This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Teahouse. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.
LucasA04, Definitely, what exactly are you try to upload. If you created it and have not copyrighted it you can use "this is free work" and then "entirely my own work" Then select upload. Not upload to Commons. {{u|wylie39}} {Talk}22:07, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
wylie39: I don't think "and have not copyrighted it" means anything. WP:Copyright#Using copyrighted work from others says "All creative works are copyrighted, by international agreement, unless either they fall into the public domain or their copyright is explicitly disclaimed". (I know that is in a section which is not about this case, but I don't think that affects my point.) --ColinFine (talk) 22:45, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
wylie39: I don't know what you mean by "you copyrighted it". If you created it, it is copyrighted, and usually to you, so that you have the power to license it eg under CC. --ColinFine (talk) 08:05, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
I need some help. Tried creating a page for the term 'Digital companion' and thought I needed my username to be 'Digital companion' as well. Then, I got a message that the page has a potential conflict of interest. I work for a company (Intuition Robotics) that creates digital companions (my company's name was included in my user email, perhaps this was an issue as well?), but I wrote this article about an industry term, not a particular company, and in a way that was as un-biased as possible, and mentioned numerous other companies in this industry (and removed my company's name from the article altogether). I want to know what I can do to get the page published - do I need to change my username, create a new user altogether, or start over? Do I need to disclose conflict of interest, even though I am not profiting off of this article in any way? Will I still be able to get the page published if I say I have a conflict of interest? Some help would be greatly appreciated, as I put a lot of effort already into writing and creating the page, and I was unaware that I would have issues due to either my user name or the fact that I work in the industry of the term of the page I'm trying to create. Digital companion (talk) 14:56, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Digital companion, Howdy hello, and welcome to the Teahouse! Couple of points:
Where did you get the impression you needed your username to be the same as the article? This is an honest question, as it happens occasionally and we'd like to prevent that.
I'd say it doesn't hurt to declare a conflict of interest in a case like this. It doesn't prevent it from getting approved, just informs and keeps the process transparent. A conflict of interest is different than paid editing, wherein someone is in someway compensated for your edits. I would suggest you declare a COI, though if you wanted a second opinion you could go to The COI noticeboard. Note, if you have been paid in any way for your edits, you must declare that by following the steps at WP:PAID.
You can get your account renamed at Wikipedia:Changing username if you'd like, though there is no need. But if you'd like to do some future editing of Wikipedia beyond this article (which I quite hope you do), you might be better off with a more general purpose username. CaptainEekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓15:35, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi guys, thanks so much for your help here. It's my first time creating a page, and it's proving to be a bit more difficult than I initially thought.
1) I should submit the conflict of interest form (even though I am not profiting off of the page in any way), and it can still be published?
2) Am I allowed to mention my company name (Intuition Robotics) and include a link within the article, or will it be an issue? I deleted it since I thought this was why the page had issues.
3) Yes - I saw that there was an issue (Draft: Digital companion vs. Draft: digital compaion) - thought the draft was deleted but I guess I need an admin to merge them for me? Or can I merge it on my own?
4) Then, how do I get the page published on regular Wikipedia? I submit it to my User page, and then it can be reviewed again? I don't see an option to get Draft: Digital companion published onto regular Wikipedia. What is the difference between a User page and Draft page?
Thanks so much!!
Digital companion (talk) 15:56, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
4) When you feel that the article is ready, you can submit it for review by an experienced editor. You can add {{subst:submit} } to the top of the draft to submit it. A reviewer will then look at your draft and move it to the main article space or give you feedback on how to improve it. You can always edit the page, even while waiting for a review.
So perhaps it wasn't a good idea to submit the COI form? I just entered this code, maybe I entered it wrong:
My page has now been tagged for speedy deletion...seems pretty unfair. Is this because I submitted the conflict on interest form, as users here instructed me to do? I don't see anything wrong with the page, and whoever requested to speedily delete it said "This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic," which is not true...
Wylie39So how can I proceed? Seems like the correct one still has the speedy deletion tag on it. Is there any way for me to get it published? Or no, now that someone has put the speedy deletion tag, and I've submitted the COI form? Digital companion (talk) 06:22, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Digital companion: It looks like Draft:Digital companion has had the tag removed. I would read through the article and make sure that it is from a neutral point of view. make sure it goes over the positives and negatives of Digital companions. Then you can try to resubmit. I would also highly recommend you change your username. {{u|wylie39}} {Talk}12:40, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Help for the publication of Panos Zeritis biography
Hello, I am writing a biography of Draft:Panos Zeritis. It is the second time that the article has been rejected. After the first rejection, I tried to find every source and add every reference to him that can be included. If anyone could help me, I would appreciate it. Thank you.Zggala (talk) 14:19, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Zggala Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Unfortunately, it seems that the subject of your draft does not meet Wikipedia's special definition of notability, as the reviewers have told you. No amount of editing can overcome this. The sources need to be independent reliable sources that have chosen to give him significant coverage. 331dot (talk) 14:29, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
To establish that the subject is notable, you'll need several reliable independent sources with in-depth discussion of the subject. I've checked the first four English-language sources, and found none that qualify (and none from a newspaper). Ref. 2 is to a Wikipedia article, and therefore cannot count as a reliable source (to avoid circularity). Ref. 3 is to a page that's "under construction", and has no content. Ref. 4 has no mention of the subject, let alone in-depth discussion. Ref. 6 is currently giving a "site unavailable" message. Maproom (talk) 15:16, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Hey @Zggala: While you did a good job on the amount of sources you included in your draft, these are not included in Wikipedia's definition of reliable sources. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which only includes notable topics, and the way we define notability is significant coverage in reliable sources only. For example, you referenced other language's Wikipedia pages which doesn't count as a reference. The kind of coverage you would want to look for would be for example what you find in a Google News search on real websites, not blogs. I did a quick search for you and only one article came up. As 331dot said, no amount of editing can overcome this so further attempts at creating the article will only frustrate editors, and I suggest leaving it for now. Feel free to contribute to other articles though. --Hillelfrei• talk •15:20, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Deletion Policy On Surnames
While browsing through random Wikipedia articles I stumbled upon Dorle. I immediately assumed that it didn't meet WP:Notability and WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a dictionary/WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a directory. However I hesitated when I realized the User that created the article was an administrator and had created many such pages. I was unable to find any helpful information on their user page so I went looking and found WP:Deletion policy/names and surnames. I then considered deleting the article because of that, but I saw the policy was historical. I saw there was debate on the matter and don't know if there was consensus. I tried to search the village pump but it's very confusing to me and I don't know how to work it. Is there a consistent set of guidelines? What should I do?
Sidequestion: Is there a larger article that explains the village pump? I haven't been able to find one that explains exactly what it does.
Thank you so much! In the future is there any identifying features I should look for, because I can’t find anything that mentions that. ThatSuperNerd (talk) 15:56, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Sourcing biographical info
Hi there, I've written an article (Draft:Ron Britton), which was rejected first time. The editor said that I needed to source all the biographical information, but looking at lots of other Wikipedia articles, most of them don't have any sources for details like date and place of birth, schooling etc. I don't understand why I need to do this when lots of others don't (as just one example, on a similar subject: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Fonagy). Could you advise me on this? Thanks in advance.Fatbookreader (talk) 15:21, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
I would like to add a youtube link to my father's page of a video that I created for my father. I insert it, but the next day it disappears (someone removes it). Please advise how to add this link to stay permanently. Thank you
Although you did not create Nader Jahanbani, you have been editing it since 2015. As 331dot informed you, external links embedded in the article are against policy, and also, Youtube is not considered a reliable reference source. Additionally, if you are in fact his son, you have what Wikipedia considers a conflict of interest (meaning no more than the fact that you have a personal connection), and that should be declared on your User page. David notMD (talk) 16:01, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Access Reading list and history on desktop
Hi,
I wanted to know how to access the Reading lists and history on the desktop Wikipedia page. I know this seems like a really basic question, but I can't find them. Thank you for your answer : D
Question
What happens if an sysop vandalizes pages or anything bad on Wikipedia? What happens if a bureau/sysop is blocked?Paul Ahyi (talk) 21:56, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello Paul Ahyi. Great question! I'm sure in your country, if a police officer or government official does something bad, there will be an investigation; if found guilty, appropriate action would be taken. So it is here on Wikipedia. I was recently made a sysop. I really hope I won't do anything seriously wrong or mischievous here. But if I did, and was clearly damaging this encyclopaedia, there would be an investigation by a group of very experienced editors (bureaucrats) who form our 'Arbitration Committee'. These bureaucrats are experienced administrators, and are voted into their positions by the community - inlcuding yourself, if you so wished. If it were found that I was acting in the wrong way, I might receive a warning (possibly sent publicly or privately to me), or could have my sysop (admin) rights removed right after their deliberations, or I might possibly be blocked altogether from editing. All these have happened a number of times in the past. In fact, two sysops had their admin rights removed only last month (read more at 'The Signpost'). Just like anyone else, if an editor with enhanced rights (bureaucrat/sysop) is blocked, they will not be able to edit Wikipedia until such time as either their block has expired, or they make an appeal and it is accepted. Does that answer your question? Nick Moyes (talk) 23:56, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
@Paul Ahyi: no - a blocked admin cannot unblock themselves. If another admin tried to unilaterally unblock an admin who had been legitimately blocked by 'ArbCom' or by what is known as 'Office Actions' by the Wikimedia Foundation, they themselves could be the subject of blocking action. If you are really interested in the complexities of such matters, you might like to delve through thousands of kilobytes at WP:FRAMBAN - a recent saga involving a number of admins. BTW: I've just noticed on your userpage that you've asked how you can block another editor if you are not an administrator. The answer is that you cannot block them yourself, though you can report them whilst at the same time providing evidence of what they have done wrong. Two common fora for these complaints are: A) Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism (also known as WP:AIV), and B) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (also known as WP:ANI). Quite often people who are actually causing the trouble are the ones who make the first complaint at WP:ANI. This is not a place to go to lightly, but we soon see through frivolous complaints, and such complainants often find themselves to be the target of administrator sanctions in order to protect the encyclopaedia. I hope none of this happens to you! Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:12, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
@Paul Ahyi: Yes, User:Cabayi is an active administrator see here. Their 'block log' shows they have never been blocked. Why do you ask? I do not see their name in the collapsed version of the WP:FRAMBAN page. And yes, there is indeed a way to be a sysop. It takes some years and often tens of thousands of edits to build up the experience and to be able to demonstrate to the community that one properly understands all of Wikipedia's many policies and guidelines, and that one can be trusted with what we jokingly call 'the mop'. These are the extra commands that administrators have in order to manage, maintain and protect Wikipedia. Having spent some years getting to know these things, one can put oneself through a week-long process called 'Request for Adminship' (RfA). It's not to be taken lightly. There, other editors will look deeply into that person's past editing, asks a wide range of searching questions, and 'vote' on their suitability. If enough editors support the nominee, they are given a few extra tools to help do their work. You can see my own recent RfA here.
Quite often, these experienced editors are able to support and guide new editors; at other times they can start to grow suspicious of a new editor's motives. For example, your very first edit here, just four hours ago, was quite unusual (see diff) which prompts me to ask whether you have previously edited here, or received a block from Cabayi or some other admin which you are trying to evade? It's an honest question -you do not need to answer if you don't wish to, but these things do tend to reveal themselves sooner or later. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:56, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Nick and Hillel, when they reached 30 days on Wikipedia how many edits you got? Give me a link of admins blocked. If Cabayi blocked me I will try to unblock me in the talk page. If so I will make an account called NauruTuvalu100849999, and thinking how to be polite. Paul Ahyi (talk) 01:08, 23 April 2020 (UTC) Pol Uguzhi
@Paul Ahyi: I'm afraid you stand absolutely no chance whatsoever right now, and probably not for at least the next 18 months (even assuming you put the effort in to learn and understand how we operate, as this conversation would inevitably be brought into any RfA). You might then also find yourself being accused, possibly unfairly, of being a WP:TROLL. Sorry. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:20, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Maybe May 22, 2022. And that is if you focus on improving articles, creating articles, raising articles to GA status, appropriately identifying articles for Speedy deletion, Prod of AfD, and so on, and so on, and so on. Your "need" and Wikipedia's process are on two different planets. David notMD (talk) 01:36, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
David, but you read or you have a IQ of 0? It says 30 days and 500 edits, so, to became a sysop you must get more than 30 days, and I do not know how the votes take. Also call me Pol' Ugudzhi. What is AfD and how it works? Why maybe 22-5-22? A minimum is 23-5-2020, and you can be admin and ext. confirmed. I have viewed some wikis in where you can be sysop without logging in. Pol' Ugudzhi. Paul Ahyi (talk) 02:44, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Paul Ahyi, those are the minimum requirements to be eligible for adminship. The next few sentences are:
However, the likelihood of passing without being able to show significant positive contributions to the encyclopedia is low. The community looks for a variety of factors in candidates and discussion can be intense.
Hillel, I am not a troll. I also wanna protect pages and block users, while also deleting offensive and vandalism pages. Pol' Paul Ahyi (talk) 03:18, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
You can revert vandalism now. You can nominate articles for protection now. You can submit complaints about editors because of their behavior (edit warring, attacking other editors) now. You can nominate articles for deletion (AfD) now. None of this requires being an administrator. David notMD (talk) 09:57, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks David. I will nominate the articles for protection: Kiribati & Qatar (ext.con). Paul Ahyi (talk) 16:28, 23 April 2020 (UTC) Give me the link.
Creating an Article that has a Redirect Link
Hi! I wanted to create an article for a member of the band Pentatonix, Scott Hoying. I was trying to create a link from the article for the Pentatonix's page, but when I try to link his name, the link automatically redirects back to the Pentatonix's article. How do I remove this redirect in order to create an independent article? Mayag224 (talk) 08:13, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Mayag224 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I would first note that individual band members do not typically merit standalone articles, unless they have a solo career independent of the band and they meet the Wikipedia definition of a notable musician by themselves. If that's the case here, you can edit the redirect to be an actual article; if you go to Scott Hoying, you will be taken to(as you already know) Pentatonix. If you are using a computer or the desktop version on your phone, you should see small text underneath the title that says "redirect from Scott Hoying". If you click the link in that text, it will take you to the redirect page, and you can edit that page. 331dot (talk) 08:17, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi, Mayag224. While you can certainly do as 331dot has suggested, I would give you the advice that I always give people who are not very experienced at creating new encyclopaedia articles: it is one of the hardest tasks there is in editing Wikipedia (some say the hardest task) and unless you are certain that you can make an acceptable article at your very first try, I advise you to use the articles for creation process to make a draft. When you submit your draft for review, and a reviewer accepts it, they will sort out the issue with the redirect. Please look at your first article if you haven't already done so. --ColinFine (talk) 08:31, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
@Mayag224: I'll note that Scott hoying was previously an article, created by User:Scotthawk (perhaps the subject himself; see User talk:Scotthawk), deleted, re-created as an article, and then redirected to the band's article. If Scott Hoying (the correct capitalization) becomes a standalone article, Scott hoying should be redirected to it instead of Pentatonix, though deleting it would proably be better, as it's an unnecessary variant (and not linked to from any mainspace articles). —[AlanM1 (talk)]—16:36, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
I just wondered if you could possibly add a barnstar for giving lots of contributions to old articles, and paying attention to them too. This could help encourage the editing and improvement of old articles as well as new ones.
Welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia, XUser132. Yes, barnstars can be given for all sorts of reasons. They're just an informal and friendly way of saying 'thank you', and way of showing someone that you've noticed their contributions. Nick Moyes (talk) 12:54, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello, XUser132: I think you are asking for somebody to create a new barnstar - presumably you've looked through all the ones in barnstars and decided none of them are quite what you're looking for. One answer is that you can just go ahead and create one. Alternatively, you could bring it up on WT:barnstars. --ColinFine (talk) 13:15, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia.
I don't understand why the page I've tried to create is being rejected. The rejection seems to say that it is a promotional page as opposed to a "informational page" and I disagree. I have looked at other pages that are similar to the one I'm trying to create. I've used references from the news tab of google and did not use any that came from press releases only articles written by 3rd parties for a reputable source, such as Daily News NewspaperTWAH64 (talk) 16:28, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
@TWAH64: I agree with the rejection of Draft:Dale Okorodudu. The articles do not provide significant coverage about the subject of this article. They're primarily about other topics to which he is connected. The closest is [1], about his book, but it's just from the website of a local radio station. And this Forbes piece is written by a "contributor" -- i.e. it's a junky piece with basically no editorial review. He may qualify for a Wikipedia article later, but he does not today (at least based on the sources presently in the article). Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:03, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Attempt at improving a stub
I was interested in the article about Harris Lebus which apparently was once the largest furniture manufacturer in the world. I noticed that references 2 and 4 (apparently identical but presumably referring to different parts of a source) no longer worked. To compensate I tried to provide a new source (https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/read/34201802/a-history-of-harris-lebus-1840-1947-unpublished-manuscript-by-ls-) via the web template. However, the new reference 1 just leads to the yumpu.com web site. If, however, the URL is put directly into the web it goes to the source.
I would like help in correcting this problem as well as being able to update the history comment that I put in. 10:52, 23 April 2020 (UTC)BFP1 (talk)
Thank you EGL1234. If you click on the URL in this message it goes to the source. If you click on reference 1 in the article, which includes the same URL, it does not. I would like reference 1 to go to the source. Also, is it possible to retrieve references 2 and 4?BFP1 (talk) 12:44, 23 April 2020 (UTC) I should have done this @EGL1234:BFP1 (talk) 13:52, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Thank you very much @Hillelfrei:. That is so useful! I will study the methodology.
@BFP1: A link containing "unpublished-manuscript-by-ls" is a red flag that this is not a reliable source. Yumpu.com sounds like a self-publishing outlet (can't actually see the content without allowing javascript, and I don't have the time/will to investigate whether it's safe or not). —[AlanM1 (talk)]—16:41, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
@AlanM1: I have read the manuscript (which can now be easily read by readers of the article). It is a very detailed account (37 pages) by a member of the Lebus family (who apologises in a Foreward for his lack of literary style) and contains much information not available in other accounts. I have checked some of this extra information, of which I have personal knowledge, and it is correct. I think it is worth making it available to a wider audience.BFP1 (talk) 17:56, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Continuous Article Decline Inquiry
Hello Teahouse, thank you all for you helping hand in the past.
I have drafted an article about an African-American Activist, which has been declined twice, meaning there is something I do not know of, I admit my ignorance and require clarity.
Firstly, on notability the person in question @ Draft: Aaron D. Lewis he are a few things:
He ran for Mayor of Hartford, CT in the elections last year, was a Democrat but change affiliation to Libertarian before the election, and if my memory is perfect, he was a leader of Obama's campaign in Connecticut back in 2008.
He was awarded the Shirley Chisholm Community Leadership Award by the Manchester Community College for his humanitarianism, which included an incident well covered by the oldest continuous newspaper publication in the US - the Hartford Courant (I presume this to be a reliable source, correct me if I am wrong), the incident was about an educational official who was involved in a sexting incident, Lewis contacted the police about the issue, and on the request of the mother, pursued the case for activism, and both the Hartford Courant and Eyewitness News described him as a "Child Advocacy Leader in Hartford" - in their own words.
He organizes the Martin Luther King Jr. Award for Literacy and Learning which is a fundraiser for children of color in Hartford.
He is an inaugural recipient of the 100 Men of Color Award in CT
He has been featured as panel by Hazard Gazette, his picture is featured on there as well.
He is a publisher with books on Amazon and Google among others.
He is involved in many mission outreaches to third world countries and was described by Winnie Mandela as a man with a divine call to blacks on his visit to SA in 2010 (which I didn't bother including in the article since citation was self-published).
I can go on and on, but i do not wish to sound like a.....
I am really wondering what else is required for notability having read the notability policies over and over again, I sternly opine that this article is ready for mainspace, but again I admit I may be wrong.
Anyway can another editor take a look at the article again and offer explanatory comments.TheEpistle (talk) 15:40, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
The draft has been declined twice, each time with reasons, plus comments (below the declines). I agree with the comment that running for mayor does not contribute to notability, nor his changing his political party, and the entire Humanitarianism section should be deleted. The tone is not neutral - if feels more like part of his mayoral campaign. I suggest not submitting again unless he wins the election. David notMD (talk) 16:08, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Thank you David notMD (talk) but I really think that this article Draft: Aaron D. Lewis meets notability guidelines. I also agree that indeed running for mayor does not contribute to notability but other listed factors can and have. I have deleted the Humanitarian section cos this is not a campaign. And any reviewer is free to delete sections further, you may delete sections but i don't think this deserves a decline, since this user is a notability. A honest opinion.
Thank you.
TheEpistle (talk) 16:55, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
TheEpistle: if you believe that he is notable, by Wikipedia's standards, it should be on the basis of some reliable published independent sources with significant discussion of him (and not because of anything in you bulletted list above). Four should be enough. Can you list four such sources? Maproom (talk) 17:22, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Because you asked, I cut everything I believe did not contribute to notability or did not belong in the article. For example, since he lost the 2019 election, no need to provide his explanations for why he was running. David notMD (talk) 17:34, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Thank you @ Maproom (talk), I am having trouble with linking, I linked directly but it's not publishing
Thank you @ David notMD (talk), I really appreciated your edits, since you have helped out, may the article be reviewed again now? I have added the "citation needed", thank you. TheEpistle (talk) 18:10, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
The wrong person, disambiguation and interlanguage links
We have an article on Guillaume Bonnet, a 14th-century bishop. It has quite a few incoming links. A look on .fr shows there are a number of different fr:Guillaume Bonnets including a rugby league player, a cyclist and a sculptor. There are also a tennis player and a badminton player who don't even have French articles. I suspect that many of the people arriving at our article either directly or by following a link are looking for one of the others rather than the bishop. Ideally, we would have an article for any of these that are notable but, in the meantime, would it be good to have a disambiguation page with a link to the bishop and interlanguage links the various .fr pages? More generally, I don't see a lot of interlanguage links but I did notice an editor adding a number to The Last Kingdom (TV series) today. Is there a policy or guideline on where they are appropriate?Cavrdg (talk) 16:07, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi Cavrdg, if we have only one article under that name we have nothing to disambiguate. It's up to the French Wikipedia to disambiguate their articles. We never disambiguate subjects that we don't have articles about. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:43, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
@Cavrdg: I see what you mean. The first thing to do is to decide which of the incoming links are in fact relevant, and then either unlink the others (that is, remove the square brackets from the name) or change the wikilinks to plausible alternative titles (such as Guillaume Bonnet (rugby league)). It's fortunate that fr.wiki has disambiguated the names – it makes it easier to differentiate between them. I suspect that the rugby league player, at least, is definitely notable but I know too little about the topic to know which sources would be appropriate to use, or how to write the article. A sourced stub might be a lot better than nothing, in this case... --bonadeacontributionstalk18:39, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
I jumped the gun and changed the link in the template to point to Guillaume Bonnet (rugby league). I am not sure what the policies/guidelines are about interlanguage links outside the sidebar, but I think it is a better idea to have the redlink when it is an article that could very plausibly be created. Feel free to revert me! There is certainly a case to be made for the usefulness of having a link lead to an actual article, even if it is in a different language, too. --bonadeacontributionstalk18:53, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello everyone! I've just created a draft named Draft:Alessio Cocchi about an Italian photographer, I clicked on the button "Publish changes" but I can't seem to find the "submit for review" button. Can you please help me? Thanks a lot!Cinnich (talk) 20:58, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Tenryuu Thank you very much! Just submitted the article, fingers crossed!
