How to work on this issue "This biographical article is written like a résumé."
Hi, I am trying to create this biography page of Wibool Piyawattanametha. I have followed the format of these ( Feng Zhang and Olav Solgaard) previously published pages from wikipedia. However, I am having some issues with the format. How is this article considered as a resume although I have followed the same format of those 2 pages. Please provide some suggestions and advice on the necessary steps I need to follow in order to publish the page! Thank you! I would appreciate your advices. Aayushma Sharma (talk) 08:10, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Aayushma Sharma: disregard my question about paid editing. I see your post now where you say I am a student of Prof. Wibool. Many editors would still consider that a conflict of interest on Wikipedia. If you check out the link posted by 331dot, it describes something called a "request". No matter how closely affiliated you are, you are still always welcome to use the {{request edit}} template to update his page.
Additionally regarding looking for examples, Wikipedia has two tiers of peer review. The lower tier (WP:Good Articles) are reviewed usually by a single editor, and the higher tier (WP:Featured Articles) are reviewed by a group of editors against a stricter standard. Here the links for biologist biographies that have been reviewed at each of those levels:
Note that even as a student they could still be receiving compensation(a better grade, consideration for a job, etc.). 331dot (talk) 08:39, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Aayushma Sharma: the WP:COI policy page puts it like this, "You should generally refrain from creating articles about yourself, or anyone you know, living or dead, unless through the Articles for Creation process. If you have a personal connection to a topic or person, you are advised to refrain from editing those articles directly and to provide full disclosure of the connection if you comment about the article on talk pages or in other discussions. Requests for updates to an article about yourself or someone with whom you have a personal connection can be made on the article's talk page by following the instructions at WP:COIREQ." Rjjiii (talk) 14:50, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Rjjiii! I want some help regarding the article I am editing currently. Since I am still not so familiar with the wikipedia's policies and guidelines I would like to ask for help. Could you please help me to edit the article because I have tried my best to make it in neutral point of view. With that being said, I wanted further advice and suggestions in order to remove this template - "This biographical article is written like a résumé."
I would like to submit this article in order to get it published but first I have to edit the article according to the attached templates and remove those from the article itself. However, in order to do so I need some help from the editors. I tried asking for help with Gråbergs Gråa Sång and Cordless Larry but they might be too busy because they have not replied to my concerns yet. That is why I am here to ask for help! Many thanks for your time. Aayushma Sharma (talk) 13:46, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Published just means visible and searchable for all readers. That article already is "published" in the Wikipedia sense. Regarding, the problem templates, you should address the sourcing first. At a glance, I still see several "citation needed" tags. When I was looking through the sources, I noticed that they all seemed connected to the subject, either written by him or by an institution he was affiliated with. The article will be eventually deleted unless you find some (3 is usually taken as the minimum number) reliable, secondary sources, that discuss the article's subject beyond just mentioning him. And finally, you personally should not remove the COI tags given you are a student of Wibool Piyawattanametha. Once you resolve the sourcing, you'll need to find an editor with no connection to go through the article and check it out. If you do get everything ironed out, use the request template to make updates and correction in the future, or someone will the COI tag back. Rjjiii (talk) 19:01, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Articles about academics are particularly prone to coming across like résumés, in my experience. This might be because an academic can meet the notability criteria set out by WP:NACADEMIC by having lots of citations, etc., without much having been written about them as a person. So whereas we'd base most biographies on summarising what secondary sources say about the subject, those sources are often lacking for academics, leaving just a list of their achievements. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:18, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Aayushma Sharma Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. It's preferred to refer to the content of the encyclopedia as articles, not "pages" which has a broader meaning. Though it sounds like it might be, it is not always a good idea to use any random article as a model or guide, please see other stuff exists. It could be that these other articles are also inappropriate and you would be unaware of this. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible to get inappropriate content past us. We can only address what we know about. If you want to use other articles as a model, use those classified as good articles, which have been vetted by the community.
Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about someone and their accomplishments(that's why your article was tagged as looking like a resume). An article about a person must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the person, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. Sources should describe what they see as important or signficant or influential about the person, not merely describe their accomplishments.
An example of "reads like resume" is including stuff like "Invited to be on a Plenary Session on Ethics in Science Communication at the World Science Forum, Budapest, Hungary." and " Senior Member Status" under "Awards and honors". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:56, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Gråbergs Gråa Sång could you please check the page again. I have made some edits onto the education and honors section. Since the status itself is a "Senior Member Status" I believe that is already in neutral point of view because I am not promoting any awards but listing the particular name of the award. Thanks. I appreciate your response. Aayushma Sharma (talk) 11:37, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Should this character list be formatted in a table?
I'm currently copyediting this article. As I've observed, some of the character descriptions go on for a few paragraphs and have no citations, while some of them are too short (one sentence long, to be precise). Would it be completely fine to format the character list into a simple table with basic summaries? Thanks, TarantulaTM (speak with me) (my legacy) 04:13, 7 July 2023 (UTC).[reply]
@TrademarkedTarantula: It's looking good! A quick glance back at the history shows how much more usable the Table of Contents has become. Also, those dark grey blocks in the "Miyagi-Verse" section should probably have something like ''none'' as their contents. Rjjiii (talk) 07:25, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've drafted and submitted an article for the sandbox. With assistance from the Response Team, I moved the text to the Draft page and made some corrections. That page reads "Editing Draft: History News Service." "Edit Source" is underlined toward the top on the upper right. I'm told that I have only to hit the "Submit for Review" button. But I don't see such a button anywhere. All that I see is a button at the bottom that says "Publish changes." In short, I'm stuck. What must I do to submit the piece for review? Jmbanner35 (talk) 14:19, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Publish changes" should be understood to mean "save", it does not mean "publish this to the encyclopedia". I have added the appropriate information to your draft to submit it, this is provided automatically if you create drafts via WP:AFC. Please read conflict of interest as well. 331dot (talk) 14:27, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, I'm nervous about hitting a single button! So how/where do I find the "appropriate information" you've added to my draft? Simply hit the "reload current page" on my browser, or go to some link that you can provide? And will I find a place before submitting the piece to indicate my consideration of conflict of interest issues? Gratefully. Jmbanner35 (talk) 14:37, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, now I see. It now says "Submit the draft for review." But one problem: I can't seem to change the font size of Note 5. Also, is there any place where I can acknowledge the possible issues regarding conflict of interest--that, necessarily, I have to be the author and submitter of a piece about an organization that I co-founded? Jmbanner35 (talk) 15:01, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed up the formatting a bit and added a References section at the bottom. If place your references in the body of the article using our standard format - see Help:Referencing for beginners - they will automatically appear in the bottom section (due to the {{reflist}} template I placed there). 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:07, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My great thanks for your tweeks and the suggestion about a disclosure statement. But 1)I can't find an example of one to use as a model and 2) I don't know where I should add it to the text you've been kind enough to edit. I don't want to submit it until I get your advice on that score for fear of jeopardizing the submission. So can you help me there, too? Jmbanner35 (talk) 16:36, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmbanner35, I gave you an example in my first post. There's also an example at the page I linked, WP:COIDISCLOSE - it's in the box labeled UserboxCOI template. Another option is to click the blue link here - {{UserboxCOI}} - and read the Usage section. You need to add it to your user page, User:Jmbanner35. I can't do it for you since user pages are protected against IP edits (though someone with an account may volunteer to help).
