Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1091

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.

Archive 1085

←

Archive 1089

→

Non-living templates necessity

Hello. Is it necessary to have a template instead of a simple raw date written like this: "29 January 1936" for biographies of non-living persons in the infobox for the birth & death dates? Because we know for sure once a person is dead, these will not change, therefore having the Birth date and age template is not really useful, we can just put the raw birth date and the raw death date with the (age whatever) in parenthesis. Thoughts? Paul Vaurie (talk) 04:40, 10 January 2021 (UTC) Paul Vaurie (talk) 04:40, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Such template are not required but by the reasons articulated at {{Birth date}} may be useful. Ruslik_Zero 08:48, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Paul Vaurie. See also {{Death date and age}}. Special:ExpandTemplates can show the full output of a template. {{birth date|1936|1|29}} currently produces: (1936-01-29)January 29, 1936. PrimeHunter (talk) 08:55, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Removing references

I have submitted an article for review and now realize that it has too many references, so I want to remove some. I can retrieve the article and edit it all right for resubmission, but I don't know how to remove these references. How can this be done? Jljm09 (talk) 01:50, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello Jljm09. First of all, your Draft:Deer Fence has not been submitted for review. I looked over your draft and a lot of your references look pretty solid at first glance. However, some of them are sales sites and should be removed immediately because commercial sites like these are simply not allowed as references. Also, a lot of the references are do-it-yourself websites. According to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia should not contain how-to manual content. Our job as editors is to neutrally describe things, not to teach people how to do things.

In order to remove these references and that type of content, simply go to your draft, click "Edit", remove those references and that type of content, and click "Publish changes".

Take a look at Agricultural fencing, which has a brief unreferenced section on deer fences. Once your article is done, a link to it can be added from that article. You have made a good start. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:23, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Jl. I believe you're referring to Draft:Deer Fence. Removing a citation in visual editing mode is as easy as clicking on the inline citations and deleting them, or if they aren't inline citations (I see about a couple dozen at the bottom that aren't inline), just deleting them like you would normal text. I should point out that there are a few issues with the draft that could prevent it from being approved if submitted in its current state, but none that couldn't be ironed out. Probably the biggest one is that the article – while highly informative and ostensibly well-sourced – reads more like a very well-made guide/manual for setting up a deer fence than an encyclopedic entry for what a deer fence is (for more information, the blurb at WP:NotGuide explains it better than I can). If it's okay with you, I could hop over to the draft and try to bring the article more in line with Wikipedia's Manual of Style for things like formatting. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 02:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Add that many of the references are to your website. David notMD (talk) 02:23, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Specifically, refs 9, 13, 16, 18, 20, 21, 23, 24, 26, 28, 29, and 34 are to your website. This is promotional. David notMD (talk) 09:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Stallone-Schwarzenegger rivalry

I have created Stallone-Schwarzenegger rivalry. I request the Teahouse editors to tell me on how I can improve it.--Atlantis77177 (talk) 09:00, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

@Atlantis77177: One thing that's not fully clear to me from reading the page is how much the rivalry was just in jest versus genuine. Public figure rivalries often have a performative element to them, but per WP:INUNIVERSE we should document the reality of a situation and identify performative elements as such. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 09:13, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

@Sdkb: I didn't get you. Could you please explain.--Atlantis77177 (talk) 09:17, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

@Atlantis77177: The article needs to document what reliable sources say about the extent to which there was genuine hatred between them vs. just something they played up to try to get their fans more engaged. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 09:25, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I deleted a lot of content that had nothing to do with the purported feud, such as listing movies they each starred in separately. David notMD (talk) 09:32, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Having a wonderful poem how to share here

Want to join a poem 2402:4000:2381:621C:99AE:F65:6B36:D710 (talk) 11:21, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia is not for sharing poetry; this is a project to write an encyclopedia. If you just want to post your poetry to the internet, you might find an alternative forum where that is permitted, or you may use social media. 331dot (talk) 11:23, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Possible vandalism.

Hello. I am unsure of what to do here, since I haven't seen this happen before. An IP is user is making repetitive edits to an article which render the article almost void of any information. Can someone please take action or tell me what to do? Thanks.

Courtesy link: Maridhas

SenatorLEVI 11:42, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I've warned the user for unexplained blanking. 331dot (talk) 11:50, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm abiding only be the policies. The content had no citations and that's why I removed them. I also commented on the talk page about this issue. 157.51.22.191 (talk) 12:03, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I am satisfied that this is not vandalism. 331dot (talk) 12:11, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Article

How to improve my skill in article 2402:4000:2381:621C:99AE:F65:6B36:D710 (talk) 11:15, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

The first step would be for you to create an account, since IP editors such as yourself cannot make new articles. Then I would advise you to go through WP:YFA, to understand what making articles require and some rules and requirements of the same. SenatorLEVI 11:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

SenatorLEVI I would correct you in that while it is true IP users cannot directly create new articles, they are allowed to submit drafts using Articles for Creation. 331dot (talk) 11:22, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I understand, but I still think its best for any user to create an account before submitting a draft for WP:AFC. SenatorLEVI 11:23, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Actually, new-to-Wikipedia editors are strongly advised to learn how to do stuff by editing existing articles rather than first efforts being at creating an article. This Help:Introduction may help. David notMD (talk) 12:13, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Adding image in existing page

I have added two images in wo different existing pages (Aminul Islam (academic) and Syed Muhammed Abul Faiz and not sure about the possibility of deletion. Please help or advice. Freedomage (talk) 13:22, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

@Freedomage: Wikimedia Commons accepts only freely licensed media files. Note that for the purpose of this rule, Wikimedia Commons considers images not released under a siutable license unless clearly stated otherwise. In these two instances, neither source mentioned any free license. As such, I had to tag both files for speedy deletion. If you are unsure about the license of a particular media file (image or otherwise) please ask before uploading. Victor Schmidt (talk) 13:34, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Information Blocked re: Belching Beaver

I attempted to include a comment regarding the origin of the Belching Beaver Brewery's name, and my information was excluded because it "wasn't helpful.". I know for a fact, from an insider, that the name of the brewery is another way of saying a "queef" i.e. a vulgar term about the expulsion of air from the vagina. I didn't make it up . It's a FACT! 2600:8801:DE00:2D1F:909B:ABB6:B86:E1AC (talk) 12:43, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi, IP editor, and welcome to the Teahouse. Facts added to Wikipedia articles should always have an existing reliable, published source. We can't go ahead and add things we personally know, unless we can support the information with sources. This is one of the basic principles of Wikipedia: verifiability, that readers should be able to verify the information. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 13:36, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Preferred way of dealing with sites blocked due to GDPR

Asking here because I wasn't able to find this info anywhere else – do we have a preferred way of handling links that block all visitors with European IPs due to non-compliance with the GDPR? I do have a VPN which I can use to access them, but this is hardly an ideal arrangement, especially since I have to turn it off again when I actually want to be able to make an edit. I almost feel inclined to mark these links as dead and redirect them to an archive, but since that's technically incorrect and may be confusing to non-European readers, I'm more than hesitant to make this my modus operandi – after all, it's a safe assumption that the vast majority of readers who will want to read up on the details of U.S.-based articles will themselves be American. So, to get to the point, is there any secret approved way of solving this dilemma, or do I just have to live with it? AngryHarpy‍^talk 11:42, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

AngryHarpy, if you can find a better reference, not protected by GDPR, you can use that instead. But a source that's easily available to over three-quarters of English-speaking readers, and with some difficulty to the rest, is fine. After all, it's ok to cite a book in a library in Osaka, even though most of us have no way of getting there, and wouldn't be able to read it anyway. Maproom (talk) 13:09, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Alright, that's about what I expected. Thanks for the reply! AngryHarpy‍^talk 13:21, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

@AngryHarpy: Perhaps it's worth suggesting another value for |url-status= in {{Citation}} templates to mark those so it will act like |url-status=unfit for users that set a (new) preference flag that indicates they are affected by it (i.e., European users). That's assuming there's just one (or a very small number of) such class of user and website, and not different websites that block different countries (at least for this issue).

I think there is a way you can be granted an exemption to allow you to use your VPN to edit so you don't have to remember to switch back and forth. Perhaps an admin will comment. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 21:41, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

AlanM1 Having skimmed through WP:EXEMPT I rather doubt this is something I could reasonably hope to qualify for, especially since this is not an issue I encounter on a daily basis. Having to connect to and disconnect from a VPN via a modern client just to access a single website is annoying, but I wouldn't exactly call it an unreasonable hardship.

Your notion about a possible additional value for |url-status= is really interesting, though I do wonder whether a template checking an IP's location is viable on a grander scale – or rather, whether the fairly minimal improvement to the user experience would make this worthwhile. But still, thank you for giving me food for thought. AngryHarpy‍^talk 14:18, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

@AngryHarpy: I wasn't thinking of having the template do the checking for the reader's IP – that would present some issues. I thought it would just allow users to self-identify in their preferences as someone blocked by these restrictions. When someone with this preference set is shown a reference that has |url-status=GDPR-blocked, it would act the same way as a dead (or unfit) URL – linking primarily (or only) to the |archive-url= value instead of the |url=.

Another interesting option would be to create/maintain a list of sites with this problem so individual citations wouldn't need to be marked with the special |url-status=GDPR-blocked. I wonder if this is something temporary, that a site usually fixes, or whether it's just too burdensome in some cases, and therefore permanent. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 00:17, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

AlanM1 Now I finally get where you're coming from. And yes, these notices are supposed to be temporary, but many regional publications which only receive a negligible amount of views from European countries seem to have settled on it as a permanent solution, and I wouldn't necessarily blame them for it giving the fairly daunting compliance checklist. It's possible that some may still change their mind in the future, perhaps upon the possible introduction of a similar ruleset in the U.S., but for now it seems highly unlikely in most cases – fergusfallsjournal.com, the website that led me to posting this thread in the first place, would be a typical example. With that in mind, I would personally prefer a centralized list (perhaps at WP:GDPR) over a |url-status=GDPR-blocked option, as this would make the updating of the status of a website that has become GDPR-compliant after all a matter of seconds, rather than a task requiring possibly thousands of minor edits to the article space. AngryHarpy‍^talk 09:58, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

You might already be aware of this option, AngryHarpy (I noted your archive comment), but I've had some luck with using Wayback Machine links to get around these blocks. See the reference I added here, for example. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:30, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Cordless Larry I'm indeed aware of the option and I really ought to be, given that it's arguably at the core of this entire affair ;) – so, to clarify, what this feature proposed by AlanM1 would do is allow editors to self-identify as European and be directed straight to an archive for all links marked as affected (assuming, of course, that one is provided in the citation – perhaps an idea for a new maintenance category?). For editors in the U.S. and elsewhere, nothing would change. Of course, judging whether |url-status=GDPR-blocked or a centralized list would be the more feasible option is a little beyond me. AngryHarpy‍^talk 14:47, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Galilei´s, Newton´s, Einstein´s motion

What did I do wrong? AE1851 (talk) 15:13, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

AE1851, can you explain what happened? Maybe share a link? Gerald WL 15:43, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

AE1851, you're going to have to give us more information; the only mainspace edits you made were adding references more than a year ago. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:56, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I think this refers to an article in the user's sandbox which has been deleted for copyright violation. The user's Talk Page at User talk:AE1851 gives details of the problem with infringing the policy on copyright. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:58, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Response to WP:TH invite

Dear friends, thank you very much for invitation. I am PhD in Biochemistry from Russia. I am satisfied when I have the questions to ask you. Petrov Russia (talk) 16:13, 9 January 2021 (UTC) Petrov Russia (talk) 16:13, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Petrov Russia, you're welcome! Don't hesitate to ask us anything about Wikipedia editing if you have one. Gerald WL 15:44, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Dear Gerald thank you very much. I make edition in Water Cluster Petrov Russia (talk) 16:11, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

re: Placeholder

I'd like to ask, how do I curate pages that comprise entirely of "coming soon"; do I draftify them, or tag them for deletion? JJP...MASTER!_{[talk to] JJP... master?} 16:22, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

If it's in mainspace and there's no meaningful content it could be proposed for speedy deletion per WP:A3.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 16:29, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

@JJPMaster: That is good advice. There was a similar question posted a day or so ago, see above. ¬¬¬¬

happy

how do i contribute Andrea yolis (talk) 18:49, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello Andrea yolis. Try The Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive learning game. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:58, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I edited a page. But you did not published it. Can I ask why?

202.5.157.230 (talk) 14:48, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I assume you're referring to this edit. There is a number of reasons it was reverted; firstly, the values you changed should usually (if not always) correspond to the article name – Indian Rebellion of 1857. Secondly, by changing the |image= parameter, you tried to link to a file that does not exist on the English Wikipedia, meaning that instead of the map currently on display, only a redlink would be shown. Thirdly, you misspelled independence. AngryHarpy‍^talk 15:01, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello, IP user, and welcome to the Teahouse. AngryHarpy has addressed the technical issues, but there are deeper issues here. I think I understand why the name of the article is important to you, and there may be good reasons to make it. But 1) Wikipedia's policy on naming articles is to use the most common name in English sources even if that is not the official or most appropriate name 2) It was fine for you to make a bold change, and fine for another editor to revert that change if they thought it was not appropriate. The next step, rather than reapplying your edit, should be to open a discussion on the talk page Talk:Indian Rebellion of 1857, and see if you can persuade other editors to agree to the change. See our policy on Bold, revert, discuss. 3) In any case, you provided no sources for the material you wanted to insert. Wikipedia works on the principles of verifiability and consensus. So what you need to do now is to open a discussion on the talk page, arguing for the changes you want to make, with citations to reliably published sources for the information, and see if you can persuade other interested editors that the change is appropriate and in accordance with Wikipedia's policies. Besides the various policy and discussion pages I have already linked in this answer, you might find it useful to read RIGHTINGGREATWRONGS as well. --ColinFine (talk) 19:25, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Edit filters 'warning' users

I've been watching edit filters for a while, and often I see that they have prevented an edit and 'warned' the user (e.g. Special:AbuseLog/28577885). What exactly does this 'preventing an edit' and warning look like on the user side? If I were to trip an edit filter, what would Wikipedia show me? Zupotachyon _{Ping me} (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:36, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

@Zupotachyon: Both options show a message to the user that can be specified for each filter. The default is MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning (for warnings) or MediaWiki:Abusefilter-disallowed (for disallowed edits). The difference between the two options is that "warning" will allow the user to save the edit by hitting publish changes again, while "disallow" will cause the edit not to get saved, no matter how often you smash publish changes, unless you change the edit text. Victor Schmidt (talk) 19:55, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Ahh, I see. Thanks a lot! Zupotachyon _{Ping me} (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:02, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Requesting translation of the article on invisible disability in many language

The article invisible disability is available in only 4 languages. It is such important topic that it encompasses all of life who experience this. There are too much ignorance about invisible disability in society. I plea the article should be translated into multiple languages so that people from all corner of the world can know about this. If there is a meta-wiki forum or thread on translating this, please mention it there. Inform me also if there are any such forum or thread. This is a very keen request. SimpleSilly (talk) 07:14, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

SimpleSilly, the many languages an article has depends on the willingness of editors. If you can translate them to a language, your contributions would be appreciated. Many editors have other things to do on Wikipedia, so it's all about luck-n-time. Gerald WL 07:49, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

SimpleSilly As someone affected, I don't disagree that it's an important topic for many. However, please keep in mind when you are editing that Wikipedia is not here to right great wrongs or to promote any cause, no matter how worthy. Editors should maintain an encyclopedic tone and neutral point of view. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 20:53, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

How to talk sense into a bot

A colleague is using a "trick" he came up by himself to stop a bot from doing damage. I have been using on several pages, under "See also", the following link:

Zev Wolf disambiguation page

Should the nasty bot mess up with it here too, here is what I wrote: asterisk / Zev Wolf [between straight double brackets] / disambiguation page
Our friend The Banner modified it to

Zev Wolf (disambiguation page)

that is: asterisk / [open straight double brackets] Zev Wolf (disambiguation) / | / Zev Wolf [close straight double brackets] / (disambiguation page)
which is doubling every word in it. He explained to me that that isn't useless ballast, because "sometimes you have to use a trick to tell that robot that the link is valid, although it is pointing to a disambiguation page. What I was doing was adding that trick." (see here).
I am still not sure that the "trick" is needed, and if it is, can we not contact whoever is in charge of that bot and have them modify the code, so that it stops doing whatever it's doing wrong (I didn't understand what that is)?
I sometimes use links to disambiguation pages in the articles intentionally, because they contain good, useful info that helps the user. The next day I'm getting an email asking whether I've linked to the disambiguation page intentionally. If I don't react to it, it lets go and the link stays put, no problem. What is different in this case? Or is it? Thanks, Arminden (talk) 01:24, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

@Arminden: Please let us know which page this happened on and/or the name of the bot that made the edit. RudolfRed (talk) 01:39, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

@Arminden: I agree that contacting the bot owner is in order. I know next to nothing about bot programming (did I say "next to"? shameless puffery; let's just call it "zero") and yet it seems to me it would be superbly easy to craft a rule for any bot to fix this issue, given how many bot rule exceptions I've seen discussed for things that appear much more convoluted, and that then were actually programmed. (For example, a rule that if it finds "disambiguation page" written in parentheses within a few spaces of the end of the link markup, to ignore fixing the preceding link.)

Anyway, the main reason for my post is to hopefully provide a little trick that you might find helpful in the future. If you want to write something like you have above, and not have it format (so that you can avoid the circumlocution you engaged in of describing the way the link was formatted in prose), just place nowiki tags around the content. Here, for example

<nowiki>* [[Zev Wolf (disambiguation)|Zev Wolf]]</nowiki> (disambiguation page)

produces when you save

* [[Zev Wolf (disambiguation)|Zev Wolf]] (disambiguation page).

Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:27, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

@Arminden: See Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Links to disambiguation pages. The bot reporting the link and The Banner changing it are both doing the right thing. There are also human editors going through pages like Special:WhatLinksHere/Zev Wolf to find and fix inappropriate links to disambiguation pages. They waste time checking intentional links like [[Zev Wolf]] (disambiguation page). To avoid this, the link should say [[Zev Wolf (disambiguation)|Zev Wolf]] in article text. As far as I know there are no bots trying to automatically change links like [[Zev Wolf]]. They are just reported for evaluation by editors. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:54, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

What I told him was that a bot (dplbot) is maintaining the page "Articles With Multiple Dablinks" and that the articles was showing up there. And that with the extra "(disambiguation)" DplBot would see the link as okay. The Banner talk 10:29, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I understand bots aren't smart, that's easy; but I don't get it a) why it doesn't apply here what I know from many years of receiving emails from such bots that ask me to check whether it was intentional or not, and it's up to me to leave it as I intended to; how is this different?, and b) why, if there are such bots that run amok, their "handlers" cannot be addressed in order to fix them. I keep on getting replies which are not answers to my questions. If there is a glitsch somewhere, why combat it with acrobatic improvisations and not go to the source? That some editors aren't logical either and feel compelled to remove all wikilinks to ambig. pages by hand, w/o looking at the sentence or wider context, that can't be helped; not with tricks, that I'm sure about. That's called compulsion, or obsessive–compulsive, it's a serious matter and can't be part of our considerations here. But whatever, this is going nowhere. Arminden (talk) 13:51, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Some people just want to help Wikipedia by doing maintenance work. They should not be awarded a kick in their sitting device just because they do that.

And yes, I do it manual. Just to be able to look at the wider context. The Banner talk 21:14, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Citation questions for my first article

Hey folks. I am currently drafting my first article on a person I believe is of note and had a few questions regarding citations I would greatly appreciate your insight on. I've read the referencing for beginners guide as a first step.

1. An achievement I wish to cite is mentioned in a respectable mainstream newspaper online (A). In addition to this, the person who the article is about has also written a blog post with more detail on the achievement (B). Am I correct in understanding I should focus on just citing (A) but exclude (B), because it falls under user-generated content? This is primarily a question for completeness.

2. A recent achievement I believe is of note is only referenced in third-party blogs (e.g by individuals in this person's industry) but was not picked up by popular news sources. If I cannot find a citation for this work referenced in mainstream newspapers or books, should I exclude the achievement and focus on those with stronger data?

3. How many citations is too many? I wish to write that the person in question has spoken at a number of instances of a particular conference which has its own Wikipedia page. Should I be referencing 1-2 talk examples as citation? 4-5? I haven't been able to find a good example of how to tackle this yet I'm afraid :)

Thank you for your guidance in advance! Dan.franklin.fe (talk) 09:58, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Dan.franklin.fe: (1) You should use the respectable mainstream source. You should not use the blog. (2) While you have no reliable source, you should omit the statement. (3) Your sandbox draft has far too many citations. When you cite six sources for an uncontroversial statement, readers will assume that you are up to something fishy. And if you want your draft to be accepted by a reviewer some day, you should make the task easy for them. Their main concern will be to confirm that the subject is notable, by finding several reliable independent sources that discuss the subject in depth. When they check the first ten citations and find that none of them qualify, the will have to choose between wading through the next sixty, or giving up, throwing the draft back in the queue, and moving on to a more promising candidate. I strongly recommend you to remove all the garbage citations, so that a reviewer can easily find the good ones (assuming there are some in there). Maproom (talk) 11:27, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Delete all the Youtube refs and all the refs that are press releases or announcements. Delete interview refs. Convert all the naked URL refs into valid format refs. David notMD (talk) 12:10, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

David notMD, I strongly disagree with the explicitness of your response. Interviews can be valuable, although if a better source is available that is encouraged. Without interviews, a lot of information in various articles cannot exist. For example, if interviews are not recognized in film articles, infos about production may not even exist. However I agree with your last sentence. Gerald WL 12:25, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I over-stepped. David notMD (talk) 18:36, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

@Gerald Waldo Luis: Just to back-peddle a little, I don't think the metric is or should be that "content cannot exist without a particular type of source". The question is whether the source is reliable for the stated content or not. People lie or, to be kind, exaggerate, especially when it's aligned with their interests. Interviews contain more of this than other kinds of reporting because it's harder to edit out the stuff that's borderline and there's less fact-checking on quotes because it's not in the author/publisher's voice. I don't think Wikipedia is meant to settle for having lower-reliability content just because we can't find a better source. We should rather do without such content. (My comments are regarding the general concept of settling for the best source available, not necessarily a comment on this particular case.) —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 21:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

How to create a ref template page to 'redirect' redlinks in bulk

I'm an editor / admin on a wikia FANDOM site for a TV show. I was wondering if it was possible for me to redirect non-existent article pages by way of creating a "template link" or whatnot.

To clarify, this is my exact problem. Episodes are frequently referred to by: season # x episode #; so i.e.: 0x01, 1x12, 2x07, 3x09, 4x06, 5x02 etc. instead of the actual episode title i.e "Wondering Through the Trees" etc.

I currently do not have pages created for the episodes in the format of their referred to numbers. So, I don't have an article page named i.e 1x08.

I want to make the redlink [ [ 1x08 ] ] 'functional' by turning it into { { 1x08 } } which automatically redirects the value combination of "#x##" to their corresponding episode article page.

The reason I want to create a reference template page (with the function of "#x##" = "this article title page" ) is so that I can reference list all of the number combos I want on that single template page as I do not want to create upwards of 60+ new pages just to redirect each of them back to their corresponding / associated title page.

I'm asking for help in creating this as do not know how to make a template looking like this: {{#x##}} to accomplish this task. SpiritHawk7 (talk) 19:40, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

@SpiritHawk7: This page is only for questions related to Wikipedia. We can't help you with your Wiki. If your Wiki is using MediaWiki software, then you can ask at [1] RudolfRed (talk) 21:17, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

@RudolfRed: It does use MediaWiki software. Thank you for the referral. SpiritHawk7 (talk) 21:49, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest

How can I make my article "notable" and accepted by Wikipedia when I have a conflict of interest? Klamer1446 (talk) 23:09, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Klamer1446 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You cannot "make" the subject notable by editing. A subject is notable if it receives significant coverage in independent reliable sources that have chosen on their own to write about it and show how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of notability. If the subject does not have such sources, it will not merit an article at this time.

While not impossible, it is usually hard for those with a COI to write an article, as in essence one needs to forget everything they know about it and only write based on the content of independent sources. 331dot (talk) 23:16, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Just for fun

Can I add a more lighthearted page to Wikipedia, like "List of countries by how fun their name is to say"? I know the answer's probably no, but I just want to make sure because I think that would make Wikipedia more interesting. Calicopenguin1112 (talk) 13:43, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Calicopenguin1112, agghhh I would want to see them alive. But no, you can get in trouble man. :( Gerald WL 13:47, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

No, You cannot. Wikipedia is an Online encyclopedia and the content should be professional. Such things for fun is not acceptable on wikipedia. please do not even try this because sooner or later your article will be deleted. Anonymous Cuber (talk) 13:59, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Calicopenguin1112 You might like to read the essay WP:HUMOR which gives some views on this and points out there is a (limited) use for humour, for example on Talk pages. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:10, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Calicopenguin1112. I agree with what's said above. However, you can select a "fun" subject to write about – and then write a "serious" article that's "fun" just because of what it's about; maybe something that ends up at WP:WEIRD. One of my favorites (that I had a very small hand in), is William Windsor (goat). Researching and adding this detail, for example, was fun for me. The takeaway though is that this was a notable topic, worthy of a stand-alone encyclopedia article, and everyone contributing followed our inclusion and writing policies and guidelines to create it, such as sourcing the content by citing reliable, secondary, independent sources. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:57, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

@Calicopenguin1112: Another example is longest words, containing the Māori placename Taumatawhakatangihangakoauauotamateaturipukakapikimaungahoronukupokaiwhenuakitanatahu.

—[AlanM1 (talk)]— 22:57, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Calicopenguin1112, A semi-serious suggestion is to do that on Uncyclopedia, which is dedicated to that kind of objects. JJP...MASTER!_{[talk to] JJP... master?} 17:53, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Calicopenguin1112 Wikipedia is a serious project and thus doesn't accept content purely intended for humor. Very rarely, exceptions are made under WP:HUMOR, but you're better off creating the article in your user namespace, such as User:capsulecap/Article_Name. Capsulecap (talk) 01:50, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Music album notability & which publications are suitable

I'm trying to start an article for a high-profile album recently released, but I keep getting my drafts rejected on grounds of notability. I read WP:NRVE, but it doesn't make clear what qualifies or point to any lists of "peer-reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources generally." Can you help me understand which sources Wikipedia is looking for? That way I can point out which notability criteria are present in the article. Souldier77 (talk) 22:40, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello Souldier77. Acceptable sources have a professional editorial review process, and a reputation for accuracy. Please read WP:Reliable sources. You can always search the archives at the Reliable sources noticeboard and open a new thread if the source has not been discussed previously. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:57, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Souldier77, I just looked at the draft. The New York Times source is excellent. The Amazon sales listing is unacceptable and must be removed. Twitter is not a reliable source. Links to her performing are of no value in establishing notability. Vulture is a project of New York magazine and appears OK to me. Eliminate the weak sources and include only information from strong reliable sources. Quality is much more important than quantity. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:10, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Given that the album in question was reportedly only released on 08 January 2021 (though the lede incorrectly says 2020), i.e. less than 48 hours ago, it's likely that many potential reliable sources simply haven't yet had time to publish reviews, etc., of it. Many print-based music journals and the like publish on a weekly or monthly schedule – give it a few weeks and further, suitable sources may become available. Remember that WP:TOSOON may and WP:DEADLINE does apply. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.200.40.9 (talk) 00:58, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

90.200.40.9 I'm not sure if it makes a difference, but I really was only trying to establish a good basis on an article in the stub, so that others can add to it as it makes its impact. I don't remember the process being so challenging the last time I added an album for an established artist. :-/ Souldier77 (talk) 02:54, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, I made changes suggested by Cullen328 here at Teahouse, removing weak sources and pulling more information from the high quality sources. I also added a couple others that were highlighted green from Wikipedia's list of reliable sources, as well as reaching out for live help. Someone from live help suggested I ask you whether Sullivan might meet the general notability guideline (GNG). I'm not familiar with that. Can you tell me more? Souldier77 (talk) 02:54, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Souldier77, User:Cullen328 - The draft is Draft:Heaux Tales. It would be helpful to identify the draft that you are asking about; I review a lot of drafts. I did not ask about the quality of sources. In my review, I asked you to tell me which of the musical notability criteria the album satisfied. Please read the musical notability guidelines and address the guidelines. After you have identified what criterion the album satisfies, then provide one to three sources that address that criterion. But I said that I was declining because I had notability questions, and I wanted the notability questions answered. Sometimes if a reviewer says that they are not primarily asking about the sources, they may mean that they are not primarily asking about the sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:43, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Souldier77 - There is a myth in Wikipedia that if a draft is declined, the key to getting it accepted is always to add more references. References are a necessary but not a sufficient condition for acceptance. Some reviewers sometimes ask questions about notability aslo. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:43, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Robert McClenon: You did not ask about quality of sources in your review, but a previous reviewer, Dan arndt, did in his. I thought you might have taken note of that part beneath your comment. No worries either way. I added the answers to your questions about notability to Draft talk:Heaux Tales including direct hyperlinks. Have a great day. Souldier77 (talk) 19:26, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you greatly! I moved it over to the draft. Wordsthatsay (talk) 02:32, 11 January 2021 (UTC)Wordsthatsay

Check draft?

FYI

– Heading and courtesy link made by Tenryuu.

Courtesy link: User:Hotstar90/sandbox

I'm not an editor I'm a drummer that's been playing drums for 60 years - my question is there anyone out there that can straighten out my submission I wrote for this site - I can copy and paste the submissions if you want - lmk - Ross Hotstar90 (talk) 03:22, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Your draft is written like a first person memoir (we this, we that). And it has no references. Look at articles about musicians to get an idea of style and referencing. Probably best if you delete everything you have and stat over. David notMD (talk) 04:02, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

how to edit like a pro

how can i edit properly enrique Enrique1802 (talk) 03:46, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Enrique1802, welcome to the Teahouse. You may be interested in the interactive tutorial, The Wikipedia Adventure which provides the basics to editing and interacting with other users on this site. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:04, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Article/category idea

I had an idea for an interesting article/category about notable incidents happening in Massively Multiplayer Online Games such as the virtual pandemic in World of Warcraft of the thousand-player battles in EVE Online.

I am wondering if anyone knows any other articles or incidents that could be added to this hypothetical category, and if said category should even be made in the first place. Painting17 (talk) 04:58, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

This article lists a few more:

The assassination of Lord British
Leeroy Jenkins
The "Guiding Hand Social Club theft" in Eve Online
The "death of The Sleeper" and "Fansy the Famous Bard" in Everquest

I suppose you could create a List of notable in-universe events in MMO games, but it might be the type of thing that would attract lots of low-quality content, like people adding non-notable events that they personally felt were significant. AnonQuixote (talk) 05:14, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

question

Thanks for directing me here, but surely am still lost on how to create a living biography of a musician i don't know how i can be guided Ronard Economist (talk) 08:57, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I assume this section refers to this. If so, you have written to Draft:Sandbox, which is intended as a Testing spot, and thus regularely cleared. Luckily, the edit is still available. You can still recover the text by [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Sandbox&action=edit&oldid=998876954 copying all the text in the old revision and pasting it into an actual draft(for example Draft:Nicky Jizzy). You might want to have a look at WP:YFA. Inline citations belong directly after the content they support. Victor Schmidt (talk)

@Ronard Economist: fix ping Victor Schmidt (talk) 09:22, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

What is the best way to approach edits?

