Wikipedia:Teahouse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Skip to top
Skip to bottom



time at beginning and end[edit]

Shouldn't a.m. or p.m. be at the beginning and end of a time period? Thanks! 73.167.238.120 (talk) 03:09, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello IP editor. Can you give an example of what you mean? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:17, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Sure, if you look at Virginia Tech shooting, the format in the infobox used to be c. 7:15 a.m. - 9:51 a.m. I received a warning that my edits constitute vandalism, and if you look at the vandalism page I believe the edits do not constitute vandalism and that word should be avoided for someone trying to improve Wikipedia. The edits in question were up for a week or two weeks at least from what I remember. There was a suggestion to go to the Teahouse as I am reluctant to make edits since I am threatened with the loss of editing privileges. 73.167.238.120 (talk) 03:32, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

@Love of Corey: How was this vandalism? I would agree with the IP here. time-end has "p.m.", why shouldn't time-begin too? Leijurv (talk) 04:16, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Per the consensus reached on the shooting article talk page. Love of Corey (talk) 04:17, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Alright then. It really doesn't take much time to type "per talk page", would have saved the confusion. :) Leijurv (talk) 04:28, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Wait, where would I type that? You mean in the edit summary? Love of Corey (talk) 05:17, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
That would be the most sensible place for it, yes. AngryHarpytalk 08:22, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

There is no vandalism though and there is ambiguity over the start of the shooting. 73.167.238.120 (talk) 05:04, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

There is absolutely no ambiguity at all. Read the talk page discussion that I linked. Love of Corey (talk) 05:17, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
That being said, edits like that wouldn't constitute as vandalism, as it was clearly made in good faith to improve the article. Refusal to accept consensus and possibly considered disruptive editing? Sure. Vandalism? Definitely not. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:20, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
I didn't have a better template to use. Love of Corey (talk) 21:33, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
@Love of Corey: ...maybe do not use a template next time, then? Sure, it is harder to type out your thoughts than to click a Twinkle drop-down menu, but that was a clear case of biting the newbie. TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 12:16, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I believe there is ambiguity over the start time of the shooting as the time is approximate. The point is also on the talk page linked to this discussion. Nevertheless, as mentioned above, making edits to improve Wikipedia or edits that are in good-faith, are not vandalism. 73.167.238.120 (talk) 14:46, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Participating in the talk page is also good faith, so keep participating and don't just disregard consensus. Love of Corey (talk) 21:33, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

would like some non-involved parties to review a name change request[edit]

This is in reference to the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Udasi under talk:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Udasi

I would like some other parties to help me with a Search engine test, as it relates to finding relevant information from non Wiki or Wikilike sources. I am also posting here to invite others to offer their opinion on the topic since in 2 weeks and only 1 person has said anything in the talk. Support or Oppose, I'm interested in moving the discussion forward so that action can be taken. I have made it quite clear ,i think, however I would like some fresh eyes on the subject to help insure I'm not mental. Please read the whole discussion if you have time and replay there, and engage me here. If I make an edit to the page, it will be changed the same day, and my attempts at the Socratic method have failed as well.

I'd also like a bit of clarification, I'm new around here, as to the nature of Conflict-of-interest editing with regards to religions. Example: Were I a Christion, would it be a COI to involve myself in any topic related to Christianity? Does that same COI extend to any religious scholar, or the field of Comparative religion as a whole. The wiki info on COI doesn't make it clear in regards to ones religious identity causing an inherent COI.

Ram Muni Rammuni BadaUdasin (talk) 11:20, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

No. If you were the minister/vicar of a church that had an article, you would have a conflict of interest, but otherwise, just being a Christian does not mean you have a conflict of interest. --Bduke (talk) 11:39, 16 June 2021 (UTC)


@Bduke: not sure if I did this reply correct, but thanks for your answer. For a Bit more clarity in the context of the article mentioned, I am in fact a disciple "novice" within the Udasin Tradition. Perhaps a better comparison would be that of any Buddhist monk in relation to the "Buddhism" wiki page. Would there be an inherent COI in such instance? The Udasin as a Whole has many schools of taught, and 3 Major schools and countless minor schools. Just as Buddhism has a few major schools and countless minor school. Yet I am an ordained novice/Chela in the " Udasin Bada Akhada " aka the large Udasin community. As the article is not focused on any one institution, or a single school of thought but the tradition as a whole, there should exist no COI yes? example: any ordained Buddhist monk and the general "Buddhism" article. Thanks again for your reply!! --Rammuni BadaUdasin (talk) 12:15, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
  • @Rammuni BadaUdasin: The problem with the page move you suggested at Talk:Udasi is that your comments are simply too long. Very few people will be willing to read through them.
In particular, there is a long diatribe about the SGPC. That information is entirely useless when assessing the move you suggest, but it clutters the page and makes it look like you are looking to score political points, which might put off people who would otherwise have commented. While the political representation of religious minorities in India is certainly an important issue to many people, most Wikipedia editors are probably ignorant of or uninterested in those matters. (You could probably have gotten away with a diatribe about American politics; that is a shame, but things are what they are given the demographics of editors.)
To get your proposal back on track, I would suggest to hide your previous comments in a collapse box (as suggested in WP:COLLAPSENO for a different case) and post a short summary of the sources you investigated. Something like: As of 2021, all major newspaper in India use "Udasin": The Hindustan Times (link, link, link), the Times of India (link, link, link), (etc.). So do government ministers (link, link) and courts (link, link). Of the sources in the article, (link, link) are more than 20 years old, and (link, link) are based on non-Indian sources which should be given less weight per WP:TITLEVAR. Place your links between [brackets] so that they appear shorter than the full URL.
If you have any problems with the formatting, feel free to ask another question. TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 13:12, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

@Tigraan: Thanks for your Ideas, I'll try to edit the page myself to make it more condensed. The part about SGPC is for those who do deeper research, as many of the English sources cited in the article or even many that exist, extensively cite books published in the Punjabi Language about Sikh History. The Legal system in India, having granted authority to the SGPC, discourages dissent from the "official narrative". Many of the books cited by the English books linked are available for free online in Punjabi. Over half of them mention having been approved for publication by the SGPC, and The other half are direct SGPC publications or Authored by SGPC members. Ill try to figure out how to collapse the comments, as it has no direct connection with the name change request however I have no idea how to use HTML. Rammuni BadaUdasin (talk) 22:16, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Inappropriate Images on Wikipedia.[edit]

Iam talking about graphic, sexual and sensitive images in articles like Sexual violence against Tamils in Sri Lanka, Sexual intercourse, and many other articles . The images are not the problem here but there is no warning or anything like sensitive content ahead like in other websites such as instagram. So I think there should be a warning in every article that contains inappropriate content and the image shouldn't be displayed before. Siddartha897 (talk) 11:29, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

This has been discussed many times before. We're not censored. Victor Schmidt (talk) 12:25, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
WP is doing the right thing. Siddartha897 (talk) 12:56, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
  • @Siddartha897: The two articles you give as examples are not exactly similar.
As explained already, we will not remove content just because it is harmful. Nobody who clicks on the article "sexual intercourse" should be surprised to find images of exactly that. Images of Muhammad and other prophets are part of a long Islamic painting tradition and will not be removed even though they are seen as blasphemy by a large fraction of Muslims. Chemical information about the content of high explosives could be used to manufacture bombs, but it still remains.
On the other hand, the guideline WP:GRATUITOUS does suggest to not use shocking imagery when they bring nothing to the article. I do think that guideline is a valid argument for the discussion at Talk:Sexual violence against Tamils in Sri Lanka (and I brought it up there). TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 12:43, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) I agree with you and WP:GRATUITOUS. As I said before I don't have any problem with the images and not forcing anyone to remove them, as the images are informative according to WP:GRATUITOUS they should be there. I'm just asking why there isn't a warning before it. And about Talk:Sexual violence against Tamils in Sri Lanka I think we should add a warning template (you can check it there).Siddartha897 (talk) 06:34, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Correction needed but conflict of interest[edit]

Hello friends,

I need to make an edit to an article but can't due to conflict of interest. The article is Yana Peel

It says she "She stepped down as CEO in June 2019 as a consequence of the attention paid to her co-ownership of NSO Group”, and references an old Guardian article.

