Wikipedia:Teahouse

Tenryuu, 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

Just for fun

Can I add a more lighthearted page to Wikipedia, like "List of countries by how fun their name is to say"? I know the answer's probably no, but I just want to make sure because I think that would make Wikipedia more interesting. Calicopenguin1112 (talk) 13:43, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Calicopenguin1112, agghhh I would want to see them alive. But no, you can get in trouble man. :( GeraldWL 13:47, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

No, You cannot. Wikipedia is an Online encyclopedia and the content should be professional. Such things for fun is not acceptable on wikipedia. please do not even try this because sooner or later your article will be deleted. Anonymous Cuber (talk) 13:59, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Calicopenguin1112 You might like to read the essay WP:HUMOR which gives some views on this and points out there is a (limited) use for humour, for example on Talk pages. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:10, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Calicopenguin1112. I agree with what's said above. However, you can select a "fun" subject to write about – and then write a "serious" article that's "fun" just because of what it's about; maybe something that ends up at WP:WEIRD. One of my favorites (that I had a very small hand in), is William Windsor (goat). Researching and adding this detail, for example, was fun for me. The takeaway though is that this was a notable topic, worthy of a stand-alone encyclopedia article, and everyone contributing followed our inclusion and writing policies and guidelines to create it, such as sourcing the content by citing reliable, secondary, independentTemplate:Z21 sources. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:57, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

@Calicopenguin1112: Another example is longest words, containing the Māori placename Taumatawhakatangi­hangakoauauotamatea­turipukakapikimaunga­horonukupokaiwhen­uakitanatahu. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 22:57, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Calicopenguin1112, A semi-serious suggestion is to do that on Uncyclopedia, which is dedicated to that kind of objects. JJP...MASTER!_{[talk to] JJP... master?} 17:53, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Calicopenguin1112 Wikipedia is a serious project and thus doesn't accept content purely intended for humor. Very rarely, exceptions are made under WP:HUMOR, but you're better off creating the article in your user namespace, such as User:capsulecap/Article_Name. Capsulecap (talk) 01:50, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

How to talk sense into a bot

A colleague is using a "trick" he came up by himself to stop a bot from doing damage. I have been using on several pages, under "See also", the following link:

• Zev Wolf disambiguation page
  

Should the nasty bot mess up with it here too, here is what I wrote: asterisk / Zev Wolf [between straight double brackets] / disambiguation page
Our friend The Banner modified it to

• Zev Wolf (disambiguation page)
  

that is: asterisk / [open straight double brackets] Zev Wolf (disambiguation) / | / Zev Wolf [close straight double brackets] / (disambiguation page)
which is doubling every word in it. He explained to me that that isn't useless ballast, because "sometimes you have to use a trick to tell that robot that the link is valid, although it is pointing to a disambiguation page. What I was doing was adding that trick." (see here).
I am still not sure that the "trick" is needed, and if it is, can we not contact whoever is in charge of that bot and have them modify the code, so that it stops doing whatever it's doing wrong (I didn't understand what that is)?
I sometimes use links to disambiguation pages in the articles intentionally, because they contain good, useful info that helps the user. The next day I'm getting an email asking whether I've linked to the disambiguation page intentionally. If I don't react to it, it lets go and the link stays put, no problem. What is different in this case? Or is it? Thanks, Arminden (talk) 01:24, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

@Arminden: Please let us know which page this happened on and/or the name of the bot that made the edit. RudolfRed (talk) 01:39, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

@Arminden: I agree that contacting the bot owner is in order. I know next to nothing about bot programming (did I say "next to"? shameless puffery; let's just call it "zero") and yet it seems to me it would be superbly easy to craft a rule for any bot to fix this issue, given how many bot rule exceptions I've seen discussed for things that appear much more convoluted, and that then were actually programmed. (For example, a rule that if it finds "disambiguation page" written in parentheses within a few spaces of the end of the link markup, to ignore fixing the preceding link.)

Anyway, the main reason for my post is to hopefully provide a little trick that you might find helpful in the future. If you want to write something like you have above, and not have it format (so that you can avoid the circumlocution you engaged in of describing the way the link was formatted in prose), just place nowiki tags around the content. Here, for example

<nowiki>* [[Zev Wolf (disambiguation)|Zev Wolf]]</nowiki> (disambiguation page)

produces when you save

* [[Zev Wolf (disambiguation)|Zev Wolf]] (disambiguation page).

Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:27, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

@Arminden: See Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Links to disambiguation pages. The bot reporting the link and The Banner changing it are both doing the right thing. There are also human editors going through pages like Special:WhatLinksHere/Zev Wolf to find and fix inappropriate links to disambiguation pages. They waste time checking intentional links like [[Zev Wolf]] (disambiguation page). To avoid this, the link should say [[Zev Wolf (disambiguation)|Zev Wolf]] in article text. As far as I know there are no bots trying to automatically change links like [[Zev Wolf]]. They are just reported for evaluation by editors. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:54, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

What I told him was that a bot (dplbot) is maintaining the page "Articles With Multiple Dablinks" and that the articles was showing up there. And that with the extra "(disambiguation)" DplBot would see the link as okay. The Banner talk 10:29, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I understand bots aren't smart, that's easy; but I don't get it a) why it doesn't apply here what I know from many years of receiving emails from such bots that ask me to check whether it was intentional or not, and it's up to me to leave it as I intended to; how is this different?, and b) why, if there are such bots that run amok, their "handlers" cannot be addressed in order to fix them. I keep on getting replies which are not answers to my questions. If there is a glitsch somewhere, why combat it with acrobatic improvisations and not go to the source? That some editors aren't logical either and feel compelled to remove all wikilinks to ambig. pages by hand, w/o looking at the sentence or wider context, that can't be helped; not with tricks, that I'm sure about. That's called compulsion, or obsessive–compulsive, it's a serious matter and can't be part of our considerations here. But whatever, this is going nowhere. Arminden (talk) 13:51, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Some people just want to help Wikipedia by doing maintenance work. They should not be awarded a kick in their sitting device just because they do that.

And yes, I do it manual. Just to be able to look at the wider context. The Banner talk 21:14, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Preferred way of dealing with sites blocked due to GDPR

Asking here because I wasn't able to find this info anywhere else – do we have a preferred way of handling links that block all visitors with European IPs due to non-compliance with the GDPR? I do have a VPN which I can use to access them, but this is hardly an ideal arrangement, especially since I have to turn it off again when I actually want to be able to make an edit. I almost feel inclined to mark these links as dead and redirect them to an archive, but since that's technically incorrect and may be confusing to non-European readers, I'm more than hesitant to make this my modus operandi – after all, it's a safe assumption that the vast majority of readers who will want to read up on the details of U.S.-based articles will themselves be American. So, to get to the point, is there any secret approved way of solving this dilemma, or do I just have to live with it? AngryHarpy‍^talk 11:42, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

AngryHarpy, if you can find a better reference, not protected by GDPR, you can use that instead. But a source that's easily available to over three-quarters of English-speaking readers, and with some difficulty to the rest, is fine. After all, it's ok to cite a book in a library in Osaka, even though most of us have no way of getting there, and wouldn't be able to read it anyway. Maproom (talk) 13:09, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Alright, that's about what I expected. Thanks for the reply! AngryHarpy‍^talk 13:21, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

@AngryHarpy: Perhaps it's worth suggesting another value for |url-status= in {{Citation}} templates to mark those so it will act like |url-status=unfit for users that set a (new) preference flag that indicates they are affected by it (i.e., European users). That's assuming there's just one (or a very small number of) such class of user and website, and not different websites that block different countries (at least for this issue).

I think there is a way you can be granted an exemption to allow you to use your VPN to edit so you don't have to remember to switch back and forth. Perhaps an admin will comment. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 21:41, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

AlanM1 Having skimmed through WP:EXEMPT I rather doubt this is something I could reasonably hope to qualify for, especially since this is not an issue I encounter on a daily basis. Having to connect to and disconnect from a VPN via a modern client just to access a single website is annoying, but I wouldn't exactly call it an unreasonable hardship.

Your notion about a possible additional value for |url-status= is really interesting, though I do wonder whether a template checking an IP's location is viable on a grander scale – or rather, whether the fairly minimal improvement to the user experience would make this worthwhile. But still, thank you for giving me food for thought. AngryHarpy‍^talk 14:18, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

@AngryHarpy: I wasn't thinking of having the template do the checking for the reader's IP – that would present some issues. I thought it would just allow users to self-identify in their preferences as someone blocked by these restrictions. When someone with this preference set is shown a reference that has |url-status=GDPR-blocked, it would act the same way as a dead (or unfit) URL – linking primarily (or only) to the |archive-url= value instead of the |url=.

Another interesting option would be to create/maintain a list of sites with this problem so individual citations wouldn't need to be marked with the special |url-status=GDPR-blocked. I wonder if this is something temporary, that a site usually fixes, or whether it's just too burdensome in some cases, and therefore permanent. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 00:17, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

AlanM1 Now I finally get where you're coming from. And yes, these notices are supposed to be temporary, but many regional publications which only receive a negligible amount of views from European countries seem to have settled on it as a permanent solution, and I wouldn't necessarily blame them for it giving the fairly daunting compliance checklist. It's possible that some may still change their mind in the future, perhaps upon the possible introduction of a similar ruleset in the U.S., but for now it seems highly unlikely in most cases – fergusfallsjournal.com, the website that led me to posting this thread in the first place, would be a typical example. With that in mind, I would personally prefer a centralized list (perhaps at WP:GDPR) over a |url-status=GDPR-blocked option, as this would make the updating of the status of a website that has become GDPR-compliant after all a matter of seconds, rather than a task requiring possibly thousands of minor edits to the article space. AngryHarpy‍^talk 09:58, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

You might already be aware of this option, AngryHarpy (I noted your archive comment), but I've had some luck with using Wayback Machine links to get around these blocks. See the reference I added here, for example. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:30, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Cordless Larry I'm indeed aware of the option and I really ought to be, given that it's arguably at the core of this entire affair ;) – so, to clarify, what this feature proposed by AlanM1 would do is allow editors to self-identify as European and be directed straight to an archive for all links marked as affected (assuming, of course, that one is provided in the citation – perhaps an idea for a new maintenance category?). For editors in the U.S. and elsewhere, nothing would change. Of course, judging whether |url-status=GDPR-blocked or a centralized list would be the more feasible option is a little beyond me. AngryHarpy‍^talk 14:47, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I have my own articles

Hi, I have my own articles and just today is my 2nd day on this wikipedia world. I feel so great and thanks to you for your idea and suggestion. I have all the references too is its fine to create an articles can you pls help me for this. Zayakg (talk) 12:01, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Zayakg, I'm not sure what you mean by "my own articles", so I can't check them. But I see that you recently added some content to Santali cinema, providing nine references for something that isn't even a statement, and another four for an uncontroversial statement. This "cite overkill" will look suspicious to other editors. Maproom (talk) 13:02, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I am guessing that you mean you have an intention to create Wikipedia articles. General advice is develop more expertise by editing existing articles before trying to create one. See Help:Your first article once you are ready. David notMD (talk)

@Zayakg: Thanks for wanting to contribute to Wikipedia. Based on what you wrote on your talk page, I have my own articles to post and make visible to the world ..., please be aware that articles that you've already written for another platform are unlikely to be suitable as-is for Wikipedia, as we have our own policies regarding notability, reliable sources, and style, plus some technicalities in the way text is marked-up for presentation. Additionally, if you have previously published that content or copied any of it from somwhere else, we have strict rules about respecting copyrights that would result in speedy removal of the content. Please see the links above (especially WP:YFA) for guidance. Writing and publishing a new article here as a new user is a difficult task, and we generally suggest that you instead spend some time improving existing articles to understand how Wikipedia works, both procedure/policy-wise and technically. Thanks. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 21:54, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks guys for ur idea & suggessition

FYI

 – Section merged with above by Tenryuu.

