Wikipedia:Teahouse

PrimeHunter, a Teahouse host

Welcome to the Teahouse!
A friendly place where you can ask questions
to get 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 3 days.
Please remember to sign your posts by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~.

Help

Wikipedia

hi

hi,Anyone? Athena-en (talk) 07:16, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@Athena-en: Please don't remove the COI template from Xian Jun Loh without a discussion. And please see WP:COI. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:21, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@Timtempleton:，received.07:52, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Capital punishment in the Bible

i am a professor of Hebrew Bible/ Old Testament at Duke. how can i go about editing this page, correcting many of the deficiencies noted? marc brettler — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.3.43.54 (talk) 16:02, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

You may make an edit request(click for instructions) detailing changes you feel are needed, on the article talk page, Talk:Capital punishment in the Bible. 331dot (talk) 16:05, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Alternatively, you could create an account (there is no need to use your real name) and when it is autoconfirmed you'll be able to edit the article directly. It is protected from direct access by IP-only accounts because it suffers from so much vandalism. Whether you edit directly or via an edit request, please be sure to supply reliable sources for any change. However expert you are, we do not allow original research in Wikipedia. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:14, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

As an fyi, here's what "autoconfirmed" means if that didn't mean much to you: Autoconfirmed users. -- asilvering (talk) 03:27, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

The artice is currently under protection (WP:SEMI) but that expires in a couple of days. WP:TUTORIAL and WP:EXPERT can be of help to you. Also: PLEASE improve that article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:53, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Click on Talk (upper left) to see if some of what you have in mind has been subject of past or current debate. David notMD (talk) 17:06, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

How to give warnings with Twinkle tags

I asked this question to the editor, who gave me welcome message, but he is not answering it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:HiLo48#Tag_Twinkle --ZebraaaLounge (talk) 18:13, 16 November 2021 (UTC) ZebraaaLounge (talk) 18:13, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@ZebraaaLounge: Those are given with the tool called Twinkle, however I recommend you don't use it until you've gained a bit more experience and you resolve the edit war you are currently engaged in. ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:15, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@ZebraaaLounge: it is absolutely unacceptable for you to falsify another user's signature, as you did in this edit. I don't know what you were trying to do, but please do not ever do that again. CodeTalker (talk) 19:38, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

CodeTalker, Where did I falsify their signature. Wikipedia was having lots of page loading, problem, and server error. I wrote their names instead of pinging them. I was replying to one user mentioning another user's name. And in the whole edit, only my signature has links to my user page, talkpage. They are obviously watching their last edits, and that's why I did not ping them at that time.ZebraaaLounge (talk) 02:17, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I checked again and saw I ended the comment with my signature only. And page history will show who made what edit. ZebraaaLounge (talk) 02:31, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@ZebraaaLounge: I think you messed up with that edit. If you look what happened in the diff, not only did you add a comment of your own, correctly signed, but you also changed someone else's signature from a comment 4 paragraphs higher so that it read [[User:NarSakSasLee|Echo1Charlie]] instead of [[User:NarSakSasLee|NarSakSasLee]]. This would have presented the text Echo1Charlie (while linking to NarSakSasLee, who actually wrote the paragraph so signed). You can see how this would create a very bad impression, as it looks as though you are trying to put NarSakSasLee's words in Echo1Charlie's mouth. Best avoided! Elemimele (talk) 12:00, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@Elemimele: @CodeTalker: I understand what happened now. Their names NarSakSasLee are uncommon words, jumbled letters, so not easy to spell. I was copy-pasting their names to write my own comment. Instead I copy-pasted another's name in other's signature. Their signature has spelling. Bbb23 name is easy to remember. ZebraaaLounge (talk) 07:06, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

The Future of Wikipedia

Firstly, thank you for the invitation.

Due to Wikipedia relying solely on Donations - would it be a possibility that Wikipedia would ever close?

I have donated and will donate to WikiMedia, but I think a fundraising option would be great, to advertise Wikipedia's need for donations internationally in person, in the streets.

Just a couple of thoughts,

Best Regards,

StrawberryFieldsChorley StrawberryFieldsChorley (talk) 23:57, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your donations. Wikipedia needs donations, but I haven't heard that it's particularly pressed for money. So if you have more and are feeling magnanimous, consider one of the various alternatives. (Médecins Sans Frontières seems good.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:10, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@StrawberryFieldsChorley As Hoary says, 'thank you'. The Wikimedia Foundation actually raises a lot more money than is required simply to meet technical support and server costs, not to mention the 12GW/h of electricity needed to meet the demands of being one of the top most-visited websites in the world. Very large amounts of money are spent in educational and outreach work, especially in the less developed parts of the world where education and access to information is so needed. So, to answer your question as to whether any of the multiple language versions of Wikipedia would ever close, on a purely funding basis, I think the answer is "no". Though, were it ever to spend, year on year, more than it brings in annually, then it could find itself having to 'draw its horns in'. The people who have actually written the content in the 6.2million+ articles on English Wikipedia are all volunteers - just as they are in the myriad of other language projects. So rest assured that your donations never end up in the pockets of us editors. We do it all for the enjoyment and the satisfaction. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:34, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

All that said, though, of course Wikipedia will end one day, as will everything humans have created. "Ever" is a very long time. DS (talk) 02:38, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Can't disagree with that one iota! Nick Moyes (talk) 21:40, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes is right. Given the fact that Wikipedia is the 13th most visited site in the world, and the largest encyclopedia in the history of the world by more than nearly triple the amount that the second largest has, the likelihood of Wikipedia or any other language variants closing is not very great. WaterflameIsAwesome (talk) 14:43, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

"Too big to fail" is not a waterproof argument. Megaupload had fifty million daily users when it was shut down (and Wikipedia is more illegal in some countries than Megaupload was in the US). Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 09:40, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi @StrawberryFieldsChorley: - Wikipedia (specifically, the Wikimedia Foundation) publishes their financial details here. The gist of it is that:

• They currently get more from donations and grants than they spend,
• They have around $170 million in cash in their bank account(s),
• They spend around $2.5 million a year to keep the website running - the rest is for employees, projects, outreach, scholarships, etc.

So in case donations suddenly stop entirely, I’m fairly sure they’d be able to cut off a lot of expenses and be able to make do - maybe for 10 years. Of course, 95% of internet users and big tech companies would prefer to not have Wikipedia suddenly disappear, so I’m sure something will get figured out. Juxlos (talk) 10:21, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

I would like to add that maybe non-English Wikipedia sites may close at some point earlier than the English Wikipedia, due to those sites not being as popular as the English Wikipedia, and having less pages, and albeit less contributors, but let's not focus on that, XD. WaterflameIsAwesome (talk) 21:38, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Wikitampering: One chart, 52 weeks

There may be other Wikipedia pages with this peculiar little bit of tampering but this is the first one I've found. Every one of the links at the bottom of the page listing the Billboard Hot Dance Club Play number ones of 2005 – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Billboard_Hot_Dance_Club_Play_number_ones_of_2005 – goes to the Billboard chart for March 28, 2020. I'm afraid to look at the pages for 2004 and 2006! Thomps2020 (talk) 01:53, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@Thomps2020: It looks like what used to be unique URLs for those dates are now just redirecting to Billboard's chart for March 2020. I think this is something that changed on Billboard's website, not on-wiki vandalism. ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 01:59, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@Thomps2020 I'll echo what Claudine said - Doesn't look like any malicious intent, and the page history doesn't show any vandalism :). I'm updating that article's references right now with archive links, so hopefully nobody else will get confused! Either way, good eye catching that. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 02:41, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Thadeus, for going to all that trouble. If someone from Billboard really did redirect all the links, why use a chart from March of 2020? Why not have the links go to the current week's chart? Not being in the "link redirecting" business, I have no idea. Thomps2020 (talk) 05:10, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, I just checked the links on the page of Hot Dance Club Play number-one singles of 1992.....and 1993.....and 1994.....and 1995 – and every link goes to that same chart of March 28, 2020. Yeah, Diana Ross' "Love Hangover 2020" was number one. We know! We know! Who redirected the links – and why? Is there any way to find out? Thomps2020 (talk) 05:37, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@Thomps2020: You would probably have to ask Billboard. ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 05:49, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@Thomps2020: Chipping in here, it's because as it stands that chart from March 2020 is the most recent one (the Dance Club Play chart has been suspended since that date due to COVID). So they probably changed all the links and the no-longer-working link format redirects to the latest chart, which in this case is 18 months old. Hope that makes sense..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:31, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

@Thomps2020: Organizations and companies often rework their websites for a variety of reasons, and older content gets overwritten by more recent stuff or moved to some new url address as part of that process; so, when you click on the old link, you end up getting redirected to some other page. Sometimes you can find archived versions of the old webpages via sites like the Wayback Machine and this is what ThadeusOfNazereth has gone and done; so, everything should be fine now. You can do the same as well the next time you come across a similar problem if you want, or you can use templates {{Citations broken}} or {{Dead link}} to let others know about the problem. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:45, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Shyam Sunder Jyani

FYI

 – Removed leading spaces – ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs)

Hello there, I am new with Wikipedia community. When I made first edit on a Wikipedia article, I was on cloud nine. After that, I made few other minor changes.

I submitted an article to publish. The page url is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Shyam_Sunder_Jyani . Unfortunately, it has not been accepted and declined.

The person whom I wrote article has a significant coverage on print media, online media and with few Govt. official websites.

Could you guide me how should I provide accurate and reliable information so that if it get approved if it meets with wikipedia guidelines?

I also want to learn best practices of wikipedia.

