is relatively easy once you know how to do it, which generally causes editors to be faster at detecting vandalism. Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:41, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To give the flip side of this, Tamptonato, you say that surely there must be such a massive volume of vandalism that will go unnoticed. Maybe "massive" is an overstatement, but some vandalism goes unnoticed for far too long and doubtless some is never really noticed. In my regular browsing of Wikipedia to learn information, I often encounter suspect articles which feel like they've recently had a chunk of text removed or vandalised or false information added. In such cases, I check the page history for recent edits and restore the article to an older version if my intuition was correct. I encounter this maybe once per month without looking for it. — Bilorv (talk) 18:08, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is definitely true. Sometimes I randomly encounter an article that has been vandalized, for example, recently I looked at the article Patriot Day and noticed an image caption that didn't make any sense no matter how many times I read it. I looked at the history of the article and I noticed that an IP had changed the caption to make no sense. ― Blaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#0001 18:11, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Genuine, overt vandalism is easy to spot, and will get zapped almost immediately, either by ClueBot or a human. There are some editors (me included) who find it quite relaxing to spend a few minutes reading the Recent Changes and checking out any suspect ones. The sort of error-making that's much harder to control is good-faith-but-not-quite-right editing: people who insert birth dates that are guestimates as though they were facts, or people who insert an extra, probably-true sentence between a referenced sentence and its reference, thereby adding a fact that looks as though it's referenced when it isn't, and gradually moving a referenced fact further and further from the documentation on which it was based. These things can easily escape the attention of the vandal-seekers. So basically, if you want to fight vandalism, just reading articles where you have the knowledge to spot a mistake is a good thing to do (if enough people do it, everything gets covered). Alternatively, just opening an article once in a while, and checking a few sources, is both educational and may reveal mistakes. But otherwise, just glancing through the Recent Changes helps. But I would add: don't fall into the trap of believing all edits by IP editors are automatically suspect. Some are, but other IP editors are extremely competent WP editors who've been here for ages, but prefer anonymity, while others are experts in a field whose edits and referencing will often be extremely accurate. Remember: sorting out vandalism is not a race where you're the best if you fix vandals fastest. No harm is done if someone else corrects an error while you're still checking that it is an error. Elemimele (talk) 20:02, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Blaze The Wolf: For me, the most troublesome forms of vandalism are the least obvious ones, for example if somebody changes a single digit in a number, like 13 September to 14 September, and there is no way to know if it's vandalism or a correction without spending an effort in investigation that is disproportionate to the single character changed. There may well be a "massive" amount of that sort of thing that is missed and stays in articles for years. One thing that sort of helps is the account preferences setting "revision scoring" under the tab "Recent changes" that colors changes in your watchlist according to how disruptive an algorithm judges it. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:06, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that option was only in RTRC @Anachronist: I agree. Sometimes vandalism can remain for years because it's just slightly altering 1 thing. I managed to find a mistake someone made while adding a reference that had not been fixed since the reference was added. ― Blaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#0001 20:09, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User Standing

Is there some kind of rating for user standing? Like if someone has broken a bunch of rules or is regularly rude does their score go down, and when they follow rules and are kind and helpful the score goes up? TipsyElephant (talk) 17:22, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe so. Huggle has a rating for individual edits, but not for entire user accounts. A quick view into the account's block log can give some hints, however. Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:28, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@TipsyElephant: no realistic system could codify a user's standing in the community (and I wouldn't be comfortable knowing some tool, or worse—group of users, was "rating" me). In addition to their block log, you can look at a user's technical rights (mine as an example), whether they've ever run for RfA (Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bilorv would exist if I ever had) and whether they are subject to any editing restrictions (whether placed by ArbCom or the community). You can look through the user's talk page history and search their name in archives of ANI/AN.
However, before doing this for a user, think about what you're doing and what the purpose of gathering such information is. In the case where you want to raise a person's misconduct for further attention, knowing something about whether they've done similar things in the past is useful. But obviously, you should not go around dragging up events from the past as personal attacks against a user ("well, I don't care about your opinion here because you're a problem user who has faced sanctions X and Y before"). — Bilorv (talk) 18:02, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Bilorv: thanks! I was mostly wondering so I could check what my standing was if I had one. TipsyElephant (talk) 19:29, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@TipsyElephant: I form a personal view of a user's "standing" in my mind. You, for example, have been here a couple of years and have the extended-confirmed user right, and a clean block log, which rates you way higher in my mind than someone who is autoconfirmed and has caused messes (perhaps not intentionally) for others to clean up, but lower than someone who has been through an extensive community vote of trust, such as an administrator, bureaucrat, ArbCom member, and so on. Those are really rough and broad judgments though and don't have small increments, and the factors that go into it cannot be condensed down into a single rating. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:57, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Becoming a Host here at the Teahouse

