Wikipedia:Teahouse

Finnusertop, 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

2 items in 1 article

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 1637 Pmnedus (talk) 17:11, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello, @Pmnedus, and welcome to the Teahouse. Yes, I would advise you to edit the original article and expand it with new information as needed. However, please take care not to replace the article with your version of the page, as no one owns articles or pages here on Wikipedia. If you have any other questions I am happy to help. Best, — Prodraxis {talk • contributions} (she/her) 17:15, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

I thought I did a good job updating, now a moderator ,as before, removed al my updates!? Pmnedus (talk) 09:18, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Please advice. Thanks Pmnedus (talk) 10:02, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

@Pmnedus The editor Kleuske who reverted your additions to the article is not an administrator (Wikipedia does not use the term "moderator") but she is an experienced contributor who is, judging by her edit summary, worried that you have added information which is original research, i.e. based on something you personally believe to be true but which is not backed up by published reliable sources. This is the sort of content dispute that has to be resolved via the Talk Page of the article, where I note you have already commented recently. I hope that Kleuske and you can, with others who have the article on their watchlists, come to a WP:CONSENSUS over the new content by discussion there. The process is usual on Wikipedia and is summarised in the essay WP:BRD, which you should read. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:07, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Talk to that one person until the two of you have reached an agreement.

But if you receive this:

Please stop your disruptive editing.

And the replies like the following:

This site will do!? https://artinpoland.weebly.com/en/forgotten-portraits-introduction-part-b Pmnedus (talk) 10:50, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A blog post on a Weebly website will most definitely NOT do, you are wasting everyone's time here. Theroadislong (talk) 10:53,

and

etc. I do not have the time, nor the stomach to go through all these "sources", but WP:SYNTH and WP:OR apply. NONE provide a direct attribution of this painting to that title. Kleuske (talk) 08:29, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My advice: STOP! Kleuske (talk) 08:38, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply] Pmnedus (talk) 20:11, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

It's not clear what you are asking here Pmnedus? Theroadislong (talk) 22:19, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

It was not a question, but examples how the communication replies are from 2 persons Pmnedus (talk) 06:50, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Copyright query on quotations

When quoting word-for-word from say a restaurant/album/book review and putting the quote in quotation marks or a block quote (with correct attribution alongside) is there a limit to how much of the review can be included in an article? Rupples (talk) 00:54, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

To clarify, I'm talking about fairly short reviews amounting to say a paragraph of 100 words.Rupples (talk) 01:06, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

@Rupples for that you'd do a blockquote. 100 words in a blockquote should be okay so long as it's not the majority of the article. Cheers! ‍ ‍ Relativity ‍ ‍ 03:34, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

That's the 'problem', if it is one. The block quote is in essence the entire review of the subject of the Wikipedia article, but the webpage in which it is published has a number of other reviews. As a proportion of the webpage or article as a whole it's probably not significant. However, the individual reviews are written by separate authors and it's a near full quote of one author's review. I don't want to draw it to someone's attention if this type of quote is OK and there are no copyright concerns. I'm being deliberately vague because it's a delicate matter. Rupples (talk) 04:45, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Would the article be that much worse by not including a 100-word block quote? Could essentially the same encyclopedic value be provided to the reader by simply summarizing the review with proper attribution and a supporting citation? If the answers to each are "yes" and "yes", then perhaps it's not such a good idea. Wikipedia's MOS does allow the use quoted text in articles per MOS:QUOTATION, but it also tells us to not go overboard and excessively use quotations. Whether a 100-word block quote is too many words probably depends on who you ask, but you do need to be cognizent of WP:NFC#Text because quoting too much of a cited source might actually make it "non-free content" and thus subject to Wikipedia's non-free content use policy if it's copyright protected content. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:11, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Rupples, the length of a direct quotation of a source must be proportionate to the length of the source itself in order to avoid copyright infringement. In other words, a three sentence quotation from a 350 book is probably OK. But a three sentence quotation from a four sentence source is probably a copyright violation. Use attributed direct quotations when they clearly add to the reader's understanding of the topic, but summarizing and loose paraphrasing of sources is the most commonplace and widely accepted practice. Cullen328 (talk) 05:16, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Cullen is, of course, completely right. But irrespective of copyright, it's very rare that you'd want to quote at length. We are here to summarise facts, so it is usually correct merely to extract the facts from the review. "XXX was received favourably by critics^[]" or "XXX is a rare example of a historical novel set in the late Neolithic period^[]". Sometimes you might want to assign an opinion where the opinion is a bit weird "According to YYY, XXX is a very unusual historical novel^[]". But we'd only need to quote exact words where the exact words matter. "According to YYY, XXX should viewed as a 'semi-authentic' historical novel^[]" (the exact words express an element of doubt about authenticity, and it would be very difficult for us to reflect the intended meaning accurately, without using the exact words). I can think of almost no situation in which it would be appropriate to quote more than the odd word from a book review. Maybe if the entirety of a review had caused a massive legal bust-up between the author and the critic, and a court had argued over the meaning of each line? Big block quotes are best reserved for historical texts which need to be appreciated in toto by our readers if they're to understand the remainder of the article.

