Wikipedia:Teahouse

Tenryuu, a Teahouse host

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

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

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

Help Wikipedia

cake recipe

hello will you please be kind to help supply me with a delicious recipe for a vanilla cake recipe thank you -tim Tim W. Jacobson (talk) 23:22, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Ask at the Reference desks. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 23:23, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

@Tim W. Jacobson Welcome to the Teahouse. Better still, why not just use a search engine and do your own research? I use that technique for a lot of my cooking, and would never consider asking Wikipedian's for a recipe. Good luck and good cooking! Nick Moyes (talk) 01:23, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

@Tim W. Jacobson Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse! This is a place for new Wikipedia editors to ask questions about editing. Your question made me smile, but it does not fit here. I wish you good luck on your quest for a recipe, though!

Asparagusus (interaction) 13:34, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't know, cake would go well with the tea around here! Polyamorph (talk) 16:14, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

@Tim W. Jacobson Wikipedia uses an encyclopaedic style and promotional language is not permitted, so we cannot recommend a 'delicious' recipe, unless the recipe has been described as 'delicious' by a reliable secondary sauce. We can only provide a neutral and well-balanced cake. In assessing the cake, our sauces must have depth, and be independent of the original recipe. In general, baking is discouraged as we're not allowed to synthesise our own cake. Also, when it comes to the consumption, you will probably find that Original Research is an attractive proposition, but it too, is not allowed in Wikipedia. We cannot have our cake and write about it. I would also recommend that you look for cake recipes elsewhere because our article Cake is written in American English, and is therefore eaten on the wrong side of the road. 149.155.219.44 (talk) 16:10, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the laugh @149.155.219.44! That's a really good one, I'm bookmarking that for future reference :D --LordPeterII (talk) 21:09, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

What a sweet post. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 04:28, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, quite delicious. Lectonar (talk) 12:42, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

While that was hilarious to read, it requires some familiarity with Wikipedia to understand, but the Teahouse is the page for newbies. I am making it all small to give a visual indication that this should not be taken as a serious answer to the question asked. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 09:04, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Trying to add translation to an Arabic page

Hello,

I have always wanted to give adding articles to Wikipedia and wanted to start by translating some pages between Arabic & English. One particular page I found (annoying) was the following page:

أيمن بن توفيق المؤيد - ويكيبيديا (wikipedia.org)

The reason it is annoying is because this is a page for a Bahraini Minister in Arabic, when I go to the English page, it takes me to the Cabinet page instead of a page about the person in English - this is the page Wikipedia takes me to : Cabinet of Bahrain - Wikipedia

How can I fix or report this issue> and can I contribute with a translation in English if this can be fixed?

Also, will be happy to see if there are top pages that need to be translated from or to Arabic so I can choose and help with the efforts?

Many thanks,

Al Khuzaie Alkhuzaie (talk) 11:11, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Alkhuzaie: it's not an 'issue' (as in, error or problem); there has been an article (two attempts, in fact) on this person, but he was not deemed notable enough, so the articles were replaced by a redirect to the one on the Cabinet. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:46, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Alkhuzale, and welcome to the Teahouse. What you have found is a redirect: at the moment, nobody has written an article on Aymen Tawfeeq Almoayed, but somebody has created an entry so that if you search for that name, it takes you to an article which might be useful.

It is certainly possible to replace the redirect by an article, and you have done the right thing by creating a draft Draft:Aymen bin Tawfeeq AlMoayed. When a reviewer accepts your draft, they will sort out replacing the redirect.

But there are some problems with the draft, as you have realised.

Please read Translation. Two important things stand out here. One is that the sources (which I see you took from the Arabic article ar:أيمن بن توفيق المؤيد) are not adequate for an article in English Wikipedia. You need several sources, each of which is all three of reliably published, independent of the subject, and containing significant coverage of the subject. Your sources may all be reliable, but they are all either not independent of AlMoayed, or do not contain significant coverage of him.

The other problem is that you have not stated that the text of your draft is a translation from another Wikipedia: this is a violation of the licence. You should add a message to the draft's talk page explaining this.

I suggest that you study WP:NPOLITICIAN and WP:NBIO to understand the kind of sources you need. ColinFine (talk) 11:48, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Further to my previous reply: I had not seen (as Double Grazing pointed out) that articles about him had previously been deleted and replaced with the redirect. This means that unless you find adequate sources to establish notability, you are wasting your time working on this draft. Note that the fact that there is an article on him in ar-wiki has no bearing on the matter: each Wikipedia has its own policies, and they are not all the same. ColinFine (talk) 11:51, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the quick response, fantastic details and will help me learn more and hopefully get successful contributions in the future. Will make sure to go through the links and educate myself more about the requirements Alkhuzaie (talk) 11:05, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I feel I have addressed the issues regarding subjective matter on my piece on Iain Murray.

I feel I have addressed the issues regarding subjective matter on my piece on Iain Murray. How do I have it removed asap. I find it very hard to understand what to do to fix these issues quickly. Please advise. I am sure of the facts and will be happy to provide more if needs be but the process is quite mysterious. PLease assist FactEternal (talk) 12:33, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Courtesy link: Iain Murray (sailor).

Don't worry about it being mysterious, FactEternal; Wikipedia seems that way to every editor when they first start – the learning curve is steep!

If you're truly sure that you've addressed the problem (I presume you've followed the link at the bottom of the template and read that Help page), you could click the "Edit" tab at the very top of the Article page and delete the second line of code that says "{{Peacock|date=August 2022}}", but as a new editor, you may not be sure and/or understandably not have the confidence to do that.

I suggest that we consult the editor who added the template, Tacyarg, and ask what they think. (My use of their username there was a "ping" which will notify them that they've been mentioned here: you (or I) could also have left a message on their Talk page.

If you're wondering how I knew who placed the template, I found the edit doing so listed in the article's View history tab.

Congratulations on having created a promising article: it's not easy! {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.209.121.96 (talk) 15:35, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your supportive and encouraging reply. You are right. It is a steep learning curve. I am in a hurry to sort everything out accordingly. All suggestions and guidance hugely appreciated. FactEternal (talk) 13:43, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello, FactEternal, and welcome to the teahouse. It would be helpful if you had told us which article you were referring to - I looked at all three articles about people call Iain Murray before I found that Iain Murray (sailor) has the tag you are referring to.

There is a link (Learn how and when to remove this template message)in the tag message - have you read that? ColinFine (talk) 15:33, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello, FactEternal. It is not a "piece". It is an encyclopedia article that must be written from the Neutral point of view. Examples of non-neutral language include early domination and highly competitive and He continued to become known in the sailing community and uniquely and An onerous last-minute racing schedule imposed upon the syndicates. That is the type of language used by sports journalists not encylopedia writers. In addition, many of the references are non-functional and lack basic bibliographic information like the title of the article. Your first reference, for example, is worthless for verification. The reference provided for his participation in the 2020 Tokyo Olympics does not verify his participation. References with "author" as the title make no sense and mostly do not work. In conclusion, this article needs a lot of work before the tag can be removed. Cullen328 (talk) 16:02, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much for pointing out all my errors. They are hugely helpful, particularly as I need to make corrections as soon as humanly possible. Its requires quite a lot of discipline to write from a neutral point of view on this subject. Many thanks FactEternal (talk) 13:55, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

FactEternal, your repeated assertions of a "need to make corrections as soon as humanly possible" are worrying. Wikipedia is not news, Wikipedia has WP:No deadlines, and it is never to be used for promotion or for the benefit of the subject (that may be an outcome, but on the other hand it could turn out to be detrimental).

You have already denied any Conflict of interest on your Talk page, and by inference any onbligation to declare editing for payment, so why is there such urgency? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.209.121.96 (talk) 15:21, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

The article was created in 2008, so it is not yours. The references you added are all crap. The title is never "author." Most of those are to sailboat racing news feeds that currently make no mention of Iain. Cullen328 has gone to the trouble of tagging some of those as failing to verify the factual statement in the text, but there are many others. CHECK ALL REFERENCES. David notMD (talk) 18:25, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi there, sorry, I didn't get the ping, but happened to see this. Yes, this looks much better now, thanks for your work on it. It was phrases like "With a prolific career spanning all aspects of competitive yachting, he is most noted for his early domination and evolution of the 18ft skiff class ... excellence and innovation in yacht design ... highly competitive" that made me think it needed the Peacock tag. I'll take it off now. Tacyarg (talk) 23:17, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Having read the article through again - although I still think it's correct to remove the Peacock tag, I agree with others above that there are problems with the verifiability of the information. You have generally linked to the homepage of the publications rather than to individual articles, so the reader can't easily verify the information. And in some places it looks as if you have fallen into synthesising information in a way which does not reflect the sources but is a summary of several (eg "many classic motor boats" - you have sources about Murray designing specific boats but not one where an independent, reliable source has described him as designing many classic boats). Hope that is helpful. I'm also curious about the time pressure you mention. Tacyarg (talk) 23:36, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

page name change

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Jones_Memorial_United_Methodist_Church Our church name changed in June. I am trying to get the name changed here. I don't have access to that edit, so I put in for a change 3 weeks ago and have not received a response. Nancy Jo Clark (talk) 12:41, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

@Nancy Jo Clark: Hello Nancy Jo! First, you refer to it as "our church". Are you affiliated at all with the church (outside of you being a member of the church)? If so then you have a Conflict of Interest, and need to declare it on your userpage. Second, there is no deadline. I'm not seeing a move request on the article's talk page however I'm assuming you've made the request elsewhere. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 12:44, 17 August 2022 (UTC)R

It looks like Nancy Jo Clark tried to make a technical request here. That didn't work because it was entered inside hidden text, which isn't rendered on the page. It also wasn't super clear from that edit which article Nancy Jo Clark intended to be moved.

It doesn't seem super likely that after disaffiliating from the UMC, the common name is going to continue to be Sam Jones Memorial United Methodist Church, so a technical request would likely succeed – though I know little enough about this topic that I'm not going to boldly move it myself! If Nancy Jo Clark wants to try to request the move again at the page for making technical requests for page moves, being careful to follow the instructions given at the top of the page, I imagine it will likely be completed after the usual seven-day holding period. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 13:21, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm am the Director of Communications here at Sam Jones Methodist Church (Formerly known as Sam Jones Memorial United Methodist Church). I am responsible for the "branding" of the church. We did disaffiliate from the UMC on June 4 and we are currently an independent church. We may join another denomination in one to two years, but the name should not change. I am sorry that I don't remember where I made the request. It's been several weeks and I keep getting lost in my efforts to edit the name. I will click on the link provided and see what I can get done. Thank you for your replies. Nancy Jo Clark (talk) 15:49, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

@Nancy Jo Clark: Alright well in that case please read WP:COI and also WP:PAID (Unless you are not paid). I would also recommend reading about what Wikipedia is not. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:50, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Courtesy time-saving note for others that this has been done. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:50, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, this seemed an unobjectionable move, so I went ahead and moved the page. Deor (talk) 15:43, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

SPI Case

> Whether action is taken against the filer for repeatedly filing SPI case?

> Are warnings given before taking action? PravinGanechari (talk) 13:30, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

@PravinGanechari hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I can't infer what you mean exactly with "repeatedly filing SPI case", however, normally the only ways to get blocked for filing an SPI is when one repeatedly files baseless SPI's (calling other people a sockpuppet without evidence is a personal attack) or if one repeatedly files the same or a very similar SPI because one doesn't like the result. With regards to the second question, sometimes affected users are notified on their user talk page, however this is seldomly done and certainly not for bad-faith-sockpuppetry. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 15:04, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Ok, Thank you PravinGanechari (talk) 15:47, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

This question seems oddly similar to one you asked in what's now archive 1159. -- Hoary (talk) 21:42, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, sorry last time I asked the question PravinGanechari (talk) 11:59, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Klima

Moved to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science § Climate

This subbmission is contrary to the purpose of WIKI

Hello, Could please anyone help me with this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Bianca_Dragusanu

Are many things i have to add but this is why its draft. Thanks Customweb01 (talk) 08:18, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Customweb01 Draft:Bianca Dragusanu rejected on 18 August. Not in English and no references. David notMD (talk) 08:23, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

ALSO, 'your' text is a copy of the image description. David notMD (talk) 12:34, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Declined article / request for more feedback

Hello! My first article has been recently reviewed and declined because "it appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia." I'd be happy to make the appropriate edits. It would be most helpful, though, if somebody could help me identify the parts that could have raised a concern. Is it more about the phrasing of specific paragraphs or the external sources I used? If so, which? I would appreciate any details so that I can prepare the article for resubmission. Thank you!

Here's the article in question: Draft:SUBTLE – The Subtitlers' Association Nyjja (talk) 09:02, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Nyjja, for one thing, its "Aims and activities". Most organizations have praiseworthy goals. They're often written up in "mission statements" and the like, and are reliably soporific. Wikipedia isn't interested in this stuff (unless it is so awful, accidentally amusing, parodic, etc, that it gets in the news). What we need are disinterested, reliable accounts of what the organization does and in particular what it has achieved. Language aside, I suspect that you're going to have great trouble satisfying one or other of the criteria for notability. -- Hoary (talk) 09:14, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I would recommend the essays Wikipedia:Identifying PR and Wikipedia:Identifying blatant advertising. The opening sentence "SUBTLE – the Subtitlers'​ Association is an association that brings together professional audiovisual translators from around the world" is pure marketing speech, and it doesn't get much better after that. —Wasell^(T) 🌻 09:28, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

How to add my Company on Wikipedia

My article is deleted from wikipedia. Wanted to know that How can I add my company on wikipedia? 3dpower.nitin (talk) 09:40, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

3dpower.nitin Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The short answer is- you don't. Wikipedia is not a directory of companies where mere existence warrants inclusion, nor is it a place for companies to tell the world about themselves. This is an encyclopedia with criteria for inclusion, called notability. For companies, that is written at WP:ORG. Wikipedia is not interested in what a company wishes to say about itself, only in what others completely unconnected with the company choose on their own to say about it, with significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Please read WP:COI and WP:PAID for information on required formal disclosures. 331dot (talk) 09:47, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Add status item

Since people generally reply very slow on talk pages, I'm asking it here: would it make sense to add "rejected" to the list of possible statuses in Template:Infobox EU legislation? PhotographyEdits (talk) 09:45, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, PhotographyEdits. This is really a bit too obscure for the Teahouse, and it's hard to know which notable rejected legislation you might have in mind. But surely current/proposed/repealed refer to statuses of legislation that either are, once were, or might soon be actively operating. But if legislation is 'rejected', surely it's then just not valid legislation, and therefore is irrelevant and of little interest. I'd have thought it unnecessary. But this isn't a field I know much about.

