I would like to Create an article about RMohaimen Immigration Services aka Route 2 Migrate. It's IRCC certified Canadian Immigration Consulting firm. Led by RCIC Riffat H. Mohaimen
Writing a new article is the most difficult task to perform on Wikipedia, and it is usually recommended that you first gain experience and knowledge by editing existing articles in areas that interest you, to get a feel for how Wikipedia operates and what is expected of article content. It's also a good idea to use the new user tutorial.
If you still want to attempt to write an article now, you may use the article wizard or Articles for Creation to create and submit a draft for review(new accounts cannot directly create articles). You will need to establish that this company meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company, and gather independent reliable sources with significant coverage of this company to summarize. The company website, other materials from the company like press releases or interviews, and annoucements of routine activities do not establish notability. Please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 09:02, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Farbistaa, and welcome to the Teahouse. Some general advice for you:
1. When a new editor joins Wikipedia and immediately starts writing an article about a company or a person, most of the time their purpose is promotion, which is forbidden everywhere in Wikipedia. I don't know whether that is your purpose, but if it is, you are almost certainly wasting your time trying to create the article.
2. 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.
3. Absolutely the first thing to do in creating an article is to look for the reliable independent sources which are required to establish that the subject meets Wikipedia's requirements for notability. As most companies (and most people) are not notable by Wikipedia's criteria, in most cases doing anything else at all before that is a complete waste of time and effort.
4. An infobox (which I see you have started in your draft) is not an essential part of an article, and should just summarise information already in the article. Starting with an infobox is like trying to paint a house before you have built it. ColinFine (talk) 21:10, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
COI disclosure question
Hi everyone,
Thank you for the invitation to the Teahouse. Something recently come up that I'd love some help with, if this is within this group's scope.
I've worked with a couple of amazing volunteer editors to make COI edits on a couple of wikipedia pages through this account, but I recently left the gallery where I was working that created the conflict. Is there a way to retire a COI disclosure?
I'm trying to find a way to avoid interfering with the edit history on the two pages where I worked while keeping the COI editing as part of my/my account's history on Wikipedia.
Is this possible, or is it better to simply start a new, non-COI account?
I would leave the declaration, since you did have a COI when you edited those two articles, and might be considered to have an ongoing one specifically for them. You could change the declaration to past tense and add that you no longer work for HW: this would be more transparent than switching to a new account, which might wrongly arouse suspicions. You might also ask to change the existing Account name, since the current one references HW.
Others may have past experience of similar situations, and may offer different (and better) advice. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.220.114.13 (talk) 00:32, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @90.220.114.13, this is very helpful! I'll look into changing the declaration to past tense. Noted that creating a new account might arouse suspicions, so as suggested, I'll look into requesting an update to my username to remove the reference to HW. All sounds very reasonable.
Why is Miki Filigranski allowed to create a toxic environment?
There is a senior "editor" or "admin" with username Miki Filigranski that is creating a toxic environment by acting like a dictator and bully in certain Croatian historical articles. He acts as if he is "the boss". Many Croatian people have complained about his editing which is often not aligned with the "weight of evidence". One topis of specific interest is the topic of "Nikola IV Zrinski". Miki Filigranski deletes article improvements willy-nilly and has a few times deleted complaints that people have written about him. He has even had people blocked and edits deleted.
Does Miki Filigranski have some sort of anti-Croatian agenda?
Why do other editors support Miki Filigranski?
- it seems like this like corrupt cops protecting corrupt cops?
No, this is related to my 9 October revert at Talk:Nikola IV Zrinski of IP 208.98.222.61 and both IP's seem to be from the same place. I do not own any of the articles. I did not create toxic environment. There were no improvements to the articles. I did not have block anyone or delete edits (admins done that on their own). I was barely active about it (see my comment at admin User talk:Joy#NikolaZrinski and ZidarZ). This IPs appear to be socks of recently blocked account User:ZidarZ and its sock User:NikolaZrinski who were making same baseless claims and personal attacks not only on me but also other editors and administrators for merely reverting or not agreeing with their edits on articles or walls-of-text-not-forum edits on article talk pages. They edits were mostly based on 19th century outdated sources, sources which are not reliable or were self-published by non experts, edited content seriously violationg copyrights. IP 199.119.232.211 knows about ZidarZ complaint which got removed by admin User:Joy, nobody knows about this besides a very small group of experienced editors and admins. It is getting a bit annoying being their target. Seems like they who are behind these accounts and IPs did not learn anything nor follow advices which were told to them in good faith for possible future unblock request at User talk:NikolaZrinski#September. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 12:00, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Usenet template and "digging" hiperlinks
Hi :-)
I am working on a Polish translation of an article about roguelikes. There are some Usenet posts cited using a template made just for that. We do not have that template on Polish Wikipedia, but it's okay, we have a general template with links and stuff for citing.
The problem is, I completely do not know how to "dig" a link to the exact Usenet post from the information available in the cite Usenet template.
Thus, could somebody, please, in simple words explain to me how to use and interpret the data in a way which would allow me to get a link to what's being cited/said? I would be extremely grateful.
The first cite newsgroup template in the roguelike article had no url. I thought it's the same with all the rest, Apparently this was an exception from the general rule?
Sorry, I got confused with a template and Wikipedia I have completely no experience with as a WIkipedian.
I drafted an article in my sandbox:User:Slamforeman/sandbox. I am aware that the next step is to send it off as a draft article for review, but was wondering if I could request feedback beforehand here. Apologies if this is the wrong place to ask this. Just hoping to make sure everything is in order. Slamforeman (talk) 20:35, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
I am trying to clean up the introductory portion of the article Vilnius. I have moved the introductory part to under demographics and have copied the citations as well, but it seems that if I deleted the citations in the introductory part, I will lose them permanently from the references section as well. Basically, how do I keep the references for a lower paragraph while deleting them from the introductory part?
