Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1100

Archive 1095

←

Archive 1098

Archive 1099

Archive 1100

Archive 1101

Archive 1102

→

Archive 1105

Need a help

Hi Sir/mam, I'm writing on an article about an Indian Administrative Service officer. Draft:Divya S. Iyer, this is the draft. Can you please have a look at this? And let me, how about the sources ? Are they reliable or not? ProudMallu (talk) 14:21, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, ProudMallu, and welcome to the Teahouse. As your name suggests, you should be proud, as I think this draft is coming along quite nicely! The sourcing seems reliable, and the article's structure is quite readable. Outside of copy-editing for some small grammar mistakes, there are a few things I would do here. You don't have to do these, but they're just suggestions:

• I would move more material into the 'Career' section. For example, her taking the UPSC seems more relevant to her career as a civil servant than to her personal life, as does being sub-collector of Trivandrum and serving as mission director of NREGA.

• I would move the 'Personal life' section below 'Career'. In the case of most biographies on Wikipedia, 'Personal life' is typically at the bottom of the article above the 'See also' and 'References' sections, as these subjects' main appeal to most readers and their most notable works – much like Iyer's – are what they did in their careers.

• However, I would keep some of the material from 'Personal life' and create a section called 'Early life' where information like where she was born, who her parents are, and where she received her education can be placed.

• If you do use an article in Malayalam, I would use the 'trans-title' parameter in the citation template, which allows you to add an English translation of the article's title. This helps English-speaking readers who aren't literate in Malayalam understand the context of the article.

Like I said, I think your draft is coming along really nicely. Keep up the good work! TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 14:46, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Technician27 Thank you so much for the valuable comment.. Can you please review the article? Draft:Divya S. Iyer ProudMallu (talk) 15:06, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

TheTechnician27, can you check for sigcov from that sources. I have no objection regarding the reliability of sources. But Im still concerned regarding sigcov. Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 15:08, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

@Kashmorwiki: I don't really see the subject falling short of WP:SIGCOV – in wording or in spirit. I believe the sources cited in the article already push her above the notability threshold, and as icing on the cake, I don't doubt whatsoever that there are more Malayalam sources covering her in significant detail, as that's one of the two official languages of Kerala. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 17:42, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

TheTechnician27, Another reviewer has already declined the draft due to notability issues.[1]. Regards.Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 17:56, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

@Kashmorwiki: In that case, I disagree with the article being declined. There's a very clear spirit to the WP:GNG which I think can be broken down into five goals, namely to ensure that: 1) all of the information in our article can be reliably sourced (verifiability), 2) our article isn't just a bare minimum definition of a subject, 3) our article isn't just a rephrased/inferior copy of one or two sources, 4) our article isn't just clear self-promotion, and 5) Wikipedia doesn't become an indiscriminate collection of information. With that said, Novem Linguae seems to have made their decision contingent on what Onel5969 stated about the three sources Novem provided at User_talk:Onel5969/NPPSchool/Novem_Linguae#Draft:Divya_S._Iyer.

As an example, however, one of the sources from our article not provided was this article from the Deccan Chronicle. Likewise, there are still sources not included in the article like this one and this one from The Hindu – one of the highest-circulation newspapers in India and a known reliable source – discussing her involvement with a scandal as Subcollector that garnered sustained coverage from state-wide and even national media; this one, this one, and this one from a large, Malayalam-language news channel owned by Mathrubhumi, the second most widely read newspaper in the subject's state of Kerala; this one and this one from Asianet News – the market leader in Malayalam-language TV news; this one and this one from Manorama News – a large news channel in Kerala; this one from News18 Kerala; this one from the Business Standard; this one by the Deccan Chronicle; this one, this one, and this one from The News Minute, etc. I'm not trying to WP:REFBOMB this, but I really feel that, holistically, this paints a picture of a notable subject worthy of inclusion. One could bring up WP:BLP1E regarding the land transfer scandal, but at least 2 of the 3 criteria that all have to be met to invoke BLP1E are definitely not met (not low-profile; substantial, well-documented role in a significant event), and I would argue even the first one isn't met either, because Iyer has been covered be reliable sources in the context of multiple other events, including but not limited to her wedding, her gender equality activism, her voting rights awareness activism, and her role in the film Eliyammachiyude Aadyathe Christmas.

The prose itself still needs copy-editing, but – while I'm a NPP, not an AfC reviewer, and while Novem and Onel – Onel especially – both have more experience editing and reviewing than I do – I think this article should be approved and, should Novem object to its inclusion on grounds of subject notability, be brought to AfD. I had no deep involvement in creating this draft, I'm not from India, and I literally heard about this subject for the first time yesterday, but I really just see this as well-intentioned gatekeeping of an Indian subject whose level of coverage would basically be a shoe-in for an article on an American politician, and I genuinely think this subject's inclusion would be beneficial to the project. Which yes, I know, WP:OTHERSTUFF, but I'd be hard-pressed to believe that were this a hypothetical American politician receiving substantial, sustained coverage from reliable national and state-wide news sources that this draft (provided copy-editing) would receive this level of scrutiny, wouldn't be approved without such thorough consideration, and wouldn't handily survive a potential AfD discussion. I think ProudMallu picked a fine subject here for a first article and should – at the least, should their article's inclusion still be controversial – be given a chance to make a case at AfD. Ideally, however, I think this article should be copy-edited, have its 'Career' section expanded with Malayalam-language sources, and be given a fair shake to just exist in the mainspace. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 20:32, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

TheTechnician27. Hello friend. If you feel strongly about it, I'd be fine with you moving the article to mainspace yourself. Don't forget, moving a draft to mainspace is usually allowed. At the time I reviewed the article, it had 14 sources. I was confident that 11 did not pass GNG. I evaluated this source you mentioned as not passing GNG because there is only about a paragraph of information on her specifically, which is less than the standard I was taught of at least two paragraphs. After consulting with Onel, who is very experienced at new page patrol and AFD, he assessed the 3 sources I was unsure about as also not passing GNG. Of course, other sources may exist, but at AFC specifically, the onus is on the article submitter to provide those sources. The AFC reviewer doesn't do WP:BEFORE searches at AFC. In conclusion, feel free to move the article to mainspace, and maybe also add the sources you mentioned here. Happy editing. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:35, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

TheTechnician27, I really appreciate the effort and time you spent for analysing the sources in this article. As you know I'm a native speaker of Malayalam, I always tries to review the Kerala related articles because of the presence of large number of Malayalam sources in it. I have already moved two of the ProudMallu's articles into mainspace and I am happy that, he is giving some valuable contribution to this enyclopedia. In in this case, reliable sources exist and I agree with that. But I'm afraid that none of them are giving the enough sigcov to the subject. Even though, a search for the sources is not required in AFC review, I indeed did a WP:Before for both English and Malayalam sources, because I know the subject very well and has even met her once. But we need relible sources giving enogh sigcov to any topic to make it notable. In this case, I was not able to find any sources that gives her sigcov, even though most of them are reliable ones. Most of them are some trivial and incidential coverage rather than sigcoc. I hope you know that the AFC reviewing and New page reviewing are slightly different. In the case of AFC, the reviewer can decline the article if he/she feels the article has not enough sigcov. But in the case of NPP, you may tag it with required template or take it to AFD. Let me tell you a thing. If this article was directly created in mainspace, I would have only tagged it proper template (may not be notable) rather than going for AFD. I am not a very experienced reviewer. But I'm saying this based on my plenty of experience in AFD discussions. I hope you are clear. Please let me know in my talk page if you have any concern regarding this. Regards. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 03:36, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Source reliability

I was trying to edit West Bridgford F.C., specifically I was trying to source the ground and its capacity. I found this source:https://www.footballgroundmap.com/ground/regatta-way-sports-ground/west-bridgford, and was looking over WP:RS, and wasn't quite sure if it would be considered a reliable source or not. Thanks for your help! AnApple47 (talk) 06:44, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

AnApple47, welcome to the Teahouse! Based on [2] it seems a bit selfpublished, then again, it doesn't seem like very controversial info. In this particular case, try asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football (or WP:RSN if you prefer), perhaps they heard of it or know a better alternative. Or you can be WP:BOLD and see what happens. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:30, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Is there a tool/gadget to add projects on a talk page quickly?

Like we use Twinkle and Hotcat?

Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 07:35, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Nomadicghumakkad, WP:RATER does that pretty well. -Paul ❬talk❭ 07:53, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Can I have two wikifana's?

I'm Wikiotter and WikiPrairieDog. Also... Happy Saint Patrick's day. JennilyW (talk) 02:54, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

JennilyW, you can put whatever wikifauna boxes on your userpage that you'd like, or you can create them if they don't exist currently. Just remember that the purpose of a userpage is to help other editors understand your editing, not just an outlet to display your personality. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 03:50, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, whatever you do DO NOT make your page anything like mine. EEng 08:31, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Where can I talk about what I read in the wikipedia library?

I learned about the wikipedia library and downloaded What Is Several Complex Variables? by Steven G. Krantz. (Thanks to jstor and wikipedia). Based on what I read does mentioning the scope of complex analysis on the wiki project page, as well as being readable in the wikipedia library, fall within the scope permitted by the wikipedia library?--SilverMatsu (talk) 00:23, 17 March 2021 (UTC) SilverMatsu (talk) 00:23, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't fully understand your question. However, as I look at your recent edits, I guess that you have slightly misunderstood an amiable and helpful comment that you received in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics. The point was that you seemed unfamiliar with the markup conventionally used for discussions on talk pages -- note for example that this reply of mine is indented from the left, and that I've accomplished it with a single colon -- and that if it seemed hard to understand, then asking about it here ("Teahouse") would be a good idea. "Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics" is for the discussion of articles about mathematics, not for discussions about mathematics (other than what's necessary to produce good articles): many new editors are gently chided for using talk pages for article-unrelated discussions; but you weren't, because you didn't do that. As you discuss potential improvements to maths-related articles, of course you can (and often must) mention the relevant maths. -- Hoary (talk) 02:21, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

@Hoary: Thank you for the advice. To be a little clearer, I'm discussing the article name of several complex variables, and if we're an editor editing an article with some passion (of course I need to calmly accept the advice), I noticed that we can access the wikipedia library. I thought that the content I read could be reflected in the article space with some moderation ( i.e. With the same standards as books on sale), but I am wondering if the content can be used for discussions on the talk page based on the same criteria as the article space?--SilverMatsu (talk) 08:07, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library (TWL) seems to be something of an abstraction; I suppose you're talking about its "Library Card Platform". As I now understand it, you were able to access Krantz's paper (doi:10.2307/2323391) thanks to TWL. The paper was published in The American Mathematical Monthly, a well-respected source. In common with the huge majority of Wikipedia editors, I am not competent to read papers published there. If you can understand this paper (which I haven't looked at), then you are welcome to employ it in articles. The fact that you were able to access it thanks to TWL does not affect this in either way. If you believe that insights in Krantz's paper should persuade Wikipedia to retitle one or more pages, you're welcome to suggest the retitling (or "move", as it's called), of course citing Krantz, on the talk page(s) of the relevant article(s). If you find Krantz's paper and the mathematical issues it raises fascinating, you suppose that the people who look at the talk page(s) are far likelier to be able to discuss the issues than are other people you can think of, then no, please don't attempt to start a discussion on the talk page(s), because the talk page for odious number, for example, is not for discussion of odious numbers or number theory but instead for discussion of how to improve (or retitle or merge) the article "odious number". When you signed up for TWL's Library Card Platform, you undertook to observe various restrictions (for example, that you must not send your friends or others the PDFs that you obtained there). But I see nothing in the "about" page about any distinction between articles and their talk pages; rather, "The Wikipedia Library provides free access to research materials to improve your ability to contribute content to Wikimedia projects", and in my view the intelligent citing of material on talk pages would be part of the work of contributing content. (Note by the way this is about "Wikimedia" and not "Wikipedia" projects: Wikimedia projects are listed here and you'll notice that Wikipedia is one of them.) -- Hoary (talk) 09:49, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Is Minecraft@Home notiable enough for it's own article?

I have make an article about Minecraft@Home a long time ago, when I think they have good reasons to be included to Wikipedia. However, it got deleted by (A7: Article about a club, society or group, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject), and it is quite reasonable when I think about it for a while. However, it has been the pioneer in many areas of volunteer computing project, and after read many guidelines, I think that although little coverage is made in this part of the project, but I think it is worth it for inclusion. These reasons are:

• First noticiable non-scientific project, which meant to promote and spark intrest in volunteer computing, similar to SETI@Home, however in gaming category
• One of the few projects that gain substancial publicity
• Many articles are written about the projects, many of them tell about the project itself

Would it be a good inclusion to Wikipedia, or it still lack significance/notability/too specfic? DrifAssault (talk) 10:13, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

DrifAssault, you won't establish that Minecraft@Home is notable enough to warrant a WIkipedia article by listing bullet points about it here. The only way is to find several reliable independent published sources with extensive discussion of it. I've had a quick look, and haven't been able to find any such sources; others may be able to do better. Maproom (talk) 10:29, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't see any article discussing about Minecraft@Home, so I don't think it should be added to Wikipedia too. Thank you for telling me that! DrifAssault (talk) 10:37, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Contentious information BLP

Hello everyone, a public figure is complaining that their Wikipedia page contains wrong information about their age. The article about them contains multiple contradicting info from multiple sources, some of which are from the yellow press and are not supported by any evidence. Can they provide a legal identification document so that the information is corrected? If this is possible how to do so without compromising their personal information? Disclosure: I am a close acquaintance of this person but I am not related in any way to their field of work or their representative. I have edited arabic and french Wikipedia without registering because I wanted to stay anonymous given my relationship with a politically engaged family in a conservative country. Mohamed watdi (talk) 10:02, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Mohamed watdi There is no central location to send legal documents to, and in any event you should not send copies of personal identity documents to anyone, to prevent identity theft. If any information is sourced to a poor source and not based in evidence, that should be removed and, if challenged, discussed on the article talk page. If reliable sources are contradictory, probably no information about the person's age or birthday should be in the article until more sources have the same information. If this individual has a verified social media page with their correct age on it, that could serve to support the use of independent sources with the same age. 331dot (talk) 10:07, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Mohamed watdi. Given they way you've described your relationship with this other person, I suggest you take a close look at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest since it seems like it will apply to your situation. Then, I suggest that both you and your friend to take a look at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Relationship between the subject, the article, and Wikipedia because it relates to this type of thing. In addition, unless you're willing to at least provide the name of the article you're referring to, it's going to be really quite hard for other Wikipedia editors to try and help you and your friend sort things out. Finally, each Wikipedia project has it's own separate policies and guidelines as well as it's own editing community. The advise you're receiving here pertains primarily to editing on English Wikipedia. Other Wikipedia's may do things similarly to English Wikipedia, but there might also be some things that are done very differently. So, if the problem you're describing is also an issue on the Arabic Wikipedia and French Wikipedia, you're going have to try and resolve it on those Wikipedias. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:47, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

My first article content

Hello Dear Moderators, My first article content was deleted "under CSD G11, as unambiguous advertising." Now I want to know can I create the same content in a new and innovative way? Because I have researched a lot about this org. Kindly help me to know how to proceed now ButlerJan (talk) 11:10, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

ButlerJan You may try, using articles for creation, but it will need to be radically different from your earlier submission. That was sourced almost entirely to press release-type stories or announcements of routine business activities. Wikipedia articles must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a company(in other words, no press releases, interviews with staff, the company website, or other primary sources) showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. I might suggest that you read Your First Article and use the new user tutorial to learn more about Wikipedia.

If you have an association of some kind with this company, please review conflict of interest and paid editing for information on required formal disclosures. 331dot (talk) 11:36, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

ButlerJan, it might help to note that Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. --ColinFine (talk) 12:16, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

@ButlerJan: I have no access to a deleted content, so I can't judge on what you wrote. But for all cases of "unambiguous advertising" it might help to look at the problem from my (i.e., a random reader's) point of view.

• I live in another country, and possibly even on another continent.
• I have never heard about the described company, organization or society; probably I will never purchase or use their product, service or social achievement.
• I am also not likely to donate to it or promote it elsewhere.

So I do not need to learn how wonderful it is; I'm not going to get in touch and I don't care about their internal magnificence. If I am to spend my time on reading, I would like to learn why it is important – for economics, politics or humanity on some non-local level. How it influenced or influences our world. Not what the subject achieves for itself, but rather what it does to us. What we all get or loose due to its existence and activity. --CiaPan (talk) 12:43, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia Library

Why is Wikipedia library have such tight control. I have found material related to a draft I'm working on but couldn't read it because of paywall. I thought I could use Wikipedia library but I have to have 500+ edits and 6 months. Why is this? Gandalf the Groovy (talk) 12:33, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Gandalf the Groovy I'm not certain, but I think it's to prevent the general public from simply using Wikipedia Library to evade paywalls- to make sure that people are legitimate Wikipedia contributors. If you have a specific need for the permission early, you can request it at WP:PERM. 331dot (talk) 12:41, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

What would be a specific reason to request access to the Library without meeting all requirments? Gandalf the Groovy (talk) 12:46, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Gandalf the Groovy I cannot tell you what your reason is for wanting the permissions. If you have a reason, use that in your request. That reason should be related to how giving you the permission before meeting the requirements would benefit Wikipedia. If you have further comment, please edit this existing section, instead of creating new sections. 331dot (talk) 12:51, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

How can I add a good article icon?

I was just done reviewing Woodrow Wilson, and I think the article looks good. How can I add the icon? Blue Jay (talk) 12:31, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

@The great Jay: You need to take four steps:

1. see what a Good Article is at Wikipedia:Good articles,
2. see how they are nominated for the 'GA' class at Wikipedia:Good article nominations,
3. see detailed instructions at Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions,
4. ...and follow them.

(Be aware step 4. consists of its own several steps, described in 'Instructions'...)

Good luck, I hope the article passes the review and gets its 'GA' badge. --CiaPan (talk) 12:52, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The great Jay, hello, friend! You cannot just add a GA icon. You must nominate the article so it can be thoroughly reviewed against the good article criteria. You can view the instructions here. Thanks, EDG 543 ^{(message me)} 12:54, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Actually, Woodrow Wilson has been nominated, and The great Jay is the reviewer. David notMD (talk) 13:00, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Is vandalism good

 CupOfTeaRBXReal (talk) 13:01, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

No. Victor Schmidt (talk) 13:16, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

CupOfTeaRBXReal, vandalism on Wikipedia is defined as "editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia." So, no, vandalism is in no way good. Not only does it discourage or confuse readers, it also wastes a tremendous amount of time as editors like myself have to constantly monitor for it. It also hurts the vandal, as they end up wasting their own time making a funny edit on Wikipedia instead of doing something useful with their life. Please don't vandalize. Thanks, EDG 543 ^{(message me)} 13:29, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

You vandalized Independence twice, and put misleading descriptions in the Edit summaries. You created a draft that was speedy deleted as an attack article. You replied "I hate you" in response to a Warning. Continue on this path and you will be blocked. David notMD (talk) 13:36, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

David notMD This editor - CupOfTeaRBXReal is non stop doin Vandalism. I saw his recent edits on Independence I suggest to block his account from editing. Research Voltas (talk) 13:51, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Research Voltas, I believe this user has been given sufficient warning—there is no need for an immediate block. Thanks, EDG 543 ^{(message me)} 13:58, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Identifying and removing portions of a page that appear to have a COI

Samswee (talk) 14:00, 17 March 2021 (UTC)The paged was flagged portions appear to have been written by someone close to the subject. No indications of which portions and consequently no easy way to correct. How do I communicate with the monitor to determine exactly which protions are offensive Samswee (talk) 14:00, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Samswee, and welcome to the Teahouse. If you look at the history of the article, you should be able to see who the editor was that added that tag. You can either ask on their User talk page, or it might be better to open a discussion on the article's talk page (assuming they didn't) and ping that editor. Note that the notice says that they have reason to think that somebody with a COI has edited the article: it doesn't necessarily mean that they have seen anything in the article which is suspect, just that they think somebody should check it. --ColinFine (talk) 14:46, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

what is appropriate to send to wikipedia?

i did post couple of post's which was what i though relative to content like on page with pokemon=mewtwo i put link mewtwo.co.uk after that owner of that site changed site content and wikipedia blocked /deleted my content so i want to know if content what i post has to be relative at all times or also how will i know if content i post is correct to post and why some content is not correct or what makes content correct to post. thank you Fortniter2728 (talk) 14:38, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

You don't need to do anything for WP.Before learning what's WP is WP : Wikipedia , WP : My first article ,WP: Sandbox ,WP : Notable.Research Voltas (talk) 14:59, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Fortniter2829, and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia is a collaborative project: we work by consensus, but sometimes it takes some work to get to that consensus: see BRD. When another editor reverts your edit, it means that that editor thinks that your edit was not an improvement. Sometimes this will be because they can see that you are not editing according to Wikipedia's policies; other times, it will be just their personal opinion that your change was not a good one. Either way, if you want to know more, or you are sure your edit was for the better, the thing to do is to engage that editor in discussion, as explained at the link I gave above. In this caese, I haven't looked at the edit specifically, but it sounds as if you added an external link, and those are not allowedin the body of articles: see external links. --ColinFine (talk) 15:06, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Edit Count

Where do I check to see my total edit number? Gandalf the Groovy (talk) 13:45, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Gandalf the Groovy, just go here: xtools.wmflabs.org/ec/en.wikipedia.org/Gandalf%20the%20Groovy Thanks, EDG 543 ^{(message me)} 13:52, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

@Gandalf the Groovy: It is also visable if you click the "Preferences" link at the top of the page. RudolfRed (talk) 15:20, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Page Creation

Is there a place where I can hire/enlist the services of an accomplished editor to create a page for me? I want to create a page for my book series. 4-5 pages in total. Mojarra69 (talk) 14:37, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

You have to read WP:COI and WP:My first articleResearch Voltas (talk) 14:41, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Mojarra60, and welcome to the Teahouse. I fear you have a very common misconseption, that Wikipedia has anything at all to do with telling the world about your activities and creations - that is called promotion, and is forbidden on Wikipedia. If your book series meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability - roughly, that several people wholly unconnected with you and not primed by you, have chosen to write at some length about your books and been published in reliable sources, then we could have an article about your books. It will not belong to you, you will not control the contents, and it will be based on what those independent accounts say, not on what you say or want to say. You are discouraged from creating such an article yourself, but not forbidden; however, if your books do not currently meet the criteria for notability, then the article will not be accepted, and any and all work you put into creating it will be wasted.

If you are convinced that the independent sources exist which will establish notability, then you may post at requested articles, but in truth the chances of your request being acted on are very low. You may, as I indicated, try to write it yourself, but creating a new article is extremely difficult for inexperienced editors, even without a conflict of interest. As for hiring somebody: we can't stop you doing so, but I would advise that it is a prime way to waste your money. If the series is not in fact currently notable, then nobody can make an article be accepted, and somebody who represents that they can is either ignorant about Wikipedia or lying.

I realise that this advice is not what you wanted to hear; but I would sum it up by saying, please find other channels for your promotion. --ColinFine (talk) 15:01, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree 100% with what ColinFine wrote. Your attempt - Draft:The Search For Synergy has been declined twice because of lack of references that convey what Wikipedia considers notability. Hiring someone would also fail, as references do not exist. Wikipedia articles about books (and book series) do exist, but that is because people with no connection to the author or publisher have written about the book. David notMD (talk) 15:24, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia

How does your page be archived by Munninbot Ima Jewels (talk) 14:54, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

At Teahouse, new questions come in so fast that the older content, sometimes just a week or so older, gets archived automatically, whether it was answered or not. If, by "your page" you meant your own Talk page, that content does not get archived unless you set up an archiving system. David notMD (talk) 15:29, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

@Ima Jewels: This archiving is done by a bot, an automated computer program, which is why they did not respond to the question you asked on your talk page. Thanks, EDG 543 ^{(message me)} 15:33, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

(e/c) Hi Ima Jewels. I am not entirely sure what you are asking (or more properly, the words you used seem to be asking for a description of the methodology Muninnbot (notice the reversed en's) uses to do its archiving of this page, which I kind of figure is not really what you're looking for. If you're asking about how you can have your talk page automatically archived, please see Help:Archiving a talk page. If that guess is wrong, can you please go into a little more depth as to what information you're seeking? Thanks!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:32, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Question

Can you create an another account if you forgot your Wikipedia password? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:CA:4000:44A0:7474:7C90:6DFF:1518 (talk) 17:14, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes. Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry § Legitimate uses says: "Compromised accounts: If you are unable to access your account because you have lost the password or because someone has obtained or guessed your password, you may create a new account with a clean password. In such a case, you should post a note on the user page of each account indicating that they are alternative accounts for the same person. If necessary, you should also ask for an admin to block the compromised account. You may want to consider using a committed identity in advance to help deal with this rare situation should it arise later." Kleinpecan (talk) 17:21, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Also on your new account if you go to preferences and add an email address it becomes possible to ask for a password reset in future. ϢereSpielChequers 17:42, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Note you can use help for resetting password if your account was associated with an e-mail address that you still have access to. It is obviously sensible to set up accounts with associated e-mail addresses so you can get various notifications. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:45, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

confirming my article

hi good evening Mr heaphy . i found your profile on wikipedia as a mentor and volunteer in helping new editors on wikipedia . i need help in this procedure . can you please help me finish my article . my article is: about a person = masoud shafaghi best regards neda sajedi Neda.sajedi (talk) 14:56, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy Draft:Masoud Shafaghi. Teahouse hosts are here to advise, but not to become co-authors. Improving the draft is up to you. When you think it is good enough, submit it to AfC. Please do not reach out to individual editors to ask for help on your article. Everyone here is a (busy) volunteer. David notMD (talk) 15:32, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

In the draft, you claim that all of the images, spanning a five year period, are your own work. Is this true? David notMD (talk) 15:39, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

@Neda.sajedi: While I am too busy to co-author, I did help you out by doing some general cleanup and expanding the references on the draft. Thanks, EDG 543 ^{(message me)} 15:42, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

The draft starts by claiming that he's an inventor, but makes no mention of his ever having invented anything. Maproom (talk) 17:46, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Assistance with Neutrality of the page

Hello Teahouse Guests, I was creating a page for a religious leader that I have been working on the documentation for as of last week. I finally compiled it and laid it out in the manner I thought most suitable for the encyclopedia and my page was rejected. I have since gone through and done more editing, but I am concerned it will get removed again because it is not neutral enough. I have read the guidelines and I believe I followed them but was wondering if I could get an experienced set of eyes to read through the page and see if they find any glaring issues? I know its a big ask as the page is quite long, but any and all assistance is helpful. Thank you for your time. 35.137.153.242 (talk) 17:47, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Which page? Your IP address has no other edits. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:10, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

How to re-confirm my e-mail address?

Hello.

I joined Wikipedia about ten hours ago. I confirmed my e-mail address just now, but then stupidity un-confirmed it by clicking on a different link on the same page (because I didn't read the instructions well enough).

I tried to confirm it again, but got a message saying, "The code has expired".

How can I go about re-confirming my e-mail address?

Thanks, Username: "Kisevalter Was Nash" (trying to change it to "Was Kisevalter Nash?"). Kisevalter Was Nash (talk) 16:37, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

@Kisevalter Was Nash: You have to request a new verification code. The link is in the email section of Special:Preferences. Victor Schmidt (talk) 18:30, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

First submission

Hello! I recently submitted my first article regarding my grandfather and his career as a renown salsa dancer. I've come to learn that not only writing from a biased point but also writing about a relative, becomes a conflict of interest and goes against the guidelines of Wikipedia article writing. My question then would be who could I resort to in order to write this article, it is his wish that his accomplishments and story lives on this page where people may find him after he is gone. I'd like to understand the proper way to go about this without causing any conflict.

Thank you. Ddsaso 7 (talk) 18:56, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Ddsaso 7 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. A Wikipedia article is not meant to be a memorial to the subject. It should summarize what independent reliable sources have chosen on their own to say about (in this case) the person, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. You did proceed in the correct way by submitting a draft for review; please look at the advice you were given there for more information on how to proceed. If you just want to tell the world about your grandfather, there are places like social media or other alternatives with less stringent requirements and would allow you to have a more personal touch when writing about him. 331dot (talk) 19:06, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Ddsaso 7. You did the right thing to submit a draft for review, and you're welcome to keep working on that despite your conflict of interest. However, please note that Wikipedia articles should be based entirely on what published, reliable sources say about the subject, so you can't include anything that's based on your personal knowledge of your grandfather (unless it can also be supported by a published source, such as a book or newspaper article). Please see WP:VERIFY on this. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:09, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

How to report vandals and about vandalism

I came across a article where user:2A00:23C7:9F1E:1401:958E:2969:7B80:4B54 did Vandalism, it's vandalism is reverted but this account must be blocked.And how to report such bands ? Research Voltas (talk) 14:30, 17 March 2021 (UTC) Look at this user vandalism User:112.203.14.190 he edited parents & teachers deceiving childrens by saying them education is key to success. What a joke ! Research Voltas (talk) 14:35, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

The first IP address you mention was fixing vandalism, Research Voltas. In any case, the article has been restored. In general, see WP:vandalism. --ColinFine (talk) 14:49, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

One problem with vandalism from IP addresses is that the activity may be from a computer that multiple people have access to, such as at a library or school library. I suggest reverting obvious vandalism, but don't bother with a warning unless there is repeated activity. David notMD (talk) 15:17, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

HiUser talk:David notMD ,ColinFine I found a strange editor , who in past did vandalism , and used wrong means to increase his edits by editing on his user talk page. Some admin warned him but he's deliberately replying them in Malyalam language and mixing this local language words in you must warn him for doing this or block from editing.previously he was block and now someone unblocked him.he's account is User:AARYA SAJAYAN Research Voltas (talk) 19:29, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello User:Research Voltas, I am the user that you mentioned User: AARYA SAJAYAN. Actually I was not familiar with the policies only when some senior editors talked to me and gave me a warning I was aware of the issues that I committed. Thanks for your concern over me. I would be a great editor, as I have thoroughed all polices and terms and conditions. Now currently after the warning I have been a good editor. not committing any problems. Thanks AARYA SAJAYAN (talk) 17:03, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

What is a cute error, tag. Is missing the closing

 134.41.46.92 (talk) 16:20, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "cute error." If you are doing something that requires a closing tag, like citing a source or producing a strikethrough, that means that you need one tag at the beginning and another at the end. For example, when citing a source in its most basic form, you would do this: <ref>example.com</ref> . Notice that the first tag is just <ref>, but the second one has a slash: </ref> . You need to remember to add the slash in the second one, or it won't work. I don't know if that is what you were trying to ask, but there you go. Thanks, EDG 543 ^{(message me)} 16:31, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

@EDG 543: Cute = Cite (or at least I would lay money down at 100 to 1 odds on it). Whenever you see that red error message, 134.41.46.92, it always contains the following: "(see the help page)", with "help page" in blue color, indicating it's a link to a page attempting to explain how to address the error message.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:18, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

WE HAD IT COMING

I am trying to add the official page for WE HAD IT COMING, which is a film I wrote, directed and produced. It is in the sandbox right now waiting on approval. what else is there to do. Wolrdpress2021 (talk) 17:34, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Wolrdpress2021, follow this link: WP:SUBMIT. Also take the time to read WP:COI. If this is accepted as an article, it will be WP:s article about this film, not "the official page". Good luck! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:10, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: user:Wolrdpress2021/sandbox TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:20, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Also per WP:COI, please stop editing Paul Barbeau. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:30, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Here you state that it is your film, but on your Talk page you state that you are an unpaid acquaintance of Paul Barbeau. Pick one. Either way stop editing the PB article, as COI exists. David notMD (talk) 21:01, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Articles Rejection

Hello, editors.

