Jump to content

Wikipedia:Teahouse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kjsarat (talk | contribs) at 12:26, 12 September 2020. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Skip to top
Skip to bottom

This is the teahouse
Shortcuts

GoingBatty, 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.


Suggestion re disambiguation bot

There is a BOT that advises editors that they have linked to a disambiguation page rather than directly to the article in question. My suggestion is to mark disambiguated links as soon as they occur, instead of waiting days for the BOT to advise you. Something like this:

@MountVic127: There is an add-on listed in Preferences that allows you to see that. I see them as yellow. -- a lad insane (channel two) 06:38, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I wish more people would enable that gadget. It's incredibly useful. Instead of the gadget, I use a more orangeish color by simply adding the following line to Special:MyPage/common.css: 
.mw-disambig {color:#FF8921 !important;}
—[AlanM1 (talk)]— 18:13, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliantly simple :-) :-) ----MountVic127 (talk) 09:16, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is a very useful command, what is the best way to keep it in public view.

Strange <edit> format

I was editing a section of the article Dipotassium phosphate on my desktop. It came up in a peculiar, very bare format, without the aids I am used to, e.g. B, I, ∞, 'cite' dropdown list. It looks like a mobile format. When I went to <Menu><Settings>, the only options available iirc were Font and Advanced style. Turning Advanced off didn't make an appreciable difference. I am using Win 10 with browser FireFox.

BTW, the actual article and History also looked quite different from my desktop norm.

I then tried editing a couple of random articles (pKa, Albert Overhauser); the editing environment was the normal desktop one, with all the aids displayed. And editing this WP:TH section everything is there as usual. So there must be something peculiar about the former article? If so, IMO it should be fixed. But what is causing it? I'd be happy to fix it if someone can point me in the right direction.... D Anthony Patriarche, BSc (talk) 10:34, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@D A Patriarche: looks like you activated VisualEditor! If you ever activate it again, you can use the pencil icon in the toolbar and select "Source editing". The VisualEditor is not available for talkpages and all pages that are signed. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 10:57, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, when I edit a section and click the pencil icon it shows Visual editor; however when I click source editing there is no change. And see above (updated), the article itself comes up in a format quite different from my normal view. I don't have Visual editing turned on; when I edit any other article, I get my usual Source editing format. I persist in thinking there is something peculiar about this article. I'm looking at its properties, but so far don't see anything relevant.--D Anthony Patriarche, BSc (talk) 12:09, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@D A Patriarche: At Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing, under Editor, check "Temporarily disable the visual editor while it is in beta", which should disable VE (I think). Click Save at the bottom. Does that help? —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 12:21, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Temporarily disable the visual editor..." already checked. I notice the article properties include the Button template but I don't see any buttons in the article—maybe this is the problem? Note—as above, I now see it's not just the edit mode, the article itself displays in a different format from my usual.--D Anthony Patriarche, BSc (talk) 12:32, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Compare these images (left is the problem article, right is my normal, expected format for a similar article):

--D Anthony Patriarche, BSc (talk) 12:51, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@D A Patriarche: Thank you for clarifying. Thats not the visual editor, the image on the left shows the mobile website of Wikipedia. please make sure that your URL bar contains en.wikipedia.org , not en.m.wikipedia.org. Victor Schmidt (talk) 12:52, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Victor Schmidt. That was exactly the problem. How it happened is still a mystery: I brought up WP in my usual way and did a search for the article in question, and got the mobile URL as you describe. Tried it again just now, got the normal desktop display. I do browse (& sometimes edit) from my mobile (Kindle) but I've never seen a conflict or confusion of the two before. Have to put it down to a one-time glitch! I will watch for this now I know what to look for. Thank you once again for solving the mystery!--D Anthony Patriarche, BSc (talk) 14:00, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello D A Patriarche. If you ever accidently end up on the mobile site, just scroll down to the very bottom of the page and you will see a link you can click to instantly switch to the desktop site. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:05, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, so in a lot of articles, when I click a link to another Wikipedia article (yet another rabbit hole adventure) I see that under the title it says "Redirected from (title with different spelling, punctuation or something else)". Should these internal links be changed to point directly at the current spelling of the title of the article it links to? Sorry if I didn't phrase my question clearly. Thanks. 314WPlay (talk) 15:37, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In most cases, you don't need to change these. (See MOS:RDR for an example case where linking to a redirect can aid in article creation.) Of course, in some cases, such as when a word in the link is misspelled and correcting the spelling causes a direct link rather than a link to a redirect, it's OK to change the link. Deor (talk) 16:45, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@314WPlay: Oops, forgot to ping. Deor (talk) 16:47, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deor, thank you, that was interesting to read and I think I get it now. I'll probably leave redirects as they are. 314WPlay (talk) 07:52, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Publicar una entrada en inglés

 Biografro (talk) 17:53, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, @Biografro:. This is a Wikipedia help forum. Do you have a question in English for us? Nick Moyes (talk) 18:38, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nick Moyes: his suggestion, in Spanish, is "Post an entry in English." Not sure what that means. GeraldWL 12:36, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, @Gerald Waldo Luis:. I worked that one out on my own. LOL! Nick Moyes (talk) 13:25, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Haha! GeraldWL 13:49, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Can You Please Say If Suriname Is A latina Country Or Not? Because some Times people say yes, and sometimes people say no, So Im confused answer my question pls!

 142.182.145.111 (talk) 18:06, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article on Suriname, its official language is Dutch, and "Spanish" and "Mestizo" are not mentioned in the list of ethnic groups. So, it's not a Latina country. Maproom (talk) 18:29, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Suriname is a Dutch enclave in Latin America. Oalexander (talk) 06:37, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regardin' adminship

I just wanna ask 'bout the adminship probabilities for me citing that I possess over 1.5 years of experience and edit'd 7.1k edits. Futhermore, citing that I've been profoundly thank'd and admir'd by a lot of editors.  SHISHIR DUA 18:57, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @SHISHIR DUA, do you have a question? Ed talk! 19:02, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SHISHIR DUA, thank you for posting your question. You can probably read more over at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship for the process, who you can discuss your eligibility with, and more. Ed talk! 19:18, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ed6767: I seriously doubt this candidate's adminship probabilities (as they put it). They are an obvious hat collector [1][2][3][4], were taken to ANI for CIR, canvass on a meta-give away [5], [6] and [7]. Self support their self nom. and word it like they were nominated by someone else on both their RFA and meta-giveaway. The user has also been trying to flirt with girls (Usernamekiran brought this up on meta) [8][9]. And on the same giveaway removed my opinion when it was "neutral" (which has since changed) [10] Bingobro (Chat) 05:36, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SHISHIR DUA: Hi. Even though it was one year ago, you confused a list of Wikipedia editors who are willing to nominate other candidates for adminship, with a place to get adminship; and nominated yourself for adminship - it shows lack of basic understanding of English language regardless of your English vocabulary. But like I said, that was an year ago. Your experience on enwiki, and English fluency must have changed. But WP:RFAADVICE has not changed since the last time Kudpung had told you on talkpage. But that was again an year ago, you may have forgotten about it even though it still on your talkpage unarchived, and even though you had thanked Kudpund for the guidance on his talkpage.
To answer your question about your chances (probabilities is grammatically incorrect here) about adminship: English wikipedia looks for certain qualities in editors for becoming an admin. The most important of them is that the candidate should be trusted with tools. As an admin, an editor has access to deleted material, and the admins are expected to protect personal information of other editors. Asking a girl for her facebook, or Instagram is certainly not a good indicator. Another trait wikipedians look for is that the candidate should be civil, and should know how to behave around other editors. Calling another lady editor "bae", and trying to flirt is not a good sign. I understand, everybody makes mistakes, but repeating them is not a good thing, and certainly not for an admin. But even after being told explicitly not to call someone bae, calling other lady as bae while canvassing to get merchandise from metawiki is certainly not a good sign. My apologies for drifting off the topic. Regarding your chances of adminship, under a guideline "Admin Accountability", admins/admin candidates are expected to communicate with other editors, and to respond to queries/concerns/doubts. Taking a quick look to your talkpage, I can see a few unanswered conversations including one of my own. While I stated in the comment that it was not mandatory, a response is expected from admin candidate, any response. Also, WP:CANVASSING is trait that editors dont want in an admin at all, which have you done as recently as yesterday with multiple editors editors including the one diff provided above. I recommend to edit more maturely for at least six months to one year for getting past these issues. Another thing about the RfAs, if the candidate has a block in last year, the RfA always fails. But as you were blocked in June 2019 (2 weeks), then for disruptive editing in August 2019 (72 hours), and again in April 2020 (2 weeks) for "Disruptive editing; WP:CIR and consistent WP:IDHT behaviour; see also deleted contribs"; I'd say postpone your RfA for at least two years, as someone would definitely bring up your "I dont hear it (IDHT)" in the RfA. Talking about IDHT behaviour, it reminds me of your request for autopatrol flag, where Swarm had explicitly warned you that you are not eligible for autopatrol or any other right. Yet just within a few days you requested for Template Editor access, which is by far the most advanced authorisation except for interface admin; just shows more "IDHT" behaviour from your side. After going through everything I just said, I would say you should wait for at least three years of editing maturely before thinking about becoming an admin, and after that, you should read WP:RFAADVICE carefully, and thoroughly like Kudpung had suggested you. Regards, —usernamekiran (talk) 06:29, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse Invite

Hi Folks!! How would you invite a body to the Teahouse. scope_creepTalk 19:03, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Scope creep, you add {{Teahouse invitation}} to an editors talk page to invite them to the Teahouse. Ed talk! 19:05, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent User:Ed6767 I did look for a template. That is ideal. scope_creepTalk 19:06, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, you can install importScript("User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/teahouseUtility.js")on your common.js page to post a Teahouse invitation or talkback with one click! ~ Amkgp 💬 15:35, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How to improve an article to get it accepted

Draft:Meta Runner was originally declined last year, due to a number of reasons. Earlier this year, I updated the draft according to the feedback gotten from past rejections, and more critical reception, external news sources, and footnotes were added to verify the information in the article. The information about the series overall was updated to be more accurate too, and I submitted it for review, however, it got moved to drafts and then rejected, and the reason was that it was too similar to the original, even though numerous edits according to the feedback were made.

