Wikipedia:Teahouse

Gråbergs Gråa Sång, a Teahouse host

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

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

New to Wikipedia? See our tutorial for new editors or introduction to contributing page.
Note: Newer questions appear at the bottom of the Teahouse. Completed questions are archived within 2-3 days.

Help Wikipedia

How do I delete a page that was made without my permission?

 Splishsplashsplosh (talk) 16:07, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

It would help if you were to link the page in question. Though I suspect the answer is going to be "We don't require the permission of a subject to create an article because we are not social media and our inclusion criteria is based on factors a subject has no control over". —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 16:22, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy link Kristy Holtfreter. Theroadislong (talk) 17:39, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Splishsplashsplosh I suppose you could nominate it for deletion. That way, after a period for editors to express their thoughts, an Administrator would make a decision. The critical criteria would be whether the existing references substantiated your notability in the Wikipedia sense of the word. David notMD (talk) 18:08, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Splishsplashsplosh: Since the AfD is already in progress, the most useful thing you can do now is to submit an e-mail request to the Wikipedia:Volunteer Response Team system asking them to privately verify your identity. The e-mail addresses for such requests are listed at Wikipedia:OTRS noticeboard. They will open an OTRS ticket, explain to you what sort of information they need and, once your identity is verified, somebody from the OTRS team will post a note about this in the AfD itself. Note, however, that as others pointed out above, Wikipedia does not require your permission to create an article about you, and such an article may ultimately be retained over your objections. You are free to participate in the AfD and to explain in more detail there why you want the article deleted. In some situations, explained in WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, such deletion requests by the article subjects are taken into account. Nsk92 (talk) 14:55, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Reference Bombing

I've been flagged for "Reference Bombing" WP:REFBOMB before and I wanted to double check that I didn't do that on an article I working on currently. The article is Draft:Art Napoleon (Artist). I tried making sure that all the sources were pretty well-known and that they were fairly spaced out and relevant to the sentence they where they were cited. I still have quite a few references and I suppose I could remove a few. I guess it's also worth asking if all the contents of the article are actually relevant enough for the article.

The one I'm most concerned about is reference #1 to the New York Times, which isn't explicitly about the subject but is the only article I found that mentions his age. TipsyElephant (talk) 14:28, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

TipsyElephant Thé NYT explicitly states his age, in a paragraph about him. It doesn't matter that entire article is not about him, the relevant paragraphs are about him. I think the number of refs looks just fine, no need to remove any of them, IMO. Left a note on the article talkpage. Now, I want to watch his cooking show! Best of luck! Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 08:45, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Cracking The Code To Infinite Knowledge Bruit Force For A.I

What are the rules about giving every combination out for to a TV screen my original screen size was 10x10 biased on black or white pixels. the mathematical formula for the combinations is 10 to the tenth power x 10 to the tenth power of combination for such a small screen biased on black or white pixels. The answer is 1E20 of combinations for that screen possibility's. I wanted to give out the equation for A.I to Look at. I thought it would be cool if I could give out every combination to a large TV screen like 1000000 x 1000000 for A.I to play with every image, and have access to everything that can be seen, and I would like A.I to have to study everything. I understand most is garbled images, but some are true images with information. I am a computer animator, I don't think I should not under any patent laws if the image was random, I'm not sure. I do plan on animation of this equation in Blender, to show everyone, but I will show a super small screen of 4x4 for a total combinations of 64 combinations biased on black or white pixels, to show the idea. I am basically bruit forcing every combination. Thank You for your time reading Harold Burgess Jr Harold Burgess Jr God Of Good Living Things (talk) 16:42, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Harold Burgess Jr God Of Good Living Things. I really don't know what you're on about, nor do I care that much, I'm afraid. But this is an encyclopaedia of Notable Things, and not a place to advocate your own ideas, theories or religions. To that effect, I have marked your sandbox for speedy deletion as it has nothing to do with this encyclopaedia. Please either be prepared to contribute to one of the existing 6,000,000 articles of notable topics, or find an alternative idea to promote your, no-doubt, worthy philosophy on life. I apologise if this sounds rude. That was not my intent, but there is no place here for promoting original thought, philosophies or beliefs. Sorry. Nick Moyes (talk) 16:51, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse Harold Burgess Jr God Of Good Living Things. I'm a computer scientist who specializes in AI so I think I have some idea what you are asking but as Nick Moyes said this isn't the place to ask those kinds of questions. This forum is for questions about editing Wikipedia articles not for general discussion. If you want to have these kinds of discussions I suggest you try Facebook or Reddit. They have various forums for philosophical discussions that also relate to computer science issues. Also, the Reference Desk is a place to ask specific questions but your question as it currently is stated is so vague it really isn't appropriate for that forum either. BTW, to the extent I understood what you are asking I think you may not be appreciating the combinatorics of the problem you describe. There are many problems in computer science where in theory an optimal solution is possible but in reality to search every option is even theoretically impossible because you end up getting numbers that exceed the total number of atoms in the universe. The "perfect game of chess" is such an example. There is such a game and it could theoretically be discovered by brute force, by evaluating every possible game of chess since the number is finite. But that is an example where the number exceeds the total number of atoms in the universe so there is no way any computer could actually evaluate them all. I think the same thing is true with every possible pixel combination on a screen. And when you talk about "letting AI loose" that isn't the way AI works. There are algorithms and heuristics that are very powerful but you never get good results by just tossing a bunch of data at an algorithm. You have to design a specific algorithm for a given problem. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 03:53, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Article flagged for deletion. Where to start?

{{subst:trim|1= Hello, new here, looking for guidance...My BLP article is being considered fo deletion. Onganymede (talk) 22:33, 31 October 2020 (UTC)Can someone direct me to addressing this? Via what venue? Addressed to whom? Thank you much.Onganymede (talk) 22:35, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy: J. Jaye Gold. You can comment at the Deletion discussion and you can also attempt to address the criticism by improving the article. Clock is ticking. David notMD (talk) 22:41, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Onganymede. You can contribute to the discussion at WP:Articles for deletion/J. Jaye Gold. But given, as the comments say, that it is a promotional piece sourced only to his work, there is little hope of saving it. If you want Wikipedia to have an article about Gold, you should let it be deleted, and start again with a draft, remembering that Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, but only in what people wholly unconnected with the subject, and not prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about them in reliable sources. I suggest that you start by reading your first article carefully; and, if you have any connection with Gold yourself, also reading conflict of interest/ --ColinFine (talk) 22:45, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Apologies, how can I reply to either of you who have responded to me here?Onganymede (talk) 22:59, 31 October 2020 (UTC) Onganymede (talk) 22:59, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello again Onganymede. I have moved your reply to the correct section: you put it on the end of the page, which meant it was appended to a different question. So that's the answer: edit the specific section of the page. You can ping another user by going {{U|username}}, so I went {{U|Onganymede}}. --ColinFine (talk) 23:08, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks ColinFine for the navigation tip and fixing my placement! I've cut out everything I once held dear [kidding], addressed COI on my talk page, and added new refs. Would you mind taking another quick look and offering direction? Onganymede (talk) 05:06, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello Onganymede. Glancing at your new sources, I notice that nine of them are blog posts (which are not "reliable sources") and one is an interview with Gold (which is not independent of him). —teb728 t c 07:08, 2 November 2020 (UTC) BTW the reason you were not able to save links to the Thrive Global blog posts is that the website is on the spam blacklist. —teb728 t c 10:06, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Fox News

I am very confused on when to use WP:FOXNEWS as a source. Based off the last RfC, there was "no consensus regarding the reliability of Fox News" for politics and science. Whenever I try to use Fox News as source, editors starting complaining that Fox News is not a RS--which is not what the RfC says. However, editors seem to have no problem using Media Matters for America as source, or other sources from the "yellow" category , even though it has the exact same rating as Fox News. Whenever I do try to use Fox, I typically include another RS just to strengthen my case--though, I still receive backlash for even daring to use Fox News as source. Additionally, how are we supposed to differentiate between "News" and "Politics" (since Fox News is green-lightened for "News")? Thank you! Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 00:44, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

@Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d: I've taken the result of that RfC as to avoid Fox for anything even borderline contentious, and looking through your edit history, most of your edits surround contentious or politically-involved people/organizations (I even consider Don Lemon in this category). If any information is supported by Fox and another reliable source, I go with the other one. I consider "news" as things that are can absolutely never be taken politically, like this, but even then I would use another source if available. The same goes for Media Matters, so I think it's reasonable for you to point that out. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 07:45, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

@Ganbaruby: I'm sorry but that's completely absurd. Why not just list Fox News as an unreliable source, unless for the most basic of all claims? I know this is not your fault, and I'm sorry for being aggressive, but I see political articles always being sourced to sites like Mediate and Newsweek. Is there any difference between using Fox News alone, and using Fox News in addition to a RS? Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 08:10, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

@Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d: The rule is to use reliable sources, not avoid unreliable sources. The RfC didn't call Fox News unreliable, but the "no consensus" result means that there's doubts about its reliability track record. We didn't say Fox News is like Breitbart, but it's also not PBS. That's why when Fox News and another news source, where there is consensus that it's reliable, say the same thing, I'd go with the other source. The only reason to use multiple sources is when both are needed to verify the information in the sentence; otherwise, one is enough. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 10:24, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

@Ganbaruby: Oh, I always thought it's best to use two or more sources in order to show that the statement/topic carries enough weight. But I get what you're saying. Thank you for the advise! BTW, is there any way to get the admins who wrote the Fox News RfC summary to clarify the difference between "News" and "Politics" or would an entire new RfC have to be started for that? Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 10:44, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

@Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d: You could go read the closing statement at the top of the RfC. TL;DR: "for science and political referencing there is no consensus regarding the reliability of Fox News, and it should be used with caution to verify contentious claims. For other subjects Fox News is generally considered reliable." ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 16:02, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

• "Use Fox News with caution to verify contentious claims." The lack of consensus means that the community couldn't say it was reliable. That doesn't mean it should never be used but that it should be used cautiously and with attribution (which is what the RSP entry says for Media Matters for America).
  Are you sure that you're providing in-line attribution (i.e. making it clear "Fox News says" instead of stating as a fact), and are you sure that you're citing a piece that's otherwise reliable? In my past experiences with you, you've demonstrated that you'd have trouble with that sort of thing when things swing a certain way. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:34, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

The RSP entry states that we should use "in-text attribution for opinions " for Fox News. No where does it say we need to provide attribution for anything other than opinions. We're supposed to use attributions no matter what for Media Matters--but that's not always observed. Am I citing a piece that's otherwise reliable? I'm not sure what you mean by that, since, according to the lovely host who responded to my question, practically all pieces are unreliable or too contentious to use (and I never used a piece from one of the talk shows, if that's what you're asking). Remind me what articles have we worked on? Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 09:05, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d, one of the issues with sources that are less than completely reliable is selection of content. If you see Fox going crazy reporting something, but the Wall Street Journal is barely mentioning it, that throws into question whether we even need to include it as it may be WP:UNDUE. So even for reporting of what appear to be straight facts, if there's not a more reliable source than Fox, we might choose not to report it. —valereee (talk) 11:04, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

@Valereee: Yep, that's what I was getting at up above. That's why when I do use Fox, I almost always use a secondary RS source. Also, are we required to use attribution for Fox like Ian.thomson said? Or only for opinion pieces? Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 11:18, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d, be aware that in cases like I mentioned above, if Fox is blaring on about it and WSJ barely mentions it, trying to shoehorn it in from those two sources is likely to be viewed with suspicion.

