Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1154

Archive 1150

←

Archive 1152

Archive 1153

Archive 1154

Archive 1155

Archive 1156

→

Archive 1160

The importance of the expertise of Wikipedia editors

I understand Wikipedia runs based on consensus, but I see some editors make irreversible changes without relevant expertise. For instance,

I created Nano Energy, which is proposed for deletion (Talk:Nano_Energy). By any standard, Nano Energy is among the top 5% (if not 1%) scholarly journals. For example, the Danish Bibliometric Research Indicator level listed it as a distinguished journal (see Wikidata).

I re-submitted Draft:Exaly in which the contributors (I was not one of them) provided examples of high profile authors who used the scientometric analysis of their publications in their CVs. The editor, who rejected it, compared it with someone who goes to a music concert. Anyone with academic experience knows how much academics are sensitive in including reliable resources in their CVs.

I believe each category has its own standard (there are more secondary references for Instagram model comparing with scientists). All articles in a category should be judged by the same standard by people who know the field. Being an experienced Wikipedia editor does not qualify someone to judge all topics. MojoDiJi (talk) 19:49, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi, MojoDiJi, we have inclusion criteria to assess against and we do so in a neutral way; you don't have to be a subject matter expert and sometimes that can be a hindrance because we look at notability in a broad sense not under a narrow light. I suggest you express your concerns at the article's deletion nomination as we have no control over the process here. Kind regards, Zindor (talk) 20:25, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts, Zindo, but I beg to disagree. You should be an expert to judge the significance of references. For instance, there are lots of media coverage for a junior politician, which can be used as secondary sources; but there are rarely articles about successful scientists. You cannot judge the availability of secondary sources equally. MojoDiJi (talk) 21:30, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

@MojoDiJi That's why we have different definitions of notability for different subjects. A scientist would have to pass the criteria at WP:NACADEMIC, while politicians have to pass the criteia at WP:NPOLITICIAN. If they don't meet either of those specialised criteria they may also qualify for an article if the pass the general WP:NBASIC criteria for a biography, or any of the "this person is automatically notable" criteria at WP:ANYBIO. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 21:36, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

That's exactly my point. There should be separate notability criteria for scholar journals. If not, people who are not familiar with scholarly journals should not take the action/make the judgement. MojoDiJi (talk) 22:18, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

@MojoDiJi There is, see WP:NJOURNALS and the specific criteria at WP:JOURNALCRIT. If you include a reliable source that shows that the journal passes one of the three criteria laid out there it is essentially guaranteed to be kept if nominated for deletion. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 22:21, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Oh, thanks for that. I was looking for this page. Clearly, Nano Energy meets the requirement. Therefore, the editor who proposed for deletion was at fault. Taking an action without reviewing the rules in place. This is the concern I am trying to address. Unnecessary actions waste other people's time. MojoDiJi (talk) 22:25, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

@MojoDiJi Yes, the nomination was clearly incorrect, three established users have commented there and there is currently unanimous support for keeping it. Notability on wikipedia is an extremely complex and unintuitive concept with the rules being different for essentially every subject, so it's not surprising that mistakes get made occasionally. It's a real shame that you seem to have been bitten quite badly by having your first article nominated for deletion, I hope it hasn't put you off completely. Have you considered joining a wikiproject? Wikipedia:WikiProject Science is full of people interested in writing about scientific topics, they can be a great resource to get subject specific help. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 22:35, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

I should add though that the subject specific do see a lot more activity than the general one, e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry 192.76.8.78 (talk) 22:37, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much. You were very supportive. I might have overreacted. MojoDiJi (talk) 23:19, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Actually, there're far less useful sources for Instagram models - or really anyone whose fame comes from social media, web videos, or eSports - than you realise. And WP:NACADEMIC exists because of the issues surrounding sourcing for academics, especially when WP:Biographies of living persons is also a factor.

As to Exaly, we do not accept notability-by-osmosis, and our audience hardly understands what the hell a scientometric analysis or an h-index is. We're written for the layperson, and the article should reflect that by just summarising what the journal is. WP:Notability (academic journals), while not a guideline or policy, explains what reviewers are looking for when it comes to these sorts of publications.

This looks more to me like a gripe that would have been easily dealt with if you had bothered to do research on Wikipedia before jumping headfirst into the literal hardest thing to do here. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 20:19, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

There are many news outlets such as The Sun (s credible secondary source) which publish an article whenever an Instagram model post a racy photo. The link did not mention anything about notability by osmosis. My point is that maybe you need to start accepting it for cases like this. You make the same mistake as the editor I mentioned. Here the authors are not the users. By linking they, as reliable and independent professionals, testify that the analysis of their publications is correct. Anyhow, I did not devise this type of referencing. MojoDiJi (talk) 21:39, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

@MojoDiJi The sun (and many such similar publications, like the daily mail) is considered a depreciated source, see WP:THESUN. This means that editors have deleted essentially all references to the sun except those used in a small number of situations (like WP:ABOUTSELF, see this search for the last 20 [1]), it is highly discouraged as a reference and coverage in the sun does not count towards notability. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 21:48, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

That was just an example that celebrities get more media coverage than scientists. However, it was good to know. Thanks :) MojoDiJi (talk) 22:16, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Deprecated source, not depreciated. See also WP:THESUN. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:13, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

@MojoDiJi We don't give experts special rights to decide on notability, partly this is because we have no way of verifying who anyone is (see, for example, the Essjay controversy) and partly because everyone can find it difficult to acknowledge their own biases - if you use a piece of software every day you might think it is notable enough for an article, but from an outside observer's perspective it might be that the coverage to support an article simply doesn't exist.

The journal article deletion nomination appears to be frivolous and I fully expect it to be kept, so the deletion nomination process is working as intended. Likewise the draft on the search engine appears to be full of not great sources and the decline appears to be correct. Compare the sourcing in that draft to things like Scopus, Google Scholar or Microsoft Academic Search. The sources in Draft:Exaly are almost entirely people using or mentioning the search engine, as opposed to coverage of said search engine. The reception section should cite some kind of third party coverage of the reception of Exaly, you might use a news article on the search engine or a bit of coverage from a book, for example, rather than finding individual examples of mentions and combining them together (this falls afoul of WP:NOR), citations 7-14 do not show significant coverage of the topic and, in my opinion, should probably be removed. Citation no 6 appears to be to a research paper, but it is actually a citation to a user submitted comment on that paper - this is not usable as a source as it is WP:USERGENERATED. In citation no 5 the only mention Exaly is a one word link in the "other resources" section - there is no coverage of this search engine at all there. Citation 4 is a WordPress blog, while the author here is an expert in the field and this can probably be used for information it doesn't really show notability. Citation 3 is the website's own about page, and is not independent coverage. Citation no 2 appears at first glance to be a university writing about the search software, but a further search shows that it's just a copy paste of https://exaly.com/about-us.html. Citation 1 appears to be a good length piece of coverage by an independent party and is exactly the kind of source that is needed, one or two more sources like that are what is needed in this article.

If you are an academic having a go at writing wikipedia articles you might want to have a read of Wikipedia:Ten simple rules for editing Wikipedia and Help:Wikipedia editing for researchers, scholars, and academics, both of which were written by academics to give advice on making the transition from academic writing to wikipedia writing. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 21:23, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

I highly appreciate your review. If you rejected the article, I would say it was an expert review. But comparing high profile authors with attending a music concert is not acceptable. I am mostly interested in creating articles for journals than Exaly, and find it ridiculous to see high impact journals nominated for deletion. However, since you mentioned; I need to add two points. First, if you look at the pages you lined such as Scopus, Google Scholar, etc., they have not much references when their articles were created. The references were added over 10-15 years. Second, you did not scrutinize the references thoroughly. For instance, Citation 6 is not a user comment. It is stated by the original author of the paper. I agree with you that Citations 7-14 should be removed but comparing them with going to a music concert is unacceptable. MojoDiJi (talk) 21:52, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Just pointing out that the OP's statement that "some editors make irreversible changes" is incorrect. The actions here are anything but irreversible. Nano_Energy was draftified as not being ready for article space. It was then moved back to article space and improved. Another editor has now nominated it for deletion, and that's being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nano Energy, where several editors have already expressed opinions that it should not be deleted.