Because I had accidentally resubmitted the page for review twice earlier this month, one version was rejected and the other one Draft:Meta Runner is still awaiting review. I'm not sure what else could be needed for it to be approved and this is my first time trying to edit an article, so any help would be appreciated! JessGlitchProd (talk) 00:59, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello JessGlitchProd, I noticed that your query almost went unanswered here; I'll try to be blunt in the interest of being helpful, so, apologies in advance. First of all, I can not find the paid-editing disclosure you are required to make according to the terms of use. Please follow the instructions at WP:PAID to do so (there's a new wizard at WP:ERW which might help you do it more easily). Showing a willingness to follow guidelines and policies is one of the ways you can demonstrate your good faith, which in turn makes other editors more inclined to help you (we are all volunteers here, and no one is obligated to donate their time and skill for free in order to help someone else make more money when they give no reason to make them want to). Secondly, in my experience, WP:COI editors always seem to have a hard time deciding between getting their articles published and getting published the kind of articles they want. If the subject you were writing about were so notable that a full-length article could be written on it, I reckon someone else would have done it (there are enough sports and entertainment fans here). Since the topic seems to be borderline on notability, it follows that there are not that many sources, which means when you try to push a full-length article, it contains a lot of information that you would know because of your close involvement with the subject or want included for the same reason, but WP:V, one of the core content policies can not be satisfied by such an article causing reviewers to decline it. You need to start from what the sources that you will have support, rather than drafting your preferred article and trying to find sources to fit it. The latter is how you end up with an IMDb source for one of the most consequential claims about the subject. As long as your article makes extraordinary claims like that unsupported or supported by fake references, it won't get accepted. My advice to you is find a few sources that meet the criteria described at WP:SIGCOV and write a well-sourced article, however brief. If you can't find the sources, you'll just have to wait for the topic to get further attention in the media. If there are enough sources and your draft contains well-verified neutrally worded claims only, the draft will easily get accepted. You can then use WP:Edit requests to try and get it expanded as more sources become available. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:28, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please Help Improve an article on the topic Ipo Arakeji

Hello Teahouse, kindly help look into the Topic above and assist on possible corrections. It has been moved to Draft:Ipo Arakeji and is also being discussed on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Nigeria Thank you Anonymoussix (talk) 02:07, 10 September 2020 (UTC) Anonymoussix The article has been redraftified because of either bad sources , errors or no COI declaration. Try finding better sources and improve it before submitting. 1,2,3-Benzothiadiazole which is mine, has also been redraftified due to bad sources, Acidic Carbon Corrode 03:54, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Acid Of Carbon: Do you see how your post above follows immediately after the original poster's on the same line? That is undesirable. You've been asked several times to follow the WP:INDENT convention when replying on talk pages. Failing to do so is disruptive. Please stop. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 06:53, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Officialamanjodey

 Amanjodey (talk) 02:41, 10 September 2020 (UTC) Amanjodey Do you have a doubt about Wikipedia?Acidic Carbon Corrode 03:50, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Amanjodey, and welcome to the Teahouse. It is not quite clear to me what you are trying to do, but your edits in various places look as if you are trying to tell people about yourself: please don't do that. This is an encyclopaedia, not a social media site. You are allowed to share a little information about yourself, if you wish, on your user page User:Amanjodey but that is primarily for you to talk about yourself as a Wikipedia editor, and whatever you put on it before has been deleted. I have put a welcome message, with some useful links, on your user talk page. I recommend that you also read advice for younger editors. It is unlikely that anybody here is going to look at your Instagram account. --ColinFine (talk) 14:15, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Helping honest but misguided new user

Okay, I am pretty new myself here, but I feel like I've started to get a basic grasp on policy, guidelines, and the overall content goals of Wikipedia. Recently, I reverted an edit from a new user who wished to add information about a relative of theirs to an existing page. I reverted it because the relative did not seem to meet WP:Notability and was also original research, lacking any verification from sources.

The user left a very kind and polite message on my talk page, explaining that they feel their relative has an important part in history and should be included. I want to help push them in a direction that doesn't discourage them but maintains the guidelines. Any suggestions? SpurriousCorrelation 06:21, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SpurriousCorrelation. Since you're talking about Mrinal Gore, I think you were correct to undo the other editor's edits. In general, Wikipedia's notability guidelines don't apply to article content as explained in WP:NNC, but it still needs to be reliable sourced and encyclopedically relevant to the reader. Lots of editors mean well and try to add content to Wikipedia about family, friends or other people who mean (meant) alot to them, but Wikipedia's purpose isn't really to memorialize or otherwise recognize individuals. If there are reliable sources which show how this person was an influential contemporary of Gore, then perhaps something could be added to the article (or even a stand-alone article created about this person's grandmother); however, it's not Wikipedia's purpose to prevent someone's name from being lost to history.
Having said that, I will note that the same person (or someone with the same name) is also mentioned in Samyukta Maharashtra Samiti; so, perhaps this might be worth asking about at WT:INDIA. Perhaps some members of that WikiProject might've heard of this person and can help determine whether she would be a good candidate to try and create an article about. Googling her name doesn't get lots of hits (and most of them appear to be WP:MIRRORs), but there might be sources in Hindi which help establish at least WP:NEXIST. Regardless, persons (like family members) of the individual shouldn't really be trying to add her or other content about her per WP:COISELF. Another editor has removed the same content for this reason; so, now the best you can do is advise Mihir nanthur to engage in discussion on the article's talk page if they still are unsure why the information they added has been removed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:57, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Marchjuly, for both the clarification and second look. I opened a topic on the WT:INDIA page, and I'll keep the WP:NNC guideline in mind going forward. SpurriousCorrelation 07:16, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

La loi book by vaillard

How do I comment on an existing review which I found inaccurate? Pturvill (talk) 06:46, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Pturvill: Do you mean this article (not a review): The Law (novel) (a 4-sentence stub)? Normally, the answer is to post on the talk page of the article (Talk:The Law (novel)), but it's probably not watched closely, so perhaps just post your issue here (edit this section). —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 07:02, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Hi Pturvill. Are you referring to The Law (novel)? Is there something written in the article that is inaccurate, i.e. it doesn't reflect what reliable sources cited as references are saying about the book? The article is only a few sentences long so perhaps you can help clarify what your concern is? If it's just that you don't agree with one of the sources cited as a reference, then there's not much that Wikipedia can do to change that. If, however, you're aware of other critical reviews of the book that were published in reliable sources that say something different, then perhaps that information can be incorporated into the article in some way as long as it's not WP:UNDUE. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:08, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mohit Ul Alam

Extended content

To Wikipedia entries authority

This is Professor Mohit Ul Alam, PhD., writing.

Just today, 10 September 2020, I happened to see that on my entry 'Mohit Ul Alam' in Wikipedia a passage under the heading of "corruption" has printed ceratin allegations against me, of which I got absolute clearance after a thorough investigation by DUDOK (the Anti-corruption Commission, the agency responsible for such investigations) and a letter of discharge was officially issued on 16 January 2020, of which I let you know on 21st July 2020 at 9:19 am on my first sighting of the information with the reference number (04.01.6100.616.01.014.17 dated 16/01/2020) carried by the letter. To my great surprise and shock, I see that stuff being repeated and would like to request you to immediately withdraw it from my entry, as it is absolutely detrimental to my professional as well as public image in the society, and all the more reason why I am requesting you is that the charges were completely baseless as ACC's official report attests. Besides, my son was recruited by following all the rules of the university and those of the country, and for your information, following the university rules, I didn't preside over the selection committee meeting, and I withdrew from the committee following the university rules. My son, however, worked there for only six months after which he resigned on his own to join another university on a better offer.

Besides as the present profile does not give a comprehensive picture of who I am I asked one of my junior colleagues Mr. Romel, as he in our department more attuned to handling the technicalities of such websites as the Wikipedia, that he could update my profile as to suitably represent me, and I gave him the draft without ever realizing, out of our ignorance, that it could be considered as compromised by the profile rules of Wikipedia. And he told me regrettably what went on between him and Wikipedia moderators in this regard.

I am personally aggrieved as to what had transpired so far in terms of misunderstanding, and now am writing this letter to clean up all the confusion and allow me to provide updated information about myself by giving a complete list of books and a dossier about my career from verifiable sources.

I am hereby submitting an image of the letter issued by ACC on 16 January 2020, and a copy of my ID as well as a copy of the visiting card.

Please withdraw the 'Corruption' passage completely and let my mind rest in peace.

With this kindly let me know when I can give my fuller description in accordance with the Wikipedia format.

With thanks.

Mohit Ul Alam

(Professor Dr. Mohit Ul Alam) Dean, Faculty of Arts and Social Science Premier University, Chattagram Bangladesh

Formerly Vice-Chancellor of Jatiya Kabi Kazi Nazrul Islam University Trishal, Mymensingh Bangladesh

P.S. I tried to upload the images of the discharge letter by the Anti Corruption Commission of Bangladesh but Wikipedia is not allowing me to do so. The documents are ready to be produced if needed to verify my claim made above in the letter.

Mehbad (talk) 07:06, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mehbad: Dup of posting at WP:Help desk#Mohit Ul Alam. Please only use one help forum at a time. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 07:12, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Hi Mehbad. Please take a look at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Dealing with articles about yourself. If you are Mohit Ul Alam, then are there processes in place for you to make known any concerns you have about what's written about you on Wikipedia. However, please also understand the a Wikipedia article is written about a subject, not for or on behalf of a subject; this means that neither the subjects of articles or anyone connected to them has any sort of final editorial control over article content. As long as the article content is in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, then it's not going to be automatically removed just because the subject doesn't like it. Finally, a Wikipedia article about you isn't really intended to provide a comprehensive picture of you; it's great when an article is capable of doing so, but a Wikipedia article is really only intended to reflect what reliable sources have said or are saying about you in as neutral of a manner as possible, even if that might include content that's unfavorable to you in some way. Anyway, it sounds like you have some serious concerns about some parts of the article. I'm not trying to discount those concerns, but they probably are things that we're not going to be able to resolve here at the Wikipedia Teahouse. So, please read the "Dealing with articles about yourself" section above and follow the suggestions given there. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:25, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Home

how do you add a name to recent deaths on Wikipedia home Alisha rains (talk) 10:00, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, Alisha rains. To answer your question, I tried putting WP:Recent deaths into the search bar, and it brought up the information page explaining the criteria and the procedure. Note what it says there: normally only people who Wikipedia already has an article about are appropriate entries. --ColinFine (talk) 14:19, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you I will try that. Alisha rains ([[Alisha rains ([[User talk:Alisha rains 10:00, 10 September
@Alisha rains: Note, too, that the people that work on that area are somewhat picky about the quality of the article that must exist, too. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 02:10, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the page goes excist I must just learn how to add the name Alisha rains (talk) 13:33, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How do I cite a newspaper publication archived in the British Library?

