Jump to content

Wikipedia:Teahouse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Johnosaunders (talk | contribs) at 19:55, 13 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

つがる, 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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Hello, thanks for your valuable time . Let me some time to edit and collect reliable sources from Google. Once I get, I'll be back here. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bijoyonline30 (talk • contribs) 15:40, 12 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]

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]

@Usedtobecool, Valereee, Nick Moyes, Primefac, and Trialpears: - Thank you *very much* for taking the time and effort to answer my question - no - not at all trying to "game" the system - I simply did not know (and currently do not yet know) if there is some Wikipedia rule that detemines this particular template situation - as far as I know - there's not - but there may be some Wikipedia rules about this I don't know - but perhaps should know - esp for newer similar situations - should note that I see this primarily as a Wikipedia policy issue - and not otherwise - in any case - Thanks again for your own comments and suggestions - they're *greatly* appreciated - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 12:34, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Drbogdan. As I was amongst those pinged by Usedtobecool, I took a quick look at this thread and a few of the links you gave. (I did not look at DeaconVorbis's comments to you, which I gather you deleted) To answer your first question, no, in principle there's nothing stopping you replacing one type of element which is up for a deletion discussion with some other element which is accepted by the community. But just because the replacement element might be generally deemed acceptable by the community in some circumstances, it's particular use in one specific application might not be. I feel this is the issue here, as it's about whether or not it's necessary to add a load of images in a gallery (like a navbox) to the very bottom of an article. In the examples I looked at (Earth and Milky Way) I don't think either are necessary, though your intentions were well-meaning enough. In other words the template of images that you created in 2018 were not seen as necessary, and 2 years later they have been put up for deletion. That template you made in 2018 seems to have replaced earlier image multiple image galleries that you added in November 2017 (here and then here). Unless I've made some fundamental error in interpreting the situation, it comes down to whether or not such images add to the encyclopaedic nature of an article, or whether they detract from it. Although nice looking, my feeling is that they add nothing, so neither the multiple image gallery nor the template should be in the article. Other editors have removed the picture selection over the years as 'image spam', and I think that was right. It looks like you then re-added a multiple image template to create the same visual effect as your bespoke template. I suspect that, as the template is up for deletion, it was re-added back into the article so that others could see its effect. Once the template has been deleted (as I think it should) I would also want to remove the multiple image gallery as being not needed within the article. None of us ever get our way over content and layout 100% of the time, though you clearly did all this in good faith, and it comes down to consensus whether any given element should be included in an article, or not. Does this help? Nick Moyes (talk) 13:13, 13 September 2020 (UTC).  [reply]

@Nick Moyes, Usedtobecool, and Valereee: Thank you *very much* for your *excellent* comments - and *excellent* answer to my question - yes - I *entirely* agree with all of your comments - and have been thinking *exactly* the same as well - no problem whatsoever - Thanks again for your reply - your comments and all are *greatly* appreciated - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 13:56, 13 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 increase in time of last revision per hour. My earlier calculation was flawed, and should have reflected that same time. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 09:40, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Update 3: Lag is down to 17.3 hours, with catch-up now expected at about 2020-09-13 08:40 UTC. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 01:52, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Fat Irish Guy and BrownHairedGirl:  Done Replication lag is now zero. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 09:16, 13 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]
Thanks @AlanM1:! I'm beginning to get the drift of how it works. I just couldn't understand how one communicated directly to the individual reviewer. Hope I got it now :-) Oscar Waldoosty (talk) 14:08, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, you got it Oscar Waldoosty. You can also use {{U|Username}} if you don't want the '@' prefix and ':' suffix in mid-sentence (as I did here). Also, when adding a comment to an existing thread, you can start it with one or more colons (':') to indent it one more level than the person to whom you're responding. In this case, I indented yours for you by prefixing it with three colons (":::"), and I indented this response with four colons ("::::") because I responded to your three-colon post. It makes it easier to follow a conversation. Cheers! —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 22:36, 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]

That's cool to know Robert ! I will make a research to see if he meets notability. Eitherwise, I will be supposed to forget about it for now, and go for another article about another subject.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidConx (talk • contribs) 12:45, 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]
@David Biddulph: I'm not sure what you mean by ignored due to 12 months activity. Does that mean their edits can be removed without any special process/notification? Also, I think I was not clear enough in the message above that the other cites are not from the same user. I'm trying to see what the best way to help remove this SPAM is, when I have a potential COI being that these sites are in a vertical I work in. Mlepisto (talk) 13:32, 12 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]
@AlanM1: thanks! Mlepisto (talk) 13:32, 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]

  • Bishonen, hi, I've deprodded because it had already had one failed PROD. The reason I ping though is to ask if action is needed here, per WP:REALNAME. Has the editor provided proof of identity? If not (and I can't know, but I reckon you can if anyone I know can), the account probably deserves a block pending a rename or verification. On a related note, editors should probably refrain from making any edits that attribute User:Amelia Kinkade's edits to Amelia Kinkade, in the mean time. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:08, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, I missed the earlier PROD, thank you, Usedtobecool. Though I must say... it was prodded in 2007. We ought to have a statute of limitations for those things! Yes, I suppose the user ought to be blocked, theoretically at least, pending proof of identity. But there's a bit of a paradox in telling her the name belongs to a well-known person, while at the same time attempting to delete the bio on the principle that it's not about a well-known ("notable") person. Because I'm still doing that; I've taken it to AfD. I'm not up for blocking the user as well. Maybe another admin will. Bishonen | tålk 16:04, 13 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]

