Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1087

Archive 1080

←

Archive 1085

Archive 1086

Archive 1087

Archive 1088

Archive 1089

Archive 1090

transfermarkt no reliable?

hi, it's a joke? transfermarkt is the official website for football player and the UEFA PRO coach Gmasuri1989 (talk) 14:16, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

@Gmasuri1989: Transfermarkt is largely user-generated, or that its users contribute it's information. Therefore, we treat it the same way as a self-published source and don't consider it reliable. IMDb is not considered reliable for the same reason. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 14:21, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Gmasuri1989 This has been discussed multiple times, most recently here. The website is user generated, and there is no evidence that the information on that website has been peer reviewed for factual accuracy. Try seeing if the player has a profile on Soccerway or Soccerbase instead (both of these are acceptable sources). Joseph2302 (talk) 14:28, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

External links

FYI

 – added title — Yours, Berrely (🎅 Ho ho ho! 🎄) • ^Talk∕_Contribs 14:30, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Then ca I ask you why a lot of people have in the external link but i can't have??? Gmasuri1989 (talk) 14:25, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Gmasuri1989. Let me ask you a question. When you ask your mother if it's okay if you "drop out of high school, fail the GED and sell black market ferrets for a living", and she says, "no", and then you whinge, "but 'all the other kids are doing it'", what does she say? Probably something like just because other shit exists is no proper ground for, or validation of, doing improper acts yourself. Right?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:59, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

More diplomaticlly, Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. There are many articles in Wikipedia that are not up to currant standards, which have become more stringent over time. Per Joseph2302, try to find reliable sources for the same information. David notMD (talk) 16:24, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Editing

How can I create a page? Kenzie Abraham (talk) 15:26, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Kenzie Abraham, hello and welcome to the teahouse. Go to WP:AfC and click "Click here to start a new article!" Regards, Heart ^(talk) 15:27, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

HOWEVER, first, per advice given earlier today to a new editor with the same question: "Successfully creating a new article(not just a "page") is the absolute hardest thing to do on Wikipedia. It takes much time and practice. If you dive right into it without some knowledge and experience beforehand, your chances of success are low. It is a good idea to first gain experience by editing existing articles in areas that interest you, to get a feel for how Wikipedia operates and what is expected of article content. This is especially important if you intend to write about a living person, which has special guidelines. It's also a good idea for you to use the new user tutorial to learn more about Wikipedia. If you still wish to attempt to create an article, you may create and submit a draft at Articles for Creation after you read Your First Article. If you are associated with the person you wish to write about, please read about conflict of interest and paid editing." David notMD (talk) 16:28, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

But before you do that, Kenzie Abraham, please study your first article. When a new editor tries to create an article as the first, or nearly the first, thing they do here, they usually have a frustrating time, and often find that all the effort they put into it is wasted, because they don't know how to tell whether the subject is suitable for Wikipedia or not. We have six million articles, and probably five million of them could be massively improved. Please do yourself and Wikipedia a favour by spending a few weeks or months improving some of what we've already got and learning how Wikipedia works, before you try this extremely difficult task. The community portal is one place to find jobs that need doing. --ColinFine (talk) 16:30, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Is this notable enough?

Hi, I have a quick question. Is the chemical plant explosion in West Virginia notable enough for an article? I saw that another explosion a few days ago in the U.K. got an article, but I’m still not sure to write an article about this event. •rslashthinkong User page User talk page 15:22, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I doubt it, as there were no fatalities as there were at the Avonmouth explosion, and Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. It seems to be generally accepted that such accidents are only notable when there are fatalities, and even then the event needs to meet WP:GNG--Shantavira|^{feed me} 16:24, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Ok, Thanks! • • rslashthinkong (User page) (User talk page) 16:32, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

To publish new article/page on Wikipedia

I would like to have information about how to publish a new article/page on Wikipedia. Ilgiurista digitale (talk) 16:51, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Ilgiurista digitale Hello and welcome. From the subject of your edits, I gather that you may have a conflict of interest and/or paid editing relationship with whatever it is you wish to create a new article about. Successfully creating a new article is the absolute hardest thing to do on Wikipedia, it's even harder if you have a conflict of interest. If you dive right in without some knowledge and experience, you are liable to end up disappointed and with hurt feelings, which I don't want for you.

Please use the new user tutorial to learn more about Wikipedia, and perhaps also take some time to edit existing articles in areas that interest you personally, to get a feel for how Wikipedia operates and what is expected of article content.

If you still wish to attempt to create a new article, you should read Your First Article and the other policies I have linked to here, and then you may visit Articles for Creation to create and submit a draft. Be advised that Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state. 331dot (talk) 17:01, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Replying to Wikipedia Editors

Hello Teahouse Hosts: I am new to Wikipedia and excited about participating and have recently made a few edits and additions yet received a few messages and a couple of edit or reversions. I would like to reply, however I am not exactly sure how to do so at the bottom of their talk page. I tried on one and start a new subject and published it and believe that to be the way. If there is another way more acceptable could someone please suggest it to me? Thank you in advance for your considerate assist and support. SILENTWARRIOR SILENTWARRIOR (talk) 17:19, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes you did it correctly. Make sure you use the "four tildes" to sign your posts. See help here Wikipedia:Tips/How to sign comments Koncorde (talk) 17:26, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Ancient megalithic architecture

 LizLI2 (talk) 18:14, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

LizLI2, If you are asking for an article, try Megalithic architectural elements. For anything else, its best to ask the Wikipedia:Reference Desk. Le Panini ^Talk 18:28, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

mnkbvhgxfdzgchvjbnm,

gvcfxdzsxgcgvbhjnmk 166.127.1.75 (talk) 18:53, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

If you want to do test edits, use the WP:SANDBOX RudolfRed (talk) 18:54, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Bot programming

I have been wondering for a long time, how are bots programmed? Do they use the User: namespace, or the MediaWiki: namespace? a gd fan (talk) 19:06, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

@GeometryDashFan12: Check out the page Wikipedia:Bots that explains how bots are uses and has links to other pages on how bots are created. Hope this helps. RudolfRed (talk) 19:10, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Immigration to Svalbard

Hello, I was wondering if anyone could enlighten me on best practices to begin immigration, or where I could learn more about this subject. 2601:1C2:4F01:89D0:C120:BF77:B548:85F3 (talk) 21:07, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, but this isn't the appropriate venue. You might be able to get help at the reference desk. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 21:18, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

IP editor, this is not a general help desk. It's the help desk for wikipedia editors to get help with editing Wikipedia. Good luck.--Quisqualis (talk) 21:20, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Promoting yourself selflessly but properly

Hello, I am trying to update columns that pertain to Canada history in Ufology. It just so happens to be my organization and my work. Yes this is self promotion, but I've been trying to display the movement that my group has done that contributes to Ufology on a whole. I've written in third person and refference third party articles that others written about us to show a non biased and factual documentation. The issue in the Ufology community, is no one promotes anyone else and you have to promote yourself in order to be recognized. I'm totally understanding the rules and guidelines but my intentions of self promoting is for the benefit of mankind not for myself. With that said, how do I get the content on there ? I can have another member of the group write for me but then it's a conflict as well. People aren't endorsing our work because we are the fact checkers and are actually making it difficult for the other ufologists. We just want the truth. I am a private investigator by trade. So with this said, I'm stumped and looking for someone else to write this story for me. I can provide links and refferences and help another writer/editor if it comes to it.

Please help me find someone to write because I have more info to update on these pages. Stuff that no one has ever read and has never seen the public eyes. Rstacey86 (talk) 16:20, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Rstacey86 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Self-promotion is not permitted, regardless of the reason for doing so. You have what is called a conflict of interest(click to review) and as such you should not directly edit articles that pertain to your conflict of interest. You may make a formal edit request on the article talk page, detailing changes you feel are needed, but it would be original research to post the findings of your organization. If independent sources have written about the findings of your organization, please offer those sources.

If you ask someone else to make the edit, that is still a conflict of interest, but for that new person. 331dot (talk) 16:24, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate the security screening. Do I request an edit in general or on each page ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rstacey86 (talk • contribs) 16:28, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hi there, Rstacey86 and thanks for dropping in to the Teahouse with your question. I'm afraid your final sentence is the real giveaway here, as Wikipedia is not to be used for WP:PROMOTION, and we only ever collate what is verifiable and already published via Reliable Sources in the public domain. If the mainstream media have taken note of your organisation and written about it in detail and in depth, then it might meet this set of notability criteria for organisations. But we never base a Wikipedia article on what an organisation or person says about itself. And yes, you would certainly have a big Conflict of Interest were you to try. I'm sorry, but I doubt Wikipedia is the place to get that wider promotion. Regards from the UK,Nick Moyes (talk) 16:30, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi there. This is good information. I understand the stand point and I appreciate the high standard. There are reliable sources in the public domain. So I'll request an edit and see where that goes.

Either way, I can push for more media coverage on the work so that it becomes notable and available for other editors to draw from.

I assure you, we are the real deal and want to be taken seriously. So thank you for your comments and I'll redirect my research towards the media and will circle back here once we've achieved that milestone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rstacey86 (talk • contribs) 16:37, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Rstacey86 I don't doubt your legitimacy. But pushing for news coverage is not the way to go, we want independent reliable sources that have chosen on their own to write about what you do, not that have published press releases or interviews with you(both of which are primary sources). 331dot (talk) 16:40, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

(ec) Rstacey86 This: Stuff that no one has ever read and has never seen the public eyes doesn't sound promising - Wikipedia does not propagate the first-hand information. Unpublished truth doesn't matter here (please see WP:OR and WP:PRIMARY), only published, reliable, secondary sources count (see WP:VER). --CiaPan (talk) 16:44, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

If you take all that's said in consideration, and you accept that being added to Wikipedia is a goal of ours, what strategy would you recommend and where would I start ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rstacey86 (talk • contribs) 16:45, 9 December 2020 (UTC) CiaPan I don't know the tag to reply to you specifically. I agree with your thoughts and I support them. I should have been clearer, even though we are talking in general terms right now.

The information I am reffering to is unclassified documents given to me by the Canadian Government. We just haven't made them public yet.

This is just research for me right now. I want this information handled properly. I don't want the media to put a spin on it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rstacey86 (talk • contribs) 16:50, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I would suggest that you use social media, a website owned and operated by your organization, or perhaps one of the alternative forums listed here to better serve your purpose. Nothing against you, but I don't think Wikipedia is the right place to do what you wish to do. 331dot (talk) 16:53, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate what you saying, perhaps I misunderstand what Wikipedias purpose is, because the information that's on there (in these particular sections of ufology) has in accuracies and is false testimony which is proven when you read the source material provided in the refference. So I'm trying understand how that material fits without creating an argument. I am confused about the expectation of Wikipedia. Help me understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rstacey86 (talk • contribs) 17:04, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

@Rstacey86: That's a good question. With 6million+ articles, our expectation is that all factual statements liable to be challenged will be supported by citations to reliably-published mainstream sources that anyone in the world can access and check (even if they have to go to a library to do it) Sadly that isn't always the case, so we have things like this and this and this and this which can be added to content. Not everyone does, but you are most welcome to flag up on article talk pages content that you doubt, or remove it yourself if you don't have a conflict of interest in so doing. (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~.) Nick Moyes (talk) 17:11, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

You do indeed misunderstand what Wikipedia's purpose is, Rstacey86. I can tell this because you say "being added to Wikipedia is a goal of ours". You appear to have the common misconception that an article is in any way for the benefit of its subject. Many people and organisations who are the subject of articles do benefit from it, of course (and some definitely do not), but it is absolutely not part of Wikipedia's purpose that they should. To that end, the subject of an article has no control over its contents; in fact in a way has less control over the article than almost anybody else in the world, because they are strongly discouraged from editing the article directly. --ColinFine (talk) 18:52, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll start there. I'll have someone else look into it and flag it for you to review.

I appreciate what you are doing and I understand the challenges in regulating.

I am an expert in this field which why I'm paying closer attention.

Step one, make the data that's there accurate.

Ryan Rstacey86 (talk) 17:18, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

@Rstacey86: I'm replying to your original message. Be careful that you stick to what reliable, independent sources say. Please read Wikipedia:Fringe theories, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and the encyclopedia article False balance as they may apply when you write about UFOs as such and when you write about what UFO researchers say about them, or when you suggest edits on the talk pages of subjects in which you have a conflict of interest. Writing about the researchers themselves, or the groups themselves, will be less problematic - either there will be independent, reliable sources that talk about them or there won't be. Even then though, you need to be careful that the independent, reliable source you are citing isn't falling into the trap of "false balance" if they are writing about a fringe idea, person, or organization. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:57, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Very good points. Rstacey86 (talk) 18:07, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Rstacey86, Wikipedia has a policy called WP:Verifiability, not truth. Which means that only stating "The Truth" is less of a goal of this encyclopedia than stating what reliable, published sources unconnected to the subject have said. You want Wikipedia to have what you know to be the truth, but that may be counter to what Wikipedia seeks. Wikipedia is aware that not all of its content is necessarily true (such as certain actors' dates of birth), but the reliable sources all repeat the same untruth, so we must go with what they say.--Quisqualis (talk) 21:50, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Suspected advertisement/travel guide

Hi! I'm new here. The page for Operation Wallacea appears to an advert for voluntourism packages, and seems to just be a list of travel locations available. Is it warranted to remove most of its content, especially parts that are not cited? Who should I report this to? Thank you! Arcahaeoindris (talk) 19:13, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

@Arcahaeoindris: Based on the box at the top of the article, you are not the only one to notice this. I would say go ahead and be WP:BOLD and cut out anything that looks like an advertisement or otherwise unsuitable for an article. RudolfRed (talk) 19:25, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Arcahaeoindris. Agreeing with the above, when you remove content that is clearly an advertisement, numerous policies and guidelines are involved that will support various aspects of such removal—e.g., neutral point of view, what Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTADVOCACY) and no original research (since such content usually includes, improperly in Wikipedia's voice, evaluative content, analysis and synthesis)—but I think it's especially useful to be familiar with WP:BURDEN, a subsection of the bedrock verifiability policy, that provides a policy-based ground for removal of unsourced content, and defines the direction of the burden for return of such content – being that those wishing to return it, may only do so if they cite (using inline citations) to reliable sources that directly verify the returned content. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:01, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Adding an image to an infobox?

Hi, I have uploaded this image to the site (File:Tip_Of_My_Tongue_Single_Art.jpg) but I can't add it to the infobox of the song (Tip of My Tongue by Kenny Chesney) because I believe the page is locked? Can someone help me out Paul to my Linda (talk) 22:32, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Paul to my Linda, page's not locked, but done: [1]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:37, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Article submission

How do I submit an article for review? And how do I create one? Nononsense101 (talk) 00:41, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

That is our #1 question, Nononsense101. Please see where we advised another user with the same question as you.--Quisqualis (talk) 02:41, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Archived.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:41, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Is there a reason Infobox Officeholder should be used over Infobox Judge?

So I've noticed @CAPTAIN RAJU:'s edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ren%C3%A9_Leblanc&oldid=992558717, which replaced Infobox Judge with Infobox Officeholder in Rene Leblanc's page who is a Judge on Canada's Federal appelate court. Richard Wagner's page who is the Chief Justice of Canada used Infobox Judge. Is there a reason Infobox Judge should not be used rather than Infobox Officeholder? Swil999 (talk) 06:07, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

There's no such thing as "Infobox Judge"—the {{infobox judge}} template is just a redirect to {{infobox officeholder}}. It will still work if you put in {{infobox judge}}, but it's bad practice to do so as it misleads editors into thinking these are two different templates and consequently causes confusion (as appears to have been the case here!). ‑ Iridescent 06:28, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Need help revising

Are there any improvements that you could recommend to me that be made to the Pre-debut section of my draft? 52-whalien (talk) 06:43, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy - draft in question Draft:Rima Nakabayashi has been submitted to AfC. David notMD (talk) 06:50, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

If none of these refs have lengthy content about her - more than just mention and a photo - a problem. David notMD (talk) 06:59, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Don't think my last message was understood...

Hello, I have tried to fulfill all requirements to get a neutral article posted but it seems that I have been misunderstood. The person I have written about is a notable person who has been interviewed on TV, been written about in several scientific and business publications. People need a neutral place where they can look him up, which I thought was Wikipedia. Unfortunately, I've been responded to quite rudely when I was only inquiring about the proper steps involved. I was even dissuaded from doing the 10 edits because of it being a profile, even though it is a neutral one on a notable scientist/entrepreneur. Please note: IT IS A PROFILE DONE ON A PERSON WHO HAS BEEN INTERVIEWED ON TV AND BEEN WRITTEN ABOUT IN SEVERAL SCIENTIFIC AND BUSINESS PUBLICATIONS, NOT BY ME BUT BY OTHER WRITERS.

I don't understand the necessity for rudeness when I am trying to abide by your rules. Do I stand a chance of getting this published or should I give up, as I was so rudely told? Scientrep (talk) 21:47, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Please do not do all caps - it is considered shouting. You were advised on your Talk page on 10 November to declare on your User page which topics you are being paid for, before doing any creation. Please do that first. Then, you can create a draft and submit it to Articles for Creation. David notMD (talk) 22:10, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

You asked for advice at Teahouse on 26 Nov. I have copied the answer here because the reply applies: The information about your paid relationship belongs on your User page, not your Talk page. Your working draft of content belongs on your Sandbox or as a draft, not your own Talk page. On your Talk page, editor Theroadislong provided a form to use on your User page to explain your paid situation. Your "draft" has no references yet, so please do not submit it until it looks more like articles about other science entrepreneurs. David notMD (talk) 03:50, 26 November 2020 (UTC) In answer to your 13 Nov question, Wikipedia:Articles for creation provides instructions on how to draft an article. David notMD (talk) 03:57, 26 November 2020 (UTC) @Scientrep: For reference, your "user page" is User:Scientrep, your "[user] talk page" is User talk:Scientrep, your "sandbox" is User:Scientrep/sandbox, and your "draft article" should probably be at Draft:Sam Molyneux. I'll note there is already an article about a company he founded, Meta (academic company). If you do move forward with this, in addition to the links to policies and style guides provided earlier, you might want to look at other biographical articles in edit mode for some of the formatting and structure details. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 17:06, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Hope this helps David notMD (talk) 22:16, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy comment for other page stalking editors - there doesn't seem to be a draft as far as I can tell - this is all forward looking. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:44, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you feel people have been rude, Scientrep, but if you think that what you are writing is a profile, you have fundamentally misunderstood what Wikipedia is. Wikipedia does not contain profiles: not one. Some of the differences between a profile and an encyclopaedia article are: 1. A profile is generally for the benefit of its subject; a Wikipedia article is not, in the slightest. Of course, the subjects of many articles do get some benefit from there being an article about them (though others definitely do not!) but that is no part of the purpose. 2) A profile generally says what the subject wants it to say; A Wikipedia article does not, in general. Again, it might happen to, but that is a happy accident, not its purpose. 3) A profile is generally based on what the subject and the subject's associates have said about them; a Wikipedia article is almost entirely based on what people who have no connection with the subject has chosen to publish about them. --ColinFine (talk) 22:47, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Timtempleton and others - draft content is at Scientrep's talk page. David notMD (talk) 03:30, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

David notMD Thanks - I looked in the editing history but didn't look on the talk page. Perhaps it would be better in the near term to create a Sam Molyneux redirect to Meta (academic company), where there's already some info about him. Maybe a bit WP:TOOSOON, with one company under his belt, and not a lot of coverage. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:00, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

I have a question

Hi if I am trying to edit a page like Art to add some grammer changes how do I visually submit an edit request because I cant find what I want to change on the normal edit mode? Thatweirdeditor (talk) 22:19, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Thatweirdeditor, hello! The article is WP:SEMI protected, see that link, so you can't edit it just yet, but if you stick around a bit. It's probably locked because of unhelpful edits. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:32, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes - there was persistent IP vandalism from 2007-2008, and this has been protected ever since. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:41, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

@Thatweirdeditor: If you want to make an edit request, but the page is locked, you would click on "view source" at the top of the page, and then you click the button that says "Submit an edit request". Once you click that button, you can type in whatever request you want. But if you want it to be accepted, you should type in a specific change, for example

"In the section titled 'Mammals', replace 'The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog.' with 'The speedy grey wolf leaps over the tired cat.'."

Then, probably give a reason for your request. Hope this helps. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 08:10, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Page disappearance

 Professeur XYZ (talk) 01:34, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Why would a page be there for a few days and then suddenly disappear? Professeur XYZ (talk) 01:36, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

What page? As far as I can tell, this is your second edit on any Wikimedia project under this account, your first is right above this one. And yes, pages are routinely deleted from Wikipedia, see WP:Deletion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:38, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

FYI - a Speedy deletion (Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion) by an Administrator can make an article, or inappropriate User page content, or User's Sandbox disappear quickly, leaving no trace.David notMD (talk) 08:49, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Why My article got rejected

 Courtesy link: Draft:Narugopal Mandal

Yesturday I uploaded an article about a film director Narugopal Mandal talking about his works and achivments with all supporting links attached to the article, but today when I submited the article it got rejected stating it sounds like advertisement and not a neutral statement. How can I rewrite it? Capturegraphics (talk) 07:21, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

@Capturegraphics: Your draft is written too much like a fan article or personal essay. The tone needs to be more encyclopedic, and less fawning. Also, IMDB is a poor source for articles, since it is based on fan contributions. You need to find independent reliable sources about Mandal that demonstrate he is notable enough for an article. Please see WP:RS and WP:GNG for general guidelines. Good luck! TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:26, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Draft: Disappearance of Luke Durbin

Unapproved Draft on the Disappearance of Luke Durbin

Hello, hope this finds you well. I recently was received notification that my draft was not approved due to the following: This submission appears to be a news report of a single event and may not be notable enough for an article in Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:NOT#NEWS and Wikipedia:ONEEVENT for more information. There is also a potential conflict of interest.

This confused me for the following reasons. I had used all outside sources such as the BBC and local newspapers as well as a documentary. Additionally, I have zero connection to the missing person nor his family. Would it be possible to point out which parts of the article resulted in its non-approval and how it can be approved? Thank you for your time! CelestialOne (talk) 12:41, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

CelestialOne Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You wrote a fine summary of the event- but Wikipedia articles must do more, they must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage say, showing how the event meets the definition of notability. I don't mean to trivialize this awful and tragic event, but many people go missing every year around the world. What merits this person's disappearance an article on this global encyclopedia? How did you come to edit about this topic? 331dot (talk) 12:48, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

331dot Thanks for getting back to me! I very much agree with your statements, although had a question. As this is an article of a person who disappeared mysteriously, what causes other missing persons articles to remain? For example, Disappearance of Alex Sloley , Disappearance of Andrew Gosden or Disappearance of Georgina Gharsallah. The circumstances surrounding the event comment on crime culture in Ipswich. Channel 5 (British TV channel) created a documentary concerning drug crimes from Brixton, London arriving in Ipswich. Luke's case is picked up by the MIT (Major Investigations Team) Source Thanks for your time! CelestialOne (talk) 13:30, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

CelestialOne A few of the articles you cite go into much more detail not just about the event, but (for example) criticism of the police investigating it; other such articles might discuss protests in response, changes in laws, or some lasting impact beyond the occurrence of the event. Killing of George Floyd merits an article because, among other reasons, the protests and violent riots that occurred afterwards and the subsequent national discussion in the US about race and policing(among other things). I'm sure others might have other comment to add. 331dot (talk) 00:59, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

33dot 331dot Thanks for taking the time to help me. In this case, would it be appropriate to stress on the issues of how Luke's mother critiqued the police investigation, specifically speaking to a newspaper over how they missed a crucial window to declare it a murder case? As a result, Suffolk Police re-classified it as a murder case in 2010, 4 years after. Additionally, March for the Missing, a march organized by Nicki Durbin and Valerie Nettles, mother of Damien Nettles was a public event in which the names of the missing were read aloud, followed by a flower placed on the street in their name with the intention to appeal for resources from the government and getting a bill passed. Source - Critique of investigation, Source - March for the Missing, Missing People Choir promoting Luke's case on Britain's Got Talent. Would stressing on these aspects meet the criteria that Wikipedia looks for? Many thanks for your time and support over the matter. CelestialOne (talk) 12:24, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

I can't guarantee anything, but it would certainly help; the article needs to be more than an accounting of the event and investigation. 331dot (talk) 12:28, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Referencing method

I'm wondering if Template:Rp is a good referencing method to use for page numbers, along with Template:Cite book for the general information about the book. I will be using each book a few times, with different page numbers, with references at Draft:Culture of Silicon Valley. Is this the best practice or should I use another referencing method instead? —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 05:48, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Naddruf, welcome to the Teahouse. Like you, I think the use of {{rp}} would be helpful for any readers to quickly verify when they have access to the source. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 05:50, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

@Naddruf: Yes, {{Rp}} and {{R}} are the easiest way to cite multiple pages in the same source. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 12:58, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Specificity

Hi! I apologize first as this is a very specific question and I was not sure where to ask. I am wondering for reference what counts as a 'suicide'. If an individual attempts suicide but survives, and then dies from injuries caused by the attempt months later.. would that still be considered suicide?

I am new to the tea house and a little bit confused but I hope my question is properly formatted

Thank you La Transatlantique (talk) 12:14, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello La Transatlantique! If you don't find anything about this at the suicide article, try asking at Wikipedia:Reference desk. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:30, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

That is an interesting question, and really outside what teahouse is about, which is for Wikipedia-editing related questions. I could not find an authoritative legal answer. Medically, there are case reports in the literature of people who attempted to hang themselves, were interrupted while still alive, but died hours to days later (rarely, weeks to months) from the physical trauma of the attempted suicide or complications such as pneumonia. Can include people who are conscious and able to function physically and mentally after the rescue. I suppose attempted suicide by poison or gunshot or leaping from a height could also result in delayed death. David notMD (talk) 12:33, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! I will go and have a look aat the reference desk. I appreciate your kindness though.

Thank you La Transatlantique (talk) 13:15, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

@La Transatlantique: To me, this scenario sounds like 'attempted suicide' in which the person subsequently died of injuries sustained during the failed attempt. But, as always, it depended on context and what sources state (not what you think). You can't jump in front of a train and be sufficiently injured that you die five months or five years later and have people say that you committed suicide. There might be something relevant in this personal essay: Wikipedia:Articles on suicides. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:28, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Is sandbox public or private

Is my sandbox public or private? Sungpeshwe9 (talk) 11:32, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

@Sungpeshwe9: sandboxes are, as well as any other page on Wikipedia, accessibly by the public. They do not appear on well behaved search engines indexes. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 11:40, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Fixing a ping in the entry above. --CiaPan (talk) 11:43, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

• They are public, but not searchable by search engines. Someone would have to see it in the Recent Changes feed or know how to find it in order to see it. However, if you want to experiment or write a draft without anyone seeing it, you should not do it on Wikipedia itself, but in a word processing program on your computer/phone. 331dot (talk) 11:50, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

@Sungpeshwe9: It is worth adding that our policy on copyright violations also covers content pasted into sandboxes. I must confess that in my early days of editing, I used to innocently paste in newspaper/journal text, save it and then re-write it in my own words later on and then delete the original. I now realise this was against our rules, so I am careful now to either do that in a WordProcessor document, or paste, work on it, and then remove original material prior to any saving/publishing here. Hope this helps. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:33, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Can't attach original picture.

Hello, I've been trying to attach my personal image but for some reasons I get this: ,,We could not determine whether this file is suitable for Wikimedia Commons. Please only upload photos that you took yourself with your camera, or see what else is acceptable. See the guide to make sure the file is acceptable and learn how to upload it on Wikimedia Commons."

It's a portrait of the person about who the page is being created. Thank you for your help:)

Best Regards, Domante Purtokaite DomaPurt (talk) 13:36, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, DomaPurt. Firstly, if you are creating an article about a Notable Person, the presence or absence of a photo makes absolutely no difference to whether the article is acceptable. So there is no need for you to upload one immediately, especially as you haven't even started work on any new article, as yet. I suggest you wait until you have. Secondly, did you take the photograph yourself? If not, you have no right to upload it, except under certain specific circumstances. Thirdly, here on English Wikipedia we don't deal directly with image upload issues because Wikimedia Commons is a separate entity. You may find additional help there at this url. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 13:53, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

THE IMAGE IN THE PAGE OF WIKIPEDIA

Hi, how can I put an image in the giovanni scanu page? I try a lot of time but the answer is always an error thank you Gmasuri1989 (talk) 14:09, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

@Gmasuri1989: Check how another page like Robert Lewandowski does it. The file is hosted at Wikimedia Commons at this URL: [2]. If you have an image on Commons that you want to use, you would use the same formatting. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 14:28, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

@Gmasuri1989: You would need to have access to a photo of Scanu which can be used under Wikipedia's image use policy. This essentially means one which is not under copyright, so it would need to be one taken by yourself or by someone else who was prepared to make it freely available. See WP:IUP#COPYRIGHT for more detailed information on what types of image are acceptable -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:02, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Newbie Confusion over removal of suggested edit

Just added this to the Talk page on Section 28 - and immediately had it removed....What did I do wrong?