However the Guardian have published a redaction, which says "The Guardian accepts that Mrs Peel is not, and was not, involved in the management, operations or control of NSO, an Israeli cyber intelligence company." Ref: https://www.theguardian.com/law/2019/jun/14/yana-peel-uk-rights-advocate-serpentine-nso-spyware-pegasus

Can someone help me update this or can I do it myself? Could it be changed to: "She stepped down as CEO in June 2019." Occasionalpedestrian (talk) 13:21, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Occasionalpedestrian Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I've fixed your link to a proper internal link, the whole URL is not necessary to link to another Wikipedia article. You are welcome to make an edit request(click for instructions) on Talk:Yana Peel, detailing this change. As it is a WP:BLP issue, someone here may also see this and do it for you. 331dot (talk) 13:28, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Occasionalpedestrian I read the original source and the retraction, and think your edit request overly simplifies the situation by removing the reason for her resignation. I’ll comment more if you put in an edit request on the talk page as suggested above. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 13:41, 17 June 2021 (UTC)


Timtempleton I've added the edit request on Talk:Yana Peel, can you have a look and give me your thoughts? How about this:
Peel stepped down as CEO in June 2019 as a consequence of the attention paid to her alleged co-ownership of NSO Group. However, Peel was not involved in the management, operations or control of NSO. Peel has a single digit percentage, indirect and passive interest in the regulated Novalpina Capital investment fund that acquired NSO in 2019, and she acquired that stake well before the fund’s acquisition of NSO. Ref Occasionalpedestrian (talk) 09:40, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Why my article got rejected[edit]

Symbol redirect vote2.svg Courtesy link: Draft:Vikash Kumar Tiwary

As per my knowledge, I followed all the criteria defined by Wikipedia while creating my page. I created my draft page and provided all the genuine sources with Images before submitting it to the final review but after final submission page gets rejected.

Request you to please show me the right path for publishing my articles on Wikipedia. Vikash.fssai (talk) 18:34, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Your draft was rejected because it gives no indication whatsoever that you are notable like most of us. Theroadislong (talk) 18:50, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi Vikash.fssai, welcome to the teahouse. I have looked at the draft and noticed these issues:
  • Possible WP:NPOV Issues, basically you need to remove all bias in the article.
  • External links in the body of the article, according to WP:ELCITE external links should be limited to the end of article, under a specific section.
  • At least 2 sections without citations.
  • Sources might not qualify as "Significant coverage" as described in WP:GNG.
Your article is currently nominated for deletion, if you are sure that an article can be created while following WP:GNG, copy the article to an offline text editor and work on it until you have gotten rid of most of the issues, then try resubmitting it through the same process. -- Justiyaya (talk) 18:55, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Vikash.fssai Actually, it is nominated for Speedy deletion, which means likely quickly deleted with no history kept. If you mean to try again, essential you save all content to your own comuputer. David notMD (talk) 21:06, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Also, assuming you are Vikash, you claim all the photos of you are your own work. David notMD (talk) 21:08, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: The draft has since been deleted. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:57, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Another newbie question[edit]

I know in regular citation that when you use the same citation for two different things, you use "Ibid." But WP:IBID says not to, I'm not sure why exactly, and WP:DUPCITES talks about duplicate citations but I'm not really sure what it's saying. To make a long story short, is there a "ref /ref" type of code that I can use that does what "Ibid." does?

This might be easier: At the horror author/publisher Tim Lucas, I've got a lot of duplicates. If anyone has time to take a look and combine just two of them for me, then I'll have a model of the code that I can use. Thank you! TheHorror TheHorror (talk) 20:26, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I was nosing around, trying to learn, there are like a thousand pages of things, and I saw https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Dealing_with_single-purpose_accounts. I just want to say I'm planning to work on many other horror-related articles and I've only been "getting my feet wet" at one article before moving on to others. In fact, I will go to a different article in the next day or two. TheHorror TheHorror (talk) 20:42, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

P.S., my name "TheHorror TheHorror" keep coming up in red. How do I fix that? And is there any way to change it to "The Horror, The Horror"? TheHorror TheHorror (talk) 20:42, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

@TheHorror TheHorror: Welcome to the Teahouse! To answer your first question, you are going to want to learn about named references, which allow you to re-use a citation more than once. Example code is provided at the link given. To answer your postscript, a redlinked username means that a userpage hasn't been created. Editing and saving any changes you make to it will turn the link blue. The band-aid solution to changing your username would be to change your sig to read The Horror, The Horror at Preferences → User profile → Signature (and please see WP:SIGLINK to know which links are necessary), but if people want to ping you they would still have to use TheHorror TheHorror. Otherwise, you can request a name change (link is an information page). —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:04, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
@TheHorror TheHorror I've fixed two identical references so it only appears as on (currently ref [46]). Many of the references could be improved, and I'd always advise trying the autofill function when you click the Cite button when editing and pasting in the article url. It fills what it can for you, and you can do the rest. The 'Rondo Award' website looks incredibly amateurish, so I've no idea how worthy it is as a source - but that's another matter entirely. PS, I have fixed your redlink issue by adding a line of text for you to alter. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:37, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks! Someone else recommended autofill but I was having trouble finding that "Cite" button. I see it now. Thanks for adding the line of text to my signature and I will look at that page now. The Rondo Awards are rough-edged but they've been around 18 years and horror fandom takes them very seriously. I think I'll work on that page next and add "notability" supporting citations. Guillermo del Toro acknowledges their importance for example. It's great how how helpful and welcoming people are! TheHorror TheHorror (talk) 13:07, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
One more question, about "This article needs additional citations for verification."
I've added many references to Tim Lucas. There are now 46, more if you count duplicate references. (Thank you, Nick Moyes for showing me how to combine duplicates!) According to Help:Maintenance template removal, I think I have addressed the problem (except for one paragraph, which I am working on). Is it okay to remove "This article needs additional citations for verification."? TheHorror TheHorror (talk) 13:51, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
@TheHorror TheHorror: If you feel that the problem has been addressed, you are welcome to remove the template yourself. If someone disagrees they'll add it back in, at which point (if you're still watching the page) you can start a discussion on the article's talk page as to why they've done so. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:51, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

How can I help advance my draft article after I submit it to the Wikipedia:Articles for creation (AfC) process?[edit]

Once I’ve submitted an article to AfC, how can I help move it along toward publication? Can I continue to edit the article? Is there a way to estimate how long a newly submitted draft article will take to go through the AfC process? Can I ask an experienced editor to review and improve the article? Can an experienced editor directly move the article into mainspace? (I'm drafting an article at Draft:Solar United Neighbors) Thanks for your help! Omygoshogolly (talk) 20:46, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

There is a backlog of nearly 5,000 drafts. It is not a queue. Can be days, weeks, or (sadly) months before review. No means to speed that process. Yes, you can continue to edit the article. You can ask here for comments on your draft, but do not expect revision help (although that sometimes happens). David notMD (talk) 21:11, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
@Omygoshogolly: The article would benefit from an organization infobox with logo, rather than a photo of a random couple sitting at top. See Think Together for an example of what this would look like, and as a source for the template code. Good luck! TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 22:28, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
@Timtempleton: Do I need to obtain an organization's permission to use its logo in this way on Wikipedia? Omygoshogolly (talk) 23:48, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
@Timtempleton: I think I just answered my own question. It appears I can use the "non-free logo" template when uploading a low resolution image of the logo. I will also follow guidance in the Think Together example. Thanks again! Omygoshogolly (talk) 00:28, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
@Omygoshogolly: I can't remember if you can upload a logo to a draft article. There has to be an article for the process I use to work. Maybe at least do the infobox without the logo. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 01:36, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
@Omygoshogolly: I got interested in your draft after seeing the first one or two posts above. I added numerous good sources and reorganized it; it's now published at Solar United Neighbors. This organization has a fascinating story: it starred after two 12 year-olds pestered their parents to get solar panels on their house. Thanks for your contributions. --- Possibly 04:39, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Copyright Violation?[edit]

Hi! I found this article, Evergreen Park Elementary School District 124, and most of the content seems to be from two sources: here and this document pages 43-44, which is from this website in the folder "Local History." Is this a copyright violation? I'm unsure because I don't know whether either source is copyrighted. If so, what do I do? I know admins may revert back to the last edit before the copyvio, but I don't know how to do that / don't feel like I have the authority to do that. Besides, random sentences in the article aren't from either of those pages, so they might be fine? Thanks! -- TheBlueComb (talk) 21:33, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

@TheBlueComb Please see WP:COPYVIO. ― Qwerfjkl | 𝕋𝔸𝕃𝕂  (please use {{reply to|Qwerfjkl}} on reply) 21:39, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, TheBlueComb. Unless there is a clear 'Creative Commons' licence on a webpage, we assume that content written within the last c 70 years is copyright because no copyright statement is actually needed to be visible in law for it to be regarded as such. The only problem that can arise with this assumption is where content has been taken from Wikipedia and then posted on another website and we might draw the wrong conclusion. But that is quite rare, and hardly likely to happen with content about a school! So, it's OK to delete it, ideally linking in the edit summary to a url or publication the text was allegedly copied from. That still leaves the issue of an admin like me needing to delete the earlier versions containing copyrighted content. The procedure for flagging that content for deletion is outline in this subsection of WP:COI.
We also have a generally useful tool to check for Copyvios. Called Earwigs Copyvio Detector it's at https://copyvios.toolforge.org/ Interestingly, it's not flagging up any matches to the sources you mentioned (including the obvious copy of its main educational goals), though I've not looked in detail for other matches. But it also can't look inside certain types of articles or images, of course. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:05, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for your help, I have deleted the content. I also checked that tool you mentioned, specifically comparing it to the link in question, but it doesn't come up with anything for the pdf. But the pdf also has nothing when I try ctrl-f, so maybe it has no content text somehow? But it did show up in a Google search I did I think... I don't know how pdfs work. Most of the text from the history section was definitely in there though. -- TheBlueComb (talk) 22:36, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
@TheBlueComb and Nick Moyes: The reason why earwig doesn't find this is actually simple: Earwig can only read plaintext or documents in the XML group. When you inspect the PDF, you find that the contents are actually an image, which Earwig can't read. Reading text from images is a very complicated procedure known as Optical character recognition. Victor Schmidt (talk) 05:54, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Does this draft follow neutral point of view?[edit]