I'm considering becoming a host here at the Teahouse, but when I enter my name in the "Make me a host" field it brings me to a page with a bunch of stuff I need to fill out. I don't quite understand half of the parameters. Is it like an application or is it like a profile? Also, are there any requirements that I should know about? TipsyElephant (talk) 17:28, 23 September 2021 (UTC

You do not need to be a host in order to answer questions here. Ruslik_Zero 17:52, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@TipsyElephant: The above is true otherwise I wouldn't be answering your question! However one of the requirements is to have a general understanding of WIkipedia's policies and be a semi-experienced editor so you can answer most questions on the Teahouse. If you wnat to see the issues that can arise from not being very experienced and becoming a Host, simply just take a look at my talk page archive. ― Blaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#0001 18:06, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have made 7817 edits to the Teahouse so can claim quite a bit of experience here. I do not care at all about whether or not an editor is an "official" Teahouse host. All I care about are accurate, friendly answers that show that the editor has a good understanding of the question, and has something of value to add to the conversation. The thing that bothers me most is when eager new Teahouse participants try to answer questions and get the answer wrong. Don't do that. If you don't know, just keep your mouth (or keyboard) quiet. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:39, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Resubmitting an article

How do you resubmit an article after making revisions to it in response to feedback? There is a publish changes button, but no resubmit button evident this time around.

What to do if the feedback says the references given in relation to the topics are not independent to the subject, when the references list contains clearly all independent, third party sources linked to websites?

This is the draft article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Lucy_Bullivant

No money has been paid to anyone for its composition at any point, as suggested in another comment.

Thanks. Elementaryreality (talk) 17:36, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You shouldn't have removed the box relating to Hoary's decline of the draft. That box had a re-submit button which would have allowed the new draft to go back into the group awaiting review. Similarly, the comments made were meant to be helpful and should not have been deleted. I'll leave it to Hoary to decide what to do now. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:42, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Either you or Hoary must restore the Declined notice and the Comments. For books and other publications, a list. Not a description ofthe contents. No quotes about how wonderful. Cut, cut, cut. P.S. You declare here not paid. Put that on your Talk page. Separately, is there a conflict-of-interest? 31.209.146.55 (talk) 18:19, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Michael. It's the first time I've done this and I wasn't aware that the box and the oomments were not to be deleted. I didn't have much time and assumed that once noted by me, the draft needed to be shaped further without them. How can I proceed, either to retrieve my deletions, or to notify Hoary that I respectfully request his restitution of the box and comments? Similarly I thank you for your comments about the publications.

Restord Decline31.209.146.55 (talk) 22:03, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Elementaryreality, there had been two decline notices; I've restored the earlier one as well. And there had also been two comments; I've restored these too. (Restoring material that rightly or wrongly was deleted earlier is simple: you just look in the history for an earlier version that has it, "edit" this earlier version, copy [to your clipboard] the material that you want to readd, not "publish" the result but instead return to the latest version, edit this, paste the old material, "publish".) ¶ Your disagreement with some of my comments was very reasonable and constructive, but as you put it on your talk page (without pinging me), I've only just noticed it. Better to put such comments in Draft talk:Lucy Bullivant, pinging the editor(s) in question (achieved merely by both (i) linking to their usernames, and (ii) signing, as I've linked to yours at the start of this comment, and signed at the end of it). ¶ Comments by others on Bullivant's books are fine (as long as they're from reviews and are not mere blurbs); but if you list her books then you can put the bibliographical information (ISBNs, etc) there. (Thus the descriptions of and comments on Morris Bishop's books are under "Writings"; whereas the bibliographical stuff is under "Books with major contributions by Bishop".) ¶ Your photograph of Bullivant makes me wonder how you could not be connected. -- Hoary (talk) 23:29, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Documents for links indicate that text with an alt parameter will be displayed when a File is not available from Commons. In Wikibooks:Oberon/ETH_Oberon/Mouse under heading "Select - Mouse Right key - MR" "File:OberonMouse4.png" is not available. Shouldn't the alt text be displayed?

At the bottom of the same page are two tables; aqua and yellow. How can the yellow table be located beside the aqua rather than below?

Thx, ... PeterEasthope (talk) 19:15, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PeterEasthope. Please always link pages you refer to. Where does it indicate that alt text will be displayed if a file is missing? I don't think that is supposed to happen. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:29, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Opening Help:Wikitext#Images will give a table of examples. Scroll down to the third row which has alt=Puzzle globe logo. Is alt only for a browser failure? If the browser can't retrieve the image from the server, is the alt text not displayed?
Any ideas about my 2nd question? Can tables be displayed side by side rather than one below the other?
Thx, ... PeterEasthope (talk) 00:49, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@PeterEasthope: "when the image is unavailable" refers to cases where the image file does exist at the local wiki or Commons but isn't loaded or displayed to the user for some reason. alt text is a HTML feature. The user's browser decides what happens if alt text is sent. For example, a screen reader will probably read out the alt text whether or not an image can be retrieved. A normal browser will probably only display the alt text if it cannot retrieve the image due to a connection problem, or a browser setting to not load images. If a file by that name doesn't exist when MediaWiki generates the page then no image code or alt text is sent to the user, only a red link. If the file does exist then the alt text is always sent together with image code to tell the browser where to load the image. See Help:Table#Side by side tables. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:19, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Integrate.com

 Roundnutz14 (talk) 19:19, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Roundnutz14: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse! Did you have a question about integrate.com that you wanted to ask? ― Blaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#0001 19:22, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I added in information for a music group titled Jump 5 and all of that information was removed by an user named Walter Görlitz; how can I report this user for taking out credible information?

