Wikipedia:Teahouse

つがる, 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

Sources in drafts: Part II

I have seen that my thread about drafts was archived almost a month ago. I have some doubts that are still unsolved, but I will start with the tweets. I have found two tweets that might be useful: this one might help to verify André's cameo on Red's Dream (although the user misnamed André by the bee's name instead of his actual name, which it is derived from a Greek word meaning "man") and the other one might verify the existence of a Christmas card featuring André and Wally B., as well as the Stained Glass Knight from Young Sherlock Holmes.

Whilst Twitter is included in the list of sources which are unacceptable, I have seen that there is a template about using tweets as references. In brief, I have had to ask about the use of these tweets before including them in the Pixar-themed draft, as I do not know that these tweets are reliable or not.--André the Android^(talk) 21:34, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello, André the Android. I'm afraid not. The only circumstances in which a user-generated source like Twitter can be used are 1) when the subject of an article tweets from their verified Twitter account, in which case information can be used in the limited ways allowed for Self-published sources; or 2) in theory, if the tweet is from the verified account of a recognised expert in the field (this exception is occasionally used for blogs; I've never heard of it being used for Tweets). A tweet by a random person on the internet is never acceptable as a source. (See WP:TWITTER and WP:TWITTERREF.) --ColinFine (talk) 23:53, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for informing me about the tweets' reliability, it is clear that unverified accounts make more mistakes (and even misspellings) than verified ones. According to this wiki's rules, I would add one of them (about André's first and only cameo) to the draft I created before and the list of Pixar film references if Pixar's official Twitter account was more aware of earlier short films Pixar has produced like The Adventures of André & Wally B. However, all Pixar films (including Luca, which it is my least favourite Pixar film to date) are overhyped so it is impossible to find reliable sources to help verify it.

I have another question related to books as sources: a few days ago I received a copy of The Art of Pixar Short Films (an art book from The Art of... series which was written by Amid Amidi and was published by Chronicle Books) as a Christmas present and I think this book is not only useful, but it can also be reliable. For example, I discovered that the fictional character is not only named after one of the protagonists of My Dinner with André, but also his name has the same prefix as the "android" term. That is why I think this book may help to verify information.--André the Android^(talk) 14:53, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

And one more thing: I tried searching in Wikipedia if there is an article in mainspace with any book from The Art of... series which were published by Chronicle Books (but not including any mentioned) and I find nothing more than unrelated articles (including political ones and San Francisco Chronicle). Then I tried again using the name of an art book about a feature film as an example and it only appeared in the feature film's article's "Further reading" section instead of the "References" one. It is clear that an art book like The Art of Pixar Short Films can be included in the "Further reading" section of any article, but what I still don't know is if these can be used as references, so I need to know if it is reliable enough to be included in the "References" section.--André the Android^(talk) 19:20, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

@André the Android: We have an article for Chronicle Books that briefly mentions the series. Does the book have endnotes with sources? That can be an indicator that a book has been well researched (though conversely its absence doesn’t mean the book is unreliable). Pelagic ( messages ) – (00:21 Thu 31, AEDT) 13:21, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

With what you had answered, it sounds like you had answered differently although I asked a different question. But I have reread the two last sentences of your answer a few times and it seems that any installment of this series of art books is reliable according to what you have said.

Besides, I'm doubting if entries published on Animation World Network's blog section like this one counts as a reliable source. I have tried searching in Wikipedia any article that contains a blog post (from Animation World Network) for reference, but I can't find it anywhere.--André the Android^(talk) 17:31, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry if I was unclear about the book, André, I meant that reliability is something that you might judge from the book itself, rather than our coverage of it. But the fact we have an article about the series (which you uncovered) could help convince people that it's a serious work and not some vanity publication.

For the AWN review: Even though they call it a "blog" on the site, it's not that different from a recurring column in a magazine. Given Rick DeMott's credentials as a former content director there, I wouldn’t be too quick to dismiss it. Personally, I feel that it depends on what kind of assertion you are trying to support. BLPs and controversial topics need impeccable sources; non-controversial statements not so much. Others may disagree with me, of course. If you can source the same fact from both AWN and the book, even better. But sources supporting facts is different from sources establishing notability. The AWN piece only describes André within the context of the short film's plot.

— Pelagic ( messages ) – (12:15 Thu 31, AEDT) 01:15, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

@Pelagic: As this book's name suggests, the book I mentioned is notable in itself and forms part of The Art of... series. I was very surprised that this book was not mentioned anywhere in the article about this series of art books, so I will add it later.

And about the two sources, I have planned to add The Art of Pixar Short Films and the blog post from Animation World Network to the draft as references. The art book will be added as a reference in the draft's "Concept and creation" section, whereas the blog post may be included as a reference in its "Physical appearance" subsection. For the latter case, the reason is because the "Description" section is mostly unreferenced.--André the Android^(talk) 16:22, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

By the way, I have also planned to add L'histoire de Rayman (one of the books I own currently) as a source someday in Rayman-related articles (including a "recreation" of Rayman (character), which it is currently a redirect) so I wonder if the template of book references has a language parameter. Also, I don't know if L'histoire de Rayman is as reliable as The Art of Pixar Short Films, but I know L'histoire de Rayman was published by Pix'n Love.--André the Android^(talk) 23:08, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

André the Android, yes, it does. You can use {{cite book|lang=fr|otherparams...}}. Mathglot (talk) 00:32, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

@Mathglot: Thanks for solving my doubt in using French books as reliable sources, but I have two questions pending to be answered: What is your opinion on including the blog post from Animation World Network as a reference on the draft about the very first Pixar character (specifically the part of his facial features in the "Physical appearance" subsection) according to Wikipedia's rules? Can references with the same book used (but each one with different selected pages) be put in a draft? In the latter case, I had planned to use The Art of Pixar Short Films as a reference, and as before yesterday I discovered that the "irises" of André as a noseless android were actually his eyes according to a concept art showing the anatomy of the character's primitive design.--André the Android^(talk) 12:45, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Norm for publishing new articles?

Hi there - I'm hoping for some clarification as to what the norm is for publishing new articles as an autoconfirmed user. It seems to be that the available options are (1) go through AfC, which is quite slow and (in my experience) frustrating, or (2) just put the thing into mainspace.

I ask because I've just written a new article (would be my third). I've spent a lot of time editing articles recently, and I feel like it's good to go - meets notability requirements IMO, many refs, careful tone, etc. But I was burned before: after publishing a previous draft that I moved to mainspace a couple months ago, it was flagged for speedy deletion, and I was told "you can move [an article] to article space without review - you have the ability to do so - but that doesn't make it a sensible thing for an inexperienced user to do."

Basically - at what point is it acceptable for users to publish directly to article space, versus going through AfC? Will the admins smite me down?

Thank you! Lamacha9617 (talk) 04:57, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Lamacha9617, if you can create an article that is acceptable by Wikipedia standards from the get-go, you shouldn't encounter any problems from other editors. It can be a little aggravating to wait for a reviewer to review your draft, but there are other things to work on while waiting for a review. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 🎄Happy Holidays!⛄ 05:25, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Tenryuu Thanks for responding. To clarify - are you saying that I should always be submitting through AfC? Lamacha9617 (talk) 05:34, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Lamacha9617, let me put it this way; an article going through the AfC process (and draftspace) is going to be reviewed with constructive observations that will help it match article standards. An article going directly into the main articlespace does not have this support, and are usually either moved to draftspace or nominated for deletion. As Cullen328 pointed out below, it is possible to start an article in mainspace and keep it there if you know most (if not all) of the policies and guidelines before starting your article. I would also suggest that if you're embarking on such an endeavour, that you do it in one edit, as passing editors will consider it to be "not ready" and are most likely to move it to draftspace. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 🎄Happy Holidays!⛄ 06:22, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello Lamacha9617. I have written about 100 new articles, and have never once gone through the AfC process, and have never once had an article I wrote get deleted. That's because I studied the policies and guidelines for months before beginning to edit. In fairness, AfC came along later, but it is optional for all but the newest editors. AfC is much slower, but it gives less experienced editors reasonable chances to correct obvious errors. The alternative is placing your new article before the tender mercies of the New pages patrol, who can be abrupt in their response to articles that do not comply with policies and guidelines. So the question is how thoroughly you understand the policies and guidelines, and how scrupulous you are in following them. Only you can decide, and I would never tell anyone but a paid editor that they must use AfC. Good luck. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:05, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Tenryuu and Cullen328 Thanks to you both for this helpful advice and further clarification. My own experience with AfC was that it's less a system for constructive feedback on an article, and more a place where you're either outright rejected or accepted, with little detail either way as to exactly which nuances of policy lead to why. Is there a place on Wikipedia where new editors can ask for clarification on policies? The teahouse, other forums? Lamacha9617 (talk) 18:36, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Who made the first edit in 2021

based on UTC+0, after 00:00 Regards, Jeromi Mikhael ^(marhata) 07:55, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Jeromi Mikhael. The first was Special:Diff/997529719 by 71.144.116.75. The last in 2020 was Special:Diff/997529718. PrimeHunter (talk) 08:20, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

@Jeromi Mikhael: Looking more closely, the time stamps actually alternated a little between 23:59 and 00:00, maybe due to different servers or processing times. Special:Diff/997529717 by TheMadDesperado has the lowest revision ID. PrimeHunter (talk) 08:35, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter:, thanks for your research. I've notified the user with a thanks and wikilove. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael ^(marhata) 09:50, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi! What does this mean? This isn’t about the first edit on ALL of WP, right? TheMadDesperado (talk) 16:49, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

@TheMadDesperado: The first in the English Wikipedia. We don't have an easy way to compare to other Wikipedia languages with separate logs and revision ID's. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:07, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: @Jeromi Mikhael: Wow!!! Thanks for doing this - now I’ll have a story to tell the grandkids lol! TheMadDesperado (talk) 18:06, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

TheMadDesperado, worth the shot. Not the "I used to go to school waking up at 2am, passing 2 forests, jumping off of one cliff, passing a thunderstorm, facing Nazi soldiers, hiking a mountain, crossing no-man's land, for 5 hours" BS. GeraldWL 18:11, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Gerald Waldo Luis, you say you woke at 2 a.m. to go to school, walking five hours and passing two forests, jumping one cliff, and facing down the Nazis on your way? Why, you had it easy!. Mathglot (talk) 01:09, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Article rejected

Rejection

My wikipedia article was rejected because it 'read more like a magazine article'. Can you advise how rectify this Brenda P. Hall (talk) 14:49, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

@Brenda P. Hall: No offense, but it would be useful if you told us what article. Paul Vaurie (talk) 15:04, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: User:Brenda P. Hall/sandbox. Theroadislong (talk) 15:07, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

It was a biographical article about the musicologist, conductor, writer and broadcaster, Michael Hall. I assume that as it has been rejected you won't be able to see it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brenda P. Hall (talk • contribs) 15:11, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Brenda P. Hall,

As a rule on Wikipedia, if you can see it, everyone can. But first, judging by your username, is there a conflict of interest here? If so then it'd be best to declare that before doing anything else - but it shouldn't in of itself prevent getting the article accepted.

To get an idea of encyclopaedic tone a good place to start is looking at other articles on a similar topic or to read the manual of style. At the very least, you'll notice that the majority of articles start with "X is a Y" and go from there.

--Paul ❬talk❭ 15:43, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

@Brenda P. Hall: when using other articles as a template, please make sure you choose from our best or nearly best. Victor Schmidt (talk) 15:50, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the helpful advice. Yes, I didn't see the coi rule but will declare the interest and will try to amend the style of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brenda P. Hall (talk • contribs) 12:34, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Advice on improving a draft

I wrote a draft for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Dan_Feyer

Seems to me this person is notable, in that they are the 8-time American crossword champion. Various other equally-notable figures in the crossword-world have their own wikipedia pages, see highlighted individuals in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Crossword_Puzzle_Tournament

It was sent back to draftspace with message:

> This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people).

To me it seems that winning the top competition in a relatively popular activity 8 times is notable on its own, hence I wrote the article. The subject has an individual profile in the New York Times and their competition wins get coverage in the NYT repeatedly, which again seems impressive to me. But I don't have strong feelings about this, if it's collectively felt that the subject doesn't meet notability criteria, fine by me. I'm just a little unclear if I did something wrong in how I drafted or presented the article -- for example, I did not include the references "in order of relevance", perhaps that was wrong.