Linking to a specific section
Hey there. How does one link to a specific section within an article rather than linking to the entire article. For instance, when referring to the nightclub "Studio 54" how does one link here: Studio 54 within an article; rather than just Studio 54 which is the building in general. Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 20:51, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
@Maineartists: You could link to it like this. Simply put a hash symbol after the title, followed by the section name (and pray nobody changes the section name later!). The actual source code needed to create the link I just used will look like this: [[Studio_54#Nightclub_era|like this]]. Does that help? Nick Moyes (talk) 20:58, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
A Nigerian musician[1]
a viddoe editor[2] and tiktok creator
frrrrrf 20:48, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, Farouk fy. What is your question, and how can we help you? I can at least advise you that you have created a draft article on your userpage, which is not the right thing to do. Are you this person, trying to promote yourself? If you are trying to create a draft article, please do it at this article-creation page. Or move it all over into your sandbox where I see you ahve already got one version of the text about emask. I'm afraid if you leave it where it is it will be soon deleted by an administrator. That page is for you just to say a little bit about yourself in terms of your interest in editing Wikipedia - or to declare a connection with the person you are writing about. (See Wikipedia:User pages if you want to know what is and is not allowed there. Please let us know what it is you trying to do, and what help you seek. Nothing in the article you have written so far leads me to feel the person is in any notable enough to have an article about them on Wikipedia. Not one of the references you've put in actually mentions this person at all. If independent sources haven't written about this person, then there's no chance for an article about them to remain on Wikipedia - sorry. See WP:NMUSIC for more information on our 'notability criteria' for musicians. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:11, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi @Genius1112002:, welcome to Wikipedia! We strongly discourage from creating pages about yourself, and most articles about people are deleted for not being notable enough. If you really are notable, it is likely someone will have already created an article for you. I suggest reading WP:FAMOUS, that shows having a Wikipedia page about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. If you've read all that and really think you are notable, then I suggest reading WP:MFA and proceeding from there. — Yours, Berrely • Talk∕Contribs13:59, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
If, by the way, you mean a bio for other users here to see, to help collaboration on shared interests, and so forth, that would go on your user page, @Genius1112002:. Just try to open your red-linked username, and you’ll see a page that says “Creating User:Genius1112002”. It’s pretty self-explanatory from there. As mentioned above, making an actual page about yourself is almost always far more trouble than it is worth. Qwirkle (talk) 21:37, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
I’ve seen a lot of people’s comments on talk pages, and most of them have signatures that look really cool. How can I make mine look cool with colors and stuff? -- Total Eclipse 2017 (talk) 21:03, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Total Eclipse 2017, You have to go to Special:Preferences and navigate down to the Signature section. Make sure "Treat the above as wiki markup" is . From there you can use wikitext to customise your signature as you like, like something I did right here. → —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:06, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
I would like to thank all who are trying to help me in creating an Article specially ( Andrzej Kamil Rybicki ) who has been mailing me and guiding me, I am totally new to Wikipedia, I am trying not to make mistakes but one way or the other I am making mistakes, if any one can please guide me after reading my Article and can point out the mistake so that I can fix them or any one who can do that.
I will be great full.Shahkarshah (talk) 22:44, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Shahkarshah. Welcome to the Teahouse. Actually, you are not totally new to Wikipedia are you? That's really rather misleading. As an administrator here, I can see all the deleted pages and edits you made about yourself back in 2016. But today, and assuming 'good faith', there are five glaringly obvious problems right now.
First off, I don't see any references to support anything you have written about yourself at User:Shahkarshah/sandbox. Wikipedia articles must be based upon content already published in reliable, independent sources - not from your personal memory.
Secondly, just two or three images are sufficient on a page. There are far, far, far, far too many pictures there; this is an encyclopaedia, not LinkedIn - see WP:NOTWEBHOST.
Thirdly, there's a terrible use of random capital letters in various nouns within sentences; you might wish to sort that out, though it's a minor point.
Fourthly, and most importantly, you tried to write about yourself back in 2016, and the page was deleted for failing to meet our 'notability criteria' (see WP:NBIO). I often tell people that "less is more", so cut back all the waffle that is irrelevant, and show us clearly why you genuinely meet our notability criteria. Use reliable sources to do that, please. The rest is irrelevant if you can't show that you reach that bar.
And finally, you have a clear and obvious Conflict of Interest in wanting to promote yourself here. You MUST declare that COI - so please read the link I've just given you to show what you must do. In essence, use your userpage to explain who you are and who you are wanting to write about. See WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY for some reasons why this is a bad idea, and one I advise you not to try to do.
Ooh - and a final point: I've just looked again. I now see lots of inline external links, but no reference section. See my guide at WP:EASYREFBEGIN to help you add inline citations properly. And why not remove all the irrelevant wikilinks? There are so many of them, and so poorly linked, that most go to 'disambiguation' pages, demonstrating that the links are not the right ones to use. Again, less is more. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:07, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
How do you create a Page notice?
When I say page notice I mean, like the "welcome to the TeaHouse editing window!" and then more stuff. How can I do this on my talk page? Thanks.
Right now you have a draft of an article on your User page and on your Sandbox. Delete the content from your User page. Next step is for an editor to convert your Sandbox to a draft and put a 'Submit' button on it. When you are ready, submit. Once submitted it will go to Articles for Creation and wait for a reviewer to either approve or Decline. The wait can be days to months. Declines can be worked on and resubmitted. Gook luck to you. David notMD (talk) 01:56, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
What is a recommended gadget / script / etc for checking for copyright violations on any given Wikipedia page?
Hello, Loksmythe and welcome to the Teahouse. I am certainly a bit of a veteran in more than one way, but not an expert on copyright matters by any means! In the past, I and many others relied upon a tool with the unusual name of 'Earwig's CopyVio Tool'. It analysed a Wikipedia page and compared it with other online pages, giving a report which showed where content matched. It stopped functioning a short while back for reasons I won't go into -so I stopped trying to use it. But it looks like it might be coming back into functionality. Try it out at https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/ and do check out the resources at Wikipedia:Copyright violations. The one thing to bear in mind is that matching reports doesn't always prove that someone has copied a webpage into Wikipedia; sometimes the reverse is the case. A lot of our content gets mirrored and taken/used by people who do not follow our licencing conditions and credit Wikipedia as the source. So one has to investigate as carefully as possible. Does this help? Nick Moyes (talk) 00:21, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
How can I add a subtitle (or a subname) to an article?
Hello,
Is it possible to add subtitles on Wikipedia pages? I'd like to include the standardized common names of species as subtitles on their Wikipedia pages.
I know someone who had served in the US Army during WWII from October of 1942 until November of 1944.
He was discharged from Fort Dix in November of 1944. Now, this seems odd to me. Why would someone be discharged from the US Army
with so much of the war yet to be fought. He did not have any injury. In fact, I don't think that he was even in any
frontline duty. Most of his time I believe was within the United States.
I thought that all WWII enlistments or draftees were extended for the duration of the war.
Why would someone get out in November of 1944. 13:03, 23 April 2020 (UTC)66.211.253.226 (talk)
Hello IP editor. I'm afraid we cannot assist you. This forum is here solely to give help and advice to people on how to edit Wikipedia content. This sounds more like a Google search, or maybe a general query to ask the folks over at our REFDESK. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 13:13, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
To the IP, yes, please re-ask at the Reference Desks. I can think of at least one good reason why this might have occurred, but in deference to the protocols I won't give it here. {The poster formrely known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.178.214 (talk) 06:43, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
I have noticed the start of an edit war on the page Kowloon, and I have informed that they may be blocked if they carry on participating, although I'm not sure if I should just revert the edits they all made, and leave it how it was, or if I should just leave it 100%, and the warning is enough.
@EGL1234: - that IP editor is now blocked, with no more edits in the last 8 hours or so, so in that sense the war has stopped. The edits have also been reverted, so in this case there's no further action. The more general question of "should edits in an edit war (which usually have multiple parties at fault) be reverted" is somewhat of a judgement call. If it's a short EW then I prefer to revert to the last stable version, but sometimes these things run for ages or have non-EW edits scattered through it, and so it might be best to start discussion from that point. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:42, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Help, Help, Help!
Hi, this is Shadowblade08 again. I only get onto Wikipedia around once a week, and every time I ask a question, it gets archived before I can read the answers that people typed. Here the deal, is there a way that I can stop people from archiving my questions, or is there a way that I can find them? Thx. Shadowblade08 (talk) 15:27, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Excuse me, but I realize that you are clearly annoyed at me. If you want to just be annoyed at me, lets talk about it on my talk page, because there is no reason for me to do it here, where you are definitely not answering my questions. If you want to answer my question, then great, but your not, at least, yet. Thanks again, Shadowblade08 (talk) 15:48, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Not the only people annoyed with you. You joined three weeks ago, have done ~150 edits, but none to articles. Instead, you pose questions at Teahouse and invite other editors to chat with you on your Talk page. Talk is not for chat, and Teahouse is for asking questions about how to edit articles. Get with the program. David notMD (talk) 16:21, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
DavidnotMD, I would like to point out that I was only editing what I knew. I knew that there was info like that in the talk page, but people want to read the article not the talk page.
Shadowblade08, the location of your thread in the archives is linked in the message in your talk page informing you of the archival. Look for a blue "here" to click.
With that out of the way, what's with your reply to Iridescent that you modified later on, and your reply to the thread immediately below? Are you trying to find out how far you can take the trolling before the nice people at Wikipedia block you? I note that David notMD tried to advise you at your talk already; it's becoming quite clear you are not here to improve the encyclopedia. I would be very careful about your next few edits. This is not a place to hang out and troll around. Usedtobecool☎️16:35, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
By the nice people I think you mean all the people that are annoyed at me, like you and DavidnotMD, and lots of other people. Whats the deal, cant we just RIP?
I am very aware of that, however at my age, there is very little that I actually can type about, because most of the things on Wikipedia I have know idea of how to talk about. I am sorry that you are disappointed in my edits, but I am only typing what I know about. (which isn't much)
If y'all would stop arguing for a little bit, and pay attention, cause I have another question. Going back to the original question, I know how to find it. (thanks to the page that I read, not you guys) Now my question is, is there anyway to stop an comment or article, (or whatever else you want to call it) from getting achieved?
Some people who have automatic archiving of their user talk pages add some kind of code to stop certain posts from being archived, which means that there are ways, but Teahouse posts don't need that. (If you were to add any such code to your posts, the code would be removed, because Teahouse posts do have to be archived when there hasn't been any discussion for a while – the page would grow completely unmanageable otherwise.) As long as discussion in a section is actively going on, that section will not be archived. --bonadeacontributionstalk14:48, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Free access tag making refs not recognized as cite:news by Visual Editor
Adding free access tags is required of refs from newspapers.com and newspaperarchive.com. After doing so, these refs are no longer recognized as news citations when editing them in Visual Editor. For example, try editing both refs in Visual Editor, the second having the free access tag included.[1][2] This problem has not existed in the past and it certainly does not encourage citing or using proper style. Is Wikipedia aware of the glitch and is a real solution available? Thanks — 05:26, 24 April 2020 (UTC)βox73 (৳alk)
A user had posted a link about WP:BLP policy on my talk page. I must say it was quite an engaging read. Very helpful indeed. I was wondering if these policies only apply to article or also on the article talk ? I am asking because there is a User:Imlipop who is rambling obnoxious things about living persons. What should I do in such case ? Can an admin talk some sense into him. And delete his comments if it is found in conflict of the Wikipedia policy.Pratap Pandit (talk) 11:20, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
@Pratap Pandit and Imlipop:WP:BLP applies everywhere on the English Wiipedia, including talk pages. That's an emotional topic, to be sure: everyone should perhaps take a step back for a while. Without accusing you, Pratap of anything in particular, but as an example of how to inflame rather than descale tensions, accusations that other editors are threatening and ganging up on me are not in the best taste on an article about a lynching? But, likewise, Imlipop, suggestions that other editors are effectively government stooges are equally unhelpful. ——SN5412912:17, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Serial Number 54129, I believe you wanted to type Wikipedia and ended up saying Wiipedia. (Wii's are fun). If it applies to article talk page then please delete both the comments. They are disgusting and outright defamatory. Wikipedia page come up in google search so The admins must quickly delete such obnoxious violations of wikipedia policy. Please help to remove them. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 13:08, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
"2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United Kingdom" - Page is out of control
Giving notice to people who perhaps have more experience of concise, condensed page writing. There doesn't seem to be a system for people taking responsibility (as opposed to ownership) of any page. The page mentioned above is out of control. Ironically it has reached epidemic proportions of content, and much of it unnecessary for adding to one's knowledge of the outbreak. Some major issues:
Analysis
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
- The pre-amble / intro is five paragraphs long, four of them long.
- The shortcuts menu is two scrolling pages, and I use a taller monitor than most.
- There is far too much content regarding responses from sectors that frankly can be put in its own article away from this page.
- The stats page is HUGE. The length is unmanageable, and the width is becoming equally so, since the number totals are forcing column widths wider. I did suggest to one editor about a month ago to combine all the England regions in to one nation, and the table would look a lot less messy.
- There IS an England page, but as per the usual mentality of some people, it is almost empty, and the UK page is getting all England's data. As such, the UK page is bigger than it needs to be because of editor laziness or because editors are trying to promote inequality.
Please look into this. I would recommend a short total of the four nations' statistics, and links to each, with day by day across each page, if people want to do that. If every region of the UK is to be included, then I suggest they add the regions of Scotland, Wales, and the six counties of Northern Ireland.
It gets very, very boring, having to scroll 3-4 pages to get to the stats link in the menu, then scrolling 3-4 pages in the stats to get to the totals, and having to scroll up again to get to the column headers. Then having to scroll left and right too. The simple, simple answer (said twice to highlight, is it very simple) is to have condensed columns to prevent horizontal scrolling, and have scrolling table headers. If wiki isn't capable of this, then it's not the place to have the data presented !!
Either data is complete, and able to be read, or it is pointless. A link to a spreadsheet would be more useful, and those accessing the data wouldn't be forced to deal with the messy text presentation of Wikipedia.
Too much data, not enough info. People get overloaded and give up. Please fix this. I would, but will end up in a turf war with one or more wiki editors, who probably have more experience of the editing systems, the network of people, and the politics of wikipedia. Life is too damn short for that.
P.S. I'm not criticising any single editor or wikipedia in general. Just this page. Sort it please. It's out of control. Some examples:
2 Government response
2.1 Overview
2.1.1 Progression between phases
2.1.2 Classification of the disease
2.1.3 Communications
2.2 Regulations and legislation
2.3 Criticism of the Government's response
7 Response in other sectors
7.1 Arts and entertainment
7.1.1 Music
7.1.2 Visual arts
7.1.3 Theatre and cinema
7.1.4 Television and radio
Someone thinks that 'arts response' is as note worthy as the Government here. Do we seriously need to separate arts into sectors in the main menu? There's even women's events and LGBT pride mentions further down. What has that to do with a viral outbreak? Nothing.
I suggest a simple paragraph making mention of many responses, and a link to "Responses from various sectors".
I did complain to one editor of this page a month ago. The complaint(s) were brushed off and ignored, despite the points made. The editors opinion wins...
The proper place for this sort of statement is on the article talk page. If there are changes that you want to see, you need to be the one to work to see them implemented. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and all editors interested in a topic must work together on arriving at a consensus. You are welcome to make your suggestions as a formal edit request which will be seen by other editors(ones who might not necessarily be following that article). 331dot (talk) 12:52, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
(ec) Hello IP editor! I have hatted your analysis to make the post more accessible; of course, all of it is just a click away. About your concerns, I fear I have only a disappointing answer; it follows:
Issues with 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United Kingdom should be discussed at Talk:2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United Kingdom. That is where the editors most likely to be interested in making the article better are most likely to be watching for suggestions. Wikipedia has far too many articles, and far too few editors. So, unless it's an urgent issue with very immediate real-life concerns, the best way to see an article fixed is to fix it yourself. People are very aware of the article explosion related to COVID-19 and the inevitable dip in quality it can only be expected to bring (see, for example, User_talk:Iridescent#origin of covid); most responsible users are busy trying to prevent fake news and fake medicine from risking our readers' lives.
Hi, I have received this following notice. I am not sure what is this and what I am suppose to do? Any help would be appreciated. Thanks Earthianyogi (talk) 11:09, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
"Disambiguation link notification for April 22
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
Hello, Earthianyogi. It's warning you that some of the wikilinks you added to Blended threat were to pages that are only disambiguation pages, and it would almost certainly be better to replace them with (probably piped) links to the specific topic that is relevant here: specifically Operations and Environment. There's nothing you have to do - that's why it's only a warning - but if you are going to add links to help the reader, it helps them more to link to the specific article. In my opinion, while some of the links you added were good ones, eg "Cyber-attack" I think that linking to life, information, operations, environment and property are really examples of WP:overlinking. --ColinFine (talk) 12:06, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Earthianyogi, In your preferences, go to Gadgets and in the Appearance section, enable "Display links to disambiguation pages in orange"; and every time you add a wikilink, check back to see whether it is blue or orange. Orange links need to be replaced by the appropriate blue ones, usually from among the ones listed in the page pointed to by that orange link. Best, Usedtobecool☎️11:15, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Usedtobecool, fantastic. That's a cool trick. Thank you :)
I am having a hard time trying to find articles that I can edit...
Is one of you out there able to post on my talk page some articles for me to see if I can edit? Thanks, cause I don't want to spend the time looking for articles, when I could be editing them. Thanks!Shadowblade08 (talk) 00:32, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
@Shadowblade08: Please tell us what subjects you are interested in, or the type of editing you fancy doing. We are not mind readers. We have 6 million articles here; help us to help you! Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:52, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, (I'm talking to Nick Moyes) um, something I like writing about is biking, and the musical instruments piano, and ukulele. (is that not broad enough?) and I like doing tweaking more than writing concrete bases for articles. I hope that helps, but if it doesn't, I can give you more info. Cheerio,
@Shadowblade08: For general ideas for contributing, please visit Wikipedia:Community portal. But for specific topics, your best bet is to browse through articles listed in 'Categories' that you are interested in. You will encounter some articles with obvious notices at the top of their pages - these need action! So, just a few suggestions,: try Category:Ukuleles; Category:Piano; Category:Musical instruments. You can find article categories right at the very bottom of any article page. But we also have specific 'WikiProjects' which are groups of editors interested in improving certain themed topics, like Wikipedia:WikiProject Musical Instruments. Most, but not all such projects, maintain table of articles, tabulating them by quality and importance. (example). I would go to the row of really short 'stub' articles, then click the number shown and view the articles now listed. Some my well be in need of urgent help. Hope this helps a bit, Nick Moyes (talk) 01:20, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
OK, Nick Moyes, thanks so much, your really helpful. I can't wait to check those out, and dig in!
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Alexander Z. Nosler (born 1972) is an American business entrepreneur, mechanical engineer, and founder of Kitsbow[1] mountain biking apparel company. He is also known for being CEO of Coffee Equipment Company and inventing the "Clover" coffee machine.[2][3]
Hello Josephi krakowski aka "lenny", please do not copy whole articles/drafts into other pages. Instead, link the page by putting the pages title between a pair of nested large brackets like this: [[Draft:Zander Nosler]]. I have done additional formatting of your post, hope you do not mind.
Regarding the draft, I don't think the subject meets the notability criteria for biographies. No amount of editing can compensate for the lack of notability. Sorry. If you think the subject is notable, it rests upon you to convince others by providing significant coverage from independent reliable sources. If you can provide at least three such sources, editors may reconsider (see WP:THREE). Usedtobecool☎️14:53, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
It's your responsibility to find quality references and incorporate those into the draft. Right now, #1 is his bike company website, #2 is list of patents and patent applications, and #3 is a brief description of the fancy coffee maker, with just a name-only mention of the inventors. Unless there are independently written articles that have content AT LENGTH about Nosler, no chance that this can become an article. David notMD (talk) 14:57, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
If this band meets the Wikipedia definition of a notable band, as shown with significant coverage in published, independent reliable sources, you are welcome to use Articles for Creation to create and submit a draft for review- though be advised successfully writing a new article is the absolute hardest task to perform here. 331dot (talk) 15:50, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
AFD nominee
Hallo,
I tried to nominate to AFD the bio Steve Cruz (actor). It is the first time I nominate a page and think I did something wrong. could you help me and tell me what I did wrong? thank you --11:45, 24 April 2020 (UTC)AlejandroLeloirRey (talk)
@Menon1717: unfortunately, this subject does not appear to qualify for an article on Wikipedia. See WP:N. If after reading that linked page, you still believe that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia page, please reply with the reason why, providing the very best available sources that discuss that topic. Thanks, Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:13, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
This seems perfectly fine to have a Wikipedia Article on, it is a Hindu Tradition and although it doesn't seem to very well it does seem to be especially well known ritual, simply because something is obscure doesn't disqualify something for being an article. Lets say there is some obscure animal found in the wild which few people know about, for the sake of argument let's say only 10 people know about this obscure species? Should that animal be denied an Article because of Obscurity? This tradition appears to be thousands of Years old and one of Millions of Hindu traditions as well as Millions of Hindu gods. Obviously there is a need for articles to have a certain level of notoriety to them, my short lived Folk Punk band obviously does not hold any spot on Wikipedia and also shouldn't, however there are so many obscure species and wild-life and scientific techniques which are far less known then mahapurushartha yagam yet they still are important, as an example: Eubranchus cucullus a Type of Sea Slug has far less results then mahapurushartha yagam when accounting for Hindi and English Results, however are you to argue that this entire not just species of this Sea Slug should be denied representation because obscurity? Moreover should a Cultural practice that is thousands years old be denied simply because it not well known? The answer is obvious, of course not because both although obscure are undeniably important, even if Humans don't know it Eubranchus cucullus plays a vital role in its Eco-system and perhaps people will see this fairly common Sea Slug in the Caribbean and wonder what it is, maybe someone visiting India will see this practice in a obscure village, and wonder what it is. The point of there not being an Article on my horrible Folk Punk band called See onto, is that nobody will ever have a need to look at it, nobody will ever need to think about it, unless I am in a direct conversation with someone and I bring it up no one will ever know about it, it has no *importance* on anything, Obscure practices, places, religions, traditions, are all extremely important. Vallee01 (talk) 06:12, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
One of Wikipedia's rules is no original research. Articles exist because content has been written AND PUBLISHED first. Wikipedia only contains what is verifiable by referencing to reliable sources. Your draft Draft:Maha purushartha Yagam is too short and has no references. David notMD (talk) 11:28, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Vallee01, if there's independent reliable sources on the subject, sure, that's something that we can work on. But if there isn't, it's not going to be suitable for publication on here until those exist. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:40, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
A request for help in publishing my Wikipedia page.
How do I use the "use British English template?" I've been trying to use this template "{{Use British English|date=April 2020}}" And this "{{Use British English}}" on a talk page but for some reason they both don't work. Could you give me insight on what I'm doing wrong? (Check source editor to see) LucasA04 (talk) 17:44, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
@LucasA04: Converted to Tl tags so that we can see them. Two things:
"Use British English" is used on articles to give them the hidden category "Articles that use British English". It doesn't visually produce anything on the article. I find that it helps to remind editors that the article should use British English though.