I'm working on an article about Mark Steele (conspiracy theorist). He was briefly notorious in the 1980s, and a number of newspapers in his local area published articles about him. Unfortunately none of these are easily viewed online, but all are available in the British Library's extensive newspaper archive. These archives are free to view, but are behind a login-wall. Can somebody describe the correct way to cite an archived newspaper article? Salimfadhley (talk) 10:01, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Salimfadhley. The source you’ll be citing is the newspaper, not the archives where a copy can be found; so, you should just cite the newspaper per WP:CITEHOW. As long as the source is reliable, published and accessible, it doesn’t necessarily need to be available online; however, if the archives makes the source available online and you’re sure it’s a true copy, you probably can treat the link as a WP:CONVENIENCE link. For example, if you use the citation template {{cite news}}, you can use the parameter |via= to indicate the source of the link. If the online source requires some sort of payment or registration, you can use the parameter |url-access=. See Template:Cite news#Parameters for specific instructions on how to use these parameters. — Marchjuly (talk) 11:18, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Salimfadhley if it's in the British Newspaper Archive, there is a suggested format (on Wikipedia:BNA,a partnership we used to have with the British Library): <ref> {{cite news |title=Terrific Gale |work=Burnley Gazette |date=2 October 1875 |accessdate=7 September 2020 |url=http://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000280/18751002/009/0007| via = [[British Newspaper Archive]]|url-access=subscription }}</ref> So you site the actual newspaper and put via the British Newspaper Archive (or British Library, if it's not part of the BNA collection). Joseph2302 (talk) 11:27, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you all, problem solved. --Salimfadhley (talk) 12:22, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, BNA only let you view 3 pages for free when you register, but that's all without paying, so I guess it should be |url-access=limited, though that's so limited, using |url-access=subscription seems reasonable, too. I recently asked them if they were interested in partnering like other sources we have available through Wikipedia Library, or even just granting me limited-time, but they declined. :| I should ask the WL folks to try to negotiate a deal with them. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 02:25, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Heat death of the universe

The current edits to the Heat death of the universe page are taking a bizarre turn, with a segue linking the cosmological question to the U.S. debt and geocentrism. What's going on? Urhixidur (talk) 14:55, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Over-quotation. HeartGlow (talk) 14:59, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The place to discuss an article is on its talk page, in this case Talk:Heat death of the universe. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:04, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The issue appears to be that User:Dlku4d persists in adding tremendous amounts of content, much unreferenced, much possibly original research, much not germane, to the article, and when reverted and warning, repeatedly, restores the deleted content and adds more (and more). David notMD (talk) 15:57, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm being personally attacked by multiple editors who are kinda ganging up on me

I've spent hours researching and understanding Wikipedia policy. This was after my first tryst with deletion where I made a bunch of mistakes and educated myself. Now I'm being personally attacked and have also been called a racist. On some discussion page, I'm being disparaged by a bunch of editor, I can't find it now but they basically said that i have some bad intentions. This is incredibly disrespectful and does Wikipedia have a way to work with this. I'm very upset that if I spend such an incredible amount of time understanding and learning everything just to be accused of I can't even list it all. And why are my edits not being judged on their merit? No one has pointed out any mistakes, all I'm getting are personal attacks. Only one particular editor seems to focus on the edits I make. But this is very upsetting and shouldn't be acceptable. I hope this isn't a place where bullying is encouraged like I am being currently. Sorry for sounding so dramatic, but I'm really pissed. I've tried to be as civil as possible. Iitianeditor (talk) 14:57, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Iitianeditor It would help to provide diffs of the edits in question. Praxidicae (talk) 14:59, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I echo Praxidicae, and if these violations are serious, I would suggest moving this to WP:AN/I. HeartGlow (talk) 15:04, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Praxidicae I'm unable to find that page but I've been called racist on my talk page and what exactly do you mean by diffs? The pages where I'm being disparaged? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iitianeditor (talk • contribs) 15:02, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing any harmful edits on your talk page, have you deleted the edits recently? HeartGlow (talk) 15:07, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
HeartGlow30797 The editor named joseph2302 basically said that I'm biased against Pakistani's because I'm indian. That's an accusation of racism. I have no bias against any nationality or against anyone at all. He just said it without any basis bringing into question my credibility. Iitianeditor (talk) 15:26, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The only contribution @Joseph2302: has made is this diff. This does have anything close to your accusations you are stating. The content explains why those cricket players should be kept in the mainspace due to challenged notability. Also, he pointed out your selectiveness. I do not see this as cruel or harsh, which believes me to think that the page in which they called you a racist could have been a mistake in interpretation. HeartGlow (talk) 15:37, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
HeartGlow30797 yes, in that line I'll quote "And why are you specifically picking out bios of Pakistani cricketers? There's nothing that makes Pakistani cricketers less notable, and this would indicate that you may have a bias against them." I perceive that as a personal attack on me. Now, people now a days are smart enough to not call someone "racist" to their face but this is exactly what he's trying to imply by writing it on my talk page. That I'm biased against pakistanis. He's being passive aggresive, but if you look closely he's basically calling into question my character. And if he wants to explain the reasons for why they should be kept (when precident shows they shouldn't, I've even mentioned it in the nomination reason), why the need for the quoted text above. He's trying to win an argument by questioning my credibility.Iitianeditor (talk) 15:50, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Their is nothing we can do here further. Please look at posting at or WP:AN/I and an administrator can look at it. Personally, it does not come to me as being called racist, but I think a third opinion can be made at the aforementioned noticeboard. HeartGlow (talk) 15:57, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
HeartGlow30797 thanks for understanding my concern. I do want to post it there, but I don't want to lose all the discussion over here since it would take a large amount of effort to repear. How can I post it with all the info over here?Iitianeditor (talk) 16:07, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do {{#section-h:WP:Teahouse|I'm being personally attacked by multiple editors who are kinda ganging up on me}}. HeartGlow (talk) 16:18, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
HeartGlow30797 thanks a lot!! Iitianeditor (talk) 16:30, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at Praxidicae's message, the word "diff" is in blue, which indicates that it is a wikilink. If you follow the link, you will find out what a diff is. (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.) --David Biddulph (talk) 15:09, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
David Biddulph Thanks! Sorry forgot to sign the last time. Iitianeditor (talk) 15:26, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey, FTR, IMO telling an editor with 500 edits to take it to ANI is terrible advice. It would have been much more helpful to simply explain to them why it wasn't a personal attack, why they weren't actually being ganged up on even though it felt like it, and given them another chance to realize they weren't experienced enough to understand what was happening. This is Teahouse. We should be helping new editors avoid ending up boomeranged, like this one just did. —valereee (talk) 11:59, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do sports notability guidelines really take over any notability concerns?

From what I understand, the gng is the most important thing. It says that there should be multiple, in depth sources about any topic. But some specific guidelines (for eg. The cricket one) don't really meet that. This was my best understanding and apparently I've upset a lot of editors over it. I don't think I've read it wrongly since I've read a lot about it. But I just wanted to be sure Incase I'm mistaken. Iitianeditor (talk) 15:07, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is already being discussed at WT:NSPORT and should be kept there. Forum shopping will do you no favors. Praxidicae (talk) 15:08, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Praxidicae I'm sorry if it seemed that way, but from what I understand that page wasn't to get advice on what works and what doesn't. It's a whole discussion about the guideline. What I wanted to ask was that while the guidelines are in place, do they take precedence over gng? Iitianeditor (talk) 15:29, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't think that WP:GNG should conflict with WP:NSPORT, both should apply to the article in question. HeartGlow (talk) 15:47, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
HeartGlow30797 thanks for your comment. Praxidicae mentioned forum shopping. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cricket# under that link, there's a discussion about individual nomination of multiple articles. If that's not forum shopping, I don't know what is. A lot of people who saw that post are the ones now wanting to keep the article. Seems incredibly unethical. Should I do anything about it? Iitianeditor (talk) 16:04, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Iitianeditor, welcome to the Teahouse. This is a commonly asked question that unfortunately doesn't have a simple answer. I suggest taking a look through the archives at Wikipedia talk:Notability, as many discussions on this topic have taken place there (see this for a recent example). If you have any further questions, I suggest opening a thread there. CThomas3 (talk) 16:14, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cthomas3 thanks! This sort of discuss was what I was exactly looking for to recheck my understanding. Thanks again!
Courtesy post - this and the thread above stem from this User talk:Iitianeditor#Multiple AfDs, where the posting editor launched multiple Afds nominating Pakistanian Cricket players' articles for deletion. The advice was to do only a few at a time and wait to see the results of the deletion discussions, in order to not flood Afd. That seems to be a better strategy than trying to convince people here, many of whom may not know anything about Cricket. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 18:27, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Timtempleton I have no intention of convincing anyone of anything. And incase you might not have noticed, the advice is exactly what I did. I nominated 2 articles for deletion and then waited to see the outcome (please look at the reason for nomination I've given). After the outcome came out, I decided to nominate articles which are almost exactly like the ones that got deleted. Coming to your point about Pakistani cricketers, that's because a particle user has been making almost identical articles and all the deleted articles + the nominations are his creation. Iitianeditor (talk) 18:40, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Iitianeditor I see the numerous open AfDs with a mix of keep and delete votes. It seems that the Cricket notability rules have to be properly enforced, and if they are vague, they need to be tightened up so they can be properly interpreted. The collective discussion time (and your efforts as well) would be better spent on clarifying the notability guidelines once and for all. People posting articles against policy could then be blocked. The people who try to keep the AfD queue clear would certainly appreciate it. Good luck! TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 19:12, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Timtempleton you're right about the fact that if the guidelines are cleared up once and for all it would be great, but before that can happen, on the discussion page it was claimed that AfDs are the way to to demonstrate that change is needed. But alas, I'm unlikely to participate in that since a simple nomination of 20 articles which don't meet GNG and even had precedent for deletion caused me to receive so much hate that I won't be editing those topics again since the editors over there are experts at making you feel terrible. And honestly, I don't have that patient approach to stuff. I will aggressively do what's right and will equally quickly revert it if I'm wrong, I'm not a fan of bureaucracy which seems to be the case here and thus doesn't appeal to me. Well I tried to be bold according to policy all I got was crap for it. Iitianeditor (talk) 19:50, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Everything I do gets reverted