If the problem is that you're writing an article about a musician and there is no source about the musician except what can be gleaned from an album cover, so you need to include the whole text, then I'd question whether we're in a position to write an article about the musician. Elemimele (talk) 13:37, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Many thanks to everyone who has replied. The reason I said the issue is "delicate" is because the article in question is at AfD, I've contributed a quite forceful opinion and I don't want to be accused of WP:CANVASSING. I believe it would be helpful if someone who hasn't contributed to the article/AfD discussion took a look and gave an opinion/advice on whether there are any copyright issues. To that end, would it be appropriate to raise the issue here i.e. by naming the article, or raise it on the article talk page, or in a copyright forum/noticeboard, if there is such an avenue. I suspect any copyright issue is borderline, but it would be very useful to have guidance based upon specific examples from the article. Rupples (talk) 14:46, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I think you'd be okay to disclose the article here, without fear of canvassing, because this is a neutral environment. Canvassing is at its most inappropriate when you choose a venue that would favour one "side" over the other. Here you merely raise profile, and may attract devoted keepers, rampant deletionists, and anyone in between. Elemimele (talk) 12:56, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @Elemimele for following up. Understand it's your reasoned opinion and one can never be definite about these things. I've put in a sub-heading on the article talk page here [1]. Why I'm asking is that I've used quotations in my own work, though not to such an extent and wondered where the "cut-off" lies. I've identified two three specific instances which may be problematic. I'll go and set them out there. Don't think it has any bearing on the AfD since they could easily be edited out - may well be gone from the article before you see them, if you decide to take a look. Rupples (talk) 17:39, 13 July 2023 (UTC) Update. Now set out. Rupples (talk) 19:10, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Concerns of notability re: children's author, 1980s-present + possible workaround

This overnight, I was planning to do an AFC page on one Stephanie Calmenson, who has written dozens of children's books since 1982. (Her name ended up in the bibliography for Doug Cushman I set up last night [if only to de-orphan two of the Holiday Mice books he illustrated for Bethany Roberts]; I happened to own one of her titles, Hopscotch, the Tiny Bunny [1991], back in my homeland of Dominica.) Calmenson (b. 11/28/52 in Brooklyn) was once profiled in Gale's Something About the Author series, which is a great start--but from here, what I've approached across ProQuest/GBooks/GScholar/the newspaper outlets (as of this writing) hardly shows any promise. Tons of reviews on her works + scattershot library-shelf listings; almost nothing else on her career save for a 1987 "infobox" in Newsday. No major awards either, not to mention there's an interview on TeachingBooks you have to be an educator to view--which already doesn't count.

TL/DR: Firmly in WP:ONESOURCE territory for the most part--and in turn, clearly short of WP:NAUTHOR expectations. How disappointing...

Absent a Calmenson article, I think I may approach the subject from another angle: Through a page entitled "List of works by Stephanie Calmenson" or "Stephen Calmenson bibliography", as long as the site's community doesn't mind. If not, then we might as well launch a "Books by Stephanie Calmenson" category as a last resort--and only when at least three notable works of hers show up on WP. (Emphasis on "notable": She also did movie, TV, and Disney tie-ins that are better off mentioned on their parent works' pages.)

And if Hopscotch got reviewed (and I bet it already did), then so much the better once I launch its draft. In the meantime, I'll resume my own search after sending this filing to press. To the S.S. @Cunard: Are you up for some source-sleuthing soon? --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 13:52, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

It may be a stretch, but this 1995 New York Times story on the development of a non-fiction book of hers, Rosie: A Visiting Dog's Story, features a biographical tidbit almost midway through. Whether this + the SATA profile makes Calmenson qualify for notability, I have yet to be told. (Unless much better appears on the horizon...) --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 14:09, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Even my hopes for Hopscotch—recommended for the kidvid-cottagecore crowd as long as you can find a copy anymore; helps that Barbara Lanza's illustrations are lush as they come—turned out to be overambitious. Nothing to show for that either, save for this clipping that mentions its sales of 113,827 by 1993 (ranked #130 in the "Paperback Backlist Bestsellers" section there). Looks like a bibliography/category for Calmenson is going to be our only way out.

P.S. Hopscotch the rabbit and Squeak the mouse make for one of the best friendships ever to grace a children's book. Draw your own conclusions, fellow furs.

• Roback, Diane (1994-03-07). "Hollywood and horror: in children's, movie tie-ins and scary series ring the registers". Publishers Weekly. Vol. 241, no. 10. pp. S14+. ISSN 0000-0019. Retrieved 2023-07-13 – via Gale General OneFile.

--Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 07:57, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Slgrandson (talk · contribs), thank you for your great work on articles related to children's literature! This book source you linked is a great find. I will look into sources for Stephanie Calmenson. I am confident that she passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria and will share my findings here within two to four days. Cunard (talk) 09:08, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Editing a "Notes" list

Greetings, All. I was reading through the page on actress Bek Nelson, and I noticed that "Note 4" has the wrong actor mentioned. (This is under the "Television 1957-1966" section of the article: end of the first paragraph, "[fn 4]".) The Note reads "The actual actor playing the villain was Lee Van Cleef." While it's true that Van Cleef was in that episode of the Lawman_(TV_series), the actor described in the article ("...tall, with strange eyes, and an unusual face...") is Jack Elam, who played the main villain Flynn Hawk. (Van Cleef's face does not match the above description, but Elam's does to a T.) I've tried to edit that note to reflect that Elam was the main villain, but when I click on the "Edit" link for the Notes, there is nothing to edit; there are only 2 lines which read:

"==Notes=="

"{{reflist|group=fn} }"

(I had to stick an extra space between the last set of brackets in order to get this to show. Otherwise that line shows blank right here. On the page in question the brackets are correct.)

I've never encountered this sort of thing when trying to make an edit to a Wikipedia article and was wondering if anyone could help me out with editing "Notes" when there are no notes showing in the editing field.

Thanks, 68.131.51.40 (talk) 17:41, 12 July 2023 (UTC)Dino. P. S. Sorry for not being properly logged in. I believe I have created a Wikipedia account, but I'm having trouble finding where I put my login info.