My articles will not published any were until I give permission, what ever I will create that would be all my own work & own creation, I was thinking to create this since 2016 but so busy with my task and schedule. One day I inform to the person who is familiar with articles writing in wikipedia. He told me so many time ok I will create for you,...ok I will create for you, the days pass on & on and now almost 4 years and 6 days passed away I don't have my articles on wikipedia. I laugh at myself just before 3 days my soul says why don't you try by your own to create an article in wikipedia. Even-though I have many task to do but I give my 36 hours to see what is happening on Wikipedia how it works. Today is my 3rd day now I feel I can try. I don't need that person since 4 years and 6 days which I was waiting for my articles. Everyday is a learning day for me if I do any mistake pls pls guys help me or guide me. I feel so good to be connected with you all. Thanks a lot, enjoy the day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zayakg (talk • contribs) 04:52, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I hope you didn’t pay money to that person who was going to create for you, Zayakg. What kind of articles do you seek to create? Pelagic ( messages ) – (23:17 Sat 09, AEDT) 12:17, 9 January 2021 (UTC) (P.S. to reply, next to the heading "I have my own articles", click the edit link or tap the pencil, then write your answer underneath the existing text.)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pelagic (talk • contribs) 12:23, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh, I see that you have listed the film Bonodal under 2016, but the notes column says unreleased.[1] Also, do you have any relationship with the producer-director Kiran Khatiwada? —Pelagic ( messages ) – (23:44 Sat 09, AEDT) 12:44, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Feels like hounding

I feel like being hounded on my talk page, here there and elsewhere on Wikipedia by a group of users.

The help template didn‘t help.

What can I do? Can anybody give me an advice or help? Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 14:47, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Chip-chip-2020, it's hard for me to understand the context. The second one, I can see why such comments may dismay you, and I would also be offended by such comments. But to someone to open the possibility of a meatpuppetry is not being hounded, it's a step of WP:SOCK, and if it is clear that your account isn't used only to write that Chopin is gay blablabla whatever you guys are talking about there, you are good to go; however if it is indeed that you use your account mainly for that, RIP dude.

Pinging inquirer's Exhibit A Mathsci, and Exhibit B Smerus. GeraldWL 14:59, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

And also Exhibit C Praxidicae. GeraldWL 15:00, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not really involved in this, I just get pinged on IRC when help templates go up and this was an inappropriate use of it. I'd also suggest that Chip remove this entire thing as this isn't the place. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 15:02, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

One-track, single-issue, repetitive, editor who objects to other editors disagreeing with him/her. And failing to convince them seeks to present self as victim in the hope that this may advance his/her cause.--Smerus (talk) 15:20, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Dear GeraldWL, my account is not at all ‚mainly for that’, but since these users keep deleting my sourced work (without good reasons), I can‘t go on with the improvements I‘m preparing for other articles. So what can I do?--Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 15:26, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Chip-chip-2020, I'll look in your logbook to understand more about this. GeraldWL 15:50, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

There have already been multiple reports on noticeboards concerning Chopin and his sexuality. User:Chip-chip-2020 already requested a hearing at WP:DRN. In a nutshell, following radio broadcasts by Moritz Weber, a journalist based in Zurich publicised his theory that Chopin was gay (on the basis of adolescent letters). On 12 November, 2 Zurich IPs added content directly related to Weber's article, which even complained about de.wikipedia.org's unwillingness to respond to the material. It appears that User:Chip-chip-2020 is almost certainly linked to those Zurich IPs. Their editing has so far had a single purpose, namely that Chopin's schoolfriend Tytus Woyciechowski might had been lovers and that any infatuation between Chopin and women was a sham. The article on Frédéric Chopin is a WP:FA. It is concise and extremely well-written (User:Smerus has been the main contributor). The other main editors have been User:JackofOz, User:Toccata quarta, User:Nihil novi and User:Kosboot. Since the Weber article, User:Chip-chip-2020 has made edits to en.wikipedia.org, pl.wikipedia.org, de.wikipedia.org, fr.wikipedia.org, it.wikipedia.org and es.wikipedia.org, all in the same narrow topic. The Polish wikipedia article has reverted all their edits. The Italian wikipedian article has copied the new content on sexuality word-for-word from the article in en.wikipedia.org.

Today I learnt a new word—straightwashing. The article on Frédéric Chopin is about his life and music. We write about Scherzos (Chopin), Ballades (Chopin), Barcarolle (Chopin), Valldemossa Charterhouse, etc, etc, not about "sexual politics". User:Chip-chip-2020 has been attempting to add biased content to wikipedia, which is not properly supported by WP:RS. There is currently an RfC which should continue until 25-26 January.

I noticed that User:Chip-chip-2020 just now started editing Frédéric Chopin in a tendentious fashion, targeting me. The article Scherzos (Chopin) was created by me a while back; I consulted User:Nihil novi to check on the naming. Scherzos is the correct plural according to the Library of Congress and wikipedia, although Scherzi is another possibility (e.g. for the G. Henle Verlag edition). User:Chip-chip-2020 also claims Smerus has hounded them, I recommend that Smerus is consulted. The sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry issue was already raised at WP:DRN in December, but, with only one registered account, nothing can really be said. Only by looking at the the global edits of User:Chip-chip-2020 can the full picture be seen for "Chopin and sexuality". Mathsci (talk) 16:30, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

GeraldWL, see what I mean? Thank you--Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 16:38, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

One-track, single-issue, repetitive, editor who objects to other editors disagreeing with him/her. And failing to convince them seeks to present self as victim in the hope that this may advance his/her cause. I agree with Smerus, classic WP:SPA. Mathsci (talk) 17:22, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the summary, Mathsci. Chip-chip-2020, I've read Mathsci's summary and looked through your contributions log. If using Snope's fact check ratings, "These users are hounding me" is:

 Mostly false (meaning: "the primary elements of a claim are demonstrably false, but some of the ancillary details surrounding the claim may be accurate.")

DISCLAIMER: I am not hounding you here. Please note that.

First, let's start with Talk:Waltzes, Op. 70 (Chopin). A set of misadventures lead you to being questioned by an editor if you are a sockpuppet or not. This is hinted by various coincidences or time gap shortness, and the manual of style the IP editors and you follow. You then linked to WP:HOUND, assumingly that you felt the editor is stalking you. This is not stalking, but rather a part of the process on sockpuppet investigation. I've never been suspected as one and I'm sure it is shocking to be accused as such, however it is not suggested to fire back at others and lead the discussion to no-man's land. Thus, the discussion at Talk:Waltzes, Op. 70 (Chopin) is not a hound.

Then let's go to the grande finale, the Chopin thing. The section "Chopin’s sexuality" is confusing and convoluted so I can't grasp a lot of the users' minds there. But luckily Mathsci has given me a summary. I need to know if it is true that the sources you cite are basically his adolescent love letters towards his friend Tytus. Here's the thing: adolescents? I have had wet dreams about my same-sex friends and have no interest towards them; if I say that somewhere does that make me gay? Don't think so. It is merely a theory, and thus must be given less weight. But to be more specific, those are allegations, very very deep theories. And I don't see the need of inclusion, until the ghost of Chopin tells the world "Hey, me and Tytus are now married in Heaven Society."

Although I slightly disagree with Kosboot's claims that Chopin's subject of expertise makes news articles unreliable, I can agree if only he says instead, "Not all news articles are reliable." Because that's true. The New York Times passing the RS test does not make all of their works reliable. A post can be a blog and still be reliable. Context matters. With clinging uncertainty yet consensus on Chopin's emotional heart, it would be controversial to state that Tytus is Chopin's crush.

Again, nobody in that section is harassing you, although Kosboot certainly did attack an IP, wherein I have warned them about it.

You wrote in an RfC at the talk page that "there is no reliable and/or written proof" about Chopin's relationships with those people, when it has been added. How are you certain that they are not reliable?

You have also inquired several rhetorical questions, whereby you are using the format of a question to say a personal opinion. This can be manipulative to some and is discouraged. If you want to say a personal opinion, say it in form of an opinion. Those criticizing you for this are also not bullying you.

On your above reassurance that your account is not mainly for that, I can probably agree with you. This is shown by the last page of your contributions log, whereby only some contribs are directed towards the Chopin topic. Once your edit was disputed, that's when your log is littered with Chopin-related pages, as well as some noticeboard pages, eventually leading up to here, the Teahouse. However not all editors are as attached to an article like you do, so it may be suspicious. But this is not at all hounding. This is the magic cure to your chagrin:

This is part of the process.

The summary Mathsci gave to me was much to your chagrin, in which you state, "see what I mean?" And I don't see what you mean. None of Mathsci's words are hound, let alone harassment. This is all part of the process, as I stated. This is part of the process on reaching a penultimate (hope I'm using that word right) consensus. Trust me, the more you edit controversial articles and stumble upon an RfC, whether formal or informal, you may stumble upon a dispute and argument with editor(s). This will cool down in the aftermath, but is currently boiling, and writings in the fashion of Mathsci's summary is expected: referring to statements like "[Chip] has been attempting to add biased content to wikipedia, which is not properly supported by WP:RS."

Why do I mark your claims "mostly" false? Well it's because although the foundation of your claims are false, some details of your claims sheds light to some of the misdoings other editors have done amidst the process.

I would stress that saying certain sources "not supported by RSes" is NOT straightwashing, an attempt of portraying LGB people a hetero. And I am firm that all editors involved assume good faith, at least on you. You have to be grateful some are still willing to seek a civil discussion with ya.

I hope this debate ends, and I wish you a better near future in the world of editing Wikipedia. GeraldWL 17:37, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

@Gerald Waldo Luis: Thanks for giving such a comprehensive answer. However, far from being a victim. User:Chip-chip-2020 is now harassing me. They were not apparently satisfied with your response, so have asked an administrator who has blocked me previously.[2] Their request is an example of WP:OTHERPARENT. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 19:41, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

---

---

Comments

Imho, the Teahouse is likely not the best of venues to assess or sort editor behaviour complaints. This is excellently illustrated by Gerald Waldo Luis (GWL)'s 17:37, 8 January 2021 wall of text above: they start with assessing whether Chip-chip-2020 (CC2) is right on content, and then attempt to deduce whether or not there's something wrong behaviourally, based on that content assessment. Which brings me to the next point: the Teahouse is likely not the best of venues to assess content issues (as is, the above analysis on content is a second forum on a content issue that is being discussed in an open RfC – note that the second forum on the content issue was not opened by the OP, but in the responses they got from GWL).

I think the Teahouse is excellent to give newbies some advice on avoiding common pitfalls:

• CC2, the WP:SPA type of scrutiny on your edits won't go away until you start to edit articles that have nothing to do with Chopin, nor with gender/sexuality-related topics. That is, extensively (as in, not some window-dressing to just cover up the SPA nature of your account). I don't say SPAs can't be useful editors on Wikipedia (e.g. subject-matter experts), but the *scrutiny* won't go away, and will, more likely than not, in the end start hampering your editing.
• CC2, the argument that others are preventing you from proving you're not a SPA is evidently bogus: start editing articles that have nothing to do with Chopin, nor with gender/sexuality-related topics. Show that there are other topics that interest you, and that you can contribute constructively to the encyclopedia on these topics.
• CC2, opening discussions elsewhere that can be linked to an active (i.e. open, not closed) discussion on another page is usually counterproductive (see, e.g., WP:FORUMSHOP and WP:CANVASS). Wait till the first discussion ends: in an RfC, usually someone uninvolved would close the discussion, and usually, they would in their closing report suggest next steps (if any), in which case such next steps can then be acted upon.
• WP:SOCK type of scrutiny can not be operated in the Teahouse: if there are substantial reasons to suspect socking, this should go to WP:SPI. A newbie editor should not be drawn through something like that (basically WP:ASPERSIONS) in a venue not suited for it.

