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.
Hi. I noticed that the Category, Cemeteries in South Yorkshire has no articles but has one subcategory, Cemeteries in Sheffield. (there is a similar situation with Cemeteries in Merseyside). It seems unhelpful to have a category with one member so in this case wouldn't it make more sense for one of those levels to go? My feeling is that it would be best to move all the articles up a level, and then delete the more granular category as unnesersary, does that make sense? -- D'n'B-t -- 09:17, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Inclusion of Image of Anime Characters Wearing Bloomers in Bloomers article which has a 'Bloomers in Japan' section: Clarification on Non-Free Content Criteria
I've added an image of anime characters wearing bloomers to a gallery under a section about 'Bloomers in Japan' on Wikipedia. However, there's a dispute over whether the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content. The concern raised is related to WP:NFCC#8, regarding "contextual significance." I believe the image adds value by visually representing the cultural phenomenon of bloomers in Japanese media. How can I address this concern and ensure that the image meets the criteria for inclusion? Are there any steps I can take to strengthen its contextual significance within the Bloomers article or more specifically the section called, Bloomers in Japan? TreeElf (talk) 01:25, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
TreeElf, the image does not visually represent bloomers, bloomers in Japanese media, or (as far as I can guess its meaning) "the cultural phenomenon of bloomers in Japanese media". It's an image of girls wearing knickers, aka panties. As it happens, in Japanese these are called burumā (or buruma), words derived from the English word bloomers. Their commoner referents are not bloomers, and the relevance of these referents to this article are tenuous at best. (It's as if fr:Menu (restauration) were to have a section on menus gourmands with a subsection on the anglophone sphere, illustrated by an obese "gourmand" [in the English sense] perusing a "menu" [ditto].) So its dubious copyright status aside, this picture doesn't belong in the article. -- Hoary (talk) 05:04, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
My guidance doesn't seem to have been effective, TreeElf, in that the article on bloomers is now illustrated with a picture of a woman who's not wearing bloomers but instead is wearing a garment whose common name (burumā) in Japanese happens to derive from the English word "bloomers". Should the article on Naples be illustrated with a photo of naporitan? -- Hoary (talk) 11:02, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
How to add a photo gallery?
Hello, I am trying to add a photo gallery to the Hanuman page and I cannot figure out how to use the template to do that. Can someone help me? Hemmingweigh (talk) 12:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
@Hemmingweigh See Help:Pictures#Galleries. Note the guidance at the top about checking whether your proposed use is in line with image use policy. You could try out the proposed gallery in your sandbox, where other editors could assist if needed. Ask back here if you get stuck. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:38, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Hemmingweigh, if you do decide that a gallery is right for that article, then when you use the gallery tag you can just leave out the square brackets - like this:
Hello, my wife's wiki page is very out of date, incomplete and inaccurate. I tried to edit it myself and was told that was a COI, which I fully understand now (I've never edited a wiki before). It was suggested that I post here to get help from other editors to update it with COI tags and proper sourcing. I have an updated entry ready to go, any help would be greatly appreciated! Here is her page:
We appreciate your making full disclosure of your conflict of interest. Post on the article's talk page, explaining what changes you'd like. DS (talk) 15:51, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello, I posted my request on the talk page but have gotten no responses. Am I supposed to notify editors here in the Teahouse? Or should I use the Edit Request Editor? Sorry for my confusion. Nycwriter2 (talk) 14:30, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
@Nycwriter2 One advantage to using the wizard is that your suggestion ends up in a template ({{edit COI}}) which alerts editors who work on these requests: see the template link. Some articles have very few watchers, so no-one may otherwise notice your request. You'll get faster responses if you make things as simple as possible for others by adding one edit request per suggestion and use a format like "Change X to Y, please, based on such-and-such reference". Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:45, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Be sure to provide reliable sources which corroborate the information you want to add or change. Please note that sources that host user-generated content without editorial oversight are not considered reliable. In particular, neither IMDB nor BroadwayWorld are considered reliable; see WP:RSP for a list of commonly discussed sources. CodeTalker (talk) 16:12, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
This page has recently been nominated for deletion. I am not very familiar on the deletion process, and was wondering if anyone here could take a look at the discussion for deletion, which has been ongoing and lengthy.
The subject of the article involves a term that I invented years ago (Techspressionism), initially to describe my own work that has since developed into an active artist community that I have had a role in developing.
Since the article's nomination for deletion, I invited some of the other artists in the community to weigh in, as I know the community's deletion from Wikipedia is an issue that would be important for them to learn about.
Also, I am an artist, and it has been brought to my attention that making any edits on the page about me is a COI so I have declared a COI on my user page for this article as well. Both the page on Techspressionism and on myself were created in collaboration with an editor who is part of the artist community, who offered his assistance - he has also declared a COI for these articles, and revised the sourcing, but the COI templates remain on both articles.
An experienced editor let me know that some of the sources were good, and some are questionable, so I have created a draft in my user sandbox using only the sources they identified as valid and requested a formal request for edit on the article talk page at this editor's suggestion: Talk:Colin_Goldberg
Does this seem like a proper way to move forward? I was directed here to the Teahouse by another editor who weighed in on the discussion for deletion for Techspressionism, and I would appreciate any input, guidance and advice that can be offered with regards to these articles, their sourcing and notability, which appear to be the primary concerns, and the best way for me to proceed, if I should do anything further at all. I would like to remain an active member of the Wikipedia community, but this experience has been quite frustrating, and I have been trying to navigate it as best I can.
How to follow the active debate on Wikipedia bias?
EDIT: Thanks all I got some helpful resources here and I’m going to continue the conversation in some of the more targeted venues. Thanks again
How can editors follow the active debate over alleged left-leaning bias[1] on wikipedia? What teams are working on it? Are there RFCs or projects helping to research, understand and assess?
Specifically, who is addressing left-leaning bias that affects reporting on [2]over political issues like Communism, Far Right and how we associate biography pages with these political affiliations.
This question is more about understanding the process & people involved than finding a conclusion to whether Wikipedia is biased at all.
Are there projects or committees that are actively addressing this topic? I see lots of discussions on talk pages, but those can be chaotic, hard to follow , and don’t seem to lead to a conclusion or decision.
The allegations may be unfounded but they are certainly not strange. Greater critics than me have raised them and they are worth addressing even if they are wrong. Tonymetz💬23:39, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Here’s a good example discussion [1] with no clear resolution
What I’m asking for is how editors can follow those types of discussions and understand any resolution. And who is responsible for those resolutions? Tonymetz💬00:08, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
@TonymetzI see lots of discussions on talk pages, but those can be chaotic, hard to follow , and don’t seem to lead to a conclusion or decision. That is, however, our process, so if you're looking for discussion of these issues on Wikipedia, that's where you're likely to find it.
In addition to what other editors have mentioned, your question seems also to be based on the premise that, because it has been claimed by outside commenters that Wikipedia has this or that bias, there must be some central authority that (a) takes that claim seriously, and (b) has the responsibility of formulating a response (either to the allegation, or to the bias).
None of those things are true. The content of any given Wikipedia article is the product and responsibility of the editors who contributed to that article. There is no editorial board overseeing their work, and there is no approval process for "publication" (other than some peer review, if an article under pending changes protection is edited by anonymous or inexperienced editors). In short, There is no cabal, not even the Cabal to Eliminate Political Bias.
Plenty of people discuss Wikipedia's purported systemic biases, often at great length and with furious passion. But it's rarely discussed on Wikipedia, because discussing anything in the context of "all of Wikipedia" is just too broad to be useful. Specific accusations of a particular instance of biased content would most appropriately be discussed on the Talk page of the article in question. Any discussion anywhere else would most likely be directed there. FeRDNYC (talk) 11:20, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
I’ll call this “the wikipedia myth” . In reality, less than a fraction of a percent of Wikipedia accounts are editors [2] Among those, only a sliver participate in editing controversial pages. When a minority change is made, it’s usually overridden / reverted. When there’s an edit war, the page is locked.
Again, I’m not here to argue in favor of the bias. My question is about how any controversial topic is managed and resolved. There’s a lot of content on the early phase of conflict resolution [3], but little info on how resolutions and decisions are made. Tonymetz💬18:55, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
In reality, less than a fraction of a percent of Wikipedia accounts are editors A more accurate statement is, "less than a fraction of a percent of Wikipedia accounts edit pages". But don't take that to mean that the rest of the accounts have some other responsibility BESIDES editing pages. In truth, all accounts are editors (anyone can edit), heck even non-accounts are editors, since you can edit English Wikipedia without being logged in.
Most account-holders don't, or only rarely, avail themselves of that ability, though, it's true. (And it's something many people are always looking for ways to improve.) The rest of them either use their accounts only for reading, or don't use their accounts at all. (There are metric bit-tons of abandoned accounts.)
When changes are reverted, those reverts are nearly always performed by peers (other editors) — just like anyone can edit, anyone can revert someone else's edit. That's not an administrative/managerial action, it's an edit like any other.
When pages are protected, that's an Administrator action which any user can request. If the article's edit history shows a pattern of disruptive editing, it's protected to prevent further disruption. It's most definitely not a decision to lock the content in any particular state. In fact, administrators are well known for protecting The Wrong Version of the article. FeRDNYC (talk) 06:34, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Larry Sanger is deeply biased against Wikipedia and has been glaringly wrong about online encyclopedias for over 20 years. Nothing he says should be taken at face value or given much attention. Cullen328 (talk) 02:16, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
That’s a great resource thanks. Do things ever resolve from the talk page? A decision or RFC ? I find the talk pages overwhelming. Tonymetz💬04:57, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Tonymetz, there is no index of places to watch; there is no committee working on it, for or against. Wikipedia is a volunteer project where nobody has more authority over content than anyone else. The bias, where they are there, are there 1. because the world itself has bias and Wikipedia is a tertiary source and/or 2. because of the makeup of the editorbase working on an article. It would not be an organised group of editors or an editorial committee in or outside of Wikipedia deliberately working to make it so.People who come in with the notion that they're going to fix Wikipedia get into trouble very soon because there are no heroes and villains here. Wikipedia is just what happens when you build a wiki encyclopedia on the internet under the United States laws in the early 21st century. That said, to provide you the information you are looking for with the understanding that how you use it is your sole responsibility, you probably want to start by watching the reliable sources noticeboard and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Politics, government, and law, perhaps WT:USA as well if you're an American. The first two pages will give a list of discussions most of which will get clear resolutions. The discussions are evaluated by editors who are not involved in those discussions, as explained at WP:CLOSE. — Usedtobecool☎️06:40, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
The idea that there is no authority or status is a bit disingenuous and almost a myth here. There are committees e.g. for WP:ARC , WP:SPI and others. Plus older and higher volume accounts end up having more authority when edits are accepted, and when new articles are published. Some articles are only editable by certain users. Not anyone can write an WP:RFC or edit WP:MOS
What I’m aiming to do is understand how resolutions are made and enforced.
Ensuring the harmonious implementation of the project's editor consensus-developed protocols governing the creation and development of all types of pages are editors elected or appointed to certain roles: i.e., functionaries like stewards and the Arbitration Committee, alongside bureaucrats, and administrators, all of whom ultimately derive their own authority from the Wikimedia Foundation.
are two resources that come close to model for what I was looking for. thanks again for your help , you pointed me down the right thread. Tonymetz💬21:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
He’s not alone. Visit controversial pages on politics and popular science you will see a vigorous debate over this. Tonymetz💬19:01, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Requesting information regarding copyrights status of image
Hello, this is my first post/comment/question on Tea House.
Well, I have a question, I have been working to develop an article, and recently it was proposed on March 21, 2024, for deletion: Baris Ozgur, and now I have received a notification that the image that I have used in the article (I had uploaded it at Wiki Commons) is violating copyrights as the same picture is being used by a person on LinkedIn (I assume the subject of the article is on LinkedIn).
However, the subject of the matter is that I have not taken this photo from LinkedIn but from another source, i.e., https://filmfreeway.com/BARISOZGUR. Now what is the way forward. Can I use this? as I thought this photo was publicly available in a public database.
The site seems quite specific that it isn't a free resource based on their about page, which says that creators retain 100% of the rights to the things they upload. You would have to get permission from the subject to use their image or ask them very nicely to upload one to Wikipedia themselves. CommissarDoggoTalk?19:38, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Sibtehassanbutt, to be perfectly clear, you cannot upload any image to Wikimedia Commons unless you have written evidence that the image is freely licensed, or convincing evidence that the image is in the public domain, or you are the photographer and are willing to freely license the image in a legally acceptable way. Otherwise, do not upload any image because you are at risk of violating copyright law. Cullen328 (talk) 10:06, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
COMMENT: Alright, thanks for your guidance. I have a few questions here:
I want to use my own picture for my user page, do I need to give Wikimedia Commons written permission?
Wikimedia Commons is blocked in certain areas of the world (see: Censorship of Wikipedia) by the local authorities, and on top of that, Wikipedia doesn't allow logging in through VPNs. What is the recommended course of action in such a situation? Sibtehassanbutt (talk) 12:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Sibtehassanbutt, if you upload a selfie to Wikimedia Commons, you are the copyright holder and you will need to freely license the image in writing. This happens during the upload process. If someone else took the photo, then it would be best for that person to upload the photo. As for dealing with restrictions on VPNs, please read Wikipedia:Open proxies. Cullen328 (talk) 19:33, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello, I am new here, but plan to propose edits to the Talk page of an article to which I have a COI. Can you please confirm that the allowances for directly correcting minor hard fact errors like an incorrect date, spelling or grammar mistakes, or updating the organization’s existing link is still acceptable? (I would include an edit summary to any such changes.) Thank you! Oshentree (talk) 23:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
@Oshentree The FAQ page is correct: there are some things that you can change directly rather than by edit request via the Talk Page. However, note that (at the top) it says you still need to disclose your COI. You can do this in the edit summary or on your own userpage. One of Wikipedia's core principles is to assume good faith but we want editors to be open about any COI. The guidance at WP:COI points out that having a COI is a description of a situation, not a judgment about that person's opinions, integrity, or good faith.Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:09, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Thank you very much. Yes I posted COI disclosure on my userpage shortly after creating an account and prior to the teahouse query. I fully intend to follow all guidelines and protocols to become a trustworthy, successful contributor. I appreciate the clarification and advice regarding the FAQ as I continue to read through guidance documentation. Regards, Oshentree (talk) 19:42, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Absurdity of a page
The first sentence of Wikipedia:Edit lock is blatantly false. Page protection is a software tool which locks an article from editing. I don't know how such obviously false information is allowed to stand, especially in a Wikipedia namespace page that will be viewed by novice editors. Kk.urban (talk) 16:23, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
And in the very next sentence it says "Page protection is never to be used for closing down an article's normal development and community editing." That is the main point. Page protection prevents users below a certain edit count and amount of days on the platform, it doesn't create an outright edit lock for all users.
This is not an insurmountable problem in the majority of cases either, where semi-protection will be used; preventing accounts that are younger than 4 days old with less than 10 edits and IP users. An example of this would be on controversial pages or those with high levels of traffic/editing - see Crocus City Hall attack, which has been under semi-protection for the majority of its short life. These page protections aren't even outright bars to people editing the pages under protection, you can make edit requests if you don't have the necessary user permissions level.
You seem to be assuming some particular meaning of "edit lock". This is not clear. Page protection creates "an outright edit lock" for some users, not all users. For a typical user, it doesn't matter if page protection was used "for closing down an article's normal development and community editing", or for some other purpose - whatever the case, they can't edit the article. Many of the most visible pages are either semi-protected, or extended-protected. The first sentence needs to be changed. Kk.urban (talk) 16:39, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
I think the confusion is because that page is all about what editors can do if they want to indicate the article is WP:INUSE (which is its shortcut). Viz This page is about templates used while an article is undergoing a major edit. Page protection is something else. You could edit the WP:INUSE page to make this clearer. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:46, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
That's awesome. Some things to keep in mind, Wikipedia is not a advertisement site. If the game is popular enough, an article could be created. Hope this is helpful. Cwater1 (talk) 23:07, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Please see the general notability guidelines, there's a good chance that a newly created card game will unfortunately not meet them. You'll need to wait until enough reliable, secondary sources report on the game to make the page.
You're kind of in a conflict of interest, you know? Writting about your own game? If the game is relevant enough, there'll be sources from reliable third parties about it. It'll be a test of its relevance : other people creating pages about it with multiple sources about it without your influence is a show of a popular game. 142.170.60.247 (talk) 00:06, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
How do I avoid taking issues to ANI unless absolutely necessary
I want to be sure I have exhausted all available avenues before going to ANI. In all my years of editing I don't think I've ever had to use it. I have been trying to resolve an AGF issue I'm having with another editor for months (since Aug). The few times we interact it seems like they always end up accusing me of things on article talk pages. I have tried to convince them that we need to use personal talk pages to make personal remarks/warnings and they seem to just ignore me and change the subject, or continue to focus on getting the answer they want while refusing to acknowledge there might be an issue. I've told them that I'm willing to take responsibility as well in order to show I am not trying to put all the blame on them, but they seem to continue ignoring the issue. I tried telling them it's getting to the point where I don't want to participate when they get involved in discussions. I pointed out that instead of criticizing my arguments they tend to criticize me. I have been to their talk page multiple times but nothing I say seems to get through to them. I told them I don't want to take it to ANI because I don't want to waste admins time on something as basic as AGF. What else should I do? DN (talk) 04:56, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
So you don't think I should take it to ANI, and there's nothing else to do but let them keep accusing me of being disruptive? DN (talk) 18:31, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
I didn't mean that in a cynical manner, I'm just trying to get some more clarification and detail. Cheers. DN (talk) 20:24, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
If this person seems to be impossible to avoid and nearly always gets involved in discussions you're involved in, playing devil's advocate each and every time, making assertions and remarks about you all the while, it's harassment of a user, and constitutes ANI. If this person is avoidable, drop the stick. — Mugtheboss (talk) 21:16, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
I'm unclear on the editor bar for scientific articles with numerous peer-reviewed sources cited.
Hello...my original draft was declined by an editor. It appears the key points to improve were: formal tone, including independent sources (which I had, all my sources are peer-reviewed for claims and statements), and removal of 'peacocking' terms. I've scrubbed and re-worked the article, but I'm not sure if it clears the bar for the three points above. Can someone please let me know if this article now still falls foul of the guidelines? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Differential_Hall_Effect_Metrology_(DHEM)Semiconengineering (talk) 04:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
@Semiconengineering: Welcome to the Teahouse! I see you have resubmitted your draft, so now the yellow box at the top of your draft states "Review waiting, please be patient. This may take 2 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order." Eventually, someone will review the draft and let you know if the draft is now ready to become an article. You may continue improving the draft while you are waiting, or use your skills to improve other articles. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 04:52, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. I guess what I'm trying to convey is that is the 'bar' or 'standard' written down someplace for me to compare and ensure, or is it 'tribal' knowledge? Semiconengineering (talk) 04:54, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Several relevant standards are WP:TONE, WP:RS, and WP:PEACOCK. I don't know much of anything about this article's topic so I can't comment on the sourcing specifically, but a common mistake among WP editors is thinking that being a peer-reviewed journal article is the qualification for being a reliable source. DMacks (talk) 06:13, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
There's also the question of independent sources: in order to meet the bar of notability, any subject must have been written about by people unconnected with the subject. When the subject is an academic theory or approach, this means that people unconnected with those who originated or publicised the subject need to have written about it. (I haven't looked at the particular article to see how far that is the case; but it is an additional criterian that DMacks did not mention). ColinFine (talk) 09:25, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
The draft as written presumes a readership with degrees in electical engineering. Large wads of text - up to entire paragraphs - are without references. As a small example " Development of next-generation semiconductor technologies comes with escalated costs due to ever increasing technical challenges and extended development cycles needed to meet such challenges." - is that your thinking or a referenced source? David notMD (talk) 11:49, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Good point. This is common knowledge within industry that certainly needs to be supported by an independent peer-reviewed reference. The articles on other measurement techniques e.g.: SIMS (Secondary ion mass spectrometry) and Scanning probe microscopy, contain many such industry knowledge statements - I guess when those were published the bar was different. I have made the updates to the draft. Semiconengineering (talk) 05:17, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
I believe the article clears the notability bar, references are from a wide variety of authors. The references are from high-quality peer-reviewed sources so it would also clear the reliable scholarship bar. Thanks again for the pointers and suggestions. Thanks for making this article better. Semiconengineering (talk) 03:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Image wrapping
Hi, I'm wondering if someone can tell me why text doesn't wrap more closely to images. For example, go to this page and scroll down until you see a black-and-white photo of George Lucas from 1986. There is a chunk of white space below the image, which is clearly enough room for another line of text, but the text doesn't wrap that closely, making the end result visually unappealing. Why does this happen, and is there anything I can do about it? I tried moving the image around in the section, but in every position the same thing happened. Wafflewombat (talk) 05:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
I deleted the addition of text, image and ref. Please first make a case for it on the Talk page, as to me it feels too minor compared to the other artists' inclusions. And wouldn't his art still be copyright protected? David notMD (talk) 11:41, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
What to do when a recent article is almost entirely copyvio (since creation)
Hi and welcome to the Teahouse. The page has been nominated for speedy deletion under G11. If an admin finds the article to meet the criteria for deletion and nobody contests, it will be deleted. CanonNi (talk) 11:48, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Advice about a editor
after many years I need advice about the editing of user: Zacwill, who has decided that a quote referenced by many is not a quote and should be removed for the third time. The article in question Sir Charles Trevelyan, 1st Baronet. I have removed a quote from houses of parliament via the independent newspaper which the editor described as a blog and have produced 3 extra references and a wikilink but the quote was once again removed with the summary of (see previous edit summary). Advice on the suitability of the world renowned quote, the references and further steps to take. Once I know how to take this matter further I will obviously notify the editor. With thanks. Edmund Patrick – confer19:16, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello, Edmund Patrick, and welcome to the Teahouse.