The detail of the note is in the text. The list of notes is just the grouping of all the notes in the article. You need to look at the section Bek Nelson#Television 1957-1966 which is where you will find the bit you want to edit. Nthep (talk) 17:46, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello, 68. Nthep has answered about where to find the note to edit it. If you want to insert a template call such as the one above in text on a talk page, it's best to enclose it within <nowiki> and </nowiki>. So

<nowiki>{{reflist|group=fn}}</nowiki>

displays as

{{reflist|group=fn}} ColinFine (talk) 20:32, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you both for the help (with the editing and how to insert a template call on a talk page)! I made the edit, and hopefully improved that article.

Dino. 68.131.51.40 (talk) 05:49, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Having a specific part of a navbox be automatically expanded

Greetings,

I am trying to add Template:Conspiracy theories to LGBT grooming conspiracy theory in such a way that the sub-navbox "Gender and sexuality" is automatically expanded. The template documentation is not helping with this.

Could someone please show me how to format it to produce such a result? Thanks. — Toast for Teddy (talk) 21:08, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Toast for Teddy. Welcome to the Teahouse. I have edited the page; is that what you wanted? The advice you needed was easily found at Template:LGBT sidebar. The trick is to find the template you're interested in modifying, using the source editor, then load up that template and work through its documentation. In this case, it was quite easy to follow. Hope this is what you wanted. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:12, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

The request was about Template:Conspiracy theories which is displayed at the bottom the article, not Template:LGBT sidebar. @Toast for Teddy: XTheBedrockX added documentation for the feature in [2] but didn't actually implement it. It's not an automatic feature but requires code in the template. I have implemented it now.[3] PrimeHunter (talk) 23:42, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. — Toast for Teddy (talk) 00:11, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

My apologies for misunderstanding your question. I'm glad someone is on the case! Nick Moyes (talk) 11:13, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Need help with my new post

Hi, how do I create this table for Sona app?

https://imgur.com/a/DAd672l

Shatadru121 (talk) 05:55, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Your image displays what's called an "infobox". Specifically, it's Template:Infobox software; and Template:Infobox software/doc tells you how to use it. -- Hoary (talk) 06:42, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

The fact that you talk about making a "post" suggests that you don't fully understand the purpose of Wikipedia. We have encyclopedia articles, not "posts". What are you planning to do? Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 18:24, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I want to make an article

Butbit always deleted. Help me make an article that will not be nominated for apeedy deletion 203.189.116.4 (talk) 06:27, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Have you checked that your proposed subject is notable (as "notability" is understood in Wikipedia)? -- Hoary (talk) 06:38, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Read and thoroughly understand these links: WP:BACKWARD and WP:Golden Rule. Follow the advice given in both of them and you will create a draft that cannot be speedy-deleted. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:54, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

No original research questions

The National gallery in Washington has a pdf ("Rembrandt van Rijn - A Polish Nobleman" National Gallery of Art) used in the "A Polish Nobleman" article, and are using with this Pdf their own research and opinions. They are the owner of the object. Is it not, that this is in conflict with the “No original research” rules !? And the content of “A Corpus of Rembrandt Paintings All Volumes: Rembrandt's Paintings” and the RKD webpages, also have the same conflict!? Does did mean all the art articles have to be reviewed!? Awaiting for a constructive answer. Thanks.

The disclaimers FYI:

This is a publication of the Stichting Foundation Rembrandt Research Project. The opinions expressed in this volume (VI), and the previously published volumes I-V in the Series A Corpus of Rembrandt Paintings, should be understood as “opinions” that are meant for academic use only. The opinions represent the Foundation’s best judgment based on available information at the time of publication. The opinions are not statements or representations of fact nor a warranty of authenticity of a work of art and are subject to change as scholarship and academic information about an individual work of art changes. Opinions have been changed in the past according to new insights and scholarship. It should be understood that forming an opinion as to the authenticity of a work of art purporting to be by Rembrandt is often very difficult and will in most cases depend upon subjective criteria which are not capable of proof or absolute certainty. Therefore, the conclusions expressed in the volumes are only opinions and not a warranty of any kind. Third parties cannot derive any rights from these opinions. Neither the Foundation, nor the members of its board, nor the authors, nor the cooperators, nor any other parties engaged in the Rembrandt Research Project accept any liability for any damages (schade), including any indirect or consequential damages or losses and costs. Anyone is free to disagree with the opinions expressed in these volumes. Disclaimer RKD All users with access to the RKD – Netherlands Institute for Art History website and who use this site for whatever purpose, agree to the following. The RKD has the right to refuse services to users of the RKD. The RKD devotes a lot of time and energy to ensuring the information on the website is accurate and up to date. Despite this, inaccuracies may be present on its website or those affiliated with the RKD. The RKD does not accept liability for any damages incurred as a result of these inaccuracies, or for problems arising from the use or transference of this information. The RKD furthermore does not accept liability for any losses, lost profits or any other kind of damage or loss which occur as a result of the use or circulation of the information, or for any technical shortcomings. Users who download data or information do so at their own risk. References or hyperlinks to other websites are only given as information for the users of the RKD website. The RKD offers no guarantee with regard to the content and reliability of these websites, nor does the RKD accept liability in any way for damages incurred either as a direct or indirect result of using the information on these websites. Any statements made by the RKD on art works are a result of art historical examination by the staff member(s) concerned and cannot be seen as expertise. The RKD and/or the staff members(s) who carried out the examination cannot be held liable for any inaccuracies or incomplete information in the given statements, nor for any consequences for third parties due to the results of the examination issued. Pmnedus (talk) 09:05, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