Re: attributing or not. I personally would lean toward attributing, again for the reason above: story selection is important, and readers should know where information is coming from if there's any chance whatsoever that the source might be biased. I often attribute the writer and the source if the assertion is even barely exceptional -- the NYT and WSJ, the AP and Reuters and NPR, even. There's zero harm in attributing, and if I found myself feeling even slightly reluctant to attribute to something/someone, I'd take that as a very clear signal that my unconscious bias might be playing a part. —valereee (talk) 11:35, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Really? Even if we have multiple sources making the exact same claim? "Any chance whatsoever that the source might be biased"--ha, if that's the standard then literally we would need provide attribution in every single case imaginable. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 11:46, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d, I can't really say unless you can show me a specific edit you have in mind; this is all pretty hypothetical, but I disagree about having to provide attribution in every case. There are literally millions of articles on WP that contain no controversial assertions. A single citation at the end of a paragraph to a reliable source suffices. It looks like you've only edited in the general area of American politics (broadly construed), so you've jumped into the deep end. In those types of articles, you will often find that you need multiple citations per sentence, and you'll get pushback on any assertion that isn't cited to a highly-relable source.

However, if I've got multiple sources making the exact same claim, I'd not bother to use the less-reliable ones at all. That's the thing with less-trusted sources: if they're the only ones saying it, we probably shouldn't use them. If they're not the only ones saying it, we probably don't need them. —valereee (talk) 12:19, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

If we have multiple sources making the exact same claim? Then use the sources that are not Fox News. Sorry but as this relates to the BLM and the current racial protests, Fox News is clearly not RS. Albertaont (talk) 19:25, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Help me improve my flat.io article please

Please help me improve my article notability, like give me suggestions. I added citations and resubmitted it but they declined it again. Jaslueasi (talk) 06:12, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello Jaslueasi. An acceptable Wikipedia article summarizes what reliable sources independent of the topic say about the topic. Most of your references are to web pages controlled by flat.io, and those are not useful for showing that the topic is notable. There is also a passing mention in a Microsoft blog, which is not a reliable source for establishing notability. The TechRepublic source is five sentences long but seems to be a directory listing. So, I think you need to find and provide references to independent, reliable sources that actually devote significant coverage to the topic. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:30, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

How do I tell whether the source is independent and not self-published? Jaslueasi (talk) 08:56, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Start at Wikipedia:Reliable sources.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:04, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy: Draft:Flat.io, which was initially Rejected, Jaslueasi removed that notice (now restored), citations added, Declined. David notMD (talk) 10:33, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

"::Courtesy: Draft:Flat.io, which was initially Rejected, Jaslueasi removed that notice (now restored), citations added, Declined. David notMD (talk) 10:33, 1 November 2020 (UTC)" ? Jaslueasi (talk)

"Courtesy" followed by the name of the article in question is done to help other Teahouse editors know what article help is being asked for when the asker did not provide a link, in this case to a draft, not yet an article. The rest of my statement was to provide some context to the history of the draft, specifically that an experienced reviewer had rejected the draft and the creator had removed the rejection notice. David notMD (talk) 11:26, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the draft maharashtra students welfare association

Hello Sir/Madam I had added new reference to the draft which justify the subject in a proper manner as you suggested also I don't have any connection with this organization in any way. I just found one genuine subject to wright so I am working on this draft. Thank you. Publicspeaker2020 (talk) 06:15, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Okay then. Lets see what you got...

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/nagpur/hold-exams-for-failures-soon-students-body-to-edu-min/articleshow/78958690.cms	appearss to be independent	~ WP:TOI	~ More about the what the organisation does	~ Partial
https://www.punekarnews.in/pune-university-students-association-demands-strict-action-against-hired-company-for-online-exams/	Independent of MSWA	~ An organisation writing about its critisation	~ mainly about O´Pune university, not so much about MSWA	~ Partial
https://marathi.abplive.com/news/pune/pune-final-year-exams-will-be-held-soon-but-the-students-facing-many-issues-804477	Appears to be independent	probbably reliable	Passing mention	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Note that I are sometimes very lenient. Victor Schmidt (talk) 09:09, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

sorry

hi am sorry one i promise i will never ask about chatting anymore i will only ask question about editing Wikipedia Habeeb Bello648 (talk) 07:06, 1 November 2020 (UTC) ok — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bello habeeb (talk • contribs) 07:41, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Question

how do hi create second article on Wikipedia ? Habeeb Bello648 (talk) 07:11, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

@Habeeb Bello648:

Note that I strongely recommend that you use the draft namespace until you have created a few articles sucessfully. The box here is also available in the article wizard. Victor Schmidt (talk) 08:50, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Habeeb Bello648: you haven't created one article on Wikipedia yet. You haven't even created a draft. Indeed you have made no constructive edit to Wikipedia. So why are you asking about a second article? Maproom (talk) 11:12, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

My Profile Page

Hi, I am confused. Why can't I edit my profile page? I write what I want and hit publish and it just loads and loads and loads. Ex-Borg Seven of Nine (talk) 13:03, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Ex-Borg Seven of Nine Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If you are attempting to create User:Ex-Borg Seven of Nine, you should be able to edit and create that page, especially since you were able to edit this page. If you were attempting to write an article about yourself, you can't do that until you are autoconfirmed, meaning that you have 10 edits or more and your account is 4 days old or more. Note that attempting to write an article(we don't have "profiles") about yourself is strongly discouraged per the autobiography policy. You are welcome to tell the Wikipedia community about yourself as a Wikipedia editor on your user page(the link that is currently red on this post). See WP:USERPAGE for information on acceptable user page content. 331dot (talk) 13:10, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

331dot yes I'm trying to write on that page. I am confused, though. What do you mean no profiles? Because that is what you linked. Ex-Borg Seven of Nine (talk) 13:15, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

That page is your user page. It is intended so you cna provide limited context on your use of Wikipedia, e.g. what you want to edit, what you ahve created so far etc. Non-Wikipedia related stuff is only accpted in parts, and in particular if the edits to the userpage dont make up most of the editor's contributions. Userpages should not look like articles. Victor Schmidt (talk) 13:21, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Ex-Borg Seven of Nine It's best not to think of it as a "profile" and instead think of it as your user page. The term "profile" is a social media term and has a broader meaning than user page. As I said, your user page is a place to tell the Wikipedia community about yourself as a Wikipedia editor or user; it is not a place for you to tell anything and everything about yourself. 331dot (talk) 13:23, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

331dot okay, I get it now. But I still haven't figured it out. How do I edit it? I hit the "create page" button and wrote what I want, and when I hit publish it just loads and loads and loads and it doesn't publish.I Ex-Borg Seven of Nine (talk) 13:30, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Ex-Borg Seven of Nine It could be a problem with your browser on your end. If you can edit this page, you should have no difficulty editing your user page as far as Wikipedia is concerned. With your permission, I could make an edit to the page to get it started, maybe that will help. 331dot (talk) 13:35, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

331dot go ahead. Ex-Borg Seven of Nine (talk) 13:37, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Cluebot

Can someone help me override Cluebot's flag?? It flagged me seconds after editing. Thank you. MaxGeist1 (talk) 14:41, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

MaxGeist1 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Your edit was flagged by an automated anti-vandalism bot because it removed large portions of the article without explanation. I would suggest that if you feel that content needs to be removed, that you should discuss it on the article talk page. Please understand that Wikipedia articles summarize what independent reliable sources state. 331dot (talk) 14:44, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Got it. Thank you. The problem is that the sources are opinion pieces or slanted media sources or no sources at all. At times they even added "Why" under the section where they included their awards. Most of the article was entirely slanderous and a case for libel. I just happened on it and it stuck out like a sore thumb particularly since the person is still alive. I even thought to contact the business and or owner to let them know someone online was creating a case for libel by slandering them online with opinion pieces with little research other than "sources say" etc. MaxGeist1 (talk) 15:16, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikidata

How to link IMDb page in Wikidata? Wpedia User (talk) 14:49, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

To Wikidata? This is Wikipedia, a sister project. And what exactly do you mean by link? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:45, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Emir of Wikipedia. I'm not sure quite what you're asking, but Wikidata has a property d:Property:P345, called "IMDb ID", that can be added to an entry for something in iMDB. Is that what you mean? If not, I suggest you ask at d:WD:CHAT. --ColinFine (talk) 17:19, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

ColinFine, think you meant to ping Wpedia User. If not then am I even more unsure what has happened here. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:24, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

You're right, Emir of Wikipedia. Thank you for pinging them. --ColinFine (talk) 22:21, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

What do I do if "sources" used are from slanted, opinion pieces or there are missing sources to create a case for slander or libel?