Hi, Is it ok to delete some content from my talk page? One of my articles was rejected the first time, and a suggestion was made to merge the content with another article later. I have already merged the content. Can I now delete these notices on my talk page? ThxEarthianyogi (talk) 19:41, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
But, archiving is preferred. People you later encounter might suspect you are averse to criticism and wanted to hide posts you did not like by deleting them; archiving at least prevents that. Posts that have absolutely no productive reason to be archived, such as vandalisms, or mistaken warnings, etc. can be deleted. Usedtobecool☎️20:07, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Uploading old images of open source newspaper and city directory ads
I. am having difficulty uploading any photo I have from old stationary to excerpts from historical newspapers and city directories. All of the items are available from the Library of Congress or from my own collection, but the format and questions asked when when uploading always results in the image being denied. I have looked at a number of forums and helpful hints and although I can upload in the (can't remember the wikipedia name for it) space and receive a URL, I can't seem to access the photo later. Very frustrating.Mofongo1234 (talk) 20:46, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Mofongo1234, How historical? Wikipedia and WikiCommons (who host most of our photos) may only host material that is available under a free license or is in the public domain. In the US, only works published prior to 1925 are in the public domain. If the paper you were adding was from after 1925, it was probably deleted as a copyright violation. Since we're a free and open source platform whose material is reusable by anyone with attribution, so must be the work we host. CaptainEekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓21:22, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Everything I am trying to add are from US newspapers before 1925. I've added them to the commons but cannot find them after uploading and could only use when I created them and copied the link before exiting the commons. Especially hard adding photos directly from the edit source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mofongo1234 (talk • contribs) 21:28, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Mofongo1234, and welcome to the Teahouse. You seem to have succeeded in uploading two public-domain images to Wikimedia Commons: File:Image 4-23-20 at 7.49 PM.jpg and File:1863 Walter Karmann CoacH Maker Ad.png. Note that to use these in a Wikipedia article, you need to give the filename precisely - extension, puncutation, odd capitalization, everything. (In the links to them above, the initial colon stops the software from displaying the image itself on this page). --ColinFine (talk) 21:30, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
I get the following error when trying to upload from the commons:
"You do not have permission to upload this file, for the following reason: The action you have requested is limited to users in one of the groups: Autoconfirmed users, Administrators, Confirmed users." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mofongo1234 (talk • contribs) 22:04, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Mofongo1234. You shouldn't ever need to upload from Commons. You have successfully uploaded at least the two files I mentioned to Commons, and the whole point of Commons is that all Wikimedia projects (and in particular, all the different-language Wikipedias) can use files from Commons directly, just by Wikilinking the file with "File:" on the front. --ColinFine (talk) 22:21, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Barnstar
Howdy, you'ens.
I have been given a barnstar, and am curious on how am I supposed to display it. Is it possible for someone to create a page that I could display them? Thanks.Shadowblade08 (talk) 21:53, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
@Shadowblade08: whilst you could make a whilenew page for them yourself (e.g. at: User:Shadowblade08/barnstars), you could simply create a normal or even a collapsed section on your Userpage for them. I use quite a few collapsed sections on mine for various purposes.Take a look. Oh, and well done for getting your first barnstar, too! Nick Moyes (talk) 22:41, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Wiki user mmm Hi, welcome to the TEAHOUSE. If you have already found an image on Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons you can use
[[File:filenamehere.jpg|thumb|caption here.]]. The filename will be the name of the image. If you want to upload an image see Wikipedia:Uploading images
MoS
I'm trying to figure out what would be the preferred spelling in British English of "1 Field Engineer Squadron." Would you put "st" after "1" or no? LucasA04 (talk) 21:50, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
The IP USER 95.146.118.29 has had four warnings against vandalism, although has vandalised once more on Carl Cox. As I am not an admin, I cannot block him, although can someone please do so to prevent him/her vandalising in future.EGL1234 (talk) 03:43, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Advice on removing clean-up tag and publishing draft article previously marked as promotional
Greetings, I have been hired for clean-up efforts in regard to Draft:Daniel_O._Griffin. My job is to see it through that this article has been properly edited as per WP:NPOV. Could you please advise what should be done next for the tag to be removed and the draft considered for publication into the mainspace? Thank you in advance.Charmanderblue (talk) 17:49, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Charmanderblue. At present I do not see a single source in that draft that is both independent of Griffin (and the organisations he is part of) and contains substantial text about him. Basically, WIkipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article has said or published, or even, much what they have done: it is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject have chosen to publish (in reliable places) about the subject and what they have said, published, and done. Please see CSMN --ColinFine (talk) 18:03, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi, ColinFine, thank you for the swift response. I feel a bit baffled as I swear I've come across many articles in the mainspace with little or no references that is independent of persons/entities connected to the subject of the article. Would I be correct to understand that (reliable) media citations such as from CNN, Fox News and Times of said person would not qualify as appropriate sources to establish notability? Because I can swear I've come across many instances of articles of living scientists that have been published in this manner. Also, thank you for taking the time for helping me out on this! Charmanderblue (talk) 18:17, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Charmanderblue. In the course of Wikipedia's existence, its editorial standards have constantly evolved. During its period of very rapid growth, standards were relaxed. Currently, standards are much tighter. Unfortunately, many older articles from the period of rapid growth still remain, due to the large number (over six million) of articles on Wikipedia and the huge task of vetting all of them against current standards. For more insight into this situation, see: Other stuff exists.--Quisqualis (talk) 19:21, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Quisqualis, thanks for chiming in and sharing the resources to that end, it's very insightful. Nonetheless, I think the article in question deserves more merit, considering the emerging notability of the person in media and his demonstrable contributions to scientific work. Could you advice how a formal discussion moving the page to mainspace is to be launched? I am not sure what the proper route is for articles that have been deleted and tagged with the clean-up tag. Any input is highly appreciated! Charmanderblue (talk) 19:34, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Charmanderblue. It's apparent that I am thinking like an encyclopedia editor and you are thinking like a public relations person. The bottom line is that the reliable, published, in-depth sources are currently mandatory. When you refer to "the emerging notability of the person in media", you are forecasting the future notability of the subject, and should therefore take a look at WP:TOOSOON. Wikkpedia does not publish articles pre-emptively.--Quisqualis (talk) 19:46, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello again, Quisqualis. I will heed your advice. Last question: Is it possible to remove the current paid promotional tag on the article? I have been hired particularly for the purpose of redoing and cleaning up the article, which I have done to the best of my ability. I would prefer that tag not hover over the article until the draft is ready for publication. Please advise! Charmanderblue (talk) 19:49, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Charmanderblue. The tag will have to remain, per the rules on paid editing. User preference is not a consideration, and the tag should not influence the review outcome, given that the issue there is sourcing.--Quisqualis (talk) 20:07, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Quisqualis, since Charmanderblue has disclosed both on here and on their user page their affiliation, can we change the {{UPE}} to another template to show that they have abided by Wikipedia's Terms of Service? If there isn't one I propose one be made. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:20, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, IP editor. This place is for new editors to ask questions about navigating and using Wikipedia, not about if a subject is part of a pyramid scheme or not. Perhaps you might want to try the Spanish Wikipedia project? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:07, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
I need help. Some people are threatening me that I will be blocked and deleting my work. First they said I did not add reference. Even though I gave all reference. Now they are removing line saying, this is duplicate. They are removing the most important information from the article abstract. The abstract needs this. I have followed the rules and not done anything wrong. Please see this and ask them to stop blocking me.Pratap Pandit (talk) 15:28, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
@Pratap Pandit: Per the note on your talk page, the block warning is due to edit warring. Stop making changes to the article and discuss on the article's talk page to get consensus on the changes. RudolfRed (talk) 15:38, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Pratap Pandit, Howdy hello, and welcome to the Teahouse! For starters, you are edit warring, wherein you repeat the same edit. That is not helpful, and can get you blocked. The way to solve this problem is to discuss it on the talk page (Talk:2020 Palghar mob lynching). Its possible this is a simple misunderstanding, please discuss it with the other editors. If that fails, there are multiple forms of dispute resolution available. But please don't edit war, that is disruptive. CaptainEekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓15:41, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
I think these users are BJP agents and that is why they are removing important facts from the article to spread rumours. They must be blocked.
@Pratap Pandit: It looks like you may be engaged in a content dispute. If your change gets reverted, you can use the talk pages of articles. And no, you are not going to be blocked unless if you cause disruption. Read our block policy for more details. You can do almost anything here with common sense. Aasim15:58, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Aasim as CaptianEek asked I raised the issue on Talk:2020 Palghar mob lynching but no one is replying. Instead now they have asked administrator with false case of Edit warring.
I have not violated the 3 revert rule that this user explained on my wall. So with only 2 edits, how can they file the false report ? is this allowed ? Pratap Pandit (talk)
@Pratap Pandit: I am guessing it's been resolved to your satisfaction; sometimes erroneous reports are made, administrators review them, so nothing bad results. Sometimes, admins can make mistakes too; if that happens, there are processes to appeal, and discuss more broadly among Wikipedia community. Do note, however, that 3RR rule is not a license to revert 3 times. Wikipedia functions on common sense, and WP:GAMING can backfire spectacularly. Even in minor matters like 3RR, admins can block an editor for edit-warring even if the 3RR line has not been crossed. On the other hand, according to that report, you had not made any reverts after receiving a warning at your talk page; that reflects very highly on you. Regards! Usedtobecool☎️11:31, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Usedtobecool After reading WP:GAMING, it seems I was being lured to step into the trap for blocking. Yes, I am satisfied with the verdict given by the administrator RegentsPark on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Pratap_Pandit_reported_by_User:GreaterPonce665_(Result:_No_violation_). Yes, I have read the full page on Edit warring, and I plan to strictly follow these rules. I was surprised by the hostile manner I was treated by them. The threat of getting blocked had got me stressed and I immediately clicked the Help link on left margin that brought me here. This thread on teahouse was my last ditch effort to seek help, had I received a similar response here I would have abandoned Wikipedia. I am glad that I asked help and the users were so welcoming. RudolfRed, CaptainEek, and Aasim thankfully explained the matter well. Aasim and MrClog also discussed the issue I had raised with the other editors after which they relented and allowed my edit for which they were edit warring. I have read the welcome post by Aasim those were helpful in explaining basic things. I see that other user who was posting on my talk page is now blocked. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Brihaspati#BlockedPratap Pandit (talk) 11:59, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Pratap Pandit, that editor was blocked for a completely unrelated reason.
India-Pakistan and Hindu-Muslim issues are among the riskiest and most unpleasant areas of editing in Wikipedia; even experienced editors could lose perspective over there; many avoid those areas like the plague. Naturally, most new editors from India/Pakistan are likely to start off on these very minefields and end up quickly blocked wrongly or rightly; being right about an issue isn't enough, you have to know the right way to go about convincing others too. There is something called Discretionary sanctions authorised for India-related editing where administrators have more personal discretion to enforce the rules more strictly, which you should expect to receive a notice about soon. Be especially careful when editing India-Pakistan and Hindu-Muslim articles; you could get into trouble in Wikipedia or worse, in real life. So, be careful not to divulge any information about yourself that others could use to track down your real-world identity, if you intend to continue to edit these areas. Regards! Usedtobecool☎️12:21, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Serial Number, about your reply below, I admit I had lost my nerves, but you need to understand the very stressful situation I was pushed into, please see this thread to understand. Usedtobecool how can you be so sure that it was a completely unrelated reason ? The Wikipedia article says "Swarajya (magazine) is an Indian monthly print magazine and online news-portal. The publication subscribes to right-wing liberalism and critics note it to be a pro-Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) publication". If you look at the line, which these 3 users were edit warring to remove, it perfectly fits this description. I am following the policies so I hope I will not get anymore ominous notice. Ok, I will be careful in the topic. Pratap Pandit (talk) 12:50, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Pratap Pandit, A discretionary sanction is only intended to be informative; if indeed you receive one, please do not take it as implying anything wrong with your editing so far. Best, Usedtobecool☎️13:18, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Usedtobecool, the nomenclature used is really strange, why would someone call it "sanction" if it is intended to be informative ? Oxford dictionary defines Sanction as "a threatened penalty for disobeying a law or rule". Looks like Wikipedia chooses its names to strike fear into the users. Someone should think of a better name for it. The information nevertheless is useful, it will save me another heart attack. Many thanks. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 13:40, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Pratap Pandit, hah! that was just my mind skipping over a word; I meant to say discretionary sanctions notice. (The sanction itself is indeed very sanctiony, and very indicative of wrongful conduct.) And, turns out, the correct terminology is even milder—it's apparently an "Alert". The template for the alert is at {{Alert}} if you're interested. Usedtobecool☎️13:55, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Phew Usedtobecool, "alert" is indeed lot less terrifying than the former. The links you gave are very helpful. Will follow what is said there. I would appreciate if you could help me to clarify one more thing. I have already read Good Faith and Civility policies. This blocked user seems to have taken a ginormous offence about my question. On his talk page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Brihaspati#Blocked, he claimed, "I called him B worker" This is absolutely false. All I did was ask him that question as I had this suspicion. A query is not the same as declaration. Is even asking such a question, considered a sanction-able offence here or was that user over reacting ? Pratap Pandit (talk) 14:22, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Pratap Pandit, it's not sanctionable on its own, no. The editor was justifiably offended; I am not going to investigate the extent of their reaction and whether it goes into the "over-" territory. Context matters. If I were asking someone if they are an Ayurvedic doctor in real life because of their demonstrated expertise in the area, it would be a compliment; if I asked the same question to imply that they were pushing pseudoscience, it would be an attack, specifically, an ad-hominem attack. Neutrality is one of the three core policies of Wikipedia; so that which might as well be worded "Your edits are so biased; they could only be coming from someone brainwashed or paid by the BJP" would be offensive to any editor, especially so an editor who has possibly received all kinds of insults and accusations, having been active in one of the most unpleasant areas of the project. Tell you what, focus on content, not the editor (unless you have sufficient evidence of the editor's wrongdoing to push for some kind of sanction; even then, best focus on the actions, not motivations/affiliations) and there's never any reason to worry. While we are at it, there are some questions that you ought not ask even of friends (see WP:OUTING). Best, Usedtobecool☎️15:33, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Brihaspati has been indeffed for undisclosed paid editing wrt Swarajya, so I wouldn't worry about them taking offence, though your general remarks are well taken, Usedtobecool. Bishonen | tålk15:51, 24 April 2020 (UTC).
Indeed, Usedtobecool I am glad that you noticed. I decided not to throw a tantrum over it but it did raise a lot of questions in my mind. Which is why I had to ask, but I never got a response, only tantrums. Your advice is very useful, I agree that it is better to be careful on the safer side. Pratap Pandit (talk) 06:21, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Requesting edit on Draft:Mochii
Hello All,
This has been a really helpful resource for me on my journey to publishing a Wikipedia page and I was wondering if I could ask for a bit more help. Last time I was here I was requesting an edit on the Voxa page, and Ian.thomson and ColinFine were incredibly helpful in telling me what I was doing wrong and steps I could take moving forward. They suggested that I write a page on Voxa's main product, the Mochii, which I have done here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Mochii. I have taken their advice on both source collection and tone (I did my best to write it as if I was one of their industry competitors sticking to facts that I found from reputable sources). I was hoping either of those two or someone else would be so kind as to look over the Draft:Mochii page and let me know if I'm headed in the right direction and what I can do to improve it to be Wikipedia level content. Thankful for all the help, Sachin Zachariah (talk) 23:53, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Just reading through the article, I suspect that the article's sources are pretty shallow in their coverage. This is because I came away with more questions than answers. The emphasis on use in space causes me to wonder what other situations the Mochii might good for, and who would use it. Was it modified for use on Earth (that would reduce costs)? As a casual reader, the specs are kind of over-kill in the absence of any mention of the history of small EMs and the market's development. Was NASA involved in the product's design from the start? Is the Mochii a substitute for an EM in certain situations other than space? Did the Mochii have a predecessor? Context is vital.--Quisqualis (talk) 00:33, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Thank you so much for the quick review and comments Quisqualis, extremely helpful. I was originally planning on adding an Applications subpage where I use sources that talk specifically about the different applications of the Mochii and how it differentiates itself and creates a new niche in the market. I was originally wary of doing this because I thought it could sound too promotional, but I guess if I keep the tone correct it seems that this would be a super helpful part of the article. Do you recommend cutting all of the specs or comparing them to how regular electron microscopes function. If not, where would you suggest doing most of the differentiating between the Mochii and its competitors, and how do you recommend doing that without sounding promotional as if I were working for the company. I plan on adding more context about the competitors and how it's different. Thank you! Sachin Zachariah (talk) 05:44, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Sachin Zachariah, the specs are pretty dry reading for a general reader; I believe you could leave them out. As far as differentiating the Mochii, you might state what the company intended to achieve when they entered that market, rather than enumerating differences with other products.--Quisqualis (talk) 06:39, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
@Mofongo1234: If you are going to add the location inline with the text, you would normally add a {{Coord}} transclusion inside parentheses, like the following (look at it in source editor to see the actual code used):
If you have more than one of these in an article, one of them should use |display=inline,title (the others should just use |display=inline). —[AlanM1 (talk)]—07:38, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
What is the Process for Creating a Page that Exists in a Foreign Langauge?
1987atomheartbrother, welcome to the Teahouse. There is a good deal of information at WP:TRANS about your query. In short, you can begin a short article about the person in English, as described at WP:YFA, then, assuming you want to do it yourself, you can start translating. It's best not to use sites like Google Translate; make sure you also include citations. If you do choose to do this, make sure you provide an appropriate edit summary for your additions e.g. "Content in this edit is translated from the existing Italian Wikipedia article at it:Gustavo Simoni; see its history for attribution." If you don't want to do it yourself, place Template:Expand Italian on the page, and someone else will translate it for you. Hopefully that makes sense. Thatoneweirdwikier | Say hi08:15, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Covid-19 Survival phone numbers for those without internet, to stay inside.
Is Wikipedia tenable to use for our Wiki for this project. http://emailtomail.org
33,000+ USA (eventually world wide) records, one per Zip/Postal Code, with one printed
mailing page. example: https://emailtomail.org/Downloads/Pre%20Survival%20List.txt
Each page should have about 15 essential sources, mostly food. With a medical, laundry,
smartphone acquisition, GOV hot lines, essentials, etc. PHONE numbers. Not Links, as
33 Million Americans (many more Worldwide) do not have internet, PC, smartphone, or
even phone books! (enough to re-infect the world, many times over) In fact, many do
not have 911 or 311 also.
Can it be controlled at all, assuring as much accuracy as possible, guarding against
foul play, unique records(one record per zip code), crowd vetted, etc.
Can there be the same system for each country. There are many data to Postal Mail
services in the world, (for one's family) and we should be able to get GOV, donors
to pay for Postal organizations to deliver one to each mailbox in the world ASAP.
Most web pages have <br> and other formatting, which cause extra lines to be pasted
into mailing WYSIWYG forms. The example link above is to a txt file which does work
without the extra lines. Can a <pre> and or <code> be implemented to solve this?
With this pandemic, each life we save, may be our own. Soon, the recovered should
serve the quarantined. Only then, do we have a chance to outlast this virus.
We may not have the will to do this now, but when this comes back in the Fall, as
Dr. Anthony Fauci insists it will, maybe we will.
This infrastructure will serve the world for this and future disasters, for rapid
deployment of LOCAL hard copy public health information. "All Politics is Local"
Hello, Emailtomailorg. This might be a useful suggestion, but it is absolutely nothing to do with what Wikipedia is, which is an encyclopaedia. There are plenty of other places on the web that might be more suitable. Also, please note that, however laudable your proposal may be, you are attempting to promote it, and promotion of any kind (commercial or non-commercial) is forbidden on Wikipedia. And finally, I'm afraid, User names that suggest that they account is being used on behalf of an organisation are not permitted: if you intend to carry on editing Wikipedia (which you would be most welcome to do, if you're not being promotional) I suggest you abandon that account and create a new one. --ColinFine (talk) 08:53, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
how do I insert an image?
I am confused how to insert an image as I have tried pdfs and goooogle search results. it is very confusing for me and I need helpFirestar9990 (talk) 05:25, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
You cannot insert images hosted elsewhere, that includes files hosted on your own computer. In the latter case, you may upload it via Special:Upload. However, we need to adhere to certain rules there. WP:IMAGE should have more on this. Once you have uploaded the image, you can insert it. If you uploaded it as "File:Example.jpg" the following code will generate a nice thumbnail on the right side as it is used widely (Check the source in edit mode) Just an example. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 05:57, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
"Hello, I'm CLCStudent. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks. CLCStudent (talk) 23:50, 21 April 2020 (UTC)"
How should I best respond to this strange message? When has the criterion for Wikipedia ever been about construction rather than accuracy? Is CLCStudent operating outwith the terms and conditions of Wikipedia? Yourmrbumbles (talk) 10:47, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Yourmrbumbles Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I think the edit was just an error on CLCStudent's part, it might have seemed to a quick observer to surreptitiously slip a misspelling into the article. 331dot (talk) 10:52, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Nosebagbear: "Revert" is commonly used in Indian English to mean "reply". See wikt:revert#Verb, no. 12. Shabnamrana: many English speakers outside Asia do not understand "revert" in that meaning, and it has a different use in Wikipedia editing, so I advise you to avoid it here. --ColinFine (talk) 12:03, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Opposing a merger suggestion
Hi,
I wanted to see what next steps are while waiting for a decision on a discussion. It has been suggested the article I proposed be merged with a parent page CHC. I can make edits to the current talk page; however, I'm concerned that if I submit without a decision being made I run the risk of the article being deleted.
Sunvidal, your link has a bad character. While I can access the page, I do not know where exactly in the article you intended to bring readers to. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:15, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
This is actually a wiki commons question. If this is an inappropriate place to ask this question, I apologize and request help finding a better place to ask the question.
I’m looking at this page [3] which contains a picture of a Greek vase.
The licensing information seems inconsistent. I see thIs statement:
I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license: This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license.
That sounds good but in a previous section I see:
Please note: The above museum permits photography of its exhibits for private, educational, scientific, non-commercial purposes. If you intend to use the photo for any commercial aims, please contact the museum and ask for permission.
Are these consistent? Can you release something under CC share alike with a caveat that the photo cannot be used for commercial purposes? If not, what should be done about the image? Can there be an image on Wiki commons that is not available for commercial use?
I should mention that I didn’t take the photo or create the page in question but I’m curious about the licensing issues. I was under the impression that photos on Commons should be available for commercial use.
@MarylandGeoffrey and John from Idegon: No, I don’t think that qualifying statement is consistent with the way the file is licensed or with c:COM:L, but it might not matter per c:COM:CB#Museum and interior photography if the vase is no longer eligible for copyright protection. You might want to ask about this at c:COM:VPC to see whether this photo might be considered to be a c:COM:DW. The CC license is technically for the photo, not the vase, per se and it’s the photo that’s really the “own work”; however, if the vase is still protected by copyright and that copyright holder is trying to restrict commercial use of third-party photos of the vase, then the file may need to be deleted. — Marchjuly (talk) 14:10, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Some doubts
Hello, i just wanted to know is there any difference between footnotes and references on wikipedia? Also, what is the use of short descriptions in any article? Lightbluerain (talk) 09:29, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Lightbluerain, welcome to the Teahouse. Footnotes are notes found at the bottom that are linked to sentences in the body. References are usually done as footnotes and provide information about the source content is being taken from. Short descriptions provide a very short description for articles (which makes it easier for mobile devices to find them). More information on short descriptions found on WP:SHORTDESC. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:49, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
I am unsure if my article on filmmaker Suzanne Guacci has been submitted. How can I tell? and if so, what comes next? New to wikipedia. Thank you. Upintheairalways (talk) 02:47, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Upintheairalways, your content was published in your sandbox. Generally drafts are created in draftspace, and I have moved yours to Draft:Suzanne Guacci. Feel free to delete the redirect by clicking on the link in "Redirected from User:Upintheairalways/sandbox" and deleting the content there. I suggest having a look at other articles to see how they're laid out; for example, section headings in all caps are not allowed and we do not link to Wikipedia in external links like you did with "Official website" and "Suzanne Guacci". I'm not the one to talk about image licencing with, but just to confirm, do you have permission to use the image? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:03, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
You state on your user page that you "work in the film industry in management." You should disclose any conflict of interest you may have, especially if there's any financial ties involved, on your user page as well. It doesn't matter if you're not being directly paid per edit. If Guacci or any business associated with her is in any way connected to your business, you have a conflict of interest. If she or someone representing her are paying you for services, you are considered a paid editor even if you were not explicitly ordered to make a Wikipedia article or even if you were not explicitly ordered to ""get the word out" about her.