The pdf https://www.nga.gov/content/dam/ngaweb/collection/artobject/85/versions/1995-01-01_artobject_85.pdf is clearly NOT original research it has a LARGE number of citations. Your continuing attempts to promote your painting need to stop or you are likely to be blocked. Theroadislong (talk) 09:12, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Please, it's a question that I would like to understand, that's why there is the Teahouse not. Please, I would like you also to STOP using that I am promoting my painting!? Pmnedus (talk) 10:14, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

And because you started again about it. What is the 'objection' to update the article for ==Notable copies== as is done with other similar pages. I didn't get a reply until now. Maybe it´s forgotten in the amount of work pressure. (Please please, don't say it is not meant for promoting my Painting). Pmnedus (talk) 10:25, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

The no original research policy does not preclude us from using sources that are doing original research. We just can't do original research on our own. If there's a question here, it would be about the source's reliability, but that's separate (to me it looks like just any paper, and I would trust the national gallery of Washington, so I see zero reason it's unreliable). Skarmory (talk • contribs) 09:50, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, it helps understanding it a bit better. Pmnedus (talk) 10:16, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Uploading video

I clicked photos and videos during my visit to some historical and archaeological sites, and I recently uploaded few of those to Wikimedia commons. I have some queries related to procedure of uploading videos- 1. What are the video types that are supported in Wikipedia? 2. Recently when I wanted to upload a video, I had to convert it from.mp4 to .ogv using a online converter. But The file size increased almost four times. Do you know application(s) which will be more convenient to use? Thanks.CharlesWain (talk) 18:21, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello, CharlesWain, and welcome to the Teahouse. Please see C:Commons:Media help. ColinFine (talk) 19:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

@CharlesWain, uploading videos to Commons is unfortunately quite a pain. As you've seen, you normally start with MP4, which you then have to convert because Commons folks had licensing ideological objections to the format back in 2014. But if your videos are more than a minute or two long, you start to run into the size limits of the free online converters.

As a silver lining, though, I wouldn't really worry about the file size increasing. Preserving the quality is more important, and Commons has plenty of storage capacity. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:41, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

@CharlesWain: If you know how to use a command line, I would suggest ffmpeg for file conversion. It has a bit of a learning curve but it is by far the best format converter out there. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:44, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Sdkb, yeah, that's exactly the issue. I wouldn't worry about the size either.

Elli, I'll try.😊

That'll help. Thank you all.CharlesWain (talk) 20:33, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Wasted draft

What specific guidelines exist for "jumping" a draft? Someone knowingly rendered a day's efforts on my part useless by creating a second userspace draft and pushing it to mainspace first instead of collaboratively working on the original draft. Is there anything that protects editors from this sort of behavior? 〜 Festucalex • talk 19:57, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

@Festucalex: it's not against policy, but it is not a particularly nice thing to do either. In this case, though, given that it is about a current event, you can't really expect other editors to wait until you are ready to publish your writing. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:18, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

@Elli: The difference was by one minute (19:14 vs 19:15), because the event began with an announcement. There wasn't much "waiting for me" involved. Not to mention that others have contributed to the draft. I suppose I'll just have to drop the stick on this one and be frustrated at this very not-nice behavior for a day. 〜 Festucalex • talk 20:23, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi, Festulex!

If you merge the mainspace article with the draftspace, I believe that would be the best of both world. ✶Mitch199811✶ 20:19, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

@Mitch199811: Not much use for that, since the content is entirely reduplicated. Nothing to merge. 〜 Festucalex • talk 20:24, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

@Festucalex: Are you 100% sure that the other person "jumped" your draft? Did they clearly copy-and-paste your content into theirs and then publish their draft first? Is this a pattern with this particular user? If you're able to demonstrate as much via WP:DIFFS or other things, then perhaps you could seek assistance at WP:ANI; however, you're going to have to demonstrate that it's a serious behavior problem for administrators to take action and not think you're just complaining about sour grapes. Is it possible that someone else decided to create an article about the same subject at roughly the same time as you? If the subject is a "current event" that's suddenly receiving lots of media attention, then it's possible that several Wikipedians thought that it would make a good article and started working on drafts. I know some editors may feel differently, but it's not really a race to see who can create an article first and it matters not who does so as long as it turns out to be a proper article. Moreover, if someone beats you to the punch and creates an article first, there's nothing stopping you from still trying to improve that article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:36, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: They've admitted to seeing the original draft first and deciding to start another one. In any case, I've WP:DROPpedTHESTICK on this issue. I have no interest whatsoever in ANI or any such time-wasting drama. 〜 Festucalex • talk 22:43, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

User talk:ElijahPepe#Draft conflict looks to support Festulex's views based on his mention on the same sources. However, I might be interpreting it wrong and there might just be few sources on the subject. ✶Mitch199811✶ 22:43, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Clean up article

There's this article List of Algerian football players in foreign leagues, all the other list articles I have seen are structured as mere lists, but this one isn't, should I delete all the irrelevant info on it, or should I leave it as it is? I'm asking here, because most of the info is completely useless to the purpose of the article, and I fear that deleting a large chunk of it will trigger an anti-vandalism bot. Bastewasket (talk) 00:36, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

@Bastewasket The usual approach would be first to mention your concerns on the article's Talk Page, maybe pinging a few of the major recent contributors, particularly those who added what you consider to be the "irrelevant" information. Hence you can seek WP:CONSENSUS on what to do. Note also the advice at WP:SILENCE and WP:ONUS. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:12, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Problem Editors