I see you like to use the Visual Editor, which tends to insert <nowiki> tags in unhelpful places. Remove them if they pop up (or, again, perhaps someone will come along to do it for you if they appear). 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:44, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On my user page, I have taken care of the grounds for anyone's misconstrual of my authorship of the piece as a conflict of interest. But you've confused me with your re-do of the footnote, and I can't figure out how to return it to its original place and form. Might you restore it so that I can, even in this perhaps defective footnoting style, submit the piece? A novice, I don't want to take risks; but also, like you, a busy man, I want to get it off my desk and in the works. Jmbanner35 (talk) 17:17, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand. Mike Turnbull fixed the reference to show you how it should look. If you submit the draft with the references in their current state, it may well be declined. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk]13:21, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Publish changes button? Issues with it have been brought up more than once, but apparently it was an "above our heads" type of decision (see relevant help desk post for background and links to more background). 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:32, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Edward-Woodrow The decision to have the button say "publish changes" was made by the Foundation and its lawyers, I think, in order to emphasize that all edits to Wikipedia are public. 331dot (talk) 17:47, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Once I get a reply about the errant footnote from Mike Turnbull and correct it, should I then just hit the "Submit the draft for review" prompt? Jmbanner35 (talk) 18:36, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jmbanner35, I highly recommend that you convert your references into proper inline references before submitting your draft. This makes things much easier for reviewers. To any experienced editor, your references appear to be a confusing mess. Please read Referencing for beginnersCullen328 (talk) 18:46, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jmbanner35, you have not fixed your references. You have numbered them manually. Properly formatted inline references are numbered and displayed by the software, and readers can navigate back and forth from the content to the references with just a click. Please take care of this. It is important. Cullen328 (talk) 20:21, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Click this button!The references are not properly formatted, as the reviewer and Cullen328 commented. Do not just type numbers in square brackets, like this: [4]. If you are using the VisualEditor, click the "Cite" button, and it will help you generate and edit a reference. Proper references look like this [1]. I strongly suggest you use the Visual Editor, which, besides being easier to use, allows you to generate references based on a URL. We want to help you, but you can't ignore this problem. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk]20:38, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My thanks. But after all this, the piece was at least temporarily rejected on substantive grounds. For the moment, I toss in the towel. Jmbanner35 (talk) 13:45, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
References
^Meshew, Catherine. "Scolopendra gigantea". Animal Diversity Web. Archived from the original on 20 Mar 2023. Retrieved 2023-06-03.
Should article title terms be bolded in a note in the lede?
The bolding in the draft as it currently is looks correct to me. As a note however, you shouldn't be emailing organizations to find out their preferred name. Not only is it pointless since it's not verifiable, the title of articles (and in fact everything in them) should be supported by what reliable sources are saying. WP:OFFICIAL titles are often not the proper ones for articles. See WP:TITLES for more info. WPscattert/c20:39, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
QuickQuokka it'd be much easier if companies kept the same name everywhere, but they rarely do.
Their official website URL company name, their website/logo company name, their official Companies House company name (I'm not sure what other countries use to check companies), and the name they call themselves in standard text, rarely match as I've found out from years of adding/correcting companies on IMDB.
A few months ago I updated a lot of Bollywood films which had filmed in the UK, and practically every company (mainly hotels from what I remember) had a different name to what they were actually called. And no it wasn't because the hotels had got new owners and changed their names since the films came out, although there were a few of those cases.
And sometime in the last month or two, on a production I can't remember, I spent hours/days searching for companies to find out what they were really called, because they were credited with their official names which were all completely different to what they were actually called on their logo, website, and in general. Danstarr69 (talk) 10:57, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i need a wikipedia editor who can make our wikipedia.
i want to get my wikipedia page made, i am a youtuber. i have 0 clue about how this wikipedia works. please help. i have been scammed alot by fake wikipedia editors alot. Dilrajsinghmih (talk) 04:57, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Dilrajsinghmih An article about you has already been deleted more than once following this discussion. It seems very unlikely anyone will want to assist you create another version, unless there are now many decent sources of information about you that could be used. If there are, please list them here in this thread. Mike Turnbull (talk) 08:31, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
hi Mike ,
so basically , i am a youtuber from india. my channel is "Mr. Indian Hacker" and i have over 31 million subscribers on Youtube. since i am an independent creator, i never knew about wikipedia and knowledge panel. recently i got to know about it from fellow creators, so i want to make mine also.
I don't know why i am blacklisted and why my articles were deleted, i don't even know who made my wikipedia. I really need help.
To authenticate that i am the geniune, you can drop me a text on my instagram account that is - Dilraj_Singh_Rawat. Just let me know your instagram username too. Dilrajsinghmih (talk) 12:16, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Dilrajsinghmih, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid that, like many people, you have a fundamentally wrong idea about what Wikipedia is.
First, nobody in the entire universe "has a Wikipedia page". People sometimes use that expression loosely, but unfortunately it suggests that the subject in some way owns the article: they don't. If there is ever an article about you, it will not belong to you, it will not necessarily say what you want it to say, and it will be based almost entirely on what people wholly unconnected with you have published about you, not on what you or your associates want to say. It may not contain any promotional content.
Wikipedia is basically not interested in how many subscribers you have, or how famous or popular you are, but only on whether or not you meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability - and unless those independent reliable sources about you exist, you will not do so. ColinFine (talk) 14:46, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
...Need a Admin to move everything from User:Unfriendly Aliens to User:Nuclear Sergeant. I attempted to log on here, got thrown out by a bad pass code on the former user page repeatedly. This is NO sock at all. Can the old User:Unfriendly Aliens page, etc. be deleted so that no one will have to worry about socks, worse? Thanks.Nuclear Sergeant (talk) 06:37, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Nuclear Sergeant, and welcome to the Teahouse. If you forgot or had problems with your password on your previous account (which you created on 6th July), you did the right thing by starting this new account and simply linking the two pages together on their respective userpages. We don't need to merge them together now, so, providing you never use the other account at the same time (that's called sockpuppetry), there's nothing else we need to do here. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 09:34, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nuclear Sergeant No, that's not possible. I'm not sure what 'funny business' you might be envisaging, but you can add those user and talk pages to your WP:WATCHLIST and be alerted by email or onsite notification if any changes are made. You can adjust what alerts/notifications you receive (and how you get them) by going to your Preferences and changing the settings there. Hope this helps, Nick Moyes (talk) 11:44, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Read something called Compsock that states that, in my situation, I can have a Admin put a permablock on the old account. How can I have that done? Thanks 😘🥰 Nuclear Sergeant (talk) 11:41, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your old account is not important enough for anyone to worry about, nor has it been compromised, per WP:COMPSOCK. Just leave it, and proceed with using your new account. Nick Moyes (talk) 11:46, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Depiping tool
Is there any tool that can be used to plug in and modify a given example of a piped internal link across pages, such as those that might have changed or need redirecting due to a page move, split or other change that affects page navigation? Iskandar323 (talk) 08:48, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think I need a bit more explanation here. Are we saying Page X got moved to Page Y, and you're trying to fix links that are [[Page X|Page Y]] to be [[Page Y]]?