I don't see you having actually asked the question at the Templates own talk page yet. That's always the first thing you should do. Then you can go to other places and flag up your post by including a link back to it. That way you keep all discussion in one place (and the most relevant place, too, I might add). One place you could then raise it and link to it would be at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject European Union. You could always check the View History tab of both the template and its talk page and look for any recently active editors and attempt to ping them, lest they're interested in commenting. Does that help? Nick Moyes (talk) 13:12, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes Yes, that helps, thanks! The article I had in mind was the Proposed directive on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions. PhotographyEdits (talk) 13:25, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

@PhotographyEdits Ok, thanks, that helps to understand how you might use it. Is that a one-off, or a common thing, I wonder? I would certainly include a link in any discussion to an article where the template is used 'normally' and this one where it's use would be valid if only that status option were there. Sorry I can't offer much more than that. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:21, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes I decided to be WP:BOLD and add it myself :) There also seems to be the Draft Fifth Company Law Directive, but it's not very common to be both notable and rejected I guess. But since there are at least multiple, I would say having the attribute is worthwhile. Thanks for your comments anyway! PhotographyEdits (talk) 14:32, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

vandalism on Warwick Valley High School

there seems to be vandalism, please check it, im noob. jindam, vani (talk) 09:50, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I've reverted all the section blanking, but that article needs some serious work, it's basically an advertisement and I think it fails the notability test for schools. - X201 (talk) 10:02, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Looks like @Wasell: has cleaned up the advertising. - X201 (talk) 10:04, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out — there was a lot of unsourced, non-notable WP:NOTCATALOG-voilating stuff. I have now removed it. —Wasell^(T) 🌻 10:09, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Are these reliable sources?

Hello, I'm working on Draft:Mallu Traveler. Let me know Gulf Times, Indian Express, Manorama, The News Minutes, are these reliable sources? By the way, he is a YouTuber. Imperfect Boy (talk) 09:55, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

hi @Imperfect Boy and welcome to the Teahouse! indian express is generally reliable, although not much discussion has been present for the other three sites as far as I could find in the reliable sources noticeboard. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 10:48, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Imperfect Boy. Melecie referred to, but didn't direct you to, the Reliable sources noticeboard, which is the best place for such questions. Note that reliability is not always all or nothing: some sources are generally reliable and some are generally unreliable, but many are reliable for some kinds of information but not for other kinds, so it depends what you want to cite them for. ColinFine (talk) 14:38, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Reliable source misunderstanding

An editor I have been at cross purposes with, just removed material from Capital punishment for homosexuality because the source supporting it was unreliable. Its citation was from Reuters. In restoring, I linked to RS noticeboard, but the restoration has been reverted with ES in reply: [1] "[Reuters] bad source parroting from other articles and reuter did a poll discussed in another discussion that had poor sampling" Similar edits at LGBT rights in Sudan, too.

In both cases, the removal of Reuters cites has justified returning outdated and inaccurate information. Because we have disagreed a lot, the editor will not take my word for it. Two great, experienced, non-involved editors, Mathglot and Firefangledfeathers have earlier tried to restore peace by getting us to concentrate on content, but I have little hope that the editor would respond to any explanation from me. Can anyone gently suggest to the editor, they have misread the WP discussion: It's not about Reuter, but uses a Reuter Foundation report cite to talk about a wholly different source organisation as potentially unreliable?

This is not really the place, I know. I can't go to any noticeboard, I just can't. Any help appreciated. AukusRuckus (talk) 10:40, 18 August 2022 (UTC) Updated. AukusRuckus (talk) 11:53, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi @AukusRuckus, welcome to the Teahouse. This is, indeed, really not the place; it's a board for newcomers to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, not a content/policy discussion or behavior correction forum. I assume you've read the dispute resolution page. If a noticeboard is your only option left, then that's where you should go. 97.126.103.107 (talk) 12:33, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Ok thanks, I'll just leave it with the overturned, pre-2020 law in, then.

It's not really a content or conduct dispute, per se; more a misunderstanding. In reading the Wikipedia discussion of reliable sources the editor has, I think, looked at a citation for a "bad source" as the bad source itself. I just thought it'd be a quick short circuit to give them a heads-up in an acceptable way (to them). I am too wary to try again with the editor, and too timid to appear at a noticeboard.

Someone else may correct it in time; many regular editors and readers would understand that Reuters is unlikely to be considered an unreliable source. And I guess a few days or weeks saying Sudan still has capital punishment when Reuters said in 2020 it doesn't, won't matter in the scheme of things. (Although, these topic pages are not as well-trafficked as I thought they'd be). Thanks for your reply, and sorry to trouble you. AukusRuckus (talk) 12:48, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Oh, and yes, I did wonder if I could still be considered "new", but I sure do still feel new! If it was unacceptable to ask here, I'm sorry, but I see sometimes people are just given a little pointer or two, here, and I thought, "I can ask": Seems an unscary place! Cheers. AukusRuckus (talk) 12:54, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

@AukusRuckus, we do try to keep this an "unscary" place, and we try our best to give pointers to folks who come and ask questions (which is why I linked to the DR page) - but taking requests to go off and give pointers to other folks who haven't come and asked anything is a bit outside scope. I don't think anyone here wants to become the Teahouse Police Force. Sometimes you'll run into editors who apparently can't be reasoned with; that's just the nature of the project, and you have to decide for yourself how far you're willing to push things before you just let it go. You're not the only one who'd rather drop an issue than venture into noticeboard land. 199.208.172.35 (a.k.a. 97.126.103.107) (talk) 14:09, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

No, I quite understand. That's fair. I didn't want a police force, though. More a casual "Oh. I see where you may be a mixed up." "Reuters? Unreliable you say? Hmm, that's surprising ..."

It was more along the lines of alerting any interested parties to a rather large and easily-resolved inaccuracy, one that I do not feel up to tackling, newly introduced by a mildly-confused editor. An editor who may well be amenable to taking a second look at the WP:RS noticeboard, if asked by someone other than me. A little orientation guide to understanding a WP discussion was what I hoped for, not for anyone to step into a dispute. It is what I would do myself, if they did not think I was horrible. I suppose I was asking for a sub!

I am going to try a very gentle query one more time, and leave it there. Thanks for your replies. (Not sure if you're one or two users) AukusRuckus (talk) 14:39, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Just one user under many different numbers, @AukusRuckus. This sounds like a situation you could try resolving with WP:3O (assuming you've already attempted a discussion on one or more of the talk pages). It's quicker and more informal than other methods, and it's sort of what you were hoping for in terms of calling in a sub. It's possible the sub may not end up agreeing with you, but at least they'll be an experienced editor who can give an opinion based on policies and guidelines. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:59, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I thought you were one and the same. Thank you, they're very good ideas, but I'm not sure even the relatively low-key 3O is the right venue to get someone to take another look at their misreading of WP:RS Noticeboard.

I appreciate you bearing with my massive externalised thought process, though. Maybe I'll come back to it another day, or someone else may have edited it by then. Cheers, AukusRuckus (talk) 15:14, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

@AukusRuckus We certainly don't limit ourselves to only answering question from "newcomers", though that does tend to be our main focus. Anyone can ask an editing-related question here at any time, and I have done so myself when stuck at times. And you are always welcome to do that, too. It's more that your question is a bit off-topic, as the IP suggested.

Sometimes (assuming you don't want to go down WP:THIRD or WP:DRN routes) it can be best to leave things to cool down, and maybe even wait for other evidence to emerge. One saying that I use at home a lot is "you didn't hear me thinking". I've not checked, but it helps to ensure the logic of any argument you want to make is laid out clearly for all to see, rather than making assumptions that someone else understands something. Taking it step by step, you might be able to win your argument. I assume that in all other respects, the other person is behaving acceptably? It's certainly worth trying to keep out of WP:ANI unless you feel strongly about an issue of behaviour. Best wishes, Nick Moyes (talk) 14:34, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Nick, I think I'm wasting so many good people's time way more than I meant to. It was only a mistake on the other editor's part. We're not in a dispute, although we've been in plenty before.

I am not going to do more. Someone will pick it up at some stage. Because the editor now believes the WP:RS noticeboard has decided Reuters is a " bad source" and has removed article material accordingly, I thought it an easy, low-labour, fix for someone to say to said editor "Are you sure that's what it says?", before they start removing dozens, or hundreds, of claims sourced to Reuters. I know they will not take a gentle hint from me.

Your observation about "thinking" at someone is spot-on. Great saying, I think I'll pinch it! It raised a smile for me, both in amusement and recognition.

In this case, the only argument that really needs to be made is whether WP:RS Noticeboard has actually declared Reuters a bad source or not. An easily-established point, but not one that can be demonstrated by me to that editor, in any way. Hence, my hope that someone not anathema to the editor could point out what the the noticeboard actually says re Reuters. There is nothing else at issue. Confused editor believes Reuters-sourced material is deprecated, those with a little more savvy in navigating the RS noticeboard know what the RSN actually says: "a generally reliable source".

It would make me laugh, if I were crying less! Thanks for listening, and for the saying I am stealing for use at my house. You always give such nice responses. Cheers, AukusRuckus (talk) 15:08, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

AukusRuckus, please be aware that the Thomson Reuters Foundation is a charitable organization that is different from the commercial Reuters news agency. Material published by the foundation should be attributed to the foundation, not to the news agency. Cullen328 (talk) 17:41, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, @Cullen328; that is a nuance I had not noticed. Just for future reference, would that suggest a different, or perhaps "yet to be decided", view for TRFN's reliability as compared to Reuters, the agency itself?

I noted that in several syndicated appearances of the news item cited and removed from DP in Homosexuality article, for example in the SMH, [2] the article credit says merely "Reuters". The Independent's article is under their own reporter's byline and says "Additional reporting by Thomson Reuters Foundation".

I realise you're not the RS noticeboard, but I'd be interested in your thoughts. WP's Thomson Reuters Foundation News article notes number of journalists employed and some awards. OTH, their service is free (which may or may not be an indicator). A quick search of the noticeboard turns up nothing specific for TRFN or its previous name, AlertNet. Of course, I can open a discussion at the noticeboard, if it comes up in a specific instance at some stage, but just curious. Cheers, AukusRuckus (talk) 08:40, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

P.S. Just in case I have misconstrued the purpose of your post, Cullen, for clarity, it was not me who added the disputed source. In July 2020, another editor moved Sudan from the capital punishment listing to "historical" section, adding the source then. Best, AukusRuckus (talk) 09:04, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

AukusRuckus, I see no reason to doubt the reliability of Thomson Reuters Foundation News, and I believe that it can be presumed reliable in most cases, unless evidence to the contrary is presented. It is just that it should be attributed properly, since it is not Reuters. Cullen328 (talk) 15:06, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much, @Cullen328. It may not make the difference, but I really appreciate your note (to the other user). Thanks for taking the time to do that; it was the sort of thing I was hoping for, if only so I know in my own mind, I'm not insane!

And thanks for filling me in about the TRFN as opposed to Reuters: I'm very glad to know it. Best wishes, AukusRuckus (talk) 14:07, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Gadget

Is there a gadget that can see the revisions and the creator of the article (aside from the history section)? SeanJ 2007 (talk) 12:20, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

For details like the creator, you can click on the page information link, which is located on the left-hand menu under tools. But I am not aware of any other gadget. Kpddg ^(talk) 12:46, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello SeanJ 2007, and welcome to the Teahouse. Further to Kpddg's suggestion, you should go to View History tab and use the Page Statistics link to an xtools link. Thus for Mont Blanc massif you'd only get just this with the Page Information link in the left-side Tools bar, but you'd get this much better report thith the Page Statistics link. It shows you the most active editors, how many each one made, plus a chronological breakdown of when edits were made and the changes in page views per year. In additoin the header of the report shows you when and who the first and latest edits were made by, the article's status, the total number of views over the last 60 days, plus the number of other articles that link to it. All in all, pretty useful. Was there anything missing from that that you wanted? Nick Moyes (talk) 13:01, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing this; I had thought that xtools only had information about a user! Kpddg ^(talk) 13:18, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

SeanJ 2007, you might also find the mediawiki browser extension Who Wrote That useful. It adds a "who wrote that" item to the left menu on article pages. After you click it, you can select any text in the article to get a pop-up that tells you which editor added that text and when, while also highlighting all other text by that editor in the article. Schazjmd (talk) 14:44, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

@SeanJ 2007: if you want the creator and creator revision there is a gadget that does that. Go to Preferences > Gadgets > Appearance and scroll down to the last entry, entitled 'XTools: dynamically show statistics about a page's history under the page heading' check it and Save. It also provides other stats; here's an example:

3,101 revisions since 2002-07-17 (+4 hours), 1,185 editors, 335 watchers, 40,875 pageviews (30 days), created by: ExampleUser (11,197) · See full page statistics

with pretty much everything linked. HTH, Mathglot (talk) 17:59, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

@Mathglot: Thank you. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 03:21, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Nation Creditworthiness?

what's the rationale to keeping GDP and other measurements as a sole indicator to identify creditworthiness for countries to avail external loan? is there any justice to applying this principle on least developed nations seeking funds because obviously their GDP's and other socio-economic indicators would be below global average? how do world banks or other foreign financiers fund them based on? Grotesquetruth (talk) 13:59, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Grotesquetruth, welcome to the Teahouse. Do you have a question about editing Wikipedia? If you just want general information about economic principles, a better place to ask would be one of the reference desks. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:14, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

"Check | url=value"

Hello Teahouse!

Apologies in advance for my newbie question, I'm attempting to cite the author page on a bookseller's website (Samtalent: Brutes) to add "writer" to the article: Bill Whitten, and keep getting a "Check | url=value" error. Should I change my formatting in the external links section? I'm currently using brackets around the url: [ http://example.com website: title]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill_Whitten&action=edit&editintro=Template:BLP_editintro

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill_Whitten&action=edit&section=4&editintro=Template:BLP_editintro

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill_Whitten&action=edit&section=5&editintro=Template:BLP_editintro

Thanks for your time!

- DN DemocratizeInfoNow23 (talk) 14:31, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

@DemocratizeInfoNow23: Which citation template are you attempting to use? Typically URL parameters just take the bare/naked URL and surrounding it in straight brackets with custom display text would be expected to produce an error. Could you please clarify how you're doing it? Feel free to use < nowiki></ nowiki> tags (without the spaces) to put full markup of the citation/reference in so we can see what's going on. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 14:44, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've fixed the faulty url in your top citation by simply removing the double curly brackets around that url within the reference template. As you've used it in the lead, it's generally not OK to include it in the External links section as well, so I have removed the second use of it. I didn't fully understand the website you linked to - doesn't look much like a bookseller to me. It may be that the citation is not needed in the lead (it certainly doesn't support him being a musician), and that you return it to the WP:EL section. If the bookseller isn't also the publisher, then it's probably not appropriate to include it there anyway. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:45, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing the link, Nick Moyes. I appreciate it and I appreciate hearing that it's not sufficient, I'll find a better better one. I know he's been publishing prose for several years but is better known for his music career. I'll do some more research. DemocratizeInfoNow23 (talk) 18:13, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello, DemocratizeInfoNow2, and welcome to the Teahouse. You're right that the way to write an external link is the URL in brackets, with (optionally) a space and then a title. But that is for a bare URL link: if you're using a citation template, then the 'url' parameter takes just the URL, not a title or brackets.

