This draft created by me has not been accepted as it is like an advertisement to the reviewer. I'd like to know whether it really is, considering the fact that the draft has a brief yet sufficient info about the person discussed and also which most of the daft lack, a handful of images, which I may add more if required. Cheers!Michri michri (talk) 14:24, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to the Teahouse @Michri michri:, I do not think more pictures need to be added to the draft, but you should focus more on the references. It does not really matter if the draft has a "brief yet sufficient info about the person discussed". It matters that the article is backed with independent reliable sources. because the reviewer said it was read like an advertisement, I would suggest reading WP:NPOV. Good luck with the draft and happy editing! ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb14:39, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted all but one photo of him. Given that he is an author versus a performing artist who might appear if different roles, one is sufficient. More or fewer images have no impact on draft reviews. David notMD (talk) 15:27, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Michri michri: An important point (that was not conveyed by the editors above): the fact that the article reads like an advertisement can be fixed, but there is a more serious issue. The article needs to show that this person is "notable". For an author, that usually means multiple reviews in newspapers with critical commentary of their work (other kinds of sources would suffice, but reviews are by far the most common way for creative professionals to pass the guideline). If you cannot establish notability (in Wikipedia’s sense of the term), you should not waste time fixing the "advertising tone" issues, because the article will not be kept no matter how hard you work. TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact)18:16, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t know, I have not looked for sources. Digging up sources is hard, especially if you have to look across different languages. What I do know is that the reviewer left a message asking for sources that show notability - in their appreciation the sources in the article are insufficient, but maybe better ones exist. TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact)12:07, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to everyone for the support especially Shantavira for bringing back the article and also sharing links about the whole process given me a clear understand of things I did not know.
However I would want to find out how then or what is the best way to contest for this article in other for us to keep it. This is because on the AFD page has been closed and we cannot contest further more. So ones again your help on how to go about contesting it in the right way. Thanks Jwale2 (talk) 17:56, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than contest the decision, just copy text into a new draft. But before you even think about that, you will need to come up with in-depth significant coverage in at least three independent reliable sources. If those sources don't exist, you will be wasting your time. See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons for more information.--Shantavira|feed me19:56, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A month ago, I added the "Uncited Categories" template to a handful of films (well, three films and some cartoons), and there's been no action on their talk pages since then. What are the steps I take to remove this category from these films, and how do I document it? There's the templates at the top of the articles, the categories at the bottom, and the films are listed on the Category: page. Pete Best Beatles (talk) 16:34, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Go forth and be WP:BOLD, though would suggest take it slow at first so if there is an objection, it gets raised before its hundreds of edits (i have no idea how many it actually is, if its a small number then disregard).Slywriter (talk) 17:02, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Pete Best Beatles: One set of steps could be to go to the article, click the Edit source tab, delete the categories and the {{Uncited categories}} template, add an edit summary explaining you're deleting the categories because they're uncited, and then click "Publish changes".
Another set of steps could be to go to the article, click the Edit source tab, delete the {{Uncited categories}} template, comment out the uncited categories with <!--...--> and a note stating that you're commenting them out because they're uncited, add an edit summary explaining you're deleting the categories because they're uncited, and then click "Publish changes". Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 03:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I guess I just wanted to know if I had to leave a message on the article's talk page too. The articles were missing from the Categories page when I went there after taking care of the articles on their pages, and I didn't see it mentioned on the View history page... -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) 06:56, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How do I cite the source when the subject of the article IS the source?
Hello, I'm trying to update a notable person's wikipedia page for him. David W. Orr. David has provided me with written updates and corrections of his accomplishments. What is the appropriate way to cite the changes if the source of the new information is the subject of the article?
To amplify Jeske's answer, Keep Colorado Wild, it is a core principle of Wikipedia that all information in an article be verifiable from published sources. Information which has not been published anywhere should not appear in an article, and information which has been published only in a non-independent source may be used only in limited way. --ColinFine (talk) 22:59, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I say do it. KCW has in effect proclaimed a COI ("DAVID W. ORR, ASKED ME TO UPDATE HIS WIKIPEDIA PAGE."). I also wonder if prior to registering an account, CDW was editing as IP 97.118.230.116. I tagged the article as refs needed, because that was true before either the IP of KCW started editing. Lastly, I think thiere is a copyright violation. David notMD (talk) 02:20, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Restored. No obvious need to re-add your tag. Sourcing not great but much briefer article and WP:NACADEMIC met, I checked google scholar and there's an AfD from 2008. I'll take a look later and make a rev-del request if history needs a wipe for copyvio.Slywriter (talk) 02:27, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Colorado Wild, alot just happened and it's probably incredibly frustrating. Wikipedia wants the article improved. We want the world to know more about notable academics who have been cited thousands of times in their field and why they have been cited so many times. The best thing you can do for the subject is help find reliable sources that discuss his contributions and life story. WP:ABOUTSELF covers what can be included about the subject in their own published words. Additionally, presumably in those thousands of times their work has been cited, notable theories or contributions by the subject have been discussed. There are projects that can help guide, just requires research and a willingness to edit within the rules of wikipedia.Slywriter (talk) 04:32, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The content you added is not lost. Click on View history, and then on "Prev" (left side) for any of your entries. The content can be copied to your Sandbox to be revised there (and referenced) before being brought back to the article. You could even click on Slywriter's massive deletion and capture all of your content. An important note: some of what was deleted was verbatim from references, and therefore a copyright infringement. Information can be used, but it has to be significantly paraphrased. David notMD (talk) 10:24, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Questions about notability
To Whom It May Concern,
I am very confused about notability guidelines, and have several questions about them. I know my article needs major revisions in several areas; I am not asking about the current content of the article, but rather how I might demonstrate notability of my subject.
1. Are the guidelines for notability different for academics than for individuals in the general biography category?
The Wikipedia page addressing notability for academics states "This guideline [academic notability] is independent from the other subject-specific notability guidelines, such as WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:AUTH, etc., and is explicitly listed as an alternative to the general notability guideline.[1]" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)#Citation_metrics). It seems this statement asserts that there is a different set of guidelines that may be applied to academics to determine their notability. Is this correct?
2. I am not sure how to navigate criterion #1. It states that "The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work..." My subject's works are cited by others, but how do I know if they are cited frequently enough? According to Google Scholar, one book is cited 78x, another 45x, another 33x, yet another 22x, and still another 11x. Is this considered frequent in the niche realm of evangelical/confessional preaching? How might I determine this?
3. This brings up another question: The specific guidelines for criterion #1 note "(f) For the purposes of satisfying Criterion 1, the academic discipline of the person in question needs to be sufficiently broadly construed." Is evangelical homiletics/preaching too narrow to adequately judge using these guidelines?
I think the subject of my article qualifies as notable under at lease one or two of the criteria. The page notes "Academics meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable."
4. According to the guidelines, criterion #5 is met if "The person has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon." Under the specific criteria for this category are three elements:
"(a) For documenting that a person has held such an appointment (but not for a judgement of whether or not the institution is a major one), publications of the appointing institution are considered a reliable source.
(b) Criterion 5 can be applied reliably only for persons who are tenured at the full professor level, and not for junior faculty members with endowed appointments.
(c) Major institutions, for these purposes, are those that have a reputation for excellence or selectivity. Named chairs at other institutions are not necessarily sufficient to establish notability."
My professor holds a named (endowed chair), and is a fully tenured, senior faculty member. He is also the director of a graduate program at Baylor University. Baylor University recently was named an R1 institution in recognition for its research activity. Do these facts satisfy the requirements of criterion #5 for the notability of academics?
5. The specific criterion c states that "(c) The publication of an anniversary or memorial journal volume or a Festschrift dedicated to a particular person is usually enough to satisfy Criterion 1, except in the case of publication in vanity, fringe, or non-selective journals or presses."
My professor has a Festschrift written in his honor by a non-vanity press (Wipf and Stock). Does satisfying this criterion meet the notability requirements for an academic?
My professor wants me to continue to try and get the article about him approved; the more specific responses are, the better I will be able to communicate to him why the article may or may not be approved.
It seems this statement asserts that there is a different set of guidelines that may be applied to academics to determine their notability. Is this correct? Yes. (NB "may", not "must".)
Is this considered frequent in the niche realm of evangelical/confessional preaching? How might I determine this? I really don't know, as the very notion of "professor of preaching" is incomprehensible to me. However, in the academic fields with which I'm familiar, I've never seen numbers cited. Rather, one summarizes what has been written about these works within other academic works. (Blurbs, even by experts, don't count.)
My professor holds a named (endowed chair), and is a fully tenured, senior faculty member. He is also the director of a graduate program at Baylor University. Baylor University recently was named an R1 institution in recognition for its research activity. Do these facts satisfy the requirements of criterion #5 for the notability of academics? I would think so (though the notion of research in preaching baffles me).
My professor has a Festschrift written in his honor by a non-vanity press (Wipf and Stock). Does satisfying this criterion meet the notability requirements for an academic? Indeed, Wipf and Stock doesn't seem to be a vanity press.
My professor wants me to continue to try and get the article about him approved Then it's clear that you have a conflict of interest. You are free to create a draft, but if it is accepted as an article you should no longer edit it (other than to revert obvious vandalism and the like). What it says will be out of your control, the biographee's control, or the control of any of his students, employees, etc.
1. The notability guidelines are indeed different for academics than for general biographies, and both are different from the general notability guidelines. The former are called subject-specific notability guidelines, and technically, if the article meets any of these notability guidelines (including GNG), it is considered notable for Wikipedia.
2. This question would be better asked at WikiProject Academics. I would suggest providing examples in the article of where the subjects work has been cited in other academic works.
4. I do not see any reason why they would not meet criterion #5, assuming there is a reliable source that states they're the chair. I am also not certain if Baylor University meets the standard of "those that have a reputation for excellence or selectivity", but I assume it would.