DdLiam (talk) 11:52, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi, DdLiam, welcome to the Teahouse. An often recommended way to approach editing is bold, revert, discuss. I don't know if there is merit in the SPI against you, but I'd advise that starting a new account to avoid scrutiny in a subject area isn't a good idea. If you disagree with the local consensus then it's tough luck I'm afraid. Regards, Zindor (talk) 12:11, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. This has been noted :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DdLiam (talk • contribs) 12:27, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Images in Page Previews.

Many users like a picture displayed while looking at a page preview, in order to understand better the subject of the page. In my article, the Army of the Kingdom of Naples (Napoleonic), I cannot see any image on the page preview when I hover my mouse over the blue lettering (while there are, in fact, several images on the page). How do I fix this? AdonisWW2 (talk) 13:22, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi AdonisWW2, welcome to the Teahouse. We have two preview features. I see File:Battle of Tolentino.jpg from the infobox in both of them. Try to bypass your cache on the page you are viewing it from. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:01, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

How to close an RfD item?

I created a discussion about some redirects here: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 4 § Deprivation

It's been about a week and I think the last comment gives a convincing reason to undo the initial change I had made to turn a disambiguation page into a redirect, which kind of renders the question moot. Once this is done then I'd like to make some edits to improve the dab page.

How does an RfD discussion get closed? Can I do it myself? AnonQuixote (talk) 04:28, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi AnonQuixote. You shouldn't close such discussions yourself if you're involved as explained in WP:CLOSE#Closure procedure and WP:NACINV. Someone should eventually get around to doing so, but you can also request an administrator to do so at WP:AN. — Marchjuly (talk) 04:44, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll wait another day or so and then request it. AnonQuixote (talk) 04:57, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Just noting: the discussion has now been closed by a third party.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:13, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

For RfD, they usually get closed (or relisted) within a few hours of being over 7 days. Looks like this one has been done. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:31, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Alter an inaccurate sentence on a semi-protected page.

The second line of this article, 2021 storming of the United States Capitol, is wrong, and needs to be changed. How do I do that?

The sentence reads, "It was incited by US President Donald Trump in an attempt to overturn his defeat in the 2020 presidential election."  This sentence is wrong.

It is a legal question whether the riot (not the march) was INCITED by Trump, and the protest (perhaps excluding the rioters) was NOT a direct attempt to overturn Trump's defeat. It was a show of support for Pence, Cruz and others, in the face of huge negative pressure, to proceed with confidence through a legal process of considering alternate slates of electors in 6 states, and/or lawfully arguing for another 10 days to review potential election fraud in those 6 states before certifying the outcome. The outcome of THAT review would have been accepted.

Wikipedia, which is supposed to be unbiased, is furthering a false narrative, throwing gasoline on the fire, as it were. This is WRONG. Msfry0 (talk) 15:39, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Msfry0 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. To request an edit to a protected article, you may make an edit request(click for instructions) on the article talk page, detailing changes you feel are needed. Please note that Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state. If reliable sources state that Trump incited the riot(which most are), you will have to speak with those sources to get them to issue retractions if they are incorrect, or offer your own independent reliable sources that say differently to arrive at a consensus as to what the article should say.

Wikipedia actually does not claim to be free of bias. Any bias in sources will be reflected in Wikipedia. Those sources are presented to the readers so they can evaluate and judge them for themselves as to any bias. Wikipedia tries to have a neutral point of view, which is different.

There is video evidence of rioters wishing to seek out and harm, capture, or kill members of Congress and even the Vice President. [2] If that is not wanting to overturn an election or overthrow the government, I don't know what is. 331dot (talk) 15:47, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Nepali Flag not being shown when hovering over a Nepal link

I know that the Nepali flag is very interesting but complicated and has many mathematical magic, but I'm just here for people to know that instead of the Nepali flag displaying when hovering over the link, the emblem of the country is shown instead. Is there any way to fix this issue? PyroFloe (talk) 04:22, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

PyroFloe, idk but this MediaWiki page might resolve your worries. Happy 2021 Eumat114 (Message) 04:30, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups, you can set the "primary" image for the article by adding an HTML comment . However I wonder if this can be fixed in general by changing the ordering of the infobox template. Since the flag is shown before the emblem, it makes sense that it should be considered the "first" image for the purpose of link previews. AnonQuixote (talk) 04:35, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it did not work. PyroFloe (talk) 04:49, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Not sure exactly how the media previews work, maybe there's some caching involved and you didn't wait long enough before reverting? AnonQuixote (talk) 04:53, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I raised this question here and here. AnonQuixote (talk) 04:53, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

There are multiple page preview / navigation pop-up features, so the first thing to figure out is which one this editor is using. If it is Page Previews, this link partially explains how images are ranked for appearance in the preview. I dug into this a month or two ago and posted an explanation somewhere else, but I have been unable to find it in my contributions. – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:20, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

We have two preview features with different functionality. PyroFloe is not using "Navigation popups" at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets. It shows the flag for Nepal. The other feature is "Enable page previews" at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering. Logged out users get that. The feature is mw:Page Previews, previosuly called Hovercards. It shows the image chosen by mw:Extension:PageImages#Image choice. It shows the emblem for Nepal because PageImages uses code which rejects images displayed with a width ≤ 119px. The flag is displayed at 90px because it's relatively tall but displayed with around the same height as the emblem next to it. The emblem is displayed at 120px so it's exactly allowed by PageImages. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:34, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I meant PyroFloe is not using Navigation popups. I have corrected it above. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:51, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

@Eumat114:, @AnonQuixote:, @PrimeHunter:, @Chipmunkdavis: I have now fixed the problem, apparently its both the image size being 90px as said above and also the image resolution of the emblem being particularly small sized compared to other coat of arms, I thank you all for your help. This flag was really weird but I managed to fix it. With regards, PyroFloe (talk) 12:57, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

PyroFloe, why is it needed that an emblem be shown instead of the flag anyway? Gerald WL 15:38, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Gerald Waldo Luis, you must have misunderstood, I was asking about the opposite actually. I have fixed it now and the flag is the one that renders instead of the emblem PyroFloe (talk) 15:51, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Thomas Masterson - Midshipman, Virginia State Navy

I am the copyright holder of an article which has appeared online. When I tried to create a submission, which was similar but not identical to my previous work, it was rejected for copyright infringement.

As I am the copyright holder, and told this to the person who flagged my article for "speedy deletion", why was my work rejected?

Does anyone have a suggestion that might help?

Thanks! Michael MMWOOD1958 (talk) 15:54, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

MMWOOD1958 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Please follow the instructions on your user talk page under the header "Speedy Deletion Nomination of Draft:Thomas Masterson" regarding what to do about this copyright issue. If you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text(which also means that you would be allowing other people to use it for any reason, including commercial purposes, as long as they give attribution), you can donate the materials. 331dot (talk) 16:01, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

question about notability

Hi- I created this page a few months ago. It was not initially accepted, and I am trying to understand whether the primary issue is that the reviewer felt that the artist's awards and exhibition history did not qualify as "notable," or whether the problem was primarily that the cited sources were not adequately independent of the organizations that granted the awards. I am new to Wikipedia, so it's not clear to me how to respond to the reviewer's message to ask this question, but I'd also like to get a second opinion. Thanks!

Draft:Sarah McKenzie (artist) Painter80302 (talk) 15:31, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Painter80302 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The issue is that the artist, at least based on the sources currently offered, does not seem to meet the Wikipedia definition of a notable artist. Awards do not usually contribute to notability unless they are highly notable awards that merit articles about themselves(such as the Oscars or Grammy Awards, as anyone can give out an award based on any criteria. Descriptions of exhibitions also do not necessarily contribute to notability unless things like independent, unsolicited critiques and descriptions of influence are part of them. I'm curious as to how you came to write about this artist. 331dot (talk) 15:41, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for that feedback. I initially created this article as part of a Wikipedia Edit-a-Thon event, held in Denver, Colorado to try to correct the under-representation of women artists on Wikipedia. The Joan Mitchell Painters and Sculptors Grant is a highly competitive, notable award within the American contemporary art world, which includes a $25,000 grant. The artist's exhibitions have been reviewed ("critiqued") in numerous independent journals and newspapers, which were cited as sources in the article. So I remain confused. Is it possible to request a review by a different editor, since judging notability is obviously somewhat subjective, and is best left to an editor who actually works in the field? Painter80302 (talk) 16:09, 10 January 2021 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Painter80302 (talk • contribs) 15:53, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Painter80302, The issue isn't whether the artist "qualifies" as notable, it's whether the sources cited in the draft demonstrate that she's notable. Which four of the sources cited do you do believe do most to demonstrate that she's notable? (You might do well to make a reviewer's task easier by removing most of the others.) Maproom (talk) 16:35, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Painter80302 If the award is the "main claim to fame" it should reference an independent source. Currently you cite the award-giver and an exhibition venue. Neither are independent as they are motivated to promote the award and the exhibition respectively. If that award is really a big deal there should be newspaper or art magazine articles about it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:54, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

OK this is helpful. Thank you for your input! Painter80302 (talk) 16:33, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Painter80302 Note that most editors are not experts in the fields that they write about, and it isn't required that they be so, as Wikipedia is meant largely for lay people. 331dot (talk) 16:35, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Feels like hounding

I feel like being hounded on my talk page, here there and elsewhere on Wikipedia by a group of users.

The help template didn‘t help.

What can I do? Can anybody give me an advice or help? Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 14:47, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Chip-chip-2020, it's hard for me to understand the context. The second one, I can see why such comments may dismay you, and I would also be offended by such comments. But to someone to open the possibility of a meatpuppetry is not being hounded, it's a step of WP:SOCK, and if it is clear that your account isn't used only to write that Chopin is gay blablabla whatever you guys are talking about there, you are good to go; however if it is indeed that you use your account mainly for that, RIP dude.

Pinging inquirer's Exhibit A Mathsci, and Exhibit B Smerus. Gerald WL 14:59, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

And also Exhibit C Praxidicae. Gerald WL 15:00, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not really involved in this, I just get pinged on IRC when help templates go up and this was an inappropriate use of it. I'd also suggest that Chip remove this entire thing as this isn't the place. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 15:02, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

One-track, single-issue, repetitive, editor who objects to other editors disagreeing with him/her. And failing to convince them seeks to present self as victim in the hope that this may advance his/her cause.--Smerus (talk) 15:20, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Dear Gerald WL, my account is not at all ‚mainly for that’, but since these users keep deleting my sourced work (without good reasons), I can‘t go on with the improvements I‘m preparing for other articles. So what can I do?--Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 15:26, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Chip-chip-2020, I'll look in your logbook to understand more about this. Gerald WL 15:50, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

There have already been multiple reports on noticeboards concerning Chopin and his sexuality. User:Chip-chip-2020 already requested a hearing at WP:DRN. In a nutshell, following radio broadcasts by Moritz Weber, a journalist based in Zurich publicised his theory that Chopin was gay (on the basis of adolescent letters). On 12 November, 2 Zurich IPs added content directly related to Weber's article, which even complained about de.wikipedia.org's unwillingness to respond to the material. It appears that User:Chip-chip-2020 is almost certainly linked to those Zurich IPs. Their editing has so far had a single purpose, namely that Chopin's schoolfriend Tytus Woyciechowski might had been lovers and that any infatuation between Chopin and women was a sham. The article on Frédéric Chopin is a WP:FA. It is concise and extremely well-written (User:Smerus has been the main contributor). The other main editors have been User:JackofOz, User:Toccata quarta, User:Nihil novi and User:Kosboot. Since the Weber article, User:Chip-chip-2020 has made edits to en.wikipedia.org, pl.wikipedia.org, de.wikipedia.org, fr.wikipedia.org, it.wikipedia.org and es.wikipedia.org, all in the same narrow topic. The Polish wikipedia article has reverted all their edits. The Italian wikipedian article has copied the new content on sexuality word-for-word from the article in en.wikipedia.org.

Today I learnt a new word—straightwashing. The article on Frédéric Chopin is about his life and music. We write about Scherzos (Chopin), Ballades (Chopin), Barcarolle (Chopin), Valldemossa Charterhouse, etc, etc, not about "sexual politics". User:Chip-chip-2020 has been attempting to add biased content to wikipedia, which is not properly supported by WP:RS. There is currently an RfC which should continue until 25-26 January.

I noticed that User:Chip-chip-2020 just now started editing Frédéric Chopin in a tendentious fashion, targeting me. The article Scherzos (Chopin) was created by me a while back; I consulted User:Nihil novi to check on the naming. Scherzos is the correct plural according to the Library of Congress and wikipedia, although Scherzi is another possibility (e.g. for the G. Henle Verlag edition). User:Chip-chip-2020 also claims Smerus has hounded them, I recommend that Smerus is consulted. The sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry issue was already raised at WP:DRN in December, but, with only one registered account, nothing can really be said. Only by looking at the the global edits of User:Chip-chip-2020 can the full picture be seen for "Chopin and sexuality". Mathsci (talk) 16:30, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Gerald WL, see what I mean? Thank you--Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 16:38, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

One-track, single-issue, repetitive, editor who objects to other editors disagreeing with him/her. And failing to convince them seeks to present self as victim in the hope that this may advance his/her cause. I agree with Smerus, classic WP:SPA. Mathsci (talk) 17:22, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the summary, Mathsci. Chip-chip-2020, I've read Mathsci's summary and looked through your contributions log. If using Snope's fact check ratings, "These users are hounding me" is:

Mostly false (meaning: "the primary elements of a claim are demonstrably false, but some of the ancillary details surrounding the claim may be accurate.")

DISCLAIMER: I am not hounding you here. Please note that.

First, let's start with Talk:Waltzes, Op. 70 (Chopin). A set of misadventures lead you to being questioned by an editor if you are a sockpuppet or not. This is hinted by various coincidences or time gap shortness, and the manual of style the IP editors and you follow. You then linked to WP:HOUND, assumingly that you felt the editor is stalking you. This is not stalking, but rather a part of the process on sockpuppet investigation. I've never been suspected as one and I'm sure it is shocking to be accused as such, however it is not suggested to fire back at others and lead the discussion to no-man's land. Thus, the discussion at Talk:Waltzes, Op. 70 (Chopin) is not a hound.

Then let's go to the grande finale, the Chopin thing. The section "Chopin’s sexuality" is confusing and convoluted so I can't grasp a lot of the users' minds there. But luckily Mathsci has given me a summary. I need to know if it is true that the sources you cite are basically his adolescent love letters towards his friend Tytus. Here's the thing: adolescents? I have had wet dreams about my same-sex friends and have no interest towards them; if I say that somewhere does that make me gay? Don't think so. It is merely a theory, and thus must be given less weight. But to be more specific, those are allegations, very very deep theories. And I don't see the need of inclusion, until the ghost of Chopin tells the world "Hey, me and Tytus are now married in Heaven Society."

Although I slightly disagree with Kosboot's claims that Chopin's subject of expertise makes news articles unreliable, I can agree if only he says instead, "Not all news articles are reliable." Because that's true. The New York Times passing the RS test does not make all of their works reliable. A post can be a blog and still be reliable. Context matters. With clinging uncertainty yet consensus on Chopin's emotional heart, it would be controversial to state that Tytus is Chopin's crush.

Again, nobody in that section is harassing you, although Kosboot certainly did attack an IP, wherein I have warned them about it.

You wrote in an RfC at the talk page that "there is no reliable and/or written proof" about Chopin's relationships with those people, when it has been added. How are you certain that they are not reliable?

You have also inquired several rhetorical questions, whereby you are using the format of a question to say a personal opinion. This can be manipulative to some and is discouraged. If you want to say a personal opinion, say it in form of an opinion. Those criticizing you for this are also not bullying you.

On your above reassurance that your account is not mainly for that, I can probably agree with you. This is shown by the last page of your contributions log, whereby only some contribs are directed towards the Chopin topic. Once your edit was disputed, that's when your log is littered with Chopin-related pages, as well as some noticeboard pages, eventually leading up to here, the Teahouse. However not all editors are as attached to an article like you do, so it may be suspicious. But this is not at all hounding. This is the magic cure to your chagrin:

This is part of the process.

The summary Mathsci gave to me was much to your chagrin, in which you state, "see what I mean?" And I don't see what you mean. None of Mathsci's words are hound, let alone harassment. This is all part of the process, as I stated. This is part of the process on reaching a penultimate (hope I'm using that word right) consensus. Trust me, the more you edit controversial articles and stumble upon an RfC, whether formal or informal, you may stumble upon a dispute and argument with editor(s). This will cool down in the aftermath, but is currently boiling, and writings in the fashion of Mathsci's summary is expected: referring to statements like "[Chip] has been attempting to add biased content to wikipedia, which is not properly supported by WP:RS."

Why do I mark your claims "mostly" false? Well it's because although the foundation of your claims are false, some details of your claims sheds light to some of the misdoings other editors have done amidst the process.

I would stress that saying certain sources "not supported by RSes" is NOT straightwashing, an attempt of portraying LGB people a hetero. And I am firm that all editors involved assume good faith, at least on you. You have to be grateful some are still willing to seek a civil discussion with ya.

I hope this debate ends, and I wish you a better near future in the world of editing Wikipedia. Gerald WL 17:37, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

@Gerald Waldo Luis: Thanks for giving such a comprehensive answer. However, far from being a victim. User:Chip-chip-2020 is now harassing me. They were not apparently satisfied with your response, so have asked an administrator who has blocked me previously.[3] Their request is an example of WP:OTHERPARENT. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 19:41, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments

Imho, the Teahouse is likely not the best of venues to assess or sort editor behaviour complaints. This is excellently illustrated by Gerald Waldo Luis (GWL)'s 17:37, 8 January 2021 wall of text above: they start with assessing whether Chip-chip-2020 (CC2) is right on content, and then attempt to deduce whether or not there's something wrong behaviourally, based on that content assessment. Which brings me to the next point: the Teahouse is likely not the best of venues to assess content issues (as is, the above analysis on content is a second forum on a content issue that is being discussed in an open RfC – note that the second forum on the content issue was not opened by the OP, but in the responses they got from GWL).

I think the Teahouse is excellent to give newbies some advice on avoiding common pitfalls:

CC2, the WP:SPA type of scrutiny on your edits won't go away until you start to edit articles that have nothing to do with Chopin, nor with gender/sexuality-related topics. That is, extensively (as in, not some window-dressing to just cover up the SPA nature of your account). I don't say SPAs can't be useful editors on Wikipedia (e.g. subject-matter experts), but the *scrutiny* won't go away, and will, more likely than not, in the end start hampering your editing.
CC2, the argument that others are preventing you from proving you're not a SPA is evidently bogus: start editing articles that have nothing to do with Chopin, nor with gender/sexuality-related topics. Show that there are other topics that interest you, and that you can contribute constructively to the encyclopedia on these topics.
CC2, opening discussions elsewhere that can be linked to an active (i.e. open, not closed) discussion on another page is usually counterproductive (see, e.g., WP:FORUMSHOP and WP:CANVASS). Wait till the first discussion ends: in an RfC, usually someone uninvolved would close the discussion, and usually, they would in their closing report suggest next steps (if any), in which case such next steps can then be acted upon.
WP:SOCK type of scrutiny can not be operated in the Teahouse: if there are substantial reasons to suspect socking, this should go to WP:SPI. A newbie editor should not be drawn through something like that (basically WP:ASPERSIONS) in a venue not suited for it.

--Francis Schonken (talk) 09:27, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

That was quite a strong cup of tea here. I was actually just looking for help, since the help template didn‘t work as I thought; thought this was a friendly place. But thank you Francis Schonken for your hints, some are really helpful for me as a newie! And if we talk about time: I don‘t know what other wiki-users are doing in the real world, but I for my part just can‘t edit all day and night long since I have a normal job and a life in reality. So I do one thing after the other normally, since one also should be prepared to work on wiki and deliver good and sourced content, which I did. I actually thought wiki would be a nice hobby besides normal life in an openminded online community, but it turns out to be quite time-consuming, when I see all these discussions.--Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 08:27, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I regret editing has been made harder on you than it should have been (see WP:BITE). The classical music area of editing has, alas, a rather bad name in Wikipedia for its rather hostile editing environment. Gender- and sexuality-related topics are, twice alas, probably not much better (a long-term editor in that field has recently retired for the hostility they were subjected to). Some suggestions: there are wikiprojects such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music, Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers, Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies, and likely others relating to whatever interests you may have. You may take an interest in the discussions on the talk pages of such projects (which may give an inkling of how editors in these areas of interest address issues), and/or list yourself as a member of these projects. This may make editing in these areas easier. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:05, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Reply to User:Chip-chip-2020

As other editors have already said, this is not the proper forum to discuss conduct allegations. It is a reasonable forum to make an initial inquiry about how to deal with a conduct issue. The answer to that question is to first read the boomerang essay, and then, if necessary, report it at WP:ANI. However, the large majority of reports of hounding are by editors who are disagreed with and don't like being disagreed with (which is why you should first be sure that you will not be seen as causing the problem).

I tried to be a neutral mediator in the content dispute, and I thought that it was a straightforward content dispute, rather than a content dispute complicated by conduct issues. The content dispute was discussed at length at DRN, and I concluded that a Request for Comments was necessary. I had difficulty in getting the editors to summarize concisely how they wanted the article changed, but I thought that I had finally worked out the RFC. I see that the article is being edited while the RFC is running. That is not helpful. I gave the usual instructions not to edit the article while DRN was in process, but apparently the OP is editing the article now while the RFC is running. That is not helpful. Let the RFC decide the content.

I will repeat my advice, which is that hounding should be reported at WP:ANI, but that the conduct of the filing editor may also be examined. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:48, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Article Declined:

FYI

– New Topic --Maresa63 (talk) 13:26, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Benutzer:BFRQs/MelSchweickardt Why was the article declined? The songwriter has written over 100 songs in her career, and she has been semi-finalist in the International songwriting competition 2013. She is an active ambassador for fighting for gender diversity in the music industry. Considering that in the whole music industry across all genres are only 12,5% female songwriters, to the genre of metal/rock it is only about 3-5%. Mel Schweickardt is a genuine rarity in this domain and therefore a notable person - even if she is not globally famous, but according to wikipedia's guidelines in the sense of being famous or popular is anyhow secondary. Thank you for clarification. BFRQs (talk) 12:58, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

This is about Draft:Mel Schweickardt. The reason it was declined is stated in the gray box within the pink decline notice at the top of the draft. The citations do not include enough reliable independent published sources discussing the subject, to establish that she is notable in Wikipedia's sense. To establish that she's notable, you'll need to find and add such sources – praising her here won't help at all. Maproom (talk) 13:55, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

One of the main sources is the national library of Switzerland, a national institution. Is there a way to make such a source "Wikipedia-proofed"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:DA:F734:9300:58D5:B7FC:15B9:8CC1 (talk) 15:33, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand what yhou mean by "Wikipedia proofed". There are three requirements for sources to establish notability: 1) that they be reliably published|, that they be independent of the subject, and that they contain significant coverage of the subject. The sources currently in Draft:Mel Schweickardt might be reliable and independent, I haven't investigated, but none of them contains significant coverage, so they do nothing to establish notability. How is the national library a source? Something published by the library would presumably be regarded as reliable, but whether it met the other criteria or not would depend on what it was. If you are talking about something that is held in the library's collection, then the library is irrelevant. It is either something that has been published, in which case it is its publication that is relevant, not the library; or it is something unpublished in the library's collection, and then it cannot be used as a source anywhere in Wikiepdia. --ColinFine (talk) 17:31, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Reliability of NYS Professions database

Hello, I'm working on the Vladimir Zelenko article and was looking for a reliable source with information on where he attended medical school. This website from the New York State Education Department provides information from their Professions database, but they specifically mention "primary source", which gives me pause. Unfortunately, I can't find any other reliable sources that mention his education, so I wanted to get an opinion on whether that database would be considered an appropriate source for Wikipedia. Otherwise, I'll just leave that info out of the article for now. —DanCherek (talk) 15:28, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

DanCherek, I would consider that a reliable source. It's primary with regard to the NY State Education Department, but not primary with regard to Zelenko, as Zelenko can't just edit it to change his school. So you're good to go! {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 15:55, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good. Thank you! —DanCherek (talk) 16:23, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi DanCherek. This is a perfectly appropriate use of a primary source – for verification of "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." Actually, being from NY, and having a fair amount of experience with licensure in that database (though not with medical professional), I can tell you that much of these background details for many people – where the individual attended school and the like – has its origins in the person's own reporting (though there's a lot of reasons why it would be a very, very bad idea to report incorrectly -- i.e., a defined crime), but that still meets the ambit of the above-quoted language.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:39, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Fuhghettaboutit, that's very helpful and I've added the information to the article. I want to be sure I fully understand Wikipedia's policy that it should be verifiable "by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge", as I'm sure this won't be the last time I have a question like this. In this case, does this mean that anyone should be able to verify that he attended medical school at SUNY? The only sources I found were this database, a bunch of WebMD-like websites, and some unreliable opinion-based websites, so I'm not sure the verification would be here (other than contacting the registrar or medical board, etc.). —DanCherek (talk) 16:55, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

@DanCherek: Yep, see WP:PRIMARY, which, on the negative ends, prohibits any "interpretation of primary source material." That requires "a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." Where someone went to school, what year they graduated, et al., are quite straightforward facts that require no interpretation, analysis or synthesis to report.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:40, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

how to source "notable publications" in a biography page for an academic?

Hi, there! I haven't been quite able to figure out the best practice on this yet - for notable publications for an academic researcher, should I be sourcing as a wikipedia citation to a website for the paper/book, or linking to an "external to wikipedia" link? I've seen it done both ways when I checked out other wiki biographies of academics (and some pages do both). This is specifically for this draft page for Jiquan Chen. Thanks for any advice! Csoconn (talk) 15:13, 9 January 2021 (UTC) Csoconn (talk) 15:13, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Csoconn! Using Wikipedia's book citation format with an ISBN and potentially an LCCN as well is preferable for a book and e.g. a DOI, JSTOR, etc., for an academic journal. Linking to the source is a good idea if e.g. the Google Books or Internet Archive copies are accessible, though linking to a storefront such as Amazon is strongly advised against – if not expressly forbidden. Likewise, if the journal article is open access, linking directly to e.g. a PDF can be a good idea. Something I noticed is that all of your citations are written out in source text instead of using e.g. the {{cite book}} or {{cite journal}} templates, depending on the publication. Using these will save yourself and future editors a lot of time if they want to add or modify this list. I believe MarioJump83 declined your article submission because the notability of the publications wasn't sourced, but if you can source the notability, using these templates could definitely make things easier. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 17:54, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, TheTechnician27! Sorry, do you have a link to an explainer for the {{cite journal}} template? That's new to me. Many thanks for your help thus far! Csoconn (talk) 17:46, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

About my article javed Khan magician

Courtesy link: Draft:Javed Khan (magician)

I mean I can see lots of celebrity people from television business having Wikipedia article. So many article are in news and online about myself still I get feedback not enough resources ? Any help would be appreciated. I have been on multiple shows in India on television and numerous article still why cant ? Sorry If I am missing out on anything.. Javed khan39 (talk) 06:12, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

@Javed khan39: Welcome to the Teahouse. I'll leave it to the reviewers to determine whether the three sources you used are reliable for Wikipedia's purposes, but I'll let you know that writing about yourself is strongly discouraged on here; it's incredibly difficult for subjects to write about themselves neutrally, which is required for Wikipedia. I also suggest taking a look at other, similar articles in mainspace to see how they're written; there are quite a few style errors from what I can see at the draft. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:58, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Javed khan39 - Your post on my talk page is incomprehensible. I didn't say anything about your qualifications, certainly not about your involvement with IT. I only said that if your draft is accepted, an entry should be included in the disambiguation page, Javed Khan (disambiguation). You seem to be having difficulty in reading and writing in English. Have you considered using another language? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:47, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon:: that’s called an error Instead of asking Angus I posted on your page My mistake , it’s the same way you wrote my name wrong as Jared khan mistake happens with everyone, chill man No need to get offensive and suggest me what language I should use and maybe you should get another hobby if you don’t like to help people or don’t know the difference between a mistake and not knowing a langauge. Regards, Javed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.216.69.54 (talk) 18:03, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Using Wikipedia Contents

Question if I use wikipedia Contents do I still need to credit it?

And also is Linking a Link to the wikipedia page were I wrote the contents into my own words Consider Giving Appropriate Credit --Cocopuff2018 (talk) 03:06, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Cocopuff2018 (talk) 03:04, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Note: Fuhghettaboutit wasn't hallucinating below. Erroneous content posted and later removed by SenatorLEVI. Please don't remove a post after others have responded to it – use <add>...</add> and <del>...</del> instead (see WP:REDACT). —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 07:16, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

@Cocopuff2018: You can use it, but you must provide attribution per the terms of the licence. See Wikipedia:Reusing_Wikipedia_content RudolfRed (talk) 03:59, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Cocopuff2018. With my regrets to SenatorLEVI, the above is incorrect. You must provide copyright attribution when reusing Wikipedia Content (not because Wikipedia owns the copyright, but because its editors do). Because of the free copyright licenses Wikipedia's content is released under, however, all this mostly means (it depends if there's modification, etc.) is that when you use it, you must provide a hyperlink to the Wikipedia page upon your reuse (from which the contributors can be accessed through the page history, this provides the suitable credit as required under the copyright license all us editors (with some minor exceptions) agree our content is licensed under and is given credit through), together with hperlinking to the copyright license borne by the content, or posting the text of the license. See more at Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content.

One other thing to be careful of. Some content you may see used here – for example quotations from copyrighted, third-party works, and certain images – are being used here under a claim of fair use. When that is the case, the content is not Wikipeda's at all; much of it is fully-non-free copyrighted, and cannot be used at all, unless your use meets its own fair use exception to the default exclusion of copyright law. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:06, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the help Last Question Is this Page Considered appropriately Credited since I put This page is Rewrite From wikipedia and put a link to it's wikipedia Page on the bottom of the page of my wiki? --Cocopuff2018 (talk) 04:36, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Cocopuff2018, as far as I'm aware you can do that, but usually a link in an edit summary to a revision is usually enough. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:41, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Soo much I just hope I have given wikipedia Enough Credit By adding a link --Cocopuff2018 (talk) 04:47, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Pretty good job Cocopuff2018. You have done most of what is necessary (many people don't even try), with one exception. You have hyperlinked the Wikipedia, page, suitably stated that as the source, and stated it was modified, as required.