Do the "criticism" and "diversion" sections of this draft follow WP:NPOV? (P.S.: I have the citations but adding them in these sections is remaining. Please ignore the fact as of now.) Excellenc1 (talk) 06:21, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

@Excellenc1 Welcome to the Teahouse. That’s a very impressive and detailed draft. Assuming good sources, I think your two sections seem fair. I would only pick up on the title ‘Diversion’ which doesn’t sound right to me. Perhaps ‘Misuse’ or ‘Hijacking’ might be better alternatives? Good job! Nick Moyes (talk) Nick Moyes (talk) 08:53, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
My feelings are different from those of Nick Moyes. I found the Criticism section soporific; and the Diversion section says "there's this symbol – people sometimes use it". I accept that Nick's views are better informed. Maproom (talk) 09:01, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
@Maproom: You are too kind, but I am definitely not 'better informed' than you! My feedback was based on a quick look, where I found it incredibly detailed but reasonably balanced-looking. I could be wrong, but I would be happy seeing this in mainspace where it can be further tweaked. Nick Moyes (talk) 11:36, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
There are statements, including entire sections (Usage) without references. David notMD (talk) 12:59, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
My opinion is that showing the colours in a table, with numbers, is unnecessary detail. The reference is sufficient. David notMD (talk) 13:03, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

As per the suggestions I have received above, I will certainly add the citations, change the headings to "Reception" and "Misuses" respectively, delete some content from the former "criticism" section to avoid making it soporific, and remove the tables of colours. Will this work? Excellenc1 (talk) 13:31, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Kevin Pohotona[edit]

 163.200.101.57 (talk) 07:34, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi 163.200.101.57, please elaborate. Justiyaya (talk) 07:38, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

About Encyclopedia![edit]

The Encyclopedia is really free on Wikipedia? ਰਵੀ ਸਹਿਗਲ (talk) 07:42, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Yep it is, it is made by editors like us, and you can donate to Wikimedia to keep servers running. Justiyaya (talk) 07:47, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
ਰਵੀ ਸਹਿਗਲ Justiyaya (talk) 07:47, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
i leave. ਰਵੀ ਸਹਿਗਲ (talk) 08:01, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Articles for Creation[edit]

Article for Creation Draft:New Horizon Art Car Good morning, I'm looking for help in getting my article published. It gets turned down for not meeting the 'independent sources' criteria and for its overall character. How can I improve my article? It's about a project that is very dear to me, so any suggestion is much appreciated. Thank you BettinaGsott (talk) 08:48, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

BettinaGsott Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Your draft just tells about the project. Wikipedia articles must do more than tell about the subject, they must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the subject, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability. I would suggest setting aside the information about the project itself and just gather a minimum of three independent sources with significant coverage("significant coverage" goes beyond just telling about its existence) and summarize those to get the article started; once accepted, the technical information can be added later. Please see Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 08:53, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much! This is quite helpful and I will try again to 'summarize' versus 'report'. With technical information you mean the sources? BettinaGsott (talk) 09:38, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Remove all descriptions of the BMW E3 that are not relevant to the art project. That includes technical stuff (engine size, restoration process prior to painting, etc.) David notMD (talk) 10:37, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Ahhh, so it sounds too much like its promoting BMW? Thanks a million - I think I understand now. BettinaGsott (talk) 15:27, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

How i can request someone to update the wiki data he provide ? because its outdated.[edit]

I'm working as a PR for a Japanese client she is an ex AV star, Now working as a DJ worldwide, I try to update in info on wiki & wiki data, now Im block from making wiki update and help the person.

I'm sure no one wants his/her past to affect your job in this hard time. Krishna pearl (talk) 09:48, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Krishna pearl Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Please see your user talk page for important information about conflict of interest and paid editing. A Wikipedia article summarizes what independent reliable sources state about a topic. If those sources are summarized inaccurately or with undue weight, please point out the errors on the associated talk page. If the sources are summarized correctly, there isn't much we can do. Note you seem to be talking about a draft. 331dot (talk) 10:00, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Courtesy, this appears to be about Draft:Mao Hamasaki, so not about updating an existing article. Also, IMBd is not an accepted reliable source reference, so other refs needed. David notMD (talk) 10:41, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Here at English Wikipedia there is no evidence that you are blocked. Why did you write that? David notMD (talk) 10:42, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
It may come as an unexpected treat to TH regulars, but this PR person is interpreting "Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted." as a block. Would that they all did so! Hope they understand declaring COI; otherwise their fear will be realized.--Quisqualis (talk) 15:48, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Krishna pearl If not entirely clear, that last (slightly snarky) comment means that you are required to declare a paid connection on your User page or else you WILL be blocked. David notMD (talk) 16:44, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

adding to a picture caption[edit]

Giuseppe Mazzini has a picture on the right with the caption, "Citizens shot for reading Mazzini Journals." I would like to add the following to the caption: (Compare with Édouard Manet, The Execution of Emperor Maximilian). I don't know how to add this; if another editor agrees that it is a worthwhile addition, then please add it. I previously posted this on the Giuseppe Mazzini talk page, but no one replied, and I don't know whether that is because no one thought my addition appropriate or because no one read my post. People seem to reply on Teahouse more promptly. I know that my proposed addition is unusual, but I think that it would be informative. Maurice Magnus (talk) 10:45, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Replied at the other page. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:59, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Observ că nu există ncii o referire la viața, activitatea și imagini ale tenorului Mihai Petculescu de la Opereta de Stat București. A, date biografice despre acest cântăreț de succes ai anilor interbelici și 1950-1960, dar nu știu cum să apară în Wikipedia. Cum să procedez?[edit]

 2A02:2F07:A104:B00:5973:70B0:8612:4B0 (talk) 11:51, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

  • Please use English here. This is the English Wikipedia. Bishonen | tålk 11:54, 18 June 2021 (UTC).
    • The question appears to be asking why Mihai Petculescu of the Bucharest State Operetta doesn't have an article here. The answer is because no-one has yet written one. This is the English Wikipedia, so any article would need to be in English, and have references from independent, reliable sources. A guide on article creation is available at Help:Your first article. If you would like to write a Romanian language article, you would need to go to ro.wikipedia.org. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:20, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Question[edit]

I would like to know how to insert your own userboxes into your userpage, please. Dinosaur TrexXX33 (chat?) 12:00, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

You need to transclude it onto your user page, just like you would any other template, by wrapping it into two curly brackets (e.g., {{User:DinosaurTrexXX33/Userboxes/6teen}}). Kleinpecan (talk) 12:15, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Guidelines for cinematographers[edit]

Greetings to the most amazing people of the Tea House. My question is - are there any specific guidelines for Cinematographer? I am guessing no which will lead me to WP:Creative. The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.. A Cinematographer or DOP with multiple notable films will fulfil this criteria. But I feel challenged because such DOPs might not fulfil WP:GNG or WP:BASIC since it is rare that press write about them in individual capacity. But, it feels unfair to the DOPs since they are a very integral part of film making and their contribution is often underestimated. It would be unfortunate that the same happens at our Wikipedia project. So to summarise, my question is, what if someone qualifies the WP:CREATIVE criteria but otherwise fails WP:GNG or WP:BASICNomadicghumakkad (talk) 12:55, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Nomadicghumakkad. The basic guidance is that People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. All of the more specific notability guidelines for people are based on the assumption that if someone meets that threshold, then the coverage in reliable sources exists somewhere. When you write that "it is rare that press write about them in individual capacity", then you are saying, in effect, that most of them are not eligible for a Wikipedia biography. You can't write a biography without the raw materials and a name on a list of credits is not enough. The one exception I mentioned is Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Cullen328 Let's discuss it 16:32, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
All that being said, there are well over a thousand biographies of cinematographers, so clearly a certain percentage of people working in that field are notable. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 16:31, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Cullen328, this is helpful. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 09:46, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

MoS for user pages?[edit]

Hello! I am here to ask if there is some sort of manual of style for user and user space pages. I was searching the contents of Wp:MoS and I couldn't find any thing about User pages. I am trying to massively expand my user page and I wanted to know if there was some sort of reference that I can use so I know that I'm not crossing any lines. Thank you for your time. Yaxops Banter 12:58, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello Yaxops and welcome. I think you will find that information at Wikipedia:User pages.--Shantavira|feed me 13:26, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

TYSM! Yaxops Banter 13:44, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Asking on how to permitted to edit a MetaWiki in Wikipedia[edit]

FYI – Moved from my talk page -Qwerfjkl

Sir, may I ask where should I request to make an edit in MetaWiki, I'm currently translate, The Wikipedia Adventure to my home wiki but I cant Edit a Metawiki.. thank you. --Philippines Shimin_Ufesoj Philippines:— Preceding unsigned comment added by ShiminUfesoj (talkcontribs)