And Draft:Exaly was not "rejected". It was "declined" three times. There's a big difference. "Rejected" means it is not believed that the topic will qualify for an article. "Declined" means the article is not ready for article space, and the reviewer (in this case reviewers) leave suggestions on what needs to be fixed. Meters (talk) 21:50, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Meters, I still believe the changes are irreversible. The original author of Draft:Exaly gave up. I re-submitted it though I had no significant contribution. I give up now and draft will be deleted. I give up creating new articles for missing journals when I see the articles I created are unfairly suggested for deletion. MojoDiJi (talk) 21:56, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

If Draft:Exaly is abandoned it will not be deleted until it has been untouched for six months, And even if that happens it can be restored at any time by any editor simply by asking for it to be restored. How is that irreversible? I already told you that your article Nano_Energy is under discussion and so far several editors have supported keeping. Why don't you work to improve the article, and contribute to the AFD instead of simply throwing your hands up in the air and giving up? Meters (talk) 22:03, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Meters, as you see I did comment (though in the wrong place :D). We all are volunteers with no personal gain. It is frustrating to see that you spend time to help the community and instead your contribution is treated unfairly. I follow the rules to enhance Wikipedia. I am not here to fight to prove the value of my contribution. If I had created a controversial article, I would expected to see the result of consensus. But when I created something that was strangely missing in Wikipedia, it is disappoint to see it is considered for deletion because someone without the required knowledge or reason felt this way. MojoDiJi (talk) 22:09, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

"unfairly" How is the AFD "unfair"? Did anyone prevent you or anyone else from participating? See WP:Guide to deletion, or perhaps even more relevantly, Help:My article got nominated for deletion!. AFD is a process, and the only threshold for triggering that process is that someone in good faith thinks the article it not notable. And on earth, there are about 8 billion someones (and incidentally, there are many many AFDs on Wikipedia). It's as fair of a process as there is. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:25, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

@MojoDiJi One of the things you have to bear in mind is that the minimum standards that articles need to survive has increased drastically over the last 20 years. "what wikipedia is not", which removed some of the worst of the early content from the project wasn't written down until nearly 6 months after the project started [2]. The concept that "information needs sources" wasn't actually written until mid 2003, two and a half years after the project started [3] The concept that things should demonstrate significant coverage in third party sources wasn't written down until late 2006 [4] nearly 5 years after the project started. Even when written down a lot of these policies weren't really enforced properly until the late 2000's, when the fallout from things like the Seigenthaler biography incident forced editors to start enforcing content policies more thoroughly. There are a lot (as in millions) of articles from the early days of wikipedia which do not meet modern quality standards, but cleaning them all up is a monumental task, there is currently a "sweep" wikiproject in the works though that aims to clean up the worst of them.

Although the comment in citation 6 is by the original author of the paper it has not been through the same peer review and editorial process as the main paper and as such cannot be considered to be equal, especially in terms of things like reliability. Mentioning something in a discussion about a paper you wrote is also very different from mentioning it in the paper submitted for peer review from a notability standpoint. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 22:16, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree with most of your views. MojoDiJi (talk) 22:20, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

"But comparing high profile authors with attending a music concert is not acceptable."

I made that comparison as a way to explain our notability criteria and what independent reliable sources are by analogy with a topic that's more easily accessible. It's a perfectly acceptable comparison. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:16, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

How to publish a page?

I have created a sandox page but how do I publish it for the world to see? Lenrv12345 (talk) 18:32, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Lenrv12345, and wlcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid that User:Lenrv12345/sandbox has no chance of being accepted as a Wikipedia article in its current form, and it would be a waste of everybody's time for you to submit it. It looks as if, like many people, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of whta Wikipedia is. It is not like social media or a directory, where you can tell the world about yourself - that is called promotion, and is strictly forbidden. If Wikipedia has an article on you, it will not be based on what you know or say or want to say, but almost entirely on what people who have no connection to you have chosen to publish about you in reliable sources. If such sources exist, then there can be an article based on them; if not, then you do not currently meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and no article on you will be accepted.

You are strongly discouraged from writing about yourself, because it is likely to be difficult to be sufficiently neutral. But you are permitted to do so, if you wish. I recommend studying conflict of interest and your first article before you do any more, as well as the links I have already given above. It's also worth looking at an article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. ColinFine (talk) 18:51, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Teahouse archival message

Hi, recently, I got a message from muninnbot that my teahouse message has been archived. This incident is really normal. But this time, I can see that I have received the message only, but nothing visible is being displayed. I saw that a certain code has been inserted at the bottom of my talk page, but that code did not get executed. Is the bot malfunctioning? Itcouldbepossible^Talk 14:13, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Itcouldbepossible, you accidently removed the closing tag of a comment by Sinebot when you made this edit. If it's not closed like <!-- --> it'll hide everything that follows. I've now fixed it. Kind regards, Zindor (talk) 14:29, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Zindor, that thing totally missed my eye. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 14:33, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

@Zindor But can you fix something. Why is a part of the comment being removed every time I move a section? Only that section is to be removed. Where is it going wrong? Itcouldbepossible^Talk 14:37, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

@DannyS712 would you be able to have a look at this, it seems it might be a bug in User:DannyS712/SectionMover.js? The script is incorrectly moving the end of a comment from the previous section to the archive, see [5]. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 17:16, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

@DannyS712 I'm not a programmer so there's a good chance I'm completely wrong here, but is the byte offset being converted into a character offset before the trimming is done? If not that would result in the cuts appearing too early when multi-byte characters like emoji are used, wouldn't it? 192.76.8.78 (talk) 19:00, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Unverifiable information

Hey, Teahouse. Lately, I've been editing the article on RateMyCop.com, a website which is no longer functional. There aren't any sources that state when or how it went down, but at archive.org, the last available archive is from March 2017. I wrote that the site stopped operating in 2017, but would it be better to just leave it out if it can't be verified in any reliable sources? ArcticSeeress (talk) 15:42, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

@ArcticSeeress: You could just say that the site no longer exists and that no pages are archived from the site after March 2017. That, at least, is verifiable. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:14, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Alright, seems reasonable enough. Thanks. ArcticSeeress (talk) 21:18, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Improving Human Rights drafted article

Hello. I have been improving the Draft:Amhara genocide for a while and thought i would ask feedbacks before submitting it for a review. I would appreciate it. Thank you Petra0922 (talk) 21:16, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

@Petra0922: I highly suggest reaching out to a more specialized discussion board such as WT:WikiProject Ethiopia, WT:WikiProject Ethnic groups, and/or WT:WikiProject Human rights. ––FormalDude talk 21:42, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

I initiated a discussion at WT:WikiProject Ethiopia. I will do the same with WT:WikiProject Ethnic groups as well. Thank you for the tip! ~~~~ Petra0922 (talk) 22:38, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Book links to authors

I would like to know why this happens

Sometimes, when I add a book link (usually to Internet Archive) to an author's repertoire, a little box with an arrow pointing right appears. Sometimes it does not. What is the purpose of this box and why does it appear haphazardly for me? I think the box means external link. What can I do to make sure that this box appears consistently?

Kthxbai

SpicyMemes123 (talk) 03:08, 31 May 2022 (UTC) SpicyMemes123 (talk) 03:08, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

hi @SpicyMemes123 and welcome to the teahouse! if the little box appears, that link is an external link. if it doesn't, it's an internal link and leads to another wikipage. see here: Google vs Google. I don't typically use visualeditor, but I believe that when using the automatic citation generator, an external link should typically be generated. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 03:35, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for responding @melecie. To clarify: the external link generates when I link out to Internet Archive, but the box more often than not does not. It's really an aesthetic issue — the link would look cleaner if the little box appeared all of the time. I'm still able to link without a problem, I just want the link to look nice!

