Wikipedia:Teahouse: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 22:48, 22 February 2022

Shortcuts

Bonadea, 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.

To read the newest questions, skip to bottom
About the Teahouse

Most recent archives
1205, 1206, 1207, 1208, 1209, 1210, 1211, 1212, 1213, 1214, 1215, 1216, 1217, 1218, 1219, 1220, 1221, 1222, 1223, 1224

reliable and independent sources = example

Courtesy link: Draft:Priyanka chahar choudhary

hey i made a submission but it declined and it says not notable .can someone please give me example of reliable and independent references please .thank you in advance Akb bhatia (talk) 16:58, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources which says The Times of India is considered to have a reliability between no consensus and generally unreliable. Theroadislong (talk) 17:11, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Akb bhatia: All 3 sources are from The Times of India, which is generally considered unreliable. See WP:TOI. You will need more reliable sources to show they are notable. --The Tips of Apmh 17:15, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You will also need to explain how it is different from the version that was deleted here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Priyanka Choudhary. Theroadislong (talk) 17:28, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Theroadislong hey can you please tell that India today source is reliable or not

@Akb bhatia: India Today is mixed in its reliability, they seem to have a history of not fact-checking their information. --The Tips of Apmh 18:25, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Theroadislong and pinkvilla , india forum ,tellychakkar any one of these — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akb bhatia (talk • contribs) 07:46, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Permission needed. Can I work on the subject? I am a movie addict. Hope I can work with Wiki rules if I get permission to do so.--Priya Ragini (talk) 03:49, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Priya Ragini: You don't need permission to improve a draft. However, you could post at Draft talk:Priyanka chahar choudhary or User talk:Akb bhatia if you want to discuss your ideas for improving the draft. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 05:02, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How to send warning to editors after reversion

After I revert any edit how to let them know and warn the user?... २ तकरपेप्सी _talk 20:42, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In general, you should leave edit comment explaining your reason for revert. If you need to leave a warning, you can use any of existing templates, here are a few to choose from. Anton.bersh (talk) 20:56, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Along with Anton.bersh, you should try Twinkle, as a faster way to revert, and to send out warnings/notices. Severe storm 28 23:02, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You could also try RW. ― Qwerfjkl talk 21:30, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@२ तकर पेप्सी Besides using anti-vandal tools, you can place {{subst:uw-vandalism1}} on the vandal's talk page under a month heading. So the vandal's talk page would have a section called February 2022 with a vandalism warning under it. I.hate.spam.mail.here (talk | contributions) 20:49, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So it would look like this. I.hate.spam.mail.here (talk | contributions) 20:51, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Average Admin Edit Count

I'm just curious I'm reading a book on Wikipedia titled Wikipedia: The Missing Manual from 2008 and I am wondering what is the average, min, and max of admin edit counts? ScientistBuilder (talk) 03:31, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No idea about the average (I'd guess somewhere in the 10k-100k range), but the lowest and highest edit counts that I am aware of are Lustiger seth (725) and Ser Amantio di Nicolao (4591220). —Kusma (talk) 03:41, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but this statistic is a bit misleading: Lustiger seth contributed 43,723 edits to DE Wikipedia. Using the same logic, one could note that administrator Lustiger seth has only 27 edits on RU Wikipedia. Anton.bersh (talk) 10:43, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lustiger seth is not an administrator of RU Wikipedia, though. casualdejekyll 19:10, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. Where can I see whether person is admin or not on a particular Wiki? Anton.bersh (talk) 10:50, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Anton.bersh I used XTools.. see how here "Is administrator" is ticked as yes, but here it's ticked as no casualdejekyll 00:29, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ScientistBuilder,

Edit counts are constantly changing and increasing. At what point in time do you want this data? Edit counts for individual editors can be seen by clicking on Edit Count at the bottom of an editor's contributions page but not every editor enables this feature. Editors in different user classes are not tracked for edits. Admin statistics can be found at User:JamesR/AdminStats and are updated on a daily basis but they don't include edit counts. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:44, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit count is not a meaningful measure of user's experience or contribution. I would recommend reading Wikipedia:Editcountitis (it's a humorous essay, but the points are valid). Most users with very high edit counts employ some level of automation. Anton.bersh (talk) 10:38, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can get a comparison of administrator admin actions (not edits) with this tool. You can get editing statistics for individual admins with this tool or this tool. The last one only has limited data if the user does not sign up to it. I don't know of any tool that compares all admin edits. SpinningSpark 11:32, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ScientistBuilder: You could also look at Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits and focus on those users that have "Ad" in the "User groups" column. GoingBatty (talk) 16:23, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Anton.bersh@Kusma@Casualdejekyll@Liz@Spinningspark@GoingBattyI'm just curious but is there anything like, "If you get 1000000 edits, you can apply to be an admin automatically or something" ScientistBuilder (talk) 22:34, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ScientistBuilder: no, there is nothing like that. Becoming an admin is (ideally) a function of sound judgment and the community's trust in an editor, which cannot be guaranteed at any raw number of edits. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:38, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to become an admin by the way because you have to deal with vandalism. ScientistBuilder (talk) 22:46, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is there something like an admin for a WikiProject? ScientistBuilder (talk) 22:46, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @ScientistBuilder:! No, most WikiProjects are fairly informal: they serve more like a bulletin board where people can coordinate work on articles related to a topic. I personally use them mostly for content assessment tables when I want to find something to improve. Anton.bersh (talk) 10:49, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ScientistBuilder, not all admins are needed to deal with vandalism, we have admins dealing with copyright violations, the DYK queue, spammers, AFC and several other places where you are unlikely to encounter vandalism. As for edit counts and adminship, it used to be said that if you haven't become an admin before your 10,000th edit you were unlikely to make admin. Nowadays I'd be as surprised at someone passing in their first three thousand edits as I would be if someone passed in their first 12 months of active editing. Oh and as for admins for Wikiprojects, MILHist elects some people, but I haven't heard of any other Wikiproject doing so, though whether this is a matter of MILHist scale or culture I wouldn't be sure. Ϣere SpielChequers 00:48, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look with the API. Excluding 4 adminbots (Edit filter, ProcseeBot, ST47ProxyBot, TFA Protector Bot) and one 'rename' (Khaosworks101), you get this: Count: 1,050; Min: 725; Max: 4,598,060; Mean: 75,218; Median: 35,931 -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:51, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to be an admin and mostly focus on editing well and less vandalism patrol, or is the role of an admin to enforce the pillars of Wikipedia? ScientistBuilder (talk) 20:48, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a controversial point, actually. The thing about RfA is that it's a horrible, terrible, place. At least in my opinion. The thing about adminship is that it's kind of biased to those people who work behind the scenes - simply because it's much more useful to them. There's a reason they call it the mop, you know. Admin tools are mainly used for cleanup rather then actual writing, and if you just want to write, then there's very few uses you'd have for the toolset. (Not that everything admins do is vandalism patrol - there are many many many many other things admins do as well.) casualdejekyll 00:20, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

According to User:JamesR/AdminStats, in Wikipedia history more than half of all admins have never blocked a single person. But when asking for a toolset, people are going to ask, "why do you need that and what are you going to do with it?" -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 00:39, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

According to that same source there have been 4,257 admin accounts, about two thousand admins more than we think. Some of those are stewards, WMF staff and others with admin rights, but hundreds of the accounts with 1 or 2 admin actions allocated to them are non admin accounts with an admin action credited to them due to a bug. There are also an unkown number of admins from the early days who performed all their blocks before December 2004, but at least one admin action afterwards. Unless things have changed since I last looked into those stats and admin history, that bot has no access to admin logs from before Dec 2004. There may also be some accounts that got the mop to do something that we have since unbundled such as Rollback. I looked into this several years ago to check the myth that lots of people pass RFA and then never use the tools. As I remember it the myth was pretty much busted, and new admins who don't use the tools are very very rare. However, adminstats does make it look as if we have lots of never active admins. Ϣere SpielChequers 19:03, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The edit filter is a bot? ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 00:47, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, but the edit filter owns an account (User:Edit filter) which it can use to block and change user rights (theoretically, long story). It's described as an admin, sort of: Special:UserRights/Edit filter. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 00:57, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

fed wup with ads

hey guys i just put this here bcos i cant seem to edit th main page. iused to use this site alot but i think iom goin g to have to stop using it now bcos of all the ads especiallythe really inappropriate onest bh. like im just browsing this site which i jnow by eleve year old son sometimes browses as well when hes at mty house and whenever i go onto a page i get like halg a dozebn pop up ads for porn completely blockngf my whole page and when i try to close them dsometimes thy just spawn even more! now i know ur run by voulenteers and i really really really appreciate that as uer creati g a really great free servcw for us an d i always loved this site and so did myson so money must be tight as i saw u asking for adonations before but pls pls pls plspls think about what ur doing!!! rthis is a site that kids use as well so its really no appropriate for porn adfs to pop up and completelt cover ur sceeen whenever ur on this iwki. hope wheover reads this has been thining what im thinking a its really not aceptanble idk if this is something the dmins decided on an d deceided to bn all discussion about LOL but im sure oyher ppl will h`ve thought its inappropriate too! peace and love x FedUpWithAds (talk) 03:58, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

wy is no one respondiong FedUpWithAds (talk) 04:26, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FedUpWithAds: Wikipedia does not have ads. Check your computer for malware. RudolfRed (talk) 04:50, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FedUpWithAds, you have twice added your complaint about ads to the article Ptolemaic Kingdom (second occasion), which seems about as strange as your claim to have seen porn ads. But then you have also said: i trie to asdd a new section on tourism and tourist advie but someone deleted it hbcs i think bcos i didnt really add any content as TBH i had a few drinks. Sobriety is a key to the use of Wikipedia. -- Hoary (talk) 07:14, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Would also explain the poor spelling and grammar! Username142857 (talk) 16:01, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting this user has been blocked. --Jack Frost (talk) 07:47, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to schedule when to move a page, and then for it to be done automatically on that date?

Telenor Bulgaria needs to be moved to Yettel Bulgaria exactly on 00:00, 2022-03-01. Quick Quokka ^[talk] 21:36, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No??? Not that I know of, at least. Why does it need to be moved at exactly that time? We'd only use the new name if reliable sources are talking about it - see how Turkey hasn't been moved to Turkiye, for example. casualdejekyll 21:38, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Casualdejekyll: Turkey isn't yet officially Türkiye. It plans to change its name in the near future, but it is still oficially "The Republic of Turkey", according to the UN.

Telenor will officially become "Yettel" on 00:00 2022-03-01. Quick Quokka ^[talk] 21:51, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We follow what Reliable Sources have called a subject, not what it calls itself. I suspect we would take that approach with countries just as we would with people who decide one day in the bathroom that they want to be called 'Ye' from now on. However, once a name is in established use (i.e. after some time), then an article name change would be OK.

However, providing there are reliable sources to confirm a future name change will happen, there is nothing to stop that new name being mentioned within an article, and also for a WP:REDIRECT to be created to take users searching for the future name to the relevant article. Hope this makes sense. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:14, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

QuickQuokka, the notion thst an article must be moved at a specific moment in time indicates that you have a misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works. We do not time the renaming of company articles to the wishes or whims of the corporation. Instead, we move such articles based on coverage of the new name in reliable sources that are independent of the corporation. Please read Wikipedia:There is no deadline. Cullen328 (talk) 06:19, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: Thanks! I didn't know that, I'll keep it in mind for next time! QuickQuokka ^[talk] 09:17, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good faith

What is good faith? 2603:8000:F400:FCEA:A01B:3072:D880:3FB8 (talk) 03:16, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Good faith is when someone does something wrong, but you don't assume bad intentions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.83.124.250 (talk) 03:19, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good faith is the intention of doing good things, whether or not it was actually good. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 04:33, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:Assume good faith. --David Biddulph (talk) 03:50, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also see Wikipedia:Competence is required --David notMD (talk) 08:52, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Talk response

I was trying to make my user page recently and accidentally tried to make it an article, user:TimTrent denied it and told me that I shouldn't do that. I was wondering how I could apologize properly, I'm afraid that I'll do it wrong and annoy someone else Commadore Cundo (talk) 05:27, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Commadore Cundo, you have already made it. It's at Commadore Cundo. -- Hoary (talk) 05:30, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That was when I tried it again the right way after the article got denied, I was moreover asking about how to respond or relay messages. Is this right by the way? Commadore Cundo (talk) 05:35, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I misread your question. You didn't make an article; you made a draft: User:Commadore Cundo/sandbox/User:Commadore Cundo. Yes, creating it was a mistake. An apology is not necessary. It's polite to reply in some way to regular messages; however, the message you got was a reviewer's comment on a draft, and it's normal to respond to these comments by doing something or other, and not by replying to them. Just forget all about the matter, and six months from now it will be automatically deleted. But if you'd prefer to accelerate its deletion, set out to edit it, delete all its content, and save it with an edit summary such as "Blanking a draft that I created by mistake". This will result in a fairly quick deletion. -- Hoary (talk) 05:42, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Or just add {{db-g7}} to the top. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 06:00, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Commadore Cundo. Or indeed just say here, simply and clearly, that you want it deleted. (No apology needed!) -- Hoary (talk) 06:08, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help! Commadore Cundo (talk) 06:20, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Editorial Guidance

I've recently joined and started publishing on Wikipedia, although I'm not sure of the actual process of becoming a senior editor. Can anyone help me out with the process or any specific guide? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AustinMcCarthy001 (talk • contribs) 08:08, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AustinMcCarthy001. There is no heirarchy of editors on Wikipedia and no official promotion system. Everyone is free to work on whatever they wish. But you can, if you want, find the most appropriate award at Wikipedia:Service awards and put it on your user page yourself. SpinningSpark 08:23, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Welcome to the Teahouse, AustinMcCarthy001. Wikipedia is does not have a hierarchy of editors although there are rights to do stuff (such as edit articles that have restrictions placed on them usually owing to vandalism) which come after you have a certain number of contributions. This is explained at WP:UAL. You can also ask for access to the Wikipedia library to assist your Wiki-related research once you lave made 500 edits and been around for 6 months at least. Mike Turnbull (talk) 08:25, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary not logging in with Wikipedia log in

When I log into Wikipedia it no longer automatically logs me into Wiktionary, though it logs me into the other language Wikis such as the French and German Wikis. How do I set it to automatically log me also into Wiktionary as I both edit it and have a difference Appearance set up? Thanks Nobbo69 (talk) 09:59, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please elaborate it on what kind of problem you're asking Lightbluerain❄ (Talk💬 Contribs✏️) 18:12, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and thank you, @Lightbluerain. My problem is that in the past when I logged on to (English) Wikipedia, Wiktionary (the English version, I have not checked any other languages) would also log on. Sometimes this would not immediately happen from my browser bookmark, but when I refreshed it would show as logged on. Now it does not do this, I must log on separately. But other pages, such as the French and German Wikis, all show as logged on. I have looked to see if some "global" connection has been broken in relation to Wiktionary, but could not see anything like that. It seems odd that this has changed when other Wikis have not, and like Garth, I fear change...! :D I try to do my fair share of editting and I also have Wiktionary and a load of different Wikipedias set up with a less eyeball-burning colour scheme. Not sure I can elaborate any deeper than that as it is not a major problem, but I am always keen to find out why things are changing when I have done nothing as far as I know to cause it. Thanks again!