However, I am a little concerned at what you are trying to do. Frankly, the fact that he has a written a book that is available on a mate's website is not enough for Wikipedia to call him a "writer" (since anybody can do this). Unless you can find a reliable independent source that refers to him as a writer, I think that description should go. ColinFine (talk) 14:49, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you all for the quick replies! It's been a while since I've edited and I'm still learning, obviously. Good to hear that that link isn't sufficient to establish him as a writer. As far as I know he's published short stories for about a decade and I was citing his first book there. I'll do some more research, and find a better link. I'll use that independent source article as my guide. DemocratizeInfoNow23 (talk) 15:09, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Colin, yes, all of the replies I've gotten agree with you, I'll do more research and find a better representation of his writing career. DemocratizeInfoNow23 (talk) 18:14, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

How to improve article to demonstrate significant coverage

I drafted a Wikipedia on the Zefania XML Bible markup language ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Zefania_XML ). There is already a German-language article on this topic ( https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zefania_XML ). My initial submission was rejected due to it not having "significant coverage." I've subsequently added further sources referring to it. While it may not be referenced extensively on Wikipedia, there are hundreds of Bible translations and several applications that are in or that use this format (most are not in English and are intended for a German-language audience and/or for underrepresented groups that have limited Bible resources in their languages), which is no longer publicly documented (the associated domains have expired and I had to use Archive.org and study XML examples to learn the knowledge presented in this article). This article will help preserve this information and serve as a resource to consult for those who wish to learn more about this format which is actively used to distribute Bible translations globally. What else can I do to improve this article (if anything)?

QoheletIO (talk) 15:37, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

• @QoheletIO: Have you clicked the link behind "significant coverage"? It would have told you that what matters is if there are reliable, independent sources that describe the subject at length. The fact that there are hundreds of Bible translations [using it] does not matter one bit, and Wikipedia does not care that this article will help preserve this information and serve as a resource to consult - use another site for that. Conversely, the fact that said sources are hard-to-find / defunct, or not in English, is not a problem. (Plenty of good sources are print-only, for instance.)

I have not checked your sources carefully, but I am not optimistic those will suffice. Please note that documentation produced by the developers of the language would fail the "independent" prong of the test for sources that support notability.

If you cannot find sources that demonstrate significant coverage, please read Wikipedia:No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability (the title of the page gives away the main message). Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 15:56, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello, QoheletiO, and welcome to the teahouse. While it sounds as if your purpose is very worthwhile, unfortunately, help preserve this information and serve as a resource to consult for those who wish to learn more about is not part of the purposes of Wikipedia. If it hasn't already been written about in realiabnle independent sources, then Wikipedia will not cover it. ColinFine (talk) 16:05, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, everyone! This was helpful. I've made significant edits to the article to demonstrate significant coverage within the applicable domains and to even incorporate some criticism of the format by a notable individual within the field. I appreciate your assistance. ~ QoheletIO (talk) 18:00, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

@QoheletIO: Please note that when it comes to notability, we are after quality, not quantity. Your draft now contains more than 20 references. I suggest that you leave a post on the talk page of the article that gives the three best sources of the bunch - that way a reviewer does not have to crawl through all of them, because otherwise it might take quite a long time to get a review. See WP:THREE for more information.

You should still take care to cite a source for every statement of fact in the body of the article, so it is appropriate to keep references that are below notability-grade for that purpose. However, such references still need to be reliable for the assertion they are supporting. For instance, you cite one this webpage for the assertion that Songbeamer supports Zefania, but Zefania is not mentioned at all at this page, so that fails our core policy that readers should be able to verify the articles from the references only. If the assertion that Songbeamer support Zefania is instead in the documentation / user manual of Songbeamer, you should cite that instead (it’s OK if it is not online). Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 08:47, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @Tigraan, I appreciate your feedback. Despite there being numerous articles on Wikipedia for related projects (including those that support this format), it seems the bar is much higher to document the format itself. I've decided not to pursue the matter further related to Wikipedia as I've invested too much time as it is. I've instead just created a GitHub repo documenting the information (and also created a backup of some of the corpora) and will just do that instead: https://github.com/biblenerd/Zefania-XML-Preservation . Thank you for your assistance, though! I tried but it seems perhaps Wikipedia is not the best place for documenting formats used in the global Bible translation community. 2601:248:C100:54D:4959:BAF2:81B7:DC1 (talk) 14:50, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

New Contents Page

I have been trying to make a new contents page in my sandbox. I would like to left-justify the headings and their content so that it looks better. I've tried to do it myself, but I had no luck. I was wondering if you could what lines of code I need to add in order to accomplish this task or find someone that is good with graphic design to do it for me. Interstellarity (talk) 15:53, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

@Interstellarity: The template {{Intro to single}} defaults to center alignment. Add |align=left to change it to left alignment. RudolfRed (talk) 18:37, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks,  Done Interstellarity (talk) 19:00, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Business on wiki

I have recently noticed that a car park business NCP have shot up on the google listings by in large for having a wiki page National Car Parks - Wikipedia, as a competitor a small business running for over 30 years when I set up a wiki page it is deleted as it is advertising a business. This seems unfair as NCP are gaining an advantage which I cannot compete with. How can they set up a page with the history of the business but we cannot? SAPEDI (talk) 16:10, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse SAPEDI NCP almost certainly didn't set up "a page" we call them articles not pages and they are usually created by people who have no connection with the topic, drawing on what reliable have reported. Wikipedia is not a place to promote your business. Please see WP:NCORP for the criteria. Theroadislong (talk) 16:25, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

The NCP 'article' is clearly promoting the business, anything with a weblink is a clear promotion of a page talking about services, current operations and locations. SAPEDI (talk) 16:32, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

If that is so then it will need tidying up, but the fact that other poor quality articles exist won't help you promote your business. Theroadislong (talk) 16:40, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I have removed much of the promotional content at National Car Parks please let us know if there is more. Theroadislong (talk) 16:43, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

@Theroadislong: Apologies for barging in, however taking a look at the article, the lead sounds very promotional. Mainly where it says "with over 150,000 spaces across more than 500 car parks in towns, cities, airports, London Underground and National Rail stations" which just sounds like something you'd hear in a commercial. I attempted to change it however I couldn't figure out how to make it not sound so promotional without just completely axing that part which would just leave the lead with "National Car Parks (NCP) is a private car park operator". ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:12, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

The " 150,000 spaces across more than 500 car parks" part isn't sourced anywhere so should probably be removed. Theroadislong (talk) 19:30, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

@Theroadislong: Alright. The only reason I"m keeping it is because it'll make the lead incredibly short. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:34, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello, SAPEDI. National Car Parks has been on Wikipedia since 2006, so any recent changes in Google search results are for a different reason. The article was started by an editor who is still somewhat active and edits on a wide variety of topics, mostly related to New Zealand, Australia and the UK. This is clearly not an editor here just to promote your competitor. I am an administrator and so I could read your deleted article. The most important part of an acceptable Wikipedia article is the list of references to reliable, independent sources that devote significant coverage to the topic. The article needs to summarize those reliable sources. Your article was unreferenced though it had two external links masquerading as references. Unreferenced articles are never acceptable. The NCP article, on the other hand, has 18 references, many of them to high quality sources like BBC News, the Financial Times and the Manchester Evening News. That is the fundamental difference between the two articles. Cullen328 (talk) 01:27, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Also, adding an external link to the company website in the infobox of an article about a notable company is standard practice and not at all out of the ordinary. Cullen328 (talk) 04:19, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

IMDb Source

Hi! My draft (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Val_Galaktionov) got reviewed and was declined for a few reasons. The first reasons I will edit and correct, but I'm not quite understanding the other reason, which claimed that IMDb is considered an unreliable source. However, I saw other Wikipedia articles use IMDb as a source, such as (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behzad_Abdi) and (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Britten). What should I do? Can I leave the IMDb source? If yes, will my draft be deleted? Jesusgreaterthanall (talk) 16:49, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello @Jesusgreaterthanall; welcome to the Teahouse. IMDB is not considered reliable by Wikipedia standards because virtually anyone can edit IMDB pages with minimal editorial oversight or fact-checking. Usually IMDB is appropriate for use only in the "External links" section of a given article. ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ ‍ ^{💬 "What did I tell you?"}
_{📝 "Don't get complacent..."} 16:53, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Ok, but then is it alright to leave the sentence mentioning IMDb without citing IMDb in the references? Jesusgreaterthanall (talk) 16:56, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Mmm, I would say no - not only is that still using IMDb as a source, which as has been said is discouraged, but it runs afoul of verifiability issues. Remember that citations are a crucial part of Wikipedia articles. ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ ‍ ^{💬 "What did I tell you?"}
_{📝 "Don't get complacent..."} 16:58, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I have removed the sentence from Behzad Abdi, thanks for the heads up. Theroadislong (talk) 17:03, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Got it! Thank you! Jesusgreaterthanall (talk) 18:21, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Notability criteria

Hello!

Currently i am working on a draft of Abbas Haider (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Abbas_Haider_(businessman)) the CEO of Aspetto, it was recently came into speedy deletion, after argumentative discussion i was able to save the page and now its move to draft space. As it was my first draft, i paid intense concentration on Wikipedia community guidelines, the page was backed up by major and neutral resources, Such as Wsj, Forbes, mary washington and others. I really want to know, is forbes 30 under 30 is a notable criteria for wikipedia? As i have seen page of Trishneet aroora, his page is all backed up with notability of forbes 30 under 30. Furthermore, his page was also came into speedy dleetion criteria, but he fought back to make it live. Please guide me!

Thanks

WforWriter (talk) 18:26, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Abbas Haider (businessman) Here is the draft link. WforWriter (talk) 18:27, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

@WforWriter: You can include it, but since it is all related to his role at Aspetto, I'm not sure it pushes the notability needle. Personally, I look to see if someone is notable for more than just being the CEO of a single company, to meet our notability standards. If the company is huge and gets very much media coverage, along with coverage of the CEO, then that's different. What I see is a decent sized company that meets notability from the shown coverage, but not enough for Haider to have his own article. It's likely WP:TOOSOON. You might consider putting some of his info in a "Founder" section of the Aspetto article, until there's more coverage to do a standalone "fork" article just about him. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:12, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Google vs Bing search

Hi, two of the entries I created don't appear in google search, but they appear in bing search, and I created them more than 100 days ago and they already been reviewed. I mean Hadar Gad and Noam Omer, How is that ? Tzahy (talk) 20:21, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello Tzahy, and welcome to the Teahouse. Hadar Gad was makred as "reviewed" on 2 July. We have no control over what Google (or any other search engine) does thereafter. ColinFine (talk) 20:42, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks ColinFine, I thought that maybe there is a bug in the system that can be fixed ? I'm a technophobe and totally ingnorat in wiki code. I just proud of most of the articles what I edited or co-edited (apologize for my hubris) and wants people to know about them if they search. I created Noam Omer in 18 November 2021. Tzahy (talk) 20:51, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

@Tzahy I don't know if this changed since you posted, but both appear to me when I google. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:08, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Gråbergs Gråa Sång, of course I checked just before I asked in the Teahouse (first time here), I wouldn't bother you for nothing, they doesn't appear in my google search, very strange. Tzahy (talk) 21:12, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

@Tzahy: I get the WP article as the second result (after only the artist's own Web site) for Noam Omer, and the WP article as the fifth result for Hadar Gad. Deor (talk) 21:15, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Deor. Tzahy (talk) 21:19, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I found the problem and the solution: I'm from Israel and in my Google search definition the prefered language was Hebrew, once I changed it to English I see the entries, I wasn't aware of that; thanks to you all. Tzahy (talk) 21:26, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Tzahy. I have an editing suggestion for you. The lead section of Hadar Gad is way too short and the lead section of Noam Omer is way too long. The lead section should summarize the most important parts of the body of the article, but it should not include any information that is not covered in the body of the article. Please read WP:LEAD for more information. Cullen328 (talk) 21:57, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Cullen328, I will do that, I wrote myself a notice to read it, but I'm not sure if it will be done in the next two weeks. Tzahy (talk) 22:04, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Notability Concern

Is the MarTech (Marketing Technology) industry notable to write about? BroMonkey54 (talk) 20:28, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello, BroMonkey54, and welcome to the Teahouse. The answer is the same as for any other subject: if (and only if) it meets the criteria in notability - which generally means that there are several reliably published and independent sources which discuss it in some depth. Are there any textbooks on it? If so, are they published by somebody who isn't involved in the industry? Alternatively, are there several academic papers on it (but they would need to be more than somebody writing up what they have done in the field)? ColinFine (talk) 20:47, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello, BroMonkey54. I found a book called Technology and Innovation for Marketing, published by Taylor & Francis, which appears to be a reliable source. There are other similar books that show up in a Google Books search. Cullen328 (talk) 22:34, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

There is an existing article called Marketing automation. Cullen328 (talk) 22:43, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I uploaded an article 1 year ago and have not heard anything

In June of 2021 I uploaded an article. I was told to wait 6 months for a response. It had been more than a year. How can I check on its progress? Thanks Senyi84 (talk) 22:21, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

This account has no edits anywhere aside from this edit. Also article are not uploaded, but what was the title of said "article"? PRAXIDICAE🌈 22:22, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Nevermind, it appears you uploaded a resume to commons. In any case it's not appropriate for Wikipedia or Commons. Please see WP:YFA and WP:42 PRAXIDICAE🌈 22:23, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I have seen many similar articles describing historically significant Martial Artists (see Li Ziming https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li_Ziming). I think it is something readers would find intersting. Senyi84 (talk) 22:53, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

@Senyi84: The article you mention has similar issues to your upload; I might have to nominate it for deletion. There certainly are notable martial artists, for example Ip Man. But not every martial artist qualifies for a Wikipedia article – even if they have achieved local fame. Read the links Praxidicae provided above for you, to get an idea. --LordPeterII (talk) 23:34, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Senyi84, uploading a PDF to Wikimedia Commons is completely the wrong way to begin writing an article. Commons is a separate project that hosts images and media files. Please read and study Your first article. Cullen328 (talk) 00:49, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I will review the article you mention. Senyi84 (talk) 01:00, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Both Li Ziming and Wang Qing Zhai are quite famous in China, for just their Martial Arts skills (as described in the articles). There are many people in the west who's teachers were trained by them. For those who study Martial Arts, it is often very important to understand the history of their art. Both Li Ziming and Wang Qing Zhai played important roles in the creation and promotion of their respective arts. Senyi84 (talk) 00:58, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Senyi84. Let me be frank. No experienced editor here on Wikipedia cares about what one new Wikipedia editor says is "quite famous" or "very important". We care only about what reliable, independent published sources say. So, back up everything you say by referring to what reliable sources say. That is the only way that you will convince anybody of anything here. Cullen328 (talk) 02:06, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate the need for objective evidence in these matters. I tried to provide references whenever I could.

