Wikipedia:Teahouse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:THQ)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Skip to top
Skip to bottom


Question about purpose of user account[edit]

Hi. Could I understand the main idea of creating an account? I know how to create an account, but could tell me the main idea of this? Thanks! 100.11.109.128 (talk) 23:28, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello and welcome. You may find reading WP:ACCOUNT helpful. 331dot (talk) 23:32, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Now registered. Tailsultimatefan3891 (talk) 23:59, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your edits will be attributed to a username, your IP address will not be published, you can have a user page, you can set up e-mail notifications, you can customize the user interface through Special:Preferences, etc. WPEditor42 (talkcontribs) 09:16, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Eventually you will be able to edit semiprotected, and extended confirmed protected pages. Also, you can only become an administrator if you are registered. WPEditor42 (talkcontribs) 09:20, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You get tons of benefits from having an account. Cwater1 (talk) 02:11, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Lol @Cwater1: they were blocked merely two days after account creation for sockpuppetry — Python Drink (talk) 20:12, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh That is when they try to bypass a block. Cwater1 (talk) 05:53, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

list problem[edit]

Hi, i'm trying to make a page on Lace code but i can't figure out how to make those lists that split sections? Starryxavien (talk) 19:21, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Starryxavien Assuming you mean a table of contents, you don't make it, it will appear automatically once you have 4 sections - Please see H:TOC for more details - Arjayay (talk) 19:28, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Once you create sections in Draft:Lace Code the software will automatically create a table of contents. A note - references are essential. David notMD (talk) 19:43, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ah, okay, thank you! Starryxavien (talk) 20:38, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Starryxavien You might be better to expand part of the existing article at Skinhead#Footwear, which talks about that subject (but doesn't have proper citations). Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:28, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
thanks! Starryxavien (talk) 20:39, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why are all the Wikimedia projects multilingual?[edit]

 – Combined queries. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 22:38, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Multilingual Wikimedia projects 2607:FEA8:FD00:80B8:F5E7:1560:A31C:2F16 (talk) 22:34, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am figuring out why Wikimedia projects are multilingual. Can you please tell me?

Hello. The Wikimedia Foundation says We help everyone share in the sum of all knowledge. "Everyone" implies content in all regularly spoken languages. Cullen328 (talk) 23:06, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Cullen328 Are all of the projects within the encyclopedia multilingual? David10244 (talk) 03:46, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
David10244, when you talk about Wikimedia projects, and projects within this encyclopedia, you are talking about two very different things. A Wikimedia project has its own website, its own policies and guidelines, and its own governance. Wikipedia is not one project. It is 329 separate projects in 329 languages. So, Wikipedia as a whole is the second most multilingual project in human history, after Bible translations, but each individual Wikipedia is monolingual. Wikimedia Commons is multilingual. I am not familiar enough with the smaller projects to evaluate them. Here on English Wikipedia, we have various WikiProjects, some of which are active but most of which are inactive. They all operate in English, but do not have separate websites or their own policies. Cullen328 (talk) 04:39, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Cullen328 Ah, I was thinking about English Wikipedia projects like the "Wikiproject: Military History" WP:WikiProject_Military_history and other things at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Guide. These things are called "projects", but I realize they are not Wikimedia projects but Wikipedia projects. Overlapping terminology, and some (mostly less-experienced editors, I suppose) will confuse Wikimedia with Wikipedia, even though they are different.

And wow, these Wikimedia projects are second multilingually (if that's a word) only to the Bible translations? That's cool. Now I get it, thanks. David10244 (talk) 04:25, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

David, Well, maybe third place. Also, if you run into words like WikiProject or other terms that seem like they might have a special meaning in the context of Wikipedia, you can check the Wikipedia:Glossary and look the word up. Mathglot (talk) 06:57, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Mathglot Thanks for that. David10244 (talk) 08:35, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New article submission - is Draft:Deep Lake (Deep Learning) good to go or needs more edits? (disclaimer, affiliated with the article topic)[edit]

Hi there! looking to submit this article for review, but wanted to get feedback beforehand if this is "good to go" or would need some more work.

Draft:Deep Lake (Deep Learning)#Deep Lake Performance against alternatives, and added third-party references as well.

I copied the structure from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_lake Tensieal (talk) 10:04, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Tensieal I'm pretty familiar with standard IT terminology but I have to say I found the draft pretty impenetrable. The concepts need to be explained in much simpler language appropriate to the majority of readers. A couple of specific points. 1) According to WP:LEAD, the lead section should summarise the main article (the part below the table of contents). In the current draft, much of what is in the lead is not mentioned anywhere later (e.g. time traveling, SQL) or not in enough detail later. 2) There should be no external links within the body text such as are present in the "Background" section: see WP:ELPOINTS. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:49, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
hi @Michael D. Turnbull, yes, this is what i was concerned with. Thanks a lot. I'll rewrite to simplify (and take care of the other issues). thanks a lot! Tensieal (talk) 10:57, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
hi @Michael D. Turnbullcould you please take a second look? I've made the text simpler and added examples of the features, which should make the topic more understandable and the lead section now actually summarizes the article. I based the new version off https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_lake and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NumPy

Regarding simplicity of the text, it's a rather complex subject in itself but anyone who has a beginner level knowledge with terminology (such as data lakes and machine learning) should be able to grasp what the article is about. Tensieal (talk) 10:57, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

apologies for the typo, i meant should now* be able to understand. Tensieal (talk) 12:07, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, Tensieal. You should probably include brief explanations of, or wikilinks to articles (if they exist) about, all specialist-area terminology. Remember, this is a global encyclopaedia aimed at general readers, not just people with a prior grounding in a subject. Many readers may not have English as a first language; some may be reading the article because they've come across a reference to "Deep Lake" for the first time and want to find out what that means. I myself have used computers for professional purposes, one way or another, since the 1970's, but have never, ever, heard of "data lakes" before now. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.193.128.129 (talk) 13:50, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
totally on board with all of what you said, @90.193.128.129. I've included all references present on wikipedia, deep learning domain is like 5-10 years old, so not a lot is written on it. :(
I'll do my best to be more general. :) Tensieal (talk) 14:15, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Tensieal I've taken a look and made some minor edits, including removing some weird characters (unicode 2028). It will be interesting to see what comments you get from the expert reviewers. Good luck! Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:41, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
thank you so much for your help @Michael D. Turnbull. in the meantime, i'll work on simplifying, hopefully the feedback will be positive. i'll keep you posted!!! Tensieal (talk) 16:42, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Tensieal, you need to decide what the article is to be about − "deep lake", which I think is a machine learning tool or technique, or "Deep Lake", which is I think a product. Switching from one to the other without warning the reader helps make the draft confusing. And a Wikipedia article should be about a single topic. Maproom (talk) 16:50, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
that's a very fair comment, I was aiming it to be about deep lake - a data storage and manipulation method (see: data lake wiki Data lake). I'll make necessary adjustments tomorrow. Tensieal (talk) 17:17, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Still pretty impenetrable (from a person with no IT connection, but three degrees from MIT). Try harder. David notMD (talk) 19:41, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Agree with David notMD. And, Tensieal, there are reference problems here. The first is to Github, which to me looks like a dump/webhost, the second and third are to Arxiv, meaning the articles are not peer-reviewed and published for real, and the fourth is another Github thing, with "Google" as the publisher in the citation. Oh, I took out your first word. Drmies (talk) 20:45, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Hi @Drmies, I do take refs very seriously. Both arXiv articles are in the later stages of peer-review process and will be published very shortly.
    Regarding the fourth cite, the original post announcing JAX actually asks people to use that citation, that's why I used it. It's odd that they didn't yet publish a paper on it, but it's one of the most popular frameworks out there! Any suggestions in this case? I mean I can provide a reference to a peer-review article that uses JAX (published at the most prestigious computer vision conference), but that wouldn't be the original JAX paper. What do you think? Tensieal (talk) 21:22, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Tensieal "Both arXiv articles are in the later stages of peer-review process and will be published very shortly." How do you know these articles will be published? And when is "very shortly"? David10244 (talk) 04:02, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
hey @David notMD. thanks for your tip. do you mind reading through Data lake and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NumPy for me? It would be useful to understand how does this draft fair against those, let's say my article is impenetrable 9 on a scale from 1 to 10. Where do those two stand for you? Tensieal (talk) 20:42, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
First, a confession that my MIT degrees were in the 'wet' sciences (biology, nutrition, nutritional biochemistry). Data lake is rated C-class. I agree. General readability not bad, but it is jargony, and some sentences/paragraphs are a 'sea of blue', (A Wikipedia term meaning that too many words are Wikilinks to other Wikipedia articles in an attempt to explain stuff.) Non-tech readers get tired from having to bounce from DL to those articles and back. Also, Hadoop-based, siloing, using name dropping of companies that are known to use the term "data lake." Criticism (data swamp, data graveyard (in Talk) could use expanding. David notMD (talk) 20:57, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
NumPy is rated START. It is VERY jargony, useful only to IT people. Also choppy writing, probably due to edits over time by many people, with no one person taking on improving the article as a whole. David notMD (talk) 21:05, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@David notMD oh! OK! this is good to know, because my mental heuristic was picking (1) the closest category page (data lake) and (2) most popular Python package that's vaguely related to what we do (NumPy allows you to wrangle with multidimensional arrays of data, while Deep Lake allows you to stream the arrays to ML models).
Perhaps I should pick better references, I will do some sleuthing, and if you can be so kind and (dis)approve when I get back to you with those it would be really appreciated! Your comments re: the other two are still very useful for re-working the page. I wonder where does the balance lie on writing for non-technical audiences and technical ones when it comes to highly specialized subjects like this. Tensieal (talk) 21:17, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Peruse Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable. P.S. I will be here less ofter over coming days, as COVID has struck our household. David notMD (talk) 04:54, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