User:ShiminUfesoj wants to run The Wikipedia Adventure in a Philippine language. They originally posted the following to MediaWiki:
Here's the link: https://bcl.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Guidedtour-tour-twa1.js "
Any way we can help them with this?--Quisqualis (talk) 15:25, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Help required with hyperlinks that do not display in articles[edit]

These are two examples of hyperlinks I want to use that are fine in my browser but don't work on Wikipedia - error 404 displayed

example 1 see this screengrab 1

example 2 see this screengrab 2

These are both from the same website but there are others too eg

Paviland Cave & The Ice Age Hunters RCAHMW

(As per instructions I didn't sign this btw !) Horatius At The Bridge (talk) 13:52, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Horatius At The Bridge, Weird. The third works for me. The first 2 are 404 at first, then "hiccups" to startpage. If I search "earliest humans" at the site I get no hits. Are you, for some reason, seeing "old" versions of the site? For example, I can see your first page on the wayback machine :[1]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:33, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Hello, Horatius At The Bridge. You may have better luck with this type of issue at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:11, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Hello, Cullen328 You may well be right - I was just replying to the previous editor so I'll post my reply to him
Hello, Gråbergs Gråa Sång Thank you for your interest. In the first two examples I have navigated from the landing page to the pages I want and they seem now to display OK independently as long as they are left outside brackets etc as below
https://www.dyfedarchaeology.org.uk/lostlandscapes/index.html
https://www.dyfedarchaeology.org.uk/lostlandscapes/earliesthumans.html
when encased the problem re-appears
1
2
https://rcahmw.gov.uk/paviland-cave-and-the-ice-age-hunters/ is the same when encased
Paviland Cave & The Ice Age Hunters RCAHMW
Example 3 above which you say is OK for you displays like this for me
3 Horatius At The Bridge (talk) 18:09, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Edits keep getting removed[edit]

I have made some edits to two different pages, all have been removed and I don't understand why so I am hoping to find some help here :) GIADA (brand) - I added content to this page about partnerships with photographers and that was removed and called spam. After that another editor rewrote the page and now it is a misrepresentation of the brand. I have changed the content but it was again removed and called promotional. The information currently in question is the use of the words luxury and womenswear to describe the brand. Also, the brand is an Italian brand, owned by a Chinese company. The articles cited on the page clearly state that but when I change it back it keeps getting removed.  There is an entire Luxury Brand category and I have tried to match the language. Here are some examples.

Gucci "Gucci is a luxury fashion house based in Florence, Italy."
Chloe "Chloé is a French luxury fashion house founded in 1952 by Gaby Aghion... The house is owned by luxury brands holding company Richemont Group." (this relationship seems similar to GIADA)
DAKS "DAKS is a British luxury fashion house, founded in 1894 by Simeon Simpson in London." (owned by Japanese company)
Calibre (menswear) This one uses menswear in the article title
Lanvin (company) "Lanvin is a French multinational high fashion house, which was founded by Jeanne Lanvin in 1889." (also owned by a Chinese company)

I also added to the Gucci page - information about a partnership with a tech company Genies. The article I used as a citation was from a tech magazine and the summary of why it was removed was that "this kind of language may be used in fashion magazines and advertisements, but is not appropriate to an encyclopaedia"  So now I am really confused! With all these other examples, why are my edits being called spam and promotional?

Thank you for your help and guidance!! Ecity97 (talk) 14:25, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Ecity97. Wikipedia has over 6.3 million articles of varying degrees of quality, so you should not expect consistency from article to article. Personally, I think that "luxury" is a promotional term and "womenswear" is an industry insider euphemism for clothing. If you want to select an article as a benchmark to work toward, then pick a Good article or a Featured article which have gone through a formal review. The articles you list are start class, C class or B class. What is your relationship with GIADA? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 16:02, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi Ecity97, I've just posted on your talk page as it appears the fundamental concern is whether you're being paid to edit. But as a Teahouse reply: I had a look at your text, and actually I'm inclined to disagree with Cullen328 - to my mind, describing something as 'luxury' is merely an indication of which end of the price-bracket for clothing this particular brand tends to target, while 'womenswear' merely means stuff women wear. But this isn't the place for such debates. The right thing to do, when you get reverted and consider it wrong, is to explain your actions on the article's Talk page, where it will encourage other editors to join in - then a consensus should emerge, and someone might even write something better. Differences in opinion are quite normal. As Cullen's own strap-line says: let's discuss it! Elemimele (talk) 16:17, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

How to crop an image I found in Wikimedia commons[edit]

Please remind me how to crop an image I found in Wikimedia commons. Thanks. John NH (talk) 15:03, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

@John NH: Welcome to the Teahouse. I think you may be looking for Commons:CropTool. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:38, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Fixing that ping. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:39, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
@Jnhmunro: Note that you can use a template to crop an exiting image that you wish to trim to fit within an article. The documentation at Template:CSS image crop describes how to crop an existing Commons image without altering the source file. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:15, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Stub Pages[edit]

Hello, how do I get approval for a page to be graduated from stub status? Heartmusic678 (talk) 15:10, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

@Heartmusic678 You don't need approval, it just needs to meet the requirements for start-class or above. What article specifically are you referring to? ― Qwerfjkl | 𝕋𝔸𝕃𝕂  (please use {{reply to|Qwerfjkl}} on reply) 15:51, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

setting up archiving on my talk page[edit]

Hello, Could you please set up archiving on my talk page? I'd like to set up numbered archives from the beginning for a period of 5 years for each archive. I mean, activity on my talk page is definitely not something that happens very ofter at all, and I intend to keep it that way. So far, it's been 15 years and the whole page is not unmanageable yet. But it is getting a bit too long, and I've been reading about it, trying to set it up by myself first. But I'm sure the task is much simpler for one the 'wizards' around here. Would someone here be able to set it up like that for me? Thank you, warshy (¥¥) 16:05, 18 June 2021 (UTC) warshy (¥¥) 16:05, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

This is directed at the more technical editors here not warshy. It's my opinion that an editor should never have to set up archives. It's moderately technical and typically be on the skill set of brand-new editors. Many struggle with this including myself when I needed to originally set up archives. The obvious answer is that we should create a bot that automatically sets up archives. I wouldn't suggest setting it up for every new user, as I suspect the median number of edits for new uses is roughly 2, And it would be absurd to have the overhead of archives set up for people that would never need it. I don't know the exact number but I would guess there some hurdles such as 50 messages when it might be appropriate to start archiving. Someone who knows how to code thoughts would probably find it trivial to set up a bot to set up automatic archiving for anyone who doesn't have it and has more than a threshold number of top page messages. (Obviously someone will complain so there might have to be an opt out option.)--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:25, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Which citation template to use for a German state law?[edit]

There is a template for {{tl:Cite German law}} (How do I write the correct link to that template?), but this only applies to federal law and refers to the corresponding web site of federal Ministry of Justice. The individual German states each have their own online portals. What template should I use for a law from an individual state (in my case, Berlin)? Loris Bennett (talk) 16:46, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Loris Bennett. Template:Cite act is more generic and may meet your needs better than Template: Cite German law. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 16:53, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, I have gone with this. Loris Bennett (talk) 12:34, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
@Loris Bennett: you can use {{t|Cite German law}} to produce {{Cite German law}} which links to a template. RudolfRed (talk) 16:56, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
As I wrote, {{Cite German law}} is only for federal law and links to a web site which has only federal laws, whereas the law I need to refer to is a Berlin state law. However, {{Cite act}} seems to be OK. Loris Bennett (talk) 12:38, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Verifying information[edit]

Hi! Is there a way to submit legal documents to verify a person’s birth name? Chr1717 (talk) 16:49, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Chr1717 Sorry no, only published sources are acceptable. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:56, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. So if someone is the author of an autobiography, the author page & book (which are already listed on their page as a source in another spot would count as a supporting source?

Yes, an autobiography by the subject will normally be regarded as a reliable source even if self-published; but it is not an WP:independent source, so cannot be used for controversial information. Like a birthdate, a person's birth name is usually not controversial, but sometimes it can be. --ColinFine (talk) 17:54, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
ColinFine, you are right, but I run into dozens of situations where a birthday was controversial, so I wouldn't want to dismiss this too cavalierly. I'd be very concerned about using autobiography. S Philbrick(Talk) 21:27, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Is there a question[edit]

 103.155.118.230 (talk) 17:12, 18 June 2021 (UTC) page name Rumel Ahmed

Added a section title to separate from previous entry. David notMD (talk) 17:29, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Sanbox activity showing up under Contributions?[edit]

Should my practice edits be showing up under my publicly-viewable Contributions (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Merkur_Scorpio) .... or am I doing something wrong in Sandbox?

I'm very new, and want to make sure I'm not breaking wikipedia! lol. Merkur Scorpio (talk) 17:14, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

@Merkur Scorpio All of our edits show up in our contributions log. This is a good thing.
There are special circumstances where some may be hidden from public gaze, but that is only for unpleasant transgressions. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 17:21, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
@Merkur Scorpio: Welcome to Wikipedia. Yes, that is normal, every edit you make is counted. RudolfRed (talk)
Appear as Contributions, but not found by any search within Wikipedia or from outside search engine. Is there an issue that your contribution did not show up? David notMD (talk) 17:25, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

EDIT: Got it. Thanks, everyone!