Everything I do gets reverted King Frederich der Grosse (talk) 15:08, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please provide which pages in which you have made edits are being reverted? HeartGlow (talk) 15:09, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
According to your contributions, you have made two edits, both of which have been reverted due to it being percieved as vandalism. If you would like help in editing wikipedia, visit WP:The Wikipedia Adventure or ask specifically what you would like help on. HeartGlow (talk) 15:18, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Removing a warning at the top of my bio page

How do I remove the banner warning on my bio page (Bret Lott)? I have no idea how to do this. Please help! 174.56.147.159 (talk) 15:12, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Help:Maintenance template removal HeartGlow (talk) 15:14, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article about Bret Lott is very poorly sourced hence the maintenance template, for instance there are nine "awards" with no sources and no indication of notability. Theroadislong (talk) 15:28, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Books should have publishers and ISBN numbers. See Tony Hoagland for example. David notMD (talk) 16:07, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are within your rights to add references and publication information, but should refrain from changing text of the article, because it is about you. An alternative path would be to describe on the Talk page changes that should be made, so that a non-involved editor could decide what to do. David notMD (talk) 16:07, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Password Reset not working

I tried to RESET my password through the request, but I never got any email. I did this over a period of a few days but with no success. I am sure about my email address and my login name. 97.102.135.121 (talk) 15:38, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Contact administrators about this issue, be sure you're checking your spam folder. HeartGlow (talk) 15:41, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
HeartGlow30797 This is not correct advice, administrators can do nothing about login issues whatsoever. If password reset isn't working it could be because there is no email associated with the account, the account has a different email or there is an issue with the email itself. Praxidicae (talk) 15:57, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
...Or you have the preference set that you must enter both username and password (only for newer accounts) Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:46, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Praxidicae: Does it even offer the recovery option if there is no email address on the account? —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 03:01, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

printing portions of an article

 Dondiedrich (talk) 15:48, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dondiedrich, hi there. You can print an article, you can even print all of it. Just click the "Download as PDF" or "Printable version" text at the sidebar. GeraldWL 15:50, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hypocrisy

Why does the American Government have double standards between Federal and State Governments. Why if we have the highest rate of juveniles in detentions are we not teaching them in school laws and morals? If our government really cared about us why would they allow the sales of meth pipes in many tobacco shops but then arrest people for using them as such? When our government has based everything on the dollar and is criminalizing homelessness, does that not mean they must be slaves to the American dollar to survive? 69.92.197.123 (talk) 15:58, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. This is a place to ask about using Wikipedia, and is not for airing grievances we might have with the government or society. Please do so in a more appropriate forum. 331dot (talk) 16:00, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a comment section, fella. Tell that to the legal system. GeraldWL 16:00, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I do not think this is a question here for Wikipedia. Please keep this forum to questions about content on Wikipedia. HeartGlow (talk) 16:01, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, HeartGlow30797, but this is a help page about editing Wikipedia. Questions about what an article should contain should go on the article's talk page, or that of a related WikiProject; more general questions about the content of articles do not belong anywhere in Wikipedia, except possible on the Reference desk. --ColinFine (talk) 16:34, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Help About Protected Article

Hello, Admin I wanna create an article , name Swastika Dutta . And @ColinFine: said that the article salted after deleted fourth time. And he told me to post all her news article link here(At least 3 from different news portal). And I have collected some article's from Google. So I am going to post those article here. So can anyone help me by checking those article is suitable or not for creating Swastika Dutta's article on Wikipedia.

Article- 1- https://timesofindia.com/tv/news/bengali/actress-swastika-dutta-of-bhojo-gobindo-fame-is-enjoying-her-outdoor-shoot/amp_articleshow/65333864.cms

2- https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tv/news/bengali/playing-keka-is-one-of-the-most-challenging-tasks-for-me-actress-swastika-dutta-on-her-new-project-bijoyini/articleshow/68460013.cms

3- https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tv/news/bengali/playing-keka-is-one-of-the-most-challenging-tasks-for-me-actress-swastika-dutta-on-her-new-project-bijoyini/articleshow/68460013.cms

4- https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/kolkata-actor-thrown-out-of-uber-cab-abused-driver-arrested/story-8vuFAp28hMEc4fUp5W8roN.html

5- https://www.anandabazar.com/entertainment/are-actress-swastika-dutta-and-krushal-ahuja-in-love-dgtl-1.1180956

6- https://telegraphindia.com/amp/entertainment/popular-pair-karna-and-radhika-tied-the-knot-in-the-serial-kkbt/cid/1789700

7- https://bengali.indianexpress.com/entertainment/swastika-dutta-krushal-ahuja-rahul-dev-bose-in-zee-bangla-serial-ki-kore-bolbo-tomay-163526/

8- https://bengali.indianexpress.com/entertainment/swastika-dutta-starrer-star-jalsha-serial-bijoyini-will-go-off-air-133788/

9- https://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/2019/jul/11/bengali-actor-swastika-dutta-alleges-assault-by-app-cab-driver-in-kolkata-2002473.amp Bijoyonline30 (talk) 16:14, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bijoyonline30. The four of those I have looked at are all based on interviews with Dutta. You have missed the part where I said that the articles must be completely unconnected with Dutta (and not based on an interview or press release). --ColinFine (talk) 16:25, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @ColinFine: , thanks for your review. Actually I serached and send all those article. So is there any article will work for creating and article named Swastika Dutta or I will post more article ???

Bijoyonline30. Attempts to write this article have been deleted four times. The participants in those discussions will have looked for evidence of notability before they decided to delete. If you want to create an article on her now, the onus is on you to find the sources which either they overlooked, or which have been published since: sources that are reliable and independent and contain significant coverage of her. I haven't looked at all the ones you posted above: if you wish to get me (or probably anybody else) to spend any more time on this, you need to persuade me that it is even worth opening the sources to look at them. --ColinFine (talk) 16:53, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've took a look, we have:
To conclude, this does look like WP:TOOSOON. Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:28, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Victor Schmidt and Bijoyonline30: Source 1 (the dead link) had a typo ('_' instead of '/'). This works: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tv/news/bengali/actress-swastika-dutta-of-bhojo-gobindo-fame-is-enjoying-her-outdoor-shoot/amp/articleshow/65333864.cms . —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 03:12, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How do I get my article made?

Is there a page which you can request an article be made? I am requesting a punkrock band with the name of "Seven Serpents" that I listen to myself. Also, I am not fully confident that this is congruent with the guidelines for notability. - Wikimeedian (talk) 19:56, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikimeedian: You can place a request at WP:RA for an article. RudolfRed (talk) 19:59, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thank you! Wikimeedian (talk) 20:01, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I have just readt the guidelines for notability, and this is not notable. Wikimeedian (talk) 20:11, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What's an autoconfirmed user?

 Priceobserver (talk) 20:14, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Priceobserver. An autoconfirmed user is an editor with a registered account that is at least four days old and has made at least ten edits. These accounts can directly create encyclopedia articles, can move articles to new titles, and can upload files. Of course, such actions must comply with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please read Wikipedia:User access levels for complete details. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:25, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How is anyone going to make an informed decision about Donald Trump?

I recently started looking through a Wikipedia article, Donald Trump on Social Media [1] I notice very few of the footnotes for the article actually go to Donald Trump on social media. As much controversy surrounds him, indirect sources are not going to be as convincing as quoting him directly. Mark Twain advised writers "Don't say 'The old lady screamed!' Bring her on and let her scream." I expect people to question me if I say "Donald Trump said ..." We have the technology to offer a link to an original source, even his own official Twitter feed.

As I recall, the above Wikipedia article said Trump has posted around 17,000 tweets. No one person has time to dig through all that to find the ones that reveal the content of his character. Solomon said "Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks." Anyone who registers to vote in this fall's election needs this information.

So please, many hands who understand this technology, make light work of going deeper on all these cited sources and link to Trumps original statements in social media. I would help, but (a) I don't know how, and (b) I've been through 30 years' clinical depression, wishing for a terminal illness, and I have to work hard to stay happy enough to be productive. I suggest all of you work this a little at a time, so you don't burn out.

But please fix the article cited above. It's only preaching to the converted, as is.

Bill Lemmond, signed not because I think I have to. I read the instructions. 2601:5CC:4700:39F0:E42D:E75A:979A:3E17 (talk) 21:12, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I get where you are coming from, but social media is an unreliable source. Tweets can be removed, and then screenshots appear, and they can be manipulated. But the place to discuss accuracy for Donald Trump on social media is Talk:Donald Trump on social media. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 21:24, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Bill, and welcome to the Teahouse! As you can see, the article has some direct quotes, and under "External links" you'll find links to Trumps own social media. BUT. Per WP-philosophy, we are not interested in Trump's statements directly, if you want those, read his Twitter. We are interested in summarizing what WP:Reliable sources says about Donald Trump on Social Media, so that is what you get here. Or is supposed to get, few WP-articles are perfect, but that is the goal here. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:28, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"not going to be as convincing as quoting him directly." Our goal at Wikipedia is first and foremost to be an encyclopedia; this is achieved by citing reliable sources. I sympathize with the need for voters to understand Trump, but our goal is to be neutral by citing reliable sources. Without that, the page reflects more on the people who are writing them than on our best approximation of the truth. If people want to see what Trump tweeted directly, they can look at his twitter account. But if they want encyclopedic coverage, as determined not by the whims of the editors but by reliable sources, then they would look towards Wikipedia. Zoozaz1 (talk) 02:16, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_on_social_media)
I would add that Wikipedia is not intended as a voter guide, even though undoubtedly some voters use it as such. This is an encyclopedia first and foremost. 331dot (talk) 21:34, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, if you check the "quote-boxes" on the right in the article, it seems those are cited to Twitter directly, link and everything. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:59, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Citations Needed Tag

I was going to read up on what a "One-party State" is so I went to the article and found that there are virtually no citations for any of the points made in the article (with the exception of citations in the table of examples). There's a banner at the top of the page saying that:

"This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these template messages) The neutrality of this article is disputed. (September 2014) This article needs additional citations for verification. (August 2016)"

On the talk page some users also noted that there needs to be more citations, but the banner was made in 2016 and the talk page section was made in 2018.