Hi, I'm not sure if they actually conflict? There seem to be two articles covering two different uses of the term "civil", one as the opposite of "criminal" and the other as the opposite of "common law". The Scottish article says that the English & Welsh court is civil as opposed to criminal (presumably making the point that it's different to the Scottish court, which is both criminal and non-criminal-civil). The English & Welsh article says the court is civil in the sense of not common-law, and then describes the Scottish court as having both criminal and non-criminal (civil) responsibilities. I'm no lawyer, but as far as that goes, it makes sense as English language. Am I missing the point? If I am, feel free to boldly change the links! Elemimele (talk) 12:52, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, Elemimele. It is elementary in the study of law in England and Wales (and no doubt other countries) that there are two completely seperate meanings for "civil law", as you have sketched. ColinFine (talk) 14:48, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is Golf With Your Friends Worth Getting?
I saw Ssundee, Zud, Biffle, etc. playing it on YouTube, and I thought it might be fun to play. My birthday is coming up, so I was wondering if it is worth getting. Marble Gamerz YT (talk) 13:42, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This page is for questions about editing Wikipedia. We cannot provide opinions, and people's opinions will be different anyway. This is a question more suited to a social media site at which you might find people more familiar with this game. Shantavira|feed me14:19, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, an earlier uw-chat1 notice actually suggested that If you have questions or ideas and are not sure where to post them, consider asking at the Teahouse.Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs16:34, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It received a 9/10 on Steam, 70% on OpenCritic, and a 6/10 on Nintendo Life, and 91% of Google users liked it. From the Wikipedia page: Golf with Your Friends received "mixed or average" reviews, according to review aggregatorMetacritic. The game scored a 9 out of 10 from Lyle Carr of GodIsAGeek.com. J. Brodie Shirey of Screen Rant gave the game four stars out of maximum five, "Excellent". While he admitted Golf with Your Friends might have "minor faults", he described the game as "fun" and "colorful". Richard Dobson of The Xbox Hub sent out a 3.5-star review. A.J. Maciejewski wrote a review at Videochums.com based on his knowledge of the Xbox One version, rating 4.9 points of possible 10 to the game. So... maybe if you like golf? Try asking on Quora next time. Chamaemelum (talk) 07:18, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draft:Laura Cazzaniga
Hi,
I don't understand why they say there is a lack of realable sources when there are plenty of sources. I looked at pages of other authors where they only put 2 sources. I put a lot of sources because they were telling me they were missing. From my point of view there are too many and I would put a third.
"Too much of the content is unreferenced" What's content?
They also asked me: "Not clear how you pass WP:NARTIST?"
Derivadeb Hello and welcome. Please note that while not forbidden, it is highly discouraged for people to write about themselves, please read the autobiography policy. This is in part because people naturally write favorably about themselves, and Wikipedia strives for a neutral point of view.
"Content" refers to the text of the draft itself. All information in the draft needs to have a citation to a reliable source. "WP:NARTIST" is Wikipedia jargon to provide a link to the special Wikipedia definition of a notable artist.
Any article about you should primarily summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage choose on their own to say about you, showing how you meet that special notability definition. The draft should not merely describe your work and accomplishments, it should tell what others consider to be important or significant or influential about you and your work.
Please also note that the existence of other articles has little relevance to your draft. It could be that these other articles you have seen are also inappropriate and simply have not been dealt with yet by a volunteer. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inappropriate articles to get by us. We can only deal with what we know about. If you want to use other articles as a model or guide, use those classified as good articles. 331dot (talk) 13:51, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
thanks for your reply.
Really don't understand why you say me that I'm writing about mysef, when that's not true.
If you read what I write about the artist there is only the description of how she works; nothing else.
To edit the article, I looked at more than one entry on contemporary artists. I can assure you that I carefully observed their writing to stick to the standards.
With respect to my article, since I was asked, I added a lot of sources covering articles published in the national and international press, as well as published books. This is not the description or a resume about the artist, rather these references are indicative of the artist's notoriety.
From my point of view there are far too many references, and I would yoglive more than half of them, but since I am continually chioesto add new ones it is impossible for me to figure out what kind of summary to affix to the article.
It is not helpful to accuse me of writing about myself or to throw a work done with dedication into the trash.
Derivadeb As pointed out by a draft reviewer, you said "I'm know as Laura Cazzaniga and Laura Pinta Cazzaniga". Perhaps this was a language misinterpretation. Do you know her personally?
Let's simplify this a little. What are your three absolute best sources that give Laura Cazzaniga significant coverage and describe what makes her important? 331dot (talk) 14:29, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was tired, and I did an error. I also write about her in third person.
Ok, will put only the 3 best sources.
In any case I notice that you pay more attention to an error than to content. So, the impression is that you are more open to censoring an article than to reading and constetualizing a person's work.
Hello, Derivadeb, and welcome to the Teahouse. The bit you are missing is 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.
Your draft says, for example, Her research is developed in the field of Installation art and Site-specific art. Which reliable published source, wholly unconnected with Cazzaniga, has said this about her? (Not herself, her agent, her teacher, her professional association, or a gallery that exhibits her work, but somebody entirely unconnected). If the answer is 'none', then a non-neutral statement like that does not belong in the article. ColinFine (talk) 14:55, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
About: Her research is developed in the field of Installation art and Site-specific art. Which reliable published source, wholly unconnected with Cazzaniga, has said this about her?
it seems more appropriate to me to put the sources after explaining her work in totality, at the end of the career paragraph.
As for art practice, normally it is the work that speaks; whether it is installation or site-specific art can be seen from the photos of the works that accompany the sources. If anyone does not know what installation art is, wikipedia explains it well. Derivadeb (talk) 16:32, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I say this because there are several articles that talk about her work (of an installation; a site-specific art intervention or action). So, it seems absurd to me to have to put after "Her research is developed in the field of Installation art and Site-specific art" a whole slew of articles, whereas I could point to these articles as I talk about some of her works. Derivadeb (talk) 16:39, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Derivadeb How to properly source content lesson 1.
When you've added a piece of information on a specific subject, like a single sentence, or a single paragraph, add a reference to prove what it says in that sentence/paragraph.
Make sure the cursor is after the full stop, press cite, paste in the link, then press generate, then press insert.
Now, click on the reference you've just added to make sure everything is filled in correctly, as some websites put things in the wrong places, plus a lot of websites don't add all the relevant pieces of information.
What needs to be checked and filled in?
Name of the website
Title which is the title of the article in the link
URL access date which is the date you added the link
Source date which is the date the link was written (if it has one)
First name and Last name which are the first and last names of the person who wrote the article (if there is one)
Language which normally isn't needed, unless the language isn't English.
How to properly source lesson 2.
If a reference can't be created automatically, then add it manually. How do you do that?
After you've pressed Cite, you then press Manual, click on the type of reference you're using (I always use website 99% of the time, even when I'm adding a book, journal or news story), then fill in the relevant boxes. For example, if the link is for a ebook, then you'll need to add things that you wouldn't normally add for a website like Page numbers.
All of the references you've added so far can be converted to proper references by clicking on them, pressing the Convert button, then pressing the Insert button, like you normally would when adding a reference. Danstarr69 (talk) 04:06, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@QuickQuokka Hello again. I'm not sure I fully understand your questions.
In 1) I think you're asking if you can use the section on the Commons image page that shows where an image has been used to follow a link to the relevant language page to make changes to those other language articles. If that's what you mean then, absolutely yes, that's a very good way of doing things.
2) I believe AWB can be used on a number of other Wikipedias. But I very much doubt it cannot make automated global changes across different platforms at once. The spell-check function, for example, would be a nightmare. However, if you make a change to one single image on Wikimedia Commons that is used in multiple language Wikipedia articles, then that single image change will be seen on all those different Wikipedias without you ever needing to visit them. If you needed to replace the use of one image file with another, then I think you would have to visit each one, following the links in 1), above.