Nobbo69 (talk) 19:10, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blur image in article

Hello, I have a question. I have uploaded some high quality images in Wikipedia. Before adding these photos in any article, they are fine. But after adding in any infobox, the images are getting blur or of lower quality. Why does Wikipedia reduce quality of images after adding in infobox? How can I prevent this from happening? GoldenHayato (talk) 10:01, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@GoldenHayato Can you give a couple of examples of articles where this happened? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:33, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång Thank you for replying. You can see it in pages like Viacom18 and Vodafone Idea Limited. The logos have became little bit blur or of lower quality. Please check them. GoldenHayato (talk) 11:04, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Afaict by the File: pages, the logos are as you uploaded them, not auto shrinking by bot, so I don't know what the problem may be. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:13, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article Title / Lemma Otto Fried vs. Otto Fried (Artist)

Hi everybody! I have a problem with an article title that I can't seem to wrap my head around. There's this new article I helped move about the contemporary german-american artist Otto Fried (Artist). The only reason I had to add the parenthesis was, that there is an already existing article title Otto Fried, which weirdly enough and without any detectable reason redirects to the article Otto Fries. Is there anything I'm missing here? In my opinion it would be probably the best to get rid of that redirect and move the contemporary artist to the parenthesisless article name. In the german wikipedia where I'm mostly active I'd need to speedy delete the article Otto Fried before I can move the artist content there. Any suggestions or opinions here to this case? --Grizma (talk) 10:11, 20 February 2022 (UTC) Grizma (talk) 10:11, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Grizma, my guess is that @Lugnuts created the redirect in 2007 because it could be helpful as a common misspelling. However, now I see no reason why your article shouldn't "have" it. I think you need an admin to do the deed correctly. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:08, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Thanks for the ping. I've moved the redirect and moved the Otto Fried (Artist) page to Otto Fried. @Grizma: Hope that's OK! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:13, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect you two, thanks a lot! Grizma (talk) 11:49, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with Interlanguage link template

If the English article name is the same as an already existing one (in this case a disambiguation), the template doesn't work.

Ex: I'm writing an article about an series, one of the actresses is Zhang Nan, there's other people on Wikipedia with that name so there's a disambiguation page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhang_Nan), I can't write Zhang Nan because then the template wouldn't work. Megutim (talk) 10:54, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Megutim. I don't quite understand what your problem is, but does Template:Ill#Displaying different text solve it? I think the example in that section may be somethign like what you are talking about. ColinFine (talk) 13:19, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't work either. The actress part is exactly what I want to omit for it to be just 'Zhang Nan' but Zhang Nan is the disambiguation page for people with that name. Megutim (talk) 13:44, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Megutim, please explain exactly what you want - how it should appear, and what it should link to. ColinFine (talk) 16:58, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://imgur.com/a/uiA2jYc

I was writing it like this but since the disambiguation page is called Zhang Nan, I'm not able to use the template.

I want to be able to write 'Zhang Nan' without it linking to the disambiguation page automatically. Megutim (talk) 17:54, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How to remove boxes with requests for citations etc after you have made the edits required

Hi, I'm working on the Rankin photographer wiki page, and there are 3 banner boxes with requests for changes in them - the changes were made ages ago but the requests still remain, you are supposed to be able to remove them but when I go in to edit them I don't see how - can anyone advise please? CujoJnr (talk) 11:26, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can open source editing mode and just remove {{more citations needed}} and {{BLP unsourced section}}. However, you need to make sure the problems are indeed resolved before removing these templates. Anton.bersh (talk) 11:32, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy link: Rankin (photographer).--Shantavira|^{feed me} 11:31, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Username142857

I submitted my sandbox for review to become an article on accident. Is there a way to revert this? Username142857 (talk) 13:21, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Username142857: Yes, you can remove the afd submission template. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 15:31, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, ok! Username142857 (talk) 15:54, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User has been blocked for WP:NOTHERE. Also, for future reference Kaleeb18 it would be the AFC template and not the AFD template. AFC is Articles for Creation while AFD is Articles for Deletion. Both complete opposites of each other. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 03:42, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blaze Wolf my bad, that was a bad typo to make. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 13:46, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kaleeb18: It's alright. Doesn't matter now that the user has been blocked for WP:NOTHERE. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 13:54, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Help with tables

Can you help me with Masked Singer Season 7? I'm not good at making tables yet. Can you show me the ropes? Agent K-Nova (talk) 14:48, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Agent K-Nova: for the technical aspect of making a table, you may want to look at Help:Table. I also find it helpful to look at other tables and copy their formatting- for example, the tables in The Masked Singer (American season 6) may be a useful reference.

I will add, however, that it looks like SecondLooneyaccount reverted your edit partially because the table wasn't done properly, but also because he thought it was unnecessary. Per Bold, revert, discuss, the recommended next step would be to discuss with him on the talk page of the article, rather than just re-adding the table. Aerin17 (t • c) 21:47, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia mobile

Is there something wrong with wiki mobile? I can usually remove the .m. in the url to see the desktop of view Wikipedia, which makes it way easier to edit on mobile. But now when I remove the .m. it still shows the mobile view and puts back in the .m. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 15:34, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kaleeb12: You should be able to scroll to the bottom of the page and there should be an option to use desktop version. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 16:02, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 13:47, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bonnie Wright

I have a interview of her on You Tube where she says she had Irish Roman Catholic heritage but is on You Tube how do I out reference on her Wikipedia article? 78.152.205.167 (talk) 16:10, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid YouTube is not useful as a reference, If you can find something that is not user created (ie in mainstream media) then that will be very useful. Reading Help:Referencing for beginners will be of use to you then Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 16:13, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the YT-video, see WP:RSPYT, can you link it? If it's an anonymously uploaded WP:COPYVIO we can't use it, but if it's say CNN:s YT-channel it may very well be usable per WP:ABOUTSELF. You can use Template:Cite AV media. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:55, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy: Bonnie Wright. Unless her grandmother is a Wikipedia-notable person, there is no value in adding such information. Parents, yes. Naming siblings, grandparents, children, no.David notMD (talk) 21:13, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Added by User:Rkunreal93 and reverted. David notMD (talk) 23:26, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Google news

Is google news a good source for referencing?---- Sweeto dweeto (talk) 17:19, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sweeto dweeto Hello and welcome. Google News is an aggregator of sources, not a source itself. You can certainly use it to help find sources, but when writing a reference you should use the source itself, not Google News. 331dot (talk) 17:25, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sweeto dweeto. Google News is not a source. It is a search tool you help you find sources. It is up to you to verify whether or not the specific publication is a reliable source. For example, Google News may display articles from the Wall Steeet Journal, a generally reliable source, and it may also display articles from the Daily Mail, which is not a reliable source. You must use your own editorial judgment. Cullen328 (talk) 17:29, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A hatnote to a section

Could someone please help me with the formatting of hatnote that points to a section within an article. In particular, I would like to add a hatnote to D. Napier & Son to distinguish it from D. Napier & Sons. However, that latter company exists as a section within a larger article on Duncan Napier. Is it possible for the hatnote to link to the section rather than the whole article? I hope this makes sense. Mike Marchmont (talk) 17:33, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mike Marchmont. You can accomplish this with the following wikicode:

[[Duncan Napier#D. Napier & Sons|D. Napier & Sons]]

The # character takes the link to a section of the article and the | character displays what follows that character. The output is D. Napier & Sons. Cullen328 (talk) 17:47, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your prompt reply, Cullen328. I tried your suggestion, but unfortunately it didn't work. I used this syntax:

{{For|the Scottish herbalist|Duncan Napier#D. Napier & Sons|D. Napier & Sons}}

which rendered like this:

For the Scottish herbalist, see Duncan Napier § D. Napier & Sons, and D. Napier & Sons.

I understand the use of # in a Wikilink in the body of an article, but it doesn't appear to work within a hatnote. Any further help would be appreciated. Mike Marchmont (talk) 09:18, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Marchmont: I have updated the article with the hatnote. The last pipe symbol has to be "escaped" (see code and Template:!). 108.52.196.8 (talk) 11:24, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's perfect. Many thanks, @108.52.196.8:. I didn't know about the escape character. I will now add that information to my personal knowledge base. Mike Marchmont (talk) 16:21, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is this subject notable?

I have a question regarding the notability of a subject. There is a company called SiberX. It isn't mentioned in any well-known places and I just wanted to make sure the company isn't notable enough to have an article created for it. Here is the company: https://www.siberx.org AAR007 (talk) 19:11, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@AAR007: Welcome to the Teahouse! The test that Wikipedia uses to decide whether or not to write an article goes like this: a subject is considered notable enough for an article if it has received significant coverage (so not just passing mentions-- we're talking large sections of prose) in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. I hope this answers your question. If not, hop on my talk page and we'll sort it out. Have a wonderful day (or night), Helen(💬📖) 19:53, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How does a registered user become an administrator?

How does a user that is logged in become a administrator? Are there any possible ways for them? 2603:8000:F400:FCEA:813F:2FE7:825D:2582 (talk) 19:14, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there @2603:8000:F400:FCEA:813F:2FE7:825D:2582:, welcome to the Teahouse. Nominations for adminship are made at RFA, where the community votes to decide whether the nominee should be given the administrator tools. If this was clear as mud, feel free to pop me a message on my talk page and I'll try to explain it better. Happy editing! Helen(💬📖) 19:39, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to read Becoming an Administrator in Wikipedia:Administrators. Karenthewriter (talk) 19:45, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Be advised that you can do the vast majority of things on Wikipedia without being an adminstrator(you can do many without even having an account as well, though not as much) and that administrators have no more authority than any other editor. 331dot (talk) 20:45, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They just have mandatory chores. David notMD (talk) 21:10, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@David notMD: What activities are "mandatory chores" for an administrator? GoingBatty (talk) 05:10, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Publishing new wiki page

Hello, I recently created a new page called "Center for AI and Digital Policy." I am trying to understand how long it will be before the page is visible on the main wiki site. Looking forward to hearing back from this community. Thank you Rachel Rcs119 (talk) 20:34, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy link: Draft:Center for AI and Digital Policy Anton.bersh (talk) 20:40, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rcs119 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I have added the appropriate information to allow you to submit your draft for a review; this must occur before it can be formally placed in the encyclopedia as an article(not a "page"). However- and I don't mean to disappoint you- if you were to submit it now, it would be rejected quickly, as it has no independent reliable sources to support its content. A Wikipedia article is not for merely telling about a subject. An article about an organization must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the organization, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. "Significant coverage" goes beyond the mere reporting of the activites of the organization or other brief mentions, and coverage must be independent- not written by the organization or based on its materials(like press releases). Please see Your First Article.

If you are associated with this organization, please read about conflict of interest and paid editing for information on required formal disclosures. 331dot (talk) 20:41, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rcs119: Based on your page, I assume you are affiliated with the subject. I'm glad that you are upfront about it, you just need to formally declare it. Also, are you paid by the subject? Anton.bersh (talk) 20:48, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rcs119: The article starts with "The Center for AI and Digital Policy’s (CAIDP) mission is..." This is an example of MOS:PUFFERY, being against the rule of Neutral point of view, one of the core policies of Wikipedia. It is also often an indication of Conflict of interest. When I read an encyclopedia article about some office, company, association, social movement, person or anything, I need it to tell me WHAT the subject is and WHY it is important to me and to the rest of the world, but not how wonderful the subject thinks it is. Wikipedia is not a place for expressions like "as an independent corporation", "significant publications", "more than 100 experts", "provides recommendations to national governments and international organizations", "well-informed policy", "cutting-edge research", "high-quality resources", "is a cornerstone for the development"—unless they are actually a common description of the entity; and if that is the case, it must be confirmed by references to multiple and independent sources. Otherwise it is just a blatant promotion, which is one of things which Wikipedia is not. --CiaPan (talk) 11:25, 21 February 2022 (UTC) (re-signed to re-ping)[reply]

What to do after a level 4 warning is given

This is hypothetical, but if someone gets 4 vandalism warnings in a month, and vandalizes again, what happens to that user? I.hate.spam.mail.here (talk | contributions) 20:56, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming level 4 warning was justified (and not given on a personal whim of another user), the receiving user is considered "sufficiently warned". When another user spots further vandalism, that user can report this vandalism to admins who then evaluate the actions of the vandal. Then most of the time vandal gets banned. Anton.bersh (talk) 21:00, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Related article: Banning policy. Also, note that some bans are temporary (have a set time duration), some are indefinite (have no set end time, but can be appealed) and only some bans are truly permanent. Unfortunately, that's all I know, since I never was involved in ban enforcement, most of the time I managed to convince vandals to stop by engaging with them on Talk pages. Anton.bersh (talk) 21:10, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Anton.bersh: Please see WP:BANBLOCKDIFF. Plain old vandalism will almost always end with a block, rather than a ban. If you see someone vandalising past their 4th warning, you can report them to WP:AIV. Victor Schmidt (talk) 07:00, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a template for returning a user's edit count?

I tried searching but couldn't find any. I.hate.spam.mail.here (talk | contributions) 22:07, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Only for certain admins, for example Template:Adminstats/Kusma can be used to display that I have 55760 edits. —Kusma (talk) 22:13, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can click on preferences (upper right, the sandbox and the beta-link), and it will give you an approximative number of your edits so far. Lectonar (talk) 11:36, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence Devereaux recommended I reach out: Want to remove Templates

Dear Wikipedia,

Lawrence Devereaux recommended I reach out to ask about removing these 2 "templates": 1. This article...has been extensively edited by...someone connected to the subject... 2. This biographical article is written like a résumé. Please help improve it by revising it to be neutral and encyclopedic. (August 2021)

I've tried to revise it to be neutral and encyclopedic and add references, but it seems I've not done enough. Can someone please provide further guidance?