5. Yes, I'm almost certain this meets Criterion #1.
Now, even if your article meets notability guidelines, that does not necessarily guarantee approval of the draft, and there could be other changes that may be required for the article to be sustained in Wikipedia mainspace. ––FormalDudetalk00:46, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Dgregory4: I would have thought that the Festschrift could be a good source of material to establish notablility of the academic. I assume that at least some of it will be material ABOUT him written by respected colleagues. When I was looking for sources for an article on Coral Bell the existence of a similar document, in this case available online, made the draft very straightforward to compose. Her Festschrift included a complete list of her publications, from which I coud select just a few important ones for the Wikipedia article. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:33, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How to see Good Article nomination Feedback if any
I am wondering how to see what the reasons for a good article nomination reviewer's decision are.
I nominated ITER for good article status and I never got a notice that I needed to improve it. How can I figure out what led to ITER being demoted to Level C article? ScientistBuilder (talk) 02:33, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If I leave a note on an unregistered user's talk page that links to their IP address, will the person be able to see and respond the message?
@ScientistBuilder: You've received an answer to your first question in this post already. To answer your other 2 questions, yes and I don't know. I usually don't see unregistered users responding to talk page messages that often because they probably don't know what a talk page is. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654502:48, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gerald Waldo Luis, yep I know. Hence why I said "usually". I've seen an IP respond to a message before (in a constructive way). For example, KingAviationKid was an IP who I reverted an edit they made and they responded to it (i think on my talk page) saying that they're not a new user and are wanting to contribute constructively, however they didn't like how the editor looked. So I suggested to use one of the beta features and they made an account and here they are now as an actual user. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654502:53, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ScientistBuilder, Well, say you have the sentence "The film was released on 13 March, 1970." How many sources do you need to back it up? Say there's a NYT source saying 1970 and a book source saying 13 March. Then use those two sources. Any other sources are not needed; if there's an extraneous source then that's overkill. GeraldWL02:57, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to be notified when a comment I make here or on a Talk page gets a reply.
I searched "WP:Notifications" and would like to learn how to automatically recieve a notification when someone replies and not only when my talk page is edited. ScientistBuilder (talk) 02:58, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ScientistBuilderThe best way to find out why an article's quality status has been changed is to ask the person who changed it or ask on the talk page. The GA review process often has a substantial backlog. There may be a long wait until you get a response. To avoid adding to the backlog, it is a good idea to open a discussion on the talk page of the article about nominating before you actually make a nomination. Talk page discussions take time. Wait a few days for a response and consensus. Constant314 (talk) 03:35, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To return to your original question, you have now twice made modest changes to an existing article over the course of a day or two and then nominated the article for a GA review. Both times an editor (not the same editor) decided, perhaps arbitrarily, that a GA review would be a waste of the reviewer's time, and reverted your nomination. My own experience with nominating a B-class or C-class article for a GA review (16 succesfully so far) is that the preparation process takes weeks and scores of edits, including, in some instances, dicarding dozens of references, adding dozens of references, and revising more than half the text. As for downgrading from B-class to C-class (or the reverse), anyone can do that, even a non-registered editor. David notMD (talk) 11:00, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I want to create an article on the first person mentioned in this article (1). How much info exactly would I be able to source from here without getting flagged for copyvio? Ficaia (talk) 02:55, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ficaia, hey there. Generally you would be able to avoid CV by using your own words to describe the quotes, or use minimal quotes. So let's say, quote "The expedition was the brainchild of Major Chaplin Court Treatt known as C.T." You can paraphrase this to "Major Chaplin Court Treatt, commonly referred to as C.T., was the magnum opus of the expedition." GeraldWL03:01, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ColinFine, sorry for that misunderstanding. I do tend to think my edits are far from perfect, that's why I've been putting the standard of PR and GOCE before a GAN/FAC. I must admit I'm ESL, so yes, please do rewrite if that means more readability :) GeraldWL15:14, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ficaia, no copyright detected for that specific sentence, but there's still a ton of copyright issues with other sources. See this; concern the networthlist and celebnetworthpost, the other ones are just minor. GeraldWL04:45, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I submitted a page with almost 16 references but it got rejected. Can somebody please guide me what type of references should i use?
This is a Pakistan based NGO and I have added 3-4 leading News paper references. I have added CrunchBase. Please help me getting this page reviewed successfully.
Hi! Your draft was rejected because of two reasons. Your article looks like an advertisement and also the references do not give significant coverage about your title. MyNewBall88 (talk) 06:27, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, My IP address was blocked in Wikipedia for sockpuppetry. So, I made new account from my friend's computer. Then I logged in my device whose IP address was blocked. If I not do anything wrong, so will my account not be blocked again? MyNewBall88 (talk) 06:21, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, MyNewBall88: Whether you can edit from there depends what kind of block is on the IP. You can apply for an WP:IPBE if necessary. (Assuming you're not the sock and have picked up an address that was blocked because of what someone else did.) ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 09:29, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
MyNewBall88 has now been blocked for sockpuppetry. Jéské Couriano and Kpddg, if an editor reveals that they've previously been blocked for sockpuppetry, then you shouldn't advise them that they can edit using their new account as long as they're constructive. The advice should be that the only way they'll be able to edit again is if they successfully appeal their block using their original account. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:34, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The people responding above were all clearly assuming the OP was an innocent editor caught up in an IP block of someone else. No one above is advising anyone to evade a block. -Floquenbeam (talk) 20:43, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The descriptions above are correct, and it is also worth noting that a vote like this is considered to be of very little value. When the time comes to close the AfD, the closing Admin looks at the reasoning offered - this response contributes nothing new to the reasoning. Having people effectively say just "me too" doesn't help - see "Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions".--Gronk Oz (talk) 11:51, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Squid Game Metacritic
I was reading the article Squid Game and it was said that the show was critically acclaimed. The source from this came from an article from Salon saying that the show received acclaim, and that source was used instead of the Metacritic one, which claims that it has "positive reviews." I did some research on it and there was a talk page discussion saying that reliable sources that say "this show is acclaimed" (if they exist) are used primarily before aggregator sites such as Metacritic.
Is this true? Is there any policy/guideline/essay that says that we use sources that describe a critical reception first before general consensus sites such as metacritic? I'm having a dispute over a similar thing at another article, and would like to back my stuff up with actual guidelines/policies. Thank you! shanghai.talk to me07:09, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
RogueShanghai, MOS:TV doesn't have a specific guideline on what a reception section should start with. But there's no problem with citing consensus to other (reliable) sources. Aggregators (especially MC which aggregates less reviews) is not always what determines what all critics think. In this case I'm right: MC only aggregates a disappointing amount of 13 reviews, and thus their score does not reflect the wider view. So yes, it's already in good shape. However I would suggest changing the MC sentence to "However on Metacritic, the series has a weighted average score of 69 out of 100 based on 13 critics, merely indicating "generally favorable reviews". GeraldWL07:27, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerald Waldo Luis: Actually, the similar dispute in regards to Metacritic vs other sources actually has to do with music, not TV shows. But you're right. Is the MC sentence necessary? (i.e, nothing that this show has this score on MC) and also, does citing consensus to other sources that mean something is acclaimed, also allow the lead of that thing to say it was acclaimed? For example, lead section of squid game like "this show was critically acclaimed" I hope you get what I mean :b shanghai.talk to me07:49, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
RogueShanghai, yeah it's not really just music, and MC is a pretty polarizing site as sometimes it'll be right sometimes it'll be wrong. I wouldn't remove it as it is kinda expected for there to be an MC sentence. And yes, it is acceptable for the lead part. :) GeraldWL07:52, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP doubt
I just had a glance at the WP:BLP page, and I wanted to know whether we need to source even very minor edits?