However, the page does not, as is required, either hyperlink to the copy of the the CC-BY-SA-3.0 license, or post it text (much rarer). The page states at the bottom it's content is under CC BY 4.0. That is not the same license. Again, please see Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content#Text content --Fuhghettaboutit (talk)

@Fuhgettaboutit: So, the way I read Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content#Re-use of text under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike, the problem is the lack of "SA" in their stated "CC BY 4.0" license and the failure to link the license as CC BY-SA 4.0 (the later version is allowed per you must license them under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share-Alike License 3.0 or later.), right? —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 20:31, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

@AlanM1: Yeah, I should have, and couldn't have said it better. See above!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:12, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Just a question

Is Draft:List of YouTube videos with over 1 billion views an appropriate list? I don't want my next draft AfD'ed --🔥LightningComplexFire🔥 18:02, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia already has List_of_most-viewed_YouTube_videos#Top_videos, so such an article would need considerable added value, and I'm not sure where that would come from.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 18:10, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Shantavira, Well, I would say we should expand that list 🔥LightningComplexFire🔥 18:26, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Trying to understand "sources" and "references"

To begin, I am old so I don't know a lot about programming and what is required for my article to be accepted. I understand citing sources, and I tried to, but I don't understand your tutorial instructions. I really don't want to spend days stumbling through this process. Can someone take a look at my draft and tell me how I got a citation linked to a reference or what I am doing wrong. Thanks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Charles_A._Stix KLynn-geni (talk) 21:40, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello, KLynn-geni. I have tidied up your draft a bit, but you really don't need to be worried about being 'old' - lots of editors here, like me, are retired, and none of us know anything about programming. You don't need to! What we do ask for is that anyone wanting to create an article from scratch spends the time beforehand to learn the basics of editing. It's really not too difficult - it's rather like driving a car. What's unreasonable to expect is that someone can take that car out the very first time and drive safely for 200 miles up the motorway to their destination without encountering a few difficulties en route. Maybe you should read Help:Your first article, then Help:Referencing for beginners, but maybe before that you might like to take our interactive tour called The Wikipedia Adventure to get a sense of how to do things here. It might be better if the information on the found of Stix Baer & Fuller is included in that article, and not in a separate article at Draft:Charles A. Stix. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:07, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I concur that information about Charles A. Stix better placed as content added to the article about the store versus a new article about Mr. Stix. David notMD (talk) 03:54, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Nick for the links and clean-up. I think I am getting the hang of it now. RE: including bio content on SBF page. My main focus is Genealogy and if there is a notable person in one's line they should be able to go to Wikipedia and find other sources that flesh out that person's story. Charle's cousin Thomas has a page. Also, the architect of the SBF building has a link within the SBF page so I would think that the founder of SBF should have a link on his own company's page, so I am going to disagree. If I was doing research on the company I sure wouldn't want to wade through bios of the founders when, in my mind, a link to his bio would be more pleasing to look at, especially since it makes his name searchable and allows me more room to expand his story. Open for discussion.--KLynn-geni (talk) 19:03, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

What is it like being a Bureaucrat, Administrator, and Steward?

What is it like? [[User:SoyokoAnis|SoyokoAnis]] (talk) 19:10, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

It is mostly cleaning up messes. When you become an admin it is called "getting the mop". RudolfRed (talk) 19:37, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Citing Sources, Categorizing Page

I am creating a page, and I am not able to figure out how to get the sources to show up on my page. I have the links to the sources I used listed at the bottom of my page if you want to take a look, or edit. The link is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:The_2002_NFL_Expansion. I also am wondering how I can add my page to categories to get more views. 208.66.88.194 (talk) 19:24, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Drafts don't go into categories until they are moved to article space. Any category links you add to the draft need to be disabled. See WP:DRAFT on how to do that. RudolfRed (talk) 20:02, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

(e/c) Hi. I have done some reformatting to make the page display better (including removing initial paragraph spacing; spaces before text make it display very wonky and is to be avoided; skip lines between paragraphs instead), and added a section for the references to display, with a template there ({{reflist}}) that will make them display, once you add footnotes in the text that verify the content and demonstrate the topic's notability through citing reliable, secondary, independent that treat the topic in substantive detail.

I have also left a commented out note in the references section (i.e., a note you will only see it when you are editing), that refers you to the page Help:Referencing for beginners. Please review that page, as you will need to cite the source using inline citations, before submitting the page for review by experienced editors. (In that regard, please note that when you are ready to submit it, add {{Subst:Submit}} to the top of the page, and save.)

As to categorization, until the draft's submitted for that review, we generally don't allow any mainspace article categories to propagate. However, I note that the "submit" template I referred to above, provides the following text about categories, in the context of tips for speeding up your chances of an earlier review:

"To improve your odds of a faster review, tag your draft with relevant WikiProject tags using the button below. This will let reviewers know a new draft has been submitted in their area of interest. For instance, if you wrote about a female astronomer, you would want to add the Biography, Astronomy, and Women scientists tags."

In order to take advantage of that Wikiproject categorization facility, please visit this link. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:10, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Draft-sorter

Where is the gadget for it? 🔥LightningComplexFire🔥 20:42, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

@LightningComplexFire: I don't see it at Special:Gadgets. Where did you learn about this gadget? RudolfRed (talk) 20:47, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

RudolfRed, Sorry, I meant user script 🔥LightningComplexFire🔥 20:50, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

An automated summary on Draft talk:Miraheze --🔥LightningComplexFire🔥 20:50, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

LightningComplexFire, are you looking for User:Enterprisey/draft-sorter? You can find scripts at Wikipedia:User scripts/List. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:55, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Our building switched from an office building to a hotel and the current wikipedia page is causing a lot of confusion. How do I update this as I do not manage the page?

207.250.171.3 (talk) 21:28, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

No one "manages" a Wikipedia article. You can post suggestions for improving the article on that article's talk page. RudolfRed (talk) 21:37, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

What happens when you can't reach consensus on an edit or end up in an edit war?

I'm talking about pages basically handled by one or two editors, is there some admin or high ranked editor you can summon to make the decision on who's right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMassEffector (talk • contribs) 17:33, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

TheMassEffector Hello and welcome. Admins do not settle content disputes. If you are unable to arrive at a consensus amongst yourselves, there are avenues of dispute resolution to make use of. Edit warring usually leads to the participants being blocked; you should not edit war even if you think you are correct, as everyone in an edit war thinks that they are correct. If someone else is edit warring, you may make a report at WP:ANEW, but be advised that the behavior of you and others will be looked at as well. 331dot (talk) 17:36, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

TheMassEffector, welcome to the Teahouse. If you're unable to resolve a dispute, you may want to ask a volunteer to help do so over at the dispute resolution noticeboard. Please use that venue before you consider submitting a report to the edit warring noticeboard for reasons that 331dot has pointed out. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:40, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

death date mistake

Julie Strain did not die on January 10th, she is still living. Remover her name from the recent deaths page. i tried but was unable to. This article makes it clear the death reports were false. https://www.distractify.com/p/julie-strain-death Kudzuman84 (talk) 23:25, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

@Kudzuman84: I added a header to your question. The article Julie_Strain does not mention her death. If you saw it somewhere else on Wikipedia, please link to it. RudolfRed (talk) 23:39, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Kudzuman84. Your source says "Updated 12 months ago". It's about an earlier claimed death in January 2020. Our editors are trying to find out whether it's real this time. She has currently been removed from Deaths in 2021. It's discussed at Talk:Deaths in 2021#Julie Strain. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:43, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

My Edit disappeared, was removed. It had no controversial content.

I did my first edit on a page called TOORBOS. There was just one sentence about what this movie was about. I wrote a longer section on what it was about, published it and then SAW my edit appear on the Wiki page. Then when I looked again hours later, my edit had disappeared. No controversial content at all. Please explain, someone! Thanks Elder's Pen (talk) 08:26, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Elder's Pen, your edit's reverted by Lugnuts. This is because the Synopsis section is supposed to be about the movie (in here we call it film) and not the novel it's based on. Your "plot" also has some flaws: it has "..." and subjective terms like "complex". I suggest you read film articles and read their plots to see how a plot summary is written. WP:FILMPLOT may help. Gerald WL 08:43, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

My words simply said that the movie was based on a book. This does not mean that I am writing a synopsis about the book, not the movie. What kind of illogic is this. Secondly, Complex emotions is not in the least a subjective notion. If one has one strong feeling about something, that is simple or simplex. If one has mixed feelings, and many different feelings about different aspects of something or some person, that is "complex feelings". So once again, if these two reasons are the real reasons why my simple non-controversial writing was rejected, I can only gaze in amazement at the stupidity of it all. It does not inspire me to ever write again for Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elder's Pen (talk • contribs) 17:29, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Elder's Pen, I'm sorry that you felt stricken seeing your edit (that I know you do in good intention) reverted. But please do not take it personal, or see it as an attack. It is not, as we are just maintaining Wikipedia. The fact remains that the synopsis section should only discuss about the summary of the movie. You can take the example of Wonder (film)'s plot section— it is a movie based on a book, but is not obliged to say the origins of the story. It is just a summary of the film.

Next, it is not our job to convey the emotions of the film. During the sad scene at Up (2009 film), the plot only reads "Suffering a miscarriage and unable to have children", not " A very emotional scene appears when it is revealed that she cannot have children. It makes the audience cry." This is unless the character display such, for example if the character is crying you can say "Johnny becomes emotional."

Keep in mind that plot summaries must be only about the main points of the movie. You shouldn't describe every scene, unless it's a short film and every shot is important as hell. If you have watched Contagion (2011 film), the plot summary can be a good learning tool to understand how a plot is written.

As I said, please do not see rejection of edits as an attack, unless the user is ACTUALLY bullying you. If you have any more question, don't hesitate to ask. Gerald WL 01:48, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Elder's Pen, PLEASE do not reinstate the edit back. PLEASE discuss it at the talk page. Gerald WL 06:03, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Editor status

Confirming knowledge on a specialist status I am club historian for my football team, a small semi-professional outfit in Manchester, England (Ashton United) - the club is 146 years old but has not had books written about them and receives limited press coverage. I have a proven history of editing their Wiki page from information found in my research which I cannot often corroborate through publications or online resources, and there are errors on the page which I cannot easily correct as they are wrongly corroborated to other data sources. is there the opportunity in Wiki that allows one to have some sort of approved editing status on a limit area of expertise? TIA Robin ashton (talk) 08:17, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Robin ashton, hi there. Wikipedia uses reliable sources like news, magazines, or journals, or reliable audiovisual material, but not the person involved. Relevant policies include WP:OR and WP:COI. There is no approved editing (i.e. peer review) and editors are not limited to editing articles only on their expertise. There are, however articles tagged for pending changes, meaning that IP or non-autoconfirmed users cannot get their edits approved directly unless approved by a professional editor, given for articles with persistent vandalism. Gerald WL 08:24, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

NB: By professional we mean experienced, not qualified. Everyone here is a volunteer. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 09:47, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Qualifier: Yes, "experienced" refers to editing experience, not subject experience. Gerald WL 10:12, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

"Banning" from user talk page

Hi there Teahouse hosts! I came across a baffling notice on a user's talk page that stated Everyone is banned from my talk page (except for mandatory notices, of course) until further notice. And do not ping me. This may be a WP:ANI issue, but I didn't want to escalate it. In short: is that allowed? I'm aware of some editors (especially vandals) who blank their pages whenever a notice is applied (such as for NPOV, unsourced additions etc), but this isn't exactly the same.

Sdrqaz (talk) 17:41, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Hey Sdrqaz. Though there's nothing I see at WP:UP directly on point AFAICT, this feels problematic. We need to be able to engage in discussion; to interact with people about aspects of editing without the nature of a talk page itself placing anyone who has a reason to contact the person in a hostile environment. I suppose if I had to point somewhere to reference, I'd cite WP:UP#OWN combined with WP:CIVIL. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:03, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Sdrqaz A user can request specific persons stay away from their user talk page, but I don't think that they can blanket close it to all persons, as communication is required. 331dot (talk) 18:16, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses, Fuhghettaboutit and 331dot. I am aware of editors asking specific users to stay away from their talk pages, but I am quite uncomfortable with that; unless the other editor is clearly a troll, it strikes me as being quite uncivil (interaction bans notwithstanding, of course). What is the suitable course of action here? I don't have anything to say to the editor (I've not encountered this editor prior to today), but I think that something has to be said about the notice. Sdrqaz (talk) 18:32, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Sdrqaz It's not a formal policy, but you could point them to WP:ENGAGE which summarizes policies related to communication. If you feel uncomfortable with doing it, I would be willing to(though I completely understand if you don't wish to share the user-in-question's account publicly, at least not yet). 331dot (talk) 18:38, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer, 331dot. I don't really like contacting other users off-wiki, so the user in question is [redacted]. Feel free to redact or RevDel that following reading, but I don't think there are any outing concerns by any means. Sdrqaz (talk) 20:30, 11 January 2021 (UTC) redacted 11:48, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Imo

What next I have to do for my first article? Draft:Imo_(app) Is it really written as an advertisment. I understand this is not written perfectly. Sonofstar (talk) 08:51, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Sonofstar, I am concerned about the sentence "It empowered people to message using multiple platform under one central interface. The fact that it was web based, enabled those on OSes like Linux, for example, to still chat, even as most messenger services only had software for Windows and Mac. This also helped users to save chat history which is very handy for the future references." It is so promotional, and has no source. "It helped family and friends stay in touch" also needs a rewrite. Gerald WL 15:36, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Gerald Waldo Luis thanks to guide me, I updated the page as per your suggestions. Is there anything else in it?Sonofstar (talk) 07:01, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

It is a duplicate article which is already written Imo (software). DrJNU (talk) 11:59, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Making changes to brand pages

Hi, just wanted to check if there are any guidelines for brands to update their wikipedia page? 203.184.213.11 (talk) 09:18, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

@203.184.213.11: yes. Apart from the usual content policies, they must comply with WP:COI and WP:PAID, the latter being a Terms of Use requirement. I strongely recommend that brands review at least the Terms of Use and the content policies before posting anything, as things often go sideways... Victor Schmidt (talk) 09:26, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I would also note that any Wikipedia article(not just a "page") about a brand or company does not belong to that brand; they have no special rights to it as the brand. They are welcome to submit edit requests on article talk pages related to their brand, and should avoid directly editing the article. 331dot (talk) 10:38, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Further, a Wikipedia article is not for the benefit (or detriment) of its subject. The subjects of many articles do get some benefit from the articles, of course, but that is - and must be - no part of Wikipedia's purpose. That is why conflict of interest is so important. --ColinFine (talk) 12:17, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Moving Article Out of the Sandbox to Publish

Hi! I have written an article a few months ago that I now feel is ready for publishing. The only problem is that I can't figure out how to move it out of the sandbox and publish it. What pulldown menu near the search box are they talking about? I don't have an option to "Put the title into the 'to new title' input box." Help! :) CamilleSparkman (talk) 12:16, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

CamilleSparkman, welcome to the Teahouse. You appear to be WP:AUTOCONFIRMED, so there should be a dropdown menu labeled "More". Hovering over it should reveal its contents, the first of which should be "Move". —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 12:23, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! It's excited to know the option is there now.

Hello, CamilleSparkman, and welcome to the Teahouse. This was your tenth edit, so you should now be autoconfirmed and able to see the "Move" button. But don't move your draft to mainspace now because it will be a waste of everybody's time. Your draft User:CamilleSparkman/sandbox is nothing like a Wikipedia article, and will very quickly get either deleted or (at best, if somebody thinks that it is salvageable) moved back to Draft space. A Wikipedia aritlce must have citations to reliable independent sources. Please study your first article. --ColinFine (talk) 12:24, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I will read that link and continue working on it!

Wikipedia does not believe in doing good things?

Wikipedia says it has a neutral point of view, does that mean that Wikipedia does not believe in doing good things. 103.139.171.14 (talk) 07:03, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

That's not what neutral POV means. Neutral POV means that we don't get opinionated (like "Clowns are bad"). We do however, say that a person is criminal IF sources say so. If something is unlawful, we say it is unlawful. This doesn't mean editors get to express their thoughts on "right or wrong". Gerald WL 07:14, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Per above. Bit of confusion there. Wikipedia reports factually and dispassionately; which is what makes it have a neutral point of view. We use reliable sources, and a preponderance of them where possible, to present the most factual, observably "true" (per those experts) version of whatever is being discussed.

So no, we wont promote BLM for example. Wikipedia as an organisation may, many editors may support it even, but the encyclopedia is written from the perspective of being an independent authoritative source where claims are attributed, and evidence/argumenys directly supporting a conclusion is included when it is done so by the consensus only. Koncorde (talk) 07:15, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

One could consider making a free online encyclopedia to be a good thing. Not everybody does. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:50, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Establishing a page presence / sorting out one that didn't go down well before

I wonder if you can help me? I have just joined my company (Kreston International) and am trying to work out why we don’t have a Wiki page whereas all our competitors do ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accounting_network).

We seem to have fallen foul of some Wiki users -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kreston_International_Limited.

How can we start again with a simple factual page. Many thanks for help in doing this. MarketingKreston MarketingKreston (talk) 12:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC) MarketingKreston (talk) 12:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

MarketingKreston: no, it's not Wikipedia users your (incompetent) predecessor fell foul of, it's Wikipedia policies. You're welcome to start again. You should start by ignoring what you know about the company, and what your colleagues and bosses tell you to write. You should instead look for reliable independent published sources that discuss the company, and base your article on those. Maproom (talk) 13:00, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

MarketingKreston in addition you will need to request a name change and forget ANY idea of "marketing" your company here. Wikipedia only has articles on notable topics see WP:NCORP for the criteria. Theroadislong (talk) 13:12, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

MarketingKreston That your competitors may merit articles(if they do) does not automatically mean your company does as well. Each article is judged on its own merits. See other stuff exists for more information. It could be that the articles about your competitors are inappropriate. In addition, such articles were probably not written by company representatives. 331dot (talk) 13:15, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi MarketingKreston. Since you've titled your post as Establishing a page presence and seem to be worried about your competitors having Wikipedia articles written about them, it seems like you might be misunderstanding what a Wikipedia article is intended to be. So, you might want to read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia:Ownership of content, Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything and Wikipedia:Article for some general information about Wikipedia. Once you've done that, you probably should take a look at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies); this last page, in particular, will explain the kind of things Wikipedia is looking for when attempting to create an article about a company. If after reading all of those pages, you still feel you can still create an article about your company which will have a good chance of avoiding WP:DELETION as second time, then I strongly suggest you start with a WP:DRAFT and submit the draft to Wikipedia:Articles for creation for review when you think it's ready.

Finally, I also suggest you take a look at Wikipedia:Username Policy#Inappropriate usernames because there are a number of issues with your username that you're going to need to resolve if you intend to try and create an article about your company or just continue editing in general. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:18, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Rights: ... read pages (read)

Moved to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) § Rights: ... read pages (read)

– JJP...MASTER!_{[talk to] JJP... master?} 13:42, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Canadian Pizza Restaurants

How do I make edits without having them reverted? I am trying to add a restaurant to a list of Canadian pizza restaurants? 142.177.183.128 (talk) 14:14, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. List articles like that one are not for every possible member of the list; only those restaurants with preexisting Wikipedia articles may be included in the list. For this restaurant to merit a Wikipedia article, you must show with significant coverage in independent reliable sources that have chosen on their own to write about the restaurant that it meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable company.

If you work for this restaurant, you must review conflict of interest and paid editing for information on required formal disclosures. 331dot (talk) 14:17, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

My article is a mess. I need help formatting it before the submission is reviewed.

Hi, I have created an article, but the format isn't as same as the page I copied it from. Everything is same, but it still displays differently. I have submitted the article for review, can anyone format it better??? Thanks in advance! Callmejones (talk) 10:35, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Also, I got an error saying references like YouTube are discouraged. But they are acceptable from official channels, right? Because this person is an online personality, all of his events were published on social media only.

Courtesy: draft is at User:Callmejones/sandbox. What do you mean by "...the page I copied it from"? Do you mean format or content? David notMD (talk) 10:43, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Callmejones, welcome to the Teahouse. I have removed an extra }} from the infobox.[4] PrimeHunter (talk) 10:58, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I copied the codes from here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoella

Thanks for your help! PrimeHunter David notMD

Who's going to review the article? Is the language okay? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Callmejones (talk • contribs) 11:30, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Callmejones, it seems a reviewer has declined the draft due to unsuitable sources. You may want to take some time to read WP:RS as many of the sources provided are not appropriate for Wikipedia's use. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 11:34, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Question to Teahouse hosts: The declining reviewer left this comment: "Amazon, Twitter, YouTube, Instagram and Facebook are not suitable reliable sources." Given that the subject of the draft is known solely for his YouTube persona, can the YouTube references be sufficient to convey notability? David notMD (talk) 12:57, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

The main problem is that YouTube is not considered a relaible source, per WP:RSPYT. According to our List of YouTubers, "A YouTuber is considered notable if they have received significant, non-routine coverage in reliable sources for more than one event. If a YouTuber has not received significant, non-routine coverage in reliable sources for more than one event then they are not considered notable, even if they have 100,000,000 subscribers."--Shantavira|^{feed me} 14:40, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

request

i piblished an article about my self but ir declined,i only want how i get an article from wikipedia? for more : https://www.karzanhisham.com/ https://www.youtube.com/KarzanHisham https://www.instagram.com/karza0n/ Karza0n (talk) 14:54, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Karza0n, The answer is that you cannot. For more see WP:Auto S Philbrick (Talk) 14:57, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Recommend destination

I want editors to review a notability guideline. What's the destination? (Ex- Village Pump?) Pesticide1110 ^{Lets wrestle!} 15:30, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Pesticide1110, hmm, I'm not 100% sure about that. WP:VPP would be my thought. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 15:54, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

ADD A PHOTO THAT I HAVE TAKEN

FYI

Moved the question from the previous section.

how do I indicate that I took the photo? WikiUName (talk) 15:43, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

WikiUName, for a photo you took, you should add it to Wikimedia Commons. The upload wizard there will allow you to add a license indicate that you took the photo. Once the photo is on Commons, you can use it here, and you don't need to do anything else to indicate you took it. People who click on the photo will be able to see that it's yours from the license. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 15:58, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Is this suspicious behavior, or am I not understanding something about how editors monitor pages?

So I recently noticed this[5] edit on the Poppy (entertainer) article. The content of the edit isn't what I'm asking about here. Rather, when I looked at the edit history[6] of Room330, I saw that they had only edited Poppy's article, and nothing else. I noticed that yesterday. By itself, that seemed a little weird, but not that crazy, I guess. Today I noticed that the edit, by Room330, undoing the deletion came just 16 hours after someone made the deletion. But, Room330 hadn't made any other edits in the last 3 months. It just struck me as odd that someone would not edit anything for three months, and then, mere hours after someone deleted content that they had added in the past, they were right there to undo it. It seems like a lot of coincidence. Am I crazy? Am I missing something about how editors monitor changes to pages? Wes sideman (talk) 14:46, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

You can set up your watchlist to email you when specific articles are changed. It might be that. Or just have a very short watchlist. Not suspicious in itself. Johnbod (talk) 15:06, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Ah, I did not notice that you could ask for email when an article on your list is changed. Thank you. Wes sideman (talk) 15:59, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Request

Please remove the tag "Require administrator access" to create "Dytto"(Singer and youtube personality) from wikipedia. I am planning to create an article about her. Thanks! —Big Hero 01:31, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

@Big Hero: Create a draft first, following WP:YFA. If the draft is approved, someone will move it to main space. RudolfRed (talk) 02:02, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

@RudolfRed: Would you mind telling me who will get the creator credit if follow the draft process?—Big Hero 12:40, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

@Big Hero: If you create the draft, then you that will be you. RudolfRed (talk) 16:02, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Renaming my account

Where can I apply to rename my account? A.889 (talk) 15:52, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

A.889, see Wikipedia:Changing username. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 15:55, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks--A.889 (talk) 16:02, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Are you allowed to create your own Wikipedia:Project Page?

Just so you know it's not dedicated to me or myself. SoyokoAnis 15:13, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

SoyokoAnis, what specifically are you looking to create? If it's a WikiProject (i.e. a collaboration dedicated to a specific topic), see WP:WikiProject Council. If it's a personal page just for you, you can create it as a subpage in your userspace, e.g. User:SoyokoAnis/THEPAGENAME. If it's a generally applicable essay or something similar, you can create it at Wikipedia:THEPAGENAME, but if it's a duplicate or otherwise undesired it may be deleted or merged. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 16:02, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

@SoyokoAnis: There are links at WP:Project that will lead you to info on how to create a project. Also, you just asked this question recently. Please give some time for answers rather than reposting the question. RudolfRed (talk) 16:04, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

RudolfRed this is not a repost. Those were two different questions.

Help - my article/page was rejected

Posting an article/page in English about my former teacher at the school of architecture but it was rejected, what should I do differently? Christopherhjortholt (talk) 17:05, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Christopherhjortholt Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. To merit an article, your teacher must receive significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources that have chosen on their own to write about the subject, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. The one source you offered seems to be an interview with the subject, which is not an independent source. Please read Your First Article for more information. 331dot (talk) 17:10, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

He might well be notable, but why doesn't he have an article in the Danish Wikipedia, I ask myself? Johnbod (talk) 17:34, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh, he does, and that has a good few references - probably enough, if you add them. Johnbod (talk) 17:36, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Talk Page for Article

I am having trouble locating the talk button for the article which I'm editing Diomedes Agonistes (talk) 17:37, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

@Diomedes Agonistes: The link will be at the top of the page. Based on your most recent edit, it is here: Talk:Hotel_Continental,_Ho_Chi_Minh_City RudolfRed (talk) 17:52, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Cheque Payment

A request from Germany: Some weeks ago, I got a FoIA request approved by the CIA. The problem is now payment, as the CIA allows only cheque or money order. And these two are almost extinct in Europe, so I could not find a bank to pay it. Question to the readers here, is there a possibility to pay in this pay from Europe?--Antemister (talk) 17:47, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Antemister Hello. This is the Teahouse, a place for new or inexperienced users to ask questions about using Wikipedia. It is not a general help forum; you may wish to try the Reference Desk. 331dot (talk) 17:48, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

OK, will move (in Germany, there is the Café for such questions, so I went here).--Antemister (talk) 18:03, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

elizabeth erin walsh? -since she was fired by trump 2018 for interfering with the trump brand in China and ending sanctions on chinese telecom. what has Elizabeth Erin since?

65.129.51.111 (talk) 17:57, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over 6.2 million articles and thought we were affiliated in some way with that subject. Please note that you are at Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and this page is for asking questions related to using or contributing to Wikipedia itself. Thus, we have no special knowledge about the subject of your question. You can, however, search our vast catalogue of articles by typing a subject into the search field on the upper right side of your screen. If you cannot find what you are looking for, we have a reference desk, divided into various subject areas, where asking knowledge questions is welcome. Best of luck. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:26, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Stuck & need advice

I wrote a piece on Scott Nathan, a prominent and influential celebrity photog and lighting innovator. Bofore I could even submit the article a moderator nominated it for deletion. (The same moderator did the same thing on another article I wrote) I defended the subject and I reached out to the moderator to debate notability. It seems now he is bailing and asking me to go another route. I am trying o understand the process and need a third-party to independently assist. Thank you! ConstellationTeam (talk) 18:13, 12 January 2021 (UTC) ConstellationTeam (talk) 18:13, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

ConstellationTeam Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Is a single person operating your account? Each account is for the exclusive use of a single individual; group accounts are not permitted. You may need to visit Special:GlobalRenameRequest to change your username. You may also need to read about conflict of interest and paid editing. 331dot (talk) 18:19, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank but I only use this login account. It has it correctly at the top. I do not know what you mean other than that...are you referring to the word team? ConstellationTeam (talk) 18:24, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

ConstellationTeam Yes, the word "Team" suggests that your account is a group account. 331dot (talk) 18:25, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh ok I was unaware that was an issue. Can you point me in the right direction to resolve? Thank you ConstellationTeam (talk) 18:32, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy: Draft:Scott Nathan is currently an unsubmitted draft. David notMD (talk) 18:29, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

What, if any, is your connection to Scott Nathan? David notMD (talk) 18:32, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I need help in reviewing my article

This is my first article, i submitted it for publishing, but i got a notification that it would be deleted because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person.

This is totally false, the articles is not advertising or promoting anyone, rather it only highlight educational background, achievements, appointments of this civil servant who is a permanent secretary.

Please i need help if someone can help me proof read and possible point me in the right direction. Thank you so much Nigeria Bulk Electricity Trading (talk) 16:57, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Nigeria Bulk Electricity Trading. Assuming you choose a non-promotional user name and get un-soft-blocked, if the article remains at all you will need to remove all the extremely promotional, corporate PR ad-speak and peacock language from the draft, as well as the résumé-like content (and then continue to add citations to reliable, secondary, independent that demonstrate the notability of the subject by treating him in substantive detail, if those sources exist).

If those sources and depth of treatment in them don't exist, no acceptable article will be possible. Anyway, since the article requires a fundamental rewrite, a deletion would not be so bad right now. It will allow you to restart on the right foot. (But don't waste your own time if the necessary sources don't exist.)

Please note that your intent is not the issue. The notices you refer to are not false because, regardless of what you intended, the draft reads like it was taken directly from the subject's linkedin page. It simply is extremely promotional because of the content and writing. As an example "He has anchored and implemented key initiatives within the civil and public service which led to several innovative launches" is just chock full of evaluative buzz word panegyric praise, in Wikipedia's voice. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:38, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Please note, Nigeria Bulk Electricity Trading that Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources.. --ColinFine (talk) 20:07, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Are here any Australians?

Hi, dear people, i'm searching for an Australian, who could help me with one question concerning football? --Gyanda (talk) 12:10, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Gyanda, perhaps HiLo48 may be able to help you. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:41, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Depends which "football" you mean: we have Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian rules football for Aussie rules football, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Football for soccer. Both of those projects have talkpage where you can ask questions. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Joseph and Gråbergs Gråa Sång. I wanted to know whether this game is equivalent to "Soccer" as we play it here in Germany, but as i read there are 18 players (we only have 11) it must be something different. I will link the term "football" to the Australian rules Football - a page which also exists in Germany. I'm on my last sentences for my new article for the German wikipedia on Vincent Namatjira, and he won the Archibald-Prize for a portrait of Adam Goodes. Thank you for your quick responses. Kind regards, --Gyanda (talk) 12:59, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

It's complicated. In Australia there are four professional sports called football by at least some of their fans, plus at least two more played at an amateur level. The article that tells the full story is Football in Australia. The sport with 11 players and a round ball is probably the third most popular (depends on how you measure it). Australian Rules Football, using 18 players, is the most successful, followed by Rugby League. Rugby Union comes in fourth. Australian Rules Football and Rugby League have an obvious geographic divide, explained by the Barassi Line. Soccer wants to be called football, but that's obviously ambiguous, so Wikipedia developed a guideline to manage the situation - WP:Naming conventions (Football in Australia). Adam Goodes played Australian Rules Football. HiLo48 (talk) 21:29, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

a word -- "ex-Conre" -- unknown to search engines

Please see Talk:History_of_Texas_(1865–99)#a_word_--_"ex-Conre"_--_unknown_to_search_engines
Mike Schwartz (talk) 20:17, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Note: Below I am duplicating my response from the article's talk page--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:30, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Mike Schwartz. This was simple vandalism, that I have now fixed (thank you kindly for bringing this to our attention). Unfortunately, this was done way back on 21:49, April 18, 2018, and persisted since then. You can see the edit that did this here. I was easily able to find this by using the "Wikiblame tool". This can be accessed by going to the page history, and then clicking on the link on the top, left-hand side of the page for "Find addition/removal", and then entering some portion of text, to locate when and by what editor it was added. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:30, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

What is a Romanian cognate of the name "Jack" and which Project or Task Force might know best?

I was looking at this Wiktionary category (Romanian given names) and I don't see a cognate for the English name "Jack", not under I or J. I know a Romanian man named "Jack" or "Jacques" in English, and I also know that he writes it "Jacques" sometimes to encourage a closer approximation among American English speakers.

I'm not sure if this should go in a Project page for Romanian culture, the Romanian language, linguistics in general, or if it belongs on Wiktionary and not Wikipedia at all. This little mystery cuts across a lot of disciplines, and the "true solution" might be as simple as "his parents named him Jack in Romania although it is orthographically unsound because they were naming him after a non-Romanian celebrity - he now misspells it Jacques simply to emulate the Romanian vowel sound from before he emigrated". Or maybe "Jac" is a valid but uncommon Romanian name, although the idea of a valid given name is a bit silly. Fluoborate (talk) 20:48, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Fluoborate. I would ask at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language, which seems a perfect fit for this type of question. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:48, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Can i add commons.wikipedia.org images in my website posts?