What do I do if "sources" used are from slanted sources, opinion pieces or there are missing sources to create a case for slander or libel? In 1 case they even put under awards "why" as if to say why did they receive them. When I tried to remove the info Cluebot flagged me. MaxGeist1 (talk) 15:25, 1 November 2020 (UTC) MaxGeist1 (talk) 15:25, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

@MaxGeist1: Try to keep all your questions in one thread, if they're related, please. Your problem is that you've ever only made one single edit to one article in an attempt to fix all the issues, as you perceived them. You remove a net total of nearly 20kb of content, hence why the bot assumed you were vandalising the article. Take one issue at a time - address and enhance the issue with a good quality edit, adding a reference or two, then save (publish) the edit with an explanatory edit summary. Wait a while before making other non-controversial edits. If you find an uncited slanderous remark, you can remove it as 'uncited'. Again, one edit at a time avoids people (or bots) assuming you are out to cause harm to an article. But discussing concerns on the article talk page is also important. However, what to one person is slanderous content based upon a poor source or article, might to another be a mainstream media outlet based upon sound editorial review giving accurate but uncomfortable reporting about someone. We see a lot of 'sanitising' of articles because we've included properly researched and reported content from mainstream media which someone just happens to take exception to. I've no idea whether or not that applies here, as I've not looked in detail at your huge edit. But diving in, mass-deleting a ton of cited article content and expecting no follow-up is unrealistic. Preliminary discussion on the talk page is a sensible approach. Does that make sense? Nick Moyes (talk) 15:48, 1 November 2020 (UTC) 

@NickMoyes: I get what you are saying completely. How "Real sources" are determined was my concern to be sure. If the sources are opinion pieces even from mainstream media they are just that opinions, if that is the case the article should have cited that it was the opinion of xyz that xyz happened or thought xyz. Instead the article read like an libelous, slanderous, editorial hit piece backed by "sources say" not actual identified people saying it in the reference material. Then the user who wrote it, also wrote personal opinions in the "AWARDS" section which said in parentheses {"WHY"} which was a comment not a citation. Again all of this supports the intention of the writer was to slander the person being written about. Using editorialized pieces from various sources to create another editorialized piece which does not increase the factual nature of the article and serves more to malign unless of course it is made obvious that this was the opinion of said source XYZ and not editorialized with the intention to be libelous or to commit slander on wiki. If I go back to this article I came across, I will definitely use your method of using "uncited" and doing it a little at a time. Thank you so much for your take on it and your time. :) MaxGeist1 (talk) 17:51, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: (service) Broken Ping. MaxGeist1, Please make sure that the username in {{re}} matches the exact username of the editor you are replying to. Victor Schmidt (talk) 18:32, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

@MaxGeist1: Yes, you are right to point out that opinion pieces within mainstream media are less 'reliable' than a main editorial piece. It all depends upon context and content, amd you are also right to suggest that it might be more acceptable to state explicitly that well-known person X stated fact Y within an opinion piece in well-regarded newspaper Z, or it may be inappropriate to cite it at all, especially if these are accusations which themselves might be libellous, and have yet to be tested in court or otherwise proven via otherwise mainstream editorial reporting. When in doubt, and if disputed on the article page, it is possible to take the statement and source to WP:RSN for review and consensus. I do apologise if I misinterpreted your original question by not addressing 'Opinion Pieces' explicitly. Reading WP:BLP (and the sub-section shortcut at WP:BLPREMOVE), it's important to be sure of the reliability of sourced statements about a living person. And WP:RSEDITORIAL states "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. Human interest reporting is generally not as reliable as news reporting, and may not be subject to the same rigorous standards of fact-checking and accuracy". Thus, single sources and unsubstantiated opinion pieces should be handled with care, yet this same rationale for care should not be used as an excuse to 'cleanse' an article of unfavourable but reliably sourced content about a particular subject. As always, we have to tread a careful path when collating published information here. I hope this might add further clarity. (Thanks, Victor, for fixing Max's failed 'ping'. Nick Moyes (talk) 19:17, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Question

How do you create an article? Is they any football/game show related projects available? Gameshowandsportsfan2007 (talk) 15:37, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

@Gameshowandsportsfan2007: first, lets start with creating a new article. Please note that sucessfully creating a new article is the hardest task a new editor can undertake on Wikipedia. I insert the steps below:

• First, review our guideline on notability, our policy on Verifiability, and our general notability guideline (GNG). Consider whether your subject clearly meets the standards listed there. Also, check if the topic is already covered, perhaps under a different spelling or in a section of an article about a wider topic. You will waste a lot of time, if you create a new article, and then find that the encyclopedia already has an article about that.
• Second, read how to create Your First Article and referencing for beginners and again consider if you want to go ahead.
• Third, If you have any connection or affiliation with the subject, disclose it in accordance with our guideline on Conflict of interest. If you have been or expect to be paid for making edits, or are making them as part of your job, disclose this according to the strict rules of the Paid-contribution disclosure. This is absolutely required; omitting it can result in you being blocked from further editing.
• Fourth, gather sources. You want independent, professionally published, reliable sources with each discussing the subject in some detail. If you can't find several such sources, stop; an article will not be created! Sources do NOT need to be online, or in English, although it is helpful if at least some are. The "independent" part is vital. Wikipedia does not consider as independent sources such as press releases, or news stories based on press releases, or anything published by the subject itself or an affiliate of the subject. Strictly local coverage is also not preferred. Regional or national newspapers or magazines, books published by mainstream publishers (not self-published), or scholarly journals are usually good. So are online equivalents of these. (Additional sources may verify particular statements but not discuss the subject in detail. But those significant detailed sources are needed first.)
• Fifth, use the article wizard to create a draft under the articles for creation project. This is always a good idea for an inexperienced editor, but in the case of an editor with a conflict of interest it is essential.
• Sixth, use the sources gathered before (and other sources you may find along the way) to write the article. Cite all significant statements to sources. Do not express opinions or judgements, unless they are explicitly attributed to named people or entities, preferably in a direct quotation, and cited to a source. Do not use puffery or marketing-speak. Provide page numbers, dates, authors and titles for sources to the extent these are available. A title is always needed. Submit the draft when you think it is ready for review. Be prepared to wait a while for a review (several weeks or more).
• Seventh, when (well perhaps if) your draft is declined, pay attention to the comments of the reviewer, and correct the draft and resubmit it. During this whole process, if you face any unresolvable editing hurdles, or cannot comprehend any editing issue, feel free to post a request here or at the help desk and ask the regulars. Repeat this until the draft passes review.

Congratulations, you have now created a valid Wikipedia article.

Now onto Projects. There is Wikipedia:WikiProject Football and Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Television game shows task force (Part of WP:WikiProject Television. Victor Schmidt (talk) 15:47, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

AC

Is they a way of becoming autocomfirmed Gameshowandsportsfan2007 (talk) 15:51, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, you have to make 10 edits and your account must be older than 4 days. Zindor (talk) 16:03, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

In your case you've made enough edits, so it'll update automatically in about a couple of days. Zindor (talk) 16:08, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

What makes something vandalism?

What makes something vandalism? I add to a list of famous people, but it is removed, is it because they aren't famous enough? Siduiehd9emiles (talk) 16:05, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

@Siduiehd9emiles: Welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia is interested not in who is "famous" but who is notable. Please see WP:LISTPEOPLE and WP:DDD for the precise policies.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 16:21, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

For Wikipedia's definition of vandalism, see: WP:vandalism. Note that some "vandalism" is removed by human editors while others are removed by 'bots' according to an algorithm. Not including an edit summary (or using a 'canned' phrase) may signal the algorithm. 2606:A000:1126:28D:FC03:BCB0:FB3C:7678 (talk) 17:17, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

@Siduiehd9emiles: If you're referring to your edit here, you added an entry to a disambiguation page, which is not intended to be "a list of famous people". Such pages are intended to help users navigate Wikipedia when they've searched for a term (the name "George Farmer" in this case) for which Wikipedia has more than one relevant article. Therefore, there's no point in including an entry for a person for whom there is no Wikipedia article, as you did. If George Farmer the aquascaper is notable (in the Wikipedia sense), someone can write an article about him, and then an entry can be added to the disambiguation page. Deor (talk) 17:41, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Films sections

How come whenever live-action movies' plots are described in articles, the character's names are always followed by the actor's name in parentheses, but animated movies' articles never use this practice? Is it because animated movies don't have the actors acting in front of a camera?

Here's an example of such sentences:

Common: Napoleon Dynamite (Jon Heder) is a teenager battling through high school.

Uncommon: Woody (Tom Hanks) is the best friend of fellow toy Buzz Lightyear (Tim Allen). Bearswitch (talk) 16:26, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't edit a lot of film articles, but I would suspect that you are correct, since we don't see what the actor looks like with an animated film. You could ask at the the talk page for the Manual of Style for films. 331dot (talk) 16:39, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

It took me a while to even understand this question. Animated movies have animated characters – the voiceover actors are not the same thing as the characters, and they don't actually play the characters, so it would not make sense to couple them in that way. --bonadea contributions talk 16:55, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Language of a source

Just wondering if it matters what language of a source is. Korbinian Holzer just signed a contract in the KHL, however the only news source that i've found reporting it is EisHockey News, which is in German. Thanks! Here is the source, if youre interested: https://www.eishockeynews.de/aktuell/artikel/2020/11/01/nationalspieler-korbinian-holzer-wechselt-in-die-khl-zu-avtomobilist-yekaterinburg-eine-top-mannschaft-es-wird-bestimmt-interessant/7aed88c7-1012-4e15-b614-5e4b64758d72.html

Nolanisntfunny (talk) 17:45, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

@Nolanisntfunny: How about using https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nhl/nhl-veteran-korbinian-holzer-signs-with-khl-team/ar-BB1aARxh ? —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 19:47, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

@Nolanisntfunny: BTW, please don't put anything after the tildes when signing your post; the tildes (~~~~) should be the very last thing in your post. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 19:48, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

• • Thanks, will use that. Nolanisntfunny (talk) 21:11, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Nagorno-Karabakh

There is not Nagorno Karabag Respublic at all. According to International law, Karabag is the part of Azerbaijan. Why armenian users can write Azerbaijani toponims ,city or place name in armenian?Do you think this is right? Look ar armenian map.There is not any changes by Azerbaijan users.So I will send and demand to correct all mistakes in Google Earth. Sometimes i think Google Earth commands works very bad,the result is that,that Azerbaijan map was corrupted by armenian users.Very very bad situation. IsAAZ (talk) 17:47, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