oh my, sorry to hear that @David notMD! wishing you and your family speedy recovery! thank you for the resource. Tensieal (talk) 17:54, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Need help in getting the draft approved[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Sreedharan_Sobhana Can anyone tell me what else needs to be changed in the above link?

One of the award mentioned has reference link of dhammawiki, hence is a renowned award. Reference links for few awards are given too.

TIA. 2406:7400:73:F1D7:0:0:0:101 (talk) 10:47, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Plenty needs to be changed. The section "Early life" has no references. The next section, "Buddhist Temple", has no reference after the first sentence. But the first sentence, or anyway much of it, appears to be referenced. I quote: "In 2007, Master Sobhana built a Buddhist Temple, Sri Dharma Bodhi Temple". And the reference for this assertion? A map, which of course provides no evidence whatever for anyone having built the temple. As a reference, this is worthless. -- Hoary (talk) 12:10, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Another link has more details on it. All of it is on paper, how do I reference it here online?! 2406:7400:73:96A1:0:0:0:100 (talk) 16:43, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You can reference paper sources just like online sources, given they are reliable. Be sure to include enough information like author, title, publisher, date, etc. to locate and verify the source. Madeline (part of me) 17:06, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
IP editor, phrases like "learning the ropes to the hairdressing trade", "ventured into the electronic manufacturing industry", "booming", "passion", "step into Fashion field in India", "wore the same timeless outfit", "walked the ramp" ... these are not written in an encyclopedic style.
From Wikipedia:TONE: "Articles and other encyclopedic content should be written in a formal tone. Standards for formal tone vary a bit depending upon the subject matter but should usually match the style used in Featured- and Good-class articles in the same category. Encyclopedic writing has a fairly academic approach, while remaining clear and understandable. Formal tone means that the article should not be written using argot, slang, colloquialisms, doublespeak, legalese, or jargon that is unintelligible to an average reader; it means that the English language should be used in a businesslike manner." David10244 (talk) 04:09, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is there any online Live support in Wikipedia, where I can work hand in hand and get this edit done? Pl help. Thanks. 2406:7400:73:96A1:0:0:0:100 (talk) 16:42, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, there is no live support. There is no hurry, and there are no deadlines. What is your association with the subject of that draft? ~Anachronist (talk) 16:51, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have closely witnessed the subject of the draft. There are references and awards in papers and not many have links online. How do I get the proof up for this draft, when there is no online reference, and the subject deserves to be mentioned in wiki. Is there a way, please let me know. 2406:7400:73:8BE1:0:0:0:101 (talk) 16:21, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
References do not need to be online - you can use and cite offline sources. {{citenews}} is usually used for offline newspapers, for example. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:24, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
IP editor, you said "One of the award mentioned has reference link of dhammawiki". Other wikis ars not usable as sources for referencing, since the material is generally user-generated, and anyone can write whatever they want. David10244 (talk) 08:41, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If other wiki page is visible to public, I guess it must have been verified by editors before its approval and its references are verified too as how my draft is being verified every time. Pl correct me if I am wrong. 2406:7400:73:8BE1:0:0:0:101 (talk) 16:19, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
IP editor, I don't know how dhammawiki works - perhaps they have the review process you describe. Most wikis, however, do not, not even Wikipedia. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:22, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

When can I know that an article is accepted on Wikipedia (and can relax) ?[edit]