Part of the difficulty is that all of the corroborating documents are in Chinese. I did list as many as I could find. Senyi84 (talk) 04:47, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Senyi84, there is no requirement that sources be published in English. Sources in any language are fine, as long as they are published, reliable and independent. Cullen328 (talk) 04:54, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

How long do I have to wait for my drafts to be accepted?

I wrote some drafts and immediately they refused it, I added the references, which was what they asked to do, but I never got any answers ANGELA BIDOIA (talk) 23:41, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Drafts are not reviewed in any particular order. The reviewers are volunteers and review what they choose. There is a large backlog, so it may sometimes take up to four months. Just be patient and continue working to improve the draft while you wait for review. RudolfRed (talk) 00:20, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

You have created five drafts, three of which have been Declined once and one Declined twice. As noted above, there is a backlog of drafts. Yours will be reviewed in time. Often weeks, but can be reviewed sooner or later than that. David notMD (talk) 03:07, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

ANGELA BIDOIA UPDATE: All of your drafts have been declined at least once. I strongly recommend that you limit future work to first getting one draft approved rather than wasting reviewers' time on several drafts when you have not yet demonstrated competence. David notMD (talk) 08:11, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

@ANGELA BIDOIA Your drafts say "...was named, possibly in honor of"; "The Turkish historian Necdet Sakaoglu calls her Hyuma, but notes that she could have been named Hyumashah"; "it is more likely that he died before 1586"; "However, it is also said that Sardar Farhad Pasha was the son-in-law of Safiye Sultan and married her daughter, so there is a great possibility that he was Humashahd"; "If Mahfiruz Sultan would have been alive at the time of her son's accession to the throne, it is assumed that she was the one who gave Meleksima to Osman as a concubine". And that's just from two drafts.

That is a lot of unknowns for an encyclopedia to handle. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 07:24, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

help to edit article

I need help to edit the draft of Jason Innocent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jason_Innocent

Thepublich (talk) 03:24, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Read the required criteria detailed at WP:ARTIST, find WP:Reliable sources that demonstrate how Innocent meets them, add summaries of those sources' contents to the article, and cite them. Unless you (or others) can do that, the draft will not be accepted as an article. This may be a case of WP:Too soon – maybe in five or ten years Innocent will have become better known and consequently have more reliable-source pieces written about him. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.209.121.96 (talk) 04:23, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello!

I know this isn't a question. But i just wanted to say hi and engage with the community i suppose. Kasper252 (talk) 04:06, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

hello ! Vincent-vst (talk) 07:18, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Kasper252, how are you? Nice to find you here! Are you thinking about editing an article here? What are your interests? Mathglot (talk) 07:56, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Kasper252 Welcome back. You appear to have been very constructively productive since becoming active again. David notMD (talk) 08:32, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks David. I was a bit of a vandal back in the day. But I have reformed! I've made a few articles, helped some orphaned ones, and do wikignome work. Its really awesome being able to help out.

And Vincent! Ive edited quite a few so far and I'm loving it. I have ADHD so pretty much going to one thing to another. But my special interests are Three Kingdoms Period China, Coldwar, and Visual Arts. (Also i suck at Source editting) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kasper252 (talk • contribs) 16:52, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Sorry for the lengthy question.....

My name is Phil Lloyd. Username: HTW0822

I am looking for a site where my posts, and others’ on the same topic can be viewed publicly.

I/we are below a non-profit (just Sharing), and try to operate with no money and solicit Funding from Philanthropists or Crowdfunding.

I posted some on Fandom (WETBOP) a year or so ago, and recently on WT.social under the subwiki NSV.

I attempted to contact Mr. Jimmy Wales, but finding WTS once again, I thought this would work. But the issues there are two-fold.

#1) They, at this point do not offer sub wiki nesting like NSV.Energy.Anaerobic Digester.Electricity where members could create a new NSV, lets call it NSV.NoCO2Here where they could design their own New Sharing Village (using the common rules like Max. 1,000 people, 100ha’s in the Tropics and up to 200 ha’s in Temperate (snow) zones).

Then, decide what their NSV will contribute to Village-to-Village Sharing, like Biogas Digesters, Mens’ Shirts, Metal-works, and Toothpaste, for example.

And #2) they are in the process of preparing and releasing Version 2 of WTS, and not sure if my current method will work in that new release.

My question....finally....

Could I and other members write Here on Wikipedia on this Idea of Reducing CO2 emissions, stopping Homelessness, Poverty, Unemployment and so on....by simply shifting people to Sharing Villages – NSVs, where they contribute to building their own Homes, Grow and Raise their own Food on Local Farms using Forest Farming, etc.?

Please understand a 90-100% Sharing community has different motivation, different goals than a for profit one. We want only the Best, the Highest Quality, not the Least cost, not the least Labour for a product that has a built-in obsolescence. Labour is last on the last of criteria, after considering the amount of raw material used. A NSV builds products using worldwide standard components, so Repairing becomes easy. No Brands, just the Most Durable, Long Lasting, Best Quality, always.

Thanks in advance for any and all suggestions HTW0822 (talk) 04:28, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello, HTW0822. It seems that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of Wikipedia. This is an encylopedia that consists of neutrally written articles that summarize what independent reliable published sources say about various topics. It is not a place for various people to gather and discuss and debate ways to improve the world. That kind of discussion is strictly forbidden by policy, specifically Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. In particular, please read the section "Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion". The fact that your group is nonprofit is irrelevant. The policies in question apply equally to the smallest charities and the largest multinational corporations. Cullen328 (talk) 04:45, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

gotcha,

before departing though, perhaps starting at the VITAL Level 1, someone, anyone of the 76 million wiki authors must surely be concerned and find even the Vatican News is reporting on Fossil Fuel Use more than Doubling (110%) by 2030. Where are the "neutrally written articles that summarize what independent reliable published sources say about various topics" like Fossil Fuel emissions, and the likely-hood of our extinction unless we act quickly! Is this not a LEVEL 1 Priority? Guess not.... HTW0822 (talk) 04:55, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

HTW0822, Wikipedia has countless neutrally written encyclopedia articles about climate change, fossil fuels, renewable energy, endangered species, pollution, environmental action and so on. Wipedia editors can express their "concern" about these things off-Wikipedia and I certainly do. As I reveal on my userpage, I have been a member of the Sierra Club since 1976. But here on Wikipedia, building a neutrally written encyclopedia is always allowed. On the other hand, campaigning for anything except free knowledge is never allowed. The encyclopedia is our LEVEL 1 priority here. There are countless other websites with different priorities for you to choose among. Cullen328 (talk) 05:10, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

@HTW0822: Welcome to the Teahouse. If you're looking for a space to collaborate using wiki software, you can go to MediaWiki and download the software (instructions located there) to use on a website you create. If you would like something more pre-designed, you could try out Miraheze. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:33, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Dishonest Removal of Content

On Sanna Marin page, the Controversy section that I added on August 18, 2002 has been removed dishonestly. Restore the content. I am increasingly observing it on Wikipedia that rogue users dishonestly remove content that is critical or negative for people or organizations. Wikipedia must ensure the neutrality of the platform and it should not allow certain dishonest elements to misuse it for their personal gains. Rrthakur22 (talk) 05:11, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Rrthakur22. Please be aware that Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons is a very important policy that must be followed. Thinly sourced unsubstantiated allegations of wrongdoing do not belong in Wikipedia biographies. When your content like this is challenged, you are obligated to build consensus among the editors interested in the topic in order to include it. Here is a quote from the policy: Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. Cullen328 (talk) 05:22, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. The source was BBC in which the concerned person was quoted. And now there are multiple reliable media sources which have carried the same information. I think Wikipedia must not block or sensor content simply because it is related to a controversy about a living person. The Wikipedia users and other stakeholders must know the truth. If required, Wikipedia must change its content aggregation policies. Investigate the above case objectively. Rrthakur22 (talk) 05:29, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

To: @Cullen328 Please see my response given above. Thanks. Rrthakur22 (talk) 05:33, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Rrthakur22, Wikipedia is not a content aggregator. It is a neutrally written encyclopedia. This is gossip and it simply is not allowed in this encyclopedia. Do not add any similar content to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Cullen328 (talk) 05:38, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

to add on to the above, we do not censor controversies when they're relevant, however we only include ones that are important in objectively discussing the subject. gossip such as this, even when they end up getting noticed by other politicians and mainstream media, are a dime a dozen and usually end up getting forgotten a few whiles later. here's a question: if a reader is reading her article maybe 50 years later, would that (possibly short-lived) gossip be vital into understanding who she is? 💜  melecie  talk - 05:50, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

To: @Melecie But we must not ignore such widely covered incidents which can later become major events in history so that the readers could know the sequence of development in a systematic way on a single source: Wikipedia. I am not interested in this particular case. You can remove the information that I added. But I still think Wikipedia must evolve. Rrthakur22 (talk) 05:56, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

@Rrthakur22 This goes into WP:CRYSTALBALL. Is there any major fallout from this? At the moment, I don't see that written. Until then, it is just smoke and mirrors here. – robertsky (talk) 08:27, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

To: @Cullen328 I am not satisfied with your response and intimidating warning. Please let me know where else I can raise this issue which is related to Wikipedia's credibility. Rrthakur22 (talk) 05:51, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Rrthakur22, you do not need to be satisfied with my response but you must comply with the WP:BLP policy. I have been trying to explain the policy politely. Please read Dispute resolution for your various options if you truly believe that I am misinterpreting policy. Cullen328 (talk) 06:01, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

UPDATE: Rrthakur22 and Cullen328 The content in question (her attending a party) is now referenced content in the Personal life section rather than as a Controversy section. Personally, I would delete all mention regardless of refs. This is different from the government Brits partying controversy, which took place during a COVID lockdown. David notMD (talk) 09:06, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Okay @David notMD @Cullen328 As @David notMD perhaps knows it from a recent case, the critical information related to Aam Aadmi Party is being repeatedly removed. Today I experienced it again. The "Allegations and Investigations" section that I added on Manish Sisodia who belongs to Aam Aadmi Party is being removed by perhaps the PR team of Aam Aadmi Party. I want to retain this information and informed the users on their Talk page. This is very important information that Wikipedia readers must know. Please help me resolve such repeated issues as I believe Wikipedia is full of such PR users who block important information that is critical to their clients / associates. Rrthakur22 (talk) 11:38, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Rrthakur22 This is a new topic which would have been better served by starting a new question. User:Aditi Gyanesh deleted your referenced content and you restored. Gyanesh had previously removed referenced negative content about Sisodia, which was restored by an editor, and warned on Talk page. You added a warning to Gyanesh's Talk page. Also summarizing the conflict on the article's Talk page would be a good idea. Let us hope that Gyanesh does not repeat the revert. If so, you can warn about edit warring. David notMD (talk) 12:23, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @David notMD Since this issue is again related to the topic "Dishonest Removal of Content" I had put it on this page. But in future as you have suggested I will create a new page. I am trying to highlight a dangerous trend on Wikipedia that people with hidden identities are tampering with or deleting the truthful information dishonestly. In all probability, these people belong to or hired by these organizations who want to misuse Wikipedia to promote their interests. How do we stop it? Rrthakur22 (talk) 12:36, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

@Rrthakur22: The general problem that people try to alter Wikipedia content for their selfish PR purposes is not exactly new. There has been some well-documented cases (here’s one recent example from fr-wp). It might be the first time you encounter that, but it certainly won’t be the last if you stay around.

The specific problem that a given editor might be trying to alter a given page for nefarious motives might deserve investigation, for instance at the conflict of interest noticeboard, but make sure to come with solid evidence.

Please also moderate your language, even if it is hard to think the edits could be in good faith. Saying that "in all probability, someone who disagrees with me must be a paid goon" (which is essentially what you wrote) violates the guideline about not casting aspersions. Saying that a removal of content is dishonest (which implies a deliberate choice to harm the encyclopedia rather than just someone being wrong) is not a great idea either; it might technically not be a breach of policy but it certainly will not help you to talk peacefully with the other editor. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 13:41, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @Tigraan for your advice. I will be careful in future. To: @David notMD I have put the WP:PAID and WO:COI message in the Edit summary of Manish Sisodia page on which I have just added more information. Thanks. 122.162.147.131 (talk) 13:56, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Sorry @David notMD and @Tigraan Since I had not logged in, my IP was published. Now I have logged in. Rrthakur22 (talk) 13:59, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

No problem Rrthakur22, such accidents happen. It’s perfectly fine (as long as you don’t try to pretend you are two different persons between the IP and your account).

If you want the IP removed from this page for privacy reasons, contact the oversight team (via Special:EmailUser/Oversight). If you don’t care, you don’t need to do anything. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 14:37, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Oh and FYI see the next part of this saga, continued in a new thread below. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 05:16, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Help me to expand an article?

Hello, I'm working on Draft: Mallu Traveler. He is a YouTuber from Kerala, India. I've placed some sources there. Somebody please help me to expand the article? Thanks Imperfect Boy (talk) 05:40, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

To be honest, he isn't really that notable. There are many YouTubers that have over 1 million subscribers who don't have Wikipedia articles. I wouldn't bother, if I were you. Jenkowelten (talk) 07:53, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Government Bunkers

Where can I find a list of all offsite government fortified bunkers here in the United States Jmkirkman (talk) 06:33, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

@Jmkirkman, this page is for asking questions about editing Wikipedia, but you can try this link: Wikipedia:Reference desk. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:58, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Jmkirkman I don't think that there is a list on Wikipedia for that but the Category:Bunkers page may be of interest to you. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:34, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Ah, there's a Category:Nuclear bunkers in the United States. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:05, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Not able to edit

Dear Team,

This is bring to your notice that myself was blocked from editing or create the history Dr Chef Sathishkumar (talk) 07:28, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

You have not been blocked. Are you referring to Draft:Sathishkumar Gnanam being declined? - X201 (talk) 08:17, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

You have not been blocked. HOWEVER, it appears that you have created two accounts, the above and User:Sathishkumar Gnanam, both in an attempt to create content about yourself. Immediately stop using one or the other of these accounts, as multiple accounts are referred to as WP:Sockpuppets, which will result in you being indefinitely blocked. Also see WP:AUTO for Wikipedia's advice to not attempt autobiography. David notMD (talk) 08:46, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

ALSO, creating more than one draft about yourself Draft:Chef Sathishkumar Gnanam and Draft:Sathishkumar Gnanam is wrong, as is repeatedly adding your name to List of Indian chefs when there is no article about you yet. David notMD (talk) 08:52, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Is there a suggestion box?