Thank you,

Gibson Armstrong GibsonArmstrong (talk) 22:13, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Gibson Armstrong. Assuming you're talking about the article Gibson C. Armstrong, the main advice I will give you is to stop editing the article. As long as you are editing it, the first notice, at least, should definitely stay. Please confine your involvement in that article to making edit requests in the talk page, as recommended at WP:AUTO#IFEXIST, so that an uninvolved editor can decide whether or not to apply the change you are requesting.

I also don't think the second notice should be removed at present either. I have removed the paragraph about appearing on a TV show saying something about a shooting: I don't see how that is encyclopaedic even if the reference cited mentioned this appearance, which it doesn't. I haven't looked any further. --ColinFine (talk) 23:25, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Significant News Coverage

So I'm a bit confused here. My article draft has been rejected because it doesn't have significant news coverage even though I'm pretty sure it does. Can an admin or someone explain to me what I'm missing here? Thanks. Ibuprofenunlocked (talk) 22:24, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ibuprofenunlocked, is this about Draft:Scrabdackle? Four of the five references are published by the game author, so they are not significant independent coverage. While the Kotaku article looks like an independent source, it does not actually talk about the game much. It is very uncommon for unreleased indie games to generate enough coverage for an article on Wikipedia. —Kusma (talk) 22:34, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Editing advice

I have written a major update to the entry for the National Centre for Australian Children's Literature. The previous entry is out of date as there has been significant structural changes to the organisaion as well as new events and information about services such as databases. Now I have never had any experience of writing for or dealing with Wikipedia previously and I have found it a very frusrating experience. When I look for or read any of the help or procedure pages I find the language/terminology used confusing and unhelpful. I have tried to find someone who has experience to help but without success. I transferred what I had written to a sandbox and with fearfully hit the publish page button. An editor has gotten back to me to, very unhelpfully imply that what I have written is not objective or balanced, that there is a problem with my user name and, that as I work for the organisation (as a volunteer I might add) I shouldn't be writing it. I wasn't actually given examples of what the issues were with the entry, or told what was wrong with my user name and how to correct it or how anyone not involved with an organisation could write about it.

So how about some genuinely helpful editing advice? Ruth Nitschke (talk) 22:55, 20 February 2022 (UTC) Ruth Nitschke (talk) 22:55, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, then. CliffsNotes for you:

You have a conflict of interest because you volunteer for the NCACL. At best your goals (Improving the exposure of the NCACL) and ours (a neutrally-written encyclopaedia project) dovetail.
Because you have a conflict of interest, your view of what is neutral is skewed in favour of NCACL, and this shows in what you have written.
Wikipedia has a lot of jargon, which I'll take the opportunity to try and explain as I go on.
Your draft/userpage, as it is presently written, is promotional (i.e. it is written to "pretty up" or otherwise promote the organisation).
We do not include visions, objectives, mission statements, or any other bloviating crap the company defines itself with, as content like this is always going to be both promotional in tone and unencyclopaedic on its face. We are an encyclopaedia project, not a billboard.
Your footnotes are all nonfunctional, which gives the impression you copy-pasted this from somewhere (likely a now-deleted Wikipedia draft, since the copyvio check comes back clean). See Help:Referencing for beginners for how to actually cite your sources and WP:Reliable sources for what sort of sources we deem to be acceptable. (If you would rather a summary of the latter, we're looking for newspaper/news magazine/trade industry articles or scholarly books that (1) haven't been written or commissioned by the subject or their surrogates, (2) have been fact-checked or published by an outlet with an editor-in-chief and established fact-checking and corrections policies, (3) are not routine coverage of the organisation, and (4) discusses the organisation at some length in the source itself.)
The "Collections" section is promotional in tone and would almost certainly need to be heavily edited or (more likely) removed outright. (As an aside, you create sections by using equals signs, i.e. ==(title)==. 2 is standard, more means subsections.)
The "Artworks" section has the exact same issues as the section immediately above - it's unambiguously promotional. The remedy is the exact same - rewrite it wholesale or remove it entirely. The same applies to the "Accessing and Sharing the Collection", "Exhibitions and Seminars", "Publications", and "Access" sections.
The "Funding" section needs removed outright. As a rule, funding is generally not considered to be a particularly noteworthy part of any organisation's article, being dispensed with in a sentence or two if at all, and any news with regards to funding is considered routine. There are exceptions, but they generally do not apply here (i.e. being funded by laundered money or being the charity arm of a for-profit organisation, cf. Ronald McDonald House Charities before their divorce from McDonald's).
The "Volunteers" section needs removed outright as irrelevant.

For further information, I suggest having a look at WP:PSCOI. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 23:28, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Add to this that you have put your draft on your User page, which is exactly a wrong place. Expect it to be Speedy deleted very soon. If you can get to it in time, cut from there and park at your Sandbox. Your refs are not refs, i.e., superscripting a number does not create a ref. David notMD (talk) 23:38, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: The existing article is at National Centre for Australian Children's Literature. David notMD (talk) 23:42, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Establishing notability for a biography (BLP)

Hi everyone! Wanted to know if these sources establish the notability of this singer. [1] [2] Toofllab (talk) 23:18, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Toofllab you are starting at the wrong place. Instead of presenting possible references and asking of they are useful, you need to understand what is required for a living person's referencing.

For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS, and is significant coverage. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact cited, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the person is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.

Please compare the references you have found with the tough criteria we need them to meet. I could give you a direct answer, but you will benefit from working this out for yourself. If you need more guidance please ask. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 23:45, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to Toofllab's question: no, they don't. To establish notability, you'll need multiple (three or more) reliable independent sources that discuss the subject. The sources you list are based on what he said, and so aren't independent. Maproom (talk) 09:49, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft Approval

Hi, I have been working on a Wikipedia page draft and would like to ask if it would be approved if submitted. The draft has been rejected once before and the advice provided was as follows:

Comment: Most information isn't sourced with inline citations, and therefore the information cannot be verified. Some parts aren't written with a neutral point of view. Clearfrienda 💬 23:51, 24 July 2021 (UTC) Comment: Fix close rephrasing [1] TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 02:55, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I have corrected these issues as best I can and would like someone to have a look over the draft to see if the issues have been fixed properly. If there are still problems, could you please let me know what I need to change specifically? Here is the link to the draft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Australian_Leadership_Index

Thank you. Leadership scholar (talk) 23:31, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Leadership scholar I have left a comment on the draft. What you have done is not just WP:CITEKILL, but WP:BOMBARD. You seem have a misunderstanding about referencing so need to read WP:REFB

I hope you find the comment helpful

Please feel free to submit for a further review when ready. I have been unable to see past the state it is in at present Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 23:36, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you for your reply. While I am here editing and fixing that up, is there anything else that requires adjusting? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leadership scholar (talk • contribs) 23:53, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Leadership scholar As I said, I could not see past the state you left it in. Once you have corrected it then we wil be able to see what is truly present. You are engaged in an iterative process.

As an aside, please use more care when replying to messages. I had to disentangle your message from my own. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 00:03, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry I am not very familiar with using this platform for replying etc. I understand, I have finished editing now so if you could please have a look over the current version that would be great. Thank you for your help.Leadership scholar (talk) 00:06, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Leadership scholar if you submit it for review (if you have not done so already) another reviewer will look at it in due course. It is a very rare thing for me to review a draft more than once. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 00:28, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have not submitted it for review yet. If it is rejected again will it get deleted? I was a bit hesitant to submit because I wanted to make sure that I avoid deletion as much as possible. Leadership scholar (talk) 00:32, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Leadership scholar The review process is iterative. Your draft has not been rejected, but it has been declined. The difference seems subtle, but is real. Rejection is as near final as it gets, but is a thing to be used rarely by a reviewer. Being declined means it has been pushed back to you for further work. Note that you may ask a reviewer who reviews your draft to explain their review if you find it awkward to understand.

There is no real limit to the number of times a draft may be submitted. It does need to show improvement between submissions, though. Reviewers are human! Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 00:39, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How to deal with conflict and potential racism issues

I am very confused about how to approach racially sensitive topics. It seems like mentioning racism is an easy way to get banned and I am not trying to get banned. It is hard for me to know what to do when approaching articles such as Orania, Northern Cape, which is an open white nationalist settlement. I have been openly accused of "anti-white" racism, which seems much more problematic than mentioning racism and systemic bias more generally. It seems clear to me that the article downplays the white nationalist elements in a variety of ways, most obvious being the focus on "Afrikaner" identity. Should I submit a request for comment?

I also feel as though one or two users tend to follow me around and WP:HOUND me. I do not want to get banned for reporting them, what is the best way to approach this issue?

I personally feel that I have been engaging in good faith and trying to create consensus wherever possible. What am I supposed to do when my edits are reverted without consensus? It is incredibly frustrating when I am told to find consensus to restore the WP:STATUSQUO.

I understand debate and arguments are part of Wikipedia but constant opposition to every edit I make is incredibly stressful :/ Desertambition (talk) 23:52, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Desertambition, looking at the edit history of Orania, Northern Cape, I see that other editors generally share your view (as I do). So, as you find the opposition stressful, my advice is, walk away, and let others continue the fight. Devote your efforts to other issues (in Wikipedia or elsewhere), you'll achieve more that way, and it'll be better for your health. Maproom (talk) 10:10, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Desertambition, while I'm sure that Maproom means well, their advice may look like "If you're being hounded, just give up, in the hope that others will achieve what you'd hoped in vain to achieve." I don't suppose that it was meant that way (and certainly I hope that it wasn't). Actually Maproom doesn't seem to have addressed the issue of hounding. I'm not doing so either: not because it doesn't merit being addressed (it does merit this), but because the demands of "real life" mean that I can't devote as much time to looking into this as I probably should. This "Tearoom" page is frequented by a number of editors who are highly experienced yet not ossified into blandness but on the contrary demonstrably willing to deal forcefully with misbehavior. I hope that one or more of them will step in. In the meantime, I have addressed two narrower (but important) issues: the curious reluctance to say that this town is widely described as "whites-only", and the accusation that you're an "anti-white" racist. The former has already had (very minor) effect. The latter has been moved elsewhere but otherwise not yet responded to. I'm staying tuned. -- Hoary (talk) 23:54, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hoary Thank you for the advice. I am trying to deal with this appropriately. There are still users (I would say 3) who are following me around on pages that aren't Orania just to oppose my edits. Just to be clear, I believe WP:HOUNDING is happening but I do not want to report it because I do not want to be banned. These users have frequently threatened to get me blocked or banned. I think that looking through my contributions, while not perfect, show that I have engaged in good faith and I frequently have the same editors following me article to article often making the same debunked arguments ad nauseam. I also find it strange that your comment was removed from the page because it was inappropriate but somehow the "anti-white racist" comment wasn't. Desertambition (talk) 00:28, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Desertambition,the advice I gave you was what I would give to a friend. I was putting your health ahead of the interests of Wikipedia. Hoary is right to describe me as "ossified into blandness". You will not be banned for pursuing this issue; those who assign bans aren't stupid, they will agree with you and Hoary (and me). Maproom (talk) 00:44, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maproom Thank you for the advice as well. I appreciate this immensely. I will try to compile a good list of diffs so that I have some solid ground to stand on. Your point about stepping away was definitely heard and I did take some time away to clear my head. Desertambition (talk) 00:50, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Er . . . except that I didn't have Maproom in mind when so describing. Otherwise, yes, Desertambition, your health should come first; but the charge of hounding should be dealt with. (And I agree with Maproom on the non-risk of being banned.) In "RL", I'm doing my taxes now; perhaps one or more among 331dot, Bonadea, Cullen328, GoingBatty, and Nick Moyes would be available to consider this matter. -- Hoary (talk) 01:00, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Change image from non-free to free

Hello, I have seen some images, in which it is written that this image is of fair use. But some of those are actually in the public domain because they are too simple. How can I change those images from non-free to free (fair use to public domain)? Should I re-upload those images? Thank you. GoldenHayato (talk) 03:13, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If the files don't exceed the threshold of originality, you can move them to the Wikimedia Commons instead rather than keeping them hosted here on the English Wikipedia. More information on moving files there is available at WP:MTC.

Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 04:13, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GoldenHayato. It's sometimes a good idea to be careful with this kind of thing because the concept of threshold of originality (i.e. being "too simple for copyright protection") can vary quite a bit from country to country as explained in c:Commons:Threshold of originality. Some countries (like the UK, for example) have quite a low threshold of originality in comparison to others. Since Commons doesn't accept any type of fair use content as explainedin c:Commons:Fair use, logo files (in particular) often end up being deleted from Commons when an administrator feels the logo is too complex to be public domain and there's no way to verify that copyright holder of the logo has otherwise released it under a free license that Commons accepts. It might be a good idea for you to ask at c:Commons:Village pump/Copyright about any logos you think are too simple before moving them to Commons just to see what some others might think. Lots of files that are moved to Commons with the best of intentions do eventually end up being deleted because they're not considered acceptable for Commons for one reason or another. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:23, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Help on article which is appears an advertisement

Hi All, My first submission (National Green Front) was not accepted because it appears to read more like an advertisement. Could you someone please help me on here to identify those sentences. Thanks ChinthakaGK (talk) 03:16, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

courtesy link: Draft:National Green Front Karenthewriter (talk) 03:29, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Right from the start, I'd say "joined hands" is more what you'd see in an advertisement than an informative encyclopedia. Overall, just keep in mind that the goal of an article is not to tell a story to persuade someone to like a group, but rather to provide neutral information and facts. Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 04:07, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ChinthakaGK: Welcome to the Teahouse! I think "extraordinarily surpassed" is another phrase that reads like an advertisement. Most of the text in the "Formation" section and the entire "Financial Vision" section is unreferenced. Your goal in creating a draft should be to gather independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage of the organization, and then summarize/paraphrase what they state. Please read Help:Your first article if you haven't done so. You can also use {{Infobox organization}} instead of the table at the top of the draft. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 05:43, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ChinthakaGK: How did you acquire the image of Dr. Pathum Sankalpa Kerner? GoingBatty (talk) 05:47, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @GoingBatty: Thank you for your kindness and reply, I noted your point and the answer to your question - I found Dr. Pathum's Image below the online paper article and cropped the background. https://www.sundayobserver.lk/2020/08/02/opinion/green-politics-and-system-change-aim-%E2%80%93-dr-pathum-sankalpana-kerner. May I remove the image or add a citation? and May I remove the "Financial Vision" section and rewrite the article?