But you gave me a thought. I should try using the citation generator in source (as I, until this time, have only used visualeditor). So maybe that'll resolve the issue?

SpicyMemes123 (talk) 03:43, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Need advice re: fixing issues in a rejected article

Hi everyone! This article got rejected, and I need some help to understand what exactly I can do to improve it. I did my best to follow the NPOV guidelines, did a thorough research, and tried to provide sources and references for everything (both reputable news and academic articles). Also, I included criticism so as to cover the topic as objectively as possible. In the meantime, I wrote another article on an entirely different topic, and it got approved without any objections (despite way fewer sources being available). It kind of confuses me, so I'd really appreciate any pointers you guys could throw my way. Big thanks in advance! AhimeCrudele (talk) 20:13, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello @AhimeCrudele, and welcome to the Teahouse. It's not unusual for an editor to have one article accepted, then another one rejected. The key hurdle the article need to get over is WP:NCORP - the notability criteria for businesses. At the same time, it mustn't read like an advert for that company, listing every single product (which yours does). Phrases like "Even though the DIY kit lacked official backing, it stirred much attention. " are not neutral (nor even supported with a citation). Despite that, there are an awful lot of citations you have included, so could you tell us which three (and only three) citations show detailed, in-depth and independent coverage of this company? I would prefer you tell us what they are, rather than expect us to wade through to find them for ourselves. Maybe that could be a start, though others may wish to make different suggestions for you Nick Moyes (talk) 20:24, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Declined (what happened) is less severe than Rejected. David notMD (talk) 00:42, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Ha, I didn't even realize that there was a difference! Lots of details to process here... AhimeCrudele (talk) 16:02, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, this really is helpful and I think it'll get me back on track! AhimeCrudele (talk) 16:01, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

@AhimeCrudele The draft says as well as recording action potentials of living neurons in invertebrates and plants. Do plants have neurons? 73.127.147.187 (talk) 06:01, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

The sentence isn't precise enough. Plants don't have neurons, but their cells do have electrical activity and communicate via action potentials. AhimeCrudele (talk) 17:20, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

I think I knew what it meant, but precision is a good thing. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 04:08, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

How do I make my signature not look ugly.

I've seen people on Wikipedia with stunning signatures, whilst my signature looks like this: Requity (talk) 19:20, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Requity. Please read WP:SIGNATURE#Customizing your signatureSIGNATURE. Cullen328 (talk) 19:27, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

@Requity That's not ugly, it's just "regular"! It's all in the eye of the beholder, I suppose. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 04:41, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Filmography Year Orders

When adding a production to a filmography which is sorted by year, if that production came out in a year, where another production of theirs spans across that year and others, should I add it before that production, or after that production?

For example:

• Production number 1 (1995-1997)
• Production number 2 (1996)
• Production number 3 (1998)

So should the 1996 production go before the 1995-1997 production, or after? Danstarr69 (talk) 23:19, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

It would be best to organize it by release date rather than production time. The 1996 production should go before the 1995-1997 production. Pyraminxsolver (talk) 23:34, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

@Pyraminxsolver I'm not talking about when they were made, I'm talking about when they were aired.

For example:

A film or TV film released in 1996.

A TV series which started in 1995 and finished in 1997. Danstarr69 (talk) 23:44, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

seperate film/tv film and series into different sections Pyraminxsolver (talk) 00:19, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

@Pyraminxsolver Still not answered my question, just like my other question about TV Films above, and many other questions I've asked on here over the years. They rarely seem to get a straight answer, or get acknowledged at all.

The person who's filmography I'm updating slightly, mainly makes TV films and TV series.

Most of her TV films and TV series are already in a table together, as they should be.

The only thing I want to know is...

• Whether I should put the TV film which was broadcast in 1996, before or after a TV series which ran from 1995-1997?

Then I'll know what I should do in future with filmography tables, as I never know whether I should put them before or after. Danstarr69 (talk) 01:59, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

@Danstarr69 As a reader, I would expect to see the 1995-1997 series listed first, then the 1996 film. If one is reading down a column, this makes sense to me. Hope this helps. Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 06:15, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

@Danstarr69: since they're sorted by the year they came out, they should appear in the order you've shown them in your example (1, 2, 3), because 1 first came out before 2. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:00, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

My collected autographs, are they valid signatures?

I have the autographs of the late Kristen Nygaard and Ole-Johan Dahl plus the living C. A. R. Hoare, Alan Kay and Bjarne Stroustrup. I collected these by approaching the persons at Simula-67’s 25 years anniversary at the University of Oslo (in 1992).

In addition, I have a label from a letter to me, signed Per Brinch Hansen. He is also deceased. This most probably is his signature.

These are all rather famous computer scientists, to say it mildly!

None of these signatures have been written by the persons in mind to end up being published on the internet.

What is the Wikipedia policy on this?

I could photograph them (where the paper texture probably would be visible), or I could scan them at max 1200 DPI. But I would not do anything before I know whether it's ok. I have no other autographs, since I am no collector. Plus I won't sell them. However, I could give them away to some computer science museum, I would assume.

I have no contact with any of these "heroes of mine", so I would have no way to query them. Øyvind Teig (talk) 16:05, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Aclassifier. Please read Wikipedia:Signatures of living persons for some good advice. Cullen328 (talk) 16:43, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

If you would like advice on the copyright status of them commons has a help page on signature copyright law in various countries, see c:COM:SIG. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 16:54, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

@Aclassifier Being a computer programmer, I think it's cool that you have those signatures, especially (for my interests) Kay and Stroustrup. But personally, I don't think that a reproduction of a signature actually adds to the encyclopedic worth of any article (except one). I think "so what; that's what this person's signature looks like, and so...?" That's my opinion, and I think it pretty much matches with the essay that Cullen pointed you to. Cheers. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 05:50, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks to Cullen328 and the two of you! I guess the general concerns match my stomach feelings. I'll just let those signatures rest, at least for the living persons. For the three deceased I may mention this on the respective talk pages, and then refer back to this post.--Øyvind Teig (talk) 06:54, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Problem with Andrej Mrvar

On my wiki page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrej_Mrvar

I got the following warning: "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. Please discuss further on the talk page. (May 2022)"

What does it mean? Please tell me what I should change or remove and I will do it.

Best. Andrej AndrejMrvar (talk) 06:56, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi AndrejMrvar. What that template basically means is that you shouldn't try to be editing or creating any content about yourself on Wikipedia. The article Andrej Mrvar may be about you, but it's not "your article" in the sense that you have any final editorial control over it. Persons who try to edit Wikipedia articles written about themselves often have a hard time doing so in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines; for this reason, they are highly discouraged from doing so and instead are asked to seek assistance from others. You can find out more about this here, here and here, but some information about this has also been already added to your user talk page by another user. For the time being, avoid directly editing the article further and instead seek assistance from others by posting edit requests at Talk:Andrej Mrvar with respect to any changes you feel should be made. -- 07:07, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

hi @AndrejMrvar and welcome to the teahouse! since you are Mrvar, it's best if you let others lead the cleanup. due to conflict of interest, it would be hard for you to edit about yourself neutrally. I'd advise you to refrain further editing the article directly, instead sending edit requests about changes you'd like to offer to the article's talk page. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 07:05, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Problems with references

I've been editing in the article for the film T-Men, and there are several problems with the referencing in the Production section. First, there's a cite warning regarding the ref. tag on Reference #1. This wasn't my edit, so I have no idea what's going on there. For my references, nos. 8 and 9, the error reads " {{cite book}}: Empty citation (help)[access-date= requires |url=". Why does a book cite need a URL? And how can I screw up the access date, it's automated! Help, please. -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) 07:04, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

A book doesn't need a url, but if a url has been given, then there must also be a corresponding access date, which should be the date that someone actually looked at the url. I use the manual editor, which has templates for citations, and these templates don't automatically populate the access date field. There is, however, a preview button, which is quite useful, because it highlights the errors before filling in the text. Elemimele (talk) 07:10, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, my mistake, wrong way round: if you give an access date, you need a url. The two belong together. If you merely cite a book, you don't need an access date because books don't change. The access date field is linked to the url field because web-pages do change, so if you give a url, you need to say when it was looked-at. For a book citation, don't bother with either of them, unless there happens to be a digital copy of the book online that you want to point to, in which case url+access-date is the way to do so. Elemimele (talk) 07:14, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

@Pete Best Beatles I removed the access date parameter. Not needed since there's no url. But because access-date was in the cite book for some reason, it was looking for a url. Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 07:15, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) 07:29, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Cite book template. Author with only a first/last name.