Extended content

-- I'm Brand new here and joined because of this issue -- There is an issue with the Jill Knight comment retrieved from Hansard: Why did I bother to go on with it and run such a dangerous gauntlet? ... I was contacted by parents who strongly objected to their children at school being encouraged into homosexuality and being taught that a normal family with mummy and daddy was outdated. To add insult to their injury, they were infuriated that it was their money, paid over as council tax, which was being used for this. This all happened after pressure from the Gay Liberation Front. At that time I took the trouble to refer to their manifesto, which clearly stated: "We fight for something more than reform. We must aim for the abolition of the family". That was the motivation for what was going on, and was precisely what Section 28 stopped.[21] The quote of the line from the Gay Manifesto does not exist. No where in the Gay Manifesto does it state that they aim for the abolition of the family. To leave this quote as it is suggests, 'the aim of the abolition of the family', is a fact. The tone of the Gay Manifesto, which was written by the Gay Liberation Front (1969-1974), was the aim of the EVOLUTION of the idea of Gender, Family and Sexuality across society to become broader and more inclusive, along with the removal of Stereotyping of Gender Roles. Placing this in context, by 1969, for more families it was becoming common and necessary for both parents to work. The idea of Female equals homemaker and Male equals breadwinner across all classes was being undermined by the economic changes in Society and the Women's Liberation Movement. My apologies for not being more concise - but Jill Knight's comment needs to be rebutted(?) with fact for the sake of transparency, accuracy and fairness. Being a newbie here, it would not be right for me even to begin to attempt it. I will leave it to the more experienced :-) GLF Manifesto GLF Atomicman33 (talk) 13:09, 10 December 2020 (UTC) References

I then received this response....abrupt and unhelpful....Can someone please expand on what I did wrong as I thought it was constructive, I had cited sources and specified why it was necessary.

"Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Talk:Section 28—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 13:12, 10 December 2020 (UTC)"

thanking you in advance. Atomicman33 (talk) 13:44, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Atomicman33. I suspect Materialscientist removed this edit of yours because you posted it between a thread from 2011 and one from 2015! Quite how you managed to make that unusual error, I really don't know, but I suspect they simply saw a wall of text and thought it had no place there. New posts go at the bottom of the page, just as they are here at the Teahouse. Perhaps you should try again, this time by clicking the 'Add Topic' tab and then put in a short subject header and a clear description of your concerns. It certainly looked to be a 'Good Faith edit' to me. But in future, if you feel someone has dropped a 'templated message' unfairly on your talk page, the simple way is to respond politely to that person and seek an explanation. If you're unsure how to Notify them correctly, you could go to their talk page and ask them directly (but please include a link to the article or edit under discussion). They won't miss it that way! I'm afraid Wikipedia always seems complex at first, but in due course I'm sure you'll get the hang of it. And we're here to help you in that goal. Best wishes, Nick Moyes (talk) 14:03, 10 December 2020 (UTC) .

I'm worried about a rude editor

There is a rude editor on Wikipedia that keeps bothering me. What should I do? Toad62 (talk) 13:59, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Definitely confront them And report them Mr. Amasballs (talk) 14:06, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

@Mr. Amasballs: Check the user's edit history before replying. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 14:18, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

@Toad62: Nope. Your comma usage is completely wrong. There is no reason to put a comma after the subject's name (whether it's a bird, person, or building). The only reason to add a comma would be if if there's a dependent clause that goes there. For example: "John Smith, known professionally as the Goat, is a basketball player."

Quisqualis gave very reasonable warnings for you to stop, but you disregarded those and failed to recognize that you were in the wrong. It doesn't matter if you're 13 or 31; as a Wikipedia editor, you're expected to communicate with the community and respond to feedback through discussion. If you really don't understand something, you should've asked for help here! ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 14:18, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

@Quisqualis and Toad62: I believe the recent example (Victor Adeboyejo) may be incorrect after Quisqualis' edit:

Ayomide Victor Adeboyejo (born 12 January 1998) known as Victor Adeboyejo, is a professional footballer who plays as a striker for Championship club Barnsley.

I believe there should be a comma after the closing paren (before " known") to set off the following clause correctly:

Ayomide Victor Adeboyejo (born 12 January 1998), known as Victor Adeboyejo, is a professional footballer who plays as a striker for Championship club Barnsley.

If the parenthetical (born 12 January 1998) is removed, the sentence is still correct (which is how it's supposed to work I think). I suppose if the parenthetical were set off by commas instead of parentheses, you wouldn't need two consecutive commas after 1998, but because a different scheme (parens) is used, I believe the comma should be there.

An alternative I've seen elsewhere (especially when there are more clauses needed, like pronunciations, other language transcriptions, etc.) is to put the "known as" inside the parens:

Ayomide Victor Adeboyejo (born 12 January 1998; known as Victor Adeboyejo) is a professional footballer who plays as a striker for Championship club Barnsley.

I don't think looking at other articles for players on the same team necessarily proves anything about the "correctness" of the grammar; it may only prove that editors use existing articles as a template for new ones and/or that they are largely created/edited by one or a small number of editors. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 19:06, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

AlanM1, well spotted! I admit that I was looking only at the parenthetical date of birth info for the comma, and ignored the context. Adeboyo, one of the last players listed on the team article, got short comma shrift from me, which I hope has been remedied. Thanks for spotting it.--Quisqualis (talk) 21:18, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Ok, sorry for overreacting. Toad62 14:06, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Quality and importance

I've been working on adding quality and importance labels to articles related to the Wikiproject Podcasting. I was curious whether there was a standard convention for the capitalization of the different levels. For instance, should they always be capitalized or always be lowercase? Does it not matter at all? Should I just be consistent with the other banners on the page or should I change them all to a specific capitalization?

I also wanted to ask whether there is a standard convention for editing summaries. In this case I'm specifically asking about what the best editing summary would be for changing a banner status from one quality and importance rating to another, but I'm also curious if there are guidelines for edit summaries in general.

Wikiproject Podcasting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Podcasting

Priority Scale: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Release_Version_Criteria#Priority_of_topic

Importance Assessment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Content_assessment#Importance_assessment 

TipsyElephant (talk) 14:31, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Can you site non digital sources?

I am working on a wiki article for a scientist at a major research university. I am having issues getting his article published. His work has been published in a lot of major peer reviewed journals and has made major contributions to his field. However, I could not find any secondary sources (articles written about him) other than peer reviews which are not digital and not easily accessed by the public. Any help or advice you can give me in getting this article published would be appreciated. Draft is for Richard L. Green an American condensed matter experimental physicist. Thank you!! Kstenson86 (talk) 13:59, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Kstenson86 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Reliable sources do not need to be online, and do not need to be easy or free to access, but they do need to be available to the public. Documents only in private hands inaccessible to the general public are not acceptable. 331dot (talk) 14:02, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

331dot Thank you for letting me know. Would a peer review be consider a secondary source. It is a critique of the scientists work but he is listed an author because it's his orignal material that they are citing and reviewing. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kstenson86 (talk • contribs) 14:09, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

I think I know, but I am not 100% confident in my ability to give an accurate answer to that, so I will leave it for someone else. 331dot (talk) 14:14, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

@Kstenson86: I have had to delete the main paragraph of this article. It was a blatant copyright violation from your university's website. Unfortunately, whilst 'hiding from view' the offending content the page has suffered an internal error, and will not display for certain groups of editors. I have been unable to correct this, but have reported the matter, so don't panic! However, if you know or are related to this person, or happen to be employed at the same University, you have a clear Conflict of Interest which you need to declare on your talk page. You should do this before attempting any further edits (once the page comes back to life). Even if you happen to have written that text on the University website, you may not paste it in here unless it has been released with an appropriate Creative Commons commercial-use licence. (The simplest way is to rewrite it in your own words in a style appropriate to users of this encyclopaedia). My other constructive feedback would be to suggest you consider how you can add citations to allow verification of his various awards and honours (see WP:REFBEGIN) and check WP:NACADEMIC for the notability criteria that scientists and academics do have to meet, which can be more esoteric than for boring old sports people or minor here-today-forgotten-tomorrow TV celebrities. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 14:59, 10 December 2020 (UTC)    

Thank you Nick MoyesI will follow your advice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kstenson86 (talk • contribs) 15:03, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

UPE tag

How do you manage a UPE tag if it was assigned unfairly? What are the steps or the process to eliminate that from a page? Thank you Iulia Braila (talk) 14:40, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Imprima iRooms was originally created by User:Askwieuol a sock of User:Anatha Gulati, You, yourself have also added promotional material see here [3] sourced to their own website. You are are also being paid to edit. You CAN edit whilst being paid but you need to make a formal declaration on your user page. Theroadislong (talk) 15:15, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Determine if CtrlT (The Artist) is Notable

Is Ctrlt a Nigerian artist a notable person to write about? Ctrltoby (talk) 15:07, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Ctrltoby, Depends. After doing your research, do they meet the general notability guidelines? More specifically, Wikipedia:Notability (people)? Le Panini ^Talk 15:14, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

I would say not. I cannot find any evidence that the artist has received any coverage at all in reliable independent sources as required. Also, Ctrltoby, your username implies that you are the artist in question, in which case you are strongly discouraged from writing about yourself on Wikipedia per WP:COI -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:31, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Is the West Virgnia explosion notable now?

Yesterday I had asked if the WV explosion was notable enough for an article, and I got a now. The only requirements I think it really needed was fatalities. Well, there has been confirmed fatality, so before I do anything, I would to make sure if it is notable enough now. • • rslashthinkong (User page) (User talk page) 13:35, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

One dead. My opinion - not notable. David notMD (talk) 15:33, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

@Rslashthinkong: I would like to add that I do find it a bit morbid to make notability hinge only on the number of deaths (although I understand why that's a convenient metric). The disaster was certainly reported in the news, but I concur with David notMD that it does not seem to be notable (which, technically, imo is a good thing because any notable disaster should be avoided!). But as an alternative to its own article, have you considered adding it to the article about the locality (Belle, West Virginia)? Subsections and info in existing articles do not need to follow the stricter notability guidelines of stand-alone articles afaik. --LordPeterII (talk) 16:30, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Whoops, I just saw it already got added there, so nevermind! Still, it would seem best to me to leave the info on that page, and not make a standalone article. --LordPeterII (talk) 16:43, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! • • rslashthinkong (User page) (User talk page) 17:25, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Need admins help

Hello, can anyone share their views on this page : RightScale

I think my edits were not unsourced or poorly sourced. If they are proper, then can anyone edit them back?

Let me know what is right.

Thank you! Flenleaf (talk) 18:19, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Flenleaf Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Any user is capable of weighing in, not just administrators. You are welcome to discuss your concerns on the article talk page. If you are a representative or employee of RightScale, you must review conflict of interest and paid editing for information on disclosures you may be required to make. 331dot (talk) 18:26, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

You added content identical to what had been added by Kingoftheuno, later reverted because identified as undeclared paid editing and furthermore Kingoftheuno being blocked as a sockpuppet. As such, you are suspected of also having done undeclared paid editing and/or conflict of interest, and being sockpuppet of User:Ablasaur. You are especially suspect as your attempted addition to the article is your only article edit to date. David notMD (talk) 19:13, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I am not disputing whether or not Jonathan Siegel deserves detailed mention in the article, only that your role as an editor is suspect. David notMD (talk) 11:42, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

David notMD (talk) Hello, I think I am eligible for COI as I am somehow connected to the company, this means I can't directly edit it, right? But can you please review the history and reverse it back to what it was because that is the truth.

As for the blocked account, I have no connections with it. How do I prove this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flenleaf (talk • contribs) 17:48, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

@David notMD: Flenleaf (talk) 17:25, 10 December 2020 (UTC) Hello

@Hugo999: Hello Flenleaf (talk) 17:25, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

@Flenleaf: I have added some information to your user talk page about how to disclose your affiliation with the company and how you can then suggest edits to the article. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 17:48, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Hey, where do I put stub templates?

Sometimes when I put stub templates on top of articles, I notice on other articles that the stub template is on the bottom. Am I doing something wrong? Toad62 14:21, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Toad62, Stub templates should be put at the bottom of an article. According to WP:STUBSPACING, these templates should be placed at the bottom bottom, under any navigation templates and categories.

Thank you for helping me, I appreciate it! Stay safe :) Toad62 15:17, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

@Toad62: User:SD0001/StubSorter is very useful. You don't have to search for a stub and sort, because that's inconvenient, and it puts it on the bottom of the page. Put it on your Common js page for it to work. --a gd fan (talk) 18:15, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

It was incorrect.

Listen, I don't know who you think you are changing the edits that I made to Barbados but those edits were completely true. I am a Barbadian myself and Bajan Creole is not a language that we speak, we speak english with a accent that is similar to a british one, so why when we speak english its called creole but when people of America or U.K speak english its not considered creole. Don't talk about the vocabulary how we have different words, all English speakers of different regions have different vocabulary so why is it cosidered creole for people of Barbados. You can understand when we speak english its not like Jamaican Patois or Hatian Creole which are actually languages that a primary English speaker will not understand. Please do not change back my edits I have just explained to you why I made those edits so please don't. If you do i'll just change it back all the time so lets really not go through that, OK. NickMaraj (talk) 15:41, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

NickMaraj Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Threatening to edit war to preserve what you feel is the correct version of an article is against policy and aside from that, never a good strategy. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort where editors must work together to achieve a consensus as to what an article should say. The proper place to do that is on the article talk page, in this case, Talk:Barbados. There you should offer any independent reliable sources you have to support your edits, as well as explain why you wrote them the way you did. (another editor expressed concern that the tone of your edits was not encyclopedic). 331dot (talk) 15:57, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

@NickMaraj: A creole is not at all the same thing as accented English (or any language with an accent), so if you speak English with a Barbadian accent you don't speak a creole – just as people speaking English with other accents don't speak creoles. The article claimed that most people speak Bajan Creole, which sounded extremely unlikely – so I checked the source and no such claim was made there. I have changed that phrasing. --bonadea contributions talk 16:03, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I suspect the numbers are right Bonadea (much to NickMaraj's consternation). I am not informed well enough to differentiate between what is a dialect, an accent, and a fully fledged creole, or where the line in the sand is but suffice to say I think the OP may be taking the meaning of "Creole" as a slur, rather than a recognition that there is a language there that is, to quote our Creole language article, "a stable natural language that develops from the simplifying and mixing of different languages into a new one within a fairly brief period of time". There will be varying depths of reliance upon the language, and how broadly it is used and in what situation, but I suspect Nick would better understand a Bajan Creole than any of us would ever hope to. Koncorde (talk) 17:43, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

That Wikipedia article does not provide a very good definition of what a creole is, in my opinion! Creoles have nothing to do with accents or dialects; an English-based creole is a language that springs from a contact between English and another language, and not a variety of English. That it is a distinct language with native speakers is part of the basic definition, another part is that it is possible to use a creole in a variety of domains (as opposed to a pidgin, which is domain-specific). I guess that's where Wikipedia got the "simplifying and mixing" part from, but I wouldn't accept that answer on an undergrad exam in sociolinguistics. I admit that I may have read the description in the article a little too quickly, and read "...is spoken by most Barbadians in everyday life, especially in informal settings" as claiming that it is the native language of most Barbadians, probably because I am so conditioned to seeing "creole" and thinking "emerging language which has native speakers"! I agree with you – I'm sure most Barbadians can understand Bajan Creole even if they are not native speakers, and that code switching is very frequent. That does not mean that most Barbadians use it in everyday life, though. (I am not in any way an expert on creoles, I only know the things you learn when you teach linguistics.) --bonadea contributions talk 21:38, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I've just explained why I changed it, simply because the facts of the matter were not true. Here, let me right it in all caps so you may understand or see it better. BARBADIANS OR BAJANS DO NOT SPEAK BAJAN CREOLE BECAUSE IT IS NOT A LANGUAGE, WE SPEAK ENGLISH WITH AN ACCENT THATS IT, IF WIKIPEDIA IS SUPPOSED TO HAVE FACTS THEN WHATS THE PROBLEM WITH ME FIXING THE FACTS SO THAT THE OUTSIDE VIEW WOULD BE CORRECT ALL IM TRYING TO DO IS MAKE SURE THE INFORMATION FOR Barbados IS CORRECT, WHATS SO WRONG WITH THAT. NickMaraj (talk) 18:43, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

@NickMaraj: please do not write in all caps – it comes across as very aggressive. It is a verifiable fact that Bajan Creole is an existing language (which is not just some variety of English, but a language in its own right). Even if that were not the case, it is never appropriate to write personal comments in an encyclopedia article. If you have reliable secondary sources that show that Bajan Creole is no longer a living language, by all means present them, but no individual editor can ever change information that has a reliable source based solely on what they personally know.

If you want to keep discussing this question, please keep it in this section, unless it has been moved to the archives. Thanks! --bonadea contributions talk 18:49, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Stub or Start

How can you tell if an article is Start class or a stub? Slater and Devil fires is now published as a stub, and the article is short, but I feel like its long enough to not be a stub. How can you tell if it's a stub? a gd fan (talk) 18:12, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Content assessment. Stub to Start: even if you are the creator, within reason that you decide if better than Stub. David notMD (talk) 18:28, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

The rule of thumb I like to follow is if the article is less that two full paragraphs its a stub. The official page for stubs says around 250-500 words, but it's mostly up to your best judgement. SnazzyInfinity (talk • contribs) 19:13, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

How do I find someone who can help me create a page devoted to an emerging science?

Hi. I'm a philosopher and a scientist new to Wikipedia. I'd like help creating a page devoted to an emerging science. Is there someone who can guide me through this process? I can't devote a ton of time to learning the intricacies of wiki editing, but can handle drafting the article, siting background research, etc. I need a collaborator who's passionate about science, knows Wikipedia, and wants to contribute to public understanding of an exciting new science. Can you help? Philo1963 (talk) 15:37, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Philo1963. Please would you explain what you mean by 'emerging science'? Wikipedia follows what has already been reported about new scientific developments. It does not serve to publicise new, unwritten-about theories or developments until they have been accepted by mainstream sources. You would need to be able to provide citations to previously published and reliable, independent sources if that were your hope. Nick Moyes (talk) 16:01, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Greetings and welcome to Wikipedia Philo1963! Sadly, I personally don't have time to help you atm, as I am busy with my own projects (as well as real life). But if you want to attract attention, maybe you should provide some information about that science you want to write about? Right now, I have no idea what you are referring to :)

Also, I must admit that I'm a bit skeptical since you are referring to it as "new" science. There are certainly many emerging areas of research, but not everything fits into Wikipedia (yet). Please make sure your subject meets the notability and verifiability guidelines; otherwise, it might be better to wait until the science has matured enough and sources (e.g. in journals) are available. Wikipedia is more of a long-term encyclopedia, and sometimes it's just not the place for cutting-edge developments. --LordPeterII (talk) 16:11, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

(Oops, Nick Moyes was quicker ^^) --LordPeterII (talk) 16:14, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Philo1963, please read WP:TOOSOON. Wikipedia is not for promotion.--Quisqualis (talk) 19:29, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

When to make a separate episode guide

I have added episode summaries for A Discovery of Witches season one, episodes 5-8. I tried to match the length of previously written summaries, but I agree that they are all too long and detailed. Season two starts airing in January, and I wondered if this would be a good time to make a separate article for the episode guide. I would then shift the more detailed episode descriptions there and condense the summaries on the main page. Kaboobie71 (talk) 13:48, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

ETA: I have sought out the pages of some other recent series and noticed that their episode summaries are at least as long, but have not been flagged as "too long or excessively detailed". For example, The Umbrella Academy. Kaboobie71 (talk) 19:31, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

How to deal with evident errors in sources

I have been editing Wikipedia for a while but would appreciate thoughts on the best way to deal with this. The page on Alma Thomas has a significant number of issues. Among them, it included two incorrect statements citing old and current versions of a webpage from the National Museum of Women in the Arts, saying that in college two professors (Jones and Herring) influenced her to change her painting style toward abstraction (and extrapolating from those pages to say further things that are not stated in them, such as that she had further (post graduate) education at Howard University). This source, the NMWA webpage, is contradicted by numerous other sources, and obviously wrong on one point - Jones was not "her" professor, but was 14 years younger than her and only became a professor at Howard 6 years after Thomas had graduated. I thought just deleting the incorrect statements would look baseless and result in their coming back. I deleted one of the two incorrect statements and corrected the other, with explanations of my edits and adding a note at the place of the deletion explaining why the previously-cited source was wrong. Is there a better approach to deal with an incorrect factual statement in an article supported by a source that is obviously and demonstrably wrong?

Thanks. Sullidav (talk) 20:13, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

The best way is to see if there exist other sources that contain the accurate information, and removing the inaccurate source for one of those. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 20:16, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Updating the photo for a Russian monument

Hi there. This regards the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alyosha_Monument,_Murmansk

The photo there is quite low resolution, and I thought the article could do with a higher resolution photo that shows more detail, so I was going to replace it with one I took while visiting this year. (Of course it's debatable whether my photo is otherwise better.)

However, when I go to the photo, it seems there is some copyright issue with sculptures according to Russian law.

What should I do about this? Is it OK for me to upload this photo and use it on the wiki page?

Sorry for writing about such an insignificant issue. I'd like to learn to contribute better and get a bit more involved. Aapeliv (talk) 21:02, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

@Aapeliv: I was unable to locate any traces. Please use the Upload Wizard of our central Media Project directly. Note that we need the exact error message in order to be able to help you. Victor Schmidt (talk) 21:23, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't think the above guidance by Victor Schmidt should be followed. Please see my own opinion, added below. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:35, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Aapeliv. It's not an insignificant issue, and you're welcome to ask it. Whilst we don't give formal advice about image issue on Wikimedia Commons because they are a separate project with volunteers with diferent skillsets, we can at least attempt to guide you. I have had a couple of my images of mountain-top statues in France deleted on the same grounds when I've mistakenly put them on Commons, as well as some artwork installations I took in the UK. The issue mostly centres around - Freedom of Panorama - the laws in one or other country allowing or preventing the publication of images containing someone else's intellectually-copyrighted content. (Recently-constructed buildings in France, for example may not be photogrphed and published for commercial re-use without the permission of the architect, whereas there is no such issue here in the UK.) Because Wikimedia Commons will delete images taken in contravention of any national copyright or FoP laws, it is important NOT to upload an image you want to use to Commons. Instead, under certain circumstances, it is preferable to ONLY upload to the individual Wikipedia. See this subsection of the Freedom of Panorama page on Commons.

That said, I have to say that the image on that page doesn't look at all bad. So is your own photo really that much better? If not, you might be better off not bothering! But please bear in mind I'm no expert on image copyright, so you might wish to carefully read through Wikipedia:Copyrights, or ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Hoping this helps a bit. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:33, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Why has such a simple thing become such a user-hostile experience?

Tea and biscuits to say 'sorry'

• List_of_recognized_higher_education_accreditation_organizations#United_States includes a broken link to WASC_Accrediting_Commission_for_Community_and_Junior_Colleges. The proper target for this link is the page Accrediting_Commission_for_Community_and_Junior_Colleges.
• This seems like it may be a common mistake, so I sought to add a redirect. The "Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name" page seems to indicate that the Wikipedia:Article_wizard is the place to do this.
• The wizard is excessively long and forgets the name of the page the user was originally at, potentially requiring the user to go back in history in order to copy the desired page name. Actually entering the code for the redirect is trivial, but submitting the text is for some reason a multi-step process including lots of boilerplate for who-knows-what-reason.
• Then of course the request is denied, because I'm supposed to know to use some different wizard that isn't linked from the "Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name" page.

By this point I have spent far more time on this task than it was worth, and I regret even attempting it. I've made multiple anonymous edits to Wikipedia over the years, but I suspect I'll be much more hesitant in the future. 108.246.204.20 (talk) 21:14, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello IP editor. Welcome to the Teahouse. Is this what you wanted to achieve? WASC Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges? Whilst WP:REDIRECTS aren't too difficult to create, but we don't do it via Drafts, I'm afraid. But you did your best, and editing Wikipedia can unfortunately be a bit of a steep learning curve at first. I should add that there is no hostility intended when we interact with editors who happen to make mistakes. It's simply that with over 6,100,000 articles, tens of thousands of editors creating content, and just a relativly small bunch of volunteers helping to manage and maintain both good and bad-faith edits, we simply have to communicate with standard templated messages and links to ask users to 'read the guidance'. I'm really sorry your experience was not a hassle free one, so here is some tea and biscuits for you to help make up for it. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 21:58, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello IP editor. There is no need to create a redirect or use the Article wizard or any other wizard. Here's how I did it. I clicked the "Edit" button for that section, and deleted "WASC". I then clicked "Publish changes". Problem solved. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:03, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Alternative methods for seeking vandalism

Bonjour members of the Teahouse, it is I once again. I've gotten into fighting vandalism, mostly through recent changes. This can be slow, and most of the time I get beat to it anyways. Are there any other more efficient ways to find vandalism? Thanks! SnazzyInfinity (talk • contribs) 19:18, 10 December 2020 (UTC) SnazzyInfinity (talk • contribs) 19:18, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

User:SnazzyInfinity, what apps are you currently using against vandalism? Let us know here please.--Quisqualis (talk) 19:26, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Typically either the undo button or Twinkle.. why? SnazzyInfinity (talk • contribs) 19:28, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

@SnazzyInfinity: perhaps Huggle? Sometimes patroling Special:AbuseLog can also be of interest. Victor Schmidt (talk) 19:48, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm not looking to install anything (possibly in the future), but I will look at the Filter Logs, thanks again! SnazzyInfinity (talk • contribs) 20:00, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

@SnazzyInfinity: A lot of people patrol the recent change logs for the latest changes, so you'll frequently find a conflict if you try to patrol those same very recent changes, especially if you focus on the "low hanging fruit" (the easy/obvious vandalism). If you start from a day or two back, you'll find the stuff that's harder but sometimes more important and insidious. I look at contribs of new users with [4] and click "next 500" a couple of times to get to the older stuff. You'll find a lot of already-reverted stuff in their contribs (the edit summaries now have "Reverted" tags for those), but also plenty that was missed by the first pass of patrollers looking only for the "low hanging fruit". —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 22:12, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Yeah I've experienced the "low hanging fruit". Thank you, I'll check those out! SnazzyInfinity (chat? • what I've done) 00:38, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

the jack the ripper articles

can we please make it so the graphic picture of a murder victim is blurred out or you have to consent to seeing it  67.170.230.230 (talk) 23:45, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello IP editor. The answer is "no". Please read Wikipedia is not censored. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:47, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

You can set something up on your end, but Wikipedia does not censor for minors or morality. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 00:48, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Millie bobby brown

Millie's mothers name should be spelt Kellie and not Kelly. . 62.64.135.183 (talk) 22:20, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

If you have a reliable source that attests to that fact, you may want to either contribute directly to the article or raise the matter on the talk page. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 22:28, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

I have done a fairly extensive Google search for discussion of her mother, and every source I found uses the "Kelly" spelling. Since she is so young, there is more discussion of her parents than is usual for most celebrities. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:46, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Remove attached accounts?

On my global account information page, there are a lot of extraneous unused accounts attached to my sole Wikipedia account. Is there a way to remove/delete them without affecting this one? They were created by simply visiting other Wikimedia projects. I don't even speak the language of most of them ... _signed, SpringProof ^talk 01:16, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello SpringProof. You only have one account which can be used to access any Wikimedia Foundation site. Those sites log your first visit, but they are not separate accounts. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:22, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Thanks for clarifying, Cullen328. _signed, SpringProof ^talk 01:25, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

@SpringProof: Also note that "visiting the site" includes visiting some Wikidata pages or related tools that include info from those other languages (I got 10 more just yesterday). —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 02:53, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

How do I make a draft get reviewed faster other than adding WikiProject tags?

Draft:Slater and Devil fires

Sorry if I am a bit impatient, but my best article is up for review, and I want it to get reviewed faster, but how? a gd fan (talk) 15:56, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

You dont. Please enhance your patience. Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:05, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

I second this. Le Panini ^Talk 16:09, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

I third this.SenatorLEVI (talk) 16:54, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

I fold. Le Panini ^Talk 16:57, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

@Le Panini: Fold? SnazzyInfinity (talk • contribs) 17:27, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't know what you all are playing, but I'm playing Poker. Le Panini ^Talk 17:32, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

I was just continuing the 'I second this' part.SenatorLEVI (talk) 05:24, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

@GeometryDashFan12: The good news is that articles are not reviewed in any order. My impression is that draft articles that are about real events or real things (as opposed to minor TV celebrities, unheard of musicians or small businesses etc etc etc which are all usually chock full of promotional links) tend to get reviewed an awful lot quicker than the rest. Think of Wikipedia like a busy hospital - it takes patients. (sorry!) Nick Moyes (talk) 16:20, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

I would like to say though, that Thereisaloading did the review for you. Sometimes if you ask politely here, one of the hosts tend to be kind enough to do it, or leave comments and changes. Le Panini ^Talk 17:33, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

My articles thing

I want to know how to make a thing like User:TigerScientist/Pages Created or something like that. Can you help me. TigerScientist (talk) 02:22, 11 December 2020 (UTC) TigerScientist (talk) 02:22, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

TigerScientist, unless there's something I'm missing, you could just go to the title of the unnamed page (e.g., User:TigerScientist/Pages Created), which should load up the editor. If it doesn't, there should be a link that says "Start the [name of page] page" that you can click on. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 02:25, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

@TigerScientist: There’s this external tool at [5] that will count it for you. It will also allow you to export the list into Wikitext to paste into your userspace. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 05:51, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Self published?

I've got a question about self published sources. When do you tag or consider a source as self-published?