I don't know what I am not doing right, like every article I tried creating on Wikipedia always get reject; either they say it is promotional or something and it is not true as I don't have any connection with the subjects I tried creating the articles on.

Please help me out or is there a pattern in writing articles that I am not following? Horlaseun (talk) 20:20, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Draft:SuperWozzy was deleted last year. What other articles have you tries to create, as you Contribution history does not show any others? David notMD (talk) 20:59, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Horlaseun. Promotional writing is about content, and not necessarily anyone's relationship with the subject of the writing – though a connected relationship highly correlates with promotional sounding content. Looking at Draft:SuperWozzy, it reads like you are casually blogging about a friend and how much you like them, with unsourced evaluative turns of phrase that only an insider could even know to write about (and uses very informal language). No encyclopedia article would ever say anything remotely like "he never allowed this exposure to influence his character ... with ... wisdom [the subject has a] "balance in his life that many of his childhood peers were missing" – I can't even come up with a suitable replacement as an example, because there's no factual content here to even transform; it's completely unecyclopedic material. Here's what I suggest for any topic you want to write about:

1. compile a list of reliable, secondary, independent sources that treat the topic in substantive detail;
2. if you can't make that list with at least three entries; write nothing;
3. if you can, write only what those sources verify (without copying the words used);
4. cite the verifying sources as you go; and
5. include only "hard facts" from them – no evaluation whatever; try to avoid adjectives.

Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:04, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I just discovered that the draft was a copyright violation and plagiarism. I will be leaving a note about this on your talk page, Horlaseun. Don't ever do that again.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:10, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Company Profile

I am looking to publish about a company (skincare brand recently launched under notable parent company. How can I get this profile to not be deleted immediately? Wikipedia says it judges notability by at least 3 high quality sources. Any other advice? Shikobeautycollective (talk) 18:18, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

You were just blocked because WP:ORGNAME (not uncommon). Take the time to read WP:NORG and WP:COI. If you still want to give it a go, WP:YFA is next. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:27, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Shikobeautycollective: Several things. First, your user name can’t suggest a company, due to promotional restrictions. See WP:USERNAME Second, read WP:COI about writing about yourself or your company. Thirdly, an option is to add the info as a section to the parent company article. The notability guidelines (WP:GNG and WP:NCORP) for that option are not as high. If there are more reliable sources, a content “fork” with a new standalone article might be possible. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)}

Hi Shikobeautycollective. Yes, three high quality sources is an oft-mentioned rule of thumb, but that are entirely unrelated to the company, and that treat it substantively (not mere mentions) on which a verifiable article can be based. A "recently launched" anything might be written about by third parties in substantive detail, but most of the time? No. I suggest reading Wikipedia:Common sourcing mistakes (notability). If the right types of sources don't exist, with suitable depth of treatment, don't waste your time. And if they do, after you choose a better user name, you must comply with Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure first. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk)

And note, Shikobeautycollective that what you create will not be a "profile". In particular, it will not in general report what the company wants to say about itself, but rather, what independent commentators have published about the company, even if the company does not like what they say about it. --ColinFine (talk) 21:21, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

templates

I am copyediting articles and don't know how to verify information in a template. Where do the writers get their templates? Is there a library of templates or do they make up their own? OodFloo (talk) 21:48, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi OodFloo. Please see Wikipedia:Template index. Here's a tip for finding relevant policies, procedures and guidelines, and most anything else you hear mentioned by regular editors, or come across in Wikipedia's interface. Type "WP: (an easier-to-type alias of "Wikipedia:") into the search box, followed by the word or phrase you heard (in this case "TEMPLATES"). Most of the time, this will quickly locate a targeted, behind-the-scenes information/help page, or how-to guide. See more at Help:WP search protocol. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:52, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Links

Is it ever appropriate to include dozens of external links in the body of an article like this: Tiny Desk Concerts TipsyElephant (talk) 00:01, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

@TipsyElephant: Per guidance at WP:EL, no. Converting them into references should be fine. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:08, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

The problem dates to May 2020, when User:Rshdobbin started inserting what are now more than 100 hyperlinks into the article, all to the concert performances at NPR. David notMD (talk) 00:21, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I kind of figured. I was just wondering if there was an exception I wasn't aware of yet. TipsyElephant (talk) 00:25, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

@TipsyElephant: Dozens is understated. There are around 1100. Some corners of Wikipedia do use external links in the body against point 2 at Wikipedia:External links#Important points to remember. List of MeSH codes (D02) has around 2500. But that seems more reasonable when the MeSH codes cannot be wikilinked. The musicians in Tiny Desk Concerts#List of concerts would normally be linked to their articles. External links will surprise many readers who don't know the icon. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:49, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

The site has an archive with the links at https://www.npr.org/series/tiny-desk-concerts/archive. There is a suggestion at Talk:Tiny Desk Concerts#Links to link them on the date instead but I don't see a good reason for Wikipedia to index an external site by basically copying their own index. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:57, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Vandalism

Do we ever ban ip addresses for vandalism? A bot caught someone who blanked this article and wrote random stuff instead: Religion and spirituality podcast TipsyElephant (talk) 00:45, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

@TipsyElephant: Yes, IP address and ranges of IP address can be blocked. See WP:BLOCK for more info. If you see persistent vandalism from an IP you can report it at WP:ANV for an admin to look at. RudolfRed (talk) 01:08, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

Hello, an article written by me is nominated for speedy deletion. Reason: Previously Deleted. Is there is any way to keep the article? Prashanth Nair (IAS), this is the article. The subject is about an Indian Administrative Service Officer. Who was the District Magistrate of Kozhikode. He is very famous in Kerala and is the man behind Operation Sulaimani. Please help me. Thank you ProudMallu (📨│📝) 01:05, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Not just "previously deleted", but previously deleted as the result of a deletion discussion, specifically Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prasanth Nair (2nd nomination) (in fact the third nomination). Please read about the purpose of "deletion review". Read it very carefully. Look through when "Deletion review may be used" and remember that this means what it says, not what you (or I) would like it to mean. If you can can argue convincingly that one of these five cases applies, and can avoid every one of the nine cases where "Deletion review should not be used", then you can apply for deletion review. This aside, no, the article can neither be kept nor be recreated. -- Hoary (talk) 01:25, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Can someone please help create a copyright violation report at WP:CP?

For context, please see

• The 20th section of WP:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1098
• The 11th section of WP:Help desk/Archives/2021 March 4
• The 125th section of WP:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1098
• The 23rd section of WP:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1099

A large amount of text in the plot summaries at List of Talking Tom and Friends (TV series) episodes (especially newer episodes in Season 5, though earlier episodes may have to be checked) has been copied verbatim from various URLs at a fandom sans attribution. While Fandoms do allow copying of text, they require it to be attributed to them.

Since I am not in a position to fix the attribution issues (lack of time and technical know-how) and WP:CP is semi-protected, I am not able to do anything to proceed with fixing this. Can someone file the report for me?

By the way, the aforementioned list article was actually split from Talking Tom and Friends (TV series) and so, TTaF (TV series) may have had the copied text in some past revisions, though current revisions are free from copied text. Will it be necessary to note that past revisions had copied text or can that be ignored?
45.251.33.251 (talk) 07:20, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

@45.251.33.251: Hi, anonymous editor, and welcome to the Teahouse. This may have to be resolved on a case-by-case basis just to be sure. I went ahead and looked into it, and yes, it is the case that Fandom's version was published on October 30 while ours was published on December 4 by an anonymous editor. This Fandom page is licensed through Creative Commons, so it may still be possible to keep these so long as proper attribution is provided, but I'll leave that to someone who's more familiar with CC attribution than I am. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 13:45, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, TheTechnician27. I also agree that properly attributing the information should be enough, but as I have said before, I myself am not in a position to do it. Do you (or anyone else for that matter) know of an alternate venue that can be used by IP editors (besides WP:CP) to get this issue raised, or of a user who regularly cleans up CC-BY-SA unattributed information and can be reached? 45.251.33.59 (talk) 08:26, 16 March 2021 (UTC) (I'm on a dynamic IP range so don't ping me as it may be useless and can confuse others on my range)

By the way, i noticed yesterday that Tom & Jerry (2021 film) has a note at the top of the references list stating that some content was copied from a particular URL at a Tom and Jerry fandom. Will a similar note do for List of Talking Tom and Friends (TV series) episodes (though it will need a large number or URLs to be mentioned) ? 45.251.33.104 (talk) 02:19, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

How to get my article published?

Can you please inform me on how to get my article published? It said that I didn't have enough reliable sources or independent sources. Can you help me identify which sources are causing this to be ineligible for publication? Here is the url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Wayne_Oquin_(composer) Thank you for your help, and I look forward to hearing back! Wayne.oquin123 (talk) 02:00, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Wayne.oquin123. Assuming from your username that you're trying to create an article about yourself, I suggest you take a look at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia:Autobiography, Wikipedia:Ownership of content and Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing before proceeding further. If after reading those pages, you still feel a Wikipedia article can be written about you, please take a look at Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything and Wikipedia:Notability (music) for some more general information. You also probably should take a look at c:User talk:Wayne.oquin123 because the photo of yourself you uploaded can be previously seen here attributed to someone else. When it comes to photos, it is the photographer who takes the photo (not the person being photographed) who generally owns the copyright over the photo which means you cannot upload someone else's work as your "own work" without their consent and this consent needs to be verified by Comomns. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:35, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

draft and duplication

I have a draft article (PEN America v. Trump) waiting for evaluation. I noticed that the topic (PEN America v. Trump) is a red link at the page about lawsuits involving Donald Trump. Clicking on it and simply entering the title did not give any indication that there is a draft pending. It seems that that means that someone else might write a new draft or a new article without knowing that work has already been done on the subject. I think there should be some way of actively telling potential editors that a competing draft already exists, saving unnecessary duplicative effort. Kdammers (talk) 06:39, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Kdammers, in fact, if an article doesn't exist, but an eponymous draft exists, the "does not exist" message also includes a link to the draft. I'm not sure why it doesn't appear: perhaps the names might be slightly different. PEN America v. Trump shows the link to the draft, at least for me. JavaHurricane 07:16, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

At List of lawsuits involving Donald Trump I changed the entry to Draft:PEN America v. Trump so that it now links to your draft. David notMD (talk) 11:53, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Shows directly for me as well. Perhaps it's a browser/caching issue? Definitely a useful/welcome feature! Shushugah (talk) 11:53, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I did a no-no (listing a draft in a list), so reverted. David notMD (talk) 14:05, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

It still does not show for me. I am using the MS browser (I can't remember its name - the one with a circle of red-yellow-green) on a Windows 7 hp. Kdammers (talk) 03:09, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Regarding warnings

Do your warnings expire after a month of having them? Or do they never expire? Thanks!

~Wizdzy [💬 | 📝] 23:21, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Wizdzy, typically warnings start back at level one the month after warnings have been given. However, I think you should be more careful regardless, or you may receive a block in the future. Just to be clear, waiting until the next month to continue disruptive editing will not save you from a block. Thanks, EDG 543 ^{(message me)} 23:45, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

So if you don't cause disruptive editing after one month, the warnings expire? ~Wizdzy [💬 | 📝] 00:03, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

@Wizdzy: They don't "expire", it's just that the automated tools we use to hand out warnings typically ignore the previous month's warnings and start at level one again. That is not an excuse to vandalize after another month, and please don't test this. You still may be blocked if it's clear that you're not here to build an encyclopedia. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 00:12, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Wizdzy. Just for reference, a user warning is a show of good faith to give an editor (who might not be very familiar with Wikipedia) an explanation as to why something they did was might have been wrong and a chance to avoid doing the same thing again. A user warning, however, isn't required per se and administrator can block an editor without warning if the administrator feels it's necessary to do so (i.e. to prevent further disruption). Finally, just a friendly suggestion since you seem fairly new to Wikipedia. It's easy for new or newish editors to become enamored with editing in the user namespace and doing things like creating customized signatures, userboxes and alternate accounts, etc.; however, those who spend most of their time doing such things often are the ones who find themselves running into problems when they venture into the article namespace. Ultimately, Wikipedia wants all editors to strive to be as WP:HERE as possible, and the main way of doing that is to try and improve existing articles or create viable new articles. That's what it means to be an "average Wikipedia" (a least in my opinion); so, if being an "average Wikipedia" is how you want to be seen by other editors, then it's probably not a good idea to spend almost 70% of your time editing in the user namespace. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:40, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

@Wizdzy: you can remove warnings if you like, there's no such thing as 'expiring'. If you keep doing the same things wrong again and again, expect a WP:CIR block. However, a few warnings for minor issues is not going to be an issue - admins are expected to use common sense in blocking. Elli (talk | contribs) 08:04, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Wizdzy Editors can be blocked for not being here to work on the encyclopedia. As noted above, the great majority of your edits have been to your own User page, most of the edits you made to articles were reverted, and you have created a second account: User:ThreeTimesTheCharm and have been editing that account's Talk page with Welcome notes and Warning notes (and then blanking). Get with the program. David notMD (talk) 02:31, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

FYI, Wizdzy has and is getting with the program. She has been working hard at learning the ropes with The Wikipedia Adventure, was open and frank about her second account (used for testing and has only 5 edits), and has been practicing editing within her own userspace, which is *precisely* what new users should be doing. The reverts are good-faith rookie mistakes, nothing more. Wizdzy is an editor with just 7 days of service, can we all please not bite the newcomers? Thank you, History DMZ ^{(HQ) † (wire)} 03:30, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Request to remove "Multilingual Wikisource" link from Main page template

Hello. On the Main page, there is a template ("In other projects") used on the left column of the page that contains links to other projects. I noticed that this template points to the Wikisource project twice. There is "Wikisource" (which points to https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Main_Page) and "Multilingual Wikisource" (which points to https://wikisource.org/wiki/Main_Page). Seeing as the other project links point to their respective English pages, I would like to request the "Multilingual Wikisource" link be removed, as to improve consistency. Please let me know where this can be properly discussed and how this modification can be done. Thank you for your help! Somerandomuser (talk) 18:55, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Somerandomuser. I think Wikipedia, Wikisource and Wiktionary are the only projects with a multilingual front page, and Wiktionary is never linked under "In other projects". The links are not decided at Wikipedia but come from Wikimedia main page (Q5296) at Wikidata. Multilingual Wikisource was added by Liuxinyu970226 in [3]. I don't know whether it's supposed to be there. https://www.wikipedia.org is not listed. You can post to wikidata:Talk:Q5296, or maybe Liuxinyu970226 will post here. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:32, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Hmn, {{noexternallanglinks}} can only hide language links, maybe asking at mw:Project:Support desk? Also, removing a valid link on Wikidata is not permitted. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:27, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

@Liuxinyu970226 and PrimeHunter: I have started a discussion on the MediaWiki Support desk (see https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Topic:W5776mhi9im7r124). Somerandomuser (talk) 05:18, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

@Somerandomuser: The English Wikipedia could hide the link for itself with this in MediaWiki:Common.css:

.wb-otherproject-sources {display:none;}

It would require consensus and I don't know whether the Wikimedia Foundation would have objections to projects hiding interwiki links. You can place the code in your CSS to hide the link for yourself. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:10, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: I don't think of this as "hiding" links, but rather just removing an unnecessary one. Otherwise, shouldn't other "Multilingual" links be on the list? Why are both "Multilingual Wikisource" and "Wikisource" on the list? I'm trying to understand why "Multilingual Wikisource" is special. It seems to me that it is likely to be an error or bug rather than an intentional decision. I'd like to find the reason for its inclusion. Somerandomuser (talk) 03:32, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Somebody please edits section of "In popular culture" of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17

Please somebody edits section of "In popular culture" of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 because I doesn't make it, due to restrictions about discretionary sanctions. No IP edits. Lkas123 (talk) 04:26, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

@Lkas123: Welcome to the Teahouse! You can post your suggestion on Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template and a reliable source. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 04:28, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Notability Criteria

Hi, let me know the notability criteria of Mandir/Temple? ProudMallu (📨│📝) 05:10, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

For notability of a building, see this ("NBUILDING"); for general notability, see this ("GNG"). The building should meet either one of these; it doesn't have to meet both. -- Hoary (talk) 05:24, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

are newspaper article can be used as a third party source

Devanshusharma569 (talk)devanshusharma569 hi, i am devanshu sharma and i am writing a article on a NGO they don't have valid third party source, for wikipedia validation but they have some newspaper articles by renowned names and various online sites mentionaing there work. can i use them in my article for third party validation. Devanshusharma569 (talk) 05:09, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Mere mentions don't bring notability. Indian newspapers, even long-established, famous ones, are notorious for the flattering coverage that they provide to those who pay for it. The newspaper articles would have to write about the NGO in some depth but not be promotional. -- Hoary (talk) 05:30, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

How to restructure a biography article according to WP standards.

Hello ,Tukaram is a high traffic article.Its about a great Warkari Sant of 16th century.The problem is that the article have lots of claim and speculations.Don't know the citation and ref are really reliable.It don't have Early life, Education, Personal life, Career subsection.It also looking it have Original research.It doesn't look like a article should be look like WP article have to.I suggest to take a look and correct grammar, sentence structure in this article.Research Voltas (talk) 06:10, 18 March 2021 (UTC) Research Voltas (talk) 06:10, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

You say that the article Tukaram "don't have Early life, Education, Personal life, Career subsection". It even has a section titled "Early life"; and as for his career, his activities are written up. Yes, the article has various claims and speculations, and these are described as such. The grammar (including sentence structure) seems OK to me: what's the problem? If particular references are unreliable, feel free to point this out in Talk:Tukaram. -- Hoary (talk) 06:25, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Hoary Early life section added by me , just before coming to Teahouse. It's heading section was very long. And everything was mixed up. If you can accommodate all the info of heading section in separate sub section it will be nice. Infobox have cliams about birt without citation. Research Voltas (talk) 06:37, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

No, I am not going to do any of that. Ask for this on the article's talk page; somebody who has more experience of that kind of article than I have will know what to do about the article. -- Hoary (talk) 07:00, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Advice on sudden and systematic reversion

Today something happened to me that never happened before in the ~5 months I've been active here. A new IP editor showed up who systematically started to revert edits of mine, some recent and some much less recent. Their first seven edits were all reverts, and all of their 28 main space edits were directed against my edits. It seems they are concerned that I may have some kind of anti-Iranian bias (see the edits at Abu Musa), but then their first three reverts were on articles with completely different topics. I'm currently trying to explain myself on their user talk page and various article talk pages (here and here).

My question: how often does this happen, and should I consider this a normal part of Wikipedia editing? Any advice on how to best deal with this would be very welcome! Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 00:35, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

IMO happens more frequently when you edit in areas that are amongst the most disputed ones on Wikipedia. As far as I am aware, it is part of the usual buissnes in DS / WP:GS covered topics. Victor Schmidt (talk) 07:11, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Controversial article , may be include propoganda

Hi today I found a article Kunbi.It have lots of shocking cliams.Some un referenced info. This Research Voltas (talk) 06:40, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

You have already stated your objections on the article's talk page; there is no need to do so on this page as well. The article is related to caste. Rather a lot of rubbish is written about caste by people who cite discredited sources, obviously unreliable sources, or no sources at all. If you want a change made to that article, then say precisely what should be changed, precisely how it should be changed, and precisely what reliable sources you are citing for this change. If a source that's already cited is unreliable, then say which source it is and on what grounds it should be rejected. However, I recommend that you stay away from any caste-related article (or its talk page) until you have more experience of editing other articles. -- Hoary (talk) 07:00, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Hoary Hi , But new peoples believe in this rubbish. Because they think WP have everything is 100 % truth. Whoever edited this Ref a book. I don't have access to that book. I don't believe that writer. I live on grassroots level. I know truth.I suggest to check that article and it's sources. Omitte unreliable info Research Voltas (talk) 10:44, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Ah, truth. Wikipedia deals with verifiability, not truth. I hope that this is acceptable for you. If it isn't, you're at the wrong website. -- Hoary (talk) 11:14, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Internal inconsistency in White Australia Policy article

I was reading this article, and realized that there were some issues, but wanted to ask before making the changes. 1) In the introductory section, the article states "The White Australia policy is a term encapsulating a set of historical racial policies that aimed to forbid people of non-European ethnic origin, especially Asians and Pacific Islanders, from immigrating to Australia, starting in 1901." However, but the sections below indicate that the policy, if not specifically called that, had its roots prior to 1901. Perhaps that sentence means to say that immigration restrictions started in 1901, but it's a bit ambiguous, especially with the comma, which seems to indicate that it's to be read with the clause preceding the last one. Eliminating the comma might help, but it seems like it would be better to reword it to "...from immigrating to Australia, leading to legislative restrictions from 1901 until completely dismantled in 1973."

Then, the paragraph under the heading "The Gold Rush Era" begins with the sentence "It effectively stopped all non-European immigration into the country and that contributed to the development of a racially insulated white society." Aside from the unclear referent ("It"), the sentence would seem to be out of place here, as it appears to refer to the period after 1901, not the Gold Rush Era, which would be part of the history of the attitudes and policies under discussion. But my bigger concern is that it's under the section entitled "Immigration policy in Federation." However, the introductory text indicates that Federation didn't occur until 1901, although the wiki on Federation architecture puts the period from 1890-1915. In any event, the Gold Rush Era information only goes up to the 1870s, so it would seem to predate the label of Federation.

Similarly, much of the text under "Support from the Australian Labour Movement" appears to predate the Federation period--all but the last two paragraphs (and blockquote). That seems to imply that this was all that happened during the Federation period, but the next section of the article, "From Federation to the Second World War" goes into that at length. I suppose the heading is because there isn't much between the end of WWI and the next section.

However, since the last section is "Abolition of the Policy," it seems like it might be better to name the sections as the arc of the policy, something like "Beginnings of the Policy" and "Height of the Policy." Thanks! JodiGMc (talk) 08:32, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

@JodiGMc: you might want to ask on that article's talkpage so people watching the article see. I'd recommend considering boldly going ahead with your changes, since from what you've described it seems like they'd improve the article. Elli (talk | contribs) 11:41, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

orthographic maps

How do I draw country ortographic maps that Wiki editors used to draw in Country infoboxes? Mhatopzz (talk) 09:45, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Mhatopzz. Take a look here. I think you will find what you need there. Thanks, EDG 543 ^{(message me)} 12:29, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Question

Hello, i have a question about some image on wikimedia commons. If one image is not used in any Wikimedia page, this image can be deleted? Thank you All the Bests --TommasoRmndn (talk) 12:11, 18 March 2021 (UTC) TommasoRmndn (talk) 12:11, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

TommasoRmndn hey. you'll have to work through the commons deletion process Lovin'Politics (talk) 12:15, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

TommasoRmndn generally, images are deleted on Wikimedia Commons if they are not educationally useful or if they are copyright violations. See commons:Commons:Deletion policy. Elli (talk | contribs) 12:54, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Deletion of draft when I was still working on it

So, on my draft of iFlightPlanner, someone tagged it for speedy deletion under G11 when I was still working on it. Now I am being asked to declare a COI when none exists. Please help. NightWolf¹²²³ 13:12, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

NightWolf1223, hello, friend! I haven't seen your draft, but it appears that your draft was written like an advertisement, which explains why they suspected your conflict of interest. You can request it be undeleted if you have no COI and wish to clean up the draft. If you do have a COI (I'm not at all accusing you), please just either declare it or abandon the draft altogether. Otherwise, you can request undeletion here. Thanks, EDG 543 ^{(message me)} 13:49, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Otto Krahn Group

Hi there, I've made a draft about my client Otto Krahn Group. Yes, it is paid but I think it matches the guidelines of wikipedia anyway.

So I disclosed in the talk-section of the article that this content is paid. Should I move it now into the encyclopedia?

tx&best Peer

--Kibonaut (talk) 14:40, 18 March 2021 (UTC) Kibonaut (talk) 14:40, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

This will need to be reviewed before being accepted, it can take up to 4 months, please note that the company's website is not an independent source so does not contribute to any notability. You have yet to submit the draft. Theroadislong (talk) 14:51, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia page

How do I create a new Wikipedia page? EGGINATOR (talk) 15:24, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

EGGINATOR, welcome to the Teahouse. You're going to want to read Your first article and follow the steps there. That being said, it's best to hang around Wikipedia and see how other articles are structured first. I strongly suggest evaluating whether the subject you're planning on writing about is notable for Wikipedia as well. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:27, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Guidance on living persons with the same name

Hello Teahouse! I am trying my best to update a lot of content involving the Montana Legislature, but not that article specifically. It seems that a lot of content in related articles is outdated, one of which is the Template:Montana State Senators. This template does not reflect he current roster for the Montana State Senate, and thus I have and will continue to make the appropriate updates. That being said, I encountered an issue which I am sure I will encounter again: it looks like there is an individual, Bob Brown who has an extensive history in Montana politics. According to 13 of the current roster, a different Bob Brown is serving.
Here is my question: because there is already a Bob Brown (Montana politician) article, and another page needs to be created for another Montana politician named Bob Brown, what is the protocol in naming the article for the latter mentioned Brown? Hopefully that makes sense; happy to clarify! Thanks in advance! PerpetuityGrat (talk) 15:47, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, PerpetuityGrat. Good question. A possible solution is suggested by looking at Bob Brown (disambiguation), where you will notice that there are three notable soccer players named Bob Brown, and they are disambiguated by adding the year of birth to the title. So, the current politician biography could be moved to "Bob Brown (Montana politician, born 1947)" and the other one with the proper birth year in the title as well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:56, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

How do I prevent edit loss?

I spent nearly two hours copy editing this article, only for the browser tab to crash. All of my work was lost and I'm pretty upset about it. Is there any way to back up an in-progress article other than copy/pasting all of the raw text into another application? It doesn't seem like it's common practice for changes to be published until all of the intended edits are done. NebulousPhantom (talk) 02:01, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi NebulousPhantom. There's no automatic backing up of edits until you hit the "Publish changes" button; sometimes, if you hit "Show preview", you might be able to get back to a prior version of the page by hitting your browser's page return button, but this isn't a feature built into the Wikipedia software. My suggestion to you is that if your going to be working on a major revision to an article, you might want to do so in your user sandbox where it's easier to save a work in progress; then, you can incorporate the changes into the article when you ready. Another problem with long time consuming revisions of an article is that it increases the risk of their being an edit conflict; there are templates like Template:In use or Template:Under construction which can be used to try and prevent edit conflicts, but sometimes they're just ignored. So, once gain, the easiest way to make major changes to an articles is to try and do it in bits and pieces or to do so in your sandbox first. Many editors seem to prefer to develop changes off Wikipedia where they can be easily saved, convert things into Wiki markup in their user sandboxes, and then incorporate the changes into the article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:23, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, NebulousPhantom. The short answer to your question is to use sandbox pages and click "Publish changes" frequently. I am working on an article in my sandbox right now, and have clicked "Publish changes" 342 times so far on that draft article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:40, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

@NebulousPhantom: as far as I am aware, the Visual Editor has a temporary backup system in place that persists after page reload. No idea if this works for tab crashes though... The solution with "going back" is pretty useless depending on your Browser: Some of the Major Browsers, Firefox for example, don't store the contents of already submitted forms offline for HTTPS pages, meaning when you attempt to do this, all what you will be greeted with is an error page (about:neterror?e=notCached for those with a firefox instance). Victor Schmidt (talk) 07:06, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, and thanks for your answers. The edits persisted for awhile through show preview, but upon the tab crashing, everything was lost. I use Vivaldi, which doesn't store any kind of data as far as I know. I'll make use of the sandbox in the future as suggested. 👻NebulousPhantom ^💬 16:08, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

How to link two articles ?