This book [6] is written by an author: Galawdewos ...i don't know if this is the author's first or last name. Maybe i overlooked something in cite book template, question is which parametre do i use for only a single name?

The other names Wendy Laura Belcher, Michael Kleiner are editors/translators. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 06:32, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi Dawit S Gondaria. Some authors may only have one name, particularly in cases where the book is quite old; in such a case, it's probably OK to use the parameter |author= instead the combination of |first= and |last=. This seems to be what's suggested at Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 9#First-name only causes error. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:27, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: thank you! Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 07:47, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Ègoiste (magazine)

Hello everyone,

I had a AfC draft for Ègoïste (magazine) what was rejected and the reason given was the tone of voice (seems to be my achilles' heel), I was wondering if someone could help me identify what needs to be changed and how -- I'd tried my best to remove unnecessary adjectives this time. Please let me know if there's something glaring that I am missing. Thank you. SleepyWhippet (talk) 16:51, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

PS -- the article also exists on French Wikipedia, here: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Égoïste_(magazine) SleepyWhippet (talk) 16:52, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, @SleepyWhippet, and welcome to the Teahouse! I think I was the pesky editor who declined the draft (please note that there is a crucial difference between declining a draft, which allows the draft to be improved and resubmitted, and rejecting a draft, where the draft is found to be completely unsuitable for Wikipedia). If you want to address the issues relating to the writing tone, I'll give you a couple of problem phrases that you can address if you want:

- "in fact", this phrase doesn't really fit in with the formal tone expected from an encyclopaedia

-"It deals with" could be reworded to something more formal like "It focuses on"

There are a few other prose problems, but if you could address them and resubmit the draft, as long as the subject of the article is notable (which I think it is), I reckon the draft article will be all ready to be accepted into the mainspace. Happy editing! HenryTemplo (talk) 19:11, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Ahh, thank you for the clarifications @HenryTemplo, it's very helpful. I will give it another go and resubmit. SleepyWhippet (talk) 20:25, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Your welcome! Have a great day! HenryTemplo (talk) 20:26, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

I see nothing whatever wrong with either "in fact" or "deal with". (By contrast, rendering "Égoïste" as "Ègoïste" is some kind of crime.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:35, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

A pretty grave crime, I would say. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.209.235.54 (talk) 09:58, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

@Hoary grave indeed,🙊 SleepyWhippet (talk) 21:03, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

@SleepyWhippet Should the English WP have an article for foreign-language magazines? Maybe so, since some of the refs are in English. If all of the refs were non-English, I would argue against a magazine being notable to an English-speaking audience, if that makes sense. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 07:23, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. As a collector of primarily English-language books and magazines, I am interested in foreign magazines and publishers that originated stories or books later translated into English (think of Jules Verne or Stanisław Lem), and sometimes where/by whom a story/book translated from English has been published. I even have some (dozens of) magazines and books in non-English languages amongst my collection.

Moreover, some non-English magazines become internationally newsworthy for non-literary reasons: consider Le Canard enchaîné or Jyllands-Posten (though such will often have some English-language citations). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.209.235.54 (talk) 09:52, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't think the language of a particular publication is by any means relevant if they are otherwise noteworthy, which in this case it very clearly is. SleepyWhippet (talk) 10:32, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

If all of the refs [about a magazine that's not in English] were non-English, I would argue against a magazine being notable to an English-speaking audience, if that makes sense. It makes sense in that I understand what you're saying (or think I do), but I'm not aware of any Wikipedia policy that would back you up, and I'd oppose the imposition of any such policy. Incidentally, it sometimes happens that a subject that's far better known to people who speak a given (non-English) language XYZ than to anyone else gets a better article in English-language Wikipedia than it does in XYZ-language Wikipedia; if this happens, speakers of XYZ as a first language may want to read up the subject in English-language Wikipedia. I don't want to boast [i.e. I am about to boast], but my creation Sakae Tamura (nature photographer), about a Japanese person, is now almost 15 years old, yet a reader proficient in Japanese still won't find an article about him in Japanese-language Wikipedia. -- Hoary (talk) 22:21, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the responses. I see all of your point(s) above. I wonder if there are dozens of notable non-English magazines and other publications that could be added to en-WP, that are not here (yet). 73.127.147.187 (talk) 04:54, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm sure that there are. To take a topical example: Without denying that the Russian language has been and remains very important among Ukrainians, the Ukrainian language is too. And yet Category:Ukrainian-language magazines contains a total of just twelve. I can hardly believe that so few are notable (as defined for en:Wikipedia). Nations that aren't in the news fare worse: Category:Magazines published in Senegal contains just eight. -- Hoary (talk) 09:09, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Question About Categories

How do you add a category to a page? DottedSkies (talk) 19:23, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

@DottedSkies: The easiest way to show you is to just go to an article that has a category you would like to add, and click the edit button at the top to see the code that they use, copy it, and make sure you paste it at the very bottom of your desired article. If you’d like to read more, visit Wikipedia:FAQ/Categorization TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:33, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! DottedSkies (talk) 19:34, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

@DottedSkies, WP:HOTCAT can be of help. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:28, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Help Needed & Welcomed to get a page Approved

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

This page about a fighter in the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising was deleted (now in Draft for 6 month reprieve) the main issues being:

1. Yitzhak is not important enough to be included in Wikipedia
2. Insufficient references
3. Too much on the events surrounding Yitzhak's actions compared to the Yitzhak himself.
4. Style

Point 1. I attempted to deal with this point here but got no response. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Koza_-_Yitzhak_Suknik

Point 2. I have used every source available,namely 5 books where his actions are described and I have edited the reference section etc.

Point 3. Re-edited and slashed to a minimum ( I think)

Point 4. Tried as much as possible but found the instructions and guides baffling.

I have received no response about the changes I have made since the original article.
I am unsure of what else to do to get it approved. Any and all guidance welcome.
JSKutcher (talk) 10:19, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

@JSKutcher, consider asking for input at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jewish history and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history, it can't hurt. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:31, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for that suggestion. I will try. JSKutcher (talk) 06:47, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi Grabergs, Just to let you know that I went ahead with your suggestions and the advice coming from people responding on these two sources has been extremely helpful & I feel a lot more positive. Given that my initial experience with the deletions etc was quite negative this is a good turn around. Many thanks again. JSKutcher (talk) 09:26, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

@JSKutcher, glad to hear it! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:34, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

vandalism

How do i stop others from reediting my pages by removing legitimate information? Singleton4321 (talk) 14:33, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Singleton4321 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The word "vandalism" has a specific meaning- an attempt to deface an article- merely removing edits is not vandalism. In the case of your edit to Oliver James (psychologist) you replaced sourced information with unsourced information. This is not acceptable in an article about a living person, see WP:BLP. If you have sources for your edits, please discuss them on the article talk page. 331dot (talk) 14:38, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

@Singleton4321 First, you can revert them. If it's a long time problem on a specific page, you can request for the page to be protected here. If it is one user that you have warned enough times (4 times or a 4im template) you can request for them to be blocked at WP:AIV. If you want to DEFEND WIKIPEDIA more, you can enroll in the counter vandalism academy. 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊|🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦|☎️|📄 14:39, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

However @Singleton4321, as @331dot pointed out, make sure the edits really are vandalism. For more information, see Wikipedia:What is not vandalism. 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊|🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦|☎️|📄 14:40, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