@ChinthakaGK: Another editor has already removed the image, as you may not upload a copyrighted photo (altered or not) to Wikimedia Commons as your "Own work". Another editor has already removed the "Financial Vision" section. You may continue rewriting the draft and resubmit when you're ready. (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.) GoingBatty (talk) 14:19, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Short descriptions of more than 40 characters and featured article criteria

When a set of featured articles are part of a series of articles (for example, articles that talk about championship matches), the short description vary greatly from article to article. Per the "championship matches" examples, the short description of the first article is "Final of Scottish championship tournament held in 2010", the second article has the short description of "Association football match", and the third article sums it as "football match between X and Y", not to mention all three being either Featured Articles or FAC articles. When someone needs to edit the short descriptions of other articles (FA or not) to ensure parity with the featured articles, that editor has three choices corresponding to the three FA/FAC articles mentioned, and if all three were to be chosen across several other non-FA articles that will end up becoming FA articles, we might have a "short description disuniformity" problem that might turn off some editors who want to edit short descriptions. The solution to the "short description disuniformity" problem might be to unify all three choices and make short descriptions that are "coherent" with the original three choices, and this leads to questions about the resulting lengths of such short descriptions. Unifying these three short descriptions (each of them approx. 40 characters per WP:SDSHORT) could become short descriptions with upwards of 100 characters. Right now, as I have observed on the Wikipedia mobile app, short descriptions can go up to the hard limit of 250 characters. Can these articles with short descriptions of such detail (primarily short descriptions with upwards of 100 characters) become Featured Articles per WP:FACRITERIA?

If not, we might need to do an WP:RFC about this. LunafreyaLaphicet (talk) 03:49, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, LunafreyaLaphicet. The most important thing to keep in mind about short descriptions is that they are unimportant. I have been editing here for over 13 years and have been deeply involved with writing or major editing of hundreds of articles. I have never given more than five seconds of consideration to the short description of any of those articles. The goal of "ensuring parity" is a fool's errand, in my opinion, since editors have far more important things to work on than short descriptions, and especially parity between articles on unimportant elements . The most important thing once you get past their unimportance, is that short descriptions should be short. Therefore, in your example, "Association football match" is the best since it is the shortest and most direct. Keep it short and do not pay too much attention to it, because it is unimportant. See Wikipedia:Short description for details. Cullen328 (talk) 06:57, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But does that mean short descriptions of upwards of 100 characters might become an WP:FAC obstacle? LunafreyaLaphicet (talk) 08:09, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If it is a problem, then it will get fixed. Just do it right first time and as per Cullen328, keep short descriptions short. - X201 (talk) 09:03, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Appreciate it. LunafreyaLaphicet (talk) 09:50, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

my very firts article

Thanks wiki! hey, first of all I am glad that I got an opportunity to write here. My question is that I have written my first article, which is a draft (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Husayn_ibn_Muhsin_al_Ansari) I would like to know when can it be finally published so that everyone who searches can find it? when can it pe removed from draft and get published? Please publish it as soon as possible... Syed Abdullah Ibn Umar (talk) 04:15, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You'll want to add {{subst:submit}} to the top of the article so someone helping out with WP:AFC will review it at some point. However, keep in mind there are almost 3,000 articles in this queue so it may take some time. Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 04:20, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Syed Abdullah Ibn Umar: Welcome to the Teahouse! If you were to submit the draft in its current state, it would most likely be declined. Every Wikipedia article needs a lead section to summarize the article and explain how the subject meets Wikipedia's requirements for inclusion, called "notability". For help structuring this lead section, see MOS:LEADBIO. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 05:53, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did it for you. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 06:13, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@AssumeGoodWraith No, you perhaps didn't. I submitted it now. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 06:38, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Itcouldbepossible I didn't submit it because it is going to be declined. I added the unsubmitted template. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 06:42, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@AssumeGoodWraith Ok, but atleast he would be happy that we are taking an initiative to make his draft into an article. He will soon understand why his draft won't be accepted. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 06:43, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It has been submitted. The drafts waiting for a reviewer are not a queue, so it may be reviewed in days, weeks, or sadly, months. During that time, you can work to improve the draft. The Lead needs a few sentences summarizing the information you believe makes him notable. More refs are needed. If Declined (likely), that means that you can continue working to improve the draft before resubmitting. Last - after a draft is accepted and becomes an article, there is a delay of up to three months before it will be found by using a search such as Google. David notMD (talk) 08:57, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

thank you to everyone, for helping me out. I need some editor who can do this article for me, I literally have no experience of writing here on wiki. But I got all the sources needed. I want someone to just help me with editing and publishing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syed Abdullah Ibn Umar (talk • contribs) 04:37, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Update: The draft was declined, reasons and comments are available on the page. Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 23:22, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When to mark as link rot

I was looking at the link rot page to see what scenarios i should tag something as rot, and i noticed a lot of talk about references and citations, but what if its an external link at the end of the article thats dead? Should i remove it, leave it untouched, or mark it as dead? (Ive already checked for an archive and found none) Aidan9382 _(talk) 10:00, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Aidan9382, welcome to the Teahouse! You can either leave it untouched or mark it as dead. We don't remove links just because they're dead links. Hope that helps. Lightbluerain❄ (Talk💬 Contribs✏️) 17:57, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable Sources

Hello, I have a question about reliable sources. The article (Draft:Philipp Hochmair) was declined twice because the submission was not adequately supported by reliable sources. I have added the filmography and a few newspaper articles, but I don't know if that is enough. It would be a great pity if the article is declined a third time. Thank you very much for the support.Emmy1707 (talk) 10:08, 21 February 2022 (UTC) Emmy1707 (talk) 10:08, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Emmy1707: Welcome to the Teahouse! I made some tweaks and then declined it, as the "Early life" section has no references. GoingBatty (talk) 14:30, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Link to other Wikipedia pages

Please help. What is the Wikitext to link a word eg. Johannesburg to another Wikipedia page which describes Johannesburg in detail? 102.132.134.49 (talk) 12:22, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To link to another Wikipedia page, place the name of the page in double brackets like this: [[Joe Biden]], which appears as Joe Biden. 331dot (talk) 12:24, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Additionaly, the code [[Joe Biden|Example]] will produce Example, with 'Example' linking to Joe Biden. Kpddg ^(talk ^• ^contribs) 12:49, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For more information, see WP:Wikilinks. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:27, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to another Wikipedia article

Please help. What is the Wikitext to link a word eg Johannesburg to another Wikipedia page which describes the word Johannesburg in detail? Mysky2blue1 (talk) 12:25, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Answered above. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:28, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mysky2blue1 In your draft Draft:Vivian Granger you need to remove all the nowiki to make the Wikilinks work. All of the content needs to be referenced. See Help:Referencing for beginners for guidance. David notMD (talk) 14:23, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Bias

Ddjjo (talk) 12:59, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, i'm feeling quite bullied on wikipedia! I've written an article that is far better cited than other articles and well researched. An editor just removed it because he said there was not significant coverage but there are several profile pieces on the subject. Why is wikipedia really biased against some people?

Hello Ddjjo Wikipedia is not bias we just have some "rules". In order to creat an article about anything, it must pass the general nobility guideline (see WP:GNG). There could be a million sources talking about that person, but Wikipedia must back information with reliable sources (see WP:RS). We are not bias against you we just have some policies an article needs to meet before being made. Happy editing! ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 13:51, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to start with "Wow." You created Andrea Ferran as an article. An editor was of the opinion that it was not ready for mainspace and moved it to draft. At no point was it "removed." You moved it back to mainspace, left a note on that editor's Talk page (appropriate) and left a note on that editor's User page (very inappropriate). David notMD (talk) 14:30, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @Ddjjo: Welcome to the Teahouse! Wikipedia has some existing articles that are poorly cited. You're welcome to improve them or nominate them for deletion, but comparing your work to them is not a winning strategy - see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 14:34, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have concerns about the quality of the references. Numbers 2, 3, 5 and 6 cannot be viewed, as not online, but the nature of the citation information you gave does not make clear how those are about Ferran. Numbers 4, 7 and 9 appear to be mentions of her name and an event, but cannot be considered the type of 'at-length' content needed to support Wikipedia notability. That leaves the non-English refs, which are beyond my ken. David notMD (talk) 14:52, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ddjjo I apologise if I have just added to that sense of 'bullying' you describe. That was certainly not my intention but, as an administrator here, I have left notes on both your talk page and that of TeatroEnEspana expressing concerns about possible multiple accounts or off-wiki coordination being used to create this article, and the need to declare any Conflict of Interest that any editor might have with their subject. You might wish to address those on that page. These are all normal things for other editors to bring to the attention of new users. With over 6.4 million articles here on this hugely popular site, we see a considerable number of attempts to use us to promote particular individuals or businesses. These all need to meet either the criteria laid out at WP:NBIO or WP:NCORP, where we need detailed, in-depth coverage of a subject, not just short mentions. Should another editor feel a new page has been created a bit too soon, they may simply move it to Draft to allow further development. This is not bullying, but it is certainly often better than that same editor deciding to nominate a new page for an Articles for Deletion discussion. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:20, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OP blocked for sockpuppetry - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ddjjo. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:07, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

E-waste or e-waste?

In the Electronic waste article, I noticed an editor recently changed every instance of 'e-waste' to 'E-waste', not just when it begins a sentence, but throughout. This looks jarring to me and it's not anything I have encountered before. (Back when "email" was often hyphenated, as "e-mail", it was never written this way: 'E-mail' - unless starting a sentence. Is there a WP policy or MOS guidance on this? I did try MOS:ABBR and elsewhere, but could find nothing specific. My own dictionary does not show it with a capital. Could you direct me to the right policy, if there is one, or tell me what the usual practice is, please? Thanks for any advice. AukusRuckus (talk) 13:06, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@AukusRuckus I agree with you, though the better place to have raised it would be on the article talk page itself if you were unsure. I would simply revert their edits all in one go. If you look back through the article it's clear that e-waste has been used throughout over many, many years. It's not a proper noun, so a capital E is not appropriate. Compare with how lower case e- has been used throughout Electronic cigarette. This simply one editor preferring to insert their desired formatting, and you are free to revert it with a clear edit summary. Just about getting into an edit war if they try again - that's the time when posting on the talk page of the article makes sense. MOS:CAPS gives general guidance on most forms of capitalisation, though a quick skim didn't reveal an example for your situation. Hope this helps, Nick Moyes (talk) 14:13, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick Moyes Thank you, I appreciate you letting me know your thoughts. Please forgive me asking here before raising on the talk page, as I wanted to get my facts straight in advance. This is because a) I wanted to know as a general guide for any article, into the future; and b) No wish to go in to Talk only partly informed, to be batted down. (This might just be me, but I find opening talk pages discussions very frequently results in either: crickets - 'chirp, chirp', or, commonly, editors whose changes you gently enquire about replying with firmly entrenched positions, sometimes with a side of snide.) Now I am equipped with at least one other opinion, I feel safe to make the change and drop a note on the talk page. Many thanks. AukusRuckus (talk) 08:49, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor got there first! Result! Still glad to have had the benefit of your helpful response. Best, AukusRuckus (talk) 09:01, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You’re most welcome. Nick Moyes (talk) 09:27, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Taiwan is a province of PRC

Not asking a real question about editing Wikipedia.

Why is Taiwan a country? Firstly, it isn't recognized by any of the permanent U.N. states. Moreover, there are many sovereign states out there but do you know how many had recognized Taiwan (and how many detached from Taiwan to support PRC diplomatically). Overall, it is a breakoff province of PRC under an ongoing cold civil conflict. Ultimately, Wikipedia will likely crush any of these thoughts and treat them as Chinese-backed propaganda and deliberate measures to confuse the Internet with cyberwarfare, but this is a fact. Taiwan's recognition in recent years continue to drop drastically amid the rising dragon, and the great shift is taunting every Western media out there. In my opinion, if a sovereign state is not recognized by any of the permanent U.N. states, nor does it receive widespread officialized international support, it should be treated with a term different from the term "country". Hypersonic man 11 (talk) 14:11, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hypersonic man 11 Welcome to the Teahouse. Your question cannot be answered here at this help forum, as it is purely for solving practical Wikipedia editing problems. Have you stopped to carefully read the article on Taiwan and Political status of Taiwan? Wikipedia follows what reliable sources say about a subject, not what certain individuals or groups wish to hear. Serious concerns over accuracy - rather than one political viewpoint or claim can be discussed on the relevant talk pages of those articles. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:31, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article has 4 references supporting the claim that Taiwan is a country so it might be hard to dispute that (unfortunately that means China will refuse diplomatic relations with us because of that^[Joke])― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:44, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, wait, wait! Wikipedia had diplomatic relations? Is there a flag? Passport? Currency? Clearly, Wikipedia's population of registered editors is larger than most countries, so maybe country status is overdue. David notMD (talk) 14:55, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Time to turn the this blue...Lectonar (talk) 15:19, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All UN members are permanent and 13 of them recognize Taiwan. If you refer to the five permanent members of the Security Council then that's a tiny sample which shouldn't decide what a country is. And lots of UN members have some relations with Taiwan and treat it as a country in many respects but choose to not officially recognize it because it antagonizes China. See also Country. The "Joke" by Blaze Wolf is partially right. Wikipedia is banned in China, partially because they dislike that we have uncensored information about Taiwan (and many other things like human rights in China). PrimeHunter (talk) 15:22, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was just making a joke! I didn't know China actually banned Wikipedia! ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:27, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blaze Wolf, see Great Firewall. --ColinFine (talk) 16:38, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I know about that, but I didn't know Wikipedia was on it ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:41, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can't use the term "some". Neither can you state that quite "some" states have "some" relations with the runaway province since it is not officialized? The five permanent members of the Security Council is the main direction to determine whether Taiwan has its sovereignty or is it just a break off a chunk of PRC amid the civil conflict. By the way, the fraction of 13 out of all permanent U.N. states are ridiculously small and negligible, let alone the 180 STATES that don't recognize the country. Recognition and official diplomatic ties are the keys here, not even the USA recognize Taiwan, and the proofs aren't solid enough. Moreover, there are many organizations out there claiming Taiwan as a part of China. Ultimately, the fraction of U.N. members recognizing Taiwan is way too small let alone those who have officialized diplomatic ties with the province, and hence it is safe to say that Taiwan is a province and it deserves a provincial status. p/s change it Hypersonic man 11 (talk) 04:59, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can't use the 13 states as a reason anymore, let alone the "some"... Hypersonic man 11 (talk) 05:00, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

help with article that has been turned down 3 times

my article has been turned down three times and I need help please :-) I have tried three times to get an article published. Each time it has been denied, I would revise it according to what was suggested by the editor who rejected it. Then the next editor denies it for something else which I then fix and resubmit. This last rejection is very similar to the original reason it was denied entry which I thought I had already addressed. The person I am trying to add is a TV celebrity (Breegan Jane) whose peers are included in Wikipedia. I cannot imagine why she shouldn't be. Any help is very much appreciated. I am about to give up and that's not usually what I do. I have put so much work into this. Jeanne Pritt Sheridan (talk) 15:02, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy link: Draft:Breegan Jane Karenthewriter (talk) 15:25, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeanne Pritt Sheridan It seems the draft does have some reliable sources, but there are still some sources that are not. There is also a lot of unverified information. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 15:52, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also if you if you are related or know the person you are writing an article about, it is highly suggested that you do not do that as that would be a conflict of interest (COI). You need to declare on your userpage that you are a relative or know who Breegan Jane is. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 15:59, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~@Karenthewriter:~~ @Jeanne Pritt Sheridan: Instead of the list of "Media features", I suggest you use those articles as references for information about her. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 16:03, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@GoingBatty: I think you meant to ping Jeanne Pritt Sheridan. Karenthewriter is the one who gave the courtesy link. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 16:32, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kaleeb18: Whoops! Thanks for catching my mistake! @Jeanne Pritt Sheridan and Karenthewriter: Sorry for the incorrect ping! GoingBatty (talk) 17:00, 21 February 2022 (UTC) [reply]