In addition, what if a website, in which the author is the same as the one in the Wikipedia page, will be used as a source? I don't know if I'm understood with that, but I noticed it in some pages. Mottshmikes (talk) 05:46, 10 December 2020 (UTC) Mottshmikes (talk) 05:46, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

@Mottshmikes:. You can find out a little more about what Wikipedia considers to be a self-published source in WP:UGC and WP:SPS, but basically it's a source which has no real reputation for an established system of editorial control. A self-published source by the subject of a Wikipedia article can sometimes be used as explained in WP:ABOUTSELF, but there are limitations as to how it may be used and in general WP:SECONDARY sources are preferred whenever possible. Just for reference, Wikipedia doesn't consider itself to be a reliable source for any purpose, and any websites which WP:MIRROR the content found on Wikipedia are also not considered to be a reliable source. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:27, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Thanks!!! Mottshmikes (talk) 06:04, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

I need your help

Good morning, I have a problem. You see, I translated a Wikipedia article in Spanish. For this I simply translated words and entered the sources well, this is:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Christopher_Louis_Chanc%C3%A9_P%C3%A9rez

And well, I was rejected for being something "advertising". I understand that they are different wikis, but they all have many rules in common.

I'll give you the article in Spanish: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Chanc%C3%A9

Please if you can help me, Thank you. MarioHernandez1976 (talk) 04:51, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

@MarioHernandez1976: Please see WP:OSE. Chances are that the spanish language article is also inappropiate. And the folks over there dont have it easier than we, because they have 17,564 active editors (with edits in the last 30 days) for 1,646,114 articles. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 07:01, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Goutte d'Or

I noticed that the article about the Goutte d'Or neighbourhood of Paris has been flagged with: This article includes a list of general references, but it remains largely unverified because it lacks sufficient corresponding inline citations. (September 2009) This article needs additional citations for verification. (September 2009) While I am by no means an expert on Paris, I'm wondering if it's just a case of finding some better and more recent citations? I had a quick look for information about le marché Dejean and there were several pages, although some of them were published many years ago. Are there any Parisians who have got time to give this article a quick look, please? Canberranone (talk) 08:24, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Canberranone, more references to reliable sources would solve the {{More citations needed}} tag, but {{More footnotes}} requires the current references to be attributed to the end of the information that they source. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 08:36, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Canberranone Yes, inline citations are those little numbers that appear at the end of every-ish sentence. Le Panini ^Talk 10:50, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

@Canberranone: To learn how to add convert vague links into inline references at the end of each factual statement, just follow the simple guidance at Help:Referencing for beginners. (Or see the alternative guide I wrote at WP:ERB.) Nick Moyes (talk) 11:59, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Tenryuu Thanks but I think the references are attributed to the end of the information they source. The only ones I can see that aren't are under See Also and External Links Canberranone (talk) 23:23, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello Canberranone! Any editor who comes across tagged articles may address the problems stated, or, modify or remove the tags if they happen to be wrongly placed or no longer applicable. Often, non-regular editors will address the problems but be wary of removing the tags which can result in articles with outdated tags that are no longer necessary ((FYI) then there are editors who oppose tagging articles at all on principle and would rather see people improve the articles instead of tagging them for someone else to fix).

I have removed both tags because the problems are not at all obvious and therefore the tags do not help speedy resolution of any that may exist, IMO. Anyone wishing to improve the article should look at it closely, identify specific problems and tag them individually or remedy them. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:06, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

How to add two URLs in journal article citation?

Usually I use citation tool of visual editor for adding references from various journal articles. Many times 2 link URLs are available link to journal and link to PDF or HTML article. In many cases, if one gives only one URL then finding other one can remain difficult In present citation tool I did not find facility to include both URLs (this makes reconfirmation verification process tedious if not impossible).

For example: I want to cite article PDF pu.edu.pk/images/journal/studies/PDF-FILES/Article-5_v18_2_Dec17.pdf If I enter this URL in citation tool for automatic generation of citation does not take place. If I create manual citation with same URL finding which is original journal URL will remain difficult for a novice. Besides original journal URL http://pu.edu.pk/home/journal/12/V_18_2_2017.html responds for automatic citation. If I generate citation with http://pu.edu.pk/home/journal/12/V_18_2_2017.html is possible and includes this URL but then there is no space to include article PDF URL.

Is their any solution available to include two URLs in same citation.

Thanks and regards Bookku (talk) 04:51, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

@Bookku: Template:Cite journal only takes one URL parameter, so you can't put two. Normally, we would put the DOI associated with the article, but yours does not contain one, which leads me to think that this is not a reliable/reputable journal to be citing on Wikipedia, instead leaning towards a self-published source. I'd suggest you look for a more reliable source to use. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 06:09, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

@Ganbaruby:, Let us not digress from main question with usual obsession. Let me give another example as you said DOI link. Now I want to add a DOI link plus PDF link or say a journal link. Or say some other link of proof to show it is reliable source. Is there any option of at least manually adding additional URL link in the template? If no one knows on this forum then I will forward my question to Technical Village pump.

Thanks and regards

Bookku (talk) 07:59, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Bookku, as far as I can tell the {{citation}} family doesn't support a secondary URL other than archive-url, so you're probably going to have to insert that second URL in manually. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 08:31, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Tenryuu, Thanks for your prompt reply. Just I tried manually, it template does not seem to show immediate error but it does not give a display either. Further I will take up the issue at Village pump technical. Regards Bookku (talk) 08:58, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Regarding Article improvisation

Thank you for inviting me. My questions are: How do I improvise information and Add pictures related to article. Sayli Bhalekar (talk) 05:31, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

@Sayli Bhalekar: We don’t “improvise” anything. Instead, we base every piece of information on reliable sources. I’d suggest you complete The Wikipedia Adventure, which is a great tutorial for beginners. Also see Help:Pictures for images. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 05:46, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

If you meant "improve," adding content requires references, either new, or a new use of an existing reference. David notMD (talk) 09:36, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Dark Mode

Hello, I'm new here and have a very basic question. I don't know if I'm even in the right place to ask this. Is there a dark mode option for Wikipedia on PCs? I had an android smart tv box and there was a dark mode available in that app. It would really help with eye strain. Thanks. I hope I'm doing this correctly. --Chuckripp (talk) 01:17, 11 December 2020 (UTC) Chuckripp (talk) 01:17, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

My assumption is that such a mode is inherent to the computer, not this website. Not sure about the mobile Wikipedia app.--Quisqualis (talk) 01:22, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Welcome to the Teahouse, Chuckripp. Whilst we have various 'skins' which you can choose from your 'Preferences', I don't think we offer a night mode. It's possible that your own device might offer that - you would have to check. I do note (but can't recommend) that there are a number of 3rd party add-ons which provide such a utility. This one, for example for Chrome users. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 01:27, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Nick, I hope this is the way to thank you for answering my question. I'm using Firefox with Windows 10. I set up Firefox in dark mode but Wikipedia still comes up with a bright white background. I'll play around with Firefox some more and see what I can find. Thanks for your help. I hope I did this correctly. --Chuckripp (talk) 01:43, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

This sounds like it would involve .css shenanigans which are unfortunately outside of my expertise. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 02:16, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Hey Chuckripp. I've never tried it, but at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets, you can check "Use a black background with green text". Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:48, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Fuhghettaboutit, I checked it out. Pretty gnarly. Reminds me of 1980. It was worth a shot...--Chuckripp (talk) 05:32, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

@Chuckripp: I just checked and found that my horrible official 'Wikipedia mobile app' has a series of black/dark/sepia defaults, which might suit you, should you ever want to view on a mobile. But this app is useless for editing, but quite ok for reading Wikipedia under the bedsheets! BTW, if you want to ensure another person receives a 'ping' or notification alert when you reply, you will need to include their username in one of a handful of special ways, whilst signing your post in the same edit. You can read more about that at WP:PING. But if you don't plan to edit much, it may not be something you'll need again. If you do, you might like to take our interactive tour called The Wikiedia Adventure, or read through Help:Introduction. Cheers Nick Moyes (talk) 10:05, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Specify PDF page number

Map of the Isthmus of Panama representing the line of the Panama Rail Road (before 1857)

I want to update the image on Panama Canal fence to reference the 5th page of the pdf file (the one with the map), but I can't figure out how to - there doesn't seem to be an option on the visual editor and there's not an attribute for page number in the source editor Condimentary (talk) 20:37, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Condimentary The problem is that the "image" is actually the entire multi-page pdf document. You should upload the relevant page seperately to use it in the article. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:46, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

@Condimentary: Here you go. Use:

[[File:Map of the Isthmus of Panama representing the line of the Panama Rail Road as constructed under the direction of George M. Totten, Chief Engineer etc. (IA mapisthmuspanam00harr).page5.jpg |thumb |Map of the Isthmus of Panama representing the line of the Panama Rail Road (before 1857)]]

—[AlanM1 (talk)]— 02:42, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, that's really helpful :) Condimentary (talk) 09:30, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

pdf file shown with page=5

@Condimentary: You can write |page=5 in the source editor. The jpg uploaded by AlanM1 has better image quality for me. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:23, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Question

Why some bot undo my edits frequently? Alexander The king (talk) 10:30, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Cluebot detects edits that don't appear to be coherent additions to an article. For instance this edit makes no grammatical sense which is why it was reverted. If Cluebot hadn't spotted it then a human editor would also have reverted it after a short time because it makes the article worse, not better. --Paul ❬talk❭ 11:16, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Other of your edits appear to be meant in good faith, but because you added content without a reference, reverted by Cluebot. David notMD (talk) 12:01, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Bully Admins?

Hi. Just curious. Is there anything to be done about admin bullies? Because there are many many admin bullies on here that just gang up and attack people, but if you retaliate, you get threatened with a ban. That does not seem fair. This seems to only exist on the English wikipedia. So I am unsure why this exists or how you deal with it? I am happy to finally have an account, after 10 years of applying. However, I do not want to lose it overnight. But I also do not want to be the victim of bullying and vulgar attacks. Thank you. Walther Faunus (talk) 03:34, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Actually, the great majority of interaction is editor-to-editor, not admins bashing editors. That said, it does not excuse rude behavior. English Wikipedia has different standards than other languages for defining notability and what are reliable source references. These are the major causes of disputes. The general advice is if you modify an article (addition or deletion of content and refs) and another editor reverts, to start a discussion on the Talk page of the article, along with inviting the other editor to join. Disputing content is fine, but it should not devolve to attacks on other editors. If this happens, there are avenues of redress. I hope you find articles that interest you, and you make valid, valuable contributions. David notMD (talk) 03:44, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Walther Faunus. I wanted to see evidence of administrators bullying you, so I looked at your contributions. You have only two edits to English Wikipedia, this one and an edit to your userpage. So, how have you encountered this bullying? Have you edited previously as an IP editor or with another account? I am an administrator and in my opinion, most administrators strive to be fair and neutral, and to base their actions on policies and guidelines. But there are a few administrators who skirt the edge of bullying behavior, and some have been removed for that reason. Humans are imperfect and sometimes they make serious mistakes. The problem I have with your comment is that it is vague and unspecific. Far better to say that three specific identified administrators are bullies, based on their contributions to these six conversations, providing diffs, or links to those discussions. Without specificity, your comment comes off as griping without evidence. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:03, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

My own application for an account, as you might term it -- I'd say registration of an account -- took only a few minutes. I'm astonished to hear of difficulties that prolonged your application process to a decade. (Most nations grant citizenship in less time.) By far the commonest reason for people to lose their accounts is having forgotten their password (and either not having registered an email address via which they could be given a replacement password, or having lost access to the email account that they did register for this purpose). Do pray tell us more about your troubled application process. -- Hoary (talk) 05:07, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

I too am intrigued by the idea of registering a wikipedia account taking more than five minutes. Perhaps Walther Faunus could tell us more about what happened there? --Paul ❬talk❭ 11:49, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

• Not to pile on but I would wonder why, Walther Faunus, this sort of thing might be a concern for you. Are you planning in editing in a controversial topic area? One does not "apply" for an account(which suggests someone else will approve it), we create them ourselves; I'm wondering why it took ten years. 331dot (talk) 11:59, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

• User was evading a block, I knew I had seen their user page content before. They were blocked under User talk:120.29.108.137. I still find their statements curious. 331dot (talk) 12:12, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Pascah Mungwini

Thanks for the review you have completed for my draft. I am disappointed though that my draft has been declined. The reason you have given for the decline is that the submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. The article is a biography of a scholar and the sources are the scholar's published works. They are published in refereed journals, so they can be verified. So I am not sure what you mean by your decline. Kudzai Matereke (talk) 13:21, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Kudzai Matereke Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. A Wikipedia article about a person must summarize what independent reliable sources say about a person, not merely list their own work or other means through which they talk about themselves. Wikipedia is only interested in what others say about them. Please read Your First Article for more information, you may also wish to use the new user tutorial to learn more about Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 13:34, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

I find your Wikipedia's lack of faith articles disturbing appoint

Foreword: Contrary to what edit summaries mentioning this section may imply, I haven't found "appoint" being disturbed by "your Wikipedia's lack of faith articles". Appoint is a verb, not a noun, and you can't disturb a verb unless you know someone named Verb, or Appoint in this case.

I know these are two unrelated things, but I'm a bit disappointed that Peter Hastings (the Animaniacs co-producer) and the phrase No shirt, no shoes, no service don't have Wikipedia articles about themselves as of yet. There are redirective mainspace articles for a fictional Peter Hastings and a song called "No Shoes, No Shirt, No Service", but no article on the real Peter Hastings or the phrase itself, and I've been wondering why no one on Wikipedia has suggested there be articles about either of them.

Could it be that the droids I'm looking for, despite being at least sort of popular, don't have enough coverage in reliable sources (as far as editors have looked) to meet Wikipedia's notability requirements? -- MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 13:55, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

MrPersonHumanGuy, some things still don't have Wikipedia articles because no editors still have an interest in making them. There may be, though, editors who are still developing a future article in a sandbox or in their own document which they wish to transfer to Wikipedia once it's ready. If you want to make an article on the subjects, you can-- but please see WP:YFA, WP:NOTABLE, WP:RS, and WP:OR to better understand how a subject warrants a Wikipedia article. If the subject you're talking about, based on these pages, are not warrant-worthy of an article, then it probably makes sense why editors have not made them. GeraldWL (Pine wish!) 14:01, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Question from Mungkorn789

How do i add a flag Mungkorn789 (talk) 14:13, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

I think you may be looking for Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Icons#Flags.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 14:21, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Help adding a page for a language I came up with

I am not sure how to make a new page on a language that should work that I came up with. Any help is appreciated. БОЇ ШНАТ ИОШ Џ (talk) 14:40, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

БОЇ ШНАТ ИОШ Џ Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about something they created one day. If independent reliable sources take note of your language on their own who choose to give it significant coverage, it may later merit an article, but you shouldn't be the one to write it as you have a conflict of interest. I would suggest using social media or a personal website to tell the world about your language. 331dot (talk) 14:46, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Copyright

Hello, I added a photo and it has no copyrights but Wikipedia wants me to provide a copyright so what can I do. Yemenpedia (talk) 14:44, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Yemenpedia Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. When you say it has no copyright, do you mean it is in the public domain? If not copyright typically rests with the photographer. 331dot (talk) 14:49, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

/* December 2020 */ Infobox Religious biography

In regards to the Infobox biography, the status should not be Senior Posting, but Muslim Leader instead.

How do I edit the status, or is it edited by your staff? Your prompt attention would be great appreciated.

Thank you, Imzaid (talk) 05:07, 11 December 2020 (UTC) Imzaid (talk) 05:07, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello Imzaid. You are talking about Template:Infobox religious biography. That template is intended to be used in the biographies of the leaders of many different religions. So, the template should not be modified to comply with the terminology of just one religion. It is a more general template. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:08, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't think this is about religious terminology, Cullen328. As I said when this came up before, the problem is that "Senior Posting" is a heading in the template, for a variety of information about the person's most senior appointment. As far as I can tell from the article, Zaid Shakir hasn't held a specific religious post (maybe he has a specific post at Zaytuna Collage, but the article doesn't make that clear). Therefore none of the fields in the section "Senior posting" are specified, and the heading appears with no content below it, which is why I think Imzaid is misinterpreting it. I suggested at Template talk:Infobox religious biography that the heading could be suppressed if there were no fields under it, but nobody has responded. Imzaid, "Imam" is already in the infobox: if "Senior posting" were removed, would that be acceptable to you? "Muslim leader" is a description and not a post, so it doesn't seem to me it belongs there.

On a related subject, Imzaid: are you Zaid Shakir? If so, please declare your conflict of interest and cease editing the article about yourself immediately. --ColinFine (talk) 14:59, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Request to update year of birth for biography

Hello! Gary of Bitner Group here, working to update the James F. Allen article on his behalf by sharing requests on the article's Talk page. I've disclosed my conflict of interest on my profile and on the article's Talk page. First, I've proposed some specific changes to the infobox and categories re: his year of birth. I've also provided a source to confirm the year. Can someone please review my request and update the page for me? Thank you! GaryBitner (talk) 13:03, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

This is not about James F. Allen, it's about James F. Allen (businessman). Another editor has replied to your request on the latter's talk page. Maproom (talk) 15:01, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello, GaryBitner. Thank you for declaring your COI. (BTW, you linked the wrong article above, but the right Talk page). I see that somebody has now responded to your request; but in general, you will get a quicker response if you tag such requests with the t4eamplte {{edit request}}. See WP:Edit requests for more information. --ColinFine (talk) 15:08, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Help deleting me account

Help me delete my account because I just give up. Thanks БОЇ ШНАТ ИОШ Џ (talk) 14:52, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

БОЇ ШНАТ ИОШ Џ Accounts cannot be deleted, for both technical and legal reasons If you no longer wish to participate here, just abandon your account. May I ask the reason? 331dot (talk) 14:54, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

@БОЇ ШНАТ ИОШ Џ: You can ask a steward to lock your account though --🔥LightningComplexFire🔥 15:40, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

public transit site update

information on a public transit site is erroneous. The city - City of St. Thomas - has re-branded their transit services including a new logo. Some of the edits I attempted to make ( I work for the City Environmental Services that oversees transportation) have been rejected. How do we ensure that our name/logo and content are correct? I also can't upload the new logo. Ttiersma (talk) 16:11, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

The reasons your edits may have been undone could be due to a lack of a WP:Reliable source. If you can get sources to show that the content has changed, your edits shouldn't be undone. SnazzyInfinity (chat? • what I've done) 16:18, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Further looking at your contributions, it seems that your writing style has come off almost advertisement like. You can read articles about tone to learn about better writing. SnazzyInfinity (chat? • what I've done) 16:25, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

What is big enough to make an article about?

Since I saw an image posted as a joke (a screenshot of a tiny, kinda useless Wikipedia article that I don't think exists), I've been wondering about what kind of things are significant enough to make an entire article about. (I did dig up and read pages like this.) For example, Sans, Flowey, and Toriel have pages, but other main characters from Undertale don't. But then, they're rather important characters...?

I'm sorry if this question is too silly or has been asked before and I just didn't see it in the Teahouse... Galina&Oddity (talk) 20:02, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure if this answers your question, but the judgement wikipedia uses to determine if an article should exist has to do with wikipedia's Wikipedia:Notability guidelines. SnazzyInfinity (talk • contribs) 20:07, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

To answer your question more directly, Galina&Oddity, and set out what is implied by SnazzyInfinity's answer: it all depends on whether enough has been published about the character (by independent, reliable sources). It does not depend on importance, nor on popularity, influence, ubiquity, earnings, or anything else (except insofar as something with some of those properties is generally more likely to get written about). --ColinFine (talk) 22:10, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

@Galina&Oddity: One of the smallest things written about at Wikipedia is Neutrino, so being that little is already big enough – taking your question verbatim.

OTOH, if you ask what is the smallest acceptable article, then the shortest I met recently is Cetraxate, which is just a single statement (however, it contains quite a lot of data in the infobox).

If interested in some shortest pages, you may want to see Special:ShortPages (many of pages listed at the top are just redirects or disambiguations instead of regular articles, and many are already in a deletion or speedy deletion process). --CiaPan (talk) 00:04, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

@Galina&Oddity: Another little object (although much bigger than neutrino!) with its article at Wikipedia is Mill Ends Park – just 2 feet across. :) --CiaPan (talk) 16:30, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

My page deleted second time

why my page is deleting? Sameer Khan Director (talk) 16:20, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Please use the button at the top of the page to create a new section rather than doing it yourself. As far as your question, it looks like they have left a summary on your user page. SnazzyInfinity (chat? • what I've done) 16:25, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Sameer Khan Director, please see What Wikipedia is not. Promotion is forbidden anywhere in Wikipedia, in both articles and user pages. To see the purposes for which your user page may be used, see user pages. --ColinFine (talk) 16:38, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Americans Killed in WWII

Hello;

Weeks ago I became dismayed when the number of American deaths from Covid 19 surpassed the number of Americans killed in the 4 year American Civil War, 212,000 according to my trusted source Wikipedia. I wondered if the death toll from the virus would equal the biggest killer of Americans, WWII at 292,000.

Imagine my surprise when I checked yesterday to find the wikipedia number changed to 491,000 for WWII.

Why was the number changed by who?

Thank you. John Lyons 2607:FEA8:13DF:6E00:E864:86BC:D6F7:D83A (talk) 15:50, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

2607:FEA8:13DF:6E00:E864:86BC:D6F7:D83A, you can click on the "View history" button in the tabs on the top of the article to view the edit history. As far as why they changed it, it could have been vandalism, I hope this answers your question. Could you link the article you are talking about? SnazzyInfinity (chat? • what I've done) 15:54, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia has hundreds of WW2 articles, so if you need more help you will need to let us know which article you are talking about--Shantavira|^{feed me} 15:59, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

The article is World War II casualties. It has had the value 491,000 for at least a year. I didn't attempt to find out who made that specific change, which will be deep in the edit history somewhere. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:02, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Same, I can't find any recent edits regarding the number of casualties. Most likely you saw a different number for a completely different event/topic.SenatorLEVI (talk) 16:06, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

And the sources ("BF") in that article seem consistent with the value. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:08, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

World War II casualties says 419,400, not 491,000. It's a total for all causes, including civilians. United States military casualties of war says 291,557 combat casualties, 113,842 other, 405,399 total. American Civil War says more total deaths including civilians. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:19, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

World War II isn't the biggest killer of Americans. Spanish flu is miles ahead. - X201 (talk) 16:27, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

The article they're complaining about - which I found because OP came onto -en-help and complained about it, again without saying anything about what article it was other than Siri pulled it up, prompting me to Google it - is United States military casualties of war. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 16:44, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

That article may actually be consistent with the other, as it refers to combat deaths, not all deaths. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:57, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Can I use picture in Wikipedia articles of license Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Content may be subject to copyright. ?

I was thinking of adding compound synthesis image(https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281552098/figure/fig2/AS:280436698828831@1443872727919/Formal-syntheses-of-a-ervaticine-and-conolidine-and-b-latrepirdine.png) from (https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Formal-syntheses-of-a-ervaticine-and-conolidine-and-b-latrepirdine_fig2_281552098) to Ervaticine article? Can I, or will there be copyright issues?. Machinexa (talk) 16:40, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Machinexa (talk) 16:41, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Welcome back to the Teahouse. The license seems to be fine for use here. However, when uploading the image to Wikipedia Commons, you need to quote the source (i.e. give the URL as you did here). You'll be doing that from your own account at Commons using a downloaded copy of the .png. Make sure you give the image a suitable title: one much shorter than what's at the end of the URL! Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:49, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello

Hello, New page created; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Weight_Lifting

Two template messages below have been addressed.

This article or section may have been copied and pasted from another location This article contains content that is written like an adverting

Earwigs Copyvio Detector now sits at just 2.9% and I have removed any words/phrases that may be deemed promotional.

Could i request a review of the template messages, and for their removal please? (Or further assistance if you feel they still need addressing)

Thanks and best, H.A.Player (talk) 16:42, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello, H.A.Player. Somebody has moved your draft (which was not suitable at present for an article) to Draft:British Weight Lifting. The most obvious problem with the draft is that it cites not a single independent source. Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources.. The article should not be principally about what it does, but what people have published about it. I also notice trhat the lead contains promotional language (eg "large network", "thousands of people actively involved" --ColinFine (talk) 18:08, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

ok so I made minor edits on Wikipedia and they were not vandalism like insults but how do I make an article.

 Gremania (talk) 16:50, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Gremania Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Successfully creating a new article is the absolute hardest thing to do on Wikipedia. It takes much effort and practice. Many people fail in their first attempts and become frustrated and hurt because they tried to do something that they were in over their head for, due to lacking knowledge and experience. I don't want to see that happen to you. I would suggest that you spend much time(many months) editing existing articles in areas that interest you, to get a feel for how Wikipedia operates and learn what is expected of article content. It will also help you to use the new user tutorial to learn more about Wikipedia. These things will greatly increase your chances of success, which is what we all want.

If you still want to attempt to create a new article, you should first read Your First Article and use Articles for Creation to create and submit a draft article for review by another editor. 331dot (talk) 16:56, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

so is t ok to make minor edits on existing articles because it's not like I'm vandalizing but I'm saying is it ok because I'm new.  Gremania (talk) 17:05, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, you are welcome to edit articles. 331dot (talk) 17:07, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

@Gremania:: Yes, as long as it is clear you are acting in good faith, no one should be bothering you if you are improving articles. If someone expresses concern, just explain why you are doing what you are doing, and ask for help if you run into trouble. Welcome! --Jayron32 17:15, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Gremania, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia. In my view, most new editors can add much much much more value to Wikipedia in their first months by improving some of our six million existing articles, than if they try the task of creating another one. Jayron32 is right that, as long as you edit in good faith, you will not get into any trouble; but it is quite likely that some of your edits may be reverted because other editors do not think they are an improvement. If that happens, it's best to start a discussion on the artice's talk page: see BRD. --ColinFine (talk) 18:13, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

What is the difference between Google Alexa Siri?

Google works for Google, while Alexa works for Amazon, and Siri works for Apple.172.58.47.35 (talk) 17:48, 11 December 2020 (UTC) 172.58.47.35 (talk) 17:48, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

WP:Reference desk Go there --🔥LightningComplexFire🔥> 18:04, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello IP editor. The answer above is a bit vague so I would like to elaborate. Everything on Wikipedia has a purpose. The refdesk is the place where you can ask questions and get answers about facts whereas the Teahouse is a place where new editors ask questions and get answers regarding using and editing Wikipedia. Interstellarity (talk) 18:37, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Sourcing

How do I reference my source for an edit? Specifically, my source is a Facebook post I made. Can I do a hyperlink over my name to that post? If so, how? If not, what do I do? All the Wikipedia "help" pages seem very confusing. PianoMan58H (talk) 18:49, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

PianoMan58H Click the cite button. Then put the url into the space and wikipedia will generate a citation. TigerScientist (talk) 18:51, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

PianoMan58H, on how to reference, see WP:TUTORIAL. However, a FB post you wrote is not an acceptable ref for anything on WP, you need better than that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:55, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

so what do i do since now that i am new

 Gremania (talk) 18:41, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi, you have asked this above. If you have any follow up questions, please add them to that discussion. 331dot (talk) 18:43, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Gremania, Maybe check out Wikiprojects. Le Panini ^[🥪] 19:42, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

There are some helpful links in your talk page. (talk) TigerScientist (talk) 18:54, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

TfD closure?

Am I, a non-admin, acting in accordance with policy if I close the TfD request I made at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 December 5#Template:Uw-vandalism1? Note the high amount of replies and unclear consensus. Thank you for your time. Opal|zukor^(discuss) 20:23, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Opalzukor, I'd let someone else close it, admin or otherwise. Are you planning on withdrawing the TfD? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 20:30, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Oops, forgot to put that in the question text. ​Yes, I intend to close the nomination as withdrawn. I couldn't find any policy about it though, thus the question here. Opal|zukor^(discuss) 20:33, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Opalzukor, SKCRIT point 1 is the guideline around this. As people other than you have recommended that the templates be merged, you shouldn't close the discussion as withdrawn. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 20:38, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Alright, thank you J947. I will be sure to take more time to review all the deletion guidelines in the near future. Opal|zukor^(discuss) 20:41, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Volunteer Author for New Page Needed? Women in Red (History) Author?

A Wikipedia page is needed for an incredible woman who organized and led efforts to acquire, preserve, restore one of the most well known Revolutionary War sites, helped preserve another internationally known site, worked with the original Daughters of the American Revolution and became founder, first Regent of one of the first significant Chapters of D.A.R., was Matron-In-Chief / Nurse for three years during Civil War, at times tending over 2,000 wounded soldiers, was present (nearby) for Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, was State Regent at 1893 Chicago World's Fair, Authored three books, all while helping organize, raise funds / supplies, donate time for multiple other National, State and Community causes.

While collating information for another project regarding this incredible women it came to our attention that she is more than well-deserving of a Wikipedia page, yet none exists. There are highly qualified historical writers who have written or supplied content and bibliographical data over the past 100+ years, however there are currently no writers "that we personally know" available that also have the proper Wikipedia experience needed to author this page in a deserving way.

As you can easily tell I am neither a Historian or Writer. What we do have is an incredible amount of factual data supporting all of the above contributions. We are hoping to find a qualified writer to properly utilize that information for a page. The information historians, historical organizations, Authors and others have uncovered and have direct hyperlinks to comes from the Library of Congress, U.S. National Park Service, contemporary magazine and newspaper articles, pictures and factual data uncovered by highly qualified historians over the past 100+ years.