Can i add commons.wikipedia.org images in my website posts? If yes then how to add it? please help answering this question. 103.91.123.136 (talk) 17:26, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes. Images on Commons are may be reused for any purpose. Some are public domain and some have a license with requirements such as attribution notice. If you click on the image you want, it will show what the license is. You can download the image from commons and then add it to your website. RudolfRed (talk) 17:31, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Note also that each project has its own help facilities. For future questions regarding Commons, please see c:Commons:Help desk. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 21:57, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Why do my edits get reverted

I am adding small facts and changing names that are wrong but they keep getting reverted why??? Cawson (talk) 22:26, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Cawson, welcome to the Teahouse. It is most likely because the information you're adding is not sourced, which means it can be easily challenged or removed. You may want to read WP:EASYREFBEGIN to learn how to cite sources. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:08, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Furthermore, Cawson, you are changing names away from what is given in the sources. Wikipedia depends on its sources. If you can find reliable sources that say that Louis Riel should be spelt Louis Ryiel, then you can propose the change (with the references) on the article's talk page, and see if you can change the consensus to Ryiel. But changing an article so that it no longer corresponds to what its sources say, without explanation, is disruptive. Also see WP:Verifiability, not truth. --ColinFine (talk) 23:16, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

How to Best Deal With Misinformation and Inadequate Sources?

So I’ve been editing the Marquis de Sade page because there was lots of misinformation with poor sourcing. Specifically, much of what the page said cited this very inadequate source: https://www.biography.com/writer/marquis-de-sade. However, after I removed the source and the statements corresponding to that source, another user edited the page to include some of the misleading statements and the poor source again.

My questions are: -What are my best options for correcting this misinformation and for preventing users in the future from re-inserting the same misinformation and poor source? -How do I mark a source as non-legitimate or inadequate? -Is there a way I can privately message a user to try to work out disputes over articles? Or is public discussion with the user the only way to resolve this? -Any other advice considering the issues I’ve listed here?

Thanks all for your help and service in providing info to the public via Wikipedia! PNople (talk) 22:52, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

@PNople: You can always start a discussion on the talk page, and if that doesn't work, on the individual editor's talk page. I haven't looked at the specific edits and have no judgement about who's right or wrong, but you want the info to match the sources. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:49, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Am I allowed to create my own WikiProject?

I want to create one dedicated to Signatures?

SoyokoAnis 21:08, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi, SoyokoAnis. I'm not confident such a WikiProject would be very active; while sigs are fun they are a minor part of what we do on Wikipedia and there's already significant documentation on creating signatures at WP:SIGTUT and WP:CUSTOMSIG.

While technically you could unilaterally create WikiProject pages in project space, without other editor support they'd likely face MfD. I'd recommend gauging WikiProject ideas by making a proposal at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals. Kind regards, Zindor (talk) 00:02, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

How to get an article on my company up!

Courtesy link: Draft:Dreality

Hey! I wanted to know how I could have you guys write an article on my startup please it would be very much appreciated DiannaAndrews (talk) 23:00, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy link Draft:Dreality. Theroadislong (talk) 23:04, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello, DiannaAndrews, and welcome to the Teahouse. We can certainly help you, providing that you can supply us with citations to in-depth, detailed and independent sources which show that this company reaches our notability criteria (see WP:NCORP), for without that, there is no way the company will ever have an article here, and you will just be wasting your time. The problem is that many people think Wikipedia can be used to help publicise their business or themselves. It isn't. We care about NOTABILITY which is used to filter out the billions of people (like me) and millions of businesses (like yours) that the world has not paid especial attention to. None of the sources used to demonstrate 'notability' should be based upon press releases or company websites - and that's all you've provided thus far. Maybe one day when your startup has taken the world by storm we will be clamouring for an article about it, but I fear that day is yet to come. I'm sorry to disappoint you. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:21, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict):Hello, Dianna Andrews. I'm afraid the answer is that you don't. Monay people have the wholly mistaken belief that Wikipedia is a means of promoting things: it is not, and promotion of all kinds is forbidden. If we had an article about your company, it would not belong to you, you would not control its contents, and in fact, almost all its contents would be sourced to people unconnected with you. Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources.. Since it is unlikely that such independent writing about your startup exists, an article on it is probably impossible at present. If you make a big enough splash that there are some independent sources about your company, then we could have an article about it. You will be discouraged from writing it yourself, as it is unlikely that you can write with sufficient neutrality. But at prsent, if you attempt it, you will be wasting your time and everybody else's. --ColinFine (talk) 23:23, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello, DiannaAndrews - just to add to the excellent advice above, you want to use independent, reliable third party sources, per WP:RS. I did a quick Google search and don't see any independent coverage of the company. Anything with the word "presswire" in the header indicates it's a cut and paste from a press release service, and is therefore not considered independent or reliable. I don't even see your web site in the first few pages. This is likely WP:TOOSOON. You're better off for now focusing on adding information to your website first, such as an about us section, and that might help you get indexed. Then, if your business is a success, the media coverage will follow and you can come back and request help with article creation. Good luck! TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:04, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Would a list of businesses/corporations that have stopped their political donations to U.S. congressional members who objected to electoral college votes and/or supported/incited the capitol rioters be worthy of a Wikipedia page?

Many businesses and coprorations have said they would and/or already have temporarly or permantently stopped any new political donations to current members of the U.S. Congress who supported overtuning the electoral college votes for the 2020 presidential election, and/or supported/incited the rioters who stormed the capitol building on January 6, 2021.^[1] Would a list of the businesses/corporations who are temporarily halting or permanently stopping political donations to some or all U.S. congress members be worthy of a Wikipedia article? There are many business/corporations doing so, so the list would likely only include ones of note, such as Amazon, Google and Microsoft.^[2]

If yes, I was thinking of making a list with the businesses/corporation and then the congress members an/or political party each specific business/corporation has stopped giving political donations to. If they have halted/permanently stopped all prolitical donations to all members of congress and any political party they financially supported, I would note that instead, rather then specific members of congress and specific political parties. Greshthegreat (talk) 21:35, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

References

^ "Corporations halt political donations, with some singling out Republicans". www.cbsnews.com. Retrieved 2021-01-12.
^ Feiner, Salvador Rodriguez,Lauren (2021-01-11). "Amazon, Microsoft, Facebook and others pause political contributions after U.S. Capitol riot". CNBC. Retrieved 2021-01-12.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Hello, Greshthegreat and welcome to the Teahouse. That's an interesting question. The answer probably comes down to notability, reliable sources and it not being just a short term news item, but of long term relevance. I suspect there is some merit in such an article (albeit with a more concise title). But, whilst the two articles you cite could be used as the foundation to such an article, I would want to see a short explanation of each company's or person's position, each supported by a proper source. Perhaps in these instances we would accept citations to those businesses own websites. I do struggle to envisage a concise page title for such an article, but might suggest that at the very least a 'controversy' section is added or expanded at each individual congressional member's page, obviously fully supported with citation to a specific statement about that person by given companies who have withdrawn financial backing. I think the two refs you gave here are not detailed enough to link to named individuals, so you would need to look for more specific references. Sadly, I'm not familiar with how the financing of American politics works, so it might be worth asking this question in another forum to gauge interest (though I'm not quite sure which ones might be best). Maybe other editors here might wish to comment. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:43, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Greshthegreat How about adding a new section 4 to Republican reactions to Donald Trump's claims of 2020 election fraud called Republican reactions to Donald Trump's claims of 2020 election fraud#Political fallout. Then you can have the donation information as 4.1 Corporate donations, and track anyone who loses their seat due to the fallout as 4.2. Election results? TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:10, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

How do I upload a photo?

How do I upload a photo onto a page? WessexAnne (talk) 00:13, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

@WessexAnne: hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. Before answering that rather broad question, please could you tell us (or give a link) to what photo you want to upload, and to which article? Did you take the photo and therefore own the rights to it? Is it copyright free, and released under a proper licence? Is the image already on Wikimedia Commons? or did you just find it on the internet somewhere? Answers to such questions will help us help you. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:21, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Nick Moyes, if it's copyright free, it's in the public domain; and if it's in the public domain, there is no licence. -- Hoary (talk) 00:27, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

If you are the copyright holder, then you agree to release it under a very permissive copyleft licence and you upload it to Wikimedia Commons. Once it's there, you can use it in a Wikipedia article. (If you are not the copyright holder, then with few ~~and minor~~ exceptions you may not upload it and you may not use it.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:27, 13 January 2021 (UTC) corrected Hoary (talk) 00:32, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Elsewhere, you've written "I have a 1950s photo that I could add to the page". If the photographer was somebody other than yourself, it's highly unlikely that the photograph is usable. -- Hoary (talk) 00:36, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Becoming a host

I wanna be a host. 66Destiny66 (talk) 02:07, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

You started an account today, and so far have made no article edits, Please become more familiar with adding and deleting content from articles. adding references, participating in Talk discussions, and perhaps look at Archives of Teahouse sections first. David notMD (talk) 03:46, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Activating Authority control

I have attempted to do this on the page of Petra Bonfert-Taylor by making dummy edits but this didn't work. Will someone please explain how to activate Authority control. Thanks. Mvitulli (talk) 00:45, 13 January 2021 (UTC) Mvitulli (talk) 00:45, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Mvitulli, the instructions for inserting the template are here: Authority Control Template Usage. Orville^talk 04:07, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Questions?

Moved from WT:TEA

– —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:29, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

How do i contribute Andrea yolis (talk) 00:21, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

@Andrea yolis: Welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for wanting to help. If you mean how can you find things to edit, check out the WP:Community Portal for some suggested tasks. If you mean how can you donate money, see [7]. RudolfRed (talk) 04:13, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

How do I add this to an AFD discussion?

How do I add "Note: This discussion has been included in the list ....." to an AFD discussion? Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 08:36, 12 January 2021 (UTC) Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 08:36, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Hey Aceing Winter Snows Harsh Cold. There are automated tools to assist with doing this, as well as templates that can help. However, here's the manual approach:

→ Go to an existing AfD discussion that has a few of those notes (e.g., randomly from the many to choose from at today's AfD log, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avaye Honar);
→ see where such notes are inserted within the contours of that discussion, and how they are formatted, by viewing it in 'edit mode' (click "edit this page" at the top of the page [source editing; not visual editor]);
→ noting that location, copy the formatting of one such note;
→ click edit this page at the AfD your question is about;
→ paste copied note into correct part of that AfD;
→ tailor for your specifics (making sure to replace the person's signature w/time stamp, before the ending markup, with your signature w/time stamp [e.g., "~~~~; and
→ save ("Publish changes").

If you just want to do this once or twice, then the above is likely all you need. If you plan on doing this regularly, you'll probably want to carefully read and take advantage of the resources and instructions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting, such as installing User:Enterprisey/delsort and/or User:Fox Wilson/delsort, make use of {{Deltab}} etc. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:18, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

@Fuhghettaboutit: Thank you very much for helping me over this issue. :) Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 04:45, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Need Help with this draft

Need Help with this draft, i am new to wikipedia and this is my first article. can someone help me with correcting and adding some more information and publishing the article?

Link:- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Zeyan_Shafiq Hums4r (talk) 01:06, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I have shortened your title here; I hope you don't mind. What notability Zeyan Shafiq has seems to come from Kashbook. If a draft about Kashbook can be created from multiple reliable, independent, published sources, then you might create the Kashbook draft first, and then, after that has been accepted as an article, resume working on your Zeyan Shafiq draft. -- Hoary (talk) 01:22, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Need Help to publish this draft to main space.

FYI

– Section transplanted by Tenryuu.

I have checked the draft multiple times, kindly assist me if there is something missing in it, i have followed all the guidelines from wikipedia. i have added all the reliable sources for the notability. There isnt just a single notability source of kashbook, this person is also notable for starting and founding "stalwart esports" as well.

Link:- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Zeyan_Shafiq

Thanks sir. Hums4r (talk) 02:17, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Your list of contributions shows that you have sent an identical message asking for help to a number of people. Better to discuss the matter here.

If I understand the draft correctly, and if the content of the draft reflects Zeyan Shafiq's achievements, then his major achievement is with Kashbook. I've already (above) suggested that you first write a draft about Kashbook and have that accepted as an article. Dl2000 has made a similar suggestion on your user talk page.

Your draft comes with a photo of Zeyan Shafiq that you describe as your "own work". And there's another photo of Zeyan Shafiq that's described in the same way. It appears from the combination of (i) the nature of the photographs and (ii) "own work" that the photographer (you) and Zeyan Shafiq know each other. Do you know each other? -- Hoary (talk) 08:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Hoary for bringing the issue here. The way Hums4r left messages on my talk page are clear-cut indications that this is the best "COI piece". ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 08:58, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

And perhaps it's no coincidence that another contributor to the draft has the username Zeyan. -- Hoary (talk) 09:14, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for letting me know about AfC process, i have done the same, and yes i happen to know him, but this is not a COI, I have gone through all the articles myself. this is the only reason i want to do article on him, also i am planning to do article mainly on notable kashmiri people. i think people should know about him(He has been very notable in news in 2017 and now with his new startup 'Stalwart Esports' he's making it to news again and thats why i wanted to do it on him,my formatting might be wrong but i am learning it all) and other kashmiri's as well since everyone looks up for information on wikipedia only. i am new to wikipedia and still learning on how to make edits, i was unable to move the article to mainspace and i googled about it and it showed me that you need an old account to move it, so i asked Zeyan if he has an old account and if he can move it, since i didnt know about AfC process, i admit my mistake and apologise for it, i have submitted it through AfC. i'll make sure this doesnt get repeated, and my reason for asking multiple users about the draft was to ask them to review it if there are any mistakes in the article. Thanks for letting me know. also have updated the source of pictures. Draft:Zeyan Shafiq Hums4r (talk) 00:57, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Pinging Hoary for further consideration. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 04:58, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Hums4r, Two points. First, if you know Zeyan Shafiq, then you have a conflict of interest when writing about him. The meaning of "conflict of interest" (as understood in Wikipedia, and including your situation) is briefly explained in the very first sentence of "WP:Conflict of Interest", and explained in more detail in its section "What is conflict of interest?". Secondly, if Zeyan Shafiq is notable for Stalwart Esports, then presumably Stalwart Esports is notable; if both Kashbook and Stalwart Esports have articles and reliable, independent, published sources provide more to be said about Zeyan Shafiq than would fit in either of these existing articles, then it would be time to write about him. -- Hoary (talk) 05:12, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Hoary, Yes i will start researching properly on both of the organisations and start a article for them as well, but for now i am focused on notable persons from Kashmir, because people know them here more then their organisations and if there is a wiki article for them they will be able to get more information about these persons and their organisations, this is the only reason why i am writing articles on persons, i don't know him that closely i started talking to him to gather more information only after i told him that i will be trying to make his article on wikipedia. all my points mentioned in the article are completely neutral. and if there is something that is wrong you can certainly remove it.his esport organisation is still new so he has just 6-7 reference articles. i will do some more research on them as well, but kindly tell me can i proceed to make pages for notable kashmiri people or not. there are very few people who are on wikipedia while in kashmir there are many notable persons and they deserve an article on wiki and they meet all guidelines of wikipedia.

Why aren't my section headings working? Are sections named correctly?

Hello! I currently have a draft of a biography written up. See here: Draft biography for Dami Olonisakin

As you can see, equal signs show up, but I want those to be section headers instead. What am I doing wrong?

Also, is "media work" a proper heading? I don't know what else I would use to write about her blog, Twitter, podcasts, and consent workshops.

Thank you!! IllQuill (talk) 05:18, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

IllQuill, welcome to the Teahouse. Are you using source editor? I see the headings appear to be rendered properly. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:17, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi :Tenryuu, thank you! I originally used the source editor. I don't know why it seems to be working now as opposed to earlier but I'm glad it's working! It now looks right on my end. Thanks again! IllQuill (talk) 06:46, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

@IllQuill: Section headings must not have other text on the line. It was fixed in [8] except one fixed in the next edit by removing <nowiki>...</nowiki> around the heading. PrimeHunter (talk) 08:15, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

How to use the Talk feature

For a while now, I've been wondering about how to use the chat section on any article, and I would like a brief overview of how to use it. Owen123c (talk) 05:28, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello Owen123c. Article talk pages are for specific discussions about improving the article by more accurately summarizing what reliable independent sources say about the topic. General chat type discussion is not permitted. Please see WP:NOTAFORUM for additional guidance. Off topic posts are routinely reverted. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:34, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

See more at Help:Talk pages and Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. PrimeHunter (talk) 08:18, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

New watchlist feature is great, who had the idea for it?

I was wondering who to thank for the new temporary/permanent watchlist feature. Great idea. Merits a barn star.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 00:58, 13 January 2021 (UTC) Paradise Chronicle (talk) 00:58, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Paradise Chronicle. It's an old request, e.g. phabricator:T8964 from 2006. There are other links at meta:Community Tech/Watchlist Expiry. The problem was implementing it. PrimeHunter (talk) 08:40, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Publicity photos

How are publicity photos I.D.'d to Wikipedia's liking? Octopus69 (talk) 10:32, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by IDing publicity photos. Could you please explain? However, one thing you have to do is provide evidence that the copyright holder has either (A) released the photograph under an unusually permissive Creative Commons copyleft license (unusual) or (B) waived all rights to the photograph (very unusual). -- Hoary (talk) 11:26, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Idea

I think Wikipedia should add a dark mode feature. It would make viewing much easier on the eyes at nighttime. What do you think? I think it would be nice and I hope it can happen.

Election Tron 20:40, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Election Tron. In order to apply the Vector-DarkCSS skin, you can copy the contents of this page into your vector.css page. Another option is to go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets and check on the option for "Use a black background with green text". Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:46, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much! The vector.css version works great 👍🏻 Election Tron (talk) 21:58, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

@Election Tron: Glad to help.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:11, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Question by Kavex98162

Removal of personal information “name” from page edit history. Kavex98162 (talk) 09:53, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Can anyone help remove personal information from a page edit history?

A clients name appeared without permission or acceptable referencing in the original creation page. After removal multiple clones appeared on google of outdated pages from the edit history that included the clients name, personal unreferencable information about a living person.

Does that constitute grounds for deletion of the page as it was created against Wikipedia guidelines for acceptable referencing of biographical information on living persons?

Or permenant deletion of the offending edits and revisions from Wikipedia servers.

Can this be done and how do I go about it?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kavex98162 (talk • contribs) 09:53, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Kavex98162, A large number of edits in the history have been suppressed, and aren't publicly viewable and since the current revision of the page does not contain your name, I presume that your name is no longer visible. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 11:20, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

@Kavex98162: The name has been removed from the article on 29 September 2017 in two consecutive edits by an anonymous editor working from the IP address 86.150.53.66: Special:Diff/765988493/802979509. There is not much more an ordinary editor can do.

There is, however, a RevisionDeletion feature, which allows for hiding old page versions if required, e.g. due to serious privacy or copyright violation. It is described in the Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:Revision deletion. Using it requires administrator rights (you may see WP:ADMIN for more info on admin rights and WP:RIGHTS for description of all access levels) and you'll find hints on requesting RevDel at short-cut link WP:REVDELREQUEST. But I'm not sure that a simple misinformation, which does not reveal sensitive personal data not constitutes an aspersion on you, is a valid reason for hiding over 40 revisions of the article.

Finally, what concerns obsolete copies of our article in other websites: neither the community of Wikipedia editing volunteers nor the Wikimedia Foundation which runs Wikipedia have any control over those other sites, so there is no single way to update or cancel data you don't like from them. You'd have to contact with each of them to request removing or updating it. --CiaPan (talk) 13:43, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Hoax article - Madrigal Shipping Lines

Following the deletion discussion at WP:Articles for deletion/Madrigal Shipping Lines how can I get this added to WP:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia Lyndaship (talk) 18:00, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

@Lyndaship: If it complies with the criteria at the page, just add it yourself. I'm not sure if that page lists all hoaxes or just the most well-known ones, though, and this one doesn't appear to have made a particularly big splash. Reading the deletion discussion, I'm not sure we're even 100% sure it was a hoax rather than just some super obscure line that's probably not notable. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:42, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks but as a non-admin all I could do is put the title in the list as a red link as the page history is no longer visible Lyndaship (talk) 18:47, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Hey Lyndaship I will go create the hoax project topic subpage. Once I do, I will report back here and ping you so you can create the table entry with a blue link. (BTW, this is only related to your post, insofar as it prompted me to become aware of this project page, but I don't think we should be hosting the content of these hoax pages where they contained copyright violations or defamatory content on BLPs. After I initially made a change to the page to address this, I found my sensibility was in actual conflict with our current practice.)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:07, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

@Lyndaship: Done.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:35, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks - added Lyndaship (talk) 14:03, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

My name

my name is wrong on your site why have you got my name wrong who put it no your site? 2A02:C7F:1EA9:8200:FD7C:D233:3000:4C24 (talk) 21:10, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Since you haven't said which article you are talking about, it is difficult to help you. This site is an encyclopedia written by thousands of editors, and it has millions of articles. Please be more specific. 331dot (talk) 21:12, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Appears this is Michael John "Jack" Duncliffe, who is not happy that the article name is Jack Duncliffe. The article was created in 2017. David notMD (talk) 21:37, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Normally, I'd suggest posting at the article's talk page (Talk:Jack Duncliffe), but that page is likely not watched by many people, so WT:WikiProject Football would be better. I'll note there are inconsistencies within the article ("Jack" is missing from the lead and is shown above the infobox instead of the full name, etc.). Perhaps the page creator, EchetusXe, might comment here or in one of those places. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 22:14, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I no longer have A who's who of Grimsby Town AFC : 1890-1985. Jack is a nickname for John, such as Jack Charlton. He is referred to as Jack Duncliffe in the book, here, here and here. I have no further information. If the person in question now prefers to be called John that's fine it can be changed, but I don't know how one would go establishing whether this person is the 73-year old former professional footballer or not.--Echetus Xe 14:03, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Question by JashonCuyler13

without draft

JashonCuyler13 JashonCuyler13 (talk) 14:00, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

@JashonCuyler13: hello, and welcoem to the Teahouse. Do you have a question about using or editing Wikipedia? Victor Schmidt (talk) 14:05, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Trying to publish a draft.

Hello. I am trying to publish this article but it seems to be stuck as a draft and has not been reviewed since I edited it back in December.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Anoushka_Lucas

I can see some of the references need revising but can't seem to change them either. Could really do with some help with this. Can you please advise? Many thanks Dolo85 (talk) 14:12, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I've fixed the first reference, by converting it from a bare URL to something like a proper citation. See Help:Referencing for beginners for how to do the others. (Incidentally – that source won't help much in establishing that the subject is notable, as it's based on things she said herself, and so not independent.) Maproom (talk) 14:26, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I looked and can’t find better sources to demonstrate notability. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:45, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Requesting for help editing

Hello, My article Draft:ESam has been declined. How can I modify it in terms of wording and tone? Ahassannezhad (talk) 11:17, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ahassannezhad, welcome to the Teahouse. The sentences are choppy; they are missing a "flow" from one sentence to other. This problem can be fixed by joining some sentences together with commas or semicolons. There are a few other things that pop out to me:

Contractions. Pretty good with not using them, but there's one up in the second sentence: It's one of the online shopping in Iran (emphasis added, links removed).
Incomplete descriptor. The same sentence also uses "one of" to describe what is after, which means that it has to be countable; online shopping is not countable. This can be fixed by adding a word after "shopping"; it might be website or company.
(Unconscious) bias. It's subtle, but the draft seems to support the subject and portrays them like an underdog. It could definitely be described from a more neutral point of view. Does the reader need to know the company was initially facing a major crisis? Maybe not.

You should also probably ask the reviewer who declined (Curbon7) what parts of the draft they were concerned with that do not fit Wikipedia's tone. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 11:32, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

@Tenryuu: Dear Tenryuu, Thank you for your help and kindness.Ahassannezhad (talk) 14:48, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Protocols, response and adding copyright info to an image

Three questions:

Ok - I've been challenged twice by two editors who are accusing me of paid editing, which I haven't engaged in because I know Wikipedia doesn't allow it. I thought I've responded to them both...but that may not be the case. So, when someone asks you a question, do you hit their name link to respond? I had one where I thought I was responding directly, but was redirected to another page and didn't see where I could file a response. Any help in ensuring I can respond to them directly would be appreciated.

2nd - I've uploaded an image where I need to release or identify the copyright. I received a notice from Wiki Commons but wasn't sure how to add the template to the image in question. Or if I would add that info to the info box. Any clarification would be appreciated.

Finally, I have two entries that I moved to Wiki only to have them bounce back. What do I need to do to permanently post them? Any assistance or opinions would be appreciated.

Thanks! Octopus69 (talk) 04:15, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

As for the first question, see Help:Talk_pages#Talk_page_use. Indent with a colon at the beginning of the line, and sign with four tildes (~). If you want to specifically reply to someone, you can either WP:PING them or just begin with "USERNAME: blah blah blah". WhoAteMyButter (📨│📝) 04:41, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Regarding your question 2, Octopus69. Is the image in question the one of "Marty Simon 2017.png" that you uploaded to Commons, where you stated it had been moved across from en.wiki? If you used the Upload Wizard (the easiest way to go), you will have been asked as part of the process to assign a license — and you have given it a CC-BY-SA-4.0 license, which is fine provided you were the photographer who took the image. However, as the image is a low-resolution .png (not a .jpg) it seems likely that you obtained it from elsewhere and hence do not own the copyright. Under some circumstances, en.wiki can hold what are called "fair use" images but that is not normally the case for living people: see WP:NFC#UUI for the policy. Please provide some further detail so someone can help you further. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:24, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Please Help Me Improve My Article, Suggestions Required

Hi Editors, first I would like to thanks the editors of the Wiki Community who reviewed my submission. Although, unfortunately, my submission has been declined, and thus, here I would like to know what all necessary steps I shall take further to improve this submission.

Here is the link for your reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Vvihan_Gulati

Though I have made a few minor changes to the article, but I am still not sure, what major things/changes would be required to get this submission approved by the community editors?

It would be great if experienced people out there would help me out to understand what I can do further to improve the article.

Request you all to please look into this. Thanks in advance! Rwadhaawa (talk) 11:38, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Rwadhaawa, and welcome to the Teahouse. The main problem is that there are no independent references. Have you read WP:NBIO? Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. You will need to find several sources that are not by Gulati or anybody associated with him. You should also read your first article if you haven't already. --ColinFine (talk) 12:16, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

You'll need to find evidence that Gulati is notable, in Wikipedia's sense, in the form of reliable independent published sources that discuss him. The sources currently cited provide none, as they are based on what he has said, and so not independent. (With a PR professional, finding independent sources can often be difficult, as they're good at publicising themselves, even while no-one else has anything to say about them.) Maproom (talk) 12:26, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks @ColinFine and Maproom: for the prompt responses! Well I got your point here, I think you are saying that the sources I have cited are based on "self-interviews" or some association kind of thing, please correct me if I am wrong. Also, as suggested, I'll try to find a few more notable independent sources, meanwhile please let me know if I can make any improvement from the content point of view and what additional steps I would follow, once I'll come up with a few more notable sources? Thanks in advance!

Rwadhaawa (talk) 13:15, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

That's right Rwadhaawa: interviews with the subject are primary sources, and do not contribute to notability. What you need to do - in fact, what you should have done first of all, before ever writing a word of the draft - is to find the independent, reliable, substantial, sources that are a non-negotiable requirement to establish notability. If you can't find such sources, then you know not to waste any further time or effort on the article. If you can, then the article should summarise what those sources say. If that gives a substantial article (which your draft is not, having only three sentences, that do not give the reader much idea about the subject), then you can add a limited amount of non-controversial factual data (places, dates, etc) from non-independent sources; but a Wikipedia article should not normally contain anything that the subject says, unless it has been quoted or discussed by independent sources. Finally, you can add decorations such as images and infoboxes. --ColinFine (talk) 13:44, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks @ColinFine:, I got your point and I'll try to come up with a few more reliable independent sources to back my article, meanwhile I'll try to make some changes in content as you suggested some infobox or image kind of things. Thanks again for your kind help here! Rwadhaawa (talk) 15:41, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

No, no, no, Rwadhaawa, don't waste time on infobox and images until you have found evidence that the subject is notable! That's why I called them "decorations": they're what you do when the house has been built. At present you don't know if your house has any foundations, or if you are trying to build it on quicksand. --ColinFine (talk) 15:46, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Ohh, I understand your point here, in that case, I'll try to come up with a few reliable sources first (hope I will). Ya, sure then, I'll first focus on getting some reliable sources as there is no point of decoration and all without having a home ready. Thanks again @ColinFine:, you have saved my time and efforts at this initial stage :-) Rwadhaawa (talk) 15:53, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Anthony Hunt Reference

I wrote an authorised biography of Anthony Hunt Structural Engineer: Dale, Nigel, Connexions: The Unseen Hand of Tony Hunt, 2012, Whittles Publishing ISBN 978-1-84995-030-5 following a series of meetings with AH, and full access to his archive. I have tried to include this reference, but the entry was removed. I can add plenty of additional material to the page. Please letme know what is required. Nigel PG Dale (talk) 14:29, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

can you add article JashonCuyler13 (talk) 14:35, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy link: Anthony Hunt TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:38, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Your edit was undone as it completely messed up not only the article referencing but also the article headings as you can see here. I suggest you read Help:Referencing for beginners and practise inserting references correctly using the preview function in future.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 14:59, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

But, Nigel PG Dale, adding references to your own work is considered a conflict of interest, so rather than adding them directly to the article, you should make a formal edit request on the talk page, so that an uninvolved editor can look at it and decide what is appropriate. If you have other published sources about him, you could probably add material cited to those sources; but unpublished material can never be used as a source. As I say, it may be possible to cite material published only in your biography, but that must be decided by uninvolved editors. The fact that yours is an authorised biography immediately raises the question of how far it is an independent source. --ColinFine (talk) 16:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

When an article is made, what is the submission process?

Hi, I created an article and not on draft space per usual. Since it can't be submitted for review, was wondering how the review process for that is? Oceanic812 (talk) 15:09, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Oceanic812 If you directly create an article, it will be treated as any other new article; other editors may look at it and mark it for any issues that need to be addressed, or if they feel it merits deletion, can mark it for deletion. If you would prefer to run it through the review process, you may move it to Draft space and do so. 331dot (talk) 15:11, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

331dot thank you for your response. Does this mean that the article is already published when created under Articles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oceanic812 (talk • contribs) 15:19, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Oceanic812 Yes, the article is live and formally part of the encyclopedia. It may take time for search engines to index it, though. Note; pings or linking a username does not work unless you sign the same post in which you ping with four tildes(~~~~) (which you should do with all discussion posts, but never articles). 331dot (talk) 15:22, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Appears you have been doing both: submitting drafts to Articles for Creation, and creating articles directly in mainspace. In passing, tagging stuff as minor edits is for very small stuff, like correcting spelling, not for adding a ref or other larger changes. David notMD (talk) 17:03, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm trying to make an article but I have no idea what I'm doing

So a few days ago, I asked about notability and if the article I wanted to write's topic was important enough.

I got an answer that said if it has significant coverage, it can be an article.

after that I started researching the topic and found many sources I can use for information.

so today I started working on the article, but I have no idea what I'm doing.