Anyway, any advice or guidance much appreciated. Davidoaye (talk) 18:02, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

(pinging Robert McClenon) —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 19:53, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Davidoaye - First, you didn't do anything wrong. Second, I welcome the comments of other experienced editors here. If other editors think that he is notable, or that he is probably notable, I will accept the article. But I would like their comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:45, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Sure! And thanks for the feedback. A question: I was planning for this to be the first of several pages on various people in the crossword world, but if Feyer isn't notable (or is at best boderline-notable) certainly none of the others I wanted to cover would be. I realise this is surely wading into a long discussion among experienced editors but... I guess I'd love to know whether one component here is about how notable crosswords themselves are considered to be? I basically thought anyone who won the biggest crossword championship even once would count as notable, but if that's not the case (absent other factors / notability in the media / etc) I won't even try to write those other pages! Davidoaye (talk) 23:09, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

I suppose a question could be put - is every past winner of American Crossword Puzzle Tournament article-worthy? Or are other activities needed to establish notability? David notMD (talk) 21:45, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes. That is the basic question, which appears to be implicit in User:Davidoaye's comment and explicit in User:David notMD's question. Should there be an implied special notability criterion? Is crossword-solving a mental sport like chess and checkers and Go? We have special notability criteria for a lot of obscure physical sports, so why not for a lot of obscure mental sports? Robert McClenon (talk) 07:45, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely! I want to clarify that I think there's a "special case" for Feyer in that he's the 8-time champion (most championships ever), has had a full-page NYT profile devoted solely to him, etc. Whether winning ACPT *once* is enough on its own, though, I don't think I'm Wikipedia-experienced enough to say -- personally I'd be happy if the answer were yes, and if some special notability criteria could be set for the sport, but I'm absolutely biased by my affinity for the obscure sport here! Davidoaye (talk) 09:34, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

oh, p.s. : I modeled my page on this one about another top crossword solver (instantiated ten years ago), which uses the layout/approach for a sports player -- I'm afraid I'm not experienced enough to figure out where to look, but is it possible that there's relevant discussion from that page as well? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyler_Hinman Davidoaye (talk) 09:42, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

On further thinking about this draft, I think that the NYT article establishes gemeral notability. Since the article was once draftified from article space to draft space, I want the concurrence of another experienced editor before accepting. Do other editors think that I should accept it? I have copied this dialogue to the talk page of the draft as a record of the discussion of its notability. Comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:52, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

What to do when a source is probably going away

NSFWCORP is being acquired and their brand is going away.

The NSFWCORP brand and voice will be going away, and everything will now be under the Pando brand.

— Sarah Lacy, https://pando.com/2013/11/25/pandodaily-acquires-nsfwcorp-to-double-down-on-investigative-reporting/

insource:NSFWCORP It's used in a few places, but I'm not sure exactly what to do. These links are probably going to die soon. Jdphenix (talk) 20:40, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello Jdphenix, and welcome to the Teahouse! Save the links in the web archive - [1]. Add the archive link as a parameter of the reference and we'll be able to use it as a reference even if the site gets taken down. Thanks, Pahunkat (talk) 21:18, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

N.B. I think their site might be up to stay, the acquisition appears to have happened 7 years ago. Pahunkat (talk) 22:05, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

I've archived all the URLs anyway. Pahunkat (talk) 22:28, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Jdphenix, for future reference, you can use the external tool "Fix dead links" on any article's history to try and salvage archived versions of dead links. More information can be found here. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 🎄Happy Holidays!⛄ 00:05, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you both. Very helpful. Jdphenix (talk) 21:24, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

SPI for blocked users returning as IP accounts

Hello Teahousians. Lately I have noticed several blocked users that just keep editing using their IP address. I appreciate that Wikipedia thinks there are privacy issues with publicly linking an account to an IP address, but this gives the SPI a big disadvantage by leaving out helpful evidence. So is there a way that the CheckUser can be requested and done privately perhaps? MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 23:39, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

@MrsSnoozyTurtle: I am not an expert in this area, but editing while blocked is block evasion which is not allowed, and per Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Evasion_and_enforcement the IP should be blocked. I think that means you could make a request at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations#Quick_CheckUser_requests to validate if the IP address is associated with the blocked account. RudolfRed (talk) 23:48, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks RudolfRed. I had a look at Quick_CheckUser_requests and it doesn't mention linking an IP to a blocked user as one of the examples, so hopefully someone familiar with this stuff can chip in please? Cheers, MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 22:20, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

@MrsSnoozyTurtle: This is indeed tricky. Checkusers are hardly ever going to link accounts with IP addresses. There's a few exceptions, such as when the link has already been made public, but the exceptions are rare. Quick CU is therefore not the place. Instead, I can think of three options. One is to create a SPI report in the name of the blocked account, pointing to the connectuon between the IPs and accounts. Any patrolling admin can use the duck test. The second is to find another way to ask any admin(s) if the IPs should be blocked. In both these cases it can be useful to loop a checkuser into the request, but they are not going to provide any written response to it (that is they may, or may not, check the link and/or just block the IPs without any comment). The third option, and IMO least appetising for the situation you describe, is to email a checkuser. Again, don't expect a response. Hopefully that's useful. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:51, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi zzuuzz. Thanks for your help with this. It is quite ironic and frustrating that Wiki policies give an advantage to blocked users who further break the rules by then editing with their IP!

Sometimes the Edit History isn't enough on its own to be certain and a CU would be helpful, so I'll give option 2 a try. I've tried emailing Checkusers in the past, but there was no response or action. Thanks for laying out the 3 options for me, it is really helpful. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 23:00, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Citation for lecture

Hiya,

I have been trying to clear up the references in Nicanor Austriaco, and am wondering how to find a reference for the claim that the subject of the article discussed certain topics in a lecture. There was a citation to a YouTube video of the subject giving a lecture, but this seems like a primary source and thus original research.

I am struggling to find documentation for the lecture series - does anyone have any tips on how to deal with this statement? Should it be removed altogether? Currently I have tagged it "citation needed". Thanks, Ainlina(box)? 23:51, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Ain. Use of Primary sources is not ipso facto original research. Primary sources must be used carefully, are limited in use, and do nothing to demonstrate the notability of the topic. One aspect of their use we need to be careful of—where original research often gets involved in the area—is when someone is interpreting a primary source's meaning, or attempting to use a primary source's interpretation, but one thing they are quite perfect for is verifying that a subject said what they are quoted or said to have said, which your post above indicates was the type of use. That is directly in the realm of a "straightforward, descriptive statement of fact". Whether content like that belongs in a particular article, as a matter of editorial discretion, is another matter. But if the use was as you say; you want to keep in the content; and there's no secondary source for verification, the citation to the primary source is fine, and should be returned. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:57, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

What is the point of enabling editors to provide new information, if they are deleted and called "Spam" without any due process ?

I get that I'm SPA, I was trying to update the NFT World to a new use case of this technology, so why does my edit get deleted and called "Spam" without first being investigated or myself to be contacted to verify the edit ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Non-fungible_token&type=revision&diff=985223340&oldid=985011037

I was trying to make a informed post about what is capable and for people to be informed, thought that was the point of Wikipedia.

Is further proof required ?

https://emblem.finance/nft?id=327289 https://etherscan.io/tx/0x14cfea08df942fe8a4b7df6e2e092e9b24d5c79e6be8e9a31d2a7dc161a89567 https://opensea.io/assets/0x82c7a8f707110f5fbb16184a5933e9f78a34c6ab/327289 As above the Bitcoin/Ethereum addresses within the NFT contains Fungible Tokens.

https://www.blockchain.com/btc/address/1HNmmzNkbjSCfTNJycuRsosyi34aV9CeGp https://etherscan.io/address/0xc51bD93c41aD07fc49F2DE7264501E3CF44d0BfA#tokentxns

https://desktopcommando.medium.com/what-is-emblemvault-14aaaff92a20 DesktopCommando (talk) 03:03, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

DesktopCommando, the diff shows an IP's edit being undone, not yours. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 🎄Happy Holidays!⛄ 03:32, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

My apologies after seeing how the 'compare selected revision' works it show's user: Vicwd moving it (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Non-fungible_token&type=revision&diff=995521773&oldid=995521123) and user: Hidden Lemon deleting it (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Non-fungible_token&type=revision&diff=995822205&oldid=995817950) DesktopCommando (talk) 05:39, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

It looks as though my editorial is being removed due to user: Vicwd's contribution, may I please re-apply my submission ? DesktopCommando (talk) 13:17, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

From what I can see, you added one reference, linking to circuitsofvalue.com. That, and the sentence supported by the link, were removed as part of a larger effort to clean up inapproprite sources and promotion from the article, not because they were added by a new user, and not because the sentence+source had been moved to a different part of the article. circuitsofvalue.com does not seem to meet Wikipedia's requirements for reliable sources, and it violates the external links guideline, so it would not be meaningful to restore it to the article. I don't have any opinion about the links you posted above. If you disagree about the usefulness of the circuitsofvalue site or have other comments, the best place to post them would be the article's talk page, Talk:Non-fungible_token. (Keep in mind that the purpose of Wikipedia is not to showcase cutting-edge development, though.) Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 13:43, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Circuits of value (COVAL) is the Emblemvault's cryptocurrency "owner", its the first of its kind, the article was a means of including what capabilities an NFT can achieve in order to confirm to WP:PURPOSE "in a fair and accurate manner with a straightforward, "just-the-facts style"." the only linkable page was the webpage, how do other newly emerging additions then appear, if there is no first ? You say its "cutting edge development" Wikipedia's own explanation of that it is a "term in advertising and marketing" this is not intended as the case, if you feel this is true then maybe you should delete half of Wikipedia's content including the current NFT contents with regards to Cryptokitties, Rare Pepes, Age of chains ...etc, your issue with the WP:RS "articles should be based on reliable, published sources" WP:SOURCE "The piece of work itself (the article, book)" this is the website www.circuitsofvalue.com, yes its not a book, yet WP:AFFILIATE seems to allow content that "inline citations may be allowed to e-commerce pages" it does ask for published articles how about this https://blog.goodaudience.com/the-king-of-atomic-swaps-c9becff072aa, or even a blockchain entry that unlike Wikipedia cannot be edited https://etherscan.io/tx/0x14cfea08df942fe8a4b7df6e2e092e9b24d5c79e6be8e9a31d2a7dc161a89567 the blockchain transaction shows that it has been minted and is verifiable DesktopCommando (talk) 16:36, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello, DesktopCommando. Anything that is "the first of its kind" is likely to be TOOSOON to figure in Wikipedia. You ask "How do other newly emerging additions then appear?" The answer is "Not in Wikipedia". Wikipedia is only interested in things that independent reliable sources have already been written about. If the only source for something is its own website, then it is not notable, and it is hard to see how it can be regarded as a reliable source. --ColinFine (talk) 17:49, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

• DesktopCommando Wikipedia is not a government that is required to provide "due process". It has rules and policies to guide its content, just as you have rules and policies regarding conduct in your residence and you don't have to provide for a process for your guests to challenge those rules. That doesn't mean Wikipedia does not try to be fair, which is why there are talk pages to discuss issues of concern and dispute. I will add that Wikipedia is not for merely providing information(a common misconception). It is for summarizing what independent reliable sources say about subjects that meet Wikipedia's special definition of notability. 331dot (talk) 17:56, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

How to report for deletion

I saw useless one draft page that is about to delete from Wiki, it was already in draft. How can I report to ask to delete by editor. Thank you. Sorry, this is my very first time in Wiki. Burmese King (talk) 06:52, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello Burmese King, and welcome to the Teahouse. It's best to leave 'useless' drafts alone and in 6 months they'll be deleted from Wikipedia by the G13 speedy deletion criterion. If the draft is yours, then you can tag it for deletion using {{db-g7}}. However, deletion of this draft will not stop the Sockpuppet Investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nyiminsan as administrators can still view most deleted pages. Thanks, Pahunkat (talk) 09:57, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) The page I requested to make deletion is duplicated topic for YangonThu Michelle and it's already deleted. I used {{db-g7}}. I'm helping the community.

Why was my article declined ( Nikhita Khan Rhino Centre)

Why was my article declined? Did it violate any copyright policies?Did it not have any reliable sources? Ishaan bommakanti 6548 (talk) 07:48, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Ishaan bommakanti 6548, you can see it at the page. It's because there's no reliable sources. GeraldWL 07:51, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

How can I add reliable sources?

I have two questions,What are reliable sources and how can we add them? And what are reliable sources for? Ishaan bommakanti 6548 (talk) 07:53, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Ishaan bommakanti 6548, there's more information over at WP:EASYREFBEGIN as to how to cite reliable sources. They are needed to allow other readers to verify that the information being cited can be trusted to a degree. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 🎄Happy Holidays!⛄ 08:42, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Reason why contribution was declined

Reason why contribution was declined Good day,

I made a contribution on a page where I added additional information about Music Video. I can't find the reason or still don't understand why my contribution to a LINK was declined.