I have recently rewritten and taken out of draft an article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yitzhak_Suknik and am not 100% sure about at what point will I know that it is accepted and will not be deleted, or if there is anything else I need to do ? Advice welcome. JSKutcher (talk) 12:19, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is a deletion discussion happening here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yitzhak Suknik, the results of that discussion will decide whether the article remains. Esolo5002 (talk) 12:47, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (edit conflict) JSKutcher The general answer is that you never know, because even 20-year-old articles regularly get deleted.
The particular answer in the case of that article is that I have sent it to AfD again (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Yitzhak_Suknik). Sorry, but taking it upon yourself to move the article into mainspace again was not wise, after it was deleted following clear consensus at a well-attended discussion.
In theory, the previous deletion means that it has been decided that there are not enough good sources about the subject of the article to show that it passes WP:GNG. If such a conclusion was correct, no article would be acceptable, no matter how well-written, and any more time you spend polishing the article is a waste of time. (If you do not understand what GNG is after reading the link, do ask, we will be happy to explain.) In fact, we even have a speedy deletion criterion that allows to delete recreation of articles deleted at AfD, which could arguably be used here.
In practice, it often happens that the quality of the draft influences the evaluation at AFD. (See WP:HEY.) I can see that the references have been substantially improved (though in my opinion not to the level required by a significant margin, hence the trip back to AfD).
If the new AfD discussion ends in a keep, then the article is probably safe from deletion for the time being. (If not, well... Please don’t try again unless you have read and understood the policies about notability.) Although it would still be subject to the normal editing process, and you have no control about its content, in practice articles about minor historical figures rarely undergo substantial edits. TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 12:48, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello Tigraan. Thank you for your speedy response.
I have spent some months on reworking this article adding a number of new sources with help from people who are experts in this area of history which I had hoped clearly shown his 'notability' within one of the greatest acts of defiance against the Nazi program of annihilation of the Jews in Europe, know as the 'Warsaw Ghetto Uprising'. Two particular items cover his importance - one in the first ever attack against the Germans on January 18th and the other being his central role in arms manufacturing against all odds.
I have never got a clear answer on what is 'notable enough' for Wikipedia and I find it difficult to understand how a judgement can be made without knowing the context of the story. I would very much appreciate it if you could read it again and reconsider the deletion recommendation.
PS
This event (which come up to its 80th anniversary next year) and the participants are not very well covered on Wikipedia and I wonder whether there is a general view that actually it was not that important an event and any further details or information are not deemed important enough?
There are a couple of other articles on the Warsaw Ghetto on Wikipedia which may assist you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Ghetto
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Ghetto_Uprising JSKutcher (talk) 16:25, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@JSKutcher, notability is determined purely based on what other people have written about someone, not on what they've done. They may have done many extremely important things, but if no one else has noticed and decided they were important/interesting/unusual enough to write about, they have not achieved notability. Context is not important here; only the existence of reliable sources available for us to summarize. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:29, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK. Understood. When you say on what other people have written this is exactly what I have been working on, and this is the frustrating point because there appears to be no precise criteria of what would be sufficient citations or sources, and I have seen so many pages with less on Wikipedia (and I know this is not accepted as an argument ... but it needs to be said). All the sources are reliable and written from first hand experience of the event or known experts in the field. How many more are needed to have 'noticed' Yitzhak ? JSKutcher (talk) 20:46, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@JSKutcher, there are, indeed, many poor articles on Wikipedia, for many reasons, and this often misleads people. It's a problem for which a solution has yet to be found; a solution may not even be possible without altering some of Wikipedia's fundamental principles.
I can give you the general advice handed out to folks writing articles, though I'm sure you've probably already received it. Reviewers like to see three sources that meet every one of the requirements: reliable, independent, published, secondary, and containing significant coverage. Your article seems to be teetering on the edge of success (apparently the sources are a bit hard to evaluate). It may survive the AfD; it may not. You rolled the dice by moving it to mainspace instead of going through AfC, and now it's time to see where they fall. You can always try improving the sourcing in the meantime, if possible. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 20:58, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To be honest I had no idea about the AfC procedure. This is only my second article in ~ 10 years. Can I move it there now or is it too late ? If so how do I do this ? I am happy going through the correct procedure if needed. JSKutcher (talk) 20:32, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@JSKutcher: see WP:AFC (articles for creation) for the next time. AfC gives feedback in a less confrontational manner than an AfD discussion; in particular, declining a draft (meaning "not good enough yet but maybe you can improve it") is a common outcome, whereas AfD is more often a binary yes-or-no (the alternative of "draftify" is seldom used, usually when someone credibly promises to work on the draft before resubmitting it). It is too late for AfC this time - the criterion for passing AfC is "more likely than not to survive an AfD", so whatever result the AfD reaches trumps any AfC decision.
Now, for some explanation of the various processes... The fundamental problem is that there are lots of people who want to use Wikipedia for promotion of various kind ("promotion" understood here on a wide spectrum from "a company paid me to promote their product" to "my great-grandmother was an interesting gal"). Once upon a time, everybody could create anything in mainspace. Stuff could get deleted at AfD, but that is a default-yes process: as long as nobody notices the article it will stay in mainspace, and making a case at AfD is hard (you’re supposed to try to salvage the article first). There are "speedy deletion" criteria intended as shortcuts, but they are only for clear-cut cases, so even a moderately smart spammer / dedicated great-grandmother admirer can get around them.
Nowadays, new accounts cannot create articles directly in the mainspace, they must go through AfC. AfC has evolved into a fairly streamlined process etc. but the reason it was introduced was to protect the mainspace with a default-no setting: as long as no reviewer has said yes to a draft, it does not go to mainspace.
I do not have stats, but I wager the vast majority of AfC drafts stop being edited after the first decline. I also wager that of those, a very large fraction is written by people who had no idea that Wikipedia had thresholds for inclusion ("notability") to start with. TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 13:00, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

editing glitch which moves cursor, disallows my use of capital letters[edit]

When I open a new discussion section nowadays, it seems I am allowed to use capital letters some of the time, as here where I have used "When" and "I". But some of the time, even within the same edit where I have successfully used some capital letters, I am disallowed: when I type a capital letter the cursor is moved to the beginning of the of the posting. The only way I can proceed is to use "when" and "i", etc. What gives? Is there something in my account which needs to be changed? --Doncram (talk) 16:38, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Doncram, welcome to the Teahouse. That's very odd indeed. The folks at VPT are probably best suited to help you, but perhaps a little more information is in order - does this only happen when starting a new discussion/section? Have you noticed it in both source and VE mode? Does switching between them help at all? Do you have any special discussion tools enabled on your account? 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:41, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, I am opening a discussion section at VPT with same title (so it will soon be at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#editing glitch which moves cursor, disallows my use of capital letters), giving some more info, too. Thanks, --Doncram (talk) 18:06, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
P.S. It was good advice to go to VPT. Mine was an apparently rare problem, resolved there (permalink to VPT version where it was sorted). --Doncram (talk) 05:37, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

help[edit]

my friend is on a whitelist with family link that doesn't allow google. how can i help him get to his sites normaly (on chromebook) Allaoi (talk) 01:28, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not sure this is the right place for that sort of question, the teahouse relates to questions about editing Wikipedia. However, Wikipedia does have a Family Link article if you'd like to learn more about the application! AdmiralAckbar1977 (talk) 01:31, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
look im the one with the whitelist, and this is the only way i can contact people on the internet if you or anyone else knows how to get around it please tell me Allaoi (talk) 01:45, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Allaoi: You can try asking at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing. I don't even know what the question means but maybe they do. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:09, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Allaoi Are you trying to circumvent the software that enforces the browser going only to sites that are on the whitelist? I'm not sure that even the Reference Desk will, or should, help you with that -- depending on who set up the Family List software, and whether your friend should be circumventing that. Having said all that, I am against censorship in general... David10244 (talk) 04:18, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
im the one with the whitelist and it doesnt allow google please help also my mom set it up without my permission Allaoi (talk) 15:12, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OP indef blocked per WP:NOTHERE and WP:CIR.
Asparagusus (interaction) 23:30, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Does your mom need your permission? David10244 (talk) 08:45, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Allaoi Also, first you said it was your friend, then you said it was you. Hmmmmm. David10244 (talk) 08:48, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Preferred term?[edit]

Is there a preference for using "Videography" vs "Video" (or "Videos") in band articles? "Videography" matches up with "Discography" both verbally and visually, but to me "Videos" sounds less pretentious. Pete Best Beatles (talk) 04:26, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It seems that many Wikipedia editors never write of a building being on a street when they can say it's located on the street, never of buying when they can say purchasing, never of living somewhere when they can say residing there instead, etc etc. And so WP articles come to be written in a kind of corporate-advertising-speak, and soporific. I vote (or in Wikipedia-speak "!vote") for "Videos". -- Hoary (talk) 11:41, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

UKRAINE DEFENSE CONTACT GROUP[edit]

Wikipedia is missing an important page for Ukraine Defense Contact Group (UDCG). This is US Defense Department project that is 3 month old and has already made 5 meetings.

This contact group is explained sufficiently by google search via DOD reports and elsewhere. When I search Ukraine Defense Contact Group Wiki -- there are obsolete legacy hits.


Newer hits via -- [1]https://nato.usmission.gov/ukraine-defense-contact-group-secretary-of-defense-austin-and-chairman-of-the-joint-chiefs-of-staff-gen-milley-press-avail/

Thank you for looking into this issue, 20 and 30 and 40 nations in contact group to assist Ukraine and perhaps Wikipedia needs new article to explain this complex international meeting group, which is locating into new HQ in Germany. 71.222.62.189 (talk) 05:40, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If there are reliable sources offering substantial information about the Ukraine Defense Contact Group, then you are welcome to create Draft:Ukraine Defense Contact Group. ("Reliability", as understood here, requires that the source is independent of the group and any of its members.) Note that creating a good draft is very difficult for somebody who lacks experience in Wikipedia, so you'd be well advised to practise making improvements to existing articles before launching a new draft. -- Hoary (talk) 08:54, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, IP user, and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a news organ, and has no requirement to be up to date with the latest activities, even in something as important as the Ukraine invasion. An organisation that has been in existence for three months is not likely to have been written about enough to meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability: see WP:TOOSOON. if you think it does mee those criteria, then it is up to you to find those independent sources on which notabililty is based. If you can find them, then, as Hoary says, you may create a draft, but it is very hard work. You might have more success approaching an appropriate WikiProject: perhaps WP:Wikiproject Ukraine or WP:WikiProject International relations, or even WP:WikiProject Military history. ColinFine (talk) 11:49, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

About Foreign References..[edit]

Hello, I've been editing minor details on Wikipedia for some time and I would like to ask how to type a reference. After viewing Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, are there any more reliable news sources that is usable considering I do not want to get a copyright strike.