I have 2 bot ideas. Where would I ask? Jenkowelten (talk) 07:48, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

For bots you need WP:BOTREQ. But read the Bot Policy first before asking. Also check the archive to make sure it's not a perennially rejected suggestion. - X201 (talk) 08:20, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Or instead of trawling through the archive, have a look at Wikipedia:Bot_policy#Restrictions_on_specific_tasks and Wikipedia:Bot requests/Frequently denied bots. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 08:22, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

My article declined

I have included important references in many languages ​​to my article. Why was it not accepted? I hope my edit will be accepted.

Best Editormena (talk) 10:32, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Editormena The short answer is that most if not all of your references are press releases by Nazlı Ekşi herself or her sponsors, presumably touting for business. Wikipedia articles must be based on what reliable secondary sources have said without being prompted or fed information. If you cannot find WP:INDEPENDENT sources showing her notability, then no article can be accepted. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:00, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello Mike, thank you so much for your return. I've unpublished a few references. The rest of the references all look like the content entered by the editor. Editormena (talk) 13:11, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Editormena Since I don't speak Turkish, I can't comment on all your sources but of the ones I can read, The Times of Israel and AZ Central's pieces are clearly based on interview, so not independent and just lazy journalism. The award by World Business magazine sounds impressive until you look at the cited webpage and find that they have no content at all about Ekşi beyond mentioning she won one of what seems to be a huge list of their annual "Awards". So not WP:SIGCOV and we are left wondering what criteria this magazine uses to select awardees. No doubt Ekşi is a surgeon doing their best but it is all too WP:RUNOFTHEMILL to warrant inclusion here. This seems to be your only contribution to Wikipedia so far, so I would encourage you to work on improving our myriad of other articles and forget about this draft. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:14, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation page for Press Play

Hi I just noticed that the disambiguation page for Press Play has the wrong date for the movie. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_Play It should be 2022 not 2002 but I don't know how to edit this page. Thanks Debbie Lakelady2282 (talk) 10:37, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for pointing this out, Lakelady2282. Incidentally, you edit those pages just like any other, by using the "edit source" tab, assuming you are using the source editor. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:54, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Shall Insurance in the United States wiki page be branched into sub-pages?

There are 3 different classifications of vehicle Insurance in the US; preferred, standard and non-standard. These classifications set the insurance rates for the consumer, but are not related to insurance coverage. Would an individual insurance classification page be considered to be a sub page of Insurance in the United States? Lybon21 (talk) 10:56, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

@Lybon21, if you don't get a good reply here, you could try Talk:Insurance in the United States or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Finance & Investment. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:09, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Afd IP comments

Are comments from any IP accepted in Afd? PravinGanechari (talk) 10:58, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

PravinGanechari Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. As stated at WP:AFDFORMAT, "Unregistered or new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their recommendations may be discounted if they seem to be made in bad faith (for example, if they misrepresent their reasons). Conversely, the opinions of logged in users whose accounts predate the article's AfD nomination may be given more weight when determining consensus." 331dot (talk) 12:06, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

I think 331dot probably meant to ping PravinGanechari, not template him. I've done that countless times but usually notice the mistake before saving! Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:10, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Just missed putting the line in. It won't work now but it at least is fixed. Thanks. 331dot (talk) 12:11, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

About copy-editing

Is there a way to request a copy-edit? Can you request a copy-edit of an article you've never edited? — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 11:41, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Vortex3427 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Thanks for wanting to contribute. Most articles can be edited by any user, and you may edit any article in which you are interested in the topic or if you just noticed an error. If you see a change that should be made, you are welcome to make it yourself! If you don't yet feel comfortable doing so, that's fine too. You may use the article talk page associated with an article(for example, Talk:Joe Biden is the talk page for the Joe Biden article) to propose changes. To increase the chances they will be seen, you may make them as formal edit requests(click for instructions). Every article has a link to the talk page at the top(in desktop mode at least, it can be accessed in mobile too) 331dot (talk) 12:10, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

You can add {{Copy edit}} at the top of the article if you think this is needed but you don't want to do it yourself (or have just done a bit). Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:13, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

@Vortex3427: Welcome to the Teahouse. As a coordinator for the Guild of Copy Editors, I can tell you that you can either use the {{copy edit}} template to put it in the backlog, or you can submit a request on the request page (please read the instructions carefully should you go this route). —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:36, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Not sure what I am doing wrong and how to get this entry correctly written...

I am looking for a bit of help getting unstuck with the creation of my first page/entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Paywith.glass

I really do not know how to get this one right/compliant with the requirements. I was told by Liance that it is not notable and others here in the Teahouse have said that it is not clear what the entry is about - app, software, service etc...

I have edited it to give more clarity around the subject matter and more historical data on the timeline using publicly available references.

Now I am told by Pythoncoder that it sounds like an advertisement... there is clearly a fine balance I am completely missing.

If either of you is available to give a bit more guidance on this, I really would appreciate it. Otherwise, could someone here please help.

-Hatter Hatter.glass (talk) 12:17, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi there. The issues raised by both reviewers appear correct to me. This article is beyond a fine balance - it is filled with promotional buzzwords and is not written from a neutral point of view. The reviewers have left notes with the relevant guidelines and these are linked in blue. You have correctly disclosed a conflict of interest for the article subject, and thanks for the transparency. However this conflict is likely clouding your judgement in being able to write neutrally, which is why conflict of interest editing is discouraged. Can I please ask why you signed from two accounts? Are you using two accounts? Thanks MaxnaCarta (talk) 12:30, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi User:MaxnaCarta my apologies about the signature. No, not using two accounts, I may have incorrectly signed (really not a wikipedia protocol/syntax expert here).

Ok, are you able to help elaborate on the issues raised?

For example, you state that the article is filled with promotional buzzwords, could you give more clarity on this. I am not sure if you refer to things such as blockchain or CBDC, distributed cloud etc because we have no other way of describing such things since we literally are exactly these. Blockchain, AI and distributed cloud as the foundation tech for a CBDC infrastructure solution... it really is literally that.

Also, as far as notability, I don't know how to provide the information in the correct way without it sounding like an ad since we are again, quite literally the technology being used to power the first retail CBDC pilot in a G7 per the press articles that cover this.

I really do need your help on this, I am not sure how to do it the right way :) Hatter.glass (talk) 12:36, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

There's no point working on the language of a draft if the subject doesn't qualify. Back in February you were told/asked "None of the cited sources appear to demonstrate significant, independent coverage of the subject. Please select the [three] best sources which demonstrate notability." Given that the name "Paywith.glass" doesn't appear within the title of any of the references, I suspect that this comment/request is just as valid now as it was then. And therefore, please -- right here, in this "teahouse" thread -- specify which three sources best demonstrate notability. Of course they must be reliable sources, and in order to be reliable they must be entirely independent of the subject. -- Hoary (talk) 12:34, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Hoary on this. In my own opinion also, this article does not look appropriate for Wikipedia. I would not approve it if I had reviewed it for the same reasons as others. It looks like you have received sufficient feedback on the matter also. MaxnaCarta (talk) 12:40, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Our issue here is that we are infrastructure powering pilots. We are clearly mentioned in the articles but the headlines will not be about us, they are about the use of our technology.

Additionally, the sources are all independent, for example, we do not write, nor do we have any control over what is written by Ledger Insights but we are clearly mentioned in the article as the founding entity behind the subject of the article, therefore without us there would not be this initiative or article to talk about it.

Another example is Coindesk who are notoriously difficult to get a mention from unless you are shaking the industry and yet, this is covered here. Hatter.glass (talk) 12:41, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

WP:TNT is required, ridiculous promotional marketing includes "paywith.glass is modern intelligent financial transaction infrastructure" "creates an Intelligent Digital Currency/Electronic Payment Payments (iDC/EP) Infrastructure solution " "Stellar's own mission statement aligned with the duo's own vision for a payments solution" "Today's financial services infrastructure[27] must integrate low-cost, instant global settlement, solutions to serve the Unbanked, support for e-commerce" etc. etc. etc. Theroadislong (talk) 12:47, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

hi User:Theroadislong, I can remove the information about Stellar's mission statement which was added to give context as to the origin of the project. It was in no way intended as marketing, we were just showing what inspired this in the first place.

As for the "Today's financial services infrastructure must integrate low-cost, instant global settlement, solutions to serve the Unbanked, support for e-commerce", I have quite literally cited the source, this is not my opinion nor a promotion.

There are papers that have come to this conclusion from multiple independent sources which I wanted to use to show that the criteria for infrastructure today is very different from the criteria in the 1970s when the last major financial services infrastructure was built. If you could you guide me on how this should be written instead, I would be very grateful.

Finally, "paywith.glass is modern intelligent financial transaction infrastructure" "creates an Intelligent Digital Currency/Electronic Payment Payments (iDC/EP) Infrastructure solution " is not marketing.

The subject matter is a type of DC/EP (this is just literally what it is, like the Titanic was a ship, the Tesla Roadster is a car) but its specific subcategory is iDC/EP which means that is has an AI element to it and is not a passive solution. Like the difference between a watch and a smartwatch. Again not marketing, it's the terminology for this type of infrastructure. In comparison, China's Digital Yuan, runs on DC/EP, which means that it is in the subcategory that is passive... ie: no AI.

Could you point out any other areas that don't read well and provide guidance on how to rewrite them as necessary? Hatter.glass (talk) 12:59, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

You may not have any "control" over what Ledger Insights publish, but the only mention of paywith.glass in that article is introducing a quote from the CEO of paywith.glass. Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only 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. ColinFine (talk) 12:59, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Also see WP:SOLUTIONS. Theroadislong (talk) 13:02, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

User:ColinFine May I ask then what the suggested action here should be? paywith.glass is currently being integrated into the global financial system across multiple countries to power their domestic and cross border payments rails.

The UK pilot is the first one to be announced and in each market it will be announced as a pilot with whatever the local name is but in the industry it is know that it is powered by paywith.glass.

Direct statements to the public about it will be much like speaking of Arm holdings which makes the technology behind the Samsung and Qualcomm chips which power everyone's smartphones but Arm holdings only appears in most news articles in relation to financial performance, mergers or acquisitions.

How can paywith.glass have a wikipedia entry despite being layer 0/layer 1 of next gen financial services, if there would not likely be any paywith.glass titled articles published for years to come? Hatter.glass (talk) 13:06, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

If the necessary sources aren't available, then Wikipedia will not have an article. MrOllie (talk) 13:09, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Could you explain to me then how Space Hero has a page?

All of the sources are paid sources as is the practice of PR in Hollywood. Hatter.glass (talk) 13:21, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

If you want to see why space hero has an article please read my contribution to the deletion discussion that was held. There was significant external coverage in New York Times, among other sources. Granted, one source I found and cited was indeed a press release. Even so, that tv show meets notability standards. Your company/article does not. Sorry. There is no point endlessly asking different editors how to improve it when a clear, specific goalpost has been provided to you in order to demonstrate a meeting of notability. MaxnaCarta (talk) 13:35, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Ok, I have two last questions:

1. Does the Digital FMI Consortium which is mentioned in these three sources qualify? I ask since this will help me to better understand what is looked for.

https://www.eweekuk.com/cryptocurrency/digital-fmi-consortium-powers-up-for-crypto-and-cbdc-crusade/

https://www.finextra.com/newsarticle/40822/tech-industry-consortium-to-run-cbdc-pilot-with-sterling-stablecoin/crypto

https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/digital-fmi-consortium-set-to-explore-new-era-for-money-1031689290

2. It was already stated here that Coindesk does not qualify as a reliable source (I was surprised by that) but may I also ask if FintechTimes or The Banker do?

https://thefintechtimes.com/cross-industry-consortium-explores-future-digital-financial-market-infrastructure/

https://www.thebanker.com/Editor-s-Blog/UK-private-sector-consortium-enters-the-CBDC-game Hatter.glass (talk) 13:57, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

@Hatter.glass: I have to be blunt here. You need first and foremost to find sources to prove notability (in Wikipedia’s meaning of the term). Drop everything related to cleaning up the article, now - first, you find sources that satisfy WP:GNG, then only if they exist / are sufficient you write the article. Otherwise, it’s just a loss of your time. Very few persons, companies, concepts etc. meet that barrier - it does not mean those persons, companies, concepts are bad or useless or anything, it just means they should not have a Wikipedia page. That other pages exist despite insufficient sourcing is not a valid argument (maybe those pages ought to be deleted).

Notice it’s also a loss of our time. By my count, you have received tailored advice from almost ten different contributors (between the draft comments, your talk page and this thread). I think new paid editors should receive as much help as non-paid editors (even though some people think they should not be helped at all). However, you have had much more help than the average new editor, and I do not see a commensurate improvement in Wikipedia ability.

Onto the sources you provided:

1. Coindesk might be notoriously difficult to get a mention from, but it’s still considered not a good source for notability on Wikipedia. (It might well be that Coindesk is the best of the "crypto" specialized press; but "best of a bad bunch" does not mean "good".)
2. that other source you provided might superficially resemble what we are looking for, but an experienced reviewer can see multiple red flags. The article has no byline, which is generally a sign of poor editorial control/practices. The content smells of a single-interview article (that is, the journalist interviewed a spokesperson/CEO and basically wrote what they said without making any attempt at further investigation), which makes it not independent. (Yes, single-interview articles are more than 90% of journalism by volume today, but it is still useless for Wikipedia purposes.)

So, again, if you don’t find much better sources, you would do well to just stop editing the article here and now. No need to ask people to explicitly point out parts of the articles that need rewriting, even if they help you, it’s pointless if the article ends up deleted anyway. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 13:23, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

I am just repeating this here in the event that you do not receive a notification for the above, I do not want to spam anyone just for the record.

1. Does the Digital FMI Consortium which is mentioned in these three sources qualify? I ask since this will help me to better understand what is looked for.

https://www.eweekuk.com/cryptocurrency/digital-fmi-consortium-powers-up-for-crypto-and-cbdc-crusade/

https://www.finextra.com/newsarticle/40822/tech-industry-consortium-to-run-cbdc-pilot-with-sterling-stablecoin/crypto

https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/digital-fmi-consortium-set-to-explore-new-era-for-money-1031689290

2. It was already stated here that Coindesk does not qualify as a reliable source (I was surprised by that) but may I also ask if FintechTimes or The Banker do?

https://thefintechtimes.com/cross-industry-consortium-explores-future-digital-financial-market-infrastructure/

https://www.thebanker.com/Editor-s-Blog/UK-private-sector-consortium-enters-the-CBDC-game

Hatter.glass (talk) 14:24, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

You just cited a source that has "PRESS RELEASE PR Newswire" as the byline. Given that, I am not inclined to help you much further, so this will be my last post on the subject.