Looking forward to hear from you please. Kayworld009 (talk) 08:49, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy: about Auld Lang Syne. Per discussions on the Talk page of the article, in the Archives (older discussions), there have been debates about including specific information about notable performances. The consensus is that there are so many contenders, that better for the article to not have a list. David notMD (talk) 12:08, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Need opinion for the last section of Bhutanese Nepali Literature

Hey, Look at the last section of the Bhutanese Nepali Literature wikipage. Doesn't it sound promoting the website? Or, it could be "the real information and is not supposed to be changed"? I'm unsure. Lightbluerain❄ (Talk | contribs) 08:53, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it is what we call a WP:SPAMLINK and should be deleted. Please see Wikipedia:External Links for details of the type of link it is appropriate to include. The "Bibliography" section is also dubious, as it appears to promote just two titles without stating why they are specially relevant to the topic.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:46, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Shantavira, alright, thanks. Changing it then. Lightbluerain❄ (Talk | contribs) 16:11, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

copy of ap picture in the Indianapolis Business Journal Dec 11, 2020 issue.

FYI

 – Heading refactored by Tenryuu, moved rest of it into body below.

Greetings, and happy new year to you all. I am looking to request a copy of a front page picture in Indianapolis Business Journal on Dec 11,2020. It is the picture on front page of Organization Day in the Indiana House Statehouse Chamber. Our son is an employee of the Republican Party of Indiana, and he is in the picture. My husband and I would like to respectfully ask if we might get a copy of the picture, please? Thank

 2600:1700:5F50:9750:E429:DD40:D3A1:1554 (talk) 11:00, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

IP editor, you should probably contact the Indianapolis Business Journal, as they would hold the rights (or properly direct you to whoever holds them) to the picture. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 11:12, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps it's in this article. You can also order reprints here. For future reference, questions like this are better posted at the Reference Desk. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 21:05, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

About warning an IP

An IP did some unconstructive edit and I reverted it. When I was going to give a warning template, I noticed it was issued a level 2 warning by an editor in December 27. So what level of warning should I give it now? Kajjul (talk) 11:41, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Kajjul Level 1. Warning levels generally reset each month, so that people don't have stuff they did months ago hanging around their neck. And also after almost a week, it's entirely possible that it's not the same person behind that IP. However, you can of course just skip a level if the offence was particularly egregious. --Paul ❬talk❭ 12:52, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your help!Kajjul (talk) 13:08, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Can I create this page on wikipedia? "Dadasaheb Phalke Awards South"

Can I create a page about "Dadasaheb Phalke Awards South" on wikipedia? I came across this on google trending topics 223.229.238.9 (talk) 12:21, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

If you can find reliable, published sources that are independent of Dadasaheb Phalke Awards South treat Dadasaheb Phalke Awards South in depth, you can use (and of course cite) those sources to create Draft:Dadasaheb Phalke Awards South. But if you can't find them, you'll be wasting your time. -- Hoary (talk) 12:27, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Before trying to edit that draft, it would be a good idea to read this information. There are quite a few awards trying to capitalise on the name "Dadasaheb Phalke Award" (the original is prestigious but the copycat awards are not). That doesn't mean that none of the other awards could become notable, but any sources would have to be explicitly about that award (the Awards South one, in this case), and not about the original. Also keep in mind that just because an award has recipients who are notable, it does not automatically make the award notable – I could set up the Bonadea Awards and send them out willy-nilly to ten celebrities, but that wouldn't make the Bonadea Awards notable. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 14:30, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

@Bonadea: You missed the important part of the awards scam "process" – you would want to charge the celebrities for the announcement, attending the ceremony, and even the bleeping award itself. I'll organize it for 10%. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 21:12, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

@AlanM1: I like the way your mind works. Maybe I'll also tell each recipient that they may recruit ten celebrity friends, all of whom will pay a slightly higher fee to get the award... what could possibly go wrong! *holds up sign saying "JOKE" and smiles like John Cleese* --bonadea contributions talk 22:15, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Antikult why I cannot publish the voice?

hi, why i cannot post my ANTIKULT voice? I just texted that I have a conflit of interest cuz I knew them personally. And now I wanted to write on Waiki the band I find out so I started from this great band. Is it so hard? Alison Krebs (talk) 12:36, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:Antikult

Hi Alison Krebs - you've already made a start on your draft article. You'll need to add some reliable sources before you hit submit, but apart from that what specific trouble are you having? --Paul ❬talk❭ 12:48, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Alison Krebs: yes, sucessfully creating a new article about somethign on Wikipedia is hard, in fact, its one of the hardest tasks one can start on Wikipedia. And having a conflict of interest does not make things easier... As for Draft:Antikult, drafts are not automatically resubmitted, you have to use the resubmit button. However, if you were to resubmit it now, it would likely be declined, because it is currently unverifyable. Victor Schmidt (talk) 12:50, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

In particular, you need to say who "[defined them] as one of the best world grind/jazzcore bands", and in which publication this definition may be read. (And by "best world", do you perhaps mean "world's best"?) -- Hoary (talk) 12:58, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

But if I added link of pages with records companies who published band works! the comment under pic was by Apocalix Distro Label (the page of the Distro Label is existing an active on FB). It seems that here those who have time to let a pc wizard publish fakes news can have success and real supporter8experts of band, especially in the underground, have no chances for them and for the band to be known!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alison Krebs (talk • contribs) 14:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Alison Krebs, don't forget that Wikipedia is not the place for you to promote bands that you like. That said, I think it's entirely possible that Wikipedia could have an article on Antikult, if you can find just a few sources independent of the subject then you'd be able to establish notability and have some encyclopaedic content. --Paul ❬talk❭ 16:55, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not promoting bands that I like, I like a bands that are known in the underground and I think that any kinda band and style culturally interesting should be in an Encyclopedia and should be spread around. I'm not a pc programmer but here seems that if you are not focused on that techs it's all but not an open instrument for develop art and culture. I just wanted put some artistical high value bands here. More tha link and pages of who wrote or published cd, vinyls, cassette and so on I can't do. It should be do a step by step easy path to who wants publish voices with the clear limits and needs. Anyway,,here was not possible post pics done by myself, of my own, I'm sad and since here all is complicated I think I will abandon this experience. Hope for great artist and innovative players that somebody else will be more prepared than me! thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alison Krebs (talk • contribs) 19:30, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you've found editing wikipedia too complex. We do try to welcome articles on all notable topics, and we do have some pretty great articles about various bands - I very rarely edit anything IT related I don't have any 'tech skills' beyond Excel but I've always found Wikipedia pretty welcoming. I think the process for introducing a new article is about as step-by-step as it can be, I don't know how it could be simplified. But your draft will stick around for a few months if you want to pick it up again. --Paul ❬talk❭ 20:04, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

@Alison Krebs: The very nature of "underground" is that it is not written about in reliable sources. Such artists become popular by word-of-mouth, social media, etc., right? Unfortunately, that is incompatible with Wikipedia's standards and purpose, which is not to promote anything (no matter how good), but instead to summarize what reliable sources have written about in some detail and independently (without prompting by the subject). Anything connected with the band, like their publicist, commercial (even "indy") websites, record labels, etc., are all disqualified. We need someone like Rolling Stone or Variety or even the entertainment section of newspapers or local television news programs, etc., to have written about the subject. That makes it notable for Wikipedia.

Also, just a suggestion: attacking your fellow volunteer editors for carefully upholding our community standards is not the proper response, nor the way to get further help, from those who have already spent significant time trying to help you. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 21:46, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

@Alison Krebs: Your only attempt at submitting your draft was here [2]] where you submitted a blank page which was declined of course. Theroadislong (talk) 21:53, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

@Alison Krebs: You might have a look at other articles about relevant bands, like the B-class (an above-average quality) Napalm Death as an example of what kind of sources that editors have found to be appropriate, article contents, style, etc.. Other B-class articles of interest to WikiProject Metal are listed here. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 01:19, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I want to upload a logo in a Wikipedia article but I'm not sure how to do it

I can download the logo from a website and upload it in the Wikipedia article but I'm not sure if that's the right way to do because of copyright issues(I'm not sure if the logo is copyrighted). Can someone please guide me? Dfsibun (talk) 13:44, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

@Dfsibun: Which article and which website are you talking about? Victor Schmidt (talk) 14:03, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

@Victor Schmidt: Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnson_Grammar_School Website: https://www.jgswm.in/ Dfsibun (talk) 14:13, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

@Dfsibun: As far as copyright goes, the Image does not appear to be licensed under a free license or be in the public domain, meaning we can only use it under fair use. I recommend that you use the upload wizard to upload images. As for the formula, You want to select "This is a copyrighted, non-free work, but I believe it is Fair Use." followed by "This is a logo of an organization, company, brand, etc." remember to fill in all the boxes marked with * Victor Schmidt (talk) 14:34, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

@Victor Schmidt: I've uploaded the image. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Logo_of_Johnson_Grammar_School_(CBSE)_with_motto_and_year_of_establishment.png#filelinks Is there any rule which I must follow while using this image in Wikipedia? Dfsibun (talk) 16:10, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

(e/c) @Victor Schmidt and Dfsibun: That is certainly good advice for most images we see users questioning about uploading. In this case, though, I think the image does not meet threshold of originality for copyright protection, and thus is eligible for upload to the Wikimedia Commons, to be marked there with {{PD-textlogo}}. To expand on that slightly, images that consist "only of simple geometric shapes or text" are not considered original enough to enjoy copyright protection under United States law, and so if meeting that description, are in the public domain by default. Other countries have similar doctrines. In this case, India's doctrine has been listed at Commons:Threshold of originality#India as similar the the U.S.'s ("Modicum of Creativity"), and so logos of companies based in India within this set are permitted to be uploaded there as in the public domain. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:02, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Replacing wrong Indian High Commission Photo on India Malta Relations.

1) I wish to replace the wrong photo of the Indian High Commission in Malta with the right one. Please help in easy steps.

I see that there are currently three pictures in the Wikimedia Commons category "Consulate of India, Malta". I presume that you wish to add another such image but perhaps of a new building. The steps for uploading pictures are fairly easy if you follow the Upload Wizard at "the relevant Commons page".. The crucial step is that you must be able to assign a license (usually CC BY-SA 4.0 — see Commons Help pages), which means in practice that you took the picture yourself or have evidence that the picture you wish to use is available under such a license. Please provide more details so I or another editor can help further. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:07, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

2) I am having difficulty adding References in Indian Foreign aid article and I need help. Sbali9 (talk) 14:07, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

adding to or changing a relative's entry

Alexander Orenstein was my great-uncle. I found one error in the listing and could add far more material, though this might interest almost nobody. Even it would be valuable, I have no idea how to do it. K3amu (talk) 15:04, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps Alexander Jeremiah Orenstein. (If not, then which article?) David notMD (talk) 16:05, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

How do I get a page to write an article.

 2001:BB6:29BC:5E58:3C92:8E24:C2C9:AADE (talk) 15:07, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello. Successfully writing a new article is the absolute hardest thing to do on Wikipedia. It takes much time, effort, and practice. Many new users who dive right in without experience in general editing often end up disappointed and with hurt feelings when their work that they spent hours on is rejected. I don't want you to have bad feelings, so I'd suggest that you first spend time editing existing articles in areas that interest you, to get a feel for how Wikipedia operates and what is expected of article content. If you create an account, you can use a new user tutorial that will help you learn more about Wikipedia.

If you still wish to create a new article despite this cautioning, you should first read Your First Article and then use Articles for Creation to create and submit a draft for review by another editor before it is formally placed in the encyclopedia. 331dot (talk) 15:11, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Do also consider registering an account, which will make communication with other editors (a necessary part of the collaborative process here) possible. It also lets you set your preferences for many things and gives you access to many helpful gadgets and tools. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 01:55, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Banner Shell Usage

I was curious about the Banner Shell usage (Template:WikiProject banner shell). Specifically whether it's standard convention to include banners that are not wikiprojects in the shell. For instance, editing history banners like whether the article had been listed or delisted as good article, merge history, and Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignments. If these aren't supposed to be included then is there an alternative shell for these types of banners. Also, in general, what is the organizing priority of all these banners? Like what should be at the top and how should things be ordered below. Is it just oldest to newest? TipsyElephant (talk) 15:13, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

@TipsyElephant: {{WikiProject banner shell}} is only used for Wikiprojects. If necessary (banners talking up a full screen), {{Banner holder}} can be used for other banners (such as at Talk:Donald Trump). This is done somewhat rarely. For ordering, see Wikipedia:Talk page layout § Lead (bannerspace). Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 09:33, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Nancy Thorndike Greenspan

I added this author because of her influential books. In fact, one of her books, The End of the Certain World has it's own wiki article. Yet the author was declined by the moderator asking if the author has any awards? The NYTimes and Wash post have done articles on this author and do not understand what else I should do to bolster the article. Any advice is appreciated! Fergyman (talk) 16:09, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Nancy Thorndike Greenspan has refs, but for reviews of books she has written, not about her. And Wikipedia dos not count interviews toward establishing notability. Search for published content about her. David notMD (talk) 17:14, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Fergyman, and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. . --ColinFine (talk) 17:43, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Difference between citations, sources and footnotes

Hello and thank you for the welcome! In attempting to edit / update an article about myself that was originally contributed a few years ago by an acquaintance, I could not easily grasp the distinction (if any) between links, sources, references and footnotes.