I went through the Wikipedia adventure, but it doesn't talk about tables, info boxes, or anything like that.

does anyone know where I can learn to do that kind of stuff? Jajamanjaja (talk) 15:09, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Jajamanjaja. I suggest giving Help:Your first article a quick glance and then taking the Wikipedia:Tutorial. As you go through, you will find numerous links to more specific pages for aspects covered in the tutorial, including more detail on the specific issues you refer to, but given what you point at, please also see:

as to tables: Help:Table, Help:Introduction to tables with Wiki Markup/1 and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Tables;
as to info boxes: Help:Infobox and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes;
and even though you don't mention it, because citing sources (mostly reliable, secondary, independent sources) is truly the lifeblood of proper content and its writing: Help:Referencing for beginners, Help:Introduction to referencing/1, and then seeing Wikipedia:Citing sources for a more involved treatment.

Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:27, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Jajamanjaja If as you said on your user page that "I also have no motivation so any article I create will probably be a stub" then you are most likely to fail with creating an article, as it is the most difficult thing to do here. Theroadislong (talk) 15:37, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I echo the advice given above but would also advise that you should start by keeping the draft article really simple: focus on writing enough to establish the notability, which varies according to subject but for which some pointers are given at WP:NOTABILITY. If the article passes the review process, then it can be moved by the reviewer into Main space and would be ready for further tweaks, addition of tables and infoboxes — some of which you may get help with from other editors who like to collaborate. The danger for a beginner is that they spend ages doing what are essentially cosmetic additions to an article that may never be accepted because the topic is not notable enough. Good luck. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:38, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

wow, there's nothing like getting told your article will fail outright to make someone never wanna edit here again. Jajamanjaja (talk) 15:44, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

The alternative of putting all the effort in only to find out the same in the end seems a worse outcome...GRINCHIDICAE🎄 15:47, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

wait, I thought teahouse was a place of friendly assistance, i don't think telling new editors to quit is friendly. Jajamanjaja (talk) 16:16, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel disheartened, Jajamanjaja, but for a new editor to try and create a new article is one of the worst ways to get started. If you have you first violin lesson, would you expect to try and play a violin concerto? After your first French lesson, would you try and write an article for a French magazine? I remember when I started editing, I too desperately wanted to "make my mark" by creating a new article; but now I know that that is likely to be frustrating and unproductive for a new editor. We have more than six million articles in Wikipedia, and thousands of them badly need work. A new editor will add hundreds of times more value to Wikipedia by finding some existing articles that can be improved than by sailing out into the risky world of creating articles. --ColinFine (talk) 16:09, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

well I try to find new articles to improve, but most articles that need improvement are about topics I know nothing about, and i'm not the best at grammar or spelling so fixing those wouldn't really work for me. basically i want to edit articles but i can't find anything i can actually improve. Jajamanjaja (talk) 16:22, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Have a look at the Community portal, Jajamanjaja, and see if there's anything in the "Help out" section that grabs your fancy. For some of them, you don't need to have any particular knowledge of the subject, but they're an opportunity to learn how Wikipedia works. --ColinFine (talk) 17:13, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

WikiPage to collect pages relevant to a sport Federation

Dear Wikipedia Friends, I'm acting on behalf of a sport international federation. We are thinking of creating/generating a WIKIpage, possibly called with the Federation Acronym which could collect all the wikipedia existing pages on matters relevant to the Federation field of action. Can anybody help me on how to proceed? Thanks in advance Njonjoskara (talk) 17:09, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

@Njonjoskara: The first thing you probbably want to do is to read the Terms of Use 'very, very carefully, especially its fourth section ("Refraining from certain activities"). Failure to do so can (and has been known to) result in attempts at creating pages on Wikipedia to turn out as a boomerang. After that, you want to remind yourself that nobody owns a Wikipedia article. If you are done with that, you cna follow these steps in order to create a new article. Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:18, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

That does not sound as if it is anything like an encyclopaedia article, Njonjoskara, and so it does not belong in Wikipedia - see What Wikipedia is not. But it is possible that all the relevant pages are in an existing Category, in which case you can direct people to look at that category.You're welcome to have a page on your Federation's own website (not in Wikipedia) which contains links to all relevant Wikipedia articles. --ColinFine (talk) 17:27, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Related to Wikipedia Bots

I applied for the creation of my own Bot on Wikipedia. It has been a day since I applied. I don't know what has been done to that request. Is that request denied or approved? This question is stuck in my mind. I just want to know what has been done to that request? And where can I know about that? Kamilalibhat (talk) 17:13, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Please have patience, Kamilalibhat: Wikipedia is entirely run by volunteers, who work on it when they want to. Unusual requests, such as bot creation, could take several days for anybody to respond. --ColinFine (talk) 17:29, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

@ColinFine: Once again thank you.

And now I look, Kamilalibhat, you haven't gone through the proper process to request approval, so it's likely that nobody will see your request or respond to it. Please read WP:Bots/Requests for approval. Note that you are very unlikely to be given approval unless you explain what task your bot will be used for. --ColinFine (talk) 17:35, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Edit War

Hello, I had a question about a recent edit war that I am having with a new editor, Kleo-Sine. I have been editing, albeit unregistered since 2006 and Kleo-Sine has been editing since November 2020. They had made an edit to a page that I was editing for the british television series "Unforgotten". I corrected a grammar mistake that he had made a couple of times, not trying to be rude, and I guess he took offense as I have noticed just recently, that he has seemingly gone through my edit history and chosen to make a bunch of edits to many of the pages that I have edited in recent days. I find that a bit shady, and while I don't mind his verve for editing, I find it a bit annoying and mean spirited that he choosing to "follow me" through my edits and I worry that if I contribute any more to my favourite pages, that Kleo-Sine will continue to re-edit those pages. I do not want another continually piggy-backing me.

I have sent him a kind response asking him to pleae stop his vendetta against me, but I am not certain on his reaction, so I am asking you guys to please give me some advice on how to deal with these "new" editors with a chip on their shoulder or perhaps you can talk to them. This kind of reaction from Kleo Sine is making me want to stop editing on Wikipedia altogether and there are pages that I really enjoy contributing to. I would hope that this problem can be resolved in an amicable fashion. Thank You in advance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Kleo-Sine 135.0.252.54 (talk) 14:02, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for helping with Wikipedia. It can be frustrating if somebody follows you around but if their edits are valid, it’s harder to make a case that you are being targeted. I haven’t gone through the whole edit History but if you provide some specific examples of where you think the other person is wrong, that would help your case. I do notice the new editor is not using edit summaries and I will notify them on their talk page to do so. And just a friendly suggestion - have you thought about registering with a user name? That will make it easier for people to communicate with you and ping you in responses such as this. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:07, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I have never registered completely on Wikipedia as I was never an avid user like you or certain other regular users like you as I was always busy working not having access to a computer. Its just during Covid times that I have been using it more and I am happy with the way that I am.

I am not saying that Kleo-Sine's edits are not 100% valid. However, I think my grammatical edits to Unforgotten, where I was not trying to be mean, got him a bit angry at me and, everytime I edit another page in the past couple of days, Kleo's always there to edit something on that page and then just now, he's gone through my recent edit history, editing here and there just like that. I am not sure if he will respond to the message that I wrote on his talk page or your message, perhaps. I just don't want to keep on editing and have this new editor, Kleo-Sine always ready to correct me an hour later. I am really getting so aggravated, I may throw in the towel, it's annoying. Any help would be greatly appreciated. 135.0.252.54 (talk) 15:29, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I put a polite notice on Kleo-Sine's talk page asking the editor to please add edit summaries. I noticed the editor removed your comment on their talk page without responding, and I pointed that out as well. If you feel your edits are being stalked, you're welcome to reach out again on their talk page, and if they don't respond, you can always follow the additional procedures outlined at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Good luck! TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:56, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Manual operated anti-vandalism tools

I am currently working on a tool that could be used for anti vandalism purposes, I have already made local tests, and I understand that I will take full responsibility for the edits I make using my tool. Am I allowed to use it? Also, I am not auto confirmed, and it would function similar to Twinkle ThatIPEditor (talk) 04:24, 12 January 2021 (UTC) ThatIPEditor (talk) 04:24, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

You can use whatever tools you want, just remember that it's your account. Edits are edits, no matter how you make them. WhoAteMyButter (📨│📝) 05:42, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi ThatIPEditor! Please see WP:BOTPOL for the policy and guidance on using bots and other automated processes on Wikipedia. Orville^talk 07:09, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

@Orville:Would a tool, like tw, be considered as a automated process? Also, note that I am not watching this page. Thank you!ThatIPEditor (talk) 20:59, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

~~@WhoAteMyButter~~ (meant to address this to ThatIPEditor).If it uses logic to make editing decisions for you, or if it actually makes the edits, it would fall under the bot policy. The link I provided gives a lot more detail. If it’s a user script like the Lupin anti-vandal tool then it’s not a bot since it just points out likely vandalism to the user, but you still have to make the decision and the edit yourself. Orville^talk 08:38, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! ThatIPEditor (talk) 17:57, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Hidden Categories

How do you configure a category to be hidden? 🔥LightningComplexFire🔥 17:32, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

@LightningComplexFire: There is a template to add to the category. See the instructions at Wikipedia:Categorization#Hiding_categories RudolfRed (talk) 17:58, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Problem with Talk Page for Article "Assassination of Indira Gandhi"

Problem: It has no content, which seems highly unlikely. Or am I missing something?

I wanted to point out a discrepancy: One paragraph says an assassin used a "Sten submachine gun"; several paragraphs later it says a "Sterling sub-machine gun". Which is it?

Wikipedia username paulburnett 2601:643:8801:B70:B0A9:7003:8DEE:2F8B (talk) 19:27, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

If you have an account, remember to log in before posting so your posts are properly attributed to you. The talk page for the article in question is at Talk:Assassination of Indira Gandhi. Other than the notices at the top, it currently has no content. 331dot (talk) 19:30, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

It appears that past content has been archived to Talk:Assassination of Indira Gandhi/Archive 1, but no link to the archives ~~are~~ was provided on the main talk page. I've gone ahead and added it. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:32, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion request done properly?

Requested speedy deletion for Scott Liss. I want to make sure all relevant info and tags have been included in order to do this properly. Notability and significance are the primary reasons, secondary being dead links to cited sources. Thanks. H etching (talk) 17:13, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

@H etching: Someone has contested the speedy delete. See Talk:Scott_Liss. You will need to go to WP:AFD if you want to proceed with the deletion. RudolfRed (talk) 17:38, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

It should be noted that in Special:Diff/999970976, H etching claims to be the article's subject. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 17:58, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Now at AfD. An under-referenced mess, but could plausibly be rescued rather than deleted. Two of Scott's albums are subjects of articles. David notMD (talk) 20:31, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Related to Adminship

It is easy to become administrator? If so, how can I become? If it is not easy, could you please give me some tips and instructions to be followed by me in order to achieve the adminship? Kamilalibhat (talk) 16:18, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

@Kamilalibhat: It is not easy. Although the only firm rule is that you must be Extended Confirmed (500+ edits, and account at least 30 days old), you need to show you have the experience and policy knowledge needed for the role, as well as demonstrate that you have a need for the admin tool set. There is more info and links at Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship RudolfRed (talk) 16:42, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

@RudolfRed: First of all thank you for the information you provided. It really helped! Now the question in my mind is that how can I become Extended Confirmed editor? Will it occur itself after I will cross 500 edits or I need to apply for that anywhere? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamilalibhat (talk • contribs)

@Kamilalibhat: Note that you can do probably 95% of things here without being an administrator. For the community to be convinced that you merit having the extra buttons(that's all being an "admin" is) you need to demonstrate a need for the tools; being an admin is not an honor to collect and nor does it convey any additional authority. 331dot (talk) 16:46, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

@331dot: Really.thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamilalibhat (talk • contribs)

I would like to add that the admin job is more or less regarded as "swinging the mob". Being an admin can be a very unpleasen't thing to be, especially if you manage to make mistakes that are >a bit bigger< or involve potientally sensitive topics, as I've just seen the other day over at my home wiki. Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:11, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

That's "swinging the mop", Victor Schmidt. Indeed, Kamilalibhat, I have been an editor for over 15 years, and made more than 18 000 edits, but I have never applied to be an Admin, because there's nothing I want to do that I can't. --ColinFine (talk) 17:17, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

@ColinFine: Dear friend! Firstly thank you for sharing your experience with me and all those who are reading this. I just want to say that your experience on Wikipedia is more than my real age. As long as you feel satisfied being a simple editor, I would also like to be. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamilalibhat (talk • contribs)

I'm glad you feel welcome, Kamilalibhat. This is a friendly community, mostly. Can I recommend that you read Guidance for younger editors, if you haven't already? Not because you've done anything wrong! No, but because we are concerned that younger editors in particular know how to keep themselves safe here. --ColinFine (talk) 21:24, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Texas Revolution

Jayden Norwig (talk) 21:11, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

@Jayden Norwig: Welcome to Wikipedia. Did you have a question? Suggestion regarding an article should go on that article's talk page. RudolfRed (talk) 21:39, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Please to create article about ROYAL PALM BEACH COLONY Partnership -FLORIDA which is missing from WIKIPEDIA. Mr. Harold Friedland , Jack Friedland, Leonard Friedland create now new city in WEST PALM BEACH FLORIDA.

Royal Palm Beach Colony Limited Partnership , Location, History , Owners and Management, Stein Management Co.INC, Hasam Realty Limited Par. Frost Irwin M, Company stock symbol , RPB, RPBCZ, YYGHA, RPAMZ, RPAML , Grand father rule, Cusip No:780908208, New Foreign Limited Partnership Royal Palm Beach -Florida .

Please to research and create new EDIING to WIKIPEDIA. Larry Sulc -INVESTOR2601:587:300:F750:7417:DCB7:4103:BB44 (talk) 21:52, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello Larry, and welcome to the Teahouse. This is a help forum for people needing assistance in editing, and is not the right place to request an article to be written for you. The right place could be WP:Requested Articles, but bear in mind we only include articles on notable topics, and are not here to help your or others promote businesses or investments. The specific criteria that would need to be met for a business to have an article here are spelled out at this page on corporate notability. You would need to supply at least three good references to detailed, in-depth articles about this business which are independent of it (i.e. not press releases or own websites). Note that there is a massive backlog at 'requested articles' and the reality is that for businesses seeking promotion, there is very little chance of anyone wanting to spend their time trying to make an article about a non-notable business. But note that we do have an article called The Acreage, Florida which does mention it. Hope this helps. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:51, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Problem with Talk Page for Article "Assassination of Indira Gandhi"

Problem: It has no content, which seems highly unlikely. Or am I missing something?

I wanted to point out a discrepancy: One paragraph says an assassin used a "Sten submachine gun"; several paragraphs later it says a "Sterling sub-machine gun". Which is it?

Wikipedia username paulburnett 2601:643:8801:B70:DCB5:E874:3EB2:C0A2 (talk) 22:41, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

You have asked this already; see the answer above. 331dot (talk) 22:51, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Blocked Message

What is the blocked message for this wiki? 2603:8000:EA43:F8F5:74A0:8C2E:ED4A:9D28 (talk) 22:16, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello IP editor, and welcome to the Teahouse. Users may see different block messages, depending upon the reason for their being restricted from editing. These (and many others) can be found at Category:User block templates. Hope this gives you the information you seek. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:37, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

It could also refer to MediaWiki:Blockedtext, MediaWiki:Blockedtext-partial and other things. Please clarify what you mean by "the blocked message". PrimeHunter (talk) 23:33, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

How i can Creating the wikipedia Pages ?

Why there is draft why does not publish the pages i know how to editing and making subjects JUDDHO (talk) 23:49, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

JUDDHO, welcome to the Teahouse. Drafts aren't "published" in the sense that they will not appear indexed in search engines like Google, but are useful in that they can be refined before they're considered suitable for the encyclopedia. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:36, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hi JUDDHO Are you asking about Draft:Suqu Sechen? If you are, I suggest you take a look at Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everythingfor some general information. Bascially, you're going to need to establish the the subject you wish to create an article about is Wikipedia notable and the way you do that showing that the subject has received significant coverage in reliable sources. It appears that you're trying to create an article about a fictional character; so, maybe you'll find Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) helpful. You might also want to ask for advice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fictional characters since that's where you're likely going to find editors familiar with such articles.

Drafts don't automatically become articles when you click the "Publish changes button"; you will either need to submit the draft to Wikipedia:Articles for creation or WP:MOVE the draft to the article namespace yourself. I strongly suggest that you don't try and do either of these things right now because the current version of the draft is not even close to being something suitable for an upgrade to article status, and most likely it will end up declined or deleted if you try to make it into an article as is. You can continue to work on it though if you want, but there's still quite a long way to go before it would even be close to being ready for an upgrade to article status. Take a look at Wikipedia:Your first article if you want some ideas on how articles are expected to be written.

Finally, please take a look at c:COM:User talk:JUDDHO#File:Barlas borjigin 3.jpg because there are some issues with a file you uploaded to Commons. You will need to resolve these issues on Commons. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marchjuly (talk • contribs) 01:41, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

wrongfully conviced

My Name is Heather Pesta im writting to say that my dad was wrongfully conviced of a crime that he didnt do. also my dad is a 65 year old man who loves life and his family. he would never hurt anyone... also courts dont have anything on him just his 35year old passed history. please help us free my dad from all of these lies that people are blamming him for.. hes a great guy and a good dad the person behind all this is the person that blamed him for this crime. also i would really like my story to be out there with the courts and the city of Cleveland. 108.238.62.162 (talk) 05:40, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

If this is about a Wikipedia article, you can discuss it on that article's talk page, but Wikipedia will reflect what published, reliable sources say. RudolfRed (talk) 05:44, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi 108.238.62.162. If there is a Wikipedia article about your father and either you or he have concerns about what's written in that article, then please take a close look at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Relationship between the subject, the article, and Wikipedia. As pointed out above, Wikipedia article content is really only intended to reflect what is written about the subjects of article in reliable sources, which means that even negative coverage can be included as explained here and here; however, such content still needs to not be undue and presented in neutral manner. There are editors who will be happy to address your concerns about the article, so just follow the steps in "Relationship between the subject, the article and Wikipedia" page I linked to above. In addition, there's no way for anybody to know who you are from just your IP address, but they might be able to narrow down the location from where you're editing. So, you may want to consider creating a WP:ACCOUNT if you're going to try and seek the assistance mentioned above. You're not required to create an account to edit, but it might help others to help you better, and it might also actually provide you with more anonymity since you're IP address will not be made public. finally, please be careful about how much personal information you reveal on Wikipedia. Pretty much anyone who can access Wikipedia can see what you post and there are some who might choose to use such information in the wrong way. This might be hard to do if you're asking for help with an article about your dad, but please take a look at WP:REALWORLD for how revealing too much personal information might not be a wise thing to do. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:12, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Making mistakes

Hi dear sir. Please accept my apologize for making mistake. I practice and do my job well. Please check it. Behnoosh1321 (talk) 05:05, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Behnoosh1321. Please don't worry about making mistakes; in fact, many Wikipedia articles are gradually improved over time by editors being WP:BOLD and making mistakes. Wikipedia has lots of policies and guidelines and even editors who have been editing for a really long time still make mistakes. The important thing is to try and learn from your mistakes and avoid repeating them over and over again because that's when they start to become a problem that may require some sort of warning or other action be taken. As long as you make your mistakes in good faith and always try to be WP:HERE, you should be fine. However, if you start ignoring any advice or warnings your receiving from others and start to show others that your WP:NOTHERE, then you're likely going to run into trouble. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:21, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Marchjuly thanks for your kind attention and quick reply.--Behnoosh1321 (talk) 06:34, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Page Neuro-oncology/Clinical problems encountered in neuro-oncology

What is really wrong if I use brackets for e.g. constipation or depression? Wname1 (talk) 05:00, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Wname1, welcome to the Teahouse. It appears Quisqualis has opened up a dialogue at Talk:Neuro-oncology, which you may wish to contribute to. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:33, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Wname1. The problem you seem to be having at Neuro-oncology has to do with WP:OVERLINK. You were WP:BOLD in adding links to various Wikipedia pages, but another editor feels that they are not necessary. This other editor has started a discussion about this at Talk:Neuro-oncology#Overlink in section Neuro-oncology#Clinical problems encountered in neuro-oncology and you're free to discuss things with them there. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:39, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Wname1 (talk) 07:43, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Adding a photo inside infobox

Hello, I have been making minor corrections to Wikipedia articles for years, and recently decided to add one of my photos to an article in French (on Kenneth Gilbert). After uploading to Wikicommons, I believe I followed the instructions to the letter, but in adding the photo the infobox was deleted, which a more experienced editor thankfully put back. Is there any way of knowing what I did wrong? I would like to add the photo to the article in English but am now spooked. Also, the article in French now shows the same photo twice, one underneath the other. 24.48.56.81 (talk) 17:42, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid that the English and French editions of Wikipedia are entirely separate projects, with (in some cases) different policies and processes, and mostly different personnel. If the picture is in Commons, there should't be any difficulty adding it to the en-wiki article. But one thing to beware of in Infoboxes: I believe they are not all consistent in the syntax they require for a photo. Most just want the filename (without "File:" on the front, but the extension - ".jpg" or whatever - is always required, and the case must be right). I believe that some do want the "File:", and there may be some that want a full Wikilink. Either look at the documentation for the particular infobox (eg Template:Infobox Sportsperson), or look at other examples of the same infobox. --ColinFine (talk) 19:27, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

@Piermd: I have removed the duplicate photo in fr:Kenneth Gilbert. I see you used VisualEditor. I don't know precisely what you did to delete the infobox but please check a page looks right before saving. In VisualEditor it should always look right. In the source editor you can click "Show preview" before saving to check how it will look. If you discover you saved a mistake and cannot fix it then you can revert your edit. See Help:Reverting. I have added the photo to Kenneth Gilbert with the source editor. My edit was [9]. In an infobox you usually only add the file name in an image parameter and don't write the image code needed to display an image by itself. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:20, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

list of pages that contain a template

is it possible to obtain a list of [links to] pages that contain a certain template ? Gfigs ^talk 06:51, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Gfigs, welcome to the Teahouse. Just navigate to the page of the template you want (e.g., Template:Re), and click on "What links here" in the sidebar. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:55, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

thank you Gfigs ^talk 07:00, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

@Gfigs: You can also use Help:Searching#hastemplate:. This can be combined with other search terms. PrimeHunter (talk) 08:48, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

interesting..Gfigs ^talk 09:45, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

How do I add a corrected image to an article

I am relatively new to this. In the article for Irakion Air Station the quality of the jpg escutcheon used is taken from a scan of the subdued version used on the bdu uniform. I have a colored jpg copy of the actual eschutcheon which I received from the USAF history office. Buit, I can't figure out how to upload the image. Protopappas76 (talk) 22:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Protopappas76. Try taking a look at Wikipedia:Image use policy. The first thing you're going to need to assess is whether the image is protected by copyright as explained in c:Commons:Licensing and Wikipedia:Copyrights#Guidelines for images and other media files. Wikipedia only allows images which have either been released by their copyright holders under an acceptable license or which is considered to be within the public domain to be uploaded and used in articles; there are some exceptions to this as explained in non-free content, but non-free files can be qutie difficult to justify and their are lots of restrictions placed upon their use even when they're OK to upload. Uploading a file itself isn't too difficult as explained in c:COM:UPLOAD and WP:UPLOAD, but files of questionable copyright status should have their issues resolved before they're uploaded; otherwise, they're likely going to end up being deleted for one reason or another. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:01, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Depending on the nature of the photo, you might be able to use the same license templates as the existing patch: {{PD-USGov-Military-Army-USAIOH}}{{insignia}}. If you use the Commons Upload Wizard, there will be an "other" option under licensing where you can paste that code. Pelagic ( messages ) – (22:34 Thu 14, AEDT) 11:34, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Is it about Iraklion Air Station article...? --CiaPan (talk) 11:41, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Nullarbor Plain

I'm trying to address the More citations needed section in Nullarbor Plain. It looks like the only part requiring attention is the first sentence. I found a web page that could be cited: https://nan.net.au/the-nullarbor-plain/ It looks like that site is an online travel company called Nullarbor and Neighbours and the article is fairly recent; November 5, 2020. I also found a reference to the Spinifex and Wangai people at https://www.nullarborroadhouse.com.au/the-story-the-nullarbor-tells/ I'm not sure if either of these fits the bill as a reliable, independent, published source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. If these don't fit the bill, where else should I be looking, for information on the Spinifex and Wangai peoples' seasonable occupation of the area? Canberranone (talk) 02:45, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Canberranone. I think you would be much better off using some of the sources you can access through searches like Trove, Google Books, Google Scholar and Jstor. Best regards---Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:44, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

@Canberranone: If you can verify that they are relevant, copy across some references from Spinifex people and Wangkatha. — Pelagic ( messages ) – (22:44 Thu 14, AEDT) 11:44, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Name Change Request

I would like to change name on profile Taaha Shah on Taha`s behalf on his request.

The name change is Taha Shah Badussha Imagineer entertainment (talk) 08:03, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Imagineer entertainment, welcome to the Teahouse. You will need to change your username (or create a new account), as Wikipedia's username policy does not allow promotional names like companies. In regards to the request for presumably your client's article (not a profile), that would depend on the name that reliable sources commonly use. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 08:21, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Imagineer entertainment. When you have changed your username (or created a new account) as Tenryuu explained, and made the mandatory declarations of your status as a paid editor, you may submit a formal edit request on the article's talk page Talk:Taaha Shah, with citation to reliable published sources for the change you require. Since you have a conflict of interest you should not edit the article directly. The article is currently seriously deficient in that it has no independent sources at all, and so does nothing to establish that Shah meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and the article may get deleted. From Wikipedia's point of view this is very much more important than whether or not the article is up to date with the actor's name. So if you have some reliable independent sources, please post them in an edit request on the talk page too. --ColinFine (talk) 11:44, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Assistance with rejected submission

Hello, an article that I have created, Draft:Malinda Kathleen Reese, has now been rejected on two occasions, despite input and cleanup from various editors (for which I’m very grateful). The article cites many reliable sources - multiple news articles, musical theatre magazines, etc., so I would be keen to know what more I need to do to establish notability and pass the review.

Many thanks in advance, Mojo0306 (talk) 20:09, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

To be clear your draft was declined twice not "rejected", being rejected would mean that it would not be considered further, being declined means there is hope. Some of your sources are not reliable I have left a comment on the draft. Theroadislong (talk) 20:47, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks. I have now made some edits to the page in response to your comment. Mojo0306 (talk) 11:50, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

HATNOTES

how do you add hatnotes, "not to be confused with..." and so on Yogibur (talk) 14:17, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Yogibur. Like many areas where you need help, you can use the search box to type WP:HATNOTE and you'll be directed to the correct instruction page, in this case WP:HATNOTE. Alternatively, take a look (in the source editor) at the Wiki markup for a similar hatnote in another article and copy that. Hatnotes come right at the top of the text. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:36, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Yogibur, note: the "not to be confused with" is from Template:Distinguish. Gerald WL 14:38, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Adding picture to an article.

Hello, i wanted to add picture to this article Zeyan Shafiq, i earlier took some pictures from google but they got rejected i think on commons, i later consulted few editors and asked them if i could email the subject person and ask him for pictures, they told me i can do it. So i emailed him and I received couple of pictures(if any one wants to check the email conversation,kindly let me know). How do i post them or should i ask the subject person to upload their pictures by themselves to the commons. Thanks Hums4r (talk) 13:28, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Hums4r. It’s generally better if the copyright holder uploads their work to Commons themselves, but they can instead choose to post their work somewhere online and indicate that it has been released under a license that Commons accepts so that it can be uploaded by someone else. For more on this, please look at c:Commons:Licensing, c:Commons:OTRS and Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. — Marchjuly (talk) 14:32, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Hellom Hums4r. I'm afraid that the subject sending you the pictures is probably no different from picking them up from the Internet: they are almost certainly still copyright-protected. As Marchjuly indicates, you need the copyright owner - who is quite likely the photographer or the agency they work for, not the subject - to contact Wikimedia directly, as indicated in the links Marchuly gave you. --ColinFine (talk) 15:55, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Already someone listed with the same name on wikipedia

Hi I'm new to wikipedia and have recently published a page. I know it takes time for it to be approved and uploaded. My question is about having a similar page title as someone else on wikipedia. My page title is Bernie Masterson (visual artist), the other Bernie Masterson (is a sports person). Will this impede my page from being uploaded. Thanks Bernie Masterson (talk) 15:32, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Bernie Masterson First, you made a common beginners' error in creating a draft at your User page, which is place for a bit of content about you as a Wikipedia editor, not a article draft. As such, it is not 'published.' I suggest you go to Help:Your first article and follow the instructions to move this content into a draft that can then be submitted to Articles for Creation (AfC) for review. David notMD (talk) 16:32, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Second, your draft should not have any hyperlinks in the body of the article ( you have many). And last, given your User name is the same as the proposed article, be aware that Wikipedia strongly frowns on attempts at autobiography (WP:AUTO). David notMD (talk) 16:35, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

To become Autopatrolled user

Hi there, a question is stuck in my mind that how did I become Autopatrolled user. Although I have become Extended confirmed user, I want to achieve more and now my target is to become Autopatrolled user. I read that we must have 25 articles but it didn't explained that should we have made 25 articles or edited 25 articles excluding redirects and deleted ones. Now from you people, I want complete information about Autopatrolled users and their work. Kamilalibhat (talk) 17:44, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello again, Kamilalibhat. Please stop chasing statuses. There is only one measure that matters for status in Wikipedia: that you add value to the encyclopaedia, whether by writing good articles, improving existing articles, deleting articles that are never going to be acceptable, turning useless articles into valuable ones, adjudicating disputes between users, usefully answering questions on the help desk and teahouse ... Nobody but you cares wheter you are autoconfirmed or extended confirmed or, really, if you are an admin (OK, they care if you're an admin, because then you are somebody they can ask to do difficult cleanup work). I repeat, the only status that matters is that you have a history of doing good for the encyclopaedia. That is where you should put your effort. To answer your specific question: Autopatrolled is a status you get by creating enough articles that are good enough to keep that any new articles you create do not need to be patrolled by somebody else to check that they are acceptable. --ColinFine (talk) 18:02, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

(ec) @Kamilalibhat: See Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. You must have created 25 articles. Is there a reason you want to get the autopatroled userright? Beware of WP:HATCOLLECTING. RudolfRed (talk) 18:02, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

You are Autoconfirmed, not Autopatrolled. So far, you have created one draft and zero articles. The draft has been submitted for review. It is likely to be Declined for not having sufficient references. David notMD (talk) 18:12, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Where can I start editing/creating?

Where to begin? I wish to create an article, but the only experience I have is my user page, Which is kind of bad. Is there anywhere I can get some creating/editing help? Thanks in advance. DFletcher0306 (talk) 18:13, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

DFletcher0306, welcome to the Teahouse. If you're looking on getting a tutorial on using and editing Wikipedia, you may be interested in The Wikipedia Adventure. I suggest, for the meantime, sticking to maintaining articles, like checking spelling or finding sources, as creating an article is one of the hardest things to do on here. You should probably familiarise yourself with Your first article before creating your first, and confirm that the subject you want to write about is notable for Wikipedia's standards. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:19, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

When does copyright become a problem

I gave this question a section title David notMD (talk) 18:10, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

What percentage of an article can be the same words as it's source? 71.183.212.131 (talk) 18:08, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello IP editor. There is no percentage. Article content should summarize what reliable sources say, and be written in each editor's own words. The only exception is direct, attributed quotations, and they should be used sparingly. Please read the policy Wikipedia:Copyright violations for more information. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:54, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Birth date change - list year only

For David Gross, I deleted the actual month and day, as ID fraud is growing. The year is sufficient. But an editor put it back in. I'd like to remove it. Martine. 18:26, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

MartineWhite Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Please review WP:BLPPRIVACY. What you ask will be difficult to do since Gross was awarded a Nobel Prize and his birthdate is in his biography on the Nobel awards website and as such is available to the public- but you may discuss your concerns on the article talk page, Talk:David Gross. 331dot (talk) 18:48, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

331dotOK, that does make sense. Thanks for your prompt help!Martine. 19:08, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Citing the same source multiple times in the same article

Good day fellow tea-lovers. I'd be grateful for your help with a problem that's been bothering me for some time. In short, I want an article to include several citations to a certain book, with each citation referencing a different page number. I've studied several Wikipedia Help pages that aim to address this issue, but I have found the information confusing and sometimes contradictory.

