Wikipedia:Teahouse

Marchjuly, 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

Extended confirmed pages

I've almost edited 300 pages so far with my account! After I reach the 500 mark will I instantly be able to edit level 3 security extended confirmed articles or is there more to activating that privilege? Hgh1985 (talk) 00:12, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, once you reach 500 edits and have had your account for 30 days, you will gain extended confirmed user rights allowing them to edit those articles. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 01:01, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Hgh1985, accuracy is really important here on Wikipedia. You have 240 edits, not almost 300 edits. Plus, you have been vandalizing in recent days. If you do not stop vandalizing forever right now, you will never receive extended confirmed status. I hope you take this warning seriously. Cullen328 (talk) 01:30, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Alright, I will stop the "test" edits right now, but with all due respect I still feel like this is a threat, the way you wrote this message. Hgh1985 (talk) 05:37, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Hgh1985, you can try to call your vandalism "tests" all you want but that does not change the fact that you repeatedly tried to damage the encyclopedia, just for the fun of it. Similarly, you can call my entirely legitimate warnings "threats" all you want. None of that changes the fact that I am an administrator, that you have been engaging in disruption, and that I will block you if I see any more bad behavior from you. Is that clear? Cullen328 (talk) 07:01, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Alright Jim, if I stop the disruptive editing permanently and immediately, can you forgive me on a personal level as well? Yes or no Hgh1985 (talk) 12:01, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Time will tell. Cullen328 (talk) 19:54, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

@Hgh1985 Why were you making disruptive edits? What was the purpose? David10244 (talk) 11:21, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

@Hgh1985 You admit the edits were disruptive here. On your Talk page, you dismissed them as accidental (you "could've swore" you undid each of them). Sonething doesn't add up. David10244 (talk) 11:56, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

User:David10244 - In view of the fact that this thread is about obtaining extended confirmed status, they were probably making the disruptive edits in order to game extended confirmed status. It does add up, because they are trying to get their edits to add up to 500. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:36, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon True... David10244 (talk) 10:26, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

wow, nice constructive way to engage someone, sable rattling threats on blocks, and parading your administrator badge @Cullen328, sadly finding this attitude more and more often on wikipedia nice way to welcome newcomers, in the end this trend will wind up into 10-20 guys controlling the whole project Juanriveranava (talk) 03:22, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Juanriveranava. I guess that you think that an administrator should just refrain from commenting when an editor with a very recent history of overt vandalism asks about advanced permissions. Despite your speculative observations, Wikipedia remains a top ten website worldwide, because of its clearly productive policies and guidelines. Also, there are about 450 active administrators, not 10 to 20. And there are far more active, highly productive editors than that who provide input on issues like this. If we turn Wikipedia over to vandals, it will rapidly devolve into a steaming pile of crap. I will then resign, and you can become an administrator of garbage. Cullen328 (talk) 03:45, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

User:Juanriveranava - Some editors read the guideline not to bite the new editors a little too expansively, and that appears to be what you have done. It means not to bite new good-faith editors, but User:Cullen328 was biting a new editor who had made some bad-faith edits. I am aware that reasonable editors can disagree as to how severely editors who engage in irresponsible play should be warned. I thought that the warning was appropriate. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:10, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

User:Cullen328 - I think that you lost your temper in biting a newbie, but I mean User:Juanriveranava. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:10, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

@Cullen328 Don't even hint that actions like theirs would leave them in charge, and you not here...

I wish they would respond to my "why" question but I suppose there is no way to explain that. I believe @Robert McClenon is right, but I wanted to hear something from Hgh1985. He or she hasn't posted since their question at your Talk page (Cullen) on the 28th. Maybe they left. David10244 (talk) 09:02, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

User:David10244 - They have probably abandoned that account and are trying to game extended-confirmed status with a different account. Maybe they have already been working three or four accounts. When you say that there may be no way to explain it, you mean that there may be no good-faith explanation. Robert McClenon (talk) 09:26, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon Yes, that's what I meant. David10244 (talk) 13:06, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Holy shit this was just a question my bad, I didn't realize I would cause such a huge controversy Hgh1985 (talk) 21:01, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

No @Cullen328, sorry but now you're overstating me, and making speculative observations (speaking of) , what I meant is if you're so upset with said editor behaviour or because you spilled your coffee on the way back home does not grant you the right to mistreat anybody like that even if you co-founded the project or own the servers, being such a seasoned productive administrator I would expect more restraint and a didactic and assistance focused response, but thank you for showing me what kind of things to expect from the more veteran editors like you, I'll glady preside over crap if that means being able to engage in constructive dialogue, @Robert McClenon, I understand the guideline, but I tend to believe vandals usually don't ask for permission or guidance from administrators, if that doesn't shows a hint of good faith, then well I can have nothing else to say. @Cullen328 response wasn't called for, but hey you're free to excercise your almighty banning powers on me if that makes you feel better. 240 edits for non retirees, people like me with a day job that doesn't have much time to spare shows a little commitment at least, what's the whole point of allowing anyone to participate on editions if not, that response is counterintuitive to said policies and guidlines, and the defensive stance is counter productive. Juanriveranava (talk) 22:37, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

User:Juanriveranava - You wrote: I understand the guideline, but I tend to believe vandals usually don't ask for permission or guidance from administrators, if that doesn't shows a hint of good faith, then well I can have nothing else to say. There are various types of vandals. If they ask for guidance from administrators, it may be because they are acting like good-faith editors in order to be mistaken for good-faith editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:39, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

thank you @Robert McClenon I understand and appreciate the pointer, I'll try to balance what you said with this part of the policy; Remember Hanlon's Razor. Behavior that appears malicious might be from ignorance of our expectations and rules. Even if you are 100% sure that someone is a worthless, no-good Internet troll, vandal, or worse, conduct yourself as if they are not. Remember that the apparent test editors have the potential to be tomorrow's editors. By giving a polite, honest and noncondemning answer to newcomers, you have the opportunity to teach them Wikipedia policy. By being calm, interested, and respectful, you do credit to your dignity, and to our project. cheers. Juanriveranava (talk) 04:19, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Warning an editor who has been vandalizing is not mistreatment. I have no reason to block you, Juanriveranava. Feel free to insult me all you want. I have thick skin. I do not block people to feel better. I block people only to protect the encyclopedia from disruption. Cullen328 (talk) 23:01, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

if you feel insulted by my comment, just think how yours seem to a newcomer entering the teahouse. there might be 1 or 2 things you might need to work on yourself Jim, one of them is resilience to critique, now you're showing a non productive behaviour and I won't engage in this with you anymore, I made my point clear. have a nice day. Juanriveranava (talk) 23:10, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Maybe those that want to tally up contributions for higher qualifications can limit those edits to things such as spelling or date styles? That way certain reflections can be avoided and we all can get back to editing in earnest instead of making things personal and petty.2603:8000:D300:D0F:A4A9:1E1:30A5:4340 (talk) 05:03, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I can't believe I was responsible for this entire sections dramatic controversy Hgh1985 (talk) 07:46, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Suspicious Quesions

I have known that when an editor asks about when an article that they have created will show up on Google searches, they are almost certainly a conflict of interest editor who is trying to game the system of reviewing and indexing and New Page Patrol. I think that we have identified another area of questions that should be cause for concern, that if a new editor asks about extended-confirmed status, they are likely to be trying to game extended-confirmed status. I think that experienced editors should be aware that we do not need to assume good faith in these cases. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:24, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

How to make the links vanish in the final.

I have to quote a lot of hyper links, I give the links, it appears on the page with an icon which when clicked gives the image. I need only the icon. The link can vanish. For that what to do? Sreejit TK Ramchand (talk) 11:29, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Regarding the draft in your sandbox, you should not be including hyperlinks to images. Before you do anything else please read and understand WP:COI, WP:RS, and Wikipedia:Wikimedia Commons which tells you how to embed a Wikimedia Commons image into an article. I also strongly suggest you remove the picture of your identiy card from your talk page. It proves absolutely nothing and enables anyone in the world to use it for their own purpose. Shantavira|^{feed me} 14:05, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, pinging @Sreejit TK Ramchand, you should REMOVE the image of your identity card from your Talk page as Shantavira recommends. Should one of us editors do that for safety? David10244 (talk) 12:46, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

You do it for me. Thanks a lot. I am an old fellow aged 91. I have my own limitations. Further I do not know how to remove it. thanks. Sreejit TK Ramchand (talk) 12:55, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

I request some one to come forward to create the article BHARATHI, The New Script. I am not boasting myself. It is a real fact that BHARATHI is a ery good script. Once you go through its details you will understand it. What I want to see is that it should not be lost to the world. It is for that I am trying to create this article. My age 91 is not permitting me to toil too much for that. Will kindly someone come forward to take up the job. I shall supply all the details and all the images. The images are already uploaded to Wikimedia. I shall give all the links too. Kindly contact me who can do the job. Thanking you in anticipation. Sreejit TK Ramchand (talk) 13:11, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

As you were told when you asked this question last week, There has been a Wikipedia article about the script since October this year. It is at Bharati Script and of course you can add information there provided you can cite reliable sources for it. ColinFine (talk) 18:29, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

I have moved that article to Bharati script, and added it to the disambiguation page Bharati. ColinFine (talk) 18:37, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Dear MR. Colin,

That one Bharati Script is entirely different. The one I am indulged is Bharathi Script. Kindly notice the Difference in spelling. There is proof for the fact that Bharathi script was there in 1995. But Bharati script was created only in 2017. Bharati is a constructed script in their words. But, Bharathi Script in an invented script.

Thanking you:

Sincerely yours,

Ramchand Sreejit TK Ramchand (talk) 04:19, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

@Sreejit TK Ramchand It seems that I was confused because of the similarity of names and purposes of these scripts. You want to describe Bharathi script and have started a draft about it at User:Sreejit TK Ramchand/sandbox, declaring on your User page that you have a conflict of interest since you invented the script. I have to point out that Wikipedia cannot be used to describe things that have not already been featured in reliable sources and as far as I can ascertain there is no published material on your script except what you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. IF you can provide references to externally published descriptions of the script and independent commentary about it then there could perhaps be an article written based on those sources. Otherwise you are wasting your time as Wikipedia cannot host such material. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:19, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

My Dear Mike Turnbull,

Thank you for writing. I am not interested saying anything about me. Even I shall avoid my name coming anywhere in the article. My aim is only to save the script from extinction. I am not boasting myself when I say it is a very good script, with a lot of unique features. Once you go through it you will be convinced. I am just trying to do something to save it, so that the world may not loss such a good script. It is in detail available at more than nine sites including Internet archive. You kindly go through its features you will be convinced. I aged 91 is toiling to save it. You kindly help me in whatever ways you can to save it. The script and Font are free for all. Thanking you very much for taking the pain to write to me. Ramchand. Sreejit TK Ramchand (talk) 07:00, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

@Sreejit TK Ramchand At your request, I have removed the image of your ID card from your Talk page. Wikipedia editors are allowed to remain anonymous if they wish. Even if you use your real name, which is fine to do, you should not post a phone number, your email address, your home address, or any forms of ID here. I know it takes a while to learn all of WP's policies, but this is for your own safety. Thanks. David10244 (talk) 07:59, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

The ID card is now removed altogether from commons. DMacks (talk) 07:12, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, @DMacks. David10244 (talk) 09:36, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. Sreejit TK Ramchand (talk) 11:16, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Adding pictures and links

Sorry, but I really want to know how to add pictures because when I try it always just says the name of the pictures link but never shows it.

Also how do I add links as when I do even if it's a real page that exists it says do you want to make a draft on it or not a real page yet. Thanks. Imadethis123 (talk) 12:17, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello Imadethis123! Welcome to The Teahouse. You sound like you have a number of questions. I think taking the tutorial will answer most of them. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:34, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Imadethis123 (talk) 15:08, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

@Imadethis123 Almost all of your edits to date have been reverted because they do not follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I have just reverted this example where you marked as a "minor" edit an addition of your personal views on history. All Wikipedia content must be cited to a published reliable source. Please take time to read the linked pages here and on your User Page about what it is acceptable to add. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:56, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

@Imadethis123 Your edit that Mike T linked above also made a very large number of changes to spacing around double vertical bars or || symbols. I don't see any "textual" reason for those dozens of changes. If you perhaps did any global search and replace, there is rarely any reason to do that. Mike Turnbull's revert has put all of those changes back to the way they were before your edit. Your intentions were good, judging from your edit summary, but the linked guidelines in the other replies will help. Good luck. David10244 (talk) 10:05, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

thanks Imadethis123 (talk) 09:16, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

@David10244, the diff you linked says "visual edit" in the Special:Tags. That means that the editor never even saw those double vertical bars or the spaces around them. The visual editor normalizes the wikitext in the "nodes" that the editor is changing. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 00:42, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

@Whatamidoing (WMF) It seemed like a lot of changes. Does that mean the editor edited each of those sections, and the visual editor normalized the spaces (by making it look asymmetrical -- no space before || but one space after)? Either way, thanks for the information, and I will keep this in mind -- I wasn't aware of this, so I'm glad you pointed it out. David10244 (talk) 13:32, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

@David10244, the visual editor treats each table as a single object. If you change any part of it, it checks the formatting on all of it. Given how many tables have ended up with improper wikitext over the years, this particular check resolves a lot of high-priority Special:LintErrors; the downside is that it can make for long diffs.

It does the same thing for templates, references (the whole ref tag, not just the citation template inside it), or any other "thing". This is why, for example, if you change a single line in an infobox template, it will "fix" the whitespace formatting on the whole thing. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 17:13, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

@Whatamidoing (WMF) OK, thanks. David10244 (talk) 08:19, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

hi

What if you see a mistake in a writing but do not know how to edit it? I have tried and tried to find a guide to see but I cannot find one. IGotHacked12 (talk) 17:22, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, IGotHacked12, and welcome to the Teahouse.