I want to create a company page[edit]

FYI – This User has since been blocked for promotion/advertising. -Qwerfjkl (talk) 20:32, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I am Kashi, Nice to e-meet you all. I was wondering how to create a company page. I see my compassion has created the page. This helps in recruitment of new employees as startup. Any help or advice not to get deleted is appreaciated Kashiks.fitbots (talk) 17:18, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

@Kashiks.fitbots You may mistake the purpose of Wikipedia. It is not for people to tell people about their employer. Wikipedia:NOTLINKEDIN will interest you FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 17:23, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
@Kashiks.fitbots: Welcome to the Teahouse. There's more information at Your first article, but if you're doing this on behalf of an organisation, you must comply with Wikipedia's paid editing guidelines and declare your affiliation. Wikipedia is not a place to promote an entity. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:24, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Talking with other editors about a particular page[edit]

I am new to editing on Wikipedia and still learning. I would like to make substantial changes--mostly adding information--to the following page: C. Farris Bryant,https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._Farris_Bryant. Should I contact the editors (or maybe the original page creator) who have done previous work on this page before attempting changes? Is there a way to talk to more than one editor at a time? I want to make these changes to improve the article, but I want to make sure that previous editors are okay with my changes. Attu43 (talk) 17:42, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Attu43, and welcome to the Teahouse. Every article has a talk page - in this case Talk:C. Farris Bryant, for just that purpose. There is no obligation to discuss a change before making it, but if you think your change might be controversial, it is worth discussing it in advance. If you make a change and another editor disagrees, they can revert your change, and then you can discuss it. See WP:BRD. Note that there is no guarantee that other editors who have contributed to the article will see either your change, or your discussion: it is likely that they will have the article on their watch lists, but they may not happen to notice. If you create a fresh discussion on the talk page, it is worth pinging relevant editors (just as I pinged you here).
Note also that nobody owns an article: just because somebody created an article does not give them special privileges to determine what it should contain. Wikipedia works on consensus, and it's up to all interested editors to develop that. If there is difficulty, then dispute resolution explains how to proceed. --ColinFine (talk) 18:04, 18 June 2021 (UTC)


3rr and spam[edit]

Does the 3RR apply to obvious spam/promotion? A promotion SPA edit-warred with me a few days ago, and I abided by the 3RR (after an AIV report). He then got indeffed and revdel'd. dudhhrContribs 18:02, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

@Dudhhr reversion of vandalism is handked in Wikipedia:3RR, see item 4, but, if in doubt, make a report and step away. Nothing is ever urgent on Wikipedia despite things seeming to sometimes FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 18:32, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Video tutorials for beginners[edit]

Hello, I am new here and english is not my first language, I am struggling to undestand the editting suggestions for my article... is any place where i can see viedeo tutorials of citations and footnotes and external links? many thanks, people! Smart Digital Girl (talk) 18:14, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Smart Digital Girl, this page Help:Editing has several. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:28, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
@Gråbergs Gråa Sång If English is not your first language, you may want to try editing on that language -specific version of Wikipedia. ― Qwerfjkl | 𝕋𝔸𝕃𝕂  (please use {{reply to|Qwerfjkl}} on reply) 20:25, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Does this draft have a problem?[edit]

Does this draft have a problem? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:BitMe ItsJustdancefan (talk) 18:43, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

This is answered below. @ItsJustdancefan: please don't post the same questions more than once. Just be patient and wait for an answer. RudolfRed (talk) 23:10, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I am new to Wikipedia and need some help.[edit]

I am new to Wikipedia. Just few hours back, I tried to make some contribution in Wikipedia by submitting an article on a famous lawyer in India, but the article is declined can anybody help that how can I start in Wikipedia. This is the page link. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Prashant_Mali I am really confused, it will really helpful, if anyone offers for help. Ankitchakraborty677 (talk) 19:00, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

See WP:Your first article. Your draft has no valid references. Find other articles about lawyers in India, and see how those were created. David notMD (talk) 20:05, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Since deleted for copyright infringement. David notMD (talk) 22:22, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Work Computer[edit]

I'm currently working a job that has a lot of slow periods of time where I could edit Wikipedia. When I try to edit on my work computer Wikipedia does not allow it. I totally understand the reason why this is the case, but is it possible to get around? I won't be doing any edits with a COI. The company I'm currently working for is PMA Insurance. TipsyElephant (talk) 19:19, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

TipsyElephant It sounds to me that you may want to request an IP block exemption; please see WP:IPECPROXY. 331dot (talk) 19:25, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Using Cite tool in toolbar and still get message citation is not correct[edit]

What am I doing wrong? I click on the "cite" tool in the toolbar and it adds a footer for the source, however, editors keep sending the following message that I'm not citing sources using footnotes:

The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. Thank you.

Do I need to add more citations? Or, does it have something to do with the citation source itself?

Thank you for your input. JDL-author (talk) 19:32, 18 June 2021 (UTC)JDL-author

This message only explains the reason why the draft was declined the first time in April. You should pay attention to the recent comments of the second reviewer. Ruslik_Zero 20:19, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanking users who answered my question[edit]

How do I thank people who answered a question that I asked, please? Or maybe this is not encouraged here? Can I add the thanks to my original question or not? If not how do I post a thank you to the person who helped? Andrea2603 (talk) 20:45, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello Andrea! You don't have to thank those who answer your questions but we neither encourage nor discourage doing so. You can simply reply to your original question/the answer and say thanks. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 21:01, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Andrea2603, you can also click on the view history tab, find the edit and you will see the word "thank" at the end. Clicking on that will send thanks to the editor. To avoid accidental clicks, you'll have to confirm, but it's easy to do. S Philbrick(Talk) 21:30, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Andrea2603, as an example, I just clicked on the thank button corresponding to your edit which should have sent a message of thanks to you. S Philbrick(Talk) 21:31, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Does this draft have a problem? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:BitMe[edit]

Does this draft have a problem? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:BitMe ItsJustdancefan (talk) 21:20, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

@ItsJustdancefan: It's very short, but it looks like it has been accepted as a stub article. Continue to work on expanding it. RudolfRed (talk) 21:52, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
ItsJustdancefan, there's nothing wrong with the draft. It could and should be expanded but the current stub looks reasonable so I've moved it to the article namespace and added categories. I've also linked to it from other pages so that it won't be orphaned. Cheers, Pichpich (talk) 22:01, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Image usage question[edit]

Hi,

There's a set of 56 NFL trading cards from 1986 that we're allowed to use the images from on Wikipedia - the 1986 Jeno's pizza cards.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:1986_Jeno%27s_Pizza

Most of these have been uploaded to Wikimedia on the above link, but 20 have not. I've found a trading card website which displays the pictures from all 56 cards here...
https://www.tcdb.com/Gallery.cfm/sid/25536/1986-Jeno%27s-Pizza-Rolls

My question is, can I take the images from the trading card website and upload them to wikimedia for our use, or does that break the rules?

Thanks, Harper J. Cole (talk) 21:53, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

@Harper J. Cole: Welcome to the Teahouse. Looking at their terms of use, Wikipedia can't use the images that are hosted on there. The section on copyright reads:

Copyright
Content published on this website (digital downloads, images, texts, graphics, logos) is the property of Trading Card Database and/or its content creators and protected by United States and international copyright laws. The compilation of all content included in Trading Card Database is the exclusive property of Trading Card Database and protected by U.S. and international copyright laws.

It's not released under an applicable licence, so you'll have to find them elsewhere. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:06, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Can a submitted draft article be withdrawn?[edit]

Can an article that’s been submitted to the Wikipedia:Articles for creation (AfC) process be withdrawn from the AfC process? Thanks for addressing my question! Omygoshogolly (talk) 22:21, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

@Omygoshogolly: Sure. If you remove the AfC template from the page, I'd guess a bot will complete the rest of the withdrawal automatically. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 22:29, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

referance website's page rank[edit]

Is there any issues like when I add some references, the reference website should have a high google page rank / alexa rank ? Minhazulasif039 (talk) 22:47, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

@Minhazulasif039: Welcome to Wikipedia. No, that does not matter. It matters if the source is reliable. See WP:RS for guidance on that. RudolfRed (talk) 23:00, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Absolutly not, Minhazulasif039. There are many highly ranked pages which are not reliable sources - for example, Wikipedia itself! Conversely, reliable sources do not need to be online, never mind highly-ranked. It's fair to say that Wikipedia has very little to do with page ranking (or any other measure of popularity) in any respect: popularity does not necessarily confer notability in Wikipedia's sense; and attempts to use Wikipedia to enhance a subject's popularity tend to be strongly resisted by the volunteer editors. --ColinFine (talk) 11:51, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Is there such a thing as too many blue links?[edit]