Please let me know if there is a qualified volunteer author we can review the data with.

Thank You. CBrookUM (talk) 19:54, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Why so covert? Can't you just give us the name, then it would be easier to judge if she were notable. Theroadislong (talk) 19:59, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Can you please tell us the title of the article you want, so we can tell whether we want to participate with you on the article?--Quisqualis (talk) 20:21, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

No Wikipedia editors are qualified. Well, I'm sure there are many who have various qualifications in their own fields, but there is no qualification required to contribute to any part of Wikipedia. Should you decide to reveal the name of the subject, anyone could get started on the article (even you!). --Paul ❬talk❭ 11:57, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Apologies, this is my first posting. While I am not trying to be covert, and there are probably hundreds of qualified people, especially given the volumes of links to factual data from incredibly reputable sources and the association with very well known historical sites, events and leaders that we have, it was strongly suggested to us that we reach out to someone with track record of articles on historic U.S. people and places. More specifically they suggested we try to reach someone from the great "Women In Red" initiative. If there is a way to do that, please let me know. Thank you again.— Preceding unsigned comment added by CBrookUM (talk • contribs) 21:00, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

You can always post on that project's talk page. You should also be aware that few good Wikipedia articles are written by just one person. If you take as an example, one article tackled by the WiR project - that's been edited by over 2,900 people. Some will have been historians or specialists, but others will have been fans or just people who like correcting grammar/fixing templates etc. --Paul ❬talk❭ 20:53, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Translating an article

I was requested this article Isabelle de Charrière for translation into Bengali and Hindi as I can read and write fluently in both the languages. However I do not know how to link these pages to the original English article once I have translated the text and created the pages in the Bengali and Hindi Wikipedias respectively. Could anyone possibly help me?  DishitaBhowmik 07:35, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Dishita Bhowmik You don't need to. Firestar464 (talk) 07:43, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Dishita Bhowmik, articles in different languages are linked to each other through Wikidata. Just fo to the Wikidata item via the left sidebar when you're at the English page, then enter the new language code and article title at the bottom. Let us know if you have any trouble and we can help further. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:46, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

@Dishita Bhowmik: The wikidata item is d:Q123386 and you'll find the table of inter-language links by scrolling down to the bottom. The table is on the left side. At the top of the table (beside "Wikipedia") is a pencil labeled "edit". Click that to edit the list and scroll to the bottom, where you'll see a new line with "wiki" in gray in the language field. Enter "hi" (without the quotes) and then in the field to the right (which says "page" in gray), enter the name of the Hindi article. Another new line will open below, where you can enter "bn" for the language code and the name of the Bengali page. Click the "Publish" checkmark at the top of the table to save the changes. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 21:07, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

so articles are semi-protected does that mean every semi-protected article was vandalized just curious.

 Gremania (talk) 21:05, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

@Gremania: not nessesarely. Articles may also be semiprotected for other reasons, including, but not limited to IP's editwarring, socking using IP's or throwaway acocunts, violations of the Policy for Biographys of living persons etc. Victor Schmidt (talk) 21:10, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Vandalised mostly, but some have been repeatedly disrupted (like pushing a POV or adding unsourced contentious info about living people) in a way that had to be limited. Also some templates are protected because they are seen to be 'high risk' on account of being used on a lot of pages. --Paul ❬talk❭ 21:14, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia's reference desk vs Quora

I am not quite sure if I asked this in the right place, but if not, please direct me there. My question is about where to ask factual questions. Is it better to ask at Wikipedia's reference desk or on Quora? I'm asking this because I get confused between the two websites and would like a little but of guidance on what to do when I have a factual question. Thanks, Interstellarity (talk) 21:15, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

@Interstellarity: Welcome to the Te... nah, forget that bit, seeing as it's you! My personal view is that anyone seeking factual information should develop the skills to choose appropriate keywords and use them to do browser searches for themselves. I never look at Quora answers when I get search Google results. I regard them as generally untrustworthy for anything other than really basic common-sense questions (or where there are absolutely no other available answers) The answers are user generated, just as they are at the Wikipedia reference desk. I seek out reliable sources, not personal opinions. If I were desperate, I might ask at WP:RD as I might perhaps expect to get a speedier answer. But would I trust it? That's another matter entirely. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:24, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Interstellarity, Here's the rundown:

The Teahouse (here) is a forum to ask questions on how to use or edit Wikipedia. Get friendly help if you are a newcomer

The Help Desk is similar to the Teahouse, but is for more complex questions and for more experienced users.

The Reference Desk is a forum to ask specific questions on anything non-Wikipedia related. Although most questions can be answered using Google, the Reference Desk can answer word-specific questions.

Quora is basically the same thing as the Reference desk, but not involved with Wikipedia. According to our religion, it doesn't exist.

(and you know, when you try to use the User:Enterprisey/reply-link only to see it result in an error, and when you try to respond again you see that Nick Moyes already answered it, it makes you want to nominate him for deletion. I'm still answering this because effort is effort.) Le Panini ^[🥪] 21:27, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses. I understand the factual part of the question. I knew the purposes of the Teahouse, help desk, and the reference desk before you gave me the answer. I thought this would be a borderline question. For example, if I were searching for the most influential people of all time on DuckDuckGo (I use that, not Google), I would get many different answers regarding the topic. Wikipedia points out all sides in a neutral way. Where would the best website be when searching for those type of queries? Interstellarity (talk) 21:36, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

@Interstellarity: That is a good example of a question that belongs at WP:RDC, since it is not related to how to use or edit Wikipedia. RudolfRed (talk) 21:41, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you so much RudolfRed for your guidance. Your username reminds me of the reindeer that helps Santa get his gifts. I will ask there. Many thanks, Interstellarity (talk) 21:44, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

ok I am asking to many questions but who is this Thbgb person I heard he was vandalizing articles and saying threats to jimmy wales.

 Gremania (talk) 21:11, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Gremania, welcome to Wikipedia. We haven't a user called Thbgb. Please note that this page is for asking for help in editing Wikipedia, not for gossip about users. --ColinFine (talk) 21:25, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

ColinFine, He is referencing Thubgb, a user who was vandalizing pretty recently and was blocked (see here [6]). Le Panini ^[🥪] 21:51, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

yes my edit on chano portrait was reverted I am sorry forgive me I was trying to add a link to William Shakespeare for people who don't know him.

 Gremania (talk) 21:17, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Gremania Instead of placing your statement in the smaller section header window, you should place it in the larger edit window below. You don't need to come here and apologize for all of your mistakes. 331dot (talk) 21:18, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

look my edits are being reverted sorry just wanted to improve some lines a little.

 Gremania (talk) 21:20, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. Having a few edits reverted, especially when you're starting out, wont be held against you. --Paul ❬talk❭ 21:29, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

User blocked as a sock. 331dot (talk) 22:02, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

331dot, I KNEW IT! I was thinking, "Hey, this person kinda writes similar to that Thubgb guy from a while back, who got blocked for threatening the almighty Jimbo. They even brought it up, which is odd, considering they're new and this happened a while back". Oh, thanks by the way. Le Panini ^[🥪] 22:16, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Blame feature

I remember having a feature where you could select a piece of text, and you could right=click it to find the last revision it was changed in. I can't remember the tool that did this (not in RW prefs, not in account prefs), but I swear it existed somewhere. Anyone knows what that might be so they can jog my memory? WikiBlame isn't it afaik, it's an external tool. This is inline and enabled somehow... WhoAteMyButter (📬│✏️) 22:31, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

WhoAteMyButter, are you thinking of Who Wrote That? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 22:50, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Probably not, but I think its the closest I may ever get. Thanks! WhoAteMyButter (📬│✏️) 22:51, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi WhoAteMyButter. Please see Wikipedia:WikiBlame. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk)

Please see last sentence. Haha. WhoAteMyButter (📬│✏️) 23:19, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Citogenesis warning tag

Hello

Could a citogenesis warning tag be created? so that readers of an article can be made aware that some of the information is potential unreliable, but because wikipedia has been used as a source by so many media, academic and other sources it is nigh impossible to discern at this point if a source cited is based on information taken from wikipedia.

That way the reader is alerted that although the sources used are usual reliable there is a risk that the authors, journalists etc didn't take their information from wikipedia.

Happy to Discuss 84.13.85.156 (talk) 20:25, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi IP; welcome to the Teahouse! We have three templates already available for that purpose. {{Circular reference}} and {{Citogenesis}} can be used inline; the latter is for when it's not 100% clear that citogenisis is happening. {{Circular}} can be used to tag an entire page. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:51, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

And there is Template:Backwards copy for the talkpage. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:07, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks both! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.85.156 (talk) 10:03, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Is there one where it may be a problem? as in there is no direct evidence but wikipedia is so much of the zeitgeist particularly for journalists that it would now be impossible to disentangle a genuine source from one that originated in wikipedia?

In the list of best selling books we have the issue that one editor is sure anything published after the article was created is pulling numbers that were originally unsourced or poorly sourced from the article. However these numbers now have many sources in books and newspapers etc which may not in anyway even realise they were drawn from the wiki article (if they were) originally, but are now used as sources to support those numbers. However, without interogating ever writer of ever source it is impossible to ascertain. So to resolve the issue I though a general warning, that sets out these numbers are based on sources, however the influnence wikipedia on journalism etc means that citogenesis may have occurred but it is now impossible to know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.85.156 (talk) 10:11, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi. {{Circular reporting}} fits, IMO, put together with the citations to reliable sources that are available. It generates which is only a question. The template documentation instructs editors to try and find a source that published the claim before the date that it was added to Wikipedia. Until such a source has been found and cited, it is up to the reader to make their own judgement about whether the sources that are cited can be trusted for diligence or if they are more likely to have pulled unverified anonymous original research from Wikipedia. For uncertain cases, one would seek WP:CONSENSUS on whether to add the tag based on how likely the contributing editors argue it is that citogenesis has happened. Sdkb had already linked this template in their original reply, so I am only re-emphasising that point. If you were asking a new question that I have failed to understand and, consequently, has remained unanswered, please feel free to reiterate. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:31, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

I am the "one editor", though my belief is misrepresented. List of best selling books is a tricky page for a number of reasons, only one of which is citogenesis. It is certainly the case that we have had it cite other lists of top selling books, which have openly referenced Wikipedia, also lists that have referenced other lists that have referenced Wikipedia. But really, if a list of top-selling books of all time corresponds exactly to the Wikipedia list at the time it was published, it is pretty certain that it's a copy (one even uses the same references we do).

My injunction is not "don't use anything published after the page was created" but "be very careful and if it is something that we have removed, see if it has a source cited". All the best: Rich Farmbrough 01:46, 12 December 2020 (UTC).

confused about comments regarding draft not accepted

Hello: I just edited a page created by an unknown author. Somehow THAT page was accepted even though it had outdated information and less information than I provided. When I submitted it for review I received the following: "This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people)."

The subject has frequently been featured in articles in Bloomberg, the Philadelphia Inquirer, Philadelphia Business Journal, Wall St. Journal, etc. and is frequently interviewed on major financial television programs. I did not include these references when I edited the article (at her request, to correct the inaccuracies by the mystery person who created the page). I don't understand how the original page could have been accepted as an Article for Creation when my edited version, which was simply an attempt to make the page accurate, has been rejected. The subject is by all measures worthy of a page. Please advise. Thank you! Paula F Warren (talk) 22:26, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Paula F Warren, According to your contributions, you've only edited on one article. And according to you, you do have a conflict of interest with her. If she told you to change something, you are now editing for her. And if she has been featured in all of these sources, why aren't you citing them? She could then possible pass the WP:GNG. Le Panini ^[🥪] 22:32, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

What is the draft? TigerScientist (talk) 22:28, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy: Draft:Betsy Cohen Le Panini ^[🥪] 22:34, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello Paula F Warren. I see no evidence that you have edited any other article. What was the precise name of that article? As for your draft, it has some major problems. Promotional language like "Following an illustrious career in banking, commercial lending, and real estate investment" is not acceptable and you need to comply with the Neutral point of view as that is a core content policy. Perhaps the biggest problem is that large swathes of the draft are entirely unreferenced. An acceptable Wikipedia article summarizes what published reliable sources say about the topic, and includes references to those sources. Nothing else should be included, especially anything based on your personal knowledge. Original research is not permitted and all content must be verifiable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:44, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Le Panini, thank you for your reply. As a new user, I was unaware that knowing someone was considered a conflict of interest. I did not include the Bloomberg and other citations because that seemed ancillary to her actual career. Paula F Warren (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:40, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

User Cullen328: Thank you for your reply. I have not edited any other article besides the "Draft:Betsy Cohen" - I can see this will need to be revisited, but I am somewhat mystified--it sounds like you're saying that I should take, for example, an article from the Philadelphia Business Journal or Bloomberg and put that in the draft with references; that would provide some info but not the full story. How do you include info that is true and might be interesting but not published elsewhere? Or don't you? Paula F Warren (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:56, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Paula F Warren. Let me be crystal clear. You cannot include any information that is not verified by a published reliable source. It may be true and interesting but it has no place in this encyclopedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:46, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources.. --ColinFine (talk) 23:10, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Reorganized the draft, but did not address the reasons why it was declined. David notMD (talk) 02:44, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Reference citations [ ]

Is it possible to read articles of information without the reference citation numbers. Thank You WayneDrach (talk) 03:35, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

@WayneDrach: There seems to be a way to do so, found at Help:Reference display customization. If you’re just trying to read Wikipedia, that’s fine, but if you’re intending to edit it, I’d advise against it. A central idea to Wikipedia is verifiability, so we rely on these sources to check if the information is correct. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 03:42, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Jimmy Blackmon Page Editing Feedback

 Courtesy link: Jimmy Blackmon

Hello,

I recently published the page, "Jimmy Blackmon" and have received feedback from several reviewers on Wikipedia. Some reviewers mentioned issues on the sources and reliability of them. Can someone provide additional guidance as to the specific sections of the article that may not meet the notability criteria or simply require additional references?

To address the comments regarding my user name, I originally created this account while under the impression that I could convert it to the Jimmy Blackmon page itself, then to find out later on, that simply serves as a sandbox environment, talk page and profile hub which is why I have a similar profile name as the page).

An article cannot be completely based on what we call primary sources, which are sources that the subject written about themselves including official sites and tweets. Also, Wikipedia has a rule about notability, which is how we determine if an article is "important" enough to have an article. This means that we need multiple independent reliable sources to go in depth about the subjec JFBlackmon (talk) 22:02, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

JFBlackmon, are you asking a question or making a statement?--Quisqualis (talk) 03:59, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Asking about Reliable Source

I want to know the below sources are reliable or Not? 1. Poster in India Today Magzine 2. highlighted in Aaj Tak News. 3. Mentioned too many times in a book published by HarperCollins 4. Certificates from the DRDO, Indian Army, and Most Government hospitals like Medanta, All India Institutes of Medical Sciences, Command Hospital, Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Institute and Research Centre and more certificates from government.

I researched since last 6 months to collect them. Please tell me is it enough to create an article or not?. Murad9711 (talk) 12:18, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Murad9711 What is it you wish to write an article about? Keep in mind that successfully writing a new article is the absolute hardest thing to do on Wikipedia. It's usually helpful to gain experience and knowledge of how Wikipedia works, and what is expected of article content, by editing existing articles for awhile first. 331dot (talk) 12:29, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

331dot It means I can not create an article about an organization if I did not make any edit on Wikipedia? Murad9711 (talk) 12:38, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Murad9711 No. You may attempt to create an article right now, if you wish, using Articles for Creation. However, you will greatly increase your chances of success if you take the time to learn more about Wikipedia first. New users who dive right in to creating articles often end up disappointed and with hurt feelings as they repeatedly try to write and get an article accepted, but know nothing about what is looked for. I do not want you to have any bad feelings. That's why I suggested first editing existing articles, so you can get a feel for how Wikipedia operates and what is expected of article content, before you attempt to write a new article. However, if you wish to write a new article immediately, you may do so, and I would strongly recommend that you use Articles for Creation to do so. It would also be a good idea for you to use the new user tutorial, but it is not required.

I am wondering if you are associated with the organization you wish to write about. If you are, there are special guidelines that may apply to you. 331dot (talk) 12:44, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

331dot Thanks for the answer but I am not associated with the organization. Murad9711 (talk) 04:04, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Advice on correcting information on a sensitive topic

I took it upon myself to fix missing page numbers in references for the Wikipedia page Tulsa race massacre

I checked out the book "Riot and Rembrance" cited in the page from my local library and found the various quotes and the corresponding page numbers.

Where I'm requesting advice on is the following quote in the section Property Losses "The Red Cross estimated that 10,000 people, mostly black, were made homeless by the destruction."

I've read the entire book and the only mention of the number 10,000 is a statement that the population of black Tulsan's at the time of the riot was 10,000. Also there is a mention of the Red Cross providing temporary housing for 4,000 people.

Do I simply change it with new verbiage that conforms more closely to the book being cited? Do I mark it as a unsourced number? The rest of the section on the Property damage does come from the book.

Thanks for any advice. Grgrant (talk) 02:13, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Others will have more suggestions, but for starters I would use a {{Failed verification}} template. Le Panini ^[🥪] 03:09, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

@Grgrant: Thanks for the effort! I’d say it’s fair to just remove it and mention 10,000 elsewhere, perhaps in the “Background” section. Be sure to leave a good edit summary. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 03:38, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you both for your advice!Grgrant (talk) 04:11, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Experiment

Hi, I'm conducting an experiment for a class at my school, on how credible Wikipedia is. We have a controlled experiment, where we went to edit some unknown pages, making both conspicuous and inconspicuous edits, and recording the amount of time this takes to get changed. Just wanted to let whoever's behind this to know!! Jawadm06 (talk) 01:51, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Jawadm06 I would advise you to not proceed with this experiment. You or others will be detected and action taken, possibly blocked. 331dot (talk) 02:02, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Jawadm06, How about this short answer (and don't do this, just take my word)

Vandalism is very easily encountered with on Wikipedia. First, you have the people that keep an eye on the article in question (using WP:Watchlist) and will simply revert the issue. It is not that hard to fix; if it takes someone 15 minutes to change slight words all throughout an article, someone can simply hit "undo" in the articles history. If that isn't done, it sure as heck will in Recent changes, where many patrollers actively make sure nothing fishy is going on. The third line of defense is bots; User:ClueBot NG will do tedious changes that basically knows (without much error) what is vandalism, and will change it quickly. People also like to use Wikipedia:Twinkle. Le Panini ^[🥪] 03:06, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

@Jawadm06: If it hasn’t been clear enough, do not do this. Even though editors revert vandalism quite quickly, imagine if someone happened to read the article before a revert can happen. That means you’ve mislead the reader, even if that’s not your intention. Please find a different experiment to do. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 03:49, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Ganbaruby, They've been blocked for a period of 48 hours. A+ to them, for sure. Le Panini ^[🥪] 04:14, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

dont know how tounrefund a person

 2607:FCC8:FFC0:24:5851:226F:3B16:B7AA (talk) 04:01, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please clarify what you are asking about. RudolfRed (talk) 04:04, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Seems to be "Don't know how to un-refund a person". But even then, what? Le Panini ^[🥪] 04:24, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Translating pages from English

Hello, I want to help translate articles into Simple English. Is there a guide for translating pages? I'm sorry if this has been asked before. Aquackers (talk) 04:55, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

@Aquackers: That guide is Wikipedia:Translation. I recommend you use the Content translation tool (as explained on the translation page), as it takes care of some of the formalities with translating. Just keep in mind simple:Wikipedia:How to write Simple English pages. Vahurzpu (talk) 05:01, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

@Aquackers:Addendum: I linked to the page in the wrong direction. Wikipedia:Translate us deals with English to other wikis. However, it's somewhat more out of date, and Wikipedia:Translation is still useful. Vahurzpu (talk) 05:56, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

@Vahurzpu: Thank you so much! Aquackers (talk) 06:33, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Archiving references /citations

My understanding is that if we run the "fix dead link" tool, and choose "Add archives to all non-dead references (Optional)", then the archives will be stored "offsite" (example: web.archive.org) in addition to being added to the article.

At some point, I learned that sponsoring the archived links on WP, increases both the article size and download time. So, depending on the number of citations, I have "Add[ed]archives to all non-dead references". Once complete, I have undone/reverted my edit. Reasoning: The references were now stored offsite, and would be available in future, if a link went dead. But the WP article wouldn't be increased in size (and download time for readers, etc.).

I am giving archiving advice to a new editor. Can anyone confirm that this process of archiving/adding archives, and then "undoing" the edit, works as I understand it? Thanks, Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 06:47, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

How to add photo

Hi , how can i add a photo to a wikipedia page Kinghafis (talk) 07:15, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

@Kinghafis: I have left a welcome message at your talk page. In addition to that, Help:Pictures goes more into detail about inserting images into articles. Victor Schmidt (talk) 07:56, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

@Kinghafis: you can add photo to Wikipedia page by add the code [[File:(image file name)|thumb|250px|(add caption to explain that photo)]] in the article section. For the image file name, you can search or upload the images at Wikimedia Commons. WPSamson (talk) 07:58, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

removing deletion message

So,there is this article about a console,and that article is proposed for deletion,it is called "Ending-man terminator"(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ending-Man_Terminator) ,I guess the reason for deletion is that it has no references,so I added a reference,so now should I remove the proposed for deletion message or not? Simulator-master (talk) 07:43, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Simulator-master, as it's a proposed deletion, yes you can remove it, but that article is probably going to eventually go to Articles for deletion unless you scrounge up more sources to cite most of the content, not just the beginning. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 08:13, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi there Simulator-master. I'm the editor who has proposed that article for deletion, so I hope you don't mind hearing from me.

First of all, thank you for adding a new source to the article. The lack of acceptable sources for content in the article is the reason why I have proposed it for deletion, so new sources help. Secondly, you can read about the proposed deletion process at Wikipedia:Proposed deletion, but I will summarize it here: Proposed deletion is only for uncontroversial deletions, so anyone may remove the deletion tag for any reason if they object to it. That includes you.

Thirdly, however, while I have no standing to stop you, I would ask that you not remove the proposed deletion tag, unless you can find more sources than the one you have added. There are not enough sources in the article currently to support the text that is there, nor are there sources to support the required notability that all topics must demonstrate in order to have an article on Wikipedia. So, even if the proposed deletion tag is removed, the article as it exists now should still be deleted, it will just take longer to do it. If you want to save the article, then you need to find more sources. I tried myself to find some, when I previously removed the unacceptable material that was in the article before, but because it is a pirated system, sources for it are very scarce, and the ones I could find were all just mentions that such a thing existed. The article needs much more than that to survive. So that you understand, I'm not opposed to having an article, I am only opposed to having an article that has no sources, or bad sources, for the claims made in the article text.

Again, thank you for doing actual work to improve the article. It is badly in need of more, though. 50.248.234.77 (talk) 08:23, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

In a Biographies of living person, can the person's own twitter posts be cited?

Bob says x on twitter. I report bob said X, and use their twitter post as a citation. Is this allowed?--Michaelwalky (talk) 08:02, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

@Michaelwalky: Tweets can sometimes be allowed per WP:BLPSELFPUB and WP:PRIMARY, but that often depends upon the context of the tweet and what/who it's about. Moreover, not WP:NOTEVERYTHING that's tweeted may be deemed encyclopedically relevant to Wikipedia readers; so, in some cases, even if it's true, the consensus may be that it's not really something worth adding to the article in question because doing so would give it WP:UNDUE prominence. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:17, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

@Michaelwalky: Twitter can be problematic because tweets can be faked with Photoshop, or deleted, which gives you a form of link rot. Your best bet to cite one is if it appears in an article, perhaps as a screen capture to highlight a controversial tweet that a quick thinking journalist saved for posterity. Then depending on the journalist's credibility, you can reference the article showing the tweet. Other than that, it's something you'd look at on a case by case basis, and I think it would largely depend on exactly what is being sourced. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:33, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

@Timtempleton: wouldn't using a twitter link and archive org be sufficient to prove the tweet indeed is legitimate?--Michaelwalky (talk) 04:22, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

It’s not as simple as that unfortunately. The easier it is to post something on a site, the easier it is to get link rot. Somebody could link to the tweet, and then if it’s deleted it’s a dead link, but nobody would know unless they clicked on it. I think the best thing to do would be to consider this on a case by case basis and if you have concerns about sourcing post them on the article’s talk page. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:31, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Most of the time when a tweet is worth including in the Wikipedia article, there are reliable sources that comment on the tweet. For example, consider Donald Trump on social media: almost all tweets are referenced to secondary sources, not to Trump's Twitter account. —Kusma (t·c) 09:34, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Help publishing a bio

How can I make an artist bio publishable? The draft I submitted has been turned down and I don’t know how to satisfy the reviewer Windsome429. Jean Constant is a Google scholar, listed in ORCID, has published over 30 books and papers. He has several works listed in Wikimedia Common He produced 2,000-some artworks in his career and all the links and references in this draft are not random but send to specific places and events relevant to this artist biography. Any advice will help. Thank you. Bysance (talk) 11:50, 12 December 2020 (UTC) Bysance (talk) 11:53, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Some of your refs at Draft:Jean Constant have nothing to do with JC - all they do is confirm that certain universities, institutions and people exist. Remove all of these references. Before you resubmit, model your draft on artist articles listed at List of modern artists. David notMD (talk) 12:14, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

References

Why should I donate to Wikipedia ...

... when it seems that many articles on political matters and people is dominated by those willing to repeatedly edit out any contrary information and able to spend the time doing this censorship. I actually have a life, and am not supported by George Soros. So, I am effectively prevented from "combat" in this arena. I just made my annual donation to the Wikimedia Foundation, BUT THAT WILL BE THE LAST TIME! Davidlgilmer (talk) 09:07, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Davidlgilmer There is no censorship on Wikipedia, but it is not a free speech forum for any and all points of view with equal weight. Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources with a reputation of fact checking and editorial control say about a topic, and gives due weight to how topics are covered in those sources. If you are interested in collaborating with other editors regardless of political viewpoint to arrive at a consensus as to what an article should say, you are welcome to point out any properly sourced information that is missing. If you disagree with what reliable sources say, you will need to take that up with them. If you just want to be told what you want to hear and what fits with your world view, then this isn't the place for you.

Whether you donate or not is your decision, but donations or withholding donations has no impact on Wikipedia content, as if it did, this would cease to be a neutral encyclopedia(though do not confuse neutral with being free of bias; Wikipedia does not claim to be free of bias, as everyone has biases). Donations are collected by the Wikimedia Foundation that operates the computers Wikipedia is on, and they are not involved in day to day operations. 331dot (talk) 09:49, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Davidlgilmer, I've checked your contributions to Wikipedia, and they're both still in place, neither has been reverted by a Soros supported or anyone else. So I don't know why you refer to "combat". Maproom (talk) 11:03, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Because you like the articles about Star Trek, Biblical criticism and COVID-19 pandemic? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:17, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Merging Pages

Hello everyone! I recently came across this article, Nitrogenous base which was a stub which I thought unusual for such an established and important topic. So I did a bit of digging and found another article, Nucleobase, which is the same thing as nitrogenous base. This article is more developed and detailed and the better one. So should I propose the stub for deletion (after extracting any information and references that can be use in the other article) or redirect it to the Nucleobase page? I don't know how to redirect / merge pages.   DishitaBhowmik 07:25, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Dishita Bhowmik, I'm not a chemistry person, but since the two articles link to each other, some people editing them in the past have been aware of each other and decided not to merge, which makes me suspect that there may be some small distinction. Even if that's the case, though, we may still want to merge them because they're smallish topics and might be better presented together.

You can make the merge nomination yourself, via the instructions at Wikipedia:Merging#Proposing_a_merger, or you can request it at Wikipedia:Proposed article mergers, which will take longer but someone will help out. Getting enough participation to form consensus at those two fairly obscure pages might be a challenge; you could drop a {{Please see}} note at WT:WikiProject Chemistry. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:53, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

@Dishita Bhowmik: The article on Nitrogenous base has a misleading title, as it is obviously intended to describe what is much more extensively covered at Nucleobase. General articles on chemical bases are those at Base (chemistry) and there are other more specific ones as well. The suggestion to discuss the merger at WT:WikiProject Chemistry is a good one (see for example the recent discussion at WT:WikiProject_Chemicals#Carboxylic_acids_vs_carboxylate_anion/esters). That was for specific chemicals rather than chemical classes, but the principles are the same. If you need help with the merger, which can be tricky, ask on my Talk Page. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:07, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank You both of you for your advice. I have done what I could and hope I did it properly. DishitaBhowmik 13:40, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

How to create a new page

I don't know how to start a new page.