If you do have a very specific, practical need to work across different languages that you could explain more precisely, then you could do worse than re-ask your question at Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser. I'm afraid it's been a few years since I used AWB, and I only ever grasped a few of the basic functions! Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 20:06, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
the entry regarding this US Civil war vessel is completely inaccurate. How do I go about changing the text, please. I have already tried to log on to do this, but the article remains unchanged. *1quincey* (talk) 16:19, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@*1quincey* Welcome to the Teahouse. Your edit {see here) was reverted by an admin, User:Discospinster, as it made a very significant change to the article, and damaged it significantly by removing content and making a mess of it. We don't address concerns about an article by annotating and damaging the page itself - that's bordering on WP:VANDALISM.
The thing to do now is to go to the article's talk page and explain your concerns, citing sources that clearly show that the article has confused two vessels and await the input of other editors. The clearer and more precise you can be, and the better your sources, the more seriously will your concerns be taken. If, however, there are two notable vessels, it may be necessary to create a completely new page for the other vessel, with some clarification to help users determine which vessel is which. We use a thing called a HATNOTE for that. In future, please do not make major changes to articles like this, but alert other editors to any concerns via the Talk page tabs. I hope this helps you. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 16:29, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would very strongly refute any charge of vandalism. I was trying, to the best of my knowledge, to remove the inaccuracies inherent in the article, but since there are no clear indications as to how you do change things with articles such as this, I clearly didn't do it correctly. I would have asked for help, but until I found this particular site, I had no idea of who I should ask. Thanks *1quincey* (talk) 16:46, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@*1quincey*, you aren't being "charged" with anything. "Vandalism" is often used loosely on Wikipedia to describe any negative change to an article, and I would certainly say your edit constitutes it. But don't worry, there isn't any kind of "strike" system. As long as you learn the proper way to edit articles (see H:GS for a start) and don't continue to do it improperly, past mistakes don't count against you or anything like that. WPscattert/c17:04, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I give up. I went to the 'talk' page for the article on USS Glasgow, but all I get is page after page of bumf. Nowhere can I find a 'form' or similar, that I can use to put a question to somebody. Every time I click on something that looks useful,I am landed with yet more pages of stuff. Why is it so very difficult to find someone to talk to? *1quincey* (talk) 17:10, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've replied to your message at Talk:USS Glasgow, giving instructions on how to post your concerns. I'm sorry you're having issues figuring out Wikipedia's user interface, but unfortunately the things you're seeing "pages after pages of bumf" don't correspond to what everyone else sees so not sure where you are going wrong... Qcne(talk)18:43, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In its current form your draft would be declined as you only have a single source. It is nowhere near ready for submission to the Articles for Creation review process.
Every fact and statement in your article needs to be backed up by independent and reliable sources. This is so anyone can verify that the statements in your article are accurate and to ensure that your topic is notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. If you do not add any sources then I am afraid your article will never be accepted onto Wikipedia.ada
The easiest way to fix your article is to find reliable, independent, secondary sources that cover Diane in detail, and then summarise them in your own words. That should make up the content of your article draft. Note that the sources must be:
- Reliable: Your article should rely on strong, reliable sources that are published by reputable institutions. Primary sources can be used for basic facts (such as a date of birth), but they should be supplemented with strong secondary sources that offer analysis or interpretation.
- Independent: Your sources should be independent of the subject, for example not self-published or from the subject's own website.
- Show significant coverage: Your subject should be discussed in detail in the sources you find. The sources should provide in-depth information or analysis about the subject, going beyond basic facts or promotional material.
- From multiple places: You should find at least three separate reliable, independent, secondary sources that discuss your subject.
- Not original research: Wikipedia articles should summarise existing knowledge about a subject, not present new research. This means you should avoid drawing your own conclusions or analyses from the sources. Stick to summarising what the sources say in a neutral tone.
If you cannot find multiple, reliable, and independent sources then I am afraid that Diane would not meet the notability threshold at this time and therefore cannot have a Wikipedia article. Remember that Wikipedia is not a place for any type of self-promotion or advertisement. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia: not an advertising platform, directory, or a way to promote a subject.
Finally, please note that if you are connected in any way to Diane then you must declare your Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.
How to get signature for service hours from volunteering
For my class, we have to get service hours and my teacher said I could do Smithsonian Wikipedia Digital Volunteers. I was wondering how I would be able to get the signatures saying that I volunteered? Masonwooldridge (talk) 19:26, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if you could just share your contributions page with your teacher? This is at Special:Contributions/Masonwooldridge and would show every single edit you make, including how many bites of text you've added or removed.
There's no tool I'm aware of to show how many hours you've spent editing Wikipedia. One edit can take anything between 1 second and 1 hour to make. However, why not knock together a little spreadsheet in which you can record the times you log on and off Wikipedia to do some editing or learning. You could include a column to say what article(s) you were working on. That, together with the suggestions given above, should show very well how much effort you have made.
Furthermore, if you go to your userpage and click the 'Homepage' tab (try this link), you'll see an 'Impact' section. Once you've edited some articles, it will display the pages you have contributed to over the last 60 days that have been viewed the most. It's just indicative, but it can give us a nice way of seeing how our voluntary efforts get seen by others - even if all you've done is just swap a few commas to semi-colons! Good luck! Nick Moyes (talk) 20:25, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Vandalism Question
I've just had an encounter with an editor who was adding spam links to the top of articles. They did this about seven times in about seven minutes. I was watching their contributions page and reverting their edits as they made them. Eventually an admin saw what was happening and blocked them.
In the future, how do I attract the admin's attention when persistent bad behaviour happens?
Perhaps this would both be a suggestion as much as a query:
I am an old user recently motivated to return to small edits for grammar and other such. I find myself using Wikipedia mostly in passing unlike the past where I was wont to reference it frequently (when I created my account and), so I started taking on any obvious issues that I discovered while reading.... When I (today) attempted to add content (not my usual in the past), using my smartphone, the page (simply) refreshed but didn't seem as though it appreciated or properly evaluated my attempt to open the editing functionality. As such I'm wondering if this is a common mistake and I didn't yet find anything in this forum so perhaps I'm being redundant (as is also my tendency).
Any advice or commiserating is greatly appreciated. Cheers! P. Bunger :-) 23:02, 8 July 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aitrea (talk • contribs)
Welcome to the Teahouse, @Aitrea:. As an older user myself, I can appreciate the annoyances of when a website doesn't function as you'd expect. I use an old iPhone 5S for mobile editing and for day-to-day social media use. By way of example, Twitter, since the weekend, has been a total disaster, and I'm locked out of my account on the mobile app, but not desktop computer. Tryinig to use it on mobile is now a nightmare. TBH: My phone's touchscreen-sensitivity is not as good as I'd like, and doing complex tasks (like editing Wikipedia) does sometimes result in lost data. So you have my commiserations. I wouldn't advise using the Wikipedia app for editing - just stick with the web browser version. (I use my browser on 'desktop' mode on my phone as it works a whole lot better than in 'mobile' mode. There's a teeny-tiny link to switch modes at the very bottom of each page. It annoys me how invisble this key link is)
hi @Aitrea and welcome to the teahouse! by the way, there's also a user script you may install so you don't have to always go flick the desktop switch everytime you create a new wikipedia tab, if desktop wikipedia on mobile is more your thing. try User:Þjarkur/NeverUseMobileVersion, instructions on how to install it for your account are present there. happy editing! 💜 melecietalk - 01:37, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I can see there was an article created for Gary Wales Actor back in 2014 but then deleted due to lack of sources, I think we need to look at him again. He has won many awards now and been talked about in lots of media outlets from his latest movie RAGE. 82.34.251.200 (talk) 01:06, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have never submitted an article for consideration, yet have been experimenting within a sandbox.