--Francis Schonken (talk) 09:27, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

That was quite a strong cup of tea here. I was actually just looking for help, since the help template didn‘t work as I thought; thought this was a friendly place. But thank you Francis Schonken for your hints, some are really helpful for me as a newie! And if we talk about time: I don‘t know what other wiki-users are doing in the real world, but I for my part just can‘t edit all day and night long since I have a normal job and a life in reality. So I do one thing after the other normally, since one also should be prepared to work on wiki and deliver good and sourced content, which I did. I actually thought wiki would be a nice hobby besides normal life in an openminded online community, but it turns out to be quite time-consuming, when I see all these discussions.--Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 08:27, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I regret editing has been made harder on you than it should have been (see WP:BITE). The classical music area of editing has, alas, a rather bad name in Wikipedia for its rather hostile editing environment. Gender- and sexuality-related topics are, twice alas, probably not much better (a long-term editor in that field has recently retired for the hostility they were subjected to). Some suggestions: there are wikiprojects such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music, Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers, Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies, and likely others relating to whatever interests you may have. You may take an interest in the discussions on the talk pages of such projects (which may give an inkling of how editors in these areas of interest address issues), and/or list yourself as a member of these projects. This may make editing in these areas easier. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:05, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Reply to User:Chip-chip-2020

As other editors have already said, this is not the proper forum to discuss conduct allegations. It is a reasonable forum to make an initial inquiry about how to deal with a conduct issue. The answer to that question is to first read the boomerang essay, and then, if necessary, report it at WP:ANI. However, the large majority of reports of hounding are by editors who are disagreed with and don't like being disagreed with (which is why you should first be sure that you will not be seen as causing the problem).

I tried to be a neutral mediator in the content dispute, and I thought that it was a straightforward content dispute, rather than a content dispute complicated by conduct issues. The content dispute was discussed at length at DRN, and I concluded that a Request for Comments was necessary. I had difficulty in getting the editors to summarize concisely how they wanted the article changed, but I thought that I had finally worked out the RFC. I see that the article is being edited while the RFC is running. That is not helpful. I gave the usual instructions not to edit the article while DRN was in process, but apparently the OP is editing the article now while the RFC is running. That is not helpful. Let the RFC decide the content.

I will repeat my advice, which is that hounding should be reported at WP:ANI, but that the conduct of the filing editor may also be examined. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:48, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Editing my Grandfather's Page

Hi! I am trying to edit my grandfather's Wiki page (George Pedersen), but the edits are not being accepted. I do not have anything specific to reference as I am referencing his personal CV, which is not on the internet. Can anyone help me to do this for him? Puddlejumper2million (talk) 18:08, 8 January 2021 (UTC) Puddlejumper2million (talk) 18:08, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Puddlejumper2million, welcome to the Teahouse. An issue that you are facing is that you have a conflict of interest (COI). While it doesn't prevent you from editing the article directly, caution should be taken as Wikipedia editors frown upon COI editing. Edit requests make it easier so that edits onto the page are more neutral. The other issue is that Wikipedia relies on verifiability, which is done through reliable, independent sources. Your grandfather's CV would not be a great example of that. Has he been mentioned significantly in any newspapers, journals, or similar? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:40, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Puddlejumper2million. I'm really sorry - and I know you only wanted to update the George Pedersen page with good content - but we need anyone, anywhere in the world, to be able to VERIFY what they find on Wikipedia. OK, this might mean going online to check an independent website, or go to a library to request a published book or journal. But sadly we can't allow content 'straight from the horses mouth' or based on factual content held solely in private archives. I hope this helps you appreciate why your edits were removed. Kind regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:09, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Puddlejumper2million. I've added some information about conflict of interest editing to your user talk page. Please take the time to look it over, and then feel free to ask for further help here at the Teahouse if you have any questions. Now, there is one big way in which you could help improve the article about your grandfather and that would be to find and upload a picture of him to use in the article. Please understand that the copyright status of a photo can be a tricky thing to sort out sometimes and only certain types of copyright licenses are accepted by Wikipedia as explained here and here. The best thing for you to do would be for you to simply take a picture of your grandfather and then upload the image to Wikimedia Commons as explained here; trying to use an already existing image (perhaps one posted somewhere online) might actually require some sort of copyright license verification. It would be much easier for you to just take a photo yourself and then upload that photo with it's original Exif data to Wikimedia Commons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:20, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Orphan Article

Hi Wikipedians!!! I have got my first Wiki Page approved, but it shows that it is an "Orphan Article". What does that mean?It seems like the article must be linked or should have incoming links. Please do help me what is the next process. Desmond Maverick (talk) 00:54, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Actually, it does not appear that you had an article approved. What I see is that you too someone else's draft Draft:Sandeep Kumar Mishra, which has been Declined three times, then copied it to create the article Sandeep Kumar Mishra in Mainspace, bypassing review, and without any accreditation of the original creating editor (Snowfall21). Tsk, tsk. David notMD (talk) 01:19, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Note: I am going to go do a bunch of things to fix the copyright problem this has created, so I'd appreciate it if anyone seeing the above doesn't edit the article (which will, in any event, soon be deleted); any substantive made while it is (was) in the mainspace need to be attributed so each new one will create more work.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:57, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I have taken care of the copyright issue and left a detailed message at the above user's pages regarding this issue.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:20, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for sorting out that mess. I was shocked, seeing what had been done, but did not have any idea how to remedy the transgression. David notMD (talk) 11:43, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

@David notMD: Thanks for discovering and noting the problem above. I hadn't looked at the history of the user before starting a copyedit on the cut and paste moved draft. Yeah, it was a big mess, and was quite a pain, becsuse multiple edits ocurred after the cut and paste move, but a history merge would have "shuffled" the page history. By the way, note this that I've just been alerted to.---Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:19, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I need some help.

Hey, this is somewhat urgent. I got a message from a user saying that File:CroppedImageOfAmericanProducerDJSuede.png is not suitable for Wikipedia because it is not freely licensed. I'm not familiar with different types of licensing, I'll say that, but I'm even less familiar with the methods of finding an image's licensing status. What kind of threw me off is when the user stated that a file can not be used even if the author themself approves of it, which I can kind of understand now that I think about it. However, I actually received another message from the subject asking to CHANGE the picture, and this is all kind of confusing. I'm thinking maybe the one he sent me is under a free license, according to Google Images, but that's a faulty method of finding out whether a picture has been under a free license, because I have tried it with other pictures that ARE available on the internet. Regardless (I know it sounds like I'm rambling) I need to know whether this picture is freely licensed, probably due to the fact that I wouldn't want to go through so much trouble to get some image uploaded. By the way, the only reason I'm doing any of this is because if the author seems to approve of it, and has even sent a picture to use, one would think this doesn't have any restrictions over it. I need help figuring out what license this picture has, if anyone knows how to do that, please let me know, thank you. TrevortniDesserpedx (talk) 01:23, 9 January 2021 (UTC) TrevortniDesserpedx (talk) 01:23, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi TrevortniDesserpedx, free licensing here means that the Image must be free to use here or at any other open source. The best way to get a free licensed image is at our Sister project Wikimedia Commons. If you are the original owner of the image, you may upload it to Wikimedia Commons here. Please feel free to leave a personal message in my talk page for further clarifications.Desmond Maverick (talk) 01:35, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

That's not quite right, Desmond Maverick. Free licensing means that the image must be free to use by anyone for any purpose, commercial or not, including altering it. Except where an image is in the public domain by reason of its age, this requires that the copyright holder explicitly release it either to the public domain or under a suitable licence such as CC-BY-SA. In the absence of such explicit information, Wikipedia (and all Wikimedia projects) assume that an image is not freely licensed and cannot normally be used. Trevortnidesserped, Maverick is right that if you own the image then you can upload it to Commons, granting the licence on the way. But you say the subject has given permission, so it is evidently not your image. If the owner of the copyright (who is probably the photographer, unless they took the picture under an agreement which says otherwise) wishes to license it so that it can be used here, they can send a message as specified at donating copyright materials. You cannot do this, and nor can the subject, unless they own the copyright. --ColinFine (talk) 12:26, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: DJ Suede the Remix God is I assume the article where the photo would be used. — Pelagic ( messages ) – (00:34 Sun 10, AEDT) 13:34, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you all for your help! TrevortniDesserpedx (talk) 18:49, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Using Wikipedia Contents

Question if I use wikipedia Contents do I still need to credit it?

And also is Linking a Link to the wikipedia page were I wrote the contents into my own words Consider Giving Appropriate Credit --Cocopuff2018 (talk) 03:06, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

 Cocopuff2018 (talk) 03:04, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

• Note: Fuhghettaboutit wasn't hallucinating below. Erroneous content posted and later removed by SenatorLEVI. Please don't remove a post after others have responded to it – use <add>...</add> and <del>...</del> instead (see WP:REDACT). —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 07:16, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

@Cocopuff2018: You can use it, but you must provide attribution per the terms of the licence. See Wikipedia:Reusing_Wikipedia_content RudolfRed (talk) 03:59, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Cocopuff2018. With my regrets to SenatorLEVI, the above is incorrect. You must provide copyright attribution when reusing Wikipedia Content (not because Wikipedia owns the copyright, but because its editors do). Because of the free copyright licenses Wikipedia's content is released under, however, all this mostly means (it depends if there's modification, etc.) is that when you use it, you must provide a hyperlink to the Wikipedia page upon your reuse (from which the contributors can be accessed through the page history, this provides the suitable credit as required under the copyright license all us editors (with some minor exceptions) agree our content is licensed under and is given credit through), together with hperlinking to the copyright license borne by the content, or posting the text of the license. See more at Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content.

One other thing to be careful of. Some content you may see used here – for example quotations from copyrighted, third-party works, and certain images – are being used here under a claim of fair use. When that is the case, the content is not Wikipeda's at all; much of it is fully-non-free copyrighted, and cannot be used at all, unless your use meets its own fair use exception to the default exclusion of copyright law. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:06, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the help Last Question Is this Page Considered appropriately Credited since I put This page is Rewrite From wikipedia and put a link to it's wikipedia Page on the bottom of the page of my wiki? --Cocopuff2018 (talk) 04:36, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Cocopuff2018, as far as I'm aware you can do that, but usually a link in an edit summary to a revision is usually enough. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:41, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Soo much I just hope I have given wikipedia Enough Credit By adding a link --Cocopuff2018 (talk) 04:47, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Pretty good job Cocopuff2018. You have done most of what is necessary (many people don't even try), with one exception. You have hyperlinked the Wikipedia, page, suitably stated that as the source, and stated it was modified, as required.

However, the page does not, as is required, either hyperlink to the copy of the the CC-BY-SA-3.0 license, or post it text (much rarer). The page states at the bottom it's content is under CC BY 4.0. That is not the same license. Again, please see Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content#Text content --Fuhghettaboutit (talk)

@Fuhgettaboutit: So, the way I read Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content#Re-use of text under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike, the problem is the lack of "SA" in their stated "CC BY 4.0" license and the failure to link the license as CC BY-SA 4.0 (the later version is allowed per you must license them under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share-Alike License 3.0 or later.), right? —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 20:31, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Is this bodybuilder or the TV movie about him notable?

Bodybuilder Gregg Valentino has been called "the most hated bodybuilder". Valentino was the subject of the TV movie "The Man Whose Arms Exploded", which documented his steroid use, bodybuilding, and injury. He has had an interview with ESPN. There are a lot of articles about him on bodybuilding-specific websites, including T-Nation.com and bodybuilding.com , just to name a few.

An academic article in Critical Readings in Bodybuilding dedicates time to Valentino, and claims he is the poster boy of bigorexia. He also appears in the book Manthropology , although again briefly.