For example, I have been editing minor details on the Japanese version of Wikipedia about typhoons and lots of references are from [2],[3],[4],[5]. Are these news references acceptable on the English versions?

Additionally, I do not understand how to (Archieve) a website. Thank you- Layah50♪ (喋ってください!) 07:46, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi registered user, if they haven’t lied about anything, they could be acceptable. I actually don’t know yet though. 2001:8003:B1B8:BF00:441B:ACF9:1716:BEC1 (talk) 08:17, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Layah50, you are confused, or I misunderstand you. What do you mean by "copyright strike"? Sources that are generally regarded as unreliable (for example, the junk British tabloid Daily Express) can occasionally be cited for particular uses; if they are cited, then copyright considerations for them aren't any different from copyright considerations for sources generally regarded as reliable (for example Le Monde). News pages from Mainichi Shinbun, tenki.jp and weathernews.jp would be reliable sources. The TBS page you point to has little videos and doesn't look so impressive; I don't want to comment further on it. For archiving, perhaps start by reading ja:インターネットアーカイブ. -- Hoary (talk) 09:08, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, Layah, and welcome to the Teahosue. WP:RSNP is not, and would never claim to be, a complete list of reliable or unreliable soruces. It is a list of sources whose reliability has often been discussed, but there are many more sources which have been discussed occasionally, and I'm sure there are many more which have not been discussed. If you would like opinions on the reliability of those particular sources, ask at WP:RSN (but it's worth searching the archive of that noticeboard first). ColinFine (talk) 11:40, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jane Bruce[edit]

I think this subject is not notable Jane Bruce. There is only one reference and she is just a teacher with nothing significant. First I would like a second opinion of what you guys think and second I do not know the process of nomination for deletion. I would appropriate instructions or link to the page with such info. Alex Dusers (talk) 08:21, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alex Dusers Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Information on nominating an article for deletion may be found at Articles for Deletion. 331dot (talk) 08:24, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@331dot Thank you, but do you think this should be nominated? Alex Dusers (talk) 08:32, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The fact that it's only cited to a single source is certainly problematic. It's been tagged with maintenance tags by another editor, perhaps those should be given a chance first. 331dot (talk) 08:35, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If it had no references whatever, that would not be grounds for deletion. Are other references available? (You don't mention having attempted to find any.) -- Hoary (talk) 09:11, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, Alex Dusers, and welcome to the Teahouse. Thank you for thinking about this. The first stage of sending an article to WP:AFD is WP:BEFORE - looking for the sources, to satisfy yourself that they don't exist (not just that they're not cited in the article). Have you done that? ColinFine (talk) 11:36, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The original editor who created the article in 2014 is @Pburka and they have removed the maintenance tag today, citing WP:ANYBIO and the Dictionary of Canadian Biography. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:47, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Although this article has a very low visitor count (avg about 1 day) that is not grounds for starting an AfD. However, consider whether it is worth your time to try to find more refs or do the AfD. David notMD (talk) 12:26, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, Alex Dusers. She was not just a teacher with nothing significant. She was a highly controversial principal of a segregated school who was involved in racial disputes for about a decade. If you read the entry in the Dictionary of Canadian Biography, you will see that it includes many additional references that could be added to the article if someone chooses to do the work. Cullen328 (talk) 17:48, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question about sources[edit]

Good Morning everyone,

Does anybody have any extra academic sources concerning the German-Soviet Axis talks? Don't care if they are left- or right-wing, just want some sources, preferably in digital form

Thank you in advance Ιπποκράτης2020 (talk) 09:00, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ιπποκράτης2020, try asking at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:36, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, Thank you very much. Ιπποκράτης2020 (talk) 10:43, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is this draft page fine now?[edit]

I don't sure whether this page fixed all issues. Is it okay to submit it? HaydenWong (talk) 16:01, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Draft:GB 12345 has been declined. See articles on other Chinese-symbol programming coding for more depth of information. David notMD (talk) 00:24, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

error[edit]

the fear test won userbox isn't working, please go to my page and edit it to fix it Allaoi (talk) 17:39, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The OP has been indefinitely blocked. (I've no idea why, but it saves us the trouble of trying to decrypt their request.) Maproom (talk) 18:53, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It seems they were blocked per WP:NOTHERE, in case anybody was wondering.
Asparagusus (interaction) 23:27, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Acceptable edit on a TP?[edit]

Again, I don't like calling out other users, but I also try to understand what is and what is not acceptable discourse on talk pages especially. This edit, [6] gives me cause for concern that this editor was not adding value of any type to the conversation on that one particular page, and I believe it is even a hostile edit. That said, this may not fall under any problematic edit of sorts for the WP rules and in that case I will simply move along, but just wanted to understand what is right and wrong with that. TY. Moops T 18:55, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That was definitely a problematic edit, is against the rules for the uses of talkpages, and never should have been allowed to remain there as long as it did. For someone with this in their userboxes, "This user respects the beliefs and religions of others", User:Mycranthebigman has a lot of gall. It was placed there so long ago now, probably no use in reporting as doubtful any meaningful action would be taken. Heiro 19:44, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I understand any punishment given. I do not remember placing that message, but I have no doubt that I did it, knowing how I am with my views sometimes. I'd like to apologize for the hostile edit. Mycranthebigman of Alaska ^_^ 19:49, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User:Mycranthebigman, sinces measures here are preventative (to stop ongoing damage to the 'pedia) and not punitive, no "punishment" will likely be forthcoming. But if a pattern of such edits emerges in the future then blocking your ability to edit could be seen as a preventative measure to protect the project from unconstructive edits. I'm not an admin and have no ablity to apply such measures, so that isn't a threat, merely an observation of one possible outcome if it happens in future. Heiro 20:17, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User:Heironymous_Rowe Understood. I'll make sure to watch my behavior. This was a one-off, it seems, and I'm disappointed in myself that it happened. Wishing you the best. Mycranthebigman of Alaska ^_^ 20:22, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How should I go about changing the name of my draft article[edit]

How should I go about changing the name of my draft article Wikikoolr (talk) 20:14, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello @Wikikoolr and welcome to the Teahouse! If you are talking about Draft:Nintendo Switch Errors then to move the page I might contact a Page Mover (WP:PMR) but looking at your draft, before submitting it you would need to add references (see WP:Referencing for beginners) to make sure you establish the article's notability and maybe copyedit it a little. Happy Editing! Helloheart (talk) 20:22, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Makes sense, but I have one more question in how such page mover works? Wikikoolr (talk) 20:25, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Wikikoolr Do not attempt or request such a page move! Your article is quite unacceptable in its current form for the reasons already mentioned. Moreover, there is already an article Nintendo Switch system software which is much more comprehensive and to which you may add your meagre extra information, provided you also add citations to reliable sources. Mike Turnbull (talk) 20:29, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Could have been more nice on telling me that Wikikoolr (talk) 22:42, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Speaking only for myself, while Wikipedia guidelines call for not biting the newish editors, at time the same shortfalls appear again and again, and Teahouse hosts can become less tactful, even terse, in their replies. I imagine Michael D. Turnbull was having one of those moments ("...your meagre extra information." David notMD (talk) 00:28, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Wikikoolr It's not surprising that a computer or console system will fail if some of its hardware is missing or has failed. So, one of your two points doesn't really say much, unfortunately. David10244 (talk) 09:02, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How do I put a box for additional info on a page[edit]

how do put a box for additional info on a page Wikikoolr (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, @Wikikoolr, and welcome to the Teahouse. Are you asking about an infobox?
Asparagusus (interaction) 23:22, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes Wikikoolr (talk) 02:36, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Wikikoolr, there are many different types of infoboxes for many different types of articles. You can see a long, long list at Wikipedia:List of infoboxes. Also, an overview of how to use them is at Help:Infobox. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:06, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

edits[edit]