I would really like to start a new page, but don't know how to. Bababeoy (talk) 15:09, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

@Bababeoy: Please visit Learn how you can create an article. — Amkgp 💬 15:14, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Retreiving a deleted draft

Sachechka13 (talk) 19:13, 11 December 2020 (UTC)how to retrieve a draft of new article that was deleted accidentally? Sachechka13 (talk) 19:13, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

By asking the administrator who deleted it for a copy. Ruslik_Zero 20:03, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Sachechka13, or you may make a request at WP:REFUND — Amkgp 💬 15:19, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Submitting An Article

How can i submit an article for review MasterJohnPal (talk) 15:54, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello MasterJohnPal and welcome to The Teahouse, I have added a submit template though I must warn you that it will be rejected if you submit without first finding multiple independent, reliable sources that discuss you in-depth. Theroadislong (talk) 16:08, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

MasterJohnPal Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If you are referring to Draft:Ogunwale Isaac it is unfortunately unsuitable as a Wikipedia article. It reads as a social media style page. Wikipedia is not social media, but an encyclopedia. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources say about(in this case) a musician, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable musician. Wikipedia is not for merely telling about a musician. I would suggest that you review Your First Article and use the new user tutorial to learn more about Wikipedia. Successfully writing a new article is the absolute hardest thing to do here, and you should learn as much as you can, and perhaps edit some existing articles, before attempting to create a new article. If you are ready, you may use Articles for Creation to create and submit a draft for review by an independent editor before it is formally placed in the encyclopedia. This way you get others to see it first. 331dot (talk) 16:09, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

MasterJohnPal You have now removed the submit template so will not be able to submit your draft Draft:Ogunwale Isaac. Theroadislong (talk) 17:05, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Draft:FOMALHAUT TV

Hi there, I wanted to know if the admin had a nick of time to check the following article. I've already edited major mistakes about the article that was reviewed by one of the admins, Timtrent on July 15th, 2020. If there's any problem(s), please let me know. Thank you!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Fomalhaut_TV Danialhalim680 (talk) 16:41, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse Danialhalim680. I'm no expert on TV channels but the article will never get approved while many of its "references" just point to arbitrary websites like Apple and Google. We need reliable secondard sources that actually cover and verify the material in the draft. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:01, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Oh, maybe I need more research for the information I've added. I thought that might as well called references, but I will read first about reliable secondary sources article. Thank you for helping me out! --Danialhalim680 (talk) 17:08, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Page approval

 Courtesy link: Draft:Rajesh Chaplot

Page approval

I had created a page few months back and one reviewer suggested few changes and I had resubmitted with the changes. Now after 3 months,another guy came and rejected it. can somebody help me to get this page approved Kishormeru (talk) 18:28, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

It'll be hard. You'll need to start by discarding all the current contents, as unreferenced. Then go through the references (which are listed, but only one is cited), and discard those that lack significant and independent discussion of him. Then, if you have any references left, rewrite the draft based on those, citing them as you go. Maproom (talk) 19:37, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Text in a box

Hi. I was trying to type something in my user page, and the text was in a box. It also looked like writing from the source. What happened? Hayta= 19:42, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

You added a space in front of your text. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 19:45, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Article reviews are taking too long.

Hello WP community, This is kinda getting frustraing. I've made a Wikipedia article a while back (April of this year) and, it said that article reviews could take up to 3 months. Guess what, it's more than 3 months, and my article is still listed as a DRAFT. What is going on?! I don't get it. If anyone could answer me that would be great. :D Flipsosmasos (talk) 12:11, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Assuming you are referring to Draft:Ugetsu Kitan which you created in April/May but never actually submitted. David notMD (talk) 12:20, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Flipsosmasos, hello! Is this about Draft:Ugetsu Kitan? That draft has not been submitted for review, see WP:SUBMIT. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:23, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse Flipsosmasos, I have added a Submit button to the top of your draft. —teb728 t c 12:25, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Note, however, that your draft as written fails WP:GNG. And check your draft where it says Improving your odds of a speedy review.Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:27, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

I see you say "developed by Will" about the game. That may be the most optimistic wrong link I have seen in Wikipedia. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:36, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

How about "creature"? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:55, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Less than 30 minutes from submission for review, to getting reviewed. That's impressive! Maproom (talk) 13:36, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

And deleted (at the author's request) a couple of hours later. --ColinFine (talk) 20:01, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Evidence of mistaken rejection of sandbox proposal

Responding to editor SK2242’s judgment that my sandbox proposal to replace article “Problem of induction” violated protocols NPOV and NOR, I presented a table as evidence refuting that mistaken classification. The table format was botched, making the evidence undecipherable. How can I get a second chance to present my evidence?TBR-qed (talk) 18:48, 12 December 2020 (UTC) TBR-qed (talk) 18:48, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

TBR-qed, take another stab at it further down the discussion, with "EDIT:" as the first words of your post. You may replace all you initially wrote there, as I've left a note in anticipation.--Quisqualis (talk) 20:13, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

song relevant enough??

Under the pages "such-and-such (Disambiguation)" or any other page that shows a list of possible meanings, if the word is the exact name of a particular song/track, would that count to be put in the list? Probably not, because it's such a small thing (game soundtrack so...), but just asking. Rolex Kaard (talk) 22:10, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

@Rolex Kaard: If the song has an article on Wikipedia, you may add a link to it on the disambiguation page. RudolfRed (talk) 22:34, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Precedence concerning article names....

How does WP determine precedence in regard to article title names? WP has a stub article for Art Napoleon, a film director (1920-2003), consisting of one sentence, seven film credits, and two references. Meanwhile, we have Draft:Art Napoleon (Artist). This Art Napoleon has a "career" encompassing Indigenous political activism, several TV programs, (some that he translated into Cree) educational publications (Cree/English) and a music career, etc., supported by 39 citations.

I am entirely uncertain about the choice of "Artist", which gives impression that Napoleon paints or sculpts. Given the amount of refs and coverage in RS, I would think that the current "Art Napoleon" article should be changed to "Art Napoleon (film director)", and the draft should be titled as "Art Napoleon". If I move the current Art Napoleon to "Art Napoleon (film director)", what would/should/could be done about the Draft title? May the Draft title be changed to "just" Art Napoleon? WP:AT doesn't seem to address this. Curious... Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 23:33, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

@Tribe of Tiger: Welcome to Wikipedia. The naming guidance in cases like this is at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. This can all be sorted out when (or if) the draft is approved and moved to mainspace. Don't worry about the name for now, just focus on working to make the draft the best it can be. RudolfRed (talk) 23:51, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

RudolfRed, The link you provided was exactly what I was looking for! This is not "my draft", although I have edited it. However, I have read comments that imply that "artist" drafts may not be as interesting to our excellent volunteer reviewers, because they may be promotional, poorly referenced, etc. Having edited (albeit in a minor capacity) for nearly five years, I am fairly confident that the draft will be accepted...but was puzzled about the naming. There is always something to learn about WP. Thanks so much for your friendly, kind and prompt assistance . Sincerely, Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 00:13, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Create image for wikipedia pages

Bold textHi How can i create new images for wikipedia? Because i would like to insert an image on a page i am creating which, unfortunately, is not found on wikipedia. D10s Maradona (talk) 12:48, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi @D10s Maradona:, head on over to Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard and you'll be given a step by step process to upload an image and include the right licensing information. --Paul ❬talk❭ 13:07, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Better order is first get the article (not referred to as "pages") approved, then upload an image and add it to the article. David notMD (talk) 00:31, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

the draft Draft:D10s Maradona currently named after you rather than the topic (looks like this happened when moved from sandbox to draft). David notMD (talk) 00:34, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Is this a good template for similar articles?

I recently edited the article on Oscar C. Parkinson and noticed lots of other pages in the California State Legislature category are similarly stubs without much information. I plan to try and expand them with the sources I used for this article (namely JoinCalifornia.com and Statement of the Vote of California, as those were the only sources I could find with information on this person - they seem to line up), but I wanted to ask before I made edits to a bunch of articles. Is this a good set of sources and structure (infobox for example) for these articles?

A few examples of the other stubs: John N. Anderson, Ernest N. Mobley, Vernon F. Gant Tymewalk (talk) 05:54, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello Tymewalk. That website called JoinCalifornia.com looks like a one person blog with a second person providing technical support. It does not look like a reliable source to me. The structure of the infobox is far less important than the reliability of the sources. For evaluation of the reliability of sources, please visit the Reliable sources/Noticeboard and follow the instructions there carefully. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:19, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you both for the information - I've removed the information that came from that site from the article and I'm going to look to see if there's any other information on this subject out there. Tymewalk (talk) 00:50, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Greetings Tymewalk. As Cullen has said, that website may not be as a reliable source as you might think, seek other articles that revolve around that subject. _Signed,Benjamin Borg ^(Talk) 06:55, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Comment on rejection of Savoy Motel article

Comment On rejection of Savoy Motel article: Super frustrating. Band's been active for 6 years, played SXSW, gets radio play, written up in trade mags, etc. Still not good enough for WP. Hours of my time-- trying to meet all the standards, linking all sorts of articles, reviews, ratings, etc.--dismissed with a snarky elitist comment about garage bands. 24.189.252.17 (talk) 21:52, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to The Teahouse, I'm afraid that Discogs, Instagram and YouTube are not reliable sources and do nothing to establish any notability. Theroadislong (talk) 21:58, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think the biggest issue is that the band as it is isn't notable for Wikipedia's standards. The only reference out of the four provided that appears to be reliable is the Pitchfork one; the Youtube channel and Instagram link to the band (which don't prove its notability) and Discogs isn't great because it's user-generated (from this discussion); they could potentially work as external links if the subject proves to be Wikipedia-notable. More reliable sources demonstrating its notability are required. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 22:03, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

The form that walks you through creating a new article form stresses the need to use your own words. This seems to contradict the idea of user-generated content being unreliable. Not sure how to square this circle. The Garage Band comment is what stung the most. These four make up a working band, they're not fooling around in their parent's basement. They're gigging every week, getting paid. They opened for Kesha during her 2017 tour. The "notable" barrier seems to be extremely subjective. Not sure how big a circle of influence has to be. Nashville, TN might be seen as a backwater burg to some, but there's always been a big scene for music. If you do a search on the band, you'll find they're referenced in other articles. They just don't get one of their own. I wasn't expecting this velvet rope vibe. Finally, since the article's been removed, I can't make any of these suggested changes. As I said, the experience has been frustrating. If the urge hits, I might try again someday (maybe when they chart, when their third album comes out, or when they hit some kind of milestone). Thanks for your attention.24.189.252.17 (talk) 00:12, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

It's use your own words ((thus avoiding copyright infringement for copying website content), BUT having references that are considered reliable sources. And I know your intentions in your last comment were intended as sarcasm, but in truth too many artist/entertainer/actor drafts are declined as WP:TOOSOON. David notMD (talk) 00:53, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The form that walks you through creating a new article form stresses the need to use your own words. That is correct; to avoid toeing the line and making a copyright violation, information from reliable sources should be given in one's own words. That doesn't contradict WP:USERGEN, as user-generated content can be hard to verify without a source that is considered reliable.

They're gigging every week, getting paid. A lot of bands and other groups get paid every week, but that doesn't necessarily mean they'll catch the eye of reputable sources that give them significant coverage. Wikipedia can be a difficult place to navigate, especially if you're trying to create an article, which is one of the hardest things to do on here. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 00:55, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Additions to an article

Hello! I have been editing the page Republican reactions to Donald Trump's claims of 2020 election fraud. The current definition of the articles, as stated below the name is “Members of the US Republican Party have reacted differently to Republican President Donald Trump's claims about the 2020 United States presidential election, with some denouncing it and others supporting it. Trump falsely claimed to have won the election,[1][2][3] and made many claims of widespread fraud arising from postal voting, despite substantial evidence to the contrary.[4][5][6][7][8][9]

By December 5, only 27 out of 249 Republicans in Congress had acknowledged Biden as the winner of the election.[10] By December 2, over three weeks after Joe Biden's victory speech, most of the Republican members of Congress who commented on the presidential election still sided with Trump.[11] By December 11, 126 out of 196 Republican members of the House backed a lawsuit filed in the United States Supreme Court supported by nineteen Republican state attorneys general seeking to subvert the election and overturn the election results.[12]”

Additionally, there is a sidebar at the top that says “This article is about the reactions of prominent members and leaders of the Republican Party to Donald Trump's 2020 election fraud claims. For these election fraud claims themselves, see Post-election lawsuits related to the 2020 United States presidential election and Disputes surrounding the 2020 United States presidential election results.“

Another editor continues to add former Republicans. I deleted them (Joe Scarborough). The editor then started editing on the talk page. Before I go any further, I just want to say that I’m not here to rat out or report anyone. I just want to have a little confirmation from other experienced editors to help me work this out before I do need to report my fellow editor (which I hope I don’t). I may be wrong too, so please let me know. So anyway, the other editor says that since there are other former Republicans on the article as well then they should all stay until a consensus has been made about adding former Republicans. I told the other editor that there should be consensus on former Republicans in the talk page before adding it as a criteria. I also asked the other editor to cite a criteria of the article that says former Republicans should be added (not only current members of the Republican Party). The editor cited that the word “former” is used 39 times in the article without citing an example or any context and also said that one of my edit summaries, I used the word former, which somehow constitutes as a guideline. They stated that cited material should not be removed (which I agree with, but if the citation does not say that they’re current republican, and the article criteria, as far as I can see, is current Republicans. The user then went on to say that there are two other former Republicans on the page, and that one was added by me. I admitted that I did add it (David Durenberger), because I added all of the names from an article saying former Republicans who recognize Biden’s win. However, I stated, that I should have read the article criteria first and if they couldn’t show the criteria includes former Republicans, then I was also wrong to add a former Republican before consensus was reached and that they should all be removed until the criteria of the article is reached. The other editor stated that the article is after 1932 and based on politics, posted a warning on my talk page, and then said that I was trying to take ownership of the article. Am I in the wrong here? Is the other editor? Or is it a mix of both? Thank you. Just Piping In (talk) 16:48, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Looks like you are doing the right thing, Just Piping In, and discussing your issue on the article's talk page. If consensus cannot be achieved, the next step may be to seek a third opinion.--Quisqualis (talk) 20:25, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Quisqualis, I appreciate your help. Currently the only thing I’m worried about is there being no strict criteria on the article. If there is no real rule, Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren could be added. It’s a bit of a stretch but without official guidelines that allow it to be added, it’s possible. Anyway, I will most likely ask for a third opinion. Thanks again! Just Piping In (talk) 21:04, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

@Just Piping In: I have left my view from 'across the pond' in the form of a comment on the article's talk page, which can be read here. I think I'm siding with your view, but I don't really care who I side with. My view is my view, and I hope it helps attain some consensus there which benefits users of the encyclopaedia. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:33, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Nick Moyes, thank you for your opinion! I don’t mind if anyone sided against me or tells me I’m wrong. I just want some clarity. And to be clear, I don’t really care if former Republicans are on the list or not. I just don’t think that they currently should, as there is no criteria nor consensus on them being added, only current members of the party. For example, the List of Republicans who opposed the Donald Trump 2020 presidential campaign clearly states who belongs on the article. There is no doubt that the Republicans mentioned above would be added to that article based on that criteria (if they opposed the campaign of course). While Nick Moyes did not answer that question, you did help us come closer to a consensus on what should and should not be added. I just hope the other editor understands that these other names should not currently be on there until consensus on changing the criteria has been reached, as it appears others agree with. By the way, I also applied for 3rd opinion so thank you Quisqualis!Just Piping In (talk) 02:26, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Being asked for donations

Even after donating, I'm repeatedly asked to donate, as if I didn't donate already. Is there a way to stop this? 64.229.216.21 (talk) 22:43, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

If you create an account, you can disable the fundraising banners. RudolfRed (talk) 22:46, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

As you are using an IP address, there is no way to know that the person sitting at the computer at any given moment has donated or seen the donation requests. As noted, if you create an account, you can suppress the requests. 331dot (talk) 22:53, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

The software cannot tell who is at the other end of an IP address. Please create an account. Go to your Preferences, navigate to the Gadgets tab, and check the "Suppress display of fundraiser banners" box. For additional concerns please contact the Wikimedia Foundation at this email address: [email protected]. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 23:35, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Read more why here. Le Panini ^[🥪] 00:43, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

I get the same even after donating monthly by standing order to Greenpeace ... except that they still send me the bloody requests, in my name, and through my letterbox! Nick Moyes (talk) 00:46, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Oh dear - I think that's the first time I've ever sworn here in ten years! Nick Moyes (talk) 00:47, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Nick Moyes, "bloody" is like saying "oh frick". Don't worry, you'll still go to heaven. Le Panini ^[🥪] 02:31, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Error in hexamethyldisiloxane

 WordsTheMum (talk) 02:17, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

When I use a search engine to look up "hexamethyldisiloxane", I get (among other hits) a hit for the Wikipedia article, which (as far as I can tell) is correct. However, the page of hits also includes a rectangle at the side that starts out "Hexamethyldisiloxane is an organosilicon compound with the formula O[Si3]2" and ends "More at Wikipedia". The formula "O[Si3]2" is inconsistent with the Wikipedia article, and I'm sure that it's incorrect, since the correct formula is "O[Si(CH3)3]2" [subscripts brought up for ease in printing]. It would be good to correct the incorrect formula. WordsTheMum (talk) WordsTheMum (talk) 02:19, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

WordsTheMum, that sounds like a Google Knowledge (or similar) panel, which conglomerates information from the top search results if I remember correctly. We are not responsible for the panel. There should be a feedback link to report any errors in it. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 02:44, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, WordsTheMum. You didn't state which web browser you were using to search on. The 'Knowledge Boxes' these browsers create are entirely their own affair, and are sometimes quite badly wrong. Wikipedia cannot do anything about what Bing or Google etc choose to pull together. If our results are wrong, we can fix them here, but not elsewhere. I do note that, as at this moment, Google does give the right formula. (see here]) Tomorrow, it might just as easily say that hexamethyldisiloxane is the lead violinist in the Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra, and there'd be nothing we can do about it here. But most good quality browsers have a 'feedback' link where you can report duff results. Please do that, and trust Wikipedia, not algorithms. Nick Moyes (talk) 02:47, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

External links

 Courtesy link: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Podcasting § Guidelines for style of podcast articles

I'm trying to start the manual of style for podcast articles at the Podcasting Wikiproject, and I'm unsure about what should be included in the external links list. I've already started a conversation on the Wikiproject talk page and I read the wikipedia page on external links, but I wanted another opinion because the project isn't super active and the rules weren't explicit enough.

My question is whether it's appropriate to have an external link to a podcast on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, and Stitcher at the same time. It seems redundant and unnecessary, but I don't see why one of the three is more important than the other (or even why lesser known podcast platforms aren't just as important or reliable). Including links to three, four, or even five platforms would be easy, but I'd say that it violates the rule that you're supposed to keep the list minimal. There's also a rule that if an official website contains links than they shouldn't be included in the external links section, however, that seems in contradiction to the rule that articles for published works should have links to a platform providing legal copies of the work (i.e. most official websites for podcasts include links to platforms like Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, and Stitcher).

Overall, I'm torn between whether I should include all three or only one, and if it's only one then which deserves it? Personally, I think I'd choose Stitcher because it's a hosting platform specifically for podcasts rather than a company that sells music and other media like Apple and Google. TipsyElephant (talk) 04:10, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi TipsyElephant! I'm going to reply at the talk page conversation so as to avoid a WP:TALKFORK. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:50, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

To edit or not to edit? That is the question.

So far, the only edits I have made to Wikipedia pages are grammatical ones of which I am CERTAIN there is something incorrect and I know the correct way to fix it. However, there have been several instances in which I see something that, although it might be grammatically correct, it is just poorly written for coherency. Still, I respect the author's style and have left those stylistic deficiencies alone. To what extent should we edit an article that lacks smooth transitions or coherent flow? Will Searcy (talk) 04:46, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Will Searcy, I'd say be bold and change it if you think it could be written better. If someone reverts, feel free to bring the issue up on the article's talk page (as part of the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle). —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 05:13, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Yep, the Be bold essay speaks to exactly this question. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:18, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello Will Searcy. Almost all developed, decent quality Wikipedia articles have multiple authors, and no editor is entitled to own any article. Personally, I am happy to see other editors improve the quality of my writing. If disagreements crop up, discuss them on the article's talk page with a goal of developing consensus. So, the answer is edit to improve the encyclopedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:24, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

I had my first article rejected, I help me to be approved and have my new account in good stand

Hello everyone,

I just created my account and wrote my first article, unfortunately was rejected, I would like to have some help to be approved and have my account back to a good stand,

Thanks Ferreirajeanjf (talk) 20:49, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

@Ferreirajeanjf: Having a draft rejected is not a reflection on you or the standing of your account. Based on the reviewer's comments, the topic you chose for User:Ferreirajeanjf/sandbox is not notable and so should not be an encyclopedia article. Creating a new article is not easy. I suggest you work to improve existing articles for awhile, then use the guidance at WP:YFA when you are ready to try again. RudolfRed (talk) 20:58, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

You and your account are fine. Basically, this was a learning experience. Your draft first declined, main reason you had copied content from an existing website. Then, Rejected (stronger than declined), and then nominated for Speedy Deletion. If you do no contest the SD (I strongly recommend you do not), the draft goes away, and you can continue to be a registered account. One reason for the Rejection and SD is that the only ref you proposed was the organization's own website, which does nothing toward meeting the notability criteria. David notMD (talk) 00:48, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Ferreirajeanif Unless people not in any way affiliated with CLO have published about CLO, at length, no potential for achieving notability in the Wikipedia sense of the word. David notMD (talk) 08:15, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia Page

How can i create a wikipedia page?? Kinghafis

@Kinghafis: creating a new article (not yust "page") sucessfully is one of the hardest tasks one can undertake on Wikipedia, it requires much effort and practice. That being said, if you are still sure you want to do this, please folow these steps:

• First, review our guideline on notability, our policy on Verifiability, and our general notability guideline (GNG). Consider whether your subject clearly meets the standards listed there. Also, check if the topic is already covered, perhaps under a different spelling or in a section of an article about a wider topic. You will waste a lot of time, if you create a new article, and then find that the encyclopedia already has an article about that.
• Second, read how to create Your First Article and referencing for beginners and again consider if you want to go ahead.
• Third, If you have any connection or affiliation with the subject, disclose it in accordance with our guideline on Conflict of interest. If you have been or expect to be paid for making edits, or are making them as part of your job, disclose this according to the strict rules of the Paid-contribution disclosure. This is absolutely required; omitting it can result in you being blocked from further editing.
• Fourth, gather sources. You want independent, professionally published, reliable sources with each discussing the subject in some detail. If you can't find several such sources, stop; an article will not be created! Sources do NOT need to be online, or in English, although it is helpful if at least some are. The "independent" part is vital. Wikipedia does not consider as independent sources such as press releases, or news stories based on press releases, or anything published by the subject itself or an affiliate of the subject. Strictly local coverage is also not preferred. Regional or national newspapers or magazines, books published by mainstream publishers (not self-published), or scholarly journals are usually good. So are online equivalents of these. (Additional sources may verify particular statements but not discuss the subject in detail. But those significant detailed sources are needed first.)
• Fifth, use the article wizard to create a draft under the articles for creation project. This is always a good idea for an inexperienced editor, but in the case of an editor with a conflict of interest it is essential.
• Sixth, use the sources gathered before (and other sources you may find along the way) to write the article. Cite all significant statements to sources. Do not express opinions or judgements, unless they are explicitly attributed to named people or entities, preferably in a direct quotation, and cited to a source. Do not use puffery or marketing-speak. Provide page numbers, dates, authors and titles for sources to the extent these are available. A title is always needed. Submit the draft when you think it is ready for review. Be prepared to wait a while for a review (several weeks or more).
• Seventh, when (well perhaps if) your draft is declined, pay attention to the comments of the reviewer, and correct the draft and resubmit it. During this whole process, if you face any unresolvable editing hurdles, or cannot comprehend any editing issue, feel free to post a request at the Teahouse or the help desk and ask the regulars. Repeat this until the draft passes review.

Congratulations, you have now created a valid Wikipedia article. Victor Schmidt (talk) 11:34, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Review my draft

My draft hasn't review till now from 3 days ! https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ahmed_Mohamed_(entrepreneur) Johny112 (talk) 12:12, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

You asked, and it was Declined. Be aware that there are thousands of drafts submitted to AfC and awaiting review. The process is not a queue. As clearly stated after you submitted the draft, the review process could take up to several months. If you chose to revise and resubmit, there is no expectation that next time it will get a fast review. David notMD (talk) 12:57, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Stopped editing History of Pernambuco

I have over the last several months been editing the History of Pernambuco article. I saw somewhere an admonition to 'be bold', so I have just jumped in the water. Although I am certain that I must have violated some conventions (or rules)---and I can't say that I devoted a lot of research to making sure I was 'coloring inside the lines'--- nevertheless I have tried to abide by common sense and those conventions that I was aware of. I put a note at the end of the Talk page about what I have done. It seems quite apparent that this article is a bit obscure, but before I requested a copyedit, I thought I should ask here if someone could take a brief look and comment on whether I would be wasting the time of a copyeditor if I request such. Thank you.P2dwight (talk) 15:51, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, P2dwight. I couldn't possibly comment on the content of the article but as a casual reader it seems that the lead section is too small. For an article of that length, I'd expect about a four-paragraph summary. Very few articles get copy-edited, just incrementally changed by other editors, so I wouldn't worry about that. If I'd written as extensively as you have, I'd remove the {{multiple issues}} template as you have addressed lots of things people worried about in 2017. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:00, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Just an opinion that the section and subsection titles are too long (I shortened some) and there are too many, resulting in very short subsections. David notMD (talk) 16:20, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

pictures

I am not sure on how to add pictures from google its quite annoying any help would be welcomed! Nathaniel20056 (talk) 16:37, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

@Nathaniel20056: The short answer is "don't". Very little of what you find published on the internet (or for that matter, in books, newspapers, magazines, etc.) can be copied and used in articles here because it is copyrighted and not freely-licensed. That is, the rights to publish them usually belong to the photographer, creator, or publisher. Read about Wikipedia's image use policy. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 16:43, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

How to discuss an article with other Wikimedians?

I would like to discuss certain improvements in articles with other editors before undertaking them, in particular where sections are missing. How to do this?

Thank you. Eli185 (talk) 16:37, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

@Eli185: Click on the "Talk" tab of the article in question and see if your issue has been previously discussed. If not, add a new section there. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 16:46, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Help...My article was rejected

Hi, my article was rejected because it sounded like a sales brochure. I removed the overview section and kept the history section of the article. Can someone review this and give me some more pointers to improve the article?

Current version https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Defold WDeri77 (talk) 21:01, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse, WDeri77. You did absolutely the right thing by deleting13,000 bytes of promotional content, but you have not yet answered the request on your talk page for you to declare whether or not you have a Conflict of Interest with this product. See WP:PAID for how to declare who might be paying you, or simply reply to declare openly that you have no connection whatsoever to this product or company. (Oh, and a few non-insider sources in the article might help - see our notability criteria for software products. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 01:50, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Nick. I appreciate your feedback. I updated my talk page with a declaration that I'm not connected or paid by the company to write the article.WDeri77 (talk) 16:55, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Yemeni Hip Hop

Hello, There is an article about Yemeni Hip Hop and I want to add a new artist , what should I do ? Yemenpedia (talk) 17:12, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse Yemenpedia. You need to be careful. As stand-alone lists explains, WP has a policy that something is in a list has to be WP:NOTABLE. The presence of an article in WP should confirm notability but for most other artists that won't be the case. I think that's why Theroadislong already reverted at least one of your additions to Yemeni hip hop. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:36, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

The "new artist" probably refers to this draft Draft:El Godfather - الجادفاذر, which is rather lacking in suitable reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 17:55, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Article creation help

I have made a research about company and created a article it got deleted as it was mentioned as spam. How do I check whether it is spam or not. Vijayabhaskarjatoth (talk) 11:39, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Vijayabhaskarjatoth Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about a company and what it does. That's considered promotional or "spam". A Wikipedia article about a company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Press releases, announcements of routine business transactions, staff interviews, and other primary sources do not establish notability. Please read Your First Article for more information.

If you are associated with this company, you will need to read about conflict of interest and paid editing for information on formal disclosures you may be required to make. 331dot (talk) 11:44, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for information. Will develop myself to do best things here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vijayabhaskarjatoth (talk • contribs) 18:53, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Can new users nominate an article for deletion?

Can I do as a new user? SSH localhost (talk) 18:45, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

@SSH localhost: Yes, any user may nominate an article for deletion. Follow the instructions at WP:AFD. But, it may be better to wait until you have experience and understand what would make an article qualify for deletion. You can raise the question at Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion to get some input on if the article should be deleted or not. RudolfRed (talk) 19:16, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Secondary characters relevant enough to add?

I was thinking of adding information about a group of secondary characters which return many times throughout the series to this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lumberjanes . Is that worth adding, or should I leave them out? Softsylveon (talk) 18:38, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

As long as you have Wikipedia:Acceptable sources, it's notable that should be good! SnazzyInfinity (chat? • what I've done) 19:41, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Original content from United Features Syndicate

A friend of ours, Dorothy Keefer ( Rambonnet) has left us many original drawings, office & get together pictures & photographs from when she worked at the United Features Syndicate from 1940's to mid 1970's Dorothy started as a telephone operator & worked her way to office secretary. She had many art works, photographs, notes and much more from Feg Murray, Ernie Bushmiller, Rex Maxon, Alan Maver, I. A Bayliss & more in her collection.

Want to know if anyone is interested in this collection. 2600:8805:B400:87:396A:421F:7FAE:F73B (talk) 16:05, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello and welcome. This is a place to ask questions about using Wikipedia. It is not a general comment forum. That said, I might suggest that you contact a local library or historical society. 331dot (talk) 16:11, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi. I take your question as one about the possibility of offering her photographs for use here (and thus disagree with the comments above). Thank you!