Much Obliged. Pimlokto (talk) 21:44, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Pimlokto: You would just move the citation(s). All you have to do is move the source code of the reference (if you're using the source editor) to the the lower paragraph you want to move it to or just drag the little reference symbol in visual editor where you want it to be. If that doesn't make sense, here's a video I made on how you can move a citation in visual and source editor: This is a video showing how you can move a citation do a different location and still have it showing in the "References" section Relativity 22:22, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why is every episode of South Park notable enough for its own article? What makes South Park so special that its episodes deserve an article just because they exist? Most likely the only sources will be a few reviews, while there are actually influential and famous people in the third world with DOZENS of in-depth sources about them and their activities that are considered not notable. Just because the sources are considered to be less "independent" or "reliable", even if they have millions of readers and are the newspaper of record for their region. These episodes of South Park, or whatever American TV show, have very few INDEPENDENT sources about them, as a review of every episode by the same source can scarcely considered independent. The same is true for TV shows outside the western world - just because they are not written about by western news sources, they are deemed non-notable by the AFC reviewers, even when their viewership is many times greater than these American TV shows and many articles are written about them. What's with this western-centric standard? This is like the Donna Strickland problem, but even worse, because the rest of the world outside the "Western world" are far more poorly represented than female academics as a whole. 2601:644:907E:A450:5531:69EC:1375:BC83 (talk) 04:16, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to the Teahouse! Wikipedia:Notability (television)#Television episodes says that "A standalone episode article should be expected to be able to meet WP:GNG on its own", which is the same for articles about people. The sources for each article need to be independent from the article subject and from each other, but it's perfectly fine to use independent sources from the same source in multiple articles. It's challenging to respond to generalizations about the AFC reviewers. If you have specific drafts that you're concerned about, please provide some examples, and we can help explain the reasons why they were declined and provide information on how you can improve them. Looking at the FAQ at Talk:Donna Strickland, I can understand why the drafts that were submitted were not sufficient to be accepted, but it's OK if you look at the drafts and feel differently. GoingBatty (talk) 04:50, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And the problem with Donna Strickland was not that the drafts weren't approved, the problem was that nobody created a sufficient article before she won the Nobel Prize. But the fact that nobody created an article is less worrisome than the fact that contributors who do write articles are having their hard work wasted by reviewers on arbitrary grounds that widely used sources are unreliable. 2601:644:907E:A450:A0AA:AF03:1870:3BD9 (talk) 06:42, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Put simply, there are articles on every South Park episode because there are sources that review and discuss each South Park episode. Those sources are independent of the subject and reliable, so they contribute to notability. Wikipedia does have a problem with systemic bias, but that’s because we’re a volunteer site; people will tend to edit what interests them personally. Most of our editors are from the West, and so our coverage tends to slant that way too. If you do know about notable people who don’t have an article with many sources about them, you can just write the article and help reduce the gap in coverage. As for TV shows, many shows outside the west don’t get any in depth reviews or coverage by RS for each episode, so we can’t write articles about them, even if we wanted to. That’s a problem with how the world works, and Wikipedia can’t solve it because we rely on already existing sources to determine notability; if these sources don’t exist, we cannot just make stuff up to write an article. AryKun (talk) 06:07, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is no rule that determines whether a source is reliable or not aside from what random Wikipedia editors decide. Each country has its own sources that will review media produced in that country or in the local language. And there is systemic bias not just because people edit what interests them but also because the reviewers reject things with sources they're not familiar with or about topics that they're not familiar with. Long-term Wikipedia editors are so accustomed to processes that they are not considering whether the processes are creating the correct results. Articles like "Modhalum Kaadhalum (TV series)" and "Iqbal Singh Lalpura" are being deleted and articles like "Cat Orgy" are kept by default. 2601:644:907E:A450:A0AA:AF03:1870:3BD9 (talk) 06:37, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Iqbal Singh Lalpura does seem to be notable, which is why he's already been kept once at AfD. Modhalum Kaadhalum's sourcing is absolutely atrocious; it's just a collection of references from the publisher, promo articles in TOI, loglines about actors joining the show, and interviews that tangentially mention the show. TOI in particular has a problem with paid articles for TV shows and movies, and so I'm inclined to not count these fluff pieces for notability. Like I said, this is a problem with how Indian media reviews shows; no Indian newspaper or pop culture site I've seen actually reviews and analyzes shows the way Western sites do. The example you mentioned, "Cat Orgy", currently doesn't have great refs, but they do exist, and are very easy to find: 1, 2, 3, 4. The fact that there are no Indian pop culture sites that actually review things is sad, but not a problem we can fix. AryKun (talk) 13:18, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I posted a question on the talk page of Naming conventions (plurals) about the interpretation of this guideline, only to discover that the same question had been asked two years earlier without eliciting any response. Apparently, no one is monitoring this page. None of the places for drawing attention to an issue that I know of apply in this case: this is not about help using or editing Wikipedia and also not about a content dispute or a policy issue. I'd like to know, what is a good way of drawing attention to such an issue? --Lambiam05:51, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. A user (Vacosea) has started an RfC on the talk page of Coco Lee. I have commented on it, but then Vacosea edited the page, added new subheadings and moved my comments. Now it looks like I have started a poll, which I did not. Also, an earlier post of mine now appears below a latter one after their edits. I believe there’s serious misrepresentation.
As far as I know, per WP:OTHERSCOMMENTS and WP:INTERPOLATE: “Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning” and “you should not break up another editor's text by interleaving or interpolating your own replies to individual points”; per WP:TALKNO: “behavior that is unacceptable… Misrepresentation of other people... do not alter others' comments, including signatures”.