@IsAAZ: If you have comments or suggestions to improve an article, start a discussion on that article's talk page. Wikipedia has nothing to do with Google Earth, if there are errors there then contact Google. RudolfRed (talk) 19:59, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

@IsAAZ: Google Earth is out of Wikipedia's control. If you have a suggestion, give it to Google. Until then, it will have to stay the same. Nolanisntfunny (talk) 21:15, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

creating a new wikipedia entry

Hi, my name is Dédé Wilson and I am interested in learning how to get a page for myself. If you GOOGLE my name, I am every entry on page 1 as well as the Google Knowledge panel. There is another "Dede Wilson" who is a poet, who is not me. I have been working with Google for months to correct an error. The knowledge panel in Google has shown my images and works for a long time, but it had her bio. Now that is corrected as of a few days ago. She has a Wikipedia page. I am working on trying to establish my domain authority since it was confused with hers for so many years. I have written 17 books, hosted television shows and was an editor at Bon Appetit magazine. I think I do have enough to have page but do not understand the process. Any help would be much appreciated. Dedewilsonchef&author (talk) 18:59, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Replied at User talk:Dedewilsonchef&author. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:44, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Wanderword

Draft:Wanderword was submitted seven times in the past two months, and was declined six times, and then I rejected it. Now the author, User:DimZoum, has asked what can be done to reopen the draft. First, I thank the author for asking me politely what to do now. So I will ask other editors what they think that they should do next. My advice is to start over or almost over, and to focus more on what independent third parties have been written about the game vendor, and less about details that are fancruft. A lot of the existing draft reads like advertising, but, since the author says that they are not affiliated with the vendor, I assume it is fancruft. That is my advice, to stub the draft down and start over with third party comments. What does anyone else think? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:21, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Surely if you rejected it you are saying that the topic is not sufficiently notable to have a Wikipedia article, rather than that there are shortcomings in the exiting draft? David Biddulph (talk) 19:47, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: I still suspect the editor (User:DimZoum) has an undeclared WP:COI, so I have invited them on their talk page to clarify this. My advice is to ask the creator of the draft to identify which three of their sources (excluding internal PR/Newswire content) demonstrates clearly that the product meets WP:NSOFT. Without that evidence, the draft has little hope of progressing to a mainspace article, and I am struggling to see how that will happen at this point in time. Perhaps it is simply, WP:TOOSOON. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:08, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I will try to explain to User:David Biddulph. As submitted the first seven times, the draft does not show any evidence of establishing corporate notability, because it does not say anything about what third parties have written about the company. This does not mean that there is no such evidence, and does not mean that notability will never be established. However, after seven resubmissions, I saw no reason to keep on trying to explain to the author what we wanted. I had the choice of continuing the cycle of resubmissions, or of nominating the draft for deletion, which I would have done before there was Rejection, or of Rejecting the draft. Once in a great while, Rejection may, in my view, be what is needed to focus an author's attention on what needs to be said. So now we have the author's attention, finally. I see that User:Nick Moyes is trying to discuss. Thank you to both of you. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:25, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi all! As i have already mentioned in the past, i don't work for this company, i just tried to write an article because i found its games interesting. The thing is, that i have used every source that i have found online. The only reviews of the games are from customers in Amazon, which i suppose it's not a reliable source, that's why i deleted it. There are no reviews from gaming sites, magazines and things like that, ipso facto i can't add independent sources! I mean, it's a fact, can't do something about this. What i did, was to focus more in things that have independent sources, which i added, like the smart speaker technology which Wanderword's games are using. In conclusion, i believe that i have used independent sources, like research articles about the rise of audio entertainment, and where i haven't, it's because they do not exist. If you decide to publish my article and independent sources appear, i will be here to add them, because i believe in the continuous improvement of a Wikipedia article. I feel like i just had a court trial. :P DimZoum (talk) 06:45, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, DimZoum, you feel the processes we have here are too rigorous. (Some people feel the reverse) But I think you've put your finger on it: there aren't any good enough or independent enough reviews of this company to merit an article here, so there's no point continuing trying as you'd simply be wasting your own time and that of our volunteers. When and if better sources appear, that would be the time to try again, but not until then, I'm afraid. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:18, 2 November 2020 (UTC)  

I know Nick Moyes, but i had to try. If it's possible, then, don't delete my draft please, in case better sources appear in the future. I will keep an eye on it and inform someone of you if something changes! Thanks again and may the force be with you! DimZoum (talk) 10:37, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

User:DimZoum - Your draft has not been nominated for deletion and will not be deleted for six months. If you edit the draft every three or four months, it can be kept as long as it does not have a six-month period of inactivity. However, it is not suitable for submission without independent sources, and has been rejected. (If you resubmit it, then it is likely to be nominated for deletion.) Robert McClenon (talk) 09:39, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

HELP with edits

I am trying to get edit updates but every time i try a certain edior seems to keep making things harder for me. I am new at this and have a conflict of interest and need edits bio added and citations i have sources can anyone please hilp i have met the wikipidia guidlines as payed editor i am only requesting help for edits on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicole_Couch see talk page I think i an requesting correctly there was nio maintenance box and as i try to request updates i get one as soon as i comply then he adds different boxes. can someone please help me i am trying to do in good faith and by wikipedia guidelines i am new at this and due to conflict of interest i can only request now this editor is saying the article will be deleted if not sourced please help Philip H Taylor (talk) 20:28, 1 November 2020 (UTC) Philip H Taylor (talk) 20:28, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

You have now put your Paid relationship to Nicole Couch (and others) on your User page. David notMD (talk) 20:53, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes I was instructed to add to my talk page to meet wikipedia guidlines and have requested edits on the artists talk page as instructed to Philip H Taylor (talk) 20:55, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Then you have done the correct thing (versus doing any direct edits to the article (which is why those were reversed)). The next step in the process is for a not-connected editor to look at your proposed changes and either implement, or not. Nothing for you to do but wait. David notMD (talk) 20:59, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. some sources are in forign language and it wont let me share the translated link. this article i did not create it is years old. I was only needing it updated they will not delete the article? Philip H Taylor (talk) 21:06, 1 November 2020 (UTC) David notMD (talk) they deleted the article Philip H Taylor (talk) 05:50, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

The article has not been nominated for deletion. If that happens (unlikely), a new tag will be added to the article, directing interested parties to the deletion nomination. If you add the article to your Watch list you will see the article as having a new edit from the last time you logged in. David notMD (talk) 22:04, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

@Philip H Taylor: I'm sorry to be blunt with you. But if you are being paid to edit Wikipedia on someone's behalf, you need to already have become competent in editing and understanding how Wikipedia works. We are not here to help you earn money -unlike you, we are all volunteers. So, if, as you say, you "are new to this", I would politely suggest you go away and learn how we work before seeking help and support from this forum. A good start for you would be WP:TWA and WP:YFA. I have redirected the page to Phantom Blue. Kind regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:41, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Nick Moyes (talk) i am not and have never been paid to do edits I was doing as a favor the page was created years ago I was told to add paid edits as I am her manager I DO NOT GET PAID please un delete her article Philip H Taylor (talk) 05:50, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

By your words, you are her manager. Thus, you editing her article can be considered you editing as part of your job, meaning you must still disclose. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 06:19, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

ALL we wanted originally was her pic added. no worries delete my account I have screen shot EVERYTHING and ALL comments I will be turning this matter over to my lawfirm. See wikipedia in vcourt if this article is not un deleted. we will also have our Law firm go through every artist and label and have the courts have wikipedia speedy delete ebery article that is not up to your so call standard see you in court now delete or /and block this user account as I have copied and printed everything for our lawyers. I do not care if we lose I will drag this out until your broke. Good day idiot Philip H Taylor (talk) 06:34, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Please read WP:NLT. I suggest that you immediately retract that legal threat before you are blocked. Meters (talk) 07:02, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Blocked by CaptainEek per ANI report. JavaHurricane 07:20, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

That did not go well. David notMD (talk) 11:27, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

It's funny how people claiming to have teams of lawyers on call and so on are usually illiterate. EEng 11:54, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Uncalled for, and you should retract. David notMD (talk) 12:28, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I retract.

You're right. I should have said semiliterates. EEng 17:32, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Any good-faith editor has the privilege of going through our six million articles and requesting that any of them that do not satisfy our policies and guidelines be deleted. An editor who makes legal threats is not an editor in good standing while they are blocked. Also, our policies and guidelines provide criteria for when when articles should be deleted, and our policies and guidelines also provide procedures for trying to work with editors who do not agree with us about what needs to be deleted. One of the responsibilities of a New Page reviewer is to decide what should be considered for deletion how,and I recall occasional discussions at WP:ANI about deletion. But this editor is not in good standing. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:11, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Deleted addition to a page

Hello! I'm new to editing Wiki and this is my first time here. I edited a page today and the edit was deleted. It was factual and sourced so I am trying to understand what was the problem. Thanks EBinSanDiego (talk) 23:23, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

EBinSanDiego Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Your edit to Sean Connery was reverted with the edit summary "This is covered in article already, doesn't need a tweet generetated article to reiterate it". If you feel your edit merits inclusion, please start a discussion on the article talk page. 331dot (talk) 23:33, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

That's merely the most recent attemp to add the material. -- Hoary (talk) 23:37, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm aware of that, but I just wanted to address the question in front of me. Not that you shouldn't expand on that, just explaining my reasoning. 331dot (talk) 23:42, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

If you are referring to your multiple attempts to add something to the article Sean Connery, note that the deletion of the first of your attempts had the edit summary "Reverted good faith edits by EBinSanDiego (talk): Please gain WP:Consensus on the talkpage." Therefore please go to Talk:Sean Connery, and there explain why you want to add the material. When there's a general agreement that it would benefit the article, add it to the article, but not before. -- Hoary (talk) 23:37, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Question on Lon Satton Wikipedia Page

Hi, I have noticed that Lon Satton Wikipedia page says he is dead despite no articles on it or references. Wondering if this should be changed? 007sduty (talk) 01:18, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi 007sduty. Lon Satton is very poorly sourced making it hard to verify any of the article content at all, not just his death. I quick Google search doesn't come up with anything recent showing that Satton and the edit was stating he had was made about a week ago by an a new account with no previous history of editing Wikipedia. So, it might have just been a friend or family member trying to "update" the article based upon what they know. Anyway, Wikipedia is going to need a reliable source cited to support such a claim; so, I've reverted the change. As I said, though, that article is really poorly sourced per WP:BLPSOURCES. Unless proper sourcing can be found, it's quite possible that not only other content might end up being removed, but that the article might end up being nominated for deletion by someone. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:37, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

how do I join a patrol?