Is there a succinct document somewhere that a) makes the distinction and b) explains how to insert them accurately.

In the article in question, about Victor F. Zonana, the reference to my business partner David Gold seemed to come out a bit awkwardly. Also don't know if I did the references to GHNZ.org and EHF.org correctly. VictorFZo (talk) 16:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

VictorFZo, welcome to the Teahouse. WP:EASYREFBEGIN has information on how to properly cite information. Sources (which should be reliable and independent from the subject) are used to verify information being given about the subject. This is done by referencing them, which appear near the bottom of the article as footnotes which can be linked to the appropriate page, if any. Wikipedia does not do external links (for example, the links to EHF and GHNZ) in the body of the article, which should be in an "External links" section at the bottom of the article; a simplified breakdown of what to do and not do when linking can be found here. Since you're editing an article about yourself, I suggest you exercise some caution, as while writing about yourself isn't strictly prohibited, it's strongly discouraged as subjects more often have trouble writing neutrally about themselves than not.

Taking a quick look at the references used, only the Huffington Post reference potentially appears to be a reliable source, as press releases and company profiles tend to be not independent. Better secondary sources should be looked for. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:52, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Tenryuu. The first footnote (HHS Press release) can be replaced by this Washington Post op-ed, which confirms my position in the Clinton Administration.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/09/01/presidents-have-history-over-promising-vaccines-heres-why-thats-problem/

I believe EHF.org issued an announcement of my appointment as a Fellow, but I fear that would be considered a press relesase. There is also this article from a New Zealand newspaper that describes me as a Fellow: https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/123600320/overseas-entrepreneurs-supercharged-kiwis-plan-to-rid-niue-of-hepatitis-b-and-c VictorFZo (talk) 17:22, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

COI asking for help to review suggested edits

 Courtesy link: RightScale

Hello everybody, I am asking for help in order to make the subjected page (RightScale) better.

I am connected to RightScale and hence can't edit it directly.

My suggested edits are backed up with references and were actually in place until the user who put them got banned.

Please review my request and edit back the page.

I am not suggesting anything that's wrong or false, it's the truth, so I hope someone will act on it and revert it back to Hugo999's version.

Thank you! Flenleaf1 (talk) 16:40, 2 January 2021 (UTC) Flenleaf1 (talk) 16:40, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

@Flenleaf1: You have used the {{request edit}} template correctly at the article's talk page, so an uninvolved editor will take a look at it at some point. Please note that the template says "The requested edits backlog is very high. Please be extremely patient." By posting the request, you have flagged it for review, and that's really all you can do right now. Adding a second request edit template is not going to speed up the process, I'm afraid. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 16:58, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank for invit me, Teahouse

 Ybsanizk (talk) 16:50, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

@Ybsanizk: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The Teahouse is intended as a spot where new users can post their questions. Most questions here are answered rather quickly. If you ever have a question about using or editing Wikipedia, feel free to ask. Victor Schmidt (talk) 18:14, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

adding name to main name

Hello Friends I have an account on Turkish Wikipedia for many years. The name in the title is my artistic name “Cenk Taşkan” , To existing Name,how can I add my real name whıch is “Majak Toşikyan” in conclusion : Majak Toşikyan - Cenk Taşkan

                      or

Cenk Taşkan - Majak Toşikyan  96.20.210.103 (talk) 18:13, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

We cannot help you with issiues involving the turkish Wikipedia, sorry. Maybe try to ask at tr:Vikipedi:Danışma masası Victor Schmidt (talk) 18:17, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

I have just replied to this question on the Help Desk. Please don't ask the same question in different places, as it wastes everybody's time. --ColinFine (talk) 19:55, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Follow-up to Dating System in articles; CITED REFERENCES

Continuing Discussion on threats of Blocking re BCE/CE Dating System V. BC/AD Dating system.

I previously in this space indicated that I was opposed to authors of Wiki using the BCE/CE dating system, when the referred to sources used the BC/AD system and that I was shocked at the threats of being BLOCKED for such an action as correcting an article to conform with a cited source. There was a note that many editors who were NOT Christian (Emphasis mine) on Wiki were very opposed to the use of the BCE/CE dating system. What about those of us who ARE Christian and who see the change from the dating system used in the reference source to that in the article as offensive?There are also many people who are not apparently religiously motivated and who simply want an ACCURATE depiction of a cited source.

One would THINK that accurately citing authorities is at the very heart of good scholarship.

I was surprised at the hostility of one writer who stated that: "It is especially disruptive to impose a Christian based dating system on articles about China (or other articles with no connection to Christianity), as you have done." IS it not disruptive to graft and "impose" your own dating system on the citation that you use in an article? WHY is this not disruptive while editing the article to return to the dating system preferred and used by the source is? This is what the reference stated and used. It is those who change this piece of information who are being "disruptive". Moreover, this writer states that "China.. or other articles(sic) with no connection to Christianity.......... This writer truly needs to educate himself. China has along and very deep connection to Christianity, dating back to Nestorian Christians who established communities there in the 7th century. There are over 44 million Christians in China and Christianity is the fastest growing faith there. I strongly suggest you consult Wiki before making such ill founded statements.

My point is that the disruption so loudly condemned here actually originates froma DEVIATION of the information contained in the source. You want to cite a source? Do so with respect and accuracy to the intentions and information contained in that reference source. The threats to "BLOCK" employed here can plainly be seen as bullying tactics and I would think are beneath the dignity of an "Editor". Lookout657 (talk) 19:00, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

You are free to have whatever opinions you wish about appropriate dating systems, but when you edit Wikipedia you are not free to ignore Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. You have not been met by any hostility, only honest information about what these policies say; also please remember that Wikipedia is governed by consensus and not by what any one individual editor feels. It is absolutely not a misrepresentation of a source to say "BCE" in the article even if the source used for the information says "BC". The only exception is in direct quotes. Read WP:ERA and stick to it; if you find that to be distasteful to you personally, avoid articles where you may be tempted to violate it. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 19:09, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Changing date system is obviously not a deviation from the source material. --Paul ❬talk❭ 20:07, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

My question to the OP is: What happens when two reliable sources use different dating systems? Does one take precedent over the other or should it just be arbitrarily chosen? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:26, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Question about Creative Commons attribution

How would attribution work in wiki markup? Let's say it was this image; because there are "some rights reserved" does that mean that it is unusable on Wikipedia? Not really a new user; just unfamiliar with the image copyright/Wikimedia side of things.

Sdrqaz (talk) 20:38, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

@Sdrqaz: My understanding is that you only need to link to the image, and the image attribution is in the file description at Commons. RudolfRed (talk) 20:45, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

@RudolfRed: Thanks for the response. In that case, is the use of the image at my user page suitable? Sdrqaz (talk) 21:04, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Sdrqaz. Yes, at the moment, your use on your user page is acceptable. If the Commons reviewer or admin decides that the licence is not acceptable, the file will be deleted from Commons, and of course will have to be removed from your user page. --ColinFine (talk) 21:35, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Sounds great, ColinFine, thanks! Sdrqaz (talk) 21:40, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

@Sdrqaz:. Images you find on Commons are pretty much OK to add to your userpage. Of course, there's always the possibility that a Commons file is incorrectly licensed or that it might be deleted for some reason, but for the most part Commons images should be OK. The only thing you might need to worry about is whether you start adding images to such a degree that your userpage starts to move into WP:UPNO territory; in such a case, you might be asked to edit your userpage to bring in line with WP:UP. The only files that you can't use (i.e. display) on your userpage are non-free files; such files can only be used in articles per non-free content use criterion #9 of Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. If you mistakenly add such a file once or maybe even twice, it will probably just be removed and maybe you'll be given a mild warning. If you continue to add such files even after being warned, you chances of being WP:BLOCKed increase and such blocks tend to be indefinite depending upon the blocking administrator. So, be careful with any files which seem to be uploaded locally to Wikipedia and avoid anything that says "copyrighted", "fair use" or "non-free". -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:58, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Liberal Democrats (UK)

Why are the liberal democrats represented as Center-left when liberalism in the capitalist camp is represented as right wing? Even on other pro-libertarian parties their ideology is always defined as either a big tent subtype or simply center to center right.

Examples:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Columbia_Libertarian_Party https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarians_(Brazil) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertair,_Direct,_Democratisch https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Party_(United_States)

The only other exception I found was this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reason_Party_(Australia)

Another libertarian party in an anglo country. Are these parties perhaps inserted as "center-left" so that the unaware young voter finds their wikipedia party and believes it might be aligned with their interests?

I believe, in the search of true impartiality, that the Liberal Democrats from the UK should be catalogued either as Center or Center Right. As categorising them inside Center-Left is directly opposed to the Marxist viewpoint on the subject. Unless wikipedia operates and provides exclusively a capitalist leaning viewpoint, the right thing to do is to change their ideological section.

Other possible solution would be describing their social policies as "left wing" (although I do find that encapsulating "progressivism" under the left is also factually incorrect) And their economic policies as "right wing"

Have a good day 87.221.249.41 (talk) 20:45, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. What matters is how independent reliable sources describe a political party(or any organization), not our personal opinion as to what a party's ideology is. If the Liberal Democrats are described by independent sources as left wing, then we do too. Posting your own analysis would be original research. 331dot (talk) 21:22, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

I wonder if you are confusing "libertarian" and "Liberal Democrat". The UK's Liberal Democrats are not libertarian. Maproom (talk) 23:29, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

And Liberal Democrats (UK) makes no claim they are libertarian. Even if "libertarian" had been in their name, the description of a party's position should be based on reliable sources about the party and the party's actual position, not what somebody thinks a word in their name means. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:06, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

OP, please be aware that the (political) meaning of "liberal" in the UK may be rather different to what it means in other countries, just as the meanings in those other countries may not agree with each other. For that matter, the current Liberal Democrat Party is far from identical to the Liberal Party that existed in the first 30-odd years of my own lifetime, before it merged in 1988 with the Social Democratic Party, which itself had been formed in 1981 by more moderate or centrist (i.e. less "socialist" or "left-wing"") members of the Labour Party.

Similar caveats apply to the term "socialism", which has a wide span of meanings and implications which differ from country to country, with those meanings also changing over time, as do the socioeconomic contexts in which they are used..

You might benefit from studying the article Political spectrum. (My own entirely personal opinion is that a single-axis "left-right" measure of political philosophies is entirely inadequate; two-axis spectra may be more useful, but I suspect at least three might be required for any truly useful analyses.) {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.56.237 (talk) 19:24, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Temporarily Watched

Hi, I made an edit to a wikipedia page, namely Criticism of the BBC but it got reverted by a bot. I did it in completely good faith, and I thought my edits were legitimate, so I reverted the bot's reversion - all a bit abstract. Anyway, that got reverted by an actual user who kindly and politely pointed out that my edit didn't add much to the article. So, now I've got a "temporarily watched" thingmy-majigy on my watchlist. What is it, when will it go away and should I be concerned? Many thanks EcheveriaJ (talk) 20:47, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

@EcheveriaJ: Goodness no, that just means the article is on your watchlist temporarily. This probably happened automatically during one of your edits. Nothing to worry about at all. --Paul ❬talk❭ 21:06, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

@EcheveriaJ:, Paul is right. If you want to remove the article from your watch list, go to the article and click the blue star in the menu bar, so that it stops being blue. Maproom (talk) 23:33, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

@EcheveriaJ: Temporarily watched is a new feature documented at mw:Help:Watchlist expiry. PrimeHunter (talk) 08:50, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: @Paul Carpenter: Thank you ever so much for your advice and help! What a relief; I was thinking it was some sort of Orwellian tracking because I'd triggered a bot. Many thanks! EcheveriaJ (talk) 11:03, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

@EcheveriaJ: To be honest, sometimes I wish it were possible to watch users for those who are clear vandals but cannot be reported yet because they haven't been warned sufficiently! Sdrqaz (talk) 12:48, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Question on creating articles

Hello! Thank you for the invite. I have a quick question regarding creating an article. Can a user create an article on English Wikipedia that is based (but not translated) from non-English Wikipedia? I have seen some non-English Wikipedia articles that have their English counterpart, but it's different in terms that the English article is more up to date than the non-English one.

I am not sure if this question has been asked before, or if this is a nonsense question, but I would appreciate if someone can help. Have a safe and happy new year, everyone. Wjddml (talk) 21:15, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Wjddml Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. There are no nonsense questions here, so don't worry. I'm not an expert at it, and others who are might know better than I, but it is certainly permitted to translate an article from another language version of Wikipedia to here; it is done not infrequently. It is important to remember that each language version of Wikipedia is its own project with their own editors, policies, and practices, so what is acceptable on one language version is not necessarily acceptable on another version. So if there is an article you want to translate you will want to check that things like notability are satisfied on the version you are translating for. 331dot (talk) 21:20, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

@331dot Thank you so much for the response. I will keep this in mind. Thanks again. Wjddml (talk)

Wjddml, I'll just add to 331dot's answer that there is a page Translation which explains what you need to do. --ColinFine (talk) 21:43, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

@ColinFine This is very helpful. Thanks to both of you! Wjddml (talk) 22:45, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Wrong Photo on Charles Miller House (Cincinnati) page

How can I get the correct photo added to this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_A._Miller_House This is the wrong photo. The correct photo is at: https://www.google.com/maps/place/1817+Chase+Ave,+Cincinnati,+OH+45223/@39.1647275,-84.5483761,3a,75y,188.9h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sk3Vl_o7jb5uqyMHXbYKe6g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!4m5!3m4!1s0x8841b4edd60a8b15:0x621c232dc177be8e!8m2!3d39.164487!4d-84.5483661

Thanks. I am not familiar with how to edit things in Wikipedia.