I published an edit, saw if briefly, but now it is not visible. Please explain. Piecesofeight$5 (talk) 22:50, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's because it appears you added material about a book that doesn't cite why it's important or WP:NOTABLE enough for mention in an encyclopedia. It was likely removed per our policy on WP:SPAM here [7]. Heiro 23:04, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. Piecesofeight$5 (talk) 23:33, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. 2601:483:4100:52E0:0:0:0:3A76 (talk) 16:30, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Additionally, Piecesofeight$5, because it was promotional. I quote: "Destined to be a cult classic for sailors, treasure hunters, and Silicon Valley want-to-be's." Saying that such-and-such a commercial product (book, movie, etc) is destined to be this or that kind of classic is optimistic promotion and has no business appearing in any encyclopedia, unless perhaps it's clearly labeled as having been written by a particular, named person whose opinions carry a lot of weight. -- Hoary (talk) 12:13, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Piecesofeight$5 Also, see wp:crystalball David10244 (talk) 09:05, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yo...[edit]

How do I make the boxes on my user page line neatly? Hank Benson (talk) 23:39, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, @Hank Benson, and welcome to the Teahouse! I personally use a set of templates called {{Userboxtop}} and {{Userboxbottom}}, which you put, respectively, above and below your userboxes! Hope this helps! Here's the section on the guideline for userboxes that talks about these templates.
Asparagusus (interaction) 00:59, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is The Xing Xing Digital Article Gonna Get More Details[edit]

I Think It Is Too Easy To Read So It Needs More Details Kidtommee (talk) 23:47, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Symbol redirect vote2.svg Courtesy link: Draft:Xing Xing Digital Jolly1253 (talk) 00:29, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is a draft that you created (without references), now declined twice. The burden is on you to make it better before resubmitting. David notMD (talk) 00:32, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FYI, promotion going back nearly a month. @Kidtommee I suggest you find a different subject to edit about as it's unclear whether this company is notable. Star Mississippi 01:22, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's Mostly Known For Animating The Welsh Series Fireman Sam/Sam Tan Kidtommee (talk) 21:11, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OP is indefinitely blocked for WP:CIR or trolling. Jolly1253 (talk) 01:01, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

question[edit]

can an ip address be indefinitely blocked? i ask because theres a IP indef block template 104.235.78.74 (talk) 03:37, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse! Yes, an IP user can be indefinitely blocked, and it's happened tons of times from what I've seen. Hope this answers your question! Helloheart (talk) 03:51, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
hi, im that IP address, thats interesting that ive never seen it used since theres like 2 LTA's on my IP range lol 2600:1008:B157:CF83:781F:5A3F:A2A6:CFEE (talk) 15:39, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually the only time IPs are permanently blocked that I know of is for open proxies, Tor exit nodes and such. For disruptive editing, IPs are usually blocked at most for a year or two. In any case, you can get an account and apply for IP block exemption if that ever becomes a problem. Madeline (part of me) 16:03, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How Do You Update Existing Articles[edit]

I am the Assistant Program Director for two local radio stations in Charleston SC. I was wondering how to update content about these stations to accurately reflect current airstaff and add factual milestones and achievements to history timeline of these stations. WXLY - Wikipedia WEZL - Wikipedia Ricrushradio (talk) 04:41, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ricrushradio: Welcome to the Teahouse. Before heading any further into editing those articles, please disclose your paid relationship per Wikipedia policy. Then, do not directly edit the articles; use their talk pages (which you can find a tab for at the top of the page) to submit edit requests that are supported by reliable sources, which are typically independent of the subject. Please note that Wikipedia is not a place to laud or promote its subjects. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:03, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ricrushradio - the edit request wizard can help you submit requests in a more convenient form. As Tenryuu notes, you'll want to get your reliable secondary sources to hand before you start, after you've disclosed. Best of luck. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:17, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, Ricrushradio. Part of the reason why you should not edit the article directly is that what you regard as a milestone may not be so regarded by a consensus of Wikipedia editors. If it has been reported on by somebody unconnected with you (and not prompted eg by a press release), then it is more likely to be accepted as appropriate for the article, though it won't necessarily be. If it's something that nobody else has felt it worth reporting, then it's likely that Wikipedia will not either ColinFine (talk) 10:33, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Paper Rex draft article[edit]

Hey there,

I'm currently working on a draft for a Singaporean esports organization called Paper Rex. The org was founded in 2020 and there isn't a lot of articles mentioning it's history except their own Twitter page. However, I did manage to find a page by a reliable source. Can I use cite the page for all the history?

The article: https://www.sportskeeda.com/team/paper-rex-valorant-team

My draft:Draft:Paper Rex (esports) Dulcetia (talk) 06:15, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Dulcetia - organisations require multiple suitable sources, and generally we prefer three, so one suitable source would not be sufficient. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:33, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your problem is finding independent reliable sources: Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only 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. The piece in sportskeeda looks rather as if it has been created from press releases rarther than by independent research. I may be wrong, but even then, as Nosebagbear says, one independent source is not enough. there isn't a lot of articles mentioning it's history except their own Twitter page is an immediate flag that it is probably WP:TOOSOON. ColinFine (talk) 10:38, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Exhibiting my Pencil Drawings[edit]

Hello

I am a young Artist from Eastern Cape.I wish to know how can I become well known through Art, and how can I make money and help people with my talent. Sonwabiso Pongoshe (talk) 07:23, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sonwabiso Pongoshe Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. This is a place to ask questions about using Wikipedia; you should probably ask an art gallery or art school those sorts of questions. 331dot (talk) 07:25, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
331dotThank you ...for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonwabiso Pongosohe (talkcontribs)

Adding media to user page.[edit]

Hello again

How can I add media like images on my user page? Sonwabiso Pongoshe (talk) 08:46, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Sonwabiso. Adding media to a user page is no different from adding media anywhere else, except that the special rules that sometimes allow uploading non-free images will never apply, so all images must be licensed for free use. See Help:Upload for more information. ColinFine (talk) 10:43, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Judging by your previous posting, I'm guessing that you want to put some of your own artwork on your user page. This is permitted, but you should be aware of two things:
  1. . User pages are for sharing and discussing ourselves and our interests as Wikipedia editors. A little more information about our lives outside, and some pictures that we want to share, are fine; but Promotion is not permitted. If what you put on your user page looks to other editors as if you are trying to promote your work, it is likely to be deleted: see WP:UPNO.
  2. . If you upload your own work to Commons, this will require you to license it in such a way that anybody, anywhere, may reuse or alter it for any purpose. If that's what you want, fine; but if you are wanting to make a career as an articleartist, this might not be a good idea for you.
Having looked at your user page, I strongly recommend that you read WP:guidance for younger editors, and I suggest that you remove the personal information you have shared, and contact the oversight team to ask them to remove it from the history. ColinFine (talk) 11:11, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ColinFine You meant "... career as an artist...", right? David10244 (talk) 09:37, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oops! Thanks, David10244. --ColinFine (talk) 09:53, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Inquiries[edit]

Please, how can I put a profile of a government official on Wikipedia? Onoja1 (talk) 11:20, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You start by deciding whether this person is likely to be notable according to Wikipedia's criteria. If so, you gather reliable sources about this person, and write a draft, which summarizes what those sources say, and cites them meticulously. (If the person does not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria, you give up.) You then submit the draft. This submission is unlikely to succeed unless you already have experience of successfully improving existing articles. -- Hoary (talk) 11:40, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And if you are successful, the result will not be a "profile" but an encyclopaedia article. The difference is that it will not necessarily say what the subject would like it to say, but instead will be a summary of what independent reliable sources have published about the person, good and bad. ColinFine (talk) 13:17, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The submission of a new article: Bruno Samper[edit]