How do we report editors who are behaving badly- frequently assuming bad faith, behaving disingenuously, trying to drive away new contributors, etc? I have proof if you'll just tell me where to send it. 2601:249:9301:FF80:A107:1D80:84AC:9A1B (talk) 01:52, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

WP:AIV, Regards Ariconte (talk) 01:57, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

If you are referring to User talk:Fred Zepelin I would suggest that you consider whether escalation is the right move to make and whether it is at all possible to work out your concerns. Try to see things from different points of view. However, if you feel this matter needs other eyes, WP:ANI is the proper forum for user conduct issues. You must inform anyone whom you discuss there of the discussions existence, and be aware it is not a one way street- your actions will be examined as well. 331dot (talk) 01:58, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

AIV is for clear cases of disruption only. 331dot (talk) 01:58, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I should have suggested WP:RAA, Cheers, Ariconte (talk) 02:06, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you to both of you for your quick replies.

Out of curiosity, how would you work out your concerns with someone who has demonstrated thorough contempt not just for you, but for others? This is a genuine question- how could you trust them to collaborate with them?

I don't contribute all that often, so this isn't something I need to resolve for myself, but more that this kind of behavior damages Wikipedia and keeps many people from getting involved. And it is a problem. So what do you think, since you seem to be familiar with the exchange?

I'll leave it up to your opinion if you think I should pursue it, for the benefit of the project. 2601:249:9301:FF80:A107:1D80:84AC:9A1B (talk) 02:37, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Actually, the best place to report truly problematic editors is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Please be aware that you are expected to provide persuasive evidence, and that your own conduct will also come under scrutiny. So be careful. Cullen328 (talk) 02:44, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I was just on your Talk page, starting to write a request (Skip the Drama and Contact an Admin). Would you be willing to look over the pages? I have nothing to hide and will take full accountability for my part. 2601:249:9301:FF80:A107:1D80:84AC:9A1B (talk) 03:09, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Alright, so upon reading over WP:ANI and dealing with incivility, it says that 'if the person is not damaging the project or being uncivil or unkind to other editors' then walk away or request a dispute resolution. This person is being unkind and there's proof.

Thank you again for your help. 2601:249:9301:FF80:A107:1D80:84AC:9A1B (talk) 03:06, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia

what do I do to search a random lengthy topic on search 2607:FEA8:4C25:A400:9823:BB15:ECDE:EB5C (talk) 02:59, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

??? lettherebedarklight晚安 03:03, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

If you mean the Random Article selected by Special:Random, then there is no way to tell it not to select stubs or other short articles. RudolfRed (talk) 03:07, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

...but you can have it search for only featured articles: Go to a random page in Category:Featured articles

save this link: https://randomincategory.toolforge.org/Featured_articles?site=en.wikipedia.org which will automatically redirect you to a featured article. happy reading! 💜  melecie  talk - 03:21, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

If you make an account then you can use Wikipedia:Enhanced Random Article to omit articles which are marked as stubs. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:28, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Regarding Unsourced Article

I found a article Mullakkadu , this article does not cite any single reference and there is lot of Promotional content is there. Various private school , hospital and college names are written. Shall I remove these unsourced information. WikiAnchor10 (talk) 03:36, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

@WikiAnchor10, feel free to remove the unsourced information and try to find sources for as much of the information as possible. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 03:44, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

@WikiAnchor10, Judging by the state of the article, you may remove those promotional content on that village article as it violates WP:NOTPROMO. 🛧Layah50♪🛪 ( 話す? 一緒に飛ぼう！) 03:45, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

WP:BURDEN states that The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports [...] the contribution. [...] Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports [...] the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 12:17, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Can't publish page

Hi, I'm trying to publish a page but I keep getting an error message that says ⧼No stashed content found, what do I need to do? Grosse23 (talk) 07:36, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. You would need to tell us which page you are trying to publish and why. Also take a look at Help:Your first article. Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:59, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Grosse23 You submitted your sandbox for review, but it has no encyclopedic content in it. 331dot (talk) 09:05, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

This was a mistake. How can I delete it? Grosse23 (talk) 09:23, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

@Grosse23 It's your sandbox, so just put something else there while removing the AfC template. Technically you could add a tag asking for an admin to wipe the page entirely but that's hardly worth their effort. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:57, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I have this problem (or at least a similar problem), usually when I've kept an editing tab open for too long. Are you in source mode, or can you access source mode? If so, you can easily copy-and-paste your wikitext into a new tab, and publish it fine. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 12:16, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

An IP editor every so often removes bits from the Nicolas Dauphas article

I have the Nicolas Dauphas article on my watch list and noticed that every so often 207.229.177.118 will remove bits from the article. I don't know enough about the article's subject to say whether these edits are good or not, but I'm commenting here so maybe someone else can take a look at the edits.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nicolas_Dauphas&action=history CoderThomasB (talk) 09:15, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

harv-error

If I see that popup in the description of an edit, but not see any clues in my last edit why it says that, is there a log page for it? I am a little confused after this edit why I got the message. Govvy (talk) 09:26, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

@Govvy: Check the spelling of the "source" name in the {{sfn}} templates you added for Bobby Buckle#cite_note-FOOTNOTESour199511-4. You're using "Sour" in the Sfn templates, but the author's name is given as "Soar" in the "Bibliography" section. So, you're telling the software to look for a source whose author is "Sour", but the source can't find it because you've also told the software that the source is written by someone named "Soar". -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:57, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Ugg, that so obvious now you point that out, don't know why I did that unless autocorrect kicked in without me noticing it! Cheers. Govvy (talk) 10:15, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

page reviewer

Could somebody help this person… Pmnedus (talk) 09:35, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

We would need more context. Theroadislong (talk) 09:40, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Maybe you're looking for WP:NPR? NotAGenious (talk) 09:58, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Recently the dog of Kleuske died RIP. Now a lot of people are not happy in the way Kleusks replies e, even if he is right. A comment like: do not give a rats ass about the content of the article or your dispute. If the three of you are unable or unwilling to reach some sort of sensible compromise I will take this to an appropriate forum. Kleuske in very inappropriate.