You say "my pages". Firstly, Wikipedia does not have "pages". It has has articles. Secondly, articles do not belong to any person; they are not "mine" or "yours". The nearest WP has to "my page" is a user's own page (and related pages). In your case these would be, for instance, User:Singleton4321, User talk:Singleton4321, etc. Feline Hymnic (talk) 14:53, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

You have misunderstood my use of the word 'my'. I mean the page about me, not my possession. I would have thought that was obvious, obviously not, from your comment. Do you have any advice on how to protect the articles about me from leaving out a great deal and only including reference to my most vocal critic? Singleton4321 (talk) 15:07, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

thx for this info. Unfortunately, its a variety of opponents of my ideas who seem to quickly put back their edits. They remove my qualifications and reduce the page to an advertisment for the my main critic's comments, one Stuart Ritchie. I am not sure how to protect myself from these constant changes to the pages. Singleton4321 (talk) 15:05, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

@Singleton4321 if this really involves you personally, you may have a Conflict of interest. I would advise you to distance yourself from pages that offend you. 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊|🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦|☎️|📄 15:07, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

How do i distance myself from the article? Surely it makes sense for me to add information to it, I am the person who knows most about my career etc? Singleton4321 (talk) 15:10, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Singleton4321, Mr Reading Turtle linked you to the conflict of interest guideline above, which explains why you should not add such information. Basically, it's difficult to follow Wikipedia's core policies when editing with a conflict of interest (commonly abbreviated COI). Editing with a COI often results in unsourced content, which should not be in biographies of living people, and it is extremely difficult to keep a neutral point of view when you have a connection with (or are) the subject of the article. That doesn't mean you have to ignore the article entirely; you can request an edit on the article talk page with this template. Perfect4th (talk) 15:18, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

@Singleton4321 I know this is hard to understand at first, but everything in the English WP must be verifiable (click here). That is so any reader can check the published sources that you must include in the article, to convince themselves that the subject of an article is not just "making stuff up". I am sure you wouldn't make stuff up, but people have done that in the past. Also, editors of an article (if it's not an article about yourself) might misrepresent or misunderstand a source, which is another reason that the sources must be published (even if it requires a trip to a library to consult a book, that is generally an acceptable source). And in order to lessen unconscious bias, the subject of an article should not edit the article directly. That is called a WP:COI, which sounds confusing (how can you have a conflict of interest with yourself?) but the actual conflict is between people's desire to paint themselves in a flattering light (or their company, or their invention) and Wikipedia's desire to have a neutral, balanced, unbiased encyclopedia. I hope this helps. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 05:37, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

I think a good explainer is Wikipedia:No original research. 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊|🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦|☎️|📄 12:02, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Please advise on how to warn an author. Thanks Singleton4321 (talk) 15:11, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

WP:WARN 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊|🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦|☎️|📄 12:03, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

I am the author of the books cited, the evidence for my sales is not in the public domain. how can i verify in a way that constitutes a legitimate wikisource? several of my books had periods in Amazon's top 5, how can i prove that?

I am not sure how i prove that i produced or presented television programmes that were broadcast 20-30 years ago - only one of them is available on youtube, some of them are available on my website. please advise? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Singleton4321 (talk • contribs) 14:50, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

If your sales have not been commented on in a WP:RS independent of you (Amazon is not independent since they sell the books), they will not be included. An Amazon ranking can be included if for example a review in The Guardian mentioned it, but Amazon reporting on their own sales is not interesting to include from the WP-POV, WP:ABOUTSELF applies here. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:18, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Just to clarify, if it hasn't become obvious from the above replies, Wikipedia has a definition of "truth" that isn't quite the same as what normal people define as "true". In Wikipedia, truth is what reliable sources (e.g. The Guardian Newspaper) say about something. If the Guardian writes that the moon is square, then so does Wikipedia. We individual editors have no liberty to use our own human knowledge. This is really frustrating to the subjects of our articles, and their close family. You may know that your favourite colour is green, and who would know better than you? But if the Guardian says it's blue, we have to say it's blue, no matter how much you tell us otherwise. We can (and should) remove unsourced facts. But we can't introduce facts that haven't been pre-screened by a reliable secondary source, and we can't remove relevant facts that have been published in a reliable secondary source unless some similarly reliable source has cast doubt on them. Elemimele (talk) 16:30, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

@Elemimele Actually we do not have to follow a source that claims the moon is square, instead we label that source as unreliable and ignore it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:01, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

... okay, yes, strictly speaking you're right. I was trying to keep things simple. The caveat is that we don't generally label a source as unreliable without going through a lot of pain first. We need evidence that it's generally unreliable, which usually means other secondary source conflicting with it, and preferably writing up some stories about how the unreliable source has been caught publishing untruths. What definitely isn't okay is me personally labeling a source as unreliable just because I happen to "know" it's wrong. That way leads to all the pain in medical and fringe subjects where individual editors are quite convinced that they are right and all sources that contradict them are wrong. At the very least, personal decisions of reliability tend to lead to long and acrimonious talk-page discussions!

A useful way out of conflict is to attribute the dubious statements: "According to the Guardian, the moon is square". Provided the Guardian actually said it (which anyone can check) then Wikipedia is telling the truth, and our readers are in a position to decide for themselves whether they want to believe the fact given the background of who said it. Elemimele (talk) 20:18, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

There's a pretty good related essay, Wikipedia:Why Wikipedia cannot claim the Earth is not flat. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:25, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Clarity

Hello dear wikipedians, I want to clarify something if anyone's interested answering. I had an incident a couple of days ago with an editor, where I brought up on an article talk page diffs of their previous problematic edits in a topic area, similar to what they've recently done on that article. Since then, I had another fellow question me about this and saying that I should never discuss a contributor on an article talk page per WP:FOC. I care about guidelines and wanted to clarify this with the wider community, as I've seen many times even more experienced users commenting on each other on article talk pages. I would appreciate your thoughts. Regards, ZaniGiovanni (talk) 12:39, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

ZaniGiovanni, one may criticize other editors' edits, but in general one tries to avoid criticizing the editors. If it becomes clear to you that the problems with an editor aren't simply that certain of their edits damage an article but rather that the editor is incompetent, delusional or malicious, has a financial stake in the article, is incapable of lucid expression in English, wants to create a hoax, etc, then saying so may be helpful; but you'd better be very careful in what you say, and an article's talk page normally isn't the place to say it. -- Hoary (talk) 12:49, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Draft Submit

Draft:Ziaul Hoque Polash How do I submit this for review? Ayatul nish (talk) 17:57, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Ayatul nish, the text currently has a total of two sentences. If this is all that can be written about a person, then as a reviewer I would infer that he's not notable (as understood in Wikipedia) and would decline the submission. Incidentally, for the great majority of assertions, all you need to cite is one reliable source. -- Hoary (talk) 22:29, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

@Hoary, Well brother, I understand. I'm adding some more info now tell me how to submit it for review. Ayatul nish (talk) 14:03, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

I have a lot of printed Din colours which I could add to wikipedia Din 47100 page

Hi, I was going through a collection of printed sheets in Din colors from a company Gebr.Schmidt gmbh which does not exist any more I think. But I have all the DIN colour codes which are not much in use anymore but still used for cables I saw. Would it be of any interest or sense to add all these codes with their colors to the Din 47100 page on wikipedia? Thank you greetings Malente Malente (talk) 14:46, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi Malente. Is your proposal to scan/photograph the printed sheets and upload them to Commons for use in that article? If so, I don't think that's a good idea for copyright reasons and because there is no guarantee your scans would accurately show the colors of the sheets or that web browsers would render them correctly. However, I think that the article DIN 47100 would benefit from having columns showing the actual colors mentioned. Perhaps you could incorporate examples from the Web colors article to show this? Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:23, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Change style of one user page

Is it possible to change the style of one user page using CSS and/or JS and make it visible to everyone? And is it possible to import the script/stylesheet/style from external website/source? I'm trying to change the font in my user page's content using Google fonts. Thanks! Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 15:26, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

@Super ninja2: Please do not forum shop, as you have also posted this at the Help Desk. Thanks. The Tips of Apmh 15:35, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Proper way to handle edit warring and content issues?