It's hard to answer when you don't tell us the specific article and what the problem is. You should be able to edit most articles, but if there's one you can't edit, you can usually put an edit request on the article's talk page. ColinFine (talk) 17:27, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

@IGotHacked12 You can edit almost all articles by clicking the "edit" button at the top. If there are no "edit button", it means that it is only editable by editors with more edits. If that happens, you can put a edit request like ColinFine told you to. Carpimaps (talk) 02:39, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

ty guys sorry as i have forgot the name but it was a place in south west mexico i was browsing IGotHacked12 (talk) 20:50, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I have FOUND IT! its Apatzingán IGotHacked12 (talk) 21:12, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

@IGotHacked12, you can edit Apatzingán like any other article. If you want, you can click on this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apatzingán?veaction=edit

Just in case it's relevant, please note that "millimetres" is the correct British spelling. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:09, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

oh lol that is not what i meant. I mean the weather box. IGotHacked12 (talk) 18:45, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Happy New Years Greetings

I would like to send out several hundred more 'Happy New Years' greetings. I planned on making this a once a year tradition, as I have only had my account since February of 2022 or so, but have made 13,000+ edits, mostly reverting vandalism. I found this activity to be helpful in getting to see other editors talk pages, as well as spreading joy and love to the most productive editors (by edit count) on the encyclopedia. These people work tirelessly to improve the encyclopedia and thus deserve some thanks in my view. That said, I was recently blocked for doing this by user RoySmith and then promptly unblocked. As you can see, many editors see this as a harmless and helpful activity. I would like to see about gaining WP:Consensus though BEFORE continuing to send any more 'Happy New Years' messages of love, so that I do not violate the terms of my (very brief) block. See the details on the block and block discussion here, and if this is NOT the place to try and seek feedback on this block, or more appropriately, the consensus on terms that would allow for me to proceed with sending holiday love, then please just direct me to where best to send this message. TY — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 18:44, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

• I've commented at AN as well, but what I'll say to the question here is that the best way to send out these messages is to send them to editors with whom you've already interacted in the course of day-to-day editing, and not on the basis of being in the top number of edits-by-account. Think of it as quality rather than quantity. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:55, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I have never interacted with Moops before, and I appreciated his New Year Wishes on my Talk page. In my opinion, it wasn't disruptive, but made my day brighter. — hike395 (talk) 20:27, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

• I really don't see any problem with sending a bit of New Year cheer. You're not spamming it indiscrimately, but choosing people you think deserve it (and seeing as I got one, your judgment is obviously good ;-). I might suggest slowing down a bit, though, in case any other trigger-happy bot hunters are lying in wait. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:02, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

  @Moops @Hike395 @Boing! said Zebedee This is a related focus of WP:WikiProject Editor Retention, which Teahouse is closely part of. While Wikipedia is WP:NOTSOCIALMEDIA, it is nice to acknowledge the humans (and dogs) behind the screens. Full encouragement from my end too! Thank you! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 22:38, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Instead of "only people you interact with", may I suggest that Moops can give New Year's wishes on User Talk pages that don't already have New Year's wishes? I can see adding a second (or subsequent) New Years greeting could be annoying and considered spam, but the first one seemed nice (to me, at least). — hike395 (talk) 22:54, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Actually, these two criteria are not mutually exclusive (by which I mean "in addition to", rather than "instead of"). These things are matters of subjective judgment, rather than an algorithm. I just don't think that everyone-with-more-than-a-certain-number-of-edits is a good way to choose recipients, especially when Moops is being careful not to attract unwelcome attention. But I think you make a good point about avoiding people who already have a similar message. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:01, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Let me make another suggestion. If you are going to do this, make a user subpage or something explaining what you're doing, and include a link to it in the edit comment. Then the next time some admin comes along and thinks they're looking at an unauthorized bot, they'll be able to figure out what's going on. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:15, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

That is a great suggestion RoySmith, but I have never created one before. Can you help with that please? And then I might reword it or edit it to suit what I am trying to do? I am sure you can agree that this misunderstanding (of me looking like a bot) caused a lot of wasted time and unnecessary distress for those involved. TY — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 23:21, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I just don't know what a "user sub-page" really is, to be clear of my ask. TY — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 23:22, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

User:Moops is your User page, while a subpage would be something like User:Moops/New Years Eve Greetings. I have some example subpages like User:Shushugah/Mistakes. You can read more at WP:SUBPAGES ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 23:56, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Shushugah, Does this look right for what I am trying to do? User:Moops/New Years Eve Greetings. I just tried making one. How is this @RoySmith:. I will be careful and I do NOT want to incur another block EVER again! TY — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 03:24, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

@Moops Yup it does! I took liberty of editing your template to link to it, and also simplified {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} using Template:Tls a close sibling of {{tl}} ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 03:32, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Awesome. Teamwork, it does indeed seem, makes the dream work! TY — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 03:40, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

That principle - avoiding those who already have a similar message - will be especially valuable if a dozen editors follow Moops's example next year. NebY (talk) 02:07, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

That is a fair and entirely valid point NebY. TY for sharing your input. — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 03:14, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

RoySmith, Shushugah, Tryptofish, hike395 Well then if no one else objects... I am about to start back up again, though with a bit slowed pace and with more care for various factors, also, I now will try and include the subpage in my edit summary as suggested by RoySmith (which I think is a good suggestion, and something had I known about it up front, might have stopped this calamity from taking place and absorbing many hours of effort today from me instead of just sending these out).

Unless there are any further objections, in which case, please voice them now. I may not really kick this off until tomorrow anyway—I am exhausted! I really appreciate all the input of everyone on this so that I may learn and not step on any admin toes going forward. :) — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 03:50, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Here is the subpage link if anyone would like to anything or take anything away, or if anyone thinks my wording is dishonest, inaccurate, or otherwise incomplete or omits anything. User:Moops/New Years Eve Greetings. TY — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 03:52, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

• I, for one, do not want my WP user page to be cluttered up with New Year Greetings. Just forget about it. Do not do it. --Bduke (talk) 06:08, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

  I will be careful to ensure you do not receive one from me. TY — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 16:19, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Bduke. Sorry to sound like a wet blanket but this is not social media. Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:12, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I will also ensure that you go un-greeted into the new year. TY — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 16:20, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

@Moops: although some will like receiving your New Year messages, some will not. Even a small percentage of thousands can equate to many editors who are not pleased, may even be annoyed, and may think of you as a spammer. Also, as others have noted, your messages clutter up the watchlists of everyone who has many high-volume editors on their list (bot edits can be excluded from watchlists but yours can't). Sure, you have received some thanks but I would guess that the vast majority of your recipients haven't thanked you. After all, it's one thing to receive a greeting from people with whom we've conversed and directly collaborated, quite another to receive a mass-mailing from a stranger who's been sending multiple messages a minute. Rather than simply removing objectors from your list as if it's something we have to opt out of, why not take their objections on board, accept anyway that the time for saying Happy New Year in 2023 has passed, and consider carefully whether it might be inappropriate to repeat the exercise in 2024? NebY (talk) 16:48, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I was doing this on the first, but then a kerfuffle emerged. See my talk page. Also, I'd say that upwards of 80% thank in some way. See my talk page for more at a glance. Also, isn't it January 3rd today? — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 16:50, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

As in still very much near the new year (all my greetings would have been on the 1st and second FYI if it weren't for yesterdays mess). :) — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 16:51, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

@Moops, it will be the New Year until January 1st of next year, but I agree with the above that it's a bit late at this point to continue, and that you should probably keep WP:NOTSOCIAL a little more in mind. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:19, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I see the spamming has started up again, including at least one user who has not made an edit in five years due to being blocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:05, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

At this point, re-raising the issue on WP:AN or at WP:ANI seems to be the way forward if someone wants to press the issue. An unofficial RfC here at the Teahouse is not really appropriate. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 19:35, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Is it normal that an IP address associated with the U.S. Navy is responding to this thread? I have not seen that before. — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 21:32, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, quite normal - in fact I've replied to several of your questions here over the past months. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

What is the meaning of the U.S. Navy having an IP address? Which questions were those? — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 21:49, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

As my talk page says, the IP is registered to the US Navy and may be shared by multiple users of a government agency or facility. You can ask further questions on my talk page if you like, and I'll dig out a list of my responses to you if you really want one. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 21:51, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

@Moops: 1, 2, 3, 4 199.208.172.35 (talk) 22:14, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I remember now. Those were all incredibly helpful. TY very much for all of your past help. Are you mostly just on the Teahouse then? — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 22:17, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Mostly, though I also do gnomish work and hang out on Discord using an Actual Real Account Thingy. Again, feel free to continue on my talk. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 22:20, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

You've received about 130 thanks plus some posts on your talk page and some direct responses on the editors' talk pages, as well as some reverts - but mostly your posting's the most recent on the page. That's a lot but it's a minority of the 1,000+ people you've messaged, not 80%. NebY (talk) 19:05, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

You cannot fairly include more recent 'Happy New Years' greetings, as it often takes a user at least 24 hours (or more) to respond to something. I think given what we have seen (and more thanks by the hour), it is fair to say that my estimate is not all that far off. Again, who else is complaining about actually receiving these? Please feel free to refer to this here. I have greatly slowed the rate at which I am sending these too by the way, and take offense to the offhand statement, "...the spamming has started up again...". For the sake of all that is good, what is harmed here? — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 21:37, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Clearly, everyone would do well to be a bit more kindly in commenting about this. Moops, to answer your last question, people can see a lot of these messages showing up on their watchlists, and when it looks like such a large number of posts it can seem like a minor nuisance to have one after another pop up on one's watchlist. In the grand scheme of things, this is really no big deal, and there certainly has never been any harm intended, but I think that's one way to understand what some people are reacting negatively to. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:14, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I see. No one seems to take the time to explain such things. Is that because they are all having each other on each others watchlists? I think I am still missing something? TY for your continued kindness and patience Tryptofish. I love it! — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 22:18, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, a lot of experienced editors watchlist the talk pages of multiple other editors. I have over 1,000 pages total on my watchlist at any given time. I don't know how many of them are user talk pages, but it's quite a few. So I was able to see your HNY messages appearing on quite a few of those talk pages, and that's how I saw one person revert your message. As for taking the time to explain things, you are very, very welcome. Actually, I wish more editors would do that. By the way, please always feel free to stop by my own talk page if you ever have any questions for me about anything else. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:29, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Love it! TY so very kindly Tryptofish. In the meantime, I wish we'd take this conversation above and look at the complaints versus the likes/thanks as well. The reality is, that other than RoySmith, I have yet to have a complaint from a single other user, and even Roy and me seem to be 'friendly' at this stage. Or at least it seems that way to me. Roy just thought I was using a bot at first, but in reality the bot is just my autism/asbergers paired with my fingers.... :) — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 22:38, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

@Moops, this isn't really part of my job, but has anybody mentioned Special:MassMessage to you? It can deliver a thousand messages in a couple of minutes. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 05:05, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

TY. No one has mentioned that, but I fear that misses what might be appropriate. Any sort of true "mass mailer" has been deemed to be entirely inappropriate by the community I would say, but I like to send maybe 2,000 messages (and don't mind sending them individually) each year or appropriate holiday. Though next time I will put even more thought into whom receives such notes from me. I think by and large people are very receptive to the message, the only complaints have come from those that don't like the concept itself, or that did not receive a note, or both. However, among recipients, I have literally only ever had one person say anything other than some iteration of 'Thank you!' :)

TY for your feedback though. I like to know about all the various tools available to us editors, even if I did not use them. :) — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 14:54, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

If you were interested in doing this regularly, then I imagine that Wikipedia:Mass message senders would be useful to read. I believe the usual process is to have set up an opt-out system, and then have a discussion to achieve consensus on the general idea.

This sort of thing might be handled by a WikiProject. You might decide that a message from a group feels too impersonal, but it's also possible for each person in a group to take up a small percentage of the list for personal delivery. It should be possible, though perhaps difficult, to divide the list up so that you're likely to receive the message from someone you've previously interacted with. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 17:21, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I'll add a recollection, with little comment on the specific topic discussed. In the very early days of the Internet somebody innocently sent a crude Christmas tree graphic out. In this case it was designed to send itself on to addresses in the recipient's address book, the first true worm. This gesture, intended to be kind, overwhelmed the Internet. One (or a very few) people sending greetings to several random others, as happened now, is not a problem, indeed a nice gesture. But if it catches on ... Happy (nearly) New Year, Pol098 (talk) 13:20, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Pol098, that is a really important little story to share, and I had not heard about the first ever computer worm! I had heard of the 'ILOVEYOU' one that followed this one, but the one you mentioned I had not heard of. TY for sharing. :) — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 14:50, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Many of us interact with hundreds of colleagues per year, some with thousands, and if we got automated greetings from a tenth of them it would be a nuisance. So, I figure sending one per year to the dozen we care most about, who haven't already had robogreetings from others in the past month or two, then it's all right. If it's just robocalls to a list of a hundred, then there's no point. And if it's a waste of time to think about each one separately, then again there's no point and it's similarly a waste of time to receive them. Jim.henderson (talk) 17:19, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

When I've talked to editors about their general experience, the lack of positive/friendly/encouraging messages from other editors has come up repeatedly. "Robogreetings" might well be welcome by many, especially those who are less well connected.

Doc James delivered thanks to hundreds of editors who edited articles within the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine several years in a row. I don't recall anyone complaining that it was a waste of time to have their efforts recognized. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 17:24, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Actually there were concerns raised on EN WP. And thus I have stopped here. The last award was sent out for 2019 to 128 EN WP editors.[1] Work life also became much busier. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:27, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi I need to upload a biography of someone in Science, can you please help me?

We can't upload our own biography since it's discourages by wikipedia. Someone else has to do it. Scarbajo (talk) 06:05, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Scarbajo. When you write We can't upload our own biography, you seem to be saying that this is an autobiography of several people or that your account is controlled by several people. This is potentially a major problem. Each Wikipedia account is for one person and one person only. Please clarify. Added by Cullen328 at 06:41, 3 January 2023

Alternatively, Scarbajo, perhaps you meant to say "We individuals who want to upload our respective autobiographies". You can write a draft, if you really want to. If, for example, you're a physicist named Jo Bloggs, you can do it at Draft:Jo Bloggs (physicist). Make sure that everything in is backed up by specific reliable sources. But my advice is not to bother. If, unlike the huge majority of people, you're genuinely notable, then skilled and experienced Wikipedia editors will want to create an article about you, without any need of nudging by you. While they slave away at your article, you can devote your valuable time to the pursuit of whatever it is that makes you notable. -- Hoary (talk) 07:31, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Teahouse hosts are here to provide advice, but not to be authors or co-authors of articles. The guideline WP:YFA explains how to create and submit a draft. The guideline Wikipedia:Notability (academics) explains how to determine if an academic scientist could be considered notable. The careers of the great majority of scientists do not qualify. David notMD (talk) 11:06, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and deleted Draft:Jo Bloggs (physicist), which was actually about Sergio Carbajo, as a pure copyright violation. @Scarbajo: pleaes think carefully about the advice you were given, and how what you did not go along with it. Are you actually writing about someone named "Jo Bloggs"? Now please go read our your first article guidance and our specific information about creating articles about yourself. DMacks (talk) 04:20, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

@DMacks - I notice that that page was apparently started by an IP editor - For whatever reason my "something is wrong here" gut feeling needs to know - can you confirm that there weren't any revisions of that page that were about anyone called Jo Bloggs / not a copyvio? (Could there be a draft hijack here?) casualdejekyll 05:10, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

There had not been any content at that draft-space about Bloggs, and there was no non-copvio version about Carbajo there. DMacks (talk) 08:51, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Im very sorry, when I did the article I didnt noticed the name Jo bLoggs. wont happen again 2800:B20:111A:ED8:7542:FDBD:C4DF:C737 (talk) 19:29, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Help with notice

Why was this notice about copyediting put on the article? — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 14:13, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Vortex3427. I think the answer lies int he fact that you have made a lot of detailed edits to this article since November, and another editor has not unreasonably highlighted that the style or writing could be made to fit in better with Wikipedi's encyclopaedic voice. There are some quite long sentences full of clauses, and a fair bit of trivia. They felt that the article would benefit from being trimmed back with some relatively minor editing to make it more readable - hence the notice.

Here's one example the editor might have been a bit thinking about: "As a child, Stovall had severe asthma and visited Hendrick Medical Center over a dozen times, although it has since grown milder with age. He also spent three months at the National Jewish Hospital. A large hospital, it had an onsite kindergarten and field trips. Stovall first visited an arcade on one such field trip and played Night Driver (1976). He lived in Abilene, Texas, where he attended Alta Vista Elementary School and Cooper High School." It's rather full of trivia, and the subjects of the sentences do jump around a bit, nor is it in the most logical order. So, some copy editing would be welcome to polish it a bit further. But I also know from experience that, having worked hard on researching and writing a whole load of text over many weeks, it can often be easier for a fresh pair of eyes to do that final work. Don't be offended by this - it actually a way of saying this is interesting, but it could be made to flow better with a little more work. Hope this helps. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:30, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Generally, I'd say, Ask the editor who added the tag. In this case, I see it was an IP editor, and that was their only edit from that IP address. You could still put a question on that IP user's talk page, but there's no guarantee they would see it.