How do I report abuse of an user who takes out information from an Wikipedia article without any justable reason especially when the contact was sourced? Christopher2021 (talk) 20:09, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Christopher2021: The sources you used (twitter and youtube) are not in any way reliable. see WP:TWITTER.
  • Hello Christopher2021 and welcome to the Teahouse! Walter is a very thorough editor and while we can all make mistakes they did leave an edit summary that explained why they removed the information. Reverted good faith edits by Christopher2021 (talk): All WP:PRIMARY sources. Find [{WP:SECONDARY]] to show that this is more than just passing interest.[1] was the explanation. The only mistake I see here is the { instead of the [ so it should read WP:SECONDARY. You must provide reliable sources that prove notability and also reference the information you are adding without the reader having to do much else but read. Walter followed policy by maintaining civility (WP:CIV) and assuming good faith (WP:AGF) while reverting your bold edits (WP:BRD). If you can find other sources besides Twitter and Youtube that relate the same information and are reliable then I recommend starting a discussion on the article talk page (Talk:Jump5). Hope this explains. Please ask more questions if you need to. Happy editing!☺ --ARoseWolf 20:29, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

View history error/glitch

This is probably nothing but, when clicking view history on any article, userpage, talk page, etc. or when checking userpages: the link for newest and oldest are currently showing up as paalika and keka for me on two different devices, Is anyone else seeing this or know what the heck is going on here? Lavalizard101 (talk) 20:09, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lavalizard101, welcome to the Tehaouse. I don't see it. Please always include an example, even if something appears to be everywhere. What is your language setting at Special:Preferences? The default is "en - English". Does it happen with uselang=en? Does it happen if you log out? Does it happen in safemode? PrimeHunter (talk) 20:53, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
After a bit of fiddling with the language setting, it appears to only happen when my language preference is set to en-GB- British English. So it appears to be an issue with the en-GB British English language setting, it is also happening on one of my old sockpuppet accounts (which I briefly logged into to see if it occurred there as well). Lavalizard101 (talk) 21:18, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Lavalizard101: Yes, this is wrong values at MediaWiki:Histfirst/en-gb and MediaWiki:Histlast/en-gb. It has been fixed at translatewiki.[2][3] That means it will automatically be fixed here at the next message import by the developers. I don't know when that will be. By choosing en-gb you get a handful of British spellings but miss a lot of customizations at the English Wikipedia, for example links to our policies, processes and help pages. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:00, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could I have get more detail about why the new page I created was deleted?

Yesterday, I created a page called The Tech News Source and am wondering what I need to change for it to be approved. Jammer2001 (talk) 22:51, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jammer2001. This seems to be about Draft:The Tech News Source, which lacks references to independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) is the relevant guideline that you must meet. Cullen328 Let's discuss it
@Jammer2001: Welcome to the Teahouse! Your page was not deleted - it was declined. Creating a new article is one of the hardest things to do on Wikipedia. I suggest following the guidance on Help:Your first article. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 02:32, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Changing the subject matter

I used Visual Editing mode to create a biography of a North Carolina (US) guitarist named Sam Moss. The title reads "Draft:Sam Moss" How can I change it to just "Sam Moss"? I don't see a "Move" button on the page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Sam_Moss?action=edit ModRecker (talk) 23:33, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can't. You have to get someone to review the article first. Minkai (talk to me)(see where I screwed up) 23:57, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ModRecker: Welcome to the Teahouse. The move feature is available for users that are autoconfirmed (when the account has made at least 10 edits and is at least 4 days old). Since it's a draft, if you think it's ready for review, add {{subst:submit}} to the top of the page (source editor might be an easier interface to do that), and it'll be put in the draft review backlog. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:24, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ModRecker, Draft:Sam Moss ends with three references. Which parts of this substantial draft are based on which of the three? You can use "<ref>....</ref>" to indicate each. -- Hoary (talk) 01:09, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ModRecker, your largely unreferenced draft cannot be accepted in its current form because it fails to make the case that Moss meets the notability guideline for musicians, which you can find at WP:MUSICBIO. There is at least one unreferenced quotation in the draft, which is contrary to policy. Much of the content appears to be Original research based on personal knowledge and personal relationships, and original research is not permitted on Wikipedia. This also raises concerns about Conflict of interest. What is your relationship with Sam Moss, and how do you know so much about his personal life? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:43, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ModRecker, I warmly agree with Cullen328. I didn't even skimread Draft:Sam Moss. Now that I do skimread it, I see that its (incongruously chatty) content is unlikely to be sourced anywhere, except perhaps to interviews with the subject (but such interviews are unusable for most purposes). -- Hoary (talk) 03:00, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion policy / cross wiki abuse

Hi, I'm a french contributor.