Kathy P. Kag1949 (talk) 22:37, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Kathy, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid we can't use Google maps or Google Streetview anywhere in Wikipedia, because their terms of use are incompatible with Wikipedia's needs. Most images you find on the internet are not suitable for similar reasons. If you were to take a picture of the house yourself, you would be able to upload it to use it in an article. --ColinFine (talk) 22:44, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Kag1949. You might want to post about this at Talk:Charles A. Miller House. I think you're correct about the photo and have asked about it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places#Charles A. Miller House. The current one probably should be removed, but a replacement would need to be a freely-licensed image as ColinFine pointed out above. There's something called "freedom of panorama" for photos of buildings in the United States, which means anyone could take a photo and upload it to Wikimedia Commons for use in the article per c:Commons:Licensing without having to worry about any possible copyright infringement; thus, means a non-free image (i.e. a copyright protected photo) cannot be used in this case, unless the copyright holder gives their WP:CONSENT. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:46, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Fixing... ɱ (talk) 14:34, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Done. ɱ (talk) 14:40, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you {{u|Ɱ}]. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:26, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Format for listing a book with revised editions

I cannot locate the formatting recommendations for how to list a book in a person page's bibliography under various circumstances. For example, a revised edition/anniversary addition/new or revised preface or foreword: do I list publication information for the original and the anniversary/new edition?

If there have been several editions with the last not being as significant in content as, say, a 30th anniversary edition, do I only list the original and the anniversary edition? What should I do when there's a later edition with the original no longer in print: do I list both ISBNs; do I list publishing information for each edition?

And so on. ;)

Bottom line: If this is standard, I'm wanting to keep the list in chronological order by original release so people can easily see which works came first. --PaulThePony (talk) 23:33, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi PaulThePony. You could try asking about this at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lists of works since this seems to fall under Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists of works. You might also try Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bibliographies since that's where you're probably going to find editors familiar with this type of thing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:20, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the direction, Marchjuly!! Will do. --PaulThePony (talk) 04:35, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Question about conflict of interest

I am a bit stuck about what I need to do regarding addressing the COI comment at the beginning of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Truscott All the facts in the article are accurate. I am no sure what you mean by working in mobile view or VisualEditor. --Woonga (talk) 23:55, 2 January 2021 (UTC) Woonga (talk) 23:55, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Note: Editor seems to have previously edited under the name of "Stephen Truscott". This seems like a discussion that would be better had with Eagleash, as they were the editor who added the COI tag. Woonga, if you have a conflict of interest (going off your edits to nearly exclusively pages with the surname "Truscott", that seems more than likely), you need to disclose it. Information on how to do that can be found at WP:DISCLOSE. Moreover, if you happen to have a COI, you are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly (WP:COIEDIT). In a way, it doesn't matter that much that the "facts in the article are accurate". You should not be editing those pages, much less creating them. Sdrqaz (talk) 00:26, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

• Editor created Draft:Stephen Austin Truscott in which the Jim Truscott article was linked to. It appears they have now changed their username and the draft has been tagged for deletion, although that will not work as it has been placed between 'nowiki' tags. It appears (to me) that the draft is an autobiography and unless I'm reading it wrongly 'Jim' is the editor's brother. As noted, with a COI they should not be editing the page but are welcome to make requests at the talk page. Template:Request edit has instructions on how to do this. Eagleash (talk) 01:07, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your respective suggestions. I have requested an edit as you suggested.

--Woonga (talk) 02:34, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

How to hide infobox in an article?

Hi there, I have a question to ask about hiding an infobox in an article. I created the infobox but feel that it doesn't contain enough useful information so perhaps it's best to keep it hidden for the time being. However, when I use the standard template, it doesn't seem to work with infoboxes. Do you know how I can get around that (short of not including the infobox at all)? Thanks! Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 01:13, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Revirvlkodlaku. Perhaps WP:HIDDEN would work; if, however, an infobox is more of a WP:DISINFOBOX than not, then maybe removing it altogether would be better. Articles aren't required to have an infobox and many don't. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:16, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

@Revirvlkodlaku: I don't know what you mean by "the standard template" or which type of hide you want, for example collapsing it with a "show" link (should probably never happen for an infobox), or commenting it out so it's not rendered at all but is still in the source text. PrimeHunter (talk) 08:41, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Marchjuly, thanks for the input. WP:HIDDEN is precisely what I tried using (I mentioned this in my initial comment), but it doesn't seem to work with infoboxes. The reason that the infobox for the page I'm referring to is currently a disinfobox is why I'm trying to hide it, but rather than removing it entirely, to keep it available in the source text for future use, once it becomes a better resource in the article. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 18:03, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

PrimeHunter, thank you, but I've tried the MOS:COMMENT approach, but it doesn't seem to work with infoboxes...Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 18:03, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

@Revirvlkodlaku: MOS:COMMENT doesn't care about what's in the comment, except if it already contains an ending --> from another comment. Then it fails and you have to change the existing -->, or start a new comment after it. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:52, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

@Revirvlkodlaku: If you can provide a link to the article where this infobox can be found, perhaps someone can help sort things out. However, as PrimeHunter pointed out above, if multiple hidden comments are being used within the infobox, the sofware will be looking for a beginning tag (i.e.<!--) and ending tag(i.e. -->) for each comment and incompletely formatted comments will not work as intended. If you remove the infobox, you'll always be able to find a record of it in the page history for reference; you can also post the infobox to the article's talk page if you want to discuss it. If you add the tags <pre> and </pre> before and after the infobox syntax, you can look at it in a discussion thread without it being enabled as explained in H:WT#Limiting formatting / escaping wiki markup. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:03, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Moving Categories

Hello, I don't see a "More" (and "Move") tab at the top of any categories. How can I move a category? Thank you, Charlie Smith FDTB (talk) 01:44, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

@Charlie Smith FDTB: You need special rights to move a category. You can make a request at WP:CFD. You can check that page to see if it qualifies for a "speedy" move. RudolfRed (talk) 02:01, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. Charlie Smith FDTB (talk) 02:04, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Undo redirect

On the last (top) entry in page history, why would pressing undo send me here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Reverting#Undo ? I was here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hunter_Biden&action=history , trying to restore FeralOink. Charles Juvon (talk) 02:06, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

@Charles Juvon: ...  Undid revision 997210111 by FeralOink (talk) BLP (undo | thank) (Tag: Undo) [automatically accepted] I'm guessing that you clicked on the second link, in (Tag: Undo), which is a tag on that edit, instead of the first one, at (undo | thank), which performs an undo. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 02:23, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Very strange. I see: "curprev 14:25, 30 December 2020‎ SPECIFICO talk contribs‎ m 81,994 bytes −2,654‎ Undid revision 997210111 by FeralOink (talk)BLP thank Tag: Undo [automatically accepted]" --------> "(undo | thank)" is completely missing. Charles Juvon (talk) 03:18, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

@Charles Juvon: I think it's because the article is extended-confirmed protected, you are not yet extended confirmed, and therefore cannot "undo", so it doesn't give you the option. I assume it's missing from other entries in the history as well? —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 03:59, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, and I have the time, but only ~400 edits. Thank you. Charles Juvon (talk) 04:32, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Need more help and explanation

Hello ! I am glad you contacted me. I hope, I am using correct place to answer you. I have difficulty in finding correct places. Earlier, I noticed your flags and bells, but did not know what to do with them and where to write answers. I am very new in wiki. As soon as I found this place, I will answer to your questions here.

1/ Richard V. E. Lovelace is a lively and talkative person. He liked to tell stories about his early life, family and travel at any Cornell gatherings. Everyone knows a lot about his life, because he liked to repeat these stories many times. I added only a small part of information, which everyone at the Department knows. Description in the section of his Early years, biography and travel are correct. However, it is YOUR choice to add them or not. I am not professional in wiki, and quite satisfied with the current version. Some wiki pages include fun staff about professor, others are very formal. Whatever. Does not matter for me.

2/ I had a reference to the US-Russia collaboration in Plasma Astrophysics which was removed: http://hosting.astro.cornell.edu/us-russia/ The collaboration started in 1991 approximately, and continued for almost 30 years. This is the only major US-Russia collaboration in astrophysics. The web page is stable, and has lots of information. More than 50 science papers were published. Collaboration is Cornell-based and US-supported (through multiple US grants). There is nothing in Russian and helped by Russia. Russian scientists visited US every year or worked from home.

3/ US-Kazkhstan Astrophysics collaboration is also unique. Not as long as US-Russia collaboration, but important for Kazakhstan scientists. I would add corresponding web page http://hosting.astro.cornell.edu/research/projects/us-kaz/index.htm

4/ I liked the former sub-section "Discovery of the Crab Pulsar Period" and recommend to return it back. This is very important discovery. Let me explain. When pulsars were discovered by Bell and Hewish in 1967 (he got Noble Price for this discovery), people initially talked about Little Green Men (Aliens), then (when the second pulsar was discovered) about pulsating white dwarfs, and only some scientists suggested the hypothesis of the rotating neutron star. Pulsars have period from 1 to a few seconds. This could be anything. In 1968 Richard developed a special program and was able to find period of Crab pulsar, which is 33 ms = 0.033 sec, which is much smaller than previously found periods. This discovery led to solid conclusion that pulsars are rotating neutron stars. Only neutron star may rotate 30 times per 1 second. Neutron stars back then were only theoretically predicted. This is a star where atoms are broken, nuclei compressed and also broken, and a star consists of neutrons packed together. Our Sun compressed to neutron star would have a size of 10 kilometers. If you compress it 3 times more, then it would collapse to a black hole. Anyway, this discovery was super important. And forgotten. Richard is modest person. In many wiki sources I've seen phrases like: In 1968 33 ms period of Crab Pulsar was discovered. Without mentioning the name - who discovered it. That is why, I developed a special, visible section about this discovery. BTW, a few years ago, Japanese filmmakers came from Japan and recorded Prof. Lovelace, about his discovery, then they went to Arecibo Observatory. Unfortunately, I cannot find this movie and reference.

I see that you placed everything in chronological order, and his discovery goes to the place, where he was a graduate student. I think, it is not necessary. Jocelyn Bell also discovered first pulsar, when she was a graduate student (Nobel Price discovery). Her discovery is considered as "one of the most significant scientific achievements of the 20th century" (Wikipedia). I think, finding period of Crab Pulsar (and proof for existence of neutron stars) is also very important. It would be better and more visible to keep a special sub-section, like in my original version.

5/ Other, minor corrections of the current version of the article: a/ Reference [1] - should be to Eldridge Lovelace (https://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/Eldridge_Lovelace) or to any reference inside this wiki page, not to NY Times

b/ If you keep the current sections, then I recommend in section "Research" to start from the phrase: "In 1969, Lovelace discovered period {\displaystyle P\approx 33}{\displaystyle P\approx 33} ms of the Crab Pulsar.[6] Then continue about the code. Remove this phrase from the middle of the section.

c/ There are other minor things, like dots, etc. Can be corrected later.

6/ I would like to repeat that I am independent scientist and do not have any interest from writing this wiki paper. If Japanese came from Japan with huge cameras to Prof. Lovelace, then why don't colleague from Cornell cannot write a page about prominent, but modest professor?

Richard retired this year, and became Emeritus Professor. He almost stopped working. However, the memory about discoveries should live.

Thank you very much for your help. Thank you for correcting my other errors.