I'm also asking this because one of my first edits was tagged as a Blp issue, all I did was change the spelling according to the title. Vial of Power (talk) 09:03, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Vial of Power, hi! I'm assuming you're referring to this? Apologies for that; the tag is automatically made to warn editors of potential vandalism, and it can misdetect sometimes. Happy editing :) GeraldWL09:07, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I am looking for copyright free photos to add in a draft article. How to find copyright free images? How to know if an image is copyrighted or not? Resmise (talk) 11:23, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your best starting place is the Wikimedia Commons. Images are uploaded there with the explicit purpose of being used on Wikipedia (though just to be safe you should still check the license underneath an image anyway!) — Czello11:24, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Resmise (edit conflict) Hello. Please note that photos are not necessary in terms of getting a draft approved; the draft approval process is largely concerned with sourcing and notability only. The best way to get a photo is to take one yourself with your own camera. 331dot (talk) 11:28, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Resmise I would advise you to concentrate on getting your draft approved; you can always find images later. Bands/musical groups are often tough to find appropriate images for as most of them are owned by the band or its publicity firm. 331dot (talk) 11:53, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Resmise: Just for further information: If an image is not clearly linked to an obvious statement saying that it is either Public Domain or available under a Creative Commons licence which permits commercial re-use, then always assume the image is not suitable here. For your draft on Draft:Madkid you might want to make sure they meet our notabiltiy criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia. By no means all musicians and bands do. See WP:NMUSIC for details. Nick Moyes (talk) 12:01, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Google images (and perhaps other search engines) has a facility that can help. Do a standard image search and then on the results page click on the "Tools" option. This opens a menu of filters, of which one is "Usage Rights" and can be specified to find those images with Creative Commons licenses from Wikimedia and elsewhere. You still need to check the licensing but the filter can be a big help. Google image search is sometimes better for finding items here on Commons, rather than using Categories etc. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:18, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
New page
I would like to write a page about Danish company PE-Redskaber. What do they stand for, the heritage atc. The main subject would be Airtracks, because they are founders of it. Would it be a great idea? GretaPr (talk) 12:09, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
GretaPr Hello and welcoem to the Teahouse. We use the term "articles", not "pages" to refer to the encyclopedia. Creating an article being a good idea depends on if the company meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company, as shown with significant coverage in independent reliable sources that is not based on any materials put out by the company(such as interviews, the company website, announcements of routine business actvities). Be advised that successfully creating a new article is the hardest task to perform on Wikipedia, and it is usually recommended that you first spend time editing existing articles, and use the new user tutorial, to get a feel for how Wikipedia operates and what is expected of article content. If you feel you are ready, you may draft and submit an article at Articles for Creation. 331dot (talk) 12:15, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
GretaPr, if you do write a draft, please skip what the company "stands for". Instead, what has it delivered? (According to reliable, independent, published sources, of course.) -- Hoary (talk) 13:17, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Someone used my friends name
Someone took down some verified but controversial information, but used my friends name. I want the article republished and the person who used the wrong name- ban them from Wikipedia Theater Nurse (talk) 12:55, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We can't even investigate what you say without more information. As Czello says, if an article was deleted, this will have been by community consensus, and there may be ways of appealing: see WP:DRV. If somebody removed some information from an article, that may or may not be justified: see WP:BRD. If somebody is impersonating a public figure, that is serious, and the account could be blocked pending investigation; but different people can have the same name. You'll need to be more specific. --ColinFine (talk) 13:10, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I added some controversial information (complete with published newspaper references) to an article about a local theater. The theater is in violation of union contracts, and it made national headlines. Someone deleted what I wrote and impersonated my friend, by using her name as the one who took the information down. While there are many people with the same name, there’s only one person by this name in the union in question. It was intentional slander and defamation of character. Theater Nurse (talk) 13:23, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone involved, please note that the Teahouse (and Wikipedia in general) is a civil place, and you are expected to remain calm. Throwing accusations around may cause more hurt then intended. casualdejekyll14:14, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Theater Nurse: The first addition to the article Casa Mañana referring to the recent "contract issue" was done from an IP address that geolocates to Irving, Texas. I assume that was by you and that you subsequently created an account to re-insert what Elainedavidson reverted in what has been that account's only edit to Wikipedia. It is irrelevant whether that name corresponds to a friend of yours: how could anyone know from just seeing an IP address? No Wikipedia policy has been breached according to our usual bold, revert, discuss processes and the article now contains the material you re-added. You could improve the bare URL references using the {{cite web}} method (see WP:REFB) and if further changes you think are incorrect should occur then you should discuss these on the Talk Page of the article to reach consensus. Meanwhile, no-one is gong to get banned for a single reversion. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:21, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Article Declined
I created an article with authentic sources (newspaper press release).but even then wikipedia declined my article...I want to know that To submit an article on Wikipedia is too much hard.....that's not good..... Muhammadyeakubhasan111 (talk) 13:35, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, writing your first article is pretty hard. I haven't even written one yet myself, to be plainly honest with you. But the most important things for a Wikipedia article are notability and verifiability. In the case of your draft, however, you never even submitted it. In order to submit a draft, you need to click the blue button at the top of your page that says "Submit the draft for review!". Additionally, the edits made to your draft were because you copied text from other places. Although citing sources is the basics of a Wikipedia article, copying text directly from sources is a copyright violation, which is illegal. So.. don't do that. casualdejekyll13:47, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just tell me anyone please..... that, to write an article about this (Anudip Foundation) NGO and publish it on Wikipedia is possible??
this NGO has more significant works like that they teach to poor, deprived people about modern technology like (computer and it's different programs) to make them Self-reliant....there are many NEWSPAPER press release are here
@ Thenderking35 if you mean that you are working on a draft for a new Wikipedia article my advice is to read many articles about similar subjects to get a sense of what is typically included in such online articles. Practice making edits to existing articles to gain useful experience. When you are ready to take on the difficult task of writing a new article be sure and read Your first article and References for beginners. Best wishes on your volunteer work at Wikipedia. Karenthewriter (talk) 15:00, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your contributions don't show that you've edited any pages, or had anything reverted. I would assume you edited under another device? What was your edit? ― Levi_OPTalk15:00, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at your IP range. This edit was judged unconstructive by Itcouldbepossible at User talk:42.110.170.143. There was no reason to add that to an encyclopedia article. Constructive edits try to build the encyclopedia or improve the work around it. You have vandalised User talk:Itcouldbepossible and been warned for it. Don't vandalise Wikipedia. That includes user pages. Itcouldbepossible is not an administrator so he cannot block users but everybody can give vandalism warnings. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:45, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
He may not be an admin, but he can still report you to admins and get you blocked if you continue (Referring to the IP range, not you Prime). ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654515:47, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@PrimeHunter May I ask you something. How did you find the contributions of that IP? He had no contributions. How did you find the IP range? And how did you see the contributions of an IP range? I thought contributions can only be found for a specific IP or a specific user, not groups of IP. I would love to gain this new knowledge, as then it will help me to provide evidences at SPI, and also find the contributions of an IP range (though if that is possible). ItcouldbepossibleTalk03:07, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, let me be straight. I have just warned him, and he is thinking that I have told him that I will block him. Moreover, I said
Hello, I'm Itcouldbepossible. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Marian Zelazek have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks.
I can't tell you that because I don't know the IP in the first place. HOwever you can actually view the contributions for an entire IP range. You simply do that by adding something like /64 (Most common one I see for IPv6 addresses) after setting some of the numbers in the IP to 0 (last 4 sets of 4 digits for IPv6. I don't know what it would be for IPv4 since I usually don't see those get rangeblocked often). ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654504:39, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For example, for an IPv6 address (I'm going to use one I recently reported and got blocked as an example) say you wanted to find the contributions for 2603:6080:7204:1972:907f:f2de:be5f:d3a5 but you wanted to view the contributions for all IPs within the range. To do that you would take the last 4 sets of 4 numbers and letters (in this case 907f:f2de:be5f:d3a5) and make it all 0, making the IP 2603:6080:7204:1972:0000:0000:0000:0000 (often shortened as 2603:6080:7204:1972:::) and then add /64 to the end of it. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654504:45, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yep! I think it might be explained at IPv6 (which isn't a policy or essay, just an article on that particular type of IP address, the only one I knew about before coming to Wikipedia is IPv4). ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654504:50, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. I don't have enough experience with seeing IPv4 ranges to know what you would append (for IPv4 you would just change the last 2 sets of 3 digits to 0 (so in this case it would be 42.110.0.0). ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654505:03, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Blaze Wolf Ok, thanks for showing your interest in answering my question.
Being able to see an IP range is important for anti-vandal work because sometimes a user will be vandalising across multiple IPs, making blocking just one completely useless since there are still other IPs in the range that can vandalize. Hence why there are range blocks (probably should've recommended that although I just looked that up since all that was my own knowledge). ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654505:11, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Blaze Wolf Yes, I need to learn about that also for my anti-vandalism work. Can you tell me why sometimes admins block IPs and why sometimes IP ranges? Do they also check if there were other vandalism made from the IP range? ItcouldbepossibleTalk05:17, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My guess would be yes. An admin will probably only block a single IP if either the other IPs in the range aren't vandalizing or there might be too much collateral damage (or possibly some other reasons I don't know I'm not an admin). ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654505:19, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I see the IP now, however since I'm unfamiliar with how to give a correct range for IPv4 addresses I can't tell you how to view the range for it. However in this instance, I do know the range would be 42.110.0.0/XX (x since I Don't know what the number there would be. My guess is 16?) ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654504:41, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just means that someone replied at the same time as you. Using the reply tool it doesn't really seem to matter, however without it you might have to retype your comment or someone else's (i don't know since I don't often run into an edit conflict). ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654504:46, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No discussion since the 6th, and it's been more then a week since it was started.. consensus seems to merge. Per WP:MERGECLOSE, anyone can close a merge discussion, even the nominator, which depending on how you count is either you or Tzar. Frankly, I could just close it myself, but I'm not feeling it. casualdejekyll19:48, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather have someone who can actually evaluate all the points made just so I don't close it as merge because it looks like there's consensus to merge. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654519:49, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seeking a Wikipedian to update Wiki article on David W. Orr
Hi,
David Orr is seeking a Wikipedian to update the Wiki article called "David W. Orr". The information is out of date. If you can help, please contact me. Thanks. Keep Colorado Wild Keep Colorado Wild (talk) 17:16, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Colorado Wild Teahouse hosts are volunteers who answer questions about how to edit Wikipedia article, i.e., not a place to see co-authors. There is an article request page for requests for new articles, but not improving existing articles. Of the 43,046,177 users who have registered a username with English Wikipedia, you (and David) are the people most interested in revising the article about David W. Orr. Given your apparent COI, your path is a long slog of proposing changes on the Orr Talk page so that non-connected volunteer editors can decide to implement or not. David notMD (talk) 21:31, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Kindly, anyone tells me, Is mainstream media's (youtube) link is allowed in Wikipedia. like that CNN video report about an NGO then I entered this on my article reference list Muhammadyeakubhasan111 (talk) 17:55, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Muhammadyeakubhasan111. What matters for reliability is who published it, not the medium. A great deal of Youtube is is uploaded by random people with no reputation for fact checking (and some of it is copyright violations as well), and none of that is reliable. But an article by CNN on their official YouTube channel is as reliable as an article by CNN published anywhere else: see WP:YOUTUBE. (Remember that for notability, sources must also be independent of the subject, and have significant coverage of the subject). I haven't looked at the sources in Draft:Anudip Foundation, because, since you've formatted them just as titles, I'd have to go into them to see where they came from. It's good that you're formatting sources as more than a URL; but the publisher and date are absolutely crucial information for evaluating sources, as well as the title. --ColinFine (talk) 18:21, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:YOUTUBE, many videos on Youtube are copyright violations and can't be cited per WP:COPYLINK. However, if a video is from a reliable source, you can treat it as if it came directly from the reliable source, provided the video was uploaded from the reliable source's own YouTube channel. Or, to rephrase, if the CNN video report is uploaded to CNN's official YouTube channel, then you can cite it. casualdejekyll18:23, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Generally the rule is if you have free access to it elsewhere, you should use that instead of applying for a collection in the Wikipedia Library. But if you're talking about one of the collections included in the base card, then yeah, that's totally fine. casualdejekyll20:22, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion of numerous drum and bugle corps articles.