I can’t believe someone is doing this after they initiated an RfC, with so many Wikipedian eyes watching…
By the way, there’s another post about me at ANI (the top one, started by Vacosea). And if this is not the right place for the comments altered issue, please feel free to move it to anywhere you find appropriate. Thanks again. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 06:56, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Updating a building photo
I want to update a building photo for a school near me, I am new to Wikipedia and I want to do it right.
Can I take the photo myself? What does the photo need to represent, and what quality is acceptable?
Could I take a photo off one of the school's publications, even if its a different building from the same school?
How many photos per Wikipedia article?
How do I add a photo?
Also, is Linkedin employee numbers a reliable reference?
@Loupedecker, welcome! Images have A LOT of devil in the details, starting with copyright etc. Wikipedia:Image use policy and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images go into some of the details. Most pictures you see on WP are actually hosted on our sister-site Commons, which has rules of it's own. Strict ones.
Yes, taking the photo yourself is ok, because afaict Australia has freedom of panorama rules that allows it [1] (not all countries do). You can upload it at WP:FUW. It is very likely that the schools own publications are copyrighted and can't be used.
@Loupedecker: If the school recently published their own employee numbers of LinkedIn, that’s probably reliable. However, I hope you are first looking for independent published sources that provide significant coverage about the school. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 12:39, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Ramdeo Beniwal Article
Recently I have created an article Ramdeo Beniwal, today a wiki user tagged a notice on this article saying that it does not meet wikipedia notability guidelines, but Ramdeo Beniwal was a two term Member of Rajasthan Legislative Assembly, and I think this is enough for Wikipedia Notability because there are more than 100 articles on single term members of state assemblies in India. Ramdeo Beniwal does not have more coverage in media because he is a Member of assembly about 40 years ago, when there are almost no news websites Coverage in Rajasthan. WikiAnchor10 (talk) 10:06, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rickdarkwah: I guess that this is about Draft:Davide Scarabelli, and that you are trying to publish (not "public") a biography (not "bibliography"). The draft appears to cite eight sources, but all eight citations link to the same web page, which has no discussion of Scarabelli. Maproom (talk) 10:57, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Rickdarkwah. 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. It follows that writing a Wikipedia article begins with finding such independent sources, because if you cannot find any you will know that there is no point in proceeding with the article. Doing anything else is like building a house without surveying the site first. ColinFine (talk) 21:25, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is archive.today or archive.org better for archiving on Wikipedia?
I notice archive.today is never used on Wikipedia or at least nowhere near as much as archive.org. Is there a reason. Personally I think archive.today is better for archiving and doesn’t tend to hiccup.It seems though that Wikipedia prefers archive.org. Does it matter which one I use or is either one fine? Thatsoddd (talk) 13:48, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would read through WP:ARCHIVETODAY, but it seems to be reliable from what I've read. Archiving does not require a specific archiving site, it's just that archive.org has been consistently reliable in the past, and is more well-known. Nobody expects the UnexpectedSmoreInquisition (talk)! 13:53, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Uncontroversial technical title change
Hi, I submitted an uncontroversial technical request to move/change the title of Hemlock Semiconductor Corporation a week ago. It appeared in the list in the uncontroversial technical requests section. Now it no longer appears in the list but the title of the article has not been updated. I don't know how to find out the status of my request. Thanks for any help. Funkadelic2023 (talk) 14:54, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Funkadelic2023, welcome to the Teahouse. Your contribution history shows no such request, and I don't see one in the page history at WP:RMT (though I might have missed it) - are you sure you published your changes rather than just previewing them? 57.140.16.56 (talk) 17:40, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
it magically turned into a redirect right while i was trying to confirm the answer
you should probably try to make a draft first tbh
that aside, there's a "(+)" icon in the category box in the bottom of any given page, which won't show up while you're editing if the box is empty, so you'd need to stop editing to add at least one
You can install it from this link by clicking the check-box under "Editing". Once installed, the bottom of the page will have a bar listing all the categories (similar to how it normally looks). If you click on the (+) button, you can begin typing a category name and it will show various suggestions and similar categories. Sincerely, Novo Tape (She/Her)My Talk Page17:00, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How close to employment can/should I edit?
I work for the Denver Public Library. As you might guess I'm hugely interested in libraries, literature, and history. It is 100% clear that I should NEVER edit the page for DPL or its history, however would it be okay for me to, for example, add references to the List of Carnegie libraries in Colorado or eventually to create a List of libraries in Colorado as long as I get someone else to add or edit the Denver branches? Or should I stay away from Colorado entirely?
Relatedly DPL is not fully independent of the City and County of Denver. Our library board and city librarian are appointed by the mayor. Does this mean I should avoid editing Timeline of Denver since Denver is sorta my employer and that page is somewhat the history of my employer as a public servant? Should I also avoid editing Colorado or even United States of America since we get grants from them at times? I have read over WP:COI and it seems to say that I can edit topic like that, but I should do it through making a draft or posting to the talk page first and disclosing my COI. Is that correct?
My inclination is to create a draft AfC List of libraries in New Mexico that announces I work for Denver Public Library, but that I am not being paid to write the article and that I'm doing it on a purely volunteer basis in my free time and requesting critiques of what I have written before I post it. Then moving on to Wyoming and only then adding Colorado so that is is clearer that I'm not just editing to promote DPL or even Colorado libraries in general. ColfaxLibrary (talk) 15:43, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From what I understand, as long as you disclose COI and edit with full neutrality and without bias, you should be fine. If you believe your COI will be triggered, only avoid the articles related to your COI. And no, living in a country does not automatically apply your COI to everything in that country, I would only disclose the COI on the pages related to your field of work. Nobody expects the UnexpectedSmoreInquisition (talk)! 16:21, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ColfaxLibrary. You can certainly revert obvious vandalism to Denver Public Library. You can also make formal edit requests at Talk: Denver Public Library. Personally, I think you can edit Timeline of Denver with few restrictions, since that is about the broad history of the city, rather than just the history of the city government. Lots of the entries lack references to reliable sources, which should be very easy for you to find. I see no problem with you editing about libraries in New Mexico or Wyoming. I do have a problem with your user name, though. It implies that anyone working for that branch library can use the account, which would be a policy violation. It implies that it is an "official" library account. I recommend that you change it to something like "Barbara at Colfax Library" or something similar. Cullen328 (talk) 17:56, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No problem @Cullen328, I'm actually glad I made this mistake so I could see how the renaming process works and I can explain it to other users. Very simple and easy. The big advantage, as I see it is that it preserves a record of my mistakes instead of hiding them in an unused account. Plus general neatness of not leaving a cobweb account. It was also very fast today.
