Wikipedia:Teahouse

Shantavira, a Teahouse host

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

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.

To read the newest questions, skip to bottom
About the Teahouse

Most recent archives
1221, 1222, 1223, 1224, 1225, 1226, 1227, 1228, 1229, 1230, 1231, 1232, 1233, 1234, 1235, 1236, 1237, 1238, 1239, 1240

Will this obscure toy line qualify for inclusion on WP?

An article on Woodsey--a very obscure toy line produced by Fisher-Price at the turn of the 1980s--has sat idle in my sandbox for a decade and a half. At this writing, the only coverage thereof is the barest of a one-line mention in the "Historic brands and products" section of its company's article.

Coming back to it this season as I clean out the sandbox one topic at a time (while transitioning to a brand-new AFC queue), I've found ~~three~~--make that six--usable citations so far from the fishwrap morgue (via WP:Library) that may be enough for a standalone page. An ambitious task given that most of the WP Library hits are advertisements; if you or I can find more coverage, then we'll remind you!

Like I said...very obscure.

Toys

Jinkins, Shirley Young (1979-03-25). "Dallas Toy Show previews Christmas '79 extravaganza". West Texas Living. San Angelo Standard-Times. p. 1E. Retrieved 2024-05-02 – via Newspapers.com. (Although this brand gets a one-paragraph description here, this is pretty much the earliest mention anywhere.)
"This year's gift is tough: Preschool -- Play family". Anderson Independent. Anderson County, South Carolina. 1979-11-13. p. 2D. Retrieved 2024-05-02 – via Newspapers.com. (Description of the toys, dating back to the line's launch.)
Pywen, Martha (1980-11-17). "Toy guide for parents: 16 experts give uninhibited opinions on eight newcomers". The Cincinnati Post Accent. p. 1B. Retrieved 2024-05-02 – via Newspapers.com. (The line, as the "Woodseys' Log House", is profiled here [with a related picture atop the article].)
"New toys at library". The Sun Times. Owen Sound, Ontario. 1981-08-14. p. F12. Retrieved 2024-05-02 – via Newspapers.com. ("Fisher-Price has produced two sequels to the Woodsey family house, the Woodsey Store and the Woodsey Airport.")

Books

Sanders, Linda (1981-11-15). "Books: Woodsey series for children almost too good to be true". The Clarion-Ledger. Jackson, Mississippi. p. 18G. Retrieved 2024-05-02 – via Newspapers.com. (Mostly positive review of the four-book set, entitled the "Woodsey Log Library".)
B.H.H. (1981-12-20). "Favorites for young". World of Books. The Anniston Star. Anniston, Alabama. p. 8E. Retrieved 2024-05-02 – via Newspapers.com. (Paperback reprints are reviewed; again, mostly positive.)

It might as well be an understatement that this quoted excerpt from one of those tie-in books--Uncle Filbert Saves the Day, the one I've always remembered from my primary-school youth in the Commonwealth of Dominica--aptly serves as a metaphor for my efforts those past several days, and (on a wider scale) for those committed to upholding WP's RS/notability expectations no matter the subject, vintage, demographic, or obscurity. (H/T Etsy product pics.)

"When will he [Filbert] settle down?" said Mama [Milkweed], shaking her head.

"Sometimes you have to run up many trees to find the right branch," said Papa, who often said things that took a while to understand.

But cute and daredeviling as he is, don't expect a separate Uncle Filbert article anytime soon, though...

Once this appeal gets the go-ahead, I'll put this straight in the mainspace--something I hardly ever do nowadays thanks to AFC.

Speaking of old-school cottagecore, I have a Bethany Roberts draft to revive soon enough--blame recent Miraheze duties for the oversight.

All the best...

Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 19:41, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Slgrandson, I have twice skimread the above and still don't understand what it is that you want to say. If you have a question about (or request for) editing, then please express it much more succinctly. -- Hoary (talk) 23:31, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hoary: As implied in the title/contents, I'd like to know if the references I've collected are enough/satisfactory for a standalone WP article on the subject before I go ahead and write it. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 00:04, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Slgrandson, I haven't looked at any of the sources you list, but the second and third of those you list for toys and the first of those you list for books sound as if they might, or might not, add up to material for an article. (The others sound minor indeed.) -- Hoary (talk) 01:10, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hoary: If you've got access to WP:Library, you can actually view them; that way, it might influence your decision further. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 01:22, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Slgrandson, Pywen, "Toy guide for parents": "temporarily unavailable", so I can't comment on it. "This year's gift is tough"; Sanders, "Woodsey series": both are usable, but to my mind they don't come close to evidencing notability. -- Hoary (talk) 09:10, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Toy guide" is now showing up where I am, @Hoary. For WP:THREE's sake: Care to check that link again to make sure you're not missing it this time? --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 11:52, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Slgrandson, WP:THREE suggests that somebody proposing that a subject merits an article should "find the three [sources] that best meet WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV [etc]." The two I've already looked at don't satisfy WP:SIGCOV. -- Hoary (talk) 04:10, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hoary: I've now clipped that article for you convenience (just so this thread doesn't get archived before things are settled). Perhaps @Asilvering and/or @BuySomeApples might be interested/take a look (now that I remember their names from AFC)? Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 16:03, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Slgrandson, I've read it, and I have to say that I'm underwhelmed. -- Hoary (talk) 09:19, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if you were, @Hoary--and sorry if we can't (afford to) make it a separate article at this point in time. (I really wanted to--but perhaps SIGCOV shortcomings are to blame?)

So, from here, which course of action do we take: Setting up a brand-new subsection about Woodsey at Fisher-Price § Historic brands and products, or spinning off the latter into its own page (to accommodate the Woodsey info better)? --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 21:43, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Perhaps we'll tow in Cunard (talk · contribs) to see whether we'll make it after all. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 11:57, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it doesn't merit its own article (and I haven't checked the new sources you found), why not just expand the existing Fisher-Price section where you say it is already mentioned? Mike Turnbull (talk) 09:08, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As for the "Toy guide" bit still up for grabs, calling on @Bearcat and @7&6=thirteen (the latter via WP:WikiProject Toys/Participants) for a third opinion, because I don't know whom else to reach out to (off the top of my head). Know any other toy experts or those in related fields? (Again, WP:Library access required.) --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 04:07, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I used AI at bing.com via Microsoft Copilot to ask:

You: tell me about woodsey and Fisher Price

Copilot:

Fisher-Price introduced the Woodsey series in 1979 as a series of playsets designed to combine the appeal of small, soft animals with the adventures possible in a playset1. The Woodsey line featured characters like the Woodsey squirrel family and included various playsets, such as a log house and an airport set. These toys were known for their charming design and interactive elements, allowing children to engage in imaginative play.

The series lasted until 1981, and over the years, it has become a nostalgic item for collectors. You can find vintage Woodsey playsets and accessories available for sale on various online marketplaces.

Fisher-Price, the company behind the Woodsey series, has been a well-known name in the toy industry for decades. They are recognized for creating a wide range of children’s toys that encourage learning through play. Their products often feature educational elements, are durable, and are designed with the safety of children in mind. Fisher-Price continues to produce new and innovative toys, keeping up with the latest trends and technological advancements in the toy industry.

It also gave citations for the claims. I don't have an opinion as to whether this merits its own article. Your citations help. But leaning toward "yes." 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:21, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked Bing to provide me citations to support its answers to me, and each and every time, the citation either doesn't verify the answer, or the citation is completely made-up out of thin air and nonexistent. I wouldn't trust Bing or any AI for any claims it makes without checking the citations carefully.\

@Slgrandson: I lean toward starting a subsection about Woodsey in the Fisher-Price article, and if it grows to the point where the article is giving it undue weight, then split it off. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:32, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Anachronist: I'll give it a try, day or two, and let you know how well it goes. Take care, patrons! --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 22:36, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. On the other hand, I now feel this belongs better in a reorganised "Products" section (after I clean up the target page). --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 19:14, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article wizard

Hello,

I recently created a new account after losing my old one's password (I had no recovery e-mail set) years ago. A lot has changed... well, for starters, how do I turn off the Article wizard? With my previous account, I was at some 70-80.000 edits at the end, so the Article wizard popping up at every click on a redlink is a real pain... especially when you just wanna do a redirect.
Does it go away on its own after a certain number of edits? I cannnot find any way to toggle it in the preferences. I would find it most convenient if - like in the old days - opening a redlink would give the options of searching for the redlinked term, or creating a new article. That was really helpful for housekeeping work - to check if there was an article already using a spelling variant, or if other articles had the same redlink, or if they did not have the term in question wikilinked yet, etc.. Dysmorodrepanis2 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:41, 4 June 2024‎ (UTC)[reply]

I feel like it goes away when you are an extended-confirmed user or if you have more than 500 edits. TheNuggeteer (talk) 06:36, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page creation

Hi folks. Wanted to know how to create a talk page for an article on Wikipedia, and how talk pages differ according to different types of articles. For instance, I recently created an article, Sivananda Sena (yet to be reviewed); however, I've no clue how to create its talk page. What should I do? Thanks! Dissoxciate (talk) 18:52, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can create the talk page by clicking the 'Talk' redlink in the header of the page, and then clicking either 'Create Source' or 'Start a Discussion'. From there you'll be put into the normal source editor or the discussion form, respectively. WelpThatWorked (talk) 19:13, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@WelpThatWorked Thanks for the response! However, there's an issue. I'm being shown 'Start a Discussion' upon clicking the Talk page redlink; however, I don't really want to start a discussion. I just don't want the Talk page to be vacant. You know, what I basically mean is, Talk pages often have WikiProjects, categories and stuff like "Low-importance" or "Mid-importance" classifications on them. How do I add those? That's what I want to know. And, if I cannot assess and add the aforementioned classifications myself, is there any way some other editor could help me out? Thanks! Dissoxciate (talk) 16:09, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Right, so instead of the 'Start a Discussion' button, use the 'Create Source' button, in the header to the right of the 'Talk' button. This will present you with a blank source editor where you can paste in whichever templates you feel are needed. You can use another, similar talk page as an example or consult Wikipedia:Template_index/WikiProject_banners for a catalogue of templates. WelpThatWorked (talk) 16:53, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@WelpThatWorked Well that helped immensely. Thanks for the response! Dissoxciate (talk) 07:24, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Slander

If there were to be a sort of Wikipedia Slander, what would it look like? For example ~ Snipertron12 :3 ~ [|User|Talk|Cont|] 07:27, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Snipertron12 Welcome to the Teahouse. Your question is unclear, and we can't predict what anything would look like. I suggest you read WP:SLANDER. Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:06, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not really the vibe over here at Wikipedia. I'm not saying gossip or drama never happens but No Personal Attacks is one the community's key ideas. This is not social media and no-one is really that invested in what anyone else has got going on beyond building an encyclopedia. I think you'll probably find less intriguing drama going on here than pretty much any other corner of the Internet. If that's what you're looking for then there are other websites avaliable (or IRL knitting circles I guess). -- D'n'B-t -- 08:11, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. ~ Snipertron12 :3 ~ [|User|Talk|Cont|] 11:04, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think Snipertron12 is referring to this genre of internet memes, not the literal meaning of slander itself. Since Teahouse is more for beginner questions for using Wikipedia, consider discussing this in other off-wiki venues.