Also A comment like: Just stop it. Alternatively, show me the killer source that really attributes that name to the painting. I have gone through your "sources", twice and did not find any. Plenty of irrelevant, inaccessible or flat-out garbage references. A site for re-enactors of Polish Huzzars, for crying out loud. I am left with no choice but to qualify your activity here as POV-pushing and “you are wasting everyone's time here”. . I found at least 6 entries, that we have to say, this could be said nicer…

I think work pressure (has to reach his goals) and his personal grieve is to much for him. He needs some “time-off”.

Maybe I’m off limits here, and going to be blocked for life, but I have to bring this to yours attention (back talk with other people, who than take over the reviews, is not a very polite way, of bringing somebody in discredid, buddy’s helping to let people giveup, see some of his reviews?) Pmnedus (talk) 10:01, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

You have persisted in trying to add content and images to the existing article A Polish Nobleman, all reverted, then minimally attempt to add an image of a copy of the painting that you own to that article, claiming it is one of several "notable copies", and are also trying to create an article about said painting (Draft:Wladyslaw IV Vasa in elk skin). At the latter - before you deleted most of the content - you took the position that the painting shown in the draft (which you now own !?!?!) is the original and the one shown in A Polish Nobleman is a copy. Obtuse persistance is not a virtue. "Just stop it" is blunt, but accurate. David notMD (talk) 10:23, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Added by an IP that may be Pmnedus

Below appears to be an attempt to show examples of comments by Kleuske at other article Talk pages:

This is off topic 95.62.74.51 (talk) 10:38, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

etc. I do not have the time, nor the stomach to go through all these "sources", but WP:SYNTH and WP:OR apply.

If you have sources for war crimes, crimes against humanity and general massacres and do not report them, without beating about the bush, my assumptions of good faith go out the window. That, encyclopedically speaking, is evil. Kleuske (talk) 15:03, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Reply

I've already explained how similar instances have been described similarly on other Nagorno-Karabakh articles - I would say my version was quite generous. Please stay civil, you've now reverted me twice justifying it by throwing around Wikipedia guidelines/essays. If you have a preferred version of your own - please take the time to present it, instead of reverting, be specific what needs to be done. The current version of the page that you revert back to is highly problematic to say the least. AntonSamuel (talk) 15:50, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I know that my idea does not comply with the rules, but still I want to talk about it. In the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robot_welding in external links there are many links to commercial projects, for example, ABB, FANUC. At the same time, their sites do not have as much really useful and interesting information as the ABAGY blog (https://abagy.com/blog#!/tfeeds/949749039321/c/Technology).

Moreover, my link was to the blog, and not to the entire site.

May I return the link to the blog? Ekaterina Mosolova (talk) 08:27, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Reply

No. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Kleuske (talk) 09:06, 21 November 2022 (UTC) 95.62.74.51 (talk) 10:40, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

yes this was me, my computer rebooted, sorry Pmnedus (talk) 10:55, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

this will be my last.

- first I came at wiki, because I had a lot of information of the topic

- uploaded a picture. (what then!?)

- added my information.

- got a tip that I had to make a page

- made the page and added picture etc data.

- got 2 reviews, and corrected it

- than somebody said I had the stop and update the existing page.

- ask tea house for advise

- update the existing

- I cannot do that with WP:o or something like that etc etc

- advised to use first sandbox

- went to sandbox, added for two day the file and added correction

- asked if it is ok....

- waiting..

- than I update and got at almost the same time reverted..

- but what is happing!

- undo reverting

- message ¨disrupting etc.....I cannot recall

- reviewer is not open for any opinion.

- forcing his ideas

- got other reviewer, went a bit better.

- researching the topic

- again teahouse

- and being attacked.....in a way...that is unexplainable.

- until this, it is still happening.

I rest my case. It should be not like this.

Please do me a favour and block me for life, than I also don't get any mails anymore... Pmnedus (talk) 11:05, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

One thing, it took me a while to understand the talk pages. I had talkpage myself. talkpage reviewer, talkpage article, talkpage teahouse, talkpage picture, talk-age other person etc... at the end where to go, to which talkpage.

Now it is clear for me, but I know a new user will have the same problem, because most of you are working here a long time, and it is like common... Pmnedus (talk) 11:27, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Short cuts, would like to advise for all new contributors, that the reviewer adds with al first comments in the first writing, the referral page of these....will now blow of some steam..... Pmnedus (talk) 11:32, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

@Pmnedus I'm afraid I have not understood half of what you have been trying to say here and, to be honest, I have given up trying to. It sounds like maybe you have given up too. That won't be a bad thing.

What you appear to have done is not spent any time learning how Wikipedia works - maybe making small edits, learning how talk pages work and how to reply (or how not to reply). Instead, you have charged in, determined to get your point across (whatever that is), based on some homemade research you've done and published yourself, and expected us to take it at face value. None of us know who you are, and you've not persuaded us that you have a clear understanding of how to make a good argument, based on properly published evidence by a reliable source.

I'm sorry it has been a difficult experience for you.