By blue links I mean links within Wikipedia articles that link to other Wikipedia articles. Like this example. Is there a general guide/manual of style for when those should be used and how often? What words/phrases are considered important enough to get their own blue links? Thank you Normal Name (talk) 02:29, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, this is called overlinking. A relevant guideline is Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking. Kleinpecan (talk) 02:34, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Hello, Normal Name. This is an area where your best editorial judgment is called for. Try to put yourself in the shoes of someone who knows very little about the specific topic and wants to learn more about that topic. Notable people mentioned in the article should be wikilinked because reading those biographies of people involved in that topic helps with understanding. Many readers will only look at the lead paragraph of the linked article, but that is fine if it contains useful relevant information. So, ask yourself whether the concept is important to deeper understanding. Most English readers will have a familiarity with London, Paris, Rome, Jerusalem, Moscow, Tehran, Beijing, Tokyo and Los Angeles. Linking to those is not likely to be useful. On the other hand, linking to less-known locations relevant to the topic might be quite useful. When it comes to science, history and the world of ideas, linking to several other "on point" articles is useful. Never link to really basic concepts known to all conscious humans like water, air, plant, animal, person, concept, event, birth, death, sun, moon and the like. Just be thoughtful and careful about what you link. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:31, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you both very much for answering Normal Name (talk) 03:56, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Citation question[edit]

Hello - My submission for a page has been rejected as my citations aren't formatted correctly but they look correct on my end with citation numbers and a list. Can I show you my sandbox to get your advice about what I have done wrong? D.B.Chace (talk) 02:54, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

@D.B.Chace: If I understand the reviewer's comment on your talk page correctly, then in Draft:Todd_Masters there are a few places where you put in external urls in the main body of the article, for example you linked to Master FX Studio website and also Daniella Chase website. Remove these external links from the body of the article, and read WP:EL to see if they would be appropriate in the external links section instead. You will also want to pay attention to the reviewer's comment about how your draft reads like an advertisement, and improve the wording so that it is more neutral. RudolfRed (talk) 03:08, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hi D.B.Chace. Is your question about Draft:Todd Masters? If it is, then I don't think the draft wasn't really declined because of citations being formatted incorrectly; that's a technical issue that can be fixed fairly easily. Rather, I think the draft was declined because the sources you cited don't really help establish that the subject of the article meets Wikipedia:Notability (people). Many of the sources you cited are not what Wikipedia considers to be reliable sources or are sources that don't show significant coverage. It makes no difference how the sources are formatted if the problem is that source isn't good to begin with. The draft also includes lots of embedded external links which isn't really acceptable, but too is something that can be fixed. It's the Wikipedia notability of the subject that's essentially being assessed by the AfC reviewer, and it makes no difference how well written or formatted an article is if notability isn't established. Maybe try asking about this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers to see if any of the members of that WikiProject can offer some more specific suggestions. You can also try directly asking the AfC review who declined the article for further clarification by simply leaving a message on their user talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:15, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
D.B.Chace I just fixed many of the reference and inline link issues that Marchjuly mentioned. I also agree that it needs many more WP:Reliable sources to establish notability. I removed the use of prnewswire.com and also the wiki sources, as we don't use wikis as sources. Also, I removed three or four external links to MastersFX studio, so if you are associated with the studio please follow WP:COI. --- Possibly 03:21, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
D.B.Chace No idea what you were thinking, but you turned every one of your previously created refs into useless non-refs. I restored the version before your most recent effort. David notMD (talk) 09:42, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Converted first ref into a properly formatted ref as an example. There are still major problems with the draft. Mostly, LOTS of content is not referenced. Work on fixing refs (see WP:Referencing for beginners) and adding refs while waiting for a reviewer. David notMD (talk) 09:53, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

How to address a potentially problematic edit?[edit]

I saw this recent edit [2]. Something about it seems off or improper, from an WP:NPOV standpoint, but I can't quite put a finger on it, nor figure out what to do. Perhaps I should move the material further down the article, and rewrite it? I'm not sure if it's appropriate to remove it entirely. Cheerful Squirrel (talk) 04:20, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Cheerful Squirrel, and welcome to the Teahouse! I looked at the edit and went ahead and removed it. Your instinct is definitely correct that that material about Abrams's political opinions is unsuitable for the lede of an article that's not about her political opinions. I removed it entirely, rather than putting it elsewhere in teh article, because it's unsourced editorializing in Wikipedia's voice that synthesizes two of Abrams's political opinions to create the implication that she's being hypocritical. If a reliable source compared those two opinions and concluded that she's being hypocritical by holding both of them, then that content might have a place on Wikipedia--though probably still not in that article specifically--but if a reliable source does not make that comparison, then it would be original research for us to do so. Writ Keeper  04:36, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
@Writ Keeper: aha, that makes sense! Thank you very much! Cheerful Squirrel (talk) 04:38, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
@Writ Keeper: uh oh, I'm now in an edit war with this editor over this issue. You've been very generous with your time, which I greatly appreciate, so I don't want to further impose. But if you or other editors have any thoughts on how to respond, I'd be grateful to hear. I tried to write them a note explaining [3] Cheerful Squirrel (talk) 05:20, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Okay, so, in an average editing dispute, your next step would be to open up a discussion on the talk page of the article, laying out your case as to why the edit should be removed, and the two of you would either hash it out there, or get input from other editors who are looking at that article. If nobody can reach a consensus there, then there are other dispute resolution mechanisms one could pursue.
However, I don't really think this specific editor is particularly interested in talking to us, judging by the fact that they're calling our edits vandalism. Moreover, these edits are about a living person, and are politically charged at that. As the BLP policy emphasizes: contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. Technically, BLP-enforcing edits are exempt from some of the rules about edit-warring, so I don't think you're in trouble yet, but as the section says, you should be very cautious about using that exemption.
So, I think it's best to try to get help from another admin. I happen to be an admin, but I'm now involved in the content dispute, so it would be inappropriate for me to intervene myself. There are a couple places we could go; the first thing that comes to mind is asking for help from a noticeboard such as the BLP noticeboard, since this material involves a living person. There's the original research noticeboard, as well. One could also go to the more general-purpose administrators' noticeboard or incident noticeboard, but be warned that those two noticeboards (particularly ANI) can be...a bit of a free-for-all at times. It's also possible to simply contact an administrator directly: I see Cullen328's name in a thread above, so he might be able to come take a look and give us his opinion on the article and the IP editor--Cullen, the editor in question is 97.118.24.243. Writ Keeper  05:44, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Cheerful Squirrel, here is a lesson that almost all effective Wikipedia editors learn very quickly: Do not ever, ever, ever engage in edit warring behavior. It is never appropriate in a content dispute, and may well lead to blocks. Do not blame another editor because it always takes at least two to edit war. Use other forms of Dispute resolution instead. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:49, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Can I change an unprotected article's title?[edit]

 Fasscass (talk) 07:09, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

It would be wiser to put your arguments for change of title on the talk page and see if a consensus is reached. --Bduke (talk) 07:12, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
The article as a whole is not popular and has barely been touched since its creation, let alone talk which is empty. It's safe to assume I'm the only interested user. Regardless of that though, is it possible for me to change an article's title? As in do I have the permission, and if so how is this done? Fasscass (talk) 07:16, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
@Fasscass Any editor in good standing who has been editing for a certain length of time acquires the right to move any article to a new title. With that right comes the responsibility to get it right. This includes any necessary consensus, and adherence to Wikipedia:Article titles
The retitling is performed via the more tab for the article you wish to move, followed boy the use of move. This only appears when one has the right to move something. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 07:25, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
More details on the process of moving a page are at WP:Moving a page. --David Biddulph (talk) 07:29, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Makes sense, thank you Fasscass (talk) 07:52, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Is it ok for me to use a legitimate source if it's hosted on blogspot?[edit]

So I use a fairly reliable source run by a library but it is hosted on Blogspot. I always get a warning about using proper sources when adding them but they are a reliable source.

The site is: http://wimmera-w-b-w.blogspot.com BakuFromAus (talk) 11:21, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Hello, BakuFromAus, and welcome to the Teahouse. The relevant policy is at WP:BLOGS, which says "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." It doesn't look to me as if the Wimmera blog meets that criterion, but as always, this is a matter of discretion. However, that section explains the (limited) ways in which self-published sources may be used, so it also depends on what information you're trying to source to it. --ColinFine (talk) 12:00, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
What specific information do you want to cite from that blog? It contains lots of photos of newspaper cutouts, which can be attributed to local newspapers and thus would be considered reliable. If you pick a particular cutout and manage to pinpoint a reference to a newspaper archive or any other kind of archive, then that citation would deffinitelly be reliable. On the whole, however, this blog is a self-published source and is probably not considered reliable. Anton.bersh (talk) 13:44, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi ColinFine, thanks for the reply and warm welcome. Based on that, I would agree it does not meet the guidelines however they do seem quite relibale and if I were to use my own discretion I would say it's ok. For some things, they are one of the few reliable sources and it would be rather hard to find other equally reliable websites.