Ca ^{talk to me!} 03:14, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HELP! Bug caused my signature to go CRAZY!

Extended content

{{#if:|{{#ifexpr:({{#time:U|{{{3}}}}} - {{#time:U|now}}) > 0|{{highlight/core|'''[[User:Snipertron12|Snipertron12]]'''|{{#ifeq:#296dff||yellow|#296dff}}}}|'''[[User:Snipertron12|Snipertron12]]'''}}|{{highlight/core|'''[[User:Snipertron12|Snipertron12]]'''|#296dff}}}} '''[[User talk:Snipertron12|Talk]]''' {{#if:|{{#ifexpr:({{#time:U|{{{3}}}}} - {{#time:U|now}}) > 0|{{highlight/core|‎‎ ‎|{{#ifeq:#296dff||yellow|#296dff}}}}|‎‎ ‎}}|{{highlight/core|‎‎ ‎|#296dff}}}} '''[[Special:Contributions/Snipertron12|Cont]]''' {{#if:|{{#ifexpr:({{#time:U|{{{3}}}}} - {{#time:U|now}}) > 0|{{highlight/core|‎‎ ‎ |{{#ifeq:#296dff||yellow|#296dff}}}}|‎‎ ‎ }}|{{highlight/core|‎‎ ‎ |#296dff}}}}

This shoud be my signature, but ome reason something happened and it BROKE SOMEHOW. At this point its basically duplicate! Can you help me reduce the amount of charecters? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snipertron12 (talk • contribs) 11:35, 7 June 2024 (UTC)^<diff>[reply]

@Snipertron12: I'm not sure what happened to your signature, but it was breaking my comment so I nowiki'd it. Please see WP:SIG#NT, which says Transclusions of templates, Lua modules, parser functions, and TemplateStyles in signatures (like those which appear as {{User:Name/sig}}, {{#invoke:...}}, {{#if:...}} or <templatestyles ... />) are forbidden Your signature uses 6 parser functions and transcludes 2 templates (it even contains the template parameter {{{3}}}, what's that for?). It is also longer than the 255 character limit, at 451. Please change it to comply with the policy. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 11:58, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That grotesque mass of code should not be your signature. Simply opt for your default signature: problem solved. -- Hoary (talk) 11:59, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Snipertron12, it's too complex. Wikipedia doesn't allow transclusions or conditional statements in templates as CanonNi notes above.

You could go back to the default? Or you could do:

[[User:Snipertron12|<span style="color:#296dff">Snipertron12</span>]] ([[User talk:Snipertron12|<span style="color:#296dff">Talk</span>]] • [[Special:Contributions/Snipertron12|<span style="color:#296dff">Cont</span>]])

Which generates:

Snipertron12 (Talk • Cont)

Hope that helps, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:46, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the first time I posted this I offered an example that was too long trying to do the highlighting. The example in my reply above is 219 characters which is close to the limit. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:53, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How I can publish an article on Wikipedia

I have invented a new maths formula and I want everyone to know about it , I tried to publish it in many platforms but no one even see it. Wikipedia is my last hope , please help me. Udyan Kukreti 03 (talk) 12:08, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, Udyan Kukreti 03, that's not what Wikipedia is for. -- Hoary (talk) 12:11, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I can't publish my formula? Udyan Kukreti 03 (talk) 12:12, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:What Wikipedia is not '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 12:15, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ok , sorry Udyan Kukreti 03 (talk) 12:20, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As well as WP:Directory of alternative outlets. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 21:33, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. What you're trying to pitch qualifies here as original research, which is hardly acceptable. A suitable Miraheze wiki (hint: I run one) or a math forum is most likely to be more accommodating. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 03:04, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While wikipedia isn't for that, there are other places online you can try, such as r/math on Reddit, or the the math group on the Wolfram Community, and Physics Forums, just to name a few. Good luck! 108.49.72.125 (talk) 00:31, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Need help in Article Editing please

Hello experienced editors at Teahouse. Please help me edit my article. Please review it and tell me what the necessary changes are to be made. I saw a message stating that the article was not notable, please help me change that. Here is its link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Neet_Scam_2024 MarkCeline (talk) 14:50, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, the decline notice says "Subject appears notable", so you simply need to find sources to establish that. Please read WP:GNG. Shantavira|^{feed me} 17:03, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a courtesy {{ping}} for MarkCeline in case they didn't see the above reply. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:19, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

what is the arch above the eye called

what is an altenative to glasses 209.170.232.197 (talk) 15:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Teahouse is for questions on using Wikipedia. General knowledge questions such as this should go to WP:RD RudolfRed (talk) 16:27, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See eyebrow and eyewear. Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:52, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And also Brow ridge. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 188.220.136.217 (talk) 17:10, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How to edit

how to edit the thing help:( 104.188.239.230 (talk) 15:45, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome. Check out Help:Getting_started and the WP:TUTORIAL. After you've learned how to do some editing, there is a list of things you can help with at Wikipedia:Task_Center. RudolfRed (talk) 16:41, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to check out Wikipedia:Sandbox, a page specifically meant to try things out while you're learning. You can try anything out on that page, and it will be automatically wiped on a regular basis. If you create an account, you can also use your account's sandbox. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:16, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ongoing dispute on use of EC talk pages

Scenario: a non-EC user wishes to make an edit request on an EC talk page. An EC user then asks a follow up question.

Is the OP non-EC user allowed to respond to this question addressed to them on their own edit request thread?

I have carefully read WP:ARBECR and I can’t find any language that suggests the non-EC is forbidden from answering a question regarding the edit request that an EC user went on to pose to them.

What happens when a user misquotes or misuses wiki rules pages? 2601:80:8600:EFA0:9585:8D1E:6DDF:276C (talk) 18:49, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome, IP 2601! Presumably you're referring to pages under WP:ARBECR, not just talk pages of articles that are extended-confirmed protected. ARBECR permits new and unregistered users to use the talk page to post constructive edit requests. Comments that aren't edit requests can be removed by any editor. If your edit request is declined, you are free to post a new one. That said, edit requests are for uncontroversial edits, so it would not be constructive to post another one if the issue is obviously contentious. Hope this helps! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How do we define whether or not a comment is connected to the (uncontroversial) edit request?

If the user deletes a comment that is directly related to the edit request, is there any recourse?

If the user does this over and over and over, is there no recourse?

If I want to address someone’s question regarding my edit request, would I be better off editing my edit request rather than adding a comment that will just be immediately deleted? 174.247.81.92 (talk) 19:06, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unless the comment is an edit request, it can be removed, as mentioned above. It being "connected" or not to the edit request is irrelevant. No, there is no recourse, because they are correct. You can certainly edit your edit request, but if you do so in a way that is not providing clarification on what you meant, but instead gaming the rules to participate in the discussion, that would likely be reverted. I would highly recommend just creating an account. It doesn't take long to reach EC. Tollens (talk) 19:11, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So let’s say I explicitly phrase my response to a comment in the form of an edit request. That is allowed? And if someone deletes that, then they are in violation? 2601:80:8600:EFA0:245F:F87F:A43C:4099 (talk) 19:50, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, probably not. The intent of ECR is to prevent non-EC editors from editing or participating in discussions on a topic covered by the restriction. If you need to clarify what you meant before, feel free to edit your request. If you want to participate in discussion, create an account and reach EC. You already made your edit request – unless the new request is unrelated to the old one I would find it hard to understand how that would not simply be participating in discussion. Please stop focusing on looking for loopholes. Tollens (talk) 20:00, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If there was a clearly stated prohibition anywhere on Wikipedia on participating in discussion about your own edit request, then I (and others) wouldn’t need to probe for the limits of what is and is not allowed.

What would it take to add a sentence forbidding any further discussion from non-EC to the relevant rules pages? 174.247.81.92 (talk) 20:41, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There already is, as far as I can tell? "only to make edit requests" indicates pretty clearly that anything which is not an edit request isn't allowed. You have already made the edit request, so there's nothing more to do. If you want "proof", so to speak, that this is indeed the rule, see this change to that rule, which narrowed the exceptions, and previously included the wording "non-extended-confirmed editors may not make edits to internal project discussions related to the topic area, even within the "Talk:" namespace." Tollens (talk) 20:49, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As an administrator, I find this situation ridiculous. If non-EC editors aren't welcome on a talk page, then the talk page should be EC protected. Plain and simple. If it isn't protected, then non-EC editors should feel free to create constructive edit requests as well as engage constructively in discussion. Reverting a constructive comment simply because the author isn't EC strikes me as a stupid reason to revert someone making good-faith attempts to improve an article. That's what talk pages are for. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:05, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I completely agree. I would not personally have reverted those additional comments. I do believe that under the current rule, though, the editor who did revert them was entitled to. Tollens (talk) 21:08, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So it sounds like we all agree that the language surrounding the rule is vague, is leading to undesirable outcomes/incivility, and needs to be adjusted one way or the other?

Then that brings me back to my question: how does one go about changing/clarifying the language in this rule? 174.247.81.119 (talk) 23:13, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You discuss it on the talk page where the rule is published. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:39, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bug in Article Description of "Slavery in medieval Europe"?

The Article Description for article "Slavery in medieval Europe" is "Template (table) of early Slavic status". This doesn't seem particularly appropriate, so I have changed it - or tried to. The Edit History shows my edit as having taken place normally, but in the article itself the original wording is still there. I don't understand it. (Former 118.210.198.5) 124.149.246.36 (talk) 19:53, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is the edit you are referring to: [1]

The short description has been updated, but perhaps it will take some time to display the update due to caching. I think users without an account always get cached pages, so that may also be why you are not seeing the change. RudolfRed (talk) 20:12, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have purged the page cache. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:00, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem was that Template:Early Slavic status said {{Short description|Template (table) of early Slavic status}} outside <noinclude>...</noinclude>, so it was added to articles using the template. I have removed it.[2] PrimeHunter (talk) 23:58, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks 124.149.246.36 (talk) 02:59, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Publish Page For Review Not Showing

Hi there! I am trying to create a page for a studio and the like "submit for review" button is not showing up. I think I'm just a little bit confused on this front. I'd appreciate help with this! Thank you so much! Testinganaccount1 (talk) 21:04, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added the button for you. But don't waste a reviewer's time by submitting it just yet. It's far from ready. It has a promotional tone and it's missing an overview section. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:09, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think that I understand either of those. I'm not sure what you mean by it has a promotional tone and I do not understand what an overview section is. I would really like to fix both of these things ASAP and would appreciate any advice or help that you might have. Testinganaccount1 (talk) 21:11, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It comes across as having been written for the purpose of publicity to a reader unfamiliar with the topic. Wikipedia isn't a publicity platform. If you're intending to use it for that purpose, you should give up.

The overview section is the first section that summarizes the article. Look at any article for examples. It's also covered in WP:LEAD.