Thank you, @Hoary & @Mike Marchmont. VictorMooney (talk) 12:49, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can also look at Wikipedia Projects that match your interest or expertise. These project pages usually curate articles around a specific subject, including a categorization based on quality and importance or what needs improvement (e.g. Stubs). An example is the Project Photography. If you want to make minor changes, you can also try Category:All articles needing copy edit. Regards, Darwin Naz (talk) 23:17, 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]
@Glen: per WP:MEAT: "High-profile disputes on Wikipedia often bring new editors to the site. Some individuals may promote their causes by bringing like-minded editors into the dispute, including enlisting assistance off-Wiki. These editors are sometimes referred to as meatpuppets."
Is this a high-profile dispute article? Frankly, encouraging new, like-minded editors to register an acct and join WP to enrich an article, with sources, seems like a Good Thing! I agree with the cmts made below by User:David notMD. New editors need to learn our ways, in regard to sourcing, of course. But it seems unfair of WP to "label" a group of off-wiki colleagues as " meatpuppets" when they innocently try to work together to improve an article. Your stmt that "You've actually already admitted to soliciting help on the article." is rather chilling, not only to the new editor/colleagues, but to others, as well. I, and others on WP solicit help from each other on a regular basis, and view this as "collaboration". If an editor is working on an article, and knows that an off-wiki friend has access to sources, is it "meatpuppetry" to ask them to register an acct., and add the information? Soliciting help is not a WP crime. The purpose behind the solicitaltion is the concern. We don't want to drive new good-faith editors away. Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 23:05, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tribe of Tiger, for clarity it wasn't a vague aspersion on my part, AOL has acknowledged he has "encouraged other founding members to also sign in to Wikipedia and build the history" - you only have to look at the history to see two editors and an IP are clearly working in conjunction with each other. However I do agree the comment did come off rather BITEy and have since been discussing the matter on AOL's wall where you'll see I have tried to help so progress is being made. Glen (talk) 04:29, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Glen Thanks for this kind reply! I do see, per your links, that some good conversation is taking place, and will move any further cmts/questions regarding WP:BLP to your talk. I sincerely appreciate that you considered my edits and comments. Best wishes, and thanks again, Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 04:49, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Glen So sorry, have gotten this thread confused with another one, old Tiger here! Possibly more cmts regarding WP:MEAT,(not BLP) on your talk! So sorry! Thanks! Best, Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 05:30, 13 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]

Hello, An Original Leg. Your problem is that, in an article about Legs on the Wall, Wikipedia is basically not interested in anything that you or your members know or remember, unless it has been reported in independent reliable sources. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject have chosen to publish about it. I think you might find it better to collect your memories somewhere else. --ColinFine (talk) 17:13, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies if I came off aggressive, that certainly was never my intent. I was trying to inform you of our conflict of interest and verifiability guidelines. I hope the advice given above has helped. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 21:51, 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerald Waldo Luis (talk • contribs) 10:31, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fairnessm11, our criteria for including a biography is not based on anybody's (not yours, not mine, not anybody's) subjective opinion on a person's fame. Instead, it's based on notability, or in other words, the far more objective criteria of how much has been written about a person. John from Idegon (talk) 17:22, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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]
Eseelalsammarraie, also, seeing that you license the company's logo as your work, are you working at the company, or is this account run on behalf of the company? Relevant policies include WP:COI, WP:PAID, and/or WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. GeraldWL 12:37, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Gerald Waldo Luis, just an FYI. That particular logo is too simple to be covered by copyright. Now the license should be for public domain, but since the image cannot by law be copyrighted, it isn't a big deal. John from Idegon (talk) 17:51, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake, oopsies. GeraldWL 17:54, 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]
@Kilitzianf: it would be possible for you to place a speedy deletion tag on the picture over at Wikimedia Commons, because you uploaded it, and are the only one using it. Just place {{SD|G7}} in the source code of the page. I have however already nominated the file for deletion here, and hopefully a useful discussion about the copyright will take place. Let me know if you need any further assistance. Regards, Zindor (talk) 14:51, 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]

thank you i shouldn't really have asked I just wanted to know what sort of thing is acceptable more than having any desire for this to be there — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hopetounblunder (talk • contribs) 13:34, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hopetounblunder, please do not at all hesitate to ask any questions you might have. Most editors will happily help any editor who is here in good faith to build the encyclopaedia. I have just left you a standard welcome message at your user talk page, in the hopes that you might find some of the links useful in getting started. The recommended strategy is to be WP:BOLD in your editing. There isn't anything you can break beyond repair, and as long as you are willing to listen and engage civilly with editors who disagree with you, you should not get into any trouble even if you make a few mistakes. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 17:21, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kjsarat's Untitled query

Can someone please check this article and say if this is correct ? Draft:Thattassery_Koottam. Kjsarat (talk) 12:26, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have reformatted your query and added a section title. Please let me know if I did something wrong in that process. You are free to rename the section header to your preference. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:06, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kjsarat, could you be a little more specific? Do you want it to be fact checked? Do you want to know if it will pass AfC? It's hard to tell from the phrasing of your question. Giraffer (munch) 13:58, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kjsarat, you made an article of the same name and a draft about it, with the same content. GeraldWL 14:09, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

LaTeX not rendering?

LaTeX isn't rendering for me?

Hello, I am a newcomer to this platform, so sorry if my question doesn't fit. When I use Wikipedia on this account, LaTeX doesn't appear to me in the 'math' mode. All I see is the source text with the $'s and the \\s. Does anyone know if there's a setting I can enable to see it again? This only doesn't work on my account. When I'm logged out I see things fine. Dawkin Verbier (talk) 14:12, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dawkin Verbier, this may be a problem with your browser's rendering engine. I suggest going to Preferences arrow for R Appearance arrow for R then scrolling down to the bottom where it says "Math" arrow for R Select "PNG images". I also suggest trying another browser. — Yours, Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 14:15, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Berrely. Hello there Berrely, thank you very much for this. It works now, and I feel so stupid that I didn't think of looking through the Appearance tab first. Thank you very much! Dawkin Verbier (talk) 14:22, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
​No problem! Feel free to ask if you have any more questions. — Yours, Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 14:50, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Berrely, please note there are several user interfaces for Wikipedia and it doesn't work that way on several. So step by step instructions on how you change your preferences might not work for the person asking the question. Further, there are a gazillion things that can cause a rendering error. You cannot really answer general questions very well; no one can. Luckily your answer did work for this editor. Generally it's better to locate the specific error and speak to the specific problem. There are very few "one size fits all" answers on Wikipedia. John from Idegon (talk) 18:04, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Happy Prince (2018) Awards and Nominations

Hello.

Can someone please update The Happy Prince's (movie starring Rupert Everett) wikipedia page? The movie has garnered 13 nominations and they've won 4 times, but there's no section in the page indicating that. Is it possible to add an Awards and Nominations category showing their achievements? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashleexry (talk • contribs) 15:18, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ashleexry. You can be WP:BOLD and add such information to The Happy Prince (2018 film) if you like, or you can propose that it be added by posting at Talk:The Happy Prince (2018 film). There is some general information on how this can be done provided at WP:FILMCRITICLIST, but you can also ask at WT:FILM. Regardless of who adds the content, there's going to need to be citations to reliable sources provided for verification purposes. -- Marchjuly (talk) 15:42, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How do I completely change an existing Bob Keyes Infobox say from "NFL" to California Republican politics?