CommanderWaterford How to link two articles from different WP about same topic ? Right now I want to link Ghodasgaon, Jalgaon District article to घोडसगाव article of Marathi WP.Both articles are about same village.It will be nice of you do that for Research Voltas (talk) 20:19, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

As long as Ghodasgaon District Jalgaon doesn't exist, that is not possible. Once the english counterpart exists, one can link the two through Wikidata. Victor Schmidt (talk) 20:24, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Victor Schmidt Take a lookResearch Voltas (talk) 20:27, 15 March 2021 (UTC) The link of Marathi article is https://mr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%A4%98%E0%A5%8B%E0%A4%A1%E0%A4%B8%E0%A4%97%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%B5Research Voltas (talk) 20:43, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

The Wikidata entry d:Q24930797 says in its English description that it refers to Ghodasgaon, in Dhule District, and is linked to the English article Ghodasgaon and to the Marathi article mr:घोडसगाव. Are you saying that there are two different villages called Ghodasgaon? Is the Marathi article linked to the wrong English article? If so, that link needs to be broken in Wikidata. (I note that there does not seem to be another entry for घोडसगाव in the Marathi Wikipedia). Please clarify the problem Research Voltas. --ColinFine (talk) 21:05, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

ColinFine Yeah, your absolutely right sir , The article is linked to wrong Eng WP article. In North Maharashtra there are two villages have name Ghodasgaon. One Ghodasgaon is in Dhule district and another one is in Jalgaon district. the article is have to link Ghodasgaon, Jalgaon District article. Research Voltas (talk) 04:14, 16 March 2021 (UTC) talk You can solve this problem. A admin , mistakingly connected Ghodasgaon article to article.

article have to connect to Ghodasgaon, Jalgaon District article.Research Voltas (talk) 06:02, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

OK, Research Voltas, I see somebody (you?) has created a Wikidata item (d:Q105970888) for the Jalgaon one. I have moved the existing article to Ghodasgaon, Dhule District, and turned Ghodasgaon into a disambiguation page. I have also added some properties to the new Wikidata item. --ColinFine (talk) 14:18, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

@Research Voltas: is there a Marathi article for the one in Dhule district? We only have links for English, Arabic, and Hindi. Pelagic ( messages ) – (06:48 Fri 19, AEDT) 19:48, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Using Wikipedia content (text) in a mobile application

Hello. I am developing a mobile app where I present cities and their info. I get info about cities from Wikipedia API.

My question is: how to properly attribute text from Wikipedia? I know that there is a lot of info about how to properly attribute the text and I read it already. Unfortunately I am not very good with this kind of stuff and am worried that I am not doing it correctly. I am currently writing the following line in my app after the text from Wikipedia: "This article uses material from the Wikipedia article ArticleName, which is released under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share-Alike License 3.0." This doesn't seem correct to me however, since it's stated on Wikipedia, that text can be under different licenses: Creatice Commons or GNU Free Documentation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reusing_Wikipedia_content).

Any help will be very appreciated. 90.157.166.45 (talk) 17:25, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! When looking at the desktop version of Wikipedia, on the left hand side of every article is a link to Cite this page. For example, when you click on this link from New York City, you get this result, which has multiple citation formats. Good luck with the app! GoingBatty (talk) 20:06, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

GoingBatty, thank you for your quick response! However, I still have a problem, since I get my data from a Wikipedia API (for random cities that I don't know in advance). So checking the citing rules for each city in advance is not possible. Is there a way to get a "cite" text with a call to API for specific wikipedia page? So that I would get for example text for Paris (which I already get) and a cite text that I should add below the text.90.157.166.45 (talk)

Unable to edit because Wiki thinks i have COI

So I'm trying to edit a page regarding a local state politician who I like is running for governor. However, when i tried to post, it got removed because it was considered "promotional material". If possible I would like to know what specific things I had posted were promotional so i can avoid using them. Wiki apparently thinks I have a conflict of interest now because I've tried unsuccessfully several times to make an edit. PLease help Davidbaumel.nj (talk) 19:00, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

'Wiki' does not think anything. Individual editors think. User:Innisfree987 reverted your additions twice. Start by declaring on your Talk page that you do not have a conflict of interest with Jennifer. That means not paid or compensated, and don't know her. After that, make an entry on Innisfree987's Talk page, asking what parts of your additions to the article are considered promotional. David notMD (talk) 19:09, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Davidbaumel.nj. Adding material copy-pasted from her website, such as "JENNIFER'S VISION FOR VIRGINIA'S FUTURE", is fairly obviously promotional. Wikipedia articles summarise what reliable sources say about a subject, not really what the subject wants to tell the world about themselves. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:16, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Davidbaumel.nj, another concern is, as Cordless Larry pointed out, the material copy-pasted from her website. Wikipedia has a copyright violation policy, and material posted as such on Wikipedia will be removed as soon as possible. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:23, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Davidbaumel.nj, Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. --ColinFine (talk) 20:11, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Help re: Draft:Rocket_Science_(company)

 Courtesy link: Draft:Rocket_Science_(company)

Hello, I'm trying to create a neutral page for Rocket Science. Before creating the draft article I looked at other companies in the field, specifically Embankment Films and HanWay Films, which I then used as a template to stay within what I understood would be the Wikipedia guidelines of impartiality. I've received 2 reviews which say the page has not complied in this way and so I'm a bit stumped and wonder if anyone can help advise on how to improve the page. I've used references from other sources which were used on the other companies pages, but have seen one reviewer deem that they're not reliable. How can one company use the outside source and not another? I have disclosed my relationship to the company, but believed that as long as one followed the guidelines and used other approved pages as a guide that should not disqualify me. Can anyone help assist in terms neutral tone? Thanks very much, Jonathan JonoLynch-Staunton (talk) 09:05, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the teahouse JonoLynch-Staunton! One problem I notice immediately is a prose list that is better off in bulleted or table form. And again, if you have a conflict of interest, even if you try to follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines, you may still have trouble with promotional tone. I would recommend trying to edit other articles first; creating an article by yourself may be too overwhelming. You can check out the task center for things to do on Wikipedia. Sungodtemple a tcg fan!!1!11!! (talk) 14:48, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

@JonoLynch-Staunton: I made some minor updates to the draft for you. Please remove all the external links from the "Film Library" section. You may replace them with links to Wikipedia articles. GoingBatty (talk) 20:22, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

area of City of Sydney and Parramatta citation needed

Found area of City of Sydney and Parramatta at Wikipedia in km^2. Would have liked to find an official source for their area, but they don't have a citation. Help about this would be appreciated! Gryllida (talk) 21:55, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Gryllida. Looks to me like this would be a good source for the first.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:07, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, looks good! Would be interesting to also find for the second one. Gryllida (talk) 22:28, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Gryllida, I found 2001 data, but most LGA boundaries have changed since then! That table might be useful for identifying articles that have old info and need updating. Pelagic ( messages ) – (07:25 Fri 19, AEDT) 20:25, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Local government directory says 83.8 km² for Parramatta. Details are probably self-reported by Parra council to OLG. Pelagic ( messages ) – (07:47 Fri 19, AEDT) 20:47, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Nice. Thanks Pelagic. Gryllida (talk) 21:01, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

User name

Is it necessary to have user name and name of the person about whom is being written kept same 111.119.187.32 (talk) 21:08, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

You should not select a username which represents another person you intend to write about. That is considered impersonation and will likely lead to a block. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:14, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hello, IP user. The answer is emphatically, No. There is no connection between the name of an editor and the names of the articles they choose to create or edit. If you do edit an article with the same name as yourself, this suggests that you are writing about yourself, which is very strongly discouraged. If you are not writing about yourself but you use the name of your subject as your account name, that is even worse, because Wikipedia regards that as impersonation. Advice: create an account which is personal to you and has a name meaningful to you. (Ity doesn't have to be your real name: I use my real name, but many editors don't). Then, as long as you are not trying to write about yourself, you can read your first article and notability to see whether it is worth trying to create an article about that person or not; and how to do it. But my advice would be to spend a few months editing existing articles and learning how Wikipedia works before you even think about creating a new article. --ColinFine (talk) 21:15, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

From where to start my wikipedia page

Wikipedia page creation How to create my wikipedia page? K. Lillrud (talk) 19:54, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

@K. Lillurd: Welcome to the Teahouse! I suggest reading WP:AUTO, WP:COI, and Help:Your first article. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 20:02, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

@K. Lillurd: Any Wikipedia article(not a mere "page") about you would not be yours to control; see WP:OWN. You do have a user page, which you can use to tell the Wikipedia community about yourself as a Wikipedia editor or user; it isn't for telling anything and everything about yourself. See WP:USERPAGE for information on acceptable(and not) user page content. 331dot (talk) 21:17, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Possible copyright violation

I'm not quite sure about this (oh, perhaps that's why I'm bringing this up) but at Wings of Fire (novel series) there appears to be prophecies copy-pasted from the series. (Prophecies within the series, that is.) So I thought I'd bring this up.

Oh, and here're some links to the offending sections:

• Wings of Fire (novel series)#Arc 1: The Dragonet Prophecy
• Wings of Fire (novel series)#Arc 2: The Jade Mountain Prophecy
• Wings of Fire (novel series)#Arc 3: The Lost Continent Prophecy
   MEisSCAMMER^(talk)_Hello! 00:17, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

@MEisSCAMMER: It's been tagged for RevDel (thanks Vami IV). You seem to be somewhat active on that page. If you've read the series or are familiar with the storyline, could you work on trimming down that page? MOS:PLOT is a good read. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 02:29, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I will admit it needs a good rework. I will try trimming it down. MEisSCAMMER^(talk)_Hello! 12:26, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I might need help with this... MEisSCAMMER^(talk)_Hello! 21:44, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

editor routinely removing "over-referencing"

I'm struggling with another editor's decision to remove what they considered "over-referencing". I write about underrepresented topics, such as women, and prefer to cite every statement to make clear what facts are coming from which sources. In a new article, Lucille Thornburgh, an editor removed many valid references, using the term "reducing over-referencing". I requested information about what policy this editor was using to justify this action on their user page, and they said there was no such policy, but they would "certainly continue to do this by default". I'm not sure why it would be appropriate to remove valid references. Skvader (talk) 16:19, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Skvader. I think that the other editor gave you a perfectly reasonable explanation on their talk page. If you write a long paragraph and several sentences in a row summarize the same reference, there is no reason to add the same reference after each individual sentence. Using the reference once at the end of that group of sentences is perfectly acceptable, and results in a less cluttered article. That's a well-done article, by the way. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:34, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Not a policy but WP:TOOMANYREFS may have some relevance. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:46, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

There is nothing in Wikipedia:Citation overkill that suggests adding a citation for each statement is inappropriate, and, in fact, Wikipedia:Citation underkill suggests that it is a good idea to do so. Why remove accurate citations? Can you see how this would be discouraging to someone who is trying to improve the equity in Wikipedia? Skvader (talk) 19:02, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Skvader You used one ref more than 30 times (since then, one editor cut, another restored). I am on the side of the editor that cut. The issue is that often, you have consecutive, related sentences, each one with that ref. Reducing the number of times that ref used would not leave content unreferenced, as it would by inferred that a ref at the end of several sentences applies to all of the preceding sentences. What you did is not over-referencing, per se, as that applies to providing multiple references to a simple factual statement, where one would be sufficient. David notMD (talk) 22:05, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Question about user page

How do I change my user to make it say "native" for English? BlueDaNoob (talk) 22:16, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

@BlueDaNoob: you can use {{Babel:en}} or {{User en}} —Belwine (talk) 22:27, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

SEXISM ALIVE AND WELL ON WIKIPEDIA ?

MY LEGAL NAME IS CERYS ELIZABETH PHILLIPS MATTHEWS.

MATTHEWS IS MY LEGAL SURNAME/FAMILY NAME.

IT HAS NEVER CHANGED. I HAVE NEVER CHANGED IT , MARRIED OR NOT MARRIED. I WILL NEVER CHANGE IT.

ALAS!!- ON MY WIKIPEDIA THUMBRPINT /INTRO PAGE SOMEBODY HAS EDITED MY NAME TO CERYS ELIZABETH ABBOTT.

PRESUMABLY BECAUSE I HAVE MARRIED A MAN CALLED ABBOTT.

I NEVER TOOK HIS NAME, I DONT BELIEVE IN CHANGING NAMES, AND I AM ABSOLUTELY LIVID.

PLEASE LET ME KNOW HOW TO EDIT IT SO THAT I AM NEVER AGAIN REFERRED TO AS ANYTHING BUT MY LEGAL NAME.

THIS IS EVERYDAY SEXISM THAT SHOULD NOT BE TOLERATED ANYWHERE, NOT LEAST MY FAVOURITE SITE, WIKIPEDIA!

CERYS 90.252.179.66 (talk) 09:03, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

• The name was modified in January by this edit without any sourcing. Hoary just reversed the modification as you asked, and I agree with that.

This being said, please do not write in all caps anymore, this is the internet convention for shouting. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 09:21, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

@90.252.179.66: First of all, Wikipedia does not have "intro pages" or "thumbprints", it has articles. As you have a clear WP:COI, you should submit an edit request on the article's talk page. See Template:Request edit/Instructions on how to make one.

Also, please don't write in all caps. It's considered shouting.

185.73.65.98 (talk) 09:18, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

The article is Cerys Matthews. I've changed the first sentence in such a way that it accords with your request -- but not because you asked for the change; instead, because I had no reason to think that "Abbott" was correct. In future, please do not write comments in the article; instead, make your request(s) within Talk:Cerys Matthews (already provided for the article). And yes, you'll be more persuasive if you use lowercase most of the time. -- Hoary (talk) 09:21, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

@90.252.179.66: What happened here: An editor made last name Abbott in the lead paragraph in January. IP editor 90.252.179.66 changed that back to Matthews. As no reference was provided, ClueBot (an automated program) assumed vandalism and changed it back. Accusing an automated program of sexism accomplishes naught. Keep in mind that proof was not provided that 90.252.179.66 is in fact Cerys. Going forward, accepting on faith that 90.252.179.66 is Cerys, then the proper method of editing the article is to propose changes on the Talk page of the article. Be aware that at Wikipedia, subjects of articles do not 'own' those articles. David notMD (talk) 11:28, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

The first change back to Matthews [4] was actually accepted. But then 90.252.179.66 made a completely inappropriate edit [5] 10 hours later. It was this edit which caused ClueBot NG to revert. Consecutive edits by the same user are reverted together by the bot since one bad edit usually means they are all bad. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:30, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Help - Rewriting

Hello

I need help to rewrite this draft as required by the reviewer. I have started rewriting but need more improvements from an experienced editor. Thanks in advance--Art&football (talk) 22:37, 18 March 2021 (UTC) Art&football (talk) 22:37, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Art&football first of all, you don't need to do the '~' for the teahouse because you automatically have those '~'s at the bottom. next, you want to try to remain as not ad like as possible because that was one of the reasons that your submission was denied. I personally think that you should try to make it as impartial as wiki is a impartial encyclopaedia and we don't advertise. so you want to find more sources to make it as neutral as possible Lovin'Politics (talk) 01:15, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Reliable Sources

Hi! I am new to finding sources and wish to edit about animals, especially insects. Can someone kindly point me to any good place to find free, reliable sources about it? User404User (talk) 22:39, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi User404User. I have many thousands of edits to bird-related articles, such as in writing Glossary of bird terms, and my go-to start is searching Google Books, with preview available set and then searching for some applicable name/phrase in quotes with "ornithology" (so for insects, you might use "entomology"), e.g., like this (and of course refine from there, depending on what I find or don't find). I often use in conjunction the Wikipedia citation tool for Google Books (and the Library of Congress' ISBN converter for proper ISBN hyphens) to make citations (though I always tweak its default output). Please note that due to a recent change to the Google Books interface, the default URLs provided no longer work with the tool – you have to switch to the "classic view". Please note also resources like Wikipedia:Free English newspaper sources (shortcut: WP:FENS), and see also Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library/Navbox shown at the bottom of that page. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:24, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

"Entomology". (Which itself has subdivisions, e.g. acarology for ticks and mites.) -- Hoary (talk) 01:42, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Help to create a page?

Hello! Is there someone willing to create a page for me? I should not create the page myself. There seems to be a few forums but I cannot figure out how to use freenode #wikipedia-en-help

Is there a tutorial on how to use freenode?

Malchus Malchus Biblion (talk) 01:13, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

If you are "notable" (in Wikipedia's sense of the word), then people will want to create an article about you, even without any encouragement (let alone payment) from you. The huge majority of people are not "notable". I'm not. Chances are that you're not either, because, well, most people aren't. -- Hoary (talk) 01:46, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

@Malchus Biblion: Welcome to the Teahouse! Instructions for freenode #wikipedia-en-help ^connect are at Wikipedia:IRC/Tutorial and Wikipedia:IRC/wikipedia-en-help. However, the editors there will not create an article for you. They may suggest you use Wikipedia:Requested articles or that you contact a related WikiProject. Hope this helps! GoingBatty (talk) 01:53, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Re: Vandalism Warnings

Hi, I’m Helen. I was wondering about the vandalism warning badges that I see other users throwing at vandals. How do I put templates like that into someone’s talk page? I hope to eat those bad-faith edits for breakfast and would love to know how it’s done. HelenDegenerate (talk) 00:51, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

HelenDegenerate first of all, if it is a re- you could always respond on the original message on the talk. but, we don't put them for users, users put them up themselves. Lovin'Politics (talk) 01:21, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

@HelenDegenerate: - Welcome to the Teahouse. Editors can use {{uw-vandalism1}}, {{uw-vandalism2}}, {{uw-vandalism3}}, {{uw-vandalism4}} to give escalating warnings on a vandal's talk page. Click on each link for the details. GoingBatty (talk) 01:28, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

HelenDegenerate, if you are autoconfirmed (have at least 10 edits and your account is at least 4 days old), you will be able to use a tool called Twinkle. It has a functionality to revert noconstructive edits, warn users using the appropriate template (which you can select) and report persistent vandals and spammers for administrator attention after enough warnings. There is another tool called RedWarn which also offers similar functionality with a more modern interface. JavaHurricane 02:04, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

explaining what you've changed

Hi, I tend to give a reasonably detailed (sometimes a bit tetchy, but that's me) account of what I've changed in/added to/taken away from an entry, but I notice few others do this, certainly not in much detail. I'm interested generally speaking in (1) the reason contributors usually don't describe their changes (2) whether experienced contributors like yourselves think there is any value in doing so - aside from to me, when I go down memory lane on my Contributions. Davidnicholsknowsbest (talk) 22:39, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Davidnicholsknowsbest (talk) I tend to work on lesser-known historical articles and most people are leaving an Edit Summary after editing, so it might be that a higher number of editors working in your specialties are forgetting to leave them. If I make many changes to an article I tend to write "Expand article and add good references," and if I make just one change I'll specify, such as "Added cause of death, added reference." (Since a number of people forget to include references, I'm a stickler about letting others know that I add them.) If I should delete anything I'll often summarize with "removed flowery words to make article more encyclopedic." When I first started editing, back in 2007, I considered it an important responsibility to make changes to an encyclopedia so I read the rules first, and one of them was leaving an Edit Summary. I still consider being a Wiki editor an honor and a responsibility, so I want others to be able to trust what I added or deleted.Karenthewriter (talk) 00:04, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

@Davidnicholsknowsbest: It's good practice to leave a descriptive edit summary and can let other editors know roughly what changed without having to search through a large number of diffs, and I encourage you to keep doing it. The big reason why new editors don't add as long of an edit summary is because they don't know what it does and why they should do it. Wikipedia doesn't force you to leave one before submitting (though you can enable a gadget that reminds you if you forget). More seasoned editors don't mostly because of laziness; you'll find a lot of us using "weird" terms and abbreviations. I always leave edit summaries (partly due to the gadget), though certainly not as long as yours, instead just enough for people to get a rough idea what I changed. All my talk page edit summaries are just "re" since editors should actually read what I write. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 00:12, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Please keep making edit summaries saying what you did, and why you did it if it's non-obvious and potentially controversial like I did here. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:50, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: Wow! Pure obstructionist deceptive sophistry, used to convey the exact opposite of the quoter's actual sentiment. I'm not sure I could have been so tactful.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:03, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Question

Why this picture is linked to Washington station? Störm (talk) 03:15, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

@Störm: Welcome to the Teahouse! I don't see that picture linked to any Washington station article. Maybe it was vandalism that was reverted. Could you please specify which Washington station article you're referring to? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 03:29, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Fixing a spelling mistake/typo

Fixing a typo

I just created this account to mention a typo. On the page about "Venkateswara", I am pretty sure the fifth line under "Legend" reading: "Indra did not acknowledge Bhrigu's presence buy was busy in enjoying the dance of apsaras in heaven" has a typo on that "buy". The "y" should be a "t" I am assuming. Now someone can maybe do something about it I guess - I don't know how things work here. I'm just passing through for now. Thank You and all the best to everyone!

 Done Cmr08 (talk) 06:05, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Notability Criteria

Let me know what are the main notability criteria for a Mandir/Temple and Church? ProudMallu (📨│📝) 06:00, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

@ProudMallu: In general, if there aren’t specific guidelines for a category, and/or you have trouble finding notability criteria, you should just refer to the general notability guidelines WP:GNG. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 06:19, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

@ProudMallu: I think a church would fit under WP:NBUILD. --Wizzito (talk) 06:24, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

@ProudMallu: And you might also consider instead adding info here Hindu_temple#Regional_variations_in_Hindu_temples. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 06:28, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Timtempleton, Thank you so much for the information, friend. ProudMallu (📨│📝) 06:32, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Will this make it to Wiki?

I have a draft of my very first entry for Wikipedia in my Sandbox.

I would like to know if the entry can make it into Wikipedia provided I complete the draft to the standard (add more links to references, ...)

Thank you very much,

Helena Helenaachillesova (talk) 06:45, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

You seem to be asking "If my draft meets your standards, will it meet your standards?" Well, yes. If you're asking "Does my draft look as if it will meet your standards?", then the answer is no. The "references" (which are only nebulously described) are, I'd guess, by your biographee. But what Wikipedia needs are sources about him written by people who were/are independent of him. Please see Wikipedia:Notability (people). -- Hoary (talk) 07:04, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Deleted history

Hello, how can I get the deletion history of Aswathy Sreekanth? ProudMallu (📨│📝) 06:50, 19 March 2021 (UTC) ProudMallu (📨│📝) 06:50, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Check the log. Firestar464 (talk) 06:53, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Not a deletion history, but please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aswathy Sreekanth. -- Hoary (talk) 07:06, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Is it necessary to have a same username and the name of the article being written

 K. Lillrud (talk) 07:26, 19 March 2021 (UTC) Is it necessary to have a same username and the name of the article being written

@K. Lillurd: An IP, which I assume is you, asked this question earlier and was answered. See Wikipedia:Teahouse#User_name. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 07:32, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Publishing a new entry

DraftI have a draft biographival entry that I would like to publish, but I am stuck as to next steps and I am somewwhat confused by Help Topics? I would appreciate any assistance that can be offered to a newbie. Thank you in advance. Jax Jaxsydney (talk) 07:16, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

You have been editing User:203.220.198.106/sandbox. This has no references, and therefore is unpublishable. Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability. Incidentally, I notice near the foot what I suppose is a memo to yourself: "CV Dad???". If this is a biography of your father, grandfather, or another relative, then you have a conflict of interest. Please read Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. -- Hoary (talk) 07:42, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

Can I get the deletion discussion page of Dev Mohan? Thanks in advance. ProudMallu (📨│📝) 09:08, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello ProudMallu, you can find the first AfD for the article here :-) Pahunkat (talk) 09:12, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

WP allows to use emojis ?

I want to ask , Is WP allow it on talk page or user page discussion, communication.In the articles. Research Voltas (talk) 08:17, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

@Research Voltas: It is allowed on talk pages and user talk pages. It may not be a good idea to use too many emojis since they can make a text harder to read, and they might not display for all people, but it is not forbidden (and definitely not vandalism). In articles, emojis should only be used if they fill an informational purpose, and they almost never do. More info here. --bonadea contributions talk 08:36, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't think emojis should be added to an article unless doing so has encyclopedic value (e.g. showing an example of an emoji in an article about emoji like is done in Emoji). They can be used in talk page discussions, but whether they should be used might depend upon the context of the discussion. Moreover, excessively or inappropriately using them might not be seen as being helpful by some others involved in the discussion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:40, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Yesterday I stumbled on i-D... Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:57, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

How can I create an article?

So, I saw that there was a new creepypasta around called Crow 64 (It is a very good one too). It has gotten some media coverage, and it even has a community dedicated to it. Plus, the source code was just released for it. I wanna create an article about this recent creepypasta, so how can I make one? Blue Jay (talk) 10:03, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Blue Jay.

• See generally Help:Your first article. Then:

1. compile a list of reliable, secondary, independent sources that treat the topic in substantive detail (think at least two to three paragraphs dedicated to the topic), to see whether it is actually notable, as we use that concept here;
2. if you can't make that list with at least three entries, with different content from one another, write nothing;
3. if you can, visit the Wikipedia:Article wizard and follow the prompts to create a draft;
4. write only what the sources you've compiled first verify (without copying the words used); and
5. cite those verifying sources as you write, which will also demonstrate the topic's notability.

Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit Kind regards, (talk) 11:14, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

What if no one responds on the talk page?

Hello. I think I understand talk page etiquette reasonably well, and I'm familiar with the ordinary sequence of Edit-Revert-Discuss-Edit that tends to occur on Wikipedia. But what if you try to discuss an edit, and no one responds?

In my particular case I had an edit reverted, and I tried to argue my case both before and after the edit on the article's talk page, but no one ever responded. I linked the reverting editor in my comments, so I assume they would be notified, and an admin adjusted the style of my post, so I know they saw it, but there have been no responses although it's been two months since my original post, and 11 days since my most recent one.

What can I do? I don't want to get into an edit war with the person who reverted my edit, but if they refuse to discuss, and I think my edit is correct, then what other avenues are available to me?

If you would like to see the specifics, I am referring to the Mughal Empire talk page.

Thank you. Shmarrighan (talk) 07:10, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Shmarrighan. All editors are WP:VOLUNTEERs which means when and how much they edit is completely up to them. You can't make another editor discuss things if they're not interested in doing so, but some editors might not be watching every page they edit or may have set their user preferences to not receive pings; so, you can try leaving a friendly message or a Template:Please see on the other editor's talk page just on the chance that they might've not noticed your message. If they still don't respond after that, you can try leaving a message on one of the WikiProject talk page listed at the top of the article's talk page or one of the other things listed in WP:CONTENTDISPUTE to see if you can get others to respond. For reference, the log entry for that particular article shows that it's been protected multiple times up to 2013 due to disruptive editing and other problems. Sometimes when that happens those monitoring the article can get a little burned out from constantly be on the watch for vandalism, etc.; so, they might be a little skeptical of a new or newish editor showing up and proposing major changes on the article's talk page. I don't think you did anything wrong by posting on the article's talk page, but a personal message on the other editors' user talk pages letting them know you're interested in genuine discussion regardless of the result (not simply saying you're right) might help get things going. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:02, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Shmarrighan, WP:APPNOTE can possibly be of help. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:36, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

How can I confirm that my article has been received?

When I visit the page I created a month ago, I see a box to "submit your draft for review" as opposed to a message that says my entry to under review (or something along those lines). How can I tell if it is being reviewed? Also, I added a photo to my entry but I don't see it on the page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Vegan4theAnimals/sandbox&action=edit&section=1 Vegan4theAnimals (talk) 12:58, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Vegan4theAnimals. Assuming this is about Draft:Tamerlaine Sanctuary and Preserve, it was not submitted. On February 9, a user removed the AfC submission template (for reasons unknown). I have returned it so you can now click the submission button. However, note the comment in the draft "this will need re-writing in a dry neutral, encyclopaedic tone before being submitted for review". Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:24, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

What is overlinking?

I want to know what overlinking is, since I heard it in edits reverted by users. -  Joshua's Number9 (talk) 13:06, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Joshua's Number9. See WP:Overlinking. Here's a tip for finding relevant policies, procedures and guidelines, and most anything else you hear mentioned by regular editors, or come across in Wikipedia's interface. Type "WP: (an easier-to-type alias of "Wikipedia:") into the search box, followed by the word or phrase you heard (in this case "Overlinking"). Most of the time, this will quickly locate a targeted, behind-the-scenes information/help page, or how-to guide. See more at Help:WP search protocol. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:26, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! -  Joshua's Number9 (talk) 13:06, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Vaibhav Maloo

Hi, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Vaibhav_Maloo is pending approval since months, how can I get a conclusion for this page? Nuttyprofessor2016 (talk) 12:15, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Nuttyprofessor2016. It has been a long time, but you can only wait. As it says on the [fourth] submission template: "please be patient. This may take 4 months or more..." Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:27, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

P.S.. In the meantime, you can improve the submission's odds of being accepted by transforming the naked urls into transparently attributed citations, and better attribute the ones that aren't just urls, but provide little detail.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:38, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Nuttyprofessor2016, check in the template where it says "Improving your odds of a speedy review". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:31, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Your request sets me off on a little exploration that somehow leads me to wonder how his father, Vinay Maloo, meets WP:PERSON. -- Hoary (talk) 12:34, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Not that I'm saying it doesn't, but I have always wondered if adding some wikiproject tags to the talk page really has much of an affect at speeding up reviews. It would be interesting to study whether it does often. I am skeptical; a significant overlap between AfC reviewers and Wikiproject participants would be a condition precedent, and then those AfC participants would have to associate their AfC activities with their Wikiprojects in a very deliberate manner.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:38, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm hopeful, I remember a soccer-player being wikiproject-tagged and it was done in hours. The tagging may of course have been unrelated, but as I understand it, it increases the chance that a topic-interested editor may notice it. You may not win, but the investment is cheap. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:44, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Honestly, the best way to get my attention on a draft would be to not include any references, because I always knock those out first (as it gets flagged as such in big red letters). Totally not recommending it, as it leads to an automatic decline, but it does greatly improve your chances of getting reviewed faster! :) Thanks, EDG 543 ^{(message me)} 12:57, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Ha! Very true--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:11, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Someone submitted my talkpage for Afc recently, that was also dealt with very quickly. A little insulting, perhaps. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:39, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

The draft title was salted back in October, so will require an admin to review. Theroadislong (talk) 13:55, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind responses people.User: Nuttyprofessor2016

Kishor salvi

Actor — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kishor salvi 6 (talk • contribs) 13:30, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Kishor salvi 6, hello, friend! You are going to need to specify what you want. Did you have a question? If you desire to make an article about said actor, I wouldn't recommend it. Your username indicates that you are the actor, which would give you a conflict of interest. You can request that another editor create this article here if you'd like. If this actor is truly notable, an article will undoubtedly be created in the future. If you meant something else, please elaborate. Thanks, EDG 543 ^{(message me)} 14:24, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Account Deletion

I want to delete my Wikipedia account! How can I? ProudMallu (📨│📝) 14:02, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

ProudMallu, it's sad to see an editor with as many helpful contributions as yourself go. There is no way to "delete" your account. Typically, you can just abandon the account, maybe place a {{retired}} tag on your user page and talk page to alert other editors to your retirement. You can request a Courtesy vanishing, which involves your username being changed to something random and your user pages and subpages being deleted. Thanks, EDG 543 ^{(message me)} 14:30, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

You can't, really, but see WP:VANISH. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:31, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Help with Draft:Sima Ladjevardian

Recently, I attempted to develop a wikipedia article for a local philanthropist, activist, and political candidate. After several redesigns of the site, I ran into an assortment of criticisms that I'm having trouble addressing.