Furthermore, it contains copyright violations of https://www.kansascommerce.gov/2023/08/governor-kelly-announces-entertainment-company-to-build-41m-studio-and-learning-center-create-101-jobs-at-k-state-salina/ - which is what caused it to be deleted before. I have removed the offending paragraph. To recover the sources cited, see the page history. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:19, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is the About statement on the Pure Imagination page that was given to dozens of news sites. I am a paid employee of Pure Imagination Studios (as it states in my User Page) and all I want to do is make a fair and concise Wikipedia page for the company. We do not care about publicity, we care that our name is used dozens of times on this site with all the projects that we have worked on but there is no page for the company. The aim is not to create a promotional page for the company, it is to create an information page that lists the credits that Pure Imagination has. Testinganaccount1 (talk) 21:30, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An "about statement" is copyrighted, and the Wikimedia Foundation does not have permission to publish copyrighted works, least of all from some random user account. See WP:CONSENT for instructions on how to provide the Wikimedia Foundation with an acceptable free license. Even then it likely wouldn't fly because the text exists on web pages with copyright notices, so there is no good way to determine actual copyright ownership.

You can take my advice (below) to follow the instructions in WP:BACKWARD, or ignore it. If you ignore it, the road to getting anything published will be difficult indeed.

Remember (this is important): Wikipedia doesn't care what a company has to say about itself, so an "about" statement from the company has zero value here. We care only what reliable sources that are independent of the company say about it, as described in Wikipedia:Golden Rule. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:05, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No kidding. Phoenix219 and I are kind of losing our minds at this. I am working on writing an entirely new draft. I appreciate the help that you have provided Anachronist. You and ChaoticEnby have both been very helpful to Phoenix219 and I in this process. I wanted to express both of our thanks on this as this is really the project we have been tasked with. Testinganaccount1 (talk) 22:09, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add that if you want to write an article that a reviewer would accept, it's a good idea to review WP:BACKWARD so you don't write the article backward (that is, write what you know and then find sources). That's the wrong approach. Instead, write an article forward; that is, first find sources and then write an article around what those sources say. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:24, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You say that you want " to create an information page that lists the credits that Pure Imagination has"that is precisely NOT what Wikipedia is for, that is just promotion. Theroadislong (talk) 21:41, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is not what I meant. Pure Imagination Studios is listed on Wikipedia in dozens of articles. I think that it would be fair that those places where Pure Imagination Studios is listed link to a page so that people can learn what Pure Imagination Studios is if they so desire in the same way that having an actors name linked on a project would go to a page about them so that you can learn more about them. If that is not what Wikipedia is for, I think I am confused by I can happily talk to our boss to shift our end goal. Testinganaccount1 (talk) 21:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:When your boss tells you to edit Wikipedia. Theroadislong (talk) 21:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But "a page about them" can mean different things. You (reasonably) want "a page about you" to say what you want people to know about your company. Wikipedia categorically does not want this. If there is an article about you, it should be a summary of what people wholly unconnected to you have said about your company - whether you like what they say or not. ColinFine (talk) 22:53, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Testinganaccount1, the current version of your draft is entirely unreferenced and violates several core content policies, specifically Verifiability and No original research and the Neutral point of view. Please excuse me for being frank. You are a paid editor who has written an utterly unacceptable draft and here you are asking unpaid volunteers to help you do your job. Doesn't that seem incongruous to you? Here is my advice. Do your homework, learn what is required, and do an outstanding job on your own before submitting your draft for review by unpaid volunteers. Cullen328 (talk) 05:38, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Testinganaccount1, I concur with what Cullen has said. The most effective way to learn the skills you need is to spend some weeks (at least) making improvements to existing articles, and discovering how principles such as notability, verifiability, reliable sources, and neutral point of view work in practice. If anybody balks at this use of your time, you can explain that it is necessary training for the job you have been asked to do. --ColinFine (talk) 10:09, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment added at Draft:Pure Imagination Studios. I concur with advice to gain experience by working at improving existing articles while also creating a worthy draft to submit. David notMD (talk) 10:58, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit dispute?

Hi, I was looking at the Kylian Mbappe article and I saw that its history looks like an edit dispute? I was just wondering about it. RoyalSilver 22:39, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes RoyalSilver, it does. Please see "What to do...". -- Hoary (talk) 23:21, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Hoary, I put a edit warring template on both of the user's talk page. RoyalSilver 01:09, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New with a mission: LGBT porn and fine art coverage

Hello, I am working on my first article. My aim is to cover AIDS generation LGBT people with notable contributions to porn, fine art, preformance art and activism. Note that this has a lot of overlap in industries. I hope to achieve this coverage while some people are still alive.

I will be working with information from magazine interviews and coverage, copies of which mostly exist in hard copy in archives. This is the nature of this information that easily is erased from history.

Beyond figuring out how to push out an article from the sandbox, I am seeking advice on citing out of print magazines and archives— as well as the right way to navigate adult industry coverage under wikipedias guidelines. SpencerToulouse (talk) 23:49, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's awesome, @SpencerToulouse. I'd just like to point out two WikiProjects that might be of interest to you: WikiProject LGBT studies and WikiProject Countering systemic bias. Both of those WikiProjects have "talk" pages. I'd recommend checking both of them out. Pecopteris (talk) 23:56, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SpencerToulouse: Sources don't have to be online. You can use template such as {{Cite magazine}} or {{Cite book}} etc. See WP:REFB to learn more. Perhaps you don't mean it this way, but you say you are on a mission, so please read WP:RGW in case it applies. RudolfRed (talk) 00:13, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Offline sources is a good essay on this. In a nutshell, it's not a problem if sources are poorly accessible, as long as they're reliable. One way to help with source accessibility is to make your citations as detailed as possible. jlwoodwa (talk) 00:35, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like an admirable goal, SpencerToulouse, but there are problems. (i) At least with your current username, you have no experience of improving existing articles. Embarking on the creation of new articles without such experience is a fairly reliable recipe for frustration or worse. (ii) Your current draft has virtually no referencing. It is of course possible to write what you're already sure of, and then, while the draft is still a draft, to look for and add the needed references: but this too is a fairly reliable recipe for ditto. (iii) The one reference you do already provide is to IMDb. But citing IMDb is unacceptable. (iv) You're proposing to cite interviews. This is problematic. -- Hoary (talk) 01:39, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(ii) is explained in more detail at Wikipedia:Writing Wikipedia articles backward. jlwoodwa (talk) 01:44, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, on a positive note, the right way to navigate adult industry coverage is no different from any other kind of industry coverage, since Wikipedia is not censored. jlwoodwa (talk) 01:49, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SpencerToulouse: I've already offered you some more advice. If you haven't already, be kind to find it on your talk page. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 02:47, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SpencerToulouse, it is indisputable that many figures active in the porn industry are notable as Wikipedia defines that term, and many are already covered in Wikipedia articles about them or are eligible for articles. What is also true is that lax standards in the past regarding porn industry biographies led to Wikipedia being flooded with large numbers of poor quality porn biographies. The Wikipedia editing community addressed this problem five years ago and decided that porn biographies must comply with the stringent standards applied to biographies of all other actors, directors and producers in any genre. Please read the lengthy debate at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)/Archive 2019#Request for comment regarding PORNBIO for a deeper understanding.

Any acceptable article must summarize the significant coverage of the topic in indisputably reliable sources that are entirely independent of the topic. The problem is that the vast majority of porn industry publications have severe problems with reliability and independence. They rely on porn industry press releases and PR efforts, and regularly publish promotional falsehoods.

Your current draft is entirely unreferenced at present except for a link to IMDb, which is not a reliable source as explained at WP:IMDB. Your next step, if you are to have any hope of success, is to assemble a list of indisputably reliable sources that are entirely independent of Phil Tarley and that devote significant coverage to him. Pro tip: Interviews do not establish notability because they are not independent of the interviewee. Forget and remove everything you know personally about Tarley, summarize what the reliable, independent sources say about him, and you will be on your way to an acceptable Wikipedia article. Cullen328 (talk) 05:10, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notability another opinion - Tarsomys orientalis

Hi. I would like to ask for another opinion if this Draft:Tarsomys orientalis already passed the notability criteria, as I'm having doubts. I have submitted it previously, then it was moved to draft, then I improved the article, submitted, then it was moved to draft again. The latest reason in this thread: User_talk:Jp2593#Tarsomys_orientalis_moved_to_draftspace_2 Jp2593 (talk) 01:49, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The only requirement for species is that

Their names and at least a brief description must have been published in a reliable academic publication to be recognized as correct or valid.
— WP:SPECIES

As far as I can tell, none of the academic journals you cite mention a species named Tarsomys orientalis. That's probably the issue. jlwoodwa (talk) 01:53, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jlwoodwa There is one in the "Advance articles" portion of the OUP Academic journal (see in this link:https://academic.oup.com/jmammal/advance-articles?login=false) which also links to the source publication. Jp2593 (talk) 03:41, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a name appearing in a preview in an "advance articles portion" of a journal's website counts as publication in a reliable academic publication. jlwoodwa (talk) 05:43, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jlwoodwa would a publication(but closed access) be reliable in this instance? Jp2593 (talk) 09:38, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jp2593 The draft in its current state is already acceptable. The notability standard for species is simply proof of existence and a proper scientific name. Both of which are established by the first published description in a recognized academic journal. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:21, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changing email

When changing my email, I made a typo, meaning that some other person potentially got emailed a confirmation link. I have since corrected the error, but just in case do I need to contact any sort of site administrator? Longhorncowfish (talk) 02:07, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Longhorncowfish. Your account has email confirmation now and I assume it was made by you after setting the correct address. Then you can just ignore the accident. If somebody got the first mail then they can no longer use it to access your account, and the chance they will contact anyone at our site about the mail is very low. Even if they do, information from you is very unlikely to affect anything. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:40, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Longhorncowfish (talk) 01:39, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard Arnault

Since the page for Bernard Arnault is a protected page, I have made an edit request twice (once on the page's talk page, and another on wikipedia:protection policy) but no one has responded. I request that the post-nominals be added in the infobox of Arnault, for example he has been knighted with the [[Order of Merit of the Italian Republic|OMRI]] and Ordre des Arts et des Lettres (COAL), but they aren't in the infobox, can you please add them in? Let me give you two example, Dalida was also knighted with Ordre des Arts et des Lettres, Léa Seydoux, was also knighted with same thing. You can tell because in their infoboxes it says COAL, So what I request is somone adds the post nominals, OMRI, and COAL to Arnault's infobox. Is that possible? 70.50.199.125 (talk) 04:43, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When you come across a locked page, you can click the "View source" tab at the top. That will take you to the source code page where there will be a blue "Submit an edit request" button. Click that and it will present a small form to fill out. The advantage of using this method is that it adds the page to Wikipedia:Dashboard#Requested_edits. Some talk pages are very active, but on other talk pages it's possible for a message to go for over a year without a response. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 05:02, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Asking for help in copy editing the article Phillip Jeong

I posted an article Phillip Jeong on June 4th, 2024. Many editors have already helped improve it. Currently, the article has a box at the top indicating that it needs copy editing. I posted a request at Wikipedia: WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests, which goes like this:

'This is my second article on Wikipedia, and I am enjoying the whole process of collective intelligence. Please help me improve it. I've written the above article and believe I am close to completing it with all the necessary records and citations. As someone who collects historic performances to write articles on Wikipedia, I find it challenging to find detailed critiques in Korea. For example, Leonard Bernstein came to Korea only once, and while newspapers reported what he played, they did not mention his conducting style, orchestration, audience response, etc. I was there, but I cannot cite myself. It is difficult to find articles that can be used as citations for Wikipedia. There are plenty of discussions on social media and blogs, but I understand that these are not acceptable sources. I wouldn't mind if some of the unsubstantiated phrases or sentences need to be deleted. Any help with copy editing or finding reliable sources would be greatly appreciated.'