There are (probably) long-term abuses on Mahmoud Refaat on several Wikipedias. A French IP check (here, likely positive to duck test.) lead to french deletion. Some sources were invented.

Can you please check this page? It seems to belong to A11 speedy deletion criteria but I'm not sure.

Thank's, LD (talk) 00:07, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@LD: We'll take a look. It seems OK on the surface, but there are foreign language sources I can't read. The list of his publications is probably also excessive. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 00:32, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Timtempleton: thank's. It seems "OK" on the surface, but some sources (especially some ISBN) were created. IP check and contributor behaviors show there's potentially WP:COI + advertising promotion, which must be announced according to Terms of Use anyway ^^. At least, it doesn't met French standards (firstly deleted on Mahmoud Refaat, created again under Mahmoud Rifaat) and German standards (deleted page). --LD (talk) 00:43, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See also: Special:CentralAuth/Behrouz.lawyer, cross-wiki WP:MEAT. --LD (talk) 01:12, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Timtempleton: - Google translate does a pretty good job on most major languages. Mjroots (talk) 07:50, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@LD: Article has been speedily deleted. Thanks for bringing it to our attention. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 18:48, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Timtempleton: thank's for the feedback. I have created a page which lists contributors and pages concerned by those puppets. Please feel free to contact me (here or WP-fr), read fr:Wikipédia:Faux-nez/Journalistdavidoff for futher details and check those Wikidata's Q : Q37988192, Q65198048. Most of wikis are unlinking and deleting those elements as well. --LD (talk) 18:56, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Help with edit issue

Hi can anyone help me fix what this user did to this section of the page. I will give you the link to what he did and the link to the page. Reason why I am ask you is I can’t figure out what exactly he did. He made the Polling for the article invisible while in viewer mode. So when readers go to see the polling it shows up like their is no polling. Your help would be greatly appreciated

Link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1045859524?diffmode=source

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_United_States_House_of_Representatives_election_in_Wyoming  BigRed606 (talk) 00:16, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@BigRed606: Welcome to the Teahouse. I've gone ahead and undid the revision, as it was most likely a nesting code issue that prevented the content from displaying. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:29, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much Tenryuu 🐲. BigRed606 (talk) 00:37, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New Page

Hey there, I'm still rather new - besides adding references. I was wondering, are there any tools in specific that can be applied to add a full reference every time you put something in between <ref> and </ref>? I apologize if this is phrased badly. Apollo468 (talk) 00:30, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've adjusted your markup, Apollo468, so that it reflects what I think you intended to write. I hope that my guesswork was correct. -- Hoary (talk) 01:16, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you want multiple citations of the same reference, then for any one instance (though preferably the first), you write <ref name="xyz">Author(s), title, website title, URL, date, date accessed, any other important stuff</ref>, in which "xyz" is any distinctive string starting with a letter; and for each of the other instances you just write <ref name="xyz" />. For multiple references to the same book or similar, though with differing page numbers, you do the same but immediately after each instance you also use Template:Rp. (Does this help?) -- Hoary (talk) 01:21, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I get this wrong (I don't do much besides adding references) but is do you have to add the author, title, website title, etc. for every reference manually or is there a template? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apollo468 (talkcontribs) 01:46, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Apollo468: Yes, there are several reference templates such {{cite web}}. I suggest reviewing Help:Referencing for beginners. Hope this helps, and happy editing! (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.) GoingBatty (talk) 02:37, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you're using the source editor rather than a visual editor, you'll have two rows at the top of the edit window. If you select "Cite" at the extreme right hand end of the top row (it is probably already selected), then the item on the extreme left of the row below, "Templates" offers you a range of tools for setting up references. For instance, to cite a website, choose cite web, and then fill in as many fields as possible in the little window that pops up (you don't have to do them all), and the tool will write the correct template text for you. It also has a useful preview function that will show you what the reference will look like. Elemimele (talk) 07:11, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you guys! Apollo468 12:09, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Peartree

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Peartrea

Can you help me with creating this? Pozzalikesmypiza (talk) 01:07, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have an array of reliable, independent, published sources, Pozzalikesmypiza? -- Hoary (talk) 01:14, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See also the answer to the question at the help desk: Wikipedia:Help_desk#Draft:Peartrea RudolfRed (talk) 01:52, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with editing Lebanese Americans

Hello I am having issues editing the page Lebanese Americans. There is a typo in one of the references. When I have tried to fix it my edits won't be saved, because another reference is apparently blacklisted. I checked the blacklisted reference and while the source isn't great, there does not seem to be any overt problem with it. At present this reference (which was apparently added before the link was blacklisted) results in any edits I try to make to the page being blocked. Is there any way to fix this other than removing the said source involved? Inter&anthro (talk) 02:12, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Inter&anthro. I have changed the blacklisted url to a copy at another site. Blacklisted url's must be removed from the page, removed from MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist, or added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. If you only edit other paragraphs then it may be possible to save a page with an existing blacklisted url, but it's better to sort it out permanently. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:00, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

question

how to edit page

ok Person1662626271717 (talk) 02:40, 24 September 2021 (UTC) Person1662626271717 (talk) 02:40, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Person1662626271717, you have already asked the same question and received a good answer there. -- Hoary (talk) 02:50, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rounding numerical values — which method?