Linking to another Wikipedia article

In my draft Draft:Vivian Granger someone mentioned that I need to remove all the nowiki to make the Wikilinks work. Please could someone look at this draft quickly and tell me where I have gone wrong. I used the wikitext as follows: Link .. this should make the words go blue for a link to drill through to it's wiki page Mysky2blue (talk) 15:12, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mysky2blue: Hello mysky! I've removed all the nowiki tags from your article and replaced some of the info with an infobox (only the info you have for the infobox), however your article will most likely be declined since it is completely unreference. See WP:Referencing for Beginners for help in adding refs. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:26, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Blaze Wolf: Draft:Vivian Granger has two references, but no footnotes. GoingBatty (talk) 16:11, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I saw those supposed "references" but I have no clue what they are for or what the reference even is. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:19, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mysky2blue. Draft:Vivian Granger was made with VisualEditor which works differently from the source editor. See Help:VisualEditor#Editing links. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:27, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much everyone - I really appreciate all the help and I will be working on the references Mysky2blue1 (talk) 16:37, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is this "unhelpful" log about?

Hi, I was looking through my user logs, and I noticed one particular log that just reads "unhelpful", which seems rather vague and non-descriptive compared to the rest of the logs. I was wondering if anybody might know what this log was about? LikeLakers2 (talk) 16:04, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LikeLakers2. It's probably from Wikipedia:Article Feedback Tool. It left behind a lot of partial logs when it was discontinued in 2014. Just ignore it. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:13, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank you for letting me know! LikeLakers2 (talk) 16:18, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The log doesn't give a lot of information, so it seems pretty unhelpful to me. :-) GoingBatty (talk) 16:18, 21 February 2022 (UTC) [reply]

@LikeLakers2: I checked the HTML and it's from Article Feedback Tool Version 5. The log is in your name so I guess it was you who called some feedback unhelpful and not somebody who said it about you. The user and page is gone from the remaining log and I think all actual feedback was deleted. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:21, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@PrimeHunter: To be fair, I wouldn't be too surprised now-a-days if someone called me unhelpful 11 years ago, haha. But jokes aside, since these logs no longer appear useful, perhaps they could be deleted? I'm not sure where to suggest that sort of action though.LikeLakers2 (talk) 16:37, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@LikeLakers2: phab:T115303 from 2015 is "Expunge old AFTv5 log entries on WMF wikis". Some things move slowly. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:12, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Where to put reasons for edits

I made an edit. It was changed back and I was told I needed to explain the edit. I am not sure where or how to do that.

Thank you. Albetha2!98 (talk) 16:14, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Albetha2!98: Hello Albetha! You should always explain your edit using a edit summary. The page I linked provides an explanation as to what it's for and how to use it. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:17, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I gave an explanation for my edit - Mo Pinel

I deleted the reference to me and my mother because Mo Pinel abandoned me and my mother as a child, he stole and disowned me. He wanted nothing to with us and we wanted nothing to do with him. Given this, I am removing the references from his Wikipedia page. I explained this in the most recent edit, as I was required to do. Yet, I have once again been told I did not provide an explanation.

I am uncertain what else I need to do here.

Thank you. Albetha2!98 (talk) 16:32, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Albetha2!98: Providing an explanation doesn't make you immune from being reverted. Your reasoning of him abandoning you has nothing to do with the removal of the reference. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:37, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not, Blaze Wolf, but it should prompt us to consider whether the information belongs in an article. ColinFine (talk) 17:02, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was told that I didn't provide an explanation for the most recent edit in the edit summary. My point was that I did provide an explanation in the edit summary. Whether or not Wikipedia chooses to "allow" the edit or accept the reason for the proposed change is different than saying that I didn't provide an explanation in the edit summary. That was the point to my question. A variation of my most recent edit was made by an editor, and while my mother would prefer that her name be removed, the current edit is acceptable. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albetha2!98 (talk • contribs) 16:44, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Naming spouses is normal procedure, but naming children (or their education, or their profession) is not, unless they themselves are subjects of articles. I removed that information. I also removed the ref, as it was to a 1995 newspaper article (which was behind a paywall), and so guessing it had nothing to do with Pinel's first marriage and child. David notMD (talk) 16:48, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I didn't look at the history and see you'd done that, David notMD. I found a paragraph cited to a source which confirmed none of the information in the paragraph, so I removed the paragraph. ColinFine (talk) 18:11, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Albetha2!98: I'm fairly sure the warning says you didn't provide an accurate edit summary. Correct me if I'm wrong though. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:49, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand now. Apologies. This is not something I do often. I understand what is necessary in the future. Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albetha2!98 (talk • contribs) 16:51, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To link or not link in Block Quotations

I looked at Wikipedia:Manual of Style and MoS:L and am I not sure if it good practice to insert wiki links in a block quote. ScientistBuilder (talk) 16:37, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ScientistBuilder. Per WP:MOS#Linking, the recommendation is to be "conservative" about wikilinking within quotations. Personally, I never do it. Cullen328 (talk) 17:20, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ScientistBuilder: I’m with Cullen328 I never do it, but might rarely put a link in a regular quote. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 17:23, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What makes an article "promotional"?

I've had 2 reviewers both say that my article is too promotional, but I'm still not sure why. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:AOZ_Studio What could I do to make it less "promotional", and more worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia? Ising4jesus (talk) 17:16, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ising4jesus Start again in a brand new draft. Write only what others say unbidden about the org in multiple independent reliable sources, using your own words. Do not write what you want to say.

Are you associated with the subject of the draft? Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 17:27, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Timtrent they have already declared their COI. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 17:31, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kaleeb18 Ah, so they have. @Ising4jesus please read WP:PAID. Working part time there means you are, broadly construed, paid Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 17:36, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well Ising4jesus, the little words like this one in the lead high-level would be considered promotional. I would suggest reading WP:WORDS and WP:NPOV. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 17:29, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ising4jesus. Let's take a look at the first sentence of your draft: AOZ Studio (also known as AOZ BASIC or just AOZ) is a high-level computer language, well suited for games and multimedia, as well as general purpose applications. That is not neutral language; it is evaluative language. What reliable source independent of AOZ calls the language "well suited" for anything? That's promotional language, not encyclopedic language. Vast swaths of your draft are entirely unreferenced and therefore must originate with the company. An acceptable Wikipedia article summarizes what published reliable sources entirely independent of the company say about the company. Otherwise, a Wikipedia article about a company turns into a sales brochure for the company, and that simply is not permitted in a neutrally written encyclopedia. Cullen328 (talk) 17:34, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"High-level" is a technical term, not a promotional term. It indicates the type of computer language. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-level_programming_language.
I do agree however, that "well suited" is evaluative language. Perhaps something like: "AOZ Studio (also known as AOZ BASIC or just AOZ) is a general purpose, high-level computer language, with heavy emphasis on graphics, audio, and video commands." That is a matter of fact statement rather than "evaluative". Would this language be more acceptable?
Ising4jesus (talk) 20:05, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That does sound better, Ising4jesus. But the question to ask is, which of the independent sources talks about its emphasis on graphics? If at least one does, that's fair enough. But if that's only the company's, or you own, evaluation, then it doesn't belong in the article. Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 22:47, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I need guidance and help

I have trouble creating an article Hello . I made a draft entitled Seyyed Mahmoud Razavi, but my draft was disqualified and not approved due to lack of resources and invalid resources. The person for whom I was going to write an article, Seyed Mahmoud Razavi, is one of the top producers of Iranian cinema and the producer of great movies such as The Midday Story and The Midday Story: Blood Trail and films such as: Lottery - Atrium - Cyanide and many more. Other movies. Due to my inexperience in English Wikipedia, I could not get more resources and now I am asking if anyone can help me to complete the draft: Seyed Mahmoud Razavi and publish it so that both I can learn and I have written an article and helped to spread Wikipedia. Let me know if anyone can help me. Thank you Ahmad1387 (talk) 18:02, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ahmad1387: Welcome to the Teahouse! While the folks here would be willing to help you understand the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia, or help you with the technical nature of wikicode, it's unlikely that anyone here will have the ability and desire to search for independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage of this person. I added some WikiProjects to Draft talk:Seyyed Mahmoud Razavi, and maybe someone from WP:WikiProject Iran will be inspired to help you. Creating a new article is one of the hardest things to do on Wikipedia. However, there are thousands of articles that you could help improve. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 18:19, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Sedum Adolphi"'s article notability?

Hi, I just wanted to ask a question about the notability of plant species Sedum Adolphi. I'm planning to create an article about it (of course in my sandbox first). —Remember, I'murmate — I'ma editor2022 ^{(🗣️💬 |📖📚)} 18:44, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@I'ma editor2022: Welcome to the Teahouse! WP:NSPECIES tells us "Species that have a correct name (botany) or valid name (zoology) are generally kept. Their names and at least a brief description must have been published in a reliable academic publication to be recognized as correct or valid." Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 18:56, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

However - @GoingBatty, @I'ma editor2022 - there is already an article on this topic at Sedum nussbaumerianum, therefore any duplicate articles would be speedy deleted under A10. I recommend that instead of putting your effort into creating a duplicate article, you try to improve the already existing article. casualdejekyll 19:08, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Casualdejekyll: Thanks! I created Sedum adolphi as a redirect to Sedum nussbaumerianum to make it easier to find. GoingBatty (talk) 19:13, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Casualdejekyll and @GoingBatty:

Thank you for telling me and adding redirect! —Remember, I'murmate — I'ma editor2022 ^{(🗣️💬 |📖📚)} 20:53, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

new , how can i see if approved≈

hi, im really new at this, didnt understand if i did it right, but for now i didnt see that my contribution was approved??? Yanivd28 (talk) 18:57, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Yanivd28: Welcome to the Teahouse! There is not an approval process for most articles, such as Lead, so once you make an edit like this one, it is live for everyone to see. However, Certes reverted your edit a few hours later in this edit, and kindly explained why in the edit summary. If you're new to editing, you could view Help:Introduction and The Wikipedia Adventure to learn how to edit. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 19:02, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Yanivd28: Unfortunately I had to remove the new entry from Lead's See also section, which lists related articles that aren't linked in the text above. We don't have an article about Vitalki, so there's nowhere to send the reader. (There is a draft, but it doesn't yet establish the artist's notability.) The album cover also plays a less critical part in the study of lead than, say, the inventor of the fuel enhancer. I never enjoy undoing someone's first edit, and I hope you will continue to contribute to Wikipedia. Certes (talk) 19:32, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is it fair?

check this a IP tagged the userpage for deletion as it's not notable. (Aslo previously when it was in it's draft form a ip tagged the page for deletion). No other experienced users have problem expect some particular IP. Any suggestion or advice from experienced users? ... २ तकरपेप्सी _talk 19:23, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@२ तकर पेप्सी: I've undid their edit since that criteria does not apply to user sandboxes (and also Drafts) and left them with a warning on their talk page stating that only the general criteria apply to user sandboxes. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:28, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If this weren't true, then no it would not be fair since then someone could just tag the page for deletion before someone would have a chance to prove that it's notable. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:34, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, criteria U1, U2, and U5 would technically still apply there (I don't think U5 applies to sandbox drafts), but none of them apply. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:29, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While it is true that A7 doesn't apply in draftspace or userspace, the IP doesn't deserve a warning for tagging a draft about a non-notable person who has been spamming Wikipedia relentlessly. They were mistaken, not disruptive. --bonadea contributions talk 19:34, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bonadea: what's your suggestion? As a IP has recently blocked from my userpage for doing unnecessary edits on my talk userpage. Aslo want to know your views on this page? ... २ तकरपेप्सी _talk 19:41, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd argue that mistaken and disruptive are not mutually exclusive - see WP:CIR, although this case doesn't really come anywhere near that. I'd think some sort of level 1-warning equivalent message would be appropriate. casualdejekyll 19:43, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

aggree with @Casualdejekyll: ... २ तकरपेप्सी _talk 19:48, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was simply attempting to warn them for adding speedy deletion criteria to a place that doesn't apply, and I simply just used the warning I gave them since there were no other warnings that would be appropriate. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:49, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One could actually write a message without using templates; this can of course include a warning of some kind. Lectonar (talk) 09:36, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I know that. However I find it much easier to use templates and append a message to the end of them, rather than simply just typing out a short and less professional seeming message. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 13:56, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Templated messages just makes you adapt the question/problem to the template, and not the other way round. Form isn't everything, content is; there is no wonder we have Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars, and even Wikipedia:Don't template anyone... but that's just my opinion. Lectonar (talk) 15:53, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My first article was marked for deletion?