Initially, the article was criticized for lack of significant coverage. Since then, 34 references have been added detailing my subject's participation in philanthropy and politics over the last fifteen years. These include links to the Houston Chronicle, Texas Tribune, and the Washington Post. Several of these articles are full profiles on the subject, during her Congressional campaign and in her philanthropic endeavors. At this point, I'm not sure how to add more independent, reliable, published sources that the admins will consider valid. These repeated requests seem far in excess of what I've seen for other individual articles, and so I'm having trouble identifying the baseline standard I'm expected to meet.

More recently, an admin suggested the article be submitted as a subsection of 2020 United States House of Representatives elections in Texas. So I'm curious to know if including the subject's fund raising and philanthropic efforts are appropriate in this context. The subject has enjoyed a substantive role in Houston prior to her candidate run and I'd like a space to include that information. Zifnab25 (talk) 14:11, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy Draft:Sima Ladjevardian declined three times, mostly because she ran for Congress and lost.Reviewers have left comments. In my opinion, nothing she has done prior to or after running for Congress makes her notable. David notMD (talk) 15:13, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Musician bio page

Hi, I'm trying to create a musician bio page for myself but it was rejected as the sources were unreliable (bios from bandcamp and spotify). Can I create a page without references? What other references can be used? Here's the text I used:

Raquel Torre (Lacquer) started her music solo project in 2019 releasing two demo singles as Lacquer. In 2020, she released her first album "So Little Changes" with FlexiDiscos and Discodrome Records. This album was conceived in her London room, then taken to the studio where Jonah Falco completed the production, recording, mixing and mastering. Her music reflects her taste for synth sounds, catchy pop and sad melodies. RaquelTorre (talk) 09:16, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

No, you may not create an article about anyone if it lacks references. Nobody may. -- Hoary (talk) 09:22, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi! But the page is about myself. I don't quite understand how my own references and my own published music are not valid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RaquelTorre (talk • contribs) 09:47, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

To save a lot of typing, please read WP:AUTOBIO. I think it will answer a lot of questions. - X201 (talk) 10:18, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Also, please note that an article about yourself is not nessesarely desireable. Victor Schmidt (talk) 11:01, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Qualifying for a Wikipedia article requires that other people have written about you. Your accomplishments (album) could be listed, but contribute not at all to what Wikipedia considers as confirming notability. David notMD (talk) 11:11, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

@RaquelTorre: Welcome to the Teahouse! For more information about Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion (called "notability") for musicians, see WP:MUSICBIO. GoingBatty (talk) 20:13, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

GoingBatty That was a very nice welcome. Maineartists (talk) 15:43, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Is there Chinese or Korean

Is there Chinese or Korean like en-5? chinese-1 won't work for me BlueDaNoob (talk) 22:29, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi BlueDaNoob. I think you might be looking for {{User zh-5}} and {{User ko-4}}. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:43, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

And you can also use {{User zh-4}} or whatever your skill in the language might be. —Belwine (talk) 16:01, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Regarding Draft:Joy Corrigan

Hi, a draft I recently submitted to AfC was reviewed by Robert McClenon. His comments suggested that I take the issues with the draft and relevent COI disclosures to the Teahouse. Here are a couple of issues that I've addressed on the Draft talk:Joy Corrigan in response to the review comments:

1. Discrepancy in Corrigan's date of birth: her date of birth on the List of Playboy Playmates of 2017 is 16 January 1988 with a 'citation needed' tag; however, her actual date of birth is 16 January 1995 as mentioned here and here. There are several articles cited in the draft that mention her age to be 25 (written before her birthday this year). I was hoping that her birth year would be fixed on the 2017 Playmates page once her biography page has been published.
2. Her notability: I believe her notability was checked as an actor - I could be wrong about this, the reviewer would know better. But, she is primarily a fashion model who has also played minor roles. Shouldn't her notability be, then, assessed as a model?
3. The COI disclosure: the page has been tagged with COI; however, I had already added a disclosure on the talk page of the draft and my user page. Is there something else that needs to be done?

Please advise on how to proceed and if there's something else I need to do to resolve the issues. Much appreciated! Hillster (talk) 14:47, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I welcome the opinions of other editors as to whether she satisfies general notability or modeling notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:09, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Edit or Edit source

I feel weird, having 9,600 edits and a year of experience, being here – like an adult in a baby chair. On the right hand of the page, I always see a "Read" - "Edit" - On talk pages "+" - "View history" - star signifying watchlist icon - "More [move, purge, rater, AFCH]" - "TW [ARV, Warn, Wel, TB, CSD, XFD, RPP, Last, Unlink]" In files that show me another user's view, "Edit" is ALWAYS replaced with "Edit source", with no exceptions. A very long time ago, I saw "Edit source" in place of "Edit", but it disappeared when I accidentally enabled VisualEditor, and "Edit source" has never come back since. "Edit" is harmless, of course, and I'm sorry if I'm wasting your time, but where is "Edit source", how do I get it back, and why don't I have it? 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 12:06, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Chicdat, in your preferences, go to the editing tab and uncheck the box that says " Temporarily disable the visual editor while it is in beta." This should make it say "Edit source" instead of just edit. I had this same problem, don't sweat it. Thanks, EDG 543 ^{(message me)} 12:13, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

@Chicdat: The logic behind it is that if you have disabled VisualEditor in preferences then there can only be one kind of edit tab so it isn't necessary to specify the longer "Edit source". If you dislike VisualEditor so much that you both want to disable it and rejoice in seeing an "Edit source" tab then you can add the below to your common JavaScript. It doesn't change section edit links. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:35, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

$( function () {
    var tab, tablink;
    tab = document.getElementById('ca-edit');
    if ( tab ) {
      tablink = tab.getElementsByTagName('a')[0];
      if ( tablink ) {
        tablink.firstChild.nodeValue = 'Edit source';
      };
    };
});

Well, thank you. I'm walking out of my baby chair with great difficulty... 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 10:05, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

@EDG 543: If you have selected "Editing mode: Always give me the source editor", is there any benefit to also ticking the box for "Temporarily disable the visual editor while it is in beta"? (Just curious, as it seems you have used both combinations of settings. Personally, I use "Show me both editor tabs", and haven’t experimented much with disabling VE.) Pelagic ( messages ) – (04:57 Sat 20, AEDT) 17:57, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

How can I make an article?

hi. How to make an article on wikipedia? Editor1234567891011121314151617 (talk) 16:44, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

If you go here you will find instructions on how to create an article. Polyamorph (talk) 16:49, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

See also, this helpful guide. Polyamorph (talk) 16:52, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Editor1234567891011121314151617.

• As noted above, see generally Help:Your first article. Then:

1. compile a list of reliable, secondary, independent sources that treat the topic in substantive detail (think at least two to three paragraphs dedicated to the topic), to see whether it is actually notable, as we use that concept here;
2. if you can't make that list with at least three entries, with different content from one another, write nothing – no article is seemingly possible on whatever the topic is, at this time, because it hasn't been the subject of sufficient independent publication by the wider world – and you will be wasting your time; no amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability;
3. if you can, visit the Wikipedia:Article wizard (also linked above) and follow the prompts to create a draft;
4. write only what the sources you've compiled first verify (without copying the words used); and
5. cite those verifying sources as you write, which will also demonstrate the topic's notability.

Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:21, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Editor1234567891011121314151617 So far, your one article edit has been reverted by an automated program as probable vandalism (it was), and your attempt at a draft Draft:WikiGame should be Speedy Deleted as never-going-to-be-an-article. I suggest you complete the tutorial, and then decide whether you want to contribute to the encyclopedia or not. David notMD (talk) 18:19, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Not sure if this situation would be considered a conflict of interest

Hi; I'm extremely new to editing on Wikipedia; this would be my very first article published. To start, I recently noticed that there wasn't very much information on the topic of Minecraft anarchy servers. There is a page for Minecraft servers as a whole; and on that page they list some notable servers, including one anarchy server, 2b2t. The 2b2t article is excellent; it does a really good job of covering 2b2t in detail. However there are other notable anarchy servers, and semi-anarchy servers, and I think having a page on the genre as a whole would be helpful.

Here is the potential issue: I play on some of these servers pretty regularly. I'm not a member of staff on any servers, or anything like that; but I prefer some of the servers to others. So my question is, if I keep the article descriptive, and list all the notable servers I can think of, would this still be considered a conflict of interest? I've got a draft article submitted for review currently, here-> Draft:Minecraft_Anarchy_Servers, but I would like to improve that while it's pending review, so any and all suggestions are appreciated! Thanks, User: Its_choosday_innit Its choosday innit (talk) 16:20, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

@Its choosday innit Fandoms are not reliable sources as they are community written. Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Questionable_and_self-published_sources. I do not believe this subject to be notable enough for it's own article unless you can find reliable sources from independent news sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gandalf the Groovy (talk • contribs) 16:34, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi there, Its choosday innit, and welcome to the Teahouse. This isn't a conflict of interest (though of course be sure to write from a neutral point of view), and the fact that you're so conscientious of this leads me to believe you'll do a fine job of staying neutral. As far as the draft itself goes, I actually think its overall header structure is good (though it would need a lead section), which is important as essentially the skeleton of the article. I say that, because looking at the header names, these would all be subjects that I – a generic reader – would want to learn about. I found this draft to be an interesting read. It may be worth it to go into the history of prominent servers, but I recognize that might be a whole can of worms.

Where issues start to arise, however, are in the sourcing and in the prose. Use of primary sources is allowed and is often very useful, but the general notability guideline makes sure that each Wikipedia article contains substantial coverage from independent, reliable sources. This does not include user-generated content such as other Wikipedia articles or Fandom articles. This draft in its current state just doesn't have that sort of reliable, independent sourcing, mostly because I'm just not sure it even exists. Moreover, I'm not sure how this draft could distinguish itself from 2b2t given the state of reliable sources' coverage of anarchy servers, as they seem to focus pretty much exclusively on 2b2t. Sadly, I think this draft is between a rock and a hard place, wherein it needs to create an article within the framework of coverage from reliable sources, but most of those reliable sources are focused around 2b2t, the subject of an existing article. Essentially, it either wouldn't be sourced to Wikipedia's standards or it would just become something akin to a fork of 2b2t. That said, I don't want to let this discourage you; none of this reflects on you as an editor. It just means it might be WP:TOOSOON to create an article about this specific subject until reliable sources start covering other anarchy and semi-anarchy servers other than 2b2t. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 16:47, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you both for your advice! Would articles like this be better sources? They're listings of popular servers, so they aren't written exclusively about the servers mentioned in the draft; however some of those servers are on their list, so they do get described briefly. Gamespur article RockPaperShotgun Article If not, no worries! I can keep looking for better coverage of the topic. Thanks again for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Its choosday innit (talk • contribs) 17:05, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Its choosday innit, Hello! If you don't mind I could redirect you to another area; you can visit WP:VG/RS where there is a list of reliable, unreliable, and related sources that specify in video games. You an also get some additional advice from other people in this field at WT:VG, and join their Wikiproject. Panini^🥪 17:39, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Tysm User:Panini! That is super helpful; I have asked my question about additional sources on their advice page here-> video game advice-forum post, and I will check out that list of sources you posted! Thanks again to everyone who's made suggestions! Its choosday innit (talk) 18:58, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

User Names

Hi, How to make designed and customized username like these?

• WhoAteMyButter (📨│📝)

• Novem Linguae (talk)

• PrincessPersnickety (talk)

Wikiaddictcommo, see WP:CUSTOMSIG. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:32, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

@Wikiaddictcommo: Please do not go overboard with this; overly-elaborate signatures clutter up talk page syntax, is distracting, and is generally frowned upon. Please also do not imitate other users' signatures. Either use a simple, original design, or no design at all (which is perfectly fine). ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 08:21, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

@Wikiaddictcommo: I'll just add that the first and third example are almost illegible to me on a tiny mobile screen. There is insufficient colour contrast, and many users with visual impairments will struggle even more. Nick Moyes (talk) 09:08, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Wikiaddictcommo! User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång already gave a link to a section describing how you can change your signature. Please also see this link: WP:CUSTOMSIG/P. It provides some important notes about what you can have and what you should avoid in your signature. --CiaPan (talk) 09:34, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikiaddictcommo, you could always just do a simple signature by just changing the font, as I have. Thanks, EDG 543 ^{(message me)} 12:07, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Another good page to help you is WP:SIGTUT. When you've made your signature, you should use [6] this to see if there's any problems with your signature.max20characters🇺🇸 19:31, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

username vs. article name

User Name 111.119.187.37 (talk) 19:17, 19 March 2021 (UTC) What username will be used to write a bio of some individual

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. Could you please explain what you're asking a little more? max20characters 🇺🇸 19:36, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

111.119.187.37, if you are creating a bio for someone who has an account on some sort of platform, you would use their real name, not their username. If that doesn't answer your question, try saying it in a different way. Thanks, EDG 543 ^{(message me)} 19:56, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

You asked this question yesterday. The answer is the same: a User name is the chosen account name for an editor. It should never be the same as an attempt to create an article about a person. Example: an editor should not select the User name Babe Ruth to create an article about Babe Ruth. David notMD (talk) 21:16, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Where can I write to request page deletion?

NOTE: When replying to me, please add {{Re|GOLDIEM J}} to notify me.

I recently reverted an unconstructive edit, and created user:72.238.60.119/talk while misjudging the text format for a talk page title. Is there a specific space I can request this be deleted, please? Thank you. GOLDIEM J (talk) 17:55, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

@GOLDIEM J: Hello, welcome to the Teahouse. It appears the page was already deleted a while ago. Cheers, max20characters 🇺🇸 19:42, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

@GOLDIEM J: Fastily has already cleaned it up, according to the edit notice I get there. Pelagic ( messages ) – (10:40 Sat 20, AEDT) 23:40, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for duplicated answer, simultaneous edit. Pelagic ( messages ) – (10:42 Sat 20, AEDT) 23:42, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Looking for feedback on my draft

I recently created the draft Draft:Circle of Hope Girls Ranch. I believe that it qualifies for notability because it has been covered in multiple news sources (Kansas City Star, NBC News, CNN) and because a Missouri House bill was created based on the controversy and closure of the school. This is my first time creating an article, so please go easy on me, I'm trying my best. Thank you! :) --Wizzito (talk) 18:00, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Wizzito, from just the quick glance I gave it, I notice that the article is about the school itself, yet solely focuses on the controversy, closure, aftermath, etc. I would suggest adding some details about the school itself prior to the closure. Thanks, EDG 543 ^{(message me)} 18:08, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

EDG 543 Thank you! I'll try my best to find a reliable source about the school before its closure. --Wizzito (talk) 23:01, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Wizzito Definitely agreed with EDG 543 that it's coming along well. Two small things I might do as well: HB 557 & 560 are publicly available, so for example, citing HB 557 which has a link to both bills could be useful for readers alongside the overview KY3 gives about the testimony surrounding those two bills. As this has strong ties to the US, which uses MDY format for their dates (see: MOS:DATETIES), I would also recommend changing the date format in the citations, which is currenty DMY (this is basically trivial and not something you really need to worry about; it's just a small improvement). Either way, it's coming along nicely, and like EDG said, it really just needs to round it the article's coverage. I think you have your work cut out for you, as any local news coverage of the ranch is probably now drowned out by national news stories. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 00:54, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

@Wizzito: Through some digging, I came across an old ABC News article that mentioned the ranch and linked to their website. This website linked to two other websites, one of which was here (multiple captures over the years). Also, I found an article from The Daily Beast stating that the ranch was specifically "fundamentalist Baptist", though if you decide to incorporate this information, I would get a second source just to be sure. As far as the website goes, information includes that the minimum enrollment term (as of 2008) was 24 months. The boarding school did not allow attendees to use prescription drugs, and compelled attendence to church/chapel services and daily biblical instruction. Likewise, this page covers their curriculum, though it describes the minimum enrollment as "one year". TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 01:17, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Is this a template or what?

I found this code in this article

{{:Attack on Titan (season 4)}}

and I wonder if this is a template or something else. I tried to search for the Template:Attack on Titan (season 4) but I didn't find anything. Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 21:43, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Super ninja2. This is done rarely and isn't very well known. What happens is, if you include a colon before template markup, and then place the name of a page within the curly braces, it calls the page's content. However, just as within templates, you can then specify a part of the page only to be called by using <onlyinclude> tags. Here, if you go to the Attack on Titan (season 4) article, and click edit, you'll see that the table there is nested in <onlyinclude> tags. That has no affect on that article's display, but at the list article, that part of the other article is being called to the section where the {{:Name}} markup is placed. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:09, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Super ninja2. Sort of in a sense. As pointed about above, it's not a template per se, but functions like one. It's called a WP:TRANSCLUSION and is sometimes done in certain articles. It can be tricky to do and may cause confusion when trying to edit the original content because it's not really where it seems to be or is expected to be. It can also create unintentional problems, particularly when the transcluded content includes non-free content. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:25, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Marchjuly, User:Fuhghettaboutit, I see. Thank you so much for your help, guys! Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 04:08, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Can we use images from logopedia?

Can we use images from logopedia? SparklesonApple (talk) 02:52, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

@SparklesonApple: What would be the advantage of using a logo from logopedia instead of getting the current logo straight from the source? GoingBatty (talk) 02:58, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi SparklesonApple. Unless it’s the logo of Logopedia itself, I suggest you avoid uploading any logos you find there to Wikipedia. Logos tend to be protected by copyright and one of the criteria for uploading copyrighted logos to Wikipedia us that they not be from copyrighting violating sources as explained here. There might also be some question as to the logo’s accuracy. So, it’s best to try and stick to official original sources as much as possible. — Marchjuly (talk) 04:58, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Article Enquiry

Let me know the reason for the deletion of Tanmay Bakshi and how can I get the Deletion discussion? Thanks in advance WikiShakeshere (talk) 05:11, 20 March 2021 (UTC) WikiShakeshere (talk) 05:11, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

WikiShakeshere, welcome to the Teahouse. You can find the discussion here. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:17, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Tenryuu BTW, have a look at this, I'm I able to create an article on him now? Does it pass GNG? Tanmay is an author of 4 Books, AI expert for IBM, TEDx Speaker, Keynote speaker etc. WikiShakeshere (talk) 05:21, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi WikiShakeshere. If you look at the WP:CLOSE for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tanmay Bakshi, you'll see that the administrator who deleted the article did so as a WP:SOFTDELETE. This means that the administrator mainly did so for procedural reasons based upon the statement made by the editor nominating statement made the for deletion, and not because there was an overwhelming WP:CONSENSUS in favor of deletion. If you wish the recreate the article, then my suggestion would be to either (1) post a request on the user talk page of killiondude and ask them to restore the article or (2) post a request at WP:REFUND asking for the same thing; however, before doing so, it might be better for you to by find at least two or three strong examples of WP:SIGCOV in WP:RELIABLESOURCES which clearly shows Bakshi now meets WP:BIO. The CNBC source has a lot of potential, but it would be a good idea to show that it's not a case of just one writer writing a profile piece about Bakshi, but rather a case where a number of reliable sources are now significantly covering him in detail. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:50, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

article merge

How can I merge an article to another? Did I need to nominate the article for AFD? ProudMallu (📨│📝) 06:40, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

ProudMallu, see Wikipedia:Merging. Twinkle can help with the process; merge proposals are under the "tag" option in the menu. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:44, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Talk for "Sachsenhausen concentration camp" page

I am looking to improve the page on Sachsenhausen concentration camp, which currently has little information about the development of the camp in the pre-War and early War years. In preparation, I have tried to find the "Talk" about the article. The first Talk archive (Talk:Sachsenhausen_concentration_camp/Archive_1) covers the years 2006 to 2009. Changing the address to Archive_2 or _3 finds nothing. The current Talk page is rather unhelpful, consisting mainly of a long piece, which may or may not be a response to an earlier post, and that is dated August 2018. A possibly related aspect is that the List of prisoners of Sachsenhausen was separated out of the main page in August 2018. Is there any way of accessing the Talk posts of 2009 to 2018?

The page on KZ Sachsenhausen in German Wikipedia gives more extensive coverage to the earlier years of the camp and is better structured than the English page. While much of the material that I would add will be taken from primary sources (hopefully to allow the "Needs references" flag to be removed!), it may be helpful to take information from the German page. Are there any guidelines on the etiquette of "borrowing" material from corresponding Wikipedia pages in another language? Douglian30 (talk) 14:12, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Douglian30! You can copy Wikipedia between languages. Make sure to check out Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia to find out how to give proper credit where credit is due (it is required). Thanks, EDG 543 ^{(message me)} 14:39, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Douglian30, and welcome to the Teahouse. Actually, Talk:Sachsenhausen concentration camp/Archive 1 goes up to 2016: for some reason the 2009 posting Talk:Sachsenhausen concentration camp/Archive 1#Were there gas chambers at Sachsenhausen? was missed when the archive was first created in 2018, and the bot added it on the end in 2020. All the 2017 posts were manually removed in this edit, with the edit summary "delete anonymous discussion breaching Talk policy"; but like everything else that has ever been on the talk page, they are accessible in its history.

I see that Talk archiving is documented at Help:Archiving_a_talk_page. --Douglian30 (talk) 09:45, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

For translating a portion from the German: as EDG says, you can do that as long as you attribute it. WP:Translation is helpful. Note that you cannot cite a Wikipedia article as a source, but you can cite the sources cited in the German article (as long as they meet English Wikipedia's criteria for reliable sources) - foreign language sources are acceptable if there is no good English source. Your reference to "primary sources" is a little concerning: you may mean something different from what Wikipedia means by primary sources; but if not, be aware that such sources can only be cited sparingly. --ColinFine (talk) 16:34, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks, both. The archival Talk confirms the risks associated with the Sachsenhausen page, but we owe it to those who suffered to record the facts as best we can. Using "primary source", I was referring to published eyewitness accounts, equating these to journal articles (the primary literature), followed by abstracts (secondary services) and reviews (tertiary literature). These definitions probably vary by subject area and context (food composition took the biscuit here, inverting the national food composition tables to be the primary source and the source of their data to be the secondary source!), but published descriptions of events might be considered a preferred source, as thereafter selection and subjectivity intrude (as indeed they do in writing a Wikipedia page, which is why collaborative editing is important). Douglian30 (talk) 18:05, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Help Resources for Social Issue Entries

Can we add in help resources in posts that addresses social issues, so that victims and allies have more access to the help and education they need? Achingtaurus (talk) 12:56, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Achingtaurus Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. This is not an uncommon proposal, and it is usually rejected because those sorts of things are outside of our mission to build an encyclopedia. If a person has access to Wikipedia, they also have access to search engines where they can easily find such things. 331dot (talk) 13:00, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Looking for feedback on my draft

I recently created the draft Draft:Jeannie Vanasco. I believe that Vanasco qualifies for notability because her latest book has been covered in multiple news sources (New York Times, NPR, Esquire, TIME) and because it has been described as adding something new to the MeToo conversation. This is my first time creating an article. I tried to use a reliable source for each fact included in the entry. Thank you for any help you can provide! I'd like to create more entries for 21st-century women memoirists. :)

Contributor1920 (talk) 12:05, 20 March 2021 (UTC) Contributor1920 (talk) 12:05, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

For one thing, don't just give the URL for a reference; instead, provide the author(s) (if stated), the title of the web page, the name of the website, and any other useful information. Also, if her book has been "covered" in these publications, then a reviewer for each will presumably have said something about it; you're free to summarize this. Happy editing! -- Hoary (talk) 12:48, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

See Help:Referencing for beginners. David notMD (talk) 14:34, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Problem regarding the semi-protection of Talk:Main Page

WP:ERRORS states that "[a]ny other Main Page errors" should be stated in the General discussion section of Talk:Main Page. As this is a newly created account, and Talk:Main Page is semi-protected, I am not able to post my suggestion there. The suggestion i wish to make is (at least in my opinion) not a controversial one, simply that "Norsk Bokmål" should be changed to "Norsk bokmål" in the list at the very bottom of the Main Page. What should i do? Odelslova (talk) 13:11, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Odelslova, welcome to the Teahouse. The languages are added by Template:Wikipedia languages. Suggestions belong at Template talk:Wikipedia languages which everybody can edit. "Norsk Bokmål" is specified in Template:Wikipedia languages/core. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:52, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

The fact that the list of other-language wikis on the left of the Main Page uses the version with the lower-case bokmål, suggests that the OP may have a point. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:41, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for replying! I will leave a suggestion at Template talk:Wikipedia languages. Odelslova (talk) 15:34, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

url-access on paywalled articles that can be accessed freely

When referencing a paywalled article which can also be accessed freely on archive.today, should I still set url-access to subscription? Kleinpecan (talk) 15:53, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Kleinpecan. Please do so. Same for registration and limited TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 16:11, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Can one use archived copies of deleted tweets as references?

I have noticed bots removing Wayback-archived versions of deleted tweets. Is there a Wikipolicy against using removed Twitter posts? Thanks. Cloudbearer (talk) 16:42, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

@Cloudbearer: See WP:RSPTWITTER, from which I take the short answer to be "yes don't use twitter at all" and the slightly longer answer to be "only use it in very limited and special cases." Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:56, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

DhoLuo

Would you permit for DHOLUO translation Project of the projects as its a major language spoken in Uganda,Tanzania and Uganda. Combijah (talk) 13:34, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Combijah. I've read your question a few times. I understand that you're asking something about a project with respect to translating to or from Dholuo, but nothing more. Can you expand a bit about the issue that brought you here? If it's possibly helpful, please see Wikipedia:Translation and Wikipedia:Translate us. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:01, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Combijah If you are requesting the creation of a Dholuo Wikipedia, this is not the concern of the English Wikipedia. Please see meta:Requests for new languages/Wikipedia Dholuo.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 17:00, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Combijah, and welcome to the Teahouse. If you are asking about the possibility of a Wikipedia in Dholuo, there is a Wikipedia in Luo under test: see incubator:Wp/luo. --ColinFine (talk) 17:04, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

How best to seek permission for photos use

Hello house, this is my first time here. I am still trying to find my way around the community. I will like to know how best to seek copyright permissions to use photos generally on Wikipedia and in particular, this new page I created: Sarah Friar, how can I get a photo to the page without copyrights infringements? It would be most appreciated if I get a broad answer for future purposes, rather than just for the aforementioned article. Thank you. MesutOzula (talk) 08:55, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, check out these thorough steps for seeking permission from author of a photo. The link goes to separate but related Wikimedia Commons project: commons:Commons:Permission Shushugah (talk) 09:20, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MesutOzula (talk • contribs) 09:42, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Is that the right link, Shushugah? It goes to a disambiguation page. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:45, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

A better link for something like this would probably be either c:Commons:OTRS/Consent or c:Commons:Email templates. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:17, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

My understanding was that MesutOzula is looking for advice on how to find a photo that can be used, rather than how to provide evidence of permission. Is that right, MesutOzula? Cordless Larry (talk) 11:38, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry I'd love to know the processes involved adding photos to new articles. I have had my files deleted in the past. This has been my most difficult part of editing here. How do I declare that a photo was given to me by the copyright owner without appearing to have COI? The photos of the subject of my article are all over the internet, but how do I upload the file without having it deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MesutOzula (talk • contribs)

Please sign your statements by typing ~~~~ and in case that c:Commons:OTRS/Consent is what you are looking for. Shushugah (talk) 12:33, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Even if someone gives you a photograph, MesutOzula that does NOT mean they have given you the copyright. Indeed, they may not even own the copyright, which for photographs lies with the photographer, not the subject of the photo (unless it was a selfie!). You may only upload photographs which you personally have taken, or for which a special process has been followed in which the copyright holder donates the material to Wikipedia (see Commons links as above). Many people deliberately don't license photos of themselves in ways suitable for Wikipedia, despite being "all over the internet". Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:53, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Michael D. Turnbull thank you for this explanation. So I have to look at the photographers not the subjects of the photographs.MesutOzula (talk) 17:22, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

New Page

Greetings! I recently submitted a draft page for review, and I haven't heard anything about it being accepted. It does not show up on the search, so I assume it's still pending. When can I expect my page to be added to the Wikipedia library? Thanks for any information you can provide. Here's the page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Sam_Byrd --Rkwbyrd (talk) 17:20, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

You didn't submit it for review (you have to click a button to do it). Also, I don't want to discourage you but I'm afraid it won't be accepted in its current form because it doesn't have any references. Kleinpecan (talk) 17:36, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Rkwbyrd, and welcome to the Teahouse. I've added a header to Draft:Sam Byrd with a button that you can pick when you think that the draft is ready for review. However, at present it is nowhere near ready. Like many inexperienced editors you have plunged into the extremely difficult task of creating an article without understanding what is important and what is less so. Absolutely the most important part of any article are the references to reliable sources, wholly unconnected with the subject, because 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. None of the external links in your draft is in any way relevant to grounding an article about Byrd.