I'm currently editing the "Isotopes of helium" page and updating the values of the atomic masses to those in AME2020. Some of the uncertainties of the atomic masses in AME2020 are given to more than 2 significant figures, and so in order to give the atomic masses with two significant figures in the uncertainty (which, as far as I can tell, is the most common practice), I need to round some of the values off. However, I'm not entirely sure which rounding method is normally used on Wikipedia — is it "round half up", or is it "round half to even"?

Thanks in advance! :) — MeasureWell (talk) 03:57, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, MeasureWell. The only advice I could find is at Help:Convert#Rounding. Maybe another editor can find more. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:03, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I assume the original question asks whether 1.05 should be rounded to 1.1 or 1.0. If we had a uniform convention, I would expect it to be written in MOS:UNCERTAINTY; it is not the case so I guess no such convention exists. I do not think the behaviour of the {{convert}} template in that regard is of any great authority. TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 13:46, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guessing that the problem here is that the errors are given to a higher precision than the numbers on which they are errors. So, for example, you could have a number like 1.234 ± 0.0045. In the article on Helium isotopes, the errors are given in concise form, where the error is quoted in brackets after the main number, with the assumption that the right-most digit of the number in brackets corresponds to the right-most digit of the main number, meaning that had the value been 1.234±0.004 you'd have been fine, it would have been quoted as 1.234(4). But with an error 0.0045 the right hand digit (5) overshoots the right hand digit of 1.234 and must be lost in some way. If this is the case, my answer is this: given that the actual decimals in the masses of helium, and in the errors in their determination (as quoted in the source) are actually deemed significant (by the source), and we are interested in precise values here, not approximate ones (otherwise we'd simply call 4He "4"), I don't think you should be rounding at all. I think that if the source gives exact numbers that cannot be represented in the compact form, then you should revert to using full errors in the format 1.234 ± 0.0045. This is, in any case, more widely understood. Compact form, for example, is never used by biologists (but then again, nor is Helium!). Elemimele (talk) 14:31, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with Elemimele, I don't think users should be rounding important, precise numbers like that. A related aside: An IP user has gone through EVERY British election article and they have introduced rounding errors in almost every single one. They ignored the correct figure from the reliable source and did their own calculation, failing to realise that they were using already rounded numbers. So I say go with what the reliable source says over presentation conventions - X201 (talk) 15:20, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not Sure How To Deal With Possible Vandal

Hello, I spotted some edits by Norewritingofhistory (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) that seemed unconstructive. I reverted the edits and left a message on the user's talk page regarding the issue. The user's contributions show a lot of unnecessary deletions and aggressive comments, primarily on pages relating to Vietnam. In many instances, the user aggressively accuses fellow editors of being biased and replaces information without providing new reliable sources. The user is relatively new and has been investigated for sockpuppetry before but the results were inconclusive. I am unsure of how to proceed with vandalism reviews or how to get an administrator to review Norewritingofhistory's contributions. Any suggestions or tips would help, thanks! Valorant (talk) 04:36, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Valorant: - I've had a look and left them a warning. In my experience, this is highly likely to end up in a block. Mjroots (talk) 07:36, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Valorant:That isn't true. I mainly revert unsourced and unreliable info. Stop spreading disinfo. I also see you added in additional information in Sino-Vietnamese War. I will verify whether that is true or not, as the person who initially added that in did not mention what you edited in. Norewritingofhistory (talk) 22:34, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Norewritingofhistory: - You claim to only revert unreliable information, yet you have deleted entire sections that you deemed "irrelevant". Your negative attitude, aggressive comments and the now-deleted statement on your user page all suggest you are not here to build an encyclopedia. If you intend on being a productive editor, I suggest reviewing Wikipedia editing etiquette and rules and stop assuming bad faith. --Valorant (talk) 23:59, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I would like to create a "Category: Female Assassin Film". Anyone interested in teaching me how to do it?

