Article for review to resubmit: opinion of editors
I want to get my article approved on Wikipedia. I have edited it again after first review. I need help to ascertain if the sources/ references are credible enough and whether this article will pass the review. The link to article is here. Draft:Emmanuel SikoraIfra86 (talk) 11:55, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ifra86, I don't understand the second sentence, He is widely recognized as the classical opera composer as resident of Cortland, New York. -- Hoary (talk) 12:34, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ifra86, I am not a reviewer, but in my opinion the comments that were placed in the draft still stand. There are too many sentences that state facts, with no source to back up those statements. There is a cn tag in the draft. I doubt that it will be accepted in its current state. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 06:04, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect Nyanardsan's decline was not motivated exclusively by the SoundCloud source, Erlovett, so "one very minor issue was flagged" is not a productive way to look at it.
However, I do think the decline was incorrectly tagged "no reliable source" when in fact it should be "notability". I have little doubt that this person exists, and that she’s the head of WPA, etc. based on the article sources. But has this person received sufficient attention from external reliable sources to justify a Wikipedia article? None of the few random sources I looked at show that - some are interviews (not independent), others only have a short quote of JB (example - not significant coverage).
@Erlovett I believe you may be a bit confused as to how to address issues referred to when a draft article has been declined. In this post you state "one very minor issue was flagged," but the reason for your article not being accepted is "submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources" and "submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia." There was also one individualized comment made: "Soundcloud is not an acceptable source," and the draft's history shows the only changes made since the February draft decline is removing the Soundcloud reference. While waiting for your next article review you may want to work on making sure there are no references in which Jenny Bilfield is just mentioned amongst many other individuals, and not the main focus of the referenced source, as well as making sure you keep a neutral tone when writing about Bilfield. Best wishes on improving the draft article. Karenthewriter (talk) 15:09, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Erlovett Apologies for very late respond, but I left comment that "Soundcloud is not an acceptable source" does not necessarily means it is the only problem, as I tagged the article with two reasons, problem with reliable sources and also it reads like an advertisement (promoting the person in the article). Also as @The Tips of Apmh mentioned, drafts arent reviewed in specific orders so it is possible for drafts to stay unreviewed for a long time because editors that review it are volunteer and they can choose which one they want to review.
Hello - The draft for Overtime (Sports Network) was denied and said it was written as an advertisement. Everything written in the article was sourced. There was zero opinion added to it. I'm not sure how I would be able to make the draft any better. There are dozens of articles about Overtime in every major publication (NY Times, WSJ, USA Today, Time, ESPN, etc.) Please help!
Per Cullen, having sources doesn't mean that the tone of the writing is not inappropriate. The tone reads like a press release and not like an encyclopedia article. --Jayron3218:06, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please offer an example of something written in the article and how could be rewritten more appropriately. There is nothing in there that I see that shows an opinion, or embellishes anything. It simply is written as a fact in a neutral point of view. Bankrupt305 (talk) 16:48, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"The company has over 50 million followers across its social channels." Social popularity numbers don't mean much on WP.
"In 2021, Overtime announced a Series C funding round..." WP doesn't care much about funding rounds.
I don't personally see how a founder's previous business dealings (Porter, who sold his previous company for X dollars) tells us much about this company.
"young, up-and-coming" is marketing-speak.
"non-fungible tokens, cryptotechnology, and Web3 community-building..." Am I supposed to know what "Web3 community-building" is, or care? What does that mean in the real world?
@Bankrupt305, Sorry that I didn't give specific examples of how to rewrite. Most of the stuff I mentioned should probably be removed. Cullen and others' advice is good, and writing new articles is hard. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 06:23, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you all for your time in reviewing. I made changes based on your suggestion. I don't see anything in the article that has a promotional tone. T Bankrupt305 (talk) 19:21, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Operajoven, (1) If that poster is indeed your "own work", as you claim, then you have a connection that you must divulge. (Or is it your own work?) (2) You write for example "2020: [1]Palais Eschenbach". A reference index normally comes immediately after the assertion that it references. This one comes immediately after a space. I don't understand its purpose. (3) The sole paragraph of text is unreferenced. -- Hoary (talk) 00:27, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Hoary, I deleted the first paragraph which in fact was duplicated. About the image, should I delete the logo and text? I don't understand could you guide me? thanks Operajoven (talk) 14:27, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The entire first paragraph of the lead is duplicated in the second paragraph of the lead. Furthermore, the lead is supposed to summarize content in the body of the article. But in this draft, there is essentially no content in the body except a list of productions, and the lead is the entire article. CodeTalker (talk) 01:22, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible (Or Ethical) to Hire a Professional Wikipedia Contributor
I would like to hire a professional Wikipedia Contributor to EDIT and ADD Content regarding my family history. As an Example there is an article about my family that is very incomplete. See: Earle family. I have done some editing of this article but it needs several additional articles for completeness.
There are 2 very large historical books on the Earle Family and their history.
History and genealogy of the Earles of Secaucus : with an account of other English and American branches https://archive.org/details/historygenealogy00earl which details the New Jersey branch of the family, as well as the Maryland, and Virginia branches.
While these books are genealogy books they have a wealth of history that can be gleaned from them. For instance, the article on Secaucus New Jersey Secaucus, New Jersey doesn't even mention that Edward Earle, on April 24, 1676, “bought the Island of Ci-ka-kus, in the Province of New Jersie, for 2000 Dutch Dollars. Or that he and his descendants owned the Island for many years.
I don't have the expertise needed to do the work myself and am looking for someone who would be interested in helping.
I have searched online and there are "contributors" who can be hired but I don't know if I should go that route.
Don't. Most of the "expert Wikipedia editors" you see on headhunting/want-ad sites such as Fiverr are nothing of the sort, being either scammers, ingenues, or banned users, and they have the exact same conflicts of interest that you do, if not worse. We also take a dim view on paid editing en generale, even if it has been disclosed, since such editing is inherently conflicted. —Jéské Courianov^_^va little blue Bori03:14, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is why I am asking. Is it ethical to hire someone and if so WHO can you trust? If not then how do I find a legitimate contributor that could help me. GlennEarls (talk) 04:09, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
hi GlennEarls! given that wikipedia is all volunteer work, I don't think hiring someone would really work, as given above paid editing is heavily discouraged. instead, you can submit a edit request to the article's Talk:Earle family, detailing what changes you would like to add (but of course, you would still need reliable, independent sources for these). 💜 melecie talk - 04:15, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
GlennEarls, is it possible in theory to hire an ethical paid Wikipedia editor? Yes, just as it is possible in theory to find a zebra in a herd of wild horses that will allow you to tame it and ride it in your local Easter parade. The handful of ethical paid editors tend to work for very large companies for a lot of money. Instead of wasting your money on paid scammers, familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's logical and rational Policies and guidelines, and make or propose the edits yourself for free, disclosing any Conflicts of interest where appropriate. Cullen328 (talk) 04:46, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
At Joe Kolodziej article, I see a lot of material that has no sources. I removed it per WP:BLP but was reverted by Stick2700 who commented: “You can not remove historically accurate information that has been on Wiki for years. […] Work history, is not subject to citations where none are available.” which leaves me confused. Could anyone help me with what is to be done with the article, with a reference to the related policy? —Svārtava (t/u) • 10:47, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
hi Svartava and welcome to the teahouse! I've added a comment onto your talk page. I believe this applies here: Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. (from WP:BLP) and status quo doesn't really mean much when deciding to keep or remove it. 💜 melecie talk - 11:08, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that whole article is a virtually unsourced mess and could probably be deleted altogether. (I have zero interest in the topic--even given the fact that the subject happens to be Polish--but it's an unvalidated puff piece.) Uporządnicki (talk) 11:56, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Google search only turns up the fraud case where they were accused of identity fraud and there was a subsequent story on Twitter about their release claiming they have an extensive criminal history. Not sure how extensive because I can't find anything else about the subject. Clearly not notable as the article only references two primary sources and the only independent sources I can find are about the fraud case. I think that's good enough rationale for at least AfD. --ARoseWolf13:02, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am not paid to edit. The idea that you are all saying what is on Wikipedia is accurate is hilarious. Anyone can come here and make a page on anything they want and make up things about people that are either completely untrue or inaccurate. I am the subjects son. Everything is accurate on the page, and neither my father or I created it. I edit is for accuracy because people like to slander him. When I put citations in, you just delete what is cited? What Google does not turn up is that any case that was made nearly 20 years ago was overturned. Yet you want to cite something that is factually inaccurate? For years, this Wiki page was used to damage a reputation, and now all of a sudden when it is correct and accurate, some new users who were never even aware before think its ok to do what ever they want? And what happens when someone else creates a new page to damage this man? All the faceless nameless people here who can not be held responsible for their actions will do something? The article should be left as it was with the citations and more to be added. Cleaning up of grammar can be done as well. Stick2700 (talk) 14:48, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Stick2700, Welcome to the Teahouse. I'm sorry but you have a very skewed idea of what Wikipedia is and how material is added to the encyclopedia. I suggest you read our policies. No one here has mentioned accuracy of the article one time. We have stated that it is promotional in nature (words like "prolific" are red flags), that most of it is unsourced therefore not verifiable and because primary sources are used to source portions of the article it appears as if the subject is not notable per our standards. Wikipedia is not concerned with what you say is accurate about the subject, that's orginal research. Nither, you, your father or anyone associated with your father own this article and can dictate what the article can say or not say about the subject (WP:OWN). Wikipedia is only concerned with