Can someone please tell explain why there were so many attacks and AFD's on several national-level "old-school" drum and bugle corps in October 2021? Several admins made an agreement in October to do AFD on many drum and bugle corps articles - both championship level corps and non-championship level corps. One editor deleted an article with many years of scores (showing finalist placements for years 1959-1973) with only an explanation that it was "cruft" information. (Not mentioning any user names here, but proof can be obtained that this agreement was made in October, on their user talk pages, and several admins went to work do the RFD pages for numerous drum and bugle corps.) Thanks so much - fairly new here. 136.35.223.97 (talk) 20:52, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
136.35.223.97 (talk) 20:52, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I understand how disappointing it can be to put the work into creating an article, only to have it deleted. However, all is not lost. First, you need to look at the reason(s) given for the deletions. The one mentioned above was for lack of notability, but check if that is generally the case. If it is, then check whether you can find more independent, reliable sources that talk about them in detail. If you can find enough coverage for each corps then it might justify re-creating those articles; I suggest contacting the deleting Admin, showing them the sources you have collected, and asking their opinion. Finally, if that fails, then you might be able to amalgamate some of that information into a larger article such as Drum and bugle corps (modern) - raise the suggestion on the Talk page for that article first to discuss your proposal and make sure the level of detail is considered appropriate.--Gronk Oz (talk) 23:35, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to edit the article on the Riesz-Thorin theorem, but the code is weird
I am used to working with Latex, but when I decided to edit the article on the Riesz–Thorin theorem - more precisely the part on the statement of the theorem, I found that the code is really weird. Usually math formulas are put inside the math environment math.../math, but here it is different. Can someone say more about this? What kind of "language" has been used there? Is it outdated or should I leave it the way it is? 01Filippo (talk) 21:18, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@01Filippo: Welcome to the Teahouse. You might want to take a look at the {{math}} template's documentation. I'd suggest keeping it consistent, but you could try asking on the talk page to see if any interested editors think using standard math tags with LaTeX is fine. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:46, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@01Filippo: This is HTML and wikimarkup inside Template:Math; a little bit of documentation is on the template page. I don't know how popular it is these days; probably best to ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics. (Personally, I think it should be converted to LaTeX to make the code readable to mathematicians, but you should check with other mathematicians). —Kusma (talk) 21:50, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Request Help understanding Citations and Decline
Regarding: Draft:Peter M. Walzer
I submitted this to the AFC help desk and haven't seen any responses so far. Please pardon my ignorance. While I have edited small things before, this is my first solo flight.
This article entry was declined for sounding like an advertisement. There was no particular reference to content areas in the article that are at fault, just a generalization. This was paired with a comment that it was also declined for not having sufficient independent references. While there is a section of bibliographic works, none of these are used in citations. There are 70 citations with the exception of 3 or 4, from sources the subject does not control. Of these 3 or 4 citations, they were used to confirm an interview topic with a mass market media source the subject does not control. Having seen numerous attorney articles with less citations or relevance, I understand it is no fair to compare, it would be good to understand how to get this article in a better position.
To that end my questions remain:
1) What areas of the entry are violating a neutral statement of facts? 2) There are 70 citations from international media organizations down to local media sources, from broadcast news to industry trades. Are these not enough? If so, what type of citations will be needed?
Hello, Garvincarter, and welcome to the Teahouse. I haven't looked far through Draft:Peter M. Walzer, but in the first paragraph of the "Career" section I find Walzer’s dedication to the profession of family law is apparent in his long-term commitment to leadership within industry organizations and in prolific legal scholarship and teaching. If a reliable source wholly unconnected with Walzer said this of him, then you could openly quote that source, but such evaluative language should never appear in any article in Wikipedia's voice. Please see WP:PEACOCK. --ColinFine (talk) 22:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked at the beginning of the reference list, without going into the items. It looks rather as if you have made the common error of thinking the more references, the better. Too many weak references make it look as if you're desparately trying to make them add up into a strong one, and furthermore they tend to make the draft unattractive to reviewers, meaning that it's likely to wait longer for a review (there isn't a queue). You rarely need multiple sources for the same statement, and if a piece of information is available only in run-of-the-mill directories, yearbooks, and non-independent "profiles", you should seriously consider whether it belongs in the article at all. Remember, 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) 22:50, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Garvincarter: Welcome to the Teahouse. Further in the draft you have Peter Walzer is a highly distinguished professional having received peer recognition from the family law organizations he has served, which also shouldn't be in Wikipedia's voice. It says nothing about which organisations he's received peer recognition from. External links also shouldn't be in the body of an article. You may want to consider making a further reading section to add those titles. I notice on your userpage stating that [you] are paid to do historical research projects. Are you also being paid by Walzer or one of his affiliates to write the draft on his behalf? If so, please disclose your paid relationship ideally on your user page; the draft's talk page will also suffice. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:01, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
adding unsourced information about tasks and leadership of these organizations that I cannot verify in any source: [6][7][8][9]
and more recently,
adding similar information but citing sources that do not actually contain the information added: [10][11][12]
These are only some examples of these edits. These are pretty clearly coming from one person, and I have twice filed sockpuppet investigations which successfully resulted in blocks, but as this is now the third occurrence of socking to continue, I'm wondering what I can do to help make it more likely this does not persist. I have been trying to familiarize myself with the ins and outs of this community's processes for dealing with problematic edits, but I am unsure what to do here as this seems to fit into multiple categories. Just reporting the newest account as a sockpuppet again seems like it would be limited in its effectiveness considering the user demonstrates the ability to continue editing after blocks have been put in place. What is the appropriate next step for an editor like myself in this situation? Bring it up at the AIV noticeboard? Request protection for the pages? Edit warring noticeboard? Report the sockpuppet again and move on? Help me learn :) Thanks! Mkcaldwell (talk) 23:10, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help! I've opened an SPI for the user and reverted the edits, and will request semi-protection if the vandalism persists. Mkcaldwell (talk) 00:21, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Independent secondary source doesn't match official source
Hello! So I've run into some kind of an issue. On Nintendo Switch Sports (which I don't think is notable enough for an article yet but that's besides the point right now) a user is saying that while the sources that are independent and secondary and not directly connected to the subject say the game is a direct sequel to Wii Sports, Nintendo themselves say it's the 3rd main entry in the Wii Sports series of titles, making it a direct sequel to Wii Sports Resort. I'm fairly sure we're supposed to go by what the secondary, independent, reliable sources say and not what Nintendo officially says, however I'd rather know for sure instead of reverting on an assumption I have that could be incorrect. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654500:44, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wellll... it party depends on the source. We also don't usually completely disregard official sources unless they're self-dealing, which I don't see what advantage Nintendo would get from being mendacious here (I could be wrong). There's been a lot of editing on that page recently, so could you tell us which source? Is it a single source, or sources which do not appear to be copying from each other? It sounds like maybe a matter of opinion where we can't say "this is the deal, stone cold true", so would it be possible to say "According to Nintendo its this, according to Such-and-Such it's that"? Herostratus (talk) 04:39, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The source that says it's a direct sequel is engadget. Can't check if the IGN source says the same thing (for reasons I will not say for the sake of my privacy). ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654504:49, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Well, it sounds like it's not like "the Iowa's displacement was X tons" where you have an actual measurement. Unless you can prove that the Engadget guy is correct -- and how can you prove something like that? -- or unless you can demonstrate a good reason to believe that Nintendo is either lying about this or else does not understand its own product development progression, for my part I would go with presenting both sides. Even if the Engadet guy has fact checkers, what are they checking? Actual documents that prove his case, or just "yeah I agree with him"? Herostratus (talk) 16:23, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that. However I"m going to continue believing the source is true and reliable unless I have some reason to think that it isn't true. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654519:44, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@WikipediaNeko: Hello WikipediaNeko! There isn't really a set rule anywhere on how long something has to be to no longer be considered a stub, or at least there isn't to my knowledge. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654505:40, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@WikipediaNeko: No problem! I think usually it varies by WikiProject how long an article has to be before it is no longer considered a stub. I'd recommend reading WP:STUB since it provides more information on this. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654505:50, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, WikipediaNeko. A stub is defined as an article deemed too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject. Also, an article that, although providing some useful information, lacks the breadth of coverage expected from an encyclopedia, and that is capable of expansion. So, the first definition is more restrictive but both are useful. In my opinion, a stub is often equivalent to a database inquiry, contains a few data points about the topic, but lacks written original prose summarizing significant coverage in independent reliable sources discussing the topic. I see a lot of articles tagged as stubs that actually provide a pretty decent beginning overview of the topic. I routinely upgrade those articles to "Start". Cullen328 (talk) 05:56, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@WikipediaNeko Have you picked up enough to understand how to display a list of all the most important 'stub' articles in any given WikiProject? If not, and rather than bombard you with extra information here, take a look at this example I prepared, using as an example a WikiProject about mountains of the Alps. You might possibly find Wikipedia:Content assessment of some interest should you want to delve even further into this often overlooked area. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 11:52, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WikipediaNeko; It generally differs area to area. But I'd likely say an article that has 1500 characters isn't a stub. This is my personal opinion and other editors would possibly disagree with me. I use this tool to exactly know how much words and characters an article has! ─ The Aafī(talk)11:59, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Muhammadyeakubhasan111. Context matters. At a quick glance, that looks like a video produced by a commercial venture, Cisco Systems, in collaboration with some usually reliable media outlets. So, the question is, what sort of assertion do you hope to use this video for? If it is something mundane and neutral like "CEO John Jones retired in 2021, and was succeeded by new CEO Beverly Baxter" (names made up), then that is fine. But if it is something like, "It will be very difficult for newcomer Beverly Baxter to fill the large shoes left by widely acclaimed retiring CEO John Jones", then an independent source would be required, and sources praising Baxter should also be summarized. The website in question should be examined carefully to see whether or not it displays the signs of journalistic integrity. Cullen328 (talk) 06:19, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Rugoconites Tenuirugosus: Your question is very worrying, as you seem not to have the ability to judge how reliable a source is, what the article is about, and want someone to tell you what Wikipedia page it relates to because you then want to use it as a reference. I honestly don't know what to say except "Stop!" Your enthusiasm for creating and editing articles on obscure taxa seems to be outstripping your ability to understand proper sources, and the need to base content on scientific sources, not journalistic mush. That article is just a filler article of no scientific merit, and should not be trusted or used as a source - especially if its not clear what it's about, or how reliable it is. However, you could be a detective and use information provided in the article to do a Google search and find a proper article featuring that fossil photo (hint: search on the photographer's name). In which case you would discover a published paper which suggest this may a cnidarian of the Middle Cambrian which might be in the class Scyphozoa, but that there was no certainty around it. Forget trying to identify the taxon (the scientists can't give you one) - maybe consider using that paper to helpfully add a little more content to Marjum Formation, and steer clear from populist science news outlets which just regurgitate small bits of much better sources. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:29, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick Moyes: While I now know that the article is just a filler (given because of the information you gave me in the response) , I now also know that species of possible jellyfish are undescribed thanks to how I was not able to find any information about their names , scientific names and the groups they belong in other than the groups jellyfish belong in and the phylum cnidaria. The only specific article I was able to find which had this image were the previously mentioned jumbled mess of filler , http://qvcproject.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-joys-of-jellies_2.html (which states that the jellyfish themselves do not have any scientific name) Which isn't reliable given to how it is not secure by any means, another article which says like the exact same thing as the jumbled mess of filler https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna21552161 and this one https://creation.com/fossils-out-of-order which doesn't include the exact image of the fossil specimen found by Victor B. Lieberman originally. The source from the Not-Secure site only briefly , and by briefly I mean REALLY briefly mentions very little about their name and nothing else.