I would like to join recent changes patrol, but do not know how. is it something formal, or can I just revert vandalism on recent changes to qualify? Firestar9990 (talk) 05:53, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Firestar9990, hello and welcome to the Teahouse! to no formal procedure is required. However, you can add the userbox {{User wikipedia/RC Patrol}} to show that you are a part of the patrol. I also recommend visiting WP:CVUA! Happy editing! Mr. Heart ^(talk) 06:00, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism

How can contriutions be considered vandalism when content and style already found in other articles of the series is what is being done?104.35.248.128 (talk) 07:07, 2 November 2020 (UTC) 104.35.248.128 (talk) 07:07, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

@104.35.248.128: See WP:OSE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firestar464 (talk • contribs)

If I am to believe what is it that I am supose to get from this reference comparisons are made between two things not even related. A string of artices on the same thing ie an annual football competition is the same thing. I am not talking about chocolate syrup and strawberry jam. When I brpught up thre issue of how is a national name to appear in national football teams link nouns were bein changed in order to fit English grammar when if that string of words is a title you dont changr titiles.Until I went through theis series npt every article had its edition included. So your reasoning that it then becomes the responsibiliyy of the rteader to go hunting for it when in some artivles of the same string dont have it? Why bother putting in the link to go to the next season or the table pof all seasons at the bottom that people may never see. If something is not an instituiton from an English language nation then it is rather a good idea that the original language name and a translation be included so that someone can know what is the fact instead of the way the writer presents it in their mind set. The intro to each article is a summary of that article.What should sports series articles have in it so that if more detail is needed all they have to do is look further but fundamentally it should be the original title and any translations or variables. And who won in the final and any significant achievement during that competition. Thats vandalism?104.35.248.128 (talk) 09:52, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi 104.35.248.128, the word "vandalism" has a specific meaning on Wikipedia, and what you are describing here would not be defined as such. However, it looks like the edits you were being warned about on your user talk page were several instances of this, which is in fact indistinguishable from vandalism. Quite possibly you did not realise when you saved your edit that you were removing most of the introduction and the entire first section of the article – but that's what was happening, and since you made that same edit five times without reacting to any of the notices posted to your user talk page, it is hard to blame the other editors who restored the content when they started warning you for vandalism.

In addition to this, please note that it is never appropriate to edit war over article content – when you make an edit that is reverted, especially when it is reverted a couple of times, you need to stop restoring your edit and use the article talk page to discuss the issue with other editors. See this information. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 15:59, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Is a list of most-subscribed Twitch channels a good article?

It’s likely a better metric of how popular a streamer actually is than followers are 118.149.78.255 (talk) 07:09, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

There are relatively few good articles on Wikipedia. Like most of them, List of most-followed Twitch channels is in the process of development, and you are welcome to voice your opinion on that article talk page with constructive suggestions for its improvement.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:24, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia screenshot licensing

Teahouse mobile header in mobile view

What is the correct licensing for an screenshot of Wikipedia with a few lines added in for clarification? Asartea ^{Trick | Treat} 09:15, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello Asartea. The globe logo at the top of every page is non-free, and some pages contain other non-free content. A screenshot which does not include the logo or any other non-free content would be CC BY-SA 3.0. —teb728 t c 10:46, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

@Asartea: My approach, whenever I'm unsure, is to follow an example of a similar type of image and copy in their licencing, if it looks appropriate! For this mobile phone screenshot that I took of the Teahouse header, I used {{Wikipedia-screenshot|1=|logo=en|lang=English}} and {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}}. If you click the image then click 'edit source' you can see the licencing text for yourself. Nick Moyes (talk) 17:16, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Article assistance

Hi, it's my first time here on the teahouse.

I have recently had a terrible first experience in Wikipedia, due to all the drama generated while trying to edit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartley_Jackson . One user continuously reverted my edits, making little to no effort to improve rather than revert, almost in a way that fits what is written at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Overzealous_deletion .

Thankfully, another user eventually joined and tried to help, which is why I am giving it another try.

I wanted to begin the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slex_(wrestler) , which is the only wrestler in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mighty_Don%27t_Kneel that does not have his own article.

But I wanted someone to assist me, or at least watch the writing process, just so that said user does not keep reverting without telling what's wrong. Actually, they often did tell what is wrong, but it just did not seem compatible with many articles around here. That is, they seem to require standards much higher than what the community in general expects.

The same user has moved a draft back and forth here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Pro_Wrestling_Australia&action=history which also discourages me to even begin. I don't want to say they are wrong in their judgement, but I do want someone to offer third opinions.

Do you guys think this is possible? If not, are there any other options? Thank you very much. Jammo85 (talk) 09:45, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

You are dealing with several issues. Fundamentally WP is not a collection of artivles just because someone does not have an artivle. The person has to be notible in their field with enough published commentary about them from the credible sources that have been recommended and that would not include self publish works--not that this is an issue with your work but just to give you an example.

Some editors are finger happy that once they reach a decision every attempt will be made for it to be followed. Bringing it to the teahouse is a way to get greater review of the attempt and possiboe support to see it through if it fits that is WP all about. Some people will say the teahouse is not thre appropriate plave for that to take place but you also seek assistance to get this done. Is their anyone that is constantly editing articles in the field that ypour article would be categprized. Send them a message on their talk page to ask. Hope this works if that is what should be done.104.35.248.128 (talk) 10:00, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

To change in Wikipedia content

 Ramprakash Diwedi (talk) 09:47, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Ramprakash Diwedi. Do you have a question about editing Wikipedia? —teb728 t c 10:24, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Ramprakash Diwedi. Many of your edits have been reverted because you didn't provide sources: see WP:V. Wikipedia is not interested in what you know (or what I know, or what any random person on the internet knows) because a reader has no easy way to determine whether it is correct. We require [WP:RS|published sources]]. --ColinFine (talk) 16:21, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Need help moving pics to Wikimedia Commons

Hello, I need help moving two pics to Wikimedia Commons. Please help me.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_Urban_Legend_Anti-Bully_Cover.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_Urban_Legend_(comics).png Ajaguaronthehunt (talk) 09:51, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Ajaguaronthehunt and welcome to the teahouse. The instructions for doing the move are at WP:Moving files to Commons. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:47, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I need help to know if I can create a page.

Hello everyone,

Is it possible to create pages on Wikipedia for Medical Centers, Rehab Centers, etc.

For example: https://www.google.com/search?q=Sanctuary+Lodge+Essex&oq=Sanctuary+Lodge+Essex&aqs=chrome..69i57&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Please guide me. Foolishfood (talk) 12:13, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Foolishfood. The topic in general is covered at Drug rehabilitation (which is rather US-focused and could be improved by the addition of material on other countries). Whether individual centres qualify for articles would depend on whether there is significant coverage of them in reliable, independent sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:23, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Foolishfood (edit conflict) Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If a medical center receives significant coverage in independent reliable sources that have chosen on their own to write about it, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization, an article about it can be written.

Be advised that successfully writing a new article is the absolute hardest task to perform on Wikipedia. It takes much time and practice, and most people fail in their first attempts when they choose to dive right in upon creating an account. New users greatly increase their chances of success when they first edit existing articles in areas that interest them, to get a feel for how Wikipedia operates and what is expected of article content. It's also a good idea to use the new user tutorial to learn more about Wikipedia before editing.

If you still wish to attempt to write an article at this time, you should first read Your First Article, then go to Articles for Creation to create and submit a draft for review by another editor before it is formally placed in the encyclopedia, so you find out any problems first. 331dot (talk) 12:26, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Microsoft "Top Guns of Imaging" event article

Hi, Is Microsoft considered a reliable source? It has been over twenty five years since Microsoft's "Top Guns of Imaging" event which lead to the development of 95/98/2000/XP. Microsoft removed the "Imaging" from XP but kept the information management technologies from "Top Guns of Imaging" integrated into their XP operating system. ( yes I am aware that integration of application software into their operating system software was once-upon-a-time considered an anti-trust violation but not very many actually living witnesses left. ) So, why not ask Microsoft to make 'their' "Top Guns of Imaging" wikipedia article for wikipedians to offer non-Microsoft input of facts? I do not have the means to ask microsoft any questions but maybe some wikipedians have insider connections into Microsoft. I will help with details as I am able. Mawcowboybillsbrick7 (talk) 13:28, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Someone who understands Microsoft can answer your question fully (I'm a Nintendo fanboy myself). But to answer your first question: Yes, Microsoft is a reliable source. It's considered a primary source; a citation that's directly involved with what the article is about. While primary sources can be used (such as a game manual, official websites, etc.), Wikipedia strives for the majority of sources to be secondary; unrelated to the article, but are about the topic (eg. news sites and journalists.) So, Microsoft can be used as a source, but needs additional citation from secondary sources for notability. Le Panini (^{Talk to}_me?) 13:40, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia's articles are created from reliable, independent, published sources. An article on a Microsoft product cannot be constructed from material supplied on demand by Microsoft (or by the FSF, or Apple, or any other organization or person). -- Hoary (talk) 13:44, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, As a direct Microsoft crime victim, I can not consider myself to be a reliable source; wikipedians ( or Microsoft attorneys, ha ha) will need to create the Microsft "Top Guns of Imaging" page, however, I certainly can help point out facts. I worked with AmeriData Advance Technologies group and I was "DIRECTLY" involved in the "IMAGING" scam but not voluntarily, of course. Mawcowboybillsbrick7 (talk) 14:06, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

My story might focus upon how MyCoreSoft used DoD to conceal a massive information technologies integration in MyCoreSoft Windows. ( I was the unfortunate document management technology contact with DoD at "Top Guns of Imaging" ) Mawcowboybillsbrick7 (talk) 14:19, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