My question is: Is it appropriate to add the citations needed tag after bits of the article that don't have any citations? I'm relatively new and unsure when I have the authority to do something like that, especially when I'm not a primary contributor to the article. TipsyElephant (talk) 23:49, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TipsyElephant. Everyone has the "authority" to add a maintenance template to an article as long as they do so in good-faith and believe there's an issue that needs attention. WP:TAGBOMB can be a problem and is considered disruptive; so, generally it's not a good idea to try and spend all of your time just going around and tagging articles for problems. It also is helpful when an editor actually tries to fix a problem themselves instead of just passing it on to others, but sometimes you're just not sure what to do or how to fix something.
Sometimes a tag was added by mistake or it was added and the relevant problem was resolved but the tag left as is. If you come across any of those articles, you can remove the tag if you believe the problem no longer exists or was never an issue. Just leave an edit summary explaining why. If someone re-adds the same tag later on, then try and figure out why and just don't blindly revert (particularly if the editor has left an edit summary explaining why). Edit warring over maintenance templates will only lead to accounts being blocked.
Finally, there are various types of tags: some apply to entire articles, some apply to specific sections, and some apply to specific sentences. If the entire article is unsourced or poorly sourced, then perhaps one tag for the entire article is sufficient. If only one particular section has problems, then tagging only that section is probably OK. If only a single sentence has problems, then tagging only that sentence is fine. What you want to try to avoid is a redundancy of tags; in other words you, don't want to tag every single sentence of an article with {{citation needed}}, and then tag each section of the article with {{Unreferenced section}} and then finally tag the entire article with {{Unreferenced}}. Use tags judiciously to point out problems that might exist, but don't use them to "punish" articles by excessively tagging them. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:22, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reason for vague newspaper references

I want to thank Wikipedia reviewer Hoary for looking at my draft. I am making the changes he advises. I have several cut-up newspaper articles from an old Oswaldo Castro scrapbook but many of them have no newspaper name or date. Because of pandemic restrictions, the libraries and newspapers that have this information and to whom I have written cannot access their archives:

Can I insert a photocopy of the articles in question to make up for the missing data? Oscar Waldoosty (talk) 01:36, 11 September 2020 (UTC) Oscar Waldoosty (talk) 01:36, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Oscar Waldoosty. You cannot possibly use an undated newspaper clipping that does not identify the newspaper as a reference on Wikipedia. One of our core content policies is Verifiability, which means that a reader should be able to verify the content in the original source, which is impossible if the name of the publication is unknown. Wikipedia summarizes only what reliable sources say, and editors cannot evaluate the reliability of a newspaper (or any other publication) without knowing its name. You are welcome to use hints and clues from those clippings to search for acceptable sources. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:30, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Oscar Waldoosty. In addition to what Cullen328 posted above, I'm just going to add that sources cited in Wikipedia articles aren't required to be available online; they are only required to be reliable, published and accessible. Sources don't even have to be free for viewing. So, there's no need for you to upload scans or photo copies of any newspaper articles/clippings; you can cite the source as explained in WP:SAYWHERE and WP:CITEHOW. Being available online does make it easier for editors to verify a source, but it's not required.
There's other reasons why you shouldn't upload photocopies/scans of articles that have to do with WP:COPY#Guidelines for images and other media files and WP:CONVENIENCE#Existing policy and guidelines regarding convenience links. Most newspaper articles are protected by copyright and simply photographing them doesn't transfer that copyright to you. Same goes for photos taken by others; photographing a photo taken by someone else doesn't make you the copyright holder the photo. Most of the files you've already uploaded to Commons for use in the draft have licensing issues that need to be resolved; so, I wouldn't suggest you uploading any more files to Commons until you've got a better grasp of what "own work" means in a copyright sense and of c:Commons:Licensing in general. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:39, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Who to alert about a new article whose contents don't correspond to the title?

I'm a "learner"-stage editor and haven't ever created a chart before, and when I went looking for info, I ended up on the page Wikipedia:Charts format template. But the contents of that page have nothing to do with charts. It was created today by someone who has only made a few edits total, looks like it may be a mistake -- intended only as a sandbox effort? I'm not sure whether to just create a talk page for that user or if I'm supposed to say something elsewhere and would appreciate guidance. Thanks -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:44, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A diff would be helpful! HeartGlow (talk) 02:15, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just click on this link: Wikipedia:Charts format template. The page history consists of a single edit creating the page. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 02:37, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@FactOrOpinion: Looks like a mistake by an inexperienced editor. I've tagged it WP:CSD#G2. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 03:26, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@AlanM1: Thanks for your help -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 03:38, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And I deleted it. Cheers. Lectonar (talk) 12:19, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Helpful

I just wanted to thank you for how you've been so helpful. I appreciate it! Wale18 (talk) 03:24, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Changing Cronus and Chronos

I just wanted to clear up and maybe change the pages of Cronus and Chronos. Cronus is the god of Time and Chronos is the god of Harvest. Thanks for listening! Wale18 (talk) 03:28, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Wale18: Did you have a question? 05:38, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry to have to disagree with you, Wale18, but you have things exactly reversed. Please carefully read the references to reliable sources in the two articles. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:30, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You may also want to read Titans (mythology) and its references for a better understanding of Cronus. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:39, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is replacing a TfD template with a different non-TfD one ok - or not?

Help: Not clear about this at the moment - and new to me - several of my templates, [including "Template:LocationOfEarth", "Template:LifeOnEarth", "Template:Nature-h", "Template:Nature-v" and "Template:LifeOnEarth-v"], are being considered at TfD ( see "Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 September 6" ) - I've tried adding a different, but equivalent, template (ie, "Template:Multiple image") that is *not* being considered at TfD to the transcluded article pages - all the newly added templates seem to have been reverted back to the templates being considered at TfD by one editor - Question: Are the newly added (not-TfD) templates not permitted to be added to the articles for some reason at a time when the TfD templates are being considered? Seems one editor may think this is the case - But I always thought this would be *entirely* ok to do - Please let me know one way or the other if possible - Specific instances of related reverted edit diffs are as follows: 1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8+9+10+11+12+13+14 - Thanks in advance for your help with this - and perhaps sorting this out - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 02:44, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Drbogdan, I see that the editor tried to explain it to you on your talk page but you reverted them, I am guessing because of how it was worded, as there is a long history of unreverted edits by that user to your talk page. I reckon the best way for you to find the answer to your question would have been to just ask them. The fact that this query has remained unanswered for so long tells me that there likely are no obvious alternatives to that. When you run into an editing dispute, and this appears to be just that, either you have to be willing to stand your ground and discuss it out or just move on and find something else to do. Your record on Wikipedia (70% to "main" and <1% to "Wikipedia", of your 70K+ edits; no blocks) suggests you've earned all the help you could possibly want on rare occasions that you do, so I am pinging experienced editors, @Nick Moyes and Valereee: whom I've seen patiently advise editors about handling stressful situations on Wikipedia and @Primefac and Trialpears: who have a lot of experience with templates as well as elsewhere, in case there is additional advice (or help "sorting this out") you could benefit from. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:55, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
fixing ping to @Primefac, Trialpears, and Nick Moyes:. Usedtobecool ☎️ 11:56, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Drbogdan, I think what you're asking is did you do anything wrong, like the editor posted at your talk. I personally have no idea. I think what I'd do is what UTBC suggested: talk to the other editor. If you honestly weren't trying to do what they suggested -- game the system -- just explain that you thought what you did was completely okay, apologize for any unintended transgression, and ask them to explain what they thought you were doing wrong or why it was wrong. As UTBC pointed out, you have a long history of useful editing, there's no reason to disbelieve you if you say you weren't trying to game the system. (Again I have to point out that I personally have zero ability to assess that.) —valereee (talk) 11:35, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit count broken

Somehow I joined Italian Wikipedia. Since then my live edit counters no longer work. I don’t know if the two events are related. How do I dump Italian wikipedia? Fat Irish Guy (talk) 03:34, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Fat Irish Guy: You can't, AFAIK. Since your login works across most of the WMF projects, if you visit an article that retrieves content from a project, it attaches to your account. However, as was mentioned on your talk page, I don't think it's related. There's an ongoing problem with "replication lag" that affects things like edit counters. It's being worked on. See WP:VPT#Toolforge problems?. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 05:37, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It’s not been working for four days. I guess that’s not unusual?

The Italian wikipedia thing happened the same day so I thought it might be related.

Thanks for your response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fat Irish Guy (talk • contribs) 05:44, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) BTW, the current lag of whichever database WP:QUARRY uses is about 3 days, 21 hours. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 05:47, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Fat Irish Guy: Update: the lag seems to have gotten "un-stuck". Based on samples taken over a 30-minute period around 2020-09-11 20:00 UTC, it will be caught up about 28 hours from now (2020-09-13 00:00 UTC). Pinging BrownHairedGirl, who was interested in the Phab thread) —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 20:23, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@AlanM1 and Fat Irish Guy: The replication servers were being reconfigured, and now recovering after the outage while the work was done. See the details at phab:T262239. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:28, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Update 2: It's looking more like finishing ~ 2020-09-13 13:00 UTC, based on the current lag of ~ 60 hours at 2020-09-12 09:00 UTC and a rate of π hours reduction in lag per hour. My earlier calculation was flawed, and should have reflected that same time. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 09:40, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion re disambiguation bot 02

There is a BOT that advises editors that they have linked to a disambiguation page rather than directly to the article in question. My suggestion is to mark disambiguated links as soon as they occur, instead of waiting days for the BOT to advise you. Something like this:

@MountVic127: There is an add-on listed in Preferences that allows you to see that. I see them as yellow. -- a lad insane (channel two) 06:38, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I wish more people would enable that gadget. It's incredibly useful. Instead of the gadget, I use a more orangeish color by simply adding the following line to Special:MyPage/common.css: 
.mw-disambig {color:#FF8921 !important;}
—[AlanM1 (talk)]— 18:13, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliantly simple :-) :-) ----MountVic127 (talk) 09:16, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is a very useful command, what is the best way to keep it in public view.