How in the heck do I do that? Thank you.  D7keyes (talk) 15:27, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You don't. Bob Hayes is much better known as a football player than a politician. John from Idegon (talk) 18:21, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@John from Idegon:, you probably should reevaluate your reply to @D7keyes:.
Bob Hayes might be better known as a football player than a politician; however, D7keyes' interest is in Bob Keyes. Bob Keyes is undoubtedly better known as a politician, or actually anything else, as his NFL career was a single season with the Oakland Raiders and the San Francisco 49ers in 1960 and his stats is a single rush for seven yards.
Osomite hablemos 19:48, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If a ping is made in Wikipedia did anyone receive it? Did I "ping" correctly in my previous edit?
I have seen another "ping" method that undoubtedly works so I ping again to make sure of a connection.
So testing, testing, testing. . .pinging @John from Idegon and pinging @D7keyes. Could you let me know if you received the original "ping"?
Sorry for the "pinging" confusion. . .so many ways to do things, so many errors to make.
Osomite hablemos 20:00, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Osomite, good catch. Thanks. Your pings work, but I'm a volunteer just like you. Help on Wikipedia isn't real time. We'd have to have paid staff for that and we don't (and won't). D7keyes, I've left you a message on your talk page. You'll need to deal with that prior to editing Mr. Keyes's biography. BTW, per WP:BLP, I've removed everything from the article that isn't sourced. BLP requires inline citations for every fact. John from Idegon (talk) 21:03, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@John from Idegon: Reading WP:BLPRS, "all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed." I don't see anything that says that "BLP requires inline citations for every fact" as you have stated. Would you please provide a link to the WP page that supports your assertion? Thanks! Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 21:50, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tribe of Tiger, if an editor removes unsourced content, then it has been challenged. Therefore, adding a reliable source verifying that content is mandatory when adding it back. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:30, 12 September 2020 (UTC)(UTC)[reply]
@Cullen328: What you have said about "challenged" unsourced content is fair and reasonable, and I have no quarrel with your statement, nor did I challenge User:John from Idegon's "challenge". (The challenge seems to be "by the book, per WP".) My objection (or lack of understanding?), as I stated, relates to the declaration that: "BLP requires inline citations for every fact". AFAIK, this is not true. That is why I asked for a supporting link. Frankly, sports and politics are at the bottom of the rung in terms of my editing interests. However, I do wish to see our BLP policies represented accurately, esp here at the Teahouse. If I have not read BLP properly, I am entirely open to correction, which is why I asked for a link. I am not arguing in support of this particular article, nor about the edits that User:John from Idegon has made, but only about their declaration of WP BLP policy. Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 01:42, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's about politics. There are few non contentious facts concerning politics. There's also no reason to give anyone any advice regarding references that states otherwise. If it's about a person, reference it. All contentious means is someone disagrees. Do you honestly think anything can be asserted about a politician that wouldn't be contentious? Not even all the extraordinary claims about his athletics career were sourced. As a matter of fact, unless the claim of All American that I removed from the article verifies, I don't see anything that shows notability. All SNGs do is suggest a level of achievement that should generate enough coverage to meet GNG. they're not automatic. John from Idegon (talk) 23:41, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@John from Idegon:Please, go back and read my edit. In answer to your question "Do you honestly think anything can be asserted about a politician that wouldn't be contentious?" no, of course I do not! My edit was made to question the declaration that "BLP requires inline citations for every fact", and that was the only subject I addressed in my edit! And that was my only interest in the topic. I did not state a disagreement with you in any other way! Yes, as a WikiGnome, I have made minor corrections to sports or political articles, from time to time, but they are certainly not my personal area of interest. But I do think it is important to state our BLP policies correctly, per WP:BLP. Many of us read the Teahouse, in order to learn. Stating our policies correctly is important. So, please, if I have misunderstood the basic policy, and there is a "page" I have failed to find, then do me the kindness of directing me to it. I only asked about policy, I did not voice nor do I have any disagreement with your edits to the article. I am sorry that both you and @Cullen328: thought that I was disagreeing with edits to the article. Sincerely, Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 02:47, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Any editor interested in improving this specific article should make constructive comments at Talk:Bob Keyes. Tribe of Tiger, Wikipedia does not have a strict rule set. We use a flexible combination of policies, guidelines, essays, precedent, consensus and good editorial judgment to decide how best to write good encyclopedia articles. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:06, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Cullen328: Thanks for your reply. My personal perception regarding "a strict rule set" varies from what you are saying here. Many of them seem to be pretty straightforward, often quoted, and enforced using our "alphabet soup" of WP (very good, IMO) policies. I am not an article writer, and I really do not care about, nor do I intend to edit this particular article. I do thank you for replying to me, and will post any further concerns on your talk. However, in this particular instance, the phrase "scope creep"? comes to mind, but I will make any further cmts elsewhere. Best wishes, and thanks again, Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 05:43, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Help About Reliable Sources

Hello admin, I need help about reliable sources. Is Asian age , Deccan Chronicle, The Statesman reliable sources just like TOI ??? Is those sorces are valid for wikiedia article creation ??? Waiting for your valuable answer. Bijoyonline30 (talk) 15:38, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Bijoyonline30. I can partly answer your question, and just a disclaimer i'm not an Admin. The Deccan Chronicle is considered a reliable source by many of us at WikiProject India, and sometimes covers topics that the big players The Hindu, Times of India and Indian Express etc don't. I'm not overly familiar with The Statesman but as it's a broadsheet newspaper with at least a regional distribution, it's quite possibly reliable. Zindor (talk) 16:33, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thanks for your help. Can you please help me to tell that, which news sources is reliable in Odisha based in India. Waiting for your valuable reply.

Hi, Bijoyonline30. The best place to ask about reliability of sources is at WP:RSN . I don't know whether anybody there would respond to an open question like your last one, but if you ask "Is this source reliable for this kind of information?" you'll probably get an answer. You can also search its archives, to see if a particular publication has been discussed there before. --ColinFine (talk) 17:40, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ColinFine — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bijoyonline30 (talk • contribs) 18:02, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question about referencing

So, my Great Great Grandparents created the brand Rexona. I happen to know some pretty interesting and quite crazy facts about the early history of the brand from Nanna that I thought would be interesting to put in. And I'd like to put in what I know as it preserves their memory. Especially, as they both actually died of malignant malaria promoting the brand. It was this big family tragedy.