You have been asked to provide the "three best sources", but nobody has given you a link to WP:THREE yet. Go read that. It’s really short. In particular, notice that part: Be honest with yourself about how good [the sources] are.. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 15:02, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Does it "qualify" for what? You use the word "mention", and that is crucial. What you need is several sources each one of which satisfies all three of the following criteria:

1. It is a reliable source (i.e. it has a reputation for editorial control and fact-checking. You can ask about particular publications at the WP:RSN.
2. If is wholly independent of the subject - not written, published, or commissioned by the subject, not based on a press release, not quoting anybody closely associated with the subject

You might like to ask the guys at WP:WikiProject Cryptocurrency for help. ColinFine (talk) 15:05, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

References

statistics

Does anyone knows about a research, poll or survey about the "average" wikipedian profile ? Tzahy (talk) 13:17, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Systemic_bias#The_"average_Wikipedian" has plenty of links, one of them is to Wikipedia:User survey which lists some of those surveys. However, they were in 2005 or so, so they might be a bit outdated, though I expect the demographics have not changed much. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 13:27, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much Tigraan. Tzahy (talk) 13:34, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

I want someone to submit for me

I tried submitting but couldn't figure out how to declare Conflict of Interest and it just says to "avoid writing submissions about yourself or family, friends" so I want someone to submit for me. I have all of my newspaper and magazine articles saved on my desktop but cannot submit about myself, does anyone do this please? 24.71.114.218 (talk) 14:26, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:Kathy Hubble - 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:46, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. Presumably this is about Draft:Kathy Hubble?

You, or anybody, could submit the draft for review; but it would be a waste of everybody's time to do so at present, because there is not a single reference in it. Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only 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.

I think you're asking if somebody could write an encyclopaedia article about you. It is possible that somebody could. But we are all volunteers here, who spend our time as we choose, so if you want that to happen, you need to persuade somebody that it is worth spending their time on this, i.e. that their work will not be wasted; and the first step in doing that is to assemble the necessary sources to demonstrate that you meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability. If you cannot do that, then no article about you will be accepted, whoever writes it.

Note that if we do at some point have an article about you, it will not belong to you, it will not be controlled by you, almost anybody in the world will be able to edit it except you (you will be able to suggest Edit requests), and it should be based almost entirely on what people unconnected with you have published about you, not on what you or your associates say or want to say. In short, it will not be in any way for your benefit, except incidentally. ColinFine (talk) 14:47, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

I've added a bunch of newspaper clippings to Draft talk:Kathy Hubble for anyone to use to improve the draft. (I'm not that familiar with sports notability but Hubble does appear to be a notable athlete.) Schazjmd (talk) 15:41, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

You actually have two drafts: Draft:Kathy Hubble and Draft:Kathy Hubble (2). As explained, you are allowed to attempt to create a draft about yourself (although advised not to). If you wish to persist, work on only the latter, which has references. David notMD (talk) 22:08, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

how to fix speedy deletion log on my article

I have created a article and it was deleted for speedy deletion log i have fixed the issue but again it was deleted. This is very disappointing to me. please help

to solve my problem Ehtisham raziq (talk) 15:10, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Ehtisham raziq Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You edited your user page, which is not article space, but a place to tell about yourself as a Wikipedia editor only. Wikipedia more generally is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves. Please read the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 15:19, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Ehtisham raziq, I see no evidence that you are a Notable person as defined by Wikipedia. You tried to use other Wikipedia articles as references, which is not permitted. Please read WP:CIRCULAR. You tried to use Facebook as a reference. Facebook is not a reliable source because people tell lies there and spread falsehoods routinely. Please read about what Reliable sources actually are. Cullen328 (talk) 15:44, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked on 19 August. David notMD (talk) 22:11, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Could someone check over this sourcing for me?

I was taking a look at Lipstick effect, and the following paragraph was inserted some time in 2012:

"In a 2012 study by four university researchers, the effect was attributed to evolutionary psychology: "This effect is driven by women's desire to attract mates with resources and depends on the perceived mate attraction function served by these products. In addition to showing how and why economic recessions influence women's desire for beauty products, this research provides novel insights into women's mating psychology, consumer behavior, and the relationship between the two. [...] Although the lipstick effect has garnered some anecdotal lore, the present research suggests that women's spending on beauty products may be the third indicator of economic recessions—an indicator that may be rooted in our ancestral psychology."<ref>See Hill, S. E., Rodeheffer, C. D., Griskevicius, V., Durante, K., & White, A. E. (2012, May 28). "Boosting Beauty in an Economic Decline: Mating, Spending, and the Lipstick Effect". ''Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,'' available at http://personal.tcu.edu/sehill/LipstickEffectMS20March2012.pdf</ref>"

Though I'm not too well-versed on psychology papers and journals, I have to admit it kinda sounds like pseudoscience a little. The journal, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, doesn't come up in Beall's list but did seemingly come to blows for some nonsense in 2011, 2012? I'd appreciate someone having a look in. Thanks!--Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) ({{ping}} me!) 15:20, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

You could bring this to FTN. The nuances in evaluating journals closely is a difficult endeavor for the average, non-academic editor. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 17:42, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Would anyone like to professionally create an article for the Kingdom of Heaven?

Hi. I would like to ask anyone at the Teahouse if they would like to create a professional page on Wikipedia that includes the facts, the details, the historical information, and the verifiable proof thats undeniable, that also includes subheadings, images, dates, and photos, and website link refernces for The Kingdom of Heaven on Earth including: helping the world to be informed about the house so that they may all come to know, and learn, to assist the LORD and his anointed Son and Bride, to make this professional page able to be searched on Wikipedia with its own page to add to Wikipedias content and help Wikipedia build a historical Encyclopedia to the truth of The Kingdom of Heaven. Please reply if you are interested in helping us to the Glory of God!

We also do not mind offering you creit for this assistance. Thank you Kindly. Beautiful The Kingdom of Heaven (talk) 17:23, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

No, this is an encyclopedia, not a repository for fiction. PRAXIDICAE🌈 17:25, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

@Beautiful The Kingdom of Heaven, welcome to the Teahouse. The purpose of Wikipedia is to summarize what reliable, independent, secondary sources have published about notable topics. Based on what you've tried to contribute so far, it does not appear that your mission is in line with Wikipedia's mission. Also, be aware that there are many dishonest people who offer to write Wikipedia articles in exchange for money, with the end result of your money disappearing and no article appearing - or appearing and being quickly deleted.

You will need to explain your relationship, if any, to user:TheKingdomofHeavenonEarth. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:32, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Now Firstly, could you let me know , Where is Wikipedia based in what nation and under what law?

and then ill answer youre question. Do you understand I have rights under the Consitution of the United States of America to the freedom of speech , the freedom to exercise these rights, and the freedom information, as to which this information is historical. The son of man is historical information in which you cannnot dispute under any article. You allowed the kingdom of heaven articles on other articles without any problems. What kind of encyclopedia is Wikipedia building when it refuses to let me under my amnedment rights under the consitution to speak freely? And can you please offer a link as to Wikipedias mission statement. you sir, have imposed or seemingly impose rudely, your opinions not based off of any history onto me, And by what authority or right do you have to ask personal information about my poersonal life? you have overstepped the bounds of my freedom, my rights, and violation should be onto your sight, i take it you hold youre own beliefs, and i do not ask your business. you called this "fiction" that is youre personal opinion infriging my rights as to which I broke no rule of law. And ahow come there are all these articles on what you call "fiction", even though our article has nothing to do with fiction but non fiction. By what authority do you think you have to impede, impose, invade, intrude, interrogate, like an inquisition to my personal life and relationships. Be advised you broke my amendment rights as to which I will fully use by my God given rights under the constitution to enforce by law any violation of my freedom, liberty, and rights under the constitution of the heavenly government which has full jurisdiction over the earth and every nation within it which falls in the territory of the heavens within the Kingdom of Heaven of the creator! You better believe it! becuase its not fiction and were not here to play games with those who are enemies against and who also commit treason against us. Beautiful The Kingdom of Heaven (talk) 17:55, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Your website and made up "kingdom" that you posted on your other account are not notable, and no there won't be an article. PRAXIDICAE🌈 17:56, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOLEGALTHREATS. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:59, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

He's going to complain to sky daddy. We're all doomed. PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:02, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Now blocked. 97.126.103.107 (talk) 19:51, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

We have an article Kingdom of heaven (Gospel of Matthew), which does what an encyclopaedia article should do, and summarises what reliable sources say about the subject. But please see WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion ColinFine (talk) 17:39, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

OK, a few declarations here

• I am a believing, church-going Catholic (can't quite bring myself to say "good" Catholic), so of course, I believe in God, and in Heaven and Hell. Nevertheless
• The original poster clearly has some issues and problems with perspective, but beyond wasting a bit of time for a few people, he's quite harmless (and now blocked, anyway). That said,
• @User:Praxidicae, your attitude and comments are unnecessary and uncalled for, and quite frankly label you as rather like the Original Poster. You don't believe in God; that's your own choice/problem. But it's totally irrelevant to the question of whether any article is appropriate to Wikipedia or not. Uporządnicki (talk) 21:14, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

The OP is a blocked editor who is trying to spam his wannabe cult. I don't think someone who threatens editors with eternal damnation and "reporting to authorities" is high on the list of people that we need to pacify. But do go on. My belief or non-belief has nothing to do with anything. Unless, of course you think that this Kingdom of God on Earth, which is what they were trying to spam is anything but fiction. It literally features marvel superheroes. PRAXIDICAE🌈 21:16, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Frankly, the fact he invoked freedom of speech strikes me as incredibly suspect. If your most compelling argument in favour of your faith is that it is literally not illegal to express, that should be a massive red flag to any potential proselytes that something is wrong. That isn't an argument of spirituality in the slightest. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 21:51, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

If THOC isn't a sendup of Western religion-cum-hucksterism, I'll eat my keyboard.--Quisqualis (talk) 04:44, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

I learned some new words today... PRAXIDICAE🌈 10:00, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Having read all this, now my brain hurts. The most useful part was the mention that Beautiful is now indefinitely blocked. David notMD (talk) 22:17, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Article Declined

I wrote a very beautiful article about a very famous YouTube Leart.. but the article got declined As2302575 (talk) 17:54, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

@As2302575: Hello As and welcome to the Teahouse! Unfortunately your draft is currently nominated for speedy deletion under the criteria G11, which means that the article's purpose is to promote/publicise the person, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. Also, it does not fit Wikipedia's Biography of Living persons guidelines which state what is required for articles like yours. Having a Youtube channel does not automatically make a person eligible for an article. Even if said person has millions of subscribers, if that's all they're notable for then they won't get an article. Also, attempting to redirect the article to an external website (such as their youtube channel) doesn't work and is completely inappropriate to do. Please, read Wikipedia's BLP guidelines (linked earlier in this reply), as well as wikipedia's notability criteria. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:02, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello, As2303575, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid that is very often the experience of people who join Wikipedia and immediately plunge into the very difficult task of trying to create an article without spending any time learning what Wikipedia is or how it works.

In particular, editors who do that nearly always have come here for the specific purpose of telling the world about their subject: in other words, promoting them, which is not permitted anywhere on Wikipedia.

Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only 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. ColinFine (talk) 19:05, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Another indefinitely blocked on 19 August. David notMD (talk) 22:20, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Citation for an old novel?

How can I make citation for an old paperback novel that I'm referencing? Do I have to? 2001:1970:4F63:A900:0:0:0:7942 (talk) 18:01, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

You can use the "Insert a template" button (it looks like a small puzzle piece on top of your text box). Once you open that you can search for the Cite Book template which will let you insert all relevant information about the source. Hope this helps. ― TUNA × 18:15, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks so much! 2001:1970:4F63:A900:0:0:0:7942 (talk) 18:48, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridget_Rice

The place of birth for Bridget Rice (nee Henaghan) is incorrectly stated as Co Monaghan on her wiki page. She was born to Walter Henaghan and Bridget McGreal in Louisburgh, Co Mayo - the same place as her brother Fr Johnny Henaghan - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Heneghan.BuffyO'B (talk) 18:21, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello, BuffyO'B. Do you have a reliable source that verifies her place of birth? Cullen328 (talk) 18:53, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi, we have met before in connection with Major Myles Moylan's place of birth (Tuam, Co Galway). This time I am working on Fr Johnny Henaghan, Columban Father and Malate Martyr. He was posthumously awarded the Medal of Freedom in 1948 by the US President. His sister Bridget Rice TD accepted it on his behalf - I have the photo. She, like him was born in Louisburgh, Co Mayo. Her Mam ran the local Post Office there - Bridget's Wiki page mentions that she was a postmistress. This link should direct you to her birth record - https://civilrecords.irishgenealogy.ie/churchrecords/images/birth_returns/births_1885/02644/1974953.pdf. Her marriage cert https://civilrecords.irishgenealogy.ie/churchrecords/images/marriage_returns/marriages_1914/09865/5583126.pdf

∼∼∼∼ BuffyO'B (talk) 20:10, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Draft proofreading needed

Hi, my draft article (Draft:Qupital) just got rejected for having too much advertisement content. I have already updated and resubmitted the article but would be very grateful if someone more experienced takes a look at it in case I missed something. Thanks. 1205edit (talk) 19:42, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

1205edit It was Declined (not as severe as Rejected). David notMD (talk) 22:22, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello, 1205edit. Looking quickly at the citations in your draft, it looks to me as if every one of them (with the possible exception of the ones in Chinese, which I haven't attempted to translate) is either derived from Qupital, or a routine business announcement. You need several sources each of which is all three of: 1) a reliable source; 2) independent of Qupital - not written, published or commissioned by them, or based on a press release or interview with them.; and 3) contains significant coverage of them. Then the article should be based at least 90% on those sources. Which are your three best sources?

It appears that you have created an account, and immediately plunged into the most difficult task there is, that of creating a new article. This is like having your first violin lesson, and immediately giving a recital: not only will the critics pan you (if they bother to pay any attention at all) but you may well not understand what they are saying, because you haven't spent any time learning the technicalities of what you are trying to do.

Also, when a new user comes in and immediately tries to create an article about a company, they are very often connected with that company, and under the misapprehension that Wikipedia is like social media and you can create a "company page" where the company can tell the world about themselves. It is not like that at all: Wikipedia has articles only about subjects which meet its criteria for notability, and the article do not belong to the subject, are not for the benefit of the subject, and should preferably not be written by the subject or their associates.