The very first step in any content dispute (which is what you have) is to discuss the matter on the article's talk page, according to WP:BRD - as far as I can see that has not happened yet.
If the various editors involved are unable to come to a consensus, dispute resolution tells you what further steps to take.
I'm having trouble just searching community discussions. I seem to get in a loop of further pages or tutorials. I was interested in something along the lines of a 100 year legacy project within Wikipedia where pages are carried on? I don't see anything on deceased Wikipedians Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians/Guidelines - Wikipedia. I know there are pages on thanatosensitivity (word corrected) and digital creations living on, but specifically within Wikipedia. I'm a retired librarian, so I'm frustrated I can't navigate or search community discussions better. FelixaCulpa (talk) 16:43, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Would you mind explaining some more about what you're looking for specifically? Are you looking for a discussion on a specific topic or are you looking for an easier way to search for discussions in general? CommissarDoggoTalk?16:48, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Yes, to both. 1) where is the direct link to community discussions in general? It seems I search & get results that are more tutorial pages on editing/creation/guidelines. 2) Yes, I'm interested in the specific topic, and have been told that there was a 100 year legacy project within wikipedia that had something to do with the idea of content living on. I haven't found anything that sounds like that specifically. Thanks for quick response! FelixaCulpa (talk) 18:04, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello, FelixaCulpa. It's not clear to me whether you are looking for something that you believe already exists called a 100 year legacy project, or whether you are saying you expect there to be one.
If you are looking for one, you could use the advanced search facility to search for that string in the Wikipedia: namespace. If you think there should be one, then WP:VPP might be a place to bring it up. ColinFine (talk) 18:17, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Maybe the idea of 100 year legacy project for Wikipedia (which has been discussed somewhere or I wouldn't have been asked about it.) It reminds me of LOCKSS, which in the library world preserves data on servers at multiple locations in case of disaster. It's referred to as "dark archive" which isn't really "dark," but just an ingestion & preservation of information. Maybe a 100 year legacy project for Wikipedia would be something like that, a preservation system for keeping entries alive well into the future? I'm not sure I'm asking the right questions, but it was very specific idea supposedly within Wikipedia using words "100 year legacy" FelixaCulpa (talk) 18:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
@FelixaCulpa My suggested search (above) can be modified to look for 100+year+legacy and although there are hits, I don't think that any are what you seek. There's nothing on Meta-wiki either, which is the other obvious place to look. Incidentally, Wikipedia welcomes people who want to download the whole database and you could do so with the intention of storing this somewhere for a 100 years! See WP:DOWNLOAD. I don't think that there is any doubt that versions will be available in 2124. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:41, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
I have NO memory of editing an article about a contentious topic and the recently deceased.
I have NO memory of editing an article about a contentious topic of the recently deceased. How recent is recent?
I also have no knowledge of how to bring material facts to the attention of a chief editor. in fact i feel that such facts are being dismissed outright. MisteOsoTruth (talk) 10:55, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi MisteOsoTruth The note on your talk page actually says living or recently deceased people - I'd imagine it's refering to your edits to on the talk page for Sweet Baby Inc. regarding the inviduals that work for that studio. It's also just a general notice and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. There is no "cheif editor", but you can continue to discuss the article on the article's talk page. ---- D'n'B-t -- 11:25, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello, MisteOsoTruth, and welcome to the Teahouse. The large blue notice on your talk page is because you have edited Talk:Sweet Baby Inc., which says at the top that the associated article is a contentious topic. It's not saying that you have done anything wrong, just warning you to take care.
I am new to Wikipedia and have just started to learn how things work around here.
My motivation for starting to write on Wikipedia was a Wikipedia page called "Keramikou 28" which disappeared out of the blue. I thought of recreating the page as I assumed that the previous creator(s) had deleted it.
However, I recently found out that the page wasn't deleted by the creator(s) but rather via AFD (Articles for Deletion).
I have already created the page with some corrections to the previous one and am now waiting for it to be reviewed.
Is it possible to bring back an AFD page?
Hi! I have recently reverted an edit from an IP address that appeared to be an opinion. I went to their talk page to warn them about it. I found the anon block template at the top. However, it seems to have been up for a long time and the edit I reverted was very recent. How can I check to see if the IP editor is actually blocked? QwertyForest (talk) 18:41, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Check their contributions page, it'll normally show it right at the top. I'm making a rather small assumption that this is who you're on about, so here's their contributions page. Normally it'll show up at the top with a red box for a full block or yellow for a partial block. If it's a partial block, it'll show what pages/areas they're blocked from. That IP user has neither. CommissarDoggoTalk?18:47, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
As I mentioned on the talk page for discrimination, I feel that the Types section aligns with many progressive PoVs, but has some contention in the conservative PoVs. As a result, it seems that progressive understand discrimination as a "bad" thing, and anything else that is could fit under the definition of discrimination is not real discrimination. It is my viewpoint that either discrimination is labeled as a progressive aligned term, or we need examples of discrimination that are not progressive.
Hello, Subanark, and welcome to the Teahouse. I see you have begin a discussion at Talk:Discrimination, which is the right place for it. Nobody has yet replied to you, so that might mean that nobody disagrees, or that people haven't yet had time to see and consider your post there. What you could do is to look through the history of the article, and see which editors have contributed to it (especially those who have made contributions that you do or don't agree with) and ping them on the talk page.
I'm somewhat of a new editor that doesn't have much experience making large improvements to articles, but I'd like to improve Redfearn v United Kingdom. Are there any Good Articles about case law that I can use as inspiration? Any other help and advice would be much appreciated. Thank you! MajesticRZ (talk) 17:15, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
What is the Wikipedia policy on abbreviations in citing journal titles? For example, is Am J Public Health an acceptable title, or should it be written out? The obvious help articles don't seem to deal with this, but I'm probably missing something. Johsebb (talk) 18:10, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
@Johsebb, Wikipedia does not have the space limitations that restrict printed journals, and unlike journals, is published for a general audience. Always use the full title. StarryGrandma (talk) 18:36, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi @Brudelman, welcome to the Teahouse. These don't sound like WikiProjects as the term is generally defined here; they would be other projects under the overall Wikimedia umbrella (like, for instance, Old English Wikipedia, or Wikisource). Proposals for such things are made over on Meta - here are the instructions for new language projects, for instance. 57.140.16.57 (talk) 17:24, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello,
I recently created my first page and tried publishing but it was deleted due to copyright issues. Is there a way to recover the deleted page so I can update the text? It took me a long time to create the page and now it seems to be gone? Freshkicksfreshkicks (talk) 15:33, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
@Freshkicksfreshkicks Administrators can in theory recover deleted pages, but of it was deleted for copyright violations, it cannot be retained. You should restart the article writing it with your own words and citing the sources you used to find the information. By the way, what was the title of the article? Ok I suppose it was Draft:Vedette Lim. Kind regards 14 novembre (talk) 🇮🇹 15:40, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Yes, it was Draft: Vedette Lim. The issue is that the "copyrighted" material was copyrighted by me, I copy and pasted it from a website that I published myself so this is all my original writing. How do I recover the deleted page so I can update the text so it differs from my original text? Freshkicksfreshkicks (talk) 16:02, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello, Freshkicksfreshkicks, and welcome to the Teahouse. Please note that copying text from an external website, even if the copyright allows it, is almost never an effective way of creating a Wikipedia article. There is no reason why an external website should conform to Wikipedia's core policies such as verifiability, reliable sources or neutral point of view, and indeed https://entertainment.ie/person/vedette-lim/ has no sources cited, seems unlikely to be from sources independent of Lim, and uses peacock terms.
In fact, if you start with the text you have, you will be writing the article BACKWARDS, as so many inexperienced editors do, and give yourself a lot of frustration and disappointment.
You could try and ask the administrator who deleted the draft to offer a partial refund, but generally revisions containing copyrighted content are removed entirely. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:20, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
I would like to upload some images for the article Draft:Villa Fabbricotti on which I'm working. I did the photographs with a mobile phone. There are no people visible in the images. Can I upload them or is it illegal? Kind regards 14 novembre (talk) 🇮🇹 15:00, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
@14 novembre I'm not sure why you think that uploading your own photos to Commons would be illegal! That's what our sister Project is for. Use the Wizard at Commons:Special:UploadWizard and give the information requested. note that the presence or absence of photos in drafts will not alter the chance of the draft being accepted: they don't help with wikinotability. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
@Michael D. Turnbull Well, the image I am seeking to upload does not represent any architectural or artistic relevant subject, but only some plants in the park of the villa. Does that still apply?
I'd assumed that an article on the building would have its picture and hence that was what you were asking about. Pictures of the park/plants will be fine but might not be relevant to the topic. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
@Michael D. Turnbull Thanks for your answer. The image I wanted to upload was an image of the park quite different from all the existing ones on commons. Anyway, my question is, does an image of the park/plants still go under the legal concerns you previously expressed. Kind regards 14 novembre (talk) 🇮🇹 15:30, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
@Myrealnamm I salute you for your attention to this. Recently, I personally moved literally hundreds of stub articles off the pages for beetle stubs and for insect stubs into subcategories. It was a weeks' long project. Uporządnicki (talk) 16:02, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Since I can see the deleted material, I can certainly tell you. is a distinguished former Indian badminton player ("distinguished" is puffery and editorializing), was marked with various achievements (like?), he participated in prestigious tournaments ("prestigious" is puffery), Notably, Vidyadhar represented (do not tell the reader what is "notable"; let them decide that), Some of his remarkable performances ("remarkable", more editorializing and puffery), On the international stage he was highlighted by his gold medal triumphs (skip the flowery language; just state that he won X number of gold medals in that tournament), and then the rest is essentially a CV which is inherently promotional. So, I agree that the entire article was essentially talking about how great this person is, and was correctly deleted as such. Articles should stick to only specific facts from reliable and independent sources, and should be entirely neutral in tone, without any editorializing, needless adjectives, or "talking up". SeraphimbladeTalk to me20:46, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Nominating protected articles for deletion
I saw an article that had no sources and was not notable. However, I just found out that the page was protected (restricted), so I can't tag it for deletion.
GenericUser24, for reference the article is The Odyssey (Smith), the italic marks don't work in links. Songs are not one of the things eligible for A7 deletion. A9 can apply to songs, but in this case since the composer has an article that would not be applicable either. So once you become autoconfirmed (not tough to do; wait a few days since you've already made the required number of edits), if at that time you still think deletion is warranted you could utilize the proposed deletion or articles for deletion processes, but it's not eligible under any speedy deletion criteria so far as I can tell. You also could make an edit request for someone to make the edit on your behalf, but really it's simpler to just wait a few days until you can do it yourself. You could use that time to see if you could find any suitable reference material that could be used to improve the article; deletion is only indicated when such material cannot be found to exist, not just because the article is currently in a poor state. SeraphimbladeTalk to me19:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
I need assistance emailing the person responsible for posting a photo to Wikipedia. I am using a wikipedia commons photo in a book and need information about its source. AP Photos wants to charge me $310 to use the same photo. I need assurance that it is not copyrighted.
The photo I would like to reuse is posted here:
Welcome to the Teahouse, WikiPhotoFinder68. To contact the editor by e-mail, you'll need to write your message in the text box at Special:EmailUser/Anthony. There's no way to reveal the user's address because that's protected by Wikipedia. If WikiPhotoFinder68 decides to reply to you, it will come from their address and you'll then have it, but that's the only way to find it out. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:18, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for responding. I do not see a text box on Anthony's talk page. There is a text box displaying the last message he received, but I cannot write to it.
Under the link that says Special: emailuser/Anthony it says: This page is a soft redirect. When I get to the link these is no text box. What am I missing here?
WikiPhotoFinder68 I suspect you have not "added and confirmed an email address in your user preferences" (see Wikipedia:Emailing users) which is why you cannot see an "Email this user" option, which I can see. Please note that User:Anthony's last edit was 17 February 2018, so I suspect you may be out of luck in any case. - Arjayay (talk) 20:26, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Note that the uploader, Anthony, said that the image was "in the public domain because it was ineligible for copyright". If this correct, then you don't need permission. However, @Pigsonthewing has just challenged this, and nominated the picture for speedy deletion. See C:File:Butterfly Ballot, Florida 2000 (large).jpg. ColinFine (talk) 21:18, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Article alerts + recognized content not working?
So I want to generate a recognized content list and article alerts for WikiProject Apps. I've inserted the code and transcluded the pages. However, it seems no content is being generated. I've already tagged some pages with the project's tag. Why is this not working? Thanks, TWOrantulaTM (enter the web) 21:13, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
@TrademarkedTWOrantula I've not checked whether you've actually followed the process correctly, but I do note you added that section yesterday, and that the template states that the bot updates weekly on a Saturday. Are you therefore not being a little premature with your question? Nick Moyes (talk) 22:57, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Request for page creation
Is it possible to request someone to create a page for us so that it is unbiased? I was attempting to create a page for the Excelsior Citizen an online news publication for Excelsior Springs, MO but I'm too closely involved and the entry I created was too promotional. Sjasoncole (talk) 16:14, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. There is a means for doing so, Requested Articles, but it is backlogged in the extreme. Wikipedia articles are not for merely telling about something, an article must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the topic, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability. If your publication is truly notable, and covered by appropriate sources, someone will eventually write about it. Trying to force the issue doesn't usually work. Just go on about the business of your publication as if Wikipedia didn't exist. 331dot (talk) 16:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
the current image is of VERY low resolution and I went to the PSAP's website to get a higher resolution logo.
There is one on the website, but it isn't uploaded to Wikipedia yet and I was going to upload it, but I'm unsure if that falls under fair use or not.
I'm not sure what to do here, the PSAP is a subsidiary of the Genesee and Wyoming, and other subsidiaries have their logos in full high resolution, so do I upload it, ask permission for it, or something else? HaloSpartanCats (talk) 00:00, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
@HaloSpartanCats: Welcome to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1220. Per Wikipedia's guidelines on logos, particularly if they have a copyright:
Company logos may appear in articles on those companies, but note that, if challenged, it is the responsibility of those who wish to include the logo to prove that its use meets Wikipedia non-free content criteria. Logos uploaded to Wikipedia must be low-resolution and no larger than necessary.
This book is the publication of the thesis of my PhD by Prior Publication, titled “Satanic Abuse, False Memories, Weird Beliefs and Moral Panics: Anatomy of a 24-year Investigation.”
Which source would be better, or does it matter? The thesis can be accessed open source, so it is easily verifiable, but the book (I believe) matches technically more closely what Wikipedia actually wants for its sources. ← 𝐋𝐞𝐟𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐝𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧22:38, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Oh, I see what you mean. The term "PhD by Prior Publication" refers to a specific type of doctoral degree, which is not a reference to a publishing company named "Prior Publication." Instead, it indicates a route to earning a PhD based on previously published work. In this context, the capitalized "P's" in "Prior Publication" are used to emphasize the specific route of achieving a PhD, not to denote a company or organization. It's odd phrasing, and it could have been clearer, but that is what it means. Candidates for this type of PhD must demonstrate that their already published works collectively constitute a significant and original contribution to knowledge in their field, meeting the standard expected of a conventional PhD thesis. ← 𝐋𝐞𝐟𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐝𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧00:50, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
My apologies. It seems the author had previously published their thesis in 2014, and then published the book last year containing their thesis. They earned their PhD via prior publication, which means they used their years of investigative journalism to prove a unique contribution to the field for the PhD. Then they published that thesis as a book last year. I don't believe self citation applies since this isn't my work, but appreciate the template for cite thesis. ← 𝐋𝐞𝐟𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐝𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧01:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Why "we", Mentalhealthwriter -- are there more than one of you? And I see that you have removed the template from the article American Mental Health Foundation. ¶ Sample: Recently, the foundation has aspired to and initiated higher levels of female leadership (unreferenced). We're not normally concerned with the mere aspirations of subjects of articles. Rather, what have they verifiablyachieved? -- Hoary (talk) 01:52, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
I made a start at some depuffing, but it needs a lot more work, so I've put that back. Mentalhealthwriter, you probably oughtn't to be the one who removes it. SeraphimbladeTalk to me02:46, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Question about Citation reference from an Interview
Hello! Can anyone tell me if we can / we should not use a source content that majorly involves an interview? For example, for a movie article I found the producing director's interview about the movie production. Can I use that for the production section of the movie? Especially for a certain information that only the production team will only know (like the casting process, how many camera were used for the production, etc.)
Please guide me for this. Thank you in advance! Shenaall (talk) 06:52, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
@ShenaallWP:ABOUTSELF is your guidance here. In general, the director is good for basic facts about the movie (we started filming in 2022 yes, it's the best film ever no), but keep the amount of it reasonable, and such a source probably doesn't add to WP:N. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello, Shenaall. Assuming for the sake of discussion that the notabilty of the film has already been established, then limited use of non-independent sources like an interview with a producer or a director may have some value. But your examples concern me. Every film goes through a casting process which results in the cast list in the article. If the casting process was so unusual as to deserve extra mention in the article, then it will have been discussed by reliable, independent sources. Similarly with regards to the number of cameras. Most films are made with single camera setups although it is not uncommon for three or four cameras to be used especially when filming prolonged conversations among multiple actors. So, when should an encyclopedia comment on such a common element of filmmaking? When a reliable source entirely independent of the producer/director discuss it. Cullen328 (talk) 08:25, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello @Gråbergs Gråa Sång and @Cullen328, the details regarding my question is in Draft:My Sibling's Romance#Production. The draft is still very rough and only contains direct translation from the article for now because I just started it not long ago, so pardon me if it's confusing to read.. The subject is not a movie to be exact, it is a reality TV program where the casting process was not an audition but rather the production team dm-ed 1500 people and they used 100 cameras behind one-way mirrors when filming which can be included in the production section, or am I wrong? But, my concerns was the said information can only be found in this citation article in Korean where the content is full QnA interview of the producing director about the production process and the idea of the show. For the other section like popularity or overview already has a reliable secondary source. The subject, in my opinion, is notable enough for an article. What do you think? Shall I include the information from that interview contents or just not include it at all? Shenaall (talk) 02:22, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
How do I find pages with specific maintenance tags?
For example pages tagged with "Needs more sources," or "needs copy editing," "NPOV" etc? Looking to find pages that need editing by tag searching etc, to help with cleanup.
Any tools or pages that help direct towards articles on WP that are tagged for cleanup/improvement would be great. Thank you very much. Comintell (talk) 02:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Should I include a photograph of my person when drafting an article in my sandbox? How do I determine if a photo is royalty-free and meets requirements for common licensing? TrevorGlynLocke (talk) 09:56, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi TrevorGlynLocke, a photograph is very unlikely to be royalty free unless the photographer themself says so. If you took the photo yourself then it's up to you if you want to release it to commons. I would not worry too much about including a photograph on a draft article - check WP:FIRST for guidance on getting your article off the ground. ---- D'n'B-t -- 10:24, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello, TrevorGlynLocke: in addition to what the other replies have said, note that the presence or absence of a photo will not affect whether the draft is accepted.
I am facing problem in publishing an article on wikipedia.
I have tried many times to publish the article by making changes regarding the instructions given in the wikipedia, even though the article is not published . Can you please help me with this issues why am i facing and suggest me what can i do. Sakshi gilada (talk) 09:50, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
If you are employed or retained in any way with the company you must make a formal declaration of your status as a paid editor.
Look for several published sources which are wholly unconnected with your company, and which talk in some depth about you company. Nothing written, published, or commissioned, or based on interviews or press releases from your company or any of its staff or associates. Evaluate any sources you find against all three of the criteria in golden rule
If you cannot find at least three, give up and devote your time to something more valuable. There cannot be an article.
If you can find at least three sources, then forget everything you know about the company, and write a draft based entirely on what those indpendent sources say.
Hello and welcome. If you are referring to Draft:BBG (Building Blocks Group), it was deleted as blatant promotion. Wikipedia is not a place to just tell about the existence of a company and what it does- an article about a company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. The draft mentioned niche industry awards- these do not contribute to notability unless the awards themselves merit articles(like Nobel Peace Prize or Academy Award).
Then you are required by the Wikipedia Terms of Use to disclose that. You should attempt to do this with one of your next edits. Instructions are provided on your user talk page, you may also see WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 09:09, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
On your Talk page you have been repeatedly warned that your account may be indefinitely blocked unless you address your PAID or COI connection to BBG. You must do that before any attempt to again create a draft, either as a draft or in your Sandbox. If there are not valid references then there is no reason to try again. Also, please stop using "we". Each account must be from one person. David notMD (talk) 15:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Draft:Taz Panter Foundation
Hi there,
Is there any way I can give information about the foundation (Draft:Taz Panter Foundation) without it being labelled as advertising.