  • Keep copying it at the end of this list of teahouse things?
    • I shall do this once!
  • make it a default setting somewhere?
@AlanM1:
@A lad insane:
----MountVic127 (talk) 06:12, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello MountVic127. You cannot expect numerous bots working on over six million articles to produce instant results. Unless you have bot coding skills and can help streamline their operations, I suggest that you be patient and grateful for the useful work that these bots do. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:47, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@MountVic127: It is very helpful for editors, I agree, but I think that if it were made the default setting it could be confusing for Wikipedia readers who are not editors. That's just my immediate thought, and you could suggest this at the Idea lab (which is part of the Village pump), to get more input. There's quite a few helpful tools and scripts that make editing easier, and it's hard to say which is the most useful one... check out WP:TOOLS!
As for adding a copy of a post to the end of the Teahouse page (or any talk page) to keep it visible, that's not a good idea for a couple of reasons: the original post is still there, currently near the top of the page and subsequently in the archives, and this post will gradually move up on the page as well – there is no way to keep it at the bottom without copying it repeatedly, and we'd end up with hundreds of copies of the same post in the archives. Secondly, when copying the entire post and thread you also copied the replies and signatures of other editors, which is something you should always avoid doing. And finally, it would not be read by very many editors here. New editors who come to the Teahouse don't usually read other posts, not even the ones immediately above their own post, and a brand-new editor does not necessarily know what a disambiguation page is. --bonadea contributions talk 08:03, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is also User:Anomie/linkclassifier.js which I have been using for a very long time, and is very useful. It basically colour codes the links on the page that you are viewing, or previewing while editing. —usernamekiran (talk) 11:01, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I use, and I find it incredibly useful. —valereee (talk) 12:24, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am so confused , and need help .

 WikiWolfiePedia (talk) 08:01, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you are confused about editing Wikipedia, this is a pretty good place to ask questions about that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:03, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am so confused , and need help .

I am new to Wikipedia .

I thought Wikipedia Articles are interesting , and I like article writing , so I thought , "Why not give it a shot ? Its free and easy after all !" And it was ! Until my idea 'popped' . You see , when I typed in the search box for articles , I thought it would be easy , and there could be several articles no one ever wrote ! Or so I thought . There's nothing in the world that Wikipedia doesn't write !! I mean it as half compliment , half annoyance . I respect Wikipedia , yes very much , but I want to write at least something !! Please help me think of anything ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiWolfiePedia (talk • contribs) 08:10, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello WikiWolfiePedia and welcome to the Teahouse. My advice, worth every cent you paid for it, is to not focus on creating new articles as a new editor, creating an article that "sticks" can be hard. But a lot of stuff needs improvement, and improving stuff is the way to get the hang of WP. Take a look at "Help out" at Wikipedia:Community portal.
But if you want inspiration for articles to create, take a look at Wikipedia:Requested articles. Some of those are probably good suggestions. I can give you one: This mosque [11] is probably covered in enough WP:RS to merit an article on en-WP. Find those sources and start writing. Take the time to read Help:Your first article carefully. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:29, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You should also take the time to read Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:49, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Saturdayopen modifying Vital Article List without consensus

I have noticed that the above user is making a huge number of changes (both additions and deletions) at various Vital Article List without any consensus [12], [13], [14], [15]. This seems to have been going on for the last week but picked up drastic pace in last 3 days. The user has already received a Level 2 warning for nonconstructive edits on a talk-page and then Level 3 & 4 warnings from me.

I would like help in following:
1. Where should I report such an incident? I reported this at WP:ANI but no one has responded
2. Experienced User investigating if my claim is right
3. In case it is right, rollback the changes made by the user and appropriately warning/blocking them.

Thanks Roller26 (talk) 08:47, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Roller26. Since you've already started a discussion about this at WP:ANI, that's where it should be resolved. There's nothing anyone can do really here at the Teahouse now at this point. If nobody has responded to you yet at ANI, just be patient; ANI is fairly active page, but even WP:ADMINs get WP:BUSY every now and then. Finally, for future reference, once you pick a noticeboard to start a discussion, you should just let things play out there. Starting multiple discussions about the same matter on different noticeboards is not a good idea because it creates lots of redundancy and maybe even some confusion; it might also be seen as WP:FORUMSHOPPING which is generally frowned upon. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:59, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Thanks. Roller26 (talk) 12:30, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

submission

Submission

Could you tell me how much content I would need for my submission to be accepted?

Thank you, Lslch (talk) 09:10, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lslch, welcome! See WP:GNG for the basics on that. What Draft:South West Coast of Madagascar needs are good WP:RS about South West Coast of Madagascar. See WP:TUTORIAL for how to add references. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:16, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @Lslch: Firstly, can you fill out the sections in the draft? Right now there are just empty headers. Aside from that, most article lengths are okay - there are plenty of stub articles on Wikipedia that are just fine! It's not ideal, but it's not always easy or practical to fill out more.
Second, based on the declining comments, you'll need to find reliable, ideally secondary sources discussing the coast in relative detail. As Grabergs said, WP:TUTORIAL is excellent, but if you still need help I can help you with sources later if you find a few - please post on my talk page if you'd like me to - but without sources, the article is not viable, unfortunately. The easiest way to find sources is to Google. If you have a public or other library near you that is open, that's another good place to look. -- a lad insane (channel two) 09:19, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another quick question, how long does it usually take for a stub to be reviewed a second time? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lslch (talk • contribs) 10:11, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Lslch, hello, articles are reviewed at random so there isn’t any fixed time for that to happen, but a suggestion would be for you to contact the editor that declined the article initially and ask them to have a second look. Celestina007 10:20, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you everyone for the answers, I have another question if that's okay ( i started not long ago and am still new) Is there anyway to speed up the review process as this is for a university process and I do not have a lot of time ?

thank you, Lslch — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lslch (talk • contribs) 11:42, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lslch, On your draftpage, check where it says "Improving your odds of a speedy review". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:00, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Submission review timescales are not designed to fit in with your university processes. You ought to advise your instructor to read Wikipedia:Student assignments#Advice for instructors. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:07, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[16]

shows a link marked as dead, on which I ran (from the "Fix dead links" on history page):

https://iabot.toolforge.org/index.php?page=runbotsingle&pagesearch=Main_Page

The template "dead" was removed, but the link was not repaired.

The page in question is archived at

https://web.archive.org/web/20200210175253/ps://sanctuary.oberlincollegelibrary.org/exhibits/show/the-lane-rebels/the-lane-rebels-gallery

Why did the tool not find and repair this broken link? Thank you. deisenbe (talk) 10:06, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unsure why the tool didn't find the link, but I have manually added the archive. Victor Schmidt (talk) 11:10, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Deisenbe and Victor Schmidt: Someone recently explained here that, in order to avoid marking links that are only temporarily dead as (permanently) dead, the bot will not do so unless it has tried (I think) the link and found it dead three times at least a day apart. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 10:01, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Middle name

I'm working on a new wiki page about a living person, is it better to have the firs and last name only as a title for the article or should I include the middle name as well? Omar Almazruei (talk) 11:47, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Omar Almazruei, and welcome to the Teahouse! It depends, see WP:COMMONNAME for guidance. Basically, do it like the WP:RS do it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:54, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How to reference google books

How do a reference Google Book to an Wikipedia article.page 21 and 127] to this article Narain Chand Parashar.This [http://reftag.appspot.com/ also does not work.2405:201:E012:5806:39B5:4EF6:B779:FC13 

<ref>
{{cite book
 |last=
 |first=
 |author-link=
 |date=
 |title=
 |url=
 |location=
 |publisher=
 |page= <!-- or pages= -->
 |isbn=
}}
</ref>

Just fill this form. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 11:57, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried the RefToolbar? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:58, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In the VisualEditor interface, you can also use the Cite button and paste the URL of the Google reference in the text box of the Automatic tab. It will then generate the relevant information. You just need to Edit it to add the page numbers because it is not included in the data. Regards, Darwin Naz (talk) 22:40, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A window

When my touchscreen is not mine, what happens? 2020-09-11 17:34@Valamangalam South 117.230.2.232 (talk) 12:05, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This forum is for help with editing Wikipedia. Try asking at the Reference desk. Victor Schmidt (talk) 12:24, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thanks, Marchjuly, for your advice on my Oswaldo Castro draft. I have substituted with a homegrown photo. Oscar Waldoosty (talk) 12:45, 11 September 2020 (UTC) Oscar Waldoosty (talk) 12:45, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oscar Waldoosty, it'd be in March's best interest for you to message this in his talk page. Just make a new section here, copy-paste your message. GeraldWL 12:48, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Oscar Waldoosty: Since it was about a question you posted here at the Teahouse, the best way to follow up is to edit that section again instead of starting a new one. If you start it with {{Re|Marchjuly}} (which renders as "@Marchjuly:"; like I did here), they will be notified. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 10:09, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How do I create a page and put files on it?

 Freckles2015 (talk) 14:26, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to The Teahouse, before you do anything you will need to address the issue of you being a suspected sockpuppet of User:Dasher2014. Theroadislong (talk) 14:29, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
FYI: Indef blocked. David notMD (talk) 15:38, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

citing an old newspaper article that is not on the internet

citing an old newspaper article that is not on the internet

How is it done? Can it be done?

Thanks for your help in advance. RBTWI19-620827 (talk) 15:15, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@RBTWI19-620827: You can use {{cite news}}. Information that will be needed: Newspaper name, publication date, page number, article title and, if determineable, the author. Victor Schmidt (talk) 15:31, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@RBTWI19-620827: In other words, all the same information that is desired if the article were online (except of course the URL, which is the least important part). If it's not a well-known paper (e.g., Le Monde, Financial Times, The Hindu, etc.), or one with a title used by multiple papers (e.g., Herald-Examiner), the location, publisher, and ISSN (if available) should also be included. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 10:18, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: Evan S. Luthra

Hello Commnunity,

Can you please help me by telling me what's wrong about this draft: Draft:Evan S. Luthra Which sources should be added/maintained and which one should be removed?