First, a question: when you say she left them to you, do you mean she willed the photographs to you and the Will has been probated? (You define your relationship as "friends", so you could not have inherited them through intestacy). If so, good, you **probably** own the copyright, which is the right starting point for this issue. **I say "probably" because there are a number of circumstances that could mean that Ms. Keefer did not own them, even if in her "collection", or co-owned them, either of which would not give you free rein over their copyright. Anyway, for purposes of further advice, I am going to make the assumption you own the copyright outright (if not, the inquiry ends there).

The only way we can use them is if you are willing to release the copyright under a suitably free copyright license (or even freer – into the public domain) that allows their free re-use even for commercial purposes, with the only obligations of re-users anywhere being such things as providing proper attribution, and disclosing the copyright license you choose upon the release in a certain transparent manner.

If you are willing to do that (and as I indicated, verifiably have the legal authority to do so), then yes, they may be very useful here, and the way to donate them for such use is to head over to our sister project, the Wikimedia Commons and donate them. The details of their upload and their release are beyond the scope what I can post here, but hopefully, the Commons' upload wizard will appropriately guide you. See also Commons:First steps, and the tutorial accessible through that page. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:08, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Long story (somewhat) shorter, understand that to share them here (actually on Wikimedia Commons), you would be publishing them, just as if giving them to Variety to publish, though even more freely, allowing anyone, anywhere to modify and re-publish them as long as they attribute the source. You must therefore own, or have control of, the copyright to the material.

There is one other option. If you find an article here (on Wikipedia) that could benefit from one of the pictures, there are a set of criteria at WP:NFCC that would allow you to make a picture available while still retaining rights (which you must still demonstrate you own). —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 17:38, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

AlanM1 Just a little sojourn into arcana. As far as I know, one must be a non-owner to make a valid fair use claim; an owner falls outside the very definition – fundamentally being an assertion by a third party seeking exemption from the default condition that non-free copyright works can only be used or licensed by owners.

If you think about it, this makes sense because the ultimate purpose of the doctrine is to define a carve out in the law from the remedies available to copyright owners for infringement (enforcement and/or damages). With that legislative goal in mind, it would make no sense for an owner to be able to claim an exemption under the very doctrine that is devised to protect their interests (e.g., the very idea of an infringement lawsuit being commenced, on these facts, becomes a non sequitur).

I wish I could remember the details enough to locate it, but there was a discussion quite a few years back that I either participated in, or possibly just monitored (maybe at FfD), where this was fleshed out at some length.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:17, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

YouTube

Is YouTube a reliable source? We are the Great (talk) 21:11, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

We are the Great, Almost always: no. See WP:YOUTUBE for more. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:12, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Redirects/Hatnotes

I have a draft receiving edits currently before being moved as an article to the wiki mainspace. Though, the title of my draft is being used as a redirect for another article, Emmeline. How could I have that redirect removed so that I could use the name "Emmaline" for the title of my article. My draft is about jazz singer Emmaline. Would this require me to have the article name "Emmaline (singer)"?

Thanks. RosarioFreedom (talk) 21:46, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

@RosarioFreedom: When the draft is approved, it will be moved to the appropriate title and if the redirect needs to be removed than that will happen at that time. RudolfRed (talk) 22:08, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

New entry attempt for Ronald Gonzalez (artist).

I have created a new entry for Ronald using the template provided for " how to add an artist to Wikipedia". I believe I have followed the guidelines and submitted the page for review. Can you please let me know a status on this submission? Jpspano (talk) 21:14, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Jpspano. You have not, in fact, submitted Draft:Ronald Gonzalez for review yet. To do so, you (or someone else) would need to insert the submission template at the top of the draft and proceed from there. I'm not going to do that, because it looks to me (although I'm not a reviewer) that your draft so far lacks sufficient inline citations to published, independent Reliable sources that (a) establish the subject's Notability and (b) corroborate all of the statements contained in the draft. Much of it reads to me like a self-produced resumé rather than a summary of material published about the subject by others.

Hopefully, others with more knowledge of Art and expertise with reviewing will come along soon to offer you advice on how to improve the draft, probably on the draft's Talk page (which I've just initiated for you) rather than here. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.56.237 (talk) 22:37, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Gonzalez. the article doesn't appear to have been submitted for review. I've added a submission button for whenever you're ready. --Paul ❬talk❭ 22:48, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Question

Is there a way to put a message on someone's Talk Page and make it so that only that User can see it? This is mostly curiosity, as someone asked me and I didn't know but now I would like to. Ex-Borg Seven of Nine (talk) 01:06, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

@Ex-Borg Seven of Nine: No, that is not possible. Some users have email enabled, so for those users you can email them a message that only they can see. If the user has this enabled, you will see "email this user" in the left side of the page when you go to their talk page. RudolfRed (talk) 01:11, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Page creation request

Corey Allen Jr Basketball.

Is there any way someone can make a wikipedia page for Corey Allen Jr the basketball player? Gameovername (talk) 01:02, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Gameovername, does Corey Allen Jr. meet Wikipedia's general or basketball notability guidelines? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 01:18, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

From my understanding yes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gameovername (talk • contribs) 01:22, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Gameovername, if you are asking someone to make the article, you can submit a request at WP:Requested articles, but activity there is really slow. It's faster to create an article yourself, but if you're going this route I strongly suggest you use the Articles for creation process and have sufficient reliable, independent sources that provide significant coverage of Allen.

It seems you've already gone the way of creating a draft on the subject and the article is currently pending review. I would take another look at the reviewer's comment. (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.) —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 01:28, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

whitewashing information...

Truth suppressors... Why does Wikipedia support the whitewashing of truth? what is so scary about the truth? Why do you support the crazy leftist agenda sweeping our world? The article on Satanic Ritual Abuse is absolutely WRONG! IT was not merely a "moral panic" - the only reason you would say that would be to suppress the truth...which means you support liars - which is what satanic ritual abusers are. So you are on board with them??!! This whole site needs to be shut down! 24.237.147.1 (talk) 20:09, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi person editing from IP 24.237.147.1 I hope you are quite young. If you are, there's hope that you can come out from under the cloud you are under. If you are already an adult, but still so credulous as to believe in this nonsense, then you likely also subscribe to a huge body of quackery, misinformation and conspiracy theories making up an echo chamber you have self-limited yourself to for gaining knowledge about the world. In turn, you have almost certainly insulated yourself from taking in the fundamentals of intellectual rigor—or you wouldn't hold forth in the manner you have here.

That, in turn, makes it a near certainty that you are currently impervious to demonstrable empirical facts (and the techniques for both gathering evidence to learn about the true state of the world, and the meaning of the evidence itself once gathered, in order to learn from first principles whether something posited is likely to reflect reality); how to winnow out good secondary sources from the bad; to not rely on appeals to authority for information and how to research yourself and come to independent conclusions through surveying a dialectic of reliable source material.

I don't blame you, it's difficult when we have a huge industry devoted to promoting such stuff. In any event, Wikipedia employs a number of policies and guidelines that attempt to make it much more likely that, when followed well, our articles tend to reflect reality, rather than the side of fringe nonsense. We don't always get it right, but that type of moderate qualification is going to be lost on you, given the extreme side you are on.

Of course, you will almost certainly read this as the pompous talking down to from a leftist liberal godless asshole that it most certainly is; yes, yes, I was brain washed by too many years of education; Trump stole the election; 911 was an inside job; yes, yes let's take that as read. Unfortunately, there's not a lot of choice but to talk down when your post is what it is; re-educating you is beyond the scope of what can be done here. But understand that the chastising purpose of your post, the point you wish to make, is certainly lost on me (and I bet most reading it), not because I don't hear you, but because as much as you're here to tell us about our terrible errors, you're simply and utterly wrong, in a rueful headshaking, shrug-of-the-shoulders and what-can-you-do, eye-rolling-way from the adults in the room.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:21, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

If you mean that English Wikipedia, with its more than six million articles and tens of millions of users should be shut down because you disagree with an article - No. If you mean the article Satanic ritual abuse should be deleted, also, No. If you want to change the article, please first read carefully on the Talk page all the past discussions. David notMD (talk) 01:45, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

article for nonprofit

I want to publish some information about a registered nonprofit NGO in Yemen, YFoundation. It is well known that Yemen is going through severe political unrest leading to the national economy dropdown. YFoundation contributes to serving the community through several humanitarian initiatives and interventions. Also, it seeks to accomplish economic stability especially for the most vulnerable households in Yemen.

Your advice is highly appreciated. Hmd-yf (talk) 01:05, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

@Hmd-yf: Welcome to Wikipedia. Writing a new article is not an easy task for new users. First you will need to see if the foundation meets the criteria under WP:NORG. If it does, then go to WP:YFA which has all the steps needed for creating a new article including a wizard that will help you create a draft you can submit for review. Update: I see you already working on a draft. See the note left on your talk page for why it was declined. RudolfRed (talk) 01:12, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

‎Hmd-yf (ec) Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid that like many people in your position, you have a common misconception about what Wikipedia is. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not a place like social media for organizations to tell the world about themselves. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about an organization, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. Wikipedia is not interested in what an organization wants to say about itself, only in what others unconnected with the organization choose to say about it. Wikipedia is not for telling the world about the good work your organization might do.

Your draft was rejected because it was sourced to nothing but your organization's website. We aren't interested in that, only in what others say about your organization. If no reliable sources have written about your organization on their own(no press releases, staff interviews) then it would not merit a Wikipedia article at this time. There may be alternative outlets where what you want to do is permitted.

You will need to review conflict of interest and paid editing for information on formal disclosures you may be required to make. 331dot (talk) 01:14, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

‎Hmd-yf, since you were asked yesterday to declare your COI, any further editing you do to the draft will be considered WP:Disruptive editing, until you read and respond to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How_to_disclose_a_COI.--Quisqualis (talk) 02:44, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Need help regarding fixing sentences that contains weasel words

 Courtesy link: vcash

Hi everyone, I have an article that has ongoing GA nominations review and one of the sentences the reviewer found to be unacceptable are "Some merchants who were early adopters of vcash viewed the service positively." due to the sentence written like the weasel word. I am thinking of fixing the sentence, my planned idea including:

• Some merchants, including coffeehouse, juice bar, SMEs and microbusinesses, who were early adopters of vcash viewed the service positively.
• Some merchants, including Hainanese coffeehouse Yut Kee Kopitiam and juice bar Life Juice, who were early adopters of vcash viewed the service positively.

What do you think about the correction I planning to fix? (or suggest your own idea on fixing the sentence to fix the sentence.) Thanks

References that support this sentence: Growing trend for e-payment WPSamson (talk) 07:51, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

@WPSamson: There is a chance that the reviewer didn't see the reference at the end of the subsection, but perhaps a colon can be used to make some changes:

Some merchants that adopted vcash early viewed the service positively: they praised the low transaction fee rate and noted that the adoption of e-wallet services led to shorter queueing times and improved customer service at lower costs. The service's analytical tools helped merchants better understand their customers' spending behavior.

Reference at the end, of course. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 08:11, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

@Tenryuu: noted, I'll check on it. WPSamson (talk) 02:48, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Birdeatsbaby article: request for review

I just moved an article I've been working on from my sandbox to the live space. I'm happy to receive constructive feedback, thanks in advance. Note - this is my first article, so although I did as much research as I could, please don't assume I know something that may be common knowledge elsewhere. Thanks! URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birdeatsbaby K3n51mm (talk) 21:32, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Birdeatsbaby has, in my opinion, TOO MUCH INFORMATION and HUGE amounts of it unreferenced. David notMD (talk) 02:27, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Also, the fact that you have been working on this article - and only this article - since August 2018 suggest you have a personal connection to the band - either paid or unpaid - and should either declare that on your User page or explain no so on your Talk page. David notMD (talk) 02:32, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know how to do either thing mentioned on my 'User Page' or 'Talk Page', though I wouldn't mind doing so if it's needed. Further guidance is appreciated. My only connection with this band is they happen to be a band I like that didn't have a wikipedia page. I've been a fan of theirs for around 7 years. I began this, my first article in 2018 and was so turned off by the accusatory comments made by wikipedia editors when I made an honest mistake concerning image copyrights (I was called a liar) that I stopped work on the article. I don't have time to go around editing wikipedia pages, and I'm not very experienced in it anyway. Then I had several deaths among my family and friends including both of my parents and my best friend. I don't know how such conclusions are reached by wikipedia reviewers, but that's what happened. I fail to see the connection between my personal life and publishing a wikipedia article. If this is not the place to make mention of these facts, then as mentioned, further guidance is appreciated. THX — Preceding unsigned comment added by K3n51mm (talk • contribs) 03:15, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Please explain this diff?

Could someone explain this diff to me? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHunter_Biden&type=revision&diff=993812824&oldid=993790812 . That was an active, confirmed, protected edit request. I then tried to post this question on the Talk page, and a new section is shown, but the link from the TOC appears dead. Charles Juvon (talk) 19:14, 13 December 2020 (UTC) Charles Juvon (talk) 19:14, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

The best way would be that we ask @SPECIFICO: about his edit. Victor Schmidt (talk) 19:49, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I had actually gone back to that discussion to find text from a user to include in a neutrality barnstar. I give up on that article. Charles Juvon (talk) 19:59, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

You were persisting in posting unverified adverse assertions against a living person. Please refer to our policy that prohibits such posts. Your view had been exhaustively addressed by several longtime editors there, so the gentlest way to end it was simply to archive the discussion. Alternatively, it could have been formally closed with a warning and rebuke to you, but that seemed pointless. SPECIFICO talk 20:46, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: I will strike any comments that are defamatory based on a consensus or administrative opinion. However, I can't find the archive, and I don't understand how an open edit request with so many comments from other users can disappear based on one user's opinion.Charles Juvon (talk) 21:49, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

To the Teahouse hosts: Please help me find my confirmed, protected edit request on the Hunter Biden talk page. I just tried an undo on the archive and it didn't work.Charles Juvon (talk) 22:20, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Charles Juvon, you deleted it yourself. Undoing something from one page doesn't bring it back on another. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 23:55, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

@Tenryuu: Thank you for trying to help. Above you see, "the gentlest way to end it was simply to archive the discussion" from SPECIFICO. That makes it sound like I was doing some disruptive editing, which is not true. I did fail to restore the section by an undo in the archive, but I did not archive an active discussion. I fear doing a cut and paste operation because that is a template and I don't want to get in trouble. I also don't want to do an undo on the talk page itself, because there are more recent edits. Can you restore this edit request to the talk page? Alternatively, given some time, I will make a new edit request, however, that means all of the other user's comments will remain in the archive. Charles Juvon (talk) 00:51, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

If you post any further BLP violations you will face sanctions. SPECIFICO talk 02:42, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

And you will have to explain the diff that starts this section.Charles Juvon (talk) 03:41, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

"favorable features" in Hodgkin lymphoma page

May we please receive an explanation as to what "favorable features" are in the Hodgkin lymphoma page? 2603:6080:6403:83D4:C17:525B:D9C3:2A25 (talk) 05:08, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi. The sentence containing that phrase has a superscripted blue footnote link at the end of it, that refers to a particular source that appears in the reference section as follows:

"Adult Hodgkin Lymphoma Treatment (PDQ)–Patient Version". NCI. August 3, 2016. Archived from the original on 28 July 2016. Retrieved 13 August 2016.

If you follow the link to the source, then you can read what is referred to in more detail as "favorable" and "unfavorable" classification of the condition. (A Google Books search finds numerous more sources to look at.) Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:26, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Clarification for "However, this may be an artifact of the ambiguity inherent in the diagnosis" in the Hodgkin lymphoma page

What does "However, this may be an artifact of the ambiguity inherent in the diagnosis" mean? May we have a reference? 2603:6080:6403:83D4:C17:525B:D9C3:2A25 (talk) 05:47, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello IP editor. You are unlikely to find that any Teahouse hosts are intimately familiar with the ambiguities of this diagnosis. Start by reading the most relevant references in the article, or use Google or Bing to search for better references. Discuss the matter at Talk:Hodgkin lymphoma, where editors with topic expertise may offer their thoughts. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:02, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

It's too late for me to help you figure this out, IP editor, but either that sentence is unsourced and should be removed due to the impossibility of verifying what it means, OR the next little paragraph is talking about the same phenomenon, and should not be a separate paragraph. Reference #28 may hold the key to the meaning, if it in fact pertains to the T-cell markers. If you are able to unambiguously determine what that sentence is talking about, I suggest rephrasing it or replacing it with something of more utility.--Quisqualis (talk) 06:50, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

I want to know dear editors May I quote books knowledge at Wikipedia with the reference of entering book name ?

 Zeshany18 (talk) 07:45, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello Zeshany18. The name of a book alone is not a good enough reference. Please provide full bibliographic information, including author, publisher, publication date, page numbers and ISBN number. See Referencing for beginners for further information. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:05, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Approval of articles about Penza scientists for the main space

Dear Teahouse,

I would like to ask your assistance in publishing my articles in the main space of Wikipedia. Here is the list of articles that I have submitted for approval:

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

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

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

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

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

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

I would also like to ask you to create the category Penza State University alumni, which will include the mentioned articles. Thank you for your help in advance!

Best regards, SeregaBeglov2020 (talk) 08:49, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Every single draft is noncompliant with our biographical policy. We are not interested in a rerun of the Seigenthaler incident. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 08:52, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Dear v^_^v! Help what needs to be specified in my drafts to comply with biographical policy? SeregaBeglov2020 — Preceding undated comment added 09:57, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

The great majority of information in each of these drafts are not supported by references. Some of the references do not work (404s). The remaining references (in Russian) are either primary sources, or do no more than mention the person by name. Listing science journal articles they have published does not establish notability. Same for anything on the university website. What is required is at least three reliable source references confirming each person's notability, meaning written about them at length. If you intend to persist, start with one draft. Either provide a reference for every fact or else delete the fact. Then submit that one to Articles for Creation. Only after you succeed in promoting one draft to article status via AfC should you consider proceeding to the others. Lastly, as this is English Wikipedia, if there are any references about these people in English - a big help. Otherwise the submittals to AfC may not be reviewed due to scarcity of Russian-speaking reviewers. David notMD (talk) 11:55, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

My stub got yellow tagged

As someone who rarely interacts with other users, could someone explain to me what happened to my stub, especially this edit? Regards, Jeromi Mikhael ^(marhata) 12:06, 14 December 2020 (UTC) Regards, Jeromi Mikhael ^(marhata) 12:06, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Jeromi Mikhael, I fixed it, changed it with a notability tag. GeraldWL 12:14, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Guess I won't sleep this night. 😐 Regards, Jeromi Mikhael ^(marhata) 12:17, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

HOW TO REPORT FALSE INFORMATION

1 I want to report false information regarding an article published on Wikipedia that is misleading the masses. Would be obliged if someone could help me regarding this issue. Paracha rafay (talk) 13:31, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello there! Where is the false information that you have seen? --Toaster9 (talk) 13:34, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Is this about Ahmadiyya Caliphate, Paracha rafay? If so, please look at the Help desk, where it is explained that Wikipedia does not say the thing that people are objecting to. It is Google wrongly putting together information from several sources. --ColinFine (talk) 14:12, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Article help

How many sources of notability do you need to have an approved article? JayeChrs (talk) 14:33, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi there. You will need three independent, thorough, and reliable sources in order for an article to be considered notable. For more information, please see the guidelines for notability. Regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 14:45, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Making good articles

Hi, I need some help. I started editing in wikipedia because i want to make good and reliable articles and because i also enjoy editing and contributing. Currently i am trying to edit Nokia 3310 to make it possibly a good article but i don't know what i exactly need to add. Also i have another problem when editing many things which is not finding sources that easily which makes it harder to edit. Have a nice day. YmTheSuper (talk) 10:07, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, YmTheSuper. As a very new editor, it sounds like you've set yourself an impossible task, as getting an article to WP:GA standard requires considerable in-depth knowledge of most of our policies, guidelines and 'Manual of Style'. It would be akin to deciding you want to learn to drive a car, then immediately take a Ferrari out on a solo trip across the Andes. If you don't know what to add to improve an article, and can't find sources to cite in order to support your edits, then I would simply suggest that you find some other topic that you do stand a chance of reasonably enhancing. Whatever you do choose to improve, please avoid adding anything from your personal experience. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia that collates existing published, reliable sources. There are plenty of other opinion-based personal websites out there, none of which we would use as sources. In the cases of mobile phone, we might expect mainstream, independent review magazines and websites to be a good source of reliable information. Take your time, and do work on anything that takes your fancy, without setting goals of passing a peer review process. Check out Help:Introduction and this guide to adding references. Good luck! Nick Moyes (talk) 11:51, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

YmTheSuper, if you don't understand: you have to be familiar with our rules, manual of style, etc to be able to know what article is ready for GA. It's not as simple as having sources and infoboxes. A simpler analogy is this: you have a dream of shooting yourself to the Moon, but you don't have the tools and instead you just put yourself in a Coca-cola bottle with a fire. You could make more edits without the will to make stuff to GA or even FA, then when you already understand everything, you can try buy the tools and make the rocket. GeraldWL 12:20, 14 December 2020 (UTC)  

If you look at List of best-selling mobile phones, very, very, very few of the phone articles achieved Good Article status. (I was surprised.) This suggests there is not enough published about cell phones to use as references. David notMD (talk) 12:14, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the help everyone, i think i will try doing some minor edits and improvements to articles that interest me until i get enough experience and then i will start doing major edits. YmTheSuper (talk) 15:12, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Blanking an Article for Creation draft

I have just recovered my draft as it had been deleted as apparently I had blanked the draft - to my knowledge I had resubmitted it after having made some amends. How do you blank a draft so that I can avoid making the same mistake?

Thanks so much Daniellesmall247 (talk) 14:49, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Daniellesmall1247. "Blanking" a page has no special meaning: it just means deleting all the text on a page. It is not a very common thing to do. What you did in this edit - I don't know why - was to add {{db-g7}} to it, which requests that an administrator delete the whole page. Graeme Bartlett has removed that template for you. --ColinFine (talk) 15:21, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Rejected because of unreliable resources BUT there are reliable resources -- help!

Draft of Institute B61

The entry is supported by 5 references and 5 external links. Only 2 of those relate to Insitute B61 sites or profiles.

Please explain why those 8-10 sources are unreliable.

Please advise how to improve the text or sources.

This entry presents a non-profit organisation "Institute B61" that unites artists and scientists in promoting science through art. For this reason, there is an extensive list of artists and events -- it was not intended to look like an advertisement. There are hundreds of people involved in those events since 2009.

Please advise how to improve it. The answers I got from live help related only to the style -- sounds like marketing. Nick Saturday (talk) 15:32, 14 December 2020 (UTC) Nick Saturday (talk) 15:35, 14 December 2020 (UTC) Nick Saturday (talk) 15:38, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Nick Saturday, the sources cited may be reliable, but most of them aren't independent of the subject. The first is a press release, the third and fourth are based on information from Świerkowski. (The second may be acceptable as evidence of notability. The fifth, I couldn't check, as I failed to get past the Polish-language pop-ups.) To improve the draft, you will need to find at least one, maybe two or three, more reliable independent published sources that discuss the subject. Maproom (talk) 15:59, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

The draft includes blatant advertising/marketing "Spectacular events prepared by the group", "characterised by intimacy and direct contact ", "conducted in haunting spaces", " the audience could relish shows", "esteemed professionals" etc etc all totally inappropriate in tone. Theroadislong (talk) 16:05, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

How can I upload a file in Wikipedia?

This is my only question. in.DITTO.gpr (SEALED) (ask.d-contributes) 10:09, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

What kind of file, GPReddy360? What's its copyright status? How do you intend to use it? --ColinFine (talk) 11:54, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

The best location for files, if you mean images or sound, is within Wikimedia Commons. Their main "Help page is here".. They also have a separate Help Desk for detailed question-and-answer, if you need further details, GPReddy360. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:42, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Both non free images, I meant to say.in.DITTO.gpr (SEALED) (ask.d-contributes) — Preceding undated comment added 16:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

That can become very tough to do, depending on the image in question. You need to read about non-free content and see whether you can meet the stringent conditions. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:39, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Big 12 divisions

There are no Big 12 divisions and yet someone reverted a change i made based on this fact... What do I do? 204.63.40.44 (talk) 17:25, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Editor is confused, about 2010 in particular. See List of Big 12 Conference football standings UW Dawgs (talk) 17:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Next step is to start a discussion on that article's talk page: Talk:Oklahoma_State_Cowboys_football RudolfRed (talk) 17:32, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Article help

I have created an article for an artist but I keep being told that I dont have reliable source, but I am using the same sources location that been approved by a similar artist in the same city, and publication. I would like to know how to correct it or improve? JayeChrs (talk) 13:25, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy link: Draft:Friyie

@JayeChrs: Your draft was declined on the basis of notability, which is how Wikipedia decides if a subject should have a Wikipedia article or not. The criteria for this is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". So far, you've got two sources that fit the bill: the one from Exclaim and the one from Vice; to demonstrate notability, I'd like to see more sources like these. You also have to work on the tone of your article. Right now it sounds too promotional, whereas articles should be written from a neutral point of view. Genius and YouTube are not reliable sources. Give it some work, I do think it could be an article someday! ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 13:53, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

WP:Other stuff exists explains why finding examples is not an accepted argument. David notMD (talk) 17:37, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Why does my draft is sorted as "Start Class - Possible spam" ?

Hello, can anyone explain to me why the draft tht I wrote is sorted as "Start Class - Possible Spam" ? Here is the link

Draft:I Built The Sky

Also do you know if with this class it has any chance to be visible online one day ? What changes should I make ? Thank you for your help, please be tolerant I'm new to Wiki but I want to do more ! Duf29 (talk) 17:15, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Duf29 I don't think that your overview paragraph (first) should include everything. Once someone approves the draft anyone can see it (technically if you add Draft: before the draft name you can see it) TigerScientist (talk) 17:29, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your help TigerScientist . Do you see any changes that could speed up the review and improve my article ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duf29 (talk • contribs) 17:46, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

You can add tags to some wikiproject Duf29 but other than that I dont know how to make it faster. Also finish your talk page and teahouse edits with 4 tildes (this is a tilde ~) so it signs your name. I also added some stuff at the draft so you can get a feel for how a article about a person should look like. TigerScientist (talk) 17:56, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Start with finding references that confirm notability, or else no amount of revising will lead to approval of the draft. Refs about being endorsed do not contribute. Refs that are interviews do not contribute. David notMD (talk) 18:06, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

writing an article of note

I would like to register a concept on this platform which is my extrapolation of events based on well documented research and common accepted trends. I am the first to admit that i am not a scholar, but the specific environment which forms the subject matter is my playground of 30 years. I believe this qualifies me to at least post the concept and explanation and hope that further citations will evolve the concept to maturity.

Specifically, i would like to introduce a term which i have invented, 'PSYCHOSOMATIC MARKETING' based on my observations of the current pandemic and trends within businesses that have adapted or entered associated markets, it is critically important to name this game.

it is rooted in the wealth of information around the effects of stress and the associated effect on the human body which is already accepted and documented on wiki, however this definition specifically deals with the effects of the covid awareness campaigns on the mentality of patients that are diagnosed positive, actually get symptoms and are found to have been issued a false positive. With 89% false positives, millions of people are victims of this unintended marketing scam, with the symptom suppression market making a killing.

As humans, we need to be able to understand and define this strategy, that we may become aware of the consumer based effects of gearing up for the "pandemic" so whilst I have identified the concept, i would like to invite scholars and academics to comment and the final result will be a defintion that will encapsulate a concept that will go on to help bring this crazy strategy under control.

In short, I would like to post an article and grow it as a concept with citations and scholarly articles from established institutions, is this acceptable to m the overall tone of submissions. Douj (talk) 18:26, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

In order for us to have an article on a topic, there needs to be enough sources discussing the topic specifically. You can't just provide sources and interpret them in a tortured way, as Wikipedia is an enclyclopaedia and should not be engaging in advocacy, disseminating original thought or novel research, or otherwise speculating. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 18:32, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

More concisely, editors are not permitted to post a concept or theory with the hope that others will add the scholarly citations in support. If there is no proof of false positive tests for COVID creating a market for treatment, then no article possible. David notMD (talk) 19:11, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Douj, Wikipedia summarizes what independent, published, in depth reliable sources have already said about a notable topic. Your offer of your "extrapolation" consists of offering to add original research to Wikipedia, which is not what Wikipedia consists of. Please seek alternative outlets for dissemination of your findings.--Quisqualis (talk) 19:14, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

i dont really know what to do...

Illegal Frog (talk) 17:05, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

@Illegal Frog: try having a look at Wikipedia:Task center. Victor Schmidt (talk) 18:00, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

There are some very helpful messages on your talk page, including "Welcome Illegal Frog!", which contains a number of articles you must review if you intend to have a pleasant Wikipedia experience. Wikipedia is a serious encyclopedia, not a forum or social media where we type whatever comes into our head.

Also, if you are not in the habit of reading Wikipedia for knowledge or pleasure, then your sense of what Wikipedia is all about is limited. Start with simply reading in your area of interest, and if you think an article needs a change, bring it up on the article's talk page first. Other editors will likely guide you on your way. Don't just jump in uninformed, thinking that anyone can edit means that Wikipedia has no standards.--Quisqualis (talk) 19:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Guys, I reached 500 edits!