This is a translation of de:Taz Panter Stiftung, so first of all we would need correct attribution: more info can be found at Help:Translation; be aware that the existence of an article in another Wikipedia does not automatically mean it will be accepted here. English-language Wikipedia has a rather high threshold regarding sourcing. Going through the sources I see many directly taken from the Tageszeitung (which isn't really "neutral" in regard to the foundation), and those independent are rahter passing mentions of the foundation. All this doesn't establish WP:Notability for the foundation itself. I would suggest to incorporate the info at Die Tageszeitung. Thank you for declaring your conflict of interest, though. Lectonar (talk) 11:13, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
I strongly recommend that you spend quite a time editing and improving pages before you think about creating a Wikipedia page.Bduke (talk) 06:49, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
I would like to ask what is approximately the minimum number of edits to be eligible, if all other requirements are met, for adminship. PS: for now, I am not seeking to become an admin. I ask just for information. Kind regards 14 novembre (talk) 🇮🇹 13:11, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi! I came upon an article during my vandalism training, that isn't really vandalism, but IS super uncomfortable. It's shrouded racism, couched in historical sources that were only online for like one day (seems fishy). Namely the first one for the Smithsonian online tracked for one day on wayback. Not sure how to handle this one. She wasn't really notable and wasn't really a sculptor or a scientist, not provable anyway. Thoughts? Rose Koller. Slacker13 (talk) 22:38, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
"The Wayback Machine only has an archive of this page on one day" does not mean "the page was only online for one day". They don't archive every page on every site every day (some pages just never get archived, which is very frustrating). If you don't think the Koller article meets notability, you're welcome to nominate it for deletion. DS (talk) 23:52, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
I put information about myself and someone is criticizing it
I added myself as the first female mayor of Miami Shores and someone has questioned whether I should be there since it is called the Village of Miami Shores. However, it is a part of the numerous municipalities in Miami Dade County. When I was mayor I represented Miami Shores in the Miami Dade County League of Cities. This person bookworm, ce thinks I am not eligible. How do I remedy this? I added my name as I am considering asking to be considered a notable graduate of my high school alumni class and why I wanted to make sure my name showed up there. The person who questioned whether I should be on there even cited the Miami Herald article from when I was elected. Please advise. KKirbyMiami (talk) 03:52, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
How would I get the information updated if I did not add it? Also I was not trying to do anything wrong I did not know I had to add a source but am happy to do so. I was the first woman mayor elected there in 1985. There were very few female mayors at that time and also I was only 35 years old. Tell me how to remedy this please? I heard my high school is adding people to their list of graduates who contributed through work or political office and I want them to be able to see that in fact I was the first woman mayor of my city. I was not trying to mislead anyone. KKirbyMiami (talk) 03:58, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
If you wish to have yourself added to the list, you must provide a credible source proving that you were, in fact, the first female mayor of a municipality. Any unsourced content will be removed per WP:PROVEIT. CanonNi (talk) 04:02, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Extended content
What are the municipalities in Miami-Dade County?
Miami-Dade County is comprised of 34 municipalities: Aventura, Bal Harbour, Bay Harbor Islands, Biscayne Park, Coral Gables, Cutler Bay, Doral, El Portal, Florida City, Golden Beach, Hialeah, Hialeah Gardens, Homestead, Indian Creek, Key Biscayne, Medley, Miami, Miami Beach, Miami Gardens, Miami Lakes, Miami Shores, ...https://www.miamidade.gov/information/library/at-a-glance.pdfKKirbyMiami (talk) 04:24, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Miami-Dade County is comprised of 34 municipalities: Aventura, Bal Harbour, Bay Harbor Islands, Biscayne Park, Coral Gables, Cutler Bay, Doral, El Portal, Florida City, Golden Beach, Hialeah, Hialeah Gardens, Homestead, Indian Creek, Key Biscayne, Medley, Miami, Miami Beach, Miami Gardens, Miami Lakes, Miami Shores, ...https://dpanther.fiu.edu/sobek/FI18052712/00001/marcKKirbyMiami (talk) 04:26, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Karen Kirby First Female Mayor of Miami Shores at Halloween Howl 1991 ( en )
Funding:
This project has been funded under the provisions of the Library Cooperative Grant program, administered by the Florida Department of State’s Division of Library and Information Services.
Karen Kirby First Female Mayor of Miami Shores at Halloween Howl 1991 ( en )
Funding:
This project has been funded under the provisions of the Library Cooperative Grant program, administered by the Florida Department of State’s Division of Library and Information Services.
The women named in that list either have Wikipedia articles about them (names appear blue) or there is a confirming reference. That is why your self-addition to 1985 was reverted. The second hyperlink you provided https://dpanther.fiu.edu/sobek/FI18052712/00001/marc states that you were mayor in 1991, not that you were elected in 1985. Do you have a newspaper clipping from 1985? David notMD (talk) 04:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
I showed them a link and they are still disputing. Why would I want to lie about something like this? I am 74 years old and was 35 when I was elected. I just want to e added as I was submitted as an outstanding graduate of my high school in Tampa, Florida due to my political history. This is ridiculous. KKirbyMiami (talk) 04:39, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
No one is disputing that you were first mayor. For that information to be included in 1985 - I am presuming the year you were elected - needs a ref confirming that fact. It does not have to be available online as long as you can name the paper, date and page number. David notMD (talk) 04:42, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Thank you so much for clarifying this for me. It is much appreciated and done in a very respectful way. I feel like I was undergoing trial. KKirbyMiami (talk) 05:04, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Editors tend to be extra cautious when it comes to verifiability because of Wikipedia's notoriety of being seen by the general public as a very unreliable source of information. If it makes you feel any better, you've done nothing wrong, it's just how things are done around here. — Mugtheboss (talk) 08:58, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for taking your time to make me feel understood. I meant no harm claiming to be a first woman elected mayor which I was never expected to be so controversial. KKirbyMiami (talk) 16:06, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Daquq town not actually being called daquq town
Daquq is apparently a town in kirkuk,but in most sources its called Tavuk Kasabasi(its real name daquq is just the district name) and they mentioned that its majority Shia turkmen with kaka'i kurd minorities (page says kurd and turkmen majority) and its included in the kurds and kurdistan category which is wrong due to the demographics of the town. Kirkukturk3 (talk) 18:01, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello, Kirkukturk3, and welcome to the Teahouse. If there is a change you think should be made to a Wikipedia article, please open a discussion on that article's talk page, arguing for the change you want to see, and citing reliable sources for any information you want to add (or to remove, if the information to be removed appears to be supported by citations). ColinFine (talk) 18:20, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi, I already know that but there is a problem, there is an editor which is very known for their vandalism(altered many city and town pages demographics which is not acceptable) guards it.Who can I ask to check their edit? Thanks. I aslp just now checked that it's not allowed to start a discussion in the talk page for some reason?
I don't know why I don't see the add topic button anywhere,I've refreshed many times it's still not appearing, is it an issue with my device? Kirkukturk3 (talk) 20:47, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
@Kirkukturk3 Possibly but you don't say which device you are using. The alternative way to start a new topic is to "Edit source" and begin with a header (i.e. a title between two = signs either side), like you would do in an article, followed by your comment on the lines below. Then "Show preview" to check all is OK before you "Publish changes". Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:20, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Wording such as, "You'll be perfectly fine. I know a lot of people question the legality of a hacked 3ds, but I assure you that nothing will go wrong." is written from a personal perspective and is not appropriate for an article.
I recently edited my watchlist and may have inadvertently deleted some links. Is there a way to view the history of your watchlist to check whether you messed up. I am a long term editor and never thought about this before but couldn't see a way to do it. I presume this being a wiki the history is kept somewhere. WCMemail15:44, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
I was going to add an interesting note about this movie as my father was a Plebe and appeared in this movie in 1937, he graduated with the class of 1941. They were used as extras, in uniform of course, and delighted when instructed to shout for Lionel Barrymore playing Skinny Dawes, in actually chanting Skivvy Drawers. Of course they thought this was quite amusing. However I have not edited html in a long time. Tamylock (talk) 16:42, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Do you have this documented somewhere in a publicly available reliable source? If it is just a personal recollection, it unfortunately would not be suitable article content; all content on Wikipedia must be verifiable. 331dot (talk) 16:44, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Tamylock, it's worth noting that Wikipedia uses wikitext, a special markup language unique to wikis, instead of HTML for the most part. However, you can use the visual editor to simplify it a bit. However, as 331dot said, you would need a reliable source to back up the claim prior to adding the info. If you provide a source, I'd be happy to make the change for you if need be. Sincerely, Dilettante17:59, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi @Usersnipedname and welcome to the Teahouse. You might be looking for {{Talkback}}, which you can place on a user's talk page to notify them about messages. To show you an example, I've sent you one on your talk page notifying that I've answered your Teahouse question. CanonNi (talk) 09:23, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
@Usersnipedname: What do you consider a non-intrusive and quiet alert? Leaving messages on their talk page or pinging them directly will create an item in the dropdown menu (the former will also make a yellow dialog box appear on the recipient's screen). —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:36, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
If, in the Languages section, I go on the link for Italian, the sistem redirects me to , which, except for a possibile phonetic similarity, has nothing to do with the Dutch former footballer. Hiwever, if I try to edit the Wikidata item, the itwiki link appears to be correct, at . Can anyone help?
Thank you very much and kind regards 14 novembre (talk) 🇮🇹 19:23, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
I have stumbled across a Wikimedia Category page, with a long list of sub-categories, at least one of which screams that it needs a review of some sort. Obviously there are taskforces and working groups that look at this sort of thing full-time, but as I started to read the long & very detailed advice in WP:CFD I rapidly began to lose the will to live. Is this a minefield I am better staying well clear of?
Now, if you want the specifics; it's an aviation thing.
Aircraft are typically identified by registrations (civilian aircraft) or serials (military), or both if they are historic such as an airworthy Spitfire which flies using a registration such as 'G-SPIT', whilst the paintwork on the aircraft itself is RAF serial 'MV293'. However the exact distinction between registrations versus serials is somewhat blurred, particularly in these cases. (FWIW either is ok by me.)
When it comes to Hawker Hurricanes, Wikimedia offers 19 sub-categories, including these two;-
One has got 37 entries (a mixture of both 'civil' and 'military'), whilst the other category displays just one entry, which is a clear duplicate. I would simply put all 38 into one box, and I see that the category is already tagged https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Categories_requiring_permanent_diffusion_to_zero, but it is still there so what do I do? I admit I am somewhat put-off by the process. Is there a simple way?
@WendlingCrusader: As GoingBatty mentions, those categories are on Wikimedia Commons, so English Wikipedia's categorisation rules don't apply. Categorisation on Commons certainly can be a bit of a minefield, but because it's a major part of how Commons works it's generally acceptable to be bold and just fix the category tree if necessary. In this case, my approach would be to look around other types of ex-RAF aircraft and see how their categories are structured. I picked a couple of names I could remember, and neither c:Category:De Havilland DH.98 Mosquito nor c:Category:Supermarine Spitfire has a "by serial" sub-category. So my first impression is that c:Hawker_Hurricane_by_serial. But searching for c:Special:Search/Category: intitle:"by serial" -intitle:number finds me 50-odd similar categories so this isn't just a one-off situation. And then I notice that many of these categories were created by the same user. And at least in the case of c:Category:Tiger Moth by serial the same user created c:Category:Tiger Moth by registration, which suggests that the dichotomy is deliberate and not just the result of different editors' having different ideas. At this point, I'd wander over to c:User talk:Joshbaumgartner and ask them how they intended these categories to interact. The opinion of the creator isn't definitive, of course, but I'd want to take it into account before changing anything. --bjh21 (talk) 22:32, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Draft got deleted, reason incorrect
I created a draft it got deleted and the reason the editor provided was incorrect. I restored it. Can you have a look and give feedback? Constructive feedback, for example where more information and sources is needed.
There are many more resources of the person online, for example you can search the name in Google book and Google scholar. Also you can search in major social media, FB.com Twitter.com weibo.com etc. You can add or edit the draft based on your research. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jenia_MengIntodefinitecubic (talk) 20:39, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
I am sorry, you didn't research. IMDB, Google book and Google scholar of Jenia Meng are all reliable sources. It is an issue of systemic bias of Wikipedia, and for an article of a person, often it is important to cite from her own website: the person have more knowledge of himself than any other sources. Intodefinitecubic (talk) 21:13, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
IMDB is not a reliable source for anything, please see WP:IMDB, and we are not interested in what the subject of the article has to say about themself, because they have a clear Conflict of interest. Social media, such as Facebook, Twitter and Weibo are, similarly, not acceptable. We are only interested in what Independent, reliable sources have said, without being fed information by agents or press releases. - Arjayay (talk) 21:26, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
You're asking for constructive feedback but then you're arguing against the reasons given to you. Are you actually here in the Teahouse for constructive feedback, or are you here to convince others that the consensus achieved in the AfD is wrong? If so, the Teahouse is not the proper place for that, Deletion Review (DRV) is. However, I would urge you to read the instructions and rules of DRV before posting there. For example, it would not be acceptable for you to make accusations of bias at DRV as you've done here.
If, instead, you are not planning on contesting the AfD and you genuinely want to better understand the arguments given there, you may continue to ask questions here. But only if you're willing to hear what people are trying to tell you. Mokadoshi (talk) 21:57, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
If the content of this draft were verifiable (it isn't), then Ms Meng would be quite extraordinarily energetic, considering that she's described as "a decedent". -- Hoary (talk) 00:04, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Can someone help flag specific instances in this article that keep getting it deleted or possibly help me rewrite? I am trying to get this posted soon, but this is my second time trying. With Black history under attack, I am trying to get articles posted about living legends and give them their flowers. Here is my draft:
Hello, Birminghamhistoryfinder. Your draft has several major problems. Obvious from the beginning is that it is written like a hagiography rather than a biography in an encyclopedia. Writing like His journey from humble beginnings in Montgomery, Alabama to the helm of a successful business empire is emblematic of resilience, determination, and a commitment to uplifting his community. is not appropriate in Wikipedia's voice. The relevant core content policy is the Neutral point of view, which is mandatory. Another problem is that your references are clumped at the end. Please read Wikipedia:Inline citation and Referencing for beginners to learn how to correct this. Every substantive assertion needs a reference to a reliable source, according to Verifiability, which is another core content policy. Also, Your first article will give you an overview of what is required. Cullen328 (talk) 18:11, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Too, too many flowers. Wikipedia is not for promotion. I have deleted the article. Do you have any relation to Steven Rogers, Birminghamhistoryfinder, for instance being related to him or employed by him? Has anybody paid you for creating the article? Bishonen | tålk04:56, 29 March 2024 (UTC).
Help in creating "Fishing industry in [country]" articles?
Hello, I've come here to ask for assistance in creating "Fishing industry in [country]" articles! Some background as to why I'm asking for help:
I've noticed that many countries are missing a "Fishing industry in [country]" article, many of which are very deserving and needing of such an article. I've also noticed that, for the few that do have an article, many do not go in-depth or sufficiently cover the topic very well. Some even only have as far as a couple sentences. The main issue I've encountered is that it's difficult to garner attention to this, so that's why I'm asking here for help.
I'm asking for assistance in creating/expanding/improving these articles. Hopefully people can partake in helping, thank you! (To record progress, I've created a page here. Join in helping if you want!) SonOfYoutubers (talk) 01:52, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
SonOfYoutubers, among your suggested article titles, I suppose that "Fishing industry in San Marino" could be the playfully obscure name of an arty pop group. Tips to increase your chances of success: (i) create an excellent article (preferably a "Good Article") on the fishing industry of the nation/territory of your choice; (ii) point to this as an example of what can be done; (iii) delist the more or less ridiculous suggestions (San Marino, etc). -- Hoary (talk) 03:02, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
I have been working on Draft:Fishing industry in Peru and I'm hoping to be able to complete it to demonstrate, as you said, as an example of what is able to be done. In terms of the more ridiculous countries, I will keep them, but, per the key I made, I will have them strikethrough to indicate an article can't sufficiently be made for the country. Thank you for the suggestions! One last question, how do you believe I can increase attention to this? SonOfYoutubers (talk) 03:13, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
I often feel overwhelmed by the numerous policies that Wikipedia operates under. How do experienced editors know when and what to cite? Do they remember the policies better over time as they become more seasoned, or do they go on a "policy search" every time a situation calls for it? Thank you!
Hello, Fenharrow. I do not think that any editor can remember every policy and guideline, but some come into play more often than others. The three core content policies are Verifiability and the Neutral point of view and No original research. Once you understand these three interrelated concepts, you will have a good basis for writing new content. What Wikipedia is not is also useful for understanding what types of content do not belong on Wikipedia. The General notability guideline is an important tool for determining whether or not a topic is eligible for a freestanding article. Yes, editors develop a better memory for and understand of policies and guidelines over time. But the basics are not difficult to understand for those who are serious about editing. Cullen328 (talk) 18:52, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
@Fenharrow Welcome to the Teahouse. It is worth mentioning that, if you do need to search for a policy or guide, then the standard search box works well if you prefix the search with "WP:" so you are searching only in WP:NAMESPACE. Then, for example, you can find the notability guidelines for biographies at WP:NBIO, for music at WP:NMUSIC and citation help at WP:CITE etc. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:36, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
I see a huge load of whitespace on my laptop screen on this page, but couldn't figure out how to fix it. Maybe someone else can have a look. Regards. Govvy (talk) 22:06, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
@Govvy: Welcome to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1220. What's causing it is the lengthy infobox being followed by images that are aligned to the right. If there were more text one wouldn't see any white space, but the element that follows the lone paragraph in the section is a table. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:36, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Nothing to do with the infobox, it's a problem with the first table not wrapping, but I don't know how to fix it. :/ Govvy (talk) 09:10, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
@Govvy You could move the right-aligned images to be in the section on Public transport, which would help a bit. I'm surprised there is no text describing these historic buildings, which seem quite interesting. Can you find sources which discuss them? Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:24, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
I only added the sports section there and a redirect due to an AfD closure. I don't know anything about the place! :/ I guess I just leave the article alone, I only asked for someone else to fix the white space! Guess that's not happening. Govvy (talk) 11:50, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Support from experienced editor to monitor articles
Hello. I would like your help on recommending someone who can monitor the pages of Arno Gujon and Zoran Kalabić (very recently created). I have tried to make a heavy editing, starting with Arno Gujon, since these pages have high levels of puffery, and maybe there were made as material of Undisclosed paid. Because I don't have a good experience on such issues, I would like the help of a more experienced editor to monitor these articles (decision for major editing or deletion). Thank you. Chiserc (talk) 23:49, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
For Arno Gujon, you removed a lot of referenced content, saw that reverted, then removed it again, without starting a discussion on the Talk page. For Zoran Kalabic, you applied multiple tags, including suggesting it is autobiographical or COI, all tags reverted by the article creator. For both, the next appropriate steps are to open discussions on the articles' Talk pages on content, on the creator's Talk page about COI or PAID. David notMD (talk) 01:50, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Chiserc I agree, however, that Zoran Kalabić depends almost entirely on his own website as a reference and that there is a lot of laudatory vocabulary, both points already made on the Talk page of the article. This article was recently created in mainspace; it may deserve being converted to a draft for major revision. Anyone care to pull that trigger? David notMD (talk) 13:20, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments @David notMD. The editor of Zoran Kalabić, who created in February and March both English and Serbian pages, has a very short editing history that is mainly connected only to these two articles: of Arno Gujon and Zoran Kalabić. His Serbian language editing history is also almost entirely about these two articles: https://sr.wikipedia.org/. I think it is obvious that the editor is very closely related to these topics, and that's why I made a fair effort of editing removing a lot of puffery, starting with Arno Gujon, however the edit was reverted and the puffery persists. If anyonce can help with that issue, that will be good. Chiserc (talk) 14:30, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
At AG you removed content and references. The preferred approach - if the refs supported facts - would be to revise only the wording. At ZK, I agree there is a lot of inappropriate wording - much identified at the Talk page - with the greater flaw being the dependence on ZK's own website as the major reference. David notMD (talk) 17:23, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
URL of subject changed
The domain for a festival was lost and sold off. The wiki page for the festival, as seen from the search results page reads, “Texas Rose Festival” and beneath that, “texasrosefestival.com” which takes you to a Korean sports betting site. The actual page ends in .org now. texasrosefestival.org
@Jckmlvny Welcome to the Teahouse. Please link the article where you saw the problem. Usually things can be fixed by any editor, using the process described at WP:LINKROT, which may involve finding backups of the original URL at the Wayback Machine or other archive. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:38, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
The awards imply an editing rate which is far lower than the average of most active editors. I suggest, to make it simple, double all the numbers of edits. 14 novembre (talk) 🇮🇹 14:35, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
What's the current state of policy on all the <Insert year> <Insert football team> season articles?