Hi Anton.bersh, thanks for the reply. I mainly do pages for railway stations and lines that do not currently have Wikipedia pages but are significant enough they should. FOr instance, the Yaapeet line I have made a draft version of in my notepad and wthe wimmera way back when is one of the few decent sourced (here: http://wimmera-w-b-w.blogspot.com/2013/01/railways-yaapeet-line.html) with a heap of info. I presume they have gathered that information from their own research in real life as well as reading through several books however they do not cite their sources so it's impossible to know. The article I linked as an example does not contain any newspaper trimmings but it does have photos of sttaion sites which I guess could be used as evidence nothing exists at the ones that have been demolished but nothing more than that. I'll be honest, they say a few things I can't verify on the web but I am sure I could if I were to head down to the library that writes the blog and ask for some books relating to it or ask people who worked on the railway line (which I know is prohibited on Wikipedia so I wouldn't).

Also, I have a question for you both, what counts as "self published"? Aren't all websites self published? Why do websites hosted on blogspot suddenly count as self published where, say, website with a custom domain wouldn't?

P.S I'm not quite sure If i did the whole mentioning users thing or formatted this post right but thank you for all your help!

Accidental edit conflict in the middle of improving a list... What should I do?[edit]

I accidentally pressed the "Enter" key on my keyboard and it appeared the "Edit conflict" screen so I had to leave immediately. However, one edit was saved when it happened. I shouldn't have pressed it or I should have stop loading the page when I was editing a list in a helpful manner.

I am very concerned that something bad will happen to my account, even if the edit conflict has its filter log. What should I do?--André the Android(talk) 11:56, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello, André the Android, and welcome to the Teahouse. Edit conflicts can be annoying (especially on pages like this one!) but they're purely technical issues when the software thinks that you're trying to publish a change when somebody else has just altered the same section. They are not like an edit filter, and they don't reflect on your account in any way. --ColinFine (talk) 12:03, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
@ColinFine: I tried to reply to thank you for your help and to state that no one but myself was involved in the edit conflict from the list, but it appeared to me either another edit conflict or (even worse) a filter log which made felt as if I were blocked, although I was about to edit in a civilized manner. This made me not only frustrated with its software's actions, but I also felt that I have a mischance.--André the Android(talk) 14:05, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
No problem, André the Android, self conflict is a perennial minor nuisance in the collaborative editing software. It happens so often to me, I sometimes forget that it looked scary when I was a new editor. I mostly make it happen by double clicking when it should have been single. This makes the software try to change the same original version twice. Self conflict. Maybe some day it will be treated as a bug and repaired, but our industrious software developers always have many other priorities.
When it happens, you just have to look at the new version you have created, and see whether the change came out as good or bad. If bad, then undo and try again; your edit record will actually indicate that you are paying proper attention. If the result of the edit was not bad, then continue with your day. Jim.henderson (talk) 14:29, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Resources[edit]

 Ix57ta23 (talk) 11:58, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Ix57ta23 welcome to the teahouse, what do you need help with? Justiyaya (talk) 12:22, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't realize that the question was posted on your talk page, to cite information, click the edit button on a page, put your cursor where you want the citation to go, and click the "Cite" button with the quotation mark symbol in the tool bar. I still am trying to figure out if the citation you want to put in is a book, website, or something else, so I can't really help with the next step, but the on screen instructions should be enough for you to insert your citation into the editor, finally, just click on the publish button and you should be done adding your citation. Justiyaya (talk) 12:30, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Seamus Newham[edit]

Five months ago my biog. was rejected by Wikipedia. I enclosed three published References:

1) The Abbey Theatre Archive. 2) RTE Archive: the Photographic Section  3) Playography Ireland.

1) For instance, The Abbey Theatre Archive has recorded every artist, designer, director etc. since the theatre was launched over a hundred years ago. If you simply type my name into the archive, you will find that I have performed in approx. 35 productions between 1967 - 1974.

2) In the RTE Archive: the Photographic Section, there are photos of me from four different television drama's/programme's.

3) And my name crops up in plays in Playgraphy Ireland.

If those published accounts are not acceptable with Wikipedia. Fine. You can delete my biog. if you are so inclined. I am not going to lose a nights sleep over this.

Thank you,

Seamus Newham Seamus Newham (talk) 14:24, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Seamus Newham Your attempt at autobiography Draft:Seamus Newham was declined (not Rejected, which is harsher) in January because it had lots of content that was not referenced, plus the attempt you made to provide references was not properly formatted. The declining reviewer suggested possible next steps. Because the draft has had no edits since then, it is scheduled for automatic deletion - hence the notice you got on your Talk page. The question of whether you are notable by Wikipedia criteria is unanswered because the draft is inadequate. Wikipedia discourages attempts at autobiography (see WP:AUTO), but does not prohibit. Your choice: let it go, or try to fix it. Be aware that listing your accomplishments does not reach what Wikipedia considers notability. There has to be references to published articles about you and your career. David notMD (talk) 14:54, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
I will also add that Wikipedia isn’t a blog; so, if you’re looking for something that you can edit like a blog, then maybe one of the sites listed here will better suit your needs. — Marchjuly (talk) 16:37, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Baby name sources[edit]

Baby name sources I’m writing an article about the name Shanice, and I’m trying to figure out what it means. Different sources are saying different things— how do I figure out which source can be trusted or not? Helen (let’s talk) 16:22, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

If you believe the sources to be equally reliable, then perhaps it’s OK to add content that reflects what both of them say. If one isn’t reliable than it probably has zero value and it shouldn’t be used. I don’t know which types sources of sources are generally consider reliable when it comes to the meaning of certain names, but perhaps someone at Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy can help with that. — Marchjuly (talk) 16:33, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Footnotes[edit]

On several pages, I notice that the same footnote reference number appears more than once. For example, there may be a [1] then [2] then [1] again. This is confusing to me. Is this an error or just a way of referencing the same source in another part of the article? Thanks.Attu43 (talk) 16:33, 19 June 2021 (UTC) Attu43 (talk) 16:33, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Attu43. That kind of thing is confusing perhaps, but it’s also quite common. You should find the reason why this happens in WP:REFNAME. When you see this kind of thing, it basically means the same citation is being cited multiple times throughout the article. This could be done by providing a fully formatted citation each time it’s used, but that’s a bit redundant; so, there’s a way to format the citation so the the full citation is only provided once and the subsequent uses of the citation direct back to the first use. — Marchjuly (talk) 16:45, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

How to find a image from Uploads[edit]

Symbol redirect vote2.svg Courtesy link: Adhiti Menon

Hi,

I created a article of an Indian Actress. But I am not able to upload a image file. Then I understand I need to be a active member for more than 10 days. Can you please help me how to find a image is uploaded in Wikipedia or not Paavamjinn (talk) 18:07, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Paavamjinn, Well it is unlikely that a free image of her exists. Wikipedia requires that images be "free use", WP:FREEUSE, i.e. anyone can use them for any reason. The vast majority of photos are not free, and are instead strictly copyrighted. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! 19:40, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Strange user contribution pattern[edit]

I came across a user who keeps changing the end date of television shows from "present" to a date in a foreign language. The television shows are from India, but the user keeps adding information in Spanish. I'm having trouble understanding the intent of the user. Anyone have thoughts? [4] Cheerful Squirrel (talk) 18:32, 19 June 2021 (UTC) Cheerful Squirrel (talk) 18:32, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

@Cheerful Squirrel: Welcome to the Teahouse, and thanks for catching that. I think the IP editor is replacing them based on announced start and end dates, but I've reverted them as a reliable source doesn't appear to be provided for any of them. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:23, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia editing[edit]

I was wondering about how many people edit things on wikipedia a day? Mtbuser name (talk) 18:34, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps checking out Wikipedia:Statistics could answer your question. Paul Vaurie (talk) 18:48, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
I found this [5] which has a collection of differents stats for the English Wikipedia. I could find-per day averages, but last month there were 43000 different editors who made at least 5 edits. RudolfRed (talk) 18:50, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Follow up question: does anyone know if "active editor" count is only humans or if it includes bots? There is a another chart that shows total human user edits, but it is not clear to me what is included in "active editor" counts. RudolfRed (talk) 18:52, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
@RudolfRed: When I go to the link you provided, then click on the title "Edits", then click "Active editors" and click "More info about this metric", I get to meta:Research:Wikistats_metrics/Active_editors, which defines it as "The count of registered, non-bot editors with five or more edits in a given month, including on redirect pages." GoingBatty (talk) 05:12, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Multiple stub[edit]

Is putting multiple stub templates allowed? Like what I did on Yannick GuillochonPaul Vaurie (talk) 18:46, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it's entirely fine, just don't put too many - they should be related to the subject's main notability. Vukky, a real human 👀 (talk to me!) 18:59, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

notability[edit]

I want to write an article/biography on a singer that just passed away. He passed at 73 years old in 2020. So obviously when he was in his prime there was no internet. He recorded several CDs and performed many years in many concerts with a lot of the greats that have also passed. Are his CDs enough for notability? Ramirez Familia (talk) 18:50, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

@Ramirez Familia: Welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for wanting to add to it. Check out WP:NMUSIC for the guidelines. Sources don't need to be online. Also, please note, accounts cannot be shared, as might be implied by your username. RudolfRed (talk) 19:10, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Hello, Ramirez Familia. The existence of CDs is not evidence of notability. Professional reviews of those CDs would be helpful, as would independent obituaries (not family written). As for your mention of the internet, it is not necessary that reliable sources be available online. Just cite the complete bibliographic details of offline sources that you use. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:13, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Adding a manual citation for a consensus document[edit]

I was interested to enhance the sourcing in a couple of the ECG articles by adding references to consensus guideline documents, which Wikipedia recommends as a high quality source (as do cardiologists :) ).