Best,

Jakhar Jakhar Singh (talk) 06:52, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@Jakhar Singh: The links in the decline message tell you what you need to do to show that the subject of this article is notable – provide reliable, independent, secondary sources, and cite them using Wikipedia's referencing methods. Verifiability tells you why it's important to add sources to articles and how you can identify reliable sources. Your first source, a faculty profile from the professor's college, would probably be considered a self-published source, and besides, it doesn't say why he is notable. I am not certain whether India Today would be considered reliable (see discussion at § India Today or IndiaToday.com) but even if it is, you would need more than one good source. ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 07:22, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

FYI

 – Fixed indentation per WP:THREAD – ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs)

Thank you ClaudineChionh so much for your prompt response and teaching me about reliable sources. Yes, there are few reliable sources are available. Below are the few sources where about him and his initiative is covered in this year. Could you help me out if these are the reliable source?

https://www.unccd.int/actionsland-life-programme/land-life-award-2021-healthy-land-healthy-livesBe

https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/other-states/rajasthan-women-vow-to-nurture-green-family/article34862254.ece

https://www.dw.com/en/familial-forestry-in-india-caring-for-trees-like-theyre-family/a-59215321

https://www.unccd.int/news-events/2021-land-life-award-winner-familial-forestry

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CgYwtwGedxg

Thank you and I patiently waiting for your further guidance.

Jakhar Singh — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakhar Singh (talk • contribs) 09:35, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@Jakhar Singh: Please keep replies threaded by indenting your reply with a colon at the start, and sign your reply adding four tildes (~~~~) at the end. You can enable the Discussion Tools beta feature to indent and sign your replies automatically on talk pages – look for this in Preferences.

As to your sources: WP:RSP is a good place to start looking for discussions and consensus on the reliability of many sources.

The Hindu: generally yes

Deutsche Welle (DW): It's not in the table but archived discussions suggest yes

United Nations agencies: It depends on the topic and the agency (see discussion at § Is the United Nations a Reliable Source?) – specific sources should be discussed on the article/draft talk page.

YouTube: usually no

— Preceding unsigned comment added by ClaudineChionh (talk • contribs) 10:12, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you ClaudineChionh for teaching me.

I will look for the sources you suggested.

For a new article, Would it be good if just brief about the object in few lines (e.g. 3-5 lines) so it can be approved easily and then subsequent edits can be made? The article which I am writing, he is a Govt. college Professor and apart from his teaching job, he works for environment and society so could I use the phrases like environmentalist and social worker?

Could you teach me what needs to keep in mind while writing a first article for best practices?

Best Jakhar Singh (talk) 06:38, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

@Jakhar Singh: Every fact or descriptive phrase you use must be supported by reliable sources. You can read about the steps to create an article, though as I am not an article reviewer, I am not the best person to ask for advice on this process. You are strongly advised to read your first article as well, and it's also a very good idea to spend some time on other tasks here before creating a new article, which is one of the more difficult tasks in Wikipedia. ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 07:22, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

@Jakhar Singh: Everyone has a slightly different style of articles and word choices - and in this case, one set of phrases you can use is "Shyam Sunder Jyani is an Indian environmentalist and academician". Looking at a glance from google news, I would say Mr. Jyani here does pass Wikipedia's notability guidelines - I hope you don't mind if I stir the article draft up a bit. Juxlos (talk) 10:31, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Minor point: an academician is a member of an academy; it can be used about an academic in general, but academic is a much more common term for a person who works as a professor, lecturer, or researcher at a university. --bonadea contributions talk 10:50, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough. Regardless, article has been extended with sources ranging from 2009 to 2021 - fairly sure it's good to go, if a bit stubby. Regardless I'm not familiar with the reviewer side of AfC so I'd let other editors do it. Juxlos (talk) 11:01, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello Juxlos, Thank you so much for drafting the article of Shyam Sunder Jyani. As I am new with wikipedia hence in the learning phase so I started this Teahouse help talk with ClaudineChionh then you came in and did a great job. The voluntary continuation of wikipedians to humanity is really commendable. I really admire your voluntary services. Bless you. I will keep enhance my learning and give my best to this wikipedia community.

P.S. Juxlos, there are minor phrases or grammer tweaks that need to be corrected in the article. I think I am now able to do this...

Jakhar Singh (talk) 06:28, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

How to create click to drop down segments of an article?

I would like to know how to create one of those click-to-drop-down aspects of an article? I would like to make this page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharksploitation) more accessible. People can choose to view the films by release order or alphabetical order or alphabetical for the first film with it's sequels below it. As it is now I need to use Ctrl-f to find what I am looking for Simdude1990 (talk) 16:22, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Do you mean a sortable table? Help:Table has a lot of information about how to create and format tables. Or do you mean "collapsed" content, where you can hide or show part of the content on a page? That's usually not recommended for articles – there is some information about it here. --bonadea contributions talk 16:30, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@Simdude1990: – I didn't manage to ping you the first time... --bonadea contributions talk 16:32, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I mean the collapsed segments. I am thinking something like the following Films in Alphabetical order (collapsed) Films in Alphabetical and Sequel order (collapsed) Films by Genre/type (collapsed) Films in release order (standard article, non-collapsible) - Although I will probably invert the list and separate it by year (or group of years eg 1980-1985, 2000's etc.)--Simdude1990 (talk) 16:44, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@Simdude1990: Welcome to the Teahouse. Like Bonadea said, collapsible content generally shouldn't be collapsed per the Manual of Style. Perhaps sortable tables would work better for you? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:55, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@Simdude1990 Firstly, there genuinely isn't enough content in that page to warrant any collapsing/hiding; I can't imagine why on earth you'd think there is? I do, however, agree with @Tenryuu, and feel that a sortable table would allow users to sort these films by year or by title, or by anything else you felt inclined to add. But that would only merit being collapsible were there some other content worthy of bringing to the fore, but I don't see any on this topic. (An example of a very lengthy article that I created which can have its one table hidden to make the whole page more viewable can be found here).

Secondly, I really fail to understand why this page exists under that title. Surely it would be better as a List article (e.g. List of sharksploitation films). Nick Moyes (talk) 01:01, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, a sortable table seems like the way to go, I didn't know they existed. I intend on including a lot of other films that are missing from the list, when they are included I'm sure it will be quite large. I may change it to a list page, however, myself or others may add other information that would make it no longer just a list. Some of the films to add don't have Wikipedia pages, they all have IMDB pages or foreign wikis see here for an example. Is it ok to link to those from the movie title? or would it be better to have this (IMDB) next to the corresponding film? or no link except for in the references?--Simdude1990 (talk) 10:55, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

List articles on Wikipedia should contain items that still abide by Wikipedia's content policies, particularly verifiablilty and notability. Generally that means that each film should have its own English Wikipedia article (I specify English because other languages tend to have less strict content policies and guidelines); IMDb and foreign wikis aren't acceptable as they are for the most part user-generated, which trashes verifiability.
Lists aren't expected to be exhaustive. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:07, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

"IMDb and foreign wikis aren't acceptable as they are for the most part user-generated" Literally so is this English version of Wikipedia..... I can always build the appropriate pages later and link them in properly, just in the interim, a link so someone can look into the film beyond the list. I will only add films that I have seen, at least then I won't add anything that does not exist--Simdude1990 (talk) 10:03, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Literally so is this English version of Wikipedia. That is correct, which is why editors are not allowed to cite Wikipedia itself. There's no deadline to have any article "finished", so I'd focus on establishing films' notability with high-quality reliable sources and creating articles for those before adding them onto the list. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:30, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

What to do about unsourced, promotional, biographical articles?

Hi,

I recently came across the article Fayez Barakat while browsing recent changes. The article has mostly been edited by users that only write about Fayez Barakat, has no citations, and the two references with ISBNs seem to be published by a company that has only published books on Fayez Barakat. It contains plenty of unsourced direct quotes, and passages such as:

"He is best known as one of the world's most important collectors and dealers of ancient art"; "At the age of 14 Barakat was offered a Fulbright Scholarship to study medicine in the United States on account of his remarkable aptitude for absorbing and understanding information" [seems extremely unlikely]; "Barakat remarks that 'our mind cannot penetrate the mystery of the Universe. We know that the number of galaxies is endless, and we try to listen with the ears of our soul the music they make moving across the infinite skies'. He looks at the universe and at the multitude of galaxies and constellations with a subliminal and telepathic telescope, seeing those eternal lights moving across the infinite through the intuitive eye of his heart. He tries to evade the boundaries of this galaxy through the intuitive dimension, breaking through the limits of space and time, and see the entirety of the infinite and of the eternal. In doing so, he fuses himself into the quantum field, into the energy moving the universe on a sub-atomic and global level. The energy the artist impresses on the canvas is the one that permeates his soul, intellect, senses and instincts, and merges into the energy which animates and moves the universe."; and so on.

What do I do about this? It seems to me that the entire article should be deleted for a complete lack of sources or anything establishing notability. But how do I proceed to do this? Do I just start a proposal for deletion? Should I post on the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard to get someone more experienced to look it over, or is there something else that would be the best course of action?