On the other hand, the only coverage I could find of Valentino in large newspapers was when the UK Independent covered the TV movie about him and an article in the Denver Post which profiled him briefly along with a few other bodybuilders

I can't decide whether Valentino himself, his TV movie, or both are notable. What do you think? IllQuill (talk) 03:47, 9 January 2021 (UTC) IllQuill (talk) 03:48, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi IllQuill. Try taking a look at WP:NFILM or asking at WT:FILM regarding whether the film is Wikipedia notable enough for an article to be written about it. As for Valentino himself, WP:INTERVIEWS are WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:BLPSELFPUB types of sources that might be acceptable in support of certain facts, but aren't really helpful in establishing notability. You can try asking about him at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bodybuilding, but that WikiProject seems to be inactive these days. Maybe also try asking at WT:SPORTSBIO or WT:SPORTS since they seem to be more active and you're more likely to get a response. I don't see anything specific to bodybuilders in WP:NSPORT which means you might have only WP:BIO, WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC to work with here. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:45, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

References

Rivalry

Many sport rivalries exist as Wikipedia articles. But a rivalry between 2 actors was well covered by the media and was notable. The rivalry was between Arnold Schwarzenegger and Sylvester Stallone. I think it meets WP:N, and request the WP:TH hosts to please present their views. Please ping me to notify me--Atlantis77177 (talk) 04:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

@Atlantis77177: If you which to create an article about a subject that you feel meets WP:N, then probably the best thing for you to do would be to create a drafts and then submit the draft to Wikipedia:Articles for creation for review when you think its ready. While Wikipedia does have lots of articles about sports team rivalries, that doesn't mean that it should have lots of articles about sports team rivalries. So, it would be better for you to create a draft or a user space draft first, with all of the supporting citations that you think establish the subject matter's notability. Then, if you want feedback from some Teahouse hosts or relevant WikiProject members, you an ask them to look at the draft. "Can I create an article about this?" types of questions are very hard to answer in anything other than a very general way. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:47, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Did I do it right?

I realized that a field was missing on the page, so I decided to contribute with information that was missing. I mentioned the source and posted it on the page. Did I do it right? WGCL19762021 (talk) 05:17, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi WGCL19762021. I'm not sure which page you're referring to, but perhaps it's List of equipment of the People's Liberation Army Ground Force. I've asked the members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history to take a look at that article, but my first impression is that the entire section List of equipment of the People's Liberation Army Ground Force#People's Liberation Army Ground Force Equipment (2020) recently addred by an IP account probably needs to be removed and rethought to figure out whether there's a better way to incorporate such information into the existing format of the article. Your edit here isn't really a problem per se and thank you for trying to add a source. The problems of that entire section, however, might be too great to overcome despite your attempt to do so. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:37, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your help

Thank you guys soo much for your help I appropriately Added a link to the wikipedia page and put the Page Link of the Wikipedia page in the summary Just let me know if I need to credit it better don't wanna. Get introuble Thanks again. And have a great year --Cocopuff2018 (talk) 05:20, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Appropriate Page credit

Alrighty also can you show me an example of how Hyperlink Is done I have never done that before? And sorry if I'm aggervating you? --Cocopuff2018 (talk) 05:32, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Cocopuff2018, to learn how to make links and other basic Wikipedia markup, see Help:Cheatsheet. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:06, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

hello, I am still a bit confused on this and I Did Put a link to its Wikipedia page along with a link IN Summary however i still do not understand how to add that other thing to make sure i appropriately credit it can someone please show me an example? --Cocopuff2018 (talk) 20:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I got declined.

So i spent a while building a small wiki page for a football player and igot declined. It said minumum standard for incline citations. Can anyone tell me a simple reasoning behind this, thank you. CalebBowman3 (talk) 07:20, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

CalebBowman3, welcome to the Teahouse. You need inline citations. WP:EASYREFBEGIN has information on how to do those correctly. There's a chance you need more reliable secondary sources or your draft will get declined again. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 07:26, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi CalebBowman3. Basically, you’re going to need to establish that the person you want to create an article about (Draft:Jarret Doege) meets Wikipedia:Notability (people) and the way you do this is by showing that they’ve received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Take a look at Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Amateur sports persons for some information as to how this is applied to college football players. You might also want to ask for input at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football. — Marchjuly (talk) 07:37, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Smartchem Cable Limited

FYI

 – Heading added by Tenryuu.

Hi, hope everyone is well. Thanks for inviting me here in teahouse. I have a question. I have searched "Smartchem Cable Limited" in wikipedia and wiki suggested to create one. I just created one and this is deleted. Can you please advise me how to write in Wiki? In Bangladesh, this cable company is so popular and helping people use quality cables. But there is no information in wiki.

Thanks Trailershow (talk) 07:55, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

@Trailershow: Welcome to the Teahouse. Writing an article from scratch is one of the hardest things to do on Wikipedia. New users are encouraged to become used to how Wikipedia works by working on preexisting articles and trying tutorials like The Wikipedia Adventure. If you are still inclined to write an article on Smartchem Cable Limited, I suggest reading through Your first article and finding independent, reliable sources. If you go the Articles for Creation route you can work on your draft in draftspace where it won't be deleted due to it being unsuitable by Wikipedia standards in mainspace. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 08:00, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

References

Color

I am actually curious to know how do we fill color in a row? June 099 (talk) 09:08, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Please see Help:Table#Setting_cell_parameters for full details, or you can just find an example you like and copy the source code.--Shantavira|^{feed me} — Preceding undated comment added 11:33, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi June 099. I'm just going to add that you should also probably take a look at MOS:COLOR for reference. Adding color to a table might seem like a great thing to do, but it might actually create problems for others reading the article if it's not done correctly. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:34, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Automatic linking or always manual?

When you add [[ ]] to a name and/or create an article, is there a way to then automatically link/add [[ ]] to name in other articles or do you have to manually do it? For example, Actor X is mentioned in lots of film articles but doesn't have own page, own article now created, does [[ ]] have to be added manually to his name in all the film articles or is there a quicker way to do this?--HistoricalAccountings (talk) 12:59, 9 January 2021 (UTC) HistoricalAccountings (talk) 12:59, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Asked and answered at the help desk. Please don't post the same question in more than one place, HistoricalAccountings. It wastes everybody's time. --ColinFine (talk) 13:42, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

How to deal with weird, persistent vandalism(?) on Product key

Since July of last year, a series of IPs have been trying to add a sentence about gift/game cards from various retailers to the lead of Product key (and disrupting the article in other ways too, but that same sentence is always part of it). They've been reverted by different editors and lots of messages have been left on the IP talk pages, to no effect. I started a discussion on the article talk page, but I seriously doubt they'll show up; is there anything else can I do? I'm not sure if this is genuine good faith editing or just spam. Wikignome Wintergreen^talk 14:38, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

@Wikignome Wintergreen: I have semi-protected for one month. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Wikignome Wintergreen^talk 16:34, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

how to source "notable publications" in a biography page for an academic?

Hi, there! I haven't been quite able to figure out the best practice on this yet - for notable publications for an academic researcher, should I be sourcing as a wikipedia citation to a website for the paper/book, or linking to an "external to wikipedia" link? I've seen it done both ways when I checked out other wiki biographies of academics (and some pages do both). This is specifically for this draft page for Jiquan Chen. Thanks for any advice! Csoconn (talk) 15:13, 9 January 2021 (UTC) Csoconn (talk) 15:13, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Csoconn! Using Wikipedia's book citation format with an ISBN and potentially an LCCN as well is preferable for a book and e.g. a DOI, JSTOR, etc., for an academic journal. Linking to the source is a good idea if e.g. the Google Books or Internet Archive copies are accessible, though linking to a storefront such as Amazon is strongly advised against – if not expressly forbidden. Likewise, if the journal article is open access, linking directly to e.g. a PDF can be a good idea. Something I noticed is that all of your citations are written out in source text instead of using e.g. the {{cite book}} or {{cite journal}} templates, depending on the publication. Using these will save yourself and future editors a lot of time if they want to add or modify this list. I believe MarioJump83 declined your article submission because the notability of the publications wasn't sourced, but if you can source the notability, using these templates could definitely make things easier. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 17:54, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, TheTechnician27! Sorry, do you have a link to an explainer for the {{cite journal}}: Empty citation (help) template? That's new to me. Many thanks for your help thus far! Csoconn (talk) 17:46, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Response to WP:TH invite

Dear friends, thank you very much for invitation. I am PhD in Biochemistry from Russia. I am satisfied when I have the questions to ask you. Petrov Russia (talk) 16:13, 9 January 2021 (UTC) Petrov Russia (talk) 16:13, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Petrov Russia, you're welcome! Don't hesitate to ask us anything about Wikipedia editing if you have one. GeraldWL 15:44, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Dear Gerald thank you very much. I make edition in Water Cluster Petrov Russia (talk) 16:11, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Omjee Group

Header inserted by ColinFine (talk) 18:11, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Dear Assistant kindly let me know how to publish this link/wikipage..like what edits should i do to get it live. Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Omjee_Group Vish.mystic (talk) 17:56, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Vish.mystic, welcome to the Teahouse. The reviewer has concerns about whether you have a conflict of interest or paid relationship with the subject, and asks that you answer on your talk page. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:42, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

How does one add references without an inline citation?

I just started editing Wikipedia recently and don't know how to add a general reference without out adding a inline citation in the article. Can someone please help? CeaselessTeapot (talk) 17:59, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Teapot! If you go to source editing mode and simply use the citation template without the <ref> and </ref> tags surrounding it, the citation won't be treated as an inline reference. There aren't a lot of use cases for this, and it's typically reserved for creating a bibliography where you're citing multiple different pages inline throughout the article. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 18:07, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

How to see the full list of interwikis on the siderbar of a page?

Please refer to this image (I'm afraid I can't post it here on Wikipedia since it's not for an article, so I chose another host): https://imgur.com/a/ifEWYk0

This page, for example, only shows a few interwikis followed by a button saying "14 more" where I can browse the remaining ones. Does anyone know how to make all pages show the entire list of interwikis instead, like it used to be? I searched a bunch of help pages about interwikis and sidebars, but found no solution to this problem. - Munmula (talk), second account of Alumnum 18:05, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

@Munmula: Welcome to the Teahouse. It is an automatically enabled global preference that you can deselect at Special:GlobalPreferences#mw-prefsection-rendering at the bottom of the list to switch it back to the old layout. I hope this helps! OhKayeSierra (talk) 18:11, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! That helped. - Munmula (talk), second account of Alumnum 21:46, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Wiki

Hi I was looking for a article called John vuli gate but i can't find it has Wikipedia created an article of that song Alisha rains (talk) 19:16, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Alisha rains, I found no results, so I'm assuming no. Le Panini ^[🥪] 20:16, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

@Alisha rains: It looks like it's been written about a lot, but might be too local a subject to be notable. If you're intending on creating an article (or want to suggest others do), maybe ask about it at WT:WikiProject Music. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 23:56, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Sock puppet

How to make a sockpuppet complaint. Iamloosingmymind (talk) 20:56, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

@Iamloosingmymind:See WP:SPI, but be aware you need to present evidence for the report to be taken seriously. Neiltonks (talk) 21:01, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Is this draft submitted for review?