I am asking for your help with the Phillip Jeong page. Rosuacamus (talk) 05:12, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This link is as follows: Phillip Jeong Rosuacamus (talk) 05:13, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosuacamus. Welcome to the Teahouse. As you say, you have already made this request at the Guild, which is more appropriate than the Teahouse. You may have to wait a while for a response. The Teahouse is a place to ask for help with particular editing issues, but we don't provide an editing service for specific articles. Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:41, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I will. It seems that I am too impatient. Another editor suggested leaving a comment here. I am preparing for my third article and want to learn editorial tips before posting it. Rosuacamus (talk) 09:09, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rosuacamus: I don't think the draft needs copy editing. But parts of it read weirdly, e.g. "concerns about his emotional resilience" and "Facing a lack of direction, Jeong impulsively moved to Italy". (I'm left wondering if he had some mental problem that can only be hinted at because it would be offensive to write clearly about it.) I think these remarks should either be clarified or omitted. Maproom (talk) 08:47, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your prompt reply. He is a perfectly healthy man, but he has repeatedly said that he is easily hurt by criticism. I do not want to include his personal life on Wikipedia, but it does reflect his personal growth. Should I tone it down a little bit? Rosuacamus (talk) 09:05, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed "his emotional resilience" to "his sensitivity to criticism," and ""Facing a lack of direction, Jeong impulsively moved to Italy.." to "Facing a lack of opportunities as a tenor in South Korea, Jeong impulsively moved to Italy, hoping for better prospects. However, he encountered a lack of chances to perform or participate in competitions and eventually returned to South Korea," Thank you for pointing out the lack of clarity. I did not like this part myself and was considering changing it. Rosuacamus (talk) 09:23, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion the entire ""Newspaper or media coverage" section and "Concerts" list should be deleted. If items in it have value, those can be used as references in the text sections. And the rest of the article could benefit by getting rid of other tables. David notMD (talk) 10:37, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. The section "Fandom" is a particularly obvious candidate for deletion. As are lists of radio/TV performances of individual arias or other songs, perhaps excepting those performances that got a remarkable amount of commentary in reliable sources. And this doesn't exhaust the list of facts are, but shouldn't be, in this article. (Compare the content of the featured article Kathleen Ferrier.) -- Hoary (talk) 10:51, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Notability tag has been removed, thank God! I will work on the text to get rid of the tables, which may take a few days. Thank you for the comments, everyone! Rosuacamus (talk) 13:46, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article has a Notability tag. I will have to deal with that first before modifying anything. Is it okay if I wait for the Notability decision? Thanks a lot. Rosuacamus (talk) 11:55, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The notability tag has now been removed. Shantavira|^{feed me} 14:27, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. He has three Decca albums, and those seem to meet the criteria. I am working on the content now and will make changes altogether. It will take a few days to verify the citations. Rosuacamus (talk) 14:33, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft not accepted for no significant coverage in reliable published sources

I had made a draft for creating an official Wikipedia page for an Indian actress who has been in the industry for a decade, having acted in successful films. I could observe that the draft wasn't accepted with the reason "This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject".

Please let me know if there are any examples for published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. This draft is for creating an official Wiki page for an Indian actress, and in this case, will an IMDB Page of the actress be sufficient to be considered as published, reliable source?

Ebook1190 (talk) 11:18, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ebook1190 no, per WP:IMDB, it it not a reliable source as it is user-generated. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 11:20, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ebook1190, you seem to be asking about Draft:Swaroopinii Narayan. This is written in a strange, gushy style: it seems that working for a first degree makes her "a studious person"; she was inspired by "legendary actors"; she appeared in a "superhit flick"; et cetera. Please cut this. And a second point. Above, you talk of "an official Wikipedia page", and "an official Wiki page": what do you mean by "official" here? -- Hoary (talk) 11:28, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ebook1190. Your talk of an "official Wikipedia page" makes it sound as if, like many people, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is.

If at some point Wikipedia has an encyclopaedia article about Narayan, it will in no sense be an "official page". It will not belong to her, it will not be controlled by her or her team, it will not necessarily say what she would like it to say, it will not be for her benefit except incidentally, and almost anybody in the world will be allowed to edit it, except Narayan and her associates.

Such an article will be based on what people wholly unconnected with Narayan have chosen to publish about her in reliable sources, not on what she or her associates say or want to say; and if there is not enough such independent reliably published material about her available, then no article will be accepted, whoever writes it.

If you are in some way connected with Narayan (as your use of "official page" suggests, then you must declare your status as either a paid editor or an editor with a conflict of interest, as appropriate.

Then you should look for sources, as I mentioned: ignore anything written, published, or commissioned, by Narayan or her associates, or based on a press release or interview on her behalf; ignore anything from a user-generated site such as iMDB, wikis (including Wikipedia) or blogs. Ignore anything from a site whose purpose is selling things. Ignore anything which merely mentions Narayan and doesn't have at least a paragraph about her.

If you cannot find three such sources, give up. If you can, then forget everything you know or think about her, and write a summary of what those sources say. ColinFine (talk) 13:51, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When will my Article get approval?

I have created an Article on Sanganeri Prints, which is a very famous Hand block print technique and art.

can anybody help me to make it live.

Article Link: Draft:Sanganeri prints

Thank you Hmathur127 (talk) 11:22, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft has been declined. You need to find better sources - make sure that each source you find meets all the requirements outlines in golden rule. ColinFine (talk) 13:53, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the reply Hmathur127 (talk) 15:16, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weird infobox error I can't seem to fix

I'm experiencing a weird infobox error in the article Pearl of Great Price (Mormonism) that I can't seem to fix. Just before the Wikisource parameter, it states that "[[[s:|Pearl of Great Price (Mormonism)]]] Error: [undefined] Error: {{Lang}}: no text (help): missing language tag (help) at Wikisource", before accurately linking to the Wikisource articles with no problems. There are no language tags in the infobox at all; this error also seems to pop up on {{Infobox religious text}}, and has since August 2021, though I don't know if that means anything. Anyone have any ideas? —Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) ({{ping}} me!) 11:31, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ineffablebookkeeper. There have been intermittent and inconsistent infobox display problems today, discussed at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Broken infoboxes. Pearl of Great Price (Mormonism) currrently looks right to me. I suggest you ignore it and don't try to make sense of when the error appears. It seemed random when I investigated another page. Hopefully all cases will soon be solved without having to do something to affected articles. It may be impossible to predict whether an apparent local fix in an article will actaully work the next time the same revision is viewed. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:12, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like it's that very display problem – viewing it now, the error message is gone completely. Thanks for the explanation :) —Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) ({{ping}} me!) 16:52, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed

Would someone please fix Jonathan Yardley? The problem is obvious. It all started when I deleted "citation needed" in a place where no citation was needed. Thanks. Maurice Magnus (talk) 11:40, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Maurice Magnus. Please describe problems even if they are obvious on your display. I see no problem in the current version. If you sometimes saw an error message or problem in an infobox, maybe the spouse field using {{marriage}}, then it may be related to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Broken infoboxes and may have been fixed. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:02, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It has been fixed; I don't know how. Never mind, as Emily Litella said. Thanks. Maurice Magnus (talk) 13:25, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just for future reference, @Maurice Magnus, what happened was that all the three {{marriage}} templates were wrapped inside a {{plainlist}} one, hence why there were four closing curly brackets at the end of that lot. When you removed them, it left the plainlist template open, which in turn caused the infobox template to fail.

Also, I think the {{cn}} tag was probably there to flag up that all the marriages inside that plainlist template were unreferenced, so to remove the tag on the basis that "there is no citation for the other marriages" may be exactly what whoever put the tag there had in mind. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:35, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: Yusuf Buba Yakub

Good morning everyone, please I need the help an experienced wikipedia editor, I have a draft article declined due to insufficient reliable source referencing, please how can I reference reliable sources, are news publications good enough to count as reliable sources? Please I need your help, I am a new editor and desire to become a experienced wikipedia editor to contribute to the data and informations available on wikipedia. Stephen Ini (talk) 13:47, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Stephen Ini: Welcome to the Teahouse. You've already asked at the AfC help desk; please refrain from asking in multiple venues to prevent duplication of volunteer effort. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:05, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You very much for the kind correction. Stephen Ini (talk) 18:16, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wanting to change the false information you have about austria being invaded and nutral

Austria was mostly german in ww2 and when the nazis came to invade they were welcomed so much that they realised they didnt need to terrorise the people as they loved them.. Wikipedia must stick with facts, and what you have written implies that Austria were not nazi sympathisors. It makes me sick the way history is sometimes whitewashed. Like the russians were not good. My grandmother was taken by the russians when the nazis invaded warsaw, they waited till the nazis flattened warsaw and left and then came in and took thousands like my granny, put HER and thousands others in cattle truck. Locked them in for several days and only when they had given away most of their possessions for food did they set off and then drag them around europe in death marches.. This has never been written about, but sadly only the victors write history, the people who experienced it are ignored. But Austria WAS a NAZI state!!! You can pretend otherwise and make up fake news, but Maybe if you watched the latest Netflix hitler and the nazis: evil on trial you would see phootage of the Austrians welcoming the nazis arriving in 1938 ElaenaM (talk) 14:06, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ElaenaM Welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia articles are entirely based on what is reported in reliable sources. If you wish to propose a correction to a specific article, please go to the Talk page of that article to make your case. You must provide citations to reliable sources, not personal opinions, experience, or hearsay. Shantavira|^{feed me} 14:37, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What I am stating are facts NOT personal opinions, experience, or hearsay.

As I say if you look at the netflix documentary, which has footage of austrians cheering the Nazis coming to their land...

Frankly Im not bothered to correct you, the fact you have FAKE NEWS with NO PROOF on wikipedia is shocking.. Yet you seek me to counter THEIR FALSE CLAIMS where there is no evidence to support their claims. Shows me I cant trust Wikipedia as fact

SHOCKING

But great to know Wikipedia cant be trusted

Thanks for your time responding..