The citation tool seems to struggle with these URLs perhaps because they have a lot of authors.

So I manually wrote up one citation, stashed it in my sandbox and added it to this article.

I'd be grateful if anyone could look this edit over, and offer any pointers. My questions are:

  • is there any reason this is not a good choice of citation?
  • have I made the raw edit text too hard to read with this big citation?
  • have I chosen the authors to include appropriately?


If it looks good then in future I think it would be nice to fill out some of the ECG articles with references to the consensus guideline documents where appropriate.

Edinburghpotsdam (talk) 19:24, 19 June 2021 (UTC) Edinburghpotsdam (talk) 19:24, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

@Edinburghpotsdam: You might want to ask at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine RudolfRed (talk) 19:31, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
@RudolfRed: Will do, thank you.
Med journal refs use initials for first and second name, not full names. You were correct in including all authors and using a display-authors=5. There is no need to have a carriage return after each name. Or, for journal articles, an access date. David notMD (talk) 20:53, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Collaborative writing/editing.[edit]

My State Assembly Member's office offered to help write the Wikipedia page for Metro Theater (New York). How can I share the page I have started with them?

--enniferj Enniferj (talk) 19:30, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Symbol redirect vote2.svg Courtesy link: User:Enniferj/Metro_Theater_(New_York)
@Enniferj: Yes, that is fine. The people in the office will each need to edit from their own accounts, shared accounts are not allowed. And if there is any COI or paid editing, that must be disclosed (same as you have done, thank you.). RudolfRed (talk) 19:53, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Lara Klart Laritza Párraga[edit]

 Laraklart1 (talk) 21:16, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

A note on your Talk page explains how to approach editing Laritza Párraga, given that you claim the article is about you. David notMD (talk) 21:28, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Citing NYT City Blog[edit]

Hello. How are you? I am spending the day writing an article about the Metro Theater (New York). I went ahead and moved the draft to article. I hope that wasn't wrong. My question is regarding the use of the NYT City Blog in the article. Is that wrong? Any suggestions about any part of the article are welcome. Metro_Theater_(New_York) Thank you!

--enniferj Enniferj (talk) 00:43, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Enniferj. While most blogs are not considered reliable sources, there are some exceptions. Among them are blogs affiliated with reliable journalistic sources, such as the New York Times. Moving the draft to article is OK. The Articles for Creation process is optional. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:50, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
I fixed the link. RudolfRed (talk) 00:56, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
After Enniferj moved it to article space, it was returned to draft. It wasn't really ready for article space; I'm cleaning it up and it should be ready shortly. --- Possibly 03:53, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Done: Metro Theater (New York). Enniferj, if you are in New York City, a really useful thing would be to take some pictures of the exterior of the theater and upload them to Wikimedia Commons. Commons does not currently have a (free) good shot of the exterior that could be used in the article. A wide shot form across the street would be good. --- Possibly 04:23, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Second opinion[edit]

I've observed a large number of IP addresses making vandalism according to the same pattern [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]. I think one person is somehow controlling a bunch of different IPs. I posted at ANI but can't get people to pay heed, probably because I'm a new user. But I do have relevant experience with computers and such. Would someone with more experience be willing to look at this, and gently scold me if I'm off-base, but maybe vouch for me if I'm not? Cheerful Squirrel (talk) 01:15, 20 June 2021 (UTC) Cheerful Squirrel (talk) 01:15, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

@Cheerful Squirrel: The reply to your post at ANI has nothing to do with you being a new user, but rather pointing you to the correct venue to report vandalism. Also, there has been some question raised as to whether all the edits are actually vandalism. You may want to slow down and make sure that the updates are not correct and not done in good faith. Good faith edits, even if incorrect, are not vandalism. Also, please use edit summaries with your edits, including reverts. RudolfRed (talk) 01:29, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
oops. Cheerful Squirrel (talk) 02:11, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

My article is being proposed for deletion[edit]

My article is being proposed for deletion An article I created, Cole Schwindt, has received a proposal for deletion earlier today. It’s because the nominator believes that he is not notable enough for an article. I understand I have the right to object to this proposal and remove the proposal (and I sort of want to), but I read through the criteria and the editor is right. He probably isn’t notable yet. But I feel as if he will be next hockey season, since he’s got this deal with the Panthers. What should I do? Helen (let’s talk) 01:33, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Helen. If you are the only significant author, then feel free to move the article to draft space or to a sandbox page in your userspace. When he meets WP:NHOCKEY, you can move it back immediately. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:22, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Hello, HelenDegenerate. I went ahead and moved the article to draft space for you. I'll leave you a more detailed message about it, but you'll find it at Draft:Cole Schwindt. When it's ready to publish, as Cullen said, it can be moved back to the main space easily enough. OhKayeSierra (talk) 04:03, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Creation of Article in Japanese[edit]

Hi Wikipedians!! So, I am here today for a quick question. Is there any possibilities of People Helping me Translating an Article in English to Japanese? I have Messaged many Translators, but there is no reply from them. Also, I would like to know that Can I use the same Account across all Wikipedia's? Like Can I use my Account in Japanese Wikipedia too? Thanks in Advance!!! Jocelin Andrea (talk) 02:56, 20 June 2021 (UTC) Jocelin Andrea (talk) 02:56, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

@Jocelin Andrea: I think you’d be better off asking this question at the Japanese Wikipedia. You’re much more likely to find somebody who is bilingual in English and Japanese there than here. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 03:33, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
  • @Jocelin Andrea: And yes, you can use your same account on any Wikipedia. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 04:12, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
@Jocelin Andrea:, your question fascinates me. Which article, and why would you want it translated into Japanese? -- Hoary (talk) 04:56, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

@User:Dawit S Gondaria/Bahru Kegne how to do infobox correctly[edit]

Hello, i'm working on a article that i might submit for draft, somehow i can't get the infobox right. Can someone fix it, so i learn from the diff? Thanks Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 04:11, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

@Dawit S Gondaria: You forgot a square bracket after a link and nested two links ([[Folk music|Traditional [[Amharic]] folk music]), which is why it didn't work. Also note that when adding an image to an infobox, |image= should only contain the file name and it should not be wrapped between two brackets. If you want to add a caption to the image, it should go in the |caption= parameter. Kleinpecan (talk) 04:19, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
@Kleinpecan Thanks a lot! Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 04:33, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Copyright Violations[edit]

I believe the article Karel Balcar includes copyright violations from the 1999 edition of Art Today, with much of the content found in "Work" being a complete or partial transposition. Unfortunately, I have been unable to access the 1999 edition to confirm this, and so am unsure of how to proceed; can anyone advise, and if they have access to the 1999 edition, compare the content? BilledMammal (talk) 05:09, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for asking, BilledMammal. You might ask at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request; someone there should be able to help you. -- Hoary (talk) 06:33, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

i think i want out.[edit]

Dear Wikipedia, how do I delete my account? Admins are attacking me with harsh rules maybe to back their private opinionated interpretations. I am new here and want to help, but this interface is very complex, some fake and smear stuff is locked, while the interface is too cryptic and proclamation driven, and i think i want out. EditorOnTruth (talk) 05:48, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

@EditorOnTruth: Welcome to the Teahouse. Accounts can't be deleted as edits have to be attributed to them (you could try and ask for a courtesy vanishing to scramble the username). You can abandon it and refrain from editing Wikipedia. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:14, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Tenryuu, all this seems quite saddening particularly on World Refugee Day. (talk) 06:20, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

As you have made a total of just four edits aside to those you have made in this section of this page, please don't ask for "courtesy vanishing". If you don't like to edit Wikipedia (for any reason), simply stop editing Wikipedia. -- Hoary (talk) 06:30, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

How to Edit a Name[edit]

Symbol redirect vote2.svg Courtesy link: Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders: Making the Team

On the Wiki sight for DCC, they have a young lady listed as Chandi McCright (an actress) when it should be Chandi Dayle. How can that be corrected? 2603:8081:7301:A78D:4D87:4A30:9328:6AB4 (talk) 07:44, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. I've fixed it. The next time you see something wrong in an article, be bold and fix it yourself. Kleinpecan (talk) 08:02, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Editing box border thickness[edit]

The red border line for the historic site designation box "National Historic Site of Canada" appears rather thick. Being red, it dominates every Infobox it appears in, and is akin to a warning button. It draws the eye away from even the main title. Is there a way to make the line thinner, so it's not as urgent-looking? The one that appears on the Template Talk page for "Designation" looks better. You will notice, there, that I have asked this question several times over the past four YEARS, with no reply: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Designation#Using_borders_instead_of_backgrounds

If the line can be made thinner, how can I do that? Thanks. Yoho2001 (talk) 07:55, 20 June 2021 (UTC)