Hello, I created a new draft article: Bruno Samper and waiting for it to be reviewed and submitted. Could I kindly ask somebody to review the article and help for it to be submitted. Thank you! JaninaBZ (talk) 12:14, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Draft:Bruno Samper was declined on 25 September, revised by JaninaBZ and resubmitted. Improvements can continue to be made while awaiting a review. David notMD (talk) 12:19, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, that's correct. My question is if there is anyone who could review the new submission. Thank you! JaninaBZ (talk) 12:24, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Teahouse hosts are gneralists, here to advise on how to reference, neutral point of view, copyright issues, etc. Unlikely that anyone will have knowledge of French video games and films. There are unreferenced sentences such as "His works transmit strong sense of aesthetics, audience interaction and unique Worldbuiling." that either need to be referenced to a source or removed. David notMD (talk) 12:30, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. JaninaBZ (talk) 12:36, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are no deadlines on Wikipedia. Just be patient, someone will eventually get to it. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:17, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Who is the Teahouse?[edit]

At the Tearoom 2600:1014:A007:5FCC:789E:1BF9:D0B6:4BA1 (talk) 12:32, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

At the Teahouse you can ask questions and get help with using and editing Wikipedia. Sungodtemple (talk) 13:38, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(edit conflict) The Teahouse is a place where you can ask questions regarding editing Wikipedia. Do you have any questions? Kpddg (talk) 13:40, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

uploading photo for a person[edit]

how can i upload a photo of the biografi page of a person ? from the news i can not be sure if the photo has copyright ? thank you so much from now Ihcm (talk) 13:27, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ihcm Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The short answer is that you cannot use any random photo you find on the internet or in the news, as these are copyrighted. The easiest thing to do is to use a photo you personally took with your own camera. 331dot (talk) 13:31, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No source is good enough for one specific user[edit]

Something that was formerly in the lead of the Lee Zeldin article was that he was formerly the youngest attorney in the state. For whatever reason, it has been removed. I have been trying to add this back into the lead, but one user keeps reverting any edit I try to make and keeps saying that all of the sources are unreliable. You can view this link and look at citation 2 to see that I had 13 sources cited for this one claim, including sources that appear on WP:RSPSS. The more sources I try to add, the more I am threatened with being blocked from editing. I have also asked this user to use the article talk page rather than my personal one to talk about edits to this article (so other users can see and possibly contribute). I'm not sure what to do from here, so I figured I would come ask for advice. How can I go about adding this back to the lead? It seems that no source I put is "good enough" for this one user. GeorgeBailey (talk) 13:53, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@GeorgeBailey Hello and welcome to the Teahouse! I would say you have to open a discussion on the article talk page to reach consensus with the editor that you are having a edit war with, since you are the one who is attempting to add the detail into the article. Jolly1253 (talk) 14:11, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jolly1253 I put something on the talk page. Hopefully I get a response. Looking at the sources, do you think the sources solidify the claim being made? Both sides of the edit war could be wrong, which is why I'm here seeking an outside opinion. Thanks for your help. GeorgeBailey (talk) 14:24, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@GeorgeBailey: Please see Wikipedia:Third opinion. That's where you go to request a third opinion in a dispute between two editors. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:15, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello @GeorgeBailey and welcome to the Teahouse! I agree with @Anachronist on going to get a third opinion, but if this gets really serious I would go to WP:ANI. However, don't do this unless it gets really bad. I wouldn't edit the article any more, because it looks to me as if you do, you might break the rule on edit warring. First ask for a third opinion, and then if it gets too serious go to ANI. I hope this gets resolved! 17:17, 2 October 2022 (UTC) Helloheart (talk) 17:17, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Anachronist: Thank you! I will post there if the user does not respond on the talk page. I appreciate your help!
GeorgeBailey, cutting to the chase, it seems to me that your primary "transgression" was in incorrectly placing your citations in the article. It took me years to notice that the citations at the end of an article are added to the article text. That's why they are called WP:inline citations. Just re-do your citations in the inline format to make them proper. Your opponent didn't mention this simple error, and I'm wondering if it may have been due to their disagreeing with your added content on ideological grounds. I do not know, as I didn't look at your added material. There may still be a disagreement here, but at least not a disagreement caused by any error on your part, provided your sources are reliable.--Quisqualis (talk) 20:50, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They do appear inline in the version of the article linked to above, Quisqualis. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:59, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@GeorgeBailey It may be relevant that WP:LEAD says that the lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. In this version of the article you added the information about him being the youngest attorney into the lead without the same information being anywhere in the main article. That alone might have been grounds for reverting you. (I have no comment on the actual content, which needs to be discussed on the Talk page, as already mentioned.) Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:44, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How can i contact to editor of a wikipedia page[edit]

How can i contact to the editor of a wikipedia page ? to ask some changing and some uploads thank you @331dot Ihcm (talk) 14:34, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ihcm: Welcome to the Teahouse. Most articles aren't edited by only one editor, and the one who made the first edit on them doesn't have any more power than subsequent editors. If you're unable to edit an article because you don't meet its protection threshold, you can submit an edit request on the article's talk page, which can be accessed with the Talk tab at the top of the page. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:38, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you so much for information i am new in wikipedia but i start to learn more :) thank you @Tenryuu Ihcm (talk) 07:59, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ihcm Your only interest to date appears to be Cesur Durak. The article has been nominated for deletion. You have argued against the deletion at AFD, and also edited the article. There is no need to contact the person who created the article in order to add more content. David notMD (talk) 20:18, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi @David notMD i just saw discussion about The article has been nominated for deletion because of l live in romania and i know Romanian I wanted to contribute because i saw wrong tranlations from romanian media in deletion discussion.As i know cesur durak that birings Detox healthy life style to the romania around 7 years aga and detox healthy life style became most popular subject in Romania and i am following and making his natural recipes and advices. like a lot Romanian people and so many politions known public people has been his detox program and so many news abot that was the reason. For argued that's you mention i like to inform you to clear misunderstanding i didn't argued just when i saw Afd wrote this '' +1 the above. Though again, considering the Turkish sources are absolute shit, I doubt the Romanian ones are any different, so you need to be very good at convincing. styyx'' I only replied to this comment as I do not accept insults and humiliation for any country or community in the world.i believe that is not place to insult wikipedia platform .when is about decisions to accept article or delete article i think it should be by references links etc not just by idea or comment .That is the reason i wanted translet from romanian to english and to put referances for the the other AFD to see befor to make desicions to have more and correct information. but without knowing if i made any mistake i am sorry from everybody. Ihcm (talk) 08:35, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ihcm First, too many words. Wikipedia reviewers and Administrators are made unhappy if there is a hugh 'wall' of text or URLs to work through. As I wrote, you are permitted to improve the article while it is being considered for deletion. What is essential are references that are indepedent from Durak, i.e., not written by him, or interviews, or press releases, that are about him at some length - meaning not just a brief mention - in any language. I know nothing about him or his area of expertise, and so have nothing to contribute. David notMD (talk) 11:18, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

declined article[edit]

hi could i get help to see why this article was declined please. Also to get feedback what i can do to improve it so it can be published. link to the article- Draft:Jagraj Singh Shersingh1984 (talk) 14:48, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Shersingh1984: It should be obvious from the reason given declining the article. Your sources are poor. Sikhism websites have a connection to the subject (not independent of the subject), a YouTube channel cannot be used to evaluate notability, and the obituaries, while independent and likely reliable, don't give significant coverage of the subject. If the only independent reliable sources you have are obituaries, well, newspapers publish obituaries for almost anyone, notable or not, so this doesn't establish notability either. See Wikipedia:Golden rule to get an idea of what is required. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:13, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Article copied substantially from another source[edit]

This section of the article is copied from an external source. Source is out of copyright, so no problem there. But most of article is a copy-paste. Feels wrong, but I couldn't find a template to tag it with. Doktor Züm (talk) 20:16, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Doktor Züm, When a section is copied from a free source, it should be paraphrased, BUT, when I find very technical descriptions of living things, I'll either paraphrase, which typically involves removing most of the specialist minutiae, or else use a quotation template which seems most appropriate to the situation (this may be less work).--Quisqualis (talk) 20:36, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Quisqualis, thanks, very useful. I went with plain blockquote. Doktor Züm (talk) 22:37, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Questions about reverting edits[edit]

A couple questions about reverting:

  • Is there an easy way to revert multiple edits at once, or to revert the contents of an edit that is not the most recent? Or are we stuck manually copy-pasting the diffs?
  • Is there an easy way to generate reversion edit summaries when reverting without using the "undo" button? In particular can I link to a user or IP user without manually typing the contribs link? I've noticed that templates don't work in the summary box.