what reliable independent secondary sources say about the subject. Because you have a clear COI with the subject I suggest you not edit the article further and only make edit requests on the article talk page going forward. Please listen to our advice here. We are not against you but we must ensure that all information included in the article is properly sourced, and not to you. --ARoseWolf15:16, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I really don't care what your suggestion is concerning this article. You came here 2 years ago, I have been working on this page for more than a decade since the slanderous page was discovered. Information from the 1980's when he was labeled a prolific scorer, is not available on the internet. It predates the internet. So please tell me how to source that information. As I said, sources were and will be added. COI is determined by what when things are sourced? You mean like sourced from other Wiki pages that I did not start or edit? Your own pages are not good enough? Other websites that confirm work history? Other news sites? What is the criteria other than your opinion? My father asked this page be deleted more than a decade ago, and you people told him to not so gently go away. So, now before someone else starts another page about him, and it will happen, maybe all of you should get off your high horses and leave the page to be worked on as it was being worked on before these nameless faceless people got involved for no reason. Stick2700 (talk) 15:26, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is tertiary. I'm sorry but it can not be used as a source for notability of a subject (See P, S, T for more details). --ARoseWolf15:35, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I tried replying to Cullen, but it is disabled. My hostile remarks come with Wiki people taking it upon themselves to act first without asking questions. Wiki has ruined peoples lives with inaccurate information. Sourced material on many, many articles is missing. I will restore the article and attempt to source over the next few days. IF that's not acceptable, then delete it. The accusation of doing something for pay or for improper motives was completely uncalled for. If you want accuracy, it is your duty to protect people, the idea that anonymous people can come here and edit what ever they want is absolutely insane. This person who started this today, who we traced his IP and now will be getting a visit from Police, is the person who should be getting the talking to. Up until today, this page was relatively quiet except for a once in a while edit or vandalizing. Why it got so much attention today, is just unbelievable. Stick2700 (talk) 16:17, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You have a conflict of interest and should not be editing the article directly. If you attempt to restore the unsourced material that has been removed, you will be reverted. You've already been warned about this. Use the talk page - Talk:Joe Kolodziej - to suggest edits, with appropriate sources. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:30, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Stick2700, sources need not be online. If you have copies of newspaper or magazine articles, they can be cited. What is required is significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Your hostile remarks are not helping your cause, and what you say indicates that you have no idea how Wikipedia works. Asking people to leave the page alone pretty much guarantees that more editors will get involved. The end result will either be a better article or a deleted article. Cullen328 (talk) 15:41, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Stick2700 I am confused by your comment that you traced the IP of the person who made the original post, and that person "now will be getting a visit from Police." Did you contact the person's local police department, state that the person made a comment on Wikipedia that you dislike, and then a police employee told you an officer would visit the person? That seems rather unlikely, so if you could clarify the meaning of your comment about a visit from the Police I would greatly appreciate it. Karenthewriter (talk) 16:57, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The whole article has been nominated for deletion anyway. I suspect it will be deleted. And then, as I understand things, if someone comes and tries to create a new article with the same title, that someone will encounter a notice that such an article was deleted. What you had before most of it was just edited out might have removed the offending material, but it added basically a CV such as one might send with a resume--totally unnecessary for the problem you are--perhaps rightly--addressing. But if you do try such an article--or any article at all in the future, you must studiously avoid such phrases as:
... largest and well known brands ...
... prolific goal scorer ...
... widely considered one of the most influential ...
... represent the top amateur players ...
...viewed by many as to the the creation of a completely new...
After being credited for ...
... as a key member of ...
... were credited with being ...
... Turning a failed publication into the largest most read ...
As for future edits, Uporządnicki, I will try to refrain fromusing those types of phrases. Can you ensure every other Wiki page has those same types of phrases eliminated? Stick2700 (talk) 17:47, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I traced the IP. I sent the IP and trace information to the Michigan State Police who have an ongoing Stalking and Harassment investigation. If the person is found, they will be charged, and given their day in court. Like the person who started this page was, and that person was convicted, did time and released.
What Wiki doesnt know is that some people not only post hateful and inaccurate things here, but they post them in other places. Like photos of my fathers house taken from a car driving by my daughters room, at he grandfathers house. The subject of this article. Imagine that invasion of privacy and threatening behavior. Stick2700 (talk) 17:47, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You do realize that publishing false information is illegal in the EU right? My father is a resident of the EU. There is no threat. There is an ongoing investigation for stalking and harassment. You understand that if you have information and do not provide it, you are obstructing justice? I simply gave the information I have. I didnt make the law. Stick2700 (talk) 17:57, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's kind of a recklessly overbroad statement. Yes, Wikipedia has an internal rule of "no legal threats." That's not to say Wikipedia is above the law. Notice how diligent it is about not crossing Copyright law. And if something false is recklessly published here and ruins someone's life, I find it hard to believe that SOMEONE couldn't be held liable--whether it's Wikipedia or whoever wrote the "information." (And people HAVE published malicious fiction here; look at this famous example.) As I see it, the problem here is, first, someone who is--possibly with cause--angry has let his anger cloud his reason, and second, he has beyond taking steps to remove damaging material, and has taken to adding kind of over-the-top stuff--at least as far as articles in Wikipedia are concerned. Uporządnicki (talk) 18:45, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The EU does not have jurisdiction over Wiki, but the EU does have the most strict privacy and defamation laws in the world concerning the internet and printed materials. Very high profile people who have made incorrect, or improper statements have paid increasing fines, some in the millions of Euro's for going after a rival publicly or making an inaccurate statement. Wiki being used, and viewed in the EU does subject itself to EU laws. Other information about my fathers projects are on EU versions of Wiki in different languages, which make those particular projects subject to direct EU jurisdiction. The point of this is not legal action for or against Wiki, the point is, that people have a right to their information, no one else has that right, not Wiki not Webster's or any other information site. Stick2700 (talk) 07:47, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Stick2700, tracing an IP address might get you a user's city, or maybe the nearest point-of-presence location of some of the ISP's networking equipment -- but you won't get a street address of a logged-on user without a court order or a judge's cooperation. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 06:47, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I understand this. There is an ongoing investigation with the Michigan State police, they can do the tracing. We have an idea of who it is based on general IP location, and they were dumb enough to actually leave a full voicemail for detectives to match. This is how one other was caught and charged with stalking as well as cyberstalking. While I understand to many, this may not look to be a big issue. I can assure you though when the picture of your daughters bedroom window taken from someone's car shows up on a hockey message board with a link to a Wiki page full of edits, it can become more than unsettling. Stick2700 (talk) 07:40, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Openworks - simply create another sandbox - enter User:Openworks/sandbox 2, or whatever title you want (as long as it starts User:Openworks/ ) , in the search box, enter, and it will say "Start the User:Openworks/sandbox 2 page." - click on that and start editing - best wishes - Arjayay (talk) 12:19, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, i've just been on a RC Patrol and have ID'd an IP that has been constantly vandalizing pages, ignoring warnings and is posting insulting messages on talkpages, is there anywhere i can report this user to the admins or should i wait to see if he will stop or ignore and let someone else take care of matters? you can find the IP in my contribution history, wait he has posted a message to my talkpage calling me a loser.
@Pyrrho the Skipper, the IP's additions to two articles were certainly not good or useful, but isn't there a chance that the IP thought that they were helping by adding useful (albeit unreferenced) information to the articles? If so, those two edits were not vandalism, right? I'm not talking about the comment to @OGWFP's talk page, which was pretty much the same content, but even more obviously in the wrong place. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 04:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good question, @73.127.147.187: If you squint hard enough, the edit by itself could be considered a good-faith edit, but it could just as easily be considered WP:PATENTNONSENSE, which can be considered vandalism. If they wouldn't have edit warred over that line, and posted insults to Talk Pages, I would not have reported it and would WP:AGF. But the editor who posted here had a legitimate concern, had the higher ground, and felt personally attacked. Add it all up and you have a disruptive user, arguably vandalizing multiple articles and Talk Pages, whether there was malice or not in their original edit. Nevertheless, I'm glad you brought it up, because I always appreciate reminders where I may not have assumed good faith. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 04:55, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Pyrrho the Skipper I'm really talking about the posts to the two "relationship" articles in ths user's edit history. They looked a bit amateurish to me, but not patent nonsense... I think we can move on now... Thanks. So, you are no longer a skeptic? 73.127.147.187 (talk) 12:08, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll look again. Maybe I was wrong, and if so, hopefully I'll learn from it and be better. I'm glad it was called out for me to look closer, so thanks again. Still a skeptic but I didn't want to be confused with that specific brand of arrogant dogma rude and aggressive type. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 16:13, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Tool to check how much of a specific page was written by a specific editor?
I remember the existence of a tool used for GA attribution which checked roughly how much of an article was written by a specific editor.. Am I misremembering? Which tool is this? (ping on reply please) casualdejekyll02:48, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello casualdejekyll! Just to add to the above correct info, you can also see that same information as part of the Page statistics for articles. To view those go to the article you're interested in & click View History - Page statistics. Authorship pie chart as well as other interesting data will be listed. - Hope this is of help! LooksGreatInATurtleNeck (talk) 08:21, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How does a non-admin close an AfD with the result delete?