On July 8th, my sandbox was nominated for speedy deletion (G11 / Promotion) and then deleted within an hour or two without discussion.
The page was never submitted for publication, nor did I intend to submit the page for publication without learning more about editing, notability, suitability, etc.
What is the most expeditious way to have my page restored so that I may, at minimum, copy and move the syntax offsite and start over at a later date?
Please note that I have left msgs on the talk pages of both the user who nominated the sandbox page for speedy deletion and the admin who removed the page, but I have not yet received any replies.
My main concern: will me syntax be permanently erased while I wait for replies from either / or the user who requested that the sandbox page be speedily removed or the admin who removed the page?
This is all troubling in light of the fact that this was an experimental page created in good faith accoring to the sandbox page description.
hi @Skate history and welcome to the teahouse! from what I know, deleted drafts are never truly deleted from the Wikipedia servers (deletion is just more akin to hiding from public, non-administrator view, and admins can also undelete them if they so choose). the usual place for deletion is over at Requests for undeletion, however these would not accept deletions for advertising criteria (and only typically undeletes for procedural deletions like stale drafts), so I believe the best course is requesting Justlettersandnumbers to undelete your draft (and maybe sent through email) by explaining why you believe the draft wasn't advertising. happy editing! 💜 melecietalk - 01:51, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
melecie, I really appreciate your response and help! Couple of follow-ups:
I can't seem to find an email address for justlettersandnumbers. Am new to this. I know my email is found on my homepage, for example, but I am not seeing a homepage for them. Any pointers as to location?
@Skate history: You can try a restoration request at WP:REFUND. However, I saw your draft and I agree it came across as a publicity piece, not an encyclopedic biography. However, I think it may be salvageable and would support restoring it, even if Justlettersandnumbers (the deleting administrator) and Bbb23 (the administrator who nominated it for deletion) disagree. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:35, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Still learning and am absolutely willing to revise in a way to remove any publicity tone. In the meantime, I am really trying to grab the syntax to use as a template for certain aspects (quotes, photo insertions, tables, etc) whether I decide to ever submit the subject of the sandbox as an article or not. I'll wait for the admins' response to my requests and then will follow your advice as to the refund route. Much appreicated! Skate history (talk) 02:45, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, ColinFine. I understand now that there is no need to try to email the deleting admin. I have left a note on their talk page and will await their reply to my request. Skate history (talk) 17:27, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I may have a COI with Northwestern University. If so, can I still edit articles related to Northwestern University, such as persons affiliated or employed by them? Chamaemelum (talk) 07:09, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How to revert multiple IP edits on different pages
I have come across an IP which has made multiple problematic edits on a couple of dozen pages. I am wondering what tools are available for me to revert them all at once. Dawkin Verbier (talk) 08:06, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Is there a quicker way than going on each page and reverting them one by one? E.g. reverting them directly from the IP's page itself. Dawkin Verbier (talk) 14:59, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Dawkin Verbier I find the easiest way is to go to the offender's contributions page and then shift-click on each article entry I intend to revert. In most browsers, that will open a new browser instance/window where their edit was made, which I can then revert and immediately close the window to return to the main contributions list ready to do the next one. If you use the same edit summary each time you revert, you can paste that in without having to retype it each time. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:57, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Dawkin Verbier, you have the rollbacker right, so you can use Writ Keeper's massrollback script. Add this line to your common.js page:
Then on a user's contribution page you should see two new menu items "Rollback selected" and "Rollback all" which will allow you to rollback a number of edits all at once. As with any use of rollback, be careful that you are using it in accordance with the rollback guidelines. CodeTalker (talk) 18:43, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Character has two different names, which one should I use?
I'm editing the Clay Kids page. A character is called Jessie on the official website and the official Facebook but she is called Jessi (without the end e) in the theme song and also in S2 E31 - "A Day in the Jessi". Which name should I use? Thank you so much! - DaClayCrew (talk) 08:15, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You can change the name as long as you provide the source. If another editor disagrees with the change and reverts it back, you should start a discussion on the article's talk page in order to not have an edit war breaking out.
Do you have a question about editing Wikipedia? This is what this page is for. If you want information about writing a resume for a banker, please use Google. Qcne(talk)12:50, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How to reach a consensus on the request to withdraw a hatnote without affecting your own comments?
This request is happening on another wiki, osrs wiki, however they follow most of the guidelines here, it is a wiki focused on a game but I think the situation is understandable and adaptable.
There are certain types of subpages that are for special and specific information, a little more oriented towards the interaction that a player can do in-game and are exposed in hatnotes in the main articles. There are some hatnotes that contain disambiguation pages, the information in all of them are as simple as data table templates that can be reflected anywhere.
Some propose removing this type of hatnote and leaving it in a section with the reflection of the tables within the main article and the redirection link.
These categories are in practice important to highlight for ordinary players, others think differently and also consider that the size of the hatnotes is too large and a waste of time at the first impact of opening the article and add that the data reflections in a section It is more informative, I think that being there they would lose interest and despite the data it does not fully demonstrate what is necessary to decide to click on the redirection to said subpage.
I would accept that they remove the hatnote only if they keep a really informative alternative in the front of the page, I had an idea to make said table hideable behind a small button at the other end of the title, however I can't find the ways to make said dropdown. I have seen that only admins can do it, and several solutions occur to me, however I cannot without the acceptance of others.
I understand that this is not a topic for Wikipedia, I don't know how to reformulate this more neutral, think of it like this, something to guide me speaking with real terms from Wikipedia in a hypothetical scenario.
Hello, I fixed my comment.But yeh, it is a talk page where there are very different opinions that can affect the reality of the desired result, I think that until now there is a way to achieve something better, but the proposed ideas are the most voted. Eliasneg (talk) 15:25, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Heimi Weiss Welcome to the Teahouse. Yes, it always does that by default unless you specify moving a page without making a redirect. It's so anyone watching or working on that page can find the article in mainspace after it has been moved. But normally, it's only the sandbox owner who works on it, so you don't really need the redirect. You can now simply edit the page and remove the redirect, and then use your sandbox for some other purpose. Hope this helps, Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 16:31, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Heimi Weiss, welcome to the Teahouse. Nick Moyes has explained it pretty much here - feel free to remove the redirect in your sandbox if you need to. Alternatively, if you want to delete the redirect, you can place {{db-user}} on the top of the page as users can request deletion of their user pages under the U1 section of the criteria for speedy deletion. In your case, because all previous versions of the contents of the page prior to the page move was written by you, you can request deletion of your user sandbox redirect if you wish to. Regards — Prodraxis {talk • contributions} (she/her) 17:08, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I created a new article for publishing. It is about a painting from Rembrandt (other picture of simular object but not the same). Now the copy of the Pupil painting has already an article as the painting of Rembrandt which it now seems, that it isn’t (I feel a bit like Assange now). That article has relevent information of that particular painting and I do not want to discredit or alter that information. I only want to merge and add new information, meaning that some of the original information should be altered to make sense for the reader, but this is not allowed (attribution = this is a very complicated political issue). Is it not better to create my own page, and refer in the excisting article to my new article with the new information…!?