I keep running into a lot of articles like the 2016 Richmond Spiders football team, which have mostly database and run-of-the-mill coverage of sports wins, which I think are mostly not notable, given there is rarely continuing coverage for arbitrary football teams, especially not for every season. Currently, the Richmond Spiders football team has for almost every year from 2020 to 1881, a total of 136 or so articles. I think most of these are not notable, but I can't open an AfD for all of them, and I'm not sure what the consensus is on doing stuff like that (prior discussion about mass deletions appear to have attracted a lot of attention on the discussion page, and I don't want to get into a massive site-wide argument). Is there anything I can do? Mrfoogles (talk) 20:40, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
We generally don't scrutinize individual seasons for GNG like this, that would be unnecessarily disjunctive. Remsense诉21:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello Mrfoogles, the guidelines are at WP:NSEASONS. The problems you highlight are not without merit. We have WP:NOTSTATS policy, for example. That's not to say the hypothetical other side wouldn't have a good point to counter with. I recommend you gain a lot more experience, both with Wikipedia in general and the topic area specifically before delving into big stuff like this. Consider this: there are many highly experienced editors who likely think similarly to you, and yet those articles still exist, so there must be a good reason why they should exist or can not be deleted successfully even if they should not. You should watchlist pages such as WP:VPP, WT:N, WT:NSPORT, WT:AMF, and read some of the recent discussions that may have happened relevant to the topic to get the pulse of the community. And you may want to go back and read the archives, which are substantial, to see how consensus has evolved around our inclusion criteria over the years. Only then would I expect you to be successful to any extent in convincing the community to your point of view. As to what you could do now, you could post to WT:AMF asking the same question and see what kind of response there is to it. Regards! — Usedtobecool☎️15:36, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, might try that. I definitely don’t have enough experience to start whole big discussions; that’s why I was hoping there was some easier way. It makes sense that mass deletions probably do require a bigger-than-AfD discussion though. The NSeasons guideline was pretty much what I was looking for, thanks: I’ll try to see how many of those seasons were part of national championships. Maybe there are a few deletion discussions already like you’re saying: there’s a lot of season articles, and I have’t looked at them all. Thanks for the reply, that was helpful. Mrfoogles (talk) 17:01, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
@Mrfoogles and Usedtobecool: Generally any college football season at the Division I level is going to be notable (based on the sheer amount of coverage that college football receives); there's a project here that has created over 10,000 articles on such subjects and never has any one been deleted at AFD. If it is a run-of-the-mill Division II, III, or NAIA season (i.e. no national championship, no conference championship, nothing notable about it), there's a decent chance an AFD would be successful; however, Richmond is a Division I program and as such the articles on its seasons are virtually certain to be kept. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:25, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Kim Lone
Excuse me, please. I would like to transfer the German Wikipedia entry by the Austrian artist Kim Lone to the English Wikipedia. The lady was also an artist in Great Britain for 15 years. My English is limited, what can I do? I would also like to translate their girl band C-Bra, which is commercially successful in Europe, into English. Please...
Thanks, the translation of the text is not the problem but the programming commands. I can easily write a German article myself using the German commands. I can't get along with the English ones. There lies the problem. Installateurkurti (talk) 06:05, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Installateurkurti, please read WP:CHEATSHEET for a basic introduction to wikicoding in English. If you want to contribute articles translated from other language versions into the English Wikipedia, then you need to be familiar with how English Wikipedia articles are coded. It's not that difficult. We do not use the word "command" in this context. Cullen328 (talk) 06:22, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Siyal and chamar two different caste but the writer wrote siyal and chamar in one caste.Her source was talk to siyal and chamar two different caste but the writer wrote wrong theory and he was protect this page Ramachbehera1 (talk) 14:35, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
(e/c) Where was this written?? Please be specific as to which article are you referring to. There is no mention of Siyal in the Chamar article, and no mention of Chamar in the Siyal article. Shantavira|feed me14:52, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Siyal and Chamar two different caste why write chamar and chamar releted theory in siyal caste article
Siyal and chamar two different caste but the writer wrote siyal and chamar in one caste.Her source was talk to siyal and chamar two different caste but the writer wrote wrong theory and he was protect this page. Source are provided siyal and chamar are two different there are :- *(1) The Constitution (Scheduled caste) Order of 1950 Book, Page number 167 and 168 castes serial list 18 chamar and 86 siyal caste. *(2)Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Research and Training Institute (SCSTRTI), Odisha , (3)Singh, K.S.; Anthropological Survey of India (1992): People of India: Odisha (2 pts.) Page number 323 and 214 provide siyal and Chamar different caste (4)The Scheduled Caste Population in Odisha book Ramachbehera1 (talk) 03:05, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Question
Can an administrator be blocked indefinitely while being an administrator? If so, has it ever happened? Just to know.
Kind regards 14 novembre (talk) 🇮🇹 18:02, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
You've already started a discussion on the talk page, I recommend continuing it there, as the people there are more likely to have relevant knowledge. Also, it's an article! There are sources, feel free to peruse them. Remsense诉09:58, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Talk:Chinese Communist Party doesn't mention "teahouse", so nobody there suggested that you should come here. Your only contribution to that talk page has been "It’s not far left / Is a mix of neoliberalism and ultra nationalism" plus your signature. You provided no reference to political scientists or others stating that the CCP is, or that its policies are, either (i) not far left or (ii) a mixture of neoliberalism and ultra nationalism. If you want to be persuasive, you'll have to cite reliable sources. -- Hoary (talk) 11:51, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification! Discussion is welcome in many places, I just wanted to explicate where certain discussions tend to be most fruitful. Remsense诉13:45, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
You have left pseudo-provacative statements at other Talk pages, for example at Talk:United Russia a new section titled "It’s far right" with the entire text "It’s has many far right elements." And at Talk:West Germany a new section titled "How did west Germany repair ties with east Germany" with the entire text "I thought that they were always enemies." The purpose of article and Teahouse Talk pages is to ask useful questions. David notMD (talk) 14:43, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Which ideally should also be done on the relevant talk pages, not at the Teahouse—which is largely for beginner questions about Wikipedia, not content disputes. Remsense诉15:18, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
You do not have a conflict dispute - you are just being annoying. For a third example of a non-useful post, at Talk:Chinese Communist Party you posted as a topic "It’s not far left" and as content "Is a mix of neoliberalism and ultra nationalism". If you want an article to change, make the change, with references. Or else propose a change at the article's Talk page, with references. David notMD (talk) 16:34, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
That was a different person. This is the Teahouse, a place for beginners to ask questions about Wikipedia. Talk pages are for discussing the content of their related articles. Remsense诉18:07, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
I recently created a Wikipedia account and I am unable to login to the account. When I try to reset my password, I do not receive the reset password mail via the email I used to create the account. 45.8.19.111 (talk) 13:54, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Your email service may have a spam folder. Emails sometimes end up there. If you say the username then we can check the account exists and has stored an email address which is optional. We cannot see what the address is. Note that this is a public page and your IP address is shown when you post without being logged in. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:38, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello. There is no way to speed up the process, which is exclusively conducted by volunteers, choosing drafts to review in no particular order. Do you have a particular need for a speedy review? 331dot (talk) 18:57, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Well referenced, well written drafts about clearly notable topics tend to get reviewed more quickly. So keep working to improve your draft. Cullen328 (talk) 19:07, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
47.55.237.217
They are creating a number of very short drafts, on clearly non notable subjects, with no sources. Can they be listed for speedy deletion under G3? Kind regards 14 novembre (talk) 🇮🇹 19:20, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
There is a Manual of Style shortcut or perhaps a copyediting suggestion that says to avoid starting multiple sentences with "In [date]". For example: In January 2023, this happened. In September 2023, that happened. In February 2024, another thing happened. I remember seeing it linked recently but of course can't find it now. Does anyone know it? Woodroar (talk) 23:02, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
@GoldenBootWizard276: I don't think Andy has seen you used {{static row numbers}} to make automatic row numbers. His advice is for manually written row numbers where the number column would be sortable and could be sorted in descending order by clicking the heading twice. The new sorting would only be for the reader who clicks the heading. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:57, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
@Maurice Magnus: Welcome to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1220. It's most likely because whoever inserted the citation never used <references />, which I have now added to the article under a "References" heading. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:39, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
Episode descriptions are missing from all True Blood season pages
I have been following the episode descriptions as I watch the show and up until today, there have been summaries of the episodes from season 1-7 and now as of march 30th, they are missing. Chynnabear (talk) 03:43, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
I have previously asked my mentor about this, but they said that they are too busy to answer. How can I link specific diffs instead of an article when using an uw template? QwertyForest (talk) 18:42, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi QwertyForest. User warning templates like {{Uw-test1}} have two optional parameters: {{subst:Uw-test1|article|additional text}}}. If article is blank like {{subst:Uw-test1||additional text}} then no article link is added. You can include a diff in additional text but the templates don't post context to the parameter so you may want to say something like "This is about [diff link]." Diffs have equals signs unless you use Special:Diff to make them. If an unnamed template parameter has an equals sign then the parameter must be assigned with a number, e.g. |2=additional text when it's the second unnamed parameter. If the first is blank then you still need 2= for the second like {{subst:Uw-test1||2=This is about [diff link].}} You can also use both parameters at the same time. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:10, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi, everyone! This is useful, but I think there was a misunderstanding here. As shown here ([8]) some people have managed to get the warnings to say '... one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to (Article)—has been undone ...' This is the sort of thing I'd like to do. Is it possible to do it normally or do I need a tool? QwertyForest (talk) 19:36, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
@QwertyForest: Welcome to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1220. There really should be documentation for {{Huggle/warn-advert-1}}, but it seems like it takes two parameters that causes that string to appear:
The name of the page
The external link of the diff (i.e., not a wikilink), not enclosed in any brackets
Tried adding archive version of dead web source, something went wrong?
I tried adding an archived version of this source Shibam#cite note-Shibam Online-6 (because the original website is dead) but now it's giving a red error on the date. I tried following the guidelines for adding archive versions of sources, reading up on it a bit more here, and then fixing it. I thought I had it figured out, but now it's thrown up a different red error and I'm not sure what I did wrong. MWvBins (talk) 13:17, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
MWvBins: I've got rid of the error message by changing a date format to what's recommended. But I'm not confident it's the date you intended, so I'd appreciate it if you check. Maproom (talk) 13:45, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello! The error shows up because the date you inputted is March 31, but the archived version's date is March 4 (which you can verify in the archived version's link). It seems like @Timur9008: has already fixed it by changing the date to March 4. (In the future, it might be helpful to know that when an error like that appears, there might be information on how to fix it by visiting the "help" link at the end of the error.) LightNightLights (talk • contribs) 13:58, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
Pbritti, not a lot. Technically, one could investigate the cases and add evidence to "comments from other editors" section providing better justification to run CU checks. But, whereas everywhere else it feels like we're colleagues no matter the rank, SPI always felt to me like a place of impersonal, heirarchical interactions. You'd better be sure you're adding value if you start contributing evidence to cases you're not involved in. Other than that, the only solution is to appoint more CUs which arbcom is already trying to do but there just aren't many volunteers. To be honest, I think there aren't enough volunteers in any step of the heirarchy precisely because the bottom rung is so unappealing and uninviting to potential volunteers. At Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Clerks, one applicant has been waiting for a response for a month and a half. Will they ever hear back? The SPI people will discuss privately and let them know when they think they need more clerks. Makes volunteering feel like begging, imo. They could at least have a procedure where they reply with how long to wait for an answer. If you're not recruiting enough trainee clerks and clerks, you won't have enough admins with SPI experience, then it follows that you don't have many CU candidates. One would think they should be recruiting trainee clerks in droves even if they don't really need them. Anyway, I am giving you my perspective because you're an experienced editor. To get actual answers, you'd have to go to WT:SPI.If you're someone who finds socks a lot, I'd recommend establishing user talk page relationships with a few SPI admins and CUs, cut down the number of times you have to wait in line at SPI. Regards! — Usedtobecool☎️20:53, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Hey! I've just created this article on the activist Daniella Carter and used a cropped image from Wikimedia Commons for the infobox. It works alright in the article on desktop but I realized that the photo doesn't show up as cropped on mobile or in the thumbnail. Is there a better and smarter way to do it? Or do I need to repost it as cropped to Commons before using it? WikiFouf (talk) 17:02, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
@WikiFouf In case you need to do a similar crop in future, note that Commons has a very good crop tool which will create the correct templates and doesn't need a download/upload to and from your device. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:22, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello,
I setup a wikipedia page as user Nils and unfortunately forgot my password. For some reason the email I used did not register properly either and am effectively locked out of my own account. Is there any way for an administrator to reset be it my account password or account email?
Thanks in advance,
Nils 181.37.210.153 (talk) 00:06, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello. Unfortunately if the recovery email was not input correctly, there is no way to regain access and you will need to create a new account. I would suggest identifying it as a successor account("I am User5678, I used to be User1234 but lost access"). 331dot (talk) 00:39, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
For technical reasons (and legal because of attribution being required), accounts can't be deleted. If you're concerned that it may be connected to you in some way, you can ask for a courtesy vanishing. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:18, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
I tried to submit a MS word file as a new document but .doc files were not accepted. JPEG files were suggested, but these are primarily for "picture" files, and mine is entirely textual. What do you suggest suggest? Daleawebster (talk) 17:54, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
See WP:YFA for how to create and submit a draft to review, for consideration as an article. However, all new editors are strongly advised to gain experience by learning how to improve existing articles before attempting a new article. David notMD (talk) 18:12, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
@Daleawebster Welcome to the Teahouse. Text files in MS Word (or any other text documents) are not appropriate things to attempt to upload to Wikimedia Commons, or to Wikipedia. Many people, however, do sometimes prepare a draft offline in a word processor, having based whatever they're writing on properly published, reliable sources. But that text would then need to be copy/pasted directly into Wikipedia, not actually 'uploaded' as a .doc file. It's probably that some extraneous formatting code might still be present if you attempted that, so it is far, far better for you to write whatever text you want to add directly into Wikipedia using either our Source Editor or our Visual Editor.
As well as the link given above to Your First Article, I see you have already been left a welcome message on your talk page which contains a very important link to Learn More About Editing. Do please work through those pages to understand how content and citations are added to this encyclopaedia with our editing tools. If you need any further help, just ask. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 20:41, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
Creating/Submitting A New Article For Inclusion Onsite
Hello, I have a new article I would like to submitted to be added to this site. I would like a little help to make certain the format is correct for your needs. Please let me know what you need from me. Thank you. CVActor2 (talk) 23:11, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
I can see this is your first time interacting with Wikipedia, so I'd also recommend not jumping into making or requesting an article be made just yet. Feel free to look over the task centre to see whether anything piques your fancy; I'd recommend citation hunting, it's a very useful way to learn how to cite stuff. CommissarDoggoTalk?23:16, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
Proving Notability in Draft:Middlesex and North West London ACF
Being a CFAV myself it feels a little difficult to say this, but individual cadet battalions really just aren't all that notable.
I know some that likely are and would certainly warrant their own article, like the 1st Cadet Battalion, King's Royal Rifles Corps (the only cadet battalion with battle honours to my knowledge), but you're gunna find it difficult to find secondarysources to satisfy notability guidelines on others such as this one.
Hi, and thanks, do you think I would be better drafting an article for the ACF in London District (all four sectors in one article). AWN08 (talk) 00:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
That could work, yeah. You can somewhat work off of List of Army Cadet Force units to see all of them. Seeing as you have 500 edits I'll ask, do you have access to the Wikipedia Library? If not I'll happily try to find some sources in there.
Yes I have access but am unsure on how to use it for a topic like this. I’m struggling to find any references to ACF units. AWN08 (talk) 00:11, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, I’ll look through this tonight and I’ll see if I can find enough citations/ history to justify its own article. If not then I’ll start a draft for the ACF in London District. AWN08 (talk) 00:22, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
I wouldn't be surprised if there were some website that claimed to do this. Would it actually deliver? Probably not. One thing you might do is set up for English the browser that you're using for English: a browser set up in this way would point out likely typing/spelling mistakes. (The "free as in both libre and gratuit" browser I'm using right now would put put a wiggly red line under both "í" and "orðs" in your question above. Also, under its title of "Subjectivness".) -- Hoary (talk) 02:27, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
I am new to editing on Wikipedia but I have edited a minor article about my connection to the late Dr John Rippon I discovered through my ancestry research and DNA markers on Ancestry UK that he is my 6th great grandfather is that ok to do that or can I write information about this elsewhere I'm an author Poet and would like to write just out of interest to others who like researching 2A02:C7C:4A6E:D100:94E5:9BE4:C9D8:6F40 (talk) 07:23, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi, welcome. Thank you for asking about this at the TeaHouse. So for starters, looking at this edit to the John Rippon Article, you may have made an account but accidentally logged out before coming to the TeaHouse, I'm guessing that was on accident but if you have an account try to stay logged in while editing so that everyone knows who did what. The edit has been undone because it doesn't really contribute anything to the enyclopedia (not to metion being unverifiable and and out of step with the normal tone of voice). If you want to keep editing Wikipedia you may wish to read Getting Started. But please be clear that Wikipedia is not a social platform for individual's thoughts, perspectives or relations to any given topic. ---- D'n'B-t -- 07:44, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
No, I am sorry but that is not appropriate for a Wikipedia article. A man who lived two centuries ago could easily have hundreds or thousands of descendents. Even if the relationship you claim is true, your DNA would contain only an infinitesimal amount of his DNA. When you write that you have conducted ancestry research and DNA markers on Ancestry UK, that is a perfect example of original research, which is not permitted on Wikipedia. As for writing about this matter elsewhere, there are countless other websites where content like this is welcomed but not Wikipedia. That is because Wikipedia is, as a matter of policy, not a genealogy website. Cullen328 (talk) 08:03, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
I want to create a wikipedia page for a company. But the username keeps getting rejected. How to move forward?
Need help with understanding the username guidelines and what username can be picked for the page I create.
You seem to be confusing your username with that of the name of the article you want to write. Your username is the name of your account that you will use on Wikipedia, not the name of an article you will write. Your username should represent you personally, not your company. Once you have a username, you will then use it to create a draft via the article wizard. 331dot (talk) 08:16, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
A Wikipedia account is for one person and one person only. Usernames that purport to represent a company like "Widgets Incorporated" are not permitted. Role accounts like "Marketing at Widgets Incorporated" are also not permitted, for two reasons. Such an account name indicates that the account may be shared among marketing staff who come and go at that company, and also, marketing activity is forbidden on Wikipedia, so any account dedicated to marketing will be blocked. "Jean at Widgets Incorporated" is an acceptable username as long as the mandatory Paid contributions disclosure is made. But such an account will not be permitted to engage in promotional, advertising, marketing or public relations activity, because all such behavior is strictly forbidden on Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 08:20, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Don't worry about it – you were correct. The edit filter correctly assumes that generally, new/unregistered users removing AfD templates is not a good thing, but in this case it was fine. Not sure why you were reverted. Tollens (talk) 10:10, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
You've already asked for help with this at the AFC Help Desk, please do not use more than one forum at a time to avoid duplicating effort. 331dot (talk) 07:24, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
This draft about a 19 year old says He was born on January 1, 2005, in a quaint village nestled within the lush landscapes of Gosairhat Upazila, Shariatpur district, Dhaka Division, Bangladesh,in a village where he faced many challenges and hardships. AL AMIN embodies the spirit of relentless pursuit. His journey from humble beginnings to multifaceted success is nothing short of inspiring. Despite his friends' discouragement, he pursued his passion for acting and filmmaking. AL AMIN is a role model for many young people in Bangladesh who want to follow their dreams and make a difference in the world That is overtly promotional and non neutral language. Promotional, advertising and public relations editing is strictly forbidden on Wikipedia. Editobd, if you are writing about yourself, please read WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. Such an effort is almost certain to fail, and will end up being a waste of your time. Cullen328 (talk) 07:33, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi Flaming Hot Mess of Confusion. Such a thing is generally considered OK, but it's recommend that you follow the guidance given in WP:ASOF when you do because it categorizes the pages where such an expression is being used and allows others to easily monitor them for updating. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:18, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
I have read "Wikipedia:A primer for newcomers", but I feel like I need to learn more about Wikipedia before I start contributing. What should I know? BrandenburgBlue (talk) 23:52, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
Another thing to read up on would be the Manual of Style, it's a lovely bit of kit that'll be invaluable.
Also, if you're looking for stuff to do, hit up the tasks centre, it's a fantastic place to find some jobs. I'd recommend looking into citation hunting, it's a great way to start your career.
Hi, BrandenburgBlue, and welcome! I'm going to take a slightly different approach to your question. Wikipedia is truly "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit", and I think "what you should know" depends to a fairly large extent on your own, personal style in new, unfamiliar situations. For example: if you get a new gadget—a new model cell phone, rice cooker, flatbed scanner, gaming platformr—do you read all the instructions first, or do you just unrap it, plug it in, and see if you can "just make it work", only going back to the instructions when you get stuck? I'm sort of in the middle, but closer to the unwrap-and-play type: I like to tinker a little bit with my new gadget, and then go to the instructions later, to find out all the little hidden tricks and advanced options that aren't obvious when I unwrap it. Which type are you?
One thing that's good to know about Wikipedia, is that you can press all the buttons and you are not going to break anything, no matter what you do. If you make a huge error, lets say, you edit the France article and add "Barcelona is the #2 city" by mistake—don't worry about it. This is a collaborative project, and some other editor will come along and fix it pretty quickly. Mistakes are okay, everybody makes mistakes; that's how we all learn.
So, if you are okay with this style, I would encourage you to start right away—right after you read this—and go edit some article. Do the best you can, add something, fix something, see what happens when you hit the Publish button. Add real stuff to the best of you ability, and don't add jokes or Barcelona to the France article, but if you are honestly trying to improve the article, then you are fine.
Concern over lack of transparency on how to edit pages concerning pedophilia topics
In the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pedophilia_Article_Watch this now defunc project has a custom note on its page to email ArbCon direct to handle the situation "discreetly" with a comment in the edit history of "Unfortunally we can't use any of the normal inactive templates because they advise people to go to the teahouse, which is the last thing we want."
Advising editors to hide their conversations is a very dangerous president to set. I understand that in the current culture not condemning this topic can be seen as supporting it, more so given the outrage over Gemini not commending pedophilia when it is not realistic to expect an AI to have a strong opinion on any subject.