I've also recently found a source which says that the jellyfish in that specific image might be in the class itself , but it isn't the paper , and instead it's this https://blog.everythingdinosaur.co.uk/blog/_archives/2007/11/01/3326553.html which also includes other specimens that B. Lieberman (and his team) found in Utah when searching for fossils
Those were the only "articles" I was able to find, if I do manage to find the paper by instead searching "B. lierberman fossil discoveries" or "B. Lierberman fossil jellyfish" I will be putting a message on your talk page.Rugoconites Tenuirugosus (talk) 08:32, 12 February 2022 (UTC)User:Rugoconites_Tenuirugosus Rugoconites Tenuirugosus (talk) 08:32, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Rugoconites Tenuirugosus OK. Forgive me: I'm not going to supply it for you right now as I feel it will help develop your Google searching skills to find the best sources. But all the clues you need to find it are in those summarised sources. There is certainly a short academic paper out there, so let me know on my talk page if you really can't find it, and I'll send you the link in due course. I'm sure you appreciate that the fossil records is a fickle friend. When you only have a faint impression on fine-grained mudstone of a soft-celled organism, it can be near impossible to distinguish it from other species, or to determine of it is a new species. If it's live 50 million years before the previous known earliest similar-looking fossil, chances are it will indeed be a different species (unless its like the coelocanth or Ginkgo biloba). Not every fossil gets named immediately (or at all), and sometimes it can be 100 years before someone is able to make comparative studies with other material from the same formation and to draw conclusions about relationships and to allocate names at whatever taxonomic level is appropriate. I just urge you to stick with moderately well-defined species, rather than to desperately seek to create new pages based on these poor sources when you're neither a palaeontologist nor a taxonomist. The best motto for Wikipedia ought to be: "When in doubt; leave it out!" (By the way: how did you conclude the photographer/palaeontologist was named Victor B Lieberman? That's quite wrong. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 14:33, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick Moyes: The way I concluded it was Victor B. Lieberman was by looking at the image which was in the first source (the jumbled mess of filler) and looked at the image which included the specific fossil specimens and the comparison between the jellyfish which looked most like the fossil specimen cnidarian , in the bottom right of the image , it says the person which took the image of the jelly which is alive today (helmet jellyfish) and the unidentified fossil specimen, and it said that the photo of the fossil was taken by B. Lieberman. If this is wrong , I'll be on the look out for whoever actually found the fossil specimen and who actually took the photo itself and described the animal originally. Regards.Rugoconites Tenuirugosus (talk) 08:32, 12 February 2022 (UTC)User:Rugoconites_Tenuirugosus Rugoconites Tenuirugosus (talk) 08:32, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick Moyes: In none of the sources does it say any other person than B. Lierberman, and I do not know any other source which says the original finder of the actual fossil ,so , I feel like the finder either is EXTREMELY obscure , or , no one knows who actually found the fossil itself in the first place. And if that isn't the right option still, I guess I'll need a really tiny clue to atleast find the Identity of the original fossil finder of the fossil specimen dating around 500 million years ago in the Cambrian period. Rugoconites Tenuirugosus (talk) 08:32, 12 February 2022 (UTC)User:Rugoconites_Tenuirugosus Rugoconites Tenuirugosus (talk) 08:32, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Rugoconites Tenuirugosus Yes, I agree with you: "In none of the sources does it say any other person than B. Lierberman...". So, why then did you reply to me above referring to a Victor B. Lieberman and going so far as to redlinking that name? Maybe you were thrown by the crackpot comment in 2014 in one of the 100% unreliable sources from a Christian ministry that you also linked to above where a 'Victor B.' suggested that the fossils proved the theory of the biblical flood.
But not only are the two finders' names not extremely obscure, the actual paper you need to find online (of which Lieberman is a co-author) is cited in one of the links you gave us above! It is attention to detail like this - and the ability to tell unreliable from Reliable Sources - that is absolutely critical if you are to be competent at creating articles about obscure fossil species or other taxa, or you will (even with the best of intentions) be responsible for introducing garbage content which other users might then believe to be true and republish elsewhere. And in that way can mis-information and errors be promulgated. I am beginning to feel you should steer well away from that area, to be honest. If you can, please also learn to indent your replies with an additional colon when using source editor so that the logical flow of discussion remains clear. Nick Moyes (talk) 16:17, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, In the abovementioned article it is mentioned that "On 13 November 1840 Belle Alliance arrived at Saint Helena. Two days later her passengers and crew joined the procession that carried Napoleon's body from his grave to the wharf where it was to be conveyed to France to be reburied. The crew of Belle Alliance wore ribbons around their hats with in letters of gold La Belle Alliance".
I have done extensive work on this ship's information and believe this entry is incorrect.
Napoleon fought a battle at La Belle Alliance, but the ship that took his body back to France was the "LA BELLE POULE" and not La Belle Alliance.
Can someone either prove me wrong or help to correct the Wikipedia entry please?
The article doesn't say that the Belle Alliance carried the body back, but merely that the crew took part in the procession to the wharf. Perhaps clarification could be added to say that the body was brought back on the Belle Poule. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:13, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
I noticed that the alumni section of The Principia page did not cite any sources. In starting to do this process I also noticed that there was a lot of overlap with its partner page Principia College.
1. If it were up to me, I'd probably just have an alumni list on the Principia College page only. Is that a possibility or is that overstepping what others have done?
2. If I can't find references for the alumni section on The Principia page, is it possible to remove them until there are references?
Thanks! Archivingperson (talk) 12:31, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the idea of having alumni listed at only one of these two articles, and the College page make more sense. The first article links to the second, so people would know to go there. As to the alumni list, very often, lists of notable people (for towns, schools) do not have references. The assumption is that if one goes to the articles about the people, the connection to PC would be there, and referenced. THIS MAY NOT BE TRUE, mostly meaning that the connection to the people having attended Principia College may be mentioned, but not always referenced. Personally, I would err on the side of inclusion. David notMD (talk) 14:32, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible that at least some of the alumni listed in The Principia attended Principia School but not Principia College, so I don't think one could just blithely merge the two lists at the college page. Deor (talk) 15:43, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@David notMD:Thank you all for the responses. In thinking about the notice about the Alumni section "This section does not cite any sources.", would that be a permanent post? If the goal is to remove that notice, then it seems like the easiest thing would be to remove all of the non-cited sources and add them back only when they have a citation or B. Adding a explanation at the top saying something like "Please use citations to the Alumni list when possible"? Archivingperson (talk) 19:30, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I hazard a guess that it is unlikely that names were added without evidence, but it would be nicer if there was a reference for every name OR the articles about the people stated they attended Principia College AND that was referenced. However, if you look at university alumni lists such as List of University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign people, the great majority of names are not referenced. There is an accepted assumption that the articles about the people confirm their having attended. Do not add something akin to "Please use citations...", as Wikipedia articles do not include instructions on how to edit the articles in question. David notMD (talk) 18:29, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, on the page 2000s there is a Decadebox template. In this template, it says that the year 2000 was part of the 21st century. However, because the Gregorian Calender isn't 0-indexed (that is, there is 1 BC and 1 AD but no year 0 in the Gregorian Calendar), the first century is from year 1 to year 100, second century from 101 to 200, et cetera, 21st century from 2001 to 2100.
XLand44, to be clear, that is not a minor edit and would require consensus even if the page was unprotected. This is not an "issue" you just discovered, instead it has been discussed over the years and the current ordering of centuries is the result of consensus among the community.Slywriter (talk) 14:47, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the decadebox template is trying to fit everything together nice and neatly, and the calendar just doesn't really work that way. While centuries and millennia match up, decades do not start at the same time. I don't know why people find this so confusing, when basically the same thing occurs with weeks as compared to months and years and that doesn't seem to bother anybody. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 17:00, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Slywriter I didn't see any discussion on the topic on the talk page; furthermore, if this is the consensus the community arrived at (despite directly contradicting the calendar and providing false information), why not edit wikipedia articles to be consistent with this consensus? A page saying it begins in 2001 and then a decadebox next to it saying it begins in 2000 can be confusing for readers, as it's directly contradicting itself --Xland44 (talk) 21:24, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Talk pages?