I recently wrote an article about one Mr. Andrew Zellgert who writes science fiction. I interviewed Mr. Zellgert in December about his work and I felt inspired to write a Wikipedia article about him. No sooner did I publish this article did someone announce it had to be deleted due to 'insufficient information.' I would like to know what is considered a sufficient source of information? I have links to all of Mr. Zellgert's platforms, his book listings on various notable websites, and my interview notes. What do I do? ~Draftabillman Draftabillman (talk) 20:01, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Draftabillman The key question is "Does Zellgert pass WP:NAUTHOR. If he does, can you edit the article to prove that.

All you need is to show that he passes, and you can do that by showing how he does at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Zellgert. This is a place where you may make policy based arguments for retention.

A word of caution. Please do not be tempted to answer every single point that anyone makes. Take your time, create your best argument, and post that there, if he passes. Then walk away and treat your post as a Fire-and-forget missile. Less truly is more. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 20:08, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, I am unsure how to go about this. I clicked the link to the author requirements and I am not sure where to begin. My problem is most of my information is coming from the interview or his biography. How does one go about answering a deletion request? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Draftabillman (talk • contribs) 20:13, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Draftabillman It may be, then, that he does not, yet, pass WP:NAUTHOR. If he does not then the article cannot be salvaged.

One answers a deletion request quietly, calmly and says one's piece. For example, I have made a comment at this one. Wait and watch what others say. There is no rush, although I do see that you have suggested that the article be "closed". That may be interpreted as that the author requests deletion and has been the sole substantive editor. If so then the discussion goes away.

Next time please use Wikipedia:Articles for creation where reviewers can and will guide oyu Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 20:21, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Draftabillman: Hi there! You may answer the deletion request the same way you posted your response here. Wikipedia articles should be based on independent published reliable sources to ensure verifiability. (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.) GoingBatty (talk) 21:59, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Draftabillman. I'm sorry, I know it's frustrating to have your work discounted; but what you've done is the equivalent of starting to build a house without checking whether the local planning regulations allow that house to be built. The main issue here is that Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. However fine an interviewer you are, all your information comes from the subject, and so, while a small amount of purely factual information may be taken from your interview, it cannot form the basis for a Wikipedia article. --ColinFine (talk) 22:59, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are reviews an appropriate editorial source for a hotel article?

I've been assigned to write a Wikipedia entry for a hotel in Boston, but so far have not been able to find independent editorial articles/sources where it is mentioned, except for independent review sites (ex: Travelociy). They are independent, but aren't "articles" per se. Are they enough to qualify the hotel as 'notable'? Thank You 2603:8001:6400:9300:91FF:8AAA:C078:FFA1 (talk) 20:25, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @2603:8001:6400:9300:91FF:8AAA:C078:FFA1:! What is the subject you are trying to write about? What do you mean when you say that you were "assigned to write a Wikipedia entry"? For reference, Wikipedia does not have "entries", it has encyclopedic articles. Also, as far as I understand, Travelocity contains user-generated reviews which are not considered reliable. In other words, no, that kind of content would be suitable for an encyclopedia, and definitely does not demonstrate notability. Anton.bersh (talk) 20:34, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@2603:8001:6400:9300:91FF:8AAA:C078:FFA1 it may help you to read What Wikipedia is not and share it with the person who assigned you the task of writing an article about a Boston hotel. Some people incorrectly believe that Wikipedia is a form of social media, to be used for promotional purposes. If you haven't already done so, you should read Your first article.

Writing a neutral (no promotion or opinions) online article, with good references for everything stated, is a difficult task, and I hope you don't face difficulties with the person who assigned the article if you aren't able to get it published. Karenthewriter (talk) 23:28, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Complex Page/Content Creation - Whistleblowing The Tax Club, Accounting Fulfillment Services, DBA 1-800Accountant

This is a complicated, multi-page creation need. Basically, an online only accounting/bookkeeping and tax preparation firm has been scamming people for decades now under different names. The most famous of which is <a href="https://legalnewsline.com/stories/510517784-the-tax-club-agrees-to-255m-settlement-with-states-feds">The Tax Club</a> which ended up being sued by multiple states attorney general and settled for just under $300M. The company, with same leadership, still does business today as "Accounting Fulfillment Services". Better known by their DBA <a href="https://1800accountant.com">1-800Accountant</a>. Their CEO and Former CEO, <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/cases/2013/01/130117taxclubcmpt.pdf">Brendon A. Pack and Michael Savage</a>, respectively, continue to manage the company and retain much of the same shady tactics. I am a current employee - so am able to serve as a reference. And in addition to the complexity of the pages needed to explain this shady business, I am too close to the subject to objectively write these articles.

Finally, my question: Is some kind soul (or souls) willing to help get this information out to the public? I will assist in whatever way makes sense.

Thanks Digitalsavvy (talk) 20:56, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Digitalsavvy: Hello Digital! Thanks for not attempting to create an article yourself, due to your WP:COI. Unfortunately, if the company isn't notable then they don't get to have an article on Wikipedia. You can't be used a source either since that would technically be WP:OR. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 21:05, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Blaze Wolf: Hi Blaze Wolf! I understand. Outside of the lawsuits, and there are several, there is no sustained coverage on any of these entities. They did once use Ben Stein as a spokesperson and ran national TV commercials, but that is still probably sub-standard. In any event, I appreciate your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Digitalsavvy (talk • contribs) 21:29, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Digitalsavvy: Welcome to the Teahouse! Wikipedia is not the appropriate place to get information out to the public - see WP:PROMO. Wikipedia articles should be built based on independent published reliable sources that are already available to the public. Note that Wikipedia doesn't use HTML - we'd format external links like this: "The Tax Club". GoingBatty (talk) 22:05, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Wikipedia does use SOME HTML. But not a lot. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 22:06, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Digitalsavvy: No problem! Glad I could help! ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 22:05, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Digitalsavvy: Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not the correct place for this kind of information. Please see WP:TRUTH. Anton.bersh (talk) 22:09, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@GoingBatty: ::@Anton.bersh: Noted. I appreciate the response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Digitalsavvy (talk • contribs) 22:20, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Where to get valid references

Hi, I wonder how to add the right references on significant rally racing team (they have been repeatedly in the top 5 on Dakar) when the most reliable source is their website or Facebook groups. I can find number of articles about them too but they are all in Czech. I am not sure if that is valid? Thank you! KaterinaSturmova (talk) 21:00, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@KaterinaSturmova: Hello Katerina! The language of the source does not matter. As long as it qualifies as a reliable source and can be used to establish the subjects notability. Facebook and their website are not good sources because they are not independent of the subject. I usually just use Google for finding sources for the subject, however you can also use WP:RSSE which is a programmable search engine that will only show results from sources that have been determined to be reliable. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 21:03, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@KaterinaSturmova: Welcome to the Teahouse! Wikipedia:WikiProject_Motorsport has some suggestions for reliable published sources. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 22:08, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Robert Rennaker

Hello!

I was wondering if anyone would be interested in reviewing a draft I've made for Dr. Draft:Robert Rennaker, a researcher at The University of Texas at Dallas. I have a bad feeling some of the information will need to be scrapped due to a lack of independent sourcing, but I'm willing to accept any commentary and critique needed to get this article approved. Any and all comments are appreciated, and I wish you the best! Jonknox12 (talk) 21:35, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you to go at Wikipedia:Articles for creation where reviewers can and will guide you. ... २ तकरपेप्सी _talk 21:39, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonknox12: While you're waiting for a reviewer, you may continue improving the draft. For example, you could add a |work= or |publisher= parameter to each reference to make it easier to determine where the references came from. If you have any conflict of interest with Rennaker or Draft:Texas Biomedical Device Center or Denise C. Park or Draft:Dallas Lifespan Brain Study or any other topic, you must declare it on your user page. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 22:16, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I added those article names to his User page. Yes, I know putting stuff on editors' User pages considered a no-no. David notMD (talk) 11:41, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Help improve the article

For now some time I've been trying to improve the draft Tommy Egan with no luck, so I'm seeking help with improving the draft article of a fictional character from Power, and spin-offs, Book II and Book IV. Neoinsession (talk) 22:23, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Neoinsession, are you having trouble finding additional information to add to the article, or are you stuck in some other way? If you can't find enough information to expand it beyond a stub, that's a strong sign that it may not be a good idea to have a separate article on this character, and that it should instead redirect to a broader article where it can be covered concisely. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:19, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sdkb, not really there's a lot to refer from but recently my articles have been tagged with notability and unreliable sources and I want it to be as neutral as possible since it's a fictional character and a lot of people can relate to the subject. Neoinsession (talk) 00:33, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neoinsession, if your draft can't demonstrate notability, or if the sources it cites are unreliable, then careful attention to neutrality (although commendable) won't be enough to salvage the draft. -- Hoary (talk) 01:03, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hoary, the thing is I have produced multiple articles, some are not tagged (i.e Mall of the North & Reason) and some are tagged (i.e Moneoa & Judy Jay). I have studied the guidelines for some time now and I guess I still cannot figure it out what is it that I do wrong because sometimes the sources (website) I cite get replaced with a {{unreliable source?}} and {{citation needed}} but the very same editor would cite the website as their source in their article(s), so I'm having trouble figuring what's what. I thought maybe it was because of lack of prose but it wasn't the case on Reason, then I end up tagging the articles I produce as stubs for assistance. Neoinsession (talk) 01:56, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brining Up Bates.

Why Was Bringing Up Bates Cancelled By Up TV. Egrenert (talk) 00:19, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Egrenert: Hello welcome to the Teahouse. If you asking why your edits were reverted by Woodroar, the reason is because there were no reliable sources, verifying the information you put in. Hope this helps! ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 00:52, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Egrenert: This is not a question for the Teahouse. Do you have a question about editing Wikipedia? ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 00:58, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question How can I Edit Without Reliable Sources. Egrenert (talk) 01:04, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Egrenert: Unless it's something that's a minor copy-edit or a few other things, the majority of information on Wikipedia must be backed up by realiable secondary sources. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 01:07, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Selected works" formatting style

Hello, I recently came across Emi Nakamura#Selected works. The formatting looks quite ugly and it feels strange to include this much detail about each paper, but I do not know the correct way it should be formatted. Is there a guideline or an example article with a similar section that is formatted a bit better? Thanks. Endwise (talk) 01:11, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Endwise: Hello Endwise! While I may not know if that much detail should be included, it should definitely not be formatted like a list. I can't find any policy regarding this at the moment but it's widely agreed that things like this should not be presented in a list form but should rather be written in prose. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 01:21, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Alt

Hello! So just now I had a thought about renaming my alt account and I wonder, would I be permitted to do so, despite my alt having 0 edits? I would assume I would have to make the request from my alt account to do so, but would this be something that is permitted? ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 01:43, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blaze Wolf as long as your alternative account is being used for a legitimate reason I don't see why not, there doesn't appear to be any threshold an account must pass for edit counts or limitations for alt accounts at WP:RENAME. Of course, your new account name should comply with all relevant policies. -Liance^{talk/contribs} 05:16, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Help - Citations and References? Did I do this correctly?

I am working on this page: Barbara Krupp

I did my best to add correct it; re-did all the citations and references. Please tell me if this is working better!

(I'm not clear what is difference between Citations and References, even though I have researched the terms.)

Thank you!!! I appreciate the help I got in the Teahouse. Sue-zin (talk) 02:24, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not a host comment

Sue-zin, please use the "Automatic" button when citing sources (if manual is not working for you) or click the "Convert" on your cites. Don't space your citations, keep them close together. Do Not use Wikipedia as a reference as it will only create a circle, rather mention/link the page. Thank You. Neoinsession (talk) 02:43, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sue-zin. In the Wikipedia context, there are three items: the superscript number in the text; the bibliographic information it points to, usually lower down the page; and the external source that that identifies. If we need to distinguish them, I'd call them the citation, the reference, and the source respectively; but the words are often used loosely, and I don't think there's much harm in this. So "citation" often refers to either of the first two, and "reference" often refers to any of them. ColinFine (talk) 13:59, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sue-zin: Welcome to the Teahouse! In the "Publications" section, you properly use <ref>...</ref> and {{cite web}} - that's great! Please do the same for the "Gallery Shows and Exhibitions" before resubmitting. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 22:12, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tea for formatting

Help for formatting and why do people use generic block reasons?

Also, if block happens, don't let them feet the IP as I'm at a hotel. It's all about making this company Happy and in tears... So let's make DreamWorks go Blue! 02:26, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indef blocked. David notMD (talk) 11:52, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is this RS for a BLP or is it WP:PRIMARY

Pepe Escobar, previously an investigative reporter on Eurasia energy issues, is a living person. Is it OK to use this State Dep't report as RS for his recent history of publications in Russia-linked outlets? HouseOfChange (talk) 04:11, 22 February 2022 (UTC) HouseOfChange (talk) 04:11, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HouseOfChange, I would consider the US Dept of State a reliable source, but do note that primary sources and reliable sources are not mutually exclusive (a reliable source can also be a primary source). The references for a biography of a living person must adhere to the outlined policies, and while primary sources are not strictly disallowed, a secondary source is almost always preferred. -Liance^{talk/contribs} 05:10, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Possible hacked account. I am getting messages saying that I have made changes to articles that I have never read or visited. How do I remedy this?

49.182.9.202 (talk) 04:54, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

49.182.9.202, since you are accessing Wikipedia from an IP it appears that other people on your network might be making those edits. Logging in or creating an account would stop these messages, or you can just ignore them completely. -Liance^{talk/contribs} 05:03, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

49.182.9.202, the message on your talk page is dated August 2021, when most likely this IP was not yours. Many IPs are dynamic, and may be reassigned between different customers of an ISP at varying intervals for various reasons. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.193.130.191 (talk) 11:09, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Would now be a good time to mention the benefits of WP:REGISTER? - X201 (talk) 11:23, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Help me with my TWA userboxes

I'm doing basic structuring of my userpage. I'm quite happy with the current userboxes but I would like to fix the formatting of the TWA badges - I'm open for design suggestions. I know the badges aren't meant for the userbox although I think this may be the best place for them. Any ideas of improvents? Feel free to change it on my userpage directly first and then discuss with me here GavriilaDmitriev (talk) 06:38, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GavriilaDmitriev, maybe this userbox? {{User:Vukky/Userboxes/All TWA Badges}} Justi yaya 07:31, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the quick reply! I still would like to have the all shown separately. When I have made more progress it would make sense to group them but not yet. Any idea how to put them neatly together? GavriilaDmitriev (talk) 07:37, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@GavriilaDmitriev: I'm sure I saw it shown separately somewhere but don't exactly know where... Hopefully some other host here knows Justi yaya 07:47, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are unattributed verbatim quotes okay, even when permitted by the original source?