Hello, Iamreallygoodatcheckers. Your section heading contradicts your question. Wikipedia:Non-admin closure makes it clear that non-administrators should not try to close discussions that require administrator's tools to implement. Requesting is another thing. You can certainly reach out to an administrator who actively closes AfDs, and say, "Hey, the consensus looks pretty clear here. Will you close it?" Cullen328 (talk) 04:32, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Perhaps someone is familiar with Russian sources? I created an article, but the reviewers refuse to look at it. The sources are all Russian, except for one source - American Forbes. If someone could see the draft, I would be very grateful!31.40.143.16 (talk) 08:39, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
31.40.143.16,
I do not see any problem as long as all the sources are reliable and trustworthy. However, if you yourself do not know Russian, and used Machine Translation (GoogleTranslate, etc) , then there is a possibility of change of words, or meaning. Even if you did not directly paste the translated version, it still might have had some changes. Regards, Narutmaru . To contact me, visit my Talk Page.09:00, 27 April 2022 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Narutmaru (talk • contribs) [reply]
Welcome to Teahouse! I would recommend getting in touch with WikiProject WP:RUSSIA and or contacting some of the available translators to ask for feedback/review of your article's sourcing Wikipedia:Translators available. Currently the article is a mix of a biography, and info about Positive Technology. The notability of Positive Technology does not confer to the director per WP:INHERIT. We are all WP:VOLUNTEERs so there is no rush either to review drafts. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 11:20, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Daniel Case: Здравствуйте! Мне посоветовали обратиться в участникам, которые знают русский язык. Я нашёл Вас в разделе, в котором есть списки таких участников. Могли бы Вы взглянуть на мой драфт и посмотреть источники, а также текст статьи. Буду очень благодарен Вам, если поможете! Спасибо!31.40.143.16 (talk) 12:16, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
can i use TV channel Youtube video as person notifiable as a reference source in edit?
I have question about the notifiable person on internet i am creating article Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft%3AMaxordan
If a person appears on TV Channel game show in past 2016 and now in 2022 the channel is close or platform completely change and the reference link is removed from official website but the videos are available in Youtube from TV channel show page
can i am able to use the Youtube video link as source of person notability?
can i also use IMDb Show page and public profile for notability? 91.73.217.133 (talk) 09:05, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Narutmaru: Hi. What exactly do you mean by improving features "for public usage"? And how? Also kindly remove excessive spacing from the wikilinks of your signature. Maybe it is confusing the sinebot. —usernamekiran (talk)09:58, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In the spirit of Wikipedia, use your personal judgment and don't worry too much about what other editors say in such cases. Given that it has strong ties to Germanic languages, using commonly known variations there makes sense (non Romanized characters is exception, but German is Romanized) per MOS:TIES. All that said, the people who created Große Freiheit (album) still made it with an eszett in title, with a redirect from Grosse Freiheit (album) and I won't be opening a move discussion, because there are better things to do and it's reasonable enough. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 11:31, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to the above, if one version is used most commonly in reliable sources that talk about the topic, use that. (I am aware that ss and ß are basically interchangeable in German and that the sources may very well split 50-50.) This might be of use in other cases of e.g. regional variations - the typical example in French being chocolatine vs. pain au chocolat. TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact)15:59, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am trying
I am trying to get the article Lucy McCarraher published. Although it has the same amount level of referencing of two other articles I have published (more than than some biographies I have seen) it keeps getting turned down. I'm not sure what else I could be expected to supply.
Well, are there reliable sources that go into detail about her or her work? If there are, cite them. If not, perhaps there's no chance for an article. I look at the lead, and infer from it that her major claims to notability are that She is a co-founder of Rethink Press,[1] and founder of the Business Book Awards.Rethink is merely a redirect to Rethinking; there's no article here about Rethink Press, Business Book Award, or Business Book Awards. I get the impression that she's just not particularly notable. -- Hoary (talk) 11:50, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello and Welcome user with IP 2406:3003:206F:EE2:7560:5C96:7AB1:39D9 - the typo in question has already been corrected, but please do not feel hesitant to fix any mistakes you see here in the future, i know it can be scary but simply correcting a typo won't make the entirity of wikipedia come crashing down, for more information i suggest reading WP:BOLD and WP:CANTBREAKIT i also highly suggest creating an account.
The article you wrote about yourself, Lil sad frosty? It was deleted. It didn't even resemble a Wikipedia article. What should you do? First, become successful and famous. Then there'll be plenty of good material about you, and other people will want to cite it and write an article about you. They'll write the article, and Google will index it. -- Hoary (talk) 11:56, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because this article dose no harm to anyone. This article doesn't brake any rule's. The artist is a upcoming artist who is very passion it about music and becoming famous. The artist works very hard on his hobby music. Lil sad frosty the artist want's a Wikipedia article about him and his story so people can go read and learn about him. He also worked really hard on the article and he would like the article to be on publish and be on google with his other stuff so people can find it and learn about him when you look up lil sad frosty. It would also make his online presents and his google profile look way better. Lil sad frosty worked really hard and knows he deserve's it and it would help you gain more user's on Wikipedia! So it's a win win. It help's me and you so everyone's happy here!
This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because this article dose no harm to anyone. This article doesn't brake any rule's. The artist is a upcoming artist who is very passion it about music and becoming famous. The artist works very hard on his hobby music. Lil sad frosty the artist want's a Wikipedia article about him and his story so people can go read and learn about him. He also worked really hard on the article and he would like the article to be on publish and be on google with his other stuff so people can find it and learn about him when you look up lil sad frosty. It would also make his online presents and his google profile look way better. Lil sad frosty worked really hard and knows he deserve's it and it would help you gain more user's on Wikipedia! So it's a win win. It help's me and you so everyone's happy here!
Lil sad frosty You have a basic misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is. It is not a place for content about people who want to be famous. It is a place for articles about people who are already so famous that other people - who don't know them personally - have published stuff about them. "Too soon" applies to your situation (see WP:TOOSOON). So, the deleted attempt did break rules, and was deleted. As for asking the volunteers who serve as Teahouse hosts, we are here to advise about Wikipedia rules and stuff, but not to be authors or co-authors for editors such as yourself. David notMD (talk) 13:11, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and part of being that famous is that what other people have published becomes references. No references = no article. Look at the article Rapping. Toward the bottom, you will see the names of dozens of famous rappers. Their names are in blue, which means clicking on those goes to the articles about the people. Each of those articles (should) have references. David notMD (talk) 13:18, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Lil sad frosty: Aside from everything else (including whether you want it published in Wikipedia or in Google--whatever that means), by definition, ONLY ONE PERSON IN THE WORLD can write an autobiography of Lil sad frosty. That one person is Lil sad frosty. Theoretically I could write (I probably couldn't, and certainly won't even try) the finest life story of Lil sad frosty ever written. And it will never be an autobiography of Lil sad frosty--simply because I wrote it, and Lil sad frosty didn't. Uporządnicki (talk) 14:21, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Polite request for eyes on new stub/page on the Martin Luther King Fund and Foundation, UKk
Hello! I am a beginner editor on Wikipedia, only having created a couple of new pages so far. Would some kind person sympathetic to the UK legacy of MLK Jr have a look at User: Balance person/The Martin Luther King Fund and Foundation, UK . It may make a stub perhaps? Thanks! All suggestions welcome.~~~ Balance person (talk) 12:34, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Balance person, please note that being "sympathetic to the legacy" is not relevant, and may even be problematic. There are many things I am sympathetic to which we do not and will not have articles about unless they are written about enough to meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability; conversely, there are many things that I am unsympathetic to to the degree that I wish they had never existed, but are sufficiently notable that we have (and should have) an article about them.
What I mean by "problematic" is that if somebody writes an article about a subject they are strongly in favour of, it is likely to be difficult for them to achieve the required neutrality. Please also see WP:RIGHTINGGREATWRONGS: it is not quite the same, but related. ColinFine (talk) 15:22, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible to sort editing suggestions by articles pertaining to LGBTQ+ topics?
Hello,
As a member of the LGBTQ+ community, I have a vested interest in the upkeep and refinement of articles documenting LGBTQ+ history, literature, music, people, and videogames. Is there a way to find these articles easier than endless scrolling on the editing suggestions tab on the homepage?
Doesn't Wikipedia need an article about the self healer Torkil Olesen?
I have been greatly inspired by the story of Torkil Olesen (born 1937). In my opinion he is a great self healing pioneer and definitely worthy of an article.