My problem is, how do I prove all this? I have some photos and copies of articles from the time about their company and its early development in Australia from my Nanna. And I can prove I'm related to them. But how do you "prove" or reference oral family history? BrittaRose (talk) 17:16, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, BrittaRose, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid that unpublished information never belongs in a Wikipedia article. The problem is that, since anybody can edit most articles, a reader has no way of verifying what's in an article unless it cites a published source: suppose you put some information in, and another editor comes along and changes it (whether maliciously, in error, or because they have a different understanding from you of what happened). A reader has no way to know whether your information or the changed inforamtion (or both or neither) is correct. See Original research for more information. --ColinFine (talk) 17:45, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
BrittaRose, an encyclopedia is a collection of information paraphrased from previously published reliable sources. You obviously are not a published source; you're a person, not a publication. If you write a book about your ancestors and get it published by a reliable publisher (not a vanity press), that book could be cited. However, even then, someone else who isn't related to the principals should write the article. See WP:COI and WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. "Autobiography" obviously isn't exactly on point, but most of the reasons one shouldn't write about oneself also apply when writing about a relative. John from Idegon (talk) 19:45, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does removing {{ow}} constitute a violation of Wikipedia's policies?

I was on Special:RecentChanges when I saw that an IP address had edited a page, and that it was tagged as "blanking". When I checked the revision history, it turned out that they removed a {{ow}}, left there by CLCStudent ([[18]]). What's the recommended course of action? Should I take this to the admins' noticeboard? Opalzukor (talk) 17:23, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Opalzukor, pretty sure this is a grey area and other people may have different opinions, but for me, the answer is no. They're fully in their rights per WP:BLANKING. Ed talk! 18:13, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Not sure why CLCStudent was adding the templates in the first place, but nothing to get bothered about at this stage. Nick Moyes (talk) 20:44, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox

Hi, I am familiarizing myself with my sandbox page. To that end, I copied some code there from the talk page and main page of the Melanie Stansbury article and put them together to see what it would look like as a complete article, should my request on the articles talk page be approved, and did some edits. When I was done, I noticed that there was a "submit your draft for review" button at the top of the sandbox page that had not been there before. I'm not sure what would happen if I clicked it. Is that an avenue through which I can ask for a review of what I've done to get advice and suggestions for revision? If so, I'd like to take advantage of the opportunity. If those on the other end, however, would view it as a request for review for approval as a new article then I don't want to click it, as there is already an article on the topic. So, my question is: "Is using the sandbox only a way to submit material to create a new page, or can it also be used to get a review of requested edits and/or a way to just get informal critique from an experienced editor?" BiostatSci (talk) 19:08, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much, you can put anything you want in your sandbox, as long as it doesn't violate the law (eg, libel, copyright violation). You can also create multiple sandboxes. I've got about 7. One I just store templates in for easy access, one is my general sandbox, where I keep various links I need, and 5 have the starts of various articles I may work on. John from Idegon (talk) 19:28, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
BiostatSci, your sandbox can be used for more or less anything (within reason). Most people use it to draft new articles, work on large changes, test certain templates or functions, or experiment with semi-automated tools. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by 'review of requested edits' (would you mind clarifying?), but you can get help from other editors. If you are drafting something in your sandbox, you can ask for help or guidance by either asking at WP:HD or here, although it is recommended that you be specific in what you want to happen. Does this answer your question? Regards, Giraffer (munch) 19:30, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably requested edits refers to the fact that BiostatSci has been page blocked from editing Melanie Stansbury directly, due to an apparent COI.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:37, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Indef page blocked by ferret I see. Thanks. Giraffer (munch) 08:29, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Giraffer and ThatMontrealIP, MontrealIP is correct, I made one minor edit to the page before I knew that knowing Ms. Stansbury constituted a COI. For that I was blocked, unfairly imo. Whatever, once I knew, I put up a COI tag and have done everything else that has been suggested to me since. I never intended to break any rules and once I learned that I did have a COI I made no further edits to the page and have been requesting revisions on the articles talk page. While waiting for responses to those requests, I was playing in the sandbox and these questions arose: "What happens if I click the 'submit draft' button in the sandbox? Who sees what is submitted and what action do they think I am asking them to take?" I don't want them to think that I am trying to submit a draft of a new article for approval, because the page already exists. I would like to get input from editor(s) about what I have written in the sandbox. It might help me revise my request to make it more Wikipedia worthy, and it would help me when writing other articles in the future. So, if clicking 'submit draft' would lead to me getting help, I will submit. Thanks for fielding these questions. BiostatSci (talk) 01:09, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BiostatSci, the "submit draft" button is only for submitting drafts of new articles for review. If used for any other purpose, the draft will be swiftly declined. The proper place to discuss changes to an existing article is the article's talk page. So, continue on that path, always deferring to editors who do not have a conflict of interest. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:38, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded. The submit draft button is only for requesting review of a new article, not changes to a current one. I suggest instead of copy pasting all the info from your sandbox to the talk page, either you collapse it or just link to the sandbox. It currently takes up a lot of room on the talk page. Also, when requesting changes, try saying 'Change X to Y per [reliable source]' or 'Add this [sourced] paragraph in [named] location' as opposed to just providing a wall of text. It will make people more willing to help you. Giraffer (munch) 08:29, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your answers Cullen328 and Giraffer. You have answered my questions fully, which I appreciate. The text I am proposing for review by other editors is a single, long edit that I proposed be added at the end of the article. I will hide it, as suggested by Giraffer. Thanks. BiostatSci (talk) 14:46, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Need review on this

Hi, the article Basant Rath was created by me a month back. Till now no other editor had reviewed it, so that Google can index it. Kindly review. Thanks — The Chunky urf Al Kashmiri (Speak🗣️ or Write✍️) 19:47, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it important that the article is indexed, TheChunky? John from Idegon (talk) 20:37, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, after reviewing the article, I sent it back to draft. TheChunky, please explain why you moved it to mainspace in the first place. It's weakly sourced and very poorly written. Please work on your sourcing and if you need help with style, come back and ask. Out of curiosity, what is your relationship with the subject of the article? John from Idegon (talk) 00:50, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
John from Idegon reverting to draft is not the solution. I have the pending changes reviewer rights. That's why I put it to mainspace via AFC. And remaining style, there was copy-editing tag already there. It was written in almost good way. And I don't have any links to the subject, the subject is an controversial IPS officer in Jammu and Kashmir who became viral on various controversies available in references as well as you can check news too. Hence it falls under WP:GNG and also crosses WP:THREE . Reverting it to draft without placing any discussion is not the rule. You know better than me. — The Chunky urf Al Kashmiri (Speak🗣️ or Write✍️) 12:12, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Advice for improving draft article re: notability