Best regards Marinaromanova55 (talk) 05:06, 3 January 2021 (UTC) Marinaromanova55 (talk) 05:06, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Marinaromanova55, you've posted this to the Teahouse, and not at (presumably) User talk:Worm That Turned or User talk:Yngvadottir. This is content that should probably be posted to Talk:Richard V. E. Lovelace. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:58, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Marinaromanova55 You created Richard V. E. Lovelace article on Jan 2 (Bravo!), and since then other editors have been tinkering with it, with (it appears) the intent of aligning the style with Wikipedia norms. If there is a dispute between you and other editors, per Tenryuu's suggestion, that is better held at the Talk page of the article. David notMD (talk) 10:30, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

NOTE: Marinaromanova55 has been blocked from directly editing the article in question for not declaring on own User page that she is a colleague of Lovelace, at Cornell. Going forward, she is required to suggest article changes on the Talk page, for other editors to implement or not. David notMD (talk) 10:48, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

irrational sets

DEFINITION OF IRRATIONAL NUMBERS I think the definition of irrational sets should be amended to read "Irrationl numbers are numbers that can de defined by a finite numbers of integers". 2600:8801:B000:5A0:617B:AFB9:396D:2276 (talk) 05:22, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

If you have a reliable source, this may be something you want to suggest over at Talk:Irrational number. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:59, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello IP user. If you are saying that the infinitely repeating decimal number .33333… is not rational, no that number is 1/3 which is rational. If that is not what you mean, then it is not clear what you do mean. —teb728 t c 07:39, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the teahouse. I'm guessing there is a "not" missing from your proposed definition. However, as pointed out, even with that change the definition is incorrect. I just read the definition and it's a little disappointing. While correct, it's less than fulfilling to have a definition explaining in the negative — instead of stating what they are it states what they are not. That said, it is correct.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:47, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

getting short video clip to run in a loop automatically on wikipedia page when it is loaded by reader

I posted a Blender animation on wikipedia:

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

Please could you let me know how to embed the video more effectively (and improve its quality if possible). I initially rendered in OGG but the resulting video has some blurring and I converted it to GIF and would like to get it to run as a short video clip in a loop automatically on wikipedia page when it is loaded by reader

When I loaded the OGV format file, there was an ugly play symbol button. When I switched to GIF, there is no play button but the clip only runs when the reader clicks on it. Rdsk2014 (talk) 10:37, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Rdsk2014, welcome to the Teahouse. mw:Manual:$wgMaxAnimatedGifArea is set to 10e7 in https://noc.wikimedia.org/conf/highlight.php?file=CommonSettings.php. commons:File:Parabolic Spandrel.gif breaks it by a factor 10. You can upload a version with width × height × number of frames below 100 million. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:52, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

@Rdsk2014: Why, as a reader, would I want a video to play repeatedly, distracting me while trying to read the page? Seeing the video once should be sufficient, and I'll play it if I want to see it (and play it again if I missed something). —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 18:11, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Deleting article from sandbox

My article has been rejected and I understand why. I don't want to edit it, I want to start again but can't see how to delete my article from my sandbox. Can you help? Brenda P. Hall (talk) 12:20, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy: User:Brenda P. Hall/sandbox David notMD (talk) 12:37, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Welcome back to the Teahouse, Brenda P. Hall. There is no need for anyone to delete an old draft from your sandbox (although admins can do so in some circumstances). Basically, all you need to do is to re-edit the page and save (i.e. "publish") the new version you want to move on to: this could even be a totally empty page. One of the great things about Wikipedia is that nothing is ever deleted, just placed into the history of a page. It can be returned to later if you realise a portion is re-usable. Note that Wikipedia is not a web hosting service, so occasionally some user pages do get completely deleted if someone tries to use them like that. However, that does not apply to you if you now just want to move on and re-create the article. If that's what you wish to do, I recommend the WP:AfC process. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:59, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for this. But it seems that when I try to edit the page, the changes just disappear. I am a bit slow on getting to grips with this! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brenda P. Hall (talk • contribs) 20:59, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Brenda P. Hall. Your sandbox has been blanked by another editor (see here) based upon what you posted above and replaced with the template {{User sandbox}}. Bascially, Wikipedia:Page blanking is when you open the edit window of a particular page and remove all of the content the page contains. This is something you typically shouldn't do with respect to articles (except in some very limited cases), but it's perfectly OK and quite a common thing to do with respect to a user sandbox. If you want to see what was removed, check the page history and click on the previous version you want to view to see what was there before. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:47, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Can someone delete this page, please?

Talk:Favela/GA1 User:Tetizeraz. Send me a ✉️ ! 13:00, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Page deleted by Fastily. Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:59, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

area of a circle

@SK2242 and UnitedStatesian: Hi! I've just found, that I can write in here, using the new section button. Previously I've tried the 'edit source', that was too much for my browser to load. I've understood NOTHOWTO, and fixed it. I've also added {cn}. I'll try to add it to the 'area of a circle' page later. 37.76.43.195 (talk) 13:27, 3 January 2021 (UTC) I got logged out, while writing.Gmac4247 (talk) 13:31, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

@Gmac4247: In Draft:Area of a circle you claim "When the arches of the four quarter circles cross each other on half way between the center and the side of the square, their combined area equals the area of the square." This is not correct. Your claim gives a circle area of $3.2r^{2}$. The real area of a circle is πr² where π = 3.14159... Your work is original research and would not belong in Wikipedia even if it was correct. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:05, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: May I use this as citation?Gmac4247 (talk) 14:20, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

@Gmac4247: If you mean my post then it cannot be used as citation in an article per Wikipedia:Verifiability, since it was not published in a reliable source. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:25, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Gmac4247 You can cite any of a multitude of textbooks for πr² - it's been generally known for several centuries. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:35, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

@Dodger67: Thank you. You can see/edit/help to cite my proposal: talk:area of a circle#addition requestGmac4247 (talk) 17:53, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

Hi Guys, Happy new Year. I'd like to know how serious of an issue a "conflict of interest is. I recently created an article about a teacher of mine. I will not receive any compensation, I tried to be as objective as possible and I mentioned it on my own page. But I genuinely think he meets the notability guidelines of Wikipedia, given that he is a world champion in Fighting Ju-jitsu. So am I the wrong person to have written the article? It is currently pending for review, but given the time it takes (60 days at the moment) I'd like to do everything as good as possible. That's the article by the way: Draft:Wolfgang_Heindel Thanks for helping me out Tobias Geller (talk) 15:26, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

FYI - the drafts at AfC are not in a queue, meaning that any one could be examined by a researcher at any time. David notMD (talk) 15:54, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Tobias Geller. Editing with a conflict of interest is not forbidden, though it is discouraged. But since the articles for creation process has been available, it is quite acceptable for editors with a COI to create a draft and submit it for review; The notice you've put on your user page will warn the reviewer to check the text carefully; but on a quick look, it seems pretty neutral to me. As David not MD says, it might get reviewed today or in three months. But in any case, there is work you can do to improve the sourcing. Several of the references are bare URLs, which makes it take longer to review them for reliability. More to the point, many of the references are not independent of Heindel: these are primary sources: they can only be used in limited ways, and do not contribute to notability. You need to remove all citation to unreliable sources such as Wikipedia, YouTube, and sales sites. Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. . You should concentrate on sources which meet that criterion. --ColinFine (talk) 16:43, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Verifiability for new technology.

 RobertSpencerDixon (talk) 16:45, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

RobertSpencerDixon Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm not really sure what you are asking- but for something to merit a Wikipedia article, it must receive significant coverage in independent reliable sources showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of notability. 331dot (talk) 16:49, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I have created a new Wikipedia page on Connectionist Databases in my sandbox. As this is my first Wikipedia page, I have to wait for four days before it will be published. I have already done rather more than the required ten edits of existing pages.

My concern is that as this has not been published before and there is no existing Wikipedia page on the subject. There are plenty of Google pages about connectionist models and connectionism. There is a published article which mentions it at https://www.itjungle.com/2017/08/14/ibm-need-databases/ and it eventually finds an article on my ERROS website at http://www.erros.co.uk/ERROS_Connectionist_Database.pdf. ERROS allows developers to create complex applications, mostly without any new programming

This article, with little change, is the basis of my proposed Wikipedia page. I used ERROS to create STIPPLE, a major collaborative fine art system, unlike any other in the world. STIPPLE is the working proof of my ERROS concept.
 

Can anyone see any reasons why my page might be rejected? This is fairly technical stuff, yet perhaps more easily understood by non-technical people than computer experts for whom ERROS may be too large a paradigm shift.

Many thanks for any suggestions.

Rob Dixon — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobertSpencerDixon (talk • contribs) 17:33, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy: the unsubmitted draft is at User:RobertSpencerDixon/sandbox

In my opinion your draft, which has not been submitted to Articles for Creation for review, will be Rejected, and likely to be quickly deleted as wholely promotional. Minimally, it has no references to confirm its notability. Much of what you wrote has nothing to do with the concept of 'Connectionist Database.' Of much greater importance, you are writing about your own creation of a database system = original research = not allowed. From what you wrote "ERROS was conceived and created by Rob Dixon [you] who patented its concepts." Only if other people are publishing stuff about connectionist databases could it possibly be a subject of a Wikipedia article. David notMD (talk) 18:00, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

David,

Many thanks. But surely no one else will publish pages about connectionist databases if they don't know of the concept? Why is orignal reseaarch not allowed? How can any new concept get a Wikipedia page?

All of what I wrote is about the concept of a Connectionist Database as all the features are features of the database - it is defined by itself in itself.

I am happy to change my draft.

Rob — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobertSpencerDixon (talk • contribs) 18:19, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello, RobertSpencerDixon. Wikipedia does not accept original research, period. Only when several people, wholly unconnected with you, have published material about your ideas could an article be written, and it should be based almost exclusively on what those independent sources say, not on what you say or want to say. --ColinFine (talk) 18:44, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Best recommendation at this point in time is that you delete all content in your Sandbox, turn off your computer, and make a cup of tea. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a forum, not a webhost, not a blog, not social media, not. David notMD (talk) 20:28, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Well David, according to Wikipedia, "An encyclopedia or encyclopaedia (British English) is a reference work or compendium providing summaries of knowledge" Knowledge progresses, at an ever fater rate. How does Wikipedia ensure that it doesn't get left behind? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobertSpencerDixon (talk • contribs) 21:18, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia accepts its role as a trailing indicator. ColinFine already directed you to Wikipedia:No original research. Please 'sign' your comments by typing four of ~ at the end. David notMD (talk) 21:40, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I will add that I am not a Reviewer for Articles for Creation. If you wish, submit your Sandbox as a Draft and get a second (formal) opinion. David notMD (talk) 21:46, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

David - I accept your view and there is no point in wasting my or anyone else's time. Do you have any ideas about where else I might try to spread the word? I have tried Acaademia but without response RobertSpencerDixon (talk) 23:08, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Archiving issues

I have recently set up a archive for Talk:Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election this used to be the name of Talk:Opinion polling for the 2019 United Kingdom general election which meant Talk:Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election/Archive 1 and three other archiving pages had been turned into redirects. I have removed the redirects but when the first discussions started to be automatically archived they were sent to Talk:Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election/Archive 7 rather than Talk:Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election/Archive 1 Llewee (talk) 17:04, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

New Page

How do you put the box with details on the right hand side and get the lines for the paragraphs Paevans620 (talk) 17:13, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Paevans620 See WP:INFOBOX, and paragraph breaks are simply created by a single blank line between paragraphs. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:23, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Paevans620, and welcome to the Teahouse. Dodger67 has answered your immediate question, but (assuming that this about User:Paevans620/sandbox, I'm afraid that you're making the mistake that most new editors make when they come here and immediately start the very difficult task of creating a new article: what you are doing, asking about an Infobox, is building a house by painting the woodwork before you've built the foundations, or even investigated the stability of the site. An infobox is a fiddly detail which can be added at the end, to make an article more attractive. The important thing is the references to independent reliable sources: Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. . Judging from your username, I suspect that you are trying to write an autobiography, which is strongly discouraged in Wikipedia, because you are likely to find it difficult to write sufficiently neutrally, and to stick to information which can be found in a source indepedent of you. You should begin by finding the sources that are essential to establish notability, as if you do not meet these criteria, any and all work you have put in on this will be wasted. --ColinFine (talk) 17:49, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Non-free image from children's book

Hi! I'm relatively new to the image uploading policies of Wikipedia; I've read through some of the non-free content / fair use guidelines but hoping someone with more expertise can chime in here as well. I'm editing Curious George (film), in which one of the scenes is inspired by a specific moment from the children's book Curious George Takes a Job. This is specifically mentioned in the article text and I was wondering whether it might be appropriate or allowed to upload a corresponding image from the book like this one. (Of course, the image would be massively reduced to make it low-res, properly attributed, with explanation of why it would be fair use, etc.) I've seen Wikipedia:WikiProject Books/Images which discusses book covers, but no guidance about the inside of books. Thanks for any help! —DanCherek (talk) 18:16, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello DanCherek. I cannot possibly see the justification for using a non-free image from a 1947 book in an article about a 2006 movie, unless reliable sources discuss this specific image in detail when reviewing the movie. That seems unlikely to me. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:44, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Gotcha, thank you! —DanCherek (talk) 21:31, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Article with no sources

I have an article about a notable man who writes a unique form of literature in abundance. I have no sources for this article as all the information included comes from the man himself. What do you recommend as a plan of action to have my article published? Robert Eddison (talk) 19:22, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Robert Eddison, I strongly suggest you find reliable secondary sources, as while some primary sources are useful for confirming facts, they do not establish notability by Wikipedia's standards; without notability, no amount of editing will bring the draft into publication. This seems to be the only edit you've made so far to the English Wikipedia; is this on another wiki or on another account? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:30, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Robert Eddison, what you have learned from the man himself is forbidden from use on Wikipedia by the core content policy No original research. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:50, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

When will I be autocomfirmed?