Oh and regarding my grandmothers experience, as she and the others captured by the russians into cattle trucks were the only persons to see this.. were these people where most didnt survive is an utter travesty to not believe it.. But I know its true thats all that counts.. and now everyone knows the Russian empire is pure evil. ElaenaM (talk) 15:32, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article you attempted to change is about the occupation of Austria by the Allied forces at the end of the war. The Allied forces were not the Germans. If you read the rest of the article, it details abuses by the Soviets during the Allied occupation. And there is a link to a second article at Austria victim theory which describes Austria's denials of responsibility after the war, as well as how those denials were flawed and subsequently abandoned in the 80s. Please read the articles thoroughly, as your complaints appear to be based on a misunderstanding of what the articles contain. MrOllie (talk) 14:41, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question about BLPS

Hi Teahouse, does the BLP rule apply to persons if they are deceased, or only if the are currently living? GoodHue291 (talk) 17:21, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I've been recently aware, the BLP guideline takes "recently deceased" subjects into account. Details at WP:BLP § Recently dead or probably dead. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 17:33, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How to submit my draft for review

Hi,

I would like to submit the following draft page for review:

User:AstrolabioD/sandbox

Thank you for your assistance. AstrolabioD (talk) 20:49, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can add the template {{subst:submit}} to the top of your page. See here for more info. Cheers, GoldRomean (talk) 20:55, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AstrolabioD, vast swathes of your draft are entirely unreferenced, violating the core content policy of Verifiability. Please correct that before submitting your draft, and please correct the red error messages in the References section. Cullen328 (talk) 01:28, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy link: User:AstrolabioD/sandbox ~~2NumForIce (^speak|_edits) 04:27, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uncited and unverifiable edits from one user?

This user made 3 minor additions to the Brink (1998 film) page with no sources and about 15 minutes of internet searching reveals nothing on any of the added names. I have not edited wikipedia before so I do not know the policy here but figured this should be brought up. Pacmanboss256 (talk) 21:57, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Pacmanboss256, and welcome to the Teahouse. Thank you for noticing and researching this. Anybody may remove uncited information from an article: while this is not always the best thing to do (eg if the information is probably correct), since you have looked and failed to find any sources, you are welcome to go ahead and revert them - since there have been later edits, you should probably do this manually, by editing to remove the added information. Make sure you leave an informative edit summary, so that nobody will mistake your removal for vandalism.

It is possible that the IP who added the information will object: what they should do (per WP:BRD) is start a discussion with you on the talk page, but they might try reverting your edit: that would be edit warring, which they should not do; but in that case you could open a discussion on the talk page. ColinFine (talk) 22:13, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ok! I have to go to dinner in a minute but I will edit once I get back. Pacmanboss256 (talk) 22:15, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Title disambiguation question

Russell Sturgis (1750–1826) and Russell Sturgis (1805–1887) are both American merchants from Boston. As a result, the titles have each of their birth and death years. What would happen if two notable people were born and raised in the same city, born in the same year, had the same job, and died the same year? 195.55.86.146 (talk) 01:57, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The concept is "disambiguation". WP:NCPDAB is our guideline for how to name articles about people that have the same name. Essentially, you'd have to determine something that is different between them. DMacks (talk) 02:32, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Citing Internet Archive

I stumped upon a news paper from "La Stampa" to cite sources of where I got information that a specific person was host of an Italian morning show. I got the news paper archive from the Internet Archive (https://archive.org/details/lastampa_1993-07-06/page/n21/mode/2up?q=Amedeo+Goria). How do I go about citing it? Soafy234 (talk) 02:05, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @Soafy234! You can cite this article the same way you would any other article- by use of the {{cite news}} template. Internet Archive is merely hosting the document. It's sort of how if you checked a book out from the library, you wouldn't need to mention it in a reference. In the cite news template, there's a slot to put the URL of the source. In this case, given that Italian newspapers loose their copyright protection after two years, you can paste the Internet Archive URL in that slot. You don't have to, but it will make it easier for other editors to verify what you've added. I hope this helps! GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 03:46, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure if signature is in the public domain

I recently obtained an autographed copy of a Harry Turtledove book. I have since extracted the signature and put it into an SVG file. The problem is that I am unsure if the signature is in the public domain. This page seems to suggest that it is, but I am also unsure if the signature is "sufficiently complex to be considered a protectable artistic work"

Here is an image of the signature in question. BlackravenX1 (talk) 03:12, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to say that it is in the public domain, especially as the creator is American. Signatures comprised of simple letters are very rarely, if ever, protected by US copyright law.

No idea what the other user is on about- that's not how we determine PD status. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 03:38, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this specific signature would be public-domain, and hostable on commons using the {{PD-signature}} tag to indicate it. I do not know what "other user" GreenLipstickLesbian is referring to. But if there is an unclear or contradictory guideline somewhere, it would be great to know about it so we could clarify or fix it. DMacks (talk) 17:56, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was a sock/troll, their edit was removed. – 2804:F14:80B7:101:B473:9F60:D68F:F52A (talk) 19:16, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah:) DMacks (talk) 00:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How to change a title page?

I am editing a Wikipedia page and I wanna know how to change the title page since I found out there was a mistake in it but I can't. Can anyone tell me how to do it? Tapazi (talk) 11:02, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tapazi Hello and welcome. Changing an article title(or the title of any type of page) requires what is called a page move. If it's just to correct a spelling error and will be uncontroversial, you may go to Requested Moves to make a request. 331dot (talk) 11:05, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Who Build Hamas?

I read somewhere that Israel build Hamas, i want to know, may Israel have some spy in Hamas? whoz attach on Israel to make excuse to attach back on Palestine Tahirwrites74 (talk) 12:25, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tahirwrites74, this page is for questions about editing Wikipedia. Do you have a question about editing Wikipedia? -- Hoary (talk) 12:32, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tahirwrites74. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and we have an article all about Hamas that is very detailed and informative. Shantavira|^{feed me} 17:53, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Newspaper articles

In the past, I have clipped newspaper articles found in the U.S. Library of Congress that are dated prior to the 1920s, and then I used the clipping as an image in a Wikipedia article. What about old newspaper articles found in the Wikipedia Library such as Newspaper Archive and Newspapers.com by Ancestry? Can articles from those sources, from before the 1920s, be clipped and used as an image in Wikipedia? TwoScars (talk) 19:33, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TwoScars: Normally you would just use {{Cite newspaper}} to cite your sources. Why do you want to insert an image of it? RudolfRed (talk) 19:53, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes, when you are dealing with something that occurred in the 1800s, it is difficult to find a good image. Newspaper articles, even clippings that show only the headlines, can reinforce information in the text that might be cited from a book or journal. In my case, I am explaining a glass company in 1810 that had a company name but a different name for its factory. A newspaper image from 1810 advertising would have both names (company and factory) in the advertisement, and would also show the types of products made at the factory. It makes things easier for the reader. TwoScars (talk) 20:10, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Newspapers.com has a "clip" function. I've used it to clip an excerpt, and then link to it in my citation. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:40, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is good advice, and I have done that before -- but that is not my issue. I have no problem clipping an article. The real question is: Will NewspaperArchive or Ancestry's Newspapers.com get offended if I use their product, free through the Wikipedia Library, to make images for Wikipedia articles. Do they have copyright on their product even when the original article was published before the 1920s? I know this is not an issue with the U.S. Library of Congress, but I am uncertain about NewspaperArchive and Ancestry's Newspapers.com. TwoScars (talk) 17:00, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Table of contents within article

It used to be the case that every article except the briefest contained a structured listing of its parts and components. These all disappeared at once and I don't know why or how to get them back. Thank you. deisenbe (talk) 23:07, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you name a specific example? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:22, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is because English Wikipedia switched to a new layout called Vector 2022. You can show the table of contents by clicking the list icon next to the title of the page. Ca ^{talk to me!} 23:59, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I can't find the list icon I'm supposed to click on. Where is it for this article, for example? deisenbe (talk) 00:12, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I highlighted in this image. You can click the "move to the sidebar" button to have it display permanently. Ca ^{talk to me!} 01:02, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Deisenbe: The current default skin is Vector 2022 which either hides the table of contents or displays it to the left. If you want it to be displayed inside the article after the lead section then you have to switch to another skin at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering. There are many other differences between skins. I prefer the previous default Vector legacy. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:10, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recent deaths on the main page

Shouldn't Bill Anders be included? he is pretty famous, as he took the Earthrise photo, and his death was pretty notable because it was all over the news for a bit. 108.49.72.125 (talk) 00:15, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's an ongoing discussion about this; you might wanna participate there. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:23, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thank you! 108.49.72.125 (talk) 00:32, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Something peculiar

The infobox in William W. Freehling states that he has had two spouses:

Natalie Paperno (m. 1961; div. 1970)

Alison Goodyear (after 1971)

Yet his article states that he married the second spouse on June 19, 1971. Therefore, he was married to her in 1971, not only after 1971. It should say, simply, "Alison Goodyear (m. 1971)." I wanted to edit it to say that, but, in "Edit source," it says, "marriage|Alison Goodyear|June 19, 1971||reason=." It does not say "(after 1971)," so I don't know how to edit to say "(m. 1971)." Maurice Magnus (talk) 01:01, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Maurice Magnus fixed it by removing the unused |reason parameter. See Template:Marriage/doc for more info. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 01:04, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question on naming new article

I am currently researching a new article I plan to create and publish on Child Life, a U.S. children's magazine that was published for 85 years. I see that there are articles titled Child Life (journal) and Child life (degree) so I'm not sure if I should title the new article Child Life, Child Life (magazine) or Child Life (children's magazine). It might seem a bit presumptuous to "claim" just Child Life for a new article on a once-popular children's magazine. Any advice would be appreciated. Karenthewriter (talk) 01:07, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Karenthewriter! The page Child Life is likely to become a disambiguation page, with multiple articles that someone could be searching for. I would suggest 'magazine' would be the way to go for your article. Good luck with it! StartGrammarTime (talk) 10:18, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I'll go with Child Life (magazine). Karenthewriter (talk) 13:37, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wikipedia Team