There are Kate (film), Gunpowder Milkshake, The Protégé alone in 2021.[1] In earlier years, we have had Anna (2019 feature film), La Femme Nikita (film), The Rhythm Section, Red Sparrow, etc. See more at https://thecinemaholic.com/female-assassin-movies/ or https://screenrant.com/ava-greatest-deadliest-female-film-assassins/. Thanks. Supermann (talk) 04:50, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Supermann. You can teach yourself by reading and studying Wikipedia:Categorization and the links you will find there. Feel free to ask more specific follow-up questions here at the Teahouse. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:59, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Supermann: Welcome to the Teahouse! In case you're not already aware, Wikipedia already has Category:Girls with guns films and Category:Films about assassinations. Any new category may be related to these. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 05:08, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Then I don't really need to create it. I would however propose "Girls with Guns" be renamed, because obviously they don't just use guns. Knives or any objects can become a deadly weapon in their hands. Category:Films about assassinations hasn't been added consistently to all the films out there, for example, it's not on Red Sparrow. Supermann (talk) 05:30, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Roeper, Richard. "'Kate': Winstead slays in the year's third over-the-top female assassin movie". Chicago Sun-Times. Retrieved 24 September 2021.
"Girls with guns" is an established anime genre, and the name was likely popularized from that, to the point where now it's a catch-all expression for fiction about attractive female characters who engage in violence with weapons. Classic examples would be the Dirty Pair action-comedy series and Bubblegum Crisis (sci-fi action in which the plot doesn't seem to be the point). ~Anachronist (talk) 05:41, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Supermann, if you think that an article like Red Sparrow needs a category, then the solution is simple: Add the category to the article. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:43, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. At the end of the day, if the plot doesn't have anything to do with assassination or assassin, I think Girls with Guns is not the best category to describe certain films. There are films that were not originated from anime, as much as I love the genre. Watching [[Dragon Quest: The Adventure of Dai#Second series (2020)]] btw. I think someone should provide a more nuanced description or precise category. Supermann (talk) 15:03, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New Member in Teahouse

Hello Everyone, Thanks for inviting me here. as I am new here, I know I have a lot to learn and hope you all will be there to help me out.

adding this as a question because was not aware of how to introduce me here..

Happy editing and wish me luck and keep supporting whenever need ;) :) Marathi.Wiki.Editor (talk) 05:52, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hockey/NHL players accolades section

I dont know where else to post this, but I think the accolades section for hockey players should be more like the other "big four" of North American sports pages. NBA players have a conveniently located accolades list right under their picture with all of their other information, labeled "Career highlights and awards". NFL and MLB players also have it. It makes the pages look a lot nicer to look at. Just a suggestion, let me know if this should be posted somewhere else. Thanks 2607:FEA8:98E2:6E00:B015:EC9C:3879:1BA0 (talk) 07:32, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse! Presuming that you're referring to {{Infobox ice hockey player}}, you could post your suggestion at Template talk:Infobox ice hockey player. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 14:56, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

old wikipedia posts on internet

I noticed there is no wikipedia page for Callum Fairweather (Scottish actor). Having met him at a film festival recently and he was kind enough to let me interviewing him for a Scottish arts website. i went to look him up on wikipedia and can find lots of pages on imdb.com etc but not on wikipedia. it seems there is an old wiki page with his filmography but it is not accurate. There are things on there he has not been in according to imdb. I also noticed he is not on notable people in his hometown of Arbroath (he was born in dundee but lives in arboath) which considering how big he is in Scotland seems strange.

Im new here and dont want to create a page not knowing fully what to do but i would like to suggest someone create one about him. plenty details on imdb.com & i-on magazine etc.


many thanks

ScottishArtists123 (talk) 09:32, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion was at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Callum Fairweather. Notability criteria are at WP:NACTOR. - David Biddulph (talk) 09:40, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ScottishArtists123 and David Biddulph: The deletion discussion was in 2015. It may be the case that NACTOR is now met. For info - IMDB is not regarded as a reliable source, so should be avoided wherever possible. ScottishArtists123, can you show that NACTOR is met? If so, one possible way forward is to have the deletion of the article reversed (there is a process for this that requires consensus to achieve) and then move it to draftspace to be brought up to scratch before it is moved back to mainspace. Mjroots (talk) 10:05, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever changed/created the page will easily find articles on internet.... imdb.com, i-on magazine, idolbirthdays, boat of garten events, numerous other articles etc...these must be reliable sources.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ScottishArtists123 (talkcontribs)

Hello, ScottishArtists123, and welcome to the Teahouse. "Notable" in Wikipedia is used in a special way - it doesn't mean any of "famous", "popular", "important", "influential", or "successful", though it is often correlated with those. What it mostly comes down to is that there is enough independent reliable material published about the subject to form the basis of an article. Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. --ColinFine (talk) 10:16, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that those sources do not appear to be reliable click the blue link for more detail. Theroadislong (talk) 10:37, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the feedback everyone....Surely newspapers and events listings are reliable sources?...Also according to imdb its info needs to be edited by their own administrators?— Preceding unsigned comment added by ScottishArtists123 (talkcontribs)