Furthermore, judging by your user name, I guess you have a connection with Byrd. If so, you have a conflict of interest in writing about him - please read that link. If Byrd meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability, then somebody unconnected will in time get round to writing an article about him. If he doesn't, then any time and effort spent by you or anybody else on an article about him will be time wasted. --ColinFine (talk) 17:37, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

See WP:TOOSOON for why not try to create an article too early in a person's career. David notMD (talk) 18:35, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

A user is harassing me

Hi , a user from India. harrassing me, asking questions, writing on my talk page. Anothor user from same area nominating my articles for deletion just to harass me. And asking questions, If you're from America, Why your editing articles about India.WP is global website. How can they question me ,why I'm editing about this. I just warn him once because he's using Malyalam language on WP. Because it is Eng project. From that point he's coming on my talk page and asking and writing questions.The user is User :AARYA SAJAYAN and User: kashmorwiki. He's vandalizing. They're doing editing war.Research Voltas (talk) 14:56, 19 March 2021 (UTC) Research Voltas (talk) 14:56, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Two users from India trolling me. Because I warned one of them for increasing his edits by wrong means. And other one is disrupting new article Nahata college by pasting Speedy deletion temple. The article have sources but they're trolling and harassing me. I want to delete their messages from my talk page and block them from editing my talk page. Research Voltas (talk) 15:01, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

You can remove any message from your talk page. Ruslik_Zero 15:31, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

The Kahata College article was nominated for deletion at AfD, not Speedy Deletion. You improperly removed the AfD template and it was restored. You can participate at AfD, and also attempt to improve the article. David notMD (talk) 15:35, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I think Research Voltas, do not know what is vandalism. The user is simply accusing me for vandalism. Moreover, I am a rollbacker who fights vandalism. It would be better, if someone teach this user what vandalism is. Regards. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 15:45, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

AARYA SAJAYAN, she doesn't obey Wikipedia rules. Admin need to block her. That's for sure. And you, Research Voltas is not from the United States. Firstly, your English proves that. Secondly, this one, you stated there you wishes to visit England as well as United States. Shame on you. Kichu is doing his duties very well. 223.228.158.168 (talk) 15:53, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

@223.228.158.168:, someone not having as good a grasp of the English language as others doesn't at all mean that they aren't from the US. That doesn't even make sense. And the "incriminating" evidence you provided states that he wishes to go to New York, a single state, not the country as a whole. I live in the US, but, believe it or not, I have never visited New York, either. These attacks need to stop, regardless of what is going on. Thanks, EDG 543 ^{(message me)} 17:01, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

AARYA SAJAYAN was blocked once. But Me and Oshwah talked about our policies and guidelines to her, and was given a second chance by Oshwah itself. She is doing well after that Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 16:01, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

223.228.158.168 your language is so offensive. WP don't allow use of foul language against our editors. I suggest experienced admin to block all these editors. Some of them today threat me because I warned him not use Malyalam from since he and he's friend. Started writhing on my talk page. I suggest strong actions against them Research Voltas (talk) 16:14, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

[7] is this what you call vandalism. A user apologising to you for being uncivil in your talk page? And Aarya has been never warned by any user for vandalism. Same in my case also. I have nothing more to say. I am assuming good faith here and I would like to thankyou for wasting my time. I have other works to do here. Regards. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 16:54, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

For the benefit of those reading along, Research Voltas has been blocked as a duck of Kundan Ravindra Dhayade. As an uninvolved passerby, RV's reaction to AS seems out of proportion to their interactions. Me takes deep breath before climbing onto soapbox... loose allegations of "harassment", "trolling" and "vandalism" hurt the project by distracting from actual harassment. Pelagic ( messages ) – (12:37 Sat 20, AEDT) 01:37, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

As I'm new to these issues and problems, I was really worried what was happening. I am not used to these types of issues and I have never been referred to be offensive to anyone. Again I'm repeating that I am very sorry and I'm regretful about hurting anyones feelings in this platform. And a big Thanks for all sincere editors here who supported me. I'm also very sorry for Research Voltas if I have hurt his feelings, I truly did never mean to.....ThanksAARYA SAJAYAN (talk) 09:55, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be discussed at WP:AN/I? There is a harassment section there.--Filmomusico (talk) 19:04, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Draft delete

How to delete a draft by a non author of the draft page? I only know Db-g7, which is used by authors only. ProudMallu (📨│📝) 09:30, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

ProudMallu You may use any of the relevant speedy deletion criteria. If you just want to delete it just because, it's not necessary as drafts are deleted after six months of inactivity. If you feel that there is a reason to delete it that is not one of the speedy deletion criteria, you may start a discussion at Miscellany for deletion. 331dot (talk) 09:34, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi ProudMallu. The Criteria for speedy deletion are generally strictly construed, and require some study to see whether they apply (I say this because it happens a lot: don't just read the summaries but the criteria themselves, setting out the actual coverage details). Generally speaking, for drafts, the criteria that might apply would be CSD G11 (blatant advertising, requiring fundamental rewrite); CSD G12 (unambiguous copyright violation, with no prior version to revert to [you might check out this guide]) and of course CSD G13, referred to in the post above, which only applies after six months of inactivity.

There are a few other criteria that could potentially be applicable (e.g., G3, G5 and G10), but they're not nearly as common. As to MfD, it is rare that using up community resources on discussion of a draft that meets no CSD is warranted, where they are going to be deleted under G13 in the normal course anyway. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 10:53, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, how can I delete a draft page? I'm am not the creator of that draft. But the creator is not edited the page after July 2020. Like Db-g7, is there is any templete to delete the draft ? ProudMallu (📨│📝) 12:40, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Why does its existence concern you, ProudMallu? -- Hoary (talk) 12:44, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Moved up in the page, ProudMallu, because there's no reason to start a second thread on the same subject. -- Hoary (talk) 12:46, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

@Fuhghettaboutit: Fixed your piped link for CSD G12 above. GoingBatty (talk) 20:05, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Notable enough?

It was recommended to me that an article be created for cement alternatives. While some new materials are admixtures of cement and additives (air, hemp), others are new materials which are desirable for their lower carbon cost in manufacture and use. The article would talk about these two types of alternatives. The new material, Ferrock and Carbicrete have won development grants of some millions of dollars and been published in the journal of the University of Arizona. The idea was presented by someone who is developing a cement alternative. I am a climate activist.

Is this article notable enough for inclusion?

-Edit to say I do have references, it's in my draft. Not sure where to put the draft or who to show it to- Thank you Nellas Galadhon (talk) 20:25, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

@Nellas Galadhon: Whether this topic meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion - called "notability" - depends on the quality of your independent reliable sources, and whether you have a conflict of interest. The instructions at Help:Your first article will help you make a draft. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 21:55, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Nellas Galadhon, and welcome to the Teahouse. Please look at notability - as long as you have several reliable sources wholly unconnected with the inventors then you may be able to establish it is notable, but if the only sources are from them, their institution, their funders etc, then those will not count towards notability and an article will not be accepted. When you write your draft, remember that Wikipedia is basically not interested in what the inventors say or want to say: the article must be almost 100% based on what people who have no connection with them have published about the materialt it may be TOOSOON. In any case, please see your first article for how to go about making your draft. --ColinFine (talk) 21:55, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Linking to a picture in Google Street View

Dear Sir/Madam, I am trying to use an image from Google Street View. Google's policy indicates that I can link to the image, but can't save it as a picture and upload it. Under these circumstances how can I use a link to a street view image in my article?

Thank you! Hlaskoart (talk) 21:31, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Hlaskoart, and welcome to the Teahouse. The policy for where and when external links are permitted is very restrictive: please see WP:External links. --ColinFine (talk) 21:57, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Hlaskoart: Welcome to the Teahouse! You might want to consider if Template:External media would meet your needs. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 21:57, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your help! Hlaskoart — Preceding undated comment added 22:18, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Help with paraphrasing

May I have some help with paraphrasing Isla, Espinosa, and Iantanos when they say: "the Baker River activated capturing the drainage of both basins towards the Pacific Ocean. The deactivation of the Pinturas and Deseado systems caused the lowering of progressive younger fluvial terraces, a record of hanging tidal flats at the inlet"? I understand what it means, but the wording and technical language is so dense that I don't really know how to best, or how to, unpack it for the reader without using similar verbiage. Thanks! Tyrone Madera (talk) 16:55, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

References

I am guessing that this in relation to your adding a History section to Cueva de las Manos with the abovementioned quote from Isla et al. I recommend being less detailed and not quoting. From the article, I think that you could write: The Pinturas and Deseado Rivers drained to the Atlantic Ocean, and in doing so provided water for herds of guanacos, making the area attractive to paleoindians. As the glacial ice fields melted, the Baker River captured the drainage of the eastward flowing rivers and redirected the flow to the Pacific Ocean. This led to a progressive abandonment of the Las Manos site.

This way, you can leave out the fluvial terraces and hanging tidal flats, and still convey what happened. David notMD (talk) 18:28, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

David notMD, thanks for your help! Yeah, it's related to the Cueva de las Manos history section. Should I credit you in the paraphrase, or is that redundant or unnecessary? Tyrone Madera (talk) 19:16, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I am very much a behind the scenes sort of person. No need to acknowledge me in the article's Talk David notMD (talk) 00:14, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

How do I insert a new "reference" into someone else's edited-by-me article?

How do I insert a new "reference" into someone else's edited-by-me article, and then cite it in different places therein? Kisevalter Was Nash (talk) 12:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "someone else's edited-by-me article"; but no matter, because the way you add a new reference to any article is: (i) make sure that the reference is to a reliable, independent, published source; (ii) make sure that a reference to it would be helpful (that what you want to reference isn't adequately referenced already); (iii) at any one of these places (preferably the first), add <ref name="XYZ">content of reference</ref> (where XYZ is any string not used elsewhere for the same purpose); (iv) at each of the others, add <ref name="XYZ" />. -- Hoary (talk) 12:34, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

@Kisevalter Was Nash: Independent sources are needed to establish Wikipedia:Notability but not all sources have to be independent. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:08, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

" ... add <ref name="XYZ">content of reference</ref> (where XYZ is any string not used elsewhere for the same purpose); (iv) at each of the others, add <ref name="XYZ" /> "

Huh?

Kisevalter Was Nash (talk) 14:21, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Read WP:CITE carefully and come back if you are still puzzled, Kisevalter Was Nash. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:34, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

@Kisevalter Was Nash: Please see Help:Footnotes#Footnotes: using a source more than once - this expands on what Hoary said above. Nthep (talk) 14:34, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Independent sources are needed to establish Wikipedia:Notability but not all sources have to be independent. PrimeHunter (talk) 

Thanks, but I'm not trying to establish the notability of the person, I'm trying to point out how there have been a lot of misconceptions floating around, for several years now, about him, and about the good and the bad people he dealt with, and about the situations they acted in, in general. The reputable book (published by Yale University Press) I'm trying to insert as a reference is the most accurate one on the KGB-versus-CIA wars of the Cold War I know of, and it tends to back me up on the edits I'm making in someone else's slightly misleading (imho) article. Kisevalter Was Nash (talk) 14:47, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Was Nash Kisevalter: That link to Help:Footnotes describes how to do it in wikitext. I'll just add for completeness that if you're using the "classic" 2010 editor, see Help:Footnotes#RefToolbar for a way to generate the markup by filling out a form. (Visual Editor and its brother 2017 NWE have a similar facility, but you don’t get to choose the name, it generates one of the form ":2". Mobile source editor doesn’t have a cite tool IIRC.) Some articles use different referencing styles such as list-defined references; the built-in tools cover the basic use case with inline references and {{cite book}}. Hope that helps, Pelagic ( messages ) – (11:33 Sun 21, AEDT) 00:33, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Small bug that needs fixing

Citations #26 and #27 are the same on this page. Is there a way to change this? I only need one citation but for some reason it's not letting me erase the duplicate. TrevortniDesserpedx (talk) 00:43, 21 March 2021 (UTC) TrevortniDesserpedx (talk) 00:43, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

EDG did it. David notMD (talk) 00:51, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Trevortnidesserped, I have remedied the issue for you, friend. Have a nice day! Thanks, EDG 543 ^{(message me)} 00:52, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Cuban food tax question

Cuban food tax Fidelcastro2 (talk) 00:06, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Fidelcastro2, come again? Thanks, EDG 543 ^{(message me)} 00:22, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Cuban Food Tax has no references. What is/are your question(s). David notMD (talk) 00:53, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Created a page by mistake

Hello. I meant to start a draft page for an article but published an actual page instead: Ballet Florida. Would someone please help me revert it somehow to a draft? Sorry for the trouble!! Remando (talk) 01:07, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Remando, no trouble at all, friend! I have moved it to Draft:Ballet Florida for you. Take care now! Thanks, EDG 543 ^{(message me)} 01:13, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

@EDG 543, bless you! Remando (talk) 01:16, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Photo of the wrong person.

When I google "George Kisevalter," up pops the link to the Wikipedia article on him, but the photo of the man in or near that link is of CIA officer William Hood, not George Kisevalter.

How to delete that photo and insert a correct one? Kisevalter Was Nash (talk) 12:32, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

If you're saying that there's a mistake in the Wikipedia article, then you're free to correct it. If OTOH you're saying that the Wikipedia article gets it right but Google makes a mistake, then this is a matter you're free to take up with Google. -- Hoary (talk) 12:36, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Kisevalter Was Nash: welcome to the Teahouse. That is a pretty common thing to happen with the Google "knowledge panel" – Google's algorithms combine information and pictures about different people quite incorrectly. Usually it is different people by the same name, but sometimes there is no understanding how the robots reasoned... Anyway, this is an issue with Google and Wikipedia cannot do anything to fix it, but my experience is that if you submit a report to Google, they often fix it fairly quickly. There is a link called "Feedback" below the panel and if you click it, you'll be taken to a form to report the error. --bonadea contributions talk 12:42, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Kisevalter Was Nash. There are no images of any kind currently being used in the article George Kisevalter. I'm not sure where the photo that shows up in Google is coming from (I can see it too), but (as Hoary and Bonadea posted above) that's an issue with Google not Wikipedia. Finally, Just curious about your choice of username. Do you by chance have any connection to George Kisevalter? -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:46, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Actually, I did figure out where the Google photo is coming from: it's from Georgy Kiesewalter. My guess is that this is just a mix-up due to the similarity of the names that has nothing to do with Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:50, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Kisevalter Was Nash: George Kisevalter has no photo. My Google search shows the photo in Georgy Kiesewalter, an unrelated person. That article mentions "Kisevalter" as a wrong anglicized form and calls him "George Kiesewalter" in a link to his offical site which uses that spelling, so I can understand Google's error. Google's "Feedback" link is your best chance to remove the wrong image. If you can find a free photo and add it to George Kisevalter then Google may use it but we have no control over that. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:59, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, I added hatnotes cross-referencing the two. Doesn’t fix Google, but it may help our readers. ;) — Pelagic ( messages ) – (12:38 Sun 21, AEDT) 01:38, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Creating an Article in Main Space

Hello. First, I would like to thank the bot who welcomed me here. Second, I would like to know why I am being redirected to either sandbox or Article Wizard, upon creating an article? My contributions will show that I managed to create not one, but four articles yesterday by using a redirect, since I was unable to create them without it.:(--Filmomusico (talk) 18:57, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

@Filmomusico: You stumbled upon a shortcut for new article creating, and that is overwriting redirects. Doing it that way does not flag the new page patrol editors, as it would if you used the wizard, but people who are monitoring large changes to existing articles will see them. In your case, the articles look like they are being restored as redirects because the albums do not meet Wikipedia’s notability guidelines. See WP:NALBUM. I recommend you start a discussion on the band’s talk page. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:33, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

@Filmomusico: you can always modify the URL in your browser adress bar to directly create an article in mainspace. the format you are looking for is https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Your article name goes here&action=edit&redlink=1. Alternatively, you can use this nice box:

However, please be aware that articles created directly in mainspace are required to be at least a valid stub, and conform to the most content policies. If you are not sure, use the Draft namespace. Victor Schmidt (talk) 19:37, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

@Victor Schmidt: But it sends me back to Article Wizard. I have some very good sources for couple of articles on film. To be honest with you, only 2 were restored. The rest were fixed and remained.--Filmomusico (talk) 19:43, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

This is exactly why I don't do the Article Wizard: This may take 4 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order.--Filmomusico (talk) 19:48, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Filmomusico, in three days you will be autoconfirmed, and able to create articles directly in main space. I always advise editors in your position not to do so, because unless you can create an article well enough in one attempt, it will probably get deleted or draftified quickly; but if you have a 50% record of articles remaining already, perhaps you'll be able to make it work. I will say, though, what's your hurry? --ColinFine (talk) 21:50, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

@ColinFine: No hurry at all, I just wasn't aware that it takes 3 days to become autoconfirmed. I thought it's within 24 hours.:)--Filmomusico (talk) 02:25, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Unconstructiveness

well recently my changes were reverted for "unconstructiveness" i dont understand this. please state why.(less go) Zzinedd (talk) 00:24, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Your edits to Dababa were clearly vandalism, and you were warned. David notMD (talk) 00:32, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Zzinedd, I think you know exactly why your edits were reverted, friend. [8] and [9]. Filling the page with nonsense about "da baba is the island of dababy (less go)" and then randomly placing more "less goes" is considered vandalism. Please refrain from doing so ever again or you risk being blocked from editing. Thanks, EDG 543 ^{(message me)} 00:35, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Aaaand ... they are now blocked for WP:NOTHERE after abusing other editors on their talk page. (more go) — Pelagic ( messages ) – (13:48 Sun 21, AEDT) 02:48, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Username change

Hello, my name is Rafael A. Reese, and I am requesting that my user name be changed to rafaelreese38. I was rushing and I didn't go through the page carefully before picking the user name. rafaelreese38 is the user name I use for everything; my new user name is always in small case. I would appreciate it very much if you can please help me change my old user name to my requested new one before I continue writing my page. Thank you very much for helping me with this !!!!!! Rafael A. Reese (talk) 00:01, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Rafael A. Reese Hello. You may make a request to change your username at Special:GlobalRenameRequest. Technical limitations prevent the first letter from being lower case, but you can add a signature to display lower case. See WP:SIGNATURE. 331dot (talk) 00:07, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, my name is Rafael A. Reese, and I am requesting that my username be changed to RafaelReese38. I was rushing and I didn't go through the page carefully before picking the username. RafaelReese38 is the new username I would like to use. I would appreciate it very much if you can please help me change my old username to my requested new one before I continue writing my page. Thank you very much for helping me with this!!!!!! This is the only Username I want to use. Rafael A. Reese (talk) 01:33, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

you just asked this. see answer above RudolfRed (talk) 01:44, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Rafael, see the answer above. Pelagic ( messages ) – (13:00 Sun 21, AEDT) 02:00, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, my name is Rafael A. Reese, and I am requesting that my username be changed to RafaelReese38. I was rushing and I didn't go through the page carefully before picking the username. RafaelReese38 is the new username I would like to use. I would appreciate it very much if you can please help me change my old username to my requested new one before I continue writing my page. Thank you very much for helping me with this!!!!!! This is the only Username I want to use. Rafael A. Reese (talk) 01:57, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Log out of "Rafael A. Reese". Register, and log in, and edit, as "RafaelReese38". Forget about "Rafael A. Reese". (You could ask to be renamed, but you haven't made any substantial contributions, so nobody would benefit, while somebody would have to spend their time doing the renaming.) -- Hoary (talk) 02:28, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Rafael A. Reese, your question has been comprehensively answered; please don't ask it yet again. -- Hoary (talk) 02:39, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Asked seven times now, in various places. I have provided the user with a link to this thread so he can find it again. Meters (talk) 03:43, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Template: Skyscraper in Malaysia

Wikipedians from Malaysia, or in Malaysia, If you are interested in this new program, please inform me ASAP.

This is a Template: Skyscraper in Malaysia project. As you see, I found some shortcoming and mislead information in the template, not some, but generally a lot. Muar Trade Centre, if, it is qualified as a skyscraper, then, to its height, which is at least 100 metres to be featured on the list (it is obviously not), tens of thousand of condominiums, high-rises, apartments and offices, should be listed to date (which obviously, some should be and some shouldn't be). Those malls and residences, aren't particularly skyscraper. If you, just ask, Malaysians or local people, Muar, Skyscraper? They would laugh off the guts. Plaza Shell etc., skyscraper, not in a thousand years.

If you would like to help, well reform the template, leave a note, tqsm.

Regards, H. M. 11

• Feel free to leave a discussion note, if you disagree. Hypersonic man 11 (talk) 11:54, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Hypersonic man 11. I guess you mean Template:Skyscrapers in Malaysia. Muar Trade Centre (11 floors) and Plaza Shell (14 floors [10]) does sound low for a skyscraper. A navigation template isn't really something we make a project about. We have more than 100,000. Just edit it. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:25, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Not just this, but all. You see, this term, can cover thousands of building across all states. It's not just one, but a lot. Hence, can I just launch an attention? Would you lend a hand? Hypersonic man 11 (talk) 12:44, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

@Hypersonic man 11: I'm not helping but I have tagged Template talk:Skyscrapers in Malaysia with two WikiProjects. You could ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Skyscrapers or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Malaysia but they have low activity. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:43, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, but to anyone that wants to lend a hand, please notify me ASAP. Hypersonic man 11 (talk) 07:03, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I want sandbox

The sentenced one (talk) 08:24, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi The sentenced one and welcome to the Teahouse. There should be a link to your sandbox near the top right of any Wikipedia page. After you click it just type what you like in the text box and publish it to save it.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:45, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

What to do about articles that are beyond repair

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Teahouse

 – Marchjuly (talk) 09:12, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

What to do about articles that are beyond repair and would be easy to just write from the scratch rather than trying to fix it? For example Datacard Group. It is promotional & lot of sources that don't fulfil our standards. WP:TNT applies for such cases? Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 03:57, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

In my opinion an article that has been in existence for ten years and has had dozens of editors work on it should not be TNT'd. Instead, delete crap, replace bad references, and then build it up. In my experience revising dietary supplement articles, there was always a core of valid information that was worth saving. (Although for Tocotrienol it took cutting from 60,000 to 20,000 bytes to unearth it.) David notMD (talk) 11:18, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

A problem with this article is that it overlaps with Entrust. If I understand history, Datacard Group bought Entrust, and then later renamed itself Entrust (Wah!). David notMD (talk) 11:40, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Where to look to see how a more experienced members are formatting their references in articles?

When, for example, I click "edit source" on the "References" part of the Yuri Nosenko article, all I see below the big symbols box is something that creates this (template?):

==References==
{{reflist |30em | refs =
}}

Question: Is there anything I can do to see, for learning purposes only, how other members are formatting their references? Was Kisevalter Nash? (talk) 01:48, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, WKN, if you edit the page in source mode, you'll see what code they have used. You can then cancel the edit without making any changes. The most common form is like <ref name="blah">{{cite book| title=... |authorlast=...}}</ref> Usually it's in the text where the footnote marker is shown, and the References section only has {{Reflist}}. — Pelagic ( messages ) – (13:11 Sun 21, AEDT) 02:11, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Was Kisevalter Nash?. Almost all Wikipedia articles use inline references. The wikicode that generates each reference is added to the source code directly after the sentence or paragraph that it supports. The reflist template then gathers up all of those references and displays them properly in the References section. Please read Referencing for beginners for all the details. To see "best practices" by very experienced editors, take a look at some Featured articles, which have gone through rigorous peer review. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:34, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Jim, you explained that better than I did. Pelagic ( messages ) – (13:52 Sun 21, AEDT) 02:52, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Ah, sorry WKN, I understand the question better now. Try edit source on the section where the reference is introduced, rather than on the References section. (Edit source on the full page will also work, but it could be overwhelming on a long page.) There can also be entries listed inside {{Reflist |refs= ...}} (WP:LDN), the software handles both, so you may have to look in both locations. Pelagic ( messages ) – (13:29 Sun 21, AEDT) 02:29, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Just going to point out it is possible to add the formatted citations to the "References" section of an article and then add links to these citations inline near the text they support as explained in Help:Shortened footnotes, but this style isn't as common as the one described above by Cullen328 and it's also a bit trickier to use. I'm only bringing it up because you will find some WP:FAs and WP:GAs which use this citation style when you go looking for examples of how to format citations. Some other important things about citations are explained in WP:CITESTYLE and MOS:DATEUNIFY. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:41, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Writing stupid things

If Wikipedia is to help people why do you let peeps write stupid things on your subjects? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hdhhdhbd (talk • contribs) 12:48, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Questioner is blocked. -- Hoary (talk) 13:11, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Poetry/short story collections - Should we list their tables of contents/create articles for this purpose?

Hello, This requires a bit of explanation, so bear with me!

Something that I think would be very useful for researchers and people interested in poetry is having a place where we list the contents of each collection, so that if they are searching for which collection a specific poem was originally published, they can actually find it (this is surprisingly difficult to do on the internet, I would usually have to call a librarian or two until one of them can look up the book and send me the table of contents).

For cases such as Robert Frost's first book, A Boy's Will, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Boy%27s_Will) the contents are listed, which is very helpful in identifying which poems of his come from his earliest published collection.

However for most poets, when I look them up on wikipedia, I often see a list of poetry collections they wrote, but the collections often do not have their own articles, likely due to the works being out of print and/or not meeting notability requirements. Even looking at Robert Frost's poetry collections, many do not have their own articles since they are not his more notable collections.

My question is this: is it appropriate to create an article for a collection of poetry just so that I can list the table of contents? I would not have much other information to add beyond the publication info and contents, but I think it would be very helpful for many people to have this information somewhere. This would, however, create potentially many short articles that are essentially lists of poems and a publishing date, so I'm not sure if that would be appropriate. Is Wikipedia the right place for this?

Thank you for your time! -A new user 24.55.162.1 (talk) 16:02, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello. In order for a book such as a poetry collection to be eligible for a Wikipedia article, it must comply with Wikipedia:Notability (books). An article consisting only of a date and a list of poems is not acceptable, because Wikipedia is not a directory. Articles about books should have prose describing the book, including summaries of critical commentary. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:44, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

The other approach we have is List of poems by Robert Frost. But I imagine we would only do that for particularly famous and prolific authors? (It could be modelled in Wikidata, e.g Birches (Q16385136) part of (P361) Mountain Interval (Q6925009); that’s a whole other discussion.) Pelagic ( messages ) – (05:33 Sat 20, AEDT) 18:33, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I think you may have missed the point being made by the OP, possibly in part due to misunderstandings in what may be valuable and notable for inclusion in an article about a book of poetry (or a poet's work more broadly). My understanding is that the OP want consideration of including additional types on information for books on poetry (lets assume for argument's sake that it is a book that meets notability requirements). The 'implication' would be broad - that this change ought be made, or become part of the standard layout, for any article on a book - but it is one that makes some sense. This suggestion was that an article on a book of poetry ought include the basic Table of Contents of that book, or even just a list of the poems that would be found within it. This seems to me something that already should be standard practice. Expanding from there to books (again, lets stick to assuming notable books are in question), we run into some problems but nothing that can't be helped. A basic chapter list, for example, could be provided with any relevant titles. While Google Books is working on doing this, and the 'look inside' feature on Amazon allows for this on most books, it is decentralized and not part of any general knowledge, encyclopedic article. On that, I think listing the poems in a notable work should be appropriate. I'd also argue that it would be appropriate to have a list of poems for each book listed as being written by a notable poet. Wikipedia can provide this type of information without becoming a 'directory' (it already is a directory, technically, de facto - just in a much broader way)

My biggest concern here relates to something common across Wikipedia (and one reason I've stopped editing for years at a time): there is very little consideration given to what experts on a particular field consider to be notable, significant, of primary concern. A layperson who is good at biographies may work on Emily Dickinson's without considering what a poet, or an expert on English Literature, would want to know or would consider most important. Neither are wrong, but neither are correct alone. Without allowing experts to say 'hey, this is something me and my peers are frustrated by - why doesn't wikipedia articles on X contain Y and Z? Y and Z are of central importance to X in most academic work currently being conducted. We know it may seem a bit trivial to a layperson, but anyone who studies X intensively will be interested in Y and Z!' --- there is a tendency towards dogma that creates unnecessary restrictions in terms of identifying and providing information that is relevant, timely and useful... Sorry for the (likely inappropriately placed - but serious!) rant.

RememberToForget (talk) 15:14, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Moving article from English page to Portuguese

I've written an article in Portuguese and it ended up in the English Wikipedia page by accident. Is it possible to move it to the Portuguese page? Or will I have to start a new one? Megkawauchi (talk) 15:06, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

You could copy-paste the article to the Portuguese Wikipedia and request deletion of the one on the English Wikipedia per WP:G7, or tag the English article with {{Not English}} and list it at WP:NOTENGLISH. βӪᑸᙥӴ • Talk • Contribs 15:40, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Will do that! Thanks for your help! Megkawauchi (talk) 16:45, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Can I add a reddit community (sub) link in the "See also" or "External links" section?