Thanks in advance for any help! Knuthove (talk) 20:19, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Knuthove (talk) I looked at Fayez Barakat and see it is now tagged as having multiple issues. In addition, the talk page has a new Conflict of Interest tag. Thank you for bringing this to the attention of other editors. Karenthewriter (talk) 22:39, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Knuthove, Never be afraid to remove unverified info, especially puffery of this kind. - hako9 (talk) 22:44, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@Knuthove Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. I see that a number of editors have now tagged the article with their concerns, and I have personally removed swathes of uncited trivia and promotional text, and warned the IP editor about declaring a conflict of interest Assuming you are motivated to take action yourself, you could look for online sources yourself to decide whether or not this person meets our Notability Criteria for living people. The page called WP:BEFORE outlines the steps one should take prior to putting an article forward for deletion. I note there are various sources listed, though the one I did search out (see here) is clearly a self-published gallery catalogue. Maybe others are too, though some of the claims in the article (if true) do suggest he might well be notable. So some further investigation would be helpful, and then perhaps a post at WP:BLP/N could be merited if its still not clear. I hope this helps, and thanks for raising your question here. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:47, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

It has now been stripped down to a mere stub, citing three sources. This may look promising, until one realizes that all three are only interviews. (I'm surprised that WP:RS doesn't mention interviews; all that I can find in a hurry is Wikipedia:Interviews, which is merely a somewhat waffly essay.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:38, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I looked for Fayez Barakat on Google and found his Wikipedia article and numerous Fayez Barakat generated cites. Then I went to newspapers.com and found one article (https://www.newspapers.com/image/148931789/?terms=%22Fayez%20Barakat%22&match=1) about the art dealer allegedly buying stolen items. He does not seem to have much media coverage. Karenthewriter (talk) 01:39, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you all for your comments and editing! I see that the article now is just about what I would have made it if I had removed the unsourced parts myself rather than ask about it here. The reason I didn't do that was because I thought the article might simply be deleted instead. Reading your comments, it seems to me that the question is whether the interviews now listed as sources are enough to establish notability, and if any other sources can be found. I am skeptical that these interviews are independent enough, and seeing how hard finding other sources appears to be, it doesn't look good. I'll go through the steps in WP:BEFORE and see about starting my first AfD discussion eventually. Knuthove (talk) 14:14, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Interviews themselves are never considered independent, although some published interviews can contain a blurb or other critical commentary that is itself independent.

This looks like a decent source. Possibly the Barakat gallery might be more notable than its owner. If the article is kept, there are probably sources to be found about the "looted art" angle (for instance, see here is a blog post about a procedure that Iran won against the gallery, blog post but by a law professor so probably usable for the claim that a trial was held) - my layman understanding after a cursory search is that the gallery makes a decent try to avoid buying art registered as stolen, but will still buy stuff "found" by amateurs which surely encourages dubious collection methods. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 09:58, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Notability References

Where and how do I enter notability references in my new Wikipedia article? CorpTool (talk) 22:30, 17 November 2021 (UTC) CorpTool (talk) 22:30, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@CorpTool Welcome to the Teahouse. Thank you for declaring your COI with regard this article. You need to find in-depth sources that are independent of the subject and which are not part of the insider news community (ecosystem) that this company works in. Use only the factual statements in those sources as the basis of the article. Right now, it's seems pretty obvious you are probably being paid to promote this article on Wikipedia because the marketing speak oozes out of every single sentence. See WP:PAID to explicitly declare who is paying you. To be frank, it's wholly unacceptable as an encyclopaedia article right now. So, cut out 9/10ths of the article's current content and present facts that establish Notability based purely upon just those key sources. Read WP:NCORP to learn more. If you feel you've already included the best sources, just link to the top three in any reply you make here and we'll take a quick look at them. I for one am not prepared to wade through dozens of probable press releases and trade magazine links to attempt to ascertain notability. I hope this helps. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:05, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, CorpTool. I'm afraid that your question is like "Where and how do I build foundations for the house I have just put up?" If you write a single statement without having a reliable source wholly independent of the subject for the information in that statement, you are probably wasting your time (and other people's). In respect of Draft:Confiant Inc. I would say on a quick scan that at least three quarters of the draft should be removed, as it is pure marketing copy. 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. When you have found these independent sources, you then need to forget basically everything you know about Confiant, and write exclusively from what those independent sources say (and don't forget to include any substantial criticisms they have). An even better use of your time would be to put this project aside for at least six months while you "learn the trade" of editing Wikipedia by working on improving some of our six million articles unrelated to your COI. --ColinFine (talk) 23:07, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Also, Wikipedia:No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability is a good essay on some of the related problems here. --Jayron32 13:37, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. CorpTool (talk) 16:53, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Ginger?

Hi, on the current Ginger wiki page, it really doesn't have any clear distinct info on the actual variety of ginger out there or the positive effects reported by systematic reviews. Is that meant to be normal and is it acceptable to add them in including systematic reviews that explains the positive found effects? From sources like https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7019938/? TheUntamedBig (talk) 02:04, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

References

@TheUntamedBig: Welcome to the Teahouse! The best place for this question is the talk page of the relevant article, which in this case is Talk:Ginger. ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 02:30, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. But I was also hoping you can answer a more general question in that is it okay to add in info about research from systematic review sources like https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7019938/ to Wikipedia articles? Are they solid enough sources? TheUntamedBig (talk) 02:41, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources § Academic consensus does say that Review articles, especially those printed in academic review journals that survey the literature, can help clarify academic consensus, and this would include systematic reviews. But I think the reliability of the specific journal and researchers would also be important in determining whether a specific sources is appropriate. I don't have the expertise to say whether the article you linked or the journal Nutrients is reliable – this is something that would be best taken up on the article talk page or one of the WikiProjects listed at the top of the talk page. As for the "Product Blue Book" source, that looks like an industry/commercial website, which may be less reliable. ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 03:04, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

@ClaudineChionh thanks for the detailed explanation. Appreciate it and I think that answers my question :).TheUntamedBig (talk) 03:29, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

TheUntamedBig The article does have a Research section that touches on putative health benefits. I have not checked the references to see if they meet the WP:MEDRS criteria of being reviews, systematic reviews or meta-analyses. You might also look at the other "G" dietary supplements Ginseng, Garlic and Ginkgo biloba to see how medicinal and traditional uses are described. David notMD (talk) 09:39, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Can I start my own newsletter?

I was just wondering, is it possible for me to create my own Wikipedia newsletter? (It sounds like a fun project reporting what's going on in Wikipedia, but also difficult. And, I don't know if I even can.) WaterflameIsAwesome (talk) 02:22, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

WaterflameIsAwesome, this is an encyclopedia. Fun is incidental. I suggest that you make a thousand or so substantial improvements to existing article -- improvements in the judgment of other editors, who build on your edits rather than reverting them. Then you can decide whether or not you want to create a newsletter. And if you still do, then after those thousand improvements you'll know what you're writing about. -- Hoary (talk) 02:36, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Ok, good idea. I just thought it would be something else to make Wikipedia worth my while. Because I'm not gonna sit around Wikipedia just editing articles all day. I just thought it would be a good break from doing my duty, but I'll try and get 1,000,000 edits before I start a newsletter. :/ WaterflameIsAwesome (talk) 02:39, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Nobody expects you to edit articles all day. Your fellow-editors hope that the edits that you do make are improvements. (If one in fifty is mistaken, OK. If a substantial percentage are mistaken, not OK.) To take a break from improving articles, there are many possibilities, many of them away from your computer (or phone). -- Hoary (talk) 02:43, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

I meant like other things on Wikipedia, not including away from WP. WaterflameIsAwesome (talk) 02:58, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

WaterflameIsAwesome, I think it's good to approach Wikipedia as a reader, and then, while you're reading, to encounter some kind of deficiency or irritation or other kind of problem -- and then not to rush in but to think about it: "Do I really know what's going on here? Am I sure that what I have in mind is an improvement?" When you are pretty confident that you can answer "yes and yes", improve it, carefully. This may take rather more time than you want to spend on it, but when it's done you'll be more confident of what you're doing. Look for opportunities to make similar improvements elsewhere. Soon you'll be pretty good at this, and fast, too. That will bring a feeling of satisfaction. (Just one thing: Avoid looking for "grammar mistakes". A certain kind of editor cites something written in an underinformed, silly book about grammar -- there are plenty of these, many of them from respected publishers -- and wastes lots of time inflicting some so-called "grammar rule" on perfectly good prose.) -- Hoary (talk) 07:34, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

To @Hoary: WP:LIGHTENUP.

To @WaterflameIsAwesome: check out Wikipedia:Department of Fun. ––FormalDude ^talk 02:56, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Bah, Hoary (talk) 05:15, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Getting to 1,000,000 edits is a reach. According to Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits, only 13 people have surpassed that milestone. David notMD (talk) 09:45, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

To WaterflameIsAwesome: if you're planning to write your own Wikipedia newsletter, and send it out to a mailing list that you maintain yourself, that's fine, I doubt anyone here can stop you. If you're planning to publish it using Wikipedia itself, you may encounter difficulties. Wikipedia has its own monthly newsletter, The Signpost, which used to have interesting articles about the running of Wikipedia, but has become anodyne since the Wikimedia Foundation starting influencing its contents. If your plan is to compete with The Signpost, I wish you success; but you're going to need some good high-level contacts to supply your information. Maproom (talk) 12:30, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't necessarily thinking about trying to compete with The Signpost. In fact, The Signpost is the whole reason I'm asking this question, lol (I hadn't heard of a newsletter until I discovered it). It wouldn't really have any other purpose than just discussing Wikipedia, and maybe a short "how-to" section or something like that. I might just merge multiple Wikipedia newspapers/newsletters into one, stating each story in my own words, with maybe some minor help from others. Just a fun project that I could work on for some free time on Wikipedia. For now, I think I might settle for putting some stories on my user page, as a starter. IF that's doable, of course. ;) WaterflameIsAwesome (talk) 23:02, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Oh yeah, also @David notMD, I didn't literally mean one million edits. Also, am I the only one here who has a sense of sarcasm? WaterflameIsAwesome (talk) 23:04, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Tips on creating a user page

I need help on what I should add to my user page. I've created it, but I'm not sure what to do with it. Here it is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:WaterflameIsAwesome WaterflameIsAwesome (talk) 03:20, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

oh shoot I forgot my signature provides a link XD WaterflameIsAwesome (talk) 03:23, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

@WaterflameIsAwesome: you could add what you first edit was. You could add userboxes based off your interests; something maybe like sports. You can also add userboxes that say how many edits you have made etc. you can also look at my user page for an example and my userboxes that you might want to use. Kaleeb18 (talk) 03:56, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Oh ok thanks! I'll check it out. WaterflameIsAwesome (talk) 22:49, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Did You Know

Can anyone here please tell me how I can find yesterday's DID YOU KNOW (17th Nov, 2021). I had seen about someone breastfeeding in the nursing room, in front of some males, and she was also a politician. Actually that is not the case, I want to find yesterday DID YOU KNOW. I cannot find it in the page history?? Cannot understand why. Please assist me in the following matter. Itcouldbepossible (talk) 05:02, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

@Itcouldbepossible: Here's the DYK archive for the current month, with links and search for the whole archive. ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 05:10, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

@ClaudineChionhThanks a lot for helping me again. Itcouldbepossible (talk) 05:16, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

@ClaudineChionh Yeah it was Susan Catania. I wanted to read about her. Itcouldbepossible (talk) 05:19, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

@Itcouldbepossible: Just so you know - the reason you couldn't find it in the history of the front page is that the Did You Know section is a template, rather than an article. So you'd have to check the history of the template rather than of the front page itself. DS (talk) 19:28, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

I do not understand why a New York Times reference has been flagged as an unreliable source. Help?