Hello. I got a comment in a talk page after I submitted my article, but I don't know where to go to respond to this "talk" comment. Please advise. My username is Ajo47. Ajo47 (talk) 15:49, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Ajo47, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm not sure what you're referring to. The only message on your user talk page is a general welcome message: there's no particular reason to reply to that. If you do want to reply, for some reason, either do so on the user talk page of the editor who left the message, or reply on your user talk page, but ping the other editor. Or are you talking about another talk page somewhere else? --ColinFine (talk) 16:27, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ajo47, Hello and welcome to the Teahouse, by any chance do you refer to this Draft:George Ockner and the comment left by Victor Schmidt? If yes then this here is Victor's talkpage. If I’m wrong in my presumption as to what I believe you are trying to ask please do let me know. For further information about talkpages see WP:TALKPAGE. You can also leave a comment at the AFC page. Celestina007 (talk) 16:46, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
the invention and important historical developments efforts of Pinned Photodiode
I would like to write in Wikipedia pages the following text but I had a lot of confusions. I am sorry that I made many errors. Can you edit and write in the text in Wikipedia for me ?
misplaced draft
About the invention and historical development efforts of Pinned Buried Photodiode by Yoshiaki Hagiwara
The first pinned photodiode (PPD) and the Buried Photodiode (BP) both have a shallow P+ implant in N type diffusion layer over a P-type substrate layer. PPD is always BP. PPD does not have the image lag. But BP may have the serious image lag problem. PPD is also not to be confused with the PIN photodiode.[21].
The first PPD with the no-image lag, the low-surface dark current and the high short-wave blue light sensitivity features was invented in 1975 by Hagiwara at Sony.[1] The evidence is given by Japanese patent application JPA1975-127646 [2], JPA1975-127647 [3] and JPA1985-134985 [4] on the double and triple junction type PPD with the vertical overflow drain (VOD) structures with anti-blooming function capability and Global Shutter function with VOD Punch-thru mode clocking-scheme, achieved the electric shutter function by Hagiwara team at Sony [5].
Sony developed the first double junction type PPD and use it in FT CCD in 1978 [6]. This was the first invention of the pinned photodiode (PPD), a photodetector structure with low lag, low noise, high quantum efficiency and low dark current.
Early charge-coupled device image sensors with the single N+P photodiode with the N+ floating surface suffered from shutter lag. The serious image lag was largely resolved in 1978 [6][7][8]developed by Hagiwara and his coworkers in 1987 [9] at Sony by 1987. The PPD was used in CCD sensors in the past analog TV era and is now still used in the present digital TV era in CMOS active-pixel sensors.
In 1980, BP was used in ILT CCD by Nobukazu Teranishi, Hiromitsu Shiraki and Yasuo Ishihara at NEC [22][23] They reported in public that lag can be eliminated if the signal carriers could be transferred from the photodiode to the CCD. [24]
The BP with the serious image lag problem was further developed and used in ILT CCD by Teranishi and Ishihara with A. Kohono, E. Oda and K. Arai in 1982, with the addition of an anti-blooming structure.[22][24] The BP proposed in 1980 and developed in 1982 by NEC [22][23] reported the serious image lag problem, which was by definition not PPD. BP is not always PPD. [21].
The photodetector structure invented in 1975 by Hagiwara at Sony was given the name "pinned photodiode" (PPD) by B.C. Burkey at Kodak in 1984. In 1987, the PPD mainly developed by Sony [9] began to be incorporated into most CCD sensors, becoming a fixture in consumer electronic video cameras and then digital still cameras.[22]
In 1994, Eric Fossum, while working at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), proposed an improvement to the CMOS sensor: the integration of the pinned photodiode. A CMOS sensor with PPD technology was first fabricated in 1995 by a joint JPL and Kodak team that included Fossum along with P.P.K. Lee, R.C. Gee, R.M. Guidash and T.H. Lee. Since then, the PPD has been used in nearly all CMOS sensors.
The CMOS sensor with PPD technology was further advanced and refined by R.M. Guidash in 1997, K. Yonemoto and H. Sumi in 2000, and I. Inoue in 2003. This led to CMOS sensors achieve imaging performance on par with CCD sensors, and later exceeding CCD sensors.[22]
[7] Yoshiaki Daimon-Hagiwara,” Advances in CCD imagers”, an invited paper at CCD’79 international conference at Edinburgh, Scotland, UK September 1979.
Should be linked to the following site for details.
YoshiakiHagiwara19480704 You have made more than 50 edits to Photodiode. All of them have been reverted, by nine different editors, some for copyright infringement, and you have been short-term blocked from editing the article. It appears you want to add content and references to state that you invented the pinned photodiode circa 1975. You have started a discussion on the Talk page of the article. I STRONGLY recommend you stop any attempts to edit the article until consensus is reached on the Talk page. David notMD (talk) 18:44, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@२ तकर पेप्सी Really easy. Go to WP:REFUND. Scroll below and there you will see a form. Enter the page title that you want to seek undeletion for. And then click the Request undeletion button. And you are done. But please note that, the page in not for challenging delete discussions, or challenge XFD decisions. ItcouldbepossibleTalk16:56, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does not delete edits except in exceptional circumstances. For each edit, you agreed to these conditions: "By publishing changes, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL.". Note the word irrevocably. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:12, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Sympathics Whilst David is quite right, it is however possible to delete a page for which you are the sole editor - such as a draft you started or a sandbox page. If this is the case, let us know and we will try to help you further in making a deletion request. Nick Moyes (talk) 17:52, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good day, Teashop Hosts. I wonder if someone can help me with inserting a citation within a footnote. Specifically, if you would glance at the article on Duncan Napier, you will see four footnotes under the heading "Notes". The first of these reads as follows:
Most of the journals' text is reproduced in Melvin (2021) and Atkinson (2003)
where Melvin (2021) and Atkinson (2003) are references to books which are cited elsewhere in the article and which are listed in the "Further reading" section. What I am trying to do is to make those two references (within the note) into links, such that when you click on the link it would take you to the relevant book in "Further reading". In other words, I want it to look something like this:
Most of the journals' text is reproduced in Melvin (2021) and Atkinson (2003)
I've tried putting things like {{sfn|Melvin|2021}} directly in the text, and also experimented with the {{efn}} template, but none of that produces the desired effect.
Mike Marchmont, I exactly mostly cite stuff with Sfn. Have a look at Mahmud Hasan Deobandi. In Sfn, you just put the full bibliographic details of the citation in a section titled say References, and then using the sfn template, with required details, at the end of a statement. Regards, ─ The Aafī(talk)17:17, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You shouldn't be moving the citations you use in the article into Further reading section. It will give you Harv error. I fixed it and it works fine for me. Wherever I click on Melvin 2021 or other source, the full citation is highlighted. ─ The Aafī(talk)17:21, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, TheAafi. First of all, thank you for reorganising the References section in the Duncan Napier article. It looks much better now. And I take your point about the "Further reading"section.
Regarding your reply to my question, apologies if I didn't explain the problem clearly. I know how to use the Sfn template within the body of the article. I often do that. But it doesn't appear to work when you put the Sfn in a group footnote (that is, a footnote that is intended to provide explanatory text, as opposed to one the points directly to a citation).
To give another example of what I am trying to achieve, if you would glance at the article Anglo-Zulu War, you will see that in the Infobox, under the heading "Strength", there is a footnote designated with a lower-case a. The text of the footnote is as follows:
Colenso 1880, pp. 263–264 gives 6,669 Imperial and Colonial troops and 9,035 Native Contingent. Morris 1998, p. 292 gives 16,800
The text shown here in blue are links to entries listed under "Sources". That's what I would like to achieve. I considered copying the code from that article, but I see that it uses the Harvnb template, which I understand has been deprecated.
Many thanks, TheAafi, for fixing the footnote. That is exactly what I was trying to achieve. I see you used Harvnb. Clearly, I was wrong to avoid using that template. I'll make a note of it for future reference.
Thank you also for adding an Infobox to the article. I am dubious about the sub-headings, "Academic background" and "Academic work" because Napier's background was anything but academic. He had hardly any education and couldn't read or write until he was in his teens. But I won't worry about it just now.
(this question is being asked on behalf of Fazran fayad) Hello! So one of my mentees, Fazran fayad, is somehow mysteriously blocked with no clear reason. THey're telling me it tells them they've been blocked for "disruptive editing" however it doesn't show their account is blocked at all. Could they possibly be caught up in an IP block? ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654519:11, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Blaze Wolf: I'm not an expert on IP blocks, so it's possible that's not the problem. They can tell if their IP is blocked by googling "what is my ip" and then going to User:<their ip here>. If that is the problem, then requesting an IP block exemption should work. >>> Wgullyn.talk();19:24, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Recommended Guide Pages
I am wondering what some recommended essential pages for editing on Wikipedia to read before I start editing articles including WP:MOS.