It currently appears that directly referencing any group listen on List of pedophile advocacy organizations is not permissible, but I can find no guidance on this. Furthermore my attempt to edit that page from what I saw as a very prejudicial viewpoint to one a bit less prejudicial was met with an outright revert instead of any attempt to try and remedy it.
As it currently stands, I feel intimidated to touch the subject for fear of being banned by the ArbCon without proper transparency.. As I saw an overly aggressive user that was attempting to move the PoV to less negative one get blocked for all of Wikipedia without any discussion or any attempt at mediation, whereas a different user aggressive user attempting to give Zoophilia a more negative view was given a lot more chances, an attempt at mediation and was ultimately only blocked from editing pages related to that topic.
Additional ask: I am looking for guidelines on how to contribute to this topic, or if such guidelines do not exist, how can I submit them for review. Subanark (talk) 13:36, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
To clarify, the revert in question was in response to @Subanark changing Newgon Organization. An online group that advocates for "pedophile rights" and circulates accounts justifying child molestation to Newgon Organization. An online group that advocates for "pedophile rights" and circulates accounts normalizing "child molestation", with the bold being the changed sections.
The revert seems to be correct, citing WP:SCAREQUOTES and the fact that "justifying" is a word used in the source. The current version seems pretty neutral to me.
As for any particular guidance or specific guidelines, I'm not really sure. The closest would probably be something along the lines of Wikipedia's zero tolerance policy, which states Engaging in, or soliciting/promoting on behalf of, activities that are obviously and gravely illegal (especially in the United States) can result in a zero-tolerance block. To be clear, we are not talking about running a stop sign or drag racing. Think promotion of terrorism or child pornography is something that can get someone blocked immediately. CommissarDoggoTalk?14:04, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
It just doesn't seem fair that "pedophile rights" gets the quote treatment, but child molestation doesn't. It also does not seem fair to describe an organization only by its opponents. From the research I've done I am unable to find many references to the group. The group's mission statement is probably in violation of Wikipedia's policy on advocacy. I still fail to see how a phrase like "child molestation" could be neutral. It is a phrase that invokes disgust and outrage. I do agree that a lot of what the organization does seem to align with how child molestation is defined but I don't think justify is a strong enough term. I guess the best I can hope for at this point is for a scholarly article that will touch on this organization.
The zero tolerance policy seems to be an essay, not an actual policy (WP:NOTPOLICY). And I'm having trouble getting a clear idea of what it is trying to convey... Let me break it down:
"Engaging in, or soliciting/promoting on behalf of," - Engaging would include soliciting/promoting, so Engaging should be sufficient.
"obviously" - I think obviously is the incorrect word given that the age of consent differs though out the world. I could see an argument for "clearly" instead.
"gravel illegal" - It isn't clear where the line is here. It kind of sounds like: "Any action that would be considered a war crime if done during war", but that would likely exclude CP.
zero-tolerance - Zero Tolerance is often seen as very draconian, and tends to be hyperbole.
To be clear... drag racing - I don't understand where this is going. Is it to say commonly committed crimes that are not inherently violet?
terrorism - When I think of terrorism, I think of an often misused term to invoke panic on the people.
child pornography - There is still wide debate on this as to if fictional is allowed or how to handle cases where it is not clear if the person was a minor or not.
Maybe it is part of the autism I have, but I am unable to get a reading on the common sense that this policy seems to rely on. How about this: I will update the essay in a way I feel better states the policy, and after editorial review, I will use that. For me it is important to have clear instructions, and while I am capable of writing those instructions, I will commonly misunderstand it.
Paedophile rights is likely in quotes because I don't think anyone is really out here saying that people should have a right to fantasize about touching kids aside from groups such as those on that page. The topic of child molestation can and indeed should invoke feelings of disgust and outrage, putting it in quotes won't change that and would, in my eyes, make it seem as if we're dismissing it.
It would be nice to have an official policy, but that essay is about as close as I could find with a very cursory look. If someone could find something out there on it then that'd be lovely.
As for the zero tolerance essay, likely the most pertinent part is this: In all cases administrators should exercise restraint where practicable, and carefully consider the circumstances including possible mitigating or extenuating facts before imposing any block, much less a zero-tolerance one. Even with naked vandalism, in all but the rarest of cases some form of warning is desirable. All of which said, WP:BEFOREBLOCK clearly states that in cases of obviously bad-faith behavior, warnings are not required and an immediate block is within the discretion of administrators.
The key here is within the within the discretion of administrators. If an admin deems that something warrants an immediate block, the individual will receive one.
As for transparency, if you're editing in good faith (which everyone should assume regardless), you're far more likely to receive messages on your talk page and guidance in reversions than a block. You are highly unlikely to be blocked just for editing in certain areas. This links back to where it says In all cases administrators should exercise restraint where practicable. The only reason you would likely be immediately blocked is if you're advocating, which, and I cannot stress this enough, I don't believe you're doing. Please let me know if you have any specific questions on the transparency thing, but I hope I've answered that.
Finally, for the bullet points;
"Engaging in, or soliciting/promoting on behalf of," is pretty much just legalese. It's covering all bases.
"obviously" is correct, as that section doesn't just include child porn, it's across all crimes. Additionally, the next bit is more important here: (especially in the United States). This is very specific because Wikipedia operates in the US primarily and largely follows their laws. That isn't to say that, for example, copyright laws of other countries shouldn't be followed, it's more so that the US is the legal baseline for most things.
"gravely illegal" is... Admittedly vague, and the other crimes listed are kind of just thrown in there. That should definitely change, but again, within the discretion of administrators
"zero-tolerance" is the phrase used fairly widely and I don't think that really needs to change, regardless of how draconian anyone sees it.
"child pornography" links back to number 2, Wikipedia largely follows US laws and thus stands by their laws on Simulated child pornography.
5 and 6 I'm not really going to touch on, primarily because I touched on 5 in 3 and 6 isn't really interchangeable. Terrorism is terrorism. As Remsense said, you should definitely discuss any changes on the talk page first. CommissarDoggoTalk?17:37, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, I feel like I cannot remain fully professional in this response:
The more we push pedophiles away from us, the more likely they will commit harm. The sigma around it has made it very difficult for them to come out and get the help they need (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8888370/). The Wikipedia article is going to get primary attention from pedophiles, who really don't need more shame and from those that are seeking to harm pedophiles, which don't need any more reason to be angary. When I read the pedophiles rights I was not outraged or discussed, I was afraid about the damaging effect this would have on a kids current and lasting mental state. I don't think it is Wikipedia's goal to invoke feelings in others, it is to invoke rational thought. Subanark (talk) 20:30, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
I want to note in passing that 'child molestation' without quotations already carries a negative connotation, while 'paedophile rights' does not. Important differences to this discussion, it feels like. JackTheSecond (talk) 12:31, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Can someone explain how to make an April Fools AFD nomination? I read all the instructions but still can't figure it out. TypoEater (talk) 13:55, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Have you even read Wikipedia:April Fools? Most of the April Fools stuff is joke AFD nominations and there's a separate page for them. Wikipedia has a history of doing stuff like this for April Fools and they have specific rules to make sure it does not disrupt normal use. TypoEater (talk) 14:33, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I'm obviously aware of April Fools Day. I'm also aware that (IMO) joke AfDs are near-universally unfunny, and not for lack of effort. It's not funny, it's not cute, it's boring and annoying. So please don't waste your and everyone else's time. Writ Keeper⚇♔14:36, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Zee Cine Award for Best Actor – Female wrong information
please change popular award for best actor female in zee cine awards 2024. rani mukerji won popular . if you doubt thn check yrf official twitter account , zee studio official twitter account and emmay entertainment official twitter account. please check again your Wikipedia page and edit. 2405:205:C94A:630E:9488:D4BA:1DB0:597B (talk) 16:21, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1220. It appears you've already posted this on the relevant talk page. I suggest you edit your comment there so that it has the edit request template and provide a source that is considered reliable by Wikipedia's standards. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:45, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
As far as I know you don't add things to your suggested edits. If you have a look at my user page, at the bottom of it you'll see a collapsed box which houses the stuff that I think needs to be fixed and that I plan on fixing in the future. CommissarDoggoTalk?20:39, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure about Chrome, but on Firefox, there should be a symbol that looks like a bookshelf to the right of the search bar. In Firefox, you can also open the history "sidebar" by pressing control+shift+H (command+shift+H on a Mac). 😸 Cremastra (talk) 23:14, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
MountVic127 I lose my edits sometimes too. Usually I go to my User page and on the right it has a link to User contributions. There's a search feature if you remember a word to look for. Just a different way to check instead of browser history. --Tbennert (talk) 03:09, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Format change for search results
Recently I decided to look up Certosa de Pavia on Wikipedia. The normal search result showed up, and then it suddenly changed to a ridiculously simplistic format that I find insulting, degrading and unnecessary. You don't have to make it easier for me to read. I have eyes that work just fine and a brain that does not require dumbing it down for me to understand. PLEASE put it back the way it was. You are annoying a devoted, long term (30+ years) adherent and faithful user to your site. 2600:8801:AA09:6000:38A4:1EB0:3031:2A6E (talk) 04:33, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Not the IP OP, I wonder if a misclick or some spontaneous spasm in the matrix led to the mobile view for Certosa di Pavia. In which case, IP OP, you can force desktop mode by going all the way down and clicking the "Desktop" link in the footer. Otherwise, I'm just as confused as RudolfRed. Rotideypoc41352 (talk·contribs) 05:32, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
New Editor - Seeking Review for Star City Thanlyin Article
Hi everyone,
I'm a new editor on Wikipedia, and I've been working on an article about Star City Thanlyin, a mixed-use development project in Myanmar. I've drafted the article in the sandbox and submitted a request for review on the article's "talk" page, but haven't received any feedback yet.
I'm eager to learn and ensure the article meets Wikipedia's quality standards. Could anyone provide some guidance on how to get my draft reviewed? I've included citations and references for all information, and I'm open to any suggestions for improvement.
Hi Wiki Soe Moe. The content you've been working on in you sandbox is not going to be automatically submitted for review; you will need to formally request that it be reviewed by submitting it to WP:Articles for creation. So, what you will need to do is go to the Article's for creation page, carefully read through all of the stuff at the top of the page, and then click on the blue "Click here to start a new article" button if you wish to proceed. You can then take move the content you've been working on in your sandbox to the new draft article after its been created and continue working on it there. Once you think its ready for review, you can click on blue "Submit the draft for review!" button. However, I wouldn't suggest you do that right now because you draft will certainly end up being declined. You might want to take a look at WP:NOT (particularly WP:NOTPROMO), WP:V (particularly WP:SOURCE) , WP:Referencing for beginners and WP:Your first article for some general ideas on what reviewers are looking for when they evaluate drafts and WP:NBUILDING and WP:GNG for some general information on the kinds of development projects it's usually OK to try and create articles about. You should also take a close look at WP:COI and WP:PAID if you're connected to the project in anything but a casual way: WP:PAID is particulary important if your connection is financial or somehow otherwise professional (something you're being compensated for) in nature. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:07, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Siyal and chamar two different caste but the writer wrote siyal and chamar in one caste.Her source was talk to siyal and chamar two different caste but the writer wrote wrong theory and he was protect this page. Source are provided siyal and chamar are two different there are :- *(1) The Constitution (Scheduled caste) Order of 1950 Book, Page number 167 and 168 castes serial list 18 chamar and 86 siyal caste. *(2)Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Research and Training Institute (SCSTRTI), Odisha , (3)Singh, K.S.; Anthropological Survey of India (1992): People of India: Odisha (2 pts.) Page number 323 and 214 provide siyal and Chamar different caste (4)The Scheduled Caste Population in Odisha book . Ramachbehera1 (talk) 04:14, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
@Ramachbehera1, it is unlikely that anyone at the Teahouse will be able to assist you with the editorial concerns you have better than the talk page for the articles in question. Please raise concerns there instead. Remsense诉04:18, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Ramachbehera1, you have shown repeatedly that you are currently not competent to contribute to the English language Wikipedia, because your English language skills are very poor. Your comment above is largely incoherent. Please volunteer instead at the Wikipedia version in the language you speak best. Cullen328 (talk) 04:30, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Document unusual move
Hello,
Re: documenting previous versions of an article before a move, that was later recreated
I have been working on the Israel Bissell article and kept finding that it was an Isaac Bissell who was the post rider to sound the "Lexington Alarm" (Battle of Lexington and Concord) and that Israel Bissell was a mistake. After more research, which I documented on the talk page, I came to the conclusion that the article should be about Isaac, so I moved the page.
I then found out that two men with the surname Bissell spread the Lexington Alarm (call to arms) to towns in Connecticut from Worcester in two different directions. So, I copied the version of the article just before the move and brought Israel Bissell back to life. (If helpful, there's a high-level explanation at Talk:Israel Bissell and lots and lots of detail at Talk:Isaac Bissell.)
The good news is that there are appropriately two articles for each man. The bad news is that the history for Israel is in Isaac's pages. Is there a way to document this - perhaps on the talk page? Or, maybe request that history is moved?
I cannot remember how to do this and what is best.
How do I make a complaint about another editor? Or have someone officiate what is happening? This person has made up totally spurious reasons for attacking me; has accused me of edit-warring after I tried to clarify an edit; and is now saying I have a conflict of interest based on some kind of statistical analysis. I have tried discussing things with them, but they are always aggressive. I suspect they are also tracking me because they jump onto my edits so quickly. This has been going on for 18 months. I actually stopped doing anything on Wikipedia for 6 months because of it. I feel like I am being stalked (and I have told them this). What do I do?GreyStar456 (talk) 15:27, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
@GreyStar456 The correct venue to make such complaints is WP:ANI. Before you do anything, carefully read the instructions at the top and note that your own behaviour may be taken into consideration by the admins who will review your case. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:03, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. That looks a horrendous process. However, this can't go on. He is just making things up. I shall start gathering the evidence. GreyStar456 (talk) 10:42, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
A user prodded an article on my watchlist today, claiming it was an April fools. They received, from me, a stern warning not to do that again, after I rollbacked their edits. If they were to do it again, they would likely receive a block for vandalism. That's why not. Polyamorph (talk) 17:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello. The Article Wizard may be used to create and submit a draft, but be advised that it will be challenging; please use the tutorial to learn more about Wikipedia first, and maybe edit some existing articles so you learn more about what is expected of article content. 331dot (talk) 16:56, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Does the Wikimedia organization (meta:PCP) intend to start shutting down wikis in lesser used languages once most people who speak that language also speak a more popular language?
I would say probably not. One of the criteria for shutting down a project is that few editors fluent in that language are active, but not that most of its editors are also fluent in some other language. As long as there are enough editors willing and able to maintain a project, it usually carries on. I can't speak to any of the specific wikis you've mentioned, though. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:09, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
draft: Mohammed Algoni
Hi,
Please I want someone to kindly check this article tell me my mistakes and the way forward draft:Mohammed Algoni. The draft article
le was declined due to referencing from unverified sources.In the same vein I feel the sources on the article are verified.
@Sylvesterchukwu04: Welcome to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1220. I'll leave others to talk about the sources, but the draft as written is inappropriate for an encyclopedia as it is not written in a encyclopedic tone and instead serves to promote the subject. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:44, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Refs 1, 2, 5 & 6 are press-release type publications of him congratulating one author; refs 3, 4, 7, 8 & 9 are press-release type publications about him giving one presentation. None are about him, his business or any philanthropy. David notMD (talk) 18:58, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello, Sylvesterchukwu04. Please note that Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely 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. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 18:04, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
My Draft
Hi there everyone. A few weeks ago I sought out some help for my Draft: T-Money (rapper) AfC and I received some really constructive feedback. I was told to improve the quality of my sources, and I found some great stuff. I was wondering if someone can take a look at my edits and references, and let me know more ways I could approve, if any? I'm always looking to learn. Thanks all! Taevchoi (talk) 18:48, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
I'm just gunna chuck this one out there, video jockey either shouldn't be abbreviated or should be abbreviated only after stating what that abbreviation is; video jockey (VJ) would work. This is just me nit-picking though. CommissarDoggoTalk?18:52, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
No worries. I've also taken the liberty of adding [citation needed] templates, Where possible citations should be added. Where impossible, information should not be included. The AllMusic sources should also be replaced where possible.
My only real concerns are uncited areas, some minor issues in insufficient citations and, again, another nit-pick, unsorted citations (2 before 1, etc.) and double-spaces, but I have no doubts that'll be sorted prior to resubmission.
Hi there @CommissarDoggo can I ask for your advice? I had the T-Money #143 trading card cited with its link on Ebay, but I was told by a fellow editor that it wasn't the appropriate source. So then, I added a picture of the trading card via wikimedia to the article, but someone flagged it for copyright and it was removed from my draft. How should I go about this? He definitely appeared on the trading card. Should I try to get in contact with the subject, and see if he has his own photo of the trading card to avoid copyright? or should I buy it myself off of ebay and then upload a picture? I'm genuinely stumped. I appreciate your expertise! Taevchoi (talk) 16:27, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
I mean... As a primary source I'd use WP:EBAY quite happily, as long as you're not trying to extrapolate anything from it it should be fine.
I would ask what you're trying to achieve by putting the card on there though, is it significant in some way (rare, especially pricy, auctioned cards going to a good cause, etc.) or is it just saying that he was featured on an MTV Raps trading card? If it's the latter then I'd err on the side of not putting it in the article simply because it doesn't really add much of substance; he's #143 in the series, so I can only imagine that there were at least 200 different cards made, which doesn't seem massively significant I'm afraid.
Another question for you -- @CommissarDoggo. I don't want to sound like a quitter, I do enjoy looking for resources, but let's say I can't find any reliable material for the information marked as needing a citation, would it be detrimental to my article if I removed it? I was told by Utopes that there's a nice chance of it being approved, and I would be disappointed to jeopardize that by removing info. I value and appreciate your opinion! Taevchoi (talk) 18:14, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
It's a weird situation. The accounts are centrally managed, so if you create an account called JohnSmith while using the English wikipedia, you'll find that an account called JohnSmith exists on all the others, too, and if you edit them while you're logged on, that will be your username everywhere. But although you only have one account for all Wikipedias, each Wikipedia will supply you with your own opportunity for a user-page and your own talk-page, and these will operate quite independently. Those using the Italian Wikipedia will see your Italian user-page, while those using the English will see your English. If you habitually edit in multiple languages, there are ways to make sure that everyone sees one unified user-page if you wish. But if you only occasionally drop in to other wikipedias, don't worry about it. Elemimele (talk) 12:00, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
@This user is: Your account will work at around 1000 of the Wikimedia wikis at Special:SiteMatrix. A local version of the account is automatically created if you view any page at the wiki while already logged in at another of the wikis like the English Wikipedia. Special:CentralAuth/This user is shows your current accounts. Some wikis post welcome messages to new accounts with no edits. That happened yesterday at the Italian Wikipedia and you were probably notified about it. It confuses and annoys many users. Just ignore it. I once suggested to disallow it at meta:Welcoming policy but it got no attention. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:50, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
I am a new editor and wanted to know if there is any kind of policy/guidelines regarding the use of Pronouns for the 72 genders? As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and sometimes it gets confusing, in the context.
In articles. I was editing Darwin Del Fabro, a non-binary actor and singer, the article is written in he/they and at a few instances, they and their of Darwin and they and their of a production company was getting mixed. Although, it has been fixed for now, however, it got me thinking, the impact of it on readability of the article, and what about in the future, such confusions become unavoidable?
Thank you for your question, it was indeed a necessary clarity. Thank you :)
I would say: use the pronoun that you think most obviously applies to someone unless there is a compelling reason to do otherwise. "This person has expressed a preference for X pronoun" counts as a compelling reason, as does "this person is trans" and "you've made a mistake there". DS (talk) 23:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment @DragonflySixtyseven, I am concerned about the articles. I do respect the people's choice for themselves, and would always use their preferred pronouns.
Really, the policy is that if they identify as anything other than male or female, the pronouns of their biogacal sex should be used. If they are trans, only use the pronouns of the gender they have transitoned tó if they are fully transiotoned. But usally, please use the pronouns of their biolagacal sex, as it ís note formal. Blackmamba31248 (talk) 02:18, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
No, see MOS:GENDERID, which says "Refer to any person whose gender might be questioned with the name and gendered words (e.g. pronouns, man/woman/person, waiter/waitress/server) that reflect the person's most recent expressed self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources, even if it does not match what is most common in sources." It is their self-identification that matters, not whatever we consider that their biological sex may be. Elemimele (talk) 11:54, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
Even if you're discontent with how the MoS works, how on earth does replying to someone with your own made-up policy (using 'pronouns of their biogacal sex') in the question-and-answer board for new editors help anyone? Manpinsou (talk) 20:27, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
I probably could say some things I shouldn't about the assertion--as if it's commonly accepted and, well, everybody knows it--that there are 72 genders (particularly in view of the fact that the question could have been presented just as well without it). But I guess, since this isn't an article, a citation to a reputable source is not required. Uporządnicki (talk) 13:11, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
I'm guessing the assertion that there's a fixed number of 72 exactly and everyone knows it is coming from someone w/out much knowledge on this type of thing trying to act in good faith. In the end, it doesn't matter much since they got a link to the MoS and are trying to be kind. Manpinsou (talk) 16:21, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
I am working on a draft for a musician. She is mentioned in passing on other wikipedia pages so I thought she would be a good artist to try and make my first page for: Draft:Kerenza Peacock
However due to feedback on my draft already I think she may not be a good candidate for a page. The reviewer mentions the lack of independent coverage. I agree that there are not many independent journalistic sources with much detail on this musician, however she does met some of the other criterio on WP:Notability (Music) e.g singles in the national music charts, albums released with a notable record label.