Thanks! WPscatter t/c 04:29, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For your first question, you can revert the page to a previous revision by clicking on the timestamp in the page history, then clicking "edit", and immediately saving the page. Twinkle also provides an easy way to do this. The undo function can also undo edits that aren't the latest, as long as no other edits have changed the same text since. Madeline (part of me) 06:08, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

When should I request closure from an admin (or wait)?[edit]

A requested move request Talk:Nadezhda_Tolokonnikova#Requested_move_26_September_2022 here has elapsed after 7 days, with consensus (unanimous) support. I am unclear if I should post this in the Wikipedia:Closure_requests or simply let it exist in the elapsed / backlog on Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Current_discussions. I believe it needs an admin to close because there was a prior move request. Pathofkarma (talk) 05:29, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd just wait for now, someone should see it in the backlog soon. If it stays open several days past due, it might be appropriate to request attention somewhere. Madeline (part of me) 06:05, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Two Questions.[edit]

  • What's going on with the channel URLs in the infobox in Draft:Ryan George? If somebody can fix this, it would be greatly appreciated.
  • Why does Wikipedia have administrators, but not content moderators?[a]

Thanks, — VORTEX3427 (Talk!) 07:32, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not an authority, but for your second question (if I understand it correctly), see Wikipedia:NOTCENSORED סשס Grimmchild 08:59, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, Vortex, and welcome to the Teahouse.Please look at Template:Infobox YouTuber, where under the paramter channel_url it says use for channels only, enter ONLY what comes after www.youtube.com/channel/. However, I tried editing it, and it came out with "Ryan George Ryan", so I think you might need to play with channel_display_name as well. ColinFine (talk) 09:35, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  1. ^ I came here from FANDOM.

— VORTEX3427 (Talk!) 07:32, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Vortex3427: Hi. I am not sure what exactly can a "content moderator" do on fandom, but here we have new page reviewers, and like ColinFine said above — Wikipedia is not censored. But if some information needs to be removed (deleted in a sense, but keeping the rest of the page), then admins can use revision deletion. I think rest of the technical stuff is a lot similar on fandom, and Wikipedia as both of them mediawiki engine, but the policies are different obviously. I have not edited the fandom, so dont know much about it though. —usernamekiran (talk) 18:49, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

help with declined article[edit]

Hi,

One of my articles was declined, Draft:List of T-ara live performances. Normally, I'd have a conversation with the admin on how to improve it and where the admin points out my mistakes. Here, I didn't find where my errors are exactly. From what I understood from the review, my article is biased, but the thing is I didn't actually write much in it in the first place. I only wrote 3 lines as an introduction which were from the articles. The rest is tables and lists.

For reference, this type of article is common for musicians (Taylor Swift, Ariana Grande, Blackpink...) and I followed the same format, I added nothing new.

ALL my sources are Nate.Ko approved, all official articles (WP:WP Korea/Reliable sources)

So, I really don't understand how to improve the article and it'll be useless to re-submit it without editing it.

Can someone at least point me in the right direction here? RWikiED20 (talk) 08:32, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RWikiED20, it starts "South Korean girl T-ara has embarked on numerous headlining concert tours, three of which were nationawide tours in Japan and mainland China." (i) I couldn't parse "South Korean girl T-ara"; but after clicking the link I infer that you mean(t) "the South Korean girl group T-ara". (ii) Saying that they embarked on these tours rather suggests to me that they dropped out of a significant number before completion; do you really mean this? (iii) The browser I'm now using (Firefox) puts a wiggly red line under "nationawide" to mean "Unknown word, perhaps a typo". None of these three is particularly serious, but three in the opening sentence might have been a bit of a turn-off for the reviewer (Johannes Maximilian, who, like most reviewers, isn't an administrator). -- Hoary (talk) 09:09, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
1) The first ones you mentionned are typos (that somehow I didn't notice despite reviewing my own draft 3 times)
2) I think it's more about the content rather than the grammar here. RWikiED20 (talk) 12:35, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, just looking at what Hoary has quoted, "has embarked on numerous headlining concert tours" looks like PR-speak for "has toured". Note that the reviewer who declined is probably not an admin (they may be, I haven't checked, but there is no reason to expect them to be). Note also that reliability is only one of the three requirements on a source to demonstrate notability: the other two are independence from the subject, and significant coverage. Again, I haven't checked your draft, and I don't know if this is relevant or not, but inexperienced editors often focus on reliabililty of sources and miss the other points. ColinFine (talk) 09:40, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Indeed; the text is not exactly well-written (i.e. it is, as noted, gibberish), and contains PR-speak. The draft in question contains four sentences; now, composing four basic sentences that briefly describe the topic in a neutral manner shouldn't be a problem for someone who is able to use citer.toolforge.org and who can make substantial and advanced edits. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 11:14, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
1) I actually wrote "toured" at first, but then it seemed a bit "biased" to me so I changed it to "has embarked".
2) As I said earlier, all the sources I provided are independant from the subject, as for the "significant coverage", I didn't write much because everything was going to be in the lists/tables anyway, I thought it was useless to repeat the same things.
Example: describing the whole "Bunny Style" tour would be repeating the same things since everything is already on the single's main article. RWikiED20 (talk) 12:41, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@RWikiED20, "significant coverage" does not refer to what you write about the subject - it refers to what your sources have written about the subject. If, for instance, they only mention it in passing, that is not significant coverage. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:12, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Citing the existence of something[edit]

Hi Teahouse, I would like to state in an article that something exists, specifically this postage stamp. Curiously, I can't find anything written about it, but I can see it on the page of what appears to be a popular stamp collecting website called Colnect. Is this WP:OBV? Or do I need to find something written. Thank you! (I will also apply any advice I get here to a related query about a banknote.) GuineaPigC77 (𒅗𒌤) 09:31, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You don't necessarily need something written, but you need a reliable source. From what I can see, that site looks user generated, and so not reliable, but I may be wrong. (The image of a stamp certainly exists, on that site, but how confident can we be that it is an image of a real stamp?) ColinFine (talk) 09:43, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ColinFine Thank you! GuineaPigC77 (𒅗𒌤) 10:53, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@GuineaPigC77 The URL you provided has a Stanley Gibbons catalogue number. If you can find it in their catalogues, many of which are now online, that would be a reliable source, in my opinion. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:26, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Have you checked the links given in Postage stamps and postal history of Colombia § External links? -- Verbarson  talkedits 15:14, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also pictured on Markenliste (becker-weihenstephan.de) (cross-referenced to Wikipedia), though my German is not up to evaluating the reliability of the source. -- Verbarson  talkedits 16:21, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Incidentally, the item depicted is not, strictly, "a postage stamp." It is a souvenir sheet aka miniature sheet, which incorporates one or more (in this case two) postage stamps within a larger design. To use the stamps on a piece of mail, one could remove them from the surrounding portion, but no-one would be likely to do this because such sheets are bought almost exclusively by collectors, and would likely have been sold for somewhat more than the mere total face value of the stamps included.
[Disclosure: a former professional designer/researcher/editor for a Philatelic agent. (What! No article?) {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.193.128.129 (talk) 15:39, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks y'all for your clarification about how to cite, and also for these leads - I will be doing some digging today. I'll update if I find something I think qualifies (including possibly the Markenliste if I can evaluate it properly). GuineaPigC77 (𒅗𒌤) 19:13, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia Incentives[edit]