You can see an example of what I am trying to achieve in the article on Morningside, Edinburgh. As you will see, this has several citations to a book by Charles J. Smith. The first citation give the full bibliographic details for the book. I created that first citation like this:

<ref name='Smith (1978)'>{{cite book |last1=Smith |first1=Charles J |title=Historic South Edinburgh Volume 1 |date=1978 |publisher=Charles Skilton Ltd |location=Edinburgh |page=146}}</ref>

And that shows like this,^[1] which is what I want.

I formatted the subsequent citations to that book like this:

{{sfnp|Smith (1978)|p=148}}

and they rendered like so:^[2] Here, the author's name looks like a hyperlink, which I would expect to lead to the full citation. But although it is correctly formatted as a hyperlink (and I can see in the page's source that it is indeed an href), it does not lead anywhere. Nothing happens when you click on it.

Am I doing something wrong, or is what I'm seeing the correct behaviour?

I have tried several combinations of {{sfnp}} and {{sfn}}, with and without page numbers, and several ways of doing the ref name, for example with and without the year of publication, but I get the same result every time.

I'd be grateful for any help with this issue. Mike Marchmont (talk) 16:36, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Mike Marchmont, welcome to the Teahouse. Have you tried adding {{rp}} after your citation as a more visual representation of page numbers? It renders like this: ^: 30 when I type {{rp|30}}. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:03, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

References

^ Smith, Charles J (1978). Historic South Edinburgh Volume 1. Edinburgh: Charles Skilton Ltd. p. 146.
^ Smith (1978), p. 148.

Tenryuu, thanks for the suggestion. I didn't know about {{rp}}. For now, I wil focus on Fuhghettaboutit's response, but I will keep your idea in mind. Mike Marchmont (talk) 08:43, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

(e/c) Hi Mike. For overview pages, please see WP:CITESHORT and Help:Shortened footnotes. The issue you are having is that you need to have a section for listing the full works, that is separate, and placed after, a section where the short citations are populated. For example, you would have a ==Notes== section, containing {{reflist}}, followed by a ==References== section containing a bulleted list of the full references, placed using standard citation templates. Now, when the shortened citations link, they have somewhere to link to. So for example, I am going to end this sentence with two shortened citations, and mock up how it should work in the article (this is taken from Glossary of bird terms, where I use a "Bibliography" section to head the full citations, and "Citations" for the shortened citations and other footnotes).^[1]^[2]

==Notes==

References

^ Lovette & Fitzpatrick 2016, p. 181.
^ Lovette & Fitzpatrick 2016, p. 232.

==References==

Lovette, Irby J.; Fitzpatrick, John W. (2016). Handbook of Bird Biology. Wiley. ISBN 978-1-118-29104-7.

Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:06, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Fuhghettaboutit, that's fantastic. You have explained in a couple of concise sentences what several Help articles failed to get across. I have now tried your suggestion, and it works perfectly. I will now get to work putting right all the incorrect citations I have inserted since I started editing last year. Many thanks for your excellent advice.

Mike Marchmont (talk) 08:43, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

@Mike Marchmont: Wonderful! Thanks for the kind words. Glad to help. BTW, open invitation: Please fee free to drop by my talk page and ask me anything, anytime. I'll try to assist, if I can.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:43, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Fuhghettaboutit, very good explanation of the mysteries of the markup language. I am puzzled about one thing though.

In your example, the footnote numbers, shown here (this is just a mockup, not using the markup language of your post)

citations, and "Citations" for the shortened citations and other footnotes).[1][2]

On your post, when the cursor is placed over the footnote number in your post, [1] for example, nothing appears. I would expect that the text "Lovette & Fitzpatrick 2016, p. 181" should appear. Am I incorrect in thinking this?

Osomite ^hablemos 19:32, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Hey Osomite. Sorry – no idea about the hover-over text here. I can only tell you that when I go to the article I wrote where I took this example use from, when I place my cursor over the footnote numbers, I do see the display of the shortened footnote, which doesn't work here, and also that when I place my cursor over the footnote here, the entire line where the linked shortened citations is, highlights in blue, but I only navigate there when I click. So I can only hazatd that it might have something to do with {{Reflist-talk}} as opposed to {{Reflist}}. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk)

Semi protected

I read that the semi-protected page can't be edited by users that don't have more that 4 days and ten edit. I do all this things but even now i can't edit the semi-protected pages. Why?? TommasoRmndn (talk) 18:31, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

TommasoRmndn From what I can see, you are now autoconfirmed. Which article are you attempting to edit? 331dot (talk) 18:34, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

331dot The page Mona Lisa in wikipedia eng. I don't know why, but i continue to see the silver padlock. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TommasoRmndn (talk • contribs) 19:29, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

TommasoRmndn, we all see the padlock. To the left of it there should be three tabs: Read, Edit/Edit source, and View history. Click the 'Edit/Edit source' button, make the changes you want, click publish changes, type in an edit summary, and hit publish changes again. If you've done all of that and you are still having problems, let us know. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 19:35, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

infobox reference #s don't match those in text

Hi, I can't get references with multiple mentions to match those in infobox. - they matched until I published, and then issues began. Does Infobox have priority for reference numbering? Should I use the SAME Reference #s in the body as I do in Infobox? Martine (talk) 02:59, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Martine! Please see this article: Cite Errors, it will explain how to define footnotes so you can invoke them in the text of the article. The article currently attempts to invoke them even though they haven't been defined yet. WP:FOOTNOTES goes into even more detail (but I think the first link will help fix the issue). Orville^talk 04:28, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Orville, As I'm weak at coding, I removed the InfoBox footnotes as they are well-annotated in the body and awards section. It looks great now and all citations are correct. Thank you for helping. Martine. 19:37, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Editing extended confirmed

For editing Extended confirmed pages, you need 30 days and 500 edits. Do these edits include non-Mainspace edits or deleted edits? 777burger ^talk ^contribs 19:44, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, both. See WP:XC.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 20:23, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

reverted citation

Dear sir some buddy reverted all of my cited articles. please check them and tell me what happened! Behnoosh1321 (talk) 19:18, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

What happened was you were inserting hyperlinks into articles rather than creating references, so all that reverted, and you are Warned on your Talk page that your actions are considered spamming, and can lead to being blocked. David notMD (talk) 19:28, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

It's less about the formatting and more about the fact that it's blatant spam and they're doing it cross wiki. CUPIDICAE💕 19:33, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

In later posts, Behnoosh1321 has been inserting the same connections as references rather than hyperlinks. Is that still spamming? David notMD (talk) 21:59, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Behnoosh1321 has been globally locked. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:13, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

i am new

I am new and looking for some help anyone willing to help me if so reply on my talk page Artemis23747 (talk) 19:58, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Artemis23747, if you say what you are looking for help with, you're more likely to get that help. -- Hoary (talk) 22:39, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Us government / Bicameralism

Yes or No 2601:46:C784:E1D0:9CB2:715F:BAFF:EF7D (talk) 02:48, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

2601:46:C784:E1D0:9CB2:715F:BAFF:EF7D, did you have a question to ask about using or editing Wikipedia? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:54, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

If you don't see the answer at United_States_Congress, you can ask at the Reference Desk WP:RD, but you will need to state your question in the form of a question. RudolfRed (talk) 03:53, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

i am unable to see images on Wikipedia or access Wikimedia Commons

Hello everyone, I am unable to view the images in Wikipedia or access the Wikimedia Commons. Whenever I try to visit Wikimedia, the screen displays the 'site cannot be displayed' message. Please help me solve this problem. Regards, Azathoth's Cyan Stitchpunk (talk) 05:11, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

@Azathoth's Cyan Stitchpunk: Sounds like missing [[|Domain Name System|DNS records]] for commons.wikimedia.org and upload.wikimedia.org, though It might be something different. We need to know the exact message your browser is displaying including the more longer explanations, because "site cannot be displayed" is the master error message for a vide variety of actual errors. Victor Schmidt (talk) 06:52, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello Victor Schmidt, Thank you so much for helping! However, I'm not really sure how I should upload the error images over here, so I'll write down the error messgae, word-to-word: This site can’t be reached. The connection was reset.
Try: Checking the connection
Checking the proxy and the firewall
Running Windows Network Diagnostics
ERR_CONNECTION_RESET
After clicking on 'Details' - Check your Internet connection
Check any cables and reboot any routers, modems or other network devices you may be using.
Allow Chrome to access the network in your firewall or antivirus settings.
If it is already listed as a program allowed to access the network, try removing it from the list and adding it again. If you use a proxy server…
Check your proxy settings or contact your network administrator to make sure that the proxy server is working. If you don't believe you should be using a proxy server: Go to the Chrome menu > Settings > + Show advanced settings > Change proxy settings… > LAN Settings and deselect "Use a proxy server for your LAN".
Hope this helps! Azathoth's Cyan Stitchpunk (talk) 04:01, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

New hopes

Hello Pahunkat! I may be a new user, but i would like to contribute heavily to some untouched topics or aspects of wikipedia, but I don't know the roads to well and might need some assistance. I am very unsure on how to create new pages or how to reference my edits so that they are deemed viable. If you could get back to me on this and help me out, that would be great, thankyou! Labriant1204 (talk) 17:27, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

@Labriant1204: First of all hats off for the hopes you have. If you want to create new articles, first you have to read this and then visit this page and start writing. Then simply submit that written material for review to get published. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamilalibhat (talk • contribs) 17:52, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

↑ With that said, I would take the time to get used to editing pre-existing articles, Labriant1204, as creating an article from scratch is one of the hardest things to do on here. A helpful tutorial is The Wikipedia Adventure, which engages new users in being acquainted with Wikipedia's five pillars and some basic editing skills and etiquette. If you need more information about properly citing, WP:EASYREFBEGIN should be of help to you. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:36, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Fiorenzo Di Giovanni

Should I use DEFAULTSORT with 'Di Giovanni, Fiorenzo' or 'Giovanni, Fiorenzo Di', he is French, feel free to point me at the right place, Thanks GrahamHardy (talk) 19:10, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I think its the former...GrahamHardy (talk) 21:59, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Six of the seven results of this search agree with "Di Giovanni, Fiorenzo" and the one that doesn't may have a good reason. A random six of the 62 hits for this search (in Italy) agree as well. It seems wrong to me, though. You can see the effect at the D section of Category:Footballers from Rome. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 05:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

@GrahamHardy: Found it! WP:MCSTJR says it's based on case of the particle: "Generally, Dutch, French, German, Italian, Portuguese, and Spanish names do not include lowercase particles in sorting, but do include uppercase particles." In looking at the examples above, I was surprised that the "Di" was capitalized, but it does seem to be consistent, so maybe that is explained somewhere, too.

—[AlanM1 (talk)]— 06:29, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This has been confusing for me for a long time, but you may find guidance on this Stackexchange discussion about particles when citing MLA style. One responder says:

Therefore, when capitalized, the particle should always be treated as part of the last name. If lowercase, you can treat it as a suffix that goes after the first name. The exception are names like "de Gaulle" where "de" is followed by a one-syllable name.

It appears that Wikipedia follows this trend, as Alan pointed out. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:32, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

How to mark a citation as lacking?

How do I mark a particular citation as lacking? And is it also possible to state the particular reasons why a source is lacking?

I’ve found many sources without particular page cites so it’s impossible to investigate the veracity of the information and where it comes from. PNople (talk) 03:42, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi PNople. There are many different things that can be problematic with a particular citation, for example if the cite is good but does not verify the content its cited for, you might use {{failed verification}}; or maybe you want {{Better source}}, which has a reason parameter, e.g., {{Better source|reason=|date=January 2021}}. Without knowing what the specific issues are within the specific contexts, I suggest reviewing Wikipedia:Template index/Sources of articles. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:55, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

PNople if it's a book/newspaper/journal/etc citation without a page specified you can add a {{page?}} tag directly after the citation. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:09, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

New Page with 20+ citations (incl. NYT + John Oliver) lacks reliable resources?

Courtesy link: Draft:Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC)

I am attempting to submit a new page for an educational research institution here (Draft:Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC)). However, the page has been rejected twice for the reason that it does not have sufficient independent resources showing relevance. I don't understand how to correct this since I have included 20 references so far to TRAC being used by national outlets ranging from the New York Times to Last Week Tonight with John Oliver. What am I missing? I would greatly appreciate any clarification you can provide. Austinkocher (talk) 22:39, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I've looked into hardly any of the 21 current references for Draft:Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC). However, I note that quite a number appear to be to TRAC itself. References to TRAC itself are proper for some purposes, but the number of independent references isn't 21. The section "Research Approach" is unreferenced. I'm puzzled by the notion of "Immigration Enforcement" -- does it mean counter-immigration enforcement, or immigrant repression? -- but anyway the section so titled has two references. One is to an AP article that cites considerable "ICE data housed by the Transactional Access [sic] Clearinghouse at Syracuse University" but otherwise says nothing about T(R)AC. The other is to a Time article that says no more than "according to data by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, 64% of ICE detainees as of April 2019 had no criminal convictions". Could you perhaps point us to the three articles, independent of TRAC, that say most about TRAC? -- Hoary (talk) 23:02, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

So here's one example of something that is referenced there as a conversation starter: (https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2019-10-31/research-group-finds-issues-with-justice-department-immigration-data-reports) that includes the following: "Those issues could have grave implications because policymakers, judges and the public rely on the data to make decisions, the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, a nonpartisan research center housed at Syracuse University, said in the report released Thursday. Through ongoing Freedom of Information Act requests, TRAC routinely receives from the Justice Department's Executive Office for Immigration Review, which oversees the U.S. immigration court system. The research group is well-respected among policymakers, reporters and researchers, and it frequently publishes data analysis and reports on several topics, including immigration." Austinkocher (talk) 23:09, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Excellent. Do you have any more? (You don't need to quote them here. Just link to them.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:19, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

For sure. All of them that are referenced at the bottom are like that, except for the five out of 21 that cite TRAC's original publications. I'm not sure if I should copy and paste all of the links that are already there or not. Austinkocher (talk) 23:24, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Are like which? The Time and AP pieces say little about TRAC. The usnews.com piece is much more informative. I'm wondering about references that describe TRAC (as does the usnews.com page), rather than those that do little more than credit TRAC for supplying this or that information (valuable though the supply clearly is). -- Hoary (talk) 23:33, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I have read your user page. Thank you for your informativeness. Please read WP:Conflict of interest, which explains how, in Wikipedia's terms, you are "connected" and have a conflict of interest (COI) -- even though you won't profit (your salary won't increase, the value of your shares won't go up) if there's a Wikipedia article about TRAC. Please disclose your COI on Draft talk:Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC). I strongly suggest that you stop editing the draft; however, you are very welcome to make suggestions on Draft talk:Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC). -- Hoary (talk) 23:33, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh, okay. Thanks for letting me know. I just did that. I'll stop editing and let others work on the page who are not affiliated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Austinkocher (talk • contribs) 23:45, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Austinkocher. However, please don't go away. The draft looks promising. Please do make suggestions on its talk page. (And while I hope that it's never vandalized, it is about the kind of subject that winds up xenophobes and other bird-brains. If you do ever notice simple vandalism, please don't hesitate to revert it: there's no need to apply for and receive permission beforehand.) -- Hoary (talk) 02:20, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks so much! This has been a good experience. I'll definitely stick around. Austinkocher (talk) 03:33, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Austinkocher. Just some things about some image files you've uploaded to Commons for use in the draft. "Own work" means that you created the image yourself (i.e. you designed it, you photographed it, etc.) and you own the copyright on it; it doesn't mean that you got the image from somewhere else, downloaded it or scanned it onto your computer, and then uploaded it to Commons. So, if you didn't create these images, it's better for you to provide a link to the sources where you got them because you should't really be uploading someone else's creative work to Commons under a "cc-by-sa-4.0" without their WP:CONSENT. In the case of File:TRAC Logo.jpg, the logo is probably too simple to be eligible for copyright protection per c:Commons:Threshold of originality#United States so probably the only thing that needs to be done is to provide more information about the logo's provenance and change the license to c:Template:PD-text logo. File:TRAC's Interactive Data Tool for Deportations.jpg, on the other hand, looks like a screenshot or screengrab that's way too complex to be inelgible for copyright protection. The data gotten from the US government that is used to create that graph is probably public doimain, but the graphical representation itself is probably copyright protected and the copyright over it is likely held by whomever designed and developed the software as explained in c:COM:SCREENSHOT and c:COM:CB#Scientific or technical diagrams. FWIW, copyright over such content seems to be being claimed here. So, if that's not you, then you're going to need to follow the instructions in c:COM:OTRS#If you are NOT the copyright holder and get the copyright holder's (or holders' consent); otherwise, Commons won't be able to keep the file. If it is you, then you're going to need to follow the instructions in c:COM:OTRS#Licensing images: when do I contact OTRS?. Please note that even if you're working for the university or are part of the team that's running this project, you still might not be a copyright holder if your work is considered to be work for hire. The university and the project might be sharing copyright ownership over the project which means that Commons will need the permission of all the copyright holders involved in order to keep such content.

Another thing you might want to look at has to do with your userpage. It has (no disprespect intended) a WP:FAKEARTICLE feel to it, primarily because its written in the third person like is done with articles. Assuming that you are the person you've written about on your user page, you might want to take a look at WP:UPYES. It's OK to add some personal content about you and your real world activities, but you need to be careful to not do too much so that it appears you're using Wikipedia as a WP:NOTWEBHOST because that is one of the main reasons that userpages tend to get deleted.

Some other things you need to be aware of are WP:COI and WP:PAID if your connected to the TRAC. In particular, its very important to comply with PAID if it applies to you (see meta:Terms of use/FAQ on paid contributions without disclosure) because not doing so is a violation of Wikipedia's Terms of Use. I've added a template about this stuff to your user talk page for reference. The template contains links to pages that you might find helpful.

Finally, one thing about your username, editors can use their real names if they want per WP:REALNAME, but try and remember that Wikipedia is in the WP:REALWORLD, which means everything you do on Wikipedia can be seen by others and they can use that information for better or worse if they want. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:03, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Changing User Name

I have been asked to change my username by a couple of contacts from Wiki, yet another said that my username is fine. 1) Should I change my username? (I have posted to Morocco Leather... I am an expert on this subject and authored a published article) 2) If I should change my username, PLEASE tell me EXACTLY how to change my username without just referring me to a series of long "self help" paragraphs

Thanks so much, Steven Siegel StevenSiegelLeather (talk) 03:00, 15 January 2021 (UTC) StevenSiegelLeather (talk) 03:00, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

(1) If there is any question, I would err on the side of caution and do so, (2) you can request a rename at Special:GlobalRenameRequest. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 03:23, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

This username is a policy violation. The username represents this longstanding business which is a policy violation, and the account has engaged in self-promotional editing, which is another policy violation. I have blocked the account. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:22, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

The block is for two reasons - your choice of User name being the same as your business, and your attempts to cite your own publication(s) in an article. If you want to continue at Wikipedia, request to be unblocked. This will require a new name and a promise not to cite yourself, as that is considered promotional and a conflict of interest (see WP:COI). Given the COI, your approach to articles about leather should be limited to contributing to the Talk pages of those articles, perhaps proposing changes there, for other editors to consider and act upon. I suggest you also read Wikipedia:Expert editors, the section on Advice for expert editors. For example, I have degrees and publications in the field of nutritional biochemistry (credentials mentioned on my User page), but I never reference my own work. David notMD (talk) 08:01, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Keep in mind when you choose a new name, that it must be yours alone; it cannot be shared. So that whenever an edit has your username attached to it in the revision history, that means that you, personally, made that edit; not someone else (like an employee) who shares the account with you or did it on your behalf. Mathglot (talk) 08:31, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi everyone

How are you all? I am new here and hope to become a good editor here. Endymiona19 (talk) 22:49, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for asking. We're all hunky-dory. Happy editing. -- Hoary (talk) 23:04, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Endymiona19, and welcome! I see that David notMD has already sent you a Welcome message on your user Talk page as well. Glad you're here, and feel free to ask questions, anytime. Mathglot (talk) 08:33, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Question about my article

Why is my article declined all the time? SkateboardingWiki (talk) 07:56, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy: Draft:Jonny Giger. Declined once. The reviewer gave reasons. David notMD (talk) 08:04, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

SkateboardingWiki, in case you can't see it: "This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia." Gerald WL 08:06, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Also, you do not hold the copyright to the image you uploaded to Wikipedia Commons and then added to the draft. David notMD (talk) 08:08, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Also, see WP:Notability for more details. Gerald WL 08:09, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

And WP:RS. Gerald WL 08:10, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Notifying Pahunkat as reviewer. Gerald WL 08:11, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

First, apologies to SkateblardingWiki for what must feel like piling on, because it is. I suggest you review existing articles about skateboarders to get an idea of what counts as a reliable source reference (like, not the subject's own Instagram or Youtube), and then rewrite your draft. The key question is whether Giger has sufficient notability. David notMD (talk) 08:41, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me Gerald, I can't add more than what everyone has said. The person's Instagram and YouTube will never be reliable sources that can be used to establish notability. Pahunkat (talk) 09:17, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Question

How do i delete a Reference in Wikipedia? SkateboardingWiki (talk) 08:53, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

If you're in the source editor, you should be able to do this simply by removing the <ref></ref> tags and any code inside them. Pahunkat (talk) 09:17, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Question

Should i remove Giger YouTube and Instagram information in my article? SkateboardingWiki (talk) 09:00, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, because they aren't reliable sources. Pahunkat (talk) 09:17, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Edit requests

Over the last many months, I've submitted multiple edit requests for various semi-protected and ECP pages. I've found that very often, there's a chilling effect where someone , working on the edit request backlog, fails to understand the context and reasoning behind a request and applies the template indicating it has been declined. When I respond in addressing the concerns raised, the very fact of that template having been used once makes subsequent reviewers inclined to believe that I'm trying to force through something controversial without proper discussion, and the edit request has no path forward from that point other than waiting for the protection to expire so that editing directly becomes possible. Is this how edit requests are intended to work? Somehow, based on the text of wp:edit requests, I doubt that the answer is yes. If there are additional guidelines or essays somewhere on this subject (note, I have read wp:why create an account? and evaluated the pros and cons) I would appreciate a pointer.

PS note that I haven't mentioned specific instances because my sense of the Teahouse is that specific content disputes are unwelcome here, and I would hate for my more general concern to get overshadowed by any one specific incident anyway. 107.77.222.94 (talk) 22:48, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

107.77.222.94 you can reopen an edit request by changing answered=yes back to answered=no and continuing the discussion of what you want changed - that'd probably be more effective than starting a new edit request in most cases. If you feel that an editor has misunderstood you then ping them and let them know - misunderstandings do happen and I think the best solution to that, in Wikipedia and in the outside world, is probably to address them directly. --Paul ❬talk❭ 11:28, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Two more questions by SkateboardingWiki

Courtesy link: Draft:Jonny_Giger

Question

Should i remove Braille Skateboarding reference too? And Pahunkat, can you please help me fix that article if needed? SkateboardingWiki (talk) 09:42, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi SkateboardingWiki. Currently it's just a link to Braille's homepage, not an item stating that they are featuring Giger. Do you think that's a useful source? Would anyone clicking that link reach the exact same conclusion as the statement it's a citation for? If not then it's not really a citation at all. --Paul ❬talk❭ 11:42, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Question

Will i get declined again, if i don't remove the picture from Wikimedia Commons? I requeted to delete that! SkateboardingWiki (talk) 09:47, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi SkateboardingWiki. That won't matter. Articles for Creation will not be declined or accepted based on images or the lack thereof, just on article prose and references. --Paul ❬talk❭ 11:42, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Question

How do i find my article? Want to edit it, but can't find it! SkateboardingWiki (talk) 12:27, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

SkateboardingWiki Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The draft you created is at Draft:Jonny Giger. You can find a record of your contributions in your contribution history, which if you are using the desktop version of Wikipedia, a link to can be found in the upper right corner of the screen.(I don't know how to do it in the app or mobile versions, which do not have full functionality). 331dot (talk) 12:35, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

You can find it in mobile via the sidebar, but via app, when you search for it, you'll be redirected to Browser/Chrome/Safari. Gerald WL 12:42, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Friendly announcement

Mosfilm, the largest film studio in the Soviet Union, has released all of their film, full-length, on their official YouTube channel. Check here. You might try linking those to the external links section in the corresponding articles. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 11:13, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. This page is for asking questions about editing Wikipedia. I suggest you make this information known at Talk:Mosfilm where editors involved with that article can assess its suitability.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 13:09, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Jeromi Mikhael & Shantavira I think WP:GLAM might also be interested in this. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:21, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Please tell.

Please tell why my submission was declined.

Actually there was nothing to tell about that person. Only I wanted to make a page so a person can know about that person as many leess people know about that person. Divyanshi Singh 10 (talk) 12:41, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Divyanshi Singh 10 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia is not social media to merely tell about the existence of people. This is an encyclopedia that summarizes what independent reliable sources with significant coverage say about people that meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable person. If you have nothing to tell about this person other than their existence, they would not merit a Wikipedia article. Please read Your First Article and use the new user tutorial to learn more about Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 12:43, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Divyanshi Singh 10, it has no citations, thus making it not notable. I tried finding sources, but there seem to be none. Reviewer Kpgjhpjm may help elaborate. Gerald WL 12:45, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

@Gerald Waldo Luis: and @Divyanshi Singh 10: . I Fully agree with what the two responses have said and I can confirm those were the reasons for me rejecting the draft . If you can expand it and source it with Reliable source feel free to resubmit . Kpg jhp jm 13:34, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Collaboration vs Conflicts

I'm new and wondering from experienced Wikipedians, what percentage of your dealings with co-editors is collaborative and positive, and how much is spent in conflict, with poor dialog, personal agenda issues, etc? DHHornfeldt (talk) 20:30, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

The collaborativeness percentage is usually very high. Sometimes it goes down. If it goes down a lot, and I'm certain that I'm right, I may decide to tough it out. Or I may give Wikipedia editing a break. I don't think I've ever lost sleep over Wikipedia. -- Hoary (talk) 22:38, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Depends mainly on topic: politics, religion, race issues, country conflicts - all prone to heated disagreements. David notMD (talk) 00:00, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Well I've experienced antagonism and apathy and my morale is low. Avoiding the 'hot topics' has met with trolls in the wreckage of orphaned pages who are much better connected and savvy than myself. I have yet to collaborate. DHHornfeldt (talk) 14:30, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

LP GAS EXPORTING and IMPORTING

please help me in the project of getting a license in importing gas Pishai Allan Muchauraya (talk) 14:39, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia, an encyclopedia. We don't give people jobs or licences- you would need to contact organisations directly for that. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:42, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Question

If i make a page of people, will it be on Google like this: https://www.google.com/search?q=tony+hawk

(On right upper corner) SkateboardingWiki (talk) 12:48, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

We have no control over Google or any other search engine, so we cannot tell you whether or not any particular topic or page will appear among its search results.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 13:12, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

See Google Knowledge Graph for the Google "knowledge panel" in the upper right corner. It's made by Google and may or may not include information from Wikipedia. If a person has a Wikipedia biography then it's often used by Google but we have no control over whether Google makes a panel or what they put in it. Note that only a text paragraph ending with "Wikipedia" is stated to be from Wikipedia. Google does not reveal the source of other information in their panels. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:59, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

@SkateboardingWiki: Google does not use our drafts so Draft:Jonny Giger will not be in Google while it's a draft. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:06, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

How do I edit.