Hello, I am not sure of the policy of putting reddit community links in "See also" or "External links" section of an article. Can I add the reddit link if it is published in a secondary reliable source? To be specific, I would like to add https://www.reddit.com/r/exbahai to this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_former_Baháʼís. Thank you. Serv181920 (talk) 16:43, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Serv181920. No this cannot be linked to for multiple reasons. See the external links content guideline. As a line in the sand, pages like this inevitably have material of questionable copyright status; see WP:ELNEVER. More generally this is simply not "neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject", and is within the ambit of WP:LINKSTOAVOID, such as WP:NOSOCIAL. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:06, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks.Serv181920 (talk) 17:09, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Past or Present Tense

When writing a list of events in a timeline which tense do you use? For example,Would it be January 9 – The 2010 South Korean Figure Skating Championships are held in Seoul on January 10 or January 9 – The 2010 South Korean Figure Skating Championships were held in Seoul on January 10? Looking through similar articles I have found a amjority are in present tense.  Gandalf the Groovy (talk) 22:00, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

@Gandalf the Groovy: I suggest using the past tense for previous events per MOS:TENSE. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 22:02, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

@Gandalf the Groovy: On the other hand, present tense is used in featured content such as Timeline of chemistry and Timeline of the Manhattan Project. I've never been able to find explicit WP guidelines on this topic, but many other WP timelines use present tense, as do most non-WP timelines. (See also the close of Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 142#Request for comment regarding tense for past events.) Deor (talk) 17:33, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

About Yorkshire Terriers - In The British Isles Today

Hi I contributed a piece on the above subject. This piece was original in Our Dogs under Traditional Yorkshire Terriers Are Great. It was removed by someone called cavalryman or similar. WHY please? Classicyorks (talk) 17:30, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Classicyorks. You did not provide enough information about the source you cited for anyone to verify the content, or whether or not it is actually a reliable source. Please see Referencing for beginners. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:36, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Relevance of topic within article Stacey Plaskett

In the article on Stacey Plaskett, section Personal life, the second paragraph about the actions of her former staffers seems inappropriate and irrelevant. I propose to delete the paragraph and the associated citations. The third paragraph seems out of place but I don't know where to put it. Comments, please? CMtemCA (talk) 23:47, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

In my opinion. delete both paragraphs. State clearly in your Edit summary that you deleted referenced content that in your opinion was not relevant to her personal life. You may also want to make an entry on the Talk page of the article, stating the same. That way, if reverted, you have already started a discussion that you can direct the reverting editor to. David notMD (talk) 00:23, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

OK - done. Thanks! CMtemCA (talk) 20:23, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Creating a page

Hi, can someone do me a favour? Can you please create a page named ‘Central Scotland Young Labour’ and put an info box with the following titles : Chair Vice Chair Secretary Membership and Campaigns Officer Women’s Officer Mother party Website

you can just leave all the information inside them as ‘TBC’ thank you! Sylperson (talk) 20:02, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Not a chance. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 20:10, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Scottish Young Labour, which you have been editing (probably with an undeclared conflict of interest), exists, as a marginal article, with unreferenced content. Creating a Wikipedia accepted article for Central Scottish Young Labour extremely unlikely. David notMD (talk) 20:32, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Sylperson, and welcome to the Teahouse. It looks as if you have a very common misconception: that Wikipedia has anything at all to to with telling the world about your organisation (aka promotion). It does not. An article about your organisation does not belong to your organisation, will not necessarily say what your organisation wants it to say, and should be based almost entirely on what people who have no connection with your organisation have chosen to publish about it, not on what the organisation says or wants to say about itself. It follows that if there is little independent material about the organisation published in reliable sources, then there is literally nothing that can go in an article about it, and Wikipedia will not accept any article about it: the jargon for this is that the subject is or isn't notable. Finally, you have a conflict of interest (guessing from your username) and shouldn't be editing such an article directly anyway. --ColinFine (talk) 20:50, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Merging in

Need help on merging in Karu-Sil information into the Karu-Sil Draft. Lady Orthodoxy (talk) 21:54, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Lady Orthodoxy, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid I don't understand what you're asking: what information? What do you mean by merging? But what I will say is that at present Draft:Karu-Sil has no independent sources at all, and therefore does not establish that Karu-Sil meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability. Unless you or somebody adds to the draft citations to several places where people who have no connection with DC or Van Scriver have chosen to write at some length specifically about Karu-Sil, and been published in reliable sources, then the draft has no chance of being accepted as a Wikipedia article, and all time that you spend or have spent on the draft will be wasted. --ColinFine (talk) 22:06, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

What to do when a lot of incorrect "facts" are found in an article?

Make a bunch of individual edits throughout the page? Write a separate section on that page in which I express the alternate interpretations of an expert or two and provide links to their books, etc? Create (or 'correct" already existing) articles on those expert heroes of mine in which I write about their views on the aforementioned issues? Gasp ... Bring it to the attention of a moderator on a special page set up for that sort of thing? Thanks. (PS Am I supposed to sign with tildes here??? -- Kisevalter ... Was ... Nash) Kisevalter Was Nash (talk) 06:39, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Correct or remove it. Remember to cite an WP:RS. Firestar464 (talk) 06:43, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Kisevalter Was Nash. It's difficult to answer a general question like this, becuase so much may depend on the particular circumstances of that article. It sounds to me as if you're talking about a case where there are significantly different views of the subject in different publications. Wikipedia expects that all significant views in reliable sources will be summarised in an article, but whether differences of opinion should be mentioned throughout the article or collected in one section will depend on many things. If one of the interpretations is a fringe view, then it should get at most a short paragraph, and often no more than a mention. If (as sounds probable here) there is likely to be controversy from Wikipedia editors about the different views, then you shouldl certainly discuss is on the article's talk page before making any edits. See WP:BRD --ColinFine (talk) 12:25, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree that more contextual information is needed to provide better advice, but there is a real problem with this - especially on topics, figures, places, etc that are more 'niche'; 'expert'; 'professional'; etc.

It also is a real problem on many articles regarding foreign countries and individuals, especially countries that don't speak European languages and/or which are developing, poor and largely ignored in global politics. Yet, even for more mainstream figures it can be a problem - propaganda, poor translations, etc. are often injected and UNLESS you've trained eyes looking at it, it can be hard to discern what is and is not legitimate. This is something that can plague entire groups of articles - as individuals (and sometimes countries - quite literally) edit regularly in ways that tow a specific party line. This creates a real problem regarding how trustworthy certain types of articles are. I've come across articles that are on significant subjects but which read like a college course's final essay on one particular theory about the topic. How to fix these is an important question because it is daunting, and most people are just going to walk away and let it stand. North Korea, Turkmenistan, Myanmar - just some authoritarian states that actively edit articles related to their cultures, economies, demographics, etc.

Just as an Example, the current article on King Vajiralongkorn of Thailand - the world's richest monarch and, increasingly, one of the world's most powerful monarchs - is protected in his home country by lese majeste; nothing even remotely critical can be reported or said about him without the very real threat of imprisonment for years. Reporting can be sketchy at times because of this, but it exists... yet, when you read that biographical article the first half sounds like... some corporate biography meant to show that the King is a man of the people. It reeks of propaganda. Controversies do come in later, but they are noticeably diminished and missing some major issues. There is a lot of misleading and incorrect information about him. Yet, it goes deeper - get into the Privy Council, the Prime Minister, the Princesses, etc. and more and more glaring omissions are obvious, as is a pattern of overly positive (yet often totally irrelevant) information.

Now, I recognize this may not be what the OP is referencing - in fact, the OP saying 'heroes of mine' immediately makes one a bit suspicious of motives and the specific topic being discussed. The general notion of no original research likely is relevant.

So to get back to the core of the OP's question: is this information to which you refer factually misleading? Incorrect? Made up? Do you have citations? Does the article as it stands have citations? Is it an article about theories? Or a biography? Or a place? It sort of sounds like you ran into an article that could include a lot of original research rather than encyclopedic information in which case it ought be scrapped and redone - but if your goal is to 'make an argument' then I strongly suggest Reddit (not tongue in cheek either: seriously, post encyclopedic information on X here then go debate X on Reddit) (Disclaimer - I haven't been active in editing on Wikipedia in a couple years so please forgive me for any violations of rules I may have made RememberToForget (talk) 15:38, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Kisevalter Was Nash, what you have described is a situation which calls for a discussion on the article's talk page (every article has one). Just start the discussion with a post similar to your post above, but with specifics. That's the closest thing to article moderation you will find on Wikipedia.--Quisqualis (talk) 22:14, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Time and date

I've noticed that sometimes while adding sources using the visual editor it adds tomorrow as the URL Access Date. What time zone is the visual editor running on and when it does that should I change it to the day I'm experiencing or is it such a small detail that it doesn't matter? TipsyElephant (talk) 01:57, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

@TipsyElephant: I'm guessing the VE uses the same time zone as Wikipedia, which is UTC. RudolfRed (talk) 02:43, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

TipsyElephant, Wikipedia operates on Coordinated Universal Time and UTC is the acronym based on the name in French. It is the successor to Greenwich Mean Time. It is equivalent to the time zone that includes Iceland, Ireland, the United Kingdom, Portugal and numerous West African countries. Think of it as the master time zone or coordinated central clock for the whole world. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:03, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Is this a great article WQHS-DT

Is this a great article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WQHS-DT SparklesonApple (talk) 03:14, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

The referencing is abysmal. Writing not bad.--Quisqualis (talk) 03:47, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Translated Sources

If I'm using a source written in a different language should I use a transliteration or simply the characters of the language for the metadata of the citation. For instance, is it better to have a transliterated name for the author of the article? TipsyElephant (talk) 02:01, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

If you use a citation template (e.g {{citebook}}), then there are parameters such as |script-title=, |title=, |trans-title= and |language= which can be used for a non-English source. The "script-title" parameter would be used for the original language (for example, Chinese), the "title" parameter would be a transliteration of the original title, the "trans-title" parameter would be for an English translation of the title, and the "language" parameter would be for the original language. If you decided to format the citation manually (i.e. without using a template), you could basically do the same thing if you just formatted the citation as it would look if you used the template, or you could follow a variation used in one of the major style guides listed in WP:CITESTYLE. The advantage of using a citation template is that consistency is pretty much guaranteed as long as you enter the parameters the same way. For author names, a transliterated name probably is better if possible, but you probably could use the original script-name instead. Names though can be a bit tricky if using a citation template because the template will tend to format the |first= and |last= parameters in the same order regardless of whether the original language follows that last-first name order (i.e. family name-given name order). There might also be different ways to romanize or transliterate the name depending upon the language. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:48, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

@TipsyElephant: I deal with Chinese language sources very often and usually leave the title and author as is; that is, not romanizing it or translating it. People may have different ways of romanizing their own names or go by a different English name, so I usually don’t try to alter that at all. I’m concerned about giving an inaccurate translation of the title, and romanizing that is basically useless, so I leave that alone as well. However, if an English name or subtitle is given, I put the English one. Similarly, if the source/news agency/publisher has a English name, I use that one. I only use the |author= field because Chinese names make no sense with a comma. It’s important to fill out the |language= field every time. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 03:50, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Where do I ask about a possible interfacing problem?

Hello,

I would like to know the correct place to ask about an issue I might be having with my device in the editing interface. I am using a niche browser with imported elements of Firefox, running in a customized virtual framework within a Linux OS configured to support dynamic routing protocols. However, there seems to be a problem with HTML on page reloading in the source editing interface. Has anyone else had this problem before? I’ve tried reconfiguring my custom browser settings but this doesn’t seem to be helping. Thanks. Krillzyx (talk) 05:23, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Krillzyx perhaps Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) would be another place to post? Elli (talk | contribs) 05:27, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Is this source reliable?

Moved to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Is this source reliable?

Am I being targeted by this editor?

Hello house, I have the feeling that an editor has deliberately decided to limit my progress here. I have endured accusations and insults, pulling down my works and tagging my articles with issues, moving my articles to draft and so on. I registered to edit Wikipedia one year ago, had a few edits. I changed countries and found myself with enough free time this year and I decided to dedicate this time towards contributing to the development of articles on Wikipedia. I decided to join the Wikipedia:project women in red and and business project. Though I am still finding it difficult to get used to the rules here, I have always improved my edits. I created an article with the title Nengi Rebecca Hamson and I was told that same article had been created and was deleted. An editor queried my choice of editing that particular article and requested that I give my reasons before I continued to edit. I explained myself and I got a reply from Fiddle Faddle, in his words: Thank you for your full and open declaration. It is precisely the declaration needed. It is necessary sometimes to ask these questions, and to have them answered. There is no stain on your character. Please enjoy editing Wikipedia. I have strived to be a better editor and ALL my choice of articles are from the list of women in red project, [11], under US, but a certain editor has reversed one of my recent articles created, Sarah Friar and moved the article to draft, [12], asking me to explain my decision to create that article. In his words, Would you be so kind as to explain your choice of article creations? That is, how do you select & decide what articles to write about? You are Nigerian and often create articles on non notable foreign entrepreneurs and I’m a tad bit puzzled by this. Is there a competition going on or something? Of course no policy prevents nor restricts you from creating any article of your choice but I really do want to know, how do you decide on what article to create? Furthermore, you might want to learn policy on the optimization of files prior using them else you risk getting indef blocked for multiple image copyvio's. I do not have files on that article, why am I being threatened with indef block? Let me also add that the same article about Sarah Friar was edited by Theroadislong who assisted me to make some corrections on the article. I will be pleased if other editors go through my edit summary/contributions and my articles and give me a second opinion. I have NEVER contested any of the reverse edits and I do not plan to do so now either. I just want to avoid communication with the editor because his comments are way too harsh. Once I notice any message from him about my articles having one issue or the other, I just move on with my life, because communication with the editor is not personally pleasing to me. I want to learn more, I am opened to learning, but I feel like I am being bullied. The same editor has called me useless and stupid for forgetting to sign my comment on his talk page. Please I need help. Thank you. MesutOzula (talk) 08:27, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

MesutOzula, Wikipedia is not always a sweet and gentle place, but your experience is not typical. Regardless of any underlying issues which may or may not be present (I have accepted your declaration on your talk page) all of us have a duty to remain civil and to assume good faith in our dealings with others.

I am concerned that you report that this is not happening.

Generally, a dispute such as this can be resolved by avoiding the other editor. This is not always possible. So asking for help is the correct thing to do. The question for you is, what type of outcome would you like to see?

Before you answer that, I'd like to draw your attention very clearly to one important fact about moving to any form of dispute resolution here. Fair or unfair, you need to read and read a second time WP:BOOMERANG. Once a dispute resolution process starts the outcome can be surprising. The dealings of all parties are examined, and verdicts by the community can boomerang on the person asking for help. Be clear: I am not making any accusation of any description, I am simply saying what happens, and asking you to consider this with care before you start a process running.

The first piece of advice was to avoid the other editor. The second is to seek to ignore them. If that does not work the third is to ask them stop interacting with you. I suggest that only then do you consider dispute resolution. Fiddle Faddle 08:55, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

MesutOzula, if your purpose is to help improve Wikipedia, there are many easier, more rewarding, more constructive, and less frustrating ways than trying to create articles about living people of doubtful notability. Maproom (talk) 09:42, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I doubt that ignoring the other Editor will help in this case after all what I have read in the last couple of minutes. CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:47, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy so others do not have to search like me - the editor refers obviously (among other) to User_talk:Celestina007#Thank_you_for_the_advice CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:47, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Timtrent, thank you for the advice. To answer your question on what type of outcome I would like to see; I believe that this is a faceless forum of intellectuals. I do not know the editor and never plan to, therefore, it pays me nothing to want to pick up a fight with them, considering their standing and profile here, I couldn't possible go up against them in a dispute, I would most probably lose. Again, even if I could match them, I do not want to engage them at all. I just want to edit Wikipedia. But if there are laid down community sanctions to that end, then I will fully corporate with whatever process involved.

It is enough that I am still trying to get used to the technical challenges that come with editing Wikipedia as a new editor, it just does not seem fair for those challenges to be compounded by deliberate attempts by an experienced editor. Let me add that I am not bothered by the corrections. Like I mentioned earlier, I am opened to corrections and Chastisement where necessary. I am just not okay with being stalked and bullied to bow out. Thank you. MesutOzula (talk) 09:55, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

MesutOzula, I think that, looking at the sound advice from Maproom to avoid living people of doubtful notability, you are following a reasonable quest to add people from Nigeria to Wikipedia. May I join their advice in suggesting that you start with those of obvious notability, learning the ways of this place, before moving to see if you are able to establish and verify notability for those less deserving.

It might be a good idea to start by enhancing other articles before going back to creating new ones

In all probability this will mean you and the other editor are less likely to coincide in a combative scenario. Note, though, that they specialise in the part of the world you are editing in and that they are strongly protective of Wikipedia. Indeed we all are. Fiddle Faddle 10:17, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

• First of all, @MesutOzula, I am a she/her & no one has called you useless or stupid so quit with the gaslighting and feel free to provide diffs to the contrary.

My comments to you have always been factual and policy based. You have thus far created numerous articles on subjects with dubious notability. In fact, you first drew my attention when @Timtrent made this edit where they moved an article you created back to draftspace, that very article has been edited severally by the Nigerian UPE ring who have six times now unsuccessfully tried to move the article into mainspace so naturally I took a look at your history and what I observed was you creating biographical articles of dubious notability. I gave you a piece of advice, you said you understood, but what did you do? You proceeded to create more articles on individuals with dubious notability & other editors also had to drafitfy your articles, see here & also had an article you created G12 speedy deleted see here so the comments pertaining to your image copyright violation weren’t based on the Draft:Sarah Friar article, rather I was speaking generally, you have thus far violated both general article copyvio's & image copyvio's and a look at your talkpage would compel any concerned editor to tell you the same. No one is targeting you but if you have more than three editors telling you the same thing, chances are it is you who is in the wrong & it’s behoove of you to study imperative policies before attempting to create any more articles, let alone biographical articles on living persons which requires extra care. You literally could have bypassed all this drama had you just answered the question. Lastly if you keep violating our policy on copyrights you would get blocked, it’s literally a factual statement and not a threat. Celestina007 (talk) 18:10, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

@MesutOzula You have just been given a final warning by a sysop which invariably means another copyright vio from you would result in a block. I don’t see why you would refuse to adhere to our policy on copyvio’s but choose the WP:IDHT route which is just disruptive editing at this point. Celestina007 (talk) 00:36, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Celestina007, The editor that passed the warning said everything that needed to be said, there was actually no need for you to repeat the same message here. It is not as if I recently created the said page. It was my FIRST article on Wikipedia more than one year ago. Anyways, that is not the point. I wish to humbly plead you do not contact me nor communicate with me anymore, unless you are, moving my page, tagging or carrying out official communique, please, do not communicate with me anymore. I have done all I could to avoid you. If I violate a rule and you have to take action, the summary of the action would do, no need for personal messages anymore, please.MesutOzula (talk) 07:49, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Gympie Pyramid

hi, somebody is sabotaging my recent rewritten article 'Gympie Pyramid', leaving nasty comments with his changes. This text was edited by Doug Weller and he considered it as ready to be published. How can I report someone to be deleted? Wikigetsme123 (talk) 08:32, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

A quick (perhaps too quick) look doesn't show me sabotage or nasty comments, but it does suggest disagreement between you and InedibleHulk. The two of you should discuss this at Talk:Gympie Pyramid. -- Hoary (talk) 08:39, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

No way. This guy's crazy. Give him what he wants, I'll pretend I saw nothing. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:04, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Ajoy Hijam

 Ajoy Hijam (talk) 09:09, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Ajoy Hijam, do you have a question? If it's about creating a page about yourself, then simply, please don't attempt to create one. -- Hoary (talk) 09:16, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia

How do you edit your wikipedia page Ima Jewels (talk) 10:12, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Ima Jewels If you mean that there is a Wikipedia article about you that you wish to edit, you should not do so directly, but you may make a formal edit request(click for instructions) on the article talk page. If you mean that you wish to edit your user page, User:Ima Jewels, you appear to have already done so. 331dot (talk) 10:14, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Meet

Vishuvc007 (talk) 10:22, 22 March 2021 (UTC) Vishuvc007 (talk) 10:22, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Vishuvc007 Since starting your account a week ago, all your edits have been reverted. Do you have a question? David notMD (talk) 11:17, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Article Declined

My first Article Declined Please help Me to verify my article Nabyl8899 (talk) 11:24, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Nabyl8899 could you tell me which article was declined? Lovin'Politics (talk) 11:25, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:European_Clinic_Maldives this one i think this was not declined it is not accepted at this time. can you help me to get the article better. Lovin'Politics — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nabyl8899 (talk • contribs)

Nabyl8899, hello, friend! The reason this article was declined (which is the same as "not being accepted at this time") was that the only references you included were the official websites. In order to establish the notability of this medical facility, you need to include multiple reliable sources that are independent of it, meaning they have no connection like a reliable news source. You can check out WP:REFB for some pointers on citing sources. Hope that helps! Thanks, EDG 543 ^{(message me)} 12:40, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Worthy books that are not widely reviewed

While I agree that some books are probably not worth being included in Wikipedia, I think Wikipedia's goal of collecting all the worthwhile knowledge of civilization requires that we include some books that didn't sell well enough to be widely reviewed. How can I demonstrate that a book I want to add to Wikipedia is worthy, despite there being few references available? Peter Jedicke (talk) 13:58, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

@Pjedicke: Well references are how you prove that a subject is notable. If no references exist, then it doesn't fit the guidelines. Also, WP:BK has specific instructions for books, but it still requires coverage in most cases. βӪᑸᙥӴ • Talk • Contribs 14:41, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

@Pjedicke: "widely reviewed" isn't really necessary, two reviews from reliable sources should suffice. If there isn't significant coverage in reliable sources, how could you write a well-sourced article? If you can, then it's probably not an issue. Elli (talk | contribs) 15:40, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Just make sure you don't use primary sources where you don't need to. I can tell you from experience that if you can only find primary sources it's going to be deleted. βӪᑸᙥӴ • Talk • Contribs 15:43, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, secondary sources are necessary - though primary sources can be used for the plot, within reason. Elli (talk | contribs) 15:45, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Not "some" books; the vast majority of books don't merit articles, imho. Of the minority, "articles" (stubs) could be written about a lot, but I've no reason to think that they'd be beneficial. Although a copy of Laurie Bauer's Morphological Productivity sits on my shelf and I don't at all regret the purchase (quite the contrary), I'm not convinced that the article is worthwhile: better, I think, to have integrated what Bauer and his critics have said into the material here about the phenomenon of morphological productivity. Anyway, I don't suppose the book has sold more than a few hundred copies; and yet it does have reviews, because people interested in its subject-matter (a minority taste, to be sure) would want to know about it. Yet the same logic would probably say that a book about the history of such-and-such a defunct brand of motorcycle, car, camera or espresso-maker also merits an article. Do you want that stuff too? (Who'd maintain it?) As for "all the worthwhile knowledge of civilization", you need civilization for mass transit, and I find knowledge of the timetable of my local rail services immensely worthwhile and can present reliable sources for it, but it has no place in Wikipedia. -- Hoary (talk) 00:48, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

The answer to my question, then, is that some folks don't see Wikipedia the same way I do. I think the Morphological Productivity book deserves an article -- even if I confess I certainly never would have stumbled upon it myself. The article I wrote that was rejected, which motivated me to pose this question, contained about as much information as the Morphological Productivity article, so I like to think that applying the same criteria to both books would get my article re-instated. Perhaps I'll be able to find a few more references to the book I wrote about. I like to think that a book is worthy if a responsible volunteer contributor is motivated to share that book with Wikipedia users. Anyway, thanks for giving me something to think about. Peter Jedicke (talk) 06:43, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Pjedicke, the draft currently has two references: one of them is usable, the other is not. So effectively this has one source, and one source is not sufficient. ¶ A quick look in Worldcat shows that the book was published not only by Corgi but also by Chatto & Windus (ISBN 0701132094). I'd be surprised if there weren't reviews of it published from 1987 to 1989. If you're patient working on other articles (or drafts), you'll become eligible to use the "Wikipedia Library", which is likely to be helpful. (Or of course if you have access to academic databases via a university or similar library, you could use that.) ¶ Unpublished PhD dissertations shouldn't be used; still, the bibliography of this one might give you some leads. -- Hoary (talk) 12:39, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

You could also ask at WP:RX or WP:REFDESK - people with access are generally more than happy to at least let you know if there is a source if you point them to where it might be. For example, before they made JSTOR access standard, I used to do JSTOR sweeps if requested Nosebagbear (talk) 13:32, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia

How do you talk to your host on wikipedia?? Ima Jewels (talk) 08:23, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

How do you talk to your host on wikipedia?? Ima Jewels (talk) 08:24, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I'd try to answer your question, if I knew what you meant by "host". (I'm not aware that Wikipedia has "hosts".) -- Hoary (talk) 08:30, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Or, Ima Jewels, do you mean Teahouse host? If so, just ask a question (about editing or using Wikipedia) on this page. And somebody, very likely a "host", will respond. -- Hoary (talk) 08:52, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Or perhaps you mean "How do you reply to a Teahouse host who has answered your query?" If that's what you mean, Ima Jewels, you edit the section in the Teahouse, as I am doing here, and add your reply on the end of it. You can notify the host of your reply by using a Ping, like {{U|ColinFine}}. --ColinFine (talk) 14:42, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Why cannot Wikipedia cite itself, from say another page or language?

Why cannot Wikipedia cite itself, from say another page or language? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crocusfleur (talk • contribs) 11:21, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

A simple answer is that as anyone can edit Wikipedia, the Wikipedia articles are not considered verified. The solution: if there is information in a Wikipedia article that you want to use, copy the content AND the references supporting that content (remembering to acknowledge in the Edit summary where the information was copied from). Or, copy the refs and paraphrase the content, again acknowledging source for the references. As for other languages, Wikipedia English has different standards for what are considered reliable source references, so referenced content in a non-English Wikipedia may not be valid in English Wikipedia. David notMD (talk) 11:50, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

To add to that answer, this would essentially be a circular reference, i.e. "This is right because I say it's right". Circular references are basically useless when it comes to verifiability. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 20:09, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! I am currently working on a draft about Reveley Island, a small island off the coast of Western Australia, because information for that island is only on the Swedish Wikipedia, and the Cebuano Wikipedia because of Lsjbot. I was denied, because I cited from said Wikipedias. What was written in those articles was valid information, so it's a pity I could not use that. Crocusfleur (talk) 14:46, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Is this source reliable?

Moved to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Is this source reliable?

is there a question? Lovin'Politics (talk) 11:46, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

LP: The querier's question was moved, and answered there. David notMD (talk) 15:29, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Clearing history

Is it possible to clear WP history without me having to completely clear the browsing data on my computer? Thank you, Lettler^{hello • contribs} 20:59, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Lettler If you are referring to your edit history logged here on Wikipedia, there is no way to remove it. If you are referring to Wikipedia browsing data on your computer, you would need to go into the settings of your browser and delete the files related to Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 21:03, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

331dot, I mean my view history, not my edit history. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 21:04, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Lettler, I'm not sure that there even is a view history on Wikipedia. Thanks, EDG 543 ^{(message me)} 13:55, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Lettler In the Google Chrome browser, at the top right, click on the three dots and choose History and then History again. On the History page, search for Wikipedia, then select each box and the click the Delete button. Other browsers could have similar options. Hope this helps! GoingBatty (talk) 15:33, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Request for specific comments to edit the article

I have submitted article for review. Read feedback about citation , references. most references are links which I have provided near each section of information to prove its correctness of content, sperately for journals and for sites. I don't know why it is not being accepted by Noah the robot? .. can someone specifically help with this query of how I have done citations & references in my article? And what is erroneous? Prachi.chopade (talk) 02:55, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Prachi.chopade. For the convenience of other editors, the draft in question is Draft:Prabhakar B. Bhagwat. First of all, User:-noah- is not a robot. User:-noah- is a human being. Your draft article contains promotional language praising the subject, which violates the Neutral point of view, and that is a core content policy. Remove all of that praise. There are several errors in the formatting of your references, which are generating red error messages in your reference list. These errors in the wikicode should be corrected. Referencing for beginners is an essay that should help you debug your wikicode. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:22, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Additionally, Prachi.chopade, there's trivia. We read that he was "Member; Selection Committee for Selection of Architect"? Whose committee, and selection of an architect for what purpose? But no, please don't answer: his membership of any such committee would be unimportant; so just cut it. Also, the section on LEAF (as one example) is sourced to (i) LEAF itself, whereas we want independent sources, and to (ii) "'FOREST FOR THE TREES; TREES FOR THE FOREST' – THE MONOGRAPH": a monograph written by whom, published by whom? -- Hoary (talk) 04:34, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

@Prachi.chopade: Also, the inline citations are currently at the end of each paragraph. Please move the references to the end of the sentence(s) they are supporting. Thanks, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 15:38, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia Approval

I have studied thoroughly and learnt the usage and writing style of Wikipedia. I just want to know how long does it take for the wikipedia content to get approved ? Does it automatically move to the livespace after it is approved ? Nirju1998 (talk) 06:33, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

You should submit your draft for review by adding {{subst:submit}} to the top of the article. This may take 4 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. Kleinpecan (talk) 06:42, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Nirju1998, and welcome to the Teahouse. Unfortunately, you seem to have ignored the most important bits of the "usage and writing style of Wikipedia", which are verifiability and neutral point of view. The sources in Draft:Dony Hazarika may be reliably published (I don't know), but not one of them, in my view, meets both of the other two equally important critera: being independent of the subject, and containing significant coverage of the subject. (The ones that are about Hazarika rather than about individual works are clearly based on interviews and press releases, so are not independent: Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject says about themselves, or what their associates say about them). This means that at present the draft does absolutely nothing towards establishing that Hazarika meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and the draft cannot be accepted as an article in its current form.