His technique is frighteningly simple: Stop moving and stop thinking. Then turn your attention inward. His results challenge belief, but I think he is worthy of mention here in Wikipedia. How old does he need to get, for the community to agree? 80.208.26.122 (talk) 14:05, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And also, if someone is both sufficiently motivated to write such an article AND able to write one that will pass muster. Wikipedia doesn't have a committee of writers, who maybe meet to discuss what ought to be written about that hasn't yet, and look for someone to do it. It's all written by volunteers. And it does seem that a lot of what many volunteers write doesn't make it in. Uporządnicki (talk) 14:15, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@80.208.26.122, I unfortunately find no evidence that such a person existed. That is a lower bar than what would be required to create a Wikipedia article, which requires that he has "significant coverage" (150 words minimum but this one is fuzzy) in "independent" (not connected to the subject) and "reliable" (has a reputation for fact-checking) sources. (Quotes from WP:GNG) casualdejekyll15:53, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Torkil Olesen does exist. He is a retired Danish dentist with an interest in self-healing, expressed on his blog https://selvheling.blogspot.com/ The key to him being considered as a topic of a Wikipedia article is not what he has written, but whether people have written (and published) about him. Is he the subject of an article in Danish Wikipedia? David notMD (talk) 17:35, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@AmericanForestry: Welcome to the Teahouse. Go to the Talk Page of the article here, and click "New Section". Then provide the edits you'd like to make and the sources you'd like to use. I will be watching the Talk Page, so if no one else responds to your request there, I will. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 16:41, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but I don't want translation. I want a alternative title for "Bay Dardi" it's a urdu language word which English means cruelty, In this way I want a alternative Title of BayDardi for bengali a native speaker can help. Once again thanks for your trying to help @Britmax: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4060:e9b:fcdb::320a:370e (talk)
Hello, Britmax, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm not quite sure what you mean by a "suitable name". If you are asking about what to use for the title of a Wikipedia article, the answer depends on how the item is referred to in the reliable sources which must be cited, not on anybody's translation. If you are asking for any other purpose, then your question doesn't belong on the Teahouse, which is about help with editing Wikipedia. WP:RDE or WP:RDL might be an appropriate place to ask. --ColinFine (talk) 17:40, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have noticed that there is some mistake that I am making while adding pictures due to which it is getting removed. Can someone guide me or help me in adding the pictures. Asad29591 (talk) 19:00, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Asad29591: Welcome to the Teahouse. The question is are those images suitable for Wikipedia? It's not an issue if you have the copyright and decide to release it under the licences that Wikipedia uses, but most images (especially those found on the Internet) generally aren't suitable for Wikipedia articles. You would have to demonstrate that the image you want to use satisfies all of the free use criteria. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:16, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Asad29591 In my view, uploading to English Wikipedia of a small image of the now deceased Mohd Azizan Baba would be acceptable under criterion 1 of our WP:Non-free content criteria. This is becasue, unless other properly licenced images are available that Wikipedia can use, it's impossible for you to take one of a now-dead person that you can then upload under the right licence. The image you added after he died was removed automatically by a bot (software program) for not having the right licensing associated with it. You could try again, following this guidance, and then perhaps asking at this page if you still encounter problems: WP:Media copyright questions.
However, the image of the destroyed shrine doesn't fit under our 'non-free criteria'. Initially, I couldn't see any licence statement (which needs to be either CC-0, or CC-BY-SA) which permits us and other people to re-use it, even for commercial purposes. Creative Commons licences that permit non-commercial use are not sufficient for us to use. But then I found that website's licencing details (see here), and it became clear that they have not released their content and images for commercial re-use. It is a subtle difference, I know, but that was the reason why it was removed, as we need to be confident everything we include on Wikipedia can itself be re-used - even commercially - by others.
Hi, I'm a massive fan of football in general and love to update the Wikipedia pages for footballers. However, I was told that Transfermarkt is not a reliable source as anyone could edit it. So, what websites could I use for reliable, true facts that won't get changed? RossEvans18 (talk) 21:22, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@RossEvans18: Welcome and thanks for wanting to cite your sources. You can check out other articles on Football topics and see what sources are used there. You can also find a project that is relevent and ask there. One possibility is Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football depending on which flavor of Football you are interested in, there are links on the top of the page there to other projects. RudolfRed (talk) 21:31, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
adding onto this, the page states that transfermarkt is not usable as it is a user-generated source, which is not usable due to the lack of editorial oversight and since anyone can easily create them. happy editing! 💜 melecie talk - 01:27, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
New Article Denied
I just added an article about my band, M&R Rush. I provided information and a history of the band, as well as members and discography. The comment the reviewer left was: unsourced? I do not understand what this means or hw to fix it. Schlep57 (talk) 22:03, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Schlep57, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid that, like many people, you have fundamentally misunderstood what Wikipedia is. Wikipedia is not for telling the world about yourself or your projects: that is called promotion, and is strictly forbidden. If at some time Wikipedia has an article about your band, the article will not belong to you, will not be controlled by you, will preferably not be written by you, may end up containing material that you would prefer it didn't, and (this is the relevant point here) should be based almost entirely on what people who have no connection with you have chosen to publish about your band in reliable sources, not on what you or your associates say or want to say.
Until you can cite sufficient independent sources to establish that your band meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability, it is a waste of everybody's time for you to try working on this draft. ColinFine (talk) 22:13, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Simply, Schlep57, you give no reason for the reader to believe anything that this draft says. Everything that it says should be referenced, to a reliable, published source that's independent of the band. -- Hoary (talk) 22:14, 27 April 2022 (UTC) PS That was an edit clash with ColinFine. I fully agree with everything he says. -- Hoary (talk) 22:16, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What steps are required in adding/uploading an image to the infobox template? Also, what specific policies should I reference and adhere to? JetGreen40 (talk) 22:17, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A widely varying number, JetGreen40, largely depending on whether or not the image you want is already at Wikimedia Commons (or perhaps English-language Wikipedia). So, is the image at Commons or (English) Wikipedia? -- Hoary (talk) 23:20, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Example image, also please don't use thumbs like this in infoboxes haha~ hi there! if the image is already present in either Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons, you can plug in the image's name (without File:) directly to the Image field in the infobox (assuming you're still using VisualEditor). so for example you can input in Cherry blossom sunset (13069579044).jpg to produce the image to the right. happy editing! 💜 melecie talk - 00:09, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
if it's not yours but you can verify that it's in a suitable free license, also head to Wikimedia Commons.
the tricky part is if it's not yours, and not free (if you can't find the image license, assume it's copyrighted). in that case, there is a guideline on fair use media that you would have to read first. you would have to justify why the image should be used, why there are no other free use alternatives that can be used, and then head over to Files for upload to upload it. happy editing! 💜 melecie talk - 02:16, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@JetGreen40, "is it yours" means "do you own the copyright". The most common way to own the copyright is if you took the picture yourself. Images that you find on social media sites, or elsewhere on the internet, are usually copyrighted (and you will not be the copyright owner) 73.127.147.187 (talk) 11:45, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I just have to wonder, why are there so many GEOSTUBs on Wikipedia, and why are half of them even notable? I feel like a good one fifth of Special:Random clicks will take you to some random village in Azerbaijan. In my opinion, IAR would have something to say here. Sungodtemple (talk) 02:17, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Inclusionism appears to allow populated location stubs, ditto species, and I think colleges and high schools, but not middle of elementary schools. Thus, more than 6,490,000 articles in English Wikipedia. David notMD (talk) 05:25, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's a weird one, resulting from a rather illogical divide in Wikipedia. In every subject in Wikipedia except place names, there seems to be a feeling that the subject ought to have been interesting to someone before an article is written. But for place-names, it's accepted that if someone lived there, it's notable. As a result, we get strings of AfD discussions that begin "railway siding in Idaho, seems to have had one grain silo at some point but otherwise no buildings, no evidence this is a settlement" but end up with the article being saved because someone tracked down a 1921 newspaper reference to someone's chicken being run over, in which the former chicken owner is identified as a resident of this location. And so we have the article even though the most notable thing that ever happened there was a regrettably-squashed chicken and nothing else will ever happen there because there is now nothing and no one there to do any happening.
But equally illogically, this "inhabited place" rule is interpreted very variably. If you try to write an article about a large new estate in the middle East, for example, then good luck! The place may house 50,000 people have a clearly-recognised name and boundary, but the sources will be largely newspaper articles about local politicians and developers being mutually smug about how lovely their development is, interspersed with builders being smug about the fact it's only 3 years behind schedule, and everyone conspiring to say how gorgeous it is; together with a selection of minor articles covering the criminal activities of the trouble-causing minority that will always be found in so large a group of humans. Because Wikipedia hates anything promotional, all the builder/developer/politician sources will get written off, even if they were unprovoked attempts at journalism by unconnected journalists, and the rest will be written off as run-of-the-mill stuff not primarily about the location. And so the article is doomed. And so we have articles about railway sidings in Idaho where once, probably, it's possible someone lost a chicken, but we lack articles about huge estates in non-US parts of the world. Elemimele (talk) 05:59, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am trying hard to to get my article approved on Wikipedia. I have edited it as suggested by reviewer. Please please help me to publish it asap. The link of the article is Draft:V. K. Ahuja
K baishya, two questions for you. First, thousands of drafts are awaiting review. Is there some reason why this draft should have priority? (Is there some requirement "to publish it asap"?) Secondly, the photograph of Ahuja is described as your "own work". Thus you took the photograph. Clearly it was taken with the cooperation of Ahuja. May we infer that you know him? -- Hoary (talk) 06:45, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sir, the ans to the first question is yes. Professor V. K Ahuja is a renowned academician in the field of Law. He is the professor of Law in Delhi University which is a public central University and Institute of Eminence and has joined as the Vice-Chancellor at National Law University and Judicial Academy, Assam, almost a year back which is also a public University.
Secondly, by mistake it was described as my own work because I am a new editor. I have modified the same and sourced it. Thank you so much for your feedback
K baishya, it's really not necessary to address others here as "Sir". (We're all just harmless drudges.) Why should a draft about a renowned academician in the field of Law take priority over drafts about other subjects? Meanwhile, the photograph is more of a mystery. Its page at Commons now says that the uploader is the copyright holder but also that it comes from this web page, a web page that says nothing about copyleft or the public domain, and in which the photograph is a mere 150×150 pixels. -- Hoary (talk) 08:30, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
K baishya, if you want a reviewer to consider your draft, you could make things easier for them. The main issue any reviewer will consider is whether the subject is notable, as attested by several reliable independent sources that discuss him or his work at length. As things are, a reviewer may look at the first six sources cited, find that none of them helps with notability, see that there's another 38 to wade through, and decide to find a better use for their time. If you want to expedite approval, I suggest that you pick four of the citations that do most to establish notability, and get rid of most or all of the others. (You'll be able to add them back afterwards if the draft gets accepted.) Maproom (talk) 07:11, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much sir for your suggestion. I will definitely work on it.