If you have any advice about managing events beyond reading the page on them it would be great. I'm aiming at running public Wikipedia editing event here at the Gonzalez Branch in January of 2024. MatthewFromColfaxLibrary (talk) 18:11, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Budapest Ferenc Liszt International Airport referencing issue
Hello. Go to above airport article, go to first paragraph, last sentence that says...The facility cover 1,515 hectares..Click on citation #7. I want the citation to go to the English data fact page about the facility. Have tried numerous times, made sure the URL was typed correctly. Thank you for your time.Theairportman33531 (talk) 16:36, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
plot sections in games tend to be summaries of the first 30 minutes or so of the game, with no meaningful spoilers, like with pofv (not that the plot there matters in the first place)
for games more focused on their plots, like trust issues: the game (featuring clinical depression), it can be a somewhat more summarized summary of the entire plot, but still hopefully not really a long explanation of everything that happens in the plot
@Cog-san The guidance at WP:SPOILER shows that Wikipedia allows spoilers. Whether or not an article should go into such detail in a specific case is a different question: the length of things like plots shouldn't be excessive. MOS:FILMPLOT says that even feature films only need plots of about 400-700 words. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:26, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
in that case, it could probably be shortened to less than ~1337 words
I am the manager at GSPC my family has been operating/owners of GSPC since 2003 legally and no reference to it on wiki, so I was just trying to post facts that are not open for a false claim. I can only contribute from experience in the field of 30 years in cultivation, retail and the foreigners that now control most of the market including the ones that get expedited licensing if they are special visa holder, immigrant or asylum seeker. How can I give the facts that are not meant to be published because of the harm it would do to the democratic and republican parties?  Tim Dion (talk) 19:29, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Tim Dion As mentioned before, Wikipedia is not a business directory like the Yellow Pages. We're also not a way to promote to advertise a busienss. Only organisations that pass the strict WP:NORG criteria may have a Wikipedia article written about them. Your clinic has zero proof of reaching that criteria, and therefore there can be no article. Qcne(talk)19:38, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tim Dion, just as Wikipedia editors are entitled to anonymity, they are also entitled to be open about their real world identities, including where they live. I have chosen to reveal my real world identity information on Wikipedia for 14 years. Since you manage that business, you must comply with the Paid contributions disclosure. This is mandatory and non-negotiable. As for facts, they must be verifiable by references to published, reliable sources. Cullen328 (talk) 19:44, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will remove myself from wiki, as I only wanted to put on Wikipedia that (GSPC) is an abbreviation for (Golden State Patient Care) a Cannabis Retailer in Colfax California. When I did search (GSPC) in (Wikipedia search engine) nothing was there to support it. Because you replied, I quote (The fact that GSPC is a cannabis retailer) is that notable enough as a reference? Tim Dion (talk) 21:15, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Clinic is a great term for a nonprofit organization that supplies medical treatment with or without administering controlled substance to its customers/patients. Tim Dion (talk) 21:22, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I searched GSPC in the search box, and several news articles expanding over 20 years have been published and important information is not there, several red flags popped up, the first Wikipedia definition for GSPC is an organization connected to AL Qaeda. The other definitions are in such a cluster as to one would never find GSPC in with your investments. Tim Dion (talk) 22:05, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, other organizations are allowed to have the abbreviation GSPC. Your clinic is not notable by Wikipedia standards so shouldn't be added to that disembaguation list.
All I wanted to do is to be recognized as a one of many (GSPC) abbreviations, I put the physical address to have proof that this legacy operator was legit/legal, The history of the Golden State Patient Care, having (GSPC) in Wikipedia listed as an abbreviation for Golden State Patient Care is what I was trying to accomplish Wikipedia's (GSPC) is the edit I signed up for and less unknow responses popped up so I feeling like Crook-apedia is well established here Tim Dion (talk) 22:25, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Llmorgan02. Your references are bare URLs that ought to be properly formatted but that is a relatively minor issue. Far more important is that the sources are almost certainly generated by press releases or public relations efforts by the organization. What is required are references to reliable sources that are entirely independent of the organization, and that devote significant coverage to the organization. Please read Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Cullen328 (talk) 19:27, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Help with distinguishing American/British English
Hello.
I've attempted to find this information by searching through the help pages, but I can't find an answer to my question.
My question: how do we distinguish between American and British English?
I've more questions related but that's the essence.
Are there different pages for American/British English articles? If I'm editing an article written in British English, should I leave all grammar/spelling in British English format? And likewise for articles I edit written in American English?
I'm happy to be here with all you editors and I'm grateful for this teahouse forum to ask questions.
(reply with visualeditor preferred. not relevant to provide link to the page as it's a general question about all pages, but ill link the page im working on if needed/asked.)
Start with MOS:ENGVAR. In short, leave the article in the same variant as you find it. Occasionally there might happen to be a really good reason to change it, but this tends to be rare, and you need to be able to convince yourself—and others— that the change is really necessary, and why. Feline Hymnic (talk) 20:51, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I improved the English of part of an article and it was reverted.