Thanks DavidConx (talk) 17:20, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would begin by replacing celebsmoney.com, YouTube and Facebook, they are not reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 17:39, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Sources you want to add should ideally meet all of these criteria:
Sources in your draft I consider problematic:
If you want to assert a specific criterion of WP:NPERSON, please tell us what that might be. Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:48, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Hello Mr Schmidt,

I hope you're fine.Thanks for the help and advices. I really appreciate it !

Tell me please you point of view about the.following references:

  1. https://finance.yahoo.com/amphtml/news/evan-luthra-bitwings-conquer-south-100000706.html
  2. https://finance.yahoo.com/amphtml/news/big-achievement-glbrain-blockchain-trailblazer-140000574.html
  3. https://startupbeat.com/who-is-the-young-indian-entrepreneur-who-created-30-apps-with-millions-of-users-before-he-was-15/25524/amp/
  4. https://finance.yahoo.com/amphtml/news/crescent-awarded-100-000-investment-120000307.html
  5. https://www.forbes.com/sites/montymunford/2018/02/09/one-day-the-world-will-thank-bitcoin-for-the-blockchain-and-true-data/amp/
  6. https://www.forbesindia.com/article/brand-connect/startupstudio-kicks-incubation-in-top-gear-with-locumotive-app-launch-in-the-uk/60947/1
  7. https://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/esmagazine/rich-kids-of-london-its-all-money-sex-and-champagne-a3305141.html?amp
  8. https://www.entrepreneur.com/amphtml/288613
  9. https://ctovision.com/what-the-emergence-of-blockchain-5-0-means-for-business-managers-and-entrepreneurs/
  10. https://www.ted.com/talks/evan_luthra_entrepreneurs_are_dreamers_and_doers/up-next

I will really apreciate your help. Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidConx (talk • contribs) 18:47, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to have a detailed look tomorrow, If I find the time, I'm a bit busy in real life. Maybe @Theroadislong: can also help you, should I fail to find the time to have a detailed look. Victor Schmidt (talk) 19:55, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have to ask - what is your connection to Evan Luthra? Your very first edits ever were today's creation of the draft. Are you being paid to create this article? David notMD (talk) 20:04, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Again,

I have no connection with Evan S. Luthra. I'm just a fan following every new about his life.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidConx (talk • contribs) 21:24, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DavidConx. The first two are not independent; I didn't look further. Bear in mind that, in an article about Luthra, Wikipedia is basically not interested in anything said by Luthra, his associates, his employers, or institutions connected with him, wherever they are published. If you want volunteer editors to spend more time looking over your sources, you need to help them by presenting three or four of your absolute best quality independent sources, rather than flooding us with many inadequate ones. You should also be aware that Wikipedia editors tend to look very critically at articles related to blockchain and cryptocurrencies, because of the number of attempts over several years to insert promotion and advertising into Wikipedia in this area: see this discussion from two years ago. --ColinFine (talk) 21:36, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mr Colin,

Thanks for replying and advising.

I fully understand the importance of cleaning and protecting Wikipedia from promotional content and scam. And I'll be happy to help in my journey as a Wikipedia editor that started today. You all made me excited about this voluntary job.

However, the page is talking about Evan S. Luthra and the blockhain part is just to show his interest about this industry. Should I remove it?

Best David — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidConx (talk • contribs) 22:19, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:DavidConx - We have already considered whether Evan Luthra is notable, in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evan Luthra. In November 2018, he was not notable. If you want to get an article approved, you will have to rely on achievements since November 2018. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:08, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Noticed Suspicious Editor & Cite SPAM in area where I may have COI

I ran across some edits by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/MelissaHalliburton which appear to be focusing on adding Bringfido.com to reference links.

In addition, I have noticed a number of cites targeting globalgrasshopper.com, which also appear to be suspicious.

I'm not sure what the procedure here might be since I have connections in the travel space where there is crossover, I am not sure if I should be taking this to the noticeboard or otherwise being connected to any inquiry on this.

Your advice / help is appreciated. Thank you Mlepisto (talk) 19:02, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That editor hasn't edited within the last 12 months, so can be ignored. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:14, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Mlepisto: FYI, you can wikilink (instead of a bare URL) to someone's contribs with, in this case, [[Special:Contributions/MelissaHalliburton]] or {{UserContribs|MelissaHalliburton}}. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 10:39, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

HOW CAN SOMEONE OUTSIDE WIKI WRITE FOR PHOTO PERMISSION

PHOTOGRAPHER OR OWNER OF PHOTO WRITE TO WIKIPEDIA FOR APPROVAL WHO IS NOT A WIKI EDITOR? Lauralaelbart (talk) 19:43, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, @Lauralaelbart:. (Please do not write in capital letters - it is the online equivalent of SHOUTING!) Yes, the copyright holder of the image (i.e. the person who took the photo) can release their image under a Creative Commons commercial licence. We have a system whereby the owner can email the image to what we call our OTRS Team, along with a precise form of words to release it. The email would have to come from an account which could be verified as belonging to that person. Is that what you are trying to achieve? If so, we'll dig out the relevant link to the page so you know how to get it submitted. Nick Moyes (talk) 19:55, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Lauralaelbart: Assuming that is your intent, please see WP:CONSENT. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 10:56, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New article publishing

I am new to Wikipedia and am trying to publish an article about myself (Alan Safahi). I signed up under username USSKING and edited the page but when I click on Publish Changes button, nothing seems to happen. The article has been sitting in limbo for a couple of weeks now. Is there a review/approval process that is taking longer than 2 weeks?

Thanks

Alan USSKING (talk) 19:56, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your self-bio is not 'in a limbo', it's in your sandbox: User:USSKING/sandbox. And it's not awaiting any review because you did not submit it as a draft for a review. --CiaPan (talk) 20:01, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See also the advice which you received at the Help desk. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:03, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@USSKING:, please see WP:AUTOBIO: Writing an autobiography on Wikipedia is an example of conflict of interest editing and is strongly discouraged. Wikipedia is not a place to host your resume. If you attempt to move forward with this it will be rejected or deleted. I hope that helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:06, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to what already written, no hyperlinks in body of articles, all statements of fact need to be referenced, refs are inserted in body of articles, neutral point of view required. Lastly, one a draft is submitted, a review can take place in days, weeks, months, as there is a backlog of >3,000 drafts. David notMD (talk) 20:11, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy: Now at Draft:Alan Safahi David notMD (talk) 20:19, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You might rephrase "create disruptive innovations", "payments orchestration layer", "embedded FinTech", etc so that they'll be understood. (If the goal is instead just to impress, then the draft is doomed.) -- Hoary (talk) 20:56, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
USSKING; please look at the answer I have just given to #Draft: Evan S. Luthra, three sections above. Most of it applies equally to your case. --ColinFine (talk) 21:42, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I want to be a counter-vandal? How do I do that?

See above. MrTransfer (talk) 20:38, 11 September 2020 (UTC) MrTransfer (talk) 20:38, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When you notice vandalism, revert it. -- Hoary (talk) 20:49, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@MrTransfer: To add to that, you should visit Wikipedia:Recent changes patrol for inspiration. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 20:57, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@MrTransfer: Welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for wanting to make it better. Check out Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism_Unit/Academy for how to find and fight vandalism. RudolfRed (talk) 21:44, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Wikipedia Cake
Tarta de la fiesta del 17 aniversario de Wikipedia

Not a newbie question, but hoping to pick your brains on something. I recall there used to be funding from the WMF for cake (with personalised writing) at local Wikipedia meetups, does anybody also remember this and do you have links to any old pages about this? Zindor (talk) 21:46, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Zindor: I can't offer an answer, but I do quite fancy a slice of one of these with my Teahouse tea. If you search for "Wikipedia cake" on Commons, you can check file useage and see which past projects have used the images, (such as this one). My guess would be that local chapters might have funded them, rather than WMF. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:31, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What WMF funds via grants has changed over time. Now they only fund projects $500 and up, and all in-person events are on hold because of covid. I don't specifically remember that they funded cake or any page about this, but they would fund food for meetups and the like, and I imagine that a cake would generally have been acceptable. There used to be no minimum for grants. Here is a page about the smaller-scale things they fund these days: [17]. You can look at the page histories of the grants pages on Meta to see how things have changed over time. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:34, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks both of you, that answers my question. My memory was a little hazy on this, the subject just popped into my head because i was thinking about Wikipedia approaching its 20th birthday and i wondered if there will be birthday cake, and if so, how one acquires a slice! My tea sadly lacks that Teahouse zing, i've been meaning to help out here for years but i keep forgetting. Kind regards, Zindor (talk) 22:55, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Zindor: Rest assured that the Teahouse hosts wil be serving free teas (and coffee) to anyone who wants one on our 20th birthday! Nick Moyes (talk) 00:22, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BBC Documentaries as a Source

Are BBC documentaries a good source for Wikipedia. I know that BBC articles themselves are publications and are therefore not good sources, but it seems to me that the documentary solely exists to convey information to the public. I guess this question extends to all documentaries though. What do you guys think? Is the documentary itself a good enough source or should I try to find the sources they use to make it? CJMcKenna98 (talk) 22:21, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CJMcMenna98: I'm not sure why you think the BBC isn't usually a good source. It is -- see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources. I don't see why you couldn't cite a BBC documentary. It is certainly preferable to primary-source materials cited in a documentary. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:36, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amelia Kinkade here! I need to update my profile! Can you help me, please?

Hi! I'm a movie star and bestselling author, and my wiki profile is incomplete and has many errors. I'd like to edit my profile and add a photo. Can you please help me? It should read,

"Amelia Kinkade is the star of Night of the Demons Parts 1, 2, and 3. She is the president of Amelia's Ark Angel Society, a non-profit charity that educates children in rural Africa about wildlife conservation and helps stop poaching before it starts. Amelia is the author of the international bestseller, Straight From the Horse's Mouth: How to Talk to Animals and Get Answers (New World Library, Harper Collins) The Language of Miracles: A Celebrated Psychic Teaches You to Talk to Animals (New World Library,) The Winged One (CreateSpace,) Aurora's Secret (CreateSpace,) Soulmates With Paws Hooves and Wings (CreateSpace,) and Whispers From the Wild: Listening to Messages from the Animal Kingdom (New World Library.)