I would appreciate some advice about whether this lack of significant independent coverage will mean the musician is not eligible for a Wikipedia page.
Lauren-Abroad Hello and welcome. You say that you are "working on a draft for a musician"- are you associated with this musician?
A person can technically meet the notability criteria and still not merit an article because the sources are not there. 331dot (talk) 08:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Thank you both for your replies. I see that the artist probably does not merit an article due to lack of significant independent sources. It is difficult as the artist and her music is mentioned in many independent sources but none goes into sufficient detail about the musician herself I think.
To clarify also, I am not associated with the musician, other than knowing her music and thinking she was a good candidate for my first attempt at a Wikipedia page. Lauren-Abroad (talk) 00:37, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Best practices for addressing an ill-advised "undo"?
I'm puzzled, because someone randomly undid an edit that was perfectly good, rather than editing constructively to make the page better. Then the person left the blunt comment, "Not an improvement." I think they may not realize that I created the whole page, either... the person might have thought I was just a casual editor who did something they didn't like, but even then "undo" was not called for. The person simply could have edited it to their liking.
I found this page, Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary, that describes how I feel about being reverted unnecessarily. My first impulse was to click "undo," but that could seem either childish or as though I felt ownership over the page, which I absolutely do not. I'm happy to gift it to Wikipedia forever, and leave it to other editors to improve, but what that particular editor did felt like a flip off. I also checked that person's talk page and saw that they have been banned in the past (plagiarism), but then got un-banned.
Thoughts? Suggestions? What are best practices for addressing this? I feel that I should not let this person's "undo" and "Not an improvement" stand, but I don't want to commit more sin than I am calling out. And I certainly don't want to provoke anyone. I'm a peace activist. Fortunaa (talk) 01:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
@Fortunaa: Best practice is to follow WP:BRD and discuss it with the other editor on the article's talk page. You were bold and made an edit, the other editor reverted, next step is discussion. RudolfRed (talk) 01:32, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
I have published an article on Wikipedia representing the overview of my company. But it is nominated for speedy deletion. I want help in creating a page for my company and an article. Qubicgen (talk) 07:55, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
You are allowed to try. On your User page, declare that you are paid by the company (applies even if you own the company, or are an unpaid intern). The see WP:NCORP to see if the company qualifies, and WP:YFA to create and then submit a draft for a reviewer. David notMD (talk) 11:16, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Appeal would almost certainly fail per username policy, so not worth the bother, imho. But they could simply abandon the account and create another one that only applies to one person. Even something like Qubicgen-Joseph is admissible, I'm pretty sure, but not just Qubicgen by itself. Mathglot (talk) 01:56, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
What to look for when editing Articles?
Hello, I am new to Wikipedia and want to contribute in the correct manner. I would really appreciate advice on how to contribute and make successful edits on articles/pages. What signs or tips do we look for in articles when editing is prompted? Qb1Coach (talk) 00:58, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
You've made a promising start, Qb1Coach. However, if a cited web page fails to verify the assertion(s) that it immediately follows, better to start by checking (via the Wayback Machine) whether an earlier version does do the job. If it does, change the reference to point to that earlier version; if it does not, use the "Failed verification" template, at least for the short term. Or of course you can google for an alternative, solid source for the assertion(s), and cite that (or those) instead of the dud web page. -- Hoary (talk) 04:59, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
:hover styles for elements
Is it accessible or convenient for Wikipedia to create CSS :hover styles that drastically change the content, e.g. show a hidden message or reveal additional information? —Nataliemeoww (talk) 12:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Bazza_7, using Ghostery and I think most other browsers for Android etc, the effect you'd get by hovering a cursor is achieved simply by tapping the relevant area once. Such effects definitely include popups. To stop the effect, you tap there a second time. (I don't know about screen readers, and I agree with the gist of what you're saying.) -- Hoary (talk) 07:06, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Those are their proper names in Spanish. We should refer to those institutions by their proper name as a title, but choose which English spelling to use for descriptive prose. For example, "The Teatre Lliure is a theatre in Barcelona ..." Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:08, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
How to create English page for a existed Chinese page?
The Chinese page existed already, I just want to add the option of English content but can't find the way. The English content is simply the direct translation of the exisiting Chinese content. Why is there a problem of creditibility, if the Chinese content is good to publish? So do all other celebrities pages now published? I hope you can provide useful link for immediate editing or correction, but not direct user to guideline reading and reading. Thank you!
@Paksiu If your Draft:Poon Yu Him, Anson was a direct translation from the Chinese article you have linked (which I can't confirm since I don't speak Chinese), then you have made the mistake of assuming that the English Wikipedia works to the same rules as the Chinese-language WIkipedia: it doesn't! In particular, for biographies of living people it is mandatory here to provide inline citations to all facts likely to be disputed, even simple things like date of birth. Your draft has no citations at all, so no way for anyone to verify that what is stated is backed up by reliable sources. Please read carefully all the policy pages I have linked. Finally, if your draft is a simple translation, you must credit its source as being the Chinese version: see WP:TRANSLATE. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:22, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
I speak Chinese and I can confirm that the draft is a partial direct translation of some sections of the Chinese version. However, the Chinese version cites multiple sources inline and links to other articles, while the English draft doesn't. CanonNi (talk) 10:42, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Twinkle languages
I noticed that the Twinkle automated system for non-English welcomes does not support some languages for which we have a template, such as Italian and Hindi. Can this be fixed?
Kind regards 14 novembre (talk) 🇮🇹 20:25, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
In 1900 Muslims only numbered 200 million followers or 12% of the world population. This percentage drastically increased over the last 100 years due to higher birth rate in Muslim majority countries.[1][2] Pew Research have estimated the number will be around 2.2 billion in 2030 and 2.8 billion, or 30 percent of world population, in 2050.[3][4]
In Muslim world article user Manticore had deleted this sentences with different reason. First he claimed it was out of topic, poor written (it could targetted non English contributors), and wikipedia not a Crystal Glass (but in Religion Growth Population had cited Pew Research estimated). Please help to improve Muslim world article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.121.18.126 (talk) 06:09, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
The article Muslim world already has references for population and percent of world population in 2020. Predictions for the future are not warranted. The fact that editor Manticore deleted that text and reference is not anti-Islam. There is a population discussion on the Talk page of the article, which is the proper place. David notMD (talk) 11:51, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
hi there. i want to create a page of translation. its the english version of masjedsoleyman municipality. this personal draft is the translated version and i want somebody with permission create this page or give me permission to create pages.
AMIR 121, when you think it's ready, add {{Subst:Submit}} to the top of it. NB it's not ready now: (i) perhaps I'm stupider than the average reader, but I had to read quite some way before understanding that this is about a place in Iran; (ii) it confuses two year-numbering systems; (iii) it presents a lot of information that lacks references; and (perhaps most importantly) (iv) if this is an organization that runs Masjed Soleyman (and does little more), then it's not at all clear to me why the draft can't be stripped of relative trivia, greatly abridged, summarized, and added within the article Masjed Soleyman. -- Hoary (talk) 00:09, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
AMIR 121, both "city" and "municipality" have a wide range of meanings. I don't know how these terms differ in the context of Iran. Perhaps most of the people reading this ("Teahouse") page don't know either. Wait a couple of days to see if anyone who's knowledgable makes an informed comment here. If no such comments come, perhaps ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Iran. -- Hoary (talk) 12:22, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Small letters in references
Hello. I was wondering why some references have small superscripted letters after the ^ character, such as "a b" or "a b c". Thank you. Grammarius (talk) 10:03, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
I have discovered that my Cellular IP address has ben blocked. At first i thought my whole account had been wrongfully blocked, however i soon discovered it was only my cellular ip that had bern blocked, (I manly use my phone). Anyways, thinking that my whole account was blocked, i filled out a ticket appeal, only after i filled it out and switched to my internet wifi, did i find out it was only my cellular. My question for whoever responds to this, is should i remove the appeal, (if it’s even possible), or should i leave the appeal up, in the hopes that my cellular ip will be unblocked. BigRed606 (talk) 06:43, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Good morning. My name is Chris Sclafani. I am the business agent for Almalgamated Lithographers Of America union. There is some information on your site that is not up to date. We are no longer part of the IBT Teamsters Union. Our contract has been legally terminated. Also some of the history are not correct. I was wondering how we can fix this ? We understand it’s a non for profit organization. We will help out with the cost. Please advise us how to proceed.
The building head quarters should not reference the IBT Teamsters. There is no affiliation with the Teamsters anymore. We would like all “teamster” references kindly removed. Who should I send any documentation to ? LocaloneL (talk) 12:05, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
@LocaloneL: You may find this FAQ useful. The most crucial thing is that we need a source or sources to support every change. We generally ask for independent coverage (such as press articles), but for something like the IBT Teamsters issue, a statement on your own, or their, website should suffice. Also, you don't have to pay for this, and anyone asking you to do so in response to this post is likely a scammer. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits12:47, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Sophie Ferguson has an article in 14 languages, so I wrote her article in french, but she had a debate "Article for deletion", because the national sources of ABCNews were considered as "brèves" (sorry for this french word, I don't know the word in english). I didn't found better than these brèves in google.
My question is : as english-speakers, can you find, in national or international sources, articles about this australian tenniswoman that I didn't find? Or maybe you know a journalist in a national journal that can write a biography of her? Thank you very much for your searches and your answers. :) Slzbg (talk) 12:49, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello, welcome to the teahouse. This is mainly a problem with the requirements at the French language Wikipedia, whose deletion discussion can be found here here fr:Discussion:Sophie Ferguson/Admissibilité; the article seems to run afoul of the French equivalent of Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis. Looking at the deletion discussion: I am not sure if more sources might save the french article from deletion. Si vous avez encore des questions: je suis bien capable de répondre en francais. Lectonar (talk) 14:06, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for your answers Lectonar and Pigsonthewing ^^ You found the right word : these are briefs, they can be found here. Unfortunately, sources like WTA, ITF or Tennis Australia are not articles of press, so they don't help for admissibility in french. There are rules about tennis, that's right, but there are "Critères d'admissibilité des articles" too, and if two articles in a national journal exist, the critères can overpass the rules of tennis. Slzbg (talk) 16:08, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Free Licensed Images
Heyo! I just wanted to ask how you license an image for free. How do I take an image I own and then release it under a license? There doesn't seem to be an answer with one Google search
I've added the Wikidata ID to the template so that it works in draftspace. Once the draft is published and connected to Wikidata it will work automatically. Tollens (talk) 10:13, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
"Good articles" has a special meaning within Wikipedia, meaning those have been nominated and critically reviewe and rated as Good articles. (Ratings are shown on article Talk pages.) Stub, Start and C-class are easier to identify shortfalls. Some articles have comments at the top specifying shortfalls - most common are that content needs more and better references. David notMD (talk) 02:21, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
If you have any specific preferences or fields of interest or expertise, it should not take you long to find something to help with. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood(talk): 08:15, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Another resource is over at Community portal, Help out section here. When I first began at Wikipedia, I found it to be helpful. Regards, JoeNMLC (talk) 16:22, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Article to approve
Hello wikipedians,
I have translated an article from French wiki for English wiki and it needs to get approved. is there anyways to speedup the process of reviewing draft articles?
@Persian-art-and-culture: You can add {{subst:submit}} to the very top of the draft to submit it for review. It may take some time, however. You can add WikiProject tags to the draft, which may help with review speed (the template added by the code above will help you do this, under the "Improving your odds of a speedy review" header), but drafts are reviewed in no specific order. Your phrasing that it "needs" to get approved is interesting – are you compensated for your work on this draft in any way? Tollens (talk) 09:54, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
sorry, English is not my mother tongue so my message might have caused misunderstanding.
by "needs", I meant "it needs to be get approved to get published". there is no rush, I just wanted to know what is the process and how is it possible to submit drafts for reviewing.
Hello! I recently published a page called "Theory of Every Language" which talks about a theory proposed by Albanian language enthusiast and author, Agron Dalipaj. I put every detail there, and I also put the books where he talks about this theory, on the "Reference" page. It still got denied and was put as a draft because "I didn't provide any sources" which I did put the sources. Someone help me please. Thank you!
@Andi Atdhetari: You provided sources—that's great. But they have to be inline, like the little blue numbers you see in Wikipedia articles:[1] The point of that is that the reader needs to know which sources verify which sentences.
Secondly, there's source reliability. Anyone can publish a book—we need to know that the sources cited are reliable, that is to say trustworthy.
Finally, there's what Wikipedia calls "notability", but a better name (I forget who came up with this) would be "already-published-about-ness". Wikipedia isn't for something someone came up with one day, it's about topic that have significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources which are independent from the subject. Right now, you've got multiple sources, I assume there's significant coverage within them, but you don't have any sources independent from the subject—you need to show that other people are talking about this idea.
Helloo, Andi Atdehtari. Another way to put what Cremastra said is: Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely 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. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 22:08, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
I have discovered an image on Wikimedia in Russian (Шпильки обложка.jpg - link here) that I wanted to add to an article (Szpilki). However, when I have tried to include it in the infobox it seems that it doesn't recognise the file. Not sure what the issue is - can anyone help?! Wikociewie (talk) 15:47, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Much like English Wikipedia, Russian Wikipedia can use images from Wikimedia Commons, but Wikimedia Commons cannot use images from Russian Wikipedia. The file seems to have been added there under a non-free use case. As to which is being used here, I'm not sure, but the use cases would be similar here on EnWiki. Please see the non-free content criteria for more info. CommissarDoggoTalk?15:58, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Are National Weather Service broadcasts Public Domain?
Since I've been harassed all day, I'll go here. Are National ,Weather Service EAS broadcasts (including the tone) copyrighted? I know the tone isn't, since I've seen it on other articles. I have an alert from yesterday's outbreak, but I want to clarify that it is PD before uploading it. Thanks! :) MemeGod ._. (talk) 17:01, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello, MemeGod27, and welcome to the Teahouse. https://www.weather.gov/disclaimer says The information on National Weather Service (NWS) Web pages are in the public domain, unless specifically noted otherwise, and may be used without charge for any lawful purpose so long as you do not: 1) claim it is your own (e.g., by claiming copyright for NWS information -- see below), 2) use it in a manner that implies an endorsement or affiliation with NOAA/NWS, or 3) modify its content and then present it as official government material. So, unless EAS broadcasts (whatever they are) are specifically excluded, you can use them. ColinFine (talk) 17:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
@WomenArtistUpdates: Just to expand on what's been posted above, while it's true that non-free use content be used multiple times as long as each use satisfies all ten of the non-free content use criteria listed here, a single use of non-free content is already considered to be quite an exception to WP:COPY#Guidelines for images and other media use which means each additional use is going to be considered to be even more of an exception. Since part of the non-free content use policy requires us to try and minimize non-free use as much as we can, it is generally preferred per item 6 of WP:NFC#UUI to use the image where it is most encyclopedically relevant and then use alternative ways (e.g. wikilinks and hatnotes) to connect references to that image in other pages to the primary page. So, in this case, the main use of the file would be in Self Portrait with Nude since that is about the work in question and the image should most definitely be used there; this, however, makes the other use in Laura Knight not as encyclopedically necessary as before and changes the justification for that particular use. In other words, simply linking that section to the article about the work is probably more than sufficient per WP:FREER.Now having posted that, you might want to ask about the copyright status of this particular painting at c:Commons:Village pump/Copyright because there's a good chance that this painting has already entered into the public domain given its age and might no longer need to be licensed as non-free content even though the National Portrait Gallery might be claiming copyright ownership over the painting. For some background on this, you might want to take a look at National Portrait Gallery and Wikimedia Foundation copyright dispute. Commons policy is pretty much to ignore the claim being made by the NPG when it comes to copyright claims of older works and instead treat them as public domain.Finally, it best to try to avoid confusing fair use (fair dealing) and non-free content use when discussing this type of thing on Wikipedia. Although Wikipedia's non-free content use policy is based on fair use (fair dealing), it's been set up to be much stricter with its own set of criteria. Everything used as non-free content almost certain meets the conditions for fair use (fair dealing), the same cannot be said moving in the other direction. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:28, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
there's a good chance that this painting has already entered into the public domain given its age Given that Laura Knight was a British artist and died in 1970 it is certainly still in copyright in the UK, and therefore not public domain for Wikimedia Commons' purposes (which requires works to be PD in the source country and the US).
However, it's quite possible that it is PD in the US, in which case it could be uploaded to en.wikipedia – WP:Media copyright questions is probably the best plast to ask about that. The question comes down to whether the painting was "published" before 1929 – if you can find a book or exhibition catalogue from before that time where a picture of the painting was included, then that definitely counts; if you can prove it was exhibited to the general public before 1929 then I believe that also counts as publication. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:05, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Caeciliusinhorto-publicHoaryMarchjuly and Netherzone, Thank you for your thoughtful responses. I will be BOLD and err on the side of respecting intellectual property. My opinion is that the painting does not fall into PD, even if it was first painted in 1913. It hasn't really "published" and I believe the estate retains the copyright. I will not pursue putting it on the Commons. Also I see that one CAN use an image twice, but really SHOULD only use it the least amount of times. The image will now be one click away from the Laura Knight article. I have revised the rational on File:Self-Portrait with a Nude by Dame Laura Knight.jpg Always happy to have another set of eyes on that. Thanks again. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 17:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
When looking for references while editing
Where is a reliable search engine we should usually use when we do our research? Wikipedia itself, google, etc.? Qb1Coach (talk) 02:14, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
An easy one is Google News, Apple News, or some other news aggregator, which will bring up a lot of sources. It's important that for a Wikipedia article these be reliable though. You can visit WP:RSP for a database of some commonly discussed reliable/unreliable sources. If you can't find it there, ask another editor, or trust your judgement of a source and WP:BEBOLD and use it. TLAtlak02:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
I also like the Internet Archive at archive.org. They scan a lot of free books, including recent ones, and they're a great resource for out-of-copyright stuff. They aren't super user-friendly, though, so you have to know to choose the section option, "search text contents," for most searches after you put something in. And putting quote marks around specific words and phrases is helpful if you want to make sure you only get (for example) "Beverly Hills" and not every appearance of the word hills.
Other great archives are loc.gov (US Library of Congress), and hathitrust.org (a big, full-text database of older material).Fortunaa (talk) 10:05, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
@Qb1Coach: it gladdens my heart to see a new editor taking the need for good sources so seriously! Another resource I have found helpful is my local library. They have access to resources beyond what we mere mortals can do...--Gronk Oz (talk) 11:56, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
For when you're just looking for more recent information or sources, just searching for keywords and sorting by a time frame is pretty useful. For example, when I look for newer sources for 2020–2022 catalytic converter theft ring I just search up "catalytic converter theft ring" on Google, hit news and go to "Tools" and search by time.
It may seem obvious to some, but I didn't actually realise you could sort by time frames before Wikipedia.
As another useful tip, when you come across a paywalled source, use archive.is. If you archive the page through that it'll bypass it. That also works for stuff that's region locked, like if you're in Europe and are trying to access some US news sources. CommissarDoggoTalk?12:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Oooh... I've tried this on archive.org but it doesn't work. I'll try it at archive.ph/.is/.today next time. Thanks, Cremastra (talk) 21:37, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi, I want to create a new article for an upcoming movie is there an easy way to create it? If there are steps, what should I do for that new article to be created?
I've never created an article on Wikipedia before so I'm very confused
Thanks again TurtleStar00 (talk) 20:56, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello, TurtleStar00, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid that there really is no easy way to create a new article. This is not because somebody has decided it should be difficult, or because nobody has put any effort into providing a quick method: it's because Wikipedia nowadays has high standards for its articles, and meeting those standards takes skills that are not particularly relevant to most other kinds of writing. (Note that many older articles do not meet these standards, but nobody has been back to improve or delete them: see other stuff exists).
which are a non-negotiable requirement to establish that the subject is notable in Wikipedia's sense. Dozens of people every day try to create articles without doing this first: in most cases, the subject is not in fact notable, and every single second they spend on their doomed attempt is effort wasted.
Hello, I'm making a draft and it's one of my first times so I want to ask, do you think this draft has what it takes to be a stub article for now at least? I'm new here so any advice would be great for me! Thanks a bunch, I'll link the draft here: Draft:Sidi_Bishr_Mosque. Moe the Alexandrian (talk) 23:10, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello, Moe the Alexandrian, and welcome to the Teahouse. Please see the reply I have just given to the item above this, #Questions about creating a new article. It doesn't look to me as if many of the sources you have found meet the requirements in golden rule, and if they don't they will not contribute to establishing that the mosque meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability. ColinFine (talk) 23:21, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Sorry I'm back so quickly, but this kinda goes with the above question. Where would I go to request help with a table? That's my one pet peeve when writing tornado articles, the tables absolutely kill me every time (lol). MemeGod ._. (talk) 17:51, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Yea, a little. Tornado tables are very challenging, so it does help, but doesn't cover the topic I was looking for. MemeGod ._. (talk) 18:45, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
@MemeGod27: You're not going to get much help unless you can be more specific. What topic are you looking for? What are "Tornado tables"? Which article(s) are you having problems with? Bazza 7 (talk)19:02, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
It is. Basically, a tornado outbreak table is a table with individual tornadoes, that has the EF rating, the location, coordinates, a description, damage, and wind speeds. For a good example, see Tornado outbreak of March 13-15, 2024, and scroll down to "Confirmed Tornadoes". It's probably the best visual representation I give you. MemeGod ._. (talk) 19:55, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
You could just lift the source code from that page and edit the values to your liking. If you end up doing that, you may want to attribute appropriately by linking to the page you took the code from just to be safe. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:04, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello, can tables which have many columns, or rows, be configured to scroll? And how about freezing headings, like a spreadsheet?