On your Talk page you have been asked several times if you have a personal or paid connection to Ahuja, but have not replied. IT IS ESSENTIAL that if you do not, you make a statement to that effect on your Talk page. If you do, then WP:COI pr WP:PAID may apply, and you must comply. Also, is it possible that you edited the article under the account Kaba21, and while not logged in, resulting in edits by IP addresses 112.196.170.52 and 14.139.213.157? Using more than one account on the same article is forbidden (see WP:SOCK) and grounds to be blocked from all future editing. If this was done in ignorance you should confirm on your Talk page and state that you will use only the K baishya account going forward.
Much of the text, before I did some editing today, was near-identical to this web page mentioned above by Hoary. It still may be close-paraphrasing and thus a copyright infringement. Revise in your own wording, and perhaps delete some of the less important information, so that is is less of a copy. David notMD (talk) 10:12, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for editing the article. I don't have paid connection to the subject. He is known to me professionally as he is popular among the legal fraternity of India because of his contribution in intellectual property rights. My apologies if i have done multiple edits inadvertently. I am new at wikipaedia. Thank you once again for your feedback and response.
Is it okay to cite mylife.com as a source? It contains dates of birth of many in Wikipedia whose articles have none. Nythar (talk) 06:42, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to the Teahouse, Nythar. The website's footer states: "MyLife aggregates publicly available information from government, social, and other sources, plus personal reviews written by others. This third-party data is then indexed through methods similar to those used by Google or Bing to create a listing. Because MyLife only collects this data and does not create it, we cannot fully guarantee its accuracy". I'd say that rules it out as a reliable source. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:45, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Majinthehouse, some IP number edited the longish (and utterlyalmost completely unreferenced) section Tiswas#Missing_episodes and messed up the formatting. Because the formatting was a mess, I reverted the edits. Please suggest a correction on Talk:Tiswas. Please cite your source(s). Thank you for your trouble. -- Hoary (talk) 07:48, 28 April 2022 (UTC) corrected Hoary (talk) 09:26, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Michael D. Turnbull No, that is just the active/only afd. I know that there were 2 WP:G11 deletions (so no afd-discussion in the archives), one 2021 and one 2022. The deleting admin told me, and this was visible as a "warning" when I started the draft like at the Bechly-link. But can I see this deletion-history as a non-admin somewhere now that there is a mainspace article? It seems to me that I should be able to. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:16, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sentences such as "Mirrikle blends his spotless genre of Afro pop music with soliciting for women emancipation." are not appropriate. Is this your thinking? Or from a published review? Also, given he apears to have just released his first single, WP:TOOSOON clearly applies. David notMD (talk) 10:33, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reference #5 is an interview. What a person says about themselves in an interview is not considered reliable. Thus, the text "He was discovered at age Seven years of age as a budding music star. At then, Mirrikle will always rap for his friends. When his friends started rewarding him with money when he rapped for them, he personally knew he had a role in rap music." is not verified by a relable source, and must be deleted. David notMD (talk) 11:09, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Shinelight, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia. I remember when I was a new editor, long ago, and how I desperately wanted to "make my mark" by creating a new article. But I couldn't find a suitable topic, and never did. (In 20 000 edits in 17 years, I've only ever created a handful of articles).
Creating new articles is not the only way to contribute to Wikipedia. For an inexperienced editor, it is an extremely difficult way, and likely to involve you in frustration and disappointment. You can add hundreds or thousands of times as much value to Wikipedia by making small improvements to some of our millions of existing articles, many of which are seriously in need of attention. Every single time you can clarify an unclear paragraph, find and cite a reliable source for some unsourced information, or remove some cruft or non-neutral wording from an article, you will be contributing more to Wikipedia than you ever could by creating a draft about a subject which does not currently meet Wikipedia's criteria for WP:notability. I suggest you have a look at the "Help out" section of the Community portal. ColinFine (talk) 14:04, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Shinelight007, I really love what Colin said above. I'll add something a little personal here that doesn't include wikilinks to any policy or guideline. Those have been provided. By doing as Colin says you will be shining your light brighter and having more of an impact on the encyclopedia for the good. Article creation will come and it will come different for you than it has or will for us. You are a uniquely gifted and talented person. The advice that I can give is to not rush into anything but spend time reading the words and watching the actions of experienced editors here. I am so glad you came to the Teahouse because there are amazing hosts and editors here willing to help you on this journey. Slow down and take your time. I've been working on a draft for the last 8 months or more and it's still a draft. There are so many other tasks that need accomplished. One day I hope you get the chance to write that article on Mirrikle and I believe it will be an amazing article should you get that chance. In the meantime learn and grow as an editor by doing the small improvements Colin talks about. They may be smaller yet they are equally as important. --ARoseWolf14:21, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Theroadislong commented that Mirrikle does not yet meet Wikipedia:Notability (music). Aligns with my WP:TOOSOON. Basically, no amount of revising or seeking references will make Mirrikle notable at this time. If you stop all work on the draft, it will be deleted in six months. Or you can tag it at the top with Db-author inside double curly brackets {{ }} and an Administrator will come along and delete it. I hope you find a way to stay active in Wikipedia, perhaps by improving existing articles. David notMD (talk) 11:20, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Prefixes come before a name, suffixes come after a name, and it depends on what is is and what country as to whether it goes before or after a name. e.g. for Lewis Hamilton, "Sir" is a prefix, and "MBE", "HonFREng" (which is an honorary degree) are suffixes. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:20, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to the Teahouse. I'm not sure what you're asking; articles are primarily made up of words and not all of them have images, so as far as I'm aware there isn't a way to have an article without the words. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 11:46, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are ways to turn images off in your browser, for example Chrome seems to have an extension called images-onoff which would let you do that for just Wikipedia. --General Vicinity (talk) 15:45, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Linking a YouTube video?
Hello, I'm back again. I've read WP:YOUTUBE and all of the associated WP links, but I'm still unsure. I've used NASCAR's official channel stream upload of the 2015 Kobalt 400, as it is the only detail I can find about why Tony Stewart was issued a pass-through penalty (a tire rolled out of his pit area) which was mentioned by the commentator at around the 1 hour 10 minute 5 seconds mark. Should I leave it as is or is it copyright infringement? X-750I've made a mistake, haven't I?11:44, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello X-750! Yes, care needs to be taken with YouTube links but they can be used as references as long as they meet the standards laid out. As it is the official NASCAR YouTube channel, according to Reliable sources/Perennial sources for YouTube: "Content uploaded from a verified official account, such as that of a news organization, may be treated as originating from the uploader and therefore inheriting their level of reliability." so it's considered as reliable as if quoting from www.nascar.com. The other concern with YouTube is if it is a copyright violation but this is uploaded by NASCAR who own the rights to the video & thus are a legitimate source for viewing that material on the web. So you should be in the clear in that regard too. If the exact same video was uploaded by "John Smith" for example, it would be considered a copyright violation as they don't own the rights to post the video. Hope this is of help! LooksGreatInATurtleNeck (talk) 12:41, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Need to add a middle initial to a profile page title
I need to add a middle initial to the title of the profile of a living person I created. I moved it successfully once but now need to change it back and I can't seem to do it with an admin or page mover. Can anyone help?
Done. A tip, Llmeyers: don't refer to an article as a "profile", a word that has all the wrong connotations. (Often, they do apply to the crappy article in question; I'm happy to say that the article Carey R. Dunne isn't crappy.) -- Hoary (talk) 13:19, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To whom it may concern, there are various edits concerning a company page that the company itself would like to report and adjust. To begin, there has been not only a history of the page being duplicated when published, but also the same issue for the page of the company CEO page. The company would also like to further connect the page with other institute and academic institution pages, for increased outreach. Could an editor review these edits, or may the company proceed with a non-invasive recommendations procedure in the talk section that is in-line with the Wikipedia Conflict of Interest Policy. In short: what is the best way for them to go about it. The edits are non-bias Mittens40404 (talk) 14:45, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Could you specify what article is affected by the conflict of interest? In any case, companies should not be editing their own articles. A good way to go about it is to ask them what they want to be done to the article and what sources they have (which are usually primary, so try to find some good secondary/tertiary sources). Then, you (or another editor) could review their edits and either reject or apply them to the article.
Your request is very confusing. There does not appear to be a duplicate of that article on English Wikipedia. Are you talking about versions of Wikipedia in other languages? About sites other than Wikipedia? 199.208.172.35 (talk) 15:08, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You can do this yourself by going to the search engine located at top right of your screen. Type up the title that you are looking for. If there are "No Results" than you are set to go. Mschulz75 (talk) 17:34, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article exists on Wikipedia - it would be the result of any such search. They're not asking for it to be deleted, they seem to think that there are multiple copies of it here. Maybe they've seen redirects or maybe they did a Google search and saw copies on other sites. It's hard to tell. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:58, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftification deletion
Recently my article release from imprisonment was deleted under the guide of draftification, which wasted a lot of my time and made the encyclopaedia worse since it was good content. I would like to know if just anyone gets to delete things this way and if there is any way to dispute it. --General Vicinity (talk) 15:40, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, General Vicinity, and welcome to the Teahouse! I'm sorry you've had a difficult time with your draft (courtesy link: Draft:Release from imprisonment). The good news is that it's not deleted; it is simply in the draftspace, where you can make improvements incrementally more easily. It looks like the reason it was not accepted at the time was that it is not cited by reliable sources yet. Adding more of those will help your draft. If your draft conforms to the core content policies, it can then be accepted and moved to mainspace. Good luck, and happy editing! Perfect4th (talk) 15:49, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How is the encyclopedia worse? The content doesn't support a stand-alone article and is now a redirect to the exact content in a relevant article. Seems like a perfectly normal outcome that improves the experience for readers.Slywriter (talk) 15:55, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a particularly helpful edit summary [3]. I understand the frustration but that "evil red tape" is policy here and is meant to protect the encyclopedia from the inclusion of non-notable subjects or the duplication of subjects. You found a suitable redirect. Why not improve the article that you redirected to? You can merge anything you had that was properly sourced into the redirected article Imprisonment. --ARoseWolf15:57, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Status: What I see is that you created content in Imprisonment in a section titled Release, and then put the identical content in a draft of an article Draft:Release from imprisonment, which has been Declined and resubmitted. The Articles for Creation process puts drafts such as yours to experienced reviewers, who select what they want to review. Declined drafts can be revised and resubmitted. If Declined again, I am of the same opinion is ARoseWolf David notMD (talk) 16:06, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Creating a Dirac–Kähler equation article
Currently working on the staggered fermion article (got a draft ready; its a key topic in lattice field theory), but I suspect that I need to create a separate article on Dirac–Kähler fermions, although I am debating the necessity of this on the basis of notability.