 Courtesy link: Martha Nothmann

The source is: "A Nazi Legacy Haunts a Museum’s New Galleries", url https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/11/arts/design/kunsthaus-zurich-buhrle-collection.html

The message I received was:

"Ways to improve Martha Nothmann Hello, Eli185,

Thank you for creating Martha Nothmann.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Many of the references are unreliable, such as the one from The New York Times

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with @Qwerfjkl:. Remember to sign your reply with Eli185 (talk) 07:37, 18 November 2021 (UTC). For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Qwerfjkltalk 07:23, 18 November 2021 (UTC)"

What am I supposed to do if a reviewer does not like the content of a NYT article about Nazi art looting in a Wikipedia article about a Jewish art collector?

Eli185 (talk) 07:37, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, Eli185, Qwerfjkl actually specified the NYT in their comment in your talk page. You responded by politely asking what was wrong with it. That was a good response. Now wait for the answer. (If no answer comes in a couple of days, then you'd be welcome to bring up the matter elsewhere.) -- Hoary (talk) 08:51, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

How is everyones day

 Dsmi3939 (talk) 08:00, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Uh I think this is not the right place to say this. The Teahouse is to ask questions about Wikipedia, not ask how everyone's day is. But, to reply to your message, I am fine. WaterflameIsAwesome (talk) 22:52, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Vandalism on page Kanchi Kamakoti Peetham by anonymous user ip

An anonymous user 117.223.250.19 has deleted entire intro and writes propaganda. Pls help. Where should I report?Kannadiga kanmani Kannadiga kanmani (talk) 09:48, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

I see only one edit (a large deletion) by that IP address, which you reverted. I suggest you put the article on your Watch list, but do not bother to warn or ask for a block on the IP unless this is repeated. David notMD (talk) 09:58, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Actually, this has gotten worse. The IP may have edited as 117.153.68.63, 117.249.143.61, 117.251.229.138 and 117.223.266.69. Peopel with disputes should discuss in Talk page of article. David notMD (talk) 01:04, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

How to move articles from sandbox to the main space

kindly help me to move an article from my sandbox to the main space. User:Ngangaesther/sandbox Ngangaesther (talk) 10:58, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Please, see Wikipedia:So_you_made_a_userspace_draft#Ready!. Ruslik_Zero 12:52, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Editing the content of a page

Good day,

As the communication team of Societe Generale de Banque au Liban, we have noticed some wrong information in the presentation of our bank on Wikipedia. Can you kindly help us through the best procedure to amend the content without violating the page? i.e. an "allegation section" contains erupted information that we are seeking to remove. As for the introduction, we would like to bring some modifications reflecting the current description of our bank.

Awaiting your kind feedback in order to bring the required amendments as soon as possible.

Best regards,

Christelle Feghaly Head of Press & Media Relations Cfeghaly (talk) 11:21, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi Cfeghaly. Before you or anyone of your fellow team members try to edit the article about your bank, I strongly suggest you and they take the time to carefully read through Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure and Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide because they most certainly would apply to you or anyone else connected to the bank based upon what you posted above. Then, you probably should also take a close look at Wikipedia:Ownership of content because it's important for you and your fellow team members to understand that your bank doesn't not have any type of editorial control over what's written about it on Wikipedia. This doesn't mean that anyone can simple write whatever they want (good or bad) about the bank on Wikipedia, but it does mean that all content about the bank is going to be assessed in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines and may be considered acceptable even if it's not something the bank likes. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:29, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Strong warnings have been placed on your Talk page about declaring paid situation and ceasing to edit the article directly. Same applies to User:Elite Moussa. David notMD (talk) 12:47, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

That said, I did look at the article and to be frank, all I see is mention of an uncited allegation made by an unspecified "local newspaper", with two reasonable-looking sources denying that the allegation was incorrect. It makes me feel that the entire two sentence allegation section is quite possibly not appropriate in the article, and was done for POV purposes, and that it should be removed until better sources are found. The Press & Media Relations Team in the form of @Cfeghaly is advised to make an WP:EDITREQUEST on the talk page, detailed explicitly what changes they would seek other editors make for them. They can then investigate what, if any Reliable Sources have been published and make the changes accordingly. Declaring their Conflict of Interest in that edit and also on their Userpage would be important things to do, too. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:05, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Declined Article due to notability

How do I make my subject notable, if i have added reliable sources? Jasminbrown1202 (talk) 14:40, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Jasminbrown1202 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I assume this refers to Draft:Tonesa "FirstladyofBMF" Welch. You cannot make the subject notable, but you can demonstrate their notability with independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the person. Much of the draft is unsourced(see WP:REFB for assistance with citations). 331dot (talk) 14:46, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Also see Wikipedia:No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. Notability is something that the subject has, not the article. You need to demonstrate that the subject is themselves notable by citing sufficiently in-depth, independent, reliable sources where you got the information for writing the article from. See also WP:42 for a concise explanation. --Jayron32 15:00, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

So is the problem I need to add more sources inside of the article? The subject is notable. She was the head of the biggest drug trafficking and money laundering organization in the country. Everyone knows who BMF is. Big Meech and Southwest T. She is the longtime girlfriend of Southwest T and was on the indictment. She has had tv shows casted behind her role as well as a Documentary done on her through BET. I am not sure what else I should add. Perhaps those clips inside the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasminbrown1202 (talk • contribs) 15:23, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Jasminbrown1202, and welcome to the Teahouse. The points you mention in your last paragraph are all relevant to notability in the world, but not one of them is directly relevant to Wikipedia's criteria for notability, which are mostly to do with "is there enough independent material reliably published about this person to base an encyclopaedia article on?" Remember that 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. --ColinFine (talk) 16:22, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Cleaned up, and added Wikilink to Black Mafia Family. See Help:Referencing for beginners on how to convert URL refs to properly formatted refs. A suggestion: work on refs in your Sandbox, then move to article only when those are in good shape. Up to you to demonstrate that existing or additional refs are about Tonesa Welch. David notMD (talk) 17:31, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

I would like to add people on Merseyside people on that Wikipedia page need to be guided through it?

 ACtiling (talk) 15:35, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

The relevant page is List of people from Merseyside. As you can see, ACtiling has made many edits to the page, with good intentions, but many have had to be reverted as they also removed people without any reason, and were misplaced. Any guidance from editors here that can be offered to this enthusiastic editor will, I'm sure, help. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:43, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

ACtiling Please read the policy at WP:LISTPEOPLE.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 16:09, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

This is no longer necessary because the foundations are all for learning and solving problems.

by human guides from problem solving and learning and taking reasonable time and facts without forcing or locking control. that future systems will have to run completely spontaneously according to my schedule.

Headings can be just general topics. which, as always, repeats and loops — Preceding unsigned comment added by UFOINDY (talk • contribs) 02:55, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Edição

Como editar um artigo? Artajeiro (talk) 15:58, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Google's Translation:

Header: Edition

Text: How to edit an article? ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:01, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

This is the English language Wikipedia. Perhaps you are looking for the Portuguese Wikipedia? --David Biddulph (talk) 16:03, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

List of countries

List of countries with their first National Hockey League player - Chris Chelios was born in GREECE (please add this to the list) Cheers, Pat Reid  2001:1970:4CDD:200:2934:2AEC:4C57:DE2 (talk) 16:43, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Please direct your comment to Talk:List of countries with their first National Hockey League player. There, the editors that follow that article will see it. 331dot (talk) 16:49, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Not according to Chris Chelios. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:50, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Edit to Atom (software)

Can someone approve of my edit to atom (software) MCBOiS1210 (talk) 17:00, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

As far as I can see, MCBOiS1210, you have neither edited Atom (software) nor put a request on Talk:Atom (software). What are you trying to do? --ColinFine (talk) 17:10, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Evidently, I mean Talk:Atom (text editor). --ColinFine (talk) 17:13, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

David Leigh Clark

I have been asked to add info for my present Wikipedia reference (David Leigh Clark). I have used online instructions since computes became common but I cannot understand how to add a biography to my name. I registered for an account but need some help. I don't know what a TILDES is?  Pleh15 (talk) 18:07, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

For information on not writing an autobiography, see WP:autobiography. To find out about a tilde, see tilde. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:16, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: David Leigh Clark Wikignome Wintergreen^talk 18:17, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

"Tildes" is the plural of "Tilde". One tilde: ~ Two tildes: ~~ End a post to a talk page with four tildes, and the system will expand that into your signature plus a timestamp. DS (talk) 19:20, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