Hi I am new here I don't know yet how to edit Wikipedia can someone please help me. And what does -78bytes means Are you guys okay (talk) 14:17, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Are you guys okay. You've already made a handful of edits so I think you've probably got that mostly figured out. In an edit history, -78 bytes means that after the edit, the article was 78 bytes smaller - in practice that means just a few words shorter. Those indicators are useful if you want to see at a glance that a particular edit added or removed a lot of content but most of the time you can just ignore them. --Paul ❬talk❭ 15:18, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

article

Hi , i wrote article, i add sources but its still not published. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Petre_Naskidashvili&oldid=992795330 please help. Thank you Nikoloz82 (talk) 13:44, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Nikoloz82, I've added a Draft template to the top of your article - when you think it's ready to be published just click on the button that says "Submit for Review". A reviewer will then make the decision to publish or not. --Paul ❬talk❭ 15:32, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Ramotion Draft Review

Hello, can someone help look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ramotion and see if it qualifies as a stub which can be approved? AlikotoSam (talk) 16:10, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

@AlikotoSam: You've already submitted it for review. Just be patient. You can work on something else, or continue to improve the draft. RudolfRed (talk) 16:28, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

@RudolfRed: Alright thank you.--AlikotoSam (talk) 16:32, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Re: Imdad Hussaini

Imdad Hussaini is linked in Deaths in August 2020 as having died August 27, which to my knowledge, was never challenged. This is the source used. Foreign language Wikipedia articles show him as deceased as well such as this one Instead of getting in an edit war, I thought I'd bring it here. According to the editor that reverted me, claims the poet is alive. I'm not sure given the sources are in a language I can't read. Snickers2686 (talk) 04:48, 12 January 2021 (UTC) Snickers2686 (talk) 04:48, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Snickers2686. I have no expertise here, but I popped into Google "pakistani english newspapers", ran some searches and quickly found this - an article from November 2020, stating "Writers, scholars, artists and journalists expected to participate in the sessions, according to the schedule, include ... Imdad Hussaini..." Not definitive, but an indication that news of his demise may be exaggerated. I advise a post to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pakistan.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:28, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Pinging Hammad and Obaid Raza. Perhaps they may help. ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^{^(talk)} 11:48, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Snickers & Aafi This misconception is that Imdad Hussaini is a Sindhi poet and the other Imdad Hussain imdad is a Balti (language) poet. They are two different poets. The source is about the death of Balti poet. While the Sindhi poet is alive [https//www.thenews.com.pk/print/750772-arts-council-to-continue-with-tradition-of-urdu-conference-despite-all-odds]. The names are misunderstood.Obaid Raza (talk) 06:18, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

@Obaid Raza: So then the Imdad Hussaini entry should be removed from Deaths in August 2020 then, yes? Snickers2686 (talk) 17:15, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

yesObaid Raza (talk) 16:40, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Additional Question from SkateboardingWiki

How to change from draft to article, or it will change automatically after review?--SkateboardingWiki (talk) 16:17, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi SkateboardingWiki, the reviewer will take care of that. --Paul ❬talk❭ 16:42, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Imo Draft

Draft:Imo_(app) I created this draft and there is one light yellow notice at the bottom for review. Can I move this to mainspace? Or someone only has to do. Please let me know if there is any issue in it. Sonofstar (talk) 15:18, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

@Sonofstar: While you technically probbably can move it to mainspace, I don't recommend it, because if you managed to miss something, it will be either sent back or deleted, neither of which helps you in any way. Please also only do one thing, submitting for review or moving directly to mainspace. Both is a waste of time. Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:47, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

New articles

I submitted some drafts a while back and I still haven't had them reviewed. I even resubmitted one because it seemed like I must have done something wrong. If there's a way to get them reviewed more quickly could you point me in the right direction or if I decide to move them to mainspace what is the likelihood that they'd be removed? Here are the articles: Draft:Art Napoleon (Artist), Draft:Quanah Style, and Draft:Nick Sherman. TipsyElephant (talk) 15:42, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

@TipsyElephant: the oldest one of those was (re)submitted on November 16th. The review backlog is currently between 3 and 4 months. Please be patient. Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:52, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

how can i send an article at the first time

how to send an article as a new user Pishai Allan Muchauraya (talk) 14:43, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

@Pishai Allan Muchauraya: I assume this refers to User:Pishai Allan Muchauraya/sandbox, which is not an encyclopedic article. Wikipedia is neither a way to talk about predictions, nor is it a way to get licenses for sth. (see Encyclopedia for that). Advice for how to create a new article can be found here, here or here. Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:58, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest for contributors from independent researchers

I work part-time with a small organisation in the UK which is focused on the role the private sector - local and international - can play in economic development and poverty reduction in the developing world. We are funded by our 22 members - UN agencies, the World Bank, bilateral donor agencies and foundations. We don't advocate any particular approach to private sector development or receive contributions from companies. Our goal is simply to help our members share experience and disseminate research (some of which we carry out ourselves). We recently posted a couple of additions to the Wikipedia pages on 'Private Sector Development' and 'Digital Divide'. This was picked up by one of the editors who accused us of a conflict of interest. The editor has not only removed our new entries, but also deleted other references to our organisation, some of which were posted by third parties several years ago. When I requested an explanation I was referred to Wikipedia's COI noticeboard. This states that 'editors who have such a connection [a close personal or business connections with article topics] can still comply with the COI guideline by discussing proposed article changes first, or by making uncontroversial edits. COI allegations should not be used as a "trump card" in disputes over article content.' My feeling is that we have stayed within that definition because our additions simply served to deepen and expand some of the concepts already included on the respective pages, based on the many resources we host on our own website on these topics. It feels particularly unreasonable - and detrimental to other users - that the editor has removed references which have been on Wikipedia for years just because they don't agree with our most recent additions. I would very much appreciate guidance on how to proceed. Holgergrundel (talk) 16:53, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Holgergrundel Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If your edit has anything to do with your organization, it is really best to go to the article talk page and make an edit request. If your edit was removed, it is not uncontroversial any longer and should be discussed with independent editors to arrive at a consensus. You might find this plain language, briefer explanation of COI helpful. 331dot (talk) 17:00, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Daniel R. Nichols

I am new to editing and I have created a new page for Daniel R. Nichols, a Vietnam War hero. I think I am ready to publish it for your review, but I am having trouble going from the Sandbox to the publishing stage. Yar365 (talk) 18:11, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Yar365. I'm afraid you have made the common mistake of putting the draft on your User Page, not in your sandbox. If you create the latter, you can submit it from there. Or you can use the articles for creation process. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:15, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

One comment on the draft is that readers would find it very difficult to verify what facts it contains since (for example) references 1 and 2 are to the home pages of their websites, not to the pages that have the actual information you are quoting. Without verifiability, showing the notability of the individual, the article won't be accepted. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:25, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick response. I will work on the citations. Yar365 (talk) 21:38, 13 January 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yar365 (talk • contribs) 21:21, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Yar365 Nichols fails WP:SOLDIER as his awards do not meet #1, his rank doesn't meet #2 and I don't see that he meets any of the other criteria. I also don't see that he has WP:SIGCOV in multiple WP:RS to satisfy WP:GNG. Sorry but unless there's some other claim to notability its highly likely that the page will be deleted. regards Mztourist (talk) 10:59, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I am new to this and NOT sure how it got published before I had properly documented the sources. I thought I was still working in the sandbox. If it needs to be moved back to the sandbox so I can finish, I will need help doing so. Thanks, Yar365 (talk) 16:23, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

The page I am trying to establish is for a veteran who is recognized as being a "highly decorated Vietnam War hero. He received two Silver Stars, four Distinguished Flying Crosses, three Bronze Stars, two Purple Hearts, and several Air Medals with Valor. He was chosen to be the Grand Marshal of the Veterans Day Parade in Marysville, CA (which was canceled due to pandemic) but received front-page coverage of his heroic actions. He is featured in the Museum of Forgotten Warriors in Marysville, CA near his hometown. With proper sourcing, would the page deserve publishing? Yar365 (talk) 16:59, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

You created the draft on your user page not in a sandbox. Your user page is for telling us a little about yourself in relation to Wikipedia. I moved the content to draft space for you, you are free to work on it here for as long as you want to. It is VERY lacking in sources. Theroadislong (talk) 17:23, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks and I apologize for the mistake. It is all very confusing. Proving Lt. Col. Daniel R. Nichols is highly decorated is not my problem. The problem is rather or not Daniel R. Nichols is concerned a "notable" person. I'll study it more before I move on. In the meantime, I will try to move my draft back to the sandbox. Thanks again for your time. Yar365 (talk) 17:27, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Request for a page speedy deletion for my page Bernie Masterson Artist.

Hi I am requesting a speedy deletion for my page Bernie Masterson Artist. Thank you. Bernie Masterson (talk) 16:47, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Looks like Draft:Bernie Masterson (artist) has already been deleted. --Paul ❬talk❭ 17:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

New editor

I would like to help Wikipedia by editing articles, what do I need to become an editor? Jose 190.200.176.29 (talk) 17:49, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You are an "editor" simply by being here and being willing to contribute. It's not required, but it's a good idea to create an account, which provides several benefits not available to those without accounts. It also will allow you to use the new user tutorial to learn more about Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 17:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

IP Question

How to create new article on Wikipedia? And Happy Birthday Wikipedia(15th January) 103.139.56.9 (talk) 18:06, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Have a read of Your First Article. --Paul ❬talk❭ 18:25, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Artistic Custom Signature

This might be slightly embarrassing but... I am trying to make a custom signature. How do I make the signature artistic, similar to what a few other Wikipedians have? (Wikipedians is the correct term right?) Also, Happy Birthday Wikipedia! DFletcher0306 (talk) 18:33, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

DFletcher0306, you may be looking for the signature tutorial. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:36, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Dear Host,

What makes the teahouse come to life? I mean, what is the purpose of it? Is it just for us to suffer writing these stinking questions while you enjoy everything possibly imaginable? Or is it just to talk about questions that you answered for the 12 millionth time? In other words, who suffers: you or me? -Painful WikiLove Goat (talk) 17:59, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

If asking questions is arduous, you are under no obligation. --Paul ❬talk❭ 18:25, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

New editor making a series of useless edits to pad edit count. WP:NOTHERE TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:30, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Would someone please warn this new (14 January) user, or go straight to block for WP:NOTHERE? So far, dozens of small edits, all reverted. David notMD (talk) 20:36, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Done TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:40, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Redirects

What classifies a subject for a redirect? Does the parent article need to contain a section or information about the topic? I came across a redirect for Allma that takes you to Chlorella. This was really confusing as a user, since there is only a minor mention of Allma on the page. I've also come across other examples in the past. I left a comment on the talk page but not sure if that's the best place to suggest changes. Sfern824 (talk) 17:48, 15 January 2021 (UTC) Sfern824 (talk) 17:48, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Sfern824. If there's no corresponding article then redirecting to a mention in another article can be valid but it's always good to be critical of these things. The principle of least astonishment is worth bearing in mind. As Chlorella products are a main feature of Allma, it shouldn't be too surprising for whoever searches looking for that company. However, the question is raised whether cluttering the search results with this redirect is worth it (is Allma a significant company?) and whether there may be other more noteworthy topics called 'Allma' that users may be searching for. I don't have a specific answer for you right now, maybe someone more familiar with RfD can advise. Regards, Zindor (talk) 19:44, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Zindor, thank you. Based on WP:POLA, it might make sense to redirect to a different page if anything else is more applicable; I'll take a look. And I'm not sure if they are a significant company, honestly I had never heard of them before. Is there a discussion board specifically for questions about redirects? Sfern824 (talk) 20:05, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

There is, rather unastonishingly called, Redirects for discussion. --Paul ❬talk❭ 20:34, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I guess that should have been easy for me to find. Thank you! Sfern824 (talk) 21:06, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

That's my fault Sfern824, I mentioned RfD but never explained what it stood for! Apologies. Zindor (talk) 21:42, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Feedback from reviewer

I cleaned up and submitted this draft based on feedback from the previous review. It seems to be stuck in the review process at this point even though I've reached out to past reviewers after addressing their comments. Are there other reviewers that I can receive feedback from? I believe the issues have been resolved but it will require review by another editor. Sfern824 (talk) 21:05, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Status: Two Declines in November, revised and resubmitted in early December. Given thousands of drafts at AfC, all that can be promised in can takes days to months. Until then, be patient. David notMD (talk) 22:26, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

It's not an draft that will appeal to reviewers, whose primary task will be to check for citations that help to establish notability. Most of the cited sources that I've checked are based on what employees of and investors in the company have said, and so not independent and not helping with notability. If there are good sources cited somewhere in that list, you could make it easier for a reviewer to find them by getting rid of most of the others. Maproom (talk) 23:31, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Ask for an Article Creation

I have been following the creation and implementation of the Wounded to Work Congressional Caucus and how do I ask for someone to create a page on Edward Gerety, the guy who created it? He has created other organisations that impact a lot of people but he stays hidden. 173.66.129.7 (talk) 21:28, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid there's no easy way to make this happen. Basically, you've got two choices: write it yourself, or get one or more other editors interested in writing it. Writing it yourself is very difficult for inexperienced editors: see Your first article for more. There is a formal method for requesting an article, which is to post at Requested articles, but I don't think there is much take-up: editors are all volunteers, and they work on what they choose, so for an request at RA to get taken up it requires first that an editor go and look there, and second that that editor is drawn to create your suggestion rather than any of the hundreds of others. The other possibility is to find an editor who is already interested in your area, and suggest it. If you go to the article Wounded to Work Congressional Caucus, and pick "History", you can see which editors have worked on that article: you might post a suggestion at their User Talk page(s). Alternatively, if there is a WikiProject which covers a relevant area, you could post at that project's talk page. In either case, your task is not so much "requesting" an article, but giving the people you're talking to a reason why they might want to work on it. One way you can make your suggestion more attractive is by doing what can be the most time-consuming part of the process yourself: find some reliable sources, such as major newspapers, or academic journals, which discuss Gerety: the goal is to find enough sources to establish that he meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability, because if he doesn't nobody is going to waste time on creating an article which is never going to be accepted. --ColinFine (talk) 23:39, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Sand box

I know I have been asking a lot of questions today but what does a sand box means and what does it meant for and where can I see it. Are you guys okay (talk) 00:31, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@Are you guys okay: Welcome to Wikipedia. A sandbox is a place where you can experiment and learn how to edit by trying out different things. There is a community sandbox at WP:SANDBOX which gets cleared out regularly. If you want your own sandbox that does not get cleared, there is a link at the top of the page next to your username RudolfRed (talk) 00:35, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Please Delete my account

Please delete my account. I have had my first and last experience with Wikipedia. I just want to be deleted from here. LinneaReilly (talk) 00:46, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

We cannot delete accounts. Just stop using it. You may blank your user talk page if you wish. Meters (talk) 01:37, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Writing biography

How to get a biography approved

I'm posting a short wikipedia page about the current CEO of OpenUK Amanda Brock, but unsure how to get it approved as it's my first time writing one - I'm not trying to be promotional or not reference correctly, just wondering if anyone could give me some tips or advice? Thanks Amurphy79 (talk) 16:32, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy: Draft:Amanda Brock (has been declined twice). David notMD (talk) 02:38, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Help for Wikipedia articles

Hello, as a person who suffers from Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity I wanted to know which sources were needed in order to add that fact to EMF-related articles

I especially wanted to add the EMF issues caused by Wi-Fi, 5G, 4G, 3G, 2G, etc, but each time I tried to add that information with reliable sources it got reverted.

For the record, I don't endorse people who make conspiracy theories about 5G causing autism or Covid 19, I just wanted to add actual facts from science websites to the article, not some opinion piece from Infowars or Prison Planet, you can verify that what I'm saying is correct by going to my contributions. I would like to know what was wrong with any of my revisions because I just don't get it, my problems are very real. -xShaun809 (talk) 20:02, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Acroterion has been reverting your article edits. A valid next step would be to start a discussion on A's Talk page, perhaps asking if A doubts the quality of your references. Alternatively, start a discussion on the 5G and 4G Talk pages. HOWEVER, given that the lead of Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity starts with "Electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) is a claimed sensitivity to electromagnetic fields, to which negative symptoms are attributed. EHS has no scientific basis and is not a recognised medical diagnosis.", I consider it unlikely that any content can be allowed in the articles you have been trying to edit. David notMD (talk) 20:44, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Also, please stop shouting as you did over here, so it's easier to start discussions. Thanks, Pahunkat (talk) 20:50, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked for making threats toward other editors. David notMD (talk) 02:43, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Is detailed lore allowed on Wikipedia (“Notability rule” questions)?

Recently, I’ve been thinking about massively expanding the Warhammer 40,000 section of Wikipedia, however, I’ve been having my doubts and wanted to come here first to see whether it even fits the rules - and then I’ll run it through the “village pump” - as you’d expect, I don’t want to write on a topic only for that to get scrapped. First of all, I am confused as to what exactly counts as “summary-only”: the “What Wikipedia is Not” page says “summary-only descriptions of works. Wikipedia treats creative works [...] in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the development, design, reception, significance, and influence of works in addition to concise summaries of those works.” Now, does summary only mean I just can’t go into depth on the contents of a work or does it mean, “if you’re doing anything that’s too in-depth for one page, put it in a separate article and keep sub-dividing like that for as long as it remains ‘notable’”

And on the topic of “notability”, the Wikipedia page “Wikipedia: notability (media)” says secondary sources are the primary criterion for considering an article “notable”, however it then says on the Wikipedia evidence page “Content from websites whose content is largely user-generated is generally unacceptable. Sites with user-generated content include personal websites, personal and group blogs, content farms, Internet forums, social media sites, video and image hosting services, most wikis, and other collaboratively created websites.” Now, I can still definitely do it, after all, there are plenty of newspapers about warhammer (other than the official warhammer newspaper) which write about the game but honestly, considering the T’au Empire *base* page has been flagged for this, I’m not sure that I’m going to clear the hurdle even if I do provide secondary sources - as likely, there will be a standard of what level of viewership a secondary source needs to be allowed (which my sources may not meet in places because secondary articles are often redundant as the franchise owners publish all the lore and facts online, for free). So, my question is, will my content (i.e fictional lore for a fairly popular fictional universe) be likely to be removed on this account either?

Third question, I have found rules saying work should not be copied from other sources... I can rewrite fan wikis for this, but it would just be smarter to copy them where it does not infringe upon copyright - as in a lot of cases, these intros are so specific, writers just end up repeating themselves when trying to write the same thing in a new way. If I have to rewrite stuff though, that’s far less of a problem for me than the worry it may be removed. So main question is Q1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiLover01 (talk • contribs) 01:06, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@WikiLover01: Hi. First, Summary style is used to avoid excessive detailing--called here Fancruft. For example, the article on Homer Simpson which has been vetted as one of professional quality (denoted by the bronze star in the top right corner) does not go into detail about his role in every episode or even season. Your article should seek to emulate that--highlighting it's subject's role within the context of the WH 40k universe.

Secondly, secondary sources aren't required when discussing the subject's fictional history. Homer Simpson cites in it's first section directly from episodes. However when discussing the subject in the real world--production, reception--secondary, reliable sources are needed. If they're not present your article will likely fail.

Thirdly, and to be blunt you shouldn't be copying from these fan sites. Period. You should be getting the info from secondary sources. Good luck. DMT biscuit (talk) 03:32, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! WikiLover01 (talk) 01:06, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Bug in Wikipedia

Hi, there's a bug in the software (MediaWiki? where exactly?). You can see if you try to add the ref https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8936578 as I did, and "fixed" in my edit[10]. See the edit summary for the latter link on what's wrong. For now at least, I (only) report here. Note, also there may be two different ways to fix the date, so at least someone here could tell me if the way I did it is ok, or the other option? That would be good into (for someone making a bug report in the right place). comp.arch (talk) 14:24, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

@Comp.arch: When I try to use the auto-fill (the magnifying glass beside the URL field) for that document, it puts "January , 2020" in the date field, which isn't too far off ("January 2020" would be correct). Note this is not uncommon – I find it gets dates and authors wrong a large percentage of the time, which is why users are warned to preview/correct the cites before inserting them. You could report it at WP:VPT and/or add it to one of the existing bug reports about Citoid, like phab:T245092. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 05:26, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Hmm, a) it's strange that you didn't get the illegal "2020-01" as I did (and thus in red "Check date values in: |date= (help)"). I checked again and that's what I get, and I note your "January , 2020" is also illegal, the software could easily fix either (and the logic to know it's wrong, but not to fix, is already there, since it can give the red warning), but b) you didn't comment on the other possibility "Date of Publication: 18 December 2019", so it's at least one if not two bugs.

In my Icelandic user interface I get "Handvirkt" ("manual") and "Sjálfvirkt" ("auto"), and the third bug is that while sometimes auto works, I strangely sometimes I get (for that same link): "We couldn't make a citation for you. You can create one manually using the "Handvirkt" tab above." comp.arch (talk) 12:52, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Sounds like @Comp.arch is using VE (NWE / 2017 source editor in the linked diff) and @AlanM1 the 2010 editor, hence the difference in behaviour. Pelagic ( messages ) – (14:50 Sat 16, AEDT) 03:50, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Spoiler

Spoiler alert notification.

I have noticed that there is no spoiler warning in all the movie's plot topic. I agree some of the films' plot details are not spoilers for first time readers but many of the movie pages contain spoilers. If there is no disclaimer for spoilers the first time movie goers experience is ruined sometimes. I agree that the reader is also responsible, but it would be better to add a disclaimer when there are excessive spoilers about a film. That way the reader can be informed that he has to read this upcoming topic at his own risk of spoiling the film. Same goes to certain books as well. It may not be constructive but it's of great effect. Is there anything you can do about it? 182.73.241.190 (talk) 05:47, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Please see WP:SPOILER MarnetteD|Talk 05:54, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello IP user. Please see WP:SPOILER, which is our guideline for spoilers in articles. The guideline gives four reasons as to why we don't put spoiler warnings into articles, which I copied below for your convenience.

There was no strong basis to exclude disclaimers for potential spoilers from the "No disclaimers in articles" guideline when many other disclaimers—such as warnings about offensive images or content and medical and legal disclaimers—would be of greater benefit to the reader.
No other academic, scholarly, or other professional publications that describe or analyze works of fiction, such as other encyclopedias, include disclaimers about spoilers when discussing said works.
Sections that frequently contain spoiler warnings—such as plot summaries, episode lists, character descriptions, etc.—were already clearly named to indicate that they contain plot details. Therefore, further disclaimers would be redundant and unnecessary.
Labeling a plot detail as a spoiler would require editors to use their own subjective opinions to interpret the significance of a plot detail and its likelihood of altering the enjoyment of the work of fiction. This would be a violation of Wikipedia's core policies of no original research, verifiability, and neutral point of view.

SkyWarrior 06:00, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Searching ITN

I'm trying to look for an ITN entry about Lewis Hamilton so I can add it to the page's TP using Template:ITN talk. Problem is, I don't remember what day the ITN entry was on... does anyone know how to search through ITN? (Or is it Portal:Current Events I should be looking at?) I'm not sure what parameters I should be inputting into Wikipedia's search. Zupotachyon (talk) 18:43, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Zupotachyon. You could search Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/Archives or Wikipedia:Main Page history#Snapshots of the Main Page. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:11, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the links, I'll check them out. Zupotachyon (talk) 08:24, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Sandboxes

Hello! I'm new to Wikipedia and I was wondering what sandboxes are used for. Could someone please help me out? Thanks! Fawnstream (talk) 12:54, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Fawnstream Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. There are two types of sandboxes. There is a general sandbox accessible to anyone, where they can experiment with editing in a place that is not an article. The second type is a personal sandbox that every user with an account has(you can access it with a link at the top right corner of the screen in Desktop mode, or yours is at User:Fawnstream/sandbox). That's also a place where a user can experiment with editing, but it can also be used to draft an article before submitting it for a review at Articles for Creation. 331dot (talk) 12:58, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! Fawnstream (talk) 12:59, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Looking for someone who might be interested in creating a article with me on 'KashBook'.

Hi, im looking for someone to assist me with writing this article on Draft:KashBook. it was a social media website by Zeyan Shafiq when the social media services were banned in kashmir in 2017, as per my research and suggestions from experienced editors i think this article meets notability guidelines and they have suggested me that this should be created. i am weak at english writing and grammer so i am looking for someone to help me write it cleanly, i can provide the researched rough write up's. we both can take credit as mutual creators for this article on our wiki user pages. thanks, drop a hi on my talk page if interested. Hums4r (talk) 15:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC) Hums4r (talk) 15:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

[NB: duplicate post already replied to on Help Desk.] {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.200.40.9 (talk) 19:01, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

??? I have seen no reply there, only a comment referring readers to this post. --Lambiam 14:02, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

If you already have a rough write up, why don't you simply begin by posting it at Draft:KashBook, including any relevant references? --Lambiam 14:02, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia

Hi I know this is not a question but I want to say happy birthday to Wikipedia wish you many more years to come Alisha rains (talk) 11:25, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Alisha rains, Thanks! S Philbrick (Talk) 16:24, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

How do I see all my contributions in all Wikimedia projects?

User:Tetizeraz. Send me a ✉️ ! 18:35, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Tetizeraz. Follow this link. Regards, Zindor (talk) 20:07, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Zindor, I'm pretty sure there's one with a count of all edit made in all Wikimedia Projects. Do you know where I can find it? User:Tetizeraz. Send me a ✉️ ! 20:09, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Certainly, head here. Zindor (talk) 20:13, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Alternatively go to the 'Preferences' tab in the top right of the page and click the button that says 'View your global account info'. I hope that's what you're looking for Tetizeraz. Let us know if we can help you with anything else. Kind regards, Zindor (talk) 20:22, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Zindor! User:Tetizeraz. Send me a ✉️ ! 20:24, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Community Radio Noteworthiness

Is a comedy show on a small community radio station (CKMS Radio Waterloo, 102.7 FM) noteworthy? Marc.gw.opie (talk) 20:26, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Really depends on whether or not it's received significant coverage from independent third-parties. --Paul ❬talk❭ 20:52, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Restore a deleted page

Hello Everybody, I need assistance from any Administrator to help me restore TwoBars, he has gain notability recently after winning the Producer of the Year award at the 2020 3Music Awards and earning nominations at the Vodafone Ghana Music Awards. He is also known for producing Kofi Kinaata's Things Fall Apart song which was the biggest song in Ghana in 2019. Geezygee (talk) 18:56, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@Geezygee: You may wish to use the Wikipedia:Deletion review process with some new reliable sources, and ask for the article to be restored as a draft. GoingBatty (talk) 21:03, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Problematic article

Hello, can someone please have a look at this article, or can you move this question to wherever there are competent people to do so? Parts of this article read like a socialist hymn of praise to the working man. I can't believe anyone would actually write that someone saved their company precisely 263,051 Czechoslovak crowns by their improvement proposal. Knowledge of the Czech language can't hurt as all sources given are in that language. Thanks, --91.34.46.85 (talk) 17:22, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. You can get people's attention here, but the place where there are people with interest and knowledge about the subject of the article is the talk page, in this case Talk:František Bohdal. Looking there, I see that the article was nominated for deletion a couple of months ago, (see here) but there was no consensus so, it was not deleted. --ColinFine (talk) 18:16, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, getting people's attention (ideally, some with knowledge of the Czech language) was the main point of my request. :-) On the talk page I did not expect to get much attention except by the author of the article and a few chance visitors (though I did put my doubts on there now). Isn't there any other place to point out problematic articles? --91.34.46.85 (talk) 19:21, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Not really. There are thousands thousands of articles needing attention, so there's not a lot of point in just adding them to a list somewhere. Generally the two options with problematic articles (other than just leaving them) is to fix them, or to add something from Wikipedia:Template index/Cleanup to them as appropriate: that puts them on a corresponding list, but it also gives notice to a reader that there may be a problem with the article. Another possibility is seeing if you can find somebody interested by asking at the talk page of WP:WikiProject Czech Republic. --ColinFine (talk) 21:18, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Question on Notability

Hi, I the author of a next generation of the Ingalls family that was the subject of Laura Ingalls Wilder's works. I would like to created a Wikipedia page for myself or the subject of my book which is my parents. I have had articles written about me and my book and would like to have a place where people interested in finding out more about me can go. Thank you Rleeingalls (talk) 15:37, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Rleeingalls: Wikipedia recommends people do not attempt autobiographical articles. See WP:AUTO. If you are truly Wikipedia-notable, in time someone will write about you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David notMD (talk • contribs) 02:50, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

If yr not notable in the WP sense, there are many other forms of self-publishing, and don't let anyone tell you WP is Everything for Everybody.
--2601:199:C201:FD70:584C:883A:969A:CC61 (talk) 21:51, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Trying to upload photo to my page

Deeki0 (talk) 21:38, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@Deeki0: Try Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard, and take care to carefully read all the copyright information, especially if you did not take the photo or have the ownership. GoingBatty (talk) 22:07, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Titles : Edit Timur

Can i Give sources, references, and Edit The parents of Timur I have any Risk ? Tell me Uncle JUDDHO (talk) 05:12, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

As long as your sources pass WP:RS, be WP:BOLD and edit them in. If someone reverts it, talk about it on the article's talk page! If you follow the guidelines, you're fine. WhoAteMyButter (📨│📝) 05:28, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

There’s a paragraph about Taraghai with 9 references at Timur#Early life, but if you can improve it, go right ahead! If your information conflicts with other sourced info, remember to present a balanced view. Pelagic ( messages ) – (08:57 Sun 17, AEDT) 21:57, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@JUDDHO: I’m not sure what you mean by "add the titles" which you also asked at Talk:Umar Shaikh Mirza II. Wikipedia doesn’t use honorifics like Shah or Shri repeatedly in running text, but we do document noble titles. The discussion of titles in the protected edit request at Aurangzeb appears to have worked well. What kind of "risk" are you concerned about? Pelagic ( messages ) – (09:34 Sun 17, AEDT) 22:34, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

User name

I forgot my user name. How do I find it. Thank you 2001:5B0:2941:EE18:ED47:8862:FB9:A732 (talk) 22:24, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

If you do not remember your username, there is nothing that can be done. You will need to create a new account. 331dot (talk) 22:32, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

However if there is an email address associated with your account then follow the password reset instructions and enter your email. Your username will be sent in the email. Zindor (talk) 22:43, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Maybe you can remember an article that you edited, look at its edit history, find an edit that you made, and see what username it's attributed to. Maproom (talk) 23:05, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Isn't the title of this article wrong?

Battle off Ulsan. I tried to move it but couldn't, not sure why. The same written mistake is also in Japanese cruiser Azuma. User:Tetizeraz. Send me a ✉️ ! 23:07, 16 January 2021 (UTC) User:Tetizeraz. Send me a ✉️ ! 23:07, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@Tetizeraz: Battle of Ulsan is a redirect, so that it why you could not move it. Perhaps it is not a mistake, it will depend on what the sources call the battle. You can start a discussion on the article's talk page to get consensus, and after that post at WP:RM. You could also ask at WP:RX for someone to check what the sources say. RudolfRed (talk) 23:36, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@Tetizeraz: If you report a possible error then please always say what you think is wrong. I'm not sure what you think is wrong with the title or what you tried to move it to. Maybe you think it should be Battle of Ulsan with one "f". It was a naval battle while Ulsan is a near-by place on land they weren't fighting for. In such cases it is common to say "off" as in away from. Both "of" and "off" are used in sources. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:13, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I see PrimeHunter. Sorry for my mistake, I'm not a native English mistake and never heard about this. User:Tetizeraz. Send me a ✉️ ! 00:35, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Editing for copy-edit drive

Hello, I signed up for the January copy-edit backlog and was editing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Cayman_Islands_hurricanes which I thought was good except for a few bad citiations but that was due to lack of info on the subject. I spent hours on it and it was reverted. Why? I am new but I tried very hard on copy-editing it and it's back to when I started. What can I do? Gandalf the Groovy (talk) 00:23, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Gandalf the Groovy, welcome to the Teahouse and thanks for participating in the GOCE's backlog drive.

The user who reverted you, Wretchskull, used the edit summary Reverted edits by Gandalf_the_Groovy (talk) to last revision by Gandalf the Groovy Do not remove templates without a valid reason. I myself question their assertion of template removal without a valid reason, as your diffs at a glance appear to make sense to me, but I suggest that you open a thread on the article's talk page (Talk:List of Cayman Islands hurricanes), pinging them (e.g., with {{U}} or {{ping}}), and ask them why they think the templates were removed without valid reasons. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:31, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

No worries about the situation! It completely glanced over me that you removed IMBD reviews. This is entirely my fault. I have also left a reply on my talk page :) Cheers Gandalf the Groovy! Wretchskull (talk) 00:36, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Finding my pages.

How do I find my pages on search. I have been trying but I can't find it. Are you guys okay (talk) 09:24, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Are you guys okay. I'm not sure what you mean by 'your' pages. The only page you seem to have created is your user page, user pages are not indexed by search engines in order to not distract from Wikipedia articles. If you'd like to create a Wikipedia article then you might want to read Your first article to get an idea of how it's done. --Paul ❬talk❭ 11:16, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

You can see your edit history at Special:Contributions/Are you guys okay and Special:Contributions/IWikepidsacusk. If you want to make some helpful contributions to English Wikipedia, see the unblock instructions at User talk:IWikepidsacusk. — Pelagic ( messages ) – (12:19 Sun 17, AEDT) 01:19, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

lost my user name and password

I lost my password and username. 72.128.200.47 (talk) 01:00, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

If you have an email associated with your account, you can click the "forgot password" link on the sign in page and it will email you your username and new password. If you don't have an e-mail for the account, then nothing can be done and you will need to create a new account. RudolfRed (talk) 01:21, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

January copy-edit drive

I've joined the copy-edit drive and have edited an article but am not sure how to add that article to my score on the drive page. Tips? Gandalf the Groovy (talk) 01:10, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

@Gandalf the Groovy: Go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Backlog elimination drives/January 2021 and click "Edit source". Scroll down to the end and you'll see your section. Look at the section above to see how another editor added their articles and do something similar in your section. If you need further help, you can ask for assistance at the associated talk page, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Backlog elimination drives/January 2021. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 01:38, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Gandalf the Groovy, the full instructions to adding articles to your list can be found on the drive page here. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Edit being reverted without giving any reason

Hi. I have noticed that my edits are being reverted by a editor without giving me a valid reason for the same. Would like to know what action can be taken in this scenario?