If you consider the text carefully, and decide that the tag is not appropriate, you can remove it - make sure you explain in the edit summary what you're doing. If the IP user (or anybody else) disagrees, they can open a discussion. ColinFine (talk) 14:30, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I hope that it is understood that some people have no control over what IP is given them when they come onto the site so basing a decision on the number of times edits appear under an IP can be irrelevant.2603:8000:D300:D0F:A4A9:1E1:30A5:4340 (talk) 05:08, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree completely. Unless you look at contributions made across the /64 range of an IP address (like this), one has no idea of the totality of edits made from that individual IPv6 address. Even then, it doesn't mean that is all the edits someone has made. A very experienced editor may well simply fail to log on one day, be using a mobile phone, or using a machine at work without logging on, lest their password is recorded and seen by someone else. Thus, we must avoid being biased against edits made by a single IP address. Judge them on their quality, not their quantity. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:25, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Difficulty Switching From Source To Visual Editor

Sometimes when I'm in the source editor the button to switch to the visual editor is not visible or not apparent. I have observed this on different computers with different browsers. Is there something I'm missing? What's the simplest, most consistent and reliable way to switch from the source to the visual editor? Iguana0000 (talk) 15:19, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Iguana0000, welcome to the Teahouse. There may be a bug, or you may simply be noticing that the Visual Editor is (by design) not available in some places on the site, such as talk pages. You can go into your personal preferences and check the box titled something like "Always use VE when available" - more detailed instructions are at top left of WP:VE, under the heading Enable VisualEditor. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:08, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm curious, after becoming comfortable with the source editor, why anybody would want to switch to the visual editor? I never use the visual editor myself. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:49, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I barely ever use visual editor, but there are some things it is useful for – if you want to swap columns about in a table, for instance, editing the wikitext directly is a giant pain. You can do it – if the wikitext is laid out nicely and your text editor supports column selection it might not be too bad – but for the everyday user it's no fun at all. And just parsing the wikitext for complicated tables, even to make simple edits, is pretty high-overhead unless you are very used to it. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 17:00, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I primarily use the visual editor because I copyedit. I don't need to see every single template and citation expanded into code when I'm adjusting for grammar and flow. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:22, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I think Teahouse Hosts could benefit from being familiar with both. Increasingly, new users are starting with Visual Editor, and we do need to know how things work so we can help them. I've been trying to force myself to use it more - especially as it's usually the de facto editor offered in formal training at many editathons. As well as working with tables, and avoiding all the code when copy editing, I also find it quite good for modifying existing references once I've used Source Editor to enter a 'ref name' (which WP:VE, frustratingly, still doesn't permit). Nick Moyes (talk) 17:37, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

The visual editor allows citations to be reused, albeit with no option to choose a customised ref name. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:40, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

The Source editor also permits re-use of a 'Named Reference', though it's less obvious in the tools menu. Nick Moyes (talk) 11:31, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I think that's only true if you have the 2017 editing toolbar enabled, which I think is still in beta? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:58, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

It's only "in beta" because nobody's bothered to move it into regular preferences. You should assume that it's stable software in practice. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 01:30, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

@Whatamidoing (WMF),@Tenryuu: I have just tried editing an article with my alt-account (User:NM Demo 2) which has only the default settings that every new user sees. I can still see and use the 'Named References' dropdown in the Source Editor toolbar, just as I can with this user account. TBH: I really have little idea which version of what editor I am using - I just use them! But in checking both sets of Preferences, the editing toolbar known as the '2010 wikitext editor' is enabled, and nothing more. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:07, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

If you need to figure out which editing environment you're using, then the screenshots in mw:Editor may be useful. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 17:47, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Are these good sources to show notability ?

Brittanica WorldCat works entry Pulse News in Nigeria Google book paragraph about the person seeking a Wikipedia page. 2600:8802:3A12:E700:246A:5770:5E30:1A69 (talk) 18:07, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

It would be easier to give a useful answer if you could be more specific about what sources you wanted to use and who you wanted to write an article about, but as a general idea:

• An Encyclopedia Britannica article about a topic almost certainly counts towards establishing notability.
• A WorldCat works entry probably doesn't, but if you can find reviews of those works that might help establish notability via WP:NAUTHOR
• A book paragraph may or may not count, depending on whether the book is independent of the subject and considered a reliable source

Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:51, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

WP:BRITANNICA has disputed reliability and may or may not count. Pulse News likely counts, but it cannot be an interview or press release, as they are not independent. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 18:57, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Interesting. So it's better if a publication writes about you without an interview? What if it's a blend of both? 2600:8802:3A12:E700:246A:5770:5E30:1A69 (talk) 23:46, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

An interview can be a reliable source, but it isn't independent of the subject; establishing notability requires sources that are both independent and reliable. I'm unsure of what you mean by "a blend of both": it is much easier for us to answer this question with concrete examples rather than having to guess what exactly you mean, but in the end it would come down to whether editors were persuaded that the source was sufficiently independent of the subject. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:08, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

When does a user page violate WP:NOTWEBHOST ?

Hi everyone, I mainly edit Motorsport pages and lately noticed a user cluttering his Userpage with fantasy championship entry lists and championship tables. As I rarely interact with other users apart from warning IP vandals here and there, I'm not too familiar if this behavior violates Wikipedia:NOTWEBHOST (because the user page I'm talking about is now almost 300k bytes large)?

And if it does, is there an automated system to notify admins of very large user pages, or does someone have to expicitly notify an admin of this? And at which noticeboard would one do this?

Thanks, and happy new year everyone! H4MCHTR (talk) 18:11, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

H4MCHTR the amount of storage is negligible. Any uploaded photo (such as on my User page) will instantly be more than that. If they have some decoration/personality on their profile, who cares as long as they are making constructive edits. Examples of blatant hosting violations include copyrighted content, treating user page as drafting space for articles, social media/blog posts unrelated to English Wikipedia etc… ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 18:19, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Right, thank you! How would you handle a user using his page as drafting space for articles? Maybe you could take a look at their page, the user is called RxxingAddict, and tell me your opinion? H4MCHTR (talk) 18:28, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

@H4MCHTR I had a look and would not suggest any actions. I also re-read up on WP:User page and this line stood out to me Work in progress or material that you may come back to in future (usually on subpages) meaning that User page can also be used for work in progress, so what I previously said was not correct. Thank you for giving me chance to correct myself. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 20:47, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your help on this matter! All the best, H4MCHTR (talk) 20:57, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

@H4MCHTR, @Shushugah I would say that "fantasy championship entry lists" don't have any potential use in the encyclopedia and shouldn't be on a user page. But I don't feel too strongly either way. David10244 (talk) 13:08, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

@H4MCHTR I tend to agree with David10244 - they could simply be practising their table editing skills, or preparing content for future articles. I can't find any use of their userpage url on non-Wikipedia websites, so I don't think they're using us to host content they're promoting elsewhere. One of my criteria for WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:NOTHERE is to look at the relevance to Wikipedia and at proportion of edits someone has made to mainspace and to their userspace. If they're playing around in their userspace all the time, and rarely ever edit any articles, they tend to get a nudge from me. In this instance they have made - and continue to make - very significant numbers of contributions to articles over the years, and relatively few (by comparison) to their userpage. I note they don't have any Wikipedia:Subpages, and it could simply be that they aren't aware that these are better places to work on. Someone could have a supportive word if they felt it might help - I don't think I'm going to as I don't understand what the tables are all about, and can't tell real data from made up stuff! Nick Moyes (talk) 13:36, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

It's all either made up or just plain copies of old, real stuff. How would you phrase a message to the user to let him know of Subpages? H4MCHTR (talk) 14:34, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

On the Attitude of Administrators and Seasoned Editors

Lately it has come to my attention the rude and unwelcoming manners of a certain number of administrators and seasoned editors, either in the teahouse or in the interactions on talk pages on different articles, even though I understand that disruptive/vandalizing behaviour is harmful for the project and must be addressed swiftly and that the administrator positions entails certain rights and prerogatives, i extend a cordial invitation on everyone here to adjust the attitude to reflect the expectations of welcoming, politeness and patience and even more keenly to those who have spent more time and effort on wikipedia to follow the guidelines and policies that they're so eager to enforce, lets continue building a better and more inclusive and welcoming project. Juanriveranava (talk) 18:50, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Juanriveranava, welcome to the Teahouse. If you have specific behavioral complaints, you can bring them up on the talk pages of the specific users or at WP:ANI. A general complaint is, unfortunately, not likely to get far, especially since the Teahouse is not set up to address such things. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:54, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

thank you, before pointing fingers I want to address to the whole editor community, but appreciate the pointer though.Juanriveranava (talk) 19:01, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

@Juanriveranava, a post at the Teahouse is not likely to be seen by a large portion of the editing community; mostly it will be seen by the few editors who answer questions here, since those asking the questions rarely read further than their own section. If you have a solution to propose to this problem, Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) might be a place to offer it. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 19:17, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

once again, thank you!, I'll repost it there. Juanriveranava (talk) 21:09, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Those aspiring to become Teahouse hosts are already charged with being friendly and informative to newcomers. See Wikipedia:Teahouse/Host lounge/Expectations. David notMD (talk) 21:18, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Without specifics, your general reminder is useless wherever it is posted. As someone who reads teahouse regularly including already answered questions, I rarely see any of the behavior you describe. More problematic are newish editors who find the teahouse and decide to stick around to answer questions they have limited knowledge on and cause issues that experienced editors need to clean up.Slywriter (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

isn't it the whole purpose of the teahouse? to ask questions?, I've been just the recipient of said behaviour, but maybe I'm an anomaly of the system and my observations and experiences are a complete delusion on my part, thank you anyways for pointing the uselessness of my participations, I'll take it in consideration for future exchanges. Juanriveranava (talk) 22:26, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Slywriter the complete opposite of IMDB then apparently, where the admins know less about their own rules and policies than the regular users, and answered/solved much less questions/problems than the regular users too.

On their community/help pages from 2022 and earlier they would have just 1 admin answering questions/solving problems on a daily basis.

However she would only ever answer/solve 3 or 4 a day.

Occasionally another 1 or 2 admins would come on and answer/solve a few questions/problems in a row, before disappearing again for months, or even years.

The rest of the questions/problems were left to helpful people like me.

So after getting frustrated by their uselessness one day, I pointed out:

• The lack of admins and the ratio of the number of questions/problems they've answered/solved over the months/years
• The fact that admins rarely know their own policies/guidelines
• The fact that their answer for most questions/problems is to paste a link for a section of the guidelines which they clearly haven't read or understood themselves, even though the user has usually already been there, and/or it's a problem which needs admin assistance.
• The fact that around 5 to 10 specific contribution types get declined repeatedly, even when they contain references as proof in the explanation box. What types? I've forgotten most of them, however birth dates, death dates and movie connections were 3 of them. In the last month, things like profile merges have started to get declined repeatedly too, even though I find countless duplicates every single time I check and update the credits on a production, or I'm looking for someone who has a common name.
• The 20 or 30+ posts of mine which had been ignored for months by putting them into a single post along with the dates they were posted or last interacted with by an admin.

I was then blocked from the community around a year ago after writing that post by IMDB's founder Col Needham, for pointing out those facts, and he's blocked another two of my emails once he realised it was me, even though at the time of the last block I had just helped them find a film which a woman falsely claimed had nothing to do with her co-director and co-star, and was trying to get his credits removed from films they made together. He was credited in the film. He appeared in the film. Plus he was in the cast and crew photos, yet she still tried to deny he worked on the film.

I had previously helped them find countless early productions starring people who wanted to hide their work from early in their career, most likely because they were embarrassed about the poor quality of their early stuff.

Since then, I now use the contact form instead, however the admins there aren't much better.

There's 2, at a push 3 admins who actually solve problems most of the time.

The rest, predicably paste a link to the guidelines, for things which can't be solved with the guidelines, and which I already know about as 1 of the Top 100 IMDB Contributors in the world (without any helpful programs to cheat the system like the Top 15 Contributors have).

However, even with IMDB's incompetent admin problems, I still prefer IMDB to Wikipedia.

Why? Because even though there's a lot of stuff missing, once it's added, it is never removed, unless it's completely false obviously, and can be proven by something like posting the entire credits of a production.

Whereas on Wikipedia there's a lot of admins who remove information like references because they claim there's "too many references" or because of the fact they're on the "unreliable" or "deprecated" references list no matter what the context of the reference.

There's also admins who remove information in general, to make an article "look less cluttered."

If they replaced the references with better references that contain the same information, then fair enough, however the large majority don't. There's certain admins who clearly spend most of their editing time, going around removing useful information on a daily basis without even reading it, as you can see by looking at their "Contribution" History. Danstarr69 (talk) 12:44, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

That's what I inferred, but I perceived and experience another thing, thus my now (I reckon) very unwelcome comment. Juanriveranava (talk) 22:28, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Auckland's protection level

What is Auckland's protection level on Wikipedia? 64.114.207.63 (talk) 19:33, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello IP! Welcome to The Teahouse. What do you mean by this question? Also, please create a new section when you are asking a new question. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:36, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Auckland is currently subject to Pending changes protection due to disruption. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 19:39, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

IP editor: you can find out what the various protection levels are just by clicking on the padlock that appears at the top right of the article you are interested in: it behaves like a wikilink. Mike Turnbull (talk) 20:40, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Mike Hi that doesn't work on mobile devices. —usernamekiran (talk) 17:42, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Visual Editing Question

How do i move images up and down in visual editing mode?

Thanks. Klad 2 (talk) 19:42, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

@Klad 2 Welcome to Teahouse! You can copy/paste an image, which will copy its wiki code and then paste it before/after a different section of text on the Article. If you want to use advanced settings like float left/float right, read HELP:IMAGES. The visual editor has many options (including floating), but not all of them work as well as source editor. Happy tinkering! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 20:39, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

@Shushugah, I'm popping in to say that the correct link is actually Help:Pictures. DecafPotato (talk) 03:17, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Many thanks. Klad 2 (talk) 14:45, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

You can also drag and drop images to the correct location. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 01:33, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Tools for importing citations

Hi! Is there some easy way to convert citations from bibtex format to the format used in wikipedia? Vuniu (talk) 22:51, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

@Vuniu, why do you want to do that?

If you're using the sources to cite content in articles, then the visual editor (which you should be able to see here) has a "Cite" button that will turn a DOI (or an ISBN, most URLs, etc.) into a Wikipedia-style citation template. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 01:38, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! This answers my question. Vuniu (talk) 18:16, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with my page but it says "Speedy deletion", can somebody tell me why?