I hope this message finds you well. First off I want to say that is site is incredible difficult to naivagate for a first time user. I am a paid contributor who recently submitted an article to Wikipedia. I intend to resumit but am reaching out to get some further clarifcation as I may have misunderstood or not fully understood the guidelines I have read for submission and provide further context regarding the subject. Firstly, I would like to express my appreciation for the feedback provided on my initial submission. I understand the importance of maintaining a neutral point of view and referencing a range of independent, reliable sources. However, I believe there may have been a misunderstanding regarding the selection of sources. To clarify, I utilized approved Wikipedia articles such as those on Oprah Winfrey, T. D. Jakes, Vishanthie Sewpaul, Vishen Lakhiani, Jasvinder Sanghera, and the suicide of Kelly Yeomans to structure my article. links to the articles; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T._D._Jakes *https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vishanthie_Sewpaul *https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vishen_Lakhiani *https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jasvinder_Sangherahttps://en.wikipedia.org/*wiki/Suicide_of_Kelly_Yeomans These articles served as models for formatting and content organization, as they are examples of well-established entries on notable individuals. The subject of my article,Leeza Gordon, is a remarkable individual who has made significant contributions to her field. As a black female entrepreneur, she has overcome numerous obstacles to build a successful business from the ground up. Her dedication to ethical sourcing and advocacy for fair wages has garnered attention from reputable sources, including the British Chamber, Fox EW, and Aspire. Despite her achievements, I believe that Leeza Gordon is not adequately represented on Wikipedia, especially when compared to similar figures in her industry. For instance, individuals from the Derby category, which represents a niche area, as well as her hometown, are more prominently featured across Wikipedia." Therefore, I am committed to providing accurate and verifiable information about her accomplishments to help address this gap. Her dedication to ethical sourcing and advocacy for fair wages has garnered attention from reputable sources. Which leads me to my next point reputable sources. In the context of evaluating sources for inclusion in Wikipedia articles, I understand it's important to prioritize sources that provide verifiable evidence to support the claims made in the article. "The very same source may be reliable for one fact and not for another. Evaluation of reliability of a source considers the fact for which the source is cited, the context of the fact and cite in the article, incentives of the source to be reliable, the general tone of credibility of the source for the specific fact, etc. For example, a web site that purports to list an artist's works is likely reliable for the fact that the artist authored a specific work, if the web site list meets other criteria for reliability (e.g., not under control of the artist or otherwise questionable), and especially if the list has some further indicia of reliability of existence and publication of the work (ISBN number, publisher stock number, photographs of covers, etc.). Similarly, the publisher's web site is likely to be reliable for the fact that the work exists, for the fact that the work was authored by the purported author, and for publication data (publishers are incentivized to be truthful about the works they publish; publishers do not invite copyright suits or inquiries for works that do not exist). But neither the list web page nor the publisher's web site are per se reliable for any critical, artistic, or commercial evaluation of the work, or any rank ordering of merit,....." These links I believe appears to fall with in the definison on the site. I believe this for the following reasons: https://tryinstantpress.com/meet-leeza-gordon/ This website features an article about Leeza Gordon, the subject's articles is specifically about her. I believe it to be considered a reliable source for confirming details about her background, achievements, and contributions. meets Wikipedia's criteria for reliability. https://www.thatsmags.com/guangzhou/post/23516/this-artistic-group-blends-creativity-and-charity-in-guangzhou This article discuss her group and their activities in Guangzhou. which is in English. It mentions Leeza Gordon and her involvement projects and initiatives, I belive it could provide valuable context for her work and contributions. https://www.theaspireseries.com/blog/leeza-gordon This link appears to lead to a blog post specifically about Leeza Gordon. Similar to the first source, since it's focused on the subject of your article, it could serve as a reliable source for information about her background, achievements, and any other relevant details. The publisher's web site are reliable for the fact that the work exists, and the fact that the work was authored by the purported author, and for publication data Additionally, I have included her works as an author on Amazon and her podcasts. Following the structure seen on Tony Robbins Podcast and The Dale Jr. Download, these podcasts, hosted by notable personalities like Tony Robbins and Dale Earnhardt Jr., Before resubmitting, I would appreciate some guidelines on where to go for assistance with the revised submission. Regard Lengendempire2024 (talk) 01:08, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The decline message states that you need "range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed". Of the three references you mention here, the first is an interview, which is not "independent" and itself reads as promotional content. The second is only about one of her projects. The third appears to be a blog post by this person herself. So none of those meet the requirements for demonstrating that this person is notable (see WP:BIO).

Regarding sourcing overall ("not adequately supported by reliable sources"), about half of the draft article is uncited.

As a paid editor, there are specific actions you must take prior to (and as part of) any edit related to the topics for which you are being paid (see WP:PAID). This statement of yours is not a fully truthful response. DMacks (talk) 02:37, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As a paid editor, there are specific actions you must take prior to (and as part of) any edit related to the topics for which you are being paid (see WP:PAID). This statement of yours is not a fully truthful response. DMacks (talk) 02:37, 10 June 2024 (UTC) can you clarify you point about me not being truthful. This is my first time to use this site and it incredible difficult to navigate. Lengendempire2024 (talk) 02:45, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To an outside observer, one of the reasons you are writing this article is because you are being paid to do so. That is a conflict of interest because you "may be unduly influenced by [your] connection to the topic" (emphasis mine): because you are being paid, you are at risk of writing an article that is not neutral but instead is a little promotional. It might not be intentional. But your response omitted that whole idea, which is nearly half of the comment you responded to. Instead, it seems like you are hiding that fact. DMacks (talk) 03:18, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy link: Draft:Leeza Gordon

@Lengendempire2024 first of all, thank you for disclosing your paid status. Please add the {{paid}} template to your user page. Regarding the draft itself, it is currently promotional in tone, with peacocky terms like They share a commitment to their faith and entrepreneurial pursuits. The sources are also not reliable. Around half of them are amazon pages of the books she has published and podcasts she has recorded, which are not independent.

The five remaining sources are:

A That's article, which could be reliable, but you'll need more than one, and the other sources are not reliable, as listed below.
A blog, written in first person. See WP:BLOGS.
A interview, see WP:INTERVIEW.
A awards list, which does not mention Gordon and is therefore not significant coverage.
A Fox News article, which I could not access and found no archives of it either.

You'll need multiple independent reliable sources that have in-depth coverage on Gordon. Also avoid peacocky phrases. HTH, '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 02:43, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank this is a little bit more helpful. Even though many of the articles on the platform do not adhere to the same rules that I am being subjected to. But if I am not happy with the current rules my option is to go somewhere I suppose. Thank you for your feedback Lengendempire2024 (talk) 02:49, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please also see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If you think certain articles don't meet guidelines, please point them out and we will take action. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 03:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Wikipedia sadly has thousands of articles that should either be fixed or deleted. Please provide Wikilinks to whatever you have found so that volunteer editors can propose those get fixed, or if unsalvagable, deleted. David notMD (talk) 03:40, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If an article is on Wikipedia, it’s up to the editors to decide if it’s passable. I’m not here to nitpick their decisions.

My research is based on my subject, specifically searches from people in Derby. For instance, some articles from Derby might only have one link. As someone new to the site, I’m reviewing content to help me write articles, assuming the content on the site is already reliable.

My brief encounter with Wikipedia so far has not been a positive one, so my perspective might not be the best. However, it’s Wikipedia’s responsibility to ensure all articles are accurate, not mine, as someone who’s been here for just three days.

My subject and people who look like my subject are clearly underrepresented on the site, so I choose not to put any more energy into the platform. However, you are free to do a quick search—it will bring up hundreds of articles that have one link that may or may not be deemed reliable, but again, this is not for me to decide. As someone has already decided it was ok.

Many Thanks Lengendempire2024 (talk) 04:19, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lengendempire2024, many thousands of unpaid volunteer Wikipedia editors work worldwide 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and 365 days a year to either improve and expand, or to delete existing poor quality articles. We do not need more poor quality articles. Wikipedia is the #7 website in the world, and is far and away the #1 website in terms of originally written educational content. Wikipedia has many billions of pageviews every month. You write My brief encounter with Wikipedia so far has not been a positive one. I can see why you might think that way, but the fact of the matter is that you have not yet performed your paid job competently and you are turning to highly skilled and experienced unpaid volunteer editors to help you earn your paycheck. Can't you see that this is quite bizarre and incongruous? As someone who has accepted a paid editing job on Wikipedia, you should already be fully conversant with Wikipedia's policies, guidelines and expectations. Would you accept a job to completely remodel a high end kitchen if you knew nothing about kitchen remodeling and planned to try to learn as you went along? I am someone with over 40 years of professional experience in various aspects of kitchen remodeling, and that kind of approach is a recipe for disaster. It took me about six years of experience at lower levels to qualify for a contractor's license in California. I also have 15 years of experience editing Wikipedia preceeded by many years as a published freelance writer. So, you must gradually gain knowledge and experience over time before taking on the daunting task of writing an acceptable article for the greatest reference work in human history. I have read your draft and it is nowhere close to being acceptable, because it relies almost entirely on references to sources that are clearly not independent of Leeza Gordon, the person you are writing about. Acceptable Wikipedia articles summarize what reliable sources entirely unconnected with the topic (Gordon) say about the topic. That is what separates Wikipedia from the countless websites filled with promotional BS, and that therefore lack credibility. Cullen328 (talk) 07:56, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Legendempire2024, I concur with what Cullen says. I always advise new editors to not even think of creating a new article until they have spent at least a few weeks making improvements to existing articles and learning how Wikipedia works. Once they have grasped fundamental policies such as verifiability, reliable sources, neutral point of view, and notability, then is the time to read your first article and try it. It seems to me that this advice applies more rather than less, to paid editors. If your employers baulk at this use of your time, explain that it is essential training for the task. ColinFine (talk) 10:29, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reference problems: #1-6 are for self-published books and podcasts, some others are interviews. None of these meet Wikipedia's criteria for establishing notability. Other content is uncited. For a biographical article of a living person, all content must be verified by refs. If you truely "choose not to put any more energy into the platform" then put Db-author at the top of the draft, inside double curly brackets {{ }} so that an Administrator can delete the draft. Or else make no further edits nor resubmit, and the draft will be deleted at six months. David notMD (talk) 11:49, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You say "However, it’s Wikipedia’s responsibility to ensure all articles are accurate, not mine".

You are responsible for ensuring that anything you write on Wikipedia is accurate and complies with all policies and guidelines. Just because you can find junk articles on Wikipedia doesn't mean it's OK to compound the problem.

You are getting paid. We are not. We are here to build an encyclopedia, which apparently isn't a goal you share. So excuse us if we don't sound sympathetic. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:09, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saving settings

Whenever I attempt to save my settings (both on mobile and laptop) it instantly resets as soon as I leave the settings page, regardless of whether I have clicked save. Has anyone else experienced this? The main issue for me is the email settings and I am considering just removing my email address so I am not constantly receiving emails, however it does mean that if I forgot my password I will be locked out of my account. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Longhorncowfish (talk) 01:50, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Longhorncowfish, I'd recommend posting at WP:VPT for assistance with technical issues; the Teahouse is good for basic stuff, but the real tech experts hang out mostly at VPT. 57.140.16.48 (talk) 14:21, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Something is wrong with references in template:Infobox YouTube personality

{{Infobox YouTube personality}} can generate references for the number of subscribers that a YOuTube personality has. That template seems to have broken recenty, as many dozens (hundreds) of artilces now have broken reference errors. Blimey Cow and Bob Shoudt and Linus Sebastian are three examples. Looks like the template invokes Module:YouTubeSubscribers which is returning -404, which the template then eats without further message. Neither the template nor the module adquately describe what to do in this case, or how to troubleshoot the problem.