A moderator is telling me to edit the original article and not to create a new, in which I agree…another moderator undid my contributions in the existing…..it is complicated.
Please advise..
A Polish Nobleman#Draft:Wladyslaw IV Vasa in Elk skin painting by Rembrandt 1637Pmnedus (talk) 17:11, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article for Matt Godden has been vandalized three times this evening. I have posted a warning on the vandal's talk page. The website won't let me undo three edits in one go. I'm prepared to manually revert it, but I'm curious if there's an easier way... WorcestershireHistorian (talk) 18:30, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is it ok to notify users that an ANI exists who would be likely to support me in an ANI, or is that seen as bad? Also, how do involved editors usually find an ANI when it's not posted about anywhere besides the noticeboard? Chamaemelum (talk) 19:21, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, got it. Thanks! Wasn't sure if that applied to ANIs. I'm also wondering how might the involved editors, who usually don't take part in those discussions, found the ANI? Chamaemelum (talk) 19:45, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Involved editors who show up at ANI likely have it on their watchlist. They may also be watchlisting your user talk page, and thus would see that you were notified of the discussion. Specifically looking at your ANI thread now, most of the editors weighing in on your case are ANI regulars (or at least have been around the block a few times before): it would be weirder if they didn't show up to the discussion. signed, Rosguilltalk19:52, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can anyone tell me what to do to get the bot's attention so Tunica molesta's stub class can be reevaluated? I can't find a template and explanations appear to be written in coder-speak - which I would say is Greek to me except I actually have a little Greek. :-) (This article is on an obscure topic with very little written on it. I think I have exhausted what sources there are - all 6 of them!) Thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:44, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
RudolfRed If I understand what I read about evaluations and how they are done, (which may not be a safe assumption), there's a bot - (isn't there always a bot?) - that notifies those that do said reevaluations that an article is requesting it. I can't find the template for it - assuming that it must exist somewhere out there in the ether... I tried contacting the various projects back in April. No joy. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:40, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per {{Cite web}}, that template is used to create citations for web sources that are not characterized by another CS1 template. Thus I would think {{Cite act}} is the correct template to use, assuming that source is indeed a legal act. WPscattert/c22:38, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinker_(boat_building) there is referenced "Stringer" which links to shipbuilding which includes "stringer" which links to a Wiktionary page where the third bullet point is what the Clinker page was referencing. Is there a way to have it when Stringer on clinker is hovered over with mouse to preview the appropriate definition from Wiktionary? Purin66 (talk) 23:32, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe so, and I'm not sure how useful that link would be anyway. A dictionary definition is quite short and it seems more convenient for readers to just add a parenthetical of the definition if necessary. I'm not sure how common it is to link to wiktionary inline like Shipbuilding does but I don't recall seeing it before. WPscattert/c23:45, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Help with photos
Help with photos?
Does anyone have a guide on adding photos to articles? I have a few articles that I have created, all about visual artists, but I am not really sure how to add photographs that are clearance free. Chainsawpunk (talk) 01:39, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Chainsawpunk Did you take the pictures of the artists yourself? if so, you are free to upload them to Wikimedia Commons and then insert them into the articles you created. Unless images have either been explicitly released under a clearly-stated Creative Commons licence which permits commercial re-use, then you may not upload them. i.e. they will be copyright of the photographer.
If you know the photographer, we do have routes that they can email in an image plus an image release form, which a volunteer team will check and upload on their behalf.
If the images are very old, they may possibly be out of copyright and can be legitimately uploaded. Each country has different rules on that, however, though it's often around 70 years, I believe. You would need to investigate.
If they are dead, one image of them may be uploaded directly into English Wikipedia (not Wikimedia Commons!) under a 'fair use rationale. i.e. they've snuffed it, so we have no way of ever getting another picture of them, so we allow just one low res copyrighted version to be made available.
If you can confirm whether the images you want to make available fall within any of the allowed categories, we can advise further on inserting them into an article. But what you can't do is simply scrape images off the internet and upload them as if they were yours to release. That would be theft. Hope this helps and makes things clearer. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 09:15, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I did not take photographs of any of the artists. Though I do have photographs of some of their works that I have taken, but I have tried that in the past and I think if it is artwork even if you take the photograph you still do not have the rights to the image?
For the following drafts & articles the artists are dead: Madame Zo, Minoru Yoshida, Jusaburō Tsujimura, and Sara Penn. None of their images would be over 70 years old. Does the fair use rationale apply for them? Does this mean I can essentially use a lo res image from the internet? Also, how do I upload an image directly to English wikipedia instead of wikimedia commons? Chainsawpunk (talk) 15:03, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
info box weirdness
Hello. Newbie here; this is my first visit to the Teahouse. I did a minor edit in an info box in Mormon missionary#Returned missionaries, and for some reason, after I published changes, the info box is now shifted to the left side of the page, instead of being on the right side with the article type wrapping around it, which is how it was before. Did I do something wrong? How can I fix this? Thanks in advance. Yesthatbruce (talk) 03:42, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yesthatbruce asking a legitimate question isn't a "bother," so there's no need to apologize. I'm glad that the info box problem seems to have resolved itself. Thanks for deciding to help out as a Wikipedia editor. Best wishes on all of your future editing projects. Karenthewriter (talk) 05:17, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Yesthatbruce Just to introduce you to a piece of Wikipedia jargon, an infobox normally refers to the formatted section top right of many articles that summarises the topic. Mormon missionary doesn't have one: it only has a simple picture where an infobox might go. You were editing within a section of the article where an {{infobox}} template had been used to create the gallery of images etc. for returned missionaries. That's a relatively unusual use of the template and I'm not surprised that was confusing! Thanks for your contributions. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:16, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Biographical stub article for a self-improvement coach
A friend and I want to have a biographical stub about our male self-improvement coach approved. Our initial attempt was deleted because we just lacked the necessary know-how about writing a credible biography with correct citations while meeting 'notability' criteria. So, we have done some reading around the Wikipedia and with more knowledge have drafted a new stub. Would anyone care to gloss over it and give advice? To facilitate such a review, where can I post the article? That would be the first useful advice! :) venzen (talk) 06:23, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Venzen, thanks for joining. You could post a link here, or create a draft for the articles for creation volunteers to look at. Chamaemelum (talk) 07:05, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As you will see, the subject of the biography is a former pornographic actor and the notability is established on several nominations and an award. I am aware that not all internal links are correct but the citations are. Please comment. venzen (talk) 11:36, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Venzen:No amount of know-how will meet the notability threshold. Notability depends on the existence of good sources off-Wikipedia. Start by checking whether such sources exist before writing a single sentence of the proposed biographical article (see also: WP:BACKWARD). You could drop the sources here and we could tell you our opinion of whether they would pass - it’s not an exact science and there are some articles that pass or fail depending on the mood of the reviewers, but most of the time it’s either a clear pass or a clear fail. TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact)08:59, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Venzen One of the consequences of writing your draft backwards is that you have whole sections (e.g. Early life and Adulthood) that are completely uncited and hence in violation of Wikipedia's WP:BLP policy. There is zero chance of your draft being accepted until it complies with that policy. You seem to be basing the draft on things you only know because you have talked to your coach. You must base an article here only on what is published in exemplary sources and without bias introduced owing to the fact that you have a conflict of interest. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:53, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your feedback, Mike. I was actually cautious to only write facts that are already public knowledge. Would it be good to cite those sources? e.g. where he discusses his childhood in a YouTube interview? Oh, and another point: is the achievement of a university dregree, a statement of fact that WikiPedia would prefer to be cited? venzen (talk) 12:08, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, venzen. A limited amount of uncontroversial factual information (places, dates etc) can come from non-independent sources, such as his own videos or interviews: see PRIMARY. But the great bulk of the information in an article must come from independent sources. If his video is the only source you can find for where he grew up, then that is probably acceptable (though a secondary source would be better). But anything about his childhood experiences, and especially his choices, decisions, concerns, do not belong in an article unless they have been published by an independent reliable source.