Wikipedia doesn't consider to IMDB to be a reliable source, see WP:IMDB, as it is user-genrated. Wether an individual entry was written by their admins or somebody else is a distinction without a difference. And no, you do not need to be an admin at IMDB to edit there - logging in with facebook, google etc or creating a account does suffice. Not all newspapers are a reliable source either - the Daily Mail is considered deprecated (and unreliable) (more about that here. See WP:RSP for a list of frequently discussed sources. Victor Schmidt (talk) 11:05, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well then might i suggest someone permenently delete his old page as it is just a list/filmography and it seems to be inacurete but still shows up under deleted articles if you google his name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScottishArtists123 (talkcontribs) 11:13, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishArtists123: I don't see any Google search results when I search "Callum Fairweather" site:wikipedia.org What is the exact search term you're using in Google, and what is the URL of the Wikipedia page you're seeing in the search results? Thanks! (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.) GoingBatty (talk) 15:02, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ScottishArtists123: Addtionally, there are many mirrors of Wikipedia including Deletionpedia which has copies of deleted articles. Wikipedia has no control over these, since text on Wikipedia may be reused for any purpose. RudolfRed (talk) 15:30, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@RudolfRed: ah right thanks, sounds like that's what it is then. i have had an attempt at writing my first article about him to see how it looks. it would be appreciated if you had a look at it? its not big. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScottishArtists123 (talkcontribs)

See Help:referencing for beginners 157.157.52.49 (talk) 21:10, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I recently created an article about the 1971 Qantas bomb hoax and someone has requested for images or infoboxes to be included. I found some police photographs of the criminals who committed the hoax; however because they were taken in Australia, I'm not sure if they're in the public domain, like they would be if they were taken in America. I'm just wondering if someone could help me with this, or direct me to someplace that could. Thank you. Huey117 (talk) 11:29, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Huey117: questions about the copyright status of images are best directed to WP:MCQ, where the copyrigh experts hang out. Mjroots (talk) 11:32, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I'll check it out now. Huey117 (talk) 11:34, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit on mathematical article considered disruptive

A correction on the Krylov Subspace page is considered as disruptive while it corrects a mathematical error (r\geq r_0 instead of r<r_0 in the second property). This seems to be an automatic rejection of the edit as the edit message explains the reason for the edit. How to proceed? 134.157.247.243 (talk) 12:53, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • It seems the edit to Krylov subspace has been reverted by Pachu Kannan as "vandalism" and later by MoonlightVector as "non-constructive". Those editors did use an automatic tool (RedWarn), but they are still responsible for what they do with it.
I am in no position to judge whether the suggested edit is correct or not, but it certainly is not vandalism; also, the second revert came after this edit summary so it should have been more explicit about why the edit is non-constructive. I suggest you open a discussion on the talk page (Talk:Krylov subspace); if nobody answers in a reasonable time you can reinstate your version, if you can come to an agreement all is good, and if you cannot agree follow the next recommended steps on the dispute resolution process. TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 13:30, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Banning

Hi, I'm H0MARUP and I want to ask something. If you use a single account, but you constantly deleting and messing with Vietnamese Wikipedia for example, and you got banned. Will you be banned on English Wikipedia too? H0MARUP (talk) 13:10, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

H0MARUP Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. A block on one language version of Wikipedia does not carry over to other language versions(if it did, you would have been unable to make this post). There are rare cases of global blocks that apply to all Wikimedia projects, but those are only for abuse on multiple projects. 331dot (talk) 13:12, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@H0MARUP: From my knowledge, not necessarily. However if you do the same stuff on English Wikipedia then you will be blocked (not banned although they are similar). ― Blaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 13:12, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Help With Biography

Hello! I would like to publish the autobiography that is in my sandbox. Wikipedia does seem challenging and I would love to learn from an expert. Thank you so much! G33kGirl (talk) 13:53, 24 September 2021 (UTC) G33kGirl (talk) 13:53, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

G33kGirl Hello and welcome to the Teahouse You say autobiography, but you are writing about a man while your username has girl it. Please clarify. I can say that you need more than one source; a Wikipedia article summarizes what multiple independent reliable sources state about a person. Most of your text is unsourced. Please read Your first article. 331dot (talk) 13:57, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@G33kGirl: (courtesy link: User:G33kGirl/sandbox) I've tagged the sandbox for speedy deletion, as it looks more like a campaign ad for Mr. Sini than a proper encyclopedia article and would require a complete rewrite to be acceptable regardless of the sourcing. I'd say there's a good chance that he's notable enough to merit an article here, but I recommend first reading Help:Your first article and starting over. Hope this helps, and please feel free to ask further questions here. --Finngall talk 16:04, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Publishing Edits