The article needs references that are ABOUT DLC. Referencing to journal articles he authored or co-authored does not confirm his notability. David notMD (talk) 22:46, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Dr. Vin Gupta

Help with AfC for Dr. Vin Gupta

Hello! I've had two experienced editors provide excellent feedback for an AfC for Vin Gupta, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Vin_Gupta

They've both independently said they had hoped for one last editor to weigh in to ensure an "unbiased outcome" and since its been a few weeks, I was hopeful you might be willing to assist. Thank you again. Caroline grossman23 (talk) 18:20, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

It says: "Review waiting, please be patient. This may take 2 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 2,397 pending submissions waiting for review." Remember that there is no deadline. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:27, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Permission for a photo

I want to add a photo to the article on my father, mathematician, Beresford Parlett. The original photographer of the photo is now deceased. Just to make sure, I contacted his widow and asked permission to use the photo for the Wikipedia site. She said "yes" to me verbally. However, when I tried to post the photo to the site it was later taken down. How do I get official permission to post this photo? SlamDunk2000 (talk) 18:36, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

@SlamDunk2000:: Instructions are available at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission; there's a optional form letter for the copyright holder to complete and an email address to send the permission to where someone will verify the proper release of copyright. If you have more specific questions on how to navigate that page, please let us know. --Jayron32 18:43, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi SlamDunk2000. What Jayron332 posted above is correct, and I've gone into a little more detail about this on your user talk page. I've also added some information about Wikipedia:Conflict of interest to your user talk page as well for reference. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:54, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Need help to re-edit page to remove a content problem panel.

Hi there. A panel has just appeared on my wiki page saying that some of the wording on my page is self-promoting for want of a better word. Could anyone help me go through my page and edit it so I can meet the guidelines and get this panel down? thanks!

Page link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johanna_Spinks 107.185.204.212 (talk) 19:10, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

It seems Njd-de is already working on cleaning up the page (thank you, Njd-de!). If you have further concerns or questions, there's always the article's talk page: Talk:Johanna Spinks. Wikignome Wintergreen^talk 20:00, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Sumner bio

It's okay with me if you delete the biography I wrote of myself. I am not a "notable" person and don't meet your guidelines. Indiana Author (talk) 19:41, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

@Indiana Author: The article was proposed for deletion shorty after you created it, but another editor stepped in, deprodded it and tried to improve it. Wikipedia generally tries to discourage people from creating articles about themselves as explained here and here because they often don't realize what it means to have a Wikipedia article written about them. If you're considered to be someone who doesn't meet any of Wikipedia's notability guidelines like WP:GNG, WP:NAUTHOR, or WP:NPROF, then that would be a valid reason for the article to be deleted. If you just want the article to be deleted because you feel you made a mistake in creating it and are concerned it may somehow have real world implications, then you might also be able to request a courtesy deletion. Otherwise, it might be hard to have the article deleted at this point if other editors are actively working on trying to improve it and feel you actually are Wikipedia notable enough to have an article created about you. The best thing to do might be to seek further assistance at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard or Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:26, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

If you think it should be deleted, see WP:G7. ― Qwerfjkltalk 15:55, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Edit reversion

FYI

 – Separated from above section. Wikignome Wintergreen^talk 19:56, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

So this user reverted my edit to Sir Keir's talk-page and I saw red and added in the link I posted on the talk page on the mainspace (along with an edit summary basically slandering him) which I'd added in the hopes of generating some kind of discussion.

Obviously I feel a little foolish about this and wish I hadn't done it.

What can I do to make amends? Phil of rel (talk) 19:46, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

"spamming"

You asked me to "stop spamming my book." I will comply. However, I defend all the changes I made as factually accurate and documented in the University of Chicago Archives, where I did most of the research for my book on Amos Alonzo Stagg. David E. Sumner, PhD Indiana Author (talk) 19:47, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Even if there was nothing wrong with the additions, hopefully you can understand the conflict of interest, and that Wikipedia edits should be made by people independent of the subject. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 19:57, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

For context, I am the user who called his edits spam. user:Indiana Author wrote the autobiographical article David E. Sumner without disclosing his conflict of interest, and then mentioned his recent book in something like 30 different articles at his "publisher's suggestion" [1]. Meters (talk) 20:06, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi Indiana Author. Please understand that WP:CITESPAM and WP:BOOKSPAM are problems that the Wikipedia Community is dealing with on a daily basis. It's not impossible to cite one's self in a Wikipedia article, but it is a form of conflict of interest that needs to be done carefully. If the content you're referring above can be found in the University of Chicago archives, then it might be possible to simply cite the archives itself instead of your book. This might not be what your publisher wants, but it might be the best thing for Wikipedia and that matters more. Please take a look at WP:CITINGSOURCES and WP:RELIABLESOURCES for some more general information on this or try asking at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard if you've got any specific questions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:04, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree 100% with Meters. STOP adding your book to articles. EVERY ONE had been reverted. David notMD (talk) 22:53, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you to all the authors and editors who work or volunteer with Wikipedia to make it reliable and accurate. I use it regularly in my research for a quick reference source and will continue to do so. - David — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indiana Author (talk • contribs) 00:26, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

How many edits?

What is the easy way to determine exactly how many edits ANOTHER editor (other than yourself) has done lifetime to date? I know how to find my own edits, but another editor is the question. Should be an easy one.

First to answer gets a cookie. cookie ♥ Th78blue (They/Them/Their • talk) 21:43, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

@Th78blue: You can go to that user's contribution page and then click the edit count link at the bottom. That will lead to a page like this: [2] with various edit count stats. RudolfRed (talk) 22:13, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

@Th78blue Hi there. Go to that persons User page or Talk page and (in desktop mode) look on the far left side of the page in the section headed 'Tools'. Then click 'User contributions'. At the page that appears, scroll right to the bottom and click 'Edit count'. This displays a very helpful page summarising all of the edits made by that user in various parts of Wikipedia. In your case, you've made 5,666 edits at the time of posting this. (See here). Once you have the url for xtools, you can replace your own username with that of any other user - assuming you can remember the link. E.g. https://xtools.wmflabs.org/ec/en.wikipedia.org/Th78blue; https://xtools.wmflabs.org/ec/en.wikipedia.org/Nick_Moyes; https://xtools.wmflabs.org/ec/en.wikipedia.org/RudolfRed etc.Nick Moyes (talk) 22:15, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

You're both getting cookies! Thanks! Th78blue (They/Them/Their • talk) 22:38, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Okay, one more follow up question for @Nick Moyes: actually (since you're so detailed too!) ♥, can you tell me what are "deleted edits? I see in peoples "edit counts" both "Live edits" and "deleted edits"? Thanks! Th78blue (They/Them/Their • talk) 00:31, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

@Th78blue: If you enable "Navigation popups:" at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets then you can see the edit count (and many other things) just by hovering over a linked username. Deleted edits are edits to currently deleted pages, and edits which have been hidden in the page history (revision deletion). PrimeHunter (talk) 02:02, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Citation help needed

Hey there! Looking for some help navigating a citation issue. I have been adding content and thus additional citations to the page on Catherine Parr (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catherine_Parr). However, my citations are not automatically populating in the reference list as they should. I am wondering why this is happening and if someone could assist me. I have done every tutorial and read every article on wikipedia citations and I sought help on Teahouse but am still stumped. If someone is able to help by explaining it to me like I'm five, I would really appreciate it! Thanks. DrMichelineWhite (talk) 22:17, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi DrMichelineWhite. It looks like you asked something similar before at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1130#Citations not populating in reference list. Did you see the replies you received? Did the suggestions given not work? It appears that you've made a number of edits to Catherine Parr since August and that , you might have unintentionally damaged the syntax of citations previously added by others with this edit. That is probably why there are now "error" messages are visible in Catherine Parr#Citations since there were no such messages visible in the version prior to your October 1 edit. Adding citations to an article can be tricky to do in some cases when a complicated citation style like WP:SFN has been previously adopted. It's not generally a good idea to try and use multiple citation styles in an article per WP:CITEVAR which means you might've have to figure out a way to incorporate the citations you want to add into the article using the already established style. Perhaps the the best thing to do would be to ask for assistance at Talk:Catherine Parr because that's where you're likely going to find editors who might be able to help you do so if you're unable to figure things out yourself. Finally, please also take a look at WP:EXPERT and WP:CITESELF as well for reference since they might also apply to your situation. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:56, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Revision history

Yes, I just wanted to know, what's the actual point/benefit of having an articles revision history publicly available going back to the creation of the article, doesn't it just take up more space? And also, what's the oldest revision of any article that's still available on the en.wikipedia.org database? Are there any still accessible publicly going back 20 years ago to 2001? Thanks Hgh1985 (talk) 00:35, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

hi Hgh1985 and welcome to the teahouse! simply put: transparency and proper attribution. while it may be hard to find due to how it works, you'd technically be able to figure out who contributed which to the article even back to edits made back in the early years of wikipedia. happy editing!  melecie  t - 01:27, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

@Hgh1985: Special:Diff/908493298 is the oldest edit to Wikipedia, from back on January 15, 2001. All the revisions do take up space, but the usefulness of having old revisions outweighs the small-in-the-grand-scheme-of-things cost of keeping them around. Vahurzpu (talk) 01:31, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) :Hello, Hgh1985. The text of each Wikipedia page is both copyrighted and freely licensed for re-use by anyone. The copyright is not held by Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation. The copyright is held by the individual editors who wrote the article. The free license requires attribution to the authors, and one of the functions of the revision history is to provide that attribution. Another function is the ability to correct articles which have become severely damaged by things like copyright violations, libel or threats of violence. An editor can go back through the revision history, find the last undamaged version, and revert to that version. An administrator can hide the damaged versions. So, all of this has legal implications, and data storage is dirt cheap. The software used to run Wikipedia in its early months did not track the revision history but the overwhelming majority of edits are available for review. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:34, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