What can be done? What caused the new errors? -- Mikeblas (talk) 03:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd try asking at WP:VPT. The Teahouse is really for new editors. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:57, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mikeblas: It's caused by a notice on {{If both}}, discussed at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Broken infoboxes where I have suggested a solution. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:28, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The solution has been implemented [3] and the errors have gone away. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:53, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help! -- Mikeblas (talk) 14:53, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Hello I'm the author of the CrackedRack article. I know he's not that huge or whatever but I think it's unfair to decline his submission because he genuinely does have a huge loyal underground fanbase even if his numbers aren't flashy and he is a legitimate author with legitimate works. Is there absolutely any compromise that can be came to, because I would really like to be the original initiator of his article. I would be so grateful. Osprey in the odd (talk) 03:32, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Like to give you an idea, CrackedRack's work has resonated with thousands if not millions of people already. His book Deplorable Instinct actually made my depression less severe when I was going through it and I can show you many people who have said the same. I'm sure it's only a matter of time until he's on the news. Osprey in the odd (talk) 03:48, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and the last thing I'll say as to not spam is his book did have some accolades, it was literally in the top 100 US horror fiction category on Amazon, not sure if that means anything. At the very least, please save the draft somewhere for future use if he does become more notable? Osprey in the odd (talk) 03:50, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Osprey in the odd Your draft Draft:Matthew Holman (who also goes by CrackedRack) has been nominated for Speedy deletion, meaning that it on the verge of being deleted without a trace left behind. You need to save the content elsewhere. David notMD (talk) 03:53, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Osprey in the odd, I agree. Time to copy this content and save it on your computer. Maybe when there are better reliable sources and secondary coverage, it won't be TOOSOON for an article on him. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:47, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So that isn't a complete no? If he releases more books or becomes viral again I can try again in a year or two? I'm trying to be the first to have his page. Osprey in the odd (talk) 00:53, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i cannot create company informaton page as a communications associate for my company

as a korean person i am having extra trouble to make the page creating happen.. can someone help me? Drinkmorewaterclub (talk) 06:02, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

i cannot publish this page.. someone please help me do better — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drinkmorewaterclub (talk • contribs) 06:02, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Editor is indef'ed advertising-only. DMacks (talk) 06:44, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Schumann Bunte Blätter, op. 99

Hi, I've seen a mistake but I am not able to open the References (note b) on this page. It says "composers Vier Marsch" but this should be "composer's Vier Märsche". [possessive form of "composer" as well as correct plural in German which is Märsche.] Hukvaldy (talk) 09:21, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. The code of such footnotes and citations is actually at the place where the superscript index appears in the article text, not in the references or footnotes section (which is constructed by the software), so you have to click "[edit]" on the appropriate text section to find it. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 188.220.136.217 (talk) 10:04, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with accessing HaAretz through the Wikipedia library

Hello!

I tried accessing this article via The Wikipedia Library using this link.

It redirected me to a 500 status page, and then subsequently to a 404 status page.

I then noticed that it's the same with every article on the site. QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 11:06, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The link works fine for me. If this issue persists, WP:VPT folks can help you better. Ca ^{talk to me!} 12:10, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Help to get my article live

Hello,

I have created an article on Sanganeri Prints.

Sanganer is a place in Jaipur, India. Where many hardworking artist use block printing technique to print on fabric. Their hand block printing also get the status of geographical indication. These artist are very hardworking and create beautiful prints on fabric. I want them to get more recognition, that's why I've created this article called Sanganeri Prints and now I want to get this live.

Please help me to get this article live.

Thank you.

Link: Draft:Sanganeri prints Hmathur127 (talk) 13:11, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft is currently awaiting review, it will happen in due course, we don't have any deadlines here. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:37, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright infringement - Much of the draft is verbatim from the #1 ref https://asiainch.org/craft/hand-block-printing-of-sanganer-rajasthan/ David notMD (talk) 01:22, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@David notMD: is it rescuable (with possible rev-del) or do we need TNT-G12? DMacks (talk) 02:13, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How do we make a page

i wanna make a page about brainrot yt shorts catered to gen alpha and their slang Rockstarskibidi (talk) 13:25, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Rockstarskibidi and welcome to the Teahouse. Writing a Wikipedia article is very difficult and you would be best advised to gain a lot of experience first with editing and familiarizing yourself with Wikipedia's purpose and policies. If you still think you are capable of writing an encyclopedia article, the place to begin is Help:Your first article. Shantavira|^{feed me} 14:04, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saving without publishing

Hello there. I am very new and trying to save my edits as I go along without publishing. It is an article I am working on which has not yet been approved. Thanks.

Editing Draft:David Black (writer) - Wikipedia

JoClarke100 (talk) 13:58, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On Wikipedia, saving is the same as publishing, since "published" means your edits are visible to the public. Make sure you save (ie publish) at regular intervals or your work will be lost. The alternative is to save your work offline. Shantavira|^{feed me} 14:07, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much. And how do I save offline? JoClarke100 (talk) 14:09, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no mechanism to do that on Wikipedia directly; that would just involve opening a text editor on your device and putting the text of the article there. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:17, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Publishing" a draft (or your personal sandbox) is as close as we get to saving without publishing, if you consider "publishing" to be something pertaining to article space rather than draft or sandbox space.

If you want to save offline, then you need to use the source editor. Copy and paste all the wiki markup code into a text editor offline. Personally I don't see the point of this, when we have perfectly good mechanisms for working on drafts. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:03, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inline citation page numbers in mobile or VisualEditor

One of my mentees has stumped me. Is anyone here able to respond to this question about using {{rp}} function in mobile or VisualEditor contexts? ~Kvng (talk) 13:58, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What would be the right place to ask if someone meets the BLP notability requirements?

I want to write about a YouTuber/lecturer/security professional, but the coverage is kind of borderline. Where would be the best place to ask for this? FortunateSons (talk) 14:38, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, FortunateSons. Since you are interested in the topic, it is incumbent on you to search for sources and evaluate their reliability, independence from the person and their depth of coverage. What are the two or three very best sources, in your opinion? If you mention no more than three, that will be manageable for other editors to do a preliminary analysis. Cullen328 (talk) 15:48, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thank you for taking the time. Excluding significant but dependent coverage (such as talks, podcasts, etc., for example [1][2]), I think

a) Slate

b)New Yorker

c)NYT

are probably the best 3 for establishing N for Deviant Ollam. What do you think? FortunateSons (talk) 16:03, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It would help our evaluation if you named the subject of the article you want to write. Those sources are about lock picking, and not so much about a person. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:26, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It’s “Deviant Ollam” (under that pseudonym,

which he generally uses). FortunateSons (talk) 16:29, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I missed that somehow.

As you said, those sources are borderline. In fact, his name is mentioned just as an aside. The coverage isn't about him. It would be hard to get a decent biography out of those sources. I'd say look for another subject to write about. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:38, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you’re probably right, thanks. Would you agree with my assessment that I’m basically missing “one more source”? FortunateSons (talk) 16:40, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

српски appears as a missing language

српски appears as a missing language, despite it obviously not being one. It seems that Wikipedia thinks it's a different language from "Српски / srpski". When it isn't. Has anybody known about this thing before?

Image of the problem: https://ibb.co/mCLm3hF Kxeon (talk) 15:18, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Kxeon. I don't recognise the message you've screenshotted. What did you do to produce it? ColinFine (talk) 15:45, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's the thing. I didn't do anything to produce it. All I did was go to the missing languages part of the Languages menu, shown in this image: https://ibb.co/dPsVG69

I don't even know how I confused Wikipedia like this. Kxeon (talk) 17:05, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kxeon: The screenshot indicates that there is a Wikipedia edition in the languge "Српски" (the Serbian Wikipedia at sr:), but the viewed page does not currently have a version in that language. Does that answer your concern? If not then please link the Wikipedia page where you saw the message. Do you mean it was this Teahouse page? PrimeHunter (talk) 17:18, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No matter what page I go to, it's always missing because the Wikipedia for it doesn't exist. It's nonexistent.

Some pages I can link here that have it missing (it seems every single page I go to has it missing): Ambazonia, Yugoslavia, Serbia, Montenegro, YouTube, Yandex, Europe

If you can't see it, it may actually be much harder to find the solution to this, which it seems like that is the case.

Also, I was looking at Yugoslavia in the first picture. It did have a Serbian version. Once more, I must have somehow confused Wikipedia for something like this to be happening. Kxeon (talk) 18:48, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kxeon: The software doesn't expect me to know any Balkan languages. "српски" in the screenshot should be a link. Please post the url it points to for Yugoslavia. In case it redirects after clicking, your browser can probably right-click the link before clicking it and select to copy the link. What is your language setting at Special:Preferences? PrimeHunter (talk) 19:39, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://sr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%D0%9F%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%B1%D0%BD%D0%BE:%D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B4_%D1%81%D0%B0%D0%B4%D1%80%D0%B6%D0%B0%D1%98%D0%B0&campaign=ulsmissinglanguages&from=en&page=Yugoslavia&to=sr#draft

That's the link it sends me to. The Serbian Wikipedia. There's not a separate Wikipedia for Cyrillic and Latin Serbian, only one for both scripts... and yet Wikipedia still says that it's missing? Kxeon (talk) 21:04, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kxeon: I did a bug search. It sounds similar to old bugs at phab:T116401, phab:T142971 and phab:T176626. They are marked as resolved but bugs sometimes reappear. I expect to report it at Phabricator tomorrow. If "Missing in .." messages are annoying then you can remove all of them (including valid ones) with this in your CSS:

.cx-uls-relevant-languages-banner {display:none !important;}

PrimeHunter (talk) 21:57, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alrighty then, thx! Kxeon (talk) 00:45, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Help with COI and article checking

Hello everyone, I recently tried to update an article where I have a connection to the subject: Nick Jordan (artist)). In April, I tried to update broken or out-of-date citation references (some were over a decade old), and reduce the article's content to be more encyclopedic (eg I removed the long list of films in the filmography). Unfortunately, the edits were flagged up as copyright violations, as some of the article's wording was mirrored on external sites (which they themselves had obviously sourced from the original Wikipedia article). So I went round in a Kafkaeque circle, trying to repeatedly to update the article, but (some bot, I think) picking it up as copyright violation. It was then declared as potential vandalism and I managed to get locked out for a day or so! Also, I wasn't aware of the COI rules then, but am very clear on that now, and have stated COI in my user talk page. An editor who spotted the copyright violations noticed my repeat edits and put a COI template on the page.

I've asked others to help, but the COI notice just reappeared. Please could someone here kindly look over the article and check that it meets neutrality requirements and that all sources are legit and acceptable. If so, can the COI template please be removed? I should point out that none of this has ever been raised directly with me, or on the article's talk page.

Hope it can be resolved. Many thanks for any help and apologies for causing any workload!

Jorbert30 (talk) 16:08, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An editor with a COI can make minor corrections to spelling, grammar, names, dates, etc. A COI editor can add citations to reliable sources and revert obvious vandalism. Anything more substantive than that, you should propose on the article's talk page to avoid future problems.

The COI notice generally gets cleared when an editor without a COI reviews the article and deems that it isn't promotional and fairly represents the sources cited.

Just propose changes on the talk page. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:17, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for you advice and help Anachronist. If you have time to check it over and review for any promotional content and is all factual represenation of sources that would be great.