Wikipedia is not a PR service for new info by paid workers, it is a volunteer-driven summary of already-published independent sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:12, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for the information. Yes, I am in film management but not directly to subject but rather to the work. We are attempting to inform and fill in information that other managers have started about Guacci's films that have been mentioned in Wikipedia a handful of times and are linked to other actors. Upintheairalways (talk) 15:17, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Confused on how to update virus taxobox
Hi folks, I am updating the page on Rabbit Hemorrhagic Disease https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbit_haemorrhagic_disease and noticed that the taxobox information is outdated. The current taxonomy can be found at https://talk.ictvonline.org/taxonomy/p/taxonomy-history?taxnode_id=19950818&src=NCBI&ictv_id=19950818 and should read Riboviria > Orthornavirae > Pisuviricota > Pisoniviricetes > Picornavirales > Caliciviridae > Lagovirus > Rabbit hemorrhagic disease virus. But I cannot for the life of me figure out how to do this! After 90 minutes of trying to figure it out I thought I'd elicit some help! I am not a coder, and so all of the information on the taxobox pages is going over my head. Is there someone here who can fix this for me? Thanks for your help, Rabbit Vet (talk) 06:04, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
@Wylie39: i want to change or atleast try something new layout style for talk page. default signature style is good enough and i dont want to add few extra bits or bytes everytime i use signature. Leela52452 (talk) 14:31, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
@Leela52452: But, as regards signature style, please don't place anything else after the ~~~~ (as you did above and elsewhere). The timestamp it creates should be the last thing in your post. There's no reason to provide a link to your meta talk page on enwiki – discussions about enwiki should remain here. Thanks. —[AlanM1 (talk)]—16:51, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
I published a couple of things . When I search up the title of them they do not come up . HOW LONG DOES IT TAKE FOR ARTICLES TO BE FULLY PUBLISHED ?
Lovingpenguin (talk) 16:42, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
The question was the pervious post. "Publish changes" (the blue rectangle) does not mean publish the draft to main space. You created Draft:Loving penguin and Draft:Jaws. Because these are not like Wikipedia articles, they have been tagged for Speedy deletion, and will disappear very soon. I suggest you take the tutorials on how to edit articles before trying to create a new article. David notMD (talk) 16:56, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
wikipedia
why was my articles deleted i just put in my own words what i thought now two of my articles are going to be deleted ? why is this website like this ? Lovingpenguin (talk) 16:57, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Articles that only exist in another language or on Wikispecies
Hello,
I have written drafts of articles for three interesting protist genera: Rhodelphis, Colponema, and Aquavolon.
Rhodelphis has a short article written for it in Russian. Should I be editing this version of the article somehow or should I create a new Rhodelphis article in English?
Colponema has a very short article on Wikispecies. Should I create a new Wikipedia article or add to the Wikispecies?
@PeriplasmicCortex: Hi! Wikipedia:Translation will have more information for you. All articles here on English Wikipedia should of course be in English, and if it exists on Russian Wikipedia and you're able to translate it without introducing errors, that would be very welcome. I don't know too much about Wikispecies, but it has a slightly different aim than Wikipedia since it's not a straight encyclopedia like we are. Typically species should have information at both places; feel free to copy over from one to the other, but be sure to note that you've done so in your edit summaries for attribution purposes. {{u|Sdkb}}talk20:52, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Article Review
Many thanks to members of the TeaHouse.
In reference to the draft Draft: Aaron D. Lewis i think 4-5 reliable sources that are independent of the subject, have now been cited, neutral tone and notability guidelines met. In response to a request one editor, who asked to state 4 sources of the subject without 'passing mentions', the sources are:
I request another review and possibly comments on the talk page or the draft or below this comment, whichever works for you.
Thank you. TheEpistle (talk) 15:58, 25 April 2020 (UTC) TheEpistle (talk) 15:58, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
TheEpistle, you have asked the same question on my talk page, where I have answered it. Please don't ask the same question in multiple places. Doing so is likely to annoy editors who might otherwise have been willing to help you. Maproom (talk) 22:53, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Notability
Hello Teahouse hosts. I am considering another article for Wikipedia; however, it will entail much work, so I am inquiring regarding wp:notability before writing the article and having it rejected due to to lack of notability. The article I am considering is list article about native Texas, firewise trees. There is an article already on Wikipedia, Natural landscaping from which the phrase native landscaping redirects from the search box. While there is no firewise landsccape Wikipecia article (and I am considering an article about that subject), I have found several reliable sources (at least I believe they are) regarding the subject:
Interesting question, Hu Nhu! I've mulled over this quite a bit before replying, and I should say, first off, that I don't really like the sources you've found. But even with great sources, I would still urge against a list article, and especially one that is specific to listing species of relevance to one small geographic region of the planet - or there'd potentially be tens of thousands of such lists!
If anything, the topic of Firewise landscaping is itself notable - and one that has recently come to awareness (though here in the UK we prefer to focus on species that don't go mouldy in prolonged rain!). Firewise landscaping seems almost the opposite of Xeriscaping, and I think quite appropriate to Wikipedia. I would base any new article on what firewise landcaping is, and not on listing individual species. A quick search found me a number of US government sites that could form the basis of a short article, such as this, this, this, this and this. Plus this on the Firewise Communities Program, which could be noted within the article. Just a few example tree/shrub and herb species would be appropriate - not long lists.
Any article on Wikipedia should be short and to the point about what the concept is and not a manual on how to do it. If you don't feel confident, I would be happy to cast an eye over any sandbox or draft article you might prepare. I hope this gives you the kind of answer you were seeking. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 19:52, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Most excellent and thank you Nick Moyes. I very well may do a firewise landscaping article and accept your generous offer for an occasional perusal. I am currently composing articles on two very interesting women, both major generals in overall command their respective states' National Guard and with significant press reporting them in the context as the first female commanders in their states' history.
Also, as an inquiry strictly meant to improve my work as an editor, I am curious as to what the sources I found lack and to what I might look in the future sources. Most kind regards, and again, appreciation.Hu Nhu (talk) 22:40, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
@Hu Nhu: Sorry for taking a while to reply. I'm happy to answer your question about the references you gave. As a basis for an article, none are strong enough, and I would expect to see an article based solely on them being put up for deletion (mainly because a lot of AFD nominators - especially new ones- don't seem to bother doing a proper WP:BEFORE check for better sources before rushing to have stuff deleted.
The KLS.COM article is a bit too newsy, and chatty, and not in depth enough about the topic.
The www.theunion.com article is similarly too shallow, and is just a short gardening page, listing a handful of seemingly randomly-selected herbaceous plants.
The MotherEarthNews link didn't work for me. I did find this one which was also too short and sweet to base an article upon, nor did it explicitly refer to Firewise landscaping.
So, when we look at notability of a topic, and its relevance to Wikipedia, we need to look both at sources already in use if the article exists (especially if it is being challenged and up for deletion), and we need to try to find enough in depth, detailed sources to be able to demonstrate that the topic is notable, and to use only the best ones which serve our encyclopaedia's purpose. It's also important to show the breadth of relevance, so I'd also look for sources from other parts of the world. Does that make any sense? (Finally, and as an aside, I did look for any pre-existing article that might already cover this topic, but could find nothing of direct relevance, which is good news for you. My heart did sink a bit when I found Fire Resistant Environmental Ensemble, but when I checked it out I just had a chuckle.) Nick Moyes (talk) 23:53, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Jagganath69 Links are case sensitive, unfortunately. It'd save a lot of trouble if they weren't. You can't capitalize "series". I fixed that issue for you, but keep that in mind for the future. Happy editing! -- a ladinsane(channel two)00:43, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Strangely worded sentence. Not continuous with the article.
Hey Guys,
I'm not a WiKi-Pro so i am not completely sure how to properly edit information on this website. I found this strange. It would be a very hard job to factor out all the confounding factors leading to any results based on the studied population.
I want to create an article on a famous television series. Can someone guide me in a detailed way so i can create article without the risk of deletion. Hansi Choudhary (talk) 19:17, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
@Hansi Choudhary: This may seem like an obvious question, but are you sure there is not already an article about it (i.e. have you WP:SEARCHed in the Main (article) and Draft namespaces for its name and any potential variation)? What is the name of the series? I think it may be quite unusual for there to be a notable TV series that does not have an article in mainspace or one already being developed in draft space. —[AlanM1 (talk)]—06:59, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Odd formatting on wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Your_first_article
The page shows a third bullet that is incomplete. The underlying text is this:
I don't understand your question. It isn't ignoring everything up to the comma; it is providing what appears to be a sensible working link to edit the reader's user talk page. It would, however, seem appropriate to change the punctuation from a comma to a semi-colon. --David Biddulph (talk) 21:41, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
@Markell West: Like the others, I saw "Click here to ask for help on your talk page". {{edit}} adds the class noprint so I guess you saw the page in a printed or printable version where the class is hidden. <span class="noprint">This text has noprint</span> produces "This text has noprint". I see "This text has noprint". It's not shown in the printable version. It's admittedly confusing to hide the link in some circumstances without hiding the text after the link, so I have removed noprint.[4] Alternatively, noprint could have been added to the whole line, but I think users who view the printable version should know the link is in the normal online version. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:27, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
... but don't sign at all if you add a new section using the Ask a question at the top of this page – it already has code in it to append the signature-producing tildes. —[AlanM1 (talk)]—07:04, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
SPLIT: Forming a new article from the text in an existing article
Hi, I have added a lot of new content to the 1.7.2. 'Bones' section within this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positron_emission_tomography. I left a message on its talk page proposing that a new article can be formed using 1.7.2. 'Bones' section. However, no one has yet replied. I am asking for suggestions as I intend to write more on BONES sub-section and add a few more figures on this topic. I noticed that the page is loading quite slow. I am not sure, but any suggestions would be much appreciated. Thank you. Earthianyogi (talk) 23:17, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Earthianyogi. Have you read Splitting? (By the way, when you refer to a page here, it's more helpful to use a Wikilink rather than a URL: [[Positron emission tomography]] rather than https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positron_emission_tomography). --ColinFine (talk) 23:32, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
The English entry for an area of Copenhagen variously known as: the Kildevækd Quarter, the Strandvej Quarter, the Svanemølle Quarter and the Composers' Quarter is here
Can I propose a redirect page that was denied multiple times 10 years ago?
I think it only makes common sense to have a redirect from Articles for Deletion to the page WP:Articles for Deletion. I see that several requests to create the page Articles for Deletion were denied in the past (>10 years ago), or that the page was deleted for random reasons. Is there a reason that this is a silly question? Is there a reason the page shouldn't redirect to the right AfD page? Thank you for opinions. Ikjbagl (talk) 06:33, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
it contains hyperlink above "From விக்கிப்பீடியா" and below "பிலார் உருயிசு இலாபுயெந்தே" in desktop mode [ i mean tapping desktop at bottom of page, NOT "request desktop site". is this some kind of error ? Leela52452 (talk) 04:12, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
@Leela52452: The Teahouse here can only handle questions about the English Wikipedia. Each language is a separate project with its own rules that are not necessarily the same. Please ask at the Help desk of ta.wikipedia.org. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 05:28, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
@Leela52452: It's done deliberately on all pages in that wiki by installing mw:Extension:ShortUrl. The url's for non-Latin scripts look bad because they use percent-encoding, e.g. this for your example:
Your browser may display it in the script in the browser address bar so it looks better to you there, especially if you know the script. https://ta.wikipedia.org/s/7ctr is an automatically created redirect to the article. It uses the page ID so it still works if the article is moved. In a wikilink you can write ta:பிலார் உருயிசு இலாபுயெந்தே but that only works from within Wikipedia, not when a link is posted externally. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:34, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Article under development requires your support and guidance
Hi Team,
I have written a articleDraft:Nisha Ravikrishnan. Thus article was rejected because of notation issue.Wanted to know what needs to be added from my end.This article is my first ever article, so would need your support and guidance on what needs to be done.
Would like to improve on your guidance and support. Cinemapremi (talk) 12:22, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Cinemapremi, as suggested by Robert, for Nisha Ravikrishnan to be notable (and hence be accepted), she must have played a significant role in several films/shows with an article. So far not yet seen in the draft. If she is indeed notable (as from above), then please leave a message on the draft’s talk page and tell others. Cheers, Eumat114 formerly The Lord of Math (Message) 12:41, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
My understanding is that draft Talk pages are rarely looked at as part of draft evaluation (if the Talk page exists at all), and that the best course of action is to significantly improve the draft before resubmitting. David notMD (talk) 12:58, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Hallo,
the AFD process for the bio I wrote just finished and resulted in a keep. The bio was declined twice and than rejected. I kept asking what was the problem and the only answer was not reliable sources. when I tried to understand what were exactly the sources to cause the problem I got no answers at all. if you are too busy to feed the writer of an article with all the information he needs to understand your decision and improve his article please just don't do anything. If you fail someone's work than it would be fair for you to be available to explain your decision and help.
Honestly i don't feel that those who have rejected/declined the bio I wrote were moved by genuine intentions, otherwise they would have answered me and explained me what it was wrong in their opinion.
In the ADF talk page I was accused of going everywhere to ask for information, what was I supposed to do? if nobody answers me should I just let it be?
moreover, telling a person stuff like "fails WP:GNG", "fails WP:BASIC" or " fails WP:ANYBIO" needs to come with an explanation as those are very much interpretabile guide lines.
If your point is to get something done fast please do something else. If your point is to improve wikipedia be there for giving all the necessary info.
moreover, when I received the rejection I went everywhere asking what I could do and everybody just told me there vere scarse possibilities for me to see the bio published. after I asked 1000 times someone finally offered me to put it in the AFD and I have accepted. This behavior is not constructive neither. don't Just answer "it is hard or it is almost impossible" tell also what is can be done. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 19:56, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
An acceptable article requires reliable sources that establish the subject as notable. If no-one can find such sources, then the subject isn't notable, and an article on it is not warranted. There's nothing that can be done to get round that. Maproom (talk) 07:29, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
@Maproom: hallo, please ping people when you give them an answer otherwise they might never see our answer. I said that my article was kept, but this is not the point. the point is not if the sourcing is good or bad but the fact that if you tell someone his sourcing is bad than you need to explain a little bit your opinion, especially if you have the power of failing his article. if you say the source is bad than explain why in detail. probably the user spent a lot of time writing his article, you can take 10 min to let him know why his work is not accepted. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 07:47, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
2, 3, 4 and 8 report what he said himself, so are not independent.
5, the link given is to a page that does not mention him.
6, the link given is to a page with no content, but apparently written by him and so not independent.
7 is to a list of articles by him, and so not independent.
Reference 1 however does seem to me to qualify as helping to establish notability. Anyway, I see that the article has now been accepted; so, congratulations! Maproom (talk) 08:16, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
@Maproom: I wan't talking about Marricke Kofi Gane but this one sounds like a very good answer. this is exactly the type of answers people should give when they fail an article.
To everybody, if you tell someone that this is not the right place to talk about anything than give the link to the most appropriate place. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 09:22, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
I applaud Alejandro's sincerity and politeness. Thanks. I get so many snippy comments and rudeness from editors that I wonder how they ever made it through kindergarten. I am sure we all wish Alejandro success, and I, for one, hope he will stick around and help improve the encyclopedia by working on other articles. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 17:24, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
why so many people are so keen to reject?" Some people wish the honor of being considered an "expert" on something. Being able to reject someone else makes them feel better by gratifying their badness. Sort of like how a crackpot or crank enjoys tricking people into thinking they are an expert, but with less effort. Plenty will review things they have no expertise in. Also some people resent it when people make something or learn something new: in the real world not on the internet this is the sort of reason people like doctors and scientists need their professional groups. By supporting each other they can keep good work from being torn apart for petty reasons. So some people's motives are bad and childish. However, this website has a rule that people must assume "good faith" even when good faith is not shone to them. The purpose of this rule is to keep people from always assuming that people who disagree with them have bad motives--it is no way to run a discussion. But it comes with a trade-off--until you have gained "friends" of a sort to support your work (sort of like with like doctors and scientists), you are vulnerable to people being petty to you. My suggestion would be for a while to focus on trying to help other people who edit topics that interest you. Then when people treat you badly your "friends" of a sort might come to your aid. Obviously this is time consuming and a lot of work, and you may not find it a good idea for you personally--I understand. One other thing--when it comes time to publish a new article in articlespace you may find better luck with reviewers if you use your own sandbox or a userspace draft than community draft. Not saying you won't get the same issue there, though.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 14:24, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
I reject the characterisation that (some) AfC reviewers see it as something honourable to reject a draft and I don't think there is any evidence for that either. There are certainly issues with the AfC process, but these comments aren't helpful. In addition, you don't need friends to get your draft accepted (though it may be helpful if your friend is experienced at Wikipedia and can advise you on how to write articles). By the way, any general criticism with regards to AfC should be posted here, not at the Teahouse. --MrClog (talk) 14:39, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for sharing how you feel about my last post; I will try to keep it in mind. No, you don't absolutely need friends to get your draft accepted--but if multiple editors edit a page some reviewers are more sympathetic--because they may believe that multiple editors will continue to support and develop an article after creation. For example, once I and another editor showed we would support a new editor's rejected draft. The other editor asked the person who rejected the community draft to unreject the draft, and the person did right away, saying that the work on the article would be better done in articlespace.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 14:45, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Mediapals. I'm afraid that, like many people, you've plunged into the difficult task of creating a new article without having learnt how Wikipedia works; this is like going to your first piano lesson and expecting to play a concerto. The next step (which ideally would have been the first step, before writing a single word) is to find multiple independent reliably published sources which discuss Monteux at some length, and cite them: without that, your draft does nothing to establish that his is notable, and will never be accepted as an article. Remember that nothing written or published by Monteux or his associates, or based on material directly from them (such as interviews or press releases) is acceptable, and neither is anything from a user-generated site such as iMDB or blogs. We need places where people who have no connection whatever with Monteux have chosen to write at some length about him, and been published by reliable, professional sources. Reviews in major newspapers might do it, provided they devote some space to him, not just to his works.
Uses and indications of Traditional Herbal Medicines
Hello
I want to post some changes and add Traditional Herbal uses of some of th entries in Wikipedia, can someone help me to understand what you refer to as reliable sources. In my work, I have used many traditional textbooks, such as Bartrams Encyclopedia of Herbal Medicine. Are these considered reliable sources for the information about the action and uses of herbs as remedies?Herbalthyme (talk) 14:24, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello Herbalthyme, please visit WP:RSN, the reliable sources noticeboard to discuss reliability of a particular source in general or in a particular context. Please read the notice on the top of that page before you make a post. Editors there are more specialised in evaluating reliability of sources. Wikipedia has a rather strict interpretation of what counts as reliable in health-related contexts (see WP:MEDRS), so my guess is, you could say "This book says this herb does this" (provided it is DUE), but you can't say "this herb is medicinal for this purpose". Best, Usedtobecool☎️14:42, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I encourage you to edit the pages of individual plants--less people will oppose you, as their are many plants and not as many people editing plant articles as they used to. One good source I have is "Stern's Introductory Plant Biology"--there is a large appendix in the back with hundreds of plants and how they were (or still are) used as medicine. Because this book is published by a well known scholar and is peer-reviewed it might even raise less issues from the people worried about high standards on medical articles. When looking for sources online, you may want to search for the term "Ethnobotany"--the sources you find will help by explaining not just what the plant was used for, but who used it, or still does.
Topical encyclopedias are not good for proving that topics on Wikipedia are notable enough to have new articles about them, but they are still considered reliable sources for writing within existing articles. You can still use Bartrams to write within existing articles--just not to prove that a new article is notable enough to be published in article space. An example of how it is already used as source can be found here: Elecampane#Uses
This might seem odd that wikipedia, itself an encyclopedia, discounts other encyclopedias. The reason for this is that their are many encyclopedias covering popular topics like "Star Wars" or "Fan Fiction"--with so many niche topics that are of interest to only fans--so as a result it was decided that encyclopedias are not good for proving that an article is notable enough to avoid being deleted.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 14:59, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Does an article edited by someone else automatically get resubmitted?
I have written a article (Lee Fardon) that was initially rejected. I edited and resubmitted and it has subsequently been edited by two others. Does this mean it will automatically be resubmitted (by them) or do I have to resubmit? How do I know if my article will be accepted? Fencedown (talk) 08:33, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Fencedown and welcome to Wikipedia! The other two editors simply fixed up the draft, but you must click the "resubmit" button again as yet another one has declined your edit. I will warn you, though, it is probably a good idea to find some reliable sources to back your article - there has been cleaing, yes, but a lot of your sources are not ideal. -- a ladinsane(channel two)08:40, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
If your article is edited after resubmission it is just fine--such editing doesn't remove it or even bump it back in the query. The people reviewing an article's submission only see the link and the first few lines until they click on the article. When they click on it, they will be sure to see the most recent version of your article.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 15:05, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Link to a foreign language Wikipedia
Hi,
I am writing a biography in English. The spouse of the person has a page on the Swedish Wikipedia. When I try to link it claims that the page does not exist.
I saw some references to how it is done, but sadly it is unclear, and in my experience (I am new to Wikipedia editing) as unclear as many help/tutorials I saw in/on Wikipedia on other subjects.
Thanx Danishom (talk) 10:17, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi Danishom, welcome to the Teahouse. You need the language code sv for Swedish. See Help:Interlanguage links#Inline links (links in the text of the article) and Template:Interlanguage link. We can usually give better help with less effort if you give specifics like the name of the page you want to link, and where you want to link it. {{Interlanguage link|Name of spouse|sv}} produces Name of spouse [sv]. "Name of spouse" is intentionally a red link to the English Wikipedia as long as we don't have an article, while "sv" links to the article in the Swedish Wikipedia. You didn't name the article so my example link doesn't work. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:33, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Another way to do it is to put a colon, sv, and another colon before the article's name in Swedish. Like sv:svenska. But weirdly, only the second colon appears, the first one is hidden. Click on edit to see exactly what it looks like.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 15:07, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Quandry on how to proceed
I recently edited the article Haruhi Fujioka in which I edited what has often been a contentious opinion about the fictional character. I tried to be as factual and neutral as possible in my language. Without explanation, the editor of some of the original text (from 12/2018), reverted my edits back to their own, which (imo) reflects an unsubstantiated opinion. I left the editor a TALK message on 4/24/20 asking if there is a way we can collaborate on the language and am waiting for an answer. QUESTION: If the editor user:Maplestrip refuses to collaborate, what do I do next? This editor, in another area of the article, deleted a direct quote, removed language, re-inserted their interpretation of the quote, then used the original citation to validate their interp (see 07:32 1 August, 2016). I replaced the interp with the direct quote again. That was left in place, but the other edits were reverted without reason and without citation (in one case) to support their validity. Is simply asking for citation enough? And if we still differ, even after conversing, how do both non-cited opinions get listed within the article to comply with WP:NPOV?