About one hour ago, I improved a sentence in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama by adding a few commas and connecting words, which made it clearer, and more of a pleasure to read, especially if you don't already Obama's life story, in short, much more readable, at the cost of a very few extra characters, IMHO.
But it it got reverted seven minutes later with no attempt at discussion on the Talk page, for allegedly not being an improvement. But after looking again at the edit, I am convinced that my edit was an improvement. Here's a link to the revision history page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&action=history
I think the reverter attaches to much value to the number of characters. Adding a comma does not mean it takes longer to read the sentence. It is how long it takes the reader to read the sentence that counts, not how many characters are in the sentence, as I see it. The reversion, IMHO, is a case of the extreme compression of text, that calls to mind the style of a newspaper headline, where the number of characters really is an issue, or, to use a less extreme example, the style of a newspaper column where the number of characters or "inches" of text is limited.
I would also very much appreciate any thoughts on what my options are, and what would be the wise thing for me to do here. Thank you in advance for your help. Polar Apposite (talk) 21:15, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Polar Apposite! First, you should've taken this to the person who reverted your edit's user talk page and asked them to elaborate. Your edit did add more clauses to the already wordy sentence. In fact, if I was in your position, I probably would've broken up the sentence instead of adding more parts. There is no need to use the word "had" as the entire sentence is talking about his past positions. See WP:COPYEDIT for more information about concise editing. Happy editing! —asparagusus(interaction)sprouts!21:21, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, not all reverts need to be discussed in length; the editor explained themself in their edit summary and if you needed more explanation you could've asked them. I don't think it was polite of them to call your edit "middle school grammar", though. Pinging @ValarianB. —asparagusus(interaction)sprouts!21:23, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I take "middle school grammar" as a compliment. It sounds to me like what they teach in the ideal middle school: plain, easy, grammatically correct English, which is exactly what the average Wikipedia reader needs to see.. Polar Apposite (talk) 23:01, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I had a look at your link and started a discussion on the article's talk page like you suggested, and invited (good idea, that) the reverter to share his/their thoughts. Polar Apposite (talk) 22:57, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking an interest in my case. Right now, I am having a lot of fun editing. There is a learning curve though. But learning how to use the citation template was the most fun I've had in a while. Cheers! Polar Apposite (talk) 23:03, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting a Page
Hello - a user not affiliated with our school created a Wiki page about 15 years ago. The school name has changed, we are no longer affiliated with the diocese, and we are now a nonpublic school accepting all genders. We are not able to edit this page and request that it is deleted so we can create a correct page with updated information. Please advise, thank you!
Help! I'm trying to add my new page to the Mainspace but get error
I am trying to add my new page, Milton Samuels, to the Mainspace. It says I Succeeded, but when I search for that page it says This sandbox is in the Wikipedia talk namespace. Either move this page into your userspace, or remove the {{User sandbox}} template. I don't understand this and am afraid I will accidentally delete my article and not have it in my sandbox to try to move again. Can anyone help? Thanks! VibesMan747 (talk) 22:19, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a way to find an article with only spelling/grammar errors? I would work on citations as well, but I'm not as confident as I am with correcting spelling errors. ~~JustAnotherUndertaleFrantic~~ JustAnotherUndertaleFrantic (talk) 22:36, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have a website concerning the discipline I'd like to create an article about, is it possible for me to properly create an article under these circumstances? Indiefilmpros (talk) 23:19, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
if, however, it's the latter, you may write about it (see Notability, Reliable sources and Your first article for guidelines), however it is unlikely you'll be able to cite your own website for these, as unless it is in something widely regarded as reputable and backed by a rigorous editorial process as reliable sources should be (usually things like news, professional reviews, journal articles, etc) it cannot be used in Wikipedia. see Citing yourself for more on this. happy editing! 💜 melecietalk - 00:31, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Translating an existing article
Hi! I practiced translating one existing article from Korean to English and pressed 'Publish'. The new English page was there for a few hours (and can be searched for through keyword). However, it disappeared when I searched again on Wikipedia. Although through Google, the English page still appears, when clicked, the original Korean page appears instead. I wonder if there is a way to fix this problem. Thank you very much! Tashialala (talk) 23:30, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tashialala, welcome to the Teahouse. You have not created any pages here at the English Wikipedia en.wikipedia.org. You created ko:MONITORAPP at the Korean Wikipedia ko.wikipedia.org. They want pages to be in Korean, not English, so somebody redirected your article to a page in Korean. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:08, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why are templates different between different languages?