As for "neutral point of view": the text is full of evaluative language: phrases like "academic excellence", "love and devotion for music", and even "eminent" do not belong in any Wikipedia article except in direct quotations from independent sources. And "melted down Dr Hazarika's fatherly authority" belongs in a chatty magazine, not an encyclopaedia. --ColinFine (talk) 14:34, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

@Nirju1998: I also suggest you use the "External links" as additional references, as much of the information in the draft does not appear to be supported by a reference. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 15:42, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I am being told my article has an advertising tone

 Courtesy link: Draft:World Affairs Council of Houston

Hello everyone, I've been working on this article for a few weeks now and have changed it quite a bit in order to comply with wiki standards. I am an unpaid intern that was asked to create a wikipage for a non-profit organization that has a sizable impact on the local and global community and has been around for 30+ years. I've detailed the history of this organization and its creation but it's still being flagged as "blatant advertising" and when compared to other similar articles accepted I'm left confused as to why mine continues to be flagged. So I suppose my question is, is creating a wikipage for a non-profit organization do-able and if so what additional information would you suggest in order to eliminate the advertising tone? EditorofWorldAffairs (talk) 15:19, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Being a non-profit does not absolve promotion tone. Complete writing a Lead, cut all the crap about FPA, Robert, Mary, the listing of staff, remove all hyperlinks from the text, learn how to do refs right, find better refs, ref every factual statement, delete all statements that are not factual, and maybe only then consider resubmitting. Because the Rejection ("STOP") is from a very experienced Wikipedia editor. Oh, and first, declare that you are paid, as unpaid intern qualifies as a form of compensation (you are getting job training and something to add to your resume = 'paid'). David notMD (talk) 15:44, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, EditorofWorldAffairs. Creating an article about a subject (not a "wikipage for" it) is doable, provided you find several reliable sources that are wholly independent| of the subject, and have significant coverage of it; and then you forget everything you know about the subject (and, especially, forget everything that the subject would like said about itself), and write an article based 100% on what those independent sources say. The article will not belong to the subject, and will contain what a consensus of editors agree that the independent sources say about it, not what the subject says about itself, still less what the subject wants to say about itself. Since your draft has no independent sources, it is not acceptable as an article, and has in fact now been rejected, not just declined as before. Your best advice is, unless you can present at least three such sources as I mentioned above, give up and stop wasting any more time on this. Wikipedia is not here for your organisation (or any other) to tell the world about itself. --ColinFine (talk) 15:41, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Saving a page from deletion

Hello editors. Greetings of the day! I had created a page for a college professor a few years ago. The page is flagged under the Articles for deletion (AfD). I am trying to provide additional information and references for the page. It would be great help if some suggestions can be provided here to save the page from deletion. BeTheChange 15:19, 22 March 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rk.radhekrishan (talk • contribs)

• @Rk.radhekrishan: The short answer is that you need to include independent coverage in published secondary sources. This does not includes the subject's own websites, social media, or personal publications, as these are not independent. If the subject does not yet have this type of coverage, they they are not yet ready for their own article. GMG^talk 15:23, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
  • @Rk.radhekrishan: Judging by your user name, is the article in question, Radhe Krishan an autobiography? Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:02, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

New Pages

I have identified a new page of a notable person who is living, Zondra (Zoey) "Pricelys" Roy. She is listed on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NotYourPrincess but is one of the only ones of the 42 contributors who does not have her own page, but she has TONNES of press about her. I am a journalist who has done articles on her and cannot believe she doesn't have a page. What is the best way of creating one for a new editor? I have already completed some page edits for other entries with grammar and copy-editing. I googled her name and began to make a list of articles I could use to reference various biography points and achievements and awards she has won. I do know her, but I don't think that puts me in a conflict of interest position. Please advise. IndieAndie (talk) 16:26, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

IndieAndie hi, you might want to read Help:Your first article. I'd recommend creating it in the draft namespace to allow it to be reviewed, especially if you feel you might be non-neutral here. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:47, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The article NotYourPrincess lists 42 people but less than half have their own articles on Wikipedia (only the blue links go to existing articles). I think that you would be best to take a look at a few of the ones that have biographies and base your draft on that. Use the articles for creation process and focus on establishing notability in Wikipedia's specific sense, which means finding four or so completely independent reliable sources that have significant coverage of her. The draft doesn't need to be long but it does need to establish notability. Your potential conflict of interest doesn't prevent you doing the draft. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:53, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

submit draft for review

Hi I'm new here. Just wrote an article about rock musician Philippe Manca: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Philippe_Manca Problem: when I click on Submit the Draft for Review, a new editing draft blank page appears: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Philippe_Manca&action=edit&veswitched=0&section=new&preload=Template:AfC_submission/Subst&editintro=Template:AfC_submission/Subst/Editintro Can you help me? Thank you. Leon LeonToffee (talk) 17:30, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it will be accepted. First off, you should transform bare urls into full citations, along with a few other problems. Read Wikipedia:Your first article for more information.

If I were you, I would edit already-existing articles to get a feel for how articles are written. It makes it a lot easier to write an article. Sungodtemple a tcg fan!!1!11!! (talk) 17:35, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

1 questions about Multiple issues template

I just ***love**** this page, you guys help me out so much! For a BARNSTAR, can you please help me?

RE:

{{Multiple issues|

{{citation style|date=May 2019}}

{{Advert| date=March 2021}}

{{Primary sources|date=March 2021}}

{{COI|date=March 2021}}

}}

(1) can I notify readers in the Multiple issues template that there is currently RFC on the talk page?

(2) How do i add:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion WP:PROMO Answer: {{Advert|date=March 2021}}

Thank you!

Infinitepeace (talk) 06:57, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

@Infinitepeace: welcome back to the Teahouse. No, an RfC is not publicised on the article page, neither in a standalone template, nor in a Multiple issues template. --bonadea contributions talk 07:51, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

This might be a case of WP:BARNSTARITIS... Sungodtemple a tcg fan!!1!11!! (talk) 17:48, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Need help writing content

I need help writing source related content. Thanks Azim1974 (talk) 17:33, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Azim1974. We are not keen on people trying to use Wikipedia to advertise their own business, as you appear to have done. Is this what you still hope to write content on, or is it something else? We only accept articles which meet our Notability criteria, and which are based upon published sources, independent of the subject. We ignore sources that have simply used a comapny's press release or insider newspapers to talk about it. You would also need to be open about your conflict of interest by declaring it as described at WP:PAID. Nick Moyes (talk) 18:05, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Why 31 hours?

I've noticed most vandalism-only accounts or ips get banned for exactly 31 hours the first time around, time and time again. What exactly is the significance of 31 hours? Seems like a pretty arbitrary number to me.  Snowmanonahoe (talk) 17:29, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Snowmanonahoe. The thinking is that it is a short block, but long enough to affect the vandal's normal time to mess around the following day, but significantly shorter than a 48 hour block. It is selected to stop repetitive minor vandalism. All block lengths are a bit arbitrary. From the practical point of view, 31 hours is one of the standard block lengths that appears in a menu when an administrator is making a block, and so it is a popular choice for that reason as well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:41, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Interesting... Thanks. Snowmanonahoe (talk) 17:45, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

(e/c (Note: I'm not saying anything substantially different from Cullen328, but I put in some calculations so I decided to post anyway after the edit conflict, despite the redundancy...) Hi Snowmanonahoe. I haven't tracked down any actual discussion to answer your question today, but I remember years ago searching out this detail. In sum and substance, it was to the effect of that we get a lot of vandalism from schoolchildren, and others who have an editing time window – during which they have a block of free time and the opportunity to be active online. 31 hours is a time period that has the affect of often addressing the next day of that "window". Keeping in mind that blocks often are made after a series of warnings, followed by some lag time, if, for example, someone vandalized between 4:30 p.m., when they get home, and a 11:30 p.m. bedtime, and they're resulting 31-hour block occurs at the 5:33 p.m. mark of that window, that will rope in the following day's period from 4:30 p.m., and extend to 12:33 a.m. (where a block of 24 hours would not). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:55, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for expanding on my answer, Fuhghettaboutit. I think we've covered it pretty well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:59, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

@Cullen328: :-) When I edit conflict and see your name, I immediately know I'll be following a good answer-Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:10, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

permission revoked?

Hi - I have just tried to edit Jay Inslee and I wasn't able to edit without pending reviews and I am an extended confirmed user Lovin'Politics (talk) 01:11, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

@Lovin'Politics: Welcome to the Teahouse! Click the lock at the top of the article, and you'll see the article is under pending changes protection. Scroll up and you'll see a table at Wikipedia:Protection_policy#Types_of_protection that show the differences between protection levels, and that all edits are reviewed when a page is under pending changes protection. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 01:31, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

GoingBatty but I am extended confirmed, I should be able to edit the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lovin'Politics (talk • contribs) 01:39, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

@Lovin'Politics: Please study the table at Wikipedia:Protection_policy#Types_of_protection. While extended confirmed editors can perform normal editing for articles with Semi-protection and Extended-confirmed protection, the instructions for Pending changes protection state "all users can edit. However, once an unregistered or new editor makes an edit, that edit and any subsequent edits by anyone will remain hidden from "readers" (users not logged in) until the edit made by the unregistered or new editor is reviewed by a pending changes reviewer or admin." GoingBatty (talk) 01:49, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

But shouldn't that only apply to unregistered users or non-autoconfirmed? This person is extended confirmed, so they should be able to bypass pending changes protection. I think it's some sort of bug perhaps? Snowmanonahoe (talk) 01:02, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Snowmanonahoe, see phab:T275322. JJP...MASTER!_{[talk to] JJP... master?} 18:14, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Article Creation for an Inspiring Person

I just got to know about an Indian Businessman who was born with cleft lips and treated by Smile Train. He got featured by Adline Castelino for being an inspiration for many. I am sharing the references for checking whether we can create the Wikipedia Page for him. 1. https://in.finance.yahoo.com/news/harkirat-singh-paras-sets-foot-120354864.html 2. https://www.instagram.com/p/CI3G1kTBkkf/ 3. https://www.smiletrainindia.org/stories/harkirat-singh-paras-quiet-kid-successful-entrepreneur Jm149 (talk) 18:53, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Jm149. The first link is highly promotional and almost certainly the result of a press release. As for the second, it is a social media post sharing a video from SmileTrain and does not establish notability. The third is written by the subject on Smile Train's website, and is a primary source that does not establish notability. You need significant coverage in reliable sources that are completely independent of this person. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:04, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Jm149, those references are not enough to establish notability. The Yahoo piece appears to be from NewsBytes, which has questionable reliability (you could find out one way or the other by posting at WP:RSN). Instagram is not acceptable as it is self-published. The Smile Train article is written by Harkirat Singh Paras and is thus not secondary. Please review the general notability guideline to better understand what is required. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:12, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Composer - Music Information.

Hi! A pleasant good day. As a composer, how do I get my song information on Wikipedia? 72.252.32.58 (talk) 18:25, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello. As the composer, you have a conflict of interest which you must disclose, and since you may earn money off of your song, you must also comply with the Paid editing disclosure. Please read the notability guideline for songs. If your song meets that guideline, then read Your first article, write a properly referenced draft, and submit it for review through the Articles for creation process. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:56, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

But remember, please, that Wikipedia is basically not interested in what you say or want to say about your songs: it is only interested in what people who have no connection with you have chosen to publish about your songs. That's how an encyclopaedia works. --ColinFine (talk) 19:23, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

submission of intellectual autobiography

I have a partial (75%) draft of a lengthy intellectual history of my career (not a biography as such) that I think meets your neutrality requirement and would have some interest to students of health care law and policy. I'd like a judgment on its acceptability and advice on how I can get help putting it in proper form, with references etc.

Clark Havighurst, Wm. Neal Reynolds Professor Emeritus of Law, Duke University Phone: <Tel No. removed> HCL&Policy (talk) 17:26, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

@HCL&Policy: Can you please include a link to the draft? Also, please see WP:COI on how to handle a conflict of interest. Sungodtemple a tcg fan!!1!11!! (talk) 17:31, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I presume that the draft is offline, Sungodtemple. Welcome to the Teahouse, HCL&Policy. Writing an autobiography on Wikipedia is discouraged (see Wikipedia:Autobiography), but if you're determined to do so, please see Help:Your first article. Your biggest challenge is likely to be making sure that any biography of yourself only includes content that can be supported by published sources, meaning that you'll have to put aside anything that you know about yourself but which hasn't been written about. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:08, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

(e/c) Hi HCL&Policy. Without seeing the draft, it's difficult to provide an answer. I could be totally off base on this but I am betting, just based on your description, that it looks nothing like an encyclopedia article should, and has reams of material it shouldn't (and looks more like something belonging on Linkedin). Again, I don't know you, but we the same mistakes so often that I am guessing based only on your description. Please, do defy my expectations!

Let me put in the form of a thought experiment. You're assigned the project of writing about a professor of Law from Latvia you'd never heard of before, and have no access to anything written by that person – not their CV, not their publications, nothing. Instead, you only have access to a few books you've found at Google Books, written by third parties who are writing about the history of Latvian Law, as well as and a smattering of Latvia Times newspaper articles that wrote in disinterested terms about him or her (i.e., reliable, secondary, independent sources that treat the topic in substantive detail; and not primary sources).

With only that material, you are further told you must write in completely matter-of-fact terms about that professor you'd never heard of, from these materials only, and to avoid all evaluation (show, don't tell), and must also include any controversies about him of her; your job is not to be positive or negative; you are utterly disinterested and just taking this on out of intellectual curiosity). You are also told you must transparently cite sources corroborating every fact you write about from these sources (without copying the words used), to verify the information, and are sent to this tutorial for how to cite the sources.

You are also told you may look at Wikipedia's featured articles as a guide. The resulting biography, assuming you learned about citing sources, and really took on board what you learned from reading a smattering of featured article biographies, is what we're mostly looking for. Or stated yet another way, 95% of everything you've written that is not what a disinterested third party with access only to such materials would write, probably doesn't belong. Does that help at all? See also: Help:Your first article; Wikipedia:Autobiography, Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest; Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:20, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

HCL&Policy I suggest you look at Duke University School of Law, the section on notable faculty. Using WP:YFA, you could model your draft on some of those. The Talk page of each article has a rating - use those rated "Start" or better as models. Once you have an adequately referenced draft, submit it to Articles for Creation for review. Do not be disheartened if your first submittal is Declined (the reviewer will state reasons). Also, consider if there is public knowledge about you that you would prefer not be in an article - be aware that once an article exists anyone can add content as long as it has valid references. David notMD (talk) 19:34, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

How to block vandalism

Hello, where to report vandalism and how to quickly revert all the vandalism made by one user? I never needed to know such a thing, but now the user 178.143.50.74 aka HunCzeLit224 wholesale disrupts multiple cities and town pages. Thanks for advice! FromCzech (talk) 17:32, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

FromCzech, you can use Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism to bring this to the attention of an admin, who can block offending users. Sungodtemple a tcg fan!!1!11!! (talk) 17:39, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

@Sungodtemple: You can report obvious and persistent vandals at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism (WP:AIV) to be blocked from further editing. Although blocks may be issued at any time, depending on circumstances, typically, before seeking a block there, a final warning in an escalating series should have been posted to the user's talk page (for example {{Uw-vandal4}}, {{Uw-spam4}} or {{Uw-speedy4}}), and the user must have vandalized within the last few hours, including after the final warning was given. Various warning templates can be found at Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace (easily remembered by the shortcut WP:WARN). Your block request is unlikely to be acted upon unless you follow these steps. Cases that are not simple vandalism can be reported at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Of course, in conjunction with warning against and reporting vandalism, you have the ability, mandate and are encouraged to revert all instances of vandalism you find yourself. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:03, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm little lost in it, maybe because of my English, so once again, what exactly should it write into Edit summary when I'm reverting the vandalism to give a warning because of disruptive editing? FromCzech (talk) 18:14, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Hey again FromCzech. Well, for the edit summary, you can be detailed, or not, but that's not where the warning usually is placed. Instead you would post to the user's talk page (my talk page, for example, is linked in my signature at the end of this post).

The appropriate warning can be a tailored one, or you can save time by using a template that already contains suitable warning language. For a list of them, please see WP:WARN, as linked in my post above.

For example, if you were persisting in posting spam links to articles, I might revert you at the article, and then navigate to your talk page and I might type this: {{subst:uw-spam1}} followed by my signature (~~~~) and save. See the template, at {{uw-spam1}} to see what that template places. If you then posted more spam links, I might go again to the your talk page but this time use a higher level warning in the same template series, {{uw-spam2}} or {{uw-spam3}}.

If you then ignored all these prior warnings, and kept adding spam links, after a final warning I would go to the Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism and follow the instructions there to ask for you to be blocked.

Does that help clarify what to do?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk)

Fuhghettaboutit Thank you very much, I think everything is clear now. FromCzech (talk) 18:30, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

@FromCzech: Great!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:34, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

NOTE: User:HunCzeLit224 started editing 22 March and has already changed or added to dozens and dozens of articles, almost all to section Twin towns - Sister cities. If these are valid, then it is editing. If not, an odd form of vandalism. David notMD (talk) 19:48, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I know there's probably a place i can get this info but

If there's any articles that need editing or haven't been in a long time, I'd like to get some suggestions because I'm new here and I'd like to contribute in any way I can. SneakingPastInfinity (talk) 19:59, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Welcome SneakingPastInfinity ! Two good links to start: User:SuggestBot/Requests#Suggestions_based_on_specific_pages and Wikipedia:Task Center, happy Editing, CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:20, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Getting some off-wiki help for a team of editors

Hello Everyone!!

I'm Rafi from Bangladesh. I mostly work in Bangla Wikipedia but thinking of starting my journey in English Wikipedia too. I have a team of 20/25 members who are currently active in bnwiki. The interesting fact is we're all from the same educational institution. We worked together to make our college article a "featured article" in bnwiki. We're also leading the "Wikiproject Notre Dame College" there. We want to start with the same spirit here. (Actually working with this type of motivation helps a lot in learning) The fact is these freshers are more comfortable in social media like facebook messenger and mail. So we'll need some amazing people to train these guys using social media or mail. Can I get some help? Mrb Rafi (talk) 11:57, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Mrb Rafi first of all, thanks for all your contributions, but this isn't a place to ask for people to help you, we are supposed to help you technical-ish problems. but you could always ask for help in return for barnstars ig. Lovin'Politics (talk) 12:23, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

@Mrb Rafi: welcome to the Teahouse! It is perfectly fine to ask for help here at the Teahouse, it's why it is here (and you do not have to do anything in particular to reward anybody who helps you out – Lovin'Politics was not being serious.) However, the Teahouse volunteers are not necessarily prepared to go outside Wikipedia; if your friends are prepared to use IRC, there is some information about the Wikipedia IRC channels here, and there is also a Discord server, which you find out more about here. As you probably already know, it is always a good idea to use the article talk page, in this case Talk:Notre Dame College, Dhaka, to communicate with other editors especially if you are planning a major rewrite/restructuring. Good luck with your project! --bonadea contributions talk 13:06, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Mrb Rafi, people who study or studied at a particular school would have a conflict of interest when writing about that school. Please read Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide and observe what it says. -- Hoary (talk) 13:00, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Hoary Going to a college and editing about it (provided it's not part of any internship within the college, but just as a regular student) is as much a conflict of interest in Wikipedia terms as writing about the city you live in. VAXIDICAE💉 18:40, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Mrb Rafi! Even though IRC and mailing lists have been around since the beginning, I feel that the culture at English Wikipedia is strongly oriented towards communicating on-wiki, so that discussions happen in the open and are preserved for long-term reference. (This often puts us in conflict with the Wikimedia Foundation which develops policy in Facebook, Slack, Google Docs, and face-to-face meetings.) Apart from some activist groups that organise off-wiki, a lot of us distrust social media companies like Facebook and WeChat, so it might be challenging to find people to do outreach via social media. Have you looked at Wikipedia:WikiProject Bangladesh? Perhaps your group could form a sub-project there for discussions that aren’t directly related to the article about Notre Dame College, Dhaka. — Pelagic ( messages ) – (04:40 Sat 20, AEDT) 17:40, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

@Lovin'Politics:@Bonadea:@Hoary:@Pelagic: Thanks to you all for your cooperation. bonadea, discord is a good place, of course, I'll try to bring them together there. Irc may seem a lil bit uncomfortable for new editors, the talk page too. At the very first we face the problem of making new people comfortable with wiki markups. We've seen that most of the people leave wiki just because they find these markups tough and feels as "they don't belong here 'cause they're not that much smart!" I've heard it from some of my junior brothers while introducing them to Wikipedia for the first time. At this point, social media can give them a more "tangible" idea of what they're doing. They can communicate with the same people there whom they may talk onwiki. For the same reason, I've seen our local wmf chapter also focuses on using social media for new editors. And "Conflict of interest" topic was also raised while we were working on bnwiki. We were able to convince the whole bnwiki community that we're following the rules strictly. Some of the most experienced bnwiki editors also observed our workers for the whole time. We got this privilege because I was able to make a whole team of 20/25 completely new editors where I was totally alone at first. Hope you understand. And thanks again for all of your cooperation. Take love! -Mrb Rafi (talk) 18:33, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

@Mrb Rafi, DiscussionTools is now available on English Wikipedia! (@Whatamidoing (WMF) posted that their team expectected to have it turned on last Tuesday, but it wasn’t until yesterday that I checked my Beta Preferences.) What this means is that if your group members tick the box, they will be able to post comments using a visual editor instead of wikitext. (It does also have a Source mode that your colleagues can use as they start to get more comfortable with markup. For now, you'll need to use the desktop site, not mobile.) As I understand it, a big reason the Foundation invested in developing this was for exactly your use case: editors from regions with a high use of social media who may find wiki talk pages counter to their expectations, or feel wiki-markup is a barrier to participating. Of course you can still make use of other channels, but I hope this will help your junior brothers to communicate with people like me who don’t use IRC, Discord, Facebook, etc. Have you encountered DT on Bangla Wikipedia? I don't know if it’s deployed there yet. Please do give it a try: I imagine WAID and PPelberg would be very interested in your experience using this with a mid-sized group. — Best wishes from Australia, Pelagic ( messages ) – (10:19 Sun 21, AEDT) 23:19, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, we do want to know how it goes! Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 20:33, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Needing editors to add county maps for pre-1876 US presidential elections.

I am not good enough at editing and making shades. It would be nice for some editors to utilize the county maps on all the pre-1876 elections.

It would also improve the quality of certain articles about it. The county maps are devoid in almost everything before 1872-1876, so it would be a little bit better to make it so.

P.S. There is an 1836 or 1840 map of Michigan... so why not the other states? :) Xdude gamer (talk) 14:45, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

The Teahouse is not a place to recruit editors for a project. βӪᑸᙥӴ • Talk • Contribs 15:10, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

@Bop34: Easy there friend. Not as if it's a question asked in bad faith. GMG^talk 15:25, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah sorry I didn't mean for it to sound that harsh. βӪᑸᙥӴ • Talk • Contribs 15:28, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Oh makes sense. Is there any place that could be used for that? Xdude gamer (talk) 16:14, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

@Xdude gamer:, the best place to recruit editors for a project is by asking editors who have edited either that article or similar articles via their talk pages. Unless you catch an editor having a bad day, they will probably be happy to help with the project. If you catch one on a bad day, don't take any offense if they "brush you off" or respond with a seemingly harsh tone. Hopefully that helps. Elijahandskip (talk) 20:43, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Ok thanks :) Xdude gamer (talk) 20:45, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Concerned about accuracy

I have concerns about entries that are not accurate but have long view social misguidance embedded in the way statements were crafted. As a financial contributor and someone who grew up thumbing through the Encyclopedia Britannica, I went back to check the definition on Britannica and found support for my initial interpretation. I know if I enter the subject matter here that the whole community will jump on me for the suggestion of it being anything but what contributors have made it, and it is not to suggest that the documented history is inaccurate but the modern interpretation of the term. Balancedview8 (talk) 19:39, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

(gave this query a title) David notMD (talk) 19:50, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Balancedview8. Since you haven't told us what term you are talking about, it is difficult to understand what you're saying. Wikipedia works on the basis of reliably published sources, and views on various subjects do gradually change as new material is published, and older material is seen to be wanting in some way. But on top of that, there can be different editorial views on the relevance and appropriateness of particular material, and we work on consensus. --ColinFine (talk) 21:07, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Why reject my submission?

Hello! I contributted an edit to an article, and it was not published. Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.89.181 (talk) 21:06, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Which edit do you mean? The last edit before you talking in the Teahouse was back in 2007. Elijahandskip (talk) 21:09, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

There's no filter hits, either. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 21:12, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Building a Profile

How can I create an autobiography for my client on Wikipedia? Honorable KARISHMA Princess H. Pelham-raad (talk) 20:08, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Honorable KARISHMA Princess H. Pelham-raad. An autobiography for your client? Are you your own client? ("Autobiography" means a biography of oneself.) If you are being paid for editing Wikipedia, you must abide by the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use: disclose who is paying you to edit (your "employer"), who the client is, and any other relevant role or relationship. For how to do these things, please see WP:PAID. Also, you will only be allowed to create a biography article for a person who is notable according to our notability rules. Bishonen | tålk 20:18, 22 March 2021 (UTC).

Also, Honorable KARISHMA Princess H. Pelham-raad, please note that what we have in Wikipedia is not "profiles" but encyclopaedia articles. If at any point we have an article about your client, the article will not belong to you or your client, you will not control its content, and its content will not be based on what your client says or wants to say about themselves, but solely on what people who have no connection with your client have chosen to publish about your client in reliable sources. Articles are for the benefit of Wikipedia and its readers, not for the benefit of their subjects. Please also look at an article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. --ColinFine (talk) 21:14, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Edits to articles do not get published

Hello. I make edits to articles, but they don't get published. What am I doing wrong, or is this just a waste of time? Bob Rchiiibob (talk) 21:28, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

@Rchiiibob: I looked at Special:Contributions/Rchiiibob. Most of your edits are from 2018, so it is perhaps not suprising that other editors have made changes to the same articles since then and perhaps modified or undid your changes, which is the normal process for collaborative editing here on Wikipedia. Is there a specific change you are concerned about? RudolfRed (talk) 21:55, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

@Rchiiibob: You have only ever made 9 edits under your account name, 7 of which were in 2018, and two this year! Yes, I'm afraid it is a waste of time adding uncited trivia to serious articles as you did three years ago to Truffle, which were removed by another editor with this edit. Their edit summary explained why that happened. But I'm sure you will appreciate that we really do require citations to support statements added to articles, and anything deemed irrelevant, overly detailed or of dubious veracity will indeed be removed as not being Verifiable. Stick to adding content that is relevant and well-sourced (see WP:REFBEGIN) and you should be fine contributing here. If we can help you further, do let us know. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:47, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

79

 73.93.153.84 (talk) 01:39, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Do you have a question? -- Hoary (talk) 01:52, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Article request

Someone at wikipedia needs to create an article about Marion Miley. Kentucky U.S. Women’s amateur golf player who was murdered a during robbery at her home on September 28, 1941.  Tuktoyyuktuk (talk) 00:50, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

That's an excellent suggestion, Tuktoyyuktuk. Anyone can create it, so maybe you? At any rate, I've relayed your suggestion to Women in Red, a group of editors who focus on woman biographies. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:58, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Tuktoyyuktuk. Please take a look at Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything, Wikipedia:Notability (people) and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a blog, web hosting service, social networking service, or memorial site for some more details, but basically anyone wanting to create a Wikipedia:Article about Miley is going to need to establish that she has received significant coverage in reliable sources. Since she was killed so many years ago, it might be hard for to track down such sources. If there are any books, magazine articles, newspaper articles written about her that go beyond the fact that she was murdered (e.g. maybe she received press coverage for her exploits as a golfer or for some other reasons), then an article might be possible. If you can find such sources, then you can start a WP:DRAFT yourself and submit it to Wikipedia:Articles for creation for review when you think it's ready. Yu can find out more about writing articles in Help:Your first article and Help:Referencing for beginners. The important thing though is going to be to establish that Miley is Wikipedia notable for an article to be written about her: otherwise, any attempt to create such an article is unlikely to be approved regardless of who tries to write it or how beautifully it's written. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:08, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

There is plenty of reliable source coverage of Marion Miley, who was one of the most famous woman golfers of the late 1930s and early 1940s. There was a front page story in the New York Times when she was murdered. A 2020 book published by the University of Kentucky Press is devoted to her life and the murder. A lengthy 2020 article in the Palm Beach Post has plenty of biographical details. A book was published in 1993 about the warden who presided over the execution of the three men convicted of her murder, and according to a review published in the Chicago Tribune, it discusses this murder in great detail. An hour long documentary film about her life and the murder was broadcast on some PBS stations in 2016, and shown again in 2020. An annual women's golf tournament in her memory has been played for 75 years. She's notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:36, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

There you go Tuktoyyuktuk. I admit I didn't dig for sources before answering your question like Finnusertop and Cullen328 did and just was trying to give you some general advice. However, since Miley does appear to be Wikipedia notable, you can be bold and try and create an article about her yourself if you want. I still think it would probably be a good idea to start with a draft, but that's not required. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:52, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

• @Tuktoyyuktuk, Finnusertop, and Cullen328: Just want to update that there now exists an article about Marion Miley. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:41, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Further reading length

What is generally considered an acceptable number of sources to list in the further reading section? MOS:FURTHER says "a reasonable number of publications that would help interested readers learn more about the article subject" and Wikipedia:Further reading says "the section should be limited in size". Is 10 too many? 20? 30? Wikipedia:Further reading goes on to say a "historical topic like World War II would run into thousands of items" which makes me think that thousands is obviously unreasonable, but that perhaps 100 wouldn't be. Personally I'd guess anything more than a dozen is too much, but I'm curious if there is a more specific guideline. TipsyElephant (talk) 01:13, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

The thing with Wikipedia's rules is that they're almost always somewhat vague as to not be overly restrictive but still leave room for debate. In my experience, even looking at our most exceedingly long articles on exceedingly broad topics, the average is usually just shy of 10 – mind you, these articles have hundreds of citations and are thousands of words long. I believe, both here and in your discussion with Hoary, that you're referring to the article Minjung theology. I think an article of this length – especially one whose prose seems to be wanting for inline citations and possibly even expansion – could reasonably have one source at the most relegated to 'Further reading' material. With a 'Further reading' section for short articles, the question usually arises: "Could this be used as a reference? If so, it should be in references, not in further reading. If not, why is it in further reading?" For example, were this article substantially longer, 'A History of Korean Christianity' ticks all the boxes for an excellent 'Further reading' source, but this source is already (rightfully) used as a reference. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 05:37, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Block vs Ban

What exactly is the difference between a block and a ban? Lomrjyo (talk) 23:17, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Bans can only be overturned by community discussion, appeal to ArbCom, or appeal to Jimbo. In addition, banned users' edits may be summarily reverted. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 23:21, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

You can find more specific information at WP:BAN and WP:BLOCK.

The last paragraph of the lead section of WP:BAN states as follows:

Bans are different from blocks, which are used by administrators to technically prevent a user account or IP address from editing Wikipedia. Blocks are used chiefly to deal with immediate problems such as vandalism, disruptive editing or edit warring. A ban, on the other hand, does not technically prevent editing; however, blocks may be used to enforce bans.

On the other hand, the last paragraph of the lead section of WP:BLOCK states as follows:

Blocking is different from banning, which is a formal retraction of editing privileges on all or part of Wikipedia. Blocks disable a user's ability to edit pages; bans do not. However, bans may be enforced by blocks; users who are subject to a total ban, or who breach the terms of a partial ban, will most likely be site-wide blocked to enforce the ban.