@Hgh1985: (edit conflict) Our license legally requires that contributions by individual editors to a page can be found. MediaWiki:Wikimedia-copyrightwarning is displayed above the publish button. The database only stores diffs for the revision history. mw:Manual:MediaWiki architecture#Database and text storage says: "The compression ratio achieved on Wikimedia sites nears 98%." It's also useful. I often look far back in page histories to for example see where a problem started, who started it and what else they have done, and whether there is a good earlier version to partially or fully revert to. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:47, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Visual editor creates bugs in refs

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T296044

I have noticed that since a few hours, my edits using the Visual Editor create some bugs in the references, both in the English and French WP, e.g. here, here, here. It happens wherever I edit in the article. Is it normal or is it just me? Veverve (talk) 00:35, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi Veverve, it's a known and recent bug associated with VisualEditor; see discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#VisualEditor duplicating named citations and the Phabicrator task at phab:T296044. DanCherek (talk) 00:43, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Is this allowed or not

Am I allowed to produce an article without any citations? I have been trying to improve the draft [ Draft:Mall of the North ] with reliable sources but I can't seem to find any although the shopping mall is a notable place in the Southern Africa or more specifically South Africa, I have seen few articles with in the main space without any citations and I asked myself if I'm missing something or not (and some with only one or two cites), for an example check out Tsunade, the article has absolutely no source. I was wondering if I would be penalized (blocked or something) if did the same since I cannot find reliable sources to cite Mall of the North. Motlatlaneo (talk) 02:22, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi Motlatlaneo! All articles need to be supported by citations to reliable sources. Notability itself is generally determined based on the amount of significant coverage that a topic has received in reliable, independent secondary sources. Yes, there are some existing articles with poor or nonexistent sourcing – the solution is not to create more unsourced articles, but rather to improve those unsourced articles (or delete/redirect them if necessary). You're unlikely to be blocked for creating a single unsourced article, but it might be moved back to draftspace or nominated for deletion if there are no references to demonstrate its notability. Hope that helps. DanCherek (talk) 03:06, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Motlatlaneo I Googled Mall of the North to see if I could find some references for you, and discovered that the first half of your draft article was copied from the Mall's website, the only change being that you wrote "The offers" instead of "Our offers". Once you find good sources for your article it's important that you not copy and paste other's writing word for word, but instead use your own words to tell what you have read. It may be helpful for you to read Wikipedia:Copyright violations to learn more about the importance of not violating any copyright laws. Best wishes on improving your draft article. Karenthewriter (talk) 03:25, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Karenthewriter I have studied the wiki rules and yes I have to admit that was wrong. I'm willing to use my own words so what hoping you'd tell me is that you found something to cite of which you didn't, which means the really isn't anything out there but the mall widely notable — Preceding unsigned comment added by Motlatlaneo (talk • contribs) 03:49, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

User Rights

I want to know all about user rights, and know how many of them are there, and what are they. Any assistance. Itcouldbepossible (talk) 02:50, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi Itcouldbepossible! Wikipedia:User access levels is a pretty comprehensive source of information about the different user rights on the English Wikipedia. Feel free to ask any follow up questions you have here! DanCherek (talk) 02:56, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

@DanCherek Thanks for your help. Itcouldbepossible (talk) 03:03, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

@DanCherek Should I also read the sub-pages, like

Further information: Wikipedia:Administration § Human and legal administration

??? Itcouldbepossible (talk) 03:11, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

That depends on how much time you want to spend reading and how much detail you want to go into If it looks interesting to you, go ahead. You shouldn't feel like you need to read every single information page to be a good editor, though. I don't think that Wikipedia:Administration is one that I myself have read before. DanCherek (talk) 03:17, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

@DanCherek Thanks I would try and read everything, if I can. Itcouldbepossible (talk) 03:21, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Someone deleted my comments on a talk page

I'm still a new editor but someone has reverted my talk page comments[3], is this permitted on wikipedia? Thanks in advance. SmolBrane (talk) 02:50, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

@SmolBrane As far as I see, your issue has been addressed. See this diff ([4]). Maybe it was an accidental removal. Actually you see, those who do this reverts, or rollbacks, they sometimes make mistakes, because they have to look over so many things, and they sometimes tend to make mistakes. Hope that helps!!!. Itcouldbepossible (talk) 03:27, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Ahhh that makes sense, thank you! SmolBrane (talk) 03:31, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Contributions to Signature

I have seen many who have a contributions section along with their signature. I also want to enable that settings. Can anyone here assist me, on how I can add a contributions tab in my signature?  Itcouldbepossible (talk) 02:52, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

@Itcouldbepossible: Sure – WP:SIG § CustomSig tells you how to customise your signature in preferences (please read the policies and guidelines before trying anything too fancy) and you can link to your contributions using [[Special:Contributions/Itcouldbepossible]]. ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 06:13, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

@ClaudineChionh Thanks I will read and do the necessary. Itcouldbepossible (talk) 12:52, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

If a user requests that something is added on a talk page and I (or someone else) has done it, can the request be deleted? Is not, what should be done?

I have noticed some talk pages have sections such as "can x be added to this page?", "y is missing, can it be added?", etc. If I or someone else adds the requested bit of information, what is an acceptable action to take regarding the user's section? I feel that too many redundant and outdated sections can clog up the page, but I'm not sure what is acceptable to do in this case. ReidMoffat (talk) 05:36, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

@ReidMoffat: WP:TALK has the general guidelines on talk pages; it's generally better to archive rather than delete discussions or requests that have concluded. Many talk pages are automatically archived by bots; these can be identified by a box at the top of the page indicating that it gets archived. There is also a range of icons that editors use to mark whether a task is done or in progress – {{Done}} shows you the available icons. ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 06:04, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

@ReidMoffat: You should find some information in WP:ERREQ and on the documentation page for Template:Request edit about this. The template {{Done}} is OK for many cases, but it's probably better to follow the instructions at Template:Request edit#Response options because of the peculiarities of that particular template's syntax and how edit requests made using it are categorized. Regardless, you shouldn't remove or otherwise modify the posts made by other editors from talk page as pointed out above by ClaudineChionh, except in some certain specific cases like the ones listed in WP:TPO. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:45, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Repeated requests for logins

In the past 30 days, when I enter Wikipedia each day, I notice that I'm not logged in even though each day this appear, I login and check the block "Keep me logged in for 365 days".

I'm using a password that was NOT automatically generated by either the Wikipedia software nor by my browser (Chrome).

I'm running an iMac under Apple's OSX 10.13.6 and using Google Chrome as a default browser Version 96.0.4664.55 (Official Build) (x86_64) as I have been for several years without this problem.

Any suggestions? "What fun would there be if we already knew all there is to know?" 07:39, 19 November 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magillaonfire (talk • contribs)

This has been answered at the Help Desk. Magillaonfire, please limit your question to either here or the Help Desk to prevent redundant editor effort. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 08:35, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the not-so-very-helpful reply. I did that hoping that someone in either location would have an answer.

Nothing has been changed in either my OS or in my browser settings but I guess I'll just have to take your gentle slap-on-the-nose-with-a-rolled-up-newspaper and go back and check something I've already checked at least twice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magillaonfire (talk • contribs) 23:59, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

You're welcome. If you still don't get a suitable reply by the time that question is archived, try asking at WP:VPT. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:57, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Adding well-referenced negative facts

Hello, I would like to know whether my edits are applicable or not. They are well referenced and I have tried my best to have a neutral tone. Factually, the edits state bad facts, but are rewritten from third-party sources, including major publications like The New York Times. Please vote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Marcelo_Claure#Controversies%2FNegative_Facts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ottobock#Controversies%2FNegative_Facts Centrereded (talk) 09:08, 19 November 2021 (UTC) Centrereded (talk) 09:08, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

@Centrereded I have only checked the second article. When your edit was reverted you were told about WP:BRD and asked to form consensus on the talk page. Instead, you asked there, and here, "What is wrong with my edits?"

The answer is that there may or may not be anything wrong with them, but you have been asked to build consensus. So please seek to do that. That does not mean asking what is wrong, it means putting the case for your edits. There is a huge difference. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 09:20, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

@Centrereded Note, please, This COIN discussion Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 09:23, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

@User:Timtrent How do I reach a consensus? I asked people to vote. What's the official way?Centrereded (talk) 10:17, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

You started discussions on the Talk pages of those two articles on 19 Nov. For both, you should invite the editors who reverted your repeated attempts to add Controversy sections to the articles, as their Edit summaries were critical of your content and/or referencing. There is no rush. I also have a concern, in that on the Talk pages, you wrote " The words are originally not mine, but from the referenced." Does this mean you are copy/pasting content from the sources? David notMD (talk) 11:25, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

@Centrereded What we are aiming for is a friendly, balanced discussion. Usually, these are informal, with one set fo views holding sway. This builds a simple consensus. We may not agree with a consensus, but we must honour it.

If you find that consensus goes against you, and it can, but you feel that your arguments have validity, you can take it further to seek to reach a formal consensus. This is, generally, frowned upon if one has not attempted a simple consensus first.

All editors have the right to seek to have their views prevail. No-one of us carries more clout than another of us. One editor equals one opinion, however, consensus is not a ballot, not a beauty pageant. It is the arguments that build consensus, not weight of numbers. Therefore one may ask for an uninvolved editor to "close" any discussion, not necessarily admins. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 16:42, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Copyright issue

Hi,

I am a bit overwhelmed by the huge set of rules on how to report a copyright issue, so I figured I'd just leave it here FYI, and you can do what you will with it. :-)

On the German Wikipedia, we have just had to delete a large number of articles by this user. He contributes in at least ten different languages, and his language proficiency in most of these may be doubted. The German articles at least were machine generated, and some of them were barely comprehensible. Since there were only sources given in Azerbaijani language, this was nearly impossible to fix.