As my first experience as a Wikipedia editor, I have recently translated a couple Wikipedia articles from English to French, and recently I've been confused why the "Infobox Character / Infobox_Personnage_(fiction)" template is different between the two Wikipedias (and, for that matter, why any template would be different across languages anyways). Shouldn't Wikipedia be sharing consistent information, and wouldn't that mean that templates should be consistent, with the same fields and layouts across languages? Am I missing something here? GuyInFridge (talk) 01:28, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
hi @GuyInFridge and welcome to the Teahouse! different-language Wikipedias operate separately for the most part (except for having the same goal and being hosted in the same place). the templates are different as it is possible French Wikipedia copied them from here at another time and adapted them for their language, and the template just doesn't update simultaneously with the template here (because technically, I don't think there is a way to do that, and any further updates to it would have to be done manually which may be unnecessary for them), so basically it becomes a fork of the template here. happy editing! 💜 melecietalk - 01:57, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, good to know! If I wanted to update the French template, my understanding is I could do so on their Wikipedia, and then if they want to revert my changes or discuss them, then that discussion would be had on the discussion page of the template I just edited? Do I have that right? GuyInFridge (talk) 02:02, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, GuyInFridge. That is the way it would happen in English Wikipedia (accordingh to WP:BRD). I would guess that that is how it would happen in French Wikipedia, but again, they could have different procedures. ColinFine (talk) 10:36, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dark Mode Theme for Wikipedia
Wikipedia technicians should develop and offer in the settings, an optional dark mode theme for the pages. It would be beneficial for those of us with sensitive visual needs in adjusting to the bright contrasted background. 108.170.139.45 (talk) 02:22, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @TheLatinNerd, and welcome to the Teahouse! To answer your question, you are allowed to have multiple accounts for several good-faith purposes, such as security while editing on public computers and privacy concerns, per WP:LEGITSOCK. It is preferred to have your alternate accounts publicly connected to the main account unless doing so would defeat the purpose of the alternate account (i.e. privacy concerns). You may also want to consider notifying the Arbitration Committee if you believe that your edits may attract scrutiny. Alternative accounts are not allowed for Wikipedia:Vandalism or creating an illusion of support where there is none, as outlined in Wikipedia:BADSOCK. Hope this helps! Grumpylawnchair (talk)02:49, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oddity about US state capitols
An odd coincidence:multi-word capitals
All of the 9 states whose capitals have multiple-word names comprise a contiguous group. 2 of the states touch at a single point, but I believe that qualifies as contiguous. The states are:
Hello @Rootsmusic and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm not sure what exactly you mean by "finding red links in an article". If you mean "find the pages that the red links point to", you cannot, the red links represent pages that don't exist. That is why when you click on them you are taken to a prompt to create the page. Please see Wikipedia:Red link for more information. If this is not what you meant, please clarify. Cheers, Grumpylawnchair (talk)03:23, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Rootsmusic: If you're in a standard web brower, view the page with the "view source" feature of the browser, then use the browser search to find occurrences of "page does not exist". QED! Fabrickator (talk) 04:17, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Contacting Business representatives
In relation to my earlier talk "Updating a building photo", is it ok/recommended to contact a building or business representative for photos or information for the purpose of putting it up on Wikipedia?
I have a book to hand. Put Author, Publisher, Title, Edition into Template. Could not get the ISBN Autofill to do anything. So put in the ISBN myself. Does the ISBN Autofill work? BlueWren0123 (talk) 06:31, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Invoking a File Upload with an Alt+U hotkey goes through a redirect
No wait, it works fine for me on all Skins except Minerva, where it doesn't do anything, but I believe that's expected. I'm on a Win 10 Enterprise desktop using Google Chrome 117. - UtherSRG(talk)11:34, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Publishing a page
Dear Wikipedia .
I submitted a page for publication in may this year . How can I check the status? On 1st October I received an email saying the copyright of the image was not stated . I added the copyright owner but I am not sure it got logged correctly.
the image was subsequently deleted and the page was not published.
how can I find the status and how can I reinstall the image with the correct copyright? Kaffkas (talk) 10:35, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you mean your user page, then that is the wrong place to create an article, and you have never submitted it for review. I suggest you use the article wizard to create a draft Draft:Shivani Mathur, and copy the source text from your user page to there. Then when it is ready for review, you can submit it.
Hi @Kaffkas, welcome to the Teahouse. About the image - are you trying to upload an image you took of this person, or one taken by someone else? The photographer is typically the copyright holder and must be the one to release an image for use. You can't simply add their name, they must grant permission in writing to Wikimedia Commons. 57.140.16.56 (talk) 12:48, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
please help regarding my AFC submission(Bajrang Baan) Article
@GoingBatty first off all hello and thank you for your immediate reply, the problem is resolved now there is a no issue, again thank you for yours instant help, much appreciated. Cancersign9 (talk) 14:44, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I really want to become genuine Wikipedian Contributor, How can i improve my articles and writing skills, how can i correct my mistakes error in articles, kindly tell me. regarding this, thank you in advance. Cancersign9 (talk) 14:51, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i will try to improve the article with your highlighted points, and definitely trying hard to get geniune references which meets articles standerd policy. the question aries that this article of mine is worth to publish main space or should i improve this article in draftspace what is your geniune thought on this? Cancersign9 (talk) 15:11, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why would sanctions against editors not be allowed to punish users. Administrators should have the right to punish vandals and users who are about to get banned? Like for example, for a user who keeps changing names of pages to inappropriate names and then gets banned indefinitely, administrators should be allowed to vandalize that user's page as punishment. 97.71.234.50 (talk) 14:24, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But vandals who get banned indefinitely do deserve to have their userpage vandalized, that should be their punishment. Or better yet, administrators can harass that vandal or even give them personal attacks. 97.71.234.50 (talk) 14:29, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't accept the admin tools to dole out punishment or harass anyone and I have better things to do than vandalize anything. 331dot (talk) 14:31, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I know, but you don't understand. What I'm trying to say is that vandals who keep vandalizing Wikipedia or doing other things that they are banned from and then they get banned indefinitely do deserve to be harassed or even get personal attacked as punishment for doing things they've been banned from. 97.71.234.50 (talk) 14:35, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind Wikipedia, there is the issue of basic human decency and morality. An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind. 331dot (talk) 14:37, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alright that's enough. Other editors have already pointed it out but, harassment or personal attacks against others (even against vandals) is not allowed! 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 (☁＝☁＝✈) 14:40, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not an admin. It seems to me that most vandals are desperate for attention. Whether it's posting porn, or posting on help pages, they are almost crying out 'me me me'. The worst thing you can do, in their eyes, is ignore them and move on. Knitsey (talk) 14:40, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me but, why on earth do you think that is an acceptable thing for an admin to do. Vandals get blocked by the admins. Period. No further action is needed. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 (☁＝☁＝✈) 14:33, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good morning! I submitted a page for publication a couple months ago (Draft:Sean Stegall), which was rejected for a conflict of interest and is potentially flagged for notoriety. I have disclosed my affiliation with the organization related to the article's subject, but am not sure if there are any other steps I can take to improve the article's likelihood of publication. Other than working for the same organization as the article subject, I do not have any personal relationship nor compensation for creating this article; I've strictly used my research and prior knowledge of the subject to craft it. I have compared my entry to a few other city manager/town manager pages and they seem to contain a similar amount and type of information as this one.