Hello Teahouse, I'm working on creating my first article, Draft:Theresa_Greenfield_(2). An initial draft was rejected for not sufficiently establishing notability, so I have made edits to: (1) add new sources demonstrating significant national news coverage and importance, (2) replace primary sources with reliable secondary sources where possible, and (3) provide further details. Is there anything else I can do to make the article more likely to be accepted now? Thanks! Js2112 (talk) 19:58, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Js2112 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Typically, merely being a candidate for office does not meet the notability guidelines for politicians- which would mean that she would need to be notable for something else to merit an article at this time(unless she wins her election in which case she would then merit an article, even before being sworn in). There are rare exceptions to this (such as Christine O'Donnell) but in those cases the subject needs to have extensive coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, nationally if possible. Based on what I see I'm not convinced that Greenfield rises to the needed level of notability at this time, but nothing will happen to the draft for six months(assuming you don't edit it) so my advice would be to wait and see if she wins. 331dot (talk) 20:04, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, 331dot. Yes, I understand that simply being a candidate doesn't necessarily establish notability, but it shouldn't preclude it either. In this case, I do think that there's substantial national coverage of Greenfield in multiple reliable sources, as well as copious amounts of state level coverage, as I've tried to document in the article. I also thought that the race being close and reasonably likely to decide the overall control of the Senate makes it notable. As far as I can tell, every single other 2020 Senate candidate in a competitive race already has a page, and Greenfield is at least as notable as many of those (clearly more notable than some). Js2112 (talk) 20:37, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Js2112, the only thing that affects the notability of this person is the facts about this person. What is or isn't in other articles, nor the existence of other articles, has any bearing whatsoever on this article. John from Idegon (talk) 00:55, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
John from Idegon, in my opinion, notability is met in this case under "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." Of course, terms like "major" and "significant" in this context are somewhat subjective. One way of evaluating these words is to see how much press coverage other similarly situated politicians who have already been judged to pass the notability threshold have received. By definition, that amount of coverage can be assumed to meet the "significant" criterion. That's the sense in which the comparison may be relevant. Js2112 (talk) 02:58, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your assumptions are incorrect. Sorry. John from Idegon (talk) 05:14, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
John from Idegon, can you clarify which assumptions you're referring to? Thanks, Js2112 (talk) 05:39, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Js2112, there is a very strong presumption among experienced editors that unelected candidates for political office are not notable except in highly unusual circumstances that do not seem to be present here. In most cases, these people will have had Wikipedia articles long before their candidacies were announced, for other reasons. Perhaps they are movie stars or major corporate CEOs or the like. Instead, these unelected candidates should be described in neutral articles about the political race, which devote equal attention to all major candidates. In this case, that article is 2020 United States Senate election in Iowa, and that is where neutral information about Greenfield belongs. If there are other 2020 Senate challengers in other states who have never been elected to high office or achieved significant notability outside politics, please bring them to our attention here, so that we can evaluate their notability. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:10, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with some of the above. Assuming that all the cites are as legitimate (that they say what they are quoted to say) as the 5 I read, it seems that the case has successfully been made for notability. It's an important race (for the balance of power), with both candidates polling inside the margin of error, according to the well-cited national sources. I dislike politics and most politicians pretty intensely, so I can understand if the preference here among like minds is to cover these candidates in hindsight, and I would be OK with that. However, if other candidates are being covered in advance, I think to not allow this one would be inconsistent unless I'm grossly mis-understanding a much (perhaps unreasonably) higher-than-normal bar for notability. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 12:07, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cullen. Yes, I've noticed this strong presumption in browsing through other related discussions! What I don't understand is where it comes from. It's not in WP:NPOL, which just says that running for office on its own doesn't guarantee notability, and then provides two specific criteria to define notability: holding state/national office or receiving significant press coverage. How did this additional presumption evolve into the standard, and why does the second NPOL criterion no longer apply? Js2112 (talk) 17:08, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata

I have been browsing through our sister projects to obtain a rudimentary understanding of them, and so I went to our Wikidata, which claims to be a large body of incremental data, though I still cannot understand how exactly the structure is formatted. I am asking how each data item is related to another. ~ Wikimeedian (talk) 20:41, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikimeedian: Welcome to Wikipedia. Check out the article Wikidata, which seems to have a lot of detail on this. RudolfRed (talk) 20:53, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is also WP:WIKIDATA RudolfRed (talk) 20:53, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Evascension

Your made up word isn't going to get promoted here either. John from Idegon (talk) 02:38, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sometime between 2001 and 2008, I submitted 'evascension" as a new word with a definintion. It did not exist as a recognized word in any language. The definition was put up for about three months and then disappeared. If you google it now, almost everything related to it is from me. Someone in Japan recently named a short musical tune evascension, and it will pop up. someone else got a website domain evascend.com. I have the domains evascension.com, .net, .org, and evascen.com. I also have a book on Amazon "Evascension The Journey from Instincts to Intellect" available as a paperback and an eBook. It is actually the 2nd and 3rd prequel in a series I started in 1989. I had an account long ago. but I suspect I had it under raycloninger or raymondcloninger@aol.com, but I let that die long ago. Your system says I can't use Ray Cloninger because it is taken, but if it is, I'm sure that is what I used long ago. If so and you keep old records, it will be linked to evascension. I would like to put up a definition of the word, a history of the books (the one on Amazon is the only one published). If anyone wishes to read it, I will be having a few free ebook day promotions starting within a week. It is currently only $2.99 (the lowest price they wanted me to put on it), and it is a free read for kindle prime members. How do I start and can anyone check my history from over a decade ago? Ray Cloninger.


R.E. Cloninger (talk) 21:17, 12 September 2020 (UTC) R.E. Cloninger (talk) 21:17, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@R.E. Cloninger: Wikipedia does not accept Neologisms. You may want to try Wiktionary instead. See WP:NOTNEO RudolfRed (talk) 21:22, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@R.E. Cloninger: Whilst not wanting to sound unduly rude, Wikipedia is not interested in your one-man band attempt to invent and promote a new word. It is only interested in notable topics; the fact that the only mentions of said invented word are sourced to you might be a hint that you're never going to promote it here, or on Wiktionary. I fear you have a gross misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is about, and I would be pretty amazed if anyone here were interested in assisting you. Sorry. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:43, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am a new Wikipedia Editor

I am currently taking a class for learning how to edit wikipedia. I am super excited and nervous about this course. My question is, when you were first starting out on Wikipedia what do you wish someone had told you?