If you do have a connection with Qupital, you are not forbidden from creating an article about it, but you are discouraged; and you should make clear your connection: see conflict of interest. If you are in any way employed or remunerated by Qupital, then you are a paid editor and making a formal declaration of this is mandatory. ColinFine (talk) 22:23, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

I genuinely don't work for them. I'm a student on summer vacation and wanted to find something to do. I heard of the company from my parents (who work in finance but don't work for them). 1205edit (talk) 03:11, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

can you edit in different languages

im new to wiki so i want to help a friend know how to edit but in french . please answer my question. Forever1kpopok (talk) 19:54, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

@Forever1kpopok: Hello Forever and welcome to the Teahouse! If your friend wants to edit Wikipedia in French, then they will want to go to the French language Wikipedia, located at fr.wikipedia.org ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 20:15, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Case law of the boards of appeal - template for 2022

I find no template for the 2022 edition of the case law book of the boards of appeal. More specifically, the link

• Legal Research Service for the Boards of Appeal, European Patent Office, Case Law of the Boards of Appeal of the EPO (10th edition, July 2022), ii.e.4 : "Correction of errors in the description, claims and drawings - Rule 139 EPC"

fails and an error message comes up. Apparently, there is no template for 2022. By contrast, the link

• Legal Research Service for the Boards of Appeal, European Patent Office, Case Law of the Boards of Appeal of the EPO (9th edition, July 2019), ii.e.4 : "Correction of errors in the description, claims and drawings - Rule 139 EPC"

works all right. Can someone produce a template for the 2022 edition of the case law book, please? Dzmanto (talk) 20:23, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

O'Hare International Airport sourcing problem

Hello. Go to O'Hare International Airport page. Go to Reference #5, it is not going to the skyvector document at all, have done a number of airports using this source. I typed in the URL properly. Thank you for your time.Theairportman33531 (talk) 20:50, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

I have removed the reference, it was not needed. Theroadislong (talk) 21:11, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi Theairportman33531. Your addition missed the last hyphen in https://skyvector.com/airport/ORD/Chicago-O-Hare-International-Airport. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:16, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Box of Frogs problem

I just made an edit to the Box of Frogs article, and I'm having a problem with formatting. In the Albums section, for the second album Strange Land, I added "Cassette version bonus tracks" and listed two new songs after the numbered tracks, before the bullet point. On the edit page, it looks correct (I couldn't use hashtags to number 11. and 12. because the added text reset the counter to 1.), but in the article itself it comes out all wrong: There are inappropriate spaces before and after the new numbered songs, the songs appear to be boxed, and they are in a different type face. Can someone help? Pete Best Beatles (talk) 20:54, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi Pete Best Beatles. I fixed it in [3] with the method at Help:List#Specifying a starting value. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:10, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, that's way beyond my ken. There's still one little problem there: since the songwriter info. is not available for the bonus tracks, there's nothing between the song name and the singer's name. They look jammed together, so I tried to add a space, and the space is there on the edit page, but it doesn't take when I enter the edit. -- ```` Pete Best Beatles (talk) 22:11, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

@Pete Best Beatles: Consecutive spaces render as one space in HTML. The second space is still there in the HTML of the saved page but it makes no difference. See {{spaces}} for a method to make more spacing. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:21, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I decided to solve the problem a different way, but I'll make a note of that for possible use at a later. -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) 09:09, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Categories (again)

I don't always understand the right way to handle categories, so I'm asking this here instead of making changes to articles. (Sorry about the unlinked category names here - they disappear if I put them in braces). I'm looking at Nancy Reagan and see that it's in the category American film actresses. There's also a category called "Nancy Reagan", and some similar actress categories are sub-cats of American film actresses. Should the Nancy Reagan cat just be a sub-cat of American film actresses also? If we took this too far logically, her category would be a sub-cat of all the categories listed in her article, so I can see that this might lead to craziness. Also, looking at Ronald Reagan, the 20th-century presidents of the United States cat could be a sub-cat of 20th-century American politicians. - Special-T (talk) 21:48, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Special-T, and welcome to the Teahouse. See WP:Categorization#Category tree organization for a discussion of diffusing and non-diffusing categories. In answer to your first point: if you start the link with a colon, it will produce a normal Wikilink rather than the special treatment of putting the page in the category. So [[:Category:American film actresses]] displays as Category:American film actresses. ColinFine (talk) 22:28, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Special-T: Place a colon in front to link a category without placing the page in the category. [[:Category:American film actresses]] produces Category:American film actresses. The articles in Category:Nancy Reagan have low relevance to her actress work and she didn't get a category because she was an actress so it doesn't belong in Category:American film actresses. See Wikipedia:Categorization#Eponymous categories. All categories should have at least one parent category but it's already in better fits like Category:First Ladies of the United States. Category:20th-century presidents of the United States is already a subcategory of Category:20th-century American politicians. Ronald Reagan is in both because it is a non-diffusing subcategory. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:41, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, both. Think I'll just leave categories alone for now! - Special-T (talk) 23:30, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Citation

Can someone help me how to cite the correct source which is accepted on Wikipedia, please. Marvel 19 (talk) 02:37, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:Diana fireboy DML

hi @Marvel 19 and welcome to the teahouse! you can read Reliable sources to see what makes a source acceptable for use in Wikipedia, and Perennial sources to see the most common sources and whether they're reliable or not.

for your article, it seems that Versace has left a note stating that there isn't enough significant coverage of the song, which means that you don't have enough sources that focus on "Diana" instead of its album Playboy. what you can do instead is either make a draft for Draft:Playboy (album) that discusses the album as a whole (although you'll still need sources with significant coverage of the album, it's probably easier to get sources for a whole album than sources for a specific song). alternatively, if you feel like the song "Diana" is more popular than the album it's in, you could instead find more sources on Diana and continue your draft on the song. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 02:49, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

ohhhh. thank you soo much. i have now understood what it means. oky then i will work on the album draft. Marvel 19 (talk) 02:53, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Publication of an autobiography

Hi guys! just wondering in regards to this autobiography Draft:Sadiq Daniel does it look good? and in regards to it getting published by probably someone more experienced? Also having a slight problem with the picture maybe the page needs to be formatted into an athlete page?

thank you anyone who can help! Baselinekickzz (talk) 03:11, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

COI has also been triggered on the article..

Happy editing! Baselinekickzz (talk) 03:24, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Have a look at WP:AUTO to see why we discourage autobiographies, Baselinekickzz. What you have written seems focused on promoting your business interests. It also lacks citations of what Wikipedia calls reliable sources. As far as another Wikipedia editor writing your bio for you, don't hold your breath, as there is no shortage of notable businesses to write about. Wikipedia has its own definition of notable, meaning a subject has been written about in depth in published, reliable sources which have no connection to the subject. For starters, you may want to study this page on writing a Wikipedia article.--Quisqualis (talk) 03:36, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Your User name is the same as your business. This is not allowed. David notMD (talk) 03:52, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello Baselinekickzz. It may be helpful to read An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. If an article about you is published in Wikipedia it won't belong to you, and other editors will be free to add to it. There may be a time when something is published about yourself that you'd rather not have others read, but as long as the topic is covered by a reliable source it can be added to your Wikipedia article. Best wishes on all Wikipedia projects. Karenthewriter (talk) 06:05, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

About Template:Infobox gene

Hello. I was translating English pages to Korean, and I found something is wrong in RNA expression pattern. When we see ko:락토페린(en:Lactoferrin), RNA 발현 패턴(RNA expression pattern) segment is displayed as n/a. I collected opinions at Korean wikipedia already, but had difficulties solving problem. I found that when I set Korean label at wikidata, that item does not appear at RNA expression segment. What is wrong with this? --LR0725 (talk) 03:47, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello, LR0725, I'm afraid I'm not understanding what your problem is. But in any case, it is unlikely that anybody on en-wiki can help you with a problem on ko-wiki. Going to ko:락토페린, it seems to me that the link ko:RNA 발현 in the infobox works, so maybe the problem is fixed? Or is it that you want the whole of "RNA 발현 패턴" to be the link? I'm afraid I can't help then. ColinFine (talk) 08:46, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello, ColinFine! Surely, I know that asking at ko-wiki is the best choice, but it wasn't solved at all. Problem is that when we see 'RNA expression pattern' space at Lactoferrin, it appears like "Human: Top expressed in trachea, cancellous bone...". But at ko:락토페린, nothing but n/a is shown at corresponding 'RNA 발현 패턴] space. I have no idea why this happens. LR0725 (talk) 19:13, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

You will understand when you press [show] at enwiki. Maybe I should have more discussion with kowiki users. This problem is making me crazy. LR0725 (talk) 19:14, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Suspect Editors

To: Wikipedia editors and supervisors. @Venkat TL is repeatedly removing truthful information from reliable sources from the pages of Aam Aadmi Party and its members such as Manish Sisodia under one pretext or another. There are a couple of other editors who are sympathetic to these pages and indulging in objectionable behaviour of content removal particularly from these pages. I have added messages on Talk pages, etc. but they ignore my messages. I urge Wikipedia to investigate this issue thoroughly and block these users permanently if they are exploiting Wikipedia to surreptitiously promote the interests of a few persons or organizations. Also, please restore the content that I added on these pages. Copy: @David notMD @Tigraan Rrthakur22 (talk) 04:42, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Who wants to drag this guy to WP:AE for enforcement of WP:ARBIPA sanctions? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 04:59, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

@Rrthakur22: Welcome back to the Teahouse. By the sounds of it, you are looking for WP:ANI. However, you may find that what is called a WP:BOOMERANG occurs, due to your violating WP:BLP repeatedly. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 05:01, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

I am not adding information about some ordinary individuals. They are politicians who are using huge public money to get negative media information about them blocked and pay for massive advertisements to falsely project their performance as politicians. Their decisions impact a large population of vulnerable people. Therefore, the public must know everything about them if it is being frequently published by the reputed media outlets. Without adding any comment from my side, I am simply citing those media sources to inform the public about these politicians. Please restore the content that I added and do not remove the content arbitrarily. Thanks. Rrthakur22 (talk) 05:39, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Rrthakur22: I have no idea whether your beliefs about these other editors are accurate or not. But please note that RIGHTINGGREATWRONGS is no part of the purpose of Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 08:48, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

@ColinFine @Jéské Couriano @Mako001 This user, giving me sock vibes, is only interested in adding negative information about politicians on the basis of news reporting of ongoing investigation, violating WP:SUSPECT and WP:CRIME. His inappropriate edits were removed/copy edited by others and he has now resorted to calling everyone COI. Not sure how to respond to this kind of behavior. Perhaps the admins should take a look. Venkat TL (talk) 09:13, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

"Perhaps the admins should take a look" is useless. If you want some admins to "take a look", raise a properly supported issue at WP:ANI. ColinFine (talk) 09:26, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

@ColinFine ok. Admin @Cullen328 has posted on his talk. Venkat TL (talk) 16:03, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

@Rrthakur22: WP:BLP applies to politicians as well. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 09:50, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Approval

@Akevsharma I have seen a draft on Indian musician K. N. Shashikiran with great content, kindly approve it Avbns (talk) 05:57, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello Avbns, the draft is not submitted for the review. Drafts are reviewed by AfC reviewers and there's no need to ping individual editors once you submit it for the review. Ratekreel (talk) 06:13, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Avbns it also makes sense not to submit it until it is ready for publication. Although it now has references, I suspect it will still get rejected. Wikipedia is not a promotional site. It is a dry and neutral site giving only information about people that can be found in sources that were not written at the behest of the subject of the article, that are not press-releases or promotional interviews; in fact anything from an interview is treated as very suspect. At the moment, this article reads like a fan-site, and it contains unsupported statements such as "He has won innumerable prizes and accolades for his prodigious talents and work for the promotion of Indian Culture through Carnatic Music". This simply won't pass muster. We cannot write "prodigious talents" unless we are quoting a secondary source, and unless the secondary source actually said it without the least prompting. The best you can do for the article at the moment is search for really good neutral sources, and remove some of the puffery. The awards section also doesn't bear scrutiny. If you start looking at these awards, many of them seem extremely difficult to trace, and possibly far from notable. The only awards relevant here are things that cannot be bought, can be proven to exist, and that carry real weight. I recommend that you try looking at the Jaycees one, for example, to start to see the problems: it's mis-spelled in the unconvincing source, Google produces no hits that aren't the product of the subject of the article, and the wiki-linked organisation doesn't seem to have anything to do with it??? 79.64.7.76 (talk) 14:04, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Article for approval

@KylieTastic I've seen a draft on K. N. Shashikiran with great content, please approve it. Avbns (talk) 06:00, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Discussion on the draft K. N. Shashikiran

@Akevsharma@KylieTastic and everyone else, I have made edits to my draft and published it again and there has been no discussion about it since then. My request to kindly check it again and let me know.

Regards,

@Sreeja Addala Sreeja Addala (talk) 06:12, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

You have made one (admittedly sustantial) edit since the draft was last declined, and nobody has resubmitted it for review. Whole sections of the draft are unreferenced. This is not acceptable in a biography of living persons. There are also many external references in the text, which is not permitted: see WP:EL. ColinFine (talk) 08:53, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Unbold everything except the initial bolding of his name. Reference everything. If cannot be referenced, remove. Delete all non-significant awards. Delete most of the images. Cut the article length by half, including all the famous name-mentions (notability is not contagious). David notMD (talk) 09:59, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Closure request - Conchita Wurst and others

I made a closure request 3 weeks ago for a move of the Conchita Wurst article, discussion on which ended over week ago with a clear consensus (in my opinion). I can see that there are lots of other requests which are even older, some a lot older. They just seem to fall of the end rather than actually be closed. I think I'll have a go at closing some although I haven't tried that before. Is there another way of requesting a closure on the one I initiated myself (i.e. Conchita Wurst)? All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 07:13, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

@Emmentalist: no, there is no other place to request a closure. lettherebedarklight, 晚安, おやすみなさい, ping me when replying 12:30, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

It is unlikely to be acted on until the 30 days elapse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slywriter (talk • contribs) 14:15, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Tutoring for beginners

Hello everyone. I was told by a friend that Wikipedia had a tutoring feature for newcomers so that experienced users can teach them the basics of Wikicode and stuff but I do not see that feature anywhere... Does it still exist ? And if so, can someone give me a link to it or something pls ? Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craffael.09 (talk • contribs) 08:32, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Craffael.09 Hello and welcome. I think what you are looking for is the new user tutorial. 331dot (talk) 08:35, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Template removal

Hi ! Do you know how to remove the templates that says "This article contains promotional content" or that kind of thing pls ? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craffael.09 (talk • contribs) 08:37, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Craffael09, and welcome to the Teahouse. The tag has a link in it that says (Learn how and when to remove this template message) Have you read it?

If you are talking about Alpha Sigma Rho, evaluative claims such as first Asian-interest sorority established in the state of Georgia are not acceptable anywhere in a Wikipedia article unless they are directly sourced to a wholly independent reliable source. And random bolded text immediately makes the text read as an advert, as well as being forbidden by the manual of style.