What are Wikipedia's rewards for contributors, that is, for the people who create articles, edit articles, make edits. Or are there no incentives? Does everything happen on a pro bono basis? Nataly Yuzhakova (talk) 09:31, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nataly Yuzhakova Firstly, please do not post the same question hers and at the Help desk. As for your question, other than an occasional pat on the back or a virtual badge - everything is pro bono. - Arjayay (talk) 09:35, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Many editors post on their User page how many articles they have created, how many they have raised to Good Article or Featured Article, and the number of total edits made. For the last, there are Userboxes that incorporate automated edit counters. None of this equates to payments. David notMD (talk) 11:46, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikipedia:Service awards are self-awarded (honor system) or awarded by other editors. David notMD (talk) 11:56, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello Nataly Yuzhakova. My incentive for researching and writing edits to articles (and occasionally creating new ones) is knowing that I've provided reliable, well-referenced information on a topic that I felt was not adequately covered on Wikipedia. I love history, and I enjoy knowing I've provided accurate information to those who would never spend weeks looking for elusive information, but will take a minute to see if Wikipedia has an article on the subject. I'm gaining knowledge while helping others, and I find that more rewarding than earning a few dollars for writing something. Karenthewriter (talk) 14:06, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

can i edit lebron james[edit]

add topic can i edit lebron james 24.116.116.33 (talk) 12:33, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. As an anonymous editor, you cannot directly edit Wikipedia's article LeBron James because it has been semiprotected after disruptive edits by unregistered editors. However, you are welcome to make an edit request (see that link for details) on the article's talk page Talk:LeBron James. Note that any information you wish to add must be supported by a citation to a reliable source.
However, if the edit you want to make is of the same quality as the last few you have made from this IP address, please don't bother. ColinFine (talk) 12:43, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi IP 24.116.116.33. The article LeBron James was page protected by a Wikipedia administrator because of repeated violations of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and other Wikipedia:Vandalism; so, IP accounts such as yours aren't permitted to edit it. The article can, however, be edited by WP:AUTOCONFIRMED editors, but you will need to first register for a WP:ACCOUNT and then wait until you meet the criteria for "autoconfirmed". If you don't want to do that, you can request an edit be made on at Talk:LeBron James. If it's in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, an autoconfirmed user will most likely make the edit on your behalf. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:46, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A few notes about articles about very famous people: often, editors with an interest in the topic have chosen to 'watch' the article, meaning that whenever they log in, they will get a notification that someone edited the article. Second, the article is current rated a Good article. Third, on the Talk page, there are archives of past discussions aoubt what does or does not belong in the article; your intent to add or subtract something may have already been discussed and decided upon. David notMD (talk) 15:01, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

article publish[edit]

Draft:Commander Agro Niaz.ahmad222 (talk) 12:53, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Niaz.ahmad222 Your draft has been declined because so far it just shows this company is WP:RUNOFTHEMILL, doing nothing worthy of note that set it apart from other similar companies. To meet the requirements for notability in the sense Wikipedia uses that word you will need much better sources and detail of reliable coverage (see links in the decline notice). Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:18, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Where can I ask other questions?[edit]

I know the Teahouse is about asking editing questions, so is there a place I can ask other questions about Wikipedia? סשס Grimmchild 13:04, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Grimmchild: yes, we have the wikipedia:help desk. but if you want to ask a question, only ask it at one spot. lettherebedarklight, 晚安, おやすみ, ping me when replying 13:20, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Grimmchild Welcome to Wikipedia. Teahouse hosts don't mind directing new editors to the correct area if we can't provide answers here, so go ahead and ask! As already advised, don't make the mistake of asking in multiple places initially, as that can waste the responder's time. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:22, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I need help[edit]

How do get a Wikipedia made about my artist and record label on here I don’t understand how to use Wikipedia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Homepage&namespace=0 Boogeymanklan1 (talk) 13:53, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Boogeymanklan1, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid that the answer is, almost certainly, you don't. Because Wikipedia is such a popular site, many people have got the utterly utterly utterly wrong idea that it is for people to tell the world about themselves, or their brands, or their companies. In fact, promotion of any kind is forbidden anywhere on Wikipedia.
If you meet the Wikipedia's criteria for notability (but not if you don't), then there could be an article about you. You are strongly discouraged from writing it yourself; and if it gets written (by anybody) it will not belong to you, it will not be controlled by you, and it may contain material that you did not want there.
Please find somewhere else to do your promotion. ColinFine (talk) 14:10, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Boogeymanklan1 In addition to what Colin has said, please don't attempt to hijack existing articles to insert information about yourself or your clients, as you did within our article on Mark Springer. That sort of action is something that may get your account blocked from editing as someone else has to waste their time undoing your additions. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:17, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll add the customary link to this explanation of why an article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:38, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There may be user name issues here as well, @Boogeymanklan1, since Boogey Man Klan is apparently the name of your record label. A user name must represent yourself as an individual, not an organization. I'd recommend applying for a WP:RENAME to avoid a potential block. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:45, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On own Talk page, Boogeymanklan1 states he is going to stop trying to get an article created for the artist and label he represents. David notMD (talk) 15:07, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have created a new word[edit]

I like to add a word and Wikipedia because I created it and I want to get credit for it SkinnyKinny (talk) 15:13, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

SkinnyKinny Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia is exactly the wrong place to do that, sorry. Please read WP:MADEUP. 331dot (talk) 15:15, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
SkinnyKinny, also relevant is WP:NEOLOGISM which says Articles on neologisms that have little or no usage in reliable sources are commonly deleted, as these articles are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term. Cullen328 (talk) 16:37, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Visual edit - adding several authors manually[edit]

When the VisualEditor requires citations to be inserted manually and Website is clicked "can suffix with a numeral to add additional authors" appears as part of the instructions beneath "Last name". An example would be useful since adding 1 and 2 following last letter of the last name or with a space between them, or just 2, results in the numerals appearing as part of the draft citation. I produced a two-author citation by entering one as a Last name and the other as a First name but what should I have done? Mcljlm (talk) 16:53, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What that line means is that you add multiple authors in wikitext by entering for example {{Cite news|last1=Nordmann |first1=Ola |last2=Virtanen |first2=matti etc. In the visual editor, you can do this by checking off the boxes on the left labelled "Last name 2", "First name 2", "Last name 3", and so on for as many authors as you need. Those fields will then appear in the menu where you can type the names. Madeline (part of me) 17:33, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. Should it be possible for me correct my original citation so that it appears correctly when "edit source" is clicked? Mcljlm (talk) 18:38, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In the visual editor you can click on a footnote number and then on "edit" to bring up the menu again. Madeline (part of me) 18:53, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reversing Edits[edit]

Hi Teahouse! I just wanted to ask who has the power to undo other user's edits, and what reasoning is needed to do so. I noticed a edit made by an unregistered IP at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1113876873&oldid=1113876502&diffmode=source that seems to be removing a significant amount of information. The IP has only made edits to this article today, and has made no other contributions to wikipedia. Thanks - UpdateWindows (talk) 17:19, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

nevermind, someone beat me to it haha UpdateWindows (talk) 17:23, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Anyone can revert an edit if they disagree with the changes, though you usually should discuss rather than revert repeatedly (obvious vandalism and some other things are excluded, see WP:3RRNO). Madeline (part of me) 17:27, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi @UpdateWindows, welcome to the Teahouse. Everyone who is able to edit an article has the power to undo other users' edits. There can be lots of reasons - acceptable ones are some variation of "this did not improve the encyclopedia", perhaps with a link to an appropriate policy. A reason of "I don't like it!" is obviously not going to fly. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:26, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]