@Mawcowboybillsbrick7: Wikipedia can't be used as a way to tell a story, and Wikipedia articles can't be based on what an individual editor knows – see also the responses you were given last year. Never having heard of "Top Guns of Imaging" before, I have no idea whether it is a product, a slogan, or something else. Do you have any reliable secondary sources that could indicate that it is a notable thing according to Wikipedia's definition of notability? --bonadea contributions talk 14:29, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Of course, just the facts. "Top Guns of Imaging" --> 'IMAGING' tool not integrated but document management features like document/object properties. Mawcowboybillsbrick7 (talk) 14:39, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't interested in any facts that you (or I, or Bonadea, or anyone) happen(s) to know either from personal experience or from email, etc, from unimpeachably reliable acquaintances in the know. If you'd like to use your own knowledge to educate the world about some Microsoft venture, please do so on some other website, perhaps your own blog. -- Hoary (talk) 23:24, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I know how you feel, the work wikipedians must endure is all too frequently omitted from WikiPedia's history. "the truth is a summation of all experience and experience is ever changing" I once read (somewhere) on wikipedia that the Roman (anarchy?) required at least 100 (or 110) years be waited before "The Truth" was printed. Mawcowboybillsbrick7 (talk) 13:02, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Just a further thought, Microsoft may not delete (by attorney) a "Top Guns of Imaging" article if wikipedians referred to the event as a 'technologies' show. Maybe just a matter of perspective, but they may insist 'all about imaging' whereas I observed 'information management' (regardless of data type) Mawcowboybillsbrick7 (talk) 13:18, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

As I have indicated, I am here to help with Microsoft's "Top Guns of Imaging" show/event which, in the timeline, leads, historically, to some serious cash flow for Microsoft. For starters, maybe, simply mention the event as the origin of product which lead to the inclusion of an "Imaging" tool with 95/98/2000, (95 imaging tool was from Wang, 98/2000 imaging tool was from Kodak, XP explicitly deleted the imaging tool from the users computer ) regards, maw Mawcowboybillsbrick7 (talk) 13:39, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Guess what? I need advice!

I am working in the Sandbox on an article I wrote and I don't want to publish it yet but I want to save my work...how do I do that? I thought perhaps "publish work" just saved the changes but it wants to warn me that I no longer own the article. Off to look at all my notes but would love a quick response if someone can save me the anxiety of a computer crash (or the like) before I get my work saved... HolSegel (talk) 15:09, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

HolSegel, hello, and welcome to the Teahouse! Looking at your contribs, which article are you using as a sandbox? You should use your own sandbox at User:HolSegel/sandbox. Mr. Heart ^(talk) 15:13, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I am using my own Sandbox to create my article. Are my changes auto-saved until I publish? I am afraid to close that tab until I know it won't be lost. Otherwise, how to I save it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HolSegel (talk • contribs) 15:22, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

No, changes are not auto-saved, you must publish it. As for the notification, I have no idea why it is showing it. It is yours to do with as you please as long as it is not promotional. Publish it and it will be saved for you to use at a later date. Mr. Heart ^(talk) 15:25, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

@HolSegel: there is no way to save any edits to any Wikipedia page (in a sandbox, or a talk page, or an article) other than by clicking "Publish". It is indeed the case that you don't own anything you write anywhere on Wikipedia, and I think that's why they changed the text on the button (which used to be labelled "Save"). You could perhaps save your text including wiki formatting in a plain text document on your computer if you are worried about losing it, and don't want to save it to Wikipedia just yet. But text in your sandbox doesn't have to be article quality material, and as long as you don't publish any copyright violations or other content that would violate Wikipedia policies, don't worry about the "publish" text. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 15:32, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

The new edit you currently are making will be there as long as the tab is open. So, if you have a computer that keeps tabs open even after closing it shut, it will still be there. Only when you close the tab directly you will lose your progress. It should give you a warning, however. Le Panini (^{Talk to}_me?) 15:52, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I think that the warning message is just to remind you that anything you save, whether in your sandbox or elsewhere, is immediately available to others under a CC BY-SA 3.0 license. It may be "your" sandbox but anyone can read it and, potentially copy your part-work somewhere else outside of your control, even when it has not yet been accepted as a WP article. If this worries you, then the solution is to preview your draft but never publish/save it. You can copy the text out of the edit window into a text editor on your PC to store it until you are ready to work on it further. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:03, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Michael D. Turnbull, I meant as in not the warning message at the top, but the pop-up that says "Leave site? Changes you made may not be saved." Le Panini (^{Talk to}_me?) 17:16, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you to everyone who answered my question. I think I have a better understanding now! — Preceding unsigned comment added by HolSegel (talk • contribs) 13:56, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Question (article creation)

please how do i create an article Habeeb Bello648 (talk) 17:02, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

To create an article in a simple way, its best to follow along using the Article Wizard template. It will guide you through the steps and procedures. Le Panini (^{Talk to}_me?) 17:15, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello again, Habeeb Bello648. From the questions you have asked up to now, I strongly advise that you don't try the difficult task of creating an article until you've gained a lot more experience in improving existing articles. If you try, you are likely to have a very frustrating and dispiriting time. Have you taken The Wikipedia Adventure? --ColinFine (talk) 18:24, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

YouTuber

I need help from making an article about a YouTuber. Starkiryu64 (talk) 17:17, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

To create an article in a simple way, its best to follow along using the Article Wizard template. It will guide you through the steps and procedures. Le Panini (^{Talk to}_me?) 17:15, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

But, Starkiryu64, I urge you to start by studying WP:NYOUTUBE very carefully. Unless you are certain that the person meets the requriements of notability there, you will likely be wasting your time, (and that of other editors who interact with you). But I also urge you (as I do all new editors who want to create an article) to spend a few weeks or months learning how to improve some of our six million existing articles before trying the difficult task of creating a new article. I understand the wish to leave one's mark by creating a new article - I remember being desperate to do so myself, when I started; but you have made fifteen edits before this question, of which I think more than half have been reverted. There is nothing dishonourable about this - there is a lot to learn in editing Wikipedia - but it suggests to me that you are not ready to create a new article. I suggest you play WP:the Wikipedia Adventure, and go on from there. --ColinFine (talk) 19:46, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Draft images

Is there a rule against uploading images to drafts? I want to add a promotional poster to Draft:North of Albany, since one is available here, but I want to make sure that there isn't a rule against doing so. Horacio Vara (talk) 17:20, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Fair-use images can't be used in drafts. Images do not help a draft get accepted, either, so the value of an image in a draft is questionable at best. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 17:23, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

To get an image approved for use in Wikipedia is usually not an easy matter. If there's any way you can find an image that's already in Wikipedia to use for your article, that would be far better and simpler. Wikipedia has to be very careful not to violate any copyrights with its images, and if you're just learning how to write articles, probably best to stick with that, than also having to learn all about Wikipedia image copyrights et cetera et cetera.Occasional-tourist (talk) 17:40, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Where to offer help

Is there a place I can go to see things that need work/editing? Jackson1953 (talk) 17:43, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

You could try: Articles needing attention Occasional-tourist (talk) 17:50, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Jackson1953 - another good place for ideas is the 'Help' section at Wikipedia:Community portal. We also have various 'WikiProjects' which are topic-themed groups of editors working individually or collaboratively on articles. See Wikipedia:List of WikiProjects - most of these WikiProjects have a 'Quality Assessment' table, showing you all the related pages. It's arranged by importance and completeness, so it's easy to find high-importance pages which are really short stubs. Working on these pages lets you make the maximum impact for the least effort! Nick Moyes (talk) 19:17, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Publishing an article

how do I make my article public and edit old ?? can someone help me please Sarimgilani (talk) 17:54, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I recomend you read this Help:Your first article, but also consider that it's very hard to write a new article. You might be better off learning to edit first. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:37, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

You have submitted the draft Draft:Ali bin Sufyan. A review could take place any time from days to several months. David notMD (talk) 19:17, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

New topics

How can I start a new topic in Wikipedia ? Shankh acknowledgements (talk) 18:01, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

@Shankh acknowledgements: On a talk page, simply click the tab labelled 'Add Topic', add a few short subject keywords, then type your question or comment. If by 'topic' you mean "how do I start a new article?", please read this guidance page. Be aware that creating a new page on a a new 'Notable' topic is one of the hardest task to perform here. Your only other edit (in which you deleted a huge chunk of previous Teahouse discussions) tells me you have a lot still to learn before you think about new article creation. You might also benefit from taking our interactive tour at The Wikipedia Adventure. Regards Nick Moyes (talk) 19:01, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi

Is there a way for me to delete my account, and all of my comments along with it? Thanks in advance. Rodrigo Valequez^(🗣) 18:02, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

@Rodrigo Valequez: Accounts can't be deleted, I'm afraid. If you intend to leave Wikipedia for good, you can request a courtesy vanishing – you can read more on that page about what that means. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 18:21, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Pushpin map pointing to mouth of the wrong river of the same name

There are two White Rivers in Utah. I just created https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_River_(Price_River_tributary) but the pushpin map places the pin at the mouth of the wrong White River. It should be at the confluence with the Price River in Colton, Utah. Any advice on how to fix appreciated.Schmiebel(talk]) 10:17, 2 November 2020 (PST)

Hi Schmiebel. Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding, but I think you just need to replace the coordinates in the 'mouth_coordinates' parameter to the correct location. Zindor (talk) 19:08, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

@Schmiebel: In case you weren't aware, you can easily use Google maps to find the relevant lat/long coordinates to insert into mouth or source coordinates. Nick Moyes (talk) 19:32, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks both, after quadruple checking, I had the mouth coordinate longitude off by 1 (110 and should have been 111). Case solved.Schmiebel (talk) 21:57, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

What's hotter than blue, purple and magenta?

 Ultaorb (talk) 19:38, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

That is a question for you to find out using Google or the WP:REFDESK. This is a forum purely to assist editors with the process of editing. Sorry. Nick Moyes (talk) 19:40, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Posting a graphic in an article.

Hi,

I would like to post "Figure 2" (from this site https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cl2.1067) to the WP Phonics article. This is an "open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License".

Thank you very much.