Thank you! Bekah01 (talk) 23:35, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia, Bekah01. In my opinion, the most important thing for you to understand is that what Wikipedia editors do is to neutrally summarize, in our own words, what published reliable sources say about a topic. Only topics that have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are completely independent of the topic are eligible for Wikipedia articles. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:49, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
True information is not enough; it must be verified by reliable source reference(s). David notMD (talk) 01:40, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was lucky enough to obtain a mentor when I started (see WP:ADOPTION. That project isn't nearly as active now as 9 years ago, unfortunately). However, something I've wished we'd tell new editors: There's no boss here. You answer to your peers. Except for pressing buttons to enact disciplinary and protective measures, there is nothing an administrator can do that anyone else can't also do. No individual editors have more rights than others. Some may have "user rights" gramted to them, but those are just access to more advanced tools. Also, although we have thousands of them, rules are not that important. Consensus is how things are decided and although consensus is guided by policies and guidelines, consensus can also over rule guidelines and most policies. Consensus is also how all policy was created. And they can be modified by consensus too. John from Idegon (talk) 02:54, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Bekah01: Great question! When I first started I had no idea that there was an easy-to-use 'Cite' button in either of the two editing tools you choose to use to add content. I had no idea that in just two click I could select and start filling in the required template for a book, journal, website or newspaper. Because of my lack of knowledge, I had to copy existing references from another article, paste it into what I was working on, and then manually edit each one. It was horrible. Life is so much simpler when you discover there's an easier way to do things. (I even made this little help page for others: WP:ERB). Good luck at the start of your own personal Wikipedia Adventure! Nick Moyes (talk) 10:38, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Bekah01, and welcome to Wikipedia. The two main things I wish I had known were 1) What you know does not belong anywhere in Wikipedia unless you can find a reliable published source that says it. 2) Creqating a new article is not necessarily the most valuable contribution you can make to Wikipedia. We have tens of thousands of articles which are seriously below the standard which would be accepted in a new article today, and improving some of those (or, sometimes, getting them deleted because their subjects don't belong in Wikipedia) can add much more value than many of the articles which get created and deleted every day. --ColinFine (talk) 15:02, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article Review HELP!!

Draft:Chitrasen_Sahu & Draft:Manu_Nayak

It's been some time since I created these two articles which are not being reviewed until now. It would be awesome if someone can review it or help me in the process. As I want to contribute to more subjects and it's really proving a block to me. Utkarshgarg13 (talk) 00:21, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Utkarshgarg13: As the notice on the draft says, it will take some time to get the review done, so just be patient. In the meantime you can continue to work on improving the drafts. See WP:YFA for guidance. You can also work to improve existing articles, which is a great way to get experience at Wikipedia. RudolfRed (talk) 00:27, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much RudolfRed for the advice :) I'm aware. But, the notice also says that "if the review is taking a lot of time, you can try asking for help on the talk page of a relevant WikiProject.", so I asked for help in regards with the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Utkarshgarg13 (talk • contribs) 00:36, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Utkarshgarg13, the applicable project for AfC isn't the Teahouse. John from Idegon (talk) 01:15, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Utkarshgarg13, some WikiProjects relevant to those articles might be Wikipedia:WikiProject_Film, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Disability, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Climbing or Wikipedia:WikiProject India Pi (Talk to me!) 01:23, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the proper location for that would be either WP:AFCHELP or WT:AFC. John from Idegon (talk) 01:28, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Browse history interactively

All of a sudden recently, when I want the difference between two versions of an article, I get this "Browse History Interactively" section at the top of the page. Of course, I have usually come there from the article history page, so no thank you, this is pathetic waste of screen space. How can I make it go away? Bruce leverett (talk) 01:36, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see the utility of that gadget. In my interface, it has to be called before it's displayed. Not sure how you could hide it completely. John from Idegon (talk) 01:49, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For you, it's opt-in, but for me, it's opt-out, so I have to click that button every time. I would settle for something in my preferences that would make it opt-in. Bruce leverett (talk) 14:32, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I found an article that does not seem objective, what should I do?

A friend sent me a wikipedia article featuring a company, promoting it for their lack of controversies as normally seen on other company pages. I'm not an english, political science, or psychology major, but the article felt like it was written by an employee rather than a user as the tone of the article did not seem objective. It did not help that nearly all the citations for the page were of reviews praising a product. I went elsewhere for information about the website and found several other websites dedicated to allegations of the company, providing reasonable proof and citations.

I don't want to fight a non-objective viewpoint with another non-objective viewpoint, so how should I deal with an non-objective article? 2001:569:7CCA:2400:C9EA:AA6B:79EE:A1E1 (talk) 01:52, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Most of us here are rather wont disinclined to offer general advice. Please let us know what article you are talking about. The OP is the only edit this IP has made. John from Idegon (talk) 03:30, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
John from Idegon, do you mean "disinclined, unwilling"? In my experience, "wont" means "accustomed". --ColinFine (talk) 15:07, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IP editor, I must agree with John from Idegon that we can give a better answer here if you name or better yet link to the article you are asking about. But you could post on the article's talk page indicating that you think it is not neutral and why. You might also tag the article with {{POV}}. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 15:24, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Annette O'Toole

To

Hello, I'm Awesome Aasim. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Annette O'Toole have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks. Aasim 00:56, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

I responded

To the contrary! In the article "Annette O'Toole", I edited the field "birth_name = Annette O’Toole" to "birth_name = Annette Toole", to be consistent with the sentence "O'Toole was born Annette Toole in Houston, Texas, the daughter of Dorothy Geraldine (née Niland) and William West Toole Jr." which already appears. Not doing so would leave the born name as both Annette O'Toole and Annette Toole, which is inconsistent.98.149.97.245 (talk) 02:47, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IP editor. Have you discussed this with Awesome Aasim? Or at Talk: Annette O'Toole? Those are the first steps in dispute resolution. You might think about signing up for a Wikipedia account. That will improve your ability to communicate with your editor colleagues. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:59, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hah, looks like I did not look super closely. Thanks for explaining! For future reference, there is a field titled "edit summary". It is a good idea to look carefully to make sure other editors do not confuse your edits as vandalism. Thanks :) Aasim 03:14, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Finding sources to edit

I do not know where to begin finding articles that demonstrates either gender, heterosexual, racial or other Western biases TranElliott (talk) 03:02, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello TranElliott. I would start by reading Wikipedia:Systemic bias. Then, I suggest that you learn how lists and categories work. These functions allow you to find large numbers of similar articles that may be of interest to you. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's most important policies and guidelines before trying to make major revisions to articles. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:21, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@TranElliott: Just a minor nit: when you say gender, heterosexual, racial or other Western biases, it sounds like you're laying all those biases on the West, while many of them are even more severely entrenched in the East. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 12:27, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

How many times can you get away with vandalism on Wikipedia? Hockeycatcat (talk) 09:13, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hockeycatcat, 5 times, less if it is more severe. Giraffer (munch) 10:09, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Hockeycat - Read the bean essay and don't ask stupid questions. You are less likely to be able to get away with it than if you hadn't asked a stupid question. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:43, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why has my contribution been Tagged: "possible conflict of interest" and then removed?