The fact of a degree could come from a non-independent source such as the university concerned; but if no independent source has referred to it, it is not clear that it belongs in an encyclopaedia article about him. ColinFine (talk) 13:25, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for a detailed explanation. It would be easier, then, to omit anecdotal and experiential information, except perhaps the bare minimum information about place of birth and parentage. Can you kindly confirm that the cited award and cluster of nominations meet notability criteria for an entertainer? venzen (talk) 02:55, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
public wikipedia for Song writer and entrepreneur in Laos
i need help to public post in wikipedia which i try for atleast 7 month by now from january to july please help to guideline public Shinteamevo (talk) 11:30, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Shinteamevo I assume that this relates to your User Page, where you have placed a draft biography which was nominated for Speedy Deletion last January but for reasons I don't know was never actually deleted. User Pages are not places to create autobiographies and indeed we strongly advise against any such writing for the reasons given at that link. Note that we have special rules for biographies of living people which you would have to meet to have any hope of a draft being accepted. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:02, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Shinteamevo You have correctly pasted the information from your Userpage into your Sandbox. So I have deleted the duplicate content on your Userpage. You are allowed to create that page again, but not for making draft articles.
There are no references (citations) in your draft article, so how do you know any of the information now in your Sandbox is correct? Therefore, I must ask: Are you writing about yourself, or do you know the person you are trying to publicise, and of whose picture you took and uploaded?
@Bart Terpstra, you should not revert any edits on the page you were warned for edit warring on as you are involved in an edit war, where you revert to your preferred version of the page. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 12:41, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. My Wikipedia skills got quite rusty over the years and I was never really too active on en:WP. Perhaps someone can help me out with a quick insight in how to deal best with edits done in malicious intent. I noticed a POV edit in the article Trusted Shops. Typically in de:WP I would simply revert the changes - but I work for Trusted Shops and want to avoid any WP:COI. What is the preferred way of handling this? Leaving a note on the associated talk page and see if a wikipedian reacts to it? Thanks. Avatar (talk) 13:31, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Avatar Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The first thing that you should do is make the Terms of Use required paid editing disclosure. This applies to you just as an employee, you don't need to be specifically paid to make edits.
The usual thing to do in this situation is to make a formal edit request(click for instructions) on the article talk page, detailing the issue. This will draw attention to it. If you feel that the edit is unambiguous vandalism- meaning that no reasonable person would disagree with you removing it- you may do so yourself, but should still note the change on the article talk page. Removing vandalism is a permitted area in which a COI editor may directly make COI related edits. 331dot (talk) 14:09, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The page Marcilinus Nlemigbo has not been reviewed for more than 7 weeks now
Hi team, An article I contributrd to which is a notable topic ''Marcilinus Nlemigbo,'' which was directly written on the main space, it has been there for about two months, and it has not yet been reviewed. It has been patrolled and no negative tag was attached to it. Please what could have been the cause of this? Thanks Engrdrizzy (talk) 15:01, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Engrdrizzy. I am also a new editor and I came to know about your problem. I understand that it could be little comfusing sometimes. But I think that it is yet to be reviewed. As Wikipedia Team says that it may take upto 4 monthes, so you may wait or resubmit your draft. I hope it will work. Thank you. And best of luck ! President Prince (talk) 15:20, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Prince, thanks for you kind concern, I appreciate. However, the article is on the main space and has never been moved to draft? Engrdrizzy (talk) 15:27, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Engrdrizzy I'm confused by your question. The mainspace article Marcelinus Nlemigbo exists since its creation by Ajifohils on 10 June. Your contribution history shows nothing related to the similar name Marcilinus Nlemigbo (with an "i", not an "e" in the forename). Are you also editing under the Username Ajifohils and if not, is the article with the "e" the one you mean? Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:31, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello I am curious to get some insight on if I can write an article on a specific topic (which doesn't currently exist in Wiki). As a side point, I am working on a project loosely related to the topic called Logos.
The article is on "Network State" or "Crypto States"
I am hoping the notability is good enough and I am far enough removed to write it. I have these references:
Hello, Sklujan, and welcome to the Teahouse. The answer to this question, every time, is "can you find the sources, each of which meets all three criteria in the golden rule?
I have only glanced at your sources . What I notice is that the Everard book appears to be from a reputable publisher, and so is probably a reliable source - the question of course is the depth of coverage it gives yo your subject. The Guardian piece is in their "Comment is free" section, and so probably counts as an opinion piece. Forbes publishes both reliable articles and opinion pieces - I don't know which that is. See WP:FORBES. And the Balaji book does not appear to acknowledge a publisher, and our article Balaji Srinivasan describes it as self-published.
So, it looks as if you're heading in the right direction, but I'm not sure you've so far found adequate sources. Please read RS carefully. ColinFine (talk) 17:12, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Sklujan!
Looking over the articles, my biggest concern is WP:PRIMARY as it does look like they are interviewing some people that might have a connection to a crypto state. At the very least, The Gaurdian, Forbes, and NASDAQ I have heard of before unlike some other attempted crypto articles I have seen. ✶Mitch199811✶17:20, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
what happened with my previews view option in Wikipedia app?
Thanks but no I did not see it. I'm new at this and don't know where to go. Will it be in notifications? Only your reply was there Pinaforemom (talk) 17:33, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you go into Preferences, Editing, then down to Discussion pages, there is an option to automatically subscribe. It will tell you whenever somebody messaged in a thread you are in. ✶Mitch199811✶17:46, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, by preferences where do you exactly indicate I go? In Wikipedia overall on the main page? Thanks again, I found settings, preferences, editing, discussions, Automatically subscribe to topics yet I find another bug... this setting will not save, after repeated attempts. Pinaforemom (talk) 19:05, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am having some difficulty dealing with an IP editor who persistently makes, what I feel are, problematic edits on a number of my watchlist pages. In short, this user does not use edit summaries, makes copyedits that change correct tense forms to incorrect ones, changes templates for seemingly no reason, removes content, adds unsourced and somewhat factually incorrect content, inter alia. I have left a comment on this IP's talk page, which they have read in the past. However, I believe that the IP is simply recalcitrant, as quite a number of editors have left specific advice (e.g. don't remove stuff without a reason), but they have ignored all of it thus far. My questions are:
1. Does this infringe upon any Wikipedia policies? Can someone advise if I should ANI this? (The specific IP is in my user contributions.)
2. This user repeatedly makes changes in the form of "Secretary-General of foo" to "Secretary-General of foo", where in both cases the wikilink is the same, but that the change is such that the whole title of office is linked to the specific organisation. I am wondering if this is correct per the MOS, or if I should revert these edits.