I had submitted the draft Draft:Danish Siddiqui for review on 1 January. User Victor Schmidt had replied to the request for re-review and tagged another user, inviting them to the discussion (see) The user says that the article is not submitted for review.. Can someone clarify what seems to be the issue and what I could do to get the draft reviewed asap Indianite (talk) 21:21, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

It has been rejected meaning it won't be considered further. Theroadislong (talk) 21:31, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

@Theroadislong, so can no new draft be created by the same name? You see, I have written about a completely different (and notable) person as opposed to the autobiographical article that was earlier submitted for review. Is there a need to use a disambiguated title when no article (except for this draft) exists by this name?Indianite (talk) 21:41, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Ahh I see that it is a different person, I have added a submit template for you, but you will need to find a reliable source for the Pulitzer prize win. Theroadislong (talk) 21:52, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I have added a reliable source, but in an AFC comment rather than directly in the draft. --ColinFine (talk) 21:57, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you @Theroadislong and @ColinFine! I have updated the sources and submitted it for review. Indianite (talk) 22:16, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

How to submit a re-drafted page (original draft from 2019 now deleted)

Hello! Based on feedback from the first draft of the Palace Cinema Broadstairs page, I've just drafted a new one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft%3APalace_Cinema_Broadstairs. I've used the editor's notes from 2019 and also compared it to Wiki pages for similar independent cinemas to ensure the content is Ok and abides by Wiki rules. I've submitted 4 pictures which I hope are ok: 2 x 100+yr old ones and 2 direct from the Palace Cinema. I can't see the 'Submit' key and I'm worried that I've redrafted this page in a floating/unauthorised space. Thanks if you could tell me the next steps. Best wishes, Corinna LittelLondon (talk) 22:29, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

LittelLondon I have added the submit template for you. Theroadislong (talk) 22:35, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by LittelLondon (talk • contribs) 22:52, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Music album notability & which publications are suitable

I'm trying to start an article for a high-profile album recently released, but I keep getting my drafts rejected on grounds of notability. I read WP:NRVE, but it doesn't make clear what qualifies or point to any lists of "peer-reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources generally." Can you help me understand which sources Wikipedia is looking for? That way I can point out which notability criteria are present in the article. Souldier77 (talk) 22:40, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello Souldier77. Acceptable sources have a professional editorial review process, and a reputation for accuracy. Please read WP:Reliable sources. You can always search the archives at the Reliable sources noticeboard and open a new thread if the source has not been discussed previously. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:57, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Souldier77, I just looked at the draft. The New York Times source is excellent. The Amazon sales listing is unacceptable and must be removed. Twitter is not a reliable source. Links to her performing are of no value in establishing notability. Vulture is a project of New York magazine and appears OK to me. Eliminate the weak sources and include only information from strong reliable sources. Quality is much more important than quantity. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:10, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:13, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Given that the album in question was reportedly only released on 08 January 2021 (though the lede incorrectly says 2020), i.e. less than 48 hours ago, it's likely that many potential reliable sources simply haven't yet had time to publish reviews, etc., of it. Many print-based music journals and the like publish on a weekly or monthly schedule – give it a few weeks and further, suitable sources may become available. Remember that WP:TOSOON may and WP:DEADLINE does apply. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.200.40.9 (talk) 00:58, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

90.200.40.9 I'm not sure if it makes a difference, but I really was only trying to establish a good basis on an article in the stub, so that others can add to it as it makes its impact. I don't remember the process being so challenging the last time I added an album for an established artist. :-/ Souldier77 (talk) 02:54, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, I made changes suggested by Cullen328 here at Teahouse, removing weak sources and pulling more information from the high quality sources. I also added a couple others that were highlighted green from Wikipedia's list of reliable sources, as well as reaching out for live help. Someone from live help suggested I ask you whether Sullivan might meet the general notability guideline (GNG). I'm not familiar with that. Can you tell me more? Souldier77 (talk) 02:54, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Souldier77, User:Cullen328 - The draft is Draft:Heaux Tales. It would be helpful to identify the draft that you are asking about; I review a lot of drafts. I did not ask about the quality of sources. In my review, I asked you to tell me which of the musical notability criteria the album satisfied. Please read the musical notability guidelines and address the guidelines. After you have identified what criterion the album satisfies, then provide one to three sources that address that criterion. But I said that I was declining because I had notability questions, and I wanted the notability questions answered. Sometimes if a reviewer says that they are not primarily asking about the sources, they may mean that they are not primarily asking about the sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:43, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Souldier77 - There is a myth in Wikipedia that if a draft is declined, the key to getting it accepted is always to add more references. References are a necessary but not a sufficient condition for acceptance. Some reviewers sometimes ask questions about notability aslo. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:43, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Robert McClenon: You did not ask about quality of sources in your review, but a previous reviewer, Dan arndt, did in his. I thought you might have taken note of that part beneath your comment. No worries either way. I added the answers to your questions about notability to Draft talk:Heaux Tales including direct hyperlinks. Have a great day. Souldier77 (talk) 19:26, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you greatly! I moved it over to the draft. Wordsthatsay (talk) 02:32, 11 January 2021 (UTC)Wordsthatsay

how to move something from my sandbox to a draft page

how do I move my article in my sandbox to a draft page? Thank you greatly! Wordsthatsay (talk) 23:42, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

@Wordsthatsay: On the "Page" menu/tab, choose "Move". Under "New title", in the first listbox, select Draft. In the second field, type Briana Cash. Click the "Move Page" button. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 00:44, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Video tutorials for newcomers?

Hi, I'm new to contributing Wikipedia and I'm curious as to whether or not there are any video tutorials available (like the videos available through LinkedIn Learning, Khan Academy, Coursera, etc.).

I've found those types of videos very easy to learn from, and there's certainly a lot to learn behind the scenes at Wikipedia!

Thanks in advance! A username can have spaces? (talk) 01:49, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

@A username can have spaces?: There are some videos at Wikipedia:Instructional_material. There is the text tutorial at WP:TUTORIAL and the interactive learning game at WP:ADVENTURE. RudolfRed (talk) 03:58, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Removing references

I have submitted an article for review and now realize that it has too many references, so I want to remove some. I can retrieve the article and edit it all right for resubmission, but I don't know how to remove these references. How can this be done? Jljm09 (talk) 01:50, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello Jljm09. First of all, your Draft:Deer Fence has not been submitted for review. I looked over your draft and a lot of your references look pretty solid at first glance. However, some of them are sales sites and should be removed immediately because commercial sites like these are simply not allowed as references. Also, a lot of the references are do-it-yourself websites. According to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia should not contain how-to manual content. Our job as editors is to neutrally describe things, not to teach people how to do things.

In order to remove these references and that type of content, simply go to your draft, click "Edit", remove those references and that type of content, and click "Publish changes".

Take a look at Agricultural fencing, which has a brief unreferenced section on deer fences. Once your article is done, a link to it can be added from that article. You have made a good start. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:23, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Jl. I believe you're referring to Draft:Deer Fence. Removing a citation in visual editing mode is as easy as clicking on the inline citations and deleting them, or if they aren't inline citations (I see about a couple dozen at the bottom that aren't inline), just deleting them like you would normal text. I should point out that there are a few issues with the draft that could prevent it from being approved if submitted in its current state, but none that couldn't be ironed out. Probably the biggest one is that the article – while highly informative and ostensibly well-sourced – reads more like a very well-made guide/manual for setting up a deer fence than an encyclopedic entry for what a deer fence is (for more information, the blurb at WP:NotGuide explains it better than I can). If it's okay with you, I could hop over to the draft and try to bring the article more in line with Wikipedia's Manual of Style for things like formatting. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 02:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Add that many of the references are to your website. David notMD (talk) 02:23, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Specifically, refs 9, 13, 16, 18, 20, 21, 23, 24, 26, 28, 29, and 34 are to your website. This is promotional. David notMD (talk) 09:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Delisting GA

I started a GAR a while back for Stephen Fry's Podgrams and there was quite a bit more discussion than I expected. I'm unsure what the guidelines are, but I assume that some kind of consensus has to be reached. I was curious whether it looks like that consensus was reached (I think everyone except one was pretty much on board with delisting) and what I should do to move the discussion along. I would also appreciate links to the guidelines for situations like this. TipsyElephant (talk) 02:04, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

RfD

I tried using Template:RfD on Category:Scripted podcasts and got a bunch of issues. What did I do wrong? We were discussing the possibility of deletion on the wikiproject talk page here. TipsyElephant (talk) 02:06, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

@TipsyElephant: RfD is Redirects for Discussion. A Category is not a redirect. Try the process at WP:CFD instead. RudolfRed (talk) 03:45, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Are there guidelines or policies against using promotion of trademarks in an article? Is there any significance to the use of different band colors in a Navbar?

I'd like to know if there is a policy against promoting a particular trademark in an article?

Also, I'd appreciate it if someone could tell me the reason for the different colored background for band members names in a Navbar.

I'm seeing this in the Jefferson Starship article.

Thanks for you help!Cheryl Fullerton (talk) 03:57, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

@Cheryl Fullerton: For your first question, yes, there is a policy against it. See WP:PROMO. RudolfRed (talk) 04:01, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

For Jefferson_Starship, the names in blue link to articles on that person. The name in black does not have an article. RudolfRed (talk) 04:03, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. Specifically, Slick, Kantner, and Balin have yellow backgrounds and Papa John and Chaquico have pinkish backgrounds. Is there significance?Cheryl Fullerton (talk) 04:26, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Cheryl Fullerton. I don't know what the significance off hand might be, but the same colors used in the infobox are the same as the ones used in the navbars. The explanation for this is given in Template:Infobox musical artist#background. I'm not sure why those colors were chosen and I'll admit it's something that's almost certainly not going to be obvious to someone reading the article, but there does appear to be a reason for it. If you want to know what that is, try asking at Template talk:Infobox musical artist. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:26, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you!Cheryl Fullerton (talk) 05:28, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Non-living templates necessity

Hello. Is it necessary to have a template instead of a simple raw date written like this: "29 January 1936" for biographies of non-living persons in the infobox for the birth & death dates? Because we know for sure once a person is dead, these will not change, therefore having the Birth date and age template is not really useful, we can just put the raw birth date and the raw death date with the (age whatever) in parenthesis. Thoughts? Paul Vaurie (talk) 04:40, 10 January 2021 (UTC) Paul Vaurie (talk) 04:40, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Such template are not required but by the reasons articulated at {{Birth date}} may be useful. Ruslik_Zero 08:48, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Paul Vaurie. See also {{Death date and age}}. Special:ExpandTemplates can show the full output of a template. {{birth date|1936|1|29}} currently produces: <span style="display:none">(<span class="bday">1936-01-29</span>)</span>January 29, 1936. PrimeHunter (talk) 08:55, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Requesting translation of the article on invisible disability in many language

The article invisible disability is available in only 4 languages. It is such important topic that it encompasses all of life who experience this. There are too much ignorance about invisible disability in society. I plea the article should be translated into multiple languages so that people from all corner of the world can know about this. If there is a meta-wiki forum or thread on translating this, please mention it there. Inform me also if there are any such forum or thread. This is a very keen request. SimpleSilly (talk) 07:14, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

SimpleSilly, the many languages an article has depends on the willingness of editors. If you can translate them to a language, your contributions would be appreciated. Many editors have other things to do on Wikipedia, so it's all about luck-n-time. GeraldWL 07:49, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

SimpleSilly As someone affected, I don't disagree that it's an important topic for many. However, please keep in mind when you are editing that Wikipedia is not here to right great wrongs or to promote any cause, no matter how worthy. Editors should maintain an encyclopedic tone and neutral point of view. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 20:53, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

My Edit disappeared, was removed. It had no controversial content.