Hi all! I just made a number of edits on a public page. I have submitted them but haven't seen the page "live." How long does it typically take for edits to be reviewed and then an article to be public? Also, it seems that an old version of the page is still below all of the edits that I made. Is that normal? Do I have to delete that as well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kashubapress (talkcontribs) 14:51, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Kashubapress, and welcome to the Teahouse. It is helpful if you specify the article or page you're talking about: I presume that it is Draft:Kevin Nicholson (businessman), as that seems to be the only article or draft you have edited. Looking at the history of that draft, it appears to me that though another editor has edited since you did, your changes are still there. Where are you seeing them not there? Note that, as a draft, this page is visible to anybody who knows where to find it, but will not be published as part of the encyclopaedia until somebody resubmits it for review (and it gets accepted - I haven't looked to see whether your edits address the reasons why it was declined before). Also, please sign your edits at talk or discussion pages like this one --ColinFine (talk) 15:08, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @Kashubapress: Welcome to the Teahouse! The page won't be "live" as an article until someone clicks the "Resubmit" button and it is accepted. There should only be one version of the article in the draft, so you can delete the old version or merge the versions. Also see Help:Section and remove the external links from the draft. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 15:15, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The previous editor had formatted the draft correctly with section headings. You ought to remove your new text and edit the existing sections. You may find it useful to read the WP:Manual of Style, and learn to edit existing articles before you try producing a draft of a new article. Don't try resubmitting the draft until you have sorted out the problems. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:19, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Submitting drafts

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding User:ZX2006XZ (me) repeatedly resubmitting drafts without any improvement. Is there any way I improve on editing drafts in the future so I won't find myself in this predicament again? Thanks in advance. ZX2006XZ (talk) 15:33, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Simple. Don't resubmit until the problems have been solved. In each case you were told that the subject is not likely to be notable until after the film has been released. At that stage you can wait for significant coverage in published reliable sources independent of the subject. - David Biddulph (talk) 15:43, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Without getting too involved in the dispute, which I read over, I can tell you that you'll do well to try to discuss article edits and draft edits with other users thoroughly on the Talk Page. It sounds like other editors frustrations are coming from you not being communicative and showing that you're listening to objections. Getting on the same page with other editors is an important part of Wikipedia, and everyone wants to feel heard and not ignored. Does that make sense? Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 15:47, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:ZX2006XZ - You asked me on my talk page, 'What do you mean by not understanding how to use the talk page?' That was the only time that I have ever seen you use a talk page. Use talk pages, both article talk pages and user talk pages. It appears that you do know how to use talk pages; so use them. If your drafts are declined or your edits are reverted, ask on a talk page why, rather than just resubmitting or edit-warring. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:32, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that maybe you didn't know about talk pages. I see that you do. So use them. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:32, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving at Requests for permissions

hello 👋 i have a question how Archiving at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions works? is the process done by a Bot? or manually? Thank you —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 18:49, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sakura emad: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. All of the archiving is done automatically by MusikBot, the automated program. If you'd like to see the archives, here's the link. Happy editing! Helen(💬📖) 19:20, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dear @Helen where can i ask further about how the bot is working? —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 19:36, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You can ask at the bot operator's talk page: User_talk:MusikAnimal RudolfRed (talk) 19:38, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sakura emad: The administrator MusikAnimal operates the bot. He can probably answer your question(s) if you message him. Helen(💬📖) 19:41, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 i will thank you very much —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 19:52, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hartford

Why is Hartford Going Or Drop To Division 3 Why. Grenert1 (talk) 21:03, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are you trying to add context to that fact in the Hartford Hawks article? If so, I recommend you read the source used in that article. If this question is not related to Wikipedia, then this is not the right place to be asking it. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 21:22, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Grenert1, your recent edits suggest that you want Wikipedia articles to describe the state of affairs that you hope for. But they instead have to reflect the world as it is (as evidenced by reliable, independent, published sources). If you disagree with this, you're at the wrong website. -- Hoary (talk) 22:27, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Watchlist help page needs update?

In the Help:Watchlist section "Controlling which pages are watched" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Watchlist#Controlling_which_pages_are_watched) it says:

1. Tab at top of page: When viewing a page, click the star symbol ☆ between the 'View history' tab and the search box at the very top of the page...

The top of pages doesn't look like that for me. Is the description outdated? Robledoux (talk) 22:43, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The screenshots are from the desktop view. If you are using the mobile view it will look somewhat different. There is still a "Watch" button at the top of the page, or at the foot of the page you can switch from mobile view to desktop view. - David Biddulph (talk) 23:55, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 2001:4451:871F:FE00:5DE3:F3A8:7A19:B8E1 (talk) 00:11, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I'm back. The maps person.

They said they agreed maps need citations, albeit it was a lengthy discussion. How do I go about informing the author about the lack of citation? Just message them? For non English speaking/writing authors, could I contact one of the other volunteers on Wikipedia who could translate the "Inform lack of citation" message? And then if author/poster of the image does not contact me back within X days, I delete it? If so, how would I do that?

Along the way there has to be forms or something... right? I apologize for the bullets of questions. I just want to know how to do the correct thing to hold up Wikipedia's methods and standards. GalacticKiss (talk) 00:12, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

comgrub deez nuts 2001:4451:871F:FE00:5DE3:F3A8:7A19:B8E1 (talk) 00:19, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]