 Earthsmoke91 (talk) 19:46, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

@Earthsmoke91: You currently have four edits. After you make a total of 10 (six more), then you will become autoconfirmed. RudolfRed (talk) 19:49, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

You can see a list of your edits here: Special:Contributions/Earthsmoke91 RudolfRed (talk) 19:49, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Help With Aligning Photos

Hello, I recently added three photos which I took but they are not properly aligned. Is there a way this can be fixed so that the photos are evenly aligned? StJohnHall (talk) 20:01, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

StJohnHall, you have recently uploaded 14 images to Wikimedia Commons. They all seem to me to be straight, with the horizon horizontal, except File:TheDAC.jpg which (I assume) uses deliberate distortion. Are you referring to the way you've arranged them in the article St. John's University (New York City)?   Maproom (talk) 20:36, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Interesting case of socks gaming user page to get autoconfirmed?

See User:Pahunkat/Usernames to watch, the 'possible spambot' section (mainly the usernames with actual names - most of the 'user-' prefixed accounts have been blocked). Anyone have any idea if it's worth filing a SPI, or reporting to AIV, or do something else? I think they're just waiting to get autoconfirmed. Thanks, Pahunkat (talk) 21:01, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

There's no reason to report anything to WP:AIV simply because it doesn't appear to be vandalism. Are the accounts connected? Perhaps, but the only way to know for sure would be to ask for a WP:CheckUser to look at them and the most common way of making such a request is via WP:SPI. I'm not an administrator, but WP:SOCK only happens when WP:MULTIPLE accounts are created and then used in inappropriate ways; simply having more than one account doesn't not automatically make someone a sockpuppeteer. If all these accounts are being used for is to create a bunch of user sandboxes, then the disruption level seems pretty low in my opinion. Perhaps try asking the admin who blocked the other accounts you've marked as "done" in that section. There might be more to those blocks (e.g. WP:LTA, WP:EVADE or WP:BANEVASION) than the actual edits themselves. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:18, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Banner Shell

Should all the banners on this talk page be included within the banner shell or should only wikiproject banners be placed inside? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Podcast TipsyElephant (talk) 21:19, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

@TipsyElephant: The banner shell should only include the WikiProjects. Thanks, Pahunkat (talk) 21:58, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi. How do I add an info box and photo

 Brandon Lapin (talk) 21:22, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello Brandon Lapin. Does this relate to Draft:Wendy Sachs? First off, neither an Infobox nor a photo will achieve acceptance of an article - it's having references that support WP:NBIO that matter. But both are welcome, of course. Please see WP:Infobox for guidance on adding these (but come back if you're still stuck). For photos, do you have a photo that you have taken yourself, or can you link to non-copyright image that we can look at for you, and offer advice? Nick Moyes (talk) 00:59, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Brandon Lapin, welcome to the Teahouse. There's more information about creating infoboxes and adding photos at WP:INFOBOX and WP:UPI respectively. In regards to the infobox, you may want to peruse the list of infoboxes, as they can get very specific in use. Before adding an image, please read Wikipedia's image use policy; if you hold the copyright and are willing to let the photo be used by anyone for whatever reason, you should not have any problems uploading it. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:04, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

How do I add categories to a draft

 Brandon Lapin (talk) 21:26, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

See if you can improve Draft:Wendy Sachs and then get it approved before thinking about infobox, images or categories, as none of that contributes to notability. David notMD (talk) 21:50, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

The Film - Surge section has no refs. David notMD (talk) 22:12, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Don't add categories to a draft until it gets approved and moved into the main space of the encyclopedia. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:17, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

@Brandon Lapin: Some people have found {{Draft categories}} useful in suggesting categories for the reviewer to use when/if the article is moved to mainspace. The best way to figure out how to use a feature like an infobox is to look at the source (i.e. edit, but don't save) of an existing article, e.g., James Cameron. Copy/paste the {{Infobox person|name=...|...|signature=...}} code from that article to your draft and modify as needed. See the link to that template just given for complete documentation on supported parameters. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 23:05, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

[redacted]-- please help

Hi! A deeply researched article I wrote about the founder of modern Cuban librarianship, who created the current national public library system in Cuba, was recently taken down by Nathan2055 for not having reliable sources.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Mar%C3%ADa_Teresa_Freyre_de_Andrade

This is absolutely racist and utterly inappropriate. The sources are from several different Latin American academic publications, Latin American encyclopedias, and a recent article written by a PhD student in information science.

The subject of my article has an Italian Wikipedia page. Is she notable enough for Italy but not for English?

I'd love some help fighting this one. I think that Nathan is not familiar with academic librarianship in Latin America and I don't want English Wikipedia to suffer as a result of his ignorance.

Thanks! Mewestin (talk) 21:28, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia (English, at least) suggests disputing actions, but not attacking other editors. Your draft Declined, reason given is need for better references. You asked Nathan directly, and received confirming answer on the Talk page of the draft. Lastly, English Wikipedia has different standards from other languages as to what are considered reliable source references, so the existence of an article in a different language counts for naught. David notMD (talk) 22:00, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

@Mewestin:. The fact you have descended to the level of assuming and accusing the reviewing editor of racism with no evidence whatsoever of anything but following our core inclusion policies (and with an explanation of the reason for the rejection in the talk page), miserably taints your post, and is very de-motiviating for offering you assistance. I agree with moving this to a draft. It is not ready for the article mainspace.

The draft article subject is certainly notable. As the proponent, it is your burden to demonstrate that by citing proper sources, in a proper manner. That would be done through well-attributed citations to reliable, secondary, independent sources that treat the topic in substantive detailTemplate:Z21 and directly verify the information. To get you on the right foot, I have removed the inappropriate and unreliable user-generated wiki source you used for citing a good portion of the content, as well as the embedded raw link in the body and combined the duplicative references (see WP:NAMEDREFS). Now, go use some of the many better sources you can find through a search like this one.

Ever consider, as a brand new user with 82 edits, that there might actually be standards for writing, and that it just might be that you haven't met them yet, when told nearly exactly that by a user with 34,000 edits, who both declines and accepts draft articles on all manner of different subjects, based on their type, manner and depth of sourcing, instead of jumping to the conclusion that it's all some racist conspiracy?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:49, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

@Mewestin: Agreed. This draft simply fails in its current state on Notability because of poor sources. You, on the other hand, rather fail on a poor and wholly unacceptable attitude to other experienced editors here. Wikipedia is built by editors from all round the world and from all walks of life. Trying to play the race card is a bit of a non-starter here! Just fix the sources, please, and don't attack other people. If you can't find the sources, then this wonderful librarian simply isn't going to have an article about her here - just as I haven't got one about me, either. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:24, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, all! This feedback is very fair-- I got way too heated up over this one and responded inappropriately. I'll apologize to Nathan and also apologize to all of you now. Meanwhile I've added a lot more citations and am hoping this article meets the guidelines now. Mewestin (talk) 01:06, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

@Mewestin: In my view, this was a very unfair draftication/decline. People at Wikipedia hate being accused of racism/sexism even though it's silly to think that Wikipedia is a racism/sexism-free zone. For practical reasons only, I'd recommend against making comments like this again. Thanks for your contributions and I hope you stick around despite the horrible welcome you received. @Nathan2055: I think the draftification you did here was in shockingly poor judgment. Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:54, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Trump Derangement Syndrome wiki page

• Trump derangement syndrome

Hello, I was on the Trump Derangement Syndrome wiki page. The definition and facts cited there uses an article by CNN to distort and manipulate readers. This is an inaccurate article cited. The person who edited the page is not sound of mind. I am trying to get the portion: “The term has also been used to describe Trump supporters who are unable to accept reality, such as Trump’s loss in the 2020 election.[8]” removed as Trump has not lost the election due to ongoing litigation over allegations of voter fraud. It appears that this portion of the article is weaponizing the Wikipedia platform for politics. It seems very inappropriate and a political attack on those who want fair and accurate elections. Is Wikipedia an anti Trump platform or will an administrator correct this? CThomasFox (talk) 22:36, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

@CThomasFox: If you have a problem with an article, the place to discuss it with other editors familiar with and interested in the article is that article's talk page (Talk:Trump derangement syndrome in this case). —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 23:19, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

CThomasFox Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state. If those sources are being summarized incorrectly, please discuss it on the article talk page. Note that almost all sources state that Biden won, William Barr said there was no widespread fraud, and judges of all ideological stripes(some appointed by Trump) have tossed all litigation. "Voted for Biden" is not fraud. This is not an anti-Trump platform or a pro-Trump platform, but it is not a platform for fringe theories with no evidence. If you just want to be told what you want to hear in order to satisfy your worldview and support for Trump, this isn't the place for you. 331dot (talk) 23:27, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Additionally: Don't speculate about the soundness of mind of other editors, and don't speculate about their motives. Limit yourself to comments on the reliability of the sources that are cited, the accuracy of their citation, the balance among the reliable sources that are cited, and similar matters. Incidentally, none of this needs an administrator (yet). -- Hoary (talk) 23:32, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, CThomasFox, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm an administrator (based in the UK), and I won't have you or anyone suggesting that any editor here is "not sound of mind" for making a fair edit (nor indeed for most other types of edit). I'd not heard of that term, but thank you very much for exemplifying it for me. My initial view is that the edit you quoted seems a quite fair one to have been added. Maybe 'Trump's defeat" would have been better phraseology than "Trump's loss". Even over here in the UK we know that all of Trump's efforts in litigation have been thrown out of every court thus far, and that Joe Biden is president-elect, having defeated Trump in your election, so no amount of future litigation is going to make anyone in the mainstream media (which is then reflected here on Wikipedia) change that position right now unless and until such time as any court action were to be put forward, not thrown out as all have thus far, and then successfully overturn the election result. Thus far, that seems unbelievably unlikely to happen, though I'm currently listening to the release recording or Trump's phone conversation right now on CNN trying to influence an election official into finding him some votes, so it does seem he will stoop to any depths to get his 'win'. Please don't bring examples of Trump Derangement Syndrome into this forum, or attempt to undermine content based upon your own wishes for the election's outcome. Many thanks, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:41, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

@CThomasFox: – Sidestepping whatever deep state windmills this grievance letter is tilting at in favor of redressing an actual issue with the article, I've added a qualifier to the sentence; as we have a citation for only one prominent instance of this usage, it only seems appropriate to qualify its usage as such. The excerpt now reads: "The term has also been used by political commentator John Avlon to describe [...]" TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 05:40, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:RS vs WP:RSE

At WP:RS, it says:

Care should be taken with journals that exist mainly to promote a particular point of view. A claim of peer review is not an indication that the journal is respected, or that any meaningful peer review occurs. Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable, except to show the views of the groups represented by those journals.

On the other hand, at WP:RSE, it says:

In significant world religious denominations with organized academies or recognized theological experts in religious doctrine and scholarship, the proceedings of official religious bodies and the journals or publications of recognized and well-regarded religious academies and experts can be considered reliable sources for religious doctrine and views where such views represent significant viewpoints on an article subject.

The Baháʼí Faith is a small-to-medium-sized religion and there are some academic works on it, but a far greater number of articles written by Baháʼís in Baháʼí journals that aren't peer-reviewed by non-Baháʼí academics. For example, at Baháʼí Faith and science#Existence of ether, there is a quote from the Australian Baháʼí Studies Journal about how the Baháʼí scriptures are compatible with modern physics. Would mainstream physicists agree? We don't know because they haven't written about it. Based on the above quote from WP:RS, I would think the material should be removed. On the other hand based on the note from WP:RSE, I would think it is okay to include. What should I do?

By the way, I've been on Wikipedia for a few years now so I'm not sure if I'm still supposed to post at the Teahouse... let me know if there's somewhere more experienced editors should seek advice instead. Gazelle55 (talk) 00:50, 4 January 2021 (UTC) Gazelle55 (talk) 00:50, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Gazelle55, welcome to the Teahouse; we don't actually care about how long the asker has been here on Wikipedia, though the help desk is a possible secondary venue (I don't really see too much of a difference between the two).