I did my first edit on a page called TOORBOS. There was just one sentence about what this movie was about. I wrote a longer section on what it was about, published it and then SAW my edit appear on the Wiki page. Then when I looked again hours later, my edit had disappeared. No controversial content at all. Please explain, someone! Thanks Elder's Pen (talk) 08:26, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Elder's Pen, your edit's reverted by Lugnuts. This is because the Synopsis section is supposed to be about the movie (in here we call it film) and not the novel it's based on. Your "plot" also has some flaws: it has "..." and subjective terms like "complex". I suggest you read film articles and read their plots to see how a plot summary is written. WP:FILMPLOT may help. GeraldWL 08:43, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

My words simply said that the movie was based on a book. This does not mean that I am writing a synopsis about the book, not the movie. What kind of illogic is this. Secondly, Complex emotions is not in the least a subjective notion. If one has one strong feeling about something, that is simple or simplex. If one has mixed feelings, and many different feelings about different aspects of something or some person, that is "complex feelings". So once again, if these two reasons are the real reasons why my simple non-controversial writing was rejected, I can only gaze in amazement at the stupidity of it all. It does not inspire me to ever write again for Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elder's Pen (talk • contribs) 17:29, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Elder's Pen, I'm sorry that you felt stricken seeing your edit (that I know you do in good intention) reverted. But please do not take it personal, or see it as an attack. It is not, as we are just maintaining Wikipedia. The fact remains that the synopsis section should only discuss about the summary of the movie. You can take the example of Wonder (film)'s plot section— it is a movie based on a book, but is not obliged to say the origins of the story. It is just a summary of the film.

Next, it is not our job to convey the emotions of the film. During the sad scene at Up (2009 film, the plot only reads "Suffering a miscarriage and unable to have children", not " A very emotional scene appears when it is revealed that she cannot have children. It makes the audience cry." This is unless the character display such, for example if the character is crying you can say "Johnny becomes emotional."

Keep in mind that plot summaries must be only about the main points of the movie. You shouldn't describe every scene, unless it's a short film and every shot is important as hell. If you have watched Contagion (2011 film), the plot summary can be a good learning tool to understand how a plot is written.

As I said, please do not see rejection of edits as an attack, unless the user is ACTUALLY bullying you. If you have any more question, don't hesitate to ask. GeraldWL 01:48, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Stallone-Schwarzenegger rivalry

I have created Stallone-Schwarzenegger rivalry. I request the Teahouse editors to tell me on how I can improve it.--Atlantis77177 (talk) 09:00, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

@Atlantis77177: One thing that's not fully clear to me from reading the page is how much the rivalry was just in jest versus genuine. Public figure rivalries often have a performative element to them, but per WP:INUNIVERSE we should document the reality of a situation and identify performative elements as such. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 09:13, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

@Sdkb: I didn't get you. Could you please explain.--Atlantis77177 (talk) 09:17, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

@Atlantis77177: The article needs to document what reliable sources say about the extent to which there was genuine hatred between them vs. just something they played up to try to get their fans more engaged. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 09:25, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I deleted a lot of content that had nothing to do with the purported feud, such as listing movies they each starred in separately. David notMD (talk) 09:32, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Citation questions for my first article

Hey folks. I am currently drafting my first article on a person I believe is of note and had a few questions regarding citations I would greatly appreciate your insight on. I've read the referencing for beginners guide as a first step.

1. An achievement I wish to cite is mentioned in a respectable mainstream newspaper online (A). In addition to this, the person who the article is about has also written a blog post with more detail on the achievement (B). Am I correct in understanding I should focus on just citing (A) but exclude (B), because it falls under user-generated content? This is primarily a question for completeness.

2. A recent achievement I believe is of note is only referenced in third-party blogs (e.g by individuals in this person's industry) but was not picked up by popular news sources. If I cannot find a citation for this work referenced in mainstream newspapers or books, should I exclude the achievement and focus on those with stronger data?

3. How many citations is too many? I wish to write that the person in question has spoken at a number of instances of a particular conference which has its own Wikipedia page. Should I be referencing 1-2 talk examples as citation? 4-5? I haven't been able to find a good example of how to tackle this yet I'm afraid :)

Thank you for your guidance in advance! Dan.franklin.fe (talk) 09:58, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Dan.franklin.fe: (1) You should use the respectable mainstream source. You should not use the blog. (2) While you have no reliable source, you should omit the statement. (3) Your sandbox draft has far too many citations. When you cite six sources for an uncontroversial statement, readers will assume that you are up to something fishy. And if you want your draft to be accepted by a reviewer some day, you should make the task easy for them. Their main concern will be to confirm that the subject is notable, by finding several reliable independent sources that discuss the subject in depth. When they check the first ten citations and find that none of them qualify, the will have to choose between wading through the next sixty, or giving up, throwing the draft back in the queue, and moving on to a more promising candidate. I strongly recommend you to remove all the garbage citations, so that a reviewer can easily find the good ones (assuming there are some in there). Maproom (talk) 11:27, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Delete all the Youtube refs and all the refs that are press releases or announcements. Delete interview refs. Convert all the naked URL refs into valid format refs. David notMD (talk) 12:10, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

David notMD, I strongly disagree with the explicitness of your response. Interviews can be valuable, although if a better source is available that is encouraged. Without interviews, a lot of information in various articles cannot exist. For example, if interviews are not recognized in film articles, infos about production may not even exist. However I agree with your last sentence. GeraldWL 12:25, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I over-stepped. David notMD (talk) 18:36, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

@Gerald Waldo Luis: Just to back-peddle a little, I don't think the metric is or should be that "content cannot exist without a particular type of source". The question is whether the source is reliable for the stated content or not. People lie or, to be kind, exaggerate, especially when it's aligned with their interests. Interviews contain more of this than other kinds of reporting because it's harder to edit out the stuff that's borderline and there's less fact-checking on quotes because it's not in the author/publisher's voice. I don't think Wikipedia is meant to settle for having lower-reliability content just because we can't find a better source. We should rather do without such content. (My comments are regarding the general concept of settling for the best source available, not necessarily a comment on this particular case.) —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 21:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Article

How to improve my skill in article 2402:4000:2381:621C:99AE:F65:6B36:D710 (talk) 11:15, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

The first step would be for you to create an account, since IP editors such as yourself cannot make new articles. Then I would advise you to go through WP:YFA, to understand what making articles require and some rules and requirements of the same. SenatorLEVI 11:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

SenatorLEVI I would correct you in that while it is true IP users cannot directly create new articles, they are allowed to submit drafts using Articles for Creation. 331dot (talk) 11:22, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I understand, but I still think its best for any user to create an account before submitting a draft for WP:AFC. SenatorLEVI 11:23, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Actually, new-to-Wikipedia editors are strongly advised to learn how to do stuff by editing existing articles rather than first efforts being at creating an article. This Help:Introduction may help. David notMD (talk) 12:13, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Having a wonderful poem how to share here

Want to join a poem 2402:4000:2381:621C:99AE:F65:6B36:D710 (talk) 11:21, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia is not for sharing poetry; this is a project to write an encyclopedia. If you just want to post your poetry to the internet, you might find an alternative forum where that is permitted, or you may use social media. 331dot (talk) 11:23, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Possible vandalism.

Hello. I am unsure of what to do here, since I haven't seen this happen before. An IP is user is making repetitive edits to an article which render the article almost void of any information. Can someone please take action or tell me what to do? Thanks.

 Courtesy link: Maridhas

SenatorLEVI 11:42, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I've warned the user for unexplained blanking. 331dot (talk) 11:50, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm abiding only be the policies. The content had no citations and that's why I removed them. I also commented on the talk page about this issue. 157.51.22.191 (talk) 12:03, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I am satisfied that this is not vandalism. 331dot (talk) 12:11, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Information Blocked re: Belching Beaver

I attempted to include a comment regarding the origin of the Belching Beaver Brewery's name, and my information was excluded because it "wasn't helpful.". I know for a fact, from an insider, that the name of the brewery is another way of saying a "queef" i.e. a vulgar term about the expulsion of air from the vagina. I didn't make it up . It's a FACT! 2600:8801:DE00:2D1F:909B:ABB6:B86:E1AC (talk) 12:43, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi, IP editor, and welcome to the Teahouse. Facts added to Wikipedia articles should always have an existing reliable, published source. We can't go ahead and add things we personally know, unless we can support the information with sources. This is one of the basic principles of Wikipedia: verifiability, that readers should be able to verify the information. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 13:36, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Article Declined:

FYI

 – New Topic --Maresa63 (talk) 13:26, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Benutzer:BFRQs/MelSchweickardt Why was the article declined? The songwriter has written over 100 songs in her career, and she has been semi-finalist in the International songwriting competition 2013. She is an active ambassador for fighting for gender diversity in the music industry. Considering that in the whole music industry across all genres are only 12,5% female songwriters, to the genre of metal/rock it is only about 3-5%. Mel Schweickardt is a genuine rarity in this domain and therefore a notable person - even if she is not globally famous, but according to wikipedia's guidelines in the sense of being famous or popular is anyhow secondary. Thank you for clarification. BFRQs (talk) 12:58, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

This is about Draft:Mel Schweickardt. The reason it was declined is stated in the gray box within the pink decline notice at the top of the draft. The citations do not include enough reliable independent published sources discussing the subject, to establish that she is notable in Wikipedia's sense. To establish that she's notable, you'll need to find and add such sources – praising her here won't help at all. Maproom (talk) 13:55, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

One of the main sources is the national library of Switzerland, a national institution. Is there a way to make such a source "Wikipedia-proofed"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:DA:F734:9300:58D5:B7FC:15B9:8CC1 (talk) 15:33, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand what yhou mean by "Wikipedia proofed". There are three requirements for sources to establish notability: 1) that they be reliably published|, that they be independent of the subject, and that they contain significant coverage of the subject. The sources currently in Draft:Mel Schweickardt might be reliable and independent, I haven't investigated, but none of them contains significant coverage, so they do nothing to establish notability. How is the national library a source? Something published by the library would presumably be regarded as reliable, but whether it met the other criteria or not would depend on what it was. If you are talking about something that is held in the library's collection, then the library is irrelevant. It is either something that has been published, in which case it is its publication that is relevant, not the library; or it is something unpublished in the library's collection, and then it cannot be used as a source anywhere in Wikiepdia. --ColinFine (talk) 17:31, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Adding image in existing page

I have added two images in wo different existing pages (Aminul Islam (academic) and Syed Muhammed Abul Faiz and not sure about the possibility of deletion. Please help or advice. Freedomage (talk) 13:22, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

@Freedomage: Wikimedia Commons accepts only freely licensed media files. Note that for the purpose of this rule, Wikimedia Commons considers images not released under a siutable license unless clearly stated otherwise. In these two instances, neither source mentioned any free license. As such, I had to tag both files for speedy deletion. If you are unsure about the license of a particular media file (image or otherwise) please ask before uploading. Victor Schmidt (talk) 13:34, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I edited a page. But you did not published it. Can I ask why?

 202.5.157.230 (talk) 14:48, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I assume you're referring to this edit. There is a number of reasons it was reverted; firstly, the values you changed should usually (if not always) correspond to the article name – Indian Rebellion of 1857. Secondly, by changing the |image= parameter, you tried to link to a file that does not exist on the English Wikipedia, meaning that instead of the map currently on display, only a redlink would be shown. Thirdly, you misspelled independence. AngryHarpy‍^talk 15:01, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello, IP user, and welcome to the Teahouse. AngryHarpy has addressed the technical issues, but there are deeper issues here. I think I understand why the name of the article is important to you, and there may be good reasons to make it. But 1) Wikipedia's policy on naming articles is to use the most common name in English sources even if that is not the official or most appropriate name 2) It was fine for you to make a bold change, and fine for another editor to revert that change if they thought it was not appropriate. The next step, rather than reapplying your edit, should be to open a discussion on the talk page Talk:Indian Rebellion of 1857, and see if you can persuade other editors to agree to the change. See our policy on Bold, revert, discuss. 3) In any case, you provided no sources for the material you wanted to insert. Wikipedia works on the principles of verifiability and consensus. So what you need to do now is to open a discussion on the talk page, arguing for the changes you want to make, with citations to reliably published sources for the information, and see if you can persuade other interested editors that the change is appropriate and in accordance with Wikipedia's policies. Besides the various policy and discussion pages I have already linked in this answer, you might find it useful to read RIGHTINGGREATWRONGS as well. --ColinFine (talk) 19:25, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Galilei´s, Newton´s, Einstein´s motion

What did I do wrong? AE1851 (talk) 15:13, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

AE1851, can you explain what happened? Maybe share a link? GeraldWL 15:43, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

AE1851, you're going to have to give us more information; the only mainspace edits you made were adding references more than a year ago. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:56, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I think this refers to an article in the user's sandbox which has been deleted for copyright violation. The user's Talk Page at User talk:AE1851 gives details of the problem with infringing the policy on copyright. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:58, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

question about notability

Hi- I created this page a few months ago. It was not initially accepted, and I am trying to understand whether the primary issue is that the reviewer felt that the artist's awards and exhibition history did not qualify as "notable," or whether the problem was primarily that the cited sources were not adequately independent of the organizations that granted the awards. I am new to Wikipedia, so it's not clear to me how to respond to the reviewer's message to ask this question, but I'd also like to get a second opinion. Thanks!