I hope that helps. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:28, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

I have found this confusing. The explanation above concentrates on how ban and blocks are used, not on what they are. My explanation, maybe mistaken, is: a ban is an instruction to an editor to avoid certain topics or types of behaviour, while a block physically prevents them from editing. Maproom (talk) 08:08, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Bans are formal editing restrictions, which blocks can enforce. A block is a technical prohibition from editing, meant to prevent disruption(such as violating a ban). 331dot (talk) 08:16, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Further reading language

If I'm working on an article dedicated to something in a different country that has generally been written about in other languages than English is it appropriate to include non-English sources in the further reading section? Is it appropriate to include English sources in this context? It seems like English sources would be more helpful for English Wikipedia, but perhaps coverage from the country of origin would be more accurate and less removed from the subject. I'm also curious about citing sources in general throughout the article in this context. Is it better to have articles from the country of origin or is it best to have a mix? TipsyElephant (talk) 01:17, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

"Further reading" sections are unusual. For a minority of articles, they're helpful. Let's suppose that your article is about something far more discussed in French than in English. If there's an article about it in fr:WP, it seems a bit pointless to add French-language further reading items to the en:WP article: people competent to read them can get them from the fr:WP article (and if they're not already there, you can add them there). Country of origin? For matters pertaining to any particular country, perceptive, unthinking, excellent, crappy sources can usually be found among those published both in the country and outside it. So no, I'd never make a generalized statement that it's better to have material from "the country of origin", or indeed that it's worse to do so. -- Hoary (talk) 02:05, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

• @TipsyElephant: Regarding sources, the guideline is at WP:NONENG: Citations to non-English reliable sources are allowed (...) However, because this project is in English, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when available and of equal quality and relevance. As you note, the "equal quality and relevance" criterion is rarely met. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 09:44, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Muble Solutions Pvt Ltd

Is possible to create a company page for "Muble Solutions Pvt Ltd" Urogulfs (talk) 09:45, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Urogulfs. Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. My advice would be to gather up three good sources (newspaper articles, books), and post links to them here. We can double check and make sure this topic passes our notability guidelines. If it passes, then you can move on and create a draft. There are some slightly different processes and advice that could be given, but in my opinion this is likely to be the smoothest process for you. Hope that helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:57, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Blank draft

Please Accept My Article Shah Kinchitkumar Arya (talk) 07:57, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Shah Kinchitkumar Arya, your draft Draft:Arya Kinchitkumar Shah was declined as it has no content. Are you trying to create an article about yourself? Maproom (talk) 08:17, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Blocked as sock. David notMD (talk) 11:03, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Louis III of France

I made some substantial edits to Louis III of France and I was wondering if it can qualify to go up from its original class. (Start-class I think) Xdude gamer (talk) 23:46, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

@Xdude gamer: Welcome to the Teahouse! Each WikiProject has their assessment criteria and a way to request a review. See the following pages for more info:

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Assessment
• Wikipedia:WikiProject France/Assessment
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment
• Wikipedia:WikiProject_Middle_Ages/Assessment

Hope this helps - happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 00:51, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

@Xdude gamer: I've not yet done any content assessments specifically for WikiProject Biography, but their descriptions for quality grades are copied verbatim from the standard quality scale, so I'll take a crack at it. The absolute biggest (albeit only) obstacle I see to this reaching C-class is its contents' very poor verifiability. The reader experience for a C-class article reads as follows: "Useful to a casual reader, but would not provide a complete picture for even a moderately detailed study." I think this article would be a fine resource to a casual reader were it not for a glaring, multi-layered issue: putting myself in the shoes of a casual reader, I have basically no way to verify 90% of the content present in the article due to a lack of inline citations. I want to clarify before I go into this that this is neither your fault nor your problem, as this article has been like this for a decade; nobody's imposing any of this on you unless you want to go the extra mile and fix what your predecessors did terribly wrong. Say I – still a casual reader – read the text:

When Charles died in 877 and then Louis the Stammerer died two years later, some Frankish nobles advocated electing Louis as the sole king, but another party favoured each brother ruling a separate part of the kingdom. In September 879, Louis was crowned at Ferrières Abbey.

No inline citation, so maybe I scroll down to the section labeled 'Sources'. Now I have five sources to choose from: four books (one of which now has a link to archive.org; yay, progress!) and one journal article (the latter of which has the right year but the wrong volume; I'll fix that after this). Without inline citations, we already have a problem: which one of these sources – if any – substantiates the text? You, Wikipedia, want me to run out and find all of these just so I can hopefully find one that substantiates your claims? 99.9% of casual readers just quit at this point, but that's not even the end of it: three of these sources have no page numbers. So if I'm a casual reader who's actually bold enough to even try digging into this further using the sources I've been given, I'm now stuck digging through these books to find material that I believe may attest to what Wikipedia has said about it, and I'm not even sure some of these do. As an example, Charles Oman's The Dark Ages 476-918 (sixth edition, because our citation specified 1918) contains no mention of Louis III in its index, and a search for 'Louis III' returns nothing. As the icing on the cake, almost none of these have anything identifying them despite the fact that such identifiers exist. The journal article has no JSTOR or DOI despite both of these existing, and none of the contemporary books have ISBNs. The Charles Oman source, which understandably doesn't have an ISBN, didn't even have an edition number before today.

All of this takes this article from being "a fine resource for a casual reader" as I described above to being extremely frustrating at best for a student/researcher and practically useless for a casual reader. This is earnestly the only thing I think keeping this article mired in Start-class, but fixing it would be a pretty sizeable undertaking. GoingBatty, your thoughts? TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 02:46, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

I found the page in disarray and I actually didn't place any other new changes other than a bit of grammar, some headings, and other such bits and pieces. Oddly enough, I didn't check the sources. I thought they were reliable enough.

In my thoughts, I believe that perhaps a little more stuff could be added. But until then, some reliable sources will have to be found. Xdude gamer (talk) 11:32, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

is the story about a women who lives lonely in toga(ilaheva)a legend or a myth?

 45.117.242.251 (talk) 08:22, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. This is a place to ask questions about how to edit Wikipedia. There are lonely women everywhere, but since there doesn't seem to be any place on earth called Togailaheva I would say it's untrue.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 13:42, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Email query

 Courtesy link: Glenmuir Water

Received the following A reviewer suggested improvements to the page ‪......‬. Tags: uncategorised, refimprove.

What does this mean? Rmwmaci5 (talk) 12:37, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

The reviewer -- of which article? -- probably thought that categories should be added and that the references should be improved. (And how is this related to email?) -- Hoary (talk) 12:54, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is what the user means but sometimes new users mistake the notifications for emails, or they have the setting to be emailed when they have notifications turned on. βӪᑸᙥӴ • Talk • Contribs 13:00, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

@Rmwmaci5: The notification is about [13] which is a log entry created by this edit. It added two boxes with help links about references and categories. The second box has been removed because the page now has categories. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:49, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Notability regarding awards/recognition

Jumping from WP:GNG, is there any guideline or standard regarding being the recipient of awards? Essentially, if there is a BLP article which is mostly being propped up because of awards received, would that constitute notability? I don't see anything in WP:NOTE that touches on recognitions and awards.
Some context; I have noticed a handful of BLP articles that include the subject's position/role/title in some organization, their published works, some awards/recognitions received, some bio trivia, and nothing more. Would such an article be deemed notable? Obviously each article should be inspected independently, but just looking for general clarification. Thank you! PerpetuityGrat (talk) 14:22, 23 March 2021 (UTC) PerpetuityGrat (talk) 14:22, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, PerpetuityGrat, and welcome to the Teahouse. Whereas the GNG is designed as a general guideline for any subject, WP:BIO is probably where you'll find your answer, namely in WP:ANYBIO, which states that a factor which can contribute to notability is that: "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times." Depending on the article you're analysing, you may want to take a look at subject-specific notability guidelines. For example, WP:BAND has a whole slew of notability criteria not found in WP:GNG or WP:BIO. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 14:32, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

(e/c) Hi PerpetuityGrat. I am a bit conflicted because I believe that all of the subject specific notability guidelines should be deleted—because the only thing that matters is whether the sources exist upon which a verifiable article can be created, beyond a sub-stub, mostly based upon reliable, secondary, independent sources —and the SSNGs essentially function to provide alternative criteria for keeping articles where the GNG cannot be met, i.e., for topics for which insufficient sources cannot be located, and so no suitable article can be written but... "let's keep them anyway".

That being said, yes:

• Wikipedia:Notability (books)—a page I created and wrote most most of, but would now have deleted if I could—says "The book has won a major literary award" (a criterion I don't mind, but only because it's utterly useless – since any book meeting it will inevitably meet the GNG anyway);
• Wikipedia:Notability (films) provides: "The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking";
• Wikipedia:Notability (music) offers: "Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award";
• Wikipedia:Notability (academics) says: "The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level";

And there's more in others. See Category:Wikipedia notability guidelines. A common denominator of each of them is that the award be of special significance. You will find, for example, at many AfDs people will bring up some industry award as a basis for keeping, and then the discussion will properly turn to the fact that every industry has numerous awards at every level of significance, most of which do not confer upon the subject much "note" at all. (Sort of akin to the the fact that every movie poster has pull-quoted rave reviews. It's just that the good ones are quoting Rolling Stone and the The New York Times, etc., and bad ones quote some magazine you've never heard of, which functions solely to provide rave review quotes for shitty movies:-)

You can find numerous examples of this playing out in the results of a search like this. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:50, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

@Fuhghettaboutit: & @TheTechnician27: Hoping to get some insight here. Here are three articles that I believe may lack notability. Hoping to get your analyses on these, in effort to further improve my understanding the notability criteria: activist Gigi Raven Wilbur, academic Ann M. Mongoven, and journalist Tanya Gold. Are these worth deleting in your opinion? Are these notable? Thanks! PerpetuityGrat (talk) 15:00, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Hey again PerpetuityGrat. Unless someone is obviously notable, or obviously non-notable (i.e., for the former, a search that tends to concentrate reliable sources, e.g., Google Books and JSTOR each return scads of results with substantive treatment of the subject; and for the latter, the person is contemporary and their notability is tied to online activities but there's next to no results for a Google web search), determining notability for edge cases takes a serious time investment in WP:BEFORE activities. Doing that with the due diligence I would need to invest to give you any sort of definitive answer would require me to make that time investment, which I'm not going to devote.

Maybe saying what I just did, though, helps? Let me put it another way, that might provide some more clarity. Putting aside whether a person meets some criterion of an SSNG that circumvents the GNG (which, as I've indicated, is in my view a waste of time, because such standards are non-encyclopedic bullshit), finding out whether someone meets the GNG for an on-the-merits discussion at AfD (i.e., what actually counts toward notability) always looks to the existence of the rights types of sources, with a sufficient depth of treatment, and not what's currently written in an article. That is why the time investment would be necessary to provide an answer. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:25, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

P.S. A quick Google Books search returns a lot of results for Gigi Raven Wilbur. Again, I cannot really say without looking in more depth, but that is a facial indication that they are notable. Reinforcing the point above, whether the text of the article currently suitably demonstrates that notability is entirely irrelevant to the question.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:37, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

In my opinion, of the three, the weakest article is about Ann, as three of the refs are to the website of the university where she has an appointment, and the others are to her published works. Nothing there ABOUT her. David notMD (talk) 15:49, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

how do I type

Excuse me but how do I type in roblox? 119.94.1.209 (talk) 12:50, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

To start chatting, press the / key on your keyboard. This will open up the chat window, if enabled by the developer, and a chat-bar where you can type what you would like to say. Once you have entered your text into that bar, hit Enter on your keyboard to send it. This is also not the right place to ask such questions so please ask only Wikipedia related questions here. SenatorLEVI 12:53, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Follow Xx_SenatorLEVI_xX for more MLG Roblox tips and tricks. ;) TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 14:24, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

TheTechnician27, well my actual username is Awesomecross123, but I made that when I was 12. I'm fairly good at MLG, thank you. SenatorLEVI 16:16, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

If you mean the article Roblox, then you click the edit button to the left of the search bar. Please try to make your questions more clear in the future though. βӪᑸᙥӴ • Talk • Contribs 12:54, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

HELP ON A DECLINED ARTICLE

please can anyone help me with Draft:Virony Nigeria. The article was declined. Please help me with the corrections on the issues raised Sharges (talk) 16:27, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Sharges. I don't claim to speak for everybody at the Teahouse, but there are a few huge, interconnected issues with your request that I think will disincentivize basically anybody here from pitching in.

• The first is that there's a very good chance this subject doesn't meet Wikipedia's general notability criteria or its notability crtieria for companies. Wikipedia editors can't create notability out of thin air, so there's a chance this article can't possibly be fixed until more coverage is given to it in reliable, independent sources (see: WP:TOOSOON). Essentially, an editor could throw hours of their time down the drain if the subject turns out not to be notable.

• The second is that, at the end of the day, Wikipedia is a community of volunteers. If nobody anywhere is interested in going onto Wikipedia to create a functional article, that article just doesn't get created, and given how much could potentially be covered in a project like Wikipedia (and its sister projects, etc.), editors usually already have a ton on their plates.

• And the third is that this article has been paid for and is wholly an advertisement. I don't want to use your disclosure against you, as that's the right thing to do; it would've been completely evident to almost any experienced editor that this article was paid by the sort of corporate 'dialect' it uses. Wikipedia was founded as a space where corporations don't get to just throw cash at a platform to advertise their products or represent themselves more favorably, and therefore editors give articles on active corporations the utmost scrutiny. Moreover, even assuming editors didn't care about the project's integrity whatsoever, there's still the matter that this would involve unpaid volunteers fixing the work that you were, well, paid to do, and for the express purpose of generating profit for a company. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 17:05, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

What TT27 said. You are asking for free help because you failed to complete what you were paid for. Teahouse hosts advise, and on occasion will help with good faith, non-promotional efforts by non-paid editors. David notMD (talk) 17:18, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Translation of an article

I've submitted an article that has just been created : Thanks. I had this article transmated into Spanish and Russian. How must I proceed so that the reviewers know that it's a"simple" translation (without going trought the whoe process of a review) ? Thank you. Pariswasafeast (talk) 16:56, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

@Pariswasafeast: Welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for working to expand it. The article still needs to be reviewed because each language Wikipedia is a separate project with different requirements for articles. RudolfRed (talk) 17:32, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia newbie, would like to request a major edit to a page but am clueless how to

Hello, I am a common Wikipedia reader, although I have never edited anything nor am I really sure what I am doing with editing. I never really wanted to bother with it, as most things seem to be very accurate. I have found something however that is related to a subject I am passionate about that seems incorrect, if not inconsistent. I do not know how to properly request an edit with proof and what not though, and I don't want to do something wrong and cause any trouble for it. I'm an avid wrestling fan, currently we are in Wrestlemania season which is the time of the year people will be reading more about it's history than any other time. I have found an inconsistency with the Wrestlemania Wikipedia page in the "Final Match section" This section does not state the "main event", but the literal final match. For 2020's Wrestlemania 36, the final match was Drew McIntyre (c) vs. Big Show for the WWE Championship, an extra match added after the Main event which Drew McIntyre won. However, the page lists the match which was the Main Event, not the final match of Wrestlemania that year. The entire show was on tape delay, so even though this match was shown the next night on Monday Night Raw, it was presented by WWE as the final match of the WrestleMania 36, after the Brock Lesnar (c) vs. Drew McIntyre match that Wikipedia has listed. The entire event was on tape delay so, my argument is that this match was presented by WWE themselves in WWE-canon as the final match of Wrestlemania 36. That event was held via tape delay, and most of the matches were presented to us the first two days, however the final match was presented on Monday at the beginning of WWE's Monday Night Raw. It was however still shown as the official final match that took place! Anyone can go back and watch that show and see this to be factual. I'm not sure how someone would add articles to show this as fact but, any wrestling related article about the event would verify that this is factual. This causes an inconsistency because the Wrestlemania 9 listed Final Match, Hulk Hogan (c) vs. Yokozuka, was not the main event but was also an extra added on match after the scheduled main event ended (which was Bret Hart (c) vs. Yokozuka, and Yokozuna won). So Wrestlemania 9 lists the extra match as the final one on your page, and Wrestlemania 36 does not. I feel that this could be confusing for fans. People reading the page may assume it is the literal Main Events of each Wrestlemania, but if that is the goal of the Wrestlemania Wikipedia article, than the Wrestlemania 9 Bret Hart (c) vs. Yokozuna match needs to replace the current one. If the goal is to show the absolute final match, than the Wrestlemania 36 one currently listed needs to be changed to the Drew McIntyre (c) vs. Big Show for the WWE Championship. Either 9 needs to be fixed, or 36 does. I would love to be able to request an official edit on this and help out with the accuracy of Wrestlemania history. I have absolutely no idea how I would do this, but I figured I would make a Wikipedia account, ask for help, and explain what I would like to accomplish! Thanks for your time! MoneyTakerBaby (talk) 10:10, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

MoneyTakerBaby Hosts here at Teahouse are volunteers. Your 'wall' of text makes it difficult to wade through. It appears you believe one or more (?) Wrestlemania articles contain errors. The next step is either to A) change the articles, or B) on the Talk pages of the articles, start a new section, and explain there what you think is wrong, so that an editor reaing your comment will implement the change. There is no such thing as an "official edit." We are all editors. David notMD (talk) 11:13, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

MoneyTakerBaby, welcome to the Teahouse. My advice would be to post a much shorter version of this suggestion, in a new section on the page Talk:WrestleMania. An experienced Wikipedian will evaluate your request, and if they agree, they will make the change. I recommend writing your request in a "Change X to Y" format, and I also recommend including a URL to a reliable source that we can use to verify the change. Normally you can just fix articles yourself by hitting "Edit", but that particular article is semi-protected, probably due to recent vandalism. Hope that helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:15, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

P.S. WrestleMania 36 has a description of Main event: McIntyre defeating Big Show, as an "dark match." There is a discussion about this on the Talk page. David notMD (talk) 11:22, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

I will comment that one of the most common good-faith mistakes by new editors in Wikipedia is posting a very long post, either asking for help or expressing a view about what should be changed in an article. We need to remember not only that concise posts are usually better but to encourage other editors to post concisely. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:47, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

ARTICLES FOR CREATION ISSUES

I submitted an article Draft:Virony Nigeria please check it out for any issues. Also I need to know if it is still under review or had been remove Sharges (talk) 09:08, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Declined today. Reviewer gave reasons. David notMD (talk) 11:07, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Sharges, welcome to the Teahouse. The current status of the draft is "declined". Please read the reasons given by the reviewer. The reasons given are that it sounds like an advertisement, and that it does not have enough high quality sources such as newspapers and books to meet our notability guidelines (notability = what is allowed to have its own article). Feel free to fix the issues mentioned, then hit the "resubmit" button to resubmit. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:10, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Please can you help me with the error and corrections? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharges (talk • contribs) 14:26, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Sharges, no. You are a paid editor, and we are not going to do your work for you. Read the resources that we have generously provided you with. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:10, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

How to request U1 CSD of a js page

Hey I'm curious how I would request the deletion of my common.js page. As it is a js page, tagging it doesn't really work. Does anyone know how to do this? βӪᑸᙥӴ • Talk • Contribs 19:43, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Bop34! You should be able to accomplish this by typing it as a comment like so: /* {{db-u1}} */. Thanks, EDG 543 ^{(message me)} 19:47, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Oh okay that's what I did I just didn't know if it was correct. Sorry for wasting your time. βӪᑸᙥӴ • Talk • Contribs 19:48, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Not a waste at all, we're here to help! {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:12, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

ADD HEADING I NEED HELP

how do yu adding head JohnSmith43526 (talk) 18:35, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

JohnSmith43526, hello, friend! You add a main heading by surrounding the text with double equal signs, like this: == Heading text ==. You can get a subheading by typing three equal signs instead of two: === Subheading text ===. You can add up to 8 equal signs (I believe...) for increasing smaller subheading. Thanks, EDG 543 ^{(message me)} 18:52, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnSmith43526 (talk • contribs) 19:37, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

how to get better at editing

i am just starting out and i don't know how to edit properly if there are any tips i can get from people that would be a great help Key word once (talk) 20:13, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

@Key word once: Welcome to Wikipedia. Check out the interactive learning game at WP:ADVENTURE. There is also the WP:TUTORIAL. RudolfRed (talk) 20:20, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Edits like this one here [14] at Paronymic attraction are unhelpful though, the spelling was correct before and I have reverted. Theroadislong (talk) 20:30, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Locking an article

How to lock my article? Wiki orb2 (talk) 20:56, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

If there is a problem such as ongoing vandalism, you can request protection at WP:RFPP. John_Felix_Raj which you edit a lot, does not seem to have that issue. You might want to read WP:OWN. RudolfRed (talk) 21:00, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Wiki orb2, and welcome to the Teahouse. If you mean that you want to lock an article (whether John Felix Raj or anything else) to your version, the answer is that you can't. Doing so would be contrary to everything that Wikipedia stands for. --ColinFine (talk) 21:05, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

And it worked as it should! Had it been locked, this hagiography advertisement/CV masquerading as an article would have remained that way, but it's much improved since you've posted.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk)

Question from New Editor About Irish Twentieth Century Charts

I have been asked a question by a new editor that maybe someone here can direct them toward. User:Waldenhorse submitted Draft:Andy Cooney, and I declined it, and he is trying to improve the draft. He says that Cooney charted in Ireland in 1986, and is asking for help in finding popular music charts for Ireland in 1986. So my question is where to tell him to look, as in, for instance, what WikiProject could help him. I am sure that he would appreciate any other advice about getting his draft approved. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:39, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, Waldenhorse ---> Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland and ������WPCOUNTRYMUSIC ??! CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:05, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm too scared to edit

I've come across many statements which were provided with almost valid sources while editing Wikipedia articles.But they usually represent personal opinions or partial point of view. Since I am a newcomer to Wikipedia, I'm hesitant to edit and remove these statements in the fear that I might be banned permanently from Wikipedia. What should i do in such a situation .RonaldWeasley.voldy gone moldy (talk) 17:28, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

If you don't want to make the edit yourself, you can start a discussion on the article's talk page suggesting that the material be improved or removed. RudolfRed (talk) 17:33, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Consider WP:BRD. Use editsummaries, and discuss as necessary. Opinions are not necessarily wrong to include in a WP-article, it depends on the context, see for example WP:BIASEDSOURCES. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:54, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Honestly, don't be afraid! Seriously, the worst that will happen is you'll get reverted and you can discuss things. It's really hard to get blocked permanently the first time, you've got to really try for that to happen. Showing good faith, and using edit summaries to explain reasons and discussing on the article talk page goes a really long way to making other editor welcome your edits, presence and thoughts. Ravensfire (talk) 18:03, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah really remember just to be bold. If you think that it will improve the encyclopedia then do it. There's no reason to be afraid, especially as a new editor. βӪᑸᙥӴ • Talk • Contribs 18:25, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Yep, Wikipedia:Be bold is written precisely for people thinking what you are thinking. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:03, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

"Being bold is important on Wikipedia" , Wikipedia:Be bold - do not be afraid, you will not be banned that quickly and if there will be plenty of warnings before. CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:07, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Not being able to edit any page

I have been editing various articles, and now have completed 7. For some reason, all Wikipedia pages now only allow me to "edit source" or "view source." There are no "edit" tabs available to me. Can you help me on this? Caribou J (talk) 21:03, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Caribou J, and welcome to the Teahouse. Which page are you having trouble with? 'Edit source' is just editing directly in Wikipedia's markup language, and some pages (such as the Teahouse) only allow source editing. However, when on an article, you can go into 'Edit source' and freely switch back to the Visual Editor at any time by clicking the pencil icon in the upper right and selecting 'Visual editing'. It could just be that you ended your last edit in source mode, so the next time you went to edit, Wikipedia provided you with the option 'Edit source'. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 22:28, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks much for your quick response. That did it. I have been surprised at how many articles are semi-protected or more, and one can only "view the source." I was able to do what you said with "edit the source" tabs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caribou J (talk • contribs) 23:50, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

@Caribou J: You are only one edit away from being able to edit semi-protected pages. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:11, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

HMCS Bonaventure

To Whom it May Concern:

My grandfather made the 10,000th landing on the aircraft carrier HMCS Bonaventure. I'm in possession of a plaque made to commemorate the event, a photo of which I posted to Wikimedia:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:HMCS_Bonaventure_10000th_Trap.jpg

I would like to update Wikipedia's page on the HMCS Bonaventure to reflect this information, but I was told that Wikimedia does not constitute a reliable source. What would be an acceptable way to cite the information on the plaque?

- RIPCaptainCWMillerJr (talk) 13:22, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello RIPCaptainCWMillerJr and welcome to the Teahouse! The plaque is a primary source. Primary sources can often be biased, so it would be preferred to use secondary sources. If you want to insert the image itself, then please use the format below:

[[File:HMCS Bonaventure 10000th Trap.jpg|thumb|HMCS Bonaventure 10000th Trap]]

which renders as the image to the right →

HMCS Bonaventure 10000th Trap

If you want to insert it to an infobox, then look at the template docs on how to insert the image. See H:IMAGE for more info. Sungodtemple a tcg fan!!1!11!! (talk) 14:39, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: I have reduced the image size here by adding "|100 px" to the image markup--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:12, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi RIPCaptainCWMillerJr. The plaque is not usable to verify this detail—in my view not because it is biased; indeed, were it reliable, I don't think its use would obviously be prohibited under our limitations for use of primary sources—but because it's not a reliable source for the information. While I'm sure it is what it purports to be, it's just not the type of thing that reliably verifies information in and of itself, e.g., a physical award is not a published source with editorial oversight and a "reputation for fact checking and accuracy".

A reliable, secondary, independent source would be something like a (non-vanity) book, a magazine article, a newspaper story, etc., discussing the landing, that verifies the additional information you want to add, that could be cited in relation. Possibly, such a verifying source is already present in the article. Specifically, the sentence in the article that discusses the 10,000th landing ends with a footnote (e.g.""...), which cites to page 337 of the 2013 book British Aircraft Carriers: Design, Development and Service Histories. I can't check myself easily whether it mentions your grandfather's name in relation, as that page of that book doesn't appear to be accessible to me online (I did attempt some Google Books searches and some more general ones, but was unable able to find a usable source).

There is another issue here. I certainly understand the desire to commemorate a loved one, and that adding his name to the article as the actual person who made the landing would seem a natural way to do so – but your desire to add this is in conflict with the proper role of an editor. Should this detail be added? Would the article be improved by adding this person (your grandfather's) name? Possibly. Or would that be a bit too much detail for a tertiary source, encyclopedia treatment of this topic, that properly summarizes, without going into minute detail? That decision should be made based on whether adding the information (if and only if it can be properly verified) is desirable as a matter of editorial discretion, based on a variety of neutral precepts guiding our writing, and not because someone has a personal stake in seeing the person's name commemorated. You are not here for those reasons; you are not neutral on this subject but have a conflict of interest in seeing this added.

Still, in comparison to the problems we see of non-neutral writing here (a daily, raging stream of blatant advertisements written by business owners, et al.), this is a small matter. Anyway, finding a proper source for the addition might not be sufficient condition for its addition in light of the reasons I've discussed, but it is a threshold one. Nevertheless, If you can find that source, because of your conflict of interest, please post to the article's talk page asking for the change to be made (be sure to provide transparent details of the verifying source), rather than directly making the change. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:14, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

All - thank you very much for the information and assistance, you guys make some really good points. Can't really argue with the conflict of interest issue. Stay safe out there! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:8C1:181:2C0:E865:C2B1:331A:9FBF (talk) 00:51, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle

Help, I have signed up at the proper spot indicating I want the news letter but I have not recieved it. Is there a period I have to wait until the recognize I joined or did I sign up wrong? Any help is appriceated. Gandalf the Groovy (talk) 15:38, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

@Gandalf the Groovy: I’m not familiar with The Bugle but I am the Signpost. Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:50, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

@Timtempleton: Get me WP:IMAGES of Spider-Man!

@Gandalf the Groovy: Well how about that - I randomly stumbled across it while looking on another user's talk page, and so I added it to Bugle (disambiguation). Now the next person can find it more easily. You might have more luck asking about delivery on the talk page. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 00:55, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Use of Press Releases and Social Media

I am on a quest to update and create pages on minor state legislators in the US. My next target frequently posts on Facebook. To what extent can I paraphrase his (or his staff’s) posts to use on the page?

Thanks, FlyingKitten2024 FlyingKitten2024 (talk) 01:05, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

FlyingKitten2024, welcome to the Teahouse. We should try to avoid this as much as possible. Using WP:SELFPUBLISHED sources in articles is not ideal. This is one of the reasons that WP:GNG exists: to ensure that there is enough quality material to write articles. As much as possible, you should try to use WP:GNG type sources to write the article. If your choice is to leave the article as a stub, or expand the article with WP:SELFPUBLISH, it is usually preferable to leave it as a stub. Hope that helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:16, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Novem Linguae It does, thank you!Followup: what about press releases advocating for something? The guy put out a press release urging WV Congress members to oppose dc statehood. Should I include that?

FlyingKitten2024, anybody under the sun can crank out as many press releases as they want. If reliable independent sources report on his stance regarding DC statehood, then it can be included. It is not up to Wikipedia editors to decide that a given press release is worthy of mention. We summarize what reliable independent sources say, not self-serving press releases. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:39, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Cullen328 Sounds good!

@FlyingKitten2024: To add to what Cullen328 stated about the use of press releases, I think they can be used to complement reliable sources but shouldn't be used wholly in place of them. So for example, maybe there's an article in the Charleston Gazette-Mail about a statement in this representative's press release. So maybe in the article you could say: "XYZ stated that they believe Pluto should be made a planet again." And then cite an article from the Gazette-Mail and another subsequent one of the actual press release attesting to this information. Primary sources aren't always bad, but we never want Wikipedia to become overwhelmed with what subjects have to say about themselves. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 01:47, 24 March 2021 (UTC)