What are some other places to start reading as a new Wikipedia editor? ScientistBuilder (talk) 19:51, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I'm happy to be editing my first draft article, which has not been accepted yet. My subject is a performing musician, deceased, of the 20th century. His main output was his performances on sound recordings, of which I have documented many. But my editors have said I do not have enough secondary sources. When I put in some obituaries of this person and reviews of concerts he gave, published in newspapers, will those be considered secondary sources? And of course I will add more references to him in books and journal articles if I can find them. Ajo47 Ajo47 (talk) 20:12, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ajo47, hi there! Usually one would expect more coverage to warrant a Wikipedia article. Your proposed combination of obituaries, reviews, books, and journals sounds great, and I'm sure that if they are cited (of course to back up the claims and not just for decoration), Draft:George Ockner can be accepted. Happy editing! :) GeraldWL20:17, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @Ajo47: In general, a draft has to show how the topic meets WP:GNG, which requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. You can't just provide references that show that recordings exist - you'll have to use show how he meets at least one of the criteria at WP:NMUSICIAN. Obituaries and reviews by sources with editorial independence will be considered secondary sources, but you may come across some that are not independent (e.g. an obituary written by the family). GoingBatty (talk) 20:26, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ajo47: Hello! Right all of the sections have only one citation each. For example, the entire "Early musical life and career" section has one citation. For that size of paragraph, 3 or 4 references would be ideal. Cheers! >>> Wgullyn.talk();20:27, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Possible edit war with mobile user?
One or more mobile user(s) have been reposting the same content to the article on Alyssa Mastromonaco over the past several days. I would attempt to post something to the talk page but as this has already gone on for a while now I’m not sure that it would help. Not sure what to do next. Some advice would be greatly appreciated. Unconventional2 (talk · contribs · email) 20:23, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Unconventional2: I've reverted their previous edit and warned them on their talk page. As they are an IP editor, it is likely that they do not know about our BLP policy. If they continue to add unsourced content, you can use a higher-level warning, and if that does not stop them, report them to WP:AIV. >>> Wgullyn.talk();20:31, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:ME, a minor edit is an edit where "only superficial differences exist between the current and previous versions." This would include correcting typos, fixing formatting, and reverting obvious vandalism. Generally, any edit that doesn't add any actual information and only serves to make the information more accessible is a minor one, but if you're adding information or changing the meaning of sentences than it's not a minor edit. casualdejekyll20:39, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How to link a post on the talk page of one article to the talk page of another article instead of making two separate posts?
I am working on improving the article on the Atomic clock and I am confused on what a hyperfine transition frequency is and when I go to the page it for it I don't understand the quantum mechanical terms fine structure, degenerate state, nuclear magnetic dipole, electron spin, magnetic moment, orbital angular momentum.
I have raised this issue on the talk page for Atomic clock and am wondering if there is a way to link my post with the talk page for Hyperfine structure. ScientistBuilder (talk) 22:22, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This comment relates to the Wiki webpage on Herpes Labials, specifically https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herpes_labialis#Treatment. There is no such think as "specialty antigens" what it should say is that specific antibodies typically fight the virus. However this page is locked for editing. This is a major error that needs correcting.
Hello. My article created has been accepted and I am super happy. I was wondering if that means the page is now live or do I need to take another step? every time I search the article it doesn't show up on google. can anyone let me know if it is live? Fmik36 (talk) 22:59, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Fmik36 Welcome to the Teahouse. A more relevant answer than that which @Jéské Couriano gave you is the fact that your article (Khaldoun Al Tabari) still has one further stage to go through before we allow it to be indexed by Google. But, yes, it is indeed live and findable via an internal search within Wikipedia. After 'Articles for Creation' approval, a more detailed final check is made by New Page Reviewers to ensure it appears to meet our key policies on notability and other things. As with all things on this volunteer-run project, there is a huge backlog. If, after 90 days, it is not 'NPP_reviewed' it will automatically be released for indexing by search engines. So it's simply a case of waiting patiently. Well done on creating your first article! Nick Moyes (talk) 00:03, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@NeverTry4Me: Most likely because if you looked at the template at the top of the page it says "This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference." ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654501:25, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Blaze Wolf:MoreLove adds the Teahouse Barnstar as a WikiLove message you can send, yes. However, it does not have the ability to add badges since it's an extension for WikiLove, and I do not have a script to automate adding them. VukkyTalkGuestbook11:06, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to be simple here, as an registered user can get alerts on their edits, IP user won't. I said 'some', and 'most', but not 'all'. Also I am not sure if asking to sign-up violates any rules or not. My apology is my say violated any rule. --NeverTry4Me - TT Page02:49, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there! Creating a new article is one of the hardest things to do on Wikipedia, especially if you don't have a lot of experiencing editing existing articles. To learn how to edit, you could view Help:Introduction and The Wikipedia Adventure. I suggest spending a significant amount of time editing existing articles to hone your skills. Once you're ready to create an article, you would gather independentreliable sources that have provided significant coverage of the subject, and determine whether it meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, called "notability". If so, you could follow the instructions at Help:Your first article - which contains a link to the Wikipedia:Article Wizard - and be prepared for a process that may include months of waiting, rejections, and rewrites, before an article is created. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 04:55, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
AllatRa problem
User:MinunBoo got blocked for apparently posting hoaxes and YouTube spam but AllatRa doesn't actually post hoaxes. If you go to https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=63-b2WYwL3M, you'll see AllatRa on their Creative Society channel mention that the core affects the climate and if you go to 8:44 of that video, you'll see proof that the fact that the core affects the climate has long been known in science. If you go to https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCcAJc50cbo, you'll see proof of the 12,000-year cycle of cataclysms and it shows that the cycle has been described by various researchers. Go to https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JcoVr4YOW-k for proof that CO2 isn't also a cause of climate change. Rubaddhot (talk) 04:06, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Rubaddhot: Welcome to the Teahouse! The user can follow the instructions on their talk page to appeal their block, if they have anything new to add since their last request. GoingBatty (talk) 05:00, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Shantavira:@ColinFine: I proved that AllatRa is reliable. As mentioned before, they showed proof that the cycle has been described by various researchers and that the 12,000-year cycle has been described by various researchers (please see my messages above for where they proved those things). Rubaddhot (talk) 14:17, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Right. It's time for me to act very unhostlike, but it needs to be done.@Rubaddhot - It is accepted in mainstream science that climate change was largely caused by the Industrial Revolution, among other things. You've not only never proved that AllatRa is reliable, you've essentially plugged your ears and went 'na-na-na-na-na I can't hear you' when ColinFine directed you to the criteria for what counts as a reliable source. Saying that climate change is not caused by CO2 is a WP:FRINGE viewpoint that is not held by a majority of "various researchers". casualdejekyll17:42, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Since reliability of sources, like most things in Wikipedia, is determined by consensus, Rubaddhot, I find it hard to imagine what a "proof of reliability of a source" might look like. You've said twice that you have proved that the source is reliable. How can you have done this? Where have you established its reputation for fact-checking and editorial control? --ColinFine (talk) 18:12, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
-ColinFine, casualdejekyll
There is a video at https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WJGM2sT_PVE that shows proof that the IPPC reports were created with the assumption that human emissions of CO2 are causing climate change and ignored the natural factors, and the so-called "consensus that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are the cause of climate change" is created by not giving a voice to scientists who have a different opinion. Rubaddhot (talk) 18:21, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rubaddhot, we are not talking about the content, we are talking about the reliability of the source. Wikipedia only takes note of what is published in reliable sourcesby Wikipedia's definition of that phrase. By your argument, if I put a video on YouTube proving that the Eiffel Tower is made out of cardboard, that makes me a reliable source. --ColinFine (talk) 18:56, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
More than half the refs are mentions of Wilipedia-notable people who are "ambassadors" for the foundation. These do not contribute to the article's notability. Other refs are to the foundations's website. A lot of content is not referenced. I agree that the most recent Declined was warranted. David notMD (talk) 10:15, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is it true that Centre Party (Sweden) is not only center but also center-right? Because as an example Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe Party is center. Example, in Spanish it is written as center-left and I don't find the evidence on the Centre Party (Sweden) page particularly good either. Wname1 (talk) 07:26, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What to do when subjects of articles try to remove negative material from pages about them
A few weeks ago, in the Cluebot report interface, there was this edit from a long time ago where a company was trying to change information on their own page.
There was which edit from a long time ago, I.hate.spam.mail.here? Whichever it was, it's relatively uncommon for an editor to announce that they represent a company. It often happens that one has very good reasons to suspect that an editor may be, but suspicions don't merit accusations. Was/is the "negative material" well sourced? Was/is the resulting article balanced? Is/was raising/pursuing the matter on the article's talk page inadequate? -- Hoary (talk) 08:36, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for writing to me. Since being invited by Professor Dave ( Burgenhaug ??) have posted and published a great deal of material. The last publishing I think was the 9th one and was advised to keep posting. Advice that was given earlier that the material can be polished up where necessary over time. Have explained that at 94 years of age the plethora of detail required in Wikiuni is now outside my capacity to digest. The Wikiuni open University seemed to me the best opportunity to disseminate the material that has already been written by me. The archive material is copied and pasted and seems to be arriving safely. If any unintentional violation of any copyright could it just be deleted? Time is not on my side and the question that remains is 'Do I keep posting?'