The page is King Gug and it was tagged with "speedy deletion" but I cannot see why it is "irrelevant". Can somebody tell me why? MaxAvery1999 (talk) 03:23, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

The article was tagged with A7 as it contains no verifiable references to reliable sources (the only source cited is Discogs). per the consensus formed from the discussions listed at WP:RSDISCOGS, Discogs is not a reliable source, as its content is user-generated. – dudhhr ^talk _contribs (he/they) 03:34, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, MaxAvery1999. When you say that you see nothing wrong with your draft, then that indicates that you have not read basic help pages like Your first article and studied it in depth. Your draft completely fails to establish that this person is notable. You need to step up your game if you hope to write Wikipedia articles that will stick. Cullen328 (talk) 05:35, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

It now exists at Draft:King Gug. David notMD (talk) 15:41, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

It, and your other attempts at articles, were all converted to drafts due to lack of references. No references = no articles. And if King Gug is not notable, very unlikely that his albums could be notable. David notMD (talk) 15:41, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Number of edits

How do I see the number of edits? Do I simply have to count through the list or is there a shortcut? Mast303 (talk) 04:38, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Can you elaborate more on what "number of edits" you are trying to see? Number of edits you have made as a user, number of edits made to an article, or something else? - Fuzheado | Talk 04:44, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

The number of edits across all pages since I created my account. 04:46, 4 January 2023 (UTC) Mast303 (talk) 04:46, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

@Mast303 for your account, you can view your stats here: https://xtools.wmflabs.org/ec/en.wikipedia.org/Mast303 – robertsky (talk) 04:49, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

On the website I see the number of total edits and live edits. In order to become extended confirmed, do I need to have 500 live edits or 500 total edits? 03:52, 6 January 2023 (UTC) Mast303 (talk) 03:52, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

@Mast303 You need 500 edits of any sort to obtain Extended-confirmed status.-- Quisqualis (talk) 04:58, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

@@Mast303, A quicker way is too just go to Special:Preferences, and on the 4th row on the basic information area, it shows the exact amount edits you have.`~HelpingWorld~` ^(👽🛸) 07:08, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

National Olympic Committee Names

Could someone direct me to where it is discussed the phrasing style for national Olympic committee names? I do not totally understand all the bits and pieces of WP but i do need to know what is if it has been established how original language titles are phrased in English such as "Comité Olímpico Chile" is the name for the nation of Chile but it is translated into "Chilean Olympic Committee" in an attempt to coincide with English grammar rules when in fact it is a legal title that the translation should be more literal than figurative and at least phrased as "Chile Olympic Committee" instead of "Chilean Comité Olímpico" as what it would be if translated "Chilean Olympic Committee"?2603:8000:D300:D0F:A4A9:1E1:30A5:4340 (talk) 04:46, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello. Wikipedia:COMMONNAME is the relevant guideline. We use common English language article names, not "official" names in any language. Cullen328 (talk) 05:57, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, after the various discussions on National Football Team name phrasing it seems that rule does not apply when grammar seemed to get in the way of literal translation. These are legally recognized names of organizations that are being dealt with and sometimes it seems that what someone believes is correct merely because of a rule of grammar versus a use of the title in the original context, or in the context that the policy noted being COMMON. We dont say Englandan or United Statesian. COMMON is just the beginning of consideration to be refined through a better understanding about what is it that is to be accomplished without offending. If it were only as simple as using COMMON always we would not have as many variants in all the phrasing policies and guidelines.2603:8000:D300:D0F:A4A9:1E1:30A5:4340 (talk) 07:16, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Undelete Felix Leong

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Felix_Leong

Apart from these 3 TV news coverage 1. https://www.9news.com.au/national/fire-adelaide-king-fu-felis-leong/550e2804-8b91-47f9-8f1a-022c8434ef15 2. https://www.facebook.com/10NewsAdl/videos/2069357169823106/ 3. https://www.facebook.com/grandmaster.leong1/videos/349970479036036

Felix has been published in a national Spanish newspaper https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=5715589521893738&set=a.4444647332321303 He has been in the Latin Australian Times that is out of print but those sources were deleted before the AFD. https://web.archive.org/web/20170217092946im_/http://sifu.maurice.net.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Sum_Nung.jpg https://web.archive.org/web/20170217092858im_/http://sifu.maurice.net.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/LAT-10-Nov.jpg https://web.archive.org/web/20170217093153im_/http://sifu.maurice.net.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/felix-LAT-402x1024.jpg Advertiser; https://web.archive.org/web/20170217093137im_/http://sifu.maurice.net.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Felix-Leong-559x1024.jpg

Happy new year! Australianblackbelt (talk) 06:19, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

@Australianblackbelt Welcome to the teahouse! If you believe the article now has enough coverage to overcome the issues that were brought up at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Felix Leong, you can create a new page and submit it for AfC review at WP:Article wizard. It will not be directly undeleted as there was unanimous support for deletion during the discussion. It must be recreated and completely different/fixed, or it will not be accepted. If you directly recreate it in the mainspace, it will be speedily deleted per criteria G4.

Thanks, echidnaLives - talk - edits 06:25, 4 January 2023 (UTC).

Hello, Australianblackbelt. Facebook is not a reliable source so if you start out by putting forward Facebook pages as reliable sources, do not be surprised that reviewers are unwilling to pay much attention to a mediocre submission. If you are willing to put the work into transforming this draft into something much more like an encyclopedia article, then maybe it will be accepted. Otherwise, it is likely to be declined. Read Your first article. Cullen328 (talk) 06:36, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I understand facebook is not a source but the TV news story in mainstream media is there and so if the scanned copy of the notional newspaper. Perhaps I leave the links to facebook till it gets approved then I delete them and leave the reference details. Australianblackbelt (talk) 07:56, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Australianblackbelt. You should be citing the channel and the newspaper properly, not the facebook link. And while the TV segment looks as if it is the channel's official FB account, the scan of the newspaper is probably a copyright violation, and it is forbidden to link to these anywhere in Wikipedia.

A citation should consist of the information necessary for a reader to evaluate whether it is likely to be worth looking at the source, and enable the reader to obtain the source if they wish to. This means such things as publication, publisher, title, author, date, page number. A link is a convenience for the reader, not (usually) an essential part of the citation. (Sources do not even have to be available on line: as long as they have been published, so that a reader could in principle get them, say through a major library, that is enough). ColinFine (talk) 10:13, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Why my translation does not get published

Hello team, I am not a new user and have already translated a few pages from English. Recently I translated Poverty Bay page but when trying to publish it, I received an error message as:

Automatic edit filters have identified problematic content in your translation. Filter hit: ویرایش و ایجاد مقاله با استفاده از ابزار ترجمه محتو

Reading further in help pages, I notice the requirement for 500 edits for translation from English. Is this a new rule? I never had problems like this before.

Is there any way I can publish this work? Any help will be appreciated.  Freshclover (talk) 06:24, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

If you're translating from English, then you are trying to put it into another Wikipedia (Farsi? I don't know), so you'll need to ask at that Wikipedia. Each language edition of Wikipedia is completely separate. ColinFine (talk) 09:49, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello Freshclover! Welcome to the Teahouse! If you are referring to Integrated Weed Management, that was deemed not ready for the encyclopedia and moved to Draft:Integrated Weed Management. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:03, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi again, I am not referring to that draft (integrated ...). I am trying to publish in Farsi but the translation draft does not get published with the error message I gave above. I do not think it is due to Wiki Farsi rules as I have published a few pages there too.

I cannot interpret the error message, As I had no trouble translating from English to Farsi before this, I want to know if there are certain rules. Cheers Freshclover (talk) 00:26, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Freshclover. The Teahouse is primarily intended for questions about English Wikipedia. Sometimes a host is able to answer a question about what's happening on another Wikimedia Foundation project (e.g. Farsi Wikipedia), but it's almost always better to seek assistance on the help pages of the project where you're having problems. I don't know whether Farsi Wikipedia has its own version of the Teahouse, but it probably has a help desk where you can ask questions. You might also want to try looking for someone who understands Farsi at Wikipedia:Translators available since they might be able to help. Finally, while it's acceptable to translate English Wikipedia articles into other languages, such a thing needs to be done in accordance with WP:TRANSLATEUS; so, if you're not familiar with that page, you might want to take a look at it for reference. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:59, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

@Freshclover Hi! 👋 Admin in Persian Wikipedia here. It seems using CX is disabled in Persian Wikipedia for users who are not extended confirmed (at least 500 edits) (fa:ویژه:پالایهٔ_خرابکاری/258 and fa:ویژه:پیوند دائمی/36008901#فکری به حال ابزار ترجمهٔ محتوا). I'm sorry you can't publish your translations. Maybe try again after some edits? You have already 453 edits. Thanks Ladsgroup^overleg 23:01, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, this seems to be what is the cause of my problem. I read the requirement is 500 in English not over all Wikis. So, I will try another method for translation like using Word and copy it into draft. Cheers. Freshclover (talk) 23:32, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

What redirects used to target Southern Cross Ten?

Hey team, what redirects used to target Southern Cross Ten?

Southern Cross Ten has since been moved to 10 (Southern Cross Austereo), so I am trying to find out what redirects used to target Southern Cross Ten and don't target 10 (Southern Cross Austereo) nowadays. Can you help me please? From Bas. Bassie f (talk) 08:57, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I know that Ten Capital News used to target to Southern Cross Ten and 10 (Southern Cross Austereo) but Ten Capital News now targets CTC (TV station), so can you please find the rest of these redirects that used to target Southern Cross Ten but don’t target 10 (Southern Cross Austereo) nowadays. Bassie f (talk) 09:01, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Bassie f, and welcome to the Teahouse. If you go to Southern Cross Ten, and pick "(Redirected from Southern Cross Ten)" at the top, it will take you to the redirection page. You can then pick "What links here" from the tools in the sidebar. ColinFine (talk) 09:45, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

"The Time Allocated for Running Scripts Has Expired"

Why do I keep seeing that?

Is it a problem on Wikipedia?

Or is it something like a cache/cookies problem? Danstarr69 (talk) 08:59, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

It generally means that the particular page you are trying to read or edit simply has too many template calls. The solution is simplifying or splitting the page. Sometimes this can affect many pages, if a template that is used widely has been changed and either mistakenly includes a load of stuff that it shouldn't, or has actually been significantly expanded. ColinFine (talk) 09:42, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Article talk page

hello folks, a quick question: how do i create the talk page for an article? this question is apropos of an article i recently created, Bride's Toilet. the article currently lacks a talk page – and i'm not too sure what to add in there. wikiprojects? hope someone can help. Dissoxciate (talk) 09:26, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

@Dissoxciate Just go to the article and click on the redlinked tab that says "Talk" (in the same place as on any other article's page). Then you'll be able to add new material by editing the page that will open up. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:07, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

@Mike Turnbull thanks for the input mate but i'm not really confused about that part in particular. i am not sure what to add in there. as in, the content of the talk page. i've never created an article's talk page previously, so i am having a hard time figuring this out. Dissoxciate (talk) 10:25, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

@Dissoxciate I suggest you look at the Talk Page for Talk:Three Girls (painting) which is by the same artist and use the same two templates. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:31, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

@Mike Turnbull that seems to work. thanks for the help, mike! Dissoxciate (talk) 10:55, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

can i edit article in wikipedia

can i edit article in wikipedia :-Coupon Code Amank134 (talk) 10:41, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

hi @Amank134 and welcome to the Teahouse! you may edit articles in Wikipedia, but you may not use it to advertise promotions, schools, or anything else. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 11:01, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Amank134, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm not sure what you're asking. You may edit articles (I see you have been editing Physicswallah). But you may not do any kind of promotion anywhere in Wikipedia. Not only should you not add anything about coupons to that article, but you shoukd remove the blatant WP:promotion which you have put on your user talk page. ColinFine (talk) 11:06, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Notifications

On my notifications bell, it says I have a new message, but when I click on it, there are no new notifications. Is it a notification from another wiki, and if so, is there a place where I can view cross-wiki notifications. Please help. --Justyouraveragelechuga ^talk 12:49, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Justyouraveragelechuga, if you are on mobile, switch to desktop, at bottom of screen, for a moment and see if the notification is visible there. It's worked for me in the past. Slywriter (talk) 13:04, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Slywriter I am on mobile (kindle e-reader) and I always use desktop mode. I tried switching to mobile and it didn't work. --~~

Could this person be notable

Today i edited the page of Alex Beaton. After a few searches on Google, i found out that there was a Producer with the same name that had a Emmy Nomination once. Now i'm not sure if that is enough to count him as notable. He's also already mentioned in a few wikipeda articles.⁽¹⁾ Emmy Nomination Obituary IMDB

My question now is if this person could be notable. Thanks for any help 1AmNobody24 (talk) 14:57, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

1AmNobody24 I don't know what Wikipedia thinks about EMMY's reliability, however I know what I think about it...

Roughly 18 months to 24 months ago I was updating something on IMDB, and was reminded that a former child actor from my city in England, is now a producer in the USA who has produced the sister shows for some of the biggest dramas in the world.

He has a common name, so there's over 300 people on IMDB with his name, and while searching for those profiles looking for duplicates I found that he had at least 5 duplicate profiles.

While I was looking around Google searching for links listing the shows he has produced 100s of episodes for, to see if there were any I don't know about (which is very likely as he barely has an online presence) I found an EMMY Bio with his name, containing a total of 7 awards/nominations.

2 of those 7 awards/nominations are definitely him.

However I'm pretty certain that the other 5 awards/nominations belong to someone else with the same name, as he doesn't seem to have mentioned those credits in any of his online CV's.

I still haven't merged his duplicate profiles or added any missing credits on IMDB yet, as that EMMY Bio containing suspected misinformation put me off slightly, plus there's no doubt many director/producers with similar credits which will take forever to look through in detail. I'll get around to it eventually though. Danstarr69 (talk) 16:22, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, 1AmNobody24, and welcome to the Teahouse. Certainly he could be notable. But notability in Wikipedia's sense isn't (directly) about what a person has said, done or created: it's about what others, unconnected with him, have chosen to publish about him. WP:NCREATIVE suggests some criteria that, if they are met, mean that a person is likely to meet the standard. But there is (literally) no substitute for going and looking for the sources - remembering that each source must be all three of reliable, independent of the subject, and contain significant coverage of the subject. If you can find them, he's probably notable. If you can't he's almost certainly not notable. ColinFine (talk) 16:44, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Removing an article from AFC queue

Hi -- I submitted an article via AfC, not really thinking about why I was doing it that way, and since then have posted another article directly in the mainspace. I just saw on the AFC page that it says "Established users in good standing, however, are encouraged to not clutter up the AfC queue with pages that do not need support or guidance from AfC reviewers." I'm inclined to just post the article currently in the queue directly but would like to know the proper procedure for removing it from the queue. Much thanks. Iguana0000 (talk) 18:14, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Iguana0000, welcome to the Teahouse. As I can see, you have published Robert Paine (anthropologist) directly into mainspace bypassing the AfC, you should be having knowledge about it. If in case, an article is put into AfC queue, one can simply remove the AfC tags from it and the article gets removed from the queue. ─ The Aafī (talk) 18:27, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

You can simply revert the submission edit, I believe. UtherSRG (talk) 18:27, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

@Iguana0000: There is no "queue" at AFC; the wording on that page should be corrected. Any reviewer can choose to review any draft in any order. Sometimes a review can happen the same day a draft is submitted, and sometimes it can take months.