As far as notoriety, I'd also love some help in explaining what is lacking that can help support the creation of the article.
The test for articles about politicians would be WP:NPOLITICIAN. Sean fails #1 as a Town Manager is not on that list of criteria. #2 is more tricky, but I think he would just about fail it as there is not significant coverage as your secondary sources are local newspapers. I would be willing to see what other reviewers think, though.
You haven't yet submitted this for review, so maybe submit (click the big Submit draft for review!) button, and then it'll go into the pool to be reviewed, and you might get some more thoughts from other reviewers. Qcne(talk)15:51, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi IP editor, did you read the comment left by the reviewer under the decline notice? It explains why the article was declined (not rejected). Articles about professional sports people need to pass WP:SPORTBASIC, and there wasn't evidence of meeting that criteria from your sources. Qcne(talk)19:01, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Video titles
Danstarr69's reply to 1AmNobody24's question about YouTube videos included the phrase "correcting titles (as sometimes they're different to the title in the story itself ...)"[1] suggesting that a video's title is that on the video itself rather than the title above/below the video on the page where the video appears. The former may only be visible for a few seconds whereas the latter is more obvious and may be the title in search snippets and referred to in articles.
Maybe the solution is to include both titles. Is there a way of doing that using VisualEditor and Source Editor?
Mcljlm I thought this was regarding another post I replied to recently, as it's not just Youtube and News Stories that do it, Film and TV companies do it to.
One example is Dune (2021 film) which is actually called "Dune: Part One" on screen, yet they advertised it everywhere as just Dune. I randomly found out that "Dune: Part Two" is on the way soon recently, and I suspect they'll advertise it with the correct title this time.
The BBC and Channel 4 have countless productions which don't match what appears on screen, most of which seem to be in the documentary/reality TV genres. I can't think of a specific example, as I haven't updated any for a while, but there's many as I said.
A Youtube example I noticed last night, when looking for a short film to check if it's credits were correct (I can't remember why now), is the film Ecstasy (2021) which it's official Youtube distributer Omeleto has titled "A young man tries to buy ecstasy for his disabled father. The reason why is heartwarming. | Ecstasy" It's just a short plot outline, like with most Youtube titles on films distributed by similar channels. Danstarr69 (talk) 20:56, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said on that post, if I knew how to make references say what they're supposed to say automatically, I would, although I know that's not possible with BFI Collections, which as I said, would be replacing BFI - Film, TV, People pages, which were all deleted last week (apart from some BFI funded/produced productions which were redirected to different pages on the BFI), so now there's 3,500+ dead BFI external links on here, not to mention the countless dead BFI references.
I don't know why the BFI have deleted them all now, as BFI Collections stops working occasionally for minutes/hours for no reason, plus it's very very slow when you try to use the Advanced or Expert Searches to narrow down the results, so it clearly isn't the finished article yet.
Back to Wikipedia, I add each reference automatically in visual mode, add anything that's missing, correct anything that needs correcting, then switch to source mode to give the reference a name if I'm likely to use it more than once. Danstarr69 (talk) 23:38, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am working on my first article on WP and am ran into some snags, resulting in my first draft being declined for seeming promotional. Draft:Brian E. Kinsella.
I've edited the text yesterday, and am still hoping for some feedback, on whether this meets the encyclopedic tone standard. I’ve also corrected link references. If you have the time, I'd appreciate any advice and comments, before I try to resubmit).
Thank you so much in advance! I really appreciate any help.
Thank you SO much Mitch, I have been removing all the text I thought could come across promotional. But if there’s more I need to do, I’ll just keep working at it. I was removed from the category of: being paid, and promoting content, so that’s a really good start. - still learning! Mwikiforce (talk) 22:55, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A brief look at your sources looks good. One other area of possible promotional tone, the career section seems too congratulatory for him helping out in Afghanistan. It might be fine assuming that is what reliable sources say but it is something to keep in mind. Finally, I apologize for confusing Kinsella and his roommate in my previous comment. ✶Mitch199811✶23:08, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No worries Mitch! Thank you so much for taking the time. Yeah, I removed all that seemed promotional to me, but I can give that another look. I was relying on WSJ on Afghanistan, and it does seem like a pretty historical event to me, so it’s hard for me to tell if it’s congratulatory, or just the mere facts. I’ll definitely look at it again.
@Josedimaria237 Welcome to the Teahouse. The coordinates you added are displaying OK. (visible in the top right side of the page, just above the Infobox).
@Josedimaria237: There was no Mapframes map in the infobox because you didn't put the {{coord}} template in the |coordinates= field in the infobox. I've moved the template there, and now there's a map. Deor (talk) 00:04, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Infobox map discrepancy
Hi All,
In the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronan_Point, I see an apparent problem: The page shows Ronan Point's location at two (2) different map coordinates, depending on which link on the page one uses. (This is obviously not optimal.)
Compare the location icons displayed on maps at these 2 URLs:
The full-screen map accessible from this page's Infobox:
(Note that both maps reference OpenStreetMap as their source.) I claim that only URL B has its icon in the CORRECT location, consistent with the coordinates stated on the Wikipedia page (51.512852°N, 0.021505°E). By contrast, the icon on the map at URL A is well off this mark — about 110 meters northeast of URL B’s icon.
Assuming you agree with the above, what is the best way to correct this page so that this page's maps display consistently? It's not at all obvious to me where the (problematic) coordinates used by URL A are coming from. Also, it looks as though the problem could be fixed easily by adding URL B’s coordinates to the Infobox definition:
| coordinates = {{Coord|51.512852|N|0.021505|E}}
However, the downside of this approach is that it duplicates the coordinates that are already on the page.