Now, you wouldn't expect to be able to get behind the wheel of a car for the very first time in your life and drive off up the motorway at 120km per hour and not expect to crash, would you? What you have done here is akin to that. You have not spent any time trying to understand how Wikipedia works. Maybe you are too impatient, or wrapped up with your theory about your painting. What you say may eventually turn out to be true, who knows? But that's irrelevant right now. Unlike many other newcomers, you have failed to invest any time to understand the basics of how Wikipedia works or(to use my example above) to drive off slowly while you are learning how to control the vehicle. So it's not surprising you are frustrated - as indeed are we. I suggest you go away and wait until some proper research studies on your painting have been published by an instituion or academic body that you can bring back to us and communicate in an understandable form.

Meanwhile please read this article which highlights that Competence is Required, and I fear that if you do decide to continue on your quest to promote your theory, you could soon find yourself losing your editing privileges in order to avoid further drain on volunteers' time here. I apologise wholeheartedly if this sounds blunt or rude, but I feel it needs saying. Kind regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 20:37, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Rules of engagements: you do the following, you all shoot to kill

It should be: shoot in the air, then shoot in the legs, then shoot dead

Than I see this, and I still cannot believe this.

Nick Moyes

This user pledges to return to

Old-Fashioned Wikipedian values.

I am not alowed to use blogs, but what does Nick Moyes uses:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GLAM/Derby

Outcomes

Working with Wikipedia - a Museum's Perspective

A quick hit of demoing QR codes at the museum in February

Next generation multilingual QR codes developed as a result of work in Derby by @Edent and @Victuallers

The King of Rome - first new article after at the backstage pass

• Post on Wikimedia foundation blog about residencies

• Blog from Nick Moyes gives excellent summary of the da

http://nickmoyes.blogspot.com/2011/04/when-glam-met-wiki-wikipedia-and.html Pmnedus (talk) 23:15, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

@Pmnedus: I strongly suggest you lurk more on Wikipedia. You'll have to explain clearly what Nick Moyes is presumably doing hypocritically. Nick isn't using his own blog as a source for an article on here; he's using it to recount a Wikipedia-affiliated event. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:18, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

ofcourse, the language usage is normal….

Keeper of Natural Sciences

Brilliant, concise and clear voicefrom @Natures_Voice.

Honestly, if political leaders can't do even one simple things like mandating #swiftbricks in every new housebuild, we're absolutely f*cking f*cked in this country.

No two ways about it Pmnedus (talk) 23:29, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I need help in reviewing this article

My drat was rejected for publishing, according to the admin who rejected it, he said the article does not have enough external sources. I need help and suggestion on what i can do. Thanks anyone

Draft:LVP Group Papisean (talk) 10:11, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

@Papisean Your draft was declined, not rejected, which means it possibly could reach the point of being acceptable but it has a long way to go! You have provided no citations to show how the company is notable as defined by Wikipedia. You do this by providing sources of information that meet these key criteria. At present, you have "sources" which are just links to the top level domains of the various subsidiaries of the company itself, so none help demonstrate notability. Please also read WP:REFB to learn how to format the sources correctly. Incidentally, the AfC reviewers are not necessarily admins and Alpha3031 is not. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:43, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Papisean (ec) Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. That's not exactly what was said- the reviewer(who is not necessarily an admin) said that you have not demonstrated with significant coverage in independent reliable sources that this company meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about a company and what it does. You need to summarize what others choose on their own to say is significant/important/influential about the company as they see it(not as the company sees it). Please read Your First Article.

I gather that you may be associated with this company, if so, there are certain disclosures you are required to make, please read conflict of interest and paid editing. 331dot (talk) 10:45, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Rollback

If I have Redwarn or Twinkle, does that mean that I already have the rollback feature? or do I still have to request? PotassiumLover72 talk 13:00, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

@PotassiumLover72: You don't have the rollback right, and your account is too new for an administrator to seriously consider a request for that right. Rollback is granted to editors who have shown through their activity that they can be trusted with it. Keep at it, be productive, be constructive, and wait until you're at least extended confirmed (30 days and 500 edits). ~Anachronist (talk) 13:22, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Oh okay. Thanks!

Keep in mind that I'll request for rollback on December 31, 2023 12:05 AM EST. PotassiumLover72 talk 13:26, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm joking. I meant when I am extended confirmed. PotassiumLover72 talk 16:12, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

1991 NFL Season Page reverted

I was editing the 1991 NFL Season page so that it the NFL pages would in some fashion, be uniform with the MLB pages, with a separate section to denote all of the passings. I was getting ready to finish editing the page when I noticed without warning, the entire page had been reverted. I checked my messages for an explanation, and there was none there. So, I'm a little confused and I look forward to finding out why the page was reverted. Sportsfan1976 I'm only here because I'm not currently somewhere else. (talk) 14:51, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi Sportsfan1976. Your edits were reverted by another editor named Magnolia677 for the reason given here. You can either ask for further clarification by posting a message at Talk:1991 NFL season or at User talk:Magnolia677. If post on the article's talk page, you probably should WP:PING Magnolia677 so that they are aware of your post. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:58, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

@Sportsfan1976: You'll probably be fine if you just add a source for the edits, e.g. Pro-Football-Reference.com links. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:15, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

How do draft reviews work?