I've published several article directly in main space, but even as an established editor I have used AFC to get comments about drafts I was not quite comfortable with. My article Gameknight999, for example, started out as a biography of the author but the AFC reviewer thought it would be best to re-cast it into an article about the book series. It sat for a year before I finally rewrote it and resubmitted. I didn't consider this to "clutter up" anything, it's a way to get good advice. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:34, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks so much, my plan was to post it in main space and request peer review. Curiously enough at the moment I'm getting a rather rarefied sort of review. As I'm reaching out to Robert Paine's colleagues in search of a photo that can be uploaded consistent with WM policies, I'm asking them each for their thoughts on the article currently sitting in AfC (which I'll remove from the pool as per the instructions above). Thanks again. Iguana0000 (talk) 19:04, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Iguana. I recommend being cautious about comments from the subject's colleagues. Some of their comments may be valuable for Wikipedia, but it is likely that 1) they are not familiar with the requirements of verifiability and neutrality in Wikipedia, and 2) they have a conflict of interest, so may tend to be biased in his favour. ColinFine (talk) 19:09, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes thanks aware of that and also let them know re high standard of verifiability. TBH I think they are as likely to be biased against him as for him as Prof. Paine published a number of 'critiques' of his colleagues' works.... in any case thanks and will take your advice to heart. Iguana0000 (talk) 19:19, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

List of live performances

Hello, when creating a List of live performances, should we add the date the performance was recorded or aired? Didimilk (talk) 22:03, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

@Didimilk: Hi. If the date is verifiable through reliable source, then it is okay to add. It always a good practice to look at other similar articles for reference/ideas. I would recommend the same to you. —usernamekiran (talk) 23:18, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you so much. I'm not sure I'd made my question clear. I always add the date the performance was aired, but sometimes, not always, there is reliable source as for the actual recording date of that performance. In such case, which date is to be added as the performance date, when it was recorded or when it was aired? Didimilk (talk) 10:06, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

@Didimilk: Be careful that your list isn't too broad in nature. Per WP:SALAT: Lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value, unless they are split into sections. For example, a list of brand names would be far too long to be of value. If you have an interest in listing brand names, try to limit the scope in some way (by product category, by country, by date, etc.) I'd recommend following the latter advice and limit the scope of your list of live performances. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 07:50, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

@Didimilk Maybe I'm missing something but if a performance was "live", wasn't its recording date and its (first) airing date the same? Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:39, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

For example, maybe a TV show itself is live, but the musical section was previously recorded, at that same place, or possibly on a previous date and in a different country. Or the whole show was previously recorded, and aired later on. Should the airing date be added or the recording date? Or even for pre recorded performances in general, the date that should be added is the date on which it was recorded or when it was shown on TV? Sorry if I sound confusing. I suppose the general question is if the date added should be when the performance actually happened, or when it was aired on TV. Didimilk (talk) 14:21, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

@Didimilk, I suggest using the date that the performance was first made available to the public. That means:

• Performance on January 1st to live audience, aired on TV the same day: January 1st.
• Performance on January 1st in closed studio, aired on TV the same day: January 1st.
• Performance on January 1st to live audience, aired on TV the next day: January 1st.
• Performance on January 1st in closed studio, aired on TV the next day: January 2nd.

Performances that happen in a closed studio don't generally count as "live performances", but this is how I would pick the dates. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:41, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your help! Didimilk (talk) 02:43, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Publishing a translation

Hi, I recently saw a page request on the Bulgaria portal with a link to the original page in Bulgarian. I decided to translate it and publish it as a draft (Draft:Census of Bulgaria, 1992). I know newer users can't publish pages, so I was wondering what to do from here to get it published? Sorry if this is a bad question! Thanks in advance. LuweQ (talk) 01:55, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

LuweQ publishing an article is pretty easy. After the article has been moved to draftspace (which it looks like it has because of the Draft: prefix), there should be an option to publish the page. If you're on desktop, in the top right corner wthre should be a "publish pahe" option. Please respond to this if it doesn't work. --Justyouraveragelechuga ^talk 02:09, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

@Justyouraveragelechuga For some reason I don't have a publish button (I'm on desktop). There's a template message about submitting it for review, though I would assume it wouldn't be reviewed for a while.. I just thought there was a more direct way to publish the article. LuweQ (talk) 02:21, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

@Justyouraveragelechuga: I don't see that option. Do you mean the "move" option to move it out of draft? That is not available to new users. RudolfRed (talk) 02:22, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

@LuweQ: Click the blue "submit draft" button, and a reviewer will review your draft. As a new user, you cannot create articles directly. RudolfRed (talk) 02:22, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

LuweQ What Rudolf said, sorry for the confusion.

Justyouraveragelechuga ^talk 02:24, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Using one's own published material as a reference

I wrote my dissertation on "The Palace of the Porphyrogenitus." I successfully defended in 1981. My understanding of Wikipedia editing is that one should be careful to keep in check the temptation to incorporate the writer/editor's own work. I fully understand the reason for caution. However, I would like to see my dissertation included as a reference or further reading item. So far as I know, mine is the only study to have included exhaustive measurements of the fabric of the building, to have documented the fabric in hundreds of photographs and architectural drawings and to have included a reasonably exhaustive list of early traveler account titles as they pertain to the building, along with a bibliography of secondary materials on Tekfur Saray. The study also examined, not exhaustively but systematically, comparative architectural material on palace architecture outside of Istanbul. And so my Teahouse question comes down to this. Is the dissertation a likely appropriate addition to "further reading?" And, if so, would anybody else be willing to insert the item (so that I am not recorded as the contributor? If inclusion is inappropriate that is okay with me. If I decide to include supplemental material to the article, I will do so by reference to the primary or secondary publications where I offer additional or material. I do not have the same hesitancy about including visual resources in the Commons. I hope to hear from you with advice and suggestion.

Inclusion of the unpublished dissertation, available in microform, ALLEN, WILLIAM JULIUS. “TEKFUR SARAY IN ISTANBUL: AN ARCHITECTURAL STUDY.” ProQuest Dissertations Publishing, 1981. http://astate.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwrV3NS8MwFH_M6UEUVFSmUwneq23SZokgUrdWx0aFfgjzMtqmPXZ-3vzjTbpmToWdPAfCS174va-83wMg-MI0fmECMTOcWU5pEWaK3M4pZTRjvLAKjqWPrnqVB1HPfeTeyHlqwYNujWnUrVGyhm4xy1XW_JIo5nVpzdnN84uhxkipcqueqZE2sxbENSOUrMG6GqutuPXvlt0jHc1v8x5nlGKJ1QTTP7Bc2xp_Bz61WPqTyYLR8ZuV4ieZ4z-eYRe2Bksl-j1oFdU-mLE38pMQRW7oTtAwQMModoPbZHyF3ACpgpNEwH6chO4YKR9zcgDnvhf37w0tz7R5tG_ThTDkENrVrCo6gJy0JKV0GgXOhJ2nQvWT5GlmlzL6zOw0P4Luio2OV652YdPizJonNE6g_f76UZzCxvwyz2pVfQH3Daw3. Will (talk) 03:13, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Woodpainter, I shan't (yet) answer your question; but I'll say in the meantime that the (extraordinarily long) URL that you provide takes me to a page that asks me to supply my log-in details for "Off-Campus E-Resource Access" to "Dean B. Ellis Library" (which I see is part of Arkansas State U). I have no reason to think that I'd be unusual in lacking an ID and password. You may wish to upload your dissertation somewhere that would be accessible to more people. -- Hoary (talk) 05:55, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

@Woodpainter: Here is a more stable URL with a PDF preview, albeit with the full work still paywalled. I see no reason why this dissertation should not be included in a prospective "Further reading" section (or simply cited in the article body) if it really is a useful source, though I don't have the expertise to judge that. There is a little more guidance available at WP:SELFCITE. Shells-shells (talk) 07:10, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

@Woodpainter: There are multiple questions in there, I will try to unpack all of them.

The first is about whether your dissertation is a source that can be used by Wikipedia. While we require sources to be "published", that means "accessible to a general person from the public", but not necessarily easily accessible. If the only way to access it is to physically travel to Arkansas State university, pay for the library access, and look at the microfilms, that counts as "published" for our purposes. Of course it’s better if there is a PDF available online somewhere (see the above answers).

The second is whether a PhD dissertation is a source that we want to use; that is, is it a WP:SECONDARY source, and is it a reliable source ? I would say, mostly, yes:

• We prefer secondary sources because they have some distance from the event, person, etc. we want to write about. A PhD dissertation in history would (usually) be a secondary or even tertiary source. That might be different in other domains. For instance, an experimental PhD would be a mix of a literature review (secondary/tertiary), and original research that is primary (whoever writes the thesis also performed the experiments).
• Whether a given source is considered reliable depends on the context. If the PhD is the only source to argue a relatively mundane / undisputed point, it is probably good enough. On the other hand, if the point is extremely controversial, one should carefully check all the available literature before taking a single source (no matter how good) as truth.

The third is how to proceed given that you are the author of the source you wish to use. Just adding the link in the article might indeed be improper citation spamming. I would say:

• If you do not wish to spend much time, you should head over to the talk page (Talk:Palace of the Porphyrogenitus) and:
  • either make an {{edit request}} to dump the dissertation in a "further reading" section (this will cause an uninvolved editor to look at your proposed addition and decide whether to add the link or not);
  • or drop the source on the talk page with a short explanation of what could be found inside. Hopefully someone will look at it and manage to include some material - but that might happen quickly, slowly, or not at all, depending on how many editors are watching the page and/or are willing to go fetch the dissertation.
• If you have more time, it would be nice of you to edit the article yourself. If you want to reuse content from your dissertation verbatim or with few modifications, you should follow the procedure outlined at WP:DCM, but that would usually not be needed (a dissertation is much longer than a Wikipedia article should be). The best practice would be to cite the secondary sources directly if that’s what you used (example), but cite primary sources through your dissertation per WP:SAYWHERE (example).

Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 17:31, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

@HoaryI have placed the dissertation in Google Drive for public read and download. It is at https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Dd1RWzgWhTqdcBnE78cWuqeCez_K9Ax7/view Will (talk) 04:54, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

@Hoary@Shells-shells@TigraanAnd so I believe that my next task should begin at the article, Palace of the Porphyrogenitus," and proceed via Talk. Thank you for your assistance. Will (talk) 04:59, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Help with rejected article

Hi Teahouse! I drafted an article that was rejected and I'm hoping you all might be able to help me get it over the line (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Pauline_Sherman). The Prof Sherman was a pioneer in hypersonic flow research and the first woman to be appointed to the engineering faculty at the University of Michigan, and she deserves to have a more public profile. However, given that she was a woman in academia in the 1960s, she did not receive a great deal of media attention at the time and the reviewer rejected the article on the grounds of insufficient evidence of notability. There are records of Prof Sherman in the University of Michigan libraries, but these are not available to the larger internet, which I think might be one of the reasons the article was rejected because I can't link to them.

I believe I have provided the same level evidence for notability as some of the other articles on Wikipedia (see a comparison of a similar individual here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Drela), but apparently that wasn't enough. I certainly can add more information from the UMich archives (and was intending to after the article was posted), but I'm concerned I won't be able to meet the reviewer's request for more linkable references to prove notability. Any help would be most appreciated! Aeronautilus12 (talk) 07:45, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Aeronautilus12 Declined (not Rejected) means that the reviewer thought there was potential. Are there any significant honors, awards or memberships in prestigious science organizations that can be added and referenced? David notMD (talk) 09:39, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

@Aeronautilus12 According to Google scholar (not always entirely reliable) her most cited work was doi:10.2514/3.3386, with 414 listed. You may be able to show that criterion 1 of WP:NACADEMIC is met by chasing up those citations, especially if you have access to scopus for more accurate stats. Note that your sources can be WP:OFFLINE but they do have to be published. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:27, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Phil Bridger and David Eppstein are my favorite people to ask about NPROF questions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:45, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

You need to decide whether you are aiming for WP:GNG- or WP:PROF-based notability. Both are possible but the requirements are different. For GNG, you need the sources of the article to be reliably published, independent of the subject or her employers, and in-depth about her. A "report of faculty retirement" in the proceedings of the university regents is reliable, but neither independent nor in-depth, for instance. The "Martins named Pauline M. Sherman Collegiate Professor of Aerospace Engineering" source actually is in-depth about Sherman (despite its main topic being someone else), and reliable, but not independent. So none of the present sources appear to count for GNG, and these sources would be seen as a net negative by draft reviewers. On the other hand, for PROF, you need to meet certain specific criteria: having highly cited publications (often satisfied by having an external link to a Google Scholar profile showing high citations to the author's work), being named as a fellow by a major academic society, holding a named professorship, etc. In Sherman's case, the hunt for citations is complicated by the fact that she published as "P. M. Sherman" and those initials are widely used by others. The Sherman professorship is a named professorship but not one she held. So to me so far the case is not clear. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:18, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for the feedback. I guess what I'm trying to figure out is if 1) the consensus is that she does not meet notability criteria or 2) I have not successfully laid out her notability in the draft article. Pretty much every piece of recorded information I have found on her has been from the UMich archive, so I think I would have to go for PROF not GNG. I'm not as confident I can meet the PROF criteria given the aforementioned challenges in the published record, but given the exclusion of the UMich material, I think this is the only option. Aeronautilus12 (talk) 03:48, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I would think that if a given named professorship grants WP:NPROF#5 notability, surely the namesake of the professorship is considered notable. That’s not in NPROF, but come on. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 10:56, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Citing PDF sources?

Hi everyone, I'm an editor active in the motorsports community. More and more events and championships are starting to use an App called "Sportity" to communicate entry lists, race results etc., with those documents then provided directly as a pdf file. How would one go about using those pdf files in a citation, as there is no source link provided with them, only the file itself? Cheers, H4MCHTR (talk) 09:13, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

A source can still be cited in articles even if it's not available on the internet (see WP:OFFLINE) – but the source must still have been published in a manner that meets the reliable sources rule, and I'm not sure that these files will if they're being generated by an app and delivered directly to users on request. Is there any chance of the organisers (or similar official groups, or press firms or magazine publishers, etc) hosting the files on their website? XAM2175 ^(T) 11:43, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

XAM2175 I basically have the same question, although slightly different.

There's certain random links I'll stumble across (which I'm not even looking for) on Google occasionally from universities or organisations like the ONS/BARB/BFI etc which when you click on them, will either open themselves up automatically in my own Google Docs/Sheets/Drive or Microsoft Office which is becoming Microsoft 365 (whatever that is), and/or will automatically download.

I'm fairly sure the only way to get the link is by copying the link on Google, and manually removing all the Google related stuff just like this one which I found a few weeks ago [2]https://www.docs.is.ed.ac.uk/docs/Libraries/Main/E-Resources/Databases/BFI_InView_title_list.xlsx

If I wanted to use a link like this, would it be allowed on Wikipedia?

And are there any better ways to get a link for something like this? Danstarr69 (talk) 14:49, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, these are usually fine so long as they meet the reliable sources rules regarding authorship and publication status (the latter point meaning "be sure the files were genuinely made available to the public"). Removing the Google-related stuff is probably the easiest way to get a clean link; if you were accessing these files from the publisher's actual webpages you'd already have a clean link. Avoid linking if you think that the file is being hosted without permission, as this can create copyright problems for us. Finally, remember when citing them to fill out the format parameter so it looks like this |format=XLSX (or whatever other format the document might be). XAM2175 ^(T) 18:27, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Layout is wrong

in the Temara article (in the Temara#Climate part) there's a Weather box template that looks wrong when I view it, it leaves a lot of empty space because the Template:Infobox settlement is longer and so there's a very large gap without text. I think it looks like that only one the beta wikipedia version, which I am using. Here's[1] how it looks for me:

[1] using beta version

Here's[2] how it looks when I open it in incognito (without my account settings):

[2] using incognito mode (not beta version)

I wonder if I should change the weather box template to have width=auto 3point1415 (talk) 09:40, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

3point1415, there is a recommended way to deal with this. It involves adding a template whose name I can't recall − I hope a more competent host will be along soon and tell you. You should avoid a home-made fix, as it may not work well for all screen widths. Maproom (talk) 11:16, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

3point1415 I wouldn't know how to fix that.

However I've seen that somewhere in the last few weeks.

Although I'm pretty sure when you press publish, it appears normal in read mode. Danstarr69 (talk) 14:58, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

There is a template {{stack}} which can be used to arrange objects on a page. -- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 15:46, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

TOERS

TOERS 102.249.1.232 (talk) 10:35, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello. Do you have a question? echidnaLives - talk - edits 10:42, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Can the article CSDs be used in drafts?