John John NH (talk) 20:08, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Jnhmunro. It does indeed seem to be licensed suitably, so you can upload it to Commons (use the Upload Wizard), and insert it into an article from there. --ColinFine (talk) 21:04, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you.

I really don't know what to do here

Hello,

A few months back I was pressing Random Article to see where it would take me, and I got to this page. There's a huge section called controversy, which is filled with poorly sourced, non-notable info. I reverted them three times over the course of two weeks, and then stopped, as I stopped editing and checking my watchlist. I've dropped messages on their talk page, but they still reverted my edit. Today, I was looking through my old edits, and saw this and remembered it. I don't really know what to do here, if the section should be deleted, or if it should stay, as I don't think kids bullying each other should remain in a Wikipedia article. Can someone help me? Thanks, Thanoscar21_{talk, contribs} 21:20, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

As I see it, you removed referenced content and an editor restored. This went back and forth several time. Neither of you took it to the article's Talk page. Unfortunately, the other editor User:Mrbubz has not edited since last July, and the article has few viewers and no mention of Watchers, so unlikely that going to Talk would resolve anything. My advice is forget it and instead continue with articles that interest you. David notMD (talk) 22:19, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

@Thanoscar21: I also took a quick look and there is indeed far too much minor detail in the additions that Mrbubz added and over which the two of you were getting close to edit warring back in June or July. I'm glad you stopped. Trivial stories - good or bad- in a local newspaper are not relevant to a school article unless they reach national storyline levels. Even then, there would still be a very good case for WP:UNDUE in these edits. They are far too long and detailed for an encyclopaedia and suggests POV editing - and that account has only edited on that topic. I'm not willing to wade through to fix the sectoin,. so have removed them all as WP:UNDUE, and left a note on the article talk page which allows editors toreach a consensus and reinsert only relevant, well-cited, nationally or regionally significant stories that help create a balanced article. You might wish to add the article back into your WATCHLIST. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:38, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Why am I being listed as spam!?

Why is my post considered spam when I am only adding information? I am a horror host yet....how does one even get added on wiki? I am not selling anything on here, I only wanted our work noted/added to the list of horror hosts because we ARE horror hosts, published ones too. How did all the other horror hosts get on Wiki? TheMummyAndTheMonkey (talk) 21:30, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

@TheMummyAndTheMonkey: Wikipedia is a serious encyclopaedia of Notable Things. It is not a place for you to get free advertising for your business. Adding your website link is exactly that - spam. Do not do it again, please. I am about to softblock your username as being promotional. You may choose another, less promotional username and edit other articles responsibly, but you may not spam our pages with your urls. Similarly, your userpage content has also been deleted for the same reason. Thank you. Nick Moyes (talk)

What the message on your Talk page means is that the listed hosts at Horror host are listed because there are existing Wikipedia articles about them (hence appearing in blue). For you to be listed, article first, THEN addition to a list. This applies across Wikipedia articles. For example, many articles about U.S. towns list notable people. These lists are restricted to people who are the subject of existing articles. David notMD (talk) 22:28, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

kaya toast - disambiguation template

Hi! I'm a student working on the Wikipedia article kaya toast (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaya_toast). A bot placed a disambiguation template in my article, it says that it will automatically remove it after the links are fixed. I fixed the links that went to disambiguate pages but the template is still there. Can anyone help me fix this problem? I also need to get my stub article reclassified if that's possible. Would be great if someone could show me how to ask for that. Thanks in advance. Pinklily08 (talk) 23:52, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Pinklily08, I checked with this tool, and the page does not seem to have any remaining disambiguation links, so the tag should be removed automatically within a few days. You can also remove it manually if you want by just deleting the wikicode for it. If it's not removed, the bot might be malfunctioning, which you could report to its talk page.

Regarding assessment, that page is well beyond a stub (kudos to you!). I've reclassified it as C-class by editing the banners on its talk page. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:46, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

There is a link that leads to a wikibook search result here by clicking on the next to last link in the infobox that says "Cookbook: Kaya Toast", but I am unable to find how it links to it in the source code. I wonder if that's it.Coryphantha Talk 01:03, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

I removed 19 uses of one ref because it was to a 2008 Master's thesis. Wikipedia requires that references be PUBLISHED works that a person could realistically find to check for accuracy of use of the document as a reference. A college thesis does not qualify as a reliable source. Other sources should be sought as replacements. David notMD (talk) 01:37, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Article seems to have problems

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Underground_Railroad

The creator of the org, "Tim Ballard" has an about tim ballard section on Operation_Underground_Railroad. Which i've never seen before on wiki. Clicking the wiki page about "Timothy Ballard" leads to a heading saying "This article may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments". Vox Vox_(website) has a video talking about qanon and a supporter of "Operation_Underground_Railroad" was mentioned as a qanon believer. Overall, i find the article suspicious and suspect "This article may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments" may apply to Operation_Underground_Railroad.

How should i proceed? --Annemaricole (talk) 00:09, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

References appear in Notes section upon using "Cite" Tool

I am currently improving the stub Commercial Radio Australia for a Wikipedia Education class. My tutor is Carrolquadrio. Upon inserting my references using the "cite" tool in visual editor, my references are appearing (and being formatted) as footnotes in the "Notes", rather than "References" (please see attached screenshot). I am unsure whether this is to do with the parameters that have already been set in the Wikipedia page, or if something else is happening. I have switched to source editor to try to address this, however, upon doing so, all of my references disappear. I have also tried to rename the section headings, however, the 'Notes' and 'References' sections are formatted completely differently. I would like for my references to appear in the "References" section, and footnotes to appear in the "Notes" section - could someone help me with this?

Also, I am wondering how to insert short citations as footnotes and insert a Wikilink to the full reference?

Thanks

 SM9237 (talk) 01:16, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi SM9237. First of all, it wasn't really necessary for you to upload a screenshot of this. Simply providing a link to article would've been sufficient for a Teahouse Host to see what your referring to. Anyway, the reason the references you've added to the article are appearing in the "Commercial Radio Australia#Notes" section is because that's way whomever worked on the article prior to you set things up to work.

Most articles are typically formatted so that the inline citations of an article are displayed in a single "References" section. Some articles, however, have been formatted with two "References" sections in mind: one for inline citations and one for more general references. In some cases, an article may be using a type of citation style explained in WP:CITESHORT in which the source cited is added to a "References" section and then the inline citations for that source are added to a "Notes" or "Footnotes" section. This appears to be how this article was originally set up. If you click on a inline footnote marker such as footnote #2 it will take you the location location where the footnote is displayed in the "Notes" section, then if you click on that footnote, it will take to the location where the full source is given in the "References" section. This a bit of a complicated way of citing sources, but it's perfectly OK per WP:CITESTYLE. What's happening is that the cite tool is trying to add citations to the article in a more general way and thus the software is treating them as footnotes instead of references because that's what it was set up to do.

Wikipedia doesn't have one preferred type of citation style and generally (unless there's a real good reason for changing styles) editors are expected to defer to the original style used in the article per WP:CITEVAR. Mixing different citation styles is not really a good thing, so either you should try and format your citations following the style that was being used or see if you can establish a consensus for changing the style through discussion on the article's talk page. The cite tool is probably just set up to add citations in the most basic way and in this case you may need to add them manually without using the tool. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:43, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Multiple Occupations

I was looking into making an article for the musician "Silver Jackson", however, I found out that his real name is Nicholas Galanin and he already has a Wikipedia page. His article doesn't mention his music at all though. I was mostly curious what to do about the infobox. For instance, right now it's a template for an artist not a musician and there are no preset options for things like genres, instruments, etc. Can I just manually add those?

It also feels like I'm changing the subject of the article, but I think I might just feel squeamish about making major edits to a page I didn't start, which is something I haven't really done yet. TipsyElephant (talk) 01:52, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

The article starts: "Nicholas Galanin (pronounced gah-LANN-in) is a Tlingit/Unangax̂ multi-disciplinary artist and musician from Alaska", so it is mentioned. And if you search for pages including both "Nicholas Galanin" and "Silver Jackson", you'll see that the coreference of the two is no secret. So if I were you I'd go ahead and use solid sources to write more about his music. OTOH I'm not you, I generally dislike biographical infoboxes, and while I'll concede that they're useful for easily classifiable people (footballers, Playboy "playmates", national presidents, etc), they don't seem to be so here. So I'd be inclined to delete the infobox, of course after checking that any properly sourced, nontrivial material within it also appears in the main text. -- Hoary (talk) 06:14, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Draft article on Sandbox is missing

Hi, I have been using my Sandbox to prepare an article on 'Mina Dastgheib'. I am sure I did save the last changes on 2 November, but now the whole page is gone. Can you please assist me in recovering it? It took quite a while for me to write it. Thanks, Freshclover (talk) 02:35, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

You were in draft:sandbox, which is periodically cleared. I suggest you use draftspace or your own userspace rather than public sandbox space to draft articles. Your version is here [1] Meters (talk) 03:06, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

I just answered this question on the Help Desk. Please don't post same question in multiple venues. RudolfRed (talk) 03:20, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Bio grammar

hi! are there any aspects in grammar that I should be cautious of when publishing a biography on wikipedia? like the use of active and passive sentences? 115.132.13.47 (talk) 02:56, 3 November 2020 (UTC)jacky

Not in particular. Write straightforwardly, read what you've written before you hit "Publish changes", and then keep an eye on what happens. If somebody comes along to change some grammatical point, and if you agree that the change is an improvement, then keep it in mind while editing further. (Incidentally, one of the things that probably shouldn't concern you is active vs passive; but if it happens to interest you, I recommend this.) -- Hoary (talk) 04:44, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Declined page

Helo, how can i improve the page that i added to W. that is declined due to "This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed." I wroted about the company and i would really like to be published on W. Thanks MalaFloramy (talk) 07:30, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

You should look at articles about similar companies already existing in Wikipedia and try to write in the similar style. Ruslik_Zero 08:42, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Or anyway, you should look at the better articles about similar companies. Unfortunately, many articles are more or less junk. After reading an article, ask yourself (i) whether you know a lot more about the company than you did before you read it, (ii) whether the article gives you good reason to believe what you've just read, and (iii) whether the (probably anonymous) authors seem (author seems) to want to make the company sound impressive. If your answers are (i) yes, (ii) yes, (iii) no, then you might take the article as a model; but if they're some other combination, move along. -- Hoary (talk) 09:43, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello, MalaFloramy, and welcome to the Teahouse. General advice: 1) forget everything you know about the company. 2) ignore everything said or published by the company or its employees or associates, including in interviews and press releases. Have you got enough left to make an article? (Hint: only the last two references might meet the criteria. The first is a wiki, which is not a reliable publication; the next three are not independent of Labo. The last two probably are (no 4. should be cited to the Sun, not to the news aggregator) but are about Akanbi, and say very little about Labo). If not, find reliably published sources, wholly independent of the company, which contain enough information about it to make an article, and write it from them. If you can't, then the company is probably not notable, and you will save yourself a lot of wasted effort if you give up.