I just woke up and am currently responding to @Ouranista: on my talk page. I hope we can figure things out. I didn't intend to come across as so difficult, but yes, I did revert stuff without explaining way and I shouldn't have done that. I hope I can be a better editor and we can figure this out together. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:24, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Maplestrip and I chatted honestly about the issues at hand and the article in question is now amended in a mutually agreeable way. I've also learned a bit more about Wiki-editing in the process. Thank you, Teahouse! Ouranista (talk) 15:22, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
I wish to contribute content to an existing page, but I wanted to share it with the page creator
On the Wikipedia page USS ARIZONA SALVAGED ARTIFACTS, it references that an artifact has been donated to the Veterans Memorial Museum in Laurel, MS. I am the website administrator for this museum and I wanted to provide a photo of the artifact/display to the Wikipedia page. I really didn't want to have to go in and do a full blown page edit. Can you help me out here?Jweby70 (talk) 18:54, 25 April 2020 (UTC) Jweby70 (talk) 18:54, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Jweby70, the stated scope of the article USS Arizona salvaged artifacts is "articles displayed throughout the state of Arizona". Cannot see how any contribution you could make would be on topic. However, your addition of photos of the museum exhibits would be a great contribution to Wikipedia Commons, and if say a state level AAA magazine wanted to do a story on your museum, those pictures would be readily available. John from Idegon (talk) 10:54, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
If you have multiple images, a good way to show multiple pictures is an image gallery at the bottom of the page. Because you work for the museum that will be producing the pictures, it is important to get someone else to put the images on the page and probably not do it yourself. I encourage you to upload all of the photos on to Wikimedia Commons and to use long, detailed captions. The captions should link to relevant wikipedia articles using the interwiki linking method of placing :w: prior to the wikilink. This will allow your Wikimedia commons images to link directly to wikipedia articles relevant to the topic.
I should add that you will need to release even the commercial rights to the images. As commercial involvement is sometimes prohibited by museum policies, you should check with your museum to see if they allow it. For example, would you feel exploited if a business in your town made post cards with the images you put on WP and sold them--competing with your own gift shop? These are good things to bring up to your museum board of directors or supervisor prior to uploading the pictures. See also c:COM:CB#Museum and interior photography.
Then, when you are done uploading all of the pictures you want to add, post your request and links to your photos on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history. Someone may see it and add it to the article, and since the other person will not be a museum employee, this will not violate the Wikipedia policies on conflicts of interest. If you state on the talk page that you have a conflict of interest and need help, I expect that somone will understand and be considerate of your request. As some people can be sort of snobbish with photos, make sure they are taken with high resolution and good lighting. Many indoor pictures taken in museums are too dark and as a result are unhelpful for wikipedia.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 15:29, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Creating new page for a company
Creating a new page for a company.
Dear all, I need help creating a page for a 41-year-old company I'm working with. What could be the reason that the page was deleted. I want to mention that I did not want to publish yet, cause it's not ready, could not find a save botton, had to publish it, knowing it will not be online.
Please advise me what to do as a beginner.
Hello, Armen Sepetjian, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid that, like many people, you have some misunderstandings about Wikipedia. First, everything, everywhere in Wikipedia is published, in the sense that it is visible (and in most cases, editable) by anybody in the world - articles, drafts, personal pages, everything. That is why the Wikimedia Foundation insisted that the "save" button be renamed "Publish". That is a different sense from when we "publish" something as an article in the main encyclopaedia.
Secondly, what we create here is not "pages for" a company or anything else; it is articles aboutnotable subjects. Not every company (just like not every sports person, politician, musician, artist...) is notable in Wikipedia's eyes: we require that an article be based close to 100% on what people who have no connection with the subject have chosen to publish about it, and therefore such independent published sources must exist. Your company may be notable, but most companies in the world are not. Thirdly, if you are working with the company, you almost certainly have a conflict of interest; and if you are in any way compensated by the company (whether as an employee or volunteer, or as a contractor) you are required to make a formal declaration of your status as a paid editor.
If you can clear those hurdles, then you may try to create a draft article about your company, using the articles for creation process. This is a very difficult task for new editors, and even more difficult for editors with a conflict of interest, because material that looks straightforward to you may look promotional to other editors. But if you want to try, Your first article is the place to look.
In short: if you are coming here to tell the world about your company, you are probably in the wrong place (I mean Wikipedia, not the Teahouse). That's not what Wikipedia is for. Sorry. --ColinFine (talk) 18:56, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Armen Sepetjian (talk) 09:01, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your prompt reply.
Honestly, I was hired months ago to accomplish certain tasks, one of the most important one in this, being present on Wikipedia. It was my fault I tested an unfinished page. The company I'm working with is not similar to any other food product distributor. It's something related to Middle Eastern Culture, Lebanese culture. I have many reasons to believe that Al Wadi company must be present on Wikipedia. All I need is your advice, as you mentioned above, I will go to the "Articles for Creation page" and proceed from that step. Hopefully when I'm in need of help I will hear from you.
thank you
Armen Sepetjian (talk) 09:01, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Has your business ever been covered in local history books about your city, in newspapers, or in cookbooks not published by you? Does your boss have a collection of old newspaper clippings? If you can find at least three good sources you can build your article around what other people say about your business. If you write your article that way, it could help keep it from being deleted. If your boss cannot give you any newspapers or magazines, then tell him he need to get friends who are reporters and authors, and that your Wikipedia task will need to wait--maybe several years until a good variety of sources can be published by third parties (not your own company). Once you have all your sources lined up, then consider going to WP:Lebanon and asking for help, though that may not help as there may not be many active people left in that group.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 15:53, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
In the above page there is a table of organisms. Some are red and some are blue. They are clickable for more information on the specific organism, but color difference is not explained. 73.60.214.239 (talk) 16:14, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Every picture has a name. The example pictures have example names. First, figure out what the name of the picture you want to add in is, and then replace the example picture name with the correct name. With few exceptions, only use galleries near the bottom of an article. Getting your picture right is tricky--I recommend using the "sandbox" link near the top of the page to practice. No one will mind if you make a mistake in your sandbox.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 16:28, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Editing Wikipedia via a proxy
Hi. I was blocked by my family from accessing Wikipedia for a short while, and, as I am a wikiholic, I used the proxy User:5.153.218.57 ([6]) to access and edit Wikipedia. I could not log in to my account from that proxy, and I subsequently got blocked for a month for making edits in my userspace. Recently, I have read WP:NOP and have realized that the edits I made on that proxy are inappropriate. As I live in Ohio, not China, what should I do now?? should User:5.153.218.57 be blocked indefinitely? Computer165 (talk) 18:41, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Manoj shrivastav. You have attempted to create an article on your WP:User page. That will never get indexed, because your user page is not part of the main encyclopaedia: it is for sharing some information about yourself as a Wikipedia editor if you wish.
If you want to try the extremely difficult task of creating a new article, please start by reading your first article. If you are in any way connected with Prince - the Desi Rapper, you also need to read about editing with a conflict of interest. If you are the rapper, then you need to read autobiography to learn why writing an article about yourself is a very very bad idea. --ColinFine (talk) 17:12, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Manoj shrivastav You have edited your user page, which is not article space, but a place for you to tell the Wikipedia community about yourself in the context of your Wikipedia editing or use. It is not a place for you to tell the world about yourself and your career. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, where article subjects, such as musicians, must be shown with significant coverage in independent reliable sources to meet Wikipedia's special definition of notability, in this case the definition of a notable musician. If you have read that definition and truly feel that you meet at least one of the criteria, you shouldn't be the one to write about yourself- you should allow others independent of you to take note of your career and write about you.
Also understand that a Wikipedia article is not necessarily desirable. There are good reasons to not want one. You cannot lock it to the text you might prefer or prevent others from editing it. Lastly, do not ask others to post their email addresses in this public forum. Thanks 331dot (talk) 17:56, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Hey @Ghoraghatalpha: Wikipedia requires that images not be copyright, as per Wikipedia's Image Use Policy. In general, this means you cannot use photos you find online, rather, you would need to take the photo yourself and upload it on Wikipedia or Wikimedia commons. Since the photo you are referring to looks old, there is a small chance the copyright is expired, but you would have to look into England's copyright rules because they likely differ from United States. --Hillelfrei• talk •18:02, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Wondering how I can improve my draft to pass submission
Hi Sam,
If an individual is listed in several different books in different publication years and editions should that be listed also, or is it redundant? Mhjelm (talk) 14:02, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Mhjelm. Mere "listings" of an individual do not contribute to their notability; while they can sometimes be used to support a specific claim about somebody, more substantial material is usually preferable, and is certainly needed for the bulk of the information in the article. Citing multiple editions of the same work is counter-productive, unless there is different relevant information in the different editions: a draft full of citations to multiple passing mentions tends to create a suspicion that there aren't any substantial sources. --ColinFine (talk) 14:22, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi Colin,
Yes, there is different relevant information in the various publications. I am wondering what a substantial source is since it seems many accepted submissions seem to include an array of websites instead of actual published books by reputable publishers.
Courtesy - this is probably about Draft:Lisa Munsterhjelm. Quality is more important than quantity. If all the books have is a list of names with that person included, then does not contribute to notability. P.S. Remember to sign your name after every comment by typing four of ~. David notMD (talk) 15:33, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
And, to answer another part of your reply, Mhjelm: Wikipedia has thousands and thousands of substandard articles, which would not be accepted if they were submitted today, and are only there because none of the thousands of volunteer editors has been interested in improving or deleting them. Please see other stuff exists. Some websites are regarded as reliable, if they have a reputation for editorial control and fact-checking; but many are not. --ColinFine (talk) 18:05, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
I posted a translation (from a native speaker) at af:Cannabis_in_Suid-Afrika and an Admin deleted with no explanation and deleted my question on their Talk. Solution?
Hello, let me emphasize I had a native speaker proofread before moving to articlespace. I posted a machine-translation of the intro of Cannabis in South Africa on a Draft page: af:Draft:Cannabis_in_South_Africa. I got a native Afrikaans speaker to proofread it, and only then moved it to articlespace. But then a couple days later an Admin deleted the page with zero explanation, and today when I posted on their Talk (which they appear to be using as just another userpage, no conversation on it, and I did double-check the page title to make sure it meant Discussion), they immediately reverted my attempt to communicate.
I don't know if they deleted it for legit technical reasons, or out of an animus towards the topic, so I'm trying to assume good faith. If this Admin simply won't provide an explanation or respond to Talk page posts, how do I find someone to look into this and tell me if I'm in the wrong, or the Admin isn't behaving appropriately? Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (talk) 16:52, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm sorry, Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney but English Wikipedia and Afrikaans Wikipedia are entirely separate projects, with different personnel and different policies and rules. It is unlikely that anybody here can help you: youll need to take this up on af-wiki. --ColinFine (talk) 17:15, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
I know some other projects like ja-wiki have an "Embassy" page, but not seeing that on af-wiki. I guess I can try to poke around and see what's their general Talk page and post there. And I imagine most internet-savvy Afrikaans speakers also speak English, so that could be easier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (talk • contribs)
Does anyone know how to make info boxes? CUZ I DON'T. So I tried a couple of times. It NEVER worked. I think I did something wrong in the source editing mode but I'm not sure. Reach me out in the DOES ANYONE KNOW INFOBOXES? talk page. Flipsosmasos (talk) 14:33, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
I didn't find any attempts to make an infobox in your saved edits. If you post or link your code then we can see what is wrong with it. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:45, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello. My responses to all the responses (:D): 1. I was trying to find a game oriented infobox, but there wasn't one (darn) 2. The reason that I didn't have a infobox entry in my history was cuz I never would be able to actualy make one while editing (didn't recognize the template). I had to remove all my attempts cuz u prolably know why. Thanks for the help though! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flipsosmasos (talk • contribs)
@Flipsosmasos: A board game, video game, or sports match would have different infoboxes. If you want help then say what you want help with. If you have chosen an infobox then you can post your attempted code at User:Flipsosmasos/sandbox. If you want help finding a suitable infobox then say exactly what it is for, e.g. the name of a game. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:27, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
you could link to it instead of uploading it. You'll need to upload it to your school's website first before linking to it like the references already in the page.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 19:31, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm sorry, Epiphyllumlover, but that advice is not right. Awnearn, what is the status of the book Shine on that you say is the origin of the material? If it was published by a reputable publisher, then you can cite it, even though it is not available online. You just need to give standard bibliographic information like title, date, publisher, author, page number. See Template:cite book for how to do this. Uploading a PDF or a scan is likely to be a copyright violation, and cannot be used as a reference because the provenance of a PDF held on a site not known to be a reliable publisher is not itself reliable.
If the book was not published by a reputable publisher, then it's not clear that it can be used as a reliable source in any case.
I see that the Pohlmann book lists ECS among the "sizable group of private schools formed during desegregation". Wikipedia goes with what the reliable published sources say, so that statement cannot be challenged in Wikipedia by an unpublished or privately published source. Reading around it, it seems to me that when Pohlmann says "during desegregation" he is referring to the whole of the period from the Memphis 13 - ECS is not the only pre-1973 school in his list. I'm sure that the wording in the Evangelical Christian School article can be emended to explain this better, and I encourage you to post an Edit request on Talk:Evangelical Christian School. But the article should not say something directly contrary to Pohlmann unless another reliably published source can be adduced. --ColinFine (talk) 20:17, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
ASK PAGE ACCOUNT TO BE RE-ACTIVE
Good Afternoon Everyone! I Benjamin I Request That This Page You May Reconsidering On It And Help To Re-Active Again It Will An Honor To Get Back In Line Thank You! O.G.n.T.B.D.ME 16:52, 26 April 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjamin GASIGWA (talk • contribs)
Hey @Benjamin GASIGWA:. Welcome to the teahouse. Please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~) which will automatically sign and link your name. I'm not sure I understand your question, can you please ask a little more clearly? Thanks, Hillelfrei• talk •17:08, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Benjamin GASIGWA. I'm afraid that your sandbox has been nominated for speedy deletion, because it is not appropriate for an encyclopaedia. Writing about yourself is strongly discouraged, and any article must be almost entirely based on material that has been written and published wholly independently of the subject. --ColinFine (talk) 17:22, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi ColinFine! So It's Means That I'm No Longer Able To Use Sandbox?? O.G.n.T.B.D.ME 17:26, 26 April 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjamin GASIGWA (talk • contribs)
Your content is now at Draft:Benjamin Gasigwa. It is not submitted. If submitted, it will be Declined or Rejected, because there are no references, and because the content does not support that you meet Wikipedia's requirement for notability. Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is not social media. It is an encyclopedia. And please, do not capitalize every word. David notMD (talk) 20:06, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
In the past, I used to write biographies of models and beauty queens, I lost my account. Now I am back with a new account to make biographies of young and notable activists, innovators, entrepreneurs and humanitarians. Yesterday, I completed a draft called Draft:Benjamin Bocio Richardson (Category: AfC submissions by date/26 April 2020), I think that I did an amazing job, I noticed that all the drafts posted on the same day have been checked, but nobody says anything or moves the article that I did from draft. What should do? Humanitarian2 (talk) 21:52, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Humanitarian2. Your draft Draft:Benjamin Bocio Richardson has been submitted, and is awaiting review: scroll down to the bottom and you'll see the message. There is nothing you can do to speed it up: reviewers are volunteers, and will get it it when one of them chooses to do so. One thing you could do in the meantime is to edit the draft to refer to him as "Richardson" (or should that be "Bocio"?) rather than "Benjamin", according to MOS:SURNAME. --ColinFine (talk) 22:03, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
AM I BANNED From WIKIPEDIA ???
I Want To Ask Did I Banned To This Page?? Because Nothing As I See Allowed From Talk, Sandbox To Contribs All Pages Are Saying Deletion Deletion So What Can I Do O.G.n.T.B.D.ME 17:37, 26 April 2020 (UTC) O.G.n.T.B.D.ME 17:37, 26 April 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjamin GASIGWA (talk • contribs)
No, you are not banned, Benjamin GASIGWA. Your attempts to write about yourself have been deleted, because they were not appropriate content for Wikipedia. But you are very welcome to join us in improving Wikipedia: we have six million articles, and many of them are in need of some care. Please have a look at Help:Introduction. --ColinFine (talk) 18:13, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Sorry Robert McClenon maybe you understand my question different!? It was just question I didn't mean to make you angry Robert So Sorry O.G.n.T.B.D.ME 21:29, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
I don't believe that Robert is angry. He's used to dealing with new users, and is just giving you good advice. Maproom (talk) 22:44, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Change name of a draft
How Can I change or simplify the name of a draft that I created. I created the Draft:Benjamin Bocio Richardson and I want to simplify it to Benjamin Bocio Humanitarian2 (talk) 22:34, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
I have a draft pending. Is it okay to make a article on that?
Hi, I recently made a article namely Draft:Basic Level Examination. It is a type of examination which used to be named District Level. Previously, It used to be conducted by particular district. But now it is conducted by Municipal Education Board. So, I felt it was necessary to make a article. District Level Examination is the previous system of board examination for Grade 8 students. Please suggest me necessarily. NecessaryEdits (talk) 01:57, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
NecessaryEdits, you seem to have requested deletion of your draft. So, it's not clear to me, what exactly it is that you are asking. District Level Examination, it appears, is the same , except for the change of stewardship from Districts to Municipal councils. So, it seems sufficient to note that change in the existing article; a new article seems unwarranted. If you have the sources to back it up, you could move the article to the new name as well. Best, Usedtobecool☎️20:12, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
As now of today, the style of the examination has been changed. The name must be change according to the type of the Examination. The examination used to be of district level but it has been modified. The system of the examination has also changed. The format of taking examination has also been changed. So, I felt necessary that a article should be made. Concerned User:Usedtobecool and User:Maproom
Gonna jump on the other side of the fence today. I've been reading up on reference grouping because I am currently editing an article that would look best with multiple notes in a reflist at the end of each section. To separate them I have been using <ref group="" name=""> tags, but when I call them, the superscript marks read as "group 1" instead of "1" as I wanted them to do. Anyone know a way of suppressing the group name from showing up in superscript? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:27, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Tenryuu Do you mind sharing the article you are working on? I have a couple of thoughts, but I do better playing around a bit (without saving, but will share what worked in preview mode). And, you are not trying to separate notes from citations, but to have separate reference lists by section, right?–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:05, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
@CaroleHenson: I'll be honest, it's not here on Wikipedia but on a different wiki (external link's here if you're interested; go to the "Thief" section to see what I'm talking about). I'm trying to get a notelist for select sections, which is why I'm using the grouping feature in the cite software. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:08, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
@Tenryuu: If you use {{Efn}} and {{Notelist}}, it will use the lower-case letters and they can be re-used in multiple sections (i.e. the {{Notelist}} shows only the {{Efn}} since the last {{Notelist}} (or the top of the article if none)):
The {{Efn-lr}} and {{Notelist-lr}} (with lowercase Roman numerals) are less confusing when multiple references to the same ref might be used, which also produce lowercase letters. —[AlanM1 (talk)]—07:22, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
P.S.: I assume we're talking about "notes" only here, not actual references (which should remain together near the end of the article, AFAIK). —[AlanM1 (talk)]—07:34, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
@AlanM1: I'm talking about notes, not references. I'm actually editing a page for another wiki, which doesn't have those templates. I'm guessing that without templates like {{efn}} and {{Notelist}} it's impossible to do with the original cite software? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:08, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
@Tenryuu: The functionality does seem to be in the basic reference handling (at least as of the current wiki software version, though I think it's been so for a long time). Here's examples with roman numerals without templates. Note that if you try to use one of the section 3 references (like "x1") in section 4, you get a "not defined" error, so they are definitely isolated. You can even re-use names between sections on the same page (though that's not nice to future editors ):
@Tenryuu: Yes – at least the style property is necessary to make it use the lower-roman numbering on the list so it matches the superscripts in the text. —[AlanM1 (talk)]—18:56, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
@AlanM1: I think I'm doing something wrong; I've copied the line for the references group and for some reason the superscript still reads "lower-roman 1". —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:24, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
@Tenryuu: Well, there's nothing obvious in the HTML of the rendered page, so I'm stumped (HTML, CSS, etc. is not really my bag). Someone at WP:VPT may be able to tell you what's in enwiki's config that makes it emit "[i]" instead of "[lower-roman 1]", that isn't on your other wiki (and, for those who are silently screaming, we know it's gone off-topic here ). —[AlanM1 (talk)]—19:39, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Why do I need a Creative Commons license when I own the sole examples of pictures created by my late mother?
More specifically, I want to create a page about her on Wikipedia’s ‘List of South African women artists’. SO I wish to include some examples of her paintings in my possession.
I‘m not concerned that anyone else might download these JPEG images, and use (or even ‘misuse’ them) in that unlikely event…
Thanks!
```` DeSoto 383 (talk) 00:38, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
@DeSoto 383: You may have inherited ownership of the paintings' copyright, in which case you can release them under a Creative Commons license. All content (except for some fair use content) must be released under a free license, so it can be reused by anyone. --MrClog (talk) 00:48, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
@DeSoto 383: The good folk over here on English Wikipedia aren't the same people who deal with images uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. I think MrClog was right in what he says, though be prepared for someone to challenge whether or not you have the rights over your mothers images. (I am in the same boat myself. I've been thinking of uploading a semi-naked image my own mother drew of the wartime model, Quentin Crisp, which is in my possession. I am the sole heir to her will, and thus I now, sadly, own the rights to all her work. But how do I prove that? If challenged, I guess I might have to resort to supplying a copy of the UK 'Grant of Probate' which shows I managed her estate. It would have to be sent to their so-called 'OTRS' Team for checking.) The reason for challenging people over image rights is not to be a nuisance, but it is there to protect the rights of people against having their work maliciously or incorrectly released against their will. It is possible to upload an image only to Eglosh Wikipedia, where we are somewhat less strict on image rights interpretation. As an important aside, any entry into 'list articles' does generally require a pre-existing page about that person to exist here on Wikipedia. That itself, requires certain 'notability criteria' to be met. Hope this helps, Nick Moyes (talk) 01:10, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello, DeSoto 383. We cannot advise you on South African inheritance law, but if you are your mother's sole heir, then it is possible that you also own the copyrights to her paintings, and can release them under an acceptable Creative Commons license. As for List of South African women artists, that is a list of artists who already have a Wikipedia biography. If your mother was truly a notable artist, then the first step is writing a biography of her. You have a Conflict of interest regarding your mother, so you should use the Articles for Creation process to write a draft for review by experienced editors. Please sign your talk page posts with four tildes. A tilde looks like this: ~ . Cullen328Let's discuss it01:18, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Is this an example of “sealioning”
There’s been a recent edit at the page of Nick Fuentes by a user stating that word not used in the sources cannot be used on the page. The user argued that the words “encounter, filmed, and criticism” do not appear in the source article and thus should not appear on the page (and then proceeded to remove the entire sentence). The source used does not use the words but very clearly shows the encounter, the filming of it, and the criticism that ensued from said encounter. Is this a valid argument to make on Wikipedia or is this an example of WP:SEALION?