I've found a few drafts which I believe could be speedy deleted under A10, but I'm not sure if the criteria in the article group can be applied to drafts. If not, what criteria applies to the drafts linked? MaterialWorks _(talk) 11:26, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

A short answer...the "A" in the criteria stands for "article", so imho can't be used for drafts, as they aren't in article space. Generally, G11 and other G speedy criteria can be used for draft-space. Lectonar (talk) 11:32, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Help with edits

So, I want to edit Wikipedia, but I'm worried my edits will be marked as vandalism. All I really plan to do is spelling, grammar, and punctuation corrections. Would this be marked as GAME attempts? TheBaboonQueen51 (talk) 13:54, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

@TheBaboonQueen51 It is a principle here that we assume good faith with other editors, especially newcomers. WP:Vandalism is rather narrowly defined as something the editor knows will damage rather than improve Wikipedia. Hence I would advise you to be bold and only worry if you find that experienced editors are reverting your contributions. We welcome copy-editing as well as more substantive additions. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:59, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for wanting to improve Wikipedia. If you don't want your copy-edits reverted I suggest you familiarize yourself with our Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Shantavira|^{feed me} 14:21, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Spelling to understand and thus avoid making spelling changes that will be reverted. David notMD (talk) 16:25, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I've done many thousands of edits--the vast majority being reorganizing things on category pages, as well as grammar and spelling fixes (a tiny fraction of my edits have been substantive). I can remember one instance where someone took one of my edits as vandalism--and that was back when I was editing IP, and the misunderstanding was very quickly and graciously sorted out. (Someone misread the word "Pinus"--the genus of pine trees--in some of my edits, and thought it was a bit of adolescent mischief.) One small suggestion: do put down a particular edit summary--even if it's only "grammar fix" or "fixed typo." Uporządnicki (talk) 17:18, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

@TheBaboonQueen51: Welcome to the Teahouse. Aside from the helpful answers others have given you, you may be interested in joining the Guild of Copy Editors, a group of Wikipedia editors that focus on doing what you intend to do (plus a little bit more). We currently have a backlog drive underway for this month, and extra hands on deck are always appreciated. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:43, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia objects

I would like to create a wikipedia entry for certain objects on Amelia Island, Florida (where I am now a retired professor). As an example, here is a story about the statue of David Yulee, which can be the first object entry I will create: https://fernandinaobserver.com/general/david-levy-yulee-a-man-a-moment-in-time-a-monument/

In my academic research and practice as professor, I used an "object-based" approach in several venues, including U. Texas at Dallas. Often, there are multiple interpretations for an object, including viewing the object through a mathematical lens (or a computing lens). The math educators call these "math walks" or "math trails". I used computer science as the lens for objects on campus.

Has anyone else done this object-centered (multiple interpretations) approach in Wikipedia? I'd also like to tie the object interpretations to educational standards in middle school/high school/university subjects. So, someone looking at the David Yulee statue could thread each interpretation to its corresponding subject/standard. This will be useful for educators seeking new ways of interpreting objects and their interpretations, complementing the traditional teacher on the stage approach to learning. 2600:1700:5A10:6CD0:C000:ADED:51BA:1B8B (talk) 15:08, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

IP editor: we have an article on David Yulee, as you probably already know. Maybe you could start by adding information to that, cited to reliable sources? I'm not sure where the more general "object-centred" approach would fit but perhaps others will have suggestions. We do have object-oriented ontology but that's well beyond my pay grade.... Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:35, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, IP user. "Objects" are subject to the same rules as anything else for being the subject of an article in Wikipedia: they must meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, principally that several independent reliable sources have discussed them. I think it unlikely (though not impossible) that there is enough material published to ground an article about a particular approach to an individual object. An article about the approach (rather than the individual objects to which it has been applied) is more likely to succeed; but then I must ask if anybody but you and your close colleagues have used or written about this approach? Citing your own work is regarded as a conflict of interest, and must be done cautiously (see WP:SELFCITE.

I also have a concern that what you are proposing would be original research, which is forbidden in any Wikipedia article; but that may be my lack of understanding of what you are saying. ColinFine (talk) 16:42, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Texaco Camaro - wanted to add to Wikipedia on the story and history of the car

Hello - was not sure how to have Wikipedia pick up the Texaco Camaro story. Is this something that I do or other contribute to? 50.237.88.150 (talk) 15:23, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

IP editor: there don't seem to be nearly as many sources for the Texaco Camaro as for the Chevrolet Camaro but you could certainly try to draft an article like that one. Please use the WP:AFC process explained at that link. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:29, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

It sounds like you want to write about the car. There's also an auto parts store in Dallas with the same nane. David10244 (talk) 08:28, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Steve Covino

Steve Covino There was a listing previously for Steve Covino who is a broadcaster on FOX Sports Radio, Patreon as part of Covino and Rich and Sirius XM on multiple channels and formerly an ESPN host. He has been a voice on GTA and has had a successful career in broadcasting for almost 2 decades. His Wikipedia spot was suddenly taken by a soccer player with the same name. His info has mysteriously disappeared. Can we put him back on using his photo and biography? Www.covinoandrich.com (----) Lisaparaggio (talk) 16:20, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Lisaparaggio, our article Steve Covino has been about a soccer player ever since it was created in 2011. Maybe someone with admin powers can look for a deleted article about the other Steve Covino. Maproom (talk) 16:28, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Lisaparaggio, welcome to the Teahouse. The article was deleted per the discussion here. The article on the footballer has existed since 2011; it was simply moved from the title "Steve Covino (soccer)" to "Steve Covino" in 2020, after the deletion discussion I linked earlier. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:27, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

An article about the radio show duo was also deleted (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Covino and Rich). David notMD (talk) 17:12, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Can I please noe

How to edit Ilovehermionegranger (talk) 16:23, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Ilovehermionegranger, and welcome to the Teahouse, and to Wikipedia. Please see Help:Tutorial. ColinFine (talk) 16:46, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Ilovehermionegranger If you mean purely the mechanics of how to go in and change things, you did it when you posted this question. But it you do think of doing things to articles, please do follow ConinFine's suggestion. Uporządnicki (talk) 17:08, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Wrong species

Commons file File:Paježura attenboroughova.jpg that I've just removed from Sir David's long-beaked echidna is not that species, per that article's talk. Now that I've removed it from that article, I think it should be deleted from Commons, so that it gets pulled from the other language sites. How do I go about doing that? UtherSRG (talk) 16:59, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

@UtherSRG I'm not sure it should be deleted entirely, since it might be of use somewhere but there is a tag commons:Template:Fact_disputed they use on Commons to point out you believe something is wrong with the description. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:11, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

@UtherSRG: I agree with Mike. Instead of deleting, a "Fact_disputed" template, and then renaming the photo to actual species would be the best option here. —usernamekiran (talk) 17:37, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Faboo! Thanks to you both! UtherSRG (talk) 18:13, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

@UtherSRG I've changed the image at Wikidata to the one now used in the article, which had the effect of placing the correct image at most other-language Wikipedias. I've also alerted the original uploader that the file is disputed, so they may engage with you on the Talk Page. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:28, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! UtherSRG (talk) 17:32, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Creating a new page

I have not even started and I got alert that someone declared publicly a conflict of interest with my article? What do I do? MWIalliedhealth (talk) 18:14, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

MWIalliedhealth Please explain where and how you received such an alert.
That said, "MWI allied health" appears to be a Bermudan company, so the first problem is your user-name, which is unacceptable, as we do not allow user names to be the same as company names. Secondly it looks like you probably have a WP:Conflict of interest in writing such an article, and finally, assuming you work for the company, or receive any form of compensation, monetary, or not, you are deemed a Paid editor and need to make a Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure, before proceeding any further. - I have provided further details on your user talk page i.e. at User talk:MWIalliedhealth - Arjayay (talk) 18:24, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Sandbox help

I'm super new, but I had written an article that had been set for speedy deletion and now I cant create a new sandbox, nor access the old one.

Could someone check it out to see if anything is wrong? Louister41 (talk) 18:55, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

User:Louister41

I can't even link the Sandbox because it doesnt exist... Louister41 (talk) 18:57, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

@Louister41, I'll add a link to your deleted sandbox page, since you'd like one to be here: User:Louister41/sandbox. You also have a subpage at User:Louister41/Daniel_Menard, FYI. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 19:01, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but it always says "invalid response from the server". Louister41 (talk) 19:03, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

The sandbox has been recreated via Premeditated Chaos. The source of the error remains a mystery - possibly a Visual Editor/mobile editing issue. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 20:29, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I blame the day of the week. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 20:34, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Darn those supervillains anyway, always ruining things for us poor commonfolk and Wikipedia editors... 199.208.172.35 (talk) 20:41, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Wat is going on? is this friendly banter? Louister41 (talk) 20:44, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Are y'all talking to me? Louister41 (talk) 20:45, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

@Louister41: Nah. It's just a little joking around. I was stating that the error is most likely due to an update to Wikipedia which happens every Thursday and can usually end up unintentionally breaking things. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 20:47, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

okay :| Louister41 (talk) 20:48, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

@Louister41, yes, it's friendly banter - putting things in small font here on Wikipedia is a way to indicate off-topic, usually humorous commentary. Check out the link Blaze Wolf shared for further explanation of why things often break on Thursdays around here. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 20:48, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Where can I get a rewrite of a page reviewed?

Hi, I've been trying to address the issues of the Agenda Europe page on my sandbox, and I'd like to get feedback on my revisions since I've added a bit. I know there's a page for requesting critique on already published pages, as well as pages in the draft namespace, but where do I go for feedback on an article I've written in my sandbox? Should I make my edits and post it to peer review? Can I create drafts for articles that have already been made? 🎜Oktavia Miki🎝_talk 19:43, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello OktaviaMiki, and welcome to the Teahouse. The first thing I would do is post a thread at Talk:Agenda Europe, explaining your concerns about this article and why you are attempting to rewrite it (rather than simply edit it, as one normally might). Then provide a link for people to look at the version in your sandbox, and invite people to leave comments or concerns on the article's talk page (not in your sandbox). Explain your intention to replace the article content if there are no objections. Then leave it for a week or two for people to have a chance to comment.

The article doesn't have many watchers, so you could benefit greatly by posting a short note at Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Europe which invites people to visit Talk:Agenda Europe and read your post about the article. (Don't do it in a way that ends up with discussions being held on three separate talk pages - instead, ensure that it's clear where you want discussion to be held.

If, after a couple of weeks, you get no response, you could WP:BEBOLD and simply replace it with what you believe to be a fairer and better article (ensuring your edit summary makes it clear this is a rewrite from your sandbox. Now, I don't know whether the rewrite was all your own work. But if it was based on a copy/paste of the original article which you then worked on, it's best to include an acknowledgement in that edit summary to the contributions other past editors may have made. You can do that simply by crediting back to all the past editors which are findable at 'View History of the original article).

Please note that my reply just outlines the general approach you should take, irrespective of the topic; I have not taken any but the briefest of glimpses at the content of the two versions under discussion. The one concerning thing I did notice was that you have moved (hidden?) an original sentence with four supporting citations from the lead (which states the organisation "..has been described as anti-feminist, ultra-conservative, far-right, and religious extremist.", and simply left this within the article without any mention in the lead. If there are that many sources supporting that opinion, then the lead should at least make some mention of it. Or are the sources not-reliable? Hoping this helps, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:13, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I'll do just that. I decided a rewrite because I thought that would be the better action with a page with issues on neutrality and close paraphrasing, but I have included bits of the original article as well. I'll be sure to credit past contributors if/when I do move the page over, since I was working with the material and (majority) citations they established.

There were a few aspects that I was having difficulty with finding places for, and the passage you mentioned was one of them. I'll amend what I have with your suggestion.

Thank you! 🎜Oktavia Miki🎝_talk 00:37, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

You're welcome. Good luck! Nick Moyes (talk) 13:13, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Unfair accusation on County Durham

@Murgatroyd49: has made a false accusation against me with no evidence, I'm not allowed to call them out or remove their accusation and was unfairly treated on my own talk page by another editor who threatened to block me from editing when all my edits have been helpful. I'm upset about this and feel WP:Hounded by these two editors and in the case of Murgatroyd49, WP: Passive aggressive towards me. I'd appreciate advice from other editors in how to deal with false claims made against me DragonofBatley (talk) 20:00, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I reject and resent the accusations of this editor. I particularly resent him spreading his annoyance here as well as my talk page and on the talk page of the article in question. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 20:42, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

@DragonofBatley: As this is an issue of user conduct, please bring this to WP:ANI and gather all the evidence you have before making your case there. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:16, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Edit warring vs trying to get it right

Hi, I have a few questions about references. There is a page that I tried to edit (rolfing) because it seemed very biased. This is not a subject I am an expert in, which is what I came to Wikipedia for, but 10 minutes of additional searching made the bias clear. After doing deeper research I added several recent studies on the subject (good ones, 2015, 2016 at Harvard Med & Stanford) which showed strong results of Rolfing for 3 specific things. The original writers deleted all of that and took it back to what was. So here are my questions:

1.) does the reference article have to be readable by the public, i.e., what if it's behind a paywall? I would think in this case at least the Wikipedia editor should have to quote it. Or are we expected to use references which are available to all? (this is about their reference to the term "quackery")

2.) Don't we have a preference for good studies done in the last 10 years over an opinion that was expressed in 2001 which was only reiterating a phrase in a book from 1959? (again, about quackery - and I agree with another person who tried to edit the page who said that this term has a moral connotation, it implies an attempt to be deceitful)

3.) I assume you editors are very busy. So if I stated all the above in a response (to someone, who I presume was an admin editor) does it just take time for them to get back to it? Or should I conclude that the medical luddites won? :-)

Just to be clear: I'm not pro or con any of the 4-5 things which I noticed are now paid for by my medial insurance, but I was curious about all of them as I was surprised that they had become that mainstream. Then I come to my favorite encyclopedia to see that these articles reference very old material.

Thanks - I'm sure there's a lot I don't know yet about editing (before now I was mostly about line editing (non-controversial!)). Cleajames13 (talk) 20:07, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

1) No, articles can be paywalled (see WP:PAYWALL). It must be accessible somehow, but if you have to pay (or even take a long trip to a specific library), that is within bounds. It is nice when someone can provide a quote, but it isn't required.

2) This question really isn't answerable without details. WP:MEDRS has a preference for more recent studies, but that is only one factor. We wouldn't use a more recent primary study to overrule an older systematic review.

3) Wikipedia has no deadlines, people can take a while to reply. But in this case it looks like you have received numerous replies on the article talk page.

Re your concerns about bias, you should review WP:FALSEBALANCE. When the medical mainstream has an overwhelming opinion of a practice like rolfing (that it does not work) the Wikipedia article is going to reflect that. MrOllie (talk) 20:18, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

@Cleajames13, the best place to ask about this is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine. They are more knowledgeable about the special requirements for medical articles. See Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) for the types of references that are needed. Look for review articles rather than articles from individual studies. Once your changes have been reverted at an article, don't try to add them back. Instead start a discussion on the talk page of the article. StarryGrandma (talk) 20:20, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

How do i delete an image in wikimedia commons?

I would like to delete an image in Wikimedia commons but how do I do that? Fishmen123 (talk) 20:35, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

@Fishmen123: Hello Fishmen! Your answer depends on the image. Would you mind providing a link to it? You can do so by adding a colon before "File:" in the link which will prevent the image from displaying and instead produce a clickable link. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 20:40, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dani_Profile_picture.jpg Fishmen123 (talk) 20:43, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Fishmen123 Done. In the future, you can use the Commons gadget 'AjaxQuickDelete' (commons:Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets), which should be enabled by default, to display a 'nominate for deletion' button on the sidebar. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 20:55, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

@Fishmen123, @Sungodtemple I have never installed or heard of that gadget, but when I look at an image at Commons, (after I click More Info maybe) I see a "Nominate for Deletion" button. By saying "enabled by default", do you mean that everyone should see the button? David10244 (talk) 09:26, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

David10244 yes everyone should see that upon registering. However, they may have turned it off in preferences, thus why I said 'enabled by default'. It is not enabled for everyone. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 12:47, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Reference Templates

I know I'm doing something wrong but I'm not sure how to do it correctly.