Draft:Sarah McKenzie (artist) Painter80302 (talk) 15:31, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Painter80302 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The issue is that the artist, at least based on the sources currently offered, does not seem to meet the Wikipedia definition of a notable artist. Awards do not usually contribute to notability unless they are highly notable awards that merit articles about themselves(such as the Oscars or Grammy Awards, as anyone can give out an award based on any criteria. Descriptions of exhibitions also do not necessarily contribute to notability unless things like independent, unsolicited critiques and descriptions of influence are part of them. I'm curious as to how you came to write about this artist. 331dot (talk) 15:41, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for that feedback. I initially created this article as part of a Wikipedia Edit-a-Thon event, held in Denver, Colorado to try to correct the under-representation of women artists on Wikipedia. The Joan Mitchell Painters and Sculptors Grant is a highly competitive, notable award within the American contemporary art world, which includes a $25,000 grant. The artist's exhibitions have been reviewed ("critiqued") in numerous independent journals and newspapers, which were cited as sources in the article. So I remain confused. Is it possible to request a review by a different editor, since judging notability is obviously somewhat subjective, and is best left to an editor who actually works in the field? Painter80302 (talk) 16:09, 10 January 2021 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Painter80302 (talk • contribs) 15:53, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Painter80302, The issue isn't whether the artist "qualifies" as notable, it's whether the sources cited in the draft demonstrate that she's notable. Which four of the sources cited do you do believe do most to demonstrate that she's notable? (You might do well to make a reviewer's task easier by removing most of the others.) Maproom (talk) 16:35, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Painter80302 If the award is the "main claim to fame" it should reference an independent source. Currently you cite the award-giver and an exhibition venue. Neither are independent as they are motivated to promote the award and the exhibition respectively. If that award is really a big deal there should be newspaper or art magazine articles about it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:54, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

OK this is helpful. Thank you for your input! Painter80302 (talk) 16:33, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Painter80302 Note that most editors are not experts in the fields that they write about, and it isn't required that they be so, as Wikipedia is meant largely for lay people. 331dot (talk) 16:35, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

re: Placeholder

I'd like to ask, how do I curate pages that comprise entirely of "coming soon"; do I draftify them, or tag them for deletion? JJP...MASTER!_{[talk to] JJP... master?} 16:22, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

If it's in mainspace and there's no meaningful content it could be proposed for speedy deletion per WP:A3.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 16:29, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

@JJPMaster: That is good advice. There was a similar question posted a day or so ago, see above. ¬¬¬¬

happy

how do i contribute Andrea yolis (talk) 18:49, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello Andrea yolis. Try The Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive learning game. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:58, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Edit filters 'warning' users

I've been watching edit filters for a while, and often I see that they have prevented an edit and 'warned' the user (e.g. Special:AbuseLog/28577885). What exactly does this 'preventing an edit' and warning look like on the user side? If I were to trip an edit filter, what would Wikipedia show me? Zupotachyon _{Ping me} (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:36, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

@Zupotachyon: Both options show a message to the user that can be specified for each filter. The default is MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning (for warnings) or MediaWiki:Abusefilter-disallowed (for disallowed edits). The difference between the two options is that "warning" will allow the user to save the edit by hitting publish changes again, while "disallow" will cause the edit not to get saved, no matter how often you smash publish changes, unless you change the edit text. Victor Schmidt (talk) 19:55, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Ahh, I see. Thanks a lot! Zupotachyon _{Ping me} (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:02, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

How to create a ref template page to 'redirect' redlinks in bulk

I'm an editor / admin on a wikia FANDOM site for a TV show. I was wondering if it was possible for me to redirect non-existent article pages by way of creating a "template link" or whatnot.

To clarify, this is my exact problem. Episodes are frequently referred to by: season # x episode #; so i.e.: 0x01, 1x12, 2x07, 3x09, 4x06, 5x02 etc. instead of the actual episode title i.e "Wondering Through the Trees" etc.

I currently do not have pages created for the episodes in the format of their referred to numbers. So, I don't have an article page named i.e 1x08.

I want to make the redlink [ [ 1x08 ] ] 'functional' by turning it into { { 1x08 } } which automatically redirects the value combination of "#x##" to their corresponding episode article page.

The reason I want to create a reference template page (with the function of "#x##" = "this article title page" ) is so that I can reference list all of the number combos I want on that single template page as I do not want to create upwards of 60+ new pages just to redirect each of them back to their corresponding / associated title page.

I'm asking for help in creating this as do not know how to make a template looking like this: {{#x##}} to accomplish this task. SpiritHawk7 (talk) 19:40, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

@SpiritHawk7: This page is only for questions related to Wikipedia. We can't help you with your Wiki. If your Wiki is using MediaWiki software, then you can ask at [3] RudolfRed (talk) 21:17, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

@RudolfRed: It does use MediaWiki software. Thank you for the referral. SpiritHawk7 (talk) 21:49, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Trying to understand "sources" and "references"

To begin, I am old so I don't know a lot about programming and what is required for my article to be accepted. I understand citing sources, and I tried to, but I don't understand your tutorial instructions. I really don't want to spend days stumbling through this process. Can someone take a look at my draft and tell me how I got a citation linked to a reference or what I am doing wrong. Thanks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Charles_A._Stix KLynn-geni (talk) 21:40, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello, KLynn-geni. I have tidied up your draft a bit, but you really don't need to be worried about being 'old' - lots of editors here, like me, are retired, and none of us know anything about programming. You don't need to! What we do ask for is that anyone wanting to create an article from scratch spends the time beforehand to learn the basics of editing. It's really not too difficult - it's rather like driving a car. What's unreasonable to expect is that someone can take that car out the very first time and drive safely for 200 miles up the motorway to their destination without encountering a few difficulties en route. Maybe you should read Help:Your first article, then Help:Referencing for beginners, but maybe before that you might like to take our interactive tour called The Wikipedia Adventure to get a sense of how to do things here. It might be better if the information on the found of Stix Baer & Fuller is included in that article, and not in a separate article at Draft:Charles A. Stix. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:07, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I concur that information about Charles A. Stix better placed as content added to the article about the store versus a new article about Mr. Stix. David notMD (talk) 03:54, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest

How can I make my article "notable" and accepted by Wikipedia when I have a conflict of interest? Klamer1446 (talk) 23:09, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Klamer1446 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You cannot "make" the subject notable by editing. A subject is notable if it receives significant coverage in independent reliable sources that have chosen on their own to write about it and show how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of notability. If the subject does not have such sources, it will not merit an article at this time.

While not impossible, it is usually hard for those with a COI to write an article, as in essence one needs to forget everything they know about it and only write based on the content of independent sources. 331dot (talk) 23:16, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Check draft?

FYI

 – Heading and courtesy link made by Tenryuu.

 Courtesy link: User:Hotstar90/sandbox

I'm not an editor I'm a drummer that's been playing drums for 60 years - my question is there anyone out there that can straighten out my submission I wrote for this site - I can copy and paste the submissions if you want - lmk - Ross Hotstar90 (talk) 03:22, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Your draft is written like a first person memoir (we this, we that). And it has no references. Look at articles about musicians to get an idea of style and referencing. Probably best if you delete everything you have and stat over. David notMD (talk) 04:02, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

how to edit like a pro

how can i edit properly enrique Enrique1802 (talk) 03:46, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Enrique1802, welcome to the Teahouse. You may be interested in the interactive tutorial, The Wikipedia Adventure which provides the basics to editing and interacting with other users on this site. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:04, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Nepali Flag not being shown when hovering over a Nepal link

I know that the Nepali flag is very interesting but complicated and has many mathematical magic, but I'm just here for people to know that instead of the Nepali flag displaying when hovering over the link, the emblem of the country is shown instead. Is there any way to fix this issue? PyroFloe (talk) 04:22, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

PyroFloe, idk but this MediaWiki page might resolve your worries. Happy 2021 Eumat114 (Message) 04:30, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

• Per Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups, you can set the "primary" image for the article by adding an HTML comment <!-- popup [[File:Flag_of_Nepal.svg]] -->. However I wonder if this can be fixed in general by changing the ordering of the infobox template. Since the flag is shown before the emblem, it makes sense that it should be considered the "first" image for the purpose of link previews. AnonQuixote (talk) 04:35, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it did not work. PyroFloe (talk) 04:49, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Not sure exactly how the media previews work, maybe there's some caching involved and you didn't wait long enough before reverting? AnonQuixote (talk) 04:53, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I raised this question here and here. AnonQuixote (talk) 04:53, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

There are multiple page preview / navigation pop-up features, so the first thing to figure out is which one this editor is using. If it is Page Previews, this link partially explains how images are ranked for appearance in the preview. I dug into this a month or two ago and posted an explanation somewhere else, but I have been unable to find it in my contributions. – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:20, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

We have two preview features with different functionality. PyroFloe is not using "Navigation popups" at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets. It shows the flag for Nepal. The other feature is "Enable page previews" at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering. Logged out users get that. The feature is mw:Page Previews, previosuly called Hovercards. It shows the image chosen by mw:Extension:PageImages#Image choice. It shows the emblem for Nepal because PageImages uses code which rejects images displayed with a width ≤ 119px. The flag is displayed at 90px because it's relatively tall but displayed with around the same height as the emblem next to it. The emblem is displayed at 120px so it's exactly allowed by PageImages. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:34, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I meant PyroFloe is not using Navigation popups. I have corrected it above. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:51, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

@Eumat114:, @AnonQuixote:, @PrimeHunter:, @Chipmunkdavis: I have now fixed the problem, apparently its both the image size being 90px as said above and also the image resolution of the emblem being particularly small sized compared to other coat of arms, I thank you all for your help. This flag was really weird but I managed to fix it. With regards, PyroFloe (talk) 12:57, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

PyroFloe, why is it needed that an emblem be shown instead of the flag anyway? GeraldWL 15:38, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Gerald Waldo Luis, you must have misunderstood, I was asking about the opposite actually. I have fixed it now and the flag is the one that renders instead of the emblem PyroFloe (talk) 15:51, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

How to close an RfD item?

I created a discussion about some redirects here: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 4 § Deprivation

It's been about a week and I think the last comment gives a convincing reason to undo the initial change I had made to turn a disambiguation page into a redirect, which kind of renders the question moot. Once this is done then I'd like to make some edits to improve the dab page.

How does an RfD discussion get closed? Can I do it myself? AnonQuixote (talk) 04:28, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi AnonQuixote. You shouldn't close such discussions yourself if you're involved as explained in WP:CLOSE#Closure procedure and WP:NACINV. Someone should eventually get around to doing so, but you can also request an administrator to do so at WP:AN. — Marchjuly (talk) 04:44, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll wait another day or so and then request it. AnonQuixote (talk) 04:57, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Just noting: the discussion has now been closed by a third party.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:13, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

For RfD, they usually get closed (or relisted) within a few hours of being over 7 days. Looks like this one has been done. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:31, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Article/category idea

I had an idea for an interesting article/category about notable incidents happening in Massively Multiplayer Online Games such as the virtual pandemic in World of Warcraft of the thousand-player battles in EVE Online.