Edit: I forgot to to mention that the user said to find sources using the words mentioned above or “accept this edit [removal]” Nigel Abe (talk) 19:16, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
No, this is not a valid argument. It seems that editing this page is harder than most because it is a biography of a living person--I encourage you to avoid edit warring over this. Their are different ways of solving this--Have you tried waiting maybe a few weeks and seeing if the problematic user gets bored and goes away? You could also tag the person's talk page with a message that they are being a nuisance. If enough people leave such messages over months or years of misbehavior, the nuisance-causing editor could get punished.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 19:24, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the information. I’m going to leave a message on his talk page, and revert him a second time. If he persists and starts edit warring am I safe to take him to the administrator noticeboard?Nigel Abe (talk) 19:38, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
He won't be punished for just one offence from one person. After leaving a message on his talk page, I encourage you to stay away from this conflict completely for a while. How long? That is a judgment call on your part and depends on how active the other editor is. Let him get into more trouble with other editors so he can learn from his errors on his own or get punished after offending multiple people.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 19:42, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
@Epiphyllumlover: Just to clarify, users are not "punished". If they are disruptive and break the rules (not merely "offend" someone), they can have various administrative sanctions applied, including being blocked for a period of time in order to prevent further disruption or damage to the project. —[AlanM1 (talk)]—23:56, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Rangan Mitra Ray, and welcome to the Teahouse. Information about how to cite books is at WP:Citing sources#Books. As it says there, the template Template:cite book can assist. Note that, even if a book is available on the internet, the bibliographic information mentioned there is the important part of the citation: a URL is a convenience for a reader, not a significant part of the citation. --ColinFine (talk) 09:22, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Remember to include page number and if possible a short quote from the book that supports the text you want to include in the article. Help:Introduction also has "how to" guidance on referencing, supposedly aimed at newer editors. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:26, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
The necessary status needed to edit the article on The Lord of the Flies
The article on the novel Lord of the Flies fails twice to identify the most important and most fundamental theme of the novel: Golding's view of human nature, specifically his view that human nature is inherently violent and fearful. I've inserted edits in two sections to rectify this omission. I see there is a notice: "This page is semi-protected so that only autoconfirmed users can edit it. If you need help getting started with editing, please visit the Teahouse." So here I am. I'd like to be able to edit the article. Can you give me the necessary status? Chandlerburr (talk) 04:11, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello,
Could someone kindly check and see if a Template message citing insufficient citations is still justified for this article? I do agree that its still a stub, but can someone give their opinion on if this template still needs to be there? I happen to know the person so I do not want to remove the Template as it may violate the conflict of interest rule. Thank you Saffura9 (talk) 23:54, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
@Saffura9: Please link to the article - my mind-reading skills are a bit rubbish these days.
I am a newbie and I would like to know the steps to become an editor of a page that has been translated to two different languages. Your inputs are highly appreciated.
Thank you. Lithuaniacitizenship (talk) 09:22, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Lithuaniacitizenship Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If there is a particular article you wish to edit, you may do so- you are then an 'editor' of that article. That's all you need to do. Most articles are free for anyone who wishes to edit to do so. A small number are protected from editing in order to stop vandalism or edit warring, but you may still propose changes to those articles on their associated talk page. 331dot (talk) 09:28, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
I would add to that that editing in order to promote your own consultancy office is not appreciated, because Wikipedia is not a place for advertisements. --MrClog (talk) 09:31, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
You are (temporarily) blocked on two counts: Your chosen User name is a business name, and appears you want to promote the consultancy office. Must change name. See your Talk page for all details. David notMD (talk) 10:05, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm really new, trying to translate a page, but how should I add pictures to my translation from the original page?
Hello! I am trying to translate the Enoch L. Johnson page to Hungarian language, but I don't know how can I add the pictures from the original page's infobox to the translated page. I can't just upload it like it's mine, but I don't know any other solutions. I am really new, so PLEASE if you answer, try to be very specif about the steps.
Hello, Ergepard. Most photos in Wikipedia are held in Wikimedia Commons, and can be directly displayed from any Wikimedia project, including other-language Wikipedias. However, the photo on Enoch L. Johnson has been uploaded to English Wikipedia, because it is not free of copyright, and Commons accepts only free images. If you pick on the image, you will see that it has been uploaded with a specific justification for its use here according to the rules of English Wikipedia.
Different Wikipedias have different rules about the use of non-free images (for example, I believe the German Wikipedia does not allow them). You'll need to check what the rules are on Hungarian Wikipedia, and see if they will allow that image. If they do, I believe the only way is for you to download the image to your own computer, and then upload it to hu-wiki, following whatever rules they have about non-free images. --ColinFine (talk) 10:52, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
I republished the article uploaded on Wikipedia about a month back.
Could you please let me know the status of the article?
Also, if you could specify which part need to be worked on, then it would be great.
This is the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:B.PAC
Aparnapthk72 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. As indicated in the draft, it was reviewed and declined. Please see the messages from the reviewer for advice. 331dot (talk) 11:06, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Providing our own entry to the European Landscape Convention, with many links to relevant publications, etc.
We are responsible for the European Landscape Convention of the Council of Europe and would like people to be able to find our documents through Wikipedia. How could we do this?
Susan Moller, European Landscape Convention, Council of Europe, Strasbourg, France Smoller67 (talk) 06:19, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Smoller67. First of all, Wikipedia accounts are for the use of only one person, so you should speak as "I" rather than "we". You seem to have a misunderstanding about what Wikipedia is. It is a neutrally written encyclopedia consisting of articles that summarize what reliable, independent sources say about various topics. It is not a web host or a repository for documents of various organizations. Please read and comply with the mandatory paid editing declaration and the guideline for editing with a conflict of interest. Cullen328Let's discuss it06:29, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Smoller67. Before I retired, I worked for a while in a conservation planning team, with colleagues who were intimately involved in promoting Landscape Character Assessment within one English county. They spent weeks going round photographing characteristic landscapes, and wanted to retain tight control over them all, which is a shame from my perspective as a Wikipedia editor, as I cannot use any of them here. The one thing I might suggest you could very usefully do to help everyone improve a raft of Wikipedia articles is to encourage all those that you have dealings with - who take or supply landscape photographs for you - is to release some of them under a licence that is acceptable for use here on Wikipedia and its related projects. Photos are generally uploaded first to Wikimedia Commons, and all have to be properly released by the copyright holder under a Creative Commons (CC-BY-SA) licence. It's a simple but essential process. This means re-use is clearly allowed, both for non-commercial and commercial purposes. You probably have no idea how utterly frustrating it an be for us editors when we want to improve an article, only to find that there are no images available on that topic with a suitable licence for use on Wikipedia, yet there are thousands out there labelled 'copyright' which we cannot use in any way. This also applies, albeit to a much lesser extent, to text content. We can always reword and rephrase text - but we cannot redraw a brilliant photograph that has no clear licence. (Many professional photographers, museum and other organisations fail to appreciate that all they need to release for use on Wikipedia is an image at a quite low resolution, just suitable for screen display. They do not lose their rights over their original photograph, nor their commercial possibilities, and the terms of the release licence obliges us to credit them when they are used here.) So these really are two things you could do to highlight within your team as, without it, our hands are quite tightly bound.
Finally, if you do want to make suggestions for improving any page on Wikipedia, and feel that you are perhaps too closely involved through your organisation, you can always post a suggestion and relevant link(s) to the article talk page, pointing out what you think could be done to improve a page, and the source that supports it. What we like best here are independent sources that talk in detail about the subject, rather than simply trotting out what some convention or law actually states. That helps shows the subjects' wider significance. There is no shame in working for an organisation, but do please follow the advice and above and pop a note on your userpahge to declare your connection to the subject. That way, we as editors, can help and guide you most effectively. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 13:51, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Advanced graph formatting?
Hi, I'm working on a graph at User:Eddie891/GAGraph, and there are several things I wan't to do, but don't have the technological know-how to do. Anyone who can advise on what to do/or tell me it's impossible on-wiki, would be greatly appreciated. 1) I want to gray out the background for sections when backlog drives are in progress, like how this graph is done. 2) I want to highlight specific points on the graph (i.e. all time lowest numbers, highest, etc.). Again, any suggestions would appreciated! Eddie891TalkWork00:04, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
While editing an existing article requiring citation, is it sufficient to add a relevant link. Does that qualify as a citation? Factedits (talk) 15:57, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
@Factedits:WP:EASYREFBEGIN is a good primer on how to properly cite references. Please revisit your recent edits to correct those incorrect cites. Also note WP:MINOR – only trivial changes (like spelling and punctuation corrections) should be marked as "minor edits". Thanks. —[AlanM1 (talk)]—16:10, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Factedits I would ask you to make sure that you post your question in the larger edit window; the smaller window is for a section header or title. I did delete your user page, as it was not appropriate for your user page. Your user page is a place to tell the Wikipedia community about yourself as a Wikipedia user, and not a place to promote an organization. If you are associated with the organization, please read about conflict of interest. If you have any follow up question or comment, please edit this existing section instead of creating a new section. This is easier to do using the desktop version of Wikipedia(even if on a phone). 331dot (talk) 16:18, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Factedits Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia does not have "pages", it has articles- but yes, there is no limitation as to the number of articles you can create. However, be advised that successfully creating a new article is the absolute hardest task to perform on Wikipedia. You will greatly increase your chances of success by first spending much time editing existing articles in areas that interest you, to get a feel for how Wikipedia operates and what is expected of article content. New users who dive right in to creating articles often end up with hurt feelings as their work is mercilessly edited and deleted by others. You may wish to use the new user tutorial to learn more about Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 15:59, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Do you mean user pages? You can edit your own user page (almost) however you like, and you can do the same with your sandbox (link is at the top of the website). You can also create extra user pages for articles you are working on with a slash between your user name and the page's name, but that is a bit trickier.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:05, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Why is an objective page being rejected for being promotional?
I have written an article about a company and it has been rejected for being promotional. I understand wikipedia is extremely specific about content being purely for informational purposes, so I ensured the content of the article was purely factual and that every line was annotated and cited. There are many wikipedia pages about businesses and I feel that this was written with the same objectivity. Do you have any suggestions for how I can write about a company without getting flagged for being promotional? I have a journalism degree and like to think I know how to write about something objectively. For reference the draft is Draft:Hometap Home Equity Investments I was doing research on this business and others like it, and when I discovered this company did not have a page and other companies like it did, I decided to create a page to distinguish the different business models.
Mateo1259, the key is to not write it as if it's a promotion. While I can't speak to the reliability of the sources you provided the section "Model" particularly reads like an ad copy. I see the use of WP:PUFFERY in In June of 2019, Hometap was recognized as having one of the most impressive engineering teams in Boston tech by VentureFizz (emphasis added), even if that is in the title of the source that you used.
I feel that a significant part of it is the casual tone being adopted (for example, the use of contractions which is discouraged in formal writing). It's being written to connect, and while connection is the most important thing that writing is supposed to do, the casual tone used such as in The process works in just a few steps (emphasis added) gives it a nuance of persuasion, which is not what Wikipedia is for. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:42, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Way to format an image with a heading, without using the multiple image template
I am working on edits to an article, Procuratie, which uses a {{Multiple image}} template (vs. formatting with the standard "File:" format). I created this sandbox page with both formats for the same image, and the only difference is that there doesn't not seem to be a way to add a header to the File: format.
Is there a way to add a header to the File approach that I am just not aware of?
Is it okay to just leave the single image formatting using the multiple image template?
I have investigated templates and image how-to pages and cannot figure it out - and I wasn't sure where else to ask. Thanks so much! –CaroleHenson (talk) 04:54, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
I was beginning to get the same thought - that there's not likely a clear good answer. I will leave it for now... and also reach out to Help talk:Pictures. Thanks so much for your response, Usedtobecool! And, if you used to be cool, but aren't anymore, maybe that's because you're getting plenty of –CaroleHenson (talk) 20:45, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
User:Pestick and User talk:14.231.64.162 who I believe are the same, has recently been removing large amounts of content from this article using the disguise of Recentism. Upon inspecting his/her edits they have deleted numerous historical content and sources leading to systemic bias and lack of neutral point of view.
When I undid one of their edits and clearly stated the reasons why, I was confronted with this on the China national football team: Revision history page
"There is a discuss in the talk page, made by another editor. You are up against two editors including me. I'm trying to condense the article per TP:Overly detailed. Please don't disrupt the article's renovation process. This is not mainly about dead links, it's about condensing the article and getting rid of excessive intricate details." (16:09, 25 April 2020)
I looked this up at the Talk:China national football team and all I could find was David Tornheim wrote, "I hope editors can review the sourcing and fix broken links." (10:04, 21 April 2020) Further research lead me to User talk:14.231.64.162 where Materialscientist suggested this person use Sandbox. David Tornheim came in and was encouraging to the new editor, suggested a more neutral tone, replace sources that were lacking and read up carefully on any rules that editors say you have broken. Unfortunately when he wrote,
"If you start getting more warnings and anyone gets testy with you, please let me know, and can see what is going on." (10:03, 21 April 2020)
this person has selectively read that they have carte blanche to do whatever they want. This has lead to further numerous instances of vandalism deleted numerous referenced material under what they believe is condensing, poor English, only English cited sources and dead links to name a few. When I confronted this person I was met with Ownership of content and bullying language as this person now believes they have to administrators backing him/her and the perception of power. I wrote to David Tornheim about mu concerns, but he has not responded and Materialscientist has a "busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries." sign on their talk page.
So I am asking for help to stop this person vandalising this page and several others, they are not improving this page at all because if they were they wouldn't be deleting the same passages and references used in the Nederlands Featured article of the same name. Kai Lau (talk) 14:59, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Kai Lau. You are having a content dispute with two other editors. This is perfectly normal, according to WP:BRD. The way we resolve such disputes is explained in dispute resolution. Please do not describe other editors' actions as vandalism unless they are clearly intended to damage Wikipedia. What is done in a different-language Wikipedia has no bearing on what should be done here, as they are completely independent projects. (I have not looked at the edits, so I do not take a position for or against you: I'm just explaining how things work on English Wikipedia). --ColinFine (talk) 15:25, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
I have been following the content dispute and dispute resolution project pages. I have approached the the editor and anyone else involved, I have attempted to go back to improve the article but was met with ownership of content and bullying language. I've attempted to step back and wait a few days to focus on the content but when this person is maliciously removing encyclopedic content, or the changing of such content beyond all recognition, without any regard to our core content policies of neutral point of view to suit their bias opinion and seeing this person do the same to other articles is not easy. I am looking for a Third opinion because if i do go further with the content dispute how do I go about it? Kai Lau (talk) 16:01, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
@Kai Lau: I took a look. I believe I returned article to "status quo ante". I have encouraged you to both discuss your edits on the talk page of the article. Per WP:BRD, when a WP:BOLD change is reverted, one should not revert again, but instead discuss on the talk page. I am not taking a side in this dispute. I will try to look at the talk page & I might state my preference of keep vs. remove. It would probably be better if you found others who are more interested in this subject to break ties when you can't agree. I do agree with ColinFine that it is a content dispute, and that Pestick is not vandalizing the article. --David Tornheim (talk) 18:44, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Improving an article
Hello,
I’ll start by introducing myself. I’m a Director of Brand Strategy in Marketing at Apple. I’m reaching out today because myself and some of my associates would like to enhance Apple’s page and change some of the content and nuances on the page to make it represent Apple more positively. Because of the large amount of users on Wikipedia, we believe this will be an effective method by which to reach potential customers. I ran the idea by some of my superiors, and they were all for me communicating with Wikipedia and working out an agreement. Obviously, this would benefit Wikipedia because we would keep the page updated and ensure it contains all relevant information. How can we arrange this? Please advise how to proceed.
When you say "myself and some of my associates would like to enhance Apple’s page and change some of the content and nuances on the page to make it represent Apple more positively. Because of the large amount of users on Wikipedia, we believe this will be an effective method by which to reach potential customers", those are exactly the things we do not want. Wikipedia has no interest in how Apple is portrayed, and has no interest in helping potential customers. Apple is free to do this on its own website(which I would think would be a more effective use of your time as Apple is an extremely well known company). Feel free to show your superiors this message. 331dot (talk) 17:48, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your replies. What I originally had in mind was a sort of mutual agreement in which we would manage our own page. I did not fully understand the Neutral Point of View aspect of Wikipedia, I thought content merely needed to be accurate information, which of course we would have provided. I now see that my request is not compatible with Wikipedia’s policies. Thanks, 184.144.119.19 (talk) 18:15, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
@AlejandroLeloirRey: You already asked the question to the nominator at Wikimedia Commons. It is best to wait for their answer. I think the reason your picture was noiminated is that they could not verify its source, because you only included "Flickr" as source, without a link. --MrClog (talk) 18:39, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
@MrClog: I am very frustrated, I have been trying to upload a picture for days. Emails where sent by the subject of the picture and the person who took the picture and didn't get any answer. So the picture was uploaded on flickr but even this seems not to be enough. What it realy frustrate me is that every time I tried to upload a picture it was reported by the same person, exactly 2 minutes after I uploaded it. one minute later I leave a message for that person to explain him and he takes one day to give a general answer. I know it is not personal but still, why people are so efficient at deleting and so slow at answering? --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 18:44, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, but you apparently don't. Please do not upload any photographs unless you took them yourself or they have a definite license to do so. You were told on Commons that "It previously appeared numerous other places on the internet, e.g. here in 26. June 2018. This is called license laundering, and continued misreprestation of copyright status may result in a block". Theroadislong (talk) 18:48, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @AlejandroLeloirRey: I won't comment on the nominator's behaviour. However, the pictures you uploaded on Commons where uploaded the same day on Flickr, meaning there is reasonable grounds to suspect you may have uploaded the pictures on Flickr yourself, not the actual copyright holder. If the copyright holder agrees with the picture being uploaded, consider pointing them to the Wikimedia OTRS release generator. --MrClog (talk) 18:52, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
@Theroadislong: as you should know, if you want me to read you, you should ping me, thank you. the subject in the picture (also its owner) and the person who took the picture sent an email to wikipedia, I think it is pretty reasonable to think I try to do the things right. @MrClog: or may be we both live in the same country so we are on same timing, as I have explained 1000 times I and Ruggero Freddi both have FaceBook and I can send him messages (like anybody else). The moment he sent the email and uploaded the picture on flinkr he sent me a message and told me I could finally use it the way I like it. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 19:02, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
@AlejandroLeloirRey: If he sent an email, then you should wait until an OTRS volunteer has taken a look at the email, which may take up to two weeks. And, while I do ping people when I respond to them, it isn't fair for you to be angry about the lack of a ping, considering you didn't ping Theroadislong either when you came here to compain about them. --MrClog (talk) 19:06, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
@MrClog: I can see you ping, re-read the message, I wasn't complaining about you not pinging. I did not ping Mr. Theroadislong at the beginning because I did not want to make the comment personal, indeed I didn't mention him. As far as I can see it is a general behavior: I delete your work 2 seconds after you uploaded it but I answer your questions about my decision one day later. If you give a look to Caro Masi's page you shall see that it was rejected many times before finally ending up on the AFD, and there it passed even though every person who rejected left a message on the discussion, they were all wrong and they were all too busy to listen to me explaining why they were all wrong. Sometime believing in good faith is very hard, but I still do. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 19:17, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
@AlejandroLeloirRey: I know you weren't complaining about me not pinging you. However, you complained about Theroadislong in your second message without pinging him, meaning that if he doesn't ping you in his reply, you can't really complain about that either. MrClog (talk) 19:23, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
@MrClog: the end of the story? I got a PERMANENT blocked, lol. the reason? because I uploaded the picture on wikipedia right after his owner uploaded it on flickr (see above). will I get involved with writing stuff on wikipedia in the future? not sure at all. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 19:30, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi everyone, i'm back, as always. I have another question about my talk page. Is it possible for me to archive things? I am starting to have so many topics, its getting annoying for me. Is it possible for me to arrive things on my talk page? Thanks. Also, if I do archive all the topics on my talk page, is it possible for me to have a bot that sends a message to the people that their topics got archived, like the TeaHouse thing? Thanks. Shadowblade08 (talk) 20:03, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Shadowblade08, You should take a look at Help:Archiving a talk page. Various bots can be configured to automatically archive pages. You might also find User:Technical 13/Scripts/OneClickArchiver useful. I'm afraid that sending out notifications, like the Teahouse bot, is probably not possible, nor even really advisable. Generally Teahouse discussions are closed real fast since we get so many questions a day. But most user talk discussions will remain on the page for some weeks or months.CaptainEekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓22:06, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
AdjustingFramework, Howdy hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Can't say I know what you're referring to? Stack overflow is a problem in some technological applications, but I'm not aware of it occurring in Wikipedia unless you're writing code for backend gadgets. CaptainEekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓22:09, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Stubs and notability
Hello fellow Wikipedians, I came across several stub pages while editing through the community portal and task center. I researched some of those subjects, but couldn't find much more beyond what was included in the stub already. At most, I could add some additional trivial information to some of those stubs, but they would have remained stubs even after the update.
So, here's my question. Does lack of information about a subject tantamount to lack of notability?
If no, what can an editor do about expanding those articles?
If yes, should they be marked for deletion or left alone?
"lack of information about a subject tantamount to lack of notability" no, it doesn't
"expanding those articles"--you could let someone else expand them; some are better left for people with access to offline sources
Merging is sometimes an option. Some stubs work well as sections on a larger article; some should be left alone. These are often subjective decisions--do what you think is best, but be sure you personally care enough about it to see whatever decision you make through to the end.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 21:26, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Hmm, makes sense. I think the best strategy, at this point given my experience, would be to improve the ones I can as much as possible and leave the rest up to more experienced editors. NawJee (talk) 21:53, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Hey, NawJee, that's a very mature attitude. There are far too many editors out there who wrongly think it's a badge of honour to get articles deleted from Wikipedia. Personally, I think it's an ignorant and pathetic attitude that's akin to a newcomer stamping on insects because they don't know what they are. Only those who have the skill or take the time to identify whether the bug/insect is harmful should be putting their boots on. There are lots of tiny insects out there that serve a great purpose in this world; there are equally many Wikipedia articles here that could do the same, if only someone gave them a bit of tender, loving editing. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:40, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi Nick Moyes, thanks for the encouragement. I absolutely agree with you. Generally, in life, I believe that 'seeking forgiveness is better than permission', but this is an encyclopedia. I would rather seek guidance to do the right thing than going out on a whimsy and ruin things all together. I am here to learn and contribute, so that is what I shall do. Again, thank you. NawJee (talk) 22:47, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Page for a famous person
HI, I need to create a wiki page on an entertainer. How can I do that? Can some one guide me so that it is not objected. Thanks Earthianyogi (talk) 18:44, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Earthianyogi Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia does not have mere "pages", Wikipedia has articles. Why do you "need" to create this article? 331dot (talk) 18:50, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
(ec)Earthianyogi please collate the sources carefully and make sure that the subject meets either WP:GNG or one of the criteria at WP:ENT, then use the WP:Article Wizard. Reading WP:YFA before you start is recommended. Other editors can weigh in once you have a rudimentary draft with, for WP:GNG, a list of three best sources (WP:THREE) that establish notability, or failing that, requisite evidence for WP:ENT. On a sidenote, do you know why your signature is after the timestamp in your post? Usedtobecool☎️19:03, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Usedtobecool, Thanks for your reply. I have no idea why my signature is after the timestamp in my post :( Is it a problem?
331dot, Thanks for your reply. Just for fun. Can I not? I have only created technical page/articles so far on Wikipedia, and want to make/write another type of page/articles as well. It seems slightly complicated...