I don't know what else to suggest for changes. But if you or anyone here can look it over and clear the COI. My understanding is that's it's temporary, and should be cleared if article meets all requirements. Jorbert30 (talk) 16:29, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since you ask, the wording seems odd to me:

"The artist's work explores connections between social, cultural, and natural ecologies." I think I understand the concept of "ecology"; but I don't understand "social, cultural, and natural ecologies" (let alone the connections between them). Does "ecologies" here perhaps just mean "influences"?
"Jordan also works in a collaborative practice with fellow artist Jacob Cartwright" What does "in a collaborative practice" add to this?
"The artist's publications include Alien Invaders, published by Book Works, which takes the form of a guidebook to non-native species found in Britain, and the effects on native wildlife." Is it a guidebook? If not, is it patterned after a guidebook? Is it perhaps a parody of a guidebook?

-- Hoary (talk) 22:41, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure to new article name.

Duplicate of question posted at WP:HD
I wish to create an article on Wikipedia about the recent rise of the far right in Europe (Something cited by numerous publications in the recent years) but I am unsure as to which title to pick for the article. Is "Rise of the far right in Europe in the 21st century", okay ? DanganMachin (talk) 19:38, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

help me change my sandbox name! and get article up for review.

I added my link in the message also. Its a Danish link so i hope it works.

I want to change the title of my sandbox to Orning

The article also needs a review so anyone willing to help me through that process would be nice, preferably in danish since i discovered there's a big difference between danish wikipedia and english...

hope to get help soon!

sandbox link: https://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruger:Thomas_Ludvig_J%C3%B8rgensen/sandkasse

-Regards Thomas L. Jørgensen Thomas Ludvig Jørgensen (talk) 21:35, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and welcome to the Teahouse! Maybe you'd get better help at the Danish Wikipedia version of the Teahouse (I'm assuming this is the Danish WP Teahouse, with the help of Google Translate). GoldRomean (talk) 21:46, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Thomas Ludvig Jørgensen: I'm actually Danish but don't work on the Danish Wikipedia. Wikipedia languages have different policies and processes. It appears the Danish Wikipedia (da.wikipedia.org) has nothing like our Wikipedia:Articles for creation. They rejected a draft namepace at da:Wikipedia:Landsbybrønden/Forslag om oprettelse af et kladde-navnerum. The Danish Wikipedia allows a new user to create an article directly in the encyclopedia at da:Orning. You can move your sandbox there. See da:Hjælp:Flytning. I don't know whether they have a process for requesting a review. I see you created Draft:Orning here at the English Wikipedia, but in Danish. We only use English pages here and the page will not help you at the Danish Wikipedia. Is it OK if I delete it? PrimeHunter (talk) 22:25, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can I make a "Module" page in my sandbox

Can I experiment with Lua code in my sandbox? — Yours Truly, ⚑ AtikaAtikawa 22:06, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Module testing is done under Module:Sandbox/username. See Special:PrefixIndex/Module:Sandbox for examples. Questions can be asked at WT:LUA. Johnuniq (talk) 22:26, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AtikaAtikawa. You can start at Module:Sandbox. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:28, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spam query

City Repair Project had a bit of spam. Some useless company link. If anybody cares to look into it. Temerarius (talk) 22:44, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your removal of it, Temerarius. This link, to the blatantly irrelevant-sounding https://roofrepairservices.com.au/ [I haven't clicked on it and don't intend to], was added months ago by an IP who (as that IP) has no other edits. And Special:LinkSearch shows no current links to the spammed domain. So I think there's nothing more to be done. -- Hoary (talk) 02:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Resolved

Temerarius (talk) 02:22, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question about user warnings

so I revert a large amount of vandalism, and I'm realizing an issue. I've just now realized that I probably should be adding the {{subst:SharedIPadvice}\} template in, but whenever I do it always looks like this

Hello, I'm Gaismagorm. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks.

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Gaismagorm (talk) 00:33, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

while that looks fine and all, notice the signature at the bottom. I'm noticing that it just automatically signs all my responses, and I can't figure out how to turn that off. I believe that's the issue, but if someone has another idea, I'd be glad to hear it. Gaismagorm (talk) 00:34, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gaismagorm: You say I believe that's the issue but what is the issue you are referring to? As far as I can tell {{Shared_IP_advice}} does not automatically sign for you, but the examples on that page show adding a signature with 4 tildes. Can you clarify what you are asking? RudolfRed (talk) 03:08, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Help me make Draft:Glorb into a fully-fledged article!

Hello everyone, I have been working on an article about the musical artist "Glorb" for a while now and I would appreciate any help with corrections of any portion of the article, as well as further development of it through usage of credible sources, articles and more (especially in the "Identity" section). I would also appreciate if helpers could try to find sources proving the notability of the artist himself and help the article meet requirements for WP:NMUSICIAN. All are welcome! Thanks in advance for your help. 2pxc. ^dms 01:18, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse hosts are here to advise, not to be co-authors or reference finders. David notMD (talk) 01:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, but I have to ask: where can I find people willing to help accelerate the creation of the article? 2pxc. ^dms 01:34, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft Reviewed..?

Hi, I recently tried to submit an article for review (Draft:The Voices Four) and received a notification saying that it has been reviewed by user @Slgrandson, but I don't see anything showing the results of the review. Was my article accepted or declined? How do I know? Werf55 (talk) 01:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Werf55: It was merely patrolled through WP:NPP (New Page Patrol), a statistic that has no bearing on the status of the draft. (For the bulletin board I sighted it on, see WP:AfC sorting/Geography/Regions/Americas/North America.)‎ --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 01:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Werf55 (talk) 02:37, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adding my information

Hi there, I hope this message finds you well. My name is Edward, and I used to produce fine art printing in Manhattan NY starting in 1986 for modeling agencies, photographers, and the fashion and hair industry before the internet became popular. Recently, I was contacted by awards archives to add my information to Wikipedia for all the awards I have received throughout my career. They will also be hosting an event to celebrate this milestone, which I am very excited about. All my information was deleted that i posted and i am very confused. If you can help, please help me, otherwise I will leave it deleted and close the account i created.

Thank you for reaching out to me.

Best regards, Edward Edward Boginsky (talk) 02:13, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Edward Boginsky. You wrote an overtly self promotional and unreferenced autobiography using non neutral language. It was correctly deleted because it was the exact opposite of a neutrally written, well referenced encyclopedia article. You seem to have a deep misunderstanding of how this encyclopedia, the #7 website in the world, actually operates. Self-promotional editing is banned by policy on Wikipedia. If you want to keep editing Wikipedia, I recommend that you read Your first article and study it until you understand it. As for closing your account, that is not possible for legal reasons. You have already edited Wikipedia and all edits must be attributed to the account that made it. You are free to abandon your account if you so choose. Just stop using it. Cullen328 (talk) 02:36, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will!

Thank you Edward Boginsky (talk) 02:40, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those people aren't associated with Wikipedia, make sure not to give anyone any money. Temerarius (talk) 02:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know that, but I have a quick question - what do I do? I know that may sound a bit silly, but I'm a bit lost on how to add my information. You might not know, I was well known by everyone and my career started in 1986. However, after 9/11, I left NYC and now all my old friends and clients have found me. They want everyone to know that I was the person who published all the look books and fine art books. It's been quite the journey!

Any tips on how I can add my information and get back in touch with everyone? I would really appreciate your help.

Thank you so much! Edward Boginsky (talk) 02:34, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You do not add information about yourself. Please read and digest Wikipedia:Autobiography. -- Hoary (talk) 02:36, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I warmly applaud Deepfriedokra for doing exactly what I'd have done if I'd seen User:Edward Boginsky/sandbox first: deleting it. It was blatant, shameless promotion. (Indeed, to such a degree that it looked less like promotion, more like a parody of promotion.) I hope that you didn't pay some hucksters to produce such junk: as Temerarius suggests, there are a lot of outfits that prey on the credulous. -- Hoary (talk) 02:30, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mr. Edward--and thanks for your interest in contributing! If you have been notable enough as Wikipedia defines it, someone else--someday--will write about you at Edward Boginsky (draft). Writing an article about yourself is highly discouraged on WP, but you are free to introduce yourself on your userpage (in the context of your activities here). Anything beyond that might lead to violations of the COI (conflict of interest) policy; you must disclose your connections on the userpage. Let's hope I (or the S.S. Cunard (talk · contribs)) fetch some usable, substantial sources per WP:Golden rule on your behalf. All the best in your career; we may keep you updated! --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 02:36, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Understand.

Thank you again, but I will close the account. Edward Boginsky (talk) 02:42, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment!

Hi there,

I just wanted to take a moment to thank you for your comment. Your feedback is truly appreciated, and I value your perspective.

Regarding your concern about my name, I want to assure you that I did not pay anyone to do anything. If you feel that my name is a shameless promotion of myself, I completely understand. I respect your opinion, and I will continue to stay unknown, even though my name is listed as a publisher in many books.

Once again, thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts. Your input is important to me.

Edward Edward Boginsky (talk) 02:38, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

vandalism on censorship in china related pages

as theres been some vandalism of pages about censorship in china, i ask that all pages related to censorship in the country, and human rights abuses committed by the CCP in general, be checked for vandalsim and locked permanently Bird244 (talk) 02:23, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just two minutes after posting the above, you made this edit. Yes, that's where you should make such requests. There's no point discussing them here. -- Hoary (talk) 02:34, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Need Help for My Article

Hello? I am open for any suggestions or any comments for the improvements of my article.

Check here my article: Draft_talk:CC6_Casino

Thank You so much! ReX02231 (talk) 02:47, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All I can really say is that you should probably read and understand WP:COI and WP:PAID and WP:NPOV if this is to have any chance of being approved for a mainspace article. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 02:55, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's also a WP:RS issue as well... Help:Your first article might help. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 03:21, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How do I change a reference to direct to the Wayback machine archive of said reference?

I was on Toobs and the 1st reference had a dead link, found the most latest snapshot of said page that did not direct to an error (was discontinued for a few years) and I want to know how I can change the reference to direct it to that. Thanks!! ♡Draco Centauros♡ (talk) 05:14, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Draco Centauros. There's some information about this in WP:DEADREF and Template:Cite web#Using "archive-url" and "archive-date" (and optionally "url-status") for webpages that have been archived. Bascially, you're going to first need to check whether there's an archived version of the the "deadlink". The easiest way to do this is probably by using the Wayback Machine but you could also try seaching at www.smiths.com.au (sometimes the cited webpage page has just moved to another location on source website). If you're able to find an archived version of the link, then it's just a matter of tweaking the citation template's syntax using the paramaters |url-status=, |archive-url= and |archive-date= to add the archived link to the citation and to tell the software that the original link is dead. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:33, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I tried going onto the sitemap but got an access denied due to security policy on Smiths and they've got no trace of Toobs so I will go and do that later. Thanks! ♡Draco Centauros♡ (talk) 05:42, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit dispute, continued.

Hello, about a few days ago, I came across the article, Kylian Mbappe, because I am a big football fan, and I saw that 2 users, Acriist10, and EndzoneEnthusiast, kept disputing and reverting one another's previous edits. I mentioned that on this TH a few days ago, got advice to see this and did it accordingly (added templates to users talk page) but I came back to check and it happened again. I saw that there's a noticeboard for edit warring, but I don't really know how to do that and their latest dispute was around 2 days ago. I don't understand how disputes work (ive never been in one myself), but what should I do? RoyalSilver 07:12, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]