Your query was initially an absolute mystery. There is no article "Universal Language of Absolutes" at Wikipedia. HOWEVER, content by that title exists at Wikiversity as https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Universal_Language_of_Absolutes, which you created in January. At Wikiversity, you appear to have a useful correspondance with Dave Braunschweig. The function of Teahouse, where you posted this query today, is for helping Wikipedia editors. David notMD (talk) 10:26, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Teahouse, I'm the Recent User that Published III Zw 2 Article on the Wikipedia I was wondering what Articles Haven't Been Published Yet, I'd Like to Hear a Reply Soon --DemonymsPlayer (talk) 12:18, 13 February 2022 (UTC) DemonymsPlayer (talk) 12:18, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
DemonymsPlayer, hello and welcome to the Teahouse, I take it that you created an article, did a search of the article on your preferred browser and saw nothing right? you see if you create and publish an article yourself it is not indexed by google except a group of editors here referred to as new page reviewers mark your article as “reviewed”, also there are editors who have Autopatrol rights, this editors create articles and they are immediately indexed by google. Furthermore if after 90 days a new page reviewer hasn’t attended to you then the article goes live by itself. Celestina007 (talk) 12:43, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If this is about Draft:Segala Island, Eritrea, you removed the decline notice, which, amongst other things, removed the resubmit button. I have restored it (there is no reason to hide it, we'll find out anyway). I am personally not convinced that this would go through, however. Bing searches aren't reliable sources, though individual results might be, due to their inherent tendency to change as well as the fact that different people might see totally different results. Victor Schmidt (talk) 13:16, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
East Harlem - Wikipediahttps://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › East_Harlem
Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. To add someone to such a list, they must merit and preferably have an article about them. To merit an article, the person must meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person, as shown with significant coverage in independent reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 14:30, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This page is not for expressing your views on organized religion or how they should be treated on Wikipedia; the Village Pump is for discussing things like how to treat particular topics; your views on organized religion may be expressed on social media. 331dot (talk) 16:36, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has articles on subjects which are notable - roughly, that there has been enough published about them in suitable sources. It makes no difference whether they are real or imaginary, serious or jokes, good or bad. A hoax or a joke that (or a fake religion) that has received independent coverage can be the subject of a Wikipedia article. A solid company, a worthy non-profit, a prolific YouTuber, or a popular band, that hasn't received such coverage cannot. --ColinFine (talk) 16:51, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
References in foreign-language Wikipedias
I have now created 3 or 4 English Wikipedia articles which I started by translating from existing foreign-language Wikipedia articles. Frequently the foreign-language articles (French, Italian, Dutch, Danish) have had few, or poor, supporting citations, and so I have then had to do further research to find full supporting references. Question: are other-language Wikipedias supposed to use the same standards and the same quality and quantity of sources as English Wikipedia? If so, why have I found so many articles which would not be accepted in English Wikipedia? Masato.harada (talk) 17:09, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Masato.harada, hi there. All articles are expected to have at least a few reliable citations. I've seen many uncited articles in Indonesian Wikipedia because there are fewer editors there. The English Wikipedia undoubtedly has more editors, so it's easier for an uncited article to be nominated for deletion here than it is in others. That is why when you translate an article, you shouldn't just blindly translate, you have to do your own research too. GeraldWL17:15, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Masato.harada Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Each language version of Wikipedia is its own project, with their own editors and policies- they aren't the same. The English version tends to be stricter as it is the oldest and has a large number of participants. 331dot (talk) 17:17, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As 331dot says, each Wikipedia has its own policies, and some are less strict than en-wiki. It is also worth considering the question of time: in the early years, while en-wiki had broadly the same policies as it does now, editors were much less strict in applying them. English Wikipedia therefore has thousands and thousands of articles which, if they were offered for review now, would not be accepted: some would be declined pending further work, and some would be rejected outright. Ideally, editors would work through those thousands and thousands of substandard articles, improving or deleting them. (For some reason, this doesn't happen very much). It is likely that other language Wikipedias also have many articles which do not in fact meet their own standards. --ColinFine (talk) 17:54, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Sbmalone: Hello SB! I've removed the image for you since I see no reason to use the exact same image twice on the page. For future reference, all you have to do is remove everything contained within 4 brackets ([[ and ]]) that starts with "File:". Also, is the subject of the article paying you to make edits? Regardless of whether or not that is true you must read WP:COI and follow the instructions on the page, as well as WP:PAID. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654520:14, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. A sandbox is a place you can try things out. On Wikipedia it means two different things: WP:Sandbox is a communal page that you can use to practise editing. Other people may use it as well, and it gets automatically cleared several times a day. In addition every logged-in user can have their own sandbox, which they can use for example to develop articles. See User sandbox for information on that. --ColinFine (talk) 21:42, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The draft page I'm asking about is a biography of George Ockner. My question is, how do I cite sources that are behind a paywall, such as newspaper articles from the Proquest Historical Newspaper database? There are obituaries and reviews of this person's concerts there. Thank you. Ajo47 (talk) 21:08, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Ajo47. You cite sources behind a paywall the same way you cite any other source, though if you're using one of the citation templates, there are parameters you can add to notify readers that the source is restricted (see for example Template:cite web). Note that for most sources, the important part of the citation is the title, date, publisher, and author (if known): a URL is a convenience not an essential part of the citation. See futher WP:PAYWALL. --ColinFine (talk) 21:47, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Links in the LEAD
Is it better to put low-quality links to stubs and start class articles in the body of the article instead of the lead of the article?
It seems like it would be better for an article to have no red links in the lead and a few red links in the body than a few red plinks in the introduction and no leaks in the body. ScientistBuilder (talk) 21:23, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ScientistBuilder: I personally don't think it matters. Red links should not be included at all unless the red-linked subject is extremely likely to be notable, and really ought to have an article of its own. They're then "preemptive" links, already linking to the (future) article, so no one has to go back after writing the article, to find all the places that ought to refer to it. If the subject is that important, then showing up as a red-link in the lead of other articles might encourage someone to go off and write about it! Elemimele (talk) 21:34, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see no red Wikilinks anywhere in Atomic clock. If you mean that there are valid Wikilinks in the lead that go to Stubs and Starts, that's OK. The quality of Wikilinks linked to has no relevance to the rating of the article the Wikilinks are in. Standard practice is first use of a term gets linked, and all subsequent uses of that term, not. As for improving an article's quality, the quality of references is paramount. David notMD (talk) 22:19, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ScientistBuilder (edit conflict) I think it is better to leave the links in the lead rather than remove them, especially when none are red links (and haven't been for some time for atomic clock). Many readers, myself included, just hover over these links if they want a brief reminder of the definition of something. Only rarely do I click to follow through to the linked article, so I don't care about its quality. WP:Overlink does have something to say about this but for technical articles more rather than less is correct, in my opinion. Note also that many readers never go beyond the lead, so knowing which other articles they could find on related subjects is useful. Mike Turnbull (talk) 22:26, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Abuse of template on my talkpage by new IP/User, is this harasment ?
In less than an half hour i'm getting two Notices on my talkpage of Edit warring,[13], [14] first by a IP with a single contribution, then a new user Woodybrook showed up, put another one on my talkpage. I opened a case yesterday at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring which led to a temporary block of a user Rogeman123, now i'm getting notices from new IP/User. I have sent them both warning of improper use of template.
Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 21:39, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Anton.bersh: Yes i know, then these two (one) IP/User show up, putting notices on my talkpage. There's no new discussion and i opened the previous one yesterday. I requested for semi-protection per Blaze Wolf recommendation. Thanks i will report sock-puppetry as well. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 22:30, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Referring to a person who shares their surname with a settlement
Forgive me if this is a silly question; I checked the MoS and didn't see anything. I'm currently revising Strool, South Dakota, and the settlement was named for Ben Strool, who was fairly involved in the settlement's operations until his death. Conventionally, we refer to subjects by their surname only, but in this case that could cause confusion between the settlement and the person (e.g. "Residents paid a monthly rent to Strool"). At the same time, only referring to the settlement as "Strool" and the person as "Ben Strool" feels unwieldy. He didn't hold any kind of title (e.g. doctor or senator) that would make it easy to distinguish the person from the town, either. Is there a consensus on how to refer to people whose surname is the same as the settlement? –Galactic-Radiance(talk)21:45, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Galactic-Radiance if you add a section about Ben Strool, and it is clear you are referring to the person, you can call him Strool. If you add such sentences as the above-mentioned "Residents paid a monthly rent to Strool" I would suggest you refer to him as Mr. Strool, or the merchant. Thank you for your work on improving the stub article. Karenthewriter (talk) 22:02, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No Original Research Clarification
I am looking a source that might relate to a claim on the Atomic clock article that lower line widths increase the precision.
I googled atomic clock line width and I found a site that talks about ultrasmall linewidths and it does not directly state the claim the article is making and I am wondering if I added this as a source if it would be original research or if I can add the source and if so what is the reasoning for me being able to add it even though it does not directly say it. ScientistBuilder (talk) 22:09, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a way to get an image from a Goverment site without breaching copyright laws?
I would like to add a site from NIST.gov to atomic clock.
Is there a way for me to do this without having taken the pictures or would a NIST representative (employee, manager, etc.) have to add the image? ScientistBuilder (talk) 22:37, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, ScientistBuilder. You need to upload the image (to Commons, since it's PD) first: I suggest using the Upload wizard. Then once the image is available in Commons, you can edit the article to use it. I'm afraid I don't know how to do that in VE, as I don't use it, but I believe it's straightforward. --ColinFine (talk) 23:17, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Citing the same page but differing content
I have a webpage where content is deleted periodically. I would like to cite different versions of this page in the same Wikipedia article, which have been archived in the Wayback Machine. What is the best way to go about this? NemesisAT (talk) 23:02, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If the version you want has been archived, then you can use parameters archive-url and archive-date as well as the main url. If in addition you use url-status=deviated, I believe it won't generate a link to the main URL. See Template:cite web. --ColinFine (talk) 23:22, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I wasn't aware of this functionality! However, it isn't quite what I'm looking for. I am wanting to cite a webpage twice in the same article, but citing different archives of it in different places. I could create multiple citations where the only difference is the archive date and version, but I wondered if there was a cleaner way. NemesisAT (talk) 23:28, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
An experienced user reverted my change. After a discussion, most editors agreed with my changes. Now the user is still reverting me. Help.
First off, you are violating the 3RR rule and could potentially be temporarily blocked. Please do not make any more reversions on that article. However, it does appear that you have a consensus for using the term "baseball stadium", so I'll raise the matter on their talk page. >>> Wgullyn.talk();23:49, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This page's content is more than ten years old. In that time new distributions of the OS have appeared with significant applications and games bundled. I have started constructing replacement tables in my sandbox, but want to be reassured that I can simply replace almost all the existing content with the newly formatted, but up to date, lists. Would an editor want to check my new material? If so, how? Bernardboase 23:55, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
.jpg)
Courtesy link: Draft:Scott M. Gibson TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 01:48, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Resolved