A week ago I happened upon an article and in verifying information in the sources found that only WP:Tertiary sources were being used and misquoting the subject. I edited the passage and grabbed better sources. Another editor reverted my updated, I reverted once, they reverted again, and I attempted to find some kind of consensus, but found the editor unwilling to accept any changes. I took the discussion to BLPN, and found that the editor had been doing the same thing to others, along with hostile edit summaries, and also filed a report at ANI, and now that's being challenged as frivolous, with a proposed ban from my posting in ANI, despite providing ample evidence of the editor's pattern of behavior.

I am honestly perplexed about what I did wrong, and how to handle this in the future. (I'm also confused why no one seems to care that a celebrity's biography is stating incorrect information, but I don't have the mental space to care much anymore about that aspect). Some guidance would be appreciated. Thank you! SquareInARoundHole (talk) 16:59, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Courtesy links: BLPN thread, ANI thread. Article involved is Claire Danes (RfC on talk). 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:21, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

How do I get started?

Hello. I have been an avid user of Wikipedia for a long time, and just recently I decided I also wanted to contribute to the website and become an editor. However, I am unexperienced, and I don't really know what's going on. Are there any pages that can help me get a head start and learn how to edit overall? Thanks! Bellaloca (talk) 17:42, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

@Bellaloca: Welcome, and thanks for wanting to help. Check out the WP:TUTORIAL for some learning activity. Then, head over to Wikipedia:Task_Center for a list of tasks for users of all different skill levels. Pick one that looks interesting to you, and jump in! RudolfRed (talk) 17:47, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. There are lots of pages that serve that purpose, such as this introduction to editing Wikipedia. I recommend you read that over and follow the links at the bottom to the Task Center, where you can start making the edits that best fit with the type of contributions you'd like to make. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 17:49, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

@Bellaloca for some hints on what's "going on", you can scroll through Wikipedia:Dashboard. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:58, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Editing a draft

I have made a draft. Subject is Relative World. I now want to update it. When I press edit I get to a page titled: Editing Draft talk:Relative World, but I don't see any of the text I wrote. Just; What am I missing? Triplemaya (talk) 18:24, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

And what I am actually seeing is

[{{WikiProject Physics}} :[{{WikiProject Philosophy}}

not the expanded boxes shown in the above post. Which appeared when I clicked to post. Triplemaya (talk) 18:26, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

That's because it's at Draft:Relative World. PRAXIDICAE💕 18:27, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Doh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Triplemaya (talk • contribs) 18:31, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

You're editing the wrong page (in this case, "Draft talk:Relative World"). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 18:28, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Issue to Preview Display

"There was an issue to preview Display" , why this issue comes on article? Endrabcwizart (talk) 18:25, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

@Endrabcwizart, I have made an edit to the article which - if I've guessed correctly - will fix the problem you're having. Is the problem solved? (Courtesy link: Dipak Sharma). 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:32, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

wow , yes sir problem solved. Endrabcwizart (talk) 18:36, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

@Endrabcwizart, I'm not a sir - in fact, I appear to be a string of numbers - but I'm glad the issue is fixed. For future reference, do not put a header (text between these: ==) at the beginning of an article (before what we call the lead/lede section). Only use them for sections after the lede. Welcome to the Teahouse and Wikipedia, by the way! 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:40, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Endrabcwizart (talk) 18:43, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

google knowledge panel

I'm a fairly new Wikipedia editor. I want to know how to update the description of the Wikipedia article that comes up when you search a topic on google. When I edit the beginning of an article and publish it, the changes are published on the page but nothing changes on the panel that is shown on the google results. A. E. Katz (talk) 15:42, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

That is controlled by google and their bots. PRAXIDICAE💕 15:44, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Oh okay, thank you! A. E. Katz (talk) 15:46, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

In Arabic Wikipedia, we had a discussion a while ago on how this panel should look. So I think Wikipedians control it. Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 15:49, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Super ninja2 Wikipedia has no control over what Google displays, nor is that something we should be concerned with. 331dot (talk) 16:09, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

I understand. What I was trying to say is that we had a say on the panel basic working mechanism when Google launched The Toledo project. But you're right, it's Google's project not WMF.

Sorry if I misguided the discussion. Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 17:07, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

well considering Google is Google and Wikipedia is owned by the Wikimedia Foundation and we have no say over google, that sounds like a pretty pointless discussion. PRAXIDICAE💕 16:11, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

@A. E. Katz: Google is usually pretty quick. Check it again tomorrow. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:23, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! A. E. Katz (talk) 18:08, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

For future reference, assume that any edits on Wikipedia that would appear on Google in some fashion (i.e. edits to the very beginning of articles) won't appear for a bit of time. Google caches its content for performance reasons, which means that changes won't be reflected until the cache clears. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 18:44, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Need an Advice on my declined draft

hi everyone! my article for a musician has been declined by a reviewer , i just wanted to know if anybody could help me to pass the approval. link to the article JoeSimpson1 (talk) 19:22, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

JoeSimpson1 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I assume this is in regards to Draft:Amir Ugo. The main issue with your draft is that the sources do not demonstrate how he meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable musician. The three sources you offered seem to be very brief, doing little more than telling he exists. The draft should summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage say about him. 331dot (talk) 19:26, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

dear @331dot we got more news, articles and sources to add to the page but some of them got blocked automatically by the wikipedia so we decided to use the minimum, we can provide more than 15 articles, official news and television reports about him but how does that improves the notability of the draft? also thanks for the fast response. JoeSimpson1 (talk) 19:34, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

JoeSimpson1 Your use of the word "we" suggests to me that you work for or represent Mr. Ugo. If so, please read about conflict of interest and paid editing. (declaring paid editing is a Terms of Use requirement and mandatory if applicable)

I would first ask you, if you haven't already, to read the notability guidelines for musicians and tell which one(or more) of them Mr. Ugo meets. If these other sources you have demonstrate that, and are not primary sources such as interviews with him, that's what we are looking for and what any article about him should summarize. 331dot (talk) 19:39, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Follow-up to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Joanna Langfield Page Edits

Please review latest changes.

Hello, I made changes to the page I am writing called Joanna Langfield. The last comments I received on it was that the way it was written currently was that it was not compliant with how you would like, so I made the changes.

If you can please review so it can (hopefully!) be published now that would be greatly appreciated. GregWikiMake (talk) 20:12, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:Joanna Langfield.   Maproom (talk) 21:28, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

The enormous list in section "Notable Works and Mentions" is mostly trivial and adds virtually nothing to the draft except an air of desperation. Theroadislong (talk) 22:13, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, GregWikiMake. According to MOS:SURNAME, she should be referred to by her surname following the first mention of her. Remove all those extra "Joannas". The "Interviews" section is unreferenced and it therefore comes off as shameless namedropping. Unreferenced sections are a red flag for reviewers. This would only merit inclusion if discussed by an independent reliable source. I agree with Theroadislong's comment about the "Notable Works and Mentions". It is a disjointed and jarring list of factoids. You need to develop the skill of writing in an encyclopedic fashion. Cullen328 (talk) 01:55, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing and I can remove the Joanna's.

I do want to make clear however that I know for a fact that, because she is my mother and I spoke to her about this (and that I have already disclosed), she did interview all those celebrities.

When Joanna first started on the radio 40 years ago nothing was digital or online. I have called many MANY people about this to try and get references, to no avail.

With all that being said, how do you believe I should write the Natoble Works and Mentions section? GregWikiMake (talk) 03:19, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

If the facts you know aren't independently verifiable in reliable published sources, then they should not be included. I have had similar problems with wine-related articles, in which I can talk to a notable winemaker in person and learn something that isn't published, but I cannot use it. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:57, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Just my ha'pennorth, but "Personal communication" is a valid citation type in academic bibliography - it's then down to the reputation/perceived trustworthiness/likelihood of it being possible/true, as to whether the information given is judged by the readership/peer reviewers, to be believable... 193.105.69.7 (talk) 14:38, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the relevance of this comment is. Personal communication may be acceptable in some publications but it is entirely unacceptable as a reference here in Wikipedia. All references must, at minimum, be published. See WP:SOURCEDEF which says Some sources, such as unpublished texts and an editor's own personal experience, are prohibited. CodeTalker (talk) 20:30, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

A few questions on working on my draft

Hi! I'm working on an article about Ben Baller. I'm not asking for general feedback since I'm not done polishing the article. I do have a few questions, since I have mainly worked on the Computer Science side of wikipedia so far.