3. I don't understand how the uploading of images and how copyright policy works on Wikipedia. This user appears to have added various images. I would like to know where the relevant wikipedia policy is.
I have been asked to create five articles: book author page, three book pages, and a book series page.
I have been working on the first article only, to get the format for the source code correctly, so I can then continues with the rest of the articles.
My submission is always rejected due to references. I have read and watched the tutorials and I don't know what I'm doing wrong here. All the sources are reliable. The author and the series is new, so there is no existing wikipedia pages to back it up.
The last rejection indicated the article draft will be deleted if not correctly done next time. So, I am afraid to try anything and re-submit.
Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. When you say you have been asked to do this, I gather you have some sort of relationship with the topic, in the case of this book, perhaps you are employed by the publisher or author? Please read about conflict of interest and paid editing for information on required formal disclosures you will need to make.
The main issue here, as discussed by reviewers on your draft, is that you have not demonstrated that your book meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable book. You should not provide urls for the reviews in the article text itself, only as a reference; you should summarize the reviews, not just copy them. The detailed information about aspects of the book(characters, etc.) should be removed. 331dot (talk) 18:40, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, MickeyVonWiki. Reader reviews are of no value in establishing the notability of a book, and they should be removed. That is user generated blog-type content and is considered unreliable for use in this encyclopedia. Reviews by professional reviewers such as journalists or academics published by reliable sources with professional editorial control are the type of thing that helps establish the notability of a book. Cullen328 (talk) 18:57, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On your Talk page you have been asked to clarify on your User page if you are being paid to create this article. Separately, self-published books (Amazon KDP) rarely qualify as Wikipedia notable. Same for the author. David notMD (talk) 20:01, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I am an employee of an organization, and I would like to suggest some edits for the company Wikipedia's page as some of the existing content is not accurate or up to date. Is the "talk" and "add topic" tabs the best way to submit these suggestions? Should I be creating an account instead? Thank you. 216.191.223.35 (talk) 18:33, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I would correct you in that you should not think of it as your "company's Wikipedia page", but a Wikipedia article about your company, no different than if the New York Times wrote about your company. The company does not own it and has no special rights to it- at least no more than any other editor. Yes, the Talk page is the proper place to offer suggestions for changes. If you mark your talk page post as a formal edit request(click for instructions) it will draw the attention of other editors who will evaluate your request.
First, please read about conflict of interest and paid editing for information on required formal disclosures. It is easier to make the required paid editing disclosure with an account, but even if you choose not to create an account, you must disclose. 331dot (talk) 18:36, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've done something dumb to a table in an article I'm prepping and I can't see what! =-O What stray line has left me with that thin empty column on the end?
Hi BoomboxTestarossa. Welcome to the Teahouse. I've fixed it for you with this edit. That annoying extra column was caused by one too many pipe characters (|) in the 'look and learn' section. The trick to finding the offending character is to start at the top and count how many times you have to hit the 'down key' in order to reach the next |- set of characters that dictate a new row. It was seven every time, except for just the one where I counted eight. Just clearing it out has fixed it. It's a perfect example of why it's always best to work on tables in one's sandbox. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 20:11, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've been holding up the results of the Talk:1968 United States presidential election image vote. It's at 3 votes for color and 3 for black & white but there is some dispute because the 3rd black & white vote came in 6 days after and 5 days after the host of the vote declared it closed at 3-2. Was the host of the image vote, @Qutlooker, in the right to close this image vote and discard the late vote or should we keep it open for longer? There doesn't seem to be any obvious guideline on when it should close and who can close it. It'd seem obvious but I think it should be, well, more obvious. Thanks! ~ AlaskaGal~ ^_^ 21:07, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Bighammerer and welcome to the Teahouse. I don't understand what any of that stuff in that hyperlink is about - and, to be honest it looks highly promotional and not at all acceptable for an article. But lets just pretend for a moment that it were...
Firstly, I'd say that I prefer to use WP:Source Editor over WP:VE anyday. However, editing tables is horrendous in source editor. I suggest you use your sandbox and create a simple table with WP:VE and you can then experiment with adding content, and then look at the source editor version to see how it's constructed.
If you are determined to learn about table construction with Source Editor (good for you!!), then I hope Help:Introduction to tables with Wiki Markup/1 will be the right place to get you to start.
One tip is to look for another article containing a similar sort of table, and copy that tables source code into your sandbox and work on it there. Never try to create a table directly in an article - you will end up in 57 varieties of hell, and wish you'd taken up dominoes instead!
For incredibly complex tables, I work in Excel and then use a third party tool to convert the content to Source code. See this example of one that I would never have dared to do directly using either of Wikipedia's editing tool. Does this help answer your questions? Nick Moyes (talk) 22:06, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nick,
Thank you for your response I am not attempting to write an article. I want to supplement the content on the Table Shuffleboard page. There is already a link on that page to a company website that sells the kind of products that I am referencing. I think that what I am attempting to post adds value to the page by addressing a commonly asked question on the ingredients for those products. In this case, specifically Walnut shells. Given the seemingly ever increasing numbers of people with nut allergies, I was surprised that this issue has not been previously addressed. Here is a link to the Table Shuffleboard page.
@Bighammerer OK, but I'm afraid that link is no longer there as I have just removed it as being overtly promotional. A better source that does not link to a sales page would be acceptable; that one was not. Whilst it may be OK to highlight in one sentence the issue of nut allergies, I do hope you weren't intending to recreate the table of 'ultra-glide' products. it's important to remember that this is an encyclopaedia, not a sales catalogue.
Welcome to the Teahouse, YRhyre The answers, in order are as follows:
Yes, content should be a summary of what's in the main text of the article. If it's not included in the main text, it should be referenced in the Infobox. See WP:INFOBOXREF
There are >6 million articles on en.wiki alone. In past years we were less fussy about WP:V than we are today. Many old articles with unverifiable content in infoboxes still remain.
Fix them when you find poor ones. Or use the {{cn}} template to flag unverified content, or simply delete unverifiable content with a suitably informative edit summary.
They are intended as a quickly-accessible summary of an article's key points. I suggest you might find it of interest to work through MOS:INFOBOX for a valuable overview of the topic. Note that they are not essential, and sometimes arouse strong passions. Personally, I find them useful (when they aren't overcluttered with trivial content).
I have noticed lower standards in terms of verifiability in infoboxes. It's interesting how people might give a pass to things that are in infoboxes, when they wouldn't if they were in the body of the articles. YRhyre (talk) 22:23, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
hi ip user! this ip address does not have any other contributions apart from this edit, so I'm assuming you're referring to a draft you've made while under another ip address (they change) or logged-in. what draft are you referring to? 💜 melecietalk - 23:54, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, successfully found the note that a source can be used for uncontroversial information about themselves. How would I annotate the adding of a first name from a twitch clip? Lethmio (talk) 02:33, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is no error. General Ization removed your previous post here because you claimed there was a software bug. However, your edits—such as duplicating the Daylight saving time article's text—have been reverted when they have proven to be disruptive. Your reports at WP:AIV have been declined because the conduct you reported is not vandalism.With all due respect, there have been no errors committed in regard to your edits—at least, not by any editors other than you. —C.Fred (talk) 03:13, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Without reviewing the video, I'm guessing this one was for an unreliable source. This is a bad date format. The AIV reports, as stated, were declined as improper. —C.Fred (talk) 03:23, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
Moved discussion --QuickQuokka [talk • contribs] 20:43, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