I have several drafts pending, there are a handful of users who will make small edits or tweaks (it seems like this happens one article at a time?). How/where/why do these drafts circulate? Is there a way for me to access the other drafts that are circulating? What does it mean when people are only making one or two small edits (usually to do with citation) and then not doing anything else? Chainsawpunk (talk) 14:53, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

There are some 4000 drafts in the review state, and there are too few reviewers. I note that your draft, Draft:Amy Brener, has not been submitted for review. If you are waiting for a review, you haven't pressed the button to request one. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:11, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Not waiting on review on that one yet.. still tweaking! The other three I am working on I am waiting for review. Chainsawpunk (talk) 15:27, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi Chainsawpunk. Drafts don't circulate per se, but that could be a variety of reasons why someone might stumble upon a draft. Other users (at least more experienced ones) tend to leave a draft alone as a courtesy to its creator unless there's some serious problem that speedy needs attention, or there's some minor cleanup that can be done that doesn't change the draft in a major way. Major changes in formatting or content aren't using made unless the draft creator has specifically asked others to do so. You can find other drafts by looking at Category:Wikipedia drafts. -- Marchjuly (talk) 15:14, 14 July 2023 (UTC)r

My view of draft etiquette differs from Marchjuly's. I often edit drafts. I assume that the creator of a draft has put in in draft space because they welcome contributions from other editors; otherwise they could keep it as a user page. Advert.: I will welcome any improvement to Draft:Pentangle (puzzle supplier), particularly addition of a source that will help with notability. Maproom (talk) 17:23, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

@Maproom I've just added a good reference for you, plus I found another one on Newspapers.com that you might like to look at. Nick Moyes (talk) 20:05, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes This is great! Many thanks. There's plenty of usable material in both articles. Maproom (talk) 21:20, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Does one require a *direct quote* from an artist in order to reference what his influences were, or is an RS mentioning who the artist cited as his influences, sufficient?

Ideally hoping to find a Wikipolicy that would cover this. Does one require a direct quote from artist X stating, "I was influenced by artist Y", or can one use an RS that states "artist X cited artist Y as an influence"? Thanks. Paulie302 (talk) 15:26, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Paulie302, and welcome to the Teahouse. Reliable secondary sources are always preferred to primary sources. So the answer is No: if an independent RS says it, there is no need to quote the subject themselves. ColinFine (talk) 15:52, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Why did edits to our page dissappear?

Wings Club Hi my boss edited The Wings Club page last night from his account. I edited our page after him from my account and saw all his edits. Last night, before I closed the page,I saw his edits and mine. Today, all the edits we made are gone. What went wrong or we did we do to loose all our edits??? HELP! We both spent alot of time editing and are so disappointed and frustrated. Looking forward to hearing from you.Thank you in advance. Marie Rosa, Director of Marketing for The Wings Club. MarieCRosa (talk) 15:33, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

MarieCRosa, you appear to have added copyright violations to the article. Those are not allowed and will be promptly removed from the page history.

Remember WP:COI and WP:PAID. You are advised to not edit the article directly and instead use the edit request system. Since you are being paid to edit the article (it is part of your job), you must declare a conflict of interest on your user page or be blocked from editing. Instructions are at the link. Wings Club is not your page, it is the Wikipedia article about you. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 15:38, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

One thing you can do right now, to improve the article, is to add a freely-licensed image. Take a picture of Wings Club (probably the entrance) and insert it into the article. Note - any image you add has to be freely licensed, so professional photography would not be allowed. By uploading an image, you release your copyright on the image. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 15:47, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

My apologies as I was not familiar with Wikipedia polices - or the "edit request" system. Thank you all for your quick responses, I appreciate your help and will rememdy the situation. You've all been very helpful! I will relay the info to my boss. Thanks so much! MarieCRosa (talk) 16:19, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Please also note that Wings Club is absolutely NOT your page it is Wikipedia's article about your club and shouldbe based entirely on what reliable independent sources say about it. Theroadislong (talk) 16:28, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Understood - thank you. MarieCRosa (talk) 16:52, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Reminder - before any proposed changes posted at the Talk page of the article you and your boss must declare PAID on your User pages. David notMD (talk) 22:02, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Admin request

Not sure where the right place to ask this would be, but could an administrator please delete the redirect Jenise Spiteri so that I could move my draft of her there? Thanks. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:04, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

@BeanieFan11: I moved it for you. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:26, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

How does one go about adding an article about a novel they have written?

I have self-published a novel and I would like to have a place where I can write just be informative and not have to do all the marketing and advertising just so people can see what I wrote. To me that place is obviously wikipedia.

Unfortunately, because it's brand new, there's no sources except me, the author.

Is there a way I can go about setting up and attaining verifiable information so when creating the page I have more than just "I'm the person that wrote the book" as citations? There is a goodreads page with a review, as well as an amazon page with all of the information about it, but both of them, I think, are not good to use as sources. JackClifton86 (talk) 21:53, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Read WP:NBOOK for guidance on how a book qualifies for an encyclopedia article. If there are no independent sources, then it will not qualify. RudolfRed (talk) 22:04, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

@JackClifton86:. Wikipedia is not a publicity channel and must never be used that way. Attempting to do so always leads to a bad end. Wikipedia published articles about notable subjects. In other words, your book cannot be "new" or "up and coming", it must have already arrived. That is, it would need reviews in reliable sources by reliable reviewers, not user-generated content such as Amazon reviews that anyone can write; see WP:Golden rule for guidance about the kind of sources required. Wikipedia can publish an article about your book only after it has become notable on its own, without Wikipedia's help. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:17, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! I shall leave it for now. Have a great day :) JackClifton86 (talk) 23:06, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Biographical stub for entertainer

This question was archived here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_1193#Biographical_stub_article_for_a_self-improvement_coach Not sure if I'm following the correct procedure to revive discussion. Please advise.

The article stub is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Venzen/sandbox I have followed previous suggestions to cite references. Kindly comment. venzen (talk) 07:31, 15 July 2023 (UTC)