Remember that Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only 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. ColinFine (talk) 08:59, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Tables

Hi! I was wondering how to insert tables when editing. Im planning on adding information to an article about a game listing its soundtrack Getting Freaky on a Friday Night, yeah. (talk) 08:56, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

There are many ways. See Help:Table. If you're using the source editor, you'll probably need to learn the table syntax, but if you want to avoid that, you can also do it via the visual editor. small jars tc 09:12, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

hi @Getting Freaky on a Friday Night, yeah. and welcome to the teahouse! I'm assuming you're planning to write the soundtrack section for Friday Night Funkin'? you could take a look at the table in Undertale Soundtrack for an example, or Katawa Shoujo#Soundtrack when dealing with soundtracks featuring multiple artists. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 09:34, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, @SmallJarsWithGreenLabels and @Melecie, and no the soundtrack is for a different game. the game has 2 different soundtracks due to an in game feature. Getting Freaky on a Friday Night, yeah. (talk) 09:46, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Line-spacing in <blockquote>

Very sorry to be troubling busy editors: I've been improving the old Hudibras article. I'm new to article-sized Wikipedia writing, but have had great and very valued help from editors. One of you recommended (a few weeks ago) that I use <blockquote><poem> ... </poem></blockquote> for indented quotations. I've done that, to good effect — many thanks. But this seems to bring with it an odd change to the spacing beween lines, which is obviously ridiculously excessive. What code can I add to reduce the leading? Many thanks for any help! GoldenDorset GoldenDorset (talk) 09:24, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello, GoldenDorset. The spaces are there in the code. If you don't want the lines displayed double spaced, don't put blank lines between them. ColinFine (talk) 09:30, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

 Note: wrapped the tag in header around <nowiki> 💜  melecie  talk - 09:36, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

I am *so apologetic* — I don't know how I could have failed to observe that. I don't know how the double-spacing appeared (I never use it myself) but it was clearly there, and I *ought* to have seen it myself. Deepest apologies for troubling you, and deepest thanks for your good humour in correcting me! GoldenDorset (talk) 16:22, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Could someone have a look at United_States_Junior_Chamber#Controversies

This section is sourced to a book, but obviously it's hard for anyone to assess that the book is accurate and a reliable source. Currently it's making extremely drastic allegations that I'd like to see supported by multiple good sources, given their nature. 79.64.7.76 (talk) 14:08, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

I've removed the recently-added section and left an explanation on the article's talk page. Schazjmd (talk) 15:29, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Suggesting pages for creation

Hello I follow a lot of public figures in the entertainment industry and community. What is the likeliness of having pages created from suggestions of others as I don’t see several already made? S3lftaughtob (talk) 14:27, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

@S3lftaughtob: Welcome to the Teahouse. The answer to your question is extremely unlikely. Subjects must be notable as Wikipedia defines it, and they should satisfy the criteria for celebrity notability guidelines. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:42, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Brexit

Why is it not described as a factually incorrect term? Britain did not exit the EU, the UK left the EU. ? 2A00:23C4:3E0D:7D01:59A9:76C5:CC77:E124 (talk) 16:58, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Is your question about the Wikipedia article Brexit, which describes it as "the withdrawal of the United Kingdom (UK) from the European Union (EU) at 23:00 GMT on 31 January 2020 (00:00 CET)", or about the term in general? Cordless Larry (talk) 17:53, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Andrew Tate page

How about removing it? Thanks 131.191.80.78 (talk) 17:24, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello, IP editor. I am not a fan of kickboxing or of Andrew Tate, but we are not going to remove an article about a two time world champion. Cullen328 (talk) 17:42, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Re-submitting autobiography as biography

FYI

 – A massive copyvio in this post was removed by another user and revdel requested. I'm reposting the bits that weren't a violation, in case someone would like to comment. 97.126.103.107 (talk) 18:29, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi,

The following is the latest version of my bio. It was originally written by other writers who became exhausted with the Wikipedia administrators that posed as obstacles and were discouraging with no direction as to further development of the article, but rather cited rules and a maze to try and navigate. Anyway, the latest has a PDF with many references linked. However, the PDF doesn't work on Wikipedia, thereby unlinking the references, and the "Cite" process is just confusing. If anyone would like to help with simply linking the references from the PDF, or I can send the URLs, it would be truly appreciated. Here is the latest "Bio" version with numbers that are associated with the unlinked references:

<redacted>

Bob Purvey Bobpurvey1 (talk) 18:12, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Previous, somewhat related Teahouse post. 97.126.103.107 (talk) 18:36, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

@Bobpurvey: Considering what you just wrote had to be removed wholesale as a copyright violation (if it's been published anywhere else without the copyright licence specified, we cannot use it per Berne) and the draft as written still existed at the time I started writing this, I am going to try and go over this in a more granular fashion, with explanations as to why what is on the draft is unacceptable. I behoove you to pay attention rather than ignore the criticism.

• We can't use IMDb (no editorial oversight). IMDb is a wiki, and while they claim to have fact-checking, it's always been found to be severely lacking to the point they may as well not have it.
• We can't cite Wikipedia (circular reference). We never cite Wikipedia, mirrors of it, or sister projects as that's essentially citing ourselves, and even if that weren't a concern, we're still a wiki with subpar fact-checking relative to news/scholarly sources.
• We can't cite https://www.surfertoday.com/surf-movies/follow-me (too sparse). Name-drop, not significant discussion of the subject. We also cannot link to, let alone cite, the embedded video on that link (connexion to subject, no editorial oversight, unknown provenance); YouTube videos are only usable if (1) the outlet has an established editorial/fact checking policy and the report is presented by identifiable journalists and (2) the resulting video is uploaded to that outlet's verified channel.
• https://www.britannica.com/biography/Duke-Kahanamoku is a non-sequitur (in other words, Purvey isn't even mentioned, let alone discussed in depth). A source that does not even mention the subject is naturally going to be completely useless as a source on that subject, Wikipedia or no.
• For the Surfer's Journal cite you need to use Template:Cite magazine and cite it as an offline source; the link leads to a "buy this article" page, which is completely useless for practically any purpose related to Wikipedia. We do allow cites to print magazines provided the following information is provided: Publication name, publication edition (i.e. Jan 1923), article name, article byline (i.e. who wrote the article), and the page(s) the article is on. By the same token, we allow cites to books, and require a similar-but-different set of required information for those (title, author, publisher, year of publication, page(s) being cited, and either the ISBN or OCLC#).
• We can't cite online fora and message boards (no editorial oversight). The same applies to any other source which amounts to random people just talking about things (such as Reddit, Twitter, Facebook, Not Always Right, etc.)
• https://ecomalibu.org/bob-purvey-bio/ and https://ugly-garb.com/ugly-enterprises/ are useless for notability (connexion to subject). Anything Purvey (or his associates or organisations) controls doesn't help because we require sources to have no connexion to a subject whatsoever. People lie to aggrandise themselves, whether blatantly or by omission; a disinterested third party is far more likely to present things in a accurate fashion. (Those same third parties writing about a subject is also a good indicator of that subject's notability in the grander scheme of things.)
• https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/losangeles/water_issues/programs/stormwater/municipal/watershed_management/malibu_creek/index.html is a non-sequitur. I should also note that we don't consider government documents/websites to be third-party sources, as their subjects (generally) have a disproportionate amount of input on the page's content.

So much for the sources. Now for the content (which is why the page got deleted this go around):

• An Eclectic Artist - Opinions like this must always be attributed to a third-party source. This should not be in Wikipedia's voice (i.e. it shouldn't come across as Wikipedia saying it).
• By age four he started playing tennis and first showed the qualities of becoming a performer to entertain audiences. - Every claim that could potentially be challenged requires a citation to an in-depth, non-routine, independent news/scholarly source written by an identifiable author and subjected to rigourous fact-checking that can corroborate the claim. If no such source can be found, the claim must be removed in its entirety. This is not negotiable, as the relevant policy has legal implications.
• In 1967, television commercials, magazine ads and notoriety[...] - This is an incomplete sentence.
• Purvey was not the first or the last surfer to try his hand at acting[...] - This entire run-on sentence is irrelevant and adds nothing of substance to the article. It would fit better in an article about surfers in acting in general or on articles about those specific people.
• After returning home to Los Angeles. Bob trained with director and actor[...] - The claims being made here are what I refer to as "notability-by-osmosis", i.e. making an argument for notability based upon the relationships and connexions the subject has. We don't accept notability-by-osmosis, so this does nothing for the draft except make it come across as promotional.
• He advanced by working in London, New York and Los Angeles. - This requires a source of the calibre described above. (I know this is pedantic, considering the film credits do not require citations, but we do need a source that explicitly says this.)
• His film credits include[...] We don't need exhaustive lists of films he's been in, and they don't need to be in prose form, necessarily. Just the most notable films he's worked on can go in a list in a separate section. We also don't require citations for his film appearances as long as he has been credited under his own name or a known pseudonym. (Uncredited roles or unfamiliar pseudonyms still require a cite.)
• Since 1967, he has been a member of the Screen Actors Guild (SAG); Equity in London since 1969, and American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (AFTRA) since 1976. - Both these claims require a cite of the calibre described above.
• Bob also performed in over forty regional and thirty national television commercials[...] - This claim requires a cite of the calibre described above, and the list needs to be removed.
• All this happened through the 70's and part of the 80's, and Purvey divided his time between acting and surfing. - Redundant. The reader should be able to suss this out based on the sources you provide and the prose. It should be patently obvious he's doing this if he's getting credited roles during years where he's winning surfing competitions.
• In 1979, he returned to competitive surfing and won the Church Noseriding Championships. - This claim requires a cite of the calibre described above.
• His endorsement garnered numerous sponsors, including O'Neill, Ugg, Kennedy, Miyata and Images, to name a few. - This list is another notability-by-osmosis claim and needs to be removed as promotional.
• Purvey won the 2nd Morey Pro Noseriding Invitational in 1966[...] This claim requires a cite of the calibre described above.
• [...]helped make famous his Ugly surfboard model, manufactured by Con Surfboards since 1966, which today is considered the measuring stick for most noseriders. - The former half of this sentence requires a cite of the calibre described above that explicitly links this win to that board's popularity. The latter half (...which today[...]) is irrelevant and should be removed.
• [...Malibu Surfrider Beach is] one of the most famous beaches in the world. And, one of the most polluted beaches in the Santa Monica Bay. Mostly irrelevant and the latter half is an incomplete sentence. The "most famous" part can go, while the "most polluted" can be incorporated into the sentence.
• In an effort to remedy the problem, Bob participated in a group that organized to address all the issues of concern with Stakeholders in the Malibu Creek Watershed - a 109 square mile landmass and network of streams that terminate at Surfrider Beach - and come up with an action plan. - This claim requires a cite of the calibre described above, and everything between the endashes can be removed in favour of linking Malibu Creek#Watershed.
• Over the course of the first few years, Bob spoke out about the various violations endured by swimmers and surfers at world famous Malibu Surfrider Beach. - This claim requires a cite of the calibre described above.
• He initiated the organization of the Malibu Lagoon Task Force in 1995 and organized the first "State of the Malibu Creek Watershed Conference" in 1997. - These claims both require cites of the calibre described above; what is presently there, as I've explained already, is deficient.
• Even today, despite certain advancements, Bob presses on to clean up the water at Surfrider, which remains one of the most polluted beaches in the Santa Monica Bay. We can presume he didn't just quit, but this is a situation where expanding on events since the 90's with regards to this that he had a direct hand in would help (provided they're properly cited, of course).
• In 1994, he realized that he wasn't reaching a big enough audience, so Bob turned to the skills he developed as an actor and started producing his first documentary, Malibu Creek and It's Surrounding Watershed, which in 1996 won 3 Falcon Cable awards: Best Producer, Best Communicator and Best Music.^[sic] - No cite is needed for the documentary provided he didn't Alan Smithee out, but the awards part (especially the Best Music one) should be in an article on the documentary, not here.
• Ugly's innovative board short has set a new standard in functionality and contrary to the name - aesthetics. - This claim requires attribution.

And before I forget - anyone who wants to work on this would need to address this literal laundry list of issues, even if they're writing the article from scratch. You cannot just copy-paste stuff you've written for elsewhere (we do not use standard all-rights-reserved copyright, which is completely incompatible) and you cannot make the article into a shrine of adulation. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 19:29, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

I need a writer

I need a writer to edit my bio. The bio has many magazine and video artcles as references. It should be easy for anyone who knows how to navigate the Wikipedia maze and link up the references. The bio is well written and should easily conform to Wikipedia's standards. I own the copyrights. The writers I paid for became frustrated with Wikipedia and burned out. Any writers who can navigate Wikipedia and provide editing sollution out there? Bobpurvey1 (talk) 18:54, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Another previous, very similar Teahouse post - you may want to review the responses you got there, @Bobpurvey1. 97.126.103.107 (talk) 18:57, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Bobpurvey1 Yes, paid editing, while permitted, is not usually encouraged and many are skeptical of such editors(including, usually, me) Most don't apologize for that, as we are here in our free time volunteering because we believe in this resource.

My advice is that you abandon this effort and allow independent editors to organically take note of your career in independent reliable sources and choose on their own to write an article(not a bio) about you. If they do, it is not for your benefit in any way, and there are in fact good reasons to not want an article. There may be benefits, but those are on the side. 331dot (talk) 19:02, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks or your time and reply. However, you are wrong in your interpretation. I am not offering to pay a writer from the Teahouse. 2603:8001:9BF0:430:801F:821E:A3C7:CA5B (talk) 19:10, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Please understand, I am looking into the Teahouse to see if there are any volunteer writers knowledgeable about the Wikipedia maze and who would want to take on the task of linking up the bio and submitting it. I think it would be simple because the bio is practically written and the URL's linking the references are readily available. 2603:8001:9BF0:430:801F:821E:A3C7:CA5B (talk) 19:30, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

We can't use what you've written. It's under Berne-standard all-rights-reserved copyright; Wikipedia uses a licence that allows for reuse for literally any purpose as long as the original writers are credited and any derivative works made with it are released under a functionally identical licence. The two are mutually-exclusive and incompatible. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 19:34, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

IP editor/@Bobpurvey1 (please sign in to your account!), Jéské Couriano has taken a great deal of time to explain in detail, just above, why the sources you have are insufficient. We can't use what you've already written and published, and we can't use your sources to start over. What you're asking would not be the small task you think it is. 97.126.103.107 (talk) 19:42, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Editing wiki article "Priest (writer)"

Brand new editor to Wikipedia, I thought I'd get my feet wet with picking a random article that needed copyediting. Of course the first one I pulled up was a doozy, Priest (writer). The article appears to be full of quotes translated directly from Chinese, and the citations for the most part don't even link back to the original articles correctly due to the way the links are structured. There also seems to be a lot of unnecessary information added by fans, such as the table of works including the specific sexual orientation of romances and whether there are fan-adaptions of the works.

In short, I have no idea how to begin to tackle an article like this. I sort of poked around the style manuals but I couldn't really find anything that provided an obvious answer to these sorts of issues. Are these the sort of articles that end up getting essentially nuked and completely rewritten, and are better suited for intermediate/advanced users? Does this need to be handled by someone who has a good grasp of both English and Chinese languages? Please let me know, I'm eager to learn how to become a better Wikipedia contributor! Mintopop (talk) 19:43, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Help moving a page

Hi. I need help moving The Forever Story (album) to The Forever Story. Only an administator can do that, apparently. The name "The Forever Story" is unambiguous. Castlepalace 19:53, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Castlepalace, and welcome to Wikipedia! I’ve gone ahead and comp,teed that move for you. Cheers! 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 19:59, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Cheers! Castlepalace 20:01, 20 August 2022 (UTC)