Pros:
Important theoretical form of staggered fermions (in fact it's their continuum limit). Acknowledged in the (admittedly stub) Kogut–Susskind fermion article (which is equivalent to staggered fermions; still waiting on that merger).
Does not fit into the staggered fermion article itself as it just makes much more sense as a separate topic and is a complete switch of tone. So would significantly hinder the flow of that article.
Original paper by Kähler from the 60s is well established (as is the lattice follow-up from the 80s) and has garnered reasonably many citations (Kähler's papers has around 400 citations, which is not much in the grand scheme of physics, but its a solid amount in theoretical lattice field theory where few people work and it does not get large boosts from direct application papers). Plenty of other papers on it exist besides these two, based on them.
New papers on Dirac–Kähler fermions do occasionally come up on arXiv.
Should exist on a comprehensive Wikipedia. That is to say it should be here eventually.
Does come up as an entire subsection in the classic textbook on Lattice QCD by Montvay and Munster (one of five textbooks on this subject; its only mentioned in others).
Would be useful for any researcher using staggered fermions as a theoretical foundation (of which there are plenty; its one of the dominant fermion discretizations in the lattice field theory community, together with Wilson and twisted-mass fermions).
Such science topics will low key stay relevant far into the future; staggered fermions will continue to be important.
Cons:
Not really that many citations compared to some other topics.
Not the most fruitful topic for direct future research; Dirac–Kähler fermions do not seem to have much utility beyond forming a theoretical foundation for staggered fermions. Hence the relative dearth of follow up research into them in the present.
Thanks @Cullen328:. @OpenScience709:, the lattice field theory is not exactly my topic area (I only know a Dirac fermion) but on the basis of what you write I would say the topic is probably notable (it would be certainly notable if there is a good review article, but if not a subsection of the book would work). The question is about your priorities and whether you would find it fun to work on the topic. Ymblanter (talk) 18:24, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Since I already have a draft for the article done, I might as well create the article once I get the staggered fermion article done as well. Also, nice to make your acquaintance Yaroslav. OpenScience709 (talk) 19:40, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Click on Resubmit and it will go again into the backlog of drafts to be reviewed. Teahouse hosts are not necessarily Reviewers. Asking here does not short-cut the process. David notMD (talk) 16:13, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello User:Remmni10 you can type the name in the searchbar, hit enter or push the search button and there should be a link to create it, you can also create it in your sandbox or a draft in your userspace i believe, remember to read WP:RS, WP:NOTABILITY and WP:BLP, i do need to warn you that if this person isn't notable enough or isn't mentioned in any reliable sources then your article very likely will get deleted or, if published as a draft for review, will likely be rejected.
If they don't, they are not (yet, anyway) "Notable" in the sense Wikipedia uses the term, and no attempt at an article (not "page") will be accepted. It may be that one day they will, and right now it's just WP:Too soon.
If you think they do meet the criteria, and you have at least three published Reliable sources that are independent of the subject or anyone connected to them (including their college) and discuss them at some length (at least a few paragraphs), you can use these as a basis for drafting an article. See Help:Your first article for details of how to go about this.
Remember that if you yourself have any connection to the subject, you need to disclose this Conflict of Interest (the linked page explains how). A CoI makes it more difficult for you to write objectively about the subject, using only facts that have been published and not ones known to you through personal contact with them, and writing from a Wikipedia:Neutral point of view without praising or evaluating them. Good luck! {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.208.88.97 (talk) 16:58, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see that many articles on businesses/shops have photos of the storefront in the infobox. There is an article I would like to add a photo to (ZiNG Pop Culture Australia) however because of the nature of the store, all of the storefronts have pop culture things in the front such as Harry Potter and Pokémon. Would a photo of this store be okay under the Wikipedia:Non-free_content policy? It seems to be after reading it, but as it's not specifically discussed I don't want to risk anything without certainty. Thank you for your help! -- NotCharizard🗨18:49, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Two possible issues to consider here: freedom of panorama and derivative work. If the country where the store is located allows freedom of panorama for buildings other structures, a non-free photo of the store front isn't going to be allowed per WP:FREER since a photo could be taken by anyone who who wants to and that person can release it under a free license that Wikipedia and Commons accept. The other issue has to do with whatever elements in the photo are considered eligible for copyright protection independent of the photo itself. If these elements are insignificant or incidental, then they could be considered de minimis and thus only the copyright of the photo matters; if they're the focus of the photo or otherwise predominant elements, then the photo may be considered a derivative work. In this case, it would seem to be hard to justify the non-free use if such a photo in the Zing article in a way that would satisfy all non-free content use criteria. — Marchjuly (talk) 19:24, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just a thought here — If I use Google Streetview, I can get it to show me a shop from the street. If it's a bookshop, I may be able to look at the artwork on the covers of some books. Google can afford good lawyers, so I'm pretty sure that they're not breaking the law by reproducing these rather small images of copyright works. (For an example, stroll along Lion Yard, in Brecon, Wales.) Maproom (talk) 20:11, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The country (Australia) does have freedom of panorama. I meant that I would use a photo I have taken myself though - so wouldn't that be a free photo under that rule? -- NotCharizard🗨20:11, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you take the photo yourself and Australia allows freedom of panorama for such photos, then that takes care of the photo. The question then is how predominant the other elements are in the photo. For example, if you stand across the street and photograph the store as part of a larger scene, de minimis probably applies. If, on the other hand, you focus in on one or more elements that may be protected by copyright of their accord independently of the building, then de minimis may be harder to argue. One thing you might try doing is looking for similar photos on Commons to the one you want to take use them for reference. Looking at a category like c:Category:De minimis might also be helpful. You can also ask for assistance at c:COM:VPC if you're unsure about a particular photo. — Marchjuly (talk) 20:36, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay wonderful, I think the de minimis should apply based on the example photos, I'll have a look at some on Commons as well. Thank you so much for your very detailed reply, it's an issue that I know very little about so can be a bit overwhelming but you explained it really well, cheers. -- NotCharizard🗨20:48, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I understand that my first article for submission has, so far, not been accepted. I am finding some difficulty with the formatting of the article. I have a detailed and researched article in Word (.docx) format, that does not translate into the coding for wiki formatting... especially for the addition of photos. We (collectively) have many photos collected from years of articles, biographies of our members, etc., even those that hang on our walls, that are framed and "analog". I have interviewed many of the "original" members, who still maintain first-hand stories of other members. Several have passed, and I want their legacies to continue. This is really the driving force behind my article creation. Not only that, but the history is shared between many within our organizations and a composite of us all, without disparaging any of us. I can do the footnoting and references, I believe, but the Word doc has many links, that I have included throughout, in order to give proper credit where it is due. Thank you. JediBaggins (talk) 19:43, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Master Frodo and/or Bilbo, you mention "years of articles, biographies of our members, etc., even those that hang on our walls, that are framed and "analog"." Were these articles/biographies published by independent organizations (newspapers, magazines, etc.)? If so, and if you have the publication names, article titles, publication dates, etc., that is what could be used to build an article around. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 20:13, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, JediBaggins. Please understand that Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. Unless you can find some independent published sources of that kind, your club will not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and no article on it is possible. ColinFine (talk) 22:00, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi User:JediBaggins, i like your draft article, especially the beginning anecdote. With photos added, it'll be great. As your photos are "analog" they will have to be scanned or otherwise converted to digital (perhaps by taking digital photos of them), before it can be published. Yeah, the critics here aren't liking this for an encyclopedia article, but it would be a good article in local newspapers in communities where any of you have a connection. Or a local historical society would be happy to publish in their newsletter. And further, once it's published elsewhere then it might be cited and quoted from in a relevant article here!
I happen to write and edit articles mostly about historic sites, and it often happens that local historians start to write what they know about a place's history in an article about a town or abour a specific historic site. Then they encounter the buzz-saw. What they don't understand is that publishing locally is complementary to getting coverage in Wikipedia.