Now for the copyright issue: The user apparently machine translates snippets from this source and turns them into Wikipedia articles. His necropolis articles at least seem to have evolved that way. The source itself includes a copyright sign and no indication of Creative Commons licensing, so I don't see how this would be public domain material.

As the English necropolis articles by this user are nearly identical, I assume that he has used the same method here, maybe - with a little more knowledge of English than German - smoothing things out a little more.

 91.34.32.188 (talk) 11:26, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

FYI - User:Elmar Baxşəliyev was indef blocked in 2018 for repeated copyright violations, unblocked in Sept 2021. Since then, has created more than 30 articles in English Wikipedia about archeological sites, some as short as a few sentences with 1-2 refs. The unanswered question is whether EB has returned to copy/translate/paste. David notMD (talk) 11:38, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Definitely. Just throw the appropriate parts from that source into Google Translate, and the result is clear as day. Even though Google Translate does struggle more with the Azerbaijani language than whatever machine this user has been using. --91.34.32.188 (talk) 12:21, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks @91.34.32.188 for bringing this up. If you compare e.g. en:Aratəpə necropolis with az:Aratəpə nekropolu with [5] page 60 Nr. 105 Аrаtəpə nеkrоpоlu its obviously copyvio. I deleted 14 articles of this user in deWP about necropolises as copyright violation from this source. Johannnes89 (talk) 12:26, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

@Joe as the admin who unblocked this user -- FYI. --91.34.32.188 (talk) 12:30, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

FYI: Elmar Baxşəliyev (talk · contribs) indeffed by ToBeFree for copyright violations after a previous indef block for the same issiue. Victor Schmidt (talk) 15:04, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Maybe someone would care to have a look at the Commons images used by this user, uploaded by another user by the name of Etiunian. I know this is not Commons here, but I have serious doubts as to the copyright situation of those images. Many of them look like scans from books to me. I asked at the Commons "Village pump" about this but didn't get a reply so far. --91.34.32.188 (talk) 21:18, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Why is my Talk Page post in italics?

Hi there,

I recently made a new post/section on a Talk Page, and I was wondering why the entire thing is in italics? I tried looking through a few documentation pages, but couldn't seem to find any answers.

The post in question is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ulrich_Kutschera#Kutschera_2021_article_-_%22Sex_and_Covid-19%22_%28ref._34%29

Thanks for your help! NeuroJasper (talk) 12:26, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

User:PrincessPersnickety fixed it. David notMD (talk) 13:00, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi User:NeuroJasper. The post above yours on the talk page used italics, but was missing the code to change it back to normal. Princess Persnickety (talk) 13:03, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, User:PrincessPersnickety! I've checked out the revision history to see what you changed, so I can hopefully avoid similar problems in the future. I'll be sure to keep an eye out for angled brackets as one possible cause, the next time I encounter something like this. :) NeuroJasper (talk) 13:09, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

You're welcome :) I only know because I encountered the same problem myself a while ago when all my text came out tiny and I couldn't figure out why. Princess Persnickety (talk) 13:13, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Can someone tell me how my draft is looking please?

Hey all,

Sorry, first time here and still trying to get used to the Wikipedia layout.

May someone please check my recent draft? I've tried to follow all guidelines possible but just want to make sure I'm on the right page.

Many thanks Southpointmusic (talk) 15:19, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:Southpoint (Record Label)

Hi @Southpointmusic! You've successfully submitted your draft, so someone will come along to review it. We have a backlog, so it might take a while, but check back periodically. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 15:27, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

See your Talk page for explanation for the draft being nominated for Speedy deletion, and the path open to you to appeal the indefinite block of your previous User name. David notMD (talk) 17:27, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Clarification on dispute resolution

I am headed toward dispute resolution with another editor and, as a relatively new contributor/editor, I want to be clear on the procedure. I had initiated the discussion with him on our individual talk pages because looking at the article talk page there was nothing like a previous us of the page for dispute resolution, nothing much on the page at all. I thought that we could do best talking with each other directly, which we did civilly and thoroughly through the deletion of my original edit, my following his advice in a second edit which was then immed. deleted, etc. ( won't further litigate it here). I see that dispute resolution instructions say "Before making a request here, be sure that the issue has been thoroughly discussed on the article talk page. 3O is only for assistance in resolving disagreements that have come to a standstill." - which this has come to.

This has not been on the article talk page, I see no way of productively putting it there at this point. Can I take it to dispute directly from our already existing discussion? I intend to follow the problem to its resolution by a third party or parties. Thank you in advance. Vabookwriter (talk) 15:45, 19 November 2021 (UTC) Vabookwriter (talk) 15:45, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

More on dispute question

My confusion is in part because of this kind of inconsistent instruction: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution There are many methods on Wikipedia for resolving disputes. Most methods are not formal processes and do not involve third-party intervention. Respond to all disputes or grievances, in the first instance, by approaching the editor or editors concerned and explaining which of their edits you object to and why you object. Use the article talk page or their user talk page to do so; be civil, polite, and always assume good faith. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/request?withJS=MediaWiki:DRN-wizard.js&withCSS=MediaWiki:DRN-wizard.css Has this issue been discussed extensively on the article talk page? (If you don't know what an article talk page is, answer "Not yet".) Thank you Vabookwriter (talk) 16:04, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Vabookwriter. Disputes about article content should always be discussed thoroughly on the article talk page before beginning other forms of dispute resolution. Other editors interested in that article will not know what has been said on two editor's talk pages. So, have the conversation in the correct place first before trying anything else. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:20, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

New page

how to write a new page . Thanks Lelemera (talk) 16:33, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Follow the instructions here. Polyamorph (talk) 17:04, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Lelemera, and welcome to the Teahouse. I will add something to what Polyamorph said: new editors who try to create encyclopaedia articles before they have learnt how Wikipedia works often have a disappointing and frustrating experience, and end up wasting a lot of their own time, and other people's time. My advice to new editors who want to create an article is to put the idea aside for at least six months while you "learn the craft" of editing Wikipedia, by making small improvements to some of our existing six million articles. --ColinFine (talk) 17:19, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Adminstats

Hello I placed administats Template on my userpage 2days ago still not created by the bot. २ तकर पेप्सी (talk) 17:00, 19 November 2021 (UTC) २ तकर पेप्सी (talk) 17:00, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

The bot will not process the template on your userpage because you are not an admin. Polyamorph (talk) 17:03, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

What to do if wording does not reflect cited source?

What to do if wording does not reflect cited source? I'm trying to help clean up some parts of the feminism article that have been changed/added since it received GA status 10 years ago. The second sentence of the article cites a source which, upon checking, does not say what what was written. It seems (to me) to reflect someone's own opinion rather than the source, and I'm also aware that what's on Wikipedia shouldn't copy verbatim. How should I address this? (I've already posted on the talk page about several issues, though not this one in particular, and have received limited feedback). Pernicious.Editor (talk) 18:11, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

@Pernicious.Editor: Welcome to the Teahouse. If something appears to be editorial opinion, you can boldly remove it. Alternatively, if you would like readers and interested editors to be aware of the problem, you can add a {{failed verification}} template right after the contentious passage. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:10, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Would you like to review my draft on "Autism in China"?

Dear all,

My draft article page on "Autism in China": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Autism_in_China#Diagnosis

I am drafting a Wikipedia article on "Autism in China", a topic which I believe has notability and which should have its own article, since there are few attempts to synthesize information on this topic.

It is my first time ever writing an article though, so may I ask if someone would like to make suggestions on: 1) Organization (Overview — Epidemiology — History and progress, etc.) 2) Grammar and tense (should I stick with present tense throughout?) 3) Sources and citations 4) I tried to upload a poster image of the movie "Ocean Heaven" to the Media coverage— Ocean Heaven section, but it says I don't have the copyright. What should I do? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ocean-heaven-chinese-movie-poster.jpeg (this is the file link)

Thanks in advance!! Ha.susulat (talk) 19:48, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

@Ha.susulat Welcome to the Teahouse. Firstly, well done on getting as far as you have with a Draft article as a brand new user. That's no mean feat in itself. It's not yet in a form where it could be properly 'reviewed', so I have a mix of general comments which I hope may assist you:

Firstly, I looked to see what other 'Autism in ....' article there were, and only found Autism in india, which then redirects one to Global perceptions of autism. I presume you were aware of that article? If not, you should perhaps ensure that that page is up to date in the relevant section, or add a subsection for China. It is always possible to add a 'See main article' link to then take a user to a more detailed page. And that, I assume, is what your draft would cover?.

It's important not to add general things into a detailed article which ought to have been covered elsewhere. So just use wikilinks to tie these together.

Only explain diagnosis procedures if they are remarkably different from elsewhere. If they are, ensure you use reliable source to demonstrate how those procedures differ. (I did think that section was too lengthy)

Forget trying to use images with special non-free image rationales in draft articles. Images can be added later, and have no impact on whether a page reaches our bar for Notability.

I have now just appreciated that you asked a very similar question a few days ago (now archived here). I can probably add little to what you were told, especially to seek input from editors at WP:WikiProject Autism. I don't think you are wasting your time with this draft, but there is much work still to do before it could be properly reviewed as an article. Seeking feedback or input into the Draft from more specialist editors is probably the right way to go, yet I don't see you having asked there yet.