For example.

DarklitShadow (talk) 21:05, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

@DarklitShadow: You have to use (in the case you cite) the {{cite web}} template between the ref tags and include the |url= and |title= parameters in that, along with any other relevant parameters. See the documentation of the citation template for how to do it. Deor (talk) 22:05, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

@DarklitShadow, if you use the visual editor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Wagle?veaction=edit for that article), and click on a ref tag (i.e., the little blue number, like this one: ) that contains a bare URL, it'll give you a "convert" button that automatically inserts the citation template for you. It won't work on PDFs or websites that aren't reachable, or for refs with extra text, but you might find it worth trying. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 04:00, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Request new catagory

Peer Groups. Started with 2 or 3, grew. Ben Franklin's Junto. Samual Johnson's Club. Freud's Vienna Psychoanalytic Society. Etc Etc Good idea? 97.122.250.107 (talk) 23:12, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Your request is opaquely cryptic. Do you mean that you want to request a new category, "Peer groups", which would include, inter alia, Junto (club), and the other two? -- Hoary (talk) 23:20, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Hms Aster

HMS Aster (K188) Hello, I have a warships of WWII book by H.T. Lenton and J.J. Colledge and It contains a few facts about it. There is also a good website, [3] which contains some good information about it. I know this is a trustworthy source through [4]. Just read his blog. This is a big article not yet made and needs to be on wikipeida. Bobfeller54 (talk) 00:25, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Bobfeller54, since you are the one with best knowledge of the subject, you are best equipped to create the article. Create a draft and write an encyclopedic article using information from the book. Guidance to create your first article can be found at WP:YFA. uboat.net is commonly used in warship-related articles and should suffice. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 00:36, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Bobfeller54,you arent allowed to use information you find on books in real life, unless they are online That would be Wikipedia:No original research.`~HelpingWorld~` ^(👽🛸) 06:34, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm very surprised to read this, HelpingWorld. Please point me to a policy, guideline, MoS or other page here that says I can't use information I find in books unless they are online. (Using books that aren't online is something that I routinely do.) -- Hoary (talk) 06:54, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I mean original research pretty much means research that you would find in a book or on a newspaper right? Im not too sure so correct me if im wrong. Wouldnt original research be something you research thats not on a device like a book or a conversation? I checked the original research wikipedia page and just assumed that books count.`~HelpingWorld~` ^(👽🛸) 06:59, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Original research is if a Wikipedia editor is out running experiments, synthesizing ideas from primary texts, coming to their own conclusions about a topic. Using WP:OFFLINE sources is 100% fine on Wikipedia, (provided they’re reliable, independent, and otherwise fine sources). Umimmak (talk) 07:24, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

In this edit of 06:59, 6 January, HelpingWorld removed their own text you arent allowed to use information you find on books in real life, unless they are online, thereby making my comment on it incomprehensible. HelpingWorld, people (myself certainly included) can and do get things wrong in talk page comments, and they're encouraged to correct themselves; but when they realize that they have misspoken and that what's wrong has been responded to in some way, they should not delete the mistaken text. Striking it through (like this) is OK. (Please see "Editing own comments".) -- Hoary (talk) 07:42, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

@Bobfeller54 The advice from Sungodtemple is excellent, and also note that a blog is not a reliable source that you can use as a reference for information that you put in your draft. Good luck. David10244 (talk) 09:36, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

@Hoary, my apologizes. I'm not too familiar with original research but thanks for informing me.`~HelpingWorld~` ^(👽🛸) 20:22, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Not Sure How to Fix Article

The Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic page inbox looks messed up. Could I have some help, and maybe a few tips on fixing infoboxes? Thanks. Professor Penguino (talk) 02:10, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Resolved. Umimmak fixed it. Professor Penguino (talk) 02:27, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

about

why is this sight important to developers and or school teacher's. How would me learning about this sight and what there about benifit me ?

Bigdallen (talk) 03:56, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Bigdallen, if you are referring to "site" as in "website", then please read Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 04:25, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I think Bigdallen answered his own question with those glaring errors in spelling, grammar, and punctuation. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:10, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Teahouse is helpful when its hosts are helpful, not snarky David notMD (talk) 11:17, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Contributions tags changed?

Is it just me, or have contributions tags been changed to include the text link "other edits" for each one? When I click the link, it takes me to Recent Changes, which doesn't seem correct? This extra bit on every single tag is taking up a lot of screen space for me. I feel like this is a recent thing?

Stepping back also, for future reference, where exactly can I find out more info about UI and feature changes like this? (Pointing me in the right direction also means I bother you less, Teahouse hosts! Appreciate you!) — LumonRedacts 04:19, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

@LumonRedacts, this change was rolled out across English Wikipedia yesterday. You can see a discussion here at VPT, among other places. It was a wishlist item which the devs implemented. Unfortunately I don't think there's a centralized place on English Wikipedia to get announcements of such changes. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 15:09, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

@LumonRedacts These sorts of change are usually pre-announced on Tech News, which you can sign up to on meta. Oddly, I don't see that particular change mentioned in recent editions. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:02, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Can you please revert all edits by User:WestHamFC91 on these articles

Hey team, can you please revert all edits by User:WestHamFC91 on these articles (ABC TV Plus and ABC News (Australian TV channel)), because of vandalism (ABC channels aren't available in Malaysia). I have since edited the ABC TV Plus article to include time changes, and 6 people have since edited the ABC News (Australian TV channel) article. From Bas. Bassie f (talk) 04:58, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

User:TheRubyP already did the ABC TV part of this discussion for us. Bassie f (talk) 05:07, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

WestHamFC91 has been an editor for months, hundreds of edits, most about Malaysia topics, a low revert percentage. My opinion has been editing in good faith. Errors can be corrected without accusing someone of vandalism. David notMD (talk) 11:23, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I did remove his edits from ABC TV Plus 2mins ago because that Australian channel doesn’t even broadcast to Malaysia. Bassie f (talk) 20:09, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I created a page

I created my first page. If there is an error, will I have to start all over again? Can I edit it while I wait to see if it's approved? When I add a link after a statement, can I 3-4 that show coverage of the author's book?

Thanks! 2600:8802:3A12:E700:B59F:BC11:173E:F234 (talk) 05:01, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Courtesy link: Draft:Nolan Davis

No, you don't need to start over. You can improve it. You can improve it even if it hasn't been reviewed yet. For example, all of your citations are nondescript links, please see WP:CITE to learn how to flesh them out. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:08, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! I heard someone complaining that they spent a lot of time and it was removed. 2600:8802:3A12:E700:B59F:BC11:173E:F234 (talk) 05:20, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

RE:For example, all of your citations are nondescript links, please see WP:CITE to learn how to flesh them out.

I don't understand. I asked if the links were acceptable before I created the page. 2600:8802:3A12:E700:B59F:BC11:173E:F234 (talk) 05:24, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

It's perfectly possible for somebody to spend a lot of time on an article, get it to an informative and polished state, and then see it deleted. But deletion requires a reason; it isn't done on a mere whim. On "nondescript links": Each of your references merely specifies the website. Please also specify the author(s) (if known), the title of the particular page, the date of publication (if known), and the date you accessed the page. -- Hoary (talk) 05:46, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Oh, ok. Thanks 2600:8802:3A12:E700:B59F:BC11:173E:F234 (talk) 05:58, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

The content and references about Spotts add nothing to establishing notability for Davis. Also, the Works section is a mess. David notMD (talk) 11:37, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Davis and his doc, "Passing Through" are referenced in many news articles with respect to Spotts' travel. It's his last project, released after his death. 2600:8802:3A12:E700:B59F:BC11:173E:F234 (talk) 14:34, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Can you suggest a template to improve the Work section? 2600:8802:3A12:E700:B59F:BC11:173E:F234 (talk) 14:35, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Can you suggest a template to improve the Work section? 2600:8802:3A12:E700:B59F:BC11:173E:F234 (talk) 14:35, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Is the works section better? 2600:8802:3A12:E700:C190:502B:DC4E:7585 (talk) 16:46, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

In my opinion, "The documentary was one of Nolan Davis’ final projects. It ended with 165 countries being visited, short of the goal. Between 2014 and 2018, Woni Spotts, the host of “Passing Through” visited the remaining countries, fulfilling Davis' vision and making history.[5][6][7][8]" is not about Davis, and shoud be deleted. David notMD (talk) 18:58, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

What about the bullet point list of his works? 2600:8802:3A12:E700:C190:502B:DC4E:7585 (talk) 19:06, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Non-expert review guild?

Hi Teahouse! I'm discovering that I enjoy working with experts on refining articles so they are more readable for non-experts (i.e., asking all the dumb questions until things are phrased as accessibly as possible without loss of nuance for expert readers). I'm wondering whether there is a guild or project that works on this that I could join. Wikipedia:WikiProject Expert Request Sorting (defunct) appears to have been geared towards sorting existing unspecified requests for expert attention. I want to flip the request around. For example, if an expert writes an article and wants it to be more readable to the layperson, they could take it to this guild, perhaps the "ELI5 guild" or the "anti-WP:UNIVERSE guild". My reasoning for wanting to flip the request is that since we guild-members would be non-experts, it's easier to find one of us. So the collaboration can happen when the expert is ready which seems more efficient. Does this already exist? I'm also aware of the Simple English Wikipedia, but it doesn't seem too popular? Since my main interest is in clarification without loss of nuance, I'm wondering if my efforts are better spent here. Thank you for any tips you may have, and I wish you all a happy day. GuineaPig_C77 (𒅗𒌤) ☕ 05:57, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

@GuineaPigC77 I believe you are looking for Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:32, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

@Dodger67: While we will try and make things easier to read, the guild's primary objective is to make sure articles conform to the Manual of Style as closely as possible and fix up grammar, spelling, and flow. Simplifying concepts goes beyond the scope of GOCE. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 08:38, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

@Tenryuu Or "clarifying concepts" rather than simplifying them? Or both?  :-) David10244 (talk) 09:45, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes I believe what I seek is something similar to GOCE, except that the emphasis is on WP:UNIVERSE language issues in technical articles (not limited to STEM related topics), as opposed to GOCE's focus on MOS as Tenryuu said. GuineaPig_C77 (𒅗𒌤) ☕ 12:23, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

@GuineaPigC77: That's an interesting approach to getting our articles understandable by those who aren't already experts on the topic! While some topics actually are on really advanced or essoteric topics beyond lay-readers who don't have sufficient backround, many of our articles that should be accessible to general readers probably have a lot of work needed. I'd start by thinking about what topics are of interest. Maybe there's an active WP:WikiProject related to it. Some of those have lists of articles that need various sorts of attention, or lists of 'key articles'. Maybe you could find some "really important, but not high quality" articles in that field, or else be the new set of eyes looking at the really important articles to help highlight where it's not clear. DMacks (talk) 08:44, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I've had really good luck with the approach you describe. Pick a topic area, then on the project page I've used the importance/quality table to browse, for example, high-importance start-class articles. That's been great for finding things to work on. But in that approach, supposing I find something tantalizing to work on, I (non-expert) may seek an expert, such as by using a template for a request in the normal way. I'm thinking it could be possibly more efficient if it were set up the other way around: the expert could reach out to a simplifier in the same way one might reach out to GOCE. (Also I'm still new here, forgive me if I've got the terminology all wrong.) GuineaPig_C77 (𒅗𒌤) ☕ 12:53, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Now I see the difference, and agree it sounds like it could be useful. I know some wikiprojects actually do care about this sort of thing, and could use the help. And the featured-articles process could benefit as well if there were a pool of editors or notice-board where help could be requested. We already do have a Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable guideline that could be the basis. DMacks (talk) 17:08, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Publishing my article

Hello, I am publishing my first article but I am not getting any further. It is either not visible to contributor or it is lacking something. please guide. Pavithranmkrv (talk) 07:37, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

@Pavithranmkrv: I presume this is about User:Pavithranmkrv/sandbox. See Wikipedia:So you made a userspace draft. Victor Schmidt (talk) 07:45, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

@Pavithranmkrv:, your creation User:Pavithranmkrv/sandbox hardly starts to resemble an encyclopedia article. We can give you advice for this. But first: Do you have some relationship with Anexas? -- Hoary (talk) 07:48, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Get notice of edits being undone

Hello, how do I make sure that I get a notice in case an edit of mine has been revoked/undone? Thanks in advance. Bernhard.rulla (talk) 07:54, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Bernhard.rulla: in your notification preferences (Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-echo) you can tick a box to say you want to be notified if an edit of yours is reverted by either undo or rollback. (If your edit is simply edited out manually, you won't get a notification.) HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:01, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing Thanks! Bernhard.rulla (talk) 16:06, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

@Bernhard.rulla Are you also aware that you can add any article that you are particularly interested in (whether you have edited it or not) by adding it to your WATCHLIST, either temporarily or permanently? Nick Moyes (talk) 16:26, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Incorrect article title

Thomas Fagan Wallace - the article is actually about Thomas Wallace Fagan. I cannot find any guidance as to what to do when an article title is incorrect. Jimnick8 (talk) 08:12, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Jimnick8, I've moved the article as you request. I note that it cites only two sources, one of which gives a 404 message. A couple more sources are needed to establish that Fagan is notable.   Maproom (talk) 08:45, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Conflict of interest.

I invented a new script acclaimed by all who came to know of it. It is free for all, including the font. It is a unique one with many advanced features. To avoid its extinction I started site: bharathibyramchand.wordpress.com Now I tried to write an article about it in Wikipedia, so that the world must not lose a good script. But, I being the inventor of the script there is conflict of interest. So, I am not in a position to publish the article. I would like someone else to take up the work. Bharathi, A New Script. Sreejit TK Ramchand (talk) 10:23, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Sreejit TK Ramchand Hello and welcome. You may make a request at Requested Articles, but that is severely backlogged. However, even if you did, I think it's highly unlikely your creation would merit a Wikipedia article at this time. Wikipedia is not free webspace for preserving your creations; to merit an article, independent reliable sources must on their own choose to write about your work and its significance or importance, which we call notability. 331dot (talk) 10:40, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Sreejit TK Ramchand, you had already asked about this matter. -- Hoary (talk) 11:26, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

You have a draft at User:Sreejit TK Ramchand/sandbox. It has a tremendous number of hyperlinks to content you have created at Commons, and lists as references the book you have written. HOWEVER, unless other people are publishing evaluations of Bharathi as a script, I sincerely doubt that this has the potential to become a Wikipedia article. As for that concern about conflict of interest, as you have declared that at the Sandbox, you can submit the draft, but again, in its current form it will not be accepted. David notMD (talk) 11:47, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Sandbox article

Hi Everyone! This article for Maurice Novoa was deleted on AFD and I have been writing in again with further references more still to come. I think it should pass as is, what are your thoughts please. Don't forget to look at the talk page for details about the sources. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Australianblackbelt/sandbox Australianblackbelt (talk) 11:24, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Australianblackbelt, my thought is that you should ask Daniel, because it was Daniel who closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maurice Novoa. -- Hoary (talk) 11:30, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

COURTESY: draft is at User:Australianblackbelt/sandbox. Somewhere, deep in a Talk, you mentioned that you were a student of Novoa. Given that, you should mention the connection of your User page as a conflict of interest. David notMD (talk) 12:11, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Page Akinlolu Jekins disappeared without a trace

Hi, thanks for this. I wrote a page on Akinlolu Jekins which suddenly disappeared. I do not find it in my history, neither do I see a notification it was marked for deletion or moved. When I initially created it, someone deleted it, and upon review, it was restored because the article met all notability criteria and had other editors working on it. How do I find the article, and I'd like to know what happened to it. Pshegs (talk) 12:47, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Pshegs Hello and welcome. Akinlolu Jekins was deleted per the result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Akinlolu Jekins. You can see what happened to an article even if it doesn't exist by clicking a link to it(such as the one I placed here). The Deletion log can also be searched. 331dot (talk) 12:50, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Can also ask the deleting Admin for an undelete to draft if you believe ( and show evidence) that the article can be improved. David notMD (talk) 15:40, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Without more sources, less is best?