And photos can be used, as a kind of exception to the "no original research" dictum here. A photo caption can provide straight forward information about what a photo shows, and does not have to be previously published. Are any of your photos suitable for illustrating any existing article here? If so you could suggest their usage, at the Talk page of the relevant article. You might get a much more positive reception there.-Doncram (talk) 23:19, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Advice on moderation
Hello, all. Recently, I've tried to go beyond simply reverting acts of blatant vandalism and have decided to use the features of Wikipedia more. One of the things I've tried doing is using Twinkle to warn and welcome users. This comes in handy, but I'm still relatively new to when I should carry out warnings, best ways to spot any (I've already started using the recent changes page), and how to spot acts of vandalism that might be a bit subtle. This is when I've started utilizing talk pages, communicating properly, etc. and I'm afraid that along the line as I learn how to properly volunteer I'll mess up and take it personally. I understand that mistakes will be made, but while I'm still learning the ropes, does anyone have advice or warnings on how to properly assist in preventing vandalism and the welcoming of new users as an autoconfirmed, ordinary user? Anything is appreciated. - Cheers, KoolKidz112(hit me up)20:06, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, KoolKidz112, and welcome to the Teahouse! Sorry it took so long for anyone to get to your question; I'm not an expert, but I'll do my best. A lot of the issue is down to personal judgement. The Welcoming Committee welcomes users who have already made constructive edits, which could mean "editors who try to make constructive edits"; sometimes an editor tries to fix something but doesn't succeed, or doesn't know to provide sources. As long as an editor looks like they're trying to contribute constructively I'll welcome them. If there was a problem with an edit, I'll add a note explaining what it was (and why it may have been reverted; example edit and note). In addition, if there's anything to explain to an editor you're warning that the template doesn't cover, use the "Optional Message" portion of the Twinkle warning system freely. If you're not sure what their intentions are, you can always leave a note explaining what you did (if you did anything) and asking them to communicate with you or go to the article talk page (example edit and note). Even if an editor goes on to make unconstructive edits, being nice to them can't hurt. (Related: this thread, especially ARoseWolf's response.) If you're interested in learning more about combating vandalism, you might want to look into the Counter-Vandalism Unit. Someone more experienced may have better suggestions, but hopefully this helps a little! Perfect4th (talk) 14:59, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Set preferences or what for vertical quotes and apostrophes
Hi, I’ve just had a discussion at the Talk page of User:Cullen328’s essay on using smartphones for editing. I use an iPhone while Cullen328 uses Android and has no problem.The issue is: when i select the apostrophe or quote characters in editing, what i call slanted or curved versions of those get inserted. Same if i select for insertion the marks at bottom of my editing window. While Wikipedia needs vertical versions, which are what my editing on laptop delivers. Slanted versions are “ and ‘. So, for example if i type apostrophes to make bolding, what i get is ‘’’bolding?’’’ (which will not show as bolded). (I do know that for bolding i can highlight a phrase then select bolding icon. My point is I can’t type the symbols i and Wikipedia writing want.) I wonder: is there some way my user preferences could be changed so that the vertical versions of quote and apostrophe marks come out? Thanks, Doncram (talk) 21:08, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
P.S. MOS:STRAIGHT and wp:APOSTROPHE say the straight versions should be used. Doncram (talk) 21:13, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Doncram. This might be something worth asking about at WP:VPT, but it might turn out that there's nothing anyone can do on Wikipedia's end. I understand the "problem" you're experiencing, but perhaps it's not a major issue as long as it doesn't significantly affect how the text in question is being displayed in the article. These appear to be minor MOS issues that usually are going to eventually cleaned up by some bot or user who likes to look for such things; you can always go back "fix" things yourself (which is what I do) if you want. Some languages use full-width characters and perhaps there's something similar to that being done by Apple with respect to its iPhones because it seems to use smart quotes. If you Google this, you'll might find some information on this feature and whether it can be disabled (like this). Finally, although an excessive number of "full-width" or "smart" characters can sometimes be a indication of content being copied-and-pasted from external websites into Wikipedia articles, you should be OK as long as you're not doing anything like that. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:43, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All fixed now, i think, thanks! Googling "how turn off smart quotes in iphone" gets me to this page which points me to turning off "smart punctuation" under my iPhone settings/keyboard options. Yay, i can bold and "straight-quote" and 'vertical apostrophize(?)'. Not sure what else is covered in "smart punctuation" that I'm losing, except i see there's something about dashes. Yeah, i bet typing two hyphens now (as here -- and here--here) they won't be converted to an em-dash or en-dash, and that's fine by me. Thanks! Doncram (talk) 22:16, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A Wikiproject or Request Portal for Data Visualizations?
I'm trying to build on my data visualization skills with matplotlib and would like to make charts/graphs for Wikipedia as I explore the included functionalities more. Is there a systematic/simple way to find Wikipedia articles that would benefit from a chart (e.g. like a category, request portal, Wikiproject taskboard?).
I see that there's quite a few resources for charting and graphing on Wikipedia (Wikipedia:How to create charts for Wikipedia articles), but not really any kind of simple way to look for pages where other editors have made requests for data visualizations/charts/graphs.
Hi Cyali and welcome to the Teahouse. I suggest you take a look at the documentation at Template:Chart requested, which includes a number of suggestions for how articles may be tagged to indicate they would benefit from charts and/or graphs. You can then look at the places these templates have been used. Thanks for wanting to improve articles that way. Mike Turnbull (talk) 09:33, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Arthur Zilberman (talk) 23:03, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
hello my article got deleted from wiki after being there for years and years, can someone help me restore it or create new one? please
i compensate if needed[reply]
i know its illegal to offer money , but im only offering compensation for the time, whoever decides to take on this project. we are real company with 10 employees , multiple locations. mentioned on cbs news, cnn, msnbc...etc.. and all these mentions are free, meaning we didn't pay pr agency, they come to us because we are well know established brand in NYC and New Jersey. Arthur Zilberman (talk) 00:30, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
my article was deleted that was there for years, i need help writing new one or restoring old one.
i know its illegal to offer money , but im only offering compensation for the time, whoever decides to take on this project. we are real company with 10 employees , multiple locations. mentioned on cbs news, cnn, msnbc...etc.. and all these mentions are free, meaning we didn't pay pr agency, they come to us because we are well know established brand in NYC and New Jersey. Laptopmd.com Arthur Zilberman (talk) 00:24, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Arthur Zilberman, nobody has expressed any doubt that LaptopMD is a real company. Perhaps some day a person unconnected with LaptopMD will realize that it is notable according to Wikipedia's (arguably strange) criteria, and will want to write an article about it. Any attempt by you (or anyone else connected to LaptopMD) to accelerate this process will almost certainly fail, and may very well backfire. -- Hoary (talk) 00:32, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Arthurlmd My suggestion is that you not attempt to pursue this further. If your company truly meets the Wikipedia definition of a notable company, an independent editor will eventually take note of the appropriate coverage of your company in independent reliable sources and choose on their own to write about it. Trying to force the issue isn't often successful by those in your position. Please also understand that an article about your company is not necessarily a good thing. There are good reasons to not want one. 331dot (talk) 13:15, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Arthur Zilberman. It is not "illegal" to offer money, just unwise, and probably a waste of your money. In trying to find a way to get an article about your company on Wikipedia when several people have investigated and determined that your company does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, you are making it clear that you entire purpose is promotion - telling the world about your company - and promotion is absolutely forbidden on Wikipedia.
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. Unless you can find several such independent sources, any further time and effort you spend on this will be totally wasted. ColinFine (talk) 09:51, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We don't know - if we knew where to find independent sources about your company, they would have been added rather than deleting the article. Usually we can find newspaper articles and such, but they need to be about your company, not just articles that quote someone from your company. No one is going to be interested in writing an article that is just going to be deleted again because it doesn't meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. MrOllie (talk) 13:19, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Arthurlmd, the "several independent sources" are not going to be the ones interested in writing about LaptopMD. The people who are interested in writing will be looking at the "several independent sources" to collect information about your company. The "several independent sources" will be reliable, authoritative websites (NOT your own or those of people affiliated with our company), articles in magazines, or news stories or such things. The people interested in writing will not BE those "several independent sources"; they will be USING them. As for how to find the "several independent sources," it will not be possible to find them before there actually are any to find. Uporządnicki (talk) 13:28, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Those are places you were quoted for articles on other topics, they do not provide substantial detail about your company. MrOllie (talk) 15:50, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am confused
Hello editors good morning my name is Pritam mostly people know as your pritam I am a film critic. I don't have any Wikipedia knowledge by gathering knowledge from youtube I added content and based on my common sense I edited a draft https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Raavan_(2022_film) pasted the link of the film releasing today of bengali superstar Jeet. I submitted review for this article now a yellow box appeared but before that a red box was there should I delete the red box? And how to remove that Draft: sign before Raavan pls say. 2409:4060:2E15:6F13:0:0:328A:C505 (talk) 23:26, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikilink: Draft:Raavan_(2022_film) Don't delete the red box. That explains why the earlier draft version was declined. The "Draft" in the name will be removed when (if) the draft is approved and moved into article space. You should make sure to address the concerns that led to the initial decline, otherwise it will just be declined again. RudolfRed (talk) 23:40, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Declines need to be left in place. Now that you have submitted the draft, it joins a backlog of more than 3,000 drafts. The system is not a queue. Reviewers select what they want to review next. Could be days, weeks or months before it is reviewed. David notMD (talk) 00:18, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This draft has a troubled history. An article about the film was deleted in Nov 2021. Editor User:GentBeaus69 added content and references, all that subsequently deleted because GB a confirmed sock. Now, IP 2409:4060:2E15:6F13:0:0:328A:C505 had added the same content, plus more, as a single-purpose editor, i.e., only working on this article, and showing skill not expected from a new editor. The content and referencing may be valid, but this is possibly the work of a sockpuppet. Comments about this made on draft. David notMD (talk) 00:35, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
hi Nyonyatwelfth and welcome to the teahouse! since there's you just tag a {{bare url inline}} to the related source like [1][bare URL]. however since in this case the reference doesn't feel appropriate (it's a homepage link and the specific document is cited later in the article), I've just removed it entirely. happy editing! 💜 melecie talk - 00:13, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The page Murder of Carlie Brucia currently redirects to Carlie's Law. The latter never passed the legislature, and the murder case itself drew enough attention to be considered notable, so it seems like it'd make sense to change the "Murder of" page to an article about the incident itself. My only question is whether this would require a separate review process, since it'd be essentially "creating" a new article over the redirect. Would an article created over a redirect need some special kind of review, or am I overthinking it? –Galactic-Radiance(talk)01:59, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is it acceptable to cite sources where certain information is heavily implied that anyone reading the cited source could understand that it is legitimate? Or must the citation always explicitly prove its legitimacy?