 Cushnieent (talk) 10:51, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tag: "possible conflict of interest"

Why have my contributions to this page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elgin_Cathedral&action=history been Tagged as "possible conflict of interest"?

• curprev 12:49, 26 December 2019‎ Cushnieent talk contribs‎ m 70,296 bytes +109‎ →‎External links: Added link for the most recent map of the Chanonry at Elgin. undo Tag: possible conflict of interest • curprev 12:46, 26 December 2019‎ Cushnieent talk contribs‎ m 70,187 bytes -35‎ →‎External links: Updated website address undo Tag: possible conflict of interest

Cushnieent is not a company, organisation, income-generator, ... of any kind. Is it because I use "Cushnieent" as my Wikipedia username? Cushnieent (talk) 10:57, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cushnieent Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. That's part of it. Usernames generally cannot be that of a website per the username policy, though "plain domain names (without .com, .co.kr, etc.) are sometimes acceptable, such as when the purpose is simply to identify the user as a person, they are inappropriate if they promote a commercial Web page.". If the only purpose of your username is to identify you personally, it's okay. You do, however have a conflict of interest. Please review that policy for more information. You should not add links to or information from your website without talk page discussion. 331dot (talk) 11:08, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How to...?

How do you spot vandalism quickly like most Wikipedians do? When I was still a vandal, I vandalised and it got taken down within 3 minutes. Hockeycatcat (talk) 10:59, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are automated tools that detect vandalism, and many people monitor the Recent Changes feed for inappropriate edits. Vandalism is any edit that defaces an article or page. Is there any particular reason you are asking these questions? 331dot (talk) 11:11, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Special:AbuseLog filters out positive changes quite well. Giraffer (munch) 11:26, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Hockeycatcat: I always use this setting at Recent Changes whenevr I'm monitoring for vandalism, with colours to indicate level of likely vandalism, then Twinkle to leave warnings of increasing severity. Only if that vandalism then constitutes to I report the editors at WP:AIV. In other words, don't warn and then immediately report - this just wastes admin's time. Don't just linger at the top of the Recent Cahges list, but scroll down and look for edits that have been missed. Keywords like 'fixed typo' or 'I made it better' are giveaways. Also worth enabling NavPopups, then all you need do is mouseover the word 'diff' to see that edit appear on screen without moving away.
It's great to see you returning, having seen the light as to how vandalism is disruptive to Wikipedia. So thank you for that. I suggest you confirm on your userpage that your past block has indeed now expired, and give the name of that past account for openness. I'm sure you are aware that editing whilst blocked is not allowed, but that we look leniently on those who request unblocking, after recognising their past errors, as you clearly do. Best wishes, Nick Moyes (talk) 13:49, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: Wenke Synak

Hello,

Can you please tell me what's wrong with this page ( Draft:Wenke Synak )?

Thanks MariaNovach (talk) 12:16, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MariaNovach, hello & welcome, From what I can see here it appears HitroMilanese, was kind enough to leave you a comment as to why your draft article was declined but I’d say in summary what they said to you, the subject of your article as of now isn’t notable enough for it to be retained on Wikipedia as your articles subject doesn’t satisfy WP:GNG, which is one of the most imperative ways we ascertain notability of an article’s subject. Read our golden rule & WP:NACTOR. Celestina007 12:41, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How do I archive a talk page discussion on my talk page?

Please help me get advice for archiving talk page discussion and getting the talk page archive search box. Regards. Acidic Carbon Corrode 12:54, 13 September 2020 (UTC) Acidic Carbon Corrode 12:54, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For help on archiving a talk page, try Help:Archiving a talk page. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:01, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

David Biddulph So I read it but I want to use Lowercase Sigmabot 3. Please help me for that.Acidic Carbon (Corrode) 14:05, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Acid Of Carbon, if you want to have a counter based system (as in Archive 1, 2, 3...) then add the following code (this will archive the page every thirty days) to the top of your talk page:
{{User:MiszaBot/config
| algo                = old(30d)
| archive             = {{SUBST:FULLPAGENAME}}/Archive %(counter)d
| counter             = 1
| maxarchivesize      = 150K
| archiveheader       = {{Automatic archive navigator}}
| minthreadstoarchive = 1
| minthreadsleft      = 4
}}
For monthly archives (August 2020...) use this code:
{{User:MiszaBot/config
| algo          = old(30d)
| archive       = {{SUBST:FULLPAGENAME}}/%(year)d/%(monthname)s
| archiveheader = {{MonthlyArchive}}
}}
I recommend using counter based archives as this works more universally (with {{Talk header}} and with default params with {{Archives}}. Hope this helps! — Yours, Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 14:21, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Acid Of Carbon I see you have added {{archives}} which does nothing on it's own. If you want I can set up archiving for you? — Yours, Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 14:37, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Berrely I’d prefer that . Acidic Carbon (Corrode) 14:38, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Acid Of Carbon,  Done, I've also added {{Talk header}} to your talk page. When the bot creates an archive (which should happen in 1/2 days) the template will automatically display them with a search function. Hope this helps! — Yours, Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 14:45, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect

Hello. I wanted to create a redirect formyl hexanoate but User:Deacon Vorbis declined and said I was auto confirmed and I can create redirect pages myself but I have no idea how I can do it myself. Please help.Acidic Carbon (Corrode) 14:21, 13 September 2020 (UTC) Acidic Carbon (Corrode) 14:21, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Acid Of Carbon: Apologies, I meant to add a link that showed how but totally forgot. I think taking a quick look at Help:Redirect should be enough. Wikipedia:Redirect has some more detailed information about guidelines surrounding redirects, but there's no rush on that one. Please let me know here (please ping me if you do) or on my talk page if you still need any help. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:25, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Acid Of Carbon, to create redirects, please read WP:REDIRECT#How to make a redirect. To create a redirect create the page you want to be a redirect and add #REDIRECT [[TARGETPAGE]] as the only content, where TARGETPAGE is the page you would like the redirect to go to. — Yours, Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 14:26, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Berrely and Deacon Vorbis: So Thanks for it. Formyl hexanoate is a redirect.Acidic Carbon (Corrode) 14:32, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Userbox for Participation in "Wikipedia Loves Monuments"

Dear fellow Wikipedians, I have participated in Wikipedia Loves Monuments 2020". Is there any userbox that I can use with logo in my user page ? Cheers..... Anupam Dutta (talk) 14:23, 13 September 2020 (UTC) Anupam Dutta (talk) 14:23, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anupamdutta73, I don't believe do, but you can create one yourself using {{Userbox}} or this website. Here is one I quickly made (press edit source to copy the code):
This user participated in Wiki Loves Monuments 2020, so can you!