Earthianyogi When a newer user says that they have a "need" to create an article, they often have a specific reason for their need. If you just want to create an article, that's fine. Be advised that creating a new article is the absolute hardest thing to do on Wikipedia. I would second the advice given to you by Usedtobecool. You may also wish to spend some time editing existing articles in areas that interest you, so you get a feel for how Wikipedia works and what is expected of article content. It may also help you to use the new user tutorial. 331dot (talk) 19:17, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
331dot, Thank you, but I created other technical articles as well and have made significant additions to other articles (like copula, Positron Emission Tomography, Time-activity curve, etc.). I wanted to contribute (maybe I should have said - I wish to create....). I see now why it is hard to publish an article on Wikipedia, it can get complicated :) :) Earthianyogi (talk) 19:25, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Earthianyogi, well, when the order is messed up, the reply-link tool doesn't work; makes it harder to leave a reply. That also suggests, at least a possibility that bots might potentially have a problem too. IDK for sure. It was weird enough to make me curious, that's all. Usedtobecool☎️20:03, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
@Usedtobecool: Having fixed the same (sig) problem in the section above, I fixed this one as well, not realizing it was being discussed. Odd that it happened to two different editors, and not in all their posts. —[AlanM1 (talk)]—01:03, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
@Usedtobecool: Mystery solved. If you type 8 tildes in a row, it is interpreted as 5 tildes followed by 3 tildes, yielding a timestamp followed by a userlink. Since we added the preload when people use the Ask a question at the top of the page, which has a somewhat obfuscated auto-signature in it, some more experienced users that are used to signing their posts, when they use that button, don't notice it and add their own ~~~~, which usually results in two signatures. There was a change made to the preload form that removed a space, so the two sets of tildes now run against each other. Pinging Tenryuu. —[AlanM1 (talk)]—01:24, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi AlanM1, the reason why I removed the space is because it would always render the signature as code in preformatted space due to the space preceding it, which as far as I could tell wouldn't allow reply-link to work. I tried to find examples in the archives, but they've been copyedited away by editors. Perhaps we should add another comment in the preload? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:32, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
@Tenryuu: I tried a couple of different things and didn't come up with a good solution. At least a comment that tells people not to manually sign it would be good. I'll work on it some more tomorrow. —[AlanM1 (talk)]—02:45, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
@AlanM1: I've added a new comment to the reload. A possible thing we could do is add any one character before the signature, like "." and format its colour into white so that it is essentially invisible. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:54, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
@Tenryuu: After fixing three more flipped sigs (the last at 2020-04-25T06:04Z), I inserted a space in front of the tildes in the preload, which seems to work fine (and is a good idea anyway so people's sigs aren't crammed up against their post). We'll see if any more show up. —[AlanM1 (talk)]—08:05, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
(Clarification added above) I also played a bit with the Lua String module to try to catch and remove the four tildes if the user types them, but from the results, it seems that the tilde substitution happens too early – the String module gets the already-substituted signature instead. So, we may just have to live with the double sigs if they don't see the instruction. —[AlanM1 (talk)]—08:31, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
AlanM1, I edited the preload yesterday. Like my edit summary says, non-breaking spaces should prevent code from becoming a code line. Double signing is fine; it's better than no signature and it doesn't stop reply-link.js from working. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:01, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Please help me. I have created a page for Samuel Mori Voit and the code was checked. It is being rejected and I don't understand why. It has been going on for over a year. Please help! Fayerez303 (talk) 17:44, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
@Fayerez303: Your draft hasn't been rejected, but declined, which is not as serious. I suggest deleting your other draft and improve the one you currently have before re-submitting it. Also, refrain from using promotional language, as it is not appropriate for Wikipedia articles.
Thank you. How do I delete the previous draft? Also do you have suggestions for the edits on the page? I am not sure how to improve on it. Thank you.
If you wrote it, put db-author with {{}} around it at the top of the page. Someone with the ability to delete will do the task for you.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 19:58, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Electrostar378 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I am sorry you are experiencing frustration at the process to create a new article. Creating a new article is the absolute hardest task to perform on Wikipedia, and unfortunately you are finding this out the hard way. That said, the reviewer gave you some good advice, and since they did not outright reject your draft, that means there is at least a chance the article can be improved to meet standards. Do you have any questions about the advice you were given? 331dot (talk) 18:34, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
You don't need to tell us about how your draft was declined. The draft was grossly malformatted, so among other things you need to read the useful links which were provided to you, both on the draft page itself and on your user talk page. One useful hint is that a template call, such as infobox, cite web, and cite news, not only starts with {{ but also finishes with }}. If you use "Show preview" before saving the page it will give you a clue whether your formatting is screwed up. If you get the formatting right, it will give the reviewer a chance to read it correctly to see whether the content is acceptable. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:46, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
@Electrostar378: yes, I'm afraid virtually everything about that draft is currently a total 'pig's ear', with such bad formatting that it's virtually impossible to envisage that three days work could look so bad, and yet you hadn't noticed. If you want help on specific issue, we'll try to assist you. For starters, see my guide on adding references at WP:EASYREFBEGIN. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:58, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Electrostar378, in addition to what other editors have observed, please understand that articles should have a neutral point of view, something that should also be in the "Background" section of your draft. Phrases like In fact, it was such a great car are not suitable for an encyclopedia. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:12, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
HELP
Hi, I just noted that the user {u|Dean197} has deleted plenty of text from this article "Mi Notebook Air" url:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mi_Notebook_Air. I had spent a lot of my time editing it and it now feels like a waste of time.... Was this article previously reviewed by a senior editor before acceptance? If so, is it ok for someone to remove most of the text from the article? Should I edit other articles or not? Can someone please review/? Thank you for your advice. Earthianyogi (talk) 01:14, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Earthianyogi, welcome to the Teahouse. From what I can tell Dean197 removed content that was considered unnecessary and/or lacked citations. I see you've left a message to Dean197 on the talk page; I have pinged them on your behalf. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:36, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Tenryuu, Thank you for your response. I did read his/her comments "content that was considered unnecessary and/or lacked citations.". Thanks for pointing it out. However, I think slightly differently as follows:
1. I checked this user's profile and s/he seems like an inexperienced editor on Wikipedia. Also, they have not yet replied.
2. This editor seems to have made no effort to correct it themselves. If they cannot, they should at least try to find the missing references. If they cannot, they should leave a [citation needed] tag on the article and leave it for others to improve it. If they cannot, they should contact the author of the article. I feel so because the article must have been passed by a senior editor and maybe worth it.
3. How can we assess this user's credibility in deleting the text? I mean, a text that is relevant to one person may be irrelevant to another, depending on their perspective.
4. If an editor feels that some content needs to be deleted, then they should first check with the author of the article or other editors before doing so.
5. I edited a few Wikipedia articles. I noticed that references are missing in many places in various articles. That does not mean that the text is any less relevant. I just feel that sometimes authors do not have the time or the energy to add these references, or some do not even have that kind of training to do so. Therefore, we should put a collaborative effort to make and improve Wikipedia, rather than just deleting another person's effort.
6. Please note, I am not the author of this article. However, I had spent time editing it, and I feel like it has been a waste of my time when someone just comes along and deletes the text. I wonder how the author of the article would feel.
Hello, Earthianyogi. Yes, you are making sense; but no, that is not entirely how this works. The relevant policy is BRD. If you read this, you will see that your point 4 is specifically wrong. As for your other points:
1 is not relevant, except that the other editor may also be unfamiliar with how we work.
2: I agree that that would be preferable, but there are many reasons why people do or don't edit in the most preferable way.
3: I'm not sure what the "credibility" of an editor is. Editing Wikipedia is a combination of applying rules and policies, and balancing subjective views of what is appropriate: that's why we have BRD. AGF says that we should treat all editors equally unless and until their continued behavior gives cause for concern.
5:Wikipedia policy does not require everything to be cited, as long as it could be in principle, (see WP:PERENNIAL#Require inline citations for everything), but editors are often pickier about new material introduced. You are entitled to introduce material without citation (as long as you have verified that there is a source that could be cited - but then, why not cite it?); Dean197 is entitled to regard that as unsatisfactory, and remove it. The next step is to discuss the question and reach a consensus.
6: Usually "the author of the article" is a phrase without a referent. Most Wikipedia articles are the work of several, sometimes many, separate editors. It is in the nature of how we work that sometimes people will put in the effort that is ultimately discarded. This is one of the reasons why it is sometimes a good idea to propose a change on the article's talk page before making a change.
Note that I haven't even been to look at the article and your edits, so I am making no statement about whether I agree or disagree with your additions: I'm just answering your questions about the process. --ColinFine (talk) 09:30, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
ColinFine, Thank you for your reply. I agree with all your points. Concerning point 4, I have not looked at the policy; however, I was just porpoising that we do so. But it is okay if that has already been thought through. I regard to credibility, I mean how do we ensure that the person has the right set of knowledge and skills to do so. Also, a text that is relevant to one person may be irrelevant to another, depending on their perspective. Maybe the person is just a fraud (how do we assess?). I mainly edited the text of the article, without adding any new info or removing any old info from it. It is okay that some of the work gets discarded, but It has to be done in the right way on a factual basis; otherwise, it is just discouraging. Thank you Earthianyogi (talk) 09:51, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi, Earthianyogi. You were bold, Dean197 reverted, now you're discussing. That's how it works. As for credibility: there is no particular knowledge required to edit any article constructively. There are some basic skills in using and understanding English, which we assume that an editor has until they give us reason to doubt that; there are some skills in how Wikipedia works, which we assume that a new editor does not have, but try to teach them gently. You are right that there are people who come on here not to build an Encyclopaedia; but we start by assuming good faith. And if a large edit is done by a vandal or POV pusher, it is usually straightforward to undo it, so nothing is completely lost. --ColinFine (talk) 11:07, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
From a quick look, the article was tagged before Dean197's deletions with too much detail and citations needed - and much of what was deleted was separately tagged with citation needed - so the actions were not entirely arbitrary. If citations can be found for the deleted content it may be appropriate to restore it, or some of it. Personally, I agree that even if citations are available, there was too much esoteric detail. Keep in mind that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a document that helps a person decide which notebook to buy. David notMD (talk) 13:32, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
David notMD, Thank you. I understand, but in that case, why should this article be accepted by Wikipedia in the first place? I feel that it should be completely removed, should n't it? Earthianyogi (talk) 20:07, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Tenryuu,:David notMD,:ColinFine,:Earthianyogi: This is a very insightful discussion and really helpful. As pointed out, I am a new editor. And as I noted in the edit summaries, I removed some sections due to lack of citations and what appeared to be overly specific detail that the regular person wouldn't be interested in. Some of the text also sounded like it was lifted from an advertisement, so I amended some of that to sound more impartial to the topic at hand. I can imagine how frustrating it would be to have someone come along and remove the text you'd put considerable time and effort into making. However, so much of the instruction aimed at new editors is to be bold, and as I am a professional writer in my day job I thought I'd take a crack at making the page more useful to the average reader. I could be totally wrong and have missed the point, however, and very much welcome any feedback from experienced editors out there. Dean197 (talk) 10:28, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Dean197, after a gross inspection (reviewed diff from immediately prior to your first edit & the current version), it looks like your copyedits improved the flow of the article and your factual changes were sound. Others are allowed to disagree, so a discussion on the article's talk page is warranted, although the OP hasn't reverted your edits. It appears he doesn't understand the WP:DR process either, but it appears you both have enough info to go forward now. One thing for you though: please see WP:MINOR on what is and isn't a minor edit, and check your preferences. You may have the selection "mark all edits as a minor" enabled. Probably should change that? You can also select to be notified if you haven't left an edit summary. I probably want to enable that. John from Idegon (talk) 00:12, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
@Ghoraghatalpha: We prefer English sources if they are available, but using non-English sources is allowed (and a good idea if you cannot source the content with English language sources). --MrClog (talk) 22:47, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Ghoraghatalpha, and welcome to the Teahouse. Whilst it it preferable to supply Reliable Sources in English, it is definitely not a requirement. Foreign language sources do still need to be reliable, independent and verifiable, of course. But they're fine to use if nothing more accessible is available. Thank you for your astute question. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:51, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Ghoraghatalpha It was a very well hidden secret if you were just reading the WP:NOENG page for guidance, until just now, but many popular citation templates support an optional language parameter alerting readers that the source is in a foreign language. Use the parameter "language =" or "lang =" with the full language name or the standard MediaWiki language code. Multiple languages are separated with commas (with no 'and' before the last one). Example: de, fr, es TimTempleton(talk)(cont)00:39, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
How do i get help from an admin
How do i get an admin to help me with someone that is stopping me doing a rfc in error? The page in question is Talk:Dark Phoenix (film). There is a user that is stopping the rfc because they wrongly think that there has already been a rfc.ToeFungii (talk) 01:09, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Was just coming here to say that although they've made the top of the rfc very confusing because they simply won't remove those confusing sentences but oh well. At first I thought they might have been a shill of some people from the prior discussion trying to stop the rfc but that doesn't seem to be the case now. thanks. ToeFungii (talk) 01:51, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
I John Josef Gresko am the studio drummer and inventor of Extreme Isolation headphones.
I thought I could add an edit about the headphones used by 3 of my friends in the music business. I have 4 patent numbers for my headphones. Is this what I need for verification? I also have many published articles in the music world about the headphones.I was unaware that I was violating rules about an edit.
Should I be able to start a story about My Extreme Isolation headphones the invention of the first hearing protection headphones in the music industry? The headphones have been used for 20 years by hundreds of famous music icons. Please accept my apology for violating the rules and I hope to clear my name from any wrong doing. Sincerely, Studiodrummer (talk) 01:47, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Studiodrummer, do you have any independent reliable sources stating as much? To put it bluntly, Wikipedia does not care if you are the creator of these headphones, and if you are, you most certainly shouldn't be inserting this information into articles yourself as it is a conflict of interest and will be seen as promotion, which is not allowed on here.
Should I be able to start a story about [...] (emphasis added): Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and as such we do not have mere pages on subjects, but articles. We do not add anecdotal blurbs to Wikipedia. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:57, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Studiodrummer, Wikipedia is not for promotion. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and we do not exist for the promotion of any person or product. We summarize what reliable sources say about subjects, not what the subjects say about themselves. If you'd like to honestly contribute to Wikipedia, you should take the Wikipedia Adventure. But if you're here only to talk about your headphones, this is not the place. If you want more people to know about them, contact an advertising agency, don't try to edit it into Wikipedia. If you'd like to edit music subjects, not related to yourself or any business interest, I can try to point you in the direction of some good places to start. CaptainEekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓01:59, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am having trouble moving User:Wendi Warren Binford to a separate article page. I was unable to move the page and change the User format to an Article format. Due to this, I tried to move the article back to my User page, but failed to do so. KGFerrer (talk) 03:18, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Welcome to Wikipedia! Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, you may have better luck on social media than you will here. Good luck, Wildcat! GoingBatty (talk) 04:08, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Where to report unreliable sources so that they can be blacklisted?
I know that there is a list of blacklisted spam sites at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist and a noticeboard to discuss if a particular website is reliable at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, but I want to know if there is a page where I can report unreliable sources to get them blacklisted (I found a discussion to get one such source blacklisted but the page where it is has been declared to be inactive). The sources I wish to report still haven’t been used on Wikipedia as far as I know, but since they are known for cherrypicking information to make certain political groups look bad, spreading fake news and so on in India, I thought it would be appropriate to report them before they get used on Wikipedia. So, could someone point me in the right direction? Regards, RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 06:41, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
I know a list of commonly used sources(successfully or not) is at WP:RSP, you could post on its talk page requesting that your source be added and see what they say. 331dot (talk) 09:53, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Locations
If you are describing a historical figure's birthpace, do you put the name of the country/region at the time say Yugoslavia or the current name. say Croatia? Is there a wiki protocol for this? Random Tyke 09:50, 28 April 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RandomTyke (talk • contribs)
How to change how an article shows up in a google search
I am trying to edit an article so that certain sections of it show up underneath the link when google searching. How do I edit which sections come up? 80.4.51.93 (talk) 09:47, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
You would have to speak to Google as to how they display search results. I think they just take the opening line or paragraph and display it. 331dot (talk) 09:50, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello. The fact that you are concerned about what shows up in a Google search suggests that you are trying to use Wikiedia for promotional purposes. The fact that the only recent edits from this IP address are to the article Mark Stewart (guitarist) suggests that you are trying to use it to promote Mark Stewart, and that you are quite probably Stewart or somebody connected with him. Please be aware that promotion of any kind is forbidden on Wikipedia, and that if you are connected with Stewart you should be aware of Wikipedia's position on editing with a conflict of interest. --ColinFine (talk) 10:59, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
60 GHz
Why are there no entries when searching for 60 GHz?. There should be an entree because of the present controversy.
Information about the following is hard to find, even in wikipedia:
1. the unregulated use of 60 GHz devices and their connection with 5G networks,
2. the 60 GHz connection to Oxygen when carried by blood cells,
3. the similarity of the symptoms of oxygen deprivation and Covid-19.
4. the banning of any discussion of this on social network platforms.
I have up to now always used wikipedia as a place where I can trust the information.
This is because many entries have a paragraph called "Controversies" that seem to make the entree honest and neutral. 194.230.155.123 (talk) 10:20, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
If you are unable to find an article about a particular subject, it just means that no one has written it yet. Please note that Wikipedia summarizes what appears in independent reliable sources, giving appropriate weight to how sources cover a subject; fringe theories and claims that are not broadly accepted are covered accordingly. Also note that Wikipedia is not intended as a reliable source; Wikipedia summarizes information and provides the sources so readers can evaluate the sources and judge the information for themselves. 331dot (talk) 10:24, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
It could perhaps be added to Misinformation related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic#5G with appropriate sources, though there are many minor fringe/crank nonsense theories floating around, and not all of them are notable just because someone creates a hashtag on Twitter. What is described here is not a "controversy", it is a conspiracy theory. As you say, it is important to try to keep Wikipedia as free from misinformation and false claims as possible. --bonadeacontributionstalk11:00, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Autoblock
My account is often autoblocked for reasons that my IP address was used by a blocked user for 'undisclosed paid editor'.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
What is the procedure to re-instate the Wiki-page ‘Battle of Chalgrove’? The title of this Wiki-page has been stolen/changed to ‘Battle of Chalgrove Field’ and contains serious breaches copyright. John Hampdens Regiment (talk) 11:46, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Judging from your comments on other user pages, I suspect that you're referring to File:Chalgrove_Battle_Map.png. That file was uploaded by you on 7 March 2016, and according to that page you said it was your own work and agreed to release it under a Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 4.0 license. In short, that means that you agreed that a) you owned the copyright to that image, and b) you released that image to be used by anybody and for any purpose as long as they properly attributed it to you. In other words, you cannot claim it is a copyright violation because of how you licensed it when uploading it. creffett (talk) 20:07, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
John Hampdens Regiment Once you release an image under a Creative Commons license, you cannot revoke that. You are attributed by Wikipedia as required; if you click on the image, it lists you as the source. --MrClog (talk) 11:25, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Ian Thompson - it is accepted that you are correct and the map was uploaded to Wiki by me. You state that the ‘image to be used by anybody and for any purpose as long as they properly attribute it to you’. Where is that accreditation on the Battle of Chalgrove Field webpage? Your comments on the statements under would be appreciated and if you prefer Robinvp11’s interpretation of the Battle of Chalgrove to give the reason why.
Where is Wikipedia’s Academic Excellence?
The Battle of Chalgrove was added to English Heritage Battlefield Register because the Chalgrove Battle Group’s interpretation undermined English Heritage’s main source of information. English Heritage had relied heavily on Oxoniensia Vol 38 pub 1973 ‘The Raid on Chinnor and the Fight at Chalgrove Field’ J. Stevenson & A. Carter which the Independent Review Panel who were convinced by the Group’s argument was utterly flawed.
Robinvp11 interpretation mirrors that found in English Heritage’s Provisional Register which was dismissed by the Independent Review Panel.
Oxoniensia Vol 80 pub 2015 ‘The Military and Political Importance of the Battle of Chalgrove 1643’ Lester and Lester which academically and to the satisfaction of the peer reviewers totally refuted Stevenson and Carter’s interpretation of Chalgrove.
Robinvp11 relies heavily on Oxoniensia Vol 38 pub 1973 ‘The Raid on Chinnor and the Fight at Chalgrove Field’ J. Stevenson & A. Carter for his interpretation. Robinvp11 confuses, misquotes and is dismissive of statements made by Lester and Lester see his Ref (9) and page 34. The Chalgrove Battle Map is not referenced and is unattributed, it is the writer’s copyright and is found on page 36 of Oxoniensia Vol 80. Robinvp11 should read page 28 to get an understanding that George Nugent-Grenville’s (Lord Nugent) interpretation found in his book pub 1832 ‘Some Memorial’ is pathetically inane. Quote from vol II p431 has ‘He (Hampden) instantly mounted’ his horse to go and fight 2,000 Royalists leaving his regiment safely tucked up in their beds in Watlington. How else can it be explained that Hampden was at Chalgrove without his officers and regiment!? The Independent Review Panel thought this statement was hilarious and threw out English Heritage’s claims. Are Wikipedia’s founders horrified by the absurdity that is damaging its name for academic excellence being published on its website?
Sir Edward Hyde (Clarendon from 1661) was in Oxford with King Charles I on the day of Battle of Chalgrove. The senior parliamentarian officers captured from Chalgrove hours earlier were asked why they were fighting as troopers. Would Robinvp11 care to read what was recorded by Hyde and the King on the day!? A transcription of the original document is found on Battle of Chalgrove Wiki webpage.
Oxoniensia Vol 80 pub 2015 ‘The Military and Political Importance of the Battle of Chalgrove 1643’ Lester and Lester can be viewed in Flipbooks formation on the Battle of Chalgrove Wiki webpage or at www.johnhampdensregiment.org.uk. This website is linked to webpage Battle of Chalgrove and has copies of the contemporary documents written out in full so as to assist the reader.
It is the administrators’ duty to restore the Wiki webpage ‘Battle of Chalgrove’ as the definitive interpretation. Regards, Lester & Lester, a leading authority on the Battle of Chalgrove — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Hampdens Regiment (talk • contribs) 11:18, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
the post immediately above was moved by me from the top of the section, to reduce confusion about the discussion sequence. Will add a note to the user's talk page, about replying below other posts --bonadeacontributionstalk11:29, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
John Hampdens Regiment Have you readWP:OWN yet? It is NOT the administrators’ duty to restore the "Wiki webpage" to your preferred version, if you have any dispute with content please discus it on the article's talk page. Regarding the map, you have released your copyright by uploading it to Commons under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license. Theroadislong (talk) 12:21, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
How to properly understand reliable source guidelines
india is so diverse, and high population. how much population is enough to call it popular. As even if a single kannada newspaper cover only one major city like Bangalore in Karnataka. It will have readership of crores. But editor being from north india or english speaking may judge it not reliable.
Saamna newspaper by shiv sena and national herald by Indian national congress Saamna is popular then its own circulation, will it be considered as unbiased and reliable source citing ownership by a political party. Lokmat is only Marathi its demographics is limited to Marathi speaking population only. The hitwad i know is some of oldest newspaper but no popularity.
Some language like konkani, sindhi have very less speaking population, but a specific news paper have loyal readership in the language speaking population.
Above all no single newspaper can represent entire nation in detail, hence the need for regional newspapers.
So my question is how notability is really established, which news source can be considered reliable.
I went through guidelines several times, but have hard time understanding then in context of my question above.Nealtylor (talk) 13:54, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
You ask a question that would require an essay to answer, Nealtylor; unfortunately, I don't know of any that already exist.
Readership has nothing to do with what makes a source reliable. There is some correlation, but that doesn't indicate a causative relationship. And reliability is just one of several characteristics required of a source for it to contribute toward notability. Others being that the sources be "secondary" as well as "independent" and the coverage be substantial, not just a passing mention or a routine coverage.
A source is judged reliable if, for example, it has been mentioned as a reliable source by other reliable sources, or if it has a reputation for accuracy and prompt redaction when mistakes are made, or if it is written by a known expert in the field with good reputation for accuracy and other desirable qualities, or if it has some kind of responsible editorial mechanism/board and there is no evidence that it publishes inaccurate/fake news, I think you get the picture. That means, "a Kannada newspaper that covers only Bangalore" would be reliable if it is one of those things I mentioned above. Same with Lokmat, hitwad, and "a specific newspaper in Konkani or Sindhi". Saamna and National Herald would have to be evaluated in light of their affiliations with Shiv sena and The Congress respectively. They could be reliable about certain things, and unreliable about other things. They will not contribute to notability of anybody or anything connected with their respective parties because whether they are reliable or not, they are not "independent" or "secondary" when it comes to their own parties. As to whether the local/regional papers contribute to notability, there is no general answer that would fit all. For example, if the topic is a Marathi writer or a book from before 1900s, and there is substantial coverage in Marathi papers and a few mentions outside Maharastra, that may be considered sufficient; but if it's a Marathi writer or a book from today, people might wonder, why there is no substantial coverage in national and international level,and even suspect that someone could have paid the Marathi sources to cover the topic, then that would not contribute to notability. Deccan Herald, AFAIK, counts toward notability most of the times. Isn't that a regional paper?