I'm trying to create a page for an educational charity Professors Without Borders. It has been declined because it isn't adequately supported by reliable sources. OK, I can definitely see why. However, when there aren't numerous secondary sources, should I try to cover less material to cut down on citing primary sources?

I'm not looking for something exact but I'd appreciate a rule of thumb or rough % of what sources can be primary vs secondary. For instance this page Victorian Military Society 3 of the 4 citations on this page are primary.

Thanks! Twischr (talk) 12:53, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for asking the question Twischr. The most pithy way to explain it is contained at the page WP:42, which is to say that a topic may be considered suitable for a stand-alone article if there is enough independent, reliable sources of information to build a reasonable-length article around. The terms "secondary" and "primary" sources aren't the right ones to use here, as you are using them, they are "independent" and "non-independent" (or self-published) sources. Secondary and primary refers to something different. It's not that you need to remove all of the self-published sources; that is irrelevant here. It's that the self-published sources cannot be used as an indicator of notability. What there needs to be is that there is enough independently-written text about the subject to demonstrate notability. The article draft is declined because of that lack of independently-written source text. There's not much you can do if the source text doesn't exist. If it does, use it to expand the article and cite it. If it doesn't exist, then it doesn't exist. That's not a fixable problem. --Jayron32 13:43, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Nick Grant article creation

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi! My name is Gujesta and I'm new on here and was trying to create an article about a notable musician with good sources and references. He is established in the music business since 2010s going by the name Nick Grant. When I was trying to create this article in the draft a notice was shown. In November 2022, NinjaRobotPirate deleted the page (G5: Created by a banned or blocked user in violation of ban or block) Can you help with this? Gujesta (commons) (talk) 13:51, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

@Gujesta (commons): Hello Gujesta! Could you possibly be a bit more specific with what it says when you attempt to create the draft? ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 13:57, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

@Blaze Wolf:: It was deleted in November through G5. Gujesta (commons) (talk) 13:59, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

@Gujesta (commons): Since you're unable to create it that might mean the page was WP:SALTed, or creation protected. @NinjaRobotPirate: pinging the deleting administrator so they could possibly explain why it was creation protected (they don't have to share who the sock was per WP:DENY tho) ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:01, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

@Gujesta (commons) The deletion discussion seems to be WP:Articles_for_deletion/Nick_Grant back in 2008. There may well be better sources now. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:30, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Oh! Not your Nick Grant, as the 2008 one was an athlete/boxer not a musician.... Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:32, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

This page was deleted through G5: Created by a banned or blocked user in violation of ban or block. Gujesta (commons) (talk) 14:37, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to be creation protected. @Gujesta (commons), what help are you looking for? Do you want a copy of the deleted draft? 199.208.172.35 (talk) 15:02, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

OP blocked as a sockpuppet by the aforesaid ninja robot pirate admin. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 15:24, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Questions missing

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Teahouse § Questions missing

 – —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:18, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I just typed some questions and clicked publish but I don't see them. I don't know if I messed up something or everything is just fine Kelmaa (talk) 13:59, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I will retype the two questions:

1. I created a draft of the tallest man in Ghana but the one editor moved it to Draft:Sulemana Abdul Samed. Does that mean my article was wrong and what would I need to do? Also, is it possible to add a tag requesting for interested editors to help make improvements of the article while it is still a draft or once it's live?
2. Late last year, I submitted a Draft:Panto sunglasses that was reviewed and declined by User:Storchy. I made some improvements then requested the user to review and may be tell me where I need to improve. I realized the user was blocked. I am here wondering if another editor would review my draft of since Storchy was blocked, it will remain as a draft.

Thank you. Kelmaa (talk) 14:08, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

@Kelmaa Your contribution history shows no relevant prior content, so I guess you did mess up. You've made it a bit worse, I'm afraid, by posting here on the Talk Page for the Teahouse (which is for discussion about how the Teahouse operates) rather than on the correct page WP:TEAHOUSE. Your question (2) is easily answered: it is in the queue for re-review and someone will get to it in due course: please just be patient. It is irrelevant that an earlier reviewer is now blocked. For (1), the move was done because we name biographies after the person, not their achievements. Again, you need to wait until it is reviewed to see what WP:AFC reviewers think. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:18, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Incidentally, Draft:Sulemana Abdul Samed is likely to be accepted since there has been lots of publicity about him recently: I even saw some on the BBC website. However, you need to remove the part about him being mentioned in Wikipedia's list as that's a WP:CIRCULAR reference. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:26, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I also saw his story on BBC's Facebook page and when I googled his name, I realized there's no much about him on Wikipedia. By creating a short article, I think it will give a platform for other editors to contribute more about him, with time. I will remove the part as you suggested. Thank you for answering. Kelmaa (talk) 14:33, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

@Kelmaa: This is the talk page for the Teahouse and is not the appropriate venue to ask your questions. I will move this to the actual project page. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:18, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Autoconfirmed

How do I become autoconfirmed? CoolWikipedianDude (talk) 15:02, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

CoolWikipedianDude Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You are autoconfirmed when your account is four days old and has 10 edits or more. If there is an article you wish to edit but cannot because you are not autoconfirmed, you may make an edit request(click for instructions) on the article talk page, detailing the edit you want to make. If you want to create a new article, you may write a draft at WP:AFC, but I would highly recommend that you first edit existing articles, as well as use the new user tutorial to first learn more about Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 15:05, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Ok, thank you so much!

CoolWikipedianDude (talk) 15:06, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Are Crime Statistics Demographics?

I feel like I'm going crazy. A significant number of US city articles have crime statistics in the Demographics sections. Demography is the study of populations, not a catch-all term for statistics. Does anyone else find it strange? Or am I the one misunderstanding what Demographics are? some examples Sativa Inflorescence (talk) 15:50, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Sativa Inflorescence, demographics is "the statistical study of populations, especially human beings". It's human beings that do crimes, so it's reasonable to regard crime statistics as a field of demographics. Maproom (talk) 16:21, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Statistical study of populations not crime. Populations are not represented in crime statistics. Crimes are. You could extrapolate populations from crime stats, but that would be circular logic when the statistics are already reliant on accurate demographic data.

Compare the religious demographic data to the crime stats. With religious demographic data, you have percentages of the population, or just the number of people within the population. eg 75% of a city belongs to religion X. With crime statistics you have the numbers and rates of reported criminal acts. From that data, you can estimate populations like the percentage of the population that has been a victim of assault within the last 5 years. But that's not what any of these statistics do. Instead, it's things like Assaults/robberies/rapes per year. And of course murders per year, which I suppose you can count the deceased as a population if you'd like. Sativa Inflorescence (talk) 18:11, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

@Sativa Inflorescence If you want to discuss this further, I suggest you look at WP:USCITIES, which is the guideline for content on US cities agreed by the relevant Project: as far as I can see it doesn't specifically mention where crime stats should be placed. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:32, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that's because I removed it from the Demographics section in that guide. Its legacy clearly remains. Sativa Inflorescence (talk) 17:52, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

How to suppress an infobox

In Fort Mitchell, Florida, created today, there is an infobox another editor put in. As you will see, it contributes nothing, and rather than deleting their work I tried putting < ! - - and - - > around it, but that produced garbage. Suggestions? Thank you. deisenbe (talk) deisenbe (talk) 16:03, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Fort Mitchell, Florida.   deisenbe, there are html comments inside that infobox. So your start-of-comment will have been matched with the first end-of-comment in the infobox, leaving the rest of the infobox as apparent garbage. Maproom (talk) 16:15, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Since the infobox has no useful information and is probably slightly wrong since it has unit_pref = metric, one could just delete the entire infobox template on that page. It's easy enough to re-insert the template and populate if in the future it's desired. Skynxnex (talk) 16:20, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Raylaur15/sandbox

Could someone please tell me exactly where I can find a template fora banner/box for the music I am writing about at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Raylaur15/sandbox thanks, raylaur15 2603:7000:8106:B298:B1BD:E509:62B7:23A9 (talk) 16:06, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello IP editor, and welcome to the Teahouse. Whether a single artist or a group, the most useful template would probably be {{Infobox musical artist}}. You don't need to use every field in the template, and the page includes documentation and examples to help you. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 16:16, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Raylaur15, don't forget to log in as you edit the article or your contribution history will become muddled.... Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:20, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Mike. I figured out the Infobox and am now logged on.

Raylaur15 Raylaur15 (talk) 21:17, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

PROD Patrollers

How do I join the PROD Patrol? CoolWikipedianDude (talk) 16:32, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Please visit Wikipedia:WikiProject Proposed deletion patrolling. There is a list you can add your name to if you wish, but you may simply begin patrolling. 331dot (talk) 16:34, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Proposed deletion patrolling#Participants. You may add your name to the list. Sarrail (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I didn't even know that was a thing until now. I'm a bit confused as to what it's for though... ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:40, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Please help me improve an edit that was reverted

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sabbath&diff=1131914432&oldid=1131847954

I included many direct quotes to the Quran(and direct links). Please help me improve my edit. 70.186.178.108 (talk) 16:41, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. Are you NicholasPaulIoannisXenakis? Please remember to log in.

It looks to me as if your edit contained a lot of material which was not relevant to the article, and the "English" of the translations was nothing like English. If you think that the material should be inserted, please open a discussion on the article's talk page. See WP:BRD. ColinFine (talk) 18:23, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

January 2023

how to make ip address page of info. 37.231.219.93 (talk) 18:15, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello IP user, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid I don't understand what you are asking. Please explain more clearly. ColinFine (talk) 18:18, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I believe they mean, ⁣"How To Make A User-Page with My IP address (37.231.219.93)" I'm Following The Username Policy (talk) 21:54, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Merging page

I think this page, Should be merged into the already existing disambiguation page, But the page is long dead, (Last edit 2012) So I doubt people would respond to be discussion for merge, should I? I'm Following The Username Policy (talk) 19:20, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I've run into this problem a few times. I do think that you should bring it up on the talk page (you never know!). You could also reach out to an experienced editor for help. Professor Penguino (talk) 21:41, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi, My boss is a scientist working for Stanford, I need to upload his biography could you help me with that please

I can provide the Biography and the links of the awards that he has Irenegutie (talk) 19:42, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

@Irenegutie: You have a conflict of interest with your boss and are strongly discouraged from writing an article about him. Additionally, you are required to disclose your employer on your user page using {{paid}}. – dudhhr ^talk _contribs (he/they) 19:56, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Irenegutie, welcome to the Teahouse. After reviewing WP:PAID and making the appropriate disclosures, you will want to take a look at Help:Your first article to start learning about Wikipedia's requirements when it comes to creating articles. Note 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. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Lastly, Teahouse Hosts are here to advise on how to create and edit Wikipedia content, but not to serve as authors or co-authors. See List of Stanford University people for examples of existing articles about Stanford faculty. David notMD (talk) 20:22, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps related: #Hi I need to upload a biography of someone in Science, can you please help me? casualdejekyll 21:24, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello Irenegutie. Your boss may want to read Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. I would not want an article on an online encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Karenthewriter (talk) 22:48, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Revert the photograph

Hello, I ask you to help revert the photograph "Igreja Matriz de Coari" (http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ficheiro:Igreja_da_Matriz_de_Coari.jpg), from the article of the municipality of Coari, Amazonas in Brazil (http:// pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coari). The entire authorization request process was carried out, already authorized by the author of the work and a copy was sent to permission-commons-pt@wikipedia, by the author Bernados Reis bernardocinegrafista@ on December 11, 2022. Williamferreiraam (talk) 19:52, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Williamferreiraam, welcome to the Teahouse on English Wikipedia. For issues on pt Wikipedia, you will need to contact someone on that project; they seem to have an equivalent to the Teahouse at this link. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 19:54, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

How to avoid a plagiarism challenge

Article: Kingsley Plantation The paragraph beginning "Two clubs were constructed" was taken verbatim from the reference cited there. I have plagiarized a public domain source, but would like to know what to do so that I don't get caught by an automated checker. deisenbe (talk) 20:05, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

nowiki removed to fix the wikilink – dudhhr ^talk _contribs (he/they) 20:07, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

@Deisenbe: I have placed a {{Source-attribution}} template inside the <ref> tag, after the citation. – dudhhr ^talk _contribs (he/they) 20:11, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

i would like to become an administrator

i would like to become an administrator Prettycurefan75 (talk) 21:27, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Hey Prettycurefan75, I'd point to WP:NOTNOW. The warning on your talk page and 36 mainspace edits are questionable. Thanks. Silikonz (alt)💬 21:29, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. You may wish to nominate yourself at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nominate, but I'm afraid that you only have 41 edits, which points to what Silikonz-alt linked to: WP:NOTNOW. Sarrail (talk) 21:31, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Prettycurefan75 (ec) Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I will need to say that your chances of becoming an admin at this time are probably close to zero. Your edit history is very brief and doesn't show that you participate in areas where giving you the admin tools would help Wikipedia. Note that you can do probably 95% of tasks here without the administrator tools- which don't give you any more authority than any other editor. I would suggest that you participate in areas like Articles for Deletion discussions or other areas where giving you the admin tools could help any work you do there; if you do that for a substantial time(likely at least a year, if not longer) members of the community will notice your work and nominate you. I suggest you read over all the information at WP:RFA as well as the advice page for users interested in being an admin- but it's going to be awhile before you would have a chance at convincing the community you should have the tools. 331dot (talk) 21:33, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Becoming an administrator is usually a job for experienced users -- many on Wikipedia are still able to operate without admin tools. Being an admin is a lot of hard work, too. I myself stick to regular editing. Professor Penguino (talk) 21:38, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship, successful applicants on average have a history of more than 10,000 edits over years of productive services (AfCs, AfD, NPP, etc.) David notMD (talk) 21:40, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

@Prettycurefan75:, if you are interested in the mop, you should thoroughly read Wikipedia guidelines first and as other contributors have mentioned, participate in discussions such as Articles for Deletion. Receiving administrative tools is not just asking for it and expecting to receive it; instead the community decides if you are worthy of tools and will use the tools responsibly based on your contributions to Wikipedia. In my opinion, WP:TASKS is a great way to start. Besides, getting these tools is no big deal. --Harobouri • 🎢 • 🏗️ (he/him) 23:07, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Vietnam Army Page

Hey, if anyone is up to the task, there is next to nothing about Vietnam's Ground Forces. Could someone more skilled than me pls correct this? Faithful15 (talk) 00:12, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Hey faithful15, and welcome to the Teahouse! I say that an editor, regardless of skill, has the ability to make an article! If you really don't want to make the article , you cn request it at WP:AFC, although that is severely backlogged. Best, Justyouraveragelechuga ^{talk contribs} 00:58, 7 January 2023 (UTC)