Please delete the words that say Brendan is another name for me! Brendan is my brother! And please delete the sentence that says I'm "famous for bit parts." It is impossible to get famous for bit parts. I starred in three movies and was a lead on The Young and the Restless, as well as dancing in multiple films and TV shows. Thanks so much for helping me! Amelia Kinkade (talk) 22:24, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amelia Kinkade Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If you are referring to the article Amelia Kinkade, you are welcome to propose changes on the article talk page, Talk:Amelia Kinkade. To increase the chances that independent editors will see them, you should make suggestions as formal edit requests by placing {{edit request}} at the top of any request that you make. There are some circumstances where you can make edits yourself, but anything more substantive you should propose for an independent editor to review. 331dot (talk) 22:29, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Books added, but how is this an article? Only two refs, and both to her website. David notMD (talk) 01:57, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Articles needing help

Hi. I've done a little editing at WP and would enjoy doing a bit more when I'm able. I've seen referenced here articles that "need help." Perhaps someone here could share links to those areas. Thanks. VictorMooney (talk) 02:38, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that the great majority of articles need help. (A significant minority need deletion, but let's put this aside.) Clearly you're interested in at least one 21st-century American photographer. (Thank you for that article.) Look in Category:21st-century American photographers for half a dozen or so familiar names (or indeed unfamiliar names). Click on their articles. At least one will be in grievous need of help. There you go. -- Hoary (talk) 04:23, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are two tools that I have found useful when looking for articles that need work. One is the list of articles at Wikipedia:Task Center. The other is User:SuggestBot. The latter will give you a list of suggestions tailored to your own interests and activities. Mike Marchmont (talk) 08:20, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for articles about individuals

I am a new editor enrolled in a course using the WikiEducation program and am preparing to edit articles for the first time. We are encouraged to find scholarly sources for our contributions to pages, especially ones that come from reputable publications. I am wondering: what constitutes a high quality source for an article about an individual? Especially for less famous individuals, it would seem that there wouldn't be many truly "scholarly" sources that could be found to supplement their biography. With this in mind, what kind of sources do Wikipedians expect when it comes to filling in details about a person's life/views/works? APG2000 (talk) 03:53, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Books from reputable publishers; the news sections (but usually not the opinion sections) of reputable newspapers; reputable magazines -- but of course I'm doing little more than replacing a mystery over "scholarly" with a mystery over "reputable". Think of individuals who are comparable to the one you're writing about, and look for the articles on these people. Try to find a handful that seem well-developed, convincing, and (as you can infer from a quick inspection of the article histories and the articles' talk pages) stable and not contentious. See which sources have been used for these. Use similar sources for your own article. For a web and news source that might be convenient but also seems iffy, see what if anything is written about it in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. If you have a question about the reliability (or not) of a particular potential source, ask about it at "WP:RSN". -- Hoary (talk) 04:17, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aggressive Editor

Hi, I am new to Wikipedia, but wish to give the history of 'Legs On The Wall' - a performing arts company in Australia. The early history is in the 1980s and so is reliant on piecing together newspaper articles, mentions etc.

I have a very aggressive editor called HickoryOughtShirt?4 who doesn't appear to read my references. I get great swathes of work cut out and the reference now has gone back to something that existed years ago that has little truth (not deliberate - it is a later version of the history).

Are all the editors aggressive like this? Is this just to teach me a lesson (you know, whip me into shape)? The first edits gave no comments on my user page...now they are aggressive comments.

Please help... I wish to learn...and hopefully give a version of history with some truth....

b. An Original Leg (talk) 05:25, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An Original Leg, I saw one of your edits where you primarily reference to IMDb. IMDb is generally unreliable as a source as it is user-generated and can be innacurate.
Second, the coincidence between your username and the article title signals me that you have some sort of connection towards the subject? Mind clarifying, so that I can dive deeper? Cheers, GeraldWL 05:32, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gerald, That's correct. I started this company with many others. I have been encouraging original members to log in and create the early history. One other has responded and I am hopeful of others. We do have lots of primary sources in the form of media reviews and reports, but as it was the 80's it is a slow build up. Thanks for your help and time...I am the Brian Keogh in the group— Preceding unsigned comment added by An Original Leg (talk • contribs) 05:39, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An Original Leg, then you should be familiar with WP:COI or perhaps WP:PAID. We are not interested in what the company likes to say about them, but rather WP:RS sayings on the subject. I suggest you declare a connection, or a paid declaration in accordance with Wikimedia's Terms of Use. If you can filter your writings to make it neutral and unbiased and unreferenced, great, go on. GeraldWL 07:08, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
An Original Leg, if you want to learn more about reliable sources, head on over to WP:Perennial sources or WP:RS. Cheers, ◊PRAHLADbalaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 05:55, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Prahlad....I will do that — Preceding unsigned comment added by An Original Leg (talk • contribs) 05:57, 12 September 2020 (UTC) Thanks Prahlad An Original Leg (talk) 06:05, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's a serious amount of sock/meatpuppetry going on at that article. Glen (talk) 06:15, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, ha...now I am in a labyrinth...what is sock/meatpuppetry??? And just to declare (and I will work this out), I am not paid, this is a charity which I created (with others), I have long since passed on any control, and we particularly interested in getting the first ten years right ...this was a blooming period in Australian Theatre (chuck off our colonial past)....many people helped to make breakthroughs in this area...but the history is really important. I come with innocent hands... hopefully I (with your help) can make this work.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by An Original Leg (talk • contribs) 07:40, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An Original Leg, See WP:MEAT. You've actually already admitted to soliciting help on the article. Glen (talk) 07:45, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, ha ...thanks. Yes, I think knowledge is not mine, but rather a collective experience. This is how Legs on the Wall was started. Because we listened to everyone, we were able to create an innovative form of theatre. And so yes, I have definitely asked people to check my work and add theirs (all the original Legs on the Wall members). Unless you all object, I would like to copy this page. This conversation is great. Thanks to everyone. What a great site...I am not sure I will ever get my edits or versions through, but its fabulous chatting....An Original Leg (talk) 08:10, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This may not qualify as meatpuppetry if members/former members of the group each create accounts and declare their COI, i.e., connection to the organization, on their respective User pages. Essential, however, for changes to the article to be based on published sources rather than personal knowledge. David notMD (talk) 09:57, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article got deleted through Speedy Deletions

A page I created for Mahesh Paudyal, a famous author from Nepal, got deleted. I also provided sufficient links, links of his works in Goodread, reference links of his books, and resources for his writings. Why this happened? Fairnesssm11 (talk) 06:34, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fairnesssm11, Please contact HickoryOughtShirt?4, the last deleting administrator, first. ◊PRAHLADbalaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 07:08, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your Contributions do not show that you created this article or draft. Rather, you requested undeletion, which was denied. Attempts to create an article about Paudyal have been deleted for cause in the past, so very unlikely a new attempt will succeed. David notMD (talk) 10:08, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
David notMD, actually they did. Deleted contributions are of course not visible in Special/Contributions but the user talk page and article's logs give evidence. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:15, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My error. David notMD (talk) 10:28, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fairnessm11, note: Goodreads are generally not considered as a robust source.

Removing A Tag

I was editing this article Poor Boy Blues. I am trying to add citation to all the Renditions given (still working).

Is it alllowed to remove the 'needs additional citations for verification' tag after adding the citations? Alanzie (talk) 08:41, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alanzie Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If you feel that you have addressed the concern of the tag, you may remove it. It would be a good idea to post an explanation of why you think so on the article talk page. 331dot (talk) 08:43, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
331dot, Thank you for the immediate response. Alanzie (talk) 08:45, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Alanzie Consider putting the renditions in chronological order and deleting half, mostly from the more recent. See Crazy Blues for an article without mention of cover versions and Saint Louis Blues (song) for a LONG list of covers. David notMD (talk) 10:27, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the page I created not being published?

Hello,

The page I created is titled "BENA World". URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:BENA_World

I followed Wikipedia instructions but it is not being published. Why? Eseelalsammarraie (talk) 09:38, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Esslalsammarraie. Your draft only cited primary sources, which while useful for confirming facts, aren't a means of establishing whether the topic is notable; which is the standard for inclusion for an article on Wikipedia. As the AfC reviewer suggested in the box at the top of the page, you need to provide evidence of significant coverage in reliable independent secondary sources. Regards, Zindor (talk) 10:10, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm In Trouble

Well, I've been developing a draft entitled "Rotea Gilford" and, not realizing I couldn't delete it, I did something very stupid and added a photo to the article that is now not going to be accepted. I had asked a question about whether or not I could use it (the newspaper it came from has been defunct since 1965). One person who answered me thought it might be usable and while I was answering his/her additional questions about the photo, I added it to the article. The next person said it absolutely can not be used. Now I can't figure out how to delete it. I expect to be burned at the stake for this . . . but can someone help me? Kilitzianf (talk) 10:40, 12 September 2020 (UTC) Kilitzianf (talk) 10:40, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kilitzianf, welcome to the Teahouse. I wouldn't worry yourself, it's a small localised issue, and we'll happily help you deal with it. The important thing is that you're discussing the problem with other editors, and we have standard procedures for deleting images. Is this the image you are talking about? Zindor (talk) 11:11, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Historical rankings of prime ministers of Australia

Would adding a table comparing election results be relevant because on one hand the election is the ultimate popularity test on the other it is not really a super great method for direct comparison Hopetounblunder (talk) 10:54, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Hopetounblunder, it sounds unencyclopaedic to me, personally. I think the proper test though, one that is likely to decide the outcome of any discussion on such content, assuming you were to add it, would be: "Has any reliable source ever made that comparison between them?" "Have multiple?" coupled with "Is it relevant?" "Due?" depending on where you add it. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 11:51, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please check this article and say if this is correct ?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Thattassery_Koottam#cite_note-2 



Kjsarat (talk) 12:26, 12 September 2020 (UTC) Kjsarat (talk) 12:26, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse&oldid=978024155"