I am wondering if anyone knows any other articles or incidents that could be added to this hypothetical category, and if said category should even be made in the first place. Painting17 (talk) 04:58, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

This article lists a few more:

• The assassination of Lord British
• Leeroy Jenkins
• The "Guiding Hand Social Club theft" in Eve Online
• The "death of The Sleeper" and "Fansy the Famous Bard" in Everquest

I suppose you could create a List of notable in-universe events in MMO games, but it might be the type of thing that would attract lots of low-quality content, like people adding non-notable events that they personally felt were significant. AnonQuixote (talk) 05:14, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

About my article javed Khan magician

 Courtesy link: Draft:Javed Khan (magician)

I mean I can see lots of celebrity people from television business having Wikipedia article. So many article are in news and online about myself still I get feedback not enough resources ? Any help would be appreciated. I have been on multiple shows in India on television and numerous article still why cant ? Sorry If I am missing out on anything.. Javed khan39 (talk) 06:12, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

@Javed khan39: Welcome to the Teahouse. I'll leave it to the reviewers to determine whether the three sources you used are reliable for Wikipedia's purposes, but I'll let you know that writing about yourself is strongly discouraged on here; it's incredibly difficult for subjects to write about themselves neutrally, which is required for Wikipedia. I also suggest taking a look at other, similar articles in mainspace to see how they're written; there are quite a few style errors from what I can see at the draft. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:58, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Imo

What next I have to do for my first article? Draft:Imo_(app) Is it really written as an advertisment. I understand this is not written perfectly. Sonofstar (talk) 08:51, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Sonofstar, I am concerned about the sentence "It empowered people to message using multiple platform under one central interface. The fact that it was web based, enabled those on OSes like Linux, for example, to still chat, even as most messenger services only had software for Windows and Mac. This also helped users to save chat history which is very handy for the future references." It is so promotional, and has no source. "It helped family and friends stay in touch" also needs a rewrite. GeraldWL 15:36, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

question

Thanks for directing me here, but surely am still lost on how to create a living biography of a musician i don't know how i can be guided Ronard Economist (talk) 08:57, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I assume this section refers to this. If so, you have written to Draft:Sandbox, which is intended as a Testing spot, and thus regularely cleared. Luckily, the edit is still available. You can still recover the text by [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Sandbox&action=edit&oldid=998876954 copying all the text in the old revision and pasting it into an actual draft(for example Draft:Nicky Jizzy). You might want to have a look at WP:YFA. Inline citations belong directly after the content they support. Victor Schmidt (talk)

@Ronard Economist: fix ping Victor Schmidt (talk) 09:22, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

What is the best way to approach edits?

 DdLiam (talk) 11:52, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi, DdLiam, welcome to the Teahouse. An often recommended way to approach editing is bold, revert, discuss. I don't know if there is merit in the SPI against you, but I'd advise that starting a new account to avoid scrutiny in a subject area isn't a good idea. If you disagree with the local consensus then it's tough luck I'm afraid. Regards, Zindor (talk) 12:11, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. This has been noted :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DdLiam (talk • contribs) 12:27, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Images in Page Previews.

Many users like a picture displayed while looking at a page preview, in order to understand better the subject of the page. In my article, the Army of the Kingdom of Naples (Napoleonic), I cannot see any image on the page preview when I hover my mouse over the blue lettering (while there are, in fact, several images on the page). How do I fix this? AdonisWW2 (talk) 13:22, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi AdonisWW2, welcome to the Teahouse. We have two preview features. I see File:Battle of Tolentino.jpg from the infobox in both of them. Try to bypass your cache on the page you are viewing it from. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:01, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Reliability of NYS Professions database

Hello, I'm working on the Vladimir Zelenko article and was looking for a reliable source with information on where he attended medical school. This website from the New York State Education Department provides information from their Professions database, but they specifically mention "primary source", which gives me pause. Unfortunately, I can't find any other reliable sources that mention his education, so I wanted to get an opinion on whether that database would be considered an appropriate source for Wikipedia. Otherwise, I'll just leave that info out of the article for now. —DanCherek (talk) 15:28, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

DanCherek, I would consider that a reliable source. It's primary with regard to the NY State Education Department, but not primary with regard to Zelenko, as Zelenko can't just edit it to change his school. So you're good to go! {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 15:55, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good. Thank you! —DanCherek (talk) 16:23, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi DanCherek. This is a perfectly appropriate use of a primary source – for verification of "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." Actually, being from NY, and having a fair amount of experience with licensure in that database (though not with medical professional), I can tell you that much of these background details for many people – where the individual attended school and the like – has its origins in the person's own reporting (though there's a lot of reasons why it would be a very, very bad idea to report incorrectly -- i.e., a defined crime), but that still meets the ambit of the above-quoted language.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:39, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Fuhghettaboutit, that's very helpful and I've added the information to the article. I want to be sure I fully understand Wikipedia's policy that it should be verifiable "by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge", as I'm sure this won't be the last time I have a question like this. In this case, does this mean that anyone should be able to verify that he attended medical school at SUNY? The only sources I found were this database, a bunch of WebMD-like websites, and some unreliable opinion-based websites, so I'm not sure the verification would be here (other than contacting the registrar or medical board, etc.). —DanCherek (talk) 16:55, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

@DanCherek: Yep, see WP:PRIMARY, which, on the negative ends, prohibits any "interpretation of primary source material." That requires "a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." Where someone went to school, what year they graduated, et al., are quite straightforward facts that require no interpretation, analysis or synthesis to report.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:40, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Alter an inaccurate sentence on a semi-protected page.

The second line of this article, 2021 storming of the United States Capitol, is wrong, and needs to be changed. How do I do that?

The sentence reads, "It was incited by US President Donald Trump in an attempt to overturn his defeat in the 2020 presidential election."  This sentence is wrong.

It is a legal question whether the riot (not the march) was INCITED by Trump, and the protest (perhaps excluding the rioters) was NOT a direct attempt to overturn Trump's defeat. It was a show of support for Pence, Cruz and others, in the face of huge negative pressure, to proceed with confidence through a legal process of considering alternate slates of electors in 6 states, and/or lawfully arguing for another 10 days to review potential election fraud in those 6 states before certifying the outcome. The outcome of THAT review would have been accepted.

Wikipedia, which is supposed to be unbiased, is furthering a false narrative, throwing gasoline on the fire, as it were. This is WRONG. Msfry0 (talk) 15:39, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Msfry0 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. To request an edit to a protected article, you may make an edit request(click for instructions) on the article talk page, detailing changes you feel are needed. Please note that Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state. If reliable sources state that Trump incited the riot(which most are), you will have to speak with those sources to get them to issue retractions if they are incorrect, or offer your own independent reliable sources that say differently to arrive at a consensus as to what the article should say.

Wikipedia actually does not claim to be free of bias. Any bias in sources will be reflected in Wikipedia. Those sources are presented to the readers so they can evaluate and judge them for themselves as to any bias. Wikipedia tries to have a neutral point of view, which is different.

There is video evidence of rioters wishing to seek out and harm, capture, or kill members of Congress and even the Vice President. [4] If that is not wanting to overturn an election or overthrow the government, I don't know what is. 331dot (talk) 15:47, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Thomas Masterson - Midshipman, Virginia State Navy

I am the copyright holder of an article which has appeared online. When I tried to create a submission, which was similar but not identical to my previous work, it was rejected for copyright infringement.

As I am the copyright holder, and told this to the person who flagged my article for "speedy deletion", why was my work rejected?

Does anyone have a suggestion that might help?

Thanks! Michael MMWOOD1958 (talk) 15:54, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

MMWOOD1958 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Please follow the instructions on your user talk page under the header "Speedy Deletion Nomination of Draft:Thomas Masterson" regarding what to do about this copyright issue. If you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text(which also means that you would be allowing other people to use it for any reason, including commercial purposes, as long as they give attribution), you can donate the materials. 331dot (talk) 16:01, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Citing the same source multiple times in the same article

Good day fellow tea-lovers. I'd be grateful for your help with a problem that's been bothering me for some time. In short, I want an article to include several citations to a certain book, with each citation referencing a different page number. I've studied several Wikipedia Help pages that aim to address this issue, but I have found the information confusing and sometimes contradictory.

You can see an example of what I am trying to achieve in the article on Morningside, Edinburgh. As you will see, this has several citations to a book by Charles J. Smith. The first citation give the full bibliographic details for the book. I created that first citation like this:

<ref name='Smith (1978)'>{{cite book |last1=Smith |first1=Charles J |title=Historic South Edinburgh Volume 1 |date=1978 |publisher=Charles Skilton Ltd |location=Edinburgh |page=146}}</ref>

And that shows like this, which is what I want.

I formatted the subsequent citations to that book like this:

{{sfnp|Smith (1978)|p=148}}

and they rendered like so: Here, the author's name looks like a hyperlink, which I would expect to lead to the full citation. But although it is correctly formatted as a hyperlink (and I can see in the page's source that it is indeed an href), it does not lead anywhere. Nothing happens when you click on it.

Am I doing something wrong, or is what I'm seeing the correct behaviour?

I have tried several combinations of {{sfnp}} and {{sfn}}, with and without page numbers, and several ways of doing the ref name, for example with and without the year of publication, but I get the same result every time.

I'd be grateful for any help with this issue. Mike Marchmont (talk) 16:36, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Mike Marchmont, welcome to the Teahouse. Have you tried adding {{rp}} after your citation as a more visual representation of page numbers? It renders like this: when I type {{rp|30}}. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:03, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

References

(e/c) Hi Mike. For overview pages, please see WP:CITESHORT and Help:Shortened footnotes. The issue you are having is that you need to have a section for listing the full works, that is separate, and placed after, a section where the short citations are populated. For example, you would have a ==Notes== section, containing {{reflist}}, followed by a ==References== section containing a bulleted list of the full references, placed using standard citation templates. Now, when the shortened citations link, they have somewhere to link to. So for example, I am going to end this sentence with two shortened citations, and mock up how it should work in the article (this is taken from Glossary of bird terms, where I use a "Bibliography" section to head the full citations, and "Citations" for the shortened citations and other footnotes).

==Notes==

References

==References==

• Lovette, Irby J.; Fitzpatrick, John W. (2016). Handbook of Bird Biology. Wiley. ISBN 978-1-118-29104-7.

Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:06, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

What happens when you can't reach consensus on an edit or end up in an edit war?

I'm talking about pages basically handled by one or two editors, is there some admin or high ranked editor you can summon to make the decision on who's right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMassEffector (talk • contribs) 17:33, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

TheMassEffector Hello and welcome. Admins do not settle content disputes. If you are unable to arrive at a consensus amongst yourselves, there are avenues of dispute resolution to make use of. Edit warring usually leads to the participants being blocked; you should not edit war even if you think you are correct, as everyone in an edit war thinks that they are correct. If someone else is edit warring, you may make a report at WP:ANEW, but be advised that the behavior of you and others will be looked at as well. 331dot (talk) 17:36, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

"Banning" from user talk page

Hi there Teahouse hosts! I came across a baffling notice on a user's talk page that stated Everyone is banned from my talk page (except for mandatory notices, of course) until further notice. And do not ping me. This may be a WP:ANI issue, but I didn't want to escalate it. In short: is that allowed? I'm aware of some editors (especially vandals) who blank their pages whenever a notice is applied (such as for NPOV, unsourced additions etc), but this isn't exactly the same.

Sdrqaz (talk) 17:41, 11 January 2021 (UTC)