However, I haven't been UPGRADED to an extended confirm user:<. Noted that deleted edits and non-article edits also count. Feel free to help me. FYI, Wikipedia:User access levels#Extendedconfirmed. Hypersonic man 11 (talk) 11:35, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Only including main space edits?SenatorLEVI (talk) 11:42, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Hypersonic man 11 Actually, you had made 499 by software count, and your five hundredth edit was the one above, at which time you became extended autoconfirmed (yes, I checked, and you are, as of now).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:43, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

In late May 2020 you started adding Topicons you were not approved for, including Extended confirmed, to your User page. I mentioned this problem back in August. Please remove all Topicons that do not apply. David notMD (talk) 12:34, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

David notMD, I've removed all such icons from their account. They've already been warned twice on the talk talk page (perhaps yours was the second warning). ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^(talk) 19:52, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Origins of the domestic watermelon

Hello fellow Wikipedian. I am requesting an edit authorization for the "watermelon" article. I simply wanted to add that "wild watermelon seeds have been found in the prehistoric Libyan site of Uan Muhuggiag." Please get back to me as soon as possible. Thanks. LARRYkimani25 (talk) 22:06, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

@LARRYkimani25: Greetings, and welcome to the Teahouse. Do you have a reliable source which can be cited to support this? --Finngall ^talk 22:26, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Found it. See this

References

@LARRYkimani25: If you are not confident to insert a statement and the above inline citation yourself, you could draft out the sentence you would like to see added, include this reference link, and then post it at Talk:Watermelon. See WP:EDITREQUEST for an explanatoin of how to formally draw attention to your request for an edit. (we don't really do those here as part of our help service). Nick Moyes (talk) 01:03, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I couldn't resist. LARRYkimani25, I have restored your sentence to the lead of the article, and referenced with the above source. (supplied by Finngall, I think, many thanks!) Larrykimani25, I thank you for this very good proposed edit. Check the "View History" of the page, and you can see how I did it, for future reference. Apologies to Nick Moyes, I had already edited Watermelon before I saw your comment. Best wishes to all, Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 01:21, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry again, Nick Moyes, I misread the comment /indent! Thanks for the good source! Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 02:32, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

I want to improve a stub article

Hey, I found a stub article that I'd thought would have more to it. Is there some sort of guide that I could follow? CanadianOtaku (talk) 02:03, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, CanadianOtaku, and thanks for your question. Providing what you want to add doesn't come from your own experience, but is based upon properly published 'reliable' sources, then you will probably find Help:Introduction a good place to start. I see you've already started The Wikipedia Adventure - are you going to collect all 15 of the badges available, I wonder? When you're ready to add a reference (citation) to support you edits, you'll find this simple guide to adding references really useful. Wikipedia is a bit like learning to drive: start slow and carefully, and don't panic too much if someone honks you. We all make mistakes at first - the trick is to learn from them and ask questions if you don't understand. Good luck! PS: I'll pop by and leave a welcome message for you with a few extra links, too. Nick Moyes (talk) 02:31, 15 December 2020 (UTC)  

Thanks for responding, I'll check those out. CanadianOtaku (talk) 02:39, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

How to upload non-free image

How do I upload a non-free image, specifically a video game screenshot? I have been struggling with this, and I still don't know how it works. Npthura (talk) 01:33, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Npthura, you can go to Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard, and choose the secondary "upload locally to Wikipedia" button. Let us know if you have any further trouble. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:43, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks for the help. Npthura (talk) 03:41, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello Npthura. Please be sure that the image complies with Wikipedia's policy on the use of non-free images. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:48, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Moving Mountains

Draft:Moving Mountains (company) Hello, the article is in compliance with all policies. Can any one look into it and see if it reads like an advertisement or is it an error of judgment? Given the company's vast popularity in england and the eu, backed by significant independent coverage, I believe the page should clear the review process. Loveah (talk) 14:57, 14 December 2020 (UTC) Loveah (talk) 14:57, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Loveah, can you list four of the sources cited in that draft which help to establish that the subject is notable? The ones I have checked all fail to be independent of the subject. Maproom (talk) 15:46, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Welcome to the Teahouse, Loveah. Yes, it looks quite promotional, to me. The article has a history of being written by a suite of WP:sockpuppets. So, if you are connected with them or the company in any way, you would have a definite Conflict of Interest, which would need to be declared. My advice would be to make that declaration, and to get rid of all the trivial product information and excesses of references, which is very typical of drafts we see written by paid editors/marketing people - even if it happens that you didn't put them all there yourself. Work on the principle that 'less is more' when it comes to an encyclopaedia article here. Hope this helps, Nick Moyes (talk) 15:57, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello Loveah. Your draft contains the unreferenced assertion "Moving Mountains launched the world's first plant-based hot dog in May 2019." Our article Vegetarian hot dog states that this type of product goes back at least to 1949 and I can attest that I have seen them for sale in California for decades. Drafts containing obviously false assertions are unlikely to be a accepted. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:34, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Musings by Jawadm06

Hi guys, I read all the criticism about doing this, and I can't say I didn't expect it lol. Thankful that everything got reverted, but to be clear, I am a real person, and I think that my debate as to why Wikipedia is credible should go well, as the fact that there are this many people on my behind the moment I blatantly inaccurately edit an article is a big part of why this source is a solid one and just shows how inspected this sit is, and I hope its a big enough reason for me to win this debate which I am having in maybe 15 minutes or so. Winning this one for the admins(that I have now had some interesting interactions with) and beautiful Wikipedia.

Also on a side note, I might find interest on revisiting this account and actually using it for productive purposes in the near future Jawadm06 (talk) 18:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

@Jawadm06: You got lucky, very lucky, that you were only blocked for a few hours. Wikipedia does not want to be used as a labaratory. That being said, you are not the first one, and probbably neither the last one. I recall something similar over at the german Wikipedia, and I can gurantee you that the person doing that back then probbably wont edit Wikipedia ever again. Admins and other editors tend to get very upset when they discover such things, as nearly all admins and patrolers do Wikipedia in their (sometimes rare) free time. Check out the task center for serious attempts at improving the encyclopedia. That being said, if you dont plan to edit Wikipedia again, I hope it was worth the time, because Wikipedia editors tend to be unvorgiving for a few things, including "science experiments". Victor Schmidt (talk) 19:04, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Jawadm06's vandalism was more malicious than random - in two instances, to biographies of highly viewed living people in the entertainment industry. Plus, we have no idea how many articles were vandalized by other students, so have no confirmation of "...everything got reverted..." without a list of the articles that were deliberately vandalized by the others. David notMD (talk) 19:32, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

@Jawadm06: So, who are the other accounts or IPs, and what articles did they vandalize? —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 20:29, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

In case people missed it, Jawadm06's original post on 12 December was "Hi, I'm conducting an experiment for a class at my school, on how credible Wikipedia is. We have a controlled experiment, where we went to edit some unknown pages, making both conspicuous and inconspicuous edits, and recording the amount of time this takes to get changed. Just wanted to let whoever's behind this to know!!" David notMD (talk) 11:50, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Can someone help me do-up my userpage?

My userpage is quite inorganize, especially the userboxtop. Can someone please help me out. Thanks. Hypersonic man 11 (talk) 04:52, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Hypersonic man 11, the Wikipedia:User page design center is marked as historical, so it's likely outdated but may still be useful. Your userpage isn't terrible, but there's also a lot there that doesn't really directly relate to improving the encyclopedia. "This user is a Airbus A310 fan" doesn't really tell me much when it's placed alongside a ton of other similar boxes; all I really need to know is that you're interested in and likely to be knowledgeable about aviation, and {{User aviation}} would be sufficient for that. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:39, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Delete 90%. David notMD (talk) 11:53, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Weird mixed-language terms and the MOS

Greetings fellow tea addicts,

and another question: I just read up on the MOS on foreign language terms, and wanted to update my older article contributions to adhere to it. However, I am a bit confused on what to do with Lake Võrtsjärv: The second word is most definitely pure Estonian (I can't read IPA and still have no idea how to pronounce that), but the "Lake" preceding it is definitely English. So should I mark the whole term with {{lang}}? That would be wrong, as "lake" is an English word. But if I mark only "Võrtsjärv", it turns italic and looks weird next to non-italic "Lake". Any advice? -- LordPeterII (talk) 21:30, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

LordPeterII, is the orthography verbatim in English sources? If so, you could refrain from using {{lang}}. Otherwise, {{lang}} does have the parameter |italic= that you can set to no to suppress auto-italicisation. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 22:23, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

@Tenryuu: Good point! It seems Võrtsjärv is indeed used in English sources as well in the original orthography (unlike Lake Peipus), so you are right, the template isn't even needed. But also good to know there's an option for the italics, I missed that. --LordPeterII (talk) 12:07, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Page Review Problem

Hello, everyone! Recently I created a page Ekvita and published it without submitting for review. Because there was no option to choose for that. What should I do? Nargizyl (talk) 13:04, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Nargizyl:, I've draftified it (see at Draft:Ekvita) for you and submitted to the AfC queue. For future note, if you create drafts through the article wizard, they'll have a button at the top to let you submit to the review queue. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:31, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Question about talk pages

I would like to ask why AfDs and RfAs have talk pages, and when they should be used. JJP...MASTER!_{[talk to] JJP... master?} 13:26, 15 December 2020 (UTC) JJP...MASTER!_{[talk to] JJP... master?} 13:26, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

@JJPMaster:, so in one sense, it's just because the software creates a talk page for them and coding it not to would be unneeded. Talk pages for discussions are usually viewed as "meta" talk pages - for the Teahouse talk page, it's about the running of the page. AfDs almost never use them, since even discussions about the running of the AfD take place on the main afd page. RfAs, however, often use their talk pages for discussions under a !vote that grows too long (e.g. a long discussion about someone's oppose reasoning). Nosebagbear (talk) 13:33, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

English article based on French sources

Hello,

I wrote yesterday my 1st Wikipedia article on a French start-up that is called Go4ioT: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alexs_ahs/sandbox. However, first of all I do not know if the article meets all the criteria as to how Wikipedia articles are meant to be written. And secondly I do not know if the article is acceptable as it is based almost entirely on French sources, i.e. someone that wants to verify information needs to be bilungual, especially as there is no French article for the start-up as yet. Would you let me know if the article is acceptable the way it is written and / or if changes need to be done?

Looking forward to your reply.

Best regards,

Alex Alexs ahs (talk) 09:56, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello Alexs ahs, I think its better you write the article in French first, secondly you will have to look at some of the references. You have cited Linkedin pages as well as the home page of the company as a source. These kind of websites aren't considered as reliable sources. And any English reader might not be able to read further in-case they want to; as the sources are French. You should rectify this based on what I and other experienced editors have said. Other than that I think the article has good potential based on what I read from the article. And looking at the amount of references might indicate that the information is reliable, although I might not completely know as I don't know French. This shouldn't discourage you from working on the draft. Cheers.SenatorLEVI (talk) 10:14, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

The whole article reads like WP:PROMOTION to me and has phrases such as What is furthermore noteworthy is that it is a completely independent and autonomous solution that are not neutral in tone. As with many first articles, there are far too many WP:PRIMARY sources. To establish notability and confirm a Wikipedia article might be justified, focus, as writer, on only those sources which have independently written about the company. They shouldn't be based on press releases or interviews. I find it odd that there isn't already an article within the French Wikipedia for this company. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:21, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

SenatorLEVI, that's incorrect. English sources are preferred, but sources in other languages are perfectly acceptable if that's all that's available. Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability. And editors shouldn't be advised to write in a language they aren't fluent in just because the sources are in that language. Please don't make guesses when advising users at Teahouse; if you don't know the answer, either go look it up or wait for other editors to respond; this way you learn too. —valereee (talk) 13:02, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

For the English Wikipedia's stance on using non-English sources, see WP:NONENG. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 14:14, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, my intention in linking to the whole page was to help the editor see we have entire pages of information on these types of questions. :) —valereee (talk) 15:03, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello Valereee I stated that he/she write the article in French first because he/she stated only French sources, therefore I was under the impression that he/she knew French. However my presumption was wrong.SenatorLEVI (talk) 15:16, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Jeffrey Rosen

I am trying to add Jeffrey A. Rosen to List of Jewish American politicians as the new Acting AG. It is not formatting correctly. Please help. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 22:57, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Hey Pennsylvania2. Ready to slap your forehead? All it was was this. And it was driving you crazy wasn't it? Let me know the next time you need a one-letter-removal fix; I'm there!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:35, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Oh wow! Thank you so much for the fix.Pennsylvania2 (talk) 23:46, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Two letter fixes are a pretty daunting task. It may require help from multiple users. Le Panini ^[🥪] 01:57, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Ah... now... to find an article that just needs removal of a word like "the" to become an FA.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:39, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

BoySheila

I messed things up when trying to move to Sheila Boyde, not sure what happened, can someone help me ? GrahamHardy (talk) 15:04, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi GrahamHardy I have requested at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests for someone to move it, as it needs either an admin or someone with page mover role. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:15, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

@GrahamHardy: I moved it back to Sheila Boyde. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:14, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Average number of edits yearly per Wikipedian?

Hello, I'm doing some research on Wikipedians' editing activity, and discovered this tool https://xtools.wmflabs.org/ec/en.wikipedia.org That enables me to put in a username of an editor and find out how many edits they have made per year. I'm trying to find out the AVERAGE number of yearly edits made by wikipedia editors. Is there a place to find that out? Many thanks! Chapmansh (talk) 05:23, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

@Chapmansh: I don’t know if this has the statistic, but you might want to take a look at Wikipedia:Statistics and see if anything catches your eye. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 05:30, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Chapmansh, you might be able to find or calculate that at https://stats.wikimedia.org. Beyond that, I'm not sure. Also, if you haven't come across it yet, you may want to read Wikipedia:Research. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:32, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

@Chapmansh:It much depends on what you mean by editor or Wikipedian. Bear in mind that many people create an account but never make any edits, or they try to write an article that gets rejected and they never edit again, or they merely experiment or vandalize. At the same time a huge number of quality edits (and experiments and vandalism) are carried out by people who never create an account.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 11:18, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks all! I appreciate the help.Chapmansh (talk) 17:22, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Users are joking about me

Other users are joking about me: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hunter_Biden#Extended-confirmed-protected_edit_request_on_15_December_2020 Charles Juvon (talk) 17:13, 15 December 2020 (UTC) Charles Juvon (talk) 17:13, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Your edit request was denied. Move on to something else. There are over six million articles on Wikipedia you could work on. RudolfRed (talk) 17:16, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Is this in good faith?

@ValarianB: "Lol, what? No. "Henchmen" makes it sound like we're talking about The Joker and his penguin-clad minions plotting to rob Gotham Bank. Do not post frivolous edit requests, please." ValarianB (talk) 13:03, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: "And let's rename the White House House the Hall of Doom?" EvergreenFir (talk) 16:56, 15 December 2020 (UTC) Charles Juvon (talk) 17:34, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Need support!

HI there Editors and Editorials

I am concerned with no one, literally no one is helping me properly format this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_e_Oscar . Idk even if how many people visit this page every day? i need to find sources for this page so that i can remove the template. Mg7134 (talk) 17:25, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Mg7134, the problem with Tommy e Oscar is, as it says in the template, that it does not cite any sources. Unless someone can find sources to establish that the subject is notable, there's little point in worrying about the formatting. Why don't you look for sources yourself, instead of expecting some other (preferably Italian-reading) editor to help you? Maproom (talk) 18:07, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Mg7134. Have you asked anybody for help? For example at WP:WikiProject Television, or WP:WikiProject Animation? English Wikipedia has over 6 million articles, and only 41 thousand active editors, so there's no particular reason why anybody should have come to help you with an article unless you have asked. In the tag box at the top of the article there are some shortcuts for searching in various places. If you've looked in all of these and found no independent reliable sources, then the chances are the subject is not notable and the article should be deleted. --ColinFine (talk) 18:11, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Copyright of images

I just started a page the other day for a podcast I like because I say that other podcasts I like have good representation on Wikipedia, but this one did not. How can I upload images from the podcast if I do not own them? If the images are on their Main website page, are they free to use for Wikipedia? Thank You. TheHollowCrucible (talk) 18:58, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

@TheHollowCrucible: If Draft:King Falls AM passes the notability criteria (which we don't know yet) and reliable sources are added, the radio tower image from http://www.kingfallsam.com/ could be uploaded locally as the infobox/logo image. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 19:15, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

I still have more questions. . .

How do I ask User:Hammersoft a question in his nomination for admin rights? I want to ask: If your real life best friend was blocked on Wikipedia for intentional vandalism, would you unblock them? Ex-Borg Seven of Nine (talk) 16:54, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

• @Ex-Borg Seven of Nine: You can edit the RfA directly and add a question, similar to what was done with this edit. But, to answer your question; no, I would not unblock them as that is a direct violation of WP:INVOLVED. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:57, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, @Hammersoft:! I didn't know you were a host here! Ex-Borg Seven of Nine (talk) 17:30, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

• Actually I'm not :) When you linked my username above, the system let me know that you had mentioned me, so I came to look. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:19, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Somebody keeps posting Misinformation and lies on a few election pages here!

Some guy keeps posting misinformation on some election related pages. I delete them, but he keeps reposting. How can he be stopped from doing this obvious vandalism? BriscoeLogan20 (talk) 20:30, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

It's not vandalism. Two things can be true at the same time. See this edit on the main 2020 election page by a Wikipedia administrator. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 20:47, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Copyright question

What exactly needs to be provided for copyright use. Picture author said that for her using the picture is no problem but she has no knowledge of what she needs to provide me to go through Wikipedia copyright steps. Could you possibly provide me what exactly does the copyright owner provide me. It's about following wiki page I am trying to create - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Herthaaltedame/sandbox Herthaaltedame (talk) 20:23, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

@Herthaaltedame: Welcome to the Teahouse. The copyright holder should take a careful look at this page: Donating copyrighted materials. The page also outlines methods of waiving copyright. However, she should be aware that releasing the picture under Wikipedia's licence allows anyone to use it for their own purposes so long as where it comes from—attribution—is provided. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 21:08, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Bio

FYI

 – Heading added by Tenryuu.

I write my bio on wiki and i don't know when my bio is ready to be publish in web and google? Arsen.danga96 (talk) 17:40, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Arsen.danga96, articles don't get indexed unless they're in the article namespace. If you are writing about yourself, I strongly discourage you from continuing, as editors who do so find it really hard to write about themselves neutrally (especially if they don't have reliable sources). —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 17:50, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

You made a common beginner's error in trying to create an article on your User page. That is why it has been nominated for Speedy deletion. If that goes through (likely) all will vanish. The right place is either your Sandbox or as a draft. However, as Tenryuu wrote, Wikipedia discourages attempts at autobiographical articles. David notMD (talk) 21:19, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello request for deletation immidetaley

Hello, my name is elham emami a wikipedia page has been made under my name without my consent and I want to delete my page. Can you please help me how I can delete it ?

Thanks Montrealediting (talk) 18:27, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

@Montrealediting: Wikipedia does not need your consent to have an article about you. If there is incorrect information in the article, you can start a discussion on the article's talk page along with {{edit request}}. RudolfRed (talk) 18:49, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

There's a chance for the article to be deleted if it meets WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, where it states:

Where the living subject of a biographical article has requested deletion, the deletion policy says: "Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus, may be closed as delete."

If Emami is not considered a public figure (as a dean of a faculty that may be a little difficult to assert) one could put forth that argument. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 19:25, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Are we talking about the same Elham Emami? I would have expected such a highly qualified academic to have rather better writing skills. Please clarify what you think is wrong with the article.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 19:26, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Montrealediting has been blocked from article editing for making a legal threat (McGill Univ will sue Wikipedia). It seems likely that this editor is not Elham Emami, but is in some way connected. One Talk message claims to be son-in-law, acting for EE, who purportedly does not want to be the subject of an article. David notMD (talk) 21:26, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Reviewing

Some people like DannyS712 bot III have reviewer rights and can review pages. What does "reviewing" even do? 🔥LightningComplexFire🔥 19:11, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

LightningComplexFire, every new page goes through a "new page patrol" process where it's checked to make sure it's properly tagged, etc. Being a reviewer allows you to check off pages, which allows them to appear on Google. There's always a backlog that needs help; you can learn more at Wikipedia:New pages patrol, and once you're ready you can apply to become one. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:02, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

question

hi i'm new i am wondering what the teahouse is about — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bagthag (talk • contribs) 21:58, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

@Bagthag: Hi! The Teahouse is a friendly place where you can ask questions to get help with using and editing Wikipedia. We can answer whatever questions you have about editing, creating pages, etc., although you may want to look through the introductory tutorial to try figuring things out for yourself first. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:04, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Changing font size to print an article for visually impaired?

Changing font size to print an article for visually impaired? My 76 year old brother is visually impaired and is doing physics research. He does NOT have a computer. I must print articles and take to him. I can't seem to copy & paste an article in such a manner that I can then increase the font size so that he can read the article. In doing this all the equations are lost. One example is an article titled: Calculus of variations.

If I download the PDF it keeps the equations but I can't edit the font size on the general text. Is there anything short of having to purchase ADOBE ACROBAT to make this possible? This will be an ongoing issue. 50.82.62.160 (talk) 22:28, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Didn't you ask this a few days ago? I believe there were some answers to that. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 22:44, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Help_desk#Changing_font_size_to_print_an_article_for_visually_impaired? RudolfRed (talk) 22:49, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Ah, it was at the help desk. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 22:50, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Help

FYI

 – Heading added by Tenryuu.

Can you help me publish my favorite game art director articles please? I just added two new links with interviews with him:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:NinjaWarrior99#Video_games NinjaWarrior99 (talk) 22:47, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

• NinjaWarrior99, I would move your draft to its own page, Draft:James H. Dargie. You'll want to work on it to add references, etc. (see Help:Your first article), and once you're ready, add {{subst:Submit}} at the top. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:17, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, NinjaWarrior99. The trouble with interviews is that they are primary sources, not independent; so while they can sometimes be cited to verify a small amount of non-controversial factual information, close to 100% of the articles should come from independent sources, and interviews do not normally contribute to notability. Basically, Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources.. --ColinFine (talk) 23:20, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Category error

This category doesn't seem to show people included in this category. Why's that? --🔥LightningComplexFire🔥 (always @Ping: me when replying) 20:59, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

@LightningComplexFire: It is showing 20 members for me. Can you clarify what is missing? RudolfRed (talk) 21:16, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

@LightningComplexFire: You posted four minutes after adding the category via a template in [7] I guess the template edit had not propagated at the time. See Help:Job queue#Updating links tables when a template changes. It could take days in the past but has improved in my experience. Confusingly, it can still happen that a category is shown on a member page but the category page does still not show the member page. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:27, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

List of South African artists/ Nerine Desmond

On up to a dozen occasions over the last several weeks, I have tried to edit some details in her biography. Some of my corrections have been accepted. Others not, without explanation… The most glaring error is in the Biography section's opening sentence: 'Desmond was born in Constantia, Cape Town in 1908, the daughter of Nicolaas Johannes Smith, an Afrikaner clergyman, and Ivy Desmond.[2] ,[3] and London's Central School of Art in 1938, where she learned graphic-printing techniques; but was otherwise largely self-taught.'[4] Clearly this needs to be broken into TWO separate sentences; otherwise it is nonsensical! But some Wikipedia editor disagrees, without elaboration! For my correction continues to be overridden. Why? in the Career section, another correction I have attempted to make is of the sentence below: .[6] 'In 1948 she painted extensively in South West Africa (now Namibia); and in 1953 similarly in Zanzibar and Mombasa, Kenya.'[4]. The comments above clearly imply that she painted ‘en plein air’; à la Van Gogh, for example! That she lugged tubes of paint, plus an easel, even a canvas and turpentine in the case of oils, around with her! Clearly this is unrealistic. What she invariably DID was to make a sketch, noting shades of colours and other details. Only when she had returned home to her studio did she THEN start creating the painting! Again my comments (without my elaboration outlined above), have been inexplicably ignored… A minor irritation, earlier in this section, is the statement 'farm-related and rural subjects'. This is a tautology; 'rural' infers 'farm-related'! ```` DeSoto 383 (talk) 23:41, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

@DeSoto 383: Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and editors may disagree on what changes are needed or not. If someone reverts one of your edits, the next step is to start a discussion on the article's talk page to work on consensus for the changes. You can see WP:BRD for more info. You are now at step (D) -- discuss. RudolfRed (talk) 23:45, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

First Article Help

Hello! Looking for some assistance on my first article, Draft:Yahya M. Madra. It was declined when I submitted it for the first time a few nights ago, but since then I have shifted all of the citations to secondary and emphasized the points of notability, which is the two reasons for which it was originally declined. The page meets the eligibility requirements for WP:NSCHOLAR, specifically point number 8 as he is the editor-in-chief of Rethinking Marxism. Any help is appreciated with this. Thanks! Mysteriousmarx (talk) 19:50, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Mysteriousmarx, [8] and [9] look like your best arguments for the general notability guideline. A third independent source (perhaps another review of a work of his?) would be helpful in case either of those fall through. I'm not super familiar with NSCHOLAR, so I might be wrong about this, but it does look like you are correct about him meeting criterion 8, so I'm going to accept the draft on that basis. Since "major publication" is subjective, though, I can't guarantee that others won't interpret it differently if it gets nominated for deletion.

In terms of content, it all looks good; putting punctuation before references is the only thing I notice, and that's a small matter. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:29, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Sdkb Thanks! Will continue working on finding more sources like the ones you mentioned. Looking forward to creating many more pages beyond my first!

Mysteriousmarx (talk) 00:16, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Fixing dead links that are now behind a paywall?

I was just traipsing about the dead links category and found an article linking to very old newspaper article. The publication apparently used to have their archived articles freely available, but has since moved their archived articles behind a paywall.

The article: National_Bottle_Museum

The dead citation: Eck, Michael (May 27, 1999). "Bottles and Bottle Lore Plentiful at Museum". Albany Times-Union. Hearst Corporation. Retrieved September 25, 2009.

The Times-Union archive now lives at https://www.timesunion.com/archive/. Searching for the article title "Bottles and Bottle Lore Plentiful at Museum" yields the cited article behind the paywall. I couldn't tell what to do from looking at WP:DEADLINK or WP:DEADREF in the case where the cited material still exists and is technically available, just not available in this particular context.

I'm extremely new to editing and hope I can contribute to maintaining the project. Thanks for all your hard work :). Diskqualified (talk) 04:11, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

@Diskqualified: Ideally, the search results would at least give us a nice direct link to the article in question but no luck. What I'd do is:

{{cite news|last=... |url=https://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=AL&p_theme=al&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&s_dispstring=Bottles%20and%20Bottle%20Lore%20Plentiful%20at%20Museum%20AND%20date(all)&p_field_advanced-0=&p_text_advanced-0=(Bottles%20and%20Bottle%20Lore%20Plentiful%20at%20Museum)&xcal_numdocs=20&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&xcal_useweights=no|publisher=...|url-access=subscription}}

Template:Cite news § access indicators for url-holding parameters explains that last parameter there.

Then, go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request and see if anyone there can at least nab the article link to replace that gnarly search results URL. Cheers, Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 04:45, 16 December 2020 (UTC) fixed template code 05:00, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Who makes the page

If user A makes a draft and user B moves it to from draft to page then who is creator of the page? Adishere (talk) 05:53, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Adishere, A is the creator, having started the article.--Quisqualis (talk) 06:38, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Ads/Off-putting Sections on Wikipedia Pages

Hi! I am new to editing on Wikipedia.

I was Wikipedia binging as usual when I stumbled upon a section in the This_Christmas_(Donny_Hathaway_song) page. The section in question is the This_Christmas_(Donny_Hathaway_song)#Jess_Glynne_version. I know the section is probably newly added, but I'm wondering why this cover has a section dedicated to it that other more popular versions do not. I'm also confused why Amazon Music is referred to in the section and in a quote in that section.

I think this is a link to the first revision including that section: Revision

To me, just reading it is off-putting because it highlights a random, new cover and puts more focus on the owning company rather than the merits of the cover song.

My question is: Does this look like advertising (even if inadvertent) and has anyone seen things similar to this before on Wikipedia? Coolio274 (talk) 05:52, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Things like this do happen, Coolio274, and are often reverted. I removed the first mention of Amazon Music, and the source, which was Amazon Music (commercial and not a reliable source). As for the second part, which also mentions Amazon Music, it seems to me that some other source for the same basic facts, minus the fawning mention of Amazon Music in the overlong quote, would be a vast improvement, although you can feel free to bring up the issue of undue weight on Jess Glynne if you wish, on the article's talk page.--Quisqualis (talk) 06:49, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Why the censorship?

I am trying to add an external reference to a Wall Street Journal Newspaper article. I got a message that they were removed because "they did not appear to be constructive". Here is the article:

• Wall Street Journal Article Netflix’s True-Crime Character Assassination The streaming service wants to create a ‘cultural moment’ in documentaries that all seem to tilt left—especially against cops.

References

I am trying to add this to the external links section of the Wikipedia entry describing this television show. Why are you censoring this??? Et Tu Wikipedia? Sloanm (talk) 05:37, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

To be perfectly honest, Sloanm, that WSJ "article" is an opinion piece, and probably appeared on the op-ed page of the Journal. As such, it is a reliable source for the fact that the WSJ agrees with the author's stance. Your edits to Making of a Murderer simply added the web address for the article at inappropriate points in the lead paragraph of the article. In my opinion, you don't yet understand how Wikipedia works and how to edit it appropriately. I've left a welcome message with useful links which you can read to learn about constructive editing on Wikipedia--Quisqualis (talk) 07:03, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

How do I vote on proposals?