I could not see an option in Help:Table, I experimented with vertical header, it helps a bit but isn't always good to look at. I imagine that it may not be possible due to the compexity of cross platform/browser support. Thanks--12think (talk) 04:29, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
@RudolfRed: Thanks it worked great :-) I couldn't see template for a sticky 1st column, but it doesn't it matter too much, this has helped a lot. Thank you. 12think (talk) 06:34, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
If you just want to have sticky headers for your own convenience, there is a gadget: go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets, scroll down to Testing and development, and tick 'Make headers of tables display as long as the table is in view, i.e. "sticky" (requires Chrome v91+, Firefox v59+, or Safari)'. This will affect every table that you browse, but will not change it for other readers. -- Verbarson talkedits09:34, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Seeking Guidance on Editing Concerns and Website Citation Issue
Dear Wikipedia Teahouse Team,
I hope this message finds you well. I recently embarked on contributing to Wikipedia, aiming to enhance articles with relevant and insightful information. I’m querying about a recent warning that I received in Wikipedia. I had only been a few days as an editor on wikipedia and I was just teaching myself as I go, and I dived in making edits and additions aiming to reach a personal goal of 100 edits to be in the top 1%.
Suddenly, I received a warning that I had been linking and citing too much to one site that I’ve been a longtime fan of and that has given me a lot of inspiration and then suddenly my additions were reverted. I have also made edits citing other online publications like The Guardian, www.themarginalian.org…but for my first wikipedia edits I’d found it faster and easier to find, scan and cite articles from www.creativeprocess.info that I particularly found interesting since they are a reliable source of primary source interviews and all the biographical information of the guest is concentrated in one place at the top of their articles. (This is probably a little lazy on my part.)
I had planned to cycle through my favorite publications (New York Times, The New Yorker, The Paris Review, The Guardian) in blocks of ten, adding citations, although most of my favorite sites and substacks have paywalls making them harder to cite or access for wikipedia readers who aren’t subscribers.
I’m sorry for any confusion but now I've become aware of the protocols. What should I do next?
I believed I was adding information that was germane and not previously included on the pages, as I had received notifications to keep going when I did ten edits and a thank you from a wikipedia editor on my edit of True Detective: Night Country and took that as a signal to go on with what I was doing. I only received one warning about citing one publication too much, and as soon as I saw the warning I stopped adding edits. I fully understand if my own edits are reverted because I was excited by the wikipedia process and in the beginning relying mainly on one source and may be biased since it’s a publication/podcast I’m familiar with and enjoy. I am reaching out to clarify the steps I can take to rectify the situation, to enquire about the nature of the block and to inquire if it’s a permanent measure or if there's a possibility for reassessment?
I wouldn’t like for my initial over-eagerness to revert or delete other editors’ work, especially if theirs provided germane information to other wikipedia pages. I appreciate your feedback on my editing. I aim to take a slower approach to wikipedia going forward. Thanks for helping me out! Lifelong learner837 (talk) 10:37, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
You have not been blocked, you have simply had your efforts reverted. Using podcasts and stuff of that ilk as well as primary sources is generally ill-advised. Please see WP:CITE, WP:RS and WP:RSP.
What I'd advise in the future is that, when you're looking to add to an article, use Google and filter by news, it'll be just under the search bar. That way you'll be able to find far more useable content.
As for paywalls, look up archive.is. You can archive sources with that that would otherwise be paywalled or region locked so that anyone can see them. CommissarDoggoTalk?11:02, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Draft and edition
Good afternoon,
I left a draft 2 months and a half ago about the history of Brunsviga. I could see there were so many topics that the delay needed to ckeck the draft could last 2 monthes (even more). Do you know how long it can take ?
Hello amd welcome. There is no way to give you a specific timeframe for a review. It could be 5 minutes, or three months from now. Reviews are conducted in no particular order by volunteers. 331dot (talk) 12:55, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Just on a quick check I can see several pieces of text that have not been cited and citations placed prior to punctuation (so a citation before a full stop, stuff like that). The prior is an issue that could prevent your draft from being accepted, the latter is a smaller issue that means you probably need to look at the instructions for citations.
As for how long your draft could take to get a review, you could be waiting for the next week or the next couple months. Volunteers get to them when they get to them. CommissarDoggoTalk?12:58, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Practice in your own Sandbox, pasting to article only when satisfied. That way your errors are not seen as edit after edit after edit on an article's View history. David notMD (talk) 13:43, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Notability of the play God of Vengeance
Hello! Before I start writing an article, I want to see if it's notable. Currently, the wiki link for God of Vengeance redirects to its author, Sholem Asch. I think the play is significant primarily because of its performance in English: the cast were charged and convicted (but won on appeal) in 1923 for obscenity, as it featured the first lesbian kiss on Broadway, and also banned in London in 1946. It also has a related play with its own article, Indecent (play). I am, admittedly, having a bit of trouble finding coverage. There are several NYT articles, and this, but given the debacle about its US staging, I feel like maybe I'm just not looking in the right place? Since Google has gone seriously downhill in terms of its ability to search, I'm just... not sure where to go next. Quadriporticus (talk) 01:30, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Not all of your references need to be on the Internet. Can you find good reference books that mention the play? Can you find old newspaper articles on microfilm at a public or college library? Start collecting what you can find on God of Vengeance. If you come to a dead end put the project aside for a time, and come back to it a little later. Perhaps you could find enough to add a paragraph to the Sholem Asch article, and later on a separate article about the play can be possible. Take your time, read over Help:Your first article, Help:Referencing for beginners andWikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources and remind yourself you have all the time in the world to decide if a notable article is possible. Best wishes. Karenthewriter (talk) 02:10, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello, I've been directed here by admins from deletion review, I hope you might be able to halp me.
A short backstory.
I am a student of Master Shi Xing Mi and work in media, so several years ago I created a Wikipedia entry about him, which I subsequently edited and eventually added over 20 sources following the notice of deletion due to a lack of independent sources. Nonetheless, the page was deleted, in my opinion completely incorrectly.
Master Shi Xing Mi has hundreds of international sources, from prestigious publications such as Forbes and NYP, to government institutions in several countries and large international corporations. He is the most quoted and published Shaolin Master globally, with 4 books published by the likes of Random House and Mondadori, as well as the Co-Founder of two international wellness and fitness companies with hundreds of employees.
Despite providing over 20 such sources in the Wikipedia article, as well as hundreds more being available to anyone with just a single Google search, somehow a Wikipedia moderator deleted it citing "no independent sources". Without being sarcastic, clearly Master Shi Xing Mi doesn't own dozens of top international magazines and newspapers, global book editors, government institution and many other such sources. They are clearly impeccable independent sources.
The deletion seems thus completely unfounded and arbitrary, to me; furthermore, there are dozens of Wikipedia pages about living people who comparatively have a miniscule number of sources, yet are considered compliant. Oddly, Shi Xing Mi's own Master, Shi De Yang, has 1 (one) source which is his own website, yet it's considered acceptable. Shi Xing Mi, who by the way is mentioned in Shi De Yang's Wikipedia page, has hundreds of sources but is not acceptable.
I would be happy to understand how to create an appropriate page for my Master, or how to correctly edit and source the deleted one, if anyone would be so kind as to help me. Previously, I just added 20 sources, ranging from Forbes to Shaolin Temple, but somehow that was deemed insufficient. Would gladly do better if someone could help me understand what better should look like.
Actually, Shi De Yang's page is unacceptable and I will soon be creating a proposed deletion for the page. It has three sources, one of which is his own page (which cannot be reached) and two sources that aren't really independent of the subject.
Shi Xing Mi is referenced on the page, but not really. He's pictured with Shi De Yang, and thus has to be mentioned.
Looking at the second deletion discussion, I'm unfortunately with those who voted to delete the page. If I were to try and create the page now, I'd really struggle with the sources available. CommissarDoggoTalk?15:14, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
An dependent source is not necessarily a source owned by the subject. It is any source that exclusively contains info directly from the subject (link to our policy on that here).Also, calling New York Post a "prestigious publication" is rather ironic considering its status as a tabloid. Industrial Insect(talk)15:25, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
At the following page I found links to PDFs of extensive in depth interviews and profilings by media ranging from the Handelsblatt (the most prestigious financial newspaper in Europe) to Men's Health (the most widely printed fitness magazine globally), Outside Magazine (the top outdoor activities magazine worldwide), Yoga Life (the most popular Yoga magazine in Europe), H Edition, BizOne, and several other internationally very well known publications. Articles are in English, German, Italian, Russian.
Would I be correct in understanding that all of the above classify as very reputable independent sources? They certainly more than satisfy the criteria indicated in the Wikipedia information which was shared with me regarding appropriate references. They also certainly not classify as "tabloids" as you indicated the NYP to be (ignoring the links to Forbes and other non-tabloids I previously offered repeatedly).83.79.71.123 (talk) 17:18, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Would I be correct in understanding that all of the above classify as very reputable independent sources?
To be quite frank with you, no I don't think they would be classed as independent or reliable. Interviews and profiles are great to find out about stuff that the individual wants to tell you, they are not great for independent and unbiased reporting. This is even more evident by the fact that, yet again, these links are shown on his own website.
I read it, and to me most seem to qualify as both unquestionably reliable and clearly independent. Additionally, there are the official Shaolin institutions which were already linked in the deleted page, such as Shaolin Temple itself, Shaolin Europe Association (the European federation of the temple), etc.
Thank you! I will do. Also his master, Shi De Yang, I noticed his page was mentioned also as to be deleted; he is the most famous Chinese Shaolin Master alive, with documentaries made about him by BBC and National Geographic, I would like to fix his page too if I can.
Masters Shi Xing Mi and Shi De Yang are respectively the most well known and widely impactful and published international and Chinese Shaolin masters of contemporary times, I strongly believe they should be present in Wikipedia and their biographies preserved in its archives.
They’ve been the two most fundamental people, together with Shaolin Abbot Shi Yong Xin, in bringing the Shaolin philosophy in the 21st century. 178.197.210.16 (talk) 09:55, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
If you have those sources where Shi De Yang has been in documentaries by the BBC and National Geographic then please, by all means add information from that documentary. It's not an article for deletion, it's a proposed deletion.
If you're actively improving it with appropriate sources then that proposed deletion template can be removed in an instant. Likewise, if you remove it without adding appropriate sources I will just take it to AFD instead which is almost guaranteed to be successful due to the lack of appropriate sources.
Hello. Please note that Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely 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. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 17:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Whilst I openly and honestly stated to be connected to the subject, all sources I provided are independent (newspapers, magazines, government, corporate) and not connected to the subject nor to me.
I would also venture to say that most people who make a Wikipedia entry about someone or something, have at the very least a strong interest in the subject, so strong as to prompt them to take the time and effort to write about it; therefore the statement you make is not very realistic, in my opinion. 178.197.185.159 (talk) 13:04, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
All of the sources that you provided are on the subject's own website. All of them seem to be profiles or interviews. These are things that the subject wants you to read about them, or information that has been spoonfed to people. We cannot use this.
Currently, I have a tab open to "Shi Xing Mi". I'm on the news section on that Google search. What do I see? "How to fight against work stress? Shaolin monk gives tips", "Is your work life a living hell? Stay Zen with 6 tips from a monk" and "Zen in Zürich: The Dolder Grand lädt zum Meditation Retreat". These are the three articles I manage to find, the third is a booking for a meditation retreat in Zurich. The rest of the sources on this page are for things completely unrelated, such as viruses, 25 words you shouldn't use on the Chinese internet and stuff about Chinese shows you should watch. In total, there are 10 results on this search.
Do any of the three sources that are related to Shi Xing Mi seem as if they prove notability? Do these seem like reliable sources for information? I don't think they do.
There's also a very distinct difference between having a conflict of interest and taking an interest. A conflict of interest is where you have a direct link to an individual or organisation, such as yourself, and good on you for declaring it. Taking an interest is seeing something, going "neat" and starting to research.
One of these requires a declaration on your user page, the talk page of the subject or every edit you make regarding a subject and may, in cases of disruption, result in you being blocked from a topic or Wikipedia as a whole. One of these lets you edit away to your hearts content. CommissarDoggoTalk?13:35, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
I did the same Google search and got 3 TED talks, a link to the publisher of one of his books, two Universities, two Shaolin institutions, of course his personal website and social media, some of the articles you mention, etc. As bias as I might be, you seem far more bias in the opposite direction. TED, two Universities, Palta and Apple corporate news, his book by Mondadori (biggest publisher in Italy) didn't appear to you? They are in the first search results page for me. Honestly, for all your virtue signaling objectivity, it's evident that you have zero willingness to be truly objective and fair in assessing that there is a tremendous volume of independent sources of all possible types, from media to institutions, spanning several decades, and that the deletion is amply debatable and should at least warrant reconsideration. The threats you make of blocking someone (me) who has openly and politely presented an alternative case, honestly stating a connection with the subject, is only further indication of no objectivity in the discussion but rather a cancel mentality if someone "dares" question something clearly illogical: deletion due to insufficient independent sources of someone with hundreds of independent sources spanning decades. Do as you wish, I've already invested too much energy in this matter and I'm sure Masters Shi Xing Mi and Shi De Yang will live happily and successfully without Wikipedia entries. It's just silly that the two most respected and published modern Master of a very famous tradition won't be listed because of some random administrator's bias and inability to accept a mistake.
To put it very bluntly: these are not impressive figures you are citing. Even if they were being represented proportionately, which they are not. He has not given three TED Talks, he has given three TEDx talks, which mean next to nothing for notability.
You have been pretty disrespectful of the time of other editors trying to help you and explain site guidelines, and are refusing any and all suggestions citing policy. You're not going to stonewall your way to getting an article, there is either notability or there is not, and it seems there is not. Maybe he would survive AfD, but you're not going to badger your way into making everyone change their mind at once without actually engaging with what our notability policy says. Remsense诉11:46, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
There is not then. As you said. Both Masters Xing Mi and De Yang frequently speak to audiences of thousands (for example at WEC, see photos), are published by major editors, and have founded companies and schools which employ hundreds and train thousands. But clearly there is no notability. Ok, they’ll both survive without Wikipedia, I did my best, however poorly. Thank you for your time. 62.228.232.10 (talk) 14:34, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Are restrictions applied to new accounts?
I made a few edits after creating my account, but it looks like most of them were erased shortly afterwards. Do new accounts have restrictions on editing capabilities? La Dessalinienne (talk) 15:53, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Please see the history section of the pages you edited, on Pétion-Ville your edits were reverted for entering "too many problems introduced and close paraphrasing of websites" and on Delmas, Haiti your edits were reverted for adding unsourced content.
Should you add honorifics in Biographical articles?
I'm writing an article on a Japanese composer, however, I am not sure if I should use the Japanese honorifics (ie. -san), or if I shouldn't. Imoutofchoices (talk) 16:18, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Who can tell me what this article needs and why it was declined?
Hello, I'm Random Wikishow!
I wonder why this article was rejected. Is there a fixed grammar error in this article or the references are unreliable? Tell me, please. Random Wikishow (talk) 06:25, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello, Random Wikishow. Looking at your IGMPI draft, I can see that you have made all the same mistakes as hundreds of other people do who plunge into the challenging task of creating a new article before they have spent time learning about how Wikipedia works. If you were starting to learn engineering, would you make your first project to build a car from scratch? If you took up a musical instrument, would you arrange a public recital as the first thing you did? No, you would practise on less demanding projects while you learnt the craft. I would very strongly advise you that you will save yourself a great deal of frustration and disappointment if you forget about creating a new article for several months, while you gradually learn about how Wikipedia works (and most particularly about Verifiability, reliable sources, and Neutral point of view) by making improvements to some of our six million existing articles..
Looking at the list of references, it doesn't look to me as if a single one meets the criteria for a reliable, independent sources with significant coverage of the subject, and therefore not only do they fail to show that the Institute meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability, but most of them add nothing whatever to the draft. The purpose of a citation in a Wikipedia article is to verify a claim in the draft, nothing else; and the great majority of such citations should be to sources wholly unconnected with the subject. ColinFine (talk) 17:07, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Draft:Institute of Good Manufacturing Practices India (IGMPI) is written in corporate-marketing-speak (which I suppose ChatGPT and the like can churn out with ease). Sample: IGMPI is at the forefront of technological advancements and has earned recognition as a robust and superior provider of education and training platforms for professionals and students in GMP, Quality Assurance and Control, Pharma, Food & Nutrition, (followed by a lot of others, somewhat Trumpishly capitalized). The body text of Draft:Abdiaziz Ali reads: Abdiaziz Ali is a Somali journalist known for his work for Somali Inside News. Abdiaziz Ali was born in Mogadishu, Somalia. That's it. That's all. Well, if he's known for his work, then reliable sources (of course unrelated to Abdiaziz Ali) will have written about it. What have they written, and where have they written it? -- Hoary (talk) 07:17, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
A note: those two drafts were Declined, not Rejected. The second would have meant that the reviewer saw no potential in the topic/content succeeding as an article. David notMD (talk) 09:45, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Citing FOI responses.
Hello, I am looking to add the Axle Loadings and Route Availablity of a train that operates in the UK. These details come from both a written response and partially redacted documents that were released under a FOI request. The written response and documents are both hosted at https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/axle_weight_limits_in_the_anglia if that is of any use?
That's an interesting question. Generally such sources are not regarded as published, and cannot be used; but the question is whether WhatDoTheyKnow counts as a) a publisher, and b) a reliable publisher.
I am working on setting up my wiki page but im having issues. this is what I would like to add
draft autobiography
Robert d'Entremont is a Canadian actor known for his work in both theater and television. He is currently portraying the character Keifer in the upcoming Apple TV project The Last Frontier. Born December 1st 1990, d'Entremont has established himself as a versatile actor with a range of performances across various mediums.
Early Life and Education
Robert d'Entremont's passion for acting was ignited during a high school improv competition, where he won the People's Choice award in 2007. He continued to pursue his interest in performing arts and in 2008, d'Entremont portrayed Tybalt in the regional French musical Romeo et Juliette at Th'Yarc Theatre in Yarmouth, Nova Scotia.
After completing high school, d'Entremont was accepted into Concordia University's Theatre Performance program, where he honed his skills as an actor. He appeared in numerous productions during his time at Concordia, showcasing his talent and dedication to the craft. Upon earning his Bachelor of Fine Arts degree, d'Entremont furthered his training at the Tom Todoroff Acting Conservatory in New York City, where he expanded his repertoire with performances in off-Broadway plays at the New Comedy Theatre.
Career
Robert d'Entremont's career spans across theater, television, and film. He has accumulated over 20 IMDb credits, showcasing his versatility and range as an actor. Notable television appearances include roles in Patrice Lemieux 24/7, 30 vies, Mensonges, and Un tueur si proche. In addition to his television work, d'Entremont has starred in films such as Seasoned with Love, Maz, Midway, and the critically acclaimed Les Rois Mongols.
In 2016, d'Entremont ventured into writing and producing his own content with the creation of the web series OPEN. The series, which he shot entirely from his iPhone, highlights d'Entremont's multifaceted talents as a writer, producer, director, and actor.
Advocacy
As an openly gay individual, Robert d'Entremont is dedicated to using his platform to support and advocate for the LGBTQ+ community. He is actively involved in projects funded by the Jasmin Roy Foundation, an organization focused on combatting discrimination against LGBTQ+ individuals in the workplace.
I'm afraid that, like many people, you have some fundamental misunderstandings about what Wikipedia is. We do not "set up pages" here, as though it were social media: we "write encyclopaedia articles", which summarise what independent reliable sources say about a subject.
However, you are strongly discouraged from trying to write it yourself. If there is an article about you, whoever writes it, it will not belong to you, it will not be controlled by you, it will not be for your benefit except incidentally, and it will not necessarily say what you want it to say: please see an article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. It will based on what people wholly unconnected with you have published about you, not on what you or your associates say or want to say.
Beyond that, I would point out that we delete or decline dozens of attempted articles every day (not all of them attempted autobiographies), when the editors have plunged into the challenging task of creating a new article without first having learnt how Wikipedia works.
My advice to you is
Forget about writing an autobiography. If you are notable (in Wikipedia's sense) somebody will eventually write an article about you.
If you want to be part of creating this great cooperative resource, spend some months improving existing articles, and learning about Wikipedia's principles.
One more point - you have written your autobiography on your user page: this is not appropriate. A user page is a place for sharing information about you as a Wikipedia editor. A limited amount of biographical information is acceptable, but it must not appear to be trying to be an article. See UPYES. ColinFine (talk) 17:34, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Question about weird page in the Special: namespace
I know this is not related to editing Wikipedia, but I'm still curious about it.
While randomly browsing through the Special: namespace, I found this page that goes by the name of Special:LockDB. I clicked on it but the following text appeared:
You do not have permission to lock or unlock the database, for the following reason:
You are not allowed to execute the action you have requested.