Secondly, just because I am from minority group within Baha'i Faith, is it not unjust that the people belonging to the majority group can try to supress my my point. --Asad29591 (talk) 14:05, 15 January 2021 (UTC) Asad29591 (talk) 14:05, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Asad29591, your edit is reverted because you're using WorldCat Identities, which are usually considered not reliable as a citation. It has nothing to do with your ethnicity, tribe, or race. Gerald WL 14:50, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

It looks to me like the WorkdCat link is just a catalogue entry for the book being cited. But also I don’t see how the quote about the 24 chosen ones relates to the rest of the section Baháʼí divisions#Guardianship which talks about nine Hands. Normally I’d say go to the talk page and discuss how to integrate your information, but after glancing at the article history and the talk, ... I don’t really know what to say. Pelagic ( messages ) – (12:47 Sun 17, AEDT) 01:47, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Help with nominating articles for deletion

Hi, I'm new to Wikipedia. I saw a questionable-looking article which I believe should be deleted, specifically Factory automation infrastructure. I believe the content of this article is entirely covered in Automation, and the former article just sounds like an advertisement. Could someone help me understand the AfD process? It looks very confusing. Thanks in advance. widgethocker (talk) 00:54, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Widgethocker. You can find out more about this in WP:DELETE and WP:AFD. Before nominating or tagging anything for deletion, however, you might want to take a look at WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE. This article was created back in 2014 and maybe it shouldn't have been, but there might be ways other than deletion (e.g. WP:MERGE or WP:REDIRECT) to resolve whatever issues it may have. Perhaps try asking about this at Wikipedia:WikiProject Technology to see what some of the members of that WikiProject may think before nominating it for deletion would be a good thing to do. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:17, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

@Widgethocker:, it is absolutely confusing, and when I first started, it felt like a labyrinth. Even as an experienced user (but only occasional "deleter") I had to make myself a cheat sheet, to summarize the process. Here's mine, which is tailored to someone (me) who has already done it a few times, when all's you need is an abbreviated step-by-step reminder; for a first-timer, this may feel like not enough, or mysterious:

Deletion process cheat sheet (Draft)

Disclaimer: this is still in test, and should be used with caution until verified.

This is a step-by-step summary of how to nominate a single page, ArticleName,^[a]^[b] for deletion, using the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion procedure.

The instructions below are generalized and require additional work from you to find the NominationName and other items to be used below. If you would like to have these instructions tailored specifically for the article you are nominating, you can view them in a new section in your sandbox by clicking this link.

Place the deletion tag on the article.Place the deletion tag on the article:
- First, log in; you won't be able to complete the process if you don't. IP users are unable to use this process.
- Insert {{subst:afd1}} (no parameters) at the top of the article you wish to nominate for deletion.
- Include in the edit summary: AfD: Nominated for deletion; see [[NominationName]].^[c]
- Do not mark the edit as minor. Save page.
Create deletion discussion pageCreate deletion discussion page:
- Find the NominationName and create Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NominationName to create the deletion discussion page.
- Add {{subst:afd2 |pg=ArticleName |cat=Category |text=Deletion reason}} ~~~~
  - Pick Category letter from Template:AfD categories
  - Write your Deletion reason text, referring to entries in WP:DEL-REASON (or WP:SPEEDY)
- Use edit summary Creating deletion discussion for [[ArticleName]] and save.

Add article to deletion logAdd the article to today's deletion log:

find the current deletion log,^[d] and open it for editing.

right now (2024-12-27 04:53 (UTC)) the current log is: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 December 27.^[e]

add {{subst:afd3}} to the top of the list at the current deletion log

how do I do that?

Edit the current deletion log: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 December 27
Look for a series of templates, with the 'Add new entries' hidden comment, and place your entry there:


{{subst:afd3 |pg=NominationName}} 
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Underground basket-weaving}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of Outer Slobovia}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bar coaster flipping}}

use edit summary: Listing [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NominationName]], and save the page.

Notify users and WikiProjectsNotify interested users and WikiProjects:
- notify creator^[f] and main editors^[g] by adding {{subst:Adw|ArticleName|NominationName}} to their user Talk page
- notify WikiProjects^[h] via Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Compact using same Adw template as above.
Update the deletion logUpdate the deletion log:
- go back to the same deletion log^[i] you added the article to earlier
- add one {{subst:delsort|Topic|~~~~}} template to the nomination for each WikiProject you notified.
  - Pick Topic from Deletion Sorting list.
This lets log viewers know what projects were notified, and prevents duplicate effort.

Explanatory notes

^ ArticleName: anyplace you see italics in the instructions, you need to substitute the appropriate text. For example, if you want to delete the article "Underground basket-weaving", then wherever you see ArticleName you should instead substitute "Underground basket-weaving". But see the boxed instructions at the top for a better way.
^ Nomination name: The first time a page is nominated for deletion, the NominationName is the same as ArticleName. After that, it takes on a parenthetical suffix to disambiguate it from previous nominations. The second time an article is nominated, it may be called, "ArticleName (2nd nomination)", and so on.
^ Substitute the article name you're nominating for deletion. If this article was nominated for deletion before, then use, "ArticleName (2nd nomination)" instead, "ArticleName (3rd nomination)" and so on; here, and everywhere else where NominationName appears in the instructions. But note that there's a much easier way to do this by clicking the link in the boxed material at the top of these instructions.
^ Deletion logs have the filename format [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/yyyy Month dd]]. The day is not zero-padded; so the log filename on New Year's Day is "...January 1" (not, "January 01").
^ The last time you loaded/refreshed this page, the time was 04:53 (UTC). If the UTC day could have changed since then, you may wish to refresh the page to ensure you are pointing to the correct log.
^ The page creator can be found in the Page Statistics tool, or by examining the page History, scrolling to the bottom of the page, and clicking the 'oldest' link if there is one.
^ The main editors of the page can be found by going to the Page Statistics tool and clicking 'Top editors'.
^ Which WikiProjects should you notify? The ones listed (usually) at the top of the Talk page of the article.
^ The deletion log has today's date on it, and rolls over to the next day at midnight UTC; be sure to use the same log as you did before in step 3.

You're actually in a great position to help me update it; if you could point out the areas above that don't make sense to a first-timer, or are completely opaque, I'd appreciate it; I might be able to rewrite it, and turn it into an essay which might actually help people trying it for the first time. I know it would have helped me. Lmk what you think. (please

mention me on reply; thanks!) Mathglot (talk) 04:55, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

@Mathglot: I think your cheat sheet makes decent sense, but I don't know on what page I'm supposed to place the template for notifying users or WikiProjects. I'm also confused with the last step. Am I supposed to replace <topic> with something? If so, what do I replace it with? widgethocker (talk) 16:42, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

@Widgethocker and Mathglot: I think all of the terms "article", "Article Name", "ArticleName", "PageName", "NominationName", "Article title", and "<topic>" are to be replaced by the article (page) name – in this case "Factory automation infrastructure" (all without the quotes). The same term should probably be used throughout, right? Or do some of them refer to the "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ArticleName" page or something else? —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 04:55, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, @Widgethocker and AlanM1:. Here's rev. 2.0 (above) with changes as suggested. This gave me some ideas for more clarifications; keep the suggestions coming... Mathglot (talk) 08:24, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

@Mathglot: A minor nit: you might want to clarify that the day in the log page is not 0-padded by using only one d in the pattern and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 January 5 as the example. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 01:29, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@AlanM1:, I did muse about that, but the thing is, it's not a pattern; it's a magic word that produces the actual correct value (so if you refresh tomorrow, the example will change). However, I can add another "note" to clarify it, which I'll do. The person using the cheat sheet, can actually click that example to go to the right place (at least, the first time, when creating it, they can; once I created an Afd a couple minutes before midnight UTC, and by the time I finished and wanted to add more info, it wasn't the same day anymore). Mathglot (talk) 02:47, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@Mathglot: I think the new version of your cheat sheet is greatly improved, and certainly helpful. I think you should turn the cheat sheet into a template (if you can, I'm not fully sure on how that works) so anyone could add it to their userpage for convenient reference. I would definitely use it! Also, perhaps you could highlight any placeholder text so we know what needs to be substituted?widgethocker (talk) 20:46, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@Widgethocker:, I'll create a Draft that you can use to include on your userpage. I should have something for you shortly. Mathglot (talk) 21:35, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@Widgethocker, AlanM1, and Marchjuly:, I have a draft available, and the collapse bar up above now transcludes it. There are a bunch of configuration options; notably you can specify what article you're interested in nominating for deletion, and then it will produce exactly the text you need to paste in to specific places.

For example, if you code {{Draft:Deletion process cheat sheet|art=Factory automation infrastructure}}, then you get this:

Deletion process how-to for Factory automation infrastructure

Disclaimer: this is still in test, and should be used with caution until verified.

This is a step-by-step summary of how to nominate a single page, Factory automation infrastructure, for deletion, using the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion procedure.

Deletion status summary

"Factory automation infrastructure" exists, and can be nominated for deletion. It has never been nominated for deletion under this name before. Use "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Factory automation infrastructure"^[a] as the nomination name.

Place the deletion tag on the article.Place the deletion tag on the article:
- First, log in; you won't be able to complete the process if you don't. IP users are unable to use this process.
- Insert {{subst:afd1}} (no parameters) at the top of Factory automation infrastructure. Do it now
- Include in the edit summary: AfD: Nominated for deletion; see [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Factory automation infrastructure]].
- Do not mark the edit as minor. Save page.
Create deletion discussion pageCreate deletion discussion page:
- Create deletion discussion for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Factory automation infrastructure and follow the instructions there (which are also found below).
- Add {{subst:afd2 |pg=Factory automation infrastructure |cat=Category |text=Deletion reason}} ~~~~
  - Pick Category letter from Template:AfD categories
  - Write your Deletion reason text, referring to entries in WP:DEL-REASON (or WP:SPEEDY)
- Use edit summary Creating deletion discussion for [[Factory automation infrastructure]] and save.

Add article to deletion logAdd the article to today's deletion log:

find the current deletion log,^[b] and open it for editing.

right now (2024-12-27 04:53 (UTC)) the current log is: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 December 27.^[c]

add {{subst:afd3}} to the top of the list at the current deletion log

how do I do that?

Edit the current deletion log: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 December 27
Look for a series of templates, with the 'Add new entries' hidden comment, and place your entry there:


{{subst:afd3 |pg=NominationName}} 
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Underground basket-weaving}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of Outer Slobovia}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bar coaster flipping}}

use edit summary: Listing [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Factory automation infrastructure]], and save the page.

Notify users and WikiProjectsNotify interested users and WikiProjects:
- notify creator^[d] and main editors^[e] by adding {{subst:Adw|Factory automation infrastructure|Factory automation infrastructure}} to their user Talk page
- notify WikiProjects^[f] via Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Compact using same Adw template as above.
Update the deletion logUpdate the deletion log:
- go back to the same deletion log^[g] you added the article to earlier
- add one {{subst:delsort|Topic|~~~~}} template to the nomination for each WikiProject you notified.
  - Pick Topic from Deletion Sorting list.
This lets log viewers know what projects were notified, and prevents duplicate effort.

Explanatory notes

^ This nomination name should be a red link. Is it blue? Then theres a problem; see documentation.
^ Deletion logs have the filename format [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/yyyy Month dd]]. The day is not zero-padded; so the log filename on New Year's Day is "...January 1" (not, "January 01").
^ The last time you previewed/saved this page, the time was 04:53 (UTC). If the UTC day could have changed since then, you may wish to preview again or refresh the page to ensure you are pointing to the correct log.
^ The page creator can be found in the Page Statistics tool, or by examining the page History, scrolling to the bottom of the page, and clicking the 'oldest' link if there is one.
^ The main editors of the page can be found by going to the Page Statistics tool and clicking 'Top editors'.
^ Which WikiProjects should you notify? The ones listed (usually) at the top of the Talk page of the article, i.e., Talk:Factory automation infrastructure.
^ The deletion log has today's date on it, and rolls over to the next day at midnight UTC; be sure to use the same log as you did before in step 3.

At this point, we should move discussion that is specifically about this draft cheat sheet template, away from the Tea house, and here instead:

Moved to Draft talk:Deletion process cheat sheet

Any other, more general discussion about your original question at the top of this section (exclusive of cheat sheet issues) should be added below. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 02:31, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Editors who do not speak English

As I browse Wikipedia, I am struck by the fact that the overwhelming majority of articles contain basic errors of grammar and style. I often fix these failings, but when the overwhelming majority of articles need not just minor copyedits here and there but major editing throughout, it is clear that there is a systemic problem, and my efforts are pretty much futile until that changes.

It is my impression that the majority of the failings I see are caused by editors who do not speak English. On almost any subject related to a German topic, for example, you will see a characteristic placement of commas which would be correct in German but is incorrect in English. On articles about Russian topics, you will often see the characteristic omission of articles, which do not exist in the Russian language. When I read Wikipedia articles I often find myself almost hearing them in a foreign accent, because it is so obvious that they were not written by a native English speaker.

An example of the harm non-English speakers do is this, in which a German speaker added a vast quantity of hopelessly inadequate text. The whole theory of Wikipedia is that it is self-correcting, and if someone adds bad text, someone else will fix it. But how many native English speakers have the time or energy to wade through utter crap like that and fix it?

So my questions: I really cannot understand why people who don't speak English edit English Wikipedia. Why did this German editor do what they did? Why, instead of editing German Wikipedia in the language they are fluent in, did they do such harm to English Wikipedia? Why does anyone who does not speak fluent English edit English Wikipedia anyway? And what can be done about this problem? 37.152.231.40 (talk) 12:23, 16 January 2021 (UTC) 37.152.231.40 (talk) 12:23, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. There are many reasons those for whom English is not a first language(or a language at all) might edit here. One big one is that most people around the world are aware that the English Wikipedia has the most articles and want to add to it. Others know the English version usually appears at the top of search results. I'm sure there are other reasons.

As Wikipedia can be accessed in most of the world, it would be difficult to keep out non-English speakers, and I'm not sure it would be a good idea to try. English speaking people can be anywhere in the world to edit, and those that don't speak English primarily often do make good contributions. The good outweighs the bad. Yes, tedious things like fixing grammar and spelling are part of life here(and plenty of English speakers make errors too), it's just the way it is. Wikipedia relies on volunteers doing what they can when they can, regardless of the tasks they decide to perform(and we don't force or hire people to perform particular tasks, people do what they choose). 331dot (talk) 12:31, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

And this is part of the reason why the Guild of Copy Editors exists. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 13:37, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

The example you quote, 37.152.231.40 is interesting because of its edit summary, which says, "1:1 translated content from german wiki, pls check for errors etc. thanks". So it would appear that the editor Salzburger Nockerl in question did indeed edit the German Wikipedia first and believed they were improving English Wikipedia by including an (admittedly poor) translation here. So there is a more subtle question: what is the balance to be struck between cases (as here) where the sources are mainly in German but the impact and notability of the topic is international? Were it not for the translated content, the English article would have been quite short and unlikely to get better unless German-language speakers intervened. I don't think there is a simple answer for this. The content that was added last November (for which my main criticism is WP:TLDR rather than poor English) certainly needs further work. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:56, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

"One big one is that most people around the world are aware that the English Wikipedia has the most articles and want to add to it." - I don't get the logic. Why, if you know you don't speak English fluently, would you think you should add to it?

"what is the balance to be struck between cases (as here) where the sources are mainly in German but the impact and notability of the topic is international?" - Personally, I think a well-written short article is infinitely preferable to a badly-written long article. "unlikely to get better unless German-language speakers intervened" strikes me as very unlikely, but if the demand is not there among English-speakers for a longer article, then that's fine with me. In the case I highlighted, I think the article would be better off if the badly-written text was removed entirely, and that's what I suggested on its talk page. 37.152.231.40 (talk) 15:30, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Assuming it was possible to objectively and effectively separate users with good/bad english I still think stopping them from editing wouldn't end well for the project overall. The thing is, as many articles as enwiki has, it lacks coverage in topics that are not of interest to the native speakers (even if those meet the notability criteria). Being written by volunteers the only way to get coverage on those topics is letting non-native speakers (that are willing to do so) handle them as well as they can and then go around fixing what needs fixing. Keep in mind I'm not defending machine translations (those are wrong for their own reasons) but 'hand translated' content. Ultimately native speakers of any language can and make mistakes in their own language so I don't think it would make sense to 'segregate' non native speakers from the biggest Wikipedia. josecurioso ❯❯❯ Tell me! 14:35, 16 January 2021 (UTC) Disclaimer: I am not a native english speaker, feel free to correct any mistakes and I'll learn from them.

"it lacks coverage in topics that are not of interest to the native speakers" - that is fine. Non-native speakers have Wikipedia in their own language where they can ensure coverage of things of interest to speakers of that language. I'd rather have no article on a topic than something badly-written. 37.152.231.40 (talk) 15:32, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

The distinction you want to make is not between L1 and L2 users of English, but between users who are sufficiently proficient and those who are not. Thousands and thousands of native speakers with a very shaky grasp of English grammar add information with various language errors to thousands and thousands of articles, and that is just as problematic as L2 (or L3, or L4) English speakers making errors caused by transfer from their L1. Not to mention all the marketing experts who add unintelligible jargon to articles, with no grammar issues but a vocabulary that only a marketer can love. I have to say that if it bothers you so much, you are just as free as the rest of us are to fix the issues.

What really causes a lot of harm is when editors (regardless of native language) in all good faith use automated tools such as Grammarly to blindly "fix" what the tool flags as a potential error. You have to have a very strong understanding of English grammar to use such a tool correctly, since most of the things it flags will be correct, and the tool's suggestion will be either flat out incorrect (often changing the meaning of a sentence), or a different, equally correct phrasing – or a different variant spelling that often violates WP:ENGVAR, just because Grammarly's settings interprets the variety used in the article as incorrect. This bothers me quite a lot, as you may be able to tell. --bonadea contributions talk 14:54, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

"I have to say that if it bothers you so much, you are just as free as the rest of us are to fix the issues" - that is not particularly helpful. I do fix these issues, as I already said, and as you can see from my contributions. But there is a systemic problem which means that the issues do not stay fixed and new issues are constantly created, in far greater numbers than can ever be dealt with. My fixes, and anyone else's, are just pissing in the wind at this point. 37.152.231.40 (talk) 15:32, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Not that I disagree that native speakers also add plenty of deficient material to the encyclopaedia. 37.152.231.40 (talk) 15:32, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't see how non-native users disrupt the project. Wikipedia is a development in progress. It will never be the perfect sum of all human knowledge as Jimmy Wales aspired to, because knowledge will never limit to a certain number, and there will always be a room for improvement, unless Wikipedia is The Library of Babel. One person edits --> others fix --> another polishes --> another adds --> another fixes --> another polishes --> becomes good content --> becomes featured content. Anyone with good intentions can edit Wikipedia, and that will always be how it is. Gerald WL 15:04, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

See the example I gave above of a German-speaker adding content of absolutely appalling quality. What happens more often on English Wikipedia is that one person adds bad content --> nobody fixes it --> it remains bad content forever. Good intentions should be a necessary but not sufficient requirement for editing. The German-speaker was well-meaning but undoubtedly caused serious and lasting harm to that article. 37.152.231.40 (talk) 15:31, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

"Lasting harm" is not likely to be caused by content added to an article that, if a reader finds flawed, might be moved to edit. And second, I see no means of imposing a language proficiency test as a requirement for editing an article. David notMD (talk) 16:06, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I have seen thousands of articles which are seriously deficient in quality and have been for years, and in a huge number of them, it's clear that people who don't speak English have introduced the most severe errors. A language proficiency test? No. But there is no quality control mechanism of any kind on Wikipedia, and you can see the lasting damage from that everywhere. 37.152.231.40 (talk) 17:29, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Please tell me, who shall conduct an exam for me to confirm I can edit enwiki? Are you going to define exam criteria? --CiaPan (talk) 17:01, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I like how you wrote that in an unidiomatic way (it should be "should", not "shall") :) I assume that you know your English is not perfect, so you are exactly the kind of editor I am curious about. Why do you edit English Wikipedia? 37.152.231.40 (talk) 17:29, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I.P you aren't going to achieve anything with this veiled xenophobic rhetoric and I suggest you cease it. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia 'anyone can edit' and always will be. Our community is blessed to have members from diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds; end of story. Zindor (talk) 17:56, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Accusing me of xenophobia is a serious personal attack. You should withdraw that. Anyone can edit Wikipedia, but not everyone should. Competence is supposed to be required. English Wikipedia is supposed to be a work of high quality in the English language, is it not? It should not be controversial to ask why people who do not speak the English language fluently edit it anyway. Yes, there are plenty of English speakers who do great damage through incompetence as well. That is a different problem. The problems caused by people who don't speak English are extremely apparent to me and that's what I'm pursuing right now. 37.152.231.40 (talk) 18:11, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not withdrawing anything. If you're acting unconsciously that's even worse. You specifically singled out non-native English speakers to what end? What did you intend to achieve through that, which could not be done by demanding higher English standards across the board? We aspire to high standards but not to the point of snobbery, exclusion and alienating members of our community. Zindor (talk) 18:27, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Your defiant personal attack is duly noted. 37.152.231.40 (talk) 18:58, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

English Wikipedia is supposed to be a work of high quality in the English language, is it not? No, it is not. "Decent" would be enough as far as grammar, syntax etc. is concerned; an article with subpar English but a well thought-out organization of content/ideas would beat an article from someone with superior English but inferior writing skills. As an example, I would not bat an eye if I saw a sentence in an article start by English Wikipedia is supposed to be... instead of the correct The English Wikipedia is supposed to be..., because such a minor mistake would not make the text impossible to understand. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 12:33, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

1. No, it shouldn't be should, I mean a pre-determined future, not a condition or a supposition.
2. You needn't guess or infer from my writing, you can simply ask me or check at my User: page what my own estimate of my proficiency in English is.
3. It's only my business why I do edit here. You're free to run through my contribution, though, and evaluate its factual correctness, usefulness and language quality. --CiaPan (talk) 18:12, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

You are wrong. "Who shall" in the way you used it is not idiomatic. It is an archaic construction. I wonder how you would feel if you noticed that huge numbers of articles on Polish Wikipedia contained grammatical errors characteristic of non-Polish speakers? 37.152.231.40 (talk) 18:33, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Me too. --CiaPan (talk) 18:37, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

OK, it seems like people are getting emotionally charged over this, and they would benefit from stepping back for a while. I see that WP:CIR was brought up. Let me quote the items as to what CIR is and is not that best apply to this discussion:

the ability to read and write English well enough to avoid introducing incomprehensible text into articles and to communicate effectively.
the ability to understand their own abilities and competencies, and avoid editing in areas where their lack of skill and/or knowledge causes them to create significant errors for others to clean up.
It does not mean one must be a native English speaker. There is no expectation that editors have high English skills. Minor spelling and grammar mistakes can be fixed by others. If poor English prevents an editor from writing comprehensible text directly in articles, they can instead post a change request on the article talk page. Emphasis added.

I get that the English Wikipedia is the most popular Wikipedia project: English is the global lingua franca that many nations use to communicate with others. This is where the presence of multilingual editors would be helpful. If incomprehensible text or significant errors are introduced, they are, from what I've seen, eventually reverted or discussed on the article's talk page.

I find it to be an unfortunate but inevitable downside of the volunteering aspect of the project. Articles will be made by contributors who are not proficient in English, and some of them will be overlooked by other volunteers for a variety of reasons. The most one can do is either fix the issues themselves or get the attention of other interested editors. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:36, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

From what I've seen, incomprehensible text and significant errors typically are not removed for years. I find it very unfortunate but not at all inevitable. What one could do is introduce some basic quality control into Wikipedia. A means of rating the quality of other peoples's edits, for example, and a system to prevent the most egregious errors from ever getting into the encyclopaedia. If Wikipedia was ambitious and had high standards, you could envisage that edit filters would be used to flag possible errors, apply the manual of style, and ensure, for example, that nobody would write "won't" where "will not" is required in formal writing (this is one of the characteristic errors of non-English speakers that I see frequently). If you trust everything to volunteers working without any particular quality incentive, you will not get a high quality encyclopaedia. It seems to me that the policies which got Wikipedia off the ground, and worked well in the early 2000s, somehow became an inflexible ideology even though the fundamental needs of the project changed years ago. 37.152.231.40 (talk) 20:51, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Edit filters wouldn't work, because that would run afoul of preserving quotations that use contractions (d in particular is one that would require a fine eye to determine its meaning), and I find rating systems to be exploitable, even on Wikipedia. I think the implementation of systems like AFC (which I believe has only been implemented for seven, eight years?), have severely reduced the amount of grievous errors, if the number of questions about declined drafts on here or the help desk are any indication. Even the most fluent of English speakers make a mistake from time to time, and it wouldn't be great if their contributions were gated for missing a letter. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:24, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Seems to me it would be quite simple to have a system that checks your edit and if it finds a contraction, points it out and asks you to confirm that it is used validly - as it would be if in a direct quote. I don't doubt that every single editor makes mistakes - personally, I would be absolutely delighted if there were mechanisms to prevent as many as possible of them from ever being made. If my edits got held up when I made a mistake, I'd be delighted. A model without quality control which assumes that someone will clean up any mess requires the effort of cleaning up to be made over and over and over again. 37.152.231.40 (talk) 23:18, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I want to extend a personal invitation to all editors whose first language is not English and wish to edit English Wikipedia:

Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. You are welcome here at English Wikipedia, and we are glad you are here, volunteering your time in order to improve the encyclopedia.

There is absolutely no requirement to have native fluency in English in order to edit here, and as long as you have sufficient command of English that your intent is clear, someone will come along afterward and fix up any problems of spelling or grammar. Please ignore any comments that native fluency is either required or needed; that is not true, and does not represent any policy of Wikipedia. On the other hand, there are policies and guidelines that guide our editing here, starting with The Five Pillars; but nowhere is there anything about English fluency. If an editor's level of English is non-existent, or so poor that they cannot edit without relying on WP:MACHINETRANSLATION, then they should not edit here, but anyone who can make their intent clear in English regardless of grammar faults or other errors of English, is more than welcome. Thanks again for your contributions, and keep up the good work! Mathglot (talk) 19:56, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

"someone will come along afterward and fix up any problems of spelling or grammar" - yes, that's the theory, but they almost certainly won't. Horrible errors of grammar and style typically persist for years. I want to extend a personal request to all editors whose first language is not English and wish to edit English Wikipedia: unless you are truly fluent, then don't. This is just common sense. I extend that courtesy myself to the Wikipedias in the languages I speak which are not English. 37.152.231.40 (talk) 20:51, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I am not native in English either; why am I not welcomed? Are my contributions wrong? I've made an article GA and have expanded several articles, created some-- are those a mistake? If you only allow fluents to edit, then you'll only have US, UK, and Australian people editing, and lo ahold this is the Western Wikipedia. American Wikipedia. British Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a work in progress, and instead of ranting bad grammar, why not fix it? Sorry, but considering what WP is, I feel personally attacked. Gerald WL 07:57, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Among our six million articles, there are, I would guess, tens of thousands of articles that are seriously deficient in one way or another. Incomprehensible text is one. Non-neutral text is another. Promotional text is a third. Complete lack of independent reliable sources is a fourth. I'm sure there are more. Incomprehensible text is perhaps the most likely to be obvious; but in my view it is less damaging to the encyclopaedia than the other three I listed, because it is obvious. They are all a consequence of our "anyone can edit" policy. I acknowledge you for your efforts in cleaning up the first category: your services are appreciated. But I don't find your proposed solution to be consistent with our principles. --ColinFine (talk) 21:32, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I'd guess, from my experience, that at least 5.9 million of the 6 million are seriously deficient in one way or another. Literally almost every article I look at contains some serious deficiency. I can't remember the last time I read an article and did not find some serious deficiency. The language errors that I've noted in this thread are the most glaring, and I have seen thousands of articles which have undoubtedly been damaged by non-English speakers, although it's certainly true that other subtler problems are just as damaging. But imagine an encyclopaedia where there is a mechanism to prevent certain glaring errors from ever being introduced. Imagine the amount of labour saved if nobody has to clean up the same errors over and over again. I'm glad you appreciate my efforts to clean up the tiny fraction of the errors that one person can clean up, but like I said above, it's pissing in the wind at this point. If I just had to fix egregious failings in one in every ten articles I read, I'd think that was still far too high a rate. But it's very close to ten out of ten articles that I read. What proportion of articles that you read do you find to be free of significant failings? 37.152.231.40 (talk) 23:18, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@37.152.231.40: The charter of the Tea House, is: A friendly place where you can ask questions to get help with using and editing Wikipedia. Please let's all try and stick with the "friendly", and the "answering questions" and the "help" part of that. Your argument would be well worth bringing to the appropriate forum for discussion, however this is not the right place for it. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 02:18, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

[1] "Corporations halt political donations, with some singling out Republicans". www.cbsnews.com. Retrieved 2021-01-12.

[2] Feiner, Salvador Rodriguez,Lauren (2021-01-11). "Amazon, Microsoft, Facebook and others pause political contributions after U.S. Capitol riot". CNBC. Retrieved 2021-01-12.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

[Smith_(1978)-3] Smith, Charles J (1978). Historic South Edinburgh Volume 1. Edinburgh: Charles Skilton Ltd. p. 146.

[FOOTNOTESmith_(1978)148-4] Smith (1978), p. 148.

[FOOTNOTELovetteFitzpatrick2016181-5] Lovette & Fitzpatrick 2016, p. 181.

[FOOTNOTELovetteFitzpatrick2016232-6] Lovette & Fitzpatrick 2016, p. 232.

[7] ArticleName: anyplace you see italics in the instructions, you need to substitute the appropriate text. For example, if you want to delete the article "Underground basket-weaving", then wherever you see ArticleName you should instead substitute "Underground basket-weaving". But see the boxed instructions at the top for a better way.

[8] Nomination name: The first time a page is nominated for deletion, the NominationName is the same as ArticleName. After that, it takes on a parenthetical suffix to disambiguate it from previous nominations. The second time an article is nominated, it may be called, "ArticleName (2nd nomination)", and so on.

[9] Substitute the article name you're nominating for deletion. If this article was nominated for deletion before, then use, "ArticleName (2nd nomination)" instead, "ArticleName (3rd nomination)" and so on; here, and everywhere else where NominationName appears in the instructions. But note that there's a much easier way to do this by clicking the link in the boxed material at the top of these instructions.

[10] Deletion logs have the filename format [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/yyyy Month dd]]. The day is not zero-padded; so the log filename on New Year's Day is "...January 1" (not, "January 01").

[11] The last time you loaded/refreshed this page, the time was 04:53 (UTC). If the UTC day could have changed since then, you may wish to refresh the page to ensure you are pointing to the correct log.

[12] The page creator can be found in the Page Statistics tool, or by examining the page History, scrolling to the bottom of the page, and clicking the 'oldest' link if there is one.

[13] The main editors of the page can be found by going to the Page Statistics tool and clicking 'Top editors'.

[14] Which WikiProjects should you notify? The ones listed (usually) at the top of the Talk page of the article.

[15] The deletion log has today's date on it, and rolls over to the next day at midnight UTC; be sure to use the same log as you did before in step 3.

[16] This nomination name should be a red link. Is it blue? Then theres a problem; see documentation.

[17] Deletion logs have the filename format [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/yyyy Month dd]]. The day is not zero-padded; so the log filename on New Year's Day is "...January 1" (not, "January 01").

[18] The last time you previewed/saved this page, the time was 04:53 (UTC). If the UTC day could have changed since then, you may wish to preview again or refresh the page to ensure you are pointing to the correct log.

[19] The page creator can be found in the Page Statistics tool, or by examining the page History, scrolling to the bottom of the page, and clicking the 'oldest' link if there is one.

[20] The main editors of the page can be found by going to the Page Statistics tool and clicking 'Top editors'.

[21] Which WikiProjects should you notify? The ones listed (usually) at the top of the Talk page of the article, i.e., Talk:Factory automation infrastructure.

[22] The deletion log has today's date on it, and rolls over to the next day at midnight UTC; be sure to use the same log as you did before in step 3.

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[a]

[b]

[c]

[d]

[e]

[f]

[g]

[h]

[i]

[a]

[b]

[c]

[d]

[e]

[f]

[g]