• How do I cite song lyrics on wikipedia? I noticed genius.com isn't a "good" source by WP standards. Do I just cite the song directly?
• Any tips for getting a creative commons headshot of the person in the article? I can't find any from google and emailing his agent didn't result in any success.
• How do I source somebody's birthday? There's definitely consensus on what Ben Baller's birthday is from social media and those weird SEO "bio" websites, just not from reliable sources.

Thanks! A40585 (talk) 21:45, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

@A40585: See MOS:LYRICS. ––FormalDude talk 21:50, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

A40585, on the photograph: See if, somewhere on the interwebs, you can find a photograph of him that doesn't seem to be commercial or by a professional, but is by a fan or similar identified person. Email or otherwise contact the photographer, inviting the photographer to upload it to Commons (but being candid about what this would entail). However, I suggest first waiting till your draft has become an article, and a fairly polished one at that, so that the photographer is likely to feel privileged to see their photo within it. -- Hoary (talk) 22:30, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

In fact, A40585, the very first thing you need to do is to find some independent sources, because if you can't find any, then Baller does not currently meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and all time and effort you spend on the article will have been wasted. Remember 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) 22:51, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

For future reference - if you can't find the person's birthday in a reliable source, then it doesn't go in the article. Similarly, if you can't get a properly licensed photo, then the article doesn't have a photo. DS (talk) 21:49, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

List of temples in Goa

See this article List of temples in Goa then see my article List of temples in Uttarakhand

Please Analyse Both Article. (Sir/Madam) TheManishPanwar (talk) 10:39, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

@TheManishPanwar, the reason for decline was that the draft has no references. Please add them for each temple. You can take them from the corresponding articles as well. Kpddg ^(talk) 11:01, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Technically that's not needed as you can click-through the wikilinks to verify Zindor (talk) 11:07, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

I've put it back in mainspace, there wasn't a need for all these hands and bureaucracy. TheManishPanwar it will be possible to increase the list using Category:Hindu temples in Uttarakhand. Regards, Zindor (talk) 11:23, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Just to expand upon myself, when a navigational list contains wiki-linked items you can easily verify they meet the list inclusion criteria by clicking through and reading the lede or infobox of the article, then verifying that text using the article's sources if there is doubt. The same applies for simple easily verifiable statements such as the deity. If a list entry doesn't have an associated article, an inline citation would be necessary to verify the need for inclusion on the list. Click-through verification prevents duplication of referencing effort and it keeps navigational lists free of additional clutter. I couldn't readily find this in the MOS but it's been the case since i can remember. Zindor (talk) 13:43, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Zindor The closest I can find to this policy is WP:LISTVERIFY and WP:MINREF, but I agree it could be spelled out more clearly. Shantavira|^{feed me} 14:56, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, yeah when i find a moment i'll look into how we can make this clearer in guidelines/policy. Keeping stuff like this in our heads just leads to misunderstandings Zindor (talk) 21:59, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Article submission

MY article got rejected saying that it is promotional. What kind of changes i have to made for the submission of article successfully.

Please check the link of article : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:ProductDossier&action=submit ProductDossier PSA (talk) 04:59, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

hi @ProductDossier PSA and welcome to the teahouse! your draft has to be written neutrally and detached from the company, and writing with sources that are reliable and independent, avoiding PR fluff from your writing.

however, I strongly recommend not creating an article on your own company. creating one is already very difficult as a beginner, and even harder as someone with a Conflict of interest (which I advise you to read). instead, if your article is deemed notable enough by editors not affiliated with you, one may be created, however be warned that it will not be your article or controlled by the company, nor a place for PR, and it will cover the good and bad sides of it (provided there are sources available). happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 05:20, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

one other thing. if you are User:Snehap1, please abandon this account and log in using that and then mark a disclosure of Conflict of interest or Paid editing over there (which is required), if you aren't then please ask for a username change and do the same. your current username "ProductDossier PSA" is not allowed as it is a organization name, which may count as promotional and a possible shared account that doesn't identify one user. a username like "Bob at ProductDossier" may be better, but you still have to comply with the CoI and Paid Editing policies. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 05:28, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

How do I get pinged when s.o. replies to my Talk comments?

Unless I misunderstood something, I used to get a notification when someone hit the 'reply' button to one of my comments. AFAICT, I still do on other wikis. That is one of the purposes of the buggy 'reply' button, isn't it? I've been relying on it for notification of replies, but recently I haven't been getting them on WP-en. Am I misunderstanding something, or have I maybe somehow turned that option off? — kwami (talk) 02:23, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

hi @Kwamikagami and welcome to the teahouse! I believe the [ subscribe ] button should do the trick, which would give you a notification whenever the conversation is active. do you have that on? 💜  melecie  talk - 03:04, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Ah, it's in MediaWiki prefs, not WP-en prefs where i was looking. I do have "Enable topic subscription" active, but have never seen a 'subscribe' button when I edited a talk page. (For instance, there isn't one now.) I'll check "Automatically subscribe to topics" and see if that helps. Thanks! — kwami (talk) 03:21, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

I responded to the thread below (using the 'reply' button for the first time), and it hasn't been added to my list of subscriptions, which is still empty. Could you respond to this thread to see if I get pinged? — kwami (talk) 05:01, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

 Done I also have this thread in my subscriptions, and the above pinged me. 💜  melecie  talk - 05:37, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

[thread archived -- I wasn't pinged] — kwami (talk) 20:32, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

vandalism

2A01:4C8:488:E59:E96A:BCED:6643:A55E has vandalised a single article (Polynesians). I don't know how to quickly revert it so I leave the info here. I don't know why it shows as red-linked but I leave this as is. Whoever deals with the vandalism can still easier figure it out than when I remove the red-link I think. Dutchy45 (talk) 07:15, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

 Done

hi @Dutchy45 and welcome to the teahouse! for future reference, you can use RedWarn or Twinkle to revert changes back to an older revision. additionally, user contributions can be obtained by using {{contribs}}, which would result in the link contributions when used for the above ip. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 07:37, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

editing

Is there an administrator who can delete a previous edit summary I made that has a spelling mistake or fix the spelling mistake in the edit summary? I am unsure how to complete this request with a dummy edit, if possible. 70.188.155.246 (talk) 03:33, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Edit summaries cannot be changed once the edit is saved. They can be deleted, but this will not be done just because the edit summaries contain typos or spelling mistakes. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 04:01, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Minor errors in edit summaries are not worth worrying about. If you make a significant error in an edit summary, like misspelling the word "tuck", then you can use the technique described at Help:Dummy edit to clarify what you really meant. Cullen328 (talk) 04:40, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

I am having trouble with the format for a dummy edit. I believe the spelling error is significant. Here is the page, [7], or you can view the spelling error on this page: [8]. Thank you! 70.188.155.246 (talk) 14:18, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Misspelling grammar isn’t that significant. I don’t know why you’re getting so obsessive over it. Speatle (talk to me)(read all about it) please ping me when replying to something I said. 11:11, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Article submission

 Courtesy link: Draft:Soufia Taloni

I have created a draft page but how do I publish it for the world to see? Soufia1983 (talk) 11:14, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

@Soufia1983: I see you resubmitted the draft after it was declined, which will make it more likely that it will be declined again (and closer to a rejection). I would also strongly discourage you from writing about yourself, as that kind of draft is almost always declined as they're usually not neutral in tone. If you become notable enough, someone will write an article on you. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 11:27, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Tim Hayward (political scientist)

Last night the BBC broadcast a program on British academics including Edinburgh political theorist Tim Hayward, who are accused of sharing misinformation about Ukraine on social media. It covered allegations from students that Hayward also used such material in his teaching. Criticism was first reported by various media back in March. The BBC program has now been covered by other media. However, two users (Kashmiri and Reflecktor) are gatekeeping to keep this off Hayward's wiki page. They claim this is just 'some random students', 'BBC does not dictate what we add to articles' and 'conservative media are having orgasm for 3 days, a government official responds to media query, and then someone on Wikipedia feels this must be encyclopaedic material'.