I don't know what this means, but it seems like this is a "command page" (like, for example, the block page) which is used for locking/unlocking some kind of "database".
Now, I have no idea what this "database" is, but it seems quite important. It may also be why it's called Special:LockDB as I think the DB stands for DataBase.
Admins, please note: This seems like a page that could cause very serious after-effects on the encyclopaedia. I would recommend being careful when visiting the page.
Also, do you know if visiting the page will instantly lock the database or clicking buttons will be needed to do the trick? And why would anyone need to use this? Usersnipedname(nag me/stalk me) 16:17, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello, Usernipedname. The clue is in where the documentation page is that Writ Keeper pointed you at: it's not a Wikipedia facility, it's a Mediawiki facility - that is, the software that Wikipedia runs on. There are thousands and thousands of wikis in the world running this software, many of them private to companies and organisations, and that is a facility that site admins may need. ColinFine (talk) 17:19, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
You can usually use an image of a book cover in an article about that book (but not usually elsewhere). Please read WP:NFCC carefully, and work out precisely what is the justification for using that non-free image (I'm assuming that the cover is non-free: they usually are).
Then you can upload it to Wikipedia (not to Commons) using the WP:Upload wizard, picking "upload a non-free file" and giving the justification as you go through the process. ColinFine (talk) 21:01, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
My submission has not been accepted. This is the reason that was given: "he content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. Thank you."
Could someone have a look at the draft and be more specific? Which inline citations do not Wikipedia's minimum standard and why?
Hi @Milaefema: for privacy etc. reasons we have strict referencing requirements for articles on living people (WP:BLP), with inline citations to reliable published sources being required to support anything potentially contentious (which basically means any substantive statement which anyone might want to dispute or even wonder where it's come from) as well as all personal details such as DOB. You also need to ensure that the source you're citing actually supports the information against which it is cited: for example, you're stating that Malene's mother is Liselotte Taarup, but you're supporting that statement with a source (ref #6) that doesn't seem to even mention Malene. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:32, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello, I'd like to create a new Wikipedia page for the Actor Ras-Samuel who's currently starring in the new Planet of the Apes franchise. I notice he's the only one who doesn't have one yet.
The best way to get a consensus for a possibly controversial change of a template?
So a month ago I started a discussion on what to do with Template:Late night television in the United States in its talk page, which included what shows counted in the section, etc. I notified the relevant Wikiprojects as well. Unfortunately, only one person responded, and that's not enough to form a consensus. What else can I do to get people to join the discussion, since the new option discussed included moving the template, and that could be controversial? (Sorry if this is canvassing.) Spinixster(trout me!)04:24, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Visual Editing vs Source Editing
Dear Wikipedians,
I have a fair amount of edits, and almost all of them are in the Visual Editor. What is the difference between the Visual Editor and the Source Editor? Is one more powerful/superior than the other? Is there a reason to use one over the other?
So basically the visual editor tool works like front-end tool,where you don't always needs to put code and very simple for non-programmer or somebody who is not aware of coding.
However the source editor tool required to put back-end infos like coding languages and signs like "{{<<" and that's what makes all the difference.
Hello, MekuMeku216. Both editors do the same job, but they approach it in different ways. The Visual Editor is much newer, and people who are used to WYSIWYG interfaces tend to prefer it, whereas people (like me) who have been editing Wikipedia for many years often prefer the source editor.
There are some rather specialised operations which the Visual Editor cannot do, or cannot do properly, so occasionally you need to go into the Source Editor; but for most editing, either is equally good. ColinFine (talk) 21:04, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
MekuMeku216, here is my opinion: The source editor is fully functional, highly flexible and not at all difficult to learn. Just spend 15 minutes reading WP:CHEATSHEET. The WYSIWYG Visual editor is available for those who want to make a quick, basic edit but there are many things it cannot do. Personally, I do not like software tools that are not fully functional, so I use the source editor despite not being a professional programmer. My reason is that it works very well. Cullen328 (talk) 08:17, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. We don't have "profiles" here, we have articles. Creatig a new article is one of the most challenging tasks to perform on Wikipedia, and as such it is highly recommended that you first gain experience and knowledge by editing existing articles in areas that interest you, to get a feel for how Wikipedia operates and what is expected of article content. Using the new user tutorial will help you as well. Once you get some experience under your belt, you will be much more likely to succeed in creating a new article, when you know about things like proper sourcing, notability, tone, and style.
Using institutional or project GIT repositories as references
Dear ALL, I am interested if using institutional/project GIT repositories (be it GitHub, GitLab or other) as references is OK for English Wikipedia? Thank you (please tag me in response) -- Zblace (talk) 07:36, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello, Zblace. These are websites where users can largely add whatever they want. Although I am certain that much of the content is valid and useful to actual developers, much of it is also malicious nonsense, or does not work properly. Caveat emptor is applicable. Websites consisting largely of User contributed content without editorial control are not accepted as reliable sources on Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 07:52, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
@Cullen328 I can imagine that being the case in general, but for institutions running the project this is not the case as they both have internal editorial control and operate in different way when it comes to releasing open code, text, media...where GIT is just the format on the platform. Zblace (talk) 20:59, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Cullen328, I beg to slightly differ...
If an article mention a project kept on a git-server, a link to it WOULD be appropriate. Sources are usually best considered in light of WHAT they are expected to confirm. A historical example could be of the Pravda frontpage confirming Stalin's demise; the publication was as "honest" as Hitler's propagandist Goebbels, but in an article about the Soviet Union, such a reference would be perfectly valid as evidence of when and how his passing had been made public to the survivors of his policies. Autokefal Dialytiker (talk) 07:29, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
There is editorial control on everything though, especially on a repository maintained by an institution. It will only become part when reviewed and merged by a collaborator/owner, meaning they should be accepted as reliable sources, the only concern I can think of would be the content possibly changing over time Zootcats (talk) 09:24, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello, IP editor. If you created a Wikipedia account, it would be much easier to communicate with you. I assume that you are talking about Draft:Seymour Matthews. That draft is entirely unreferenced and cannot possibly be accepted into Wikipedia unless it is brought into compliance with Wikipedia's core content policies like Verifiability and No original research. Read and study Your first article, and comply with all of its recommendations. Cullen328 (talk) 08:00, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. Like most editors who attempt to create an article before they have spent time learning how Wikipedia works, you have written your draft BACKWARDS. Writing an article begins with finding reliable, independent, sources: any time spent on anything at all before finding references is often totally wasted. ColinFine (talk) 13:23, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Disambiguation link to something only mentioned in another article
Hi, I wanted to add the disambiguation ODAC = Old Diorama Arts Centre as it is an acronym the arts centre commonly uses.
However there is no article with this title, but Old Diorama Arts Centre is mentioned in two existing Wikipedia articles (Diorama Arts Cooperative and The Diorama, Regent's Park) as the successor charity to the Diorama Arts Cooperative.
What is the best way to handle this, should I blue link to the Diorama Arts Cooperative page, or create a red link for Old Diorama Arts Centre on the two pages it is mentioned on, and link to that on the disambiguation page? Or something else?
I guess the obvious answer is to create a page for Old Diorama Arts Centre but that's a bigger endeavour for me being a relative beginner editor.
Hello, Jenny. Provided the abbreviation or acronym occurs in the target page, WP:DABACRONYM says that you may add it to the DAB page. I suggest adding the acronym in parenthesis after the full name in Diorama Arts Cooperative, and then adding the entry to the DAB page ODAC, in a form like:
How should we deal with a lack of secondary sources?
Hello! I've read through Wikipedia articles for so long, and I appreciate the hard work all the editors do to make it all work. That's a reason why I'm dipping my toes into the editor side of WP.
The first thing I did on here is check through my university's WP article, and I noticed that several issues were present. On May 2022, the article was flagged for relying "excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject." I checked the edit article history, looked for what happened that May, and saw chunks of text deleted because they had no independent citations.
From my understanding of the rules, WP obviously prefers independent, third-person accounts of the facts. WP similarly does not appreciate "independent research" nor "advertisements", insofar as these are prone to bias and subjectivity. I might be wrong, but it seems as if the preferred way to write articles is to cite secondary references that are unassociated with the thing discussed.
I wholeheartedly agree with these rules, but I fear that a century-old institution would be left as a history stub. If editors cannot cite the institution's self-published historical account, what secondary references can we use? I'm willing to talk to local historians, but they either are a) teachers in the university that are not independent authors; b) sponsored authors of that self-published history; or, c) priests who are either dead or just made blogposts and not research.
This is a problem not unique to this one university, but to almost all universities in the Philippines. After all, no one really wants to write a history on a school that has its own history. Thank you so much for reading this far! RyanTahamid (talk) 11:22, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
RyanTahamid, has the university not been the subject of articles in newspapers or magazines, of book chapters, etc? This material doesn't have to be available on the web. (Indeed, it's probably not on the web.) -- Hoary (talk) 12:12, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
@Hoary, thank you for responding! Yes, the university has been the topic of articles in newspapers, but these may cover more contemporary issues, like current projects or events. I have reached out to a professor and they did say they wrote a historical review, but would that be considered independent if they come from the same university being discussed? RyanTahamid (talk) 12:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
@RyanTahamid: you can cite primary sources, including ones close to the subject, to support purely factual information. For example, if the university's website says that they were founded in 1823 and their current rector/president/vice-chancellor/whatever is Prof. Jane Doe, we can take those as read. Whereas if their website says they are the best university in the world, we obviously cannot accept their word for that.
@RyanTahamid More detail at the policy for WP:PRIMARY sources, and what is mentioned on that page for secondary ones. Facts stated in primary sources are usually fine but their meaning must not be interpreted by Wikipedia editors. It is that interpretation which is the role of secondary sources. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:58, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
3yo Merge and Split proposals on talk page still open
I went to fix a ref name issue and ended up spending a chunk of time in this article. I went to the talk page to check its rating to see if it needed a re-evaluation on rating, and found two old open merge and split proposals.
Merge proposal, last post in December 2020; based on the fact there's a split request 3 months later, I'd say the result was "Merge".
Overwhelmed with source coding and wandering through the labrynth for answers. But, now feel my article is completed (in Sandbox) and ready to publish. Haven't a clue how to do that; see no button or menu item to proceed. Please provide easy-to-understand guidance. Thank you. Artleytoons (talk) 12:31, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
@Artleytoons: Although we generally deprecate the writing of autobiographies, you as a subject clearly meet our requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia, and what you wrote was not overly promotional. I encourage you to restore and improve it (with the emphasis on ensuring that every statement is cited to an independent source), and submit it for review. When an article about you is published, you might consider openly-licensing on of your cartoons, as an example of your work. See also WP:FAQAS. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits15:45, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: Per your suggestion, my attempt to upload one of my own cartoons netted a reponse that I did not have permission; that such an action required a level of which I have not yet risen:
<<The action you have requested is limited to users in one of the groups: Autoconfirmed users, Administrators, Confirmed users>>
Puzzlling, as I was able to upload the photo without the admonition. Then again, my novice status may have caused me to neglect some measure in the protocols. Artleytoons (talk) 02:10, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, yes. Eventually, I discovered the Wikimedia Commons upload to be the procedure. Article was modified as suggested, noticed it was moved to DRAFT status; meaning it is not in the submissions queue for review? Understandable, for perhaps my ambitious overreach. Considering a hefty reedit, honing down to more basic -- focus entirely on Editorial Cartooning and (related) satirical political podcasting Good thing I didn't add in the brain surgery while tap-dancing bit. Artleytoons (talk) 15:04, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Archive.org has quite a few references to "Azad Kashmir" - you'll have to look through to see if they have what you want.
Semantic Scholar returned a lot as well. Again, you'll have to comb through it all to determine relevance. The scholarly papers not about the location itself may give you information on flora and fauna, as well as climate, depending on what there is. OIM20 (talk) 14:41, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Recently, since Stany VW publishes mostly in English too, I thought of translating his page from Dutch into English.
Searched some help pages on Wikipedia. Found something simple, but it didn't really work.
The English Wikipedia formatting pages are less user-friendly as the Dutch. So I created a draft page in English on the Dutch page.
I noticed that pretty soon there were problems with the manual entries for newspapers and magazines. So I left those out and kept the online pages with references to Stany Van Wymeersch.
By editing the source text, I was able to get rid of some error messages and after some time thought it was pretty ok. Just a translation with reasonable references anyway. The links to well-known places and people also appeared quickly.
Yet, via an Estonian Wikipedia Writer, a notification of: "orphan" ', links, and listed sources not reliable.
I checked everything again, corrected some text in English and thought it was ok now. Mistakenly, I manually deleted the error message.
A short time later, of course, it reappeared. I sorted the references to Websites again and added a few.
But I wouldn't know what else to do. The references have all been checked by me and Stany Van Wymeersch does get mentioned on the websites. Sometimes you have to scroll, but still. The information I posted has been verified in Dutch and the links in English and Estonian are also ok.
Doesn't this Est know Stany Van Wymeersch. As an 'orphan', I understood that there must be other articles with his name in them, but that is not always the case for other people on wikipedia either.
Can you give me some more explanation or some help, as you may understand that this can be very frustrating.
I can't find any instances of Stany Van Wymeersch mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia outside of the article made on him. The page is an orphan and that probably won't be fixed, which is fine. It isn't a death knell, nor is the lack of ability to verify the reliability of some sources. I'll have a quick look at the sources to make sure they're actually fine. CommissarDoggoTalk?15:36, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Ok, I've had a quick look and to be honest I found a lot of the citations to be lacking. I'm going to be looking to replace them where possible. CommissarDoggoTalk?15:54, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Is there a way to monitor and get notified whenever a specific user/IP edits?
So there are a few scenarios where I find a vandal and they haven't gotten to the point where they should be blocked, but I can't just leave them as they could do some more vandalism which may not be caught. Right now I just let their edit history stay in the background and I reload after a while to see if they are vandalising anything else, but is there any way for me to get notifications for those specific users? Tube·of·Light15:51, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
You needn't be so particular about specific individuals most of the time. It's not your job to prevent every bit of vandalism before it happens. If you're really concerned, just bookmark their contributions history. Remsense诉16:09, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
ok context here, the lead singer of this band uses any pronouns and i want to add a efn to make a consistant pronoun, however I cannot find this citation anywhere but a reddit mentioned discord qna. are there any rules against this?? astral ▪️ he/him ▪️ >:315:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
To my knowledge, Discord would be disallowed as a source just because of the sheer difficulty of using it as such. As for Reddit though, if you look at WP:SOCIALMEDIA it does show that Reddit is allowed as a primary source. I would personally take this as if they did a Q&A in the regular format, where one posts an image of their face and them holding up a sheet of paper with their Reddit username there, it would probably be allowed. CommissarDoggoTalk?15:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
yeah, but it's just other users stating it, so i don't think it's viable. i thought it wouldn't be allowed since it wasn't them actually doing a qna and stating it. their instagram might say something but i don't have access to look at those things bcz school pc astral ▪️ he/him ▪️ >:316:13, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Is there some place where one can see user statistics related to pages listed for spledy deletion, for instance the number of pages tagged, and then effectively deleted? Kind regards 14 novembre (talk) 🇮🇹 13:55, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Please help me. American Wiki Editors took my large sum of money and disappeared after promising me to put a wiki page. Nothing happened even after passing one year. American Wiki Editors do not exist anymore. Please help me what shall do? Are there any genuine wiki editors who could potentially put my profile back on Wikipage. Daichoo (talk) 07:32, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi Daichoo, unfortunately it sounds as if you have been scammed. People do not 'have profiles' on Wikipedia – encyclopedia articles are written by volunteers when someone meets Wikipedia's inclusion criteria, which generally require that multiple people unconnected to the subject have written significant amounts about the person, without having been fed information by that person. If you do not meet those criteria, then unfortunately there is no way to have a Wikipedia article written about you. All offers to get a Wikipedia article about you written and published for a fee are at best misguided, and more often scams. Tollens (talk) 07:42, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
For your information, Wikipedia has articles, not profiles. The distinction is that articles about people call for indepedent, published references that verify the facts which make a person Wikipedia-notable. If you truly believe that you are so famous/notable that people with no connection to you have written about you, then you could try using WP:YFA to create a draft about yourself, even though Wikipedia strongly advises against attempts at autobiography (see WP:AUTO). David notMD (talk) 13:41, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
You could possibly report them to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org with a copy of the email. We won't be able to recover the money but other people could be protected from the same thing happening to them. Industrial Insect(talk)16:02, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Stories like this one make me think that scammers should be treated like traitors were in England in times of old; on the other hand, I do also wonder at the gullibility of (some) victims... Autokefal Dialytiker (talk) 16:26, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
American Wiki Editors (2)
Dear Colleagues:
I have $800 taken by American Wiki Editors for creating wikipage of mine and notability articles, and they disappeared from website + emails + phone services + Whatsapp. Please help me, if there is any reliable person with whom i can work. There are a lot of websites for creating webpages, but I am now skeptical with all of them. I would prefer to donate $800 to charity for a good cause.
Thank you so much.
Regards
IRF Daichoo (talk) 19:16, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello, I am a newish editor that has just substantially improved the content on the entry on Benjamin Waugh including citations to the main sources. But how do I now remove 'This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources' ? Parc Hembise 10:04, 5 April 2024 (UTC) ParcHembise (talk) 10:09, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello, ParcHembise. The article Benjamin Waugh has major problems. Consider this sentence from the lead: He was an outstandingly brilliant, energetic and highly competent charismatic journalist, public speaker and organiser who was to change how the British public understood and valued childhood and was instrumental in securing Britain’s first legislation on children’s rights. That is over the top hagiography, which violates the Neutral point of view, which is a core content policy. Then, I noticed that a widely used reference was a book written by Waugh's own daughter, Rosa Waugh Hobhouse, which is not an independent source and certainly should not be cited for any lavish praise. George K. Behlmer is a more contemporary expert who wrote the listing for the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, and I would neutrally summarize what he says, as opposed to what the loving daughter wrote back in 1913, a few years after her father's death. The references are a mess and should be cleaned up as well. Only then should you consider removing the maintenance tag. Cullen328 (talk) 18:15, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
You just need to familiarize yourself with wikitext so you’ll be able to identify the template within the code. Gickskizz (talk) 20:31, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Are you talking about @Discospinster and @Badadms? If so, do you have any proof of this at all? I can see you've left messages on their talk pages saying "This person is involved in soliciting fees to edit and publish wikipedia pages against wikipedia's guidelines"CommissarDoggoTalk?18:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
I was approached in linkedin by someone presenting themselves as James Nicoloas, claiming they are a wikipedia editor and for a fee would get the draft page Lee Povey published
Then that person got my phone number and messaged me saying the page was published and they would revert it back to a draft page if I didn't pay them (which has happened)
Please take greater care with your accusations I have never edited that draft and have NEVER requested money from anyone to edit Wikipedia. Theroadislong (talk) 19:02, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Badadms has previously been informed about their improper page moves, see here. They previously stated that @Wikishovel had been approving these moves. Now it seems as if they're saying Theroadislong has been doing this. CommissarDoggoTalk?19:09, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
It's the fourth time my name's been taken in vain by a sockfarmer. Nothing to do with me, but thanks for the ping. Wikishovel (talk) 19:14, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
I moved it to draft because there was some discussion on the talk page that suggested it was not ready to be published (due to notability issues). ...discospinstertalk19:05, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
This was done at the EXACT time I was being asked for money to keep the page published and told it would be taken off if I didn't pay. Seems incredibly suspicious as you had neevr edited the page before StainlessSteelRodentia (talk) 19:12, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
curprev 22:34, 4 April 2024 Badadms talk contribs m 10,339 bytes 0 Badadms moved page Draft:Lee Povey to Lee Povey: The draft has been approved by Theroadislong moved to namespace undothank
Most likely. They've previously moved pages, stating that various different users such as WikiShovel (as stated above), Theroadislong, @Mikeblas and a user by the name of Peter Walker - can't find them so I assume they don't exist.
Ok, thank you. The fact they've done this with multiple different high profile users, have previously been informed that they shouldn't be doing this, failed to respond to that and continue to do this is, understandably, quite worrying given the topic of this conversation. CommissarDoggoTalk?19:33, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
I've unfortunately been drawn into this issue again. What must I do to clear my name in response to the ANI that you've opened? -- Mikeblas (talk) 20:49, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Oh, no, there's nothing you need to do at all. I was simply tagging you to inform you that your name had come up, which seemed pertinent. I'd already done the same for other users who had their name come up.
As you might understand it seems so odd to have people approving and disapproving at the same time a scammer is messaging me trying to extort money from me
Are you still adding content to that report? I'll quite happily add the information from this conversation to there in the comments if not. CommissarDoggoTalk?19:47, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
I did add a link back to this discussion. I've done I think all I can do for now, but feel free to add more info if you have it. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:58, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Nah, if it links back here then that's all I'd really want to add, as it includes everything about their past with suspicious page moves and using respected editors as a way to add more validity.
Strike out usernames that have been blocked and enable that. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:47, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Courtesy link: Draft:Vedette Lim
dropdown menu (the former will also make a yellow dialog box appear on the recipient's screen). —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:36, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Note: OP has been blocked for sockpuppetry. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:34, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Remsense诉 13:45, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Fixed; the 
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Article published. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:22, 3 April 2024 (UTC) 
![[9]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:NWS_Aviation_Weather_Center_Overview_chart.png){kind=link}