The actual content of the coverage matters too. Time and again, Wikipedians discuss whether Times of India should be considered unsuitable for evaluating notability of Bolly- / Tolly- / Kolly- wood related topics, because it writes filmy articles which read very much like paid placements, but then, people say, all Indian film coverage is bad; so, it's tolerated, last I checked, lest we run out of sources to use. On the other hand, English world has a ton of global sources, so there is a very high standard, and even large multi-national/global newspapers can get blacklisted.
It makes complete sense, but how i can use this information in real time situations, like it is a unwritten code of conduct between publications, to not publish about each other due to competitive nature between. Now how a new but going good in circulation publication can be cited in wikipedia. I seen several brands and publication pages in wikipedia in which publication page have its own links as references like bhaskar, jagran, how it is allowed and how a rather new publication will be or not be allowed to use its own references as it may marked as advertisement.
But other publication are never going to write about it.
Same for journalists and editors, except for few who keep on switching jobs i do not see accredited journalists mention in editorials for any award except for government website.
In this case journalist award reference link can be provided but no other references will be available.
All editorial mechanisms and responsibilities big brands automatically qualify, but how a new will be able to, on what points wikipedia editors will judge it.
Nealtylor, again, you raise excellent questions, some of them really arguments, one of which I have previously used myself. The general answer is: Wikipedia is not perfect, we do the best we can. The policies here are all borne out of WP:CONSENSUS, and every editor has the ability to propose amendments to policies if they have the arguments to convince the rest of the community. You can visit WP:VPP to see some of that in action. Some of the problems you bring up has to do with WP:Systemic bias. Some of it has to do with how technology changes the world. Everything that was written about before printing was invented is considered automatically notable. Before the internet came along, and with it, clickbait, fake news, WP:COVERT advertising, and all that stuff, newspapers used to be considered almost always automatically reliable. At the end of the day, we service our readers and the philosophy of free knowledge for all; if erring on the side of caution with respect to the booming media landscape does it, whether and how much fair it is to the legitimate new media does not much figure into it.
Getting back to the important question of how to go about editing Wikipedia under these circumstances, all that need said, most likely, is, use common sense. Try your best to make sure the source you are using is reliable; and if someone reverts you, present your case in detail such as you have done here, especially focusing on why you think the source is good, and since you are new, ask politely what they know that you don't know that makes them conclude the opposite, and try and come to an understanding on what's best for the encyclopedia. If you can't find an agreement, there are other avenues of WP:Dispute Resolution. As I said, a lot of how Wikipedia works on is common sense and unwritten consensus. So, it is folly to try and figure out all the rules before you even start. Know that there is no hierarchy of editors here, but that, with experience, may come better knowledge regarding the most up to date community consensus on best practices, all of which may not be found in the written word, and that there are always avenues to pursue if you find yourself in conflict with other editors in any regard. In the meantime, you might be able to gain more insight by raising some of the specific questions you had, at, say, the WT:Noticeboard for India-related topics. I am thinking of questions like: "Why do Jagran and Bhaskar get to cite themselves, when it is spam in case of new publications?" or "Why should the state-level newspapers of India that serve more readers than many of the countries' national papers not be listed as reliable sources or sources adding to notability?", and so on.
With regard to some of those more specific questions used to illustrate your general point, WP:SNG is one compromise we have to try and make it fairer to topics that are important but do not have readily available coverage in mainstream sources. For movies and short films, the secondary criteria are listed at WP:NFO. As you can read there, a film without a ton of coverage will be presumed notable in the interim if there is at least verification that it has won a major award, for example. Similarly, for journalists, WP:NJOURNALIST and WP:NACADEMIC provide for presumption of notability if there is evidence that they have won a major award, or have been cited many times by others, for instance.
Nealtylor had asked this question to me as well, so I found this response helpful. I also found these links that I feel are good advice. Please take a look.
I have two questions in general.
The first: I created a page,Sebastian Deffner, it's already been reviewed and is in the article space, I was wondering why the page does not show up on google search (search engines in general) and if there was something I can do to make it happen.
Omar Alamazruei Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. It takes time for search engines to index articles. It will show up in due course. LinkedIn pages are a primary source and aren't acceptable in most cases. Some indisputable factual information like date of birth might be okay, but independent sources are preferred. 331dot (talk) 14:21, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Omar Almazruei, the first question is out of our control. It has been set so that search engines can find it, but for whatever reason they either haven't yet, or have seen it but not placed it high in the results.
I have a personal picture of a notable person, I wanted to update the Wikipedia page with that picture how would I show the picture is mine and is not copyrighted? Csar00 (talk) 14:19, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
If you didn't, then in 99% of cases, unless there is some kind of contract in place, copyright is held by the photographer, and you would have to get their permission before emailing it to permissions-commonswikimedia.org ~~ Alex Noble/1-2/TRB14:26, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
A bug with interlanguage links
Hello. I'm trying to insert an interlanguage link into the article Blonded Radio but when I load the page, it comes up missing (see track 19, under "blonded Xmas", under "2019"). Can someone please fix this? Thanks in advance. Thatoneweirdwikier | Say hi13:46, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Thatoneweirdwikier. A better solution is to use the template {{ill}}. If you say {{ill|Troupeau Bleu|fr}} it will display as Troupeau Bleu [fr] (with a redlink, but a blue "fr" that links to the French article) as long as there isn't an English article, but if somebody writes one, it will automatically display as a normal wikilink to that and drop reference to the French one. --ColinFine (talk) 15:00, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Need contributor about IDE WinDev
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Good morning all.
I would just like to inform you that I am looking for a contributor for my future article on WinDev (which you will find on Draft: WinDev).
It's an IDE, a development language (wlanguage), and I don't think I can make a good enough article without someone's help.
Draft:WinDevYesicantexas (talk) 12:11, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Yesicantexas, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid the Teahouse is not the place to solicit for assistance to promote a software product, or to advertise it on Wikipedia. The one piece of advice I can offer is to ask if you have read WP:NSOFTWARE? These are the 'notability' criteria for accepting an article here, namely that the world at large has taken notice of and written in detail and in depth about a product. Your draft is overly-detailed, promotional and full of techno-speak, I'm afraid, and stands no chance. What is an etiquebelling editor? - the word doesn't appear to exist. But most importantly, what three independent reference actually talk in detail about this product? Without these, you're wasting your time, I fear. Sorry. (I feel the 2014 blog citation which ends "Bottom line: sending me porn won’t make me use your ###### platform." sort of sums up everything that's wrong about this subject.) Nick Moyes (talk) 13:27, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am trying to update an exisiting wikipedia page with updated information. However as this is my first time editing/uploading something on here. I have the article saved on my sandbox, if someone could reivew this and give me a few pointers as to how to go abut updating the exisiting page without causing any conflict with previous editors?
S5omr Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Since you state you are working with Kevin Stephens, you will need to read and formally comply with the conflict of interest policy. If you are being compensated in any way for doing so, you will also need to comply with the paid editing policy. The article(not just a "page") does not belong to Mr. Stephens and he cannot grant or deny permission for any editor to edit the article about him. The draft you have written is, frankly, loaded with promotional language and is completely unsourced to independent reliable sources with significant coverage of Mr. Stephens. Wikipedia is not interested in what any article subject wants to say about itself, only in what others say about it. Any expansion of the article about him should only summarize what others say about Mr. Stephens, such as news articles or completely independent reviews of his work. 331dot (talk) 10:04, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi 331dot,
Many thanks for your help here and your prompt responce! Due to the nature of Kevin's work, majority of independant reivews come in the form of comments on social media and inteviews. The current page on Kevin is not up to date, would you be able to advise the best way to update this without causing confilt with current/past authors?
S5omr (talk) 10:09, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
S5omr You need to read some of our policies and guidelines I'm afraid. WP:RS, WP:BLP, WP:NOR. This is an encyclopedia, not a fan site. You might find it easier to learn the ropes by starting helping out with some minor edits to other articles rather than a wholesale rewrite of a biography. Our rules are complicated for a newbie. You need to learn how careful we are with BLPs generally, especially with negativity. How to handle discussion of children who are minors. And on top of that you have a conflict of interest. Oh and mostly removing his notable career from his biography isn't a good idea. You're just not in a good position to do this task, at the moment. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned!10:16, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
This has been very helpful and has made this sitation much clearer. In regard to removing his notable career, I was unaware of the policies in places (due to my own misconceptions about Wikipedia) - is there somewhere/someone I can apologise to for making such edits?S5omr (talk) 10:20, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
S5omr (edit conflict) Unfortunately, social media comments are not reliable sources. What is required are professionally published sources that have a reputation of editorial control and fact checking. If you have sources that do that, you should make a formal edit request(click for instructions) on the article talk page(Talk:Kevin Stephens) once you comply with the policies I have mentioned above. If information does not appear in such sources, it cannot be on Wikipedia- even if this means that the article does not describe his current status or career. Mr. Stephens is free to use his social media to give any information he wishes about himself. Again, Wikipedia is only for describing what independent reliable sources say about him. 331dot (talk) 10:17, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
You can, however, make suggestions at Talk:Kevin Stephens. If they are inline with WP:s policies and guidelines as 331dot writes, people may listen. Your best bet is finding good references per WP:RS. Without good references, there is unlikely to be any changes. Btw, does he have some sort of personal website? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:24, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Many thanks for your very helpful input Gråbergs Gråa Sång. I will go back and collate any worthy references relating to Kevin's career and propose these as mentioned above. He does have a site but will be going live in the later part of this year (2020). You may find the site at stevothemadman.co.ukS5omr (talk) 11:34, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
@S5omr: That's apparently because the website's security certificate expired on 16 March, 2020. Is that the correct website? If so, you'll need to contact your provider to renew the certificate. —[AlanM1 (talk)]—15:42, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
The website is still under construction, which may be why the certifiate has not been renewed since the 16/03/2020. If you click through (past the security message) you should be able to see a page with various pictures of Kevin as well as a text box to sign up for the newsletter.S5omr (talk) 16:01, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi, As mentioned yesterday, I had added citations and refferences to my addtions on Kevin Stephens. Is someone able to review the the updates I've made and advise accordingly?S5omr (talk) 15:52, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Proper title for the Wikipedia page "Aquaculture of coral"
To whom it concerns,
I am contacting you to suggest updating the misleading page name for the "Aquaculture of coral" [page].
The field of coral gardening and reef restoration has expanded to the point that it deserves a page separate from coral aquaculture and aquarium trade. Individuals interested in the research and applications of coral reef restoration should have a clearly named and dedicated Wikipedia page. As an expert in the field, it is disappointing to see a simple Google search of "coral restoration" or "coral gardening" fail to produce a Wikipedia page. I believe this is because of the poor title: "Aquaculture of coral". This is not what experts and practitioners call the discipline, unfortunately, so the general public will be unable to find the wealth of resources provide by the currently misnamed page.
I hope this helps! Please let me know your initial thoughts as well as any questions or concerns you may have- thank you!
Can you consider renaming the poorly titled "Aquaculture of corals" Wikipedia page to something more apt like "Coral reef restoration" or "Coral gardening"? 73.1.229.120 (talk) 14:42, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello, and thank you for wanting to help improving Wikipedia. Unfortunately, the way Wikipedia is organised, there isn't anybody "to whom it concerns" more than to you. What you suggest is possible, but there is not an "editorial board" who can do it: just thousands of volunteers, who work on subjects that interest them, and it is up to you either to do the work yourself, or to enrol some more experienced editors to work with you. It would be easy to move the article to a different title, if that is the consensus; or to create redirect pages from alternative titles to it; writing a new article is much much harder. I suggest opening a discussion on the talk page Talk:Aquaculture of coral, and also dropping a note at Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Marine life that points to that discussion. --ColinFine (talk) 15:16, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello IP editor. I tend to agree with you that a separate article on coral reef restoration might well be very appropriate, providing it is based on detailed secondary sources. We appear to have at least three articles that mention the topic:
In your proposal at one or more of these talk pages, it could be helpful if you were to link to some of the key references/sources that are not at this point in time used by Wikipedia, and perhaps sketch out an outline of the section headings you might propose it contained. If you were to register for a Wikipedia account I would be willing to guide you in drafting out such an outline in your 'sandbox' for consideration (though I've no great knowledge in this field). We normally title pages according to what is conmmonly used, ratrher than used by experts int he field. Though I have to say I would never think to search for 'aquaculture of coral' in a month of lockdown Sundays!
To be fair to Google, out of 21.1million pages results under a search for 'coral restoration' one of those Wikipedia page does show up as the 8th result on page 2 of a search, and appears as the the third result out of 28.9 million results for 'coral gardening'.
Hi everyone. Having ploughed through all the Wikipedia help stuff I still can't make out the answer to the following simple question. My article is in draft,how do I now publish it, or submit it for publication? Help please CarolineFHarvey46 (talk) 11:37, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
CarolineFHarvey46 (edit conflict) Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I have added the appropriate information to your draft to allow you to submit it for review, but you should not do so yet, as David is quite correct. Your draft needs to be formatted in the style of a Wikipedia article, in terms of structure, links to other Wikipedia articles, and in how the sources are formatted. Please read Your First Article as well as this guide to citing sources which should help you, before you submit your draft for review. 331dot (talk) 11:44, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Why on earth did you ask the question when you were going to ignore the answer? Please don't waste the time of AFC reviewers by submitting without having read the links you were given. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:10, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
is ukwhoswho reliable source, verify dob in title
is ukwhoswho reliable source ? if yes, can somebody with access to uk library check date of birth for Cynthia Pine on doi:10.1093/ww/9780199540884.013.u245351. reasons : [1] DOB parameter requires reference on wikidata [2] cite button of doi provides dob in title. [3] i searched everywhere but unable to find info. Leela52452 (talk) 15:24, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
How can I copy the French template (template:Sous-titre/Taxon) to the English Wikipedia site?
Hello,
I asked a question last week about adding subtitles to Wikipedia pages and I was informed that it wasn't possible to add subtitles. However, there's a template (template:Sous-titre/Taxon) on the French Wikipedia site that allows you to add subtitles (see Andrena accepta). I would like to add this template (or an equivalent template) to the English Wikipedia site so I can add scientific names as substitles on species pages. I'm very new to Wikipedia so I'd really appreciate some help with creating this template. I'm reviewing the Help:A quick guide to templates, Help:Templates and Help:Advanced templates pages but the process to duplicate/create templates is still confusing to me.
Not that simple, because that template invokes many modules which are again local to frwiki. You've got a lot of learning to do before you can create an equivalent on enwiki. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:03, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Darn, I was worried the process might be complicated... do you know where I can get more information on this or at least where I can go to get started? Is there a way to request a template (like how you can request a Wikipedia page be created)? --Megan McAulay (talk) 16:20, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
@Megan McAulay: It seems to me that, aside from the technical issues of implementing it, any change to the overall appearance of articles (like that proposed) should have wider discussion, maybe at one of the village pumps (the search function there may reveal previous discussions of this as well). —[AlanM1 (talk)]—16:28, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
@AlanM1: Thank you for your reply and for your suggestion. I'll make a post on village pumps and see if I can start a new discussion on this. It's interesting to me that there was so much push back on enwiki against subtitles when subtitles seem to have been well implemented on frwiki. Thanks again!
Hi, Robloxloverandminecraftlover, and welcome to the Teahouse. See WP:CENSORED to understand why Wikipedia content is not censored. Being an encyclopaedia, it would be inappropriate to remove encyclopaedic content that offends one group or another. That said, I feel too many editors are willing to use expletives on talk pages, and that there's no excuse for it. Personally, I expect experienced editors - and certainly administrators - to act as if they were professional people like policeman or local council workers, not unruly children. I expect respect from them, and would hope to give it in return. Good luck with learning all about Wikipedia; why not try out The Wikipedia Adventure and try to collect all 15 different badges as you go? Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk)
Hi. I just made an account, and even though I got an email confirmation, my username is in red and says it does not exist. I am confused about that since I was able to make a contribution to a talk page. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you!Battykin (talk) 19:23, 28 April 2020 (UTC) Battykin (talk) 19:23, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello,
I was surprised that Umera Ahmad, a Pakistani author, is a redlink, and am thinking of writing an article on her. Would these sources suffice to prove notability?
@M Imtiaz: - yes – they do demonstrate notability. Unfortunately, an article about Umera Ahmed appears to have been deleted last week by Deb, for being promotional. You can always request a WP:REFUND and try to add information from the sources you identified while removing any promotional content. TimTempleton(talk)(cont)19:04, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Unfortunately, that article was being used as a cover for an article on Alif Kitab Publications, which had already been deleted numerous times as an advertisement. Two thirds of the article on Umera Ahmed was actually on the subject of the publishing company. I'd have no objection to a new article on this individual being created but I'll be watching it to ensure that the same thing doesn't happen again. Deb (talk) 20:02, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Timtempleton: oops, it should have occurred to me to check the page log first! Thank you!
Deb, I can assure you that I had nothing to do with that deleted article, but I will make sure to ask you to check mine over before moving it into mainspace, in order to alleviate any such concerns. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 20:40, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
what to do with draft favzon
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
@SGofficial: Welcome to the Teahouse. What exactly is your question? I see that it has been nominated for speedy deletion and with good reason. The "Vision", "Subsidiaries", and "Philanthropy" sections are promotional and unsourced. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:11, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
What other things can I do besides copyediting?
Just wondering, are there any tasks I can do on Wikipedia that are pretty easy to do that aren’t copyediting? I need something to do between copyediting drives;) Thanks in advance. Stay safe and well, --Total Eclipse 2017 (talk) (Origin of the username) 20:12, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Total Eclipse 2017, Well what are you interested in? I think the best way to do more on Wikipedia is to find a topic you like and start improving it. My process is to find a page I'm interested in, read it and fix the simple stuff, and then see if I can add more information. I google the subject and look for reliable sources and add what info I can. Its usually pretty easy and doesn't require you totally overhaul the article, maybe just add a few sentences. However, if improving pages isn't your style, you might also like fighting WP:VANDALISM. CaptainEekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓20:19, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello! I've been passively working on a page for musician/producer Draft:Daniel Aged for the past few months and would love some help ensuring that the article is informative, notable, and up to Wikipedia's standards. I have, admittedly, been rather cavalier in my past attempts to submit (and then frequently resubmit my request) and don't want my inability to operate Wikipedia effectively to sabotage Aged's much-deserved and long overdue recognition as an artist.
I believe Aged's critically acclaimed work as a solo artist as well as his extensive career as a member of inc. no world and as a producer for the likes of Beyonce, FKA twigs, Frank Ocean, and countless others more than certify his notability as a musician.
I have a reworked draft of the page with specific quotes from outlets, added external sources, and more specific anecdotes about his work as a producer that I would love to run by a Wiki member. Please let me know if something can be arranged!
Audreyne, Well the problem is sourcing. The existing sources don't show that he is notable, nor am I sure how he meets any part of the WP:NMUSIC guidelines. I think your energy would be better spent improving the page Inc. No World, his band. The page is short and could use more sources. Its unlikely that he would get a standalone article, especially after five failed reviews of your draft. CaptainEekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓20:28, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
CaptainEek, Totally gotcha! I'm going to try re-submitting his individual page one last time with my new sources just for my pride's sake but I agree that beefing up the band's page is likely the better route. Thank you so much for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Audreyne (talk • contribs) 22:03, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
comment indicates wp:coi, but how to handle
The poster said "games we;ve made" in their comment so obviously affiliated with company. diff.
That is my question, i tried to find info on this in the notability-article, but couldn't. Kind regards, --Gyanda (talk) 18:33, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
I don't think so--this is a subjective matter of taste best decided by you personally and other people interested in the article. I have gotten in trouble in the past for adding in things others think is bad art. A good idea is to use high resolution images of good quality that do not duplicate other images already on the page. I should add that typically galleries at the bottom are able to have more pictures; galleries pertinent to just one section may be limited to just 3 or four images (this is decided by editors interested in the subject on the talk page). In extreme cases, a gallery section may be spun off as its own article--but of course you can make a page on Wikimedia Commons of pretty much just pictures with a lot less controversy (and with it, a lower investment of time and energy).
People on Wikipedia seem to be crabbier in image gallery feuds than I would expect. My pet theory is that they are making up for the lack of website-wide standards with the extra nastiness--it works after all! If you find yourself targeted, if possible look for a less visited page about a similar topic. Put your images on the less-visited page and you will not have so much trouble.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 19:50, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Every time I have posted here I've been greeted with friendly responses and a lot of help, so I have one more favor to ask. After making advice on the article I'm writing, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Mochii, I have made edits and feel confident that this should be published to the main namespace. However, I have a pretty big issue. 13 years ago {U|John Reaves} tried to publish a page to the namespace "Mochii" which was deleted as an advertisement for a California based yogurt retailer; my article is about an electron microscope. I am writing a completely separate article on a completely separate topic, but the page is protected because they didn't want another promotional yogurt article. Could someone please give me directions on where to proceed from here. I don't know if y'all have the power to unprotect the Mochii name space so I can push my article about the electron microscope to it. If not, I'm happy to follow whatever instructions y'all have for dealing with this somewhat quirky oddity. I understand that this is a weird situation, but I'm sure y'all will be able to help.
Sachin Zachariah, I'd worry about unprotecting the destination page later. Submit it first for review and the reviewer will be in touch with you about getting the page unprotected for your article. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:28, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
what if someone is a shill
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
and i'd guess they were/are using the ip address starting with 2601 but are rather unhappy with Charles Essie. How should it be handled as this is a new one for me. ToeFungii (talk) 03:34, 28 April 2020 (UTC) ToeFungii (talk) 03:34, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I have started watching the show Bigger (TV series) while in quarantine, which led me to look up the creator's info. I see that the producer Will Packer is cited but the creator and writer Felischa Marye is not. She is also cited on Wikipedia in the Netflix 13 reasons why series page.
I searched Wikipedia like it says to do on the community portal contributor videos and article links and I have found sources and article links. I am thinking about creating my first page but I am a little scared of my first work being rejected (as silly as that may sound). I was just wondering if you had any feedback for me.
@Tenryuu Yes, there are a lot of articles and links to Ms. Marye's work online. ArborChamp (talk) 01:43, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
@Tenryuu If I create the draft in my userspace will I be able to forward it to an editor before publishing it to ensure that it meets all of the criteria? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArborChamp (talk • contribs) 01:50, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
. From there you can use wikitext to customise your signature as you like, like something I did right here. → —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:06, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Resolved
IP blocked by User:Callanecc. @EGL1234: in future report such users to WP:AIV. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 06:01, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Courtesy link: Draft:Olwethu Trevor Cokile
_LI.jpg)
Done @PrimeHunter: it is concise and absolutely no nonsense answer. thank you very much. Leela52452 (talk) 12:50, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
):
). —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 19:39, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:45, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
User blocked - John Hampdens Regiment
wikimedia.org ~~ Alex Noble/1-2/TRB 14:26, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
![[3]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Manner_of_Hermonax_ARV_495_1_birth_of_Erichthonios_-_Zeus_and_Iris_(01).jpg){kind=link}