I'm curious what others think. One of today's "did you know's" is Potamophylax_coronavirus. The article contains a statement at the top of the references that "This article incorporates text from this source, which is by .... available under the CC BY 4.0 license". There is no attempt to state what text was derived from the article. This alarms me greatly, but I can't quite put my finger on why. (1) It paves the way for WP to become a mere mirror-site, copying great chunks of whatever anyone can find on cc-by-4.0 licenses. To my mind, we don't write in our own words merely to evade copyright, but because we're summarising and combining sources, and presenting an overall picture. Once people start copy-pasting, much of the thought underlying that summarising-process has gone. We're not synthesising, but WP writes in its own voice, it doesn't just echo others. (2) At the very least, it creates a bias, where authors who release their work on a cc-by-4.0 licence are likely to see their own words mirrored here, and creates a risk of very lazy self-citation, where unscrupulous authors can simply plaster chunks of their text into WP articles, which is harder to see and deal with than mere excessive external references/links. (3) And because of the lack of any link between the licence-statement and the text, it's not always going to be apparent what text is covered by the licence, unless you go to the trouble of doing a side-by-side comparison of the WP article and the original. This means our readers don't know when they're reading Wikipedia, and when they're reading, in this case, the Biodiversity Data Journal through a mirror. (4) There's also, weirdly, a copyright problem. If, subsequently, someone comes along and edits the text that's been nicked verbatim, so it's no longer a verbatim copy, then we're misrepresenting what the original author said; the cc-by-4.0 licence gives us a right to requote provided the source is attributed, but I think it comes with an obligation to indicate where changes have been made. Since it's not obvious what text in Potamophylax coronavirus is quoted, it means if anyone edits this article, they are quite possibly breaking the original copyright agreement, and we won't know. The normal copyright tools won't help, because they're designed to look for similarities, not differences, and the editor will have no idea what they've done. This makes me very uncomfortable. Elemimele (talk) 07:08, 22 February 2022 (UTC) Elemimele (talk) 07:08, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Elemimele. I think you're mistaken in saying "There is no attempt to state what text was derived from the article." Reference 1 immediately below the statement is obviously sourced to that article, and is cited in 7 different places (superscipted a, b, c, d, e, f and g). I haven't performed a side-by-side comparison between the 7 cited parts of our article and the pennsoft.net article, but it seems not unlikely that the language used there was already well formulated, so would be disimproved by paraphrasing.

If some text is quoted verbatim, then I'd agree that it might be appropriate to indicate this with quotation marks, or otherwise. I see that you have already stated your concerns in several edit summaries: perhaps you should move to engaging with the relevant article editors, such as Leomk0403, on their Talk pages. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195}~

@Elemimele: I think you see a problem where I see none. I realize there is a question of philosophy about attribution/reuse at the bottom of this, so I doubt I can convince you, but I will at least try to present the opposite view.

I view (1) as a feature rather than a problem. The whole point of having Wikipedia under a (relatively) permissive license is that others can copy-paste and reuse our content elsewhere; conversely, reusing stuff from elsewhere if allowed is a good thing. If the text is not good Wikipedia content for other reasons (NPOV, V, etc.), that can be dealt with by standard editing, just the same as if the text had been written from scratch.

(2) is not directly a problem either. If the text is good, it’s great that we can use it! The only problems come from WP:REFSPAM, but adding a chunk of text with citation is clearly easier to detect that adding a barely-relevant citation.

(3) I agree that what part was copied should be apparent; it usually is in the edit history. (But as the article evolves, no close tracking is really feasible.) That being said, whether the content is Wikipedia’s original content or a repackage is IMO irrelevant (assuming the quality is ok, see point 1). It is a basic tenet of Wikipedia as a project that what counts is verifiability ("it has a matching cite to a serious biomedical journal"), not origin brand ("it was written on Wikipedia, it must be true").

(4) is incorrect. In the case at hand, [3] is under CC-BY 4.0. That license only requires acknowledgement of the source and whether changes were made, but not the detailed list of the changes. You might be thinking of ND licenses (no derivatives) where no changes whatsoever can be done (even if mentioned). I cannot find the page right now, but I am pretty sure we cannot reuse ND (or NC, non-commercial) works in Wikipedia, precisely because articles are bound to be modified and the license would not permit it. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 13:23, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tigraan:, yes, I might be over-panicking. But I do think it's important that our readers know when we're quoting; I think we should make that clear with quotation marks.
Yes, our edit-summaries would be a track of changes, but there are scenarios where having a "foreign" cc-by-4.0 licence hanging over a WP article might be a real problem. Here's an example: Professors Smith and Jones publish a ground-breaking new method, about which we write an article, quoting from their cc-by-4.0 publication. Later, Prof. Cadwallader publishes a second article in which he modifies Smith and Jones' original method, and we add text accordingly. Smith, who believes every change to his method is a perversion of the True Cause, and Fundamentally Wrong, now complains that the article says something that he didn't say. Under the cc-by-4.0 license, he has no right to stop us, but he does have an explicit right to have his name removed from the material that he made available to us by cc-by-4.0. That's part of the license (3(a)(3)). He can also have the url linking to his paper removed, and also even the copyright statement and cc-by-4.0 link removed, if he wishes! (off-topic: This last gives me the heebie-jeebies, because if he removes his own copyright statement, how can he justify that he had the right to have it removed? It's the legal equivalent of sawing off the branch on which you're sitting). On-topic: so we now have an article in which we cannot cite the most important source, because the author won't let us. Or alternatively, we can only cite the source we want to, if we agree to give Smith a veto over what we write. Because the quoted parts were never demarcated as quotes, the original author's cc-by-4.0 license permeates the entire article, and Smith can object to any change, on the grounds that it's being applied to a modified version of his original text. In fact, in the course of the argument, Professor Smith, being a bloody-minded old curmudgeon, decides to look up the full terms of cc-by-4.0 and cause as much havoc as possible, and indeed demands that the cc-by-4.0 link and copyright statement are removed, as well as his name. Jones now complains that the article is a breach of his right to be attributed, and demands that the copyright statement be reinserted, because otherwise even if we acknowledge him, our own readers are only obliged to acknowledge Wikipedia, not Jones, as is his right under the original cc-by-4.0 (that we're not allowed to show)...

This sort of fiasco ought never to happen, but in an encyclopaedia as large and visible as Wikipedia, it will, sooner or later. The only way out would be to delete the entire article, make it quite clear it's deleted, and rewrite from scratch, maintaining a scrupulous trail to indicate that not a word has been taken from Smith's writings, and therefore WP's own cc-by-4.0 applies, not Smith's. To avoid such silly disputes, I think we should avoid speaking directly with the words of our sources, and when we do so, we should do so in quotation marks, or in some similar way indicate the extent of the text that's been taken verbatim/modified-verbatim, and therefore know which parts of our material are covered by our agreement, and which by the original source's. Elemimele (talk) 14:09, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Or just paraphrase his work. One can not prevent the use of their work as a source. Your scenario over-complicates matters as it assumes the work has to be used verbatim.Slywriter (talk) 17:50, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Slywriter:, yes, I agree completely, we should paraphrase. I don't think we should use verbatim, in which case there's no need to indicate that the article contains text derived from the source under a cc-by-4.0 license. But I'll shut up at this point because I think you're also correct that I'm complexifying things unnecessarily. It's a bad habit! Many thanks! Elemimele (talk) 22:02, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of the photo

I am here to request that the photo of Huzoor Tajushariya Alaihir Rahmah on this Page must be removed. It was requested before also by some people. He never liked photography then what is wrong with you people and why are you not removing it? NotFair652 (talk) 08:28, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NotFair652 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Please raise any concerns about an article or its content on the associated article talk page, Talk:Akhtar Raza Khan. As you seem to be aware, that has been discussed before, without any arguments based in Wikipedia policy to support its removal. A subject's personal beliefs regarding photography are not relevant. 331dot (talk) 08:31, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@NotFair652, consider Help:Options to hide an image. See also WP:DISC. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:31, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How to Find Reliable Sources

Hello I am new here. Can you guide me how to find reliable source. Which can full fill the user persona. Because in the past i have used some of the reference link which are related to the citation. But has been remove due to correct source issue. So, i wanna how we get a perfect citation, so i can make sure that references should be come from correct websites.

Thanks Pwtragedy (talk) 09:19, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pwtragedy Take the time to read WP:RS and Help:Find sources. Blogs and wikis are almost never reliable sources. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:28, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How to change an image

Hello!

I've found a page for a certain medical therapy which has an image of a very outdated device on it.

I'd like to change the image to a newer example of that technology but can't seem to work out how.

Sorry if it's a stupid question, did a bit of digging but can't figure it out! Jaymeskelleh (talk) 10:36, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jaymeskelleh, welcome to the Teahouse! No, it's an excellent question. Now, WP is very (very) strict about copyright, so the default assumption is that any random pic you find online can't be used because copyright. It's possible for a publisher to mark a picture with a copyright license that's acceptable to WP, but this is rare. More at Help:Pictures.

But, if you can take a new picture of the technology with your own camera, then you can "donate" it if you like. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:48, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

identification of unreliable sources and coverage

Courtesy link: Draft:Stormind Games

Hi! I'm new to Wikipedia and in my first post I got the message that the "submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article". I have edited the draft with new, more specific references, but it didn't seem to work as the draft got rejected again. Can someone please help me identify the exact problematic sources so I can replace them with more valuable links?
EneaCirce (talk) 11:31, 22 February 2022 (UTC) EneaCirce (talk) 11:31, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, EneaCirce, and welcome to the Teahouse. There are three separate requirements on sources, all three of which must be met in order for a source to contribute to notability, (and hence for elegibility to be the subject of a Wikipedia article). First, sources must be reliably published, that is, published by somebody with a reputation for fact-checking and editorial control: examples are major newspapers and reputable published. RSNP is a list of sources which have frequently been asked about, with their consensus rating for reliability. Secondly, independence from the the subject: Wikipedia is basically not interested in anything that the subject, or associates of the subject, say or want to say about the subject, in any media. Third, sources must have significant coverage of the subject.

Not every source cited in an article needs to have all three of these, but the bulk of the article must be based on sources which do meet all three, so if there are not several sources which meet all three, then no article is possible. Adding more sources which do not meet the requirements (especially unreliable sources such as wikis, blogs, forums, fan-sites, and most of YouTube) makes a draft less likely to be accepted (see WP:REFBOMB). ColinFine (talk) 14:14, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the submissions were Declined, not Rejected. The latter is more severe, with the reviewer indicating that the opinion is that the draft has no potential for becoming an article. David notMD (talk) 15:40, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not an absolute requirement, but refs should not be just HTMLs. See Help:Referencing for beginners. David notMD (talk) 15:42, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@EneaCirce: I've cleaned out the refs which are unreliable or not needed. Have a look at WP:VG/S, it lists sources that the Video games Wikiproject have reviewed and deemed as reliable. Use sources from there. - X201 (talk) 15:43, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Young company article

Courtesy link: Draft:TRES OTC DMCC

Is it possible to submit the article which describe young but outstanding company with short biography like this? Also I am interested in your comments about sources. What of them are not sufficient or have to be withdrawn at your opinion? XXX-Rays (talk) 12:03, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Consider asking for input at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cryptocurrency. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:10, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As stated in the review comments, the company being discussed does not look notable. Moreover, you should look for some reliable sources following guidelines before resubmitting the draft again.

Block

The user involved in the discussion- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Blue_Square_Thing&diff=prev&oldid=1068643667 should be blocked as per wiki norms. It is not only a slur of our state or our country but an insult of the whole Wikipedia Community. Calling for the user in question to be blocked, at least for a week as a punishment for the kind of language he used in the discussion. Also for the same reason, same punishment should be bestowed on the anonymous user. Michri michri (talk) 12:39, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Michri michri: This is probably an ANI thing. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 13:12, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AssumeGoodWraith I know that and mildly warned the concerned user about reporting at there, but at first give me your opinion regarding this matter--- about whether the two users should be blocked or not.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Michri michri (talk • contribs) 13:26, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Michri michri and welcome to the Teahouse. I am so sorry that you experienced uncivil behavior here on Wikipedia. I wish I could say it was not the norm but it happens far too often. Wikipedia editors, IP or registered, are human and sometimes our passions get in the way of our best attempt to build a better encyclopedia through civil collaboration. In this case it may have been a simple troll or it could be something more. Comments such as those left on Blue Square Thing's talk page are unacceptable and inexcusable, regardless. But the edit summary left by @Blue Square Thing when it was reverted was uncivil, as well, and singled out editors from a particular part of the world and stated their goal as being to cause disruption in doing things to make editors from that part of the world upset. That shouldn't be anyone's goal here. It's going to happen but it shouldn't be our goal. We are called to act in good faith towards all editors and remain civil in our interactions with others. That isn't just a request but a requirement in order to maintain the level of collaboration needed to constantly improve and build the encyclopedia based on community consensus. This type of incident is a good opportunity for us all to self-evaluate our interactions here and make sure it falls in line with the goals of Wikipedia. It's not just about you or me but us, collectively. I've temporarily watchlisted Blue Square Thing's talk page so if further disruption and vandalism continues it can be documented and addressed. If it does continue you can always seek admin assistance at the administrators noticeboard. --ARose Wolf 13:28, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Michri michri, also remember to sign your posts on talk pages and the Teahouse using four tildes (~~~~) . Kpddg ^(talk ^• ^contribs) 13:35, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ARose Wolf, thank you . I must acknowledge that the user concerned is quite amiable but at the same time the fact is undeniable that he has some indistinct vague against the users from our state. Also, I was not biased towards the anonymous user, which is palpable in your writing, I want punishment of both of them. There is another instance where the user described Kolkata Knight Riders as a 'crappy' franchise.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Michri michri (talk • contribs) 13:56, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was very surprised by errors you made at Pat Cummins article and you referring to User:Jaspreetsingh6 as 'some idiot'. Out of curiosity, I looked through your contributions and I have to say I was disappointed and somewhat offended to see [1] this response to IP editor who insulted you. I am from Kolkata myself, although I have lived and worked in England for eleven years, and I cannot excuse you saying that you like to 'to piss of sad little biys from west bengal' (sic). I am, I hope, wise enough and experienced enough to realise that you wrote this in heat of the moment after name-calling on your own talk page, but some people in today's climate might construe your comment as racism. This is especially so when I also see two edit summaries at Pat Cummins article where you describe Kolkata Knight Riders as a 'crappy' franchise and you deride a valid shorthand term like IPL 2015 (which is used by this site for redirection) as something that 'no one outside India has the foggiest about'. Again, comments like these could be construed as prejudicial. Even if you are badly provoked, you should follow advice we are given in NHS to say nothing, end discussion and report incident (and, naturally, remove offending post).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Michri michri (talk • contribs) 13:59, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is the actual piece of writing written by an anonymous user in BST's talk page, from which I have known the matter. Sorry but I can't sign again as I'm editing in mobile, where I don't know why the option does not come.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Michri michri (talk • contribs) 14:00, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then just type out four tildes ~~~~ like that. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:16, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add a couple of things: (1) Wikipedia doesn't tend to block people as "punishment", but it does block people for not-being-here-to-write-an-encyclopaedia. People who are here to push some particular viewpoint, particularly if it's a racist one, tend to get blocked very quickly to stop the disruption. Also informing the IP that the police have been involved is getting uncomfortably close to making legal threats (though it's not quite there), another quick way to get blocked (the reasoning being that you can either argue with someone at WP using WP's dispute resolution systems, or you can do it through the courts, but you can't do both at once). I'm sorry you've bumped into this sort of shenanigans. (2) If you don't want to go to the administrator's noticeboard with stuff like this, because it's too likely to turn into a big drama of hurling insults, at the top of the page for administrator's noticeboard (incidents) you will find a helpful link to recently-active admins. You can always contact one of them on their talk-page and they are likely to deal with the issue quietly and with common-sense. Elemimele (talk) 22:15, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Large Space in Atomic Clock