— Yours, Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 14:32, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Dear User:Berrely, Thanks a ton.... This is what I was looking for.., Anupam Dutta (talk) 16:41, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How Best to Gain Experience

Hello! I wrote a couple of articles years ago and recently have come back. I value Wikipedia and would like to contribute content. However, recently I made lots of mistakes and realize that I have much to learn. Would like to gain experience. I was thinking of starting with learning more about references. I went to the Wiki pages that discuss references and the ones you tagged here about notability. Many Wikipedia pages have tags that request additional references. Would it be OK to start with some of these pages and simply add references (following all guidelines)? Is it possible to have an editor check my work? Do I add it to the page and then make proof request on the talk page? Do I ping a specific editor or is there a notice for any editor that is willing to assist? Thanks for your advice.Cher Skoubo (talk) 14:24, 13 September 2020 (UTC) Cher Skoubo (talk) 14:24, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cher Skoubo, I suggest reading Help:Referencing for beginners, as it may help you. After reading this, try to make a few edits and link then in a reply, so editors can check if they follow Wikipedia's policies, are formatted properly, are reliable, etc. — Yours, Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 14:36, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much. Cher Skoubo (talk) 14:50, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata Identifiers

I have recently been editing our sister project Wikidata, and I am creating an item on the second period of the periodic table of elements. How do I add identifiers? - Wikimeedian (talk) 14:27, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimeedian, I recommend reading Wikidata's help page. — Yours, Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 15:01, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And also, why are links to individual sections not allowed for citing the Wikipedia? - Wikimeedian (talk) 14:55, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimeedian, see WP:UGC, Wikipedia is a tertiary source and therefore should not be cited. — Yours, Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 15:00, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
me oh and also you can Scream at me 15:05, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am slightly confused... ​ — Yours, Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 15:06, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know that I'm messing with my signature heres the new one - Regards, Wikimeedian Scream at me 15:08, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, thank you for answering my question! - Regards, Wikimeedian | Scream at me 15:10, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wikimeedian, Wikidata already has an item for the second period of the periodic table at period 2 (Q207712). Please don't create another one. StarryGrandma (talk) 15:18, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well I do not know how to get it removed... - Regards, Wikimeedian | Scream at me 15:21, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wikimeedian,I will ask to have it removed. Please learn a lot more about Wikidata before editing there. Most items are created automatically when articles are added to the various Wikipedias. And don't add aliases unless an article in the Wikipedias say they are aliases. Just like the English Wikipedia, Wikidata is not a place to add stuff just because you know it. Also it is better if you use one account on all the Wikipedia projects. Accounts are global. StarryGrandma (talk) 15:40, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a service within Wikipedia to access specific content behind paywalls for the purpose of verifying sources? Suggestion

I'm reviewing an article which makes use of a source which is behind a paywall. Is there a way (other than subscribing to that publication) that will allow me to obtain the text or ask somebody with a subscription to verify that the text of the paywalled article is consistent with what the article purports it to mean. --Salimfadhley (talk) 17:16, 13 September 2020 (UTC) Salimfadhley (talk) 17:16, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Salimfadhley: Welcome to Wikipedia. Yes, you can make a request at WP:RX RudolfRed (talk) 17:32, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Salimfadhley, please check out WP:RX where you can ask to borrow specific sources (ask for the sources so you can check them yourself; do not ask someone else to do the verifying for you). There is also WP:Library which recommends editors with good history and justified needs, for free access to some repositories. Some editors who have access through this platform will have userboxes in their userpages indicating the kind of resources they have access to, and their willingness to help out. You can ask those editors directly on their user talk page, much as you would at the aforementioned WP:RX. Some paywalled sources may be available in full or in part in archival websites as well. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 17:34, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'm working on Draft:Kate Shemirani, and one of the references is an article by The Times behind a paywall. Would it be appropriate to use this resource to obtain that text? I'm aware that this might be against the publisher's user policy, but in any case I'm not a subscriber. --Salimfadhley (talk) 17:38, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Salimfadhley that is exactly the sort of thing the Resource Exchange is intended for. I have asked for and gotten sources that way. Normally the provider will send this by email or point you to a link, not past the content on a public page, and you are expected to use it only in writing or verifying Wikipedia articles. This constitutes fair use under US law, and may well be "fair dealing" under UK law. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 18:51, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Awards and Nominations

I recently added some awards and nominations garnered by the show Nicky, Ricky, Dicky and Dawn. It had nominations the show garnered, such as for cinematography, individual cast members, ensemble cast, etc., but a user reverted the article, claiming "We only list awards for the series. Actor awards belong on the actor pages, if they exist", but other wikipedia (movie and tv show) articles have the nominations and awards won by the actor/actress for doing that particular tv show/movie. Example: Black Panther, Riverdale, The Vampire Diaries, etc. Why are the rules different for different movies/shows? Why aren't the actors' achievements for the tv show included in the Nicky, Ricky, Dicky and Dawn page? Example: Outstanding Young Ensemble Cast in a Television Series from "Young Artist Awards" or Favorite TV Actor for Aiden Gallagher for "2016 Kids' Choice Awards"? Ashleexry (talk) 17:44, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ashleexry and welcoem to the Teahouse. I do not think there is any general rule about this, tht awrds for actiors are either always or never included in the article for the show. I would think it depended on how significant the award was. This should be discussed on the article talk page, in my view. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 18:55, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect

Please redirect TEPPEN to Teppen. JyuHachiJyu (talk) 18:13, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, JyuHachiJyu we do not normally create redirects that differ from the target only in case (uppercase vs lowercase), because the built-in search will find such targets without a redirect. See WP:REDIRECT for more information. Also, any autoconfirmed user may create redirects, as that page describes. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 18:48, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How to move/undo a page move?

I accidentally moved Road Roller to Roadrollerda. Is there a way to move it back? LucasA04 (talk) 19:48, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What is relist? 

what does it mean when a request to close a move request is “relisted”? Johnosaunders (talk) 19:55, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse&oldid=978248908"