@Marnofaldi: I think I've fixed this, hopefully to your satisfaction. "The (problematic) coordinates used by URL A" were coming from Wikidata, which supplies the map used in the infobox when no coordinates are specified in the infobox itself. I've moved the {{coord}} template from the bottom of the article into the infobox (trimming the overprecise coordinates), so the infobox map and the maps on the Geograph page should now be showing the same location. Deor (talk) 23:57, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Deor: Your revision is exactly what I was looking for. Also, until now I hadn't realized that entering the coordinates in just the infobox would cause them to appear in two places on the page. Thanks. Marnofaldi (talk) 02:07, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wanting to make lists of rugby union results more digestible/clean them up
Hello, I was wondering what the most acceptable way to redo some of the pages for lists of rugby union results - as the sheer volume of results, to me, is not easily digestible and difficult to read. Specifically, I had wanted to start with making the list of Wales results look something like the pages for England - with a 'hub' main page and several pages listing the results by decade. Eventually, the hope would be to have uniformity across the pages for the results of national rugby union teams.
Understandably, my draft for a list of Wales rugby union results between 1881 and 1889 was rejected due to currently being redundant. I just wanted to know what is the best way to go about trying to achieve creating a hub page for Wales results with links to smaller, more digestible, pages like my draft, without getting rid of the current list page that otherwise makes my draft pages redundant. I wouldn't want to edit the current page to remove what would make my draft page redundant until my draft page was approved, as then there would be no way to access the results in question - if that makes any sense.
@Thomasfan1916: It takes a large amount of Wikipedia experience to become an administrator, plus a demonstrated need for the admin tools. Almost everything can be done without being an admin. Focus on making contructive edits that improve the encyclopedia. In a few years, if you are still interested, you can consider applying at WP:RfARudolfRed (talk) 00:11, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Videos and images
how do you post videos and images on a wikipedia article?
@Evergreen tenal: Probably the best place for you to start would be to carefully read through Wikipedia:Image use policy since that page either covers pretty much everything related to image use on Wikipedia. If you've still got questions after looking at the page, feel free to post them here at the Teahouse. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:31, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I'm curious about how I can best locate sources for a project. For this assignment, we have to make changes to/improve upon an existing Wikipedia article. I have been assigned the Music Psychology Wikipedia article, but I am stumped about what changes I could possibly make to improve this article. I was intent on improving sourcing, or rectifying dead links held within the article. So, my questions are:
Could anyone give me any tips on how to find solid sourcing?
What is a good way to verify that the sources being used in the article are still reputable?
Hi RealSpill27. Your class was assigned two Wiki-Ed advisors (User:Helaine (Wiki Ed) and User:Ian (Wiki Ed)) and I'm sure that either Helaine or Ian would be more than happy to answer any questions you have. You can post questions on their user talk pages. I believe your class also has access to various Wiki Ed modules/tutorials specifically designed for students such as yourself that you also might find helpful. However, you can find some general information about "reliable sources" in Wikipedia:Reliable sources. As for ways to improve the "Music psychology" article, you might want to propose some things at Talk:Music psychology to see if you get any feedback. You could also start a discussion about the article Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychology to see whether any members of that WikiProject have any suggestions. That particular article looks at first glance to be fairly well developed; so, it might be better to be a bit WP:CAUTIOUS instead of diving right in and making lots of major changes. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:19, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, RealSpill27. I suggest a slight expansion of what is called the "controversial Mozart effect" to clarify that this "effect" is not valid according to the best sources, and to enable the reader to better understand what the theory was. Also, there is what appears to me to be an inappropriate red link in the subsection "Affective response". Main article links should only include articles that exist, and non-existent articles should not be included. To be frank, I doubt that Cognition and the Evolution of Music: Pitfalls and Prospects should ever exist. That is a source, but I do not think it likely that there should be a Wikipedia article about that source. Cullen328 (talk) 02:23, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, IP editor. Help:Redirect should give you the information that you need. IP editors and newly registered editors cannot create redirects. In order to do so, you will need to register an account and make at least ten edits over at least four full days. Please read WP:AUTOCONFIRM for more details. Cullen328 (talk) 02:29, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, EstherWoj. I have removed the claimed date of birth from Esther Wojcicki because I spent 6-1/2 minutes watching the YouTube video used as a reference and the birth date was never mentioned. Using that video as a reference for your date of birth is against policy, although it enabled me to learn more about your classroom philosophy. If you want an accurate birth date mentioned, then post a formal edit request at Talk: Esther Wojcicki. No date of birth should be in the article unless accompanied by a reference to a reliable source that verifies the date. Cullen328 (talk) 03:55, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! My wiki username is MaBo01Cel. I just got my article rejected but I don't understand why. I wrote an article about a company and I think the references I have added are good. I compered my article to other similar company articles such as Sysmex Corporation, and I cannot understand why Sysmex Corporation article was accepted but not mine about CellaVision. Could you please help me? MaBo01Cel (talk) 09:30, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy link:Draft:CellaVision Your draft was declined, notrejected. The template at the top of the article claims that the you created the article in return for undisclosed payments, which is against Wikipedia's terms of use. Also, have a look at the feedback that the draft-reviewer left on your draft. ContributeToTheWiki (talk • contribs) 09:51, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @MaBo01Cel: the draft was declined for the reasons given in the decline notice (those grey boxes inside the large pink one), namely that it does not demonstrate the subject's notability, as it only cites close primary sources. And given that this is therefore not based on what independent sources have said, but only on what the company wants to say about itself, the draft is inherently promotional (see WP:YESPROMO). HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:00, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
Courtesy link: Draft:Bajrang Baan - 57.140.16.56 (talk) 13:37, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
I will not get blocked; but, I want to become an Administrator. - Thomasfan1916 (talk) 23:40, 11 October 2023 (UTC)