I'm afraid there's a question I must ask: what is your connection with the Labo group? When a new editor comes to Wikikpedia and immediately starts on the extremely difficult task of creating an article about a company, and artist, or a band, it is very often the case that they have a conflict of interest - sometimes, that they are a paid editor - who is unaware of the restrictions on editing in those circumstances. If you have some connection, please read those links, and remember that a Wikipedia article does not belong to the subject of the article, is not for their benefit, and may end up something something about them that they don't like. --ColinFine (talk) 11:58, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Name shared

--> added header --Maresa63 (talk) 08:01, 3 November 2020 (UTC) I want to create a location-specific page, but the location-name is shared by other locations as well. Any help? Thanks in advance. Wisdomwiki 40 (talk) 07:34, 3 November 2020 (UTC) Wisdomwiki 40 (talk) 07:34, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Wisdomwiki 40, welcome to the Teahouse. The process by which we distinguish names is called disambiguation. If there are multiple similar titles, often a page exists listing them: we call this a disambiguation or 'dab' page. If one topic is primary then it should sit at the main title. For example, a city would likely be primary when compared to a small village. Without knowing the specifics of your case, it's hard to say exactly what you need to do. What's the name of the location? Regards, Zindor (talk) 08:21, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Zindor I created this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madaria_(disambiguation), but how to create the page for "Madaria, a village in the district Gorakhpur in the Indian State of Uttar Pradesh"Wisdomwiki 40 (talk) 11:31, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello Wisdomwiki 40, if you want to create a new article about the Indian village Madaria in Gorakhpur district, you could disambiguate it from the existing article Madaria simply by giving it a slightly different name, such as Madaria, Gorakhpur. And there's no need for a disambiguation page for this: we could simply add a note at the top of Madaria that reads "For the village in India, see Madaria, Gorakhpur." Captain Calm (talk) 11:33, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Captain Calm creating difference in the name is one way, but then what's the use of "disambiguation" concept in Wikipedia"Wisdomwiki 40 (talk) 11:37, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

There are many ways to disambiguate: a note at the top of a page is one way, but if there were three or more things called "Madaria", then a disambiguation page would be a good way to keep the top of the page from becoming cluttered. There's more information on this subject at Wikipedia:Disambiguation. Captain Calm (talk) 11:40, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Wisdomwiki 40. With certainty Captain Calm is correct: create your article at Madaria, Gorakhpur and place a hat-note at the top of Madaria. Wisdomwiki i should have been clearer in my initial post; I wasn't expecting you to take action so fast! Also, when creating dab pages in future, look to see if any topic is primary. In this case, neither were primary, so it would have been more appropriate to use the primary title as the dab page. Right now though, as we only have two articles, it's not needed.

You might be aware, but there's a handy search function for the India Census. Here's a link. Zindor (talk) 14:02, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Tags on atticles

There are tags that show what the article is judged of like if the article is like an advertisement or if it has bad spelling or needs more citations how do you improve your work to meet the standards and also who removes it. Alvin kipchumba (talk) 08:08, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Alvin kipchumba. You seem to be referring to templates called maintenance templates. You can find out more about removing them at Help:Maintenance template removal, but generally any editor can remove them if (1) they address the issue raised by the template themselves or (2) feel that the issues raised by the template have already been addressed by someone else (who might've just forgot or didn't know how to remove the template). These templates are meant to let editors know about possible problems with the articles they're added to and in most cases articles tagged with such templates are added to a special maintenance category page listing other articles with the same issue. So, if you find such an article and are able to fix the problem, feel free to remove the template. Just make sure you leave an edit summary explaining why. If the template you remove is re-added by another editor who believes the problem still isn't fixed, then try to use the article's talk page to discuss things with others and figure what to do.

Most maintenance templates contain a link to a relevant guideline or policy page which explains the problem raised by the template, but often the editor who adds the template will leave an edit summary explaining why. In some cases, the editor adding the template may also post a more detailed explanation on the article's talk page to further clarify their reasons for adding the template. Ideally, such templates should only be added when an editor really believes there's a problem that needs attention, but that they aren't able to quickly fix things themselves. However, there are some editors who WP:TAGBOMB articles; these editors might mean well, but it's not necessarily a productive approach. So, you may have to dig through a page's history a bit to find out who added the template and why they added it, and then assess whether the template is still needed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:35, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

ThanksAlvin kipchumba (talk) 08:39, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Invisible Comments Appear on Article

Hi, I am currently working on the stub [Radio Australia] as part of a Wikipedia education class. My tutor is Carrolquadrio. Upon viewing my article in visual editor mode, there are a number of invisible comments - I'm not exactly sure what these mean? Also, I would like to get rid of these - is there a way in which I can do this? SM9237 (talk) 10:22, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Commercial Radio Australia

Hi SM9237. It sounds like you might be talking about what are called Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Hidden text. Such comments are only visible to those editing the article and have usually been added to provide guidance to those wanting to edit the article. Is there some reason you want to remove them other than not knowing what they mean?

Is your class one being supported by the Wikipedia:Education program. If it is, then your class should've been assigned a WikiEd advisor and it should have a WikiEd project page. Your WikiEd advisor and your tutor Carrolquadrio are probably not the same person; think of the former as sort of your Wikipedia tutor and the latter as your real world tutor. So, if your tutor hasn't been in contact with anyone at WikiEd, then you might suggest to them that they should. WikiEd can offer lots of guidance to teachers/tutors trying to use Wikipedia as part of a class project. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:50, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Marchjuly The unit is supported by WikiEd. Students are asked to use the Teahouse, as well as tutors, when editing. This particular article was different in appearance to what we have covered and hence the question, which I think SM9237 was really asking about what to do more broadly with what appeared, as we don't teach to simply remove items. I am happy to take on the queries from here if this is more appropriate, thanks for your time.--Carrolquadrio (talk) 11:48, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

I assume this is about Commercial Radio Australia. Its source includes html comments, enclosed in <!-- --> tags. Some of these provide guidance for those working on the article, and one is apparently material which was removed, "commented off", from the article but may still be found useful in some way. You should not delete them without providing a reason why they're no longer relevant. Maproom (talk) 11:51, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

By the way, SM9237 when you want to ping Carrolquadrio, use curly braces rather than straight braces. {{ping|Carrolquadrio}} not [[ping|Carrolquadrio]]. Use straight braces for links. —teb728 t c 12:03, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Pat Schroeder

The data on Pat Schroeder is incomplete. She was personally responsible for helping lieutenant Paula Coflin infiltrate Tailhook 91 in Las Vegas. She allowed a member of the military to lobby a congressional representative. This plot to increase women in Naval Aviation cost many excellent Naval Officers their careers. George Bush and others caved to pressure from women and allowed this witch hunt to escalate. Will Wikipedia include additional research on how a sitting congresswoman plotted to weaken the finest group of war fight men since Vietnam? This movement by Schroeder could be attributed to the movie "Top Gun". Top Gun did not include female aviators. Thank you for your time. Captain Yancey 69.4.204.238 (talk) 10:32, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Any comment you have about an article's content should go on the article's associated talk page. 331dot (talk) 10:36, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Article is Pat Schroeder. New content will require references. David notMD (talk) 13:16, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Odd coincidence (?): A 1997 episode of the TV show JAG titled "Crossing the Line" centers around a woman navy aviator who is grounded for not being competent (she counter-sues for sexual harassment/discrimination). A congresswoman visits the ship to pressure restoring the pilot's flying certification. It ends badly. David notMD (talk) 13:44, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Negatives things people have done is not allowed.

Why is only positive stuff someone has done allowed to be posted? Negative things that are factual should be recorded too. Wikipedia isn't here to promote people, they have their own websites for that. 203.129.63.27 (talk) 11:30, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state, whether it is "positive" or "negative". If reliable sources only write "positive" things, then that's what the article says. Wikipedia has a strict policy about how living people are written about, and all statements in an article about a person must be well sourced. Wikipedia does not deal in truth, but in what can be verified. I get the sense that you have viewed a particular article that you find problematic; if you have well sourced suggestions for changes, please make them on the article talk page. 331dot (talk) 11:34, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

@331dot: Suppose it's about the article Aidan O'Brien and specifically this edit: Special:Diff/986853296 by OP, which got reverted within a minute. --CiaPan (talk) 11:58, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't get the edit; is the OP advocating for animal rights? 331dot (talk) 11:59, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Apparently, yes. But it's not my domain, and I'm not OP's advocate, either, so let them speak for themselves. --CiaPan (talk) 12:05, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

IP user: you might find it a helpful perspective to read WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. --ColinFine (talk) 12:03, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Paolo Sylos Labini

 Matteo150297 (talk) 13:23, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi, last week I wrote an article for Paolo Sylos Labini. Than I have send the article to be revision. Yesterday, I searched the article Paolo Sylos Labini to see the state of the revision, but in the editor there isn't the article. So I want to understand if you are doing the revision or I must write a new article for Paolo Sylos Labini.

Thanks

It exists as a not-yet-submitted draft: Draft:Paolo Sylos Labini. You added content twice that each time was deleted as forbidden use of copyright-protected material. You can use a website as a reference, but you cannot copy directly from it. Instead, you must use your own words to paraphrase what is in the source site. A major weakness of the draft, which will result in it being Declined if submitted, is that there are no references to support the content. David notMD (talk) 13:51, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

hiDuckDog67 (talk) 14:37, 3 November 2020 (UTC) DuckDog67 (talk) 14:37, 3 November 2020 (UTC)