I am working on Atomic Clock and I can't remove a large space between two paragraphs in the history section. ScientistBuilder (talk) 13:24, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ScientistBuilder, which two paragraphs are you referring to? The article is looking fine for me. Kpddg ^(talk ^• ^contribs) 13:34, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was able to fix it. The block quotes were the issue ScientistBuilder (talk) 13:40, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New here

hiii, i am new here what's up? 107.1.219.55 (talk) 13:56, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you are looking for a way to improve Wikipedia, I recommend Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory which has a list of WikiProjects. ScientistBuilder (talk) 14:00, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Welcome to the Teahouse! Do you have any specific questions about using Wikipedia? casualdejekyll 14:01, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse we are glad to have you. Do please take the WP:ADVENTURE and the WP:TUTORIAL in your leisure time and always remember to come and talk to us, at anytime, we are here to support you. If you so desire you can official register to have a proper account with a nane that is not necessarily your real name any nickname would suffice. Having an account comes with a plethora of benefits. Please See WP:ACCOUNT. Celestina007 (talk) 15:05, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Citing a source

I had recently made an edit to the boca high athletics page as i had noticed there was a lack of rivalry detail for the school baseball team. Who had clearly outlined their rival a year ago as "dem haters" It was taken down for not citing my source correctly. I was wondering how i am supposed to go about this? Xx Joey xX KC (talk) 15:08, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Within Boca Raton Community High School there are no references for the sentence at the beginning of the Athletics section. If no refs. deleted the sentence. If refs available, rivalries should be identified as names of other schools, not "dem haters." David notMD (talk) 15:50, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Generation Jones

On the page for Generation Jones, there's no mention of Live Aid or Hands Across America, two big, influential fundraisers that gave the generation hope. Can you add that content? 206.213.209.32 (talk) 16:23, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you have suggestions to improve the article, you can start a discussion on that article's talk page. RudolfRed (talk) 16:30, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Be bold or start a discussion on the talk page. Fijipedia (talk) 17:08, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Katie Sturino

Hi there! I created a page for author Katie Sturino, which has been moved to draft space by wikipedia users. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Katie_Sturino(2). Sturino has written two books, founded a national company, and hosts a podcast. I believe these things make her notable. Hoping you can help. Saramannheimer (talk) 17:04, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Saramannheimer, your page is not yet submitted - there is a blue button at the top of your draft's page which you can use to submit your draft if you are ready, where it will then be made available for review by other editors at Articles for Creation. -Liance^{talk/contribs} 17:28, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

i finished my page

i finished my page if you want me to change something let me know TzarN64 (talk) 17:05, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The grammar needs improvement. Fijipedia (talk) 17:12, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As does the tense used. This is a list of defunct/finished services, as far as I can see. Nick Moyes (talk) 17:45, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have to ask, is a list like this really needed? ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:01, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ofc its not needed. The same goes for the entire wikipedia. TzarN64 (talk) 18:07, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Does it fall under one of the things listed in WP:SALAT though and is it WP:N? ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:10, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is notable and i made sure it had enough content to be an actual page. TzarN64 (talk) 18:15, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not finding any other list like that here or here. Besides the guidelines already mentioned, this seems to be a WP:INDISCRIMINATE issue to me.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:08, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that there's an article and section that seems to have some of the same info at Wii#Third-party applications. Perhaps anything that isn't already in that section could be similarly summarized - and then the info would just be presented one time.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:50, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Resubmission of IntFOLD page

I am trying to resubmit the IntFOLD draft wiki page after it was previously denied. May I please ask if my wiki page has any error or it is absolutely OK for resubmission? The link of the draft page is this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:IntFOLD

Thank you

Bsalehe Bsalehe (talk) 17:55, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bsalehe, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm not expert in this area, and I haven't looked at most of the sources, but it looks to me as if the first 7 references are by the team who developed the system (and so not independent, and the rest are reports of work using the system, but do not say much about it. Where are the independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject without which it will not meed Wikipedia's criteria for notability?

It also seems to me that the text is entirely promotional (which does not have to be commercial, in Wikipedia terms). It reads like "We want to tell you, the potential customer, how wonderful our product is". That is not the job of an encyclopaedia. The article should be an account (based almost 100% on independent sources) of how it came to be developed - where, when, why, who by, who funded by - and how it has fared (there is an appropriate link to the website for those interested in technical details). Of course some of the ways in which it is used are part of that story, but only part. --ColinFine (talk) 19:14, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

comment on Henry Howard Houston 's House "Druim Moir"

It was not converted into condominiums. They are 3 sepaI know because I was the one wh rate houses. I know because I was the one who did it. I am a great grand daughter.

73.16.124.197 (talk) 17:55, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Welcome to the Teahouse!

Can you provide reliable sources (by the Wikipedia definition) that support that claim? Additionally, your language is not very comprehensible. If English is not your first language, you should check out the list of Wikipedias and contribute to the Wikipedia in your language. casualdejekyll 18:19, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the reliable sources that it is used as a condominium? Put yourself in the position of someone that might be a family member and not familiar with Wikipedia policy and comes here to ask for help. We would probably only want the information to be corrected. While I would normally respond and tell them that Wikipedia doesn't control what reliable sources say about a subject we can't say that in this instance because there are no sources, reliable or otherwise, for the claims made in the article. Maybe a citation needed template could be useful but the article already has a template added asking for additional sources. I've searched for a source to verify the claim in the article for either the house (linked to an article on the historic district) or the school (which does not say it is located on the property but is in the vicinity). I have not been able to find a source for either. I would encourage the IP to start a discussion at Talk:Henry H. Houston. If you need help with that please feel free to ask here or on my talk page. --ARose Wolf 19:23, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, casualdejekyll, that is one of many claims in Henry H. Houston which is unsupported by any reference. I considered removing it, but I don't know what to substitute, so I have marked it as {{citation needed}}. Original poster, it would be even better if you could find a published source for the information you wish to include, and post an edit request with that source on the talk page Talk:Henry H. Houston. We do not accept information that is not in a published source. ColinFine (talk) 19:24, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See this. Fijipedia (talk) 19:26, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I found a source that stated that Druim Moir was divided into "multiple residential units" and updated the Henry H. Houston article here with the source.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:57, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I found an obituary in the Philadelphia Inquirer for James Kise, the husband of Sarah Smith Kise, great grand daughter of Henry Houston [4], in which it verifies what was said in the book source provided by CaroleHenson. The house was made into a residential community. In fact, according to the source there were new houses built on the grounds. The roadway connecting this community became known as Druim Moir Ct. That was a fun little adventure. --ARose Wolf 21:02, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indiana Territory Legislature within Infobox officeholder

Hello, I am using the {{Infobox officeholder}} for General Washington Johnston. He was a territorial and state legislator, and it doesn't seem to allow for territorial legislatures. If using the parameter "state_assembly" and then the value of "Indiana Territory" what appears in the Infobox is a red link to Territory Legislature State Assembly.

It seems cludgy, but I could make a redirect from the red link to Indiana Territory#Legislature. I wondered, first, if I just may be missing how to present that information correctly. Any ideas? Or, is that a good workaround?

Thank's so much! (I know this is a site for beginners, so I'll respond to a question or two that have been posted in exchange for your help.) –CaroleHenson (talk) 19:49, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@CaroleHenson - I switched the "state_assembly" parameter over to a "state_legislature" paramater, which makes it go to Indiana Territory Legislature, a much more proper redirect then the ambigous and confusing "Territory Legislature State Assembly", which manages to squeeze three contradictions in four words casualdejekyll 19:59, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

casualdejekyll (love the user name!), Thanks so much, that looks much better!–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:02, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Mackay

Can someone review Derek Mackay here an IP editor has added comments about courses at Glasgow twice with out any sources, I have tried reverting but dont want to enter into an edit war. Regards --Devokewater ^(talk) 20:31, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Israelairplay singlechart broken

Working on recovering a bunch of dead links on Hotline Bling, when I noticed that the ref for its chart performance in Israel is dead. This seems to be using the single chart template, calling something I can't see, which yields this link. However, there seem to have been some changes with mediaforest, and I don't know how to access historical data from them in their website's current form; instead, it redirects to their new home page. More importantly, the template/wikidata/whatever points to the old URL on every page it's used on. See Category:Singlechart usages for Israelairplay. How should I fix this? None of the requisite info seems accessible via the Wayback Machine, as, even if the page is archived (it is in the relevant date for Hotline Bling), the archived page doesn't seem to be able to load the relevant information.

Hope that explanation was somewhat clear. Not sure what I should do for the Hotline Bling article. Lkb335 (talk) 21:28, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lkb335: Welcome to the Teahouse! I suggest you bring up this issue on Template talk:Single chart, so the template can be fixed, which will automatically fix Hotline Bling and all the other articles in Category:Singlechart usages for Israelairplay. Thanks, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 22:29, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Lkb335 (talk) 22:40, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to find an administrator

Batonzabergja (talk) 21:42, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Batonzabergja: I'm one. What's up? --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:46, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From your contributions, it looks like the most likely issue is that you want to ask about the deletion of your user page. That was done by User:Oshwah. You can ask about it at their talk page, here: User talk:Oshwah. If it's something else, feel free to ask here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:49, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Creditable source tells me name is mispelled in article title

I've determined that a person's name in an existing article title is mispelled, due to an "internet error" based on checking in with a more reliable source on the correct spelling. How should I go about correcting it? The article title is "Beverly Loraine Greene" but I am assured it should be "Lorraine." I received the following reply when I checked up on it "The spelling of Lorraine for Beverly Lorraine Greene should definitely be with two "r"'s. The spelling in our profile is intentional. Roberta Washington, who was the author of the profile, explained to me the source of the original error. I'm copying her as well, should you need a fuller explanation." Fothergilla (talk) 21:50, 22 February 2022 (UTC) Fothergilla (talk) 21:50, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Fothergilla: Welcome to the Teahouse! Looking at the Beverly Loraine Greene article, I some sources use "Loraine" and others use "Lorraine". I suggest you discuss this at the article's talk page: Talk:Beverly Loraine Greene. Be sure to provide reliable published sources, and more details on the profile you mentioned above. Thanks, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 22:34, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Fothergilla: I also see that Beverly Lorraine Greene and Beverly L. Greene are redirects to the article, so people searching by those variations will find the article. GoingBatty (talk) 22:37, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @GoingBatty. I have put comment out on Talk and hope to hear some people weigh in. My sources sent me a picture in the subject's own handwriting from the registrar at Columbia and these folks have really done a deep dive in reserching for the new article in Pioneering Women in Archecture, so I trust them. From a process perspective, what happens if no one replies, e.g., for a month. Can I unilaterally start on fixing it? Still need to understand the mechanics as I assume a page move would be required Fothergilla (talk) 22:47, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 929: / Line 929: @@
 :{{ping|Fothergilla}} Welcome to the Teahouse!  Looking at the [[Beverly Loraine Greene]] article, I some sources use "Loraine" and others use "Lorraine".  I suggest you discuss this at the article's talk page: [[Talk:Beverly Loraine Greene]].  Be sure to provide reliable published sources, and more details on the profile you mentioned above.  Thanks, and happy editing!  [[User:GoingBatty|GoingBatty]] ([[User talk:GoingBatty|talk]]) 22:34, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 :{{ping|Fothergilla}}  I also see that [[Beverly Lorraine Greene]] and [[Beverly L. Greene]] are redirects to the article, so people searching by those variations will find the article.  [[User:GoingBatty|GoingBatty]] ([[User talk:GoingBatty|talk]]) 22:37, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
+::Thanks @GoingBatty.  I have put comment out on Talk and hope to hear some people weigh in. My sources sent me a picture in the subject's own handwriting from the registrar at Columbia and these folks have really done a deep dive in reserching for the new article in Pioneering Women in Archecture, so I trust them.  From a process perspective, what happens if no one replies, e.g., for a month. Can I unilaterally start on fixing it? Still need to understand the mechanics as I assume a page move would be required [[User:Fothergilla|Fothergilla]] ([[User talk:Fothergilla|talk]]) 22:47, 22 February 2022 (UTC)