The following line in the Jan Levinson article needs citation: "Her counterpart in the British version is Jennifer Taylor-Clarke" (2nd line in the article). To my knowledge, there are no references to this line except for personal blogs and fandom sites (that often only mirror Wikipedia)
hi Fenharrow and welcome to the teahouse! the citation should always prove its legitimacy. blogs and the like are not permitted due to the policy on self-published sources that states that they're not allowed as anyone can post one without any guarantee of editorial oversight or fact-checking. that goes regardless of whether said source is trusted: even if we ignore WP:CIRCULAR, citing wikipedia itself (and similar sites) probably won't be able to be usable due to its user-generated nature despite being truated by probably millions around the world. happy editing! 💜 melecie talk - 11:31, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any way to edit the references tab? or is there no way? I want to edit the references tab because i want to add the icon-looking thing, like the green lock beside a reference? (Sorry if it makes no sense) Leahnn Rey (talk) 14:17, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Leahnn Rey: Welcome to the Teahouse. The references are consolidated with either {{reflist}} or <references />, so you'd have to go to the inline citation that you want in the body of the article. There should be a linked arrow (^) to the left of each item that allows you go up to where it is used. What you want to do is done as a template parameter, so once you've identified the citation, you are going to need to edit the citation and look for the appropriate keyword to use (Template:Citation#csdoc_access_level has much more information). —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:27, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Leahnn Rey My understanding is that when you create a ref that provides full access to the text, the green icon is added automatically. For example, I added many science journal articles to Vitamin A. Some of the journals provide free access to the complete text and got the green. David notMD (talk) 15:36, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How to add References
Hi, I'm new to this. I have no idea where to find 'add reference' and what to reference? I have added lots of links and information but what constitutes a reference?
I moved the article Four Player Chess to improve the name. I believe there are double redirects, but they aren't terrible and I believe bots will fix that. Can someone more knowledgeble tell me if there is anything that needs to be checked (or fixed?). For what it's worth, the move is correct, though it could have stayed at Four-player chess or even be 4 Player Chess. Anyways, thanks! Bedfordres (talk) 17:12, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Bedfordres, hello and welcome to the Teahouse, generally although you are encouraged to be WP:BOLD, it is good practice for you to go to the talkpage of the article and initiate a conversation for the sake of consensus, It is good practice for you to ping major contributors to the discussion as well, rather than a unilateral move. Whilst I have not looked into it with detail and just saw your rationale for the move, I would like to tell you that you move to a different name if the new name is the actual WP:COMMONNAME as indicated by the quality of the sources used. Celestina007 (talk) 17:24, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Celestina007 Thank you for your reply. I don't think there is any one name. I think that four player chess is more likely to be looked for than the version with the punctuation. I wasn't aware that you need to put something on a talk page, though that makes sense. Do you want me to put something on the talk page after the fact? Bedfordres (talk) 17:32, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Bedfordres, not necessarily but it is good etiquette if you indeed explain your thinking and explain your actions. But If you don’t you wouldn’t be violating any policy it just portrays good etiquette. Celestina007 (talk) 17:51, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can I have more than one section at a time uploaded on the talk page of an article?
On the talk page for the Argentinian band Siamés, I created a section to discuss an issue with sourcing who all the members of the band are, which is currently pending responses.
However, I noticed something else that I wanted to talk about in the article, that being the genre prescribed to the band in the lede (Electropop). I don't think it's particularly accurate, and there are numerous secondary sources indicating that Siamés is predominantly an indie rock band.
Are users allowed to have more than one section in the talk page?
If you wish to discuss multiple issues about an article, and you think it's helpful to split it into separate discussions, then yes, you can start as many new sections on the talk page as you need. If you use the New Section button, or the "edit source" near the section header, it will show you just that section to edit. If you use the "Edit source" tab at the top of the talk-page, you can see, and edit, the entire talk-page, with all sections present simultaneously. I hope that helps! Elemimele (talk) 17:45, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are you concerned that you've been banned from editing Wikipedia? If so, you don't currently appear to be blocked. But your IP address belongs to an educational establishment, and these often run into difficulties because they are shared by large numbers of users. You will find messages on your talk page complaining about unhelpful editing, and threatening blocks, which are quite probably responses to editing by other people who happen to be at the same institution and sharing the same IP address. To get round this problem, you can register as a user with a user-name, and then it won't matter what your IP address is. You will be recognised as you, and you'll have your own talk-page, and only get blocked if you, personally, do something outrageous! It also has the benefit that your actual IP address will remain private. I hope this answers your concern. Elemimele (talk) 17:48, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Moving draft articles into mainspace over redirects
Hi all. I’ve been on Wikipedia for about three years now, in that time I’ve created a decent amount of draft articles and moved them into mainspace. I want to move Draft: The Nun 2 into mainspace since production has commenced according to sources I’ve cited in the draft but there is a redirect in the way, could an administrator move this for me please? Thanks heaps. KaitoNkmra23(talk!)19:11, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Mr JNXN. WP:RSN is a better place to ask about reliability of sources. Before asking, it's worth searching the archives of that noticeboard, to see if they have been discussed before. ColinFine (talk) 22:57, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Article rejected ... because of lack of reliable and verifiable sources: Significant coverage...
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
Not sure if it is possible to have a quick call to see exactly how to overcome this.What other sources count?
Hello, Jmukiri This is about Draft:Caroline Bosire. Independent sources are those that have no direct connection with Bosire, and the sources must devote significant coverage to her. Things published by organizatiins that she is affiliated with are not independent. Her defending her PhD thesis is not independent. Passing mentions are not significant coverage. Cullen328 (talk) 23:03, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Jmukiri, and welcome to the Teahouse. Presumably, this relates to Draft:Caroline Bosire. There are three separate requirements that a source must meet in order for it to contribute to notability. First, it must be reliable: on the face of it, those two are probably reliable. Secondly, it must be independent of the subject: your second and third links are by, or partly by, Bosire, and so are not independent of her, and do not contribute to establishing notability. Thirdly, they must contain significant coverage of the subject: the aasciences link does not appear to mention Bosire, and so cannot contribute to establishing her notability. ColinFine (talk) 23:04, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for getting back to me. https://www.aasciences.africa/grantees-profile?id=260 I was supposed to put that link. Yes based on my draft, in simple terms.. my links are not "verifiable" so thus cannot be contributed to? Does this not disqualify many people from the global south where that is harder to achieve? in this case very few women are scientist to start out with? honestly would not know how to add more women on wikipedia whose work is important if these are the limitations. Jmukiri (talk) 23:40, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Jmukiri, the African Academy of Sciences source is her writing about herself and her own work, so that is not an independent source, and is of no value in establishing notability and therefore eligibility for a Wikipedia biography. How would our readers know that her work is "important" if reliable, independent sources do not write about her work in detail? Verifiability is a core content policy. Cullen328 (talk) 00:31, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Cullen328 yes I understand this in principle but I am asking in practice. What are independent sources or verified sources women scientist from Africa? Like where would I get these sources from? I am trying to learn here? how would you go about it? how are independent sources retrieved for marginalized people? is there sources or guidelines to help with these? Jmukiri (talk) 00:35, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Jmukiri, the principles, especially the core content policies, govern our practice. Should the standards be different for a woman from Kenya than a man from Kansas? She holds a PhD degree and has had at least one article published in an academic journal, so I do not see her as marginalized. I have a bachelor's degree and did construction work most of my career. Am I marginalized? Reliable sources are published in Africa, including newspapers, magazines and academic journals. We currently have 28 Wikipedia biographies for 21st-century Kenyan women scientists, so the hurdles are not impossible to jump over. Cullen328 (talk) 00:54, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
CentralAuth account connection when I was offline?
CentralAuth says "created on login" - i.e., somebody logged in to Telegu WP with that account IIRC. I would be concerned if I was you. casualdejekyll23:36, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rusty4321 It'd likely be a good idea as a precautionary measure to change your password (especially if it's one you may have used on other websites). Your account might not be compromised, but I'd argue it's a good idea in case it is. Are you sure you weren't logged in to Wikipedia? You don't have to log into each language version of Wikipedia in order for accounts to automatically be created on other Wikimedia sites, you just need to accidently click a link to that site and boom, you're registered. I've had that happen to me a few times [5]. A lot of the time the notification wasn't automatic, so maybe that's what happened? Clovermoss(talk)00:16, 30 April 2022 (UTC); edited to add a sentence[reply]
There is a Wikipedia article about a topic in another language but the English Wikipedia doesn't show/link to it. How to add a link from the English Wikipedia article (Kafir) to the article of the same name in that other language?-BitOfKarate (talk) 05:01, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Moved to User talk:Stick2700. Nothing more to add here ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 18:50, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Courtesy link: Black cap
Courtesy link: User:Schlep57/sandbox RudolfRed (talk) 22:09, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
.jpg)