What does this mean? "Please use the {{support}} (or similar) template to express support, otherwise your vote will not count." What and/or where is this template? Kdammers (talk) 04:11, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

@Kdammers: the writer probbably meant to link {{Agree}}. Such templates are somtimes used in overy long discussions to make the standpoints clearly visible. Victor Schmidt (talk) 07:07, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Dudes With Harmony

can I write an article on dudes with harmony? they are a musical group into music production and they post their videos on youtube, they usually do covers of songs and other video, they are relatively popular on Instagram, and on youtube, so I was struck that they do not have an article on Wikipedia. Qt3jy (talk) 09:21, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Qt3jy Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Please review the notability criteria for musicians and bands. Note that posting YouTube videos is not listed(as anyone can do so); but if this group meets at least one of the other criteria, as shown with significant coverage in independent reliable sources, they may merit an article. Not every musical group merits an article.

Be advised that successfully creating a new article is the absolute hardest task to perform on Wikipedia. It takes much time and effort, and many people who dive right in without an understanding of the process and what is required fail in their first attempts and get frustrated and hurt that something they spent a lot of time on is getting rejected(sometimes mercilessly) for reasons that they don't understand. I don't want that to happen to you. I would suggest that you first spend time editing existing articles in areas that interest you, to get a feel for how Wikipedia operates and what is expected of article content. You may also wish to use the new user tutorial.

If you still wish to attempt to create a new article, you should read Your First Article and use Articles for Creation to create and submit a draft. 331dot (talk) 09:35, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Submission declined due to not reliable references

HI, Please suggest and guide me the article Name" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Rishihood_University" has been declined due to not reliable references. It's passing message like Most of the references are either press releases, blogs, or not reliable. Can I remove press releases, blogs related references from my article or is there required any changes?

Manojmishra06 (talk) 09:46, 16 December 2020 (UTC) Manojmishra06 (talk) 09:46, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Manojmishra06 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You may rewrite your draft to comply with the advice given to you. Please understand that a Wikipedia article must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about an organization, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. Press releases are not independent sources, as they are put out by the organization itself. Blogs are not usually reliable sources, as they lack a reputation of editorial control and fact checking. If there are no independent reliable sources with significant coverage(that goes beyond a brief mention), then the university would not merit an article at this time. 331dot (talk) 09:52, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Manojmishra06, most of the content in that draft is from what you call "press releases, blogs, or not reliable." But when you remove the "press releases, blogs, or not reliable," you get an article with most of the information not supported by, as said by 1997kB, a reliable source. The main point you must understand about WIkipedia is that we use mainly reliable sources. Example: news, books, science journals, magazines. The way your draft mostly rely on "press releases, blogs, or not reliable" makes it seem un-Wikipedia-worthy. You could try find other references, and let editors decide if it's reliable. This does mean "press releases, blogs" are not allowed-- they are, but not too much. If, sadly, the campus is still not notable, then you probably have to wait until it does. If you make yourself familiar with Wikipedia, you'll know the time when it becomes notable. GeraldWL 09:56, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Question by AssameseWritter

Why my Wikipedia get reject? AssameseWritter (talk) 11:07, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

@AssameseWritter: because it is unreferenced. All content on Wikipedia must be cited to a reliable source. self-published material or press releases may only be used in some cases. Victor Schmidt (talk) 11:14, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Jami Software

 Courtesy link: Draft:Jami (software)

I'M THE SOFTWARE DEVELOPER SO,RIGTH NOW I'M DEVELOPING THIS APPLICATION , AND I NEED YOUR ASSISTANCE, ABOUT EDITING. Kjgm (talk) 02:22, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

@Kjgm: Please don't shout; we can still read you loud and clear. Anything in particular that you are looking for assistance in? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 02:26, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

I need a reply as well.Thanks so much. All the best. Kjgm (talk) 02:26, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm the developer and I'm developing the jami software , application.So my question is can I edit myself? And reply me as well. Kjgm (talk) 02:35, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

As the developer, you would have both a difficult time writing a neutral article, as well as a serious conflict of interest, don't you think?--Quisqualis (talk) 05:43, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Jami (software)

There is no problem with WP:COI if editing is restricted to draftspace, or to suggest new contents or other improvements on the talk page. If you want to work on a fork of the article in draftspace or your userspace, feel free, Kjgm. — Charles Stewart (talk) 11:50, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Question

How can hi create a page on wikipidia Muhbel (talk) 11:28, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

To Muhbel, see WP:YFA for the full guide. GeraldWL 12:02, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Can someone protect China Southern Airlines page from vandalism edits

I wish you guys know that the page is currently unreliable, the source there are dated, and information are poorly cited. The airlines currently has over 860 fleet, according to Csair website, but the article fleet section only have some 600 fleets in total. The page needs to be protected, thus reliable source is needed to strengthen the reliability and quality of the page. #I undone one's vandalism edit recently. # Help protect the page. Hypersonic man 11 (talk) 05:36, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Hypersonic man 11, please put this post on the talk page of the article so people familiar with the subject can see it.--Quisqualis (talk) 07:26, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

• Hypersonic man 11, if the vandalism is frequent, you can make a request at WP:RFPP. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:35, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Hypersonic man 11, Keep in mind that the vandalism needs to be persistent for an article to be protected in some way. Look at the edit history of the article E for example. Le Panini ^[🥪] 12:32, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

@Hypersonic man 11: From what I remember of trying to work on aircraft/airline pages is that there's a lot of well-meaning editing that isn't actually vandalism. The problem is that there are many sources out there, and a lot of them are not reliable, or at least make no attempt to have current data for a specifically identified point in time. So, you have people copying numbers of various meanings (fleets, orders, retirements) from multiple sources that may or may not have been right at some unspecified point in time – basically, a mess. If discussion on the aricle's talk page gets no input, go to the talk page of the WikiProjects listed on the article's talk page and post a link to the discussion there. There are definitely some subject-matter experts on those projects who can make sense out of it. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 15:41, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Hypersonic man 11, I find outdated fleet inclusions to not be vandalism. It's basically just an outdated source. Kudos for tagging the section, but to call it vandalism is an overhype. I think when we aviation enthusiasts find inaccurate infos we tend to go apesh*t. Just relax, mate. GeraldWL 12:12, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

@User:AlanM1, sure, you can say there are many "well-meaning" edits out there without proper source. The problem is people delete large chunk of the article without reason. The source is cited there, there are 2 A319neo on order, what's next, one particular user delete the original "2" with source and change it to "1" without any explanation. I am sure you know what I mean, including user:Jetstreamer effort to fight someone's vandalism in the page. Moreover, "he/she" redo the article to get counts, he/she deleted part of the infobox without any-explanation. This is "vandalism"... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hypersonic man 11 (talk • contribs) 03:49, 15 December 2020 (UTC) @User:AlanM1, sure, but he/she don't know maths, deleted the original thing, and add a ... number...

Editing Wikipedia

Editing Wikipedia

Does fixing a little problem, such as a punctuation error or adding/removing one word count as a full edit? LunarLOL (talk) 12:22, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

LunarLOL, yes it does. When you edit, do something to the article, and publish it, it always counts as an edit. GeraldWL 12:28, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi LunarLOL, welcome to the Teahouse. All edits, including your post here, count as edits when edits are counted. There is no concept of a "full" or "non-full" edit. We have something called a minor edit but it's unrelated to edit counts. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:33, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Extended-Confirmed Protected User Qualification

Does the 500 edit benchmark include non-mainspace edits such as edits on talk pages? I might not have read Wikipedia:Protection policy throughly because I can't find it there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SenatorLEVI (talk • contribs) 12:38, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

SenatorLEVI, it counts everything, main and non-mainspace, song long as it is recorded in your contribs page. GeraldWL 12:41, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you.SenatorLEVI (talk) 12:42, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Converting Draft page to Wki page

How to convert draft page to Wiki's main source? Epic Dragstar (talk) 11:54, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Epic Dragstar, I would love to tell you how, but I'm sad to inform you that Draft:Free Fire(In-Game) is not a Wikipedia article type. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a fandom site or a subreddit. In fact you don't have to make that article, because there's already Garena Free Fire. You can also look at the article to see how a Wikipedia article is like. GeraldWL 11:59, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Epic Dragstar, see WP:MOVE on how to move a page.

Uploading a file... this is hard. Here's the thing: Wikipedia (and Wikimedia) only allows freely-licensed content (Creative Commons and public domain). This also means no NonCommercial and NoDeriviative files. Usually it's best to upload on Wikimedia Commons since it is globally available.

If you're uploading a copyrighted file, see WP:NONFREE. Basically you can only upload a copyrighted file is that file is, say, a film poster of a film that already has a Wikipedia article. Copyrighted files should NOT be uploaded on WIkimedia Commons. I can't really summarize everything here, just read WP:NONFREE.

And remember to sign your messages! GeraldWL 12:36, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, but for another drafts, please help me to convert drafts to Wikipedia's pages. And also, How to upload a file on Wikipedia?

I want to know that how to upload a file on English Wikipedia. I hqve tried it on Marathi Wikipedia. It is simple but on English wikipedia, it is hard. Just help me that how to upload files? Tell me in steps. 1. 'Upload file'option. Tell next 2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Epic Dragstar (talk • contribs) 12:48, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

You put "Draft:" in front of the name that you want for your article, and you work on your draft until it reaches the quality needed to be an article. When this happens, you add "{{subst:submit}}" to the top, and you wait.

Files are only exceptionally uploaded to Wikipedia. Why do you want to upload to Wikipedia and not to Wikimedia Commons? -- Hoary (talk) 13:28, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Uploading old pictures from family archives

I am trying to upload a number of WW2 pictures with commentary. All pics are owned by me inherited from my father. As I am trying to post pics and details to enhance info on this page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Pinon_(AN-66) I am getting a warning pics do not meet wikicommons standards. ProudSon2020 (talk) 22:50, 13 December 2020 (UTC) Can someone help explain what I need to do, thanks!

Hello, ProudSon2020. Did your father own the copyright to the pictures, or just the physical pictures? If you cannot demonstrate that he owned the copyright, then Commons cannot accept that you own the copyright, and have the right to license them. Sorry. --ColinFine (talk) 23:04, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Just to add to what ColinFine posted above, you might want to ask the members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history about this by posting a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. Even if you can demonstrate you own the copyright on the photos you want to upload, they still possibly might not be something suitable for Wikipedia as explained in Wikipedia:Image use policy#Photographs and Wikipedia:Image use policy#Adding images to articles. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:36, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello ProudSon2020. If your father was the photographer and took the photos as a personal hobby, then he was the copyright holder and, as his heir, you are now the copyright holder. If the photos were taken by your father or anyone else as part of their official duties as employees of the U.S. federal government, then they are in the public domain and no copyright exists. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:42, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Also, please explain what you mean by "commentary". RudolfRed (talk) 23:47, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

All, thank you for all the advice. Yes, the pics were taken by my dad and the few professional pics were from the military. I am just trying to share stories and details that would otherwise remain in a family album. Lots of important stories about how this generation served the US and hoping that a few of my dad's shipmates may have relatives that benefit from the information. Thanks again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ProudSon2020 (talk • contribs) 01:25, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

RudolfRed, Maybe "with captions". Le Panini ^[🥪] 00:53, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello again ProudSon2020. The photos are a separate issue. "Commentary" and "stories" and "details" are another matter. Wikipedia summarizes what published, reliable sources say about a topic, and no more. War stories that you may have heard from your father are considered original research and are not allowed on Wikipedia, as a matter of policy. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:07, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. Yes, stories are from what my father shared with me and his contemporaneous notes. Seems like a simple sharing has a few more complexities than expected. I will get all the pics posted and refrain from the storyline. Thanks to all for the help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ProudSon2020 (talk • contribs) 02:15, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

@ProudSon2020: From what I glean from the commments above, Wikipedia is not the best place for you, as you would have no control over your stories. You'd be better advised to get a Blogger account and build a free website where you can share these tales and images with no fear of interference from anyone else. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 03:05, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Adding on to Nick's comment, please be aware that any media content (including images here) can be reused by anyone for any purpose (as long as where they come from—attribution—is given). —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 03:45, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Nick Moyes, I have to disagree with you, which is rare. If this new editor has acceptable photos of the USS Pinon (AN-66), then the best would be a good addition to that article, which now lacks images. This may have been a relatively minor support ship, but it served in the waters around the United Kingdom, and then steamed all the way to the Western Pacific where it played support roles in the final assault on Japan. The photos belong on Commons and the best of them belong on Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:03, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

@Cullen328 and ProudSon2020: Point taken. My apologies to both of you - my take away message from skim-reading the thread too rapidly was about sharing parental tales, and I missed the very relevant point about using a specific image to illustrate a particular article. (My own father served on HMS Malaya during WW2, so this has also served to prompt me to more carefully read that article, too.) Nick Moyes (talk) 08:53, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

All, again, thanks for all the advice. I created a simple doc where I captioned the pics, added a few links from military sources to provide for the full crew roster and added a link to my father's obit. Would it be possible to send the doc to one of you for your best advice on what elements might be acceptable so I can at least make a small contribution to the page. I am starting to realize I make a better content contributor than page editor and have quickly come to recognize and appreciate the work you all do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ProudSon2020 (talk • contribs) 01:58, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

You can certainly email me. I do have a suggestion, though. You can create a category on Commons "Photographs by Proud Dad" (check their naming convention) and put some of the general info about your father there. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 14:40, 16 December 2020 (UTC).

How does dysfunction of the immune system cause cancer? (From the Immune System page)

How does dysfunction of the immune system cause cancer? 2603:6080:6403:83D4:C17:525B:D9C3:2A25 (talk) 06:56, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Teahouse hosts advise on matters of editing Wikipedia, i.e., are generalists. The proper places for science-specific questions are on the Talk pages of the articles in question. David notMD (talk) 07:26, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

That said, Immune system has a section on how the immune system reacts (or fails to react) to cancer, and also Tumors of the hematopoietic and lymphoid tissues describes how the immune system itself becomes cancerous. David notMD (talk) 07:37, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

WP:Refdesk is good place for questions like this. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 14:42, 16 December 2020 (UTC).

Help

I want to know the procedure of attaching the title cards and posters of drama serials to wikipedia articles HassanEsani (talk) 12:17, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Could you mean Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes? SnazzyInfinity (chat? • what I've done) 13:20, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

These will mostly be subject to copyright and if so will need to meet the standards for WP:Non-free content. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 14:51, 16 December 2020 (UTC).

Serious question about Wikipedia's userbase

Obvious trolling by a sockpuppet. Goose(Talk!) 15:14, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Are there any girls on Wikipedia? Just curious. I'm asking for a friend who's majoring in gender studies. Sincerely, Optic Sunflow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.76.95.136 (talk) 13:27, 16 December 2020 (UTC) Yes, there are. -- Hoary (talk) 13:29, 16 December 2020 (UTC) To be slightly more specific, try directing your friend to an "recent essay in Signpost on this topic".. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:34, 16 December 2020 (UTC) He says he's looking for hot ones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.76.95.136 (talk) 14:19, 16 December 2020 (UTC) Wikipedia is not Tinder, from what I can grasp of your query. GeraldWL 14:41, 16 December 2020 (UTC) "Gender studies". Just wanted to point that out. Le Panini [🥪] 15:04, 16 December 2020 (UTC) Note: This IP has been blocked as a sockpuppet. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:08, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Please i need help

 Pmpfilm (talk) 14:47, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Pmpfilm, Could you please specify what you need help with? We wish were psychic, we really do. Le Panini ^[🥪] 14:58, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Question moved from another section to its own. Giraffer ^munch 15:42, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Please i allready put my name and its look like some think is wrong

so please can you tell me why i can not see my name on Wikipedia??

Thanks

Omer Sarikaya — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmpfilm (talk • contribs) 15:38, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Pmpfilm. Unfortunately, like many people, you have completely misunderstood the nature and purpose of Wikipedia. It is not a place for telling the world about yourself. If you meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, then there could be an article about you. It would not belong to you, it should not be written by your or any friend or associate of yours, it will not be controlled by you, it will not necessarily say what you want it to say, and almost all of it should come from what people who have no connection with you have published about you. Please see WP:NOT and autobiography. --ColinFine (talk) 15:49, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Question

Hi, how can I add a flag of a country/branch of military alongside details like allegiance, unit, etc. in military infobox. Will be grateful for support JanglaKing (talk) 15:21, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

If this is about your draft article Draft:Adil Farooq Raja, see if the draft is approved as an article before adding any images to it. As a rule, images do not contribute to notability, so premature to do so. David notMD (talk) 16:01, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Did I create a page or is it in limbo?

Hi, I tried to draft a page in my sandbox then move it to wikipedia. It now has this address:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Charlotte_Weidler

It says it is a redirect from my user page? Is this correct? Or have I done it all wrong?

Thanks, Eli185 (talk) 15:24, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Charlotte Weidler is now an article. David notMD (talk) 16:02, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Barnstars

How do you create a barnstar? And will it get deleted for copyright? And what software should you use for creating the Barnstar? 🔥LightningComplexFire🔥 (always @Ping: me when replying) 15:32, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

@LightningComplexFire:, You can go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikipedia Awards to propose a new award. Le Panini ^[🥪] 16:02, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Two articles, same topic

When I created an article, currently unassessed, on Battenberg (lace), I completely missed seeing another article (actually, exploring further, I didn't, I added content to that one which mirrors what is in the one I created!), a stub, titled Battenberg lace. I am happy to work on combining the content into a cohesive whole, and expanding it if I can, but is there a recommended procedure for combining articles? And do I keep the older article and delete mine? Does one need special privileges to delete an article? Thank you for your guidance! TrudiJ (talk) 15:16, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

They should be combined. From a quick look, the earlier article has more info, and the first sentence of yours is redundant with it, so I would move all but the first sentence of your new article into the old one. One alternative to deleting your new one, after the move, might be to make it into a redirect page, pointing to the old one.Sullidav (talk) 15:31, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

@Sullidav: Thank you for your suggestion. I did combine the two, removing redundancies, and hope that I correctly turned Battenberg (lace) into the redirect, as you suggested. TrudiJ (talk) 16:05, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

How do I make new articles

Please i have so many artikel about my self how can to put all my artikel news link in Wikipedia? i am writer and Director Here is imdb link https://www.imdb.com/name/nm4470253/?ref_=pro_nm_visitcons

here is news links https://www.irishcentral.com/culture/entertainment/turkish-aid-irish-famine-movie

https://www.aa.com.tr/en/life/story-of-drowned-syrian-toddler-set-to-be-film/1517711, https://www.theguardian.com/film/2019/jun/28/alan-kurdi-syrian-toddler-drowned-turkey-steven-seagal-film https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/6/30/family-of-late-syrian-toddler-alan-kurdi-heartbroken-over-film

So please can do for me this?

Thank you Omer Sarikaya — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmpfilm (talk • contribs) 16:06, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

 Cursedaura7312 (talk) 15:53, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Cursedaura7312, you're going to want to go through the Articles for Creation process, but I suggest reading and understanding the page Your first article first. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 16:16, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Also, see Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors David notMD (talk) 16:21, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Cursedaura7312 making childish edits like this [10] will quickly lead to a block. Theroadislong (talk) 16:39, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

advice with article Penumbra (company)

I would like advice on how to improve this draft. I made changes after it was rejected the first time. I want to check before submitting it in again. Thank you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Penumbra_(company) Adamreinman (talk) 17:25, 15 December 2020 (UTC) Adamreinman (talk) 17:25, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

@Adamreinman: Welcome to the Teahouse. The reviewers seem to have raised two concerns:

• Questioning if you have a conflict of interest. If you do, please declare so on the article's (or draft's) talk page. If you are editing with a monetary association (e.g., being paid to do so or are in the employ of the subject) you will need to disclose that on your user talk page.
• Tone of the draft. Prose could definitely be better; there are many sentences that could be joined together to make it read less choppy. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 17:36, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Tenryuu. I don't have a conflict of interest. I saw the company in the news and wondered why there was no Wikipedia article about it. So it thought it would be a good learning experience. For the tone, do you mean having sentences and ideas flow more smoothly?   Thank you. Adamreinman (talk) 18:38, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

As written, the draft is a jumble of sentences on the business aspects of the company, science journal literature and accusations (disputed) of falsified research. Minimally, create sections for these aspects. David notMD (talk) 21:15, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Also, the draft as resubmitted should include what third parties have written about the company. Many corporate drafts consist of what the company says about itself. When a draft consists of what a company says about itself, it reads like a product information brochure. If the author is unable to find third party accounts that have written about the company, then the company may not satisfy corporate notability. Wikipedia is not for advertising. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:09, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

I can't add a bullit for the we charity cover up in the federal section, it will not let me add it to the federal list. I have a university degree but your platform is very difficult, if not impossible to add too

 173.206.145.50 (talk) 15:56, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

The WE Charity scandal is already described in the table of the article you attempted to edit - and in its own article - so you attempt to add more detail, with references, was reverted by another editor. The standard next step is to start a discussion on the talk page of List of political scandals in Canada to see if you can get agreement from other editors that We Charity is deserving of more details. David notMD (talk) 16:13, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Submitting incomplete articles?

can you submit articles that are not full but are not empty, just meant for other to edit and support it TheAboLaptopAccount (talk) 16:12, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

@TheAboLaptopAccount: If you mean a stub, then yes, as long as it fulfils the notability and verifiability guideline. You are still expected to write with reliable sources backing up your information as well. If you're asking about what's in your sandbox right now, do note that we have an article at perpetual motion that basically covers the same idea. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 16:30, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

@TheAboLaptopAccount: Stub can be tolerated, but the article must meet the notability and verifiability guideline. Generally, a stub can be improved over times, so we don't delete them. Regards, User:Hypersonic man 11!

Is this vandalism?

Is this vandalism?

I added more info to the Diwali page a month ago, like this: Diyas (oil lamps) to Diyas (oil lamps made of clay), and a bot (ClueBot NG) took it down as vandalism. Is it really vandalism or a bot malfunction? Vamsi20 (talk) 16:02, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Might be a malfunction --🔥LightningComplexFire🔥 (always @Ping: me when replying) 16:10, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

@LightningComplexFire what do I do then? View number 74 as that is the one this is the follow up to.  Vamsi20 (talk) 16:28, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

@Vamsi20: I moved your response to the right section – please don't start new sections to continue an ongoing discussion. You can report false positives to Cluebot here, but it is probably more work than it's worth, unless it happens again. --bonadea contributions talk 16:34, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! Vamsi20 (talk) 16:36, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Is it necessary to use 4 tildes to sign a Talk page comment if the commenting user is signed into his/her Wikipedia account?

While signed in to my account, I recently made some comments on a Talk page. When I reviewed my comments, I noticed that there was a notation that my comments were "unsigned"--even though I was signed into my account and my comments are associated with my username. Is it necessary to use 4 tildes to sign a Talk page comment if the commenting user is signed into his/her Wikipedia account? Thanks. Millipede (talk) 17:16, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

@Millipede: Yes it is required to use ~~~~ to sign your posts. By the way, it only works when you are logged in. When you are logged out, the software has no idea who you are. RudolfRed (talk) 17:26, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Millipede, welcome to the Teahouse. A bot does that for newer users if they forget, but it is customary to do so as otherwise it makes it much harder to follow who says what in discussions. There are some scripts, like Enterprisey's reply-link.js that append the signature to a comment without requiring the tildes. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 17:29, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Tests to create a page

My second Teahouse question of the day, what are the tests to pass for a Wikipedia page to be created? And can you explain them, as I will try to follow them and create one? Vamsi20 (talk) 17:16, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello @Vamsi20:, for a subject to qualify for a Wikipedia article you must demonstrate that it has received significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject, per the General notability guidelines. A subject can also qualify for an article if it meets a criteria at Category:Wikipedia notability guidelines. Thanks, Pahunkat (talk) 17:59, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

For obvious reasons, we don't allow articles which are pure advertising or attack pages. Pahunkat (talk) 18:11, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Admin?

Admin How can I become an Admin on Wikipedia. I like the community here and I would love to work my way up. Can you help me and give me a clear path to do so? Thank you! Armen2655 (talk) 19:58, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

@Armen2655: You need to establish a substantial history of work on Wikipedia and demonstrate you understand all the policies and demonstrate that you need the admin toolset to do the work you are interested in. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship for more info. RudolfRed (talk) 20:15, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Armen2655: There is no 100% easy way to get admin on Wikipedia (and I am afraid that you are unlikely to get admin in the next few years). There are a few formal reqirements. That being said though, people will want to seee thousands of edits and at least a few years of experience with Wikipedia. The main reason behind that is that they want to know who they are trusting to have the admin bit. I'll guess the fastest way is to stay around, make edits, get experience and dont be too surprised if someone suggests you to go for it in a few years ;-) Victor Schmidt (talk) 20:17, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

@Armen2655: Also don’t get yourself blocked, if you get blocked that really lowers your chances. But if you make good edits for the next few years that help the wiki and gain the community’s trust, I see no reason why you couldn’t become an admin... --sithjarjar ^{(talk | contribs | email)} 21:14, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Adding links to find relevant publications/interviews

Hello, i have already disclosed a COI to edit the page "George Jacob" and I'd like to add some of his publications/interview links. What is the best way to do this? I have been denied when trying to add the links, and when i tried to add a linktree. EditorAOTB2020 (talk) 19:05, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello, EditorAOTB2020. I'm afraid that it is unlikely that you will be permitted to add these links to Youtube. First, I am dubious that that they satisfy our policy on external links; and secondly because Wikipedia is basically not interested in anything that the subject has said, done, or published unless it has been discussed in independent sources. In any case, as a paid editor, you should not try to insert the links yourself, but should make an edit request, and uninvolved editors will decide whether or not they are suitable. --ColinFine (talk) 22:26, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Question On Draft: CTB, Inc.

In October of this year, I submitted an article for review about the company CTB, Inc (Draft:CTB, Inc.) I received a challenge regarding the nature of my relationship with this company. That person flagged the draft with an alert that reads "This article may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments, a violation of Wikipedia's terms of use. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies." In response to the person who reached out to me, I did disclose that I do work for a marketing agency that represents CTB, Inc., but that they did not compensate us for the Wikipedia article. We did this pro bono as a way to learn about Wikipedia (this is the first we have attempted to publish an article, so there is quite the learning curve). But, per the guidelines, I felt the disclosure was still warranted because I am paid by my employer...even if CTB, Inc. did not pay for these efforts. Since adding this disclosure, the flag about the violation of Wikipedia's terms of use still remains. Is there any way to get this removed since complying with the request? Or is that something done when this article is eventually reviewed? (Right now it says there's at least a 3-month wait for review, and we're about 2 months into that period). My concern is that when someone does look at this article for review, they will see that disclaimer and disregard the article out of hand. Any guidance would be greatly appreciated. Though our doing this on behalf of another company is said to be a violation, I'm also curious as to how there are several companies out there advertising the service of writing articles on behalf of companies for a pretty large fee (minimum $2,500) - and that's not a violation? Jthorp72 (talk) 21:56, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Jthorp72, sharks always cluster around a source of food. Wikipedia does not approve any company or person for paid editing, but allows them to edit provided they comply with all the requirements: if they don't and are detected, they are liable to get blocked from editing. If any of them are representing that they can guarantee that an article will be accepted, or that it will continue to be to the liking of the client, then they are either incompetent or fraudulent. --ColinFine (talk) 22:44, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Are filling in source citations and rearranging text minor edits?

I personally mark them as minor, as I count filling in a bare URL as [a]dding or correcting wikilinks, or fixing broken external links and references already present in the article, but I'm curious whether that is commonly accepted as I see other editors don't usually mark them as minor.

As for what I mean by "rearranging text", I mean changes on the scale of moving a sentence to another section heading in an article.

Sdrqaz (talk) 21:20, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

@Sdrqaz: Welcome to Wikipedia, and thanks for working to make it better. I think those are OK as minor edits, as long as you are not actually modifying the text and just moving it around. The guidance is "A good rule of thumb is that edits consisting solely of spelling corrections, formatting changes, or rearrangement of text without modification of content should be flagged as minor edits.", more detailed info at WP:MINOR RudolfRed (talk) 22:17, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, RudolfRed. I've been editing for a bit but just wasn't very sure if I was doing the right thing concerning minor edits. Sdrqaz (talk) 23:27, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

I still get messages to donate

I gave to Wikipedia, $3.25. I still get messages to donate. I already gave. May God Bless You In Jesus Name. 174.251.128.32 (talk) 11:49, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

May Jesus Bless You Too. GeraldWL 12:02, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

The software cannot tell who is at the other end of an IP address. Please create an account. Go to your Preferences, navigate to the Gadgets tab, and check the "Suppress display of fundraiser banners" box. For additional concerns please contact the Wikimedia Foundation at this email address: [email protected]. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 23:41, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Being descended from genghis khan

 Sidhu.ancx40 (talk) 23:28, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Sidhu.ancx40, did you have a question about editing or using Wikipedia? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 23:37, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

@Sidhu.ancx40: Descent from Genghis Khan —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 23:40, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Do you really descended from Genghis Khan, Sidhu.ancx40? Regards, Jeromi Mikhael ^(marhata) 00:22, 17 December 2020 (UTC)