Finally, and out of interest, are you doing this out of general concern, or for a college project, or in order to raise awareness of specific organisations that you represent? It might be a good idea to introduce yourself on your userpage and explain your interests in editing Wikipedia on this topic. There's further advice at WP:COI for anyone already working inside the autism field to make clear their involvement. That won't stop you editing, but we always aim for openness here. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 20:35, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

I remember there's an essay on X about Y and how those articles should only be created when the combination of the two topics is notable. Can't remember though. Sungodtemple (talk) 21:03, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Stub pages

I know I might be taking on a project that I may regret doing (lol) but here we go. I've noticed a plethora of stub pages, especially regarding early 20th century and late 19th century baseball players. I was curious if there is an exact list of how many of these are stubs. I have plenty of resources (meaning websites and books) where I can flesh out a great number of these pages. Keep in mind I'm focusing on the above target and stub pages for current and former NFL players only. Is there a page I can use as a guide for this rather large task?  Sportsfan1976 I'm only here because I'm not currently somewhere else. (talk) 21:17, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Sportsfan1976. Category: Baseball stubs would be a good place to start. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:24, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

7M Pages

About when would Wikipedia reach 7 million pages? We're currently almost at 6.5 million pages, and by the looks of it, Wikipedia looks like it could either reach 7M by early-mid 2022, or late 2022-early2023. How long did it take for Wikipedia to get from 5M to 6M? WaterflameIsAwesome (talk) 22:36, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

@WaterflameIsAwesome: Welcome to the teahouse. To date, we've reached 6.4 million articles, and so far I'm thinking we can reach to 7 million articles by mid, late 2022. But if article creation increases rapidly, we can reach 7 million by mid 2022. However, if it goes slow, (which I don't expect) we will reach at this point by 2023.

Also, for the 5-6M, we aren't sure about this one. But, if wikipedia was made 19 years ago, (19 divided by 5-6 =3-4) I'm estimating to reach either 3 to 4 years. Severestorm28 (talk) 22:47, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

English Wikipedia reached five million articles on 1 November 2015, and six million on 23 January 2020. --bonadea contributions talk 23:09, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

@Bonadea: That would take 5 years. Severestorm28 (talk) 23:36, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Ok, so if we're going at the speed of 5-6 million, then I'm guessing maybe 3 more years? lol. WaterflameIsAwesome (talk) 00:47, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

@Severestorm28 that would actually take a little over four years. November 1st of 2015 is closer to January 1st 2016 than same date 2015, so it's a little over four years, rather than a little under five years. WaterflameIsAwesome (talk) 03:10, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Archived URLs

How do I know if a website URL has been archived or not? Kaleeb18 (talk) 23:00, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

@Kaleeb18: You could always go to archive.org and search for the URL. In the context of references on Wikipedia, there is a tool to automatically add the archive URL into the citation temple. Go to the "View history" tab on any article and click the "Fix dead links" button to access the tool. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 00:59, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

@Ganbaruby: Thank you so much I found exactly what I needed; that tool saved me a lot of time and work I would've had to do. Kaleeb18 (talk) 04:35, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Watchlists of other editors

I have learned how to see your own edit counts, and the edit counts of other editors etc. But is it possible to see what is on the watchlists of other editors? Thanks! Th78blue (They/Them/Their • talk) 00:22, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi Th78blue! See Help:Watchlist#Privacy. You can't see the contents of other editors' watchlists, and other editors—including administrators—cannot view the contents of your watchlist. Developers who have access to the servers that hold the Wikipedia database can obtain this information. DanCherek (talk) 00:27, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! That answered my question! Do I then delete this from the "teahouse" since my question is now answered? Th78blue (They/Them/Their • talk) 00:35, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Great! This thread can be left as is, since it might help other editors who have the same question, and a bot will archive it in a couple days. DanCherek (talk) 00:37, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

PLEASE ACCEPT MY ARTICLE CREATION I WANT TO MAKE ARTICLE WHO POLITICIAN AND CELEBRATIS PERSON

Hi I'm khogendra Rupini i want to create celebrities Article in Wikipedia and i have a one question why Wikipedia decline my article KhogendrarupiniKdr12 (talk) 01:21, 20 November 2021 (UTC)khogendrarupini

See the explanation at User_talk:KhogendrarupiniKdr12. You cannot use Wikipedia for promotion. RudolfRed (talk) 01:23, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

And please don't shout. ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 02:27, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

OP has been blocked as a sockpuppet. --Kinu ^t/_c 03:07, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

@KhogendrarupiniKdr12 please be more mature in your Teahouse questions. Shouting is a big no-no as well. WaterflameIsAwesome (talk) 03:08, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

How do I know if a page is full?

I thought I was getting proficient with Wikipedia, but lately, my edits have been consistently rejected. Wondering what to do and how to contribute more to pages of my interest. Smcupcake19 (talk) 01:34, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

@Smcupcake19: Wikipedia is not made of paper, so it doesn't really get "full". However, a brief look at your talk page shows that you have been involved in some long and heated debates about Scrappy-Doo and Draft:Scrappy-Doo Biography. Did you have specific questions about the advice that was given to you on those articles' talk pages, or questions about another aspect of editing Wikipedia? ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 01:47, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the Scrappy debate was specifically where I wanted feedback. I truly do want to make that page look as good as I can; and I was specifically wondering what kinds of edits would be indubitably welcome, since after initial smooth sailing with my endeavor, as I mentioned above my edits now appear to be quickly deleted, even after making several attempts to compromise. After putting a special amount of effort to keep my most recent edit inoffensive and still finding it quickly deemed unacceptable. I'd just like to know how to make sure my edits can have some reliable permanence; doing so is becoming increasingly elusive.--Smcupcake19 (talk) 04:48, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Which tag to use for page protect?

Which tag to use for page protect? Coolblack4 (talk) 02:15, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

@Coolblack4: You can request page protection at the requests for page protection noticeboard, after you have read the instructions at the top of this page as well as the protection policy. ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 02:24, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

DS Alert regarding Arab–Israeli conflict

Hi, I have received a DS Alert regarding the Arab–Israeli conflict, but I have made no edits regarding that topic whatsoever. WarKosign who issued the alert previously reverted an edit I made adding Mandaeans to 'See Also' section at the bottom of the Israelites article. I explained to them that scholars see Mandaeans being likely of Judean/Jewish origin and received a DS Alert shortly afterwards regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict. I don't see how the two topics are related. I have left a message on their talk page but have not received a reply. Can you please advise on how to resolve this issue. Thanks. Mcvti (talk) 02:18, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Mcvti! The idea of something being related to the Arab–Israeli conflict is interpreted extremely loosely, so an article like Israelites would probably qualify. DS Alerts, while they might look scary, mean what they say that you haven't done anything wrong, so there's not any issue that you have to worry about resolving. It's just a "heads up, this is a sensitive topic area, so please be cautious". Feel free to carry on editing! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:50, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Logo Update Not Appearing in Article

I recently have been updating Major Arena Soccer League and tried to update the league's logo by uploading the logo's .svg as a new version of the existing logo. It seems to work, but the thumbnail of the current logo in the file history and it's representation in the article itself seem to be the old logo. The non-free use rationale and the licensing should be identical as the existing logo, so I'm confused at what I need to do to make the logo on the article update.

Logo in question: File:Major Arena Soccer League logo.svg 
Packerfan213 (talk) 04:09, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

@Packerfan213: The logo seems to be appearing in the article now, but a couple of other things for reference.

1. Please don’t display non-free content anywhere other than the article namespace per non-free content use criterion #9. If you want to discuss a non-free file, provide a link to it instead as explained here.
2. Please don’t overwrite file’s like you did in this case except for only minor changes like a size reduction, straightening, minor coloring change, etc. When a logo completely changes like what seems to be the case here, it’s better to upload it as a completely new file altogether. Another reason for doing this is related to #3 below.
3. This new version of the logo seems like it might actually not need to be licensed as non-free per c:COM:TOO United States and wordmark. All-text logos tend to be considered too simple for copyright protection in the United States; so, you actually might be able to upload this to Commons instead of Wikipedia under a license of c:Template:PD-textlogo. You might want to ask about this at c:COM:VPC just to make sure, but I think it should be OK for Commons.

— Marchjuly (talk) 04:36, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Thanks for the quick reply! Is there any way for an admin to delete the file history of the old logo to keep it at just the original then? I'll go to Commons and make a new file upload with the proper licensing info; I made a similar upload for the text based logo of the Milwaukee Wave.

Packerfan213 (talk) 04:43, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Just revert back to the original version and add {{furd}} to the top of the file’s page. The will mark the unused revisions of the file for speedy deletion per WP:F5. — Marchjuly (talk) 04:58, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks again! Sorry for making a mess out of that file's history, but everything should be sorted now I hope.

Packerfan213 (talk) 05:10, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Hey, I need help...

 User98207252129 (talk) 05:13, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Hey, I have a question, where can I report a Vandalism I saw in an article from Sinterklaas? If you go to this link and see the left side of the revision. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sinterklaas&type=revision&diff=1056159685&oldid=1056159438 by 184.16.185.34 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)), Thanks!

@User98207252129: nothing to worry about. As evident from the Difflink you gave above, the edit has already been reverted by Acroterion. See Wikipedia:Vandalism to learn more about vandalism and how to combat it. Please be aaware that not everything unconstructive is nessesary vandalism. Victor Schmidt (talk) 06:34, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

How to cite this

I want to cite the management plan for the Hidden Christian Sites in the Nagasaki Region world heritage site. It can be found here however it doesn't open the management plan just the link to open it, how can I cite the file directly, Thank You. Tai123.123 (talk) 06:32, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

@Tai123.123: Instead of linking the listing, you can use the document URL instead, which appears to be https://whc.unesco.org/document/160504. A cite to this would look something like this:. When citing a PDF as large as this, please do not forget specifying the page number. Victor Schmidt (talk) 06:45, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

References