My personal take on it is that if the Australian Baháʼí Studies Journal is indeed considered a reliable source by Wikipedia's standards, I think it can be included into the article, so long as it's made clear that the thought is attributed to the Journal (most preferably in the text), and not espoused by Wikipedia's voice. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:11, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Tenryuu, thanks for the quick reply. I didn't explain very clearly but my concern is that I don't think the Australian Baháʼí Studies Journal is reliable according to WP:RS. It is run by the Association for Baháʼí Studies (specifically the Australian branch), which is works closely with the Baháʼí religious leadership of Australia, and everything submitted to it is reviewed and approved by the Baháʼí religious leadership. There are no non-Baháʼís on the editorial board, nor are they welcome to join the board. So I would normally think it shouldn't be cited, except perhaps to say "Baháʼí author XYZ has argued..." However, after an editor mentioned WP:RSE I am now uncertain. Is it okay to use a journal outside the scholarly mainstream because it shows opinion within a religion? That's what the excerpt from WP:RSE I shared above seems to say, but I'm concerned this would introduce a lot of pro-Baháʼí POV. (WP:RSE is an essay not a guideline – I'm not sure how that affects its importance.) Gazelle55 (talk) 01:55, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Gazelle55, I suggest that you ask about the reliability of the journal over at the reliable sources noticeboard, where editors who are more in the know could possibly help you with this problem. I don't see any prior cases in the archives where it's been mentioned, but you're more likely to find your answer there. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:00, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

@Gazelle55: I think the fine point here is that the Baháʼí are saying that their doctrine is compatible with modern physics, for which their journal seems like a reasonable primary source. We are not (in Wikipedia's voice) claiming that this is true, just saying that the Baháʼí say that it is. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 02:19, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Gazelle55, you are always welcome to ask a question here at the Teahouse. Do not hesitate. In my opinion, this is a case where a clear distinction should be made between stating something as factual in Wikipedia's voice, and stating that certain people believe something, attributing that assertion inline with a reference to a non-independent but otherwise reliable source. The second is permitted in a case like this. It is a challenge to keep articles that describe religious doctrines neutral, but that is among the many tasks that generalist Wikipedia editors must take on. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:33, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Notification bell icon shows badge with number 1 despite no unread notifications

For some reason the notification bell icon in the toolbar shows a gray badge with the number 1, even though I don't think I have any unread notifications. Is there a way to refresh this to make the number go away? I find it a little distracting.

Sorry for the rather trivial question, let me know if there's a better place to ask. Thanks, AnonQuixote (talk) 03:49, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

AnonQuixote, welcome to the Teahouse. If it's gray, that almost certainly means that you opened your alerts interface, but didn't actually click on the unread item. Does clicking "Mark all as read" in the top-right corner of the interface not do anything? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:58, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Tenryuu. On my Special:Notifications page I don't have a "Mark all as read" button. When I go to Special:NotificationsMarkRead directly and click the "Mark as read" button, I get an error message: "There are problems with some of your input. Invalid event ID". AnonQuixote (talk) 04:10, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

AnonQuixote, I am not sure how you managed to get to that page. Does a small interface appear when you click on the alerts? This is what I see when I click the icon on my end (I marked your notification as unread). Do you have Javascript enabled for Wikipedia? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:18, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Tenryu Initially I got there from Special:Notifications when I got notified about your previous comment. I did have JS disabled at the time. I enabled scripts for wikipedia.org and wikimedia.org, then logged out, cleared my browser's session data, and logged in again. This time there was a new alert from Wikimedia Commons (regarding an automated welcome message on my Commons talk page). Once I marked that one as read, the notification badge went away on Wikipedia. So my issue is now resolved. I'm guessing it was some kind of bug/caching issue regarding notifications across different Wikimedia projects, possibly complicated by my browser script blocking settings. Anyway, thanks for the assistance! AnonQuixote (talk) 04:24, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Glad to hear. Definitely have your browser accept scripts from the Wikimedia domains, because quite a bit of functionality runs on it. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 07:57, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Question about photo

Bro you added wrong photo. We said add this photo https://m.facebook.com/Maridhas11. The link you gave to me is not in google also. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maridhas. Bro you also change it to "Writer maridhas". Balakumar8000 (talk) 04:08, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Balakumar8000, there is no prior edit of yours making a request on this account. That photo can't be used unless it meets all of Wikipedia's fair-use criteria or the copyright holder releases it for anyone to use for any reason. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:20, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Question about WhatsApp

Bro. Reply on Whatsapp. You change the the name Writer Maridhas and photo also. We will only give you new phone if u change it. I send many messages in whatsapp also. We don't know to change. Balakumar8000 (talk) 06:00, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

@Balakumar8000: If you have a question regarding Wikipedia editing, perhaps the article about WhatsApp, then some at the Teahouse can probably help you. If you have a question about using WhatsApp, then perhaps try checking www.whatsapp.com or asking at the Wikipedia:Reference desk instead. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:00, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello Balakumar8000. Do not refer to Wikipedia editors collectively as "bro" as that is an over familiar slang term that excludes female editors and those who do not consider themselves to be your drinking buddies. We discuss improvements to Wikipedia articles here, not any nonsense on WhatsApp. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:10, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Cullen328, Point 1 semi-disagree (women have also been called 'bro' in more social rooms); point 2 and 3 agree. GeraldWL 07:24, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Gerald Waldo Luis, women are also called "dude" and "guy" and "buddy" in such rooms, but that is wrong and sexist and exclusionary and demeaning. That behavior might be commonplace in some bars near college campuses, but is not acceptable among editors of a collaborative worldwide encyclopedia project. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:42, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Cullen328, exactly, that is why I said "in more social rooms." When we hangout I call my friends 'bro' or 'dude' regardless of gender, and they don't take offence. Various people are present on Wikipedia, so unless they consent to, I would not call anyone colloquially. GeraldWL 07:50, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Balakumar8000, "We will only give you new phone if u change it." FBI open up! GeraldWL 07:29, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

what model? I have a Nokia and I'm happy with it :) Happy new year! Eumat114 (Message) 10:26, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

CSP Solar Companies

Hello,

I recently noticed that not all of the Companies that are dealing with CSP solar energy are listed.

Belove are three links from all the Companies that are dealing with this kind of energy.

https://www.fortunebusinessinsights.com/industry-reports/concentrated-solar-power-market-100751

https://industrytoday.co.uk/market-research-industry-today/global-parabolic-trough-collector-market-to-witness-a-pronounce-growth-during-2025

https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/documents/downloadPublic?documentIds=080166e5c47fc97c&appId=PPGMS

Are those notable articles and must be listed? A.alexandrou (talk) 06:07, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi, A. Alexandrou. From what I can gather from the question and the article you're creating on your user page, you're asking if these articles establish notability for the company in question, namely Parvolen CSP Technologies. The unfortunate answer is to my knowledge 'No', as the general notability criteria critically requires that the reliable, independent sources have "significant coverage" of the subject. They do show potential promise for finding other sources that do cover the subject in more depth, however.

Based on the Greek subject matter and on what I believe is a Greek last name, I'll ask if Greek is your first language. If so, two things you could do are check the Greek Wikipedia for a corresponding article at el.wikipedia.org and attempt to port that material to the English Wikipedia (while giving proper credit to its creators). If not, it should be noted that, while the English Wikipedia prefers English sources where available for obvious reasons (easier for readers and editors), references to reliable Greek citations would be perfectly acceptable if they're more plentiful than English ones. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 06:42, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Note: Further reading with TheTechnician27's mention of references to reliable Greek citations would be perfectly acceptable if they're more plentiful than English ones: WP:NONENG. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 08:01, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Ponzammo.

Who is Ponzammo and why does he/she think that they have the right to automatically undo your edits to an article without giving any proper explanation? 79.147.232.241 (talk) 07:06, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Ponzammo did give you an explanation at User talk:79.147.232.241. Ponzammo's "right" to do so is based on Wikipedia's policies on unconstructive editing. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:13, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi there, anonymous editor. This appears to have happened only once, and Ponzammo was using a tool called Wikipedia:RedWarn. Your edit was undone because, in order to "correct bias", you changed the description of James Shelby Downard – a man who believes the Freemasons were responsible for JFK's assassination – from "conspiracy theorist" to "truth researcher" in the prose. Whereas "conspiracy theorist" has a well-known meaning of one who engagies in conspiracy theories, "truth researcher" is ostensibly a made-up term meant to confer validity to Downard's beliefs. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 07:22, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Problems with General Notibility

hello, i translated an article from the jp wiki to english here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gawr_Gura). Originally it would just redirect you to the article Hololive Production. But i overwritten over that and replaced it with the jp wiki translation (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gawr_Gura&oldid=998043014)

A very very experienced wikipedia editor reverted it back to the original redirect state though and said “This exact draft just failed at draft, and would fail GNG. Draftspace exists for a reason, and this article was already a redirect for a reason.” And i made a reply to that on the Gawr Gura talk page titled: Appeal (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gawr_Gura). I tried pinging the experienced wikipedia editor, but i don’t know if the format is right, or if it even works on talk pages.

I’m still new here so I’m still learning on the what and what nots of wikipedia, can someone help me? Thx! Too Much Distractions (talk) 07:28, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

@Too Much Distractions: It would have worked, if you had signed that edit. No comment about the appeal contents. Victor Schmidt (talk) 09:19, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Ok thank you! I see you fixed it for me, but next time i would just need to add the 4 tildes/squiggly things at the bottom of the message right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Too Much Distractions (talk • contribs) 09:41, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

@Too Much Distractions: more precisely after the message, but you got the spirit, so people now know who said what and when. Just use normal tildes (~). Happy new year! Eumat114 (Message) 10:24, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

@Too Much Distractions: Yust a note, you cannot generate Notifications by simply adding your signature in a later edit. Notifications are only generated for added sections, while replacing the four tildes with the signature code, not for modifications of any edits. Victor Schmidt (talk) 10:32, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Ok thanks guys! I’ll wait for a reply now from the editor. I’ll try signing this comment.Too Much Distractions (talk) 11:22, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Dispute of content in another language

How does one contact a person who has put content on a page that is disputable? I have tried to change the information but the page continues to be reverted. Africanwomenincinema (talk) 10:50, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Africanwomenincinema, looking at your contribution history, the only edit I see that's been reverted is your first one, here, where you tried to change an image but did not do so successfully, because you used a URL rather than a filename of an image that has been properly licensed and uploaded. See Help:Introduction to images with VisualEditor.

More generally, when an edit of yours is reverted that you do not think should have been, go to the article's talk page, start a discussion there, and ping the editor who reverted you (use the code {{re|USERNAME}}) asking them for more explanation. See WP:BRD and Help:Introduction to talk pages. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 12:28, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

My problem is that I am not able to communicate because of the language barrier. I have tried to make suggested edits and would like to refer the user to a more representative photo. I have provided content to a few thousands of pages across the Internet and am familiar with the information on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Africanwomenincinema (talk • contribs) 12:52, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Editors connection - How to I communicate with editors? I am new.

Hi

I am a new editor and I love wikipedia. I did my first wikipedia page in 2007 and I have forgotten everything. It is so much more complicated now and I kind of need a mentor or a few. How do I get some help? There are some edits I want to make but I lack the courage at the moment. I also want to learn how to support you all and do some edits that are possibly on your list of things to do. 20footfish (talk) 11:09, 4 January 2021 (UTC) 20footfish (talk) 11:09, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I also have the same question - how do you contact old editors for a chat about the information that needs a change. I don't like the word dispute but perhaps a chance to contact and chat so they don't feel like you have railroaded their hard work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 20footfish (talk • contribs) 11:12, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

20footfish, hey there! If you need a mentor, there's information on WP:ADOPT. Wikipedia is a for fun project, at the end of the day, so you can edit things if you have the time and courage to do so. There are users who list their to-do list on their userpage; for example, I have a list of things to do at my page. If you want to contact editors personally, you can do so at their talk page. GeraldWL 11:44, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Gerald and I totally understand the comment about if you have the courage to do so... That's what I wanna chat about because I am looking at Bios on living people and long story but I got lots to learn about policy first and rules and how to be professional LOL A mentor would be great. I will look at your link. thanks20footfish (talk) 11:58, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi 20footfish, and welcome to the Teahouse! Regarding "lack the courage", I'd encourage you to read WP:Be bold. Go ahead and make the changes, and if there are issues with them, it'll be easy for someone else to undo.

Regarding getting help, I'd first suggest reading through our introductory tutorial, which will get you up to speed. If you still have questions after that, you can always ask here or seek adoption by an experienced editor.

To find tasks that need help, check out the Task Center.

Regarding communication to other editors, use the talk page; see Help:Introduction to talk pages. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 12:34, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

AndhraBank

 2409:4052:2E98:FF1E:E968:C198:9346:D7B9 (talk) 11:16, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Do you, perhaps have a question? SenatorLEVI (talk) 11:19, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Are you looking for our article on Andhra Bank?--Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:18, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

How to place wikipedia category articles on a map

Hi, Is there a simple automatic way to generate a map (can be with an external tool, the intent is not to include it in an article) containing marks with all the articles of a category (and its subcategories) ? Thanks, Ogoletti (talk) 12:47, 4 January 2021 (UTC) Ogoletti (talk) 12:47, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

User Page

Hi there!!! I am a newcomer in here and need to know some details. I have completed the Wikipedia Adventure and have earned the badges. The thing is, What should be mentioned in my user page? Please do suggest me other things that I can do to get myself in Wikipedia. Desmond Maverick (talk) 13:26, 4 January 2021 (UTC) Desmond Maverick (talk) 13:26, 4 January 2021 (UTC)