The receipts, as they say:

• https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/19988269.tim-hayward-university-edinburgh-professor-accused-sharing-russian-propaganda/
• https://thetab.com/uk/edinburgh/2022/03/16/university-of-edinburgh-lecturer-accused-of-spreading-pro-putin-propaganda-by-tory-mp-76325
• https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-61597405
• https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0017thr
• https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/edinburgh-students-urged-to-report-propaganda-thrqp0xj9

Are these two users, who seem to share a worldview with Professor Hayward, allowed to censor what appears in his article? 147.188.240.134 (talk) 09:13, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Tim Hayward (political scientist) 💜  melecie  talk - 09:26, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

• A discussion has started on the talk page of the article (Talk:Tim Hayward (political scientist)#Students at Edinburgh have accused Hayward .... That is good. If the discussion reaches a standstill, see here for the next steps in our dispute resolution processes. (FWIW, at a glance, I believe that the sources are enough to warrant a mention, but the opposing arguments that it’s a storm in a teacup are well-founded in policy.)

Trying to determine the motives of other editors (these two users [seem] to share a worldview with Professor Hayward) or using inflammatory language (allowed to censor) is unlikely to be productive. Please comment on content, not editors.

Finally, you mentioned two editors by name in your post here. That is considered poor etiquette on Wikipedia (but I do not blame you for not knowing that); generally, you should choose between two options. Either you think the situation can be resolved without input from the other party (for instance if you think you might be wrong), and you explain the situation in general, vague terms; or you mention them, but then you should ping them or otherwise make them aware of the separate discussion.

Going forward... I suggest you keep any content-related discussion on Talk:Tim Hayward (political scientist), or through the dispute resolution channels linked above. If you have general questions about the dispute-resolution processes, you can ask them here, but try not to make it too personal.

If and when editor conduct problems occur, those are "resolved" at WP:ANI. Before going there, make sure to come with diffs (rather than quotes) and a clear explanation of what Wikipedia guideline was violated when. As far as I can tell, the current dispute is a fairly run-of-the-mill content dispute and nobody came even close to being sanctioned. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 10:09, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Apologies for any breaches of Wikipedia's protocol. I'm just concerned that an unrepresentative group of users have exerted control over the page's content and think it needs more eyes on it. 147.188.240.134 (talk) 11:53, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

How do you color a text

Is there any way to color a text in an article? The reason is i want to test random stuff in the Sandbox, but i'm not actually gonna publish it. Leahnn Rey (talk) 12:57, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

hi @Leahnn Rey and welcome to the teahouse! yes there is, you could use {{color}}. if you'd like to color something purple, you do {{color|purple|purple text}} which creates purple text. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 13:04, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much, you're the best. Leahnn Rey (talk) 13:07, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

How to add an icon/image using a link

Is there any way i can add an image using a link? Yes, i know this is a dumb question and the same reason, Testing random stuff in the sandbox. For example i would like to use this icon: https://cdn-icons-png.flaticon.com/512/590/590685.png And just with the link it can appear on the article insantly? (sorry for bad english) Leahnn Rey (talk) 13:52, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

No, there isn't. Images need to be uploaded either to Wikimedia Common or here to enwiki. You need to be aware of the restrictions regarding copyright on the images. You'll find information at Wikipedia:Images. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:55, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

@Leahnn Rey: ...instead of that, why not try using File:Strawberry by cactus cowboy.svg instead, which is usable in Wikipedia? there are a few more images accessible using Commons, some of which you may want to use if you'd prefer a different one. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 14:15, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you melecie! thank you. Leahnn Rey (talk) 15:10, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Oh.. Thank you. Leahnn Rey (talk) 15:10, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Edit page

Hello. I have an edit for List of best-selling manga and list of best-selling comics. I heard One piece has reached to 500 million copies. Here is the link: {https://www.sportskeeda.com/anime/news-one-piece-sells-500-million-copies-worldwide} Wolfp5 (talk) 15:28, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Please don't use that website as a source for information to place in an article on Wikipedia, Wolfp5. It is not considered reliable (see WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_343#Sportskeeda generally unreliable?). Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:38, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Is Twitter a reliable source?

So, basically, while I was editing this page: Draft:Beluga (YouTuber), I filled the whole reference with YouTube links. But the submission was declined, as YouTube isn't a reliable source. Then, is Twitter a reliable source? Tematikkp (talk) 16:28, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Tematikkp. A verified Twitter account can be used in very limited ways, described at WP:TWITTER. Material sourced to Twitter cannot be used to establish notability. That requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. Cullen328 (talk) 16:36, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi Tematikkp, Generally twitter is not considered as a relaible sources, as it is a self published sources where it may be reliable on some cases, if particular twitter account was official and comfirmed. See WP:RSPTWITTER for more information. Cheers! Fade258 (talk) 16:38, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

@Tematikkp, for future reference, a quick, easy way to check whether a source is reliable is to go here: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Sources. It doesn't list every source in existence, but it does have the more popular ones, with their status and the reasoning behind it. 97.113.167.129 (talk) 16:42, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Question

Is it possible for a younger editor to gain admin/bureaucrat? If not, what is the minimum age? Dinosaur TrexXX33 (chat?) 15:06, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

It isn't a question or issue of age. Rather, the community discussion & decision to promote a user to an administrator is one of experience in the Wikipedia, how much you have contributed thus far, and what you feel you could contribute in the future with administrator tools. ValarianB (talk) 15:18, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

You might be interested to read Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship. Shantavira|^{feed me} 15:55, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello, DinosaurTrexXX33. I am aware of one long time administrator who became an administrator at age 16. Cullen328 (talk) 16:44, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Please help in publishing (updating and significantly expanding a v. short existing) article

Hello,

I am trying to expand a page with very limited content in relation to the Worshipful Company of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales. There is very little information on this page and it can be expanded to provide a lot more background and history. I have drafted an article which is aligned with what is set out on the Livery Company's own website (but not copied and pasted). I also have images I can include for the crest etc.

However, there are a couple of issues I am encountering:

1) the section on the coat of arms seems to be flagging as a risk of copy and pasting / copyright issue. The section is very factual and I have tried drafting a rephrased version but would appreciate guidance. I could leave the section out / just reference the Livery Company website but it would be good to include here as I think it is interesting.

2) I happen to be a Liveryman of the Company and so there appears to be concern over a potential conflict of interest. I think I have been blocked from editing the page as a result but it suggests there may be a way to have an editorial review to address this?

I am new to Wiki editing and as a Livery Company we are keen to educate about our history and also ensure accuracy and so it makes sense to have information form the Livery Company itself in the entry as this is probably the best source for the history, practices etc. - whilst accepting this should be reviewed to ensure if conforms with the Wikipedia conflict of interest and transparency policies. I had tried to post a simple text entry without any pictures etc at this stage as I could add those in later if appropriate and reflecting my learning curve of updating an entry.

What is the most efficient way to address these issues? Grateful for all help available and in particular if it is possible to open a dialogue with someone that can help me navigate this / improve my editing ability and contributions.

PS - I was using the visual editor - the word looking version and not the one with code etc. I also watched / read the tutorials and lots of guidance but seen to have started going round in circles on some of it! CharteredAccountant2012 (talk) 11:31, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello, CharteredAccountant2012, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid that you have taken on a tas kwithout understanding what it entails. Aside from your conflict of interest, please 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.

The society's website is amost irrelevant to a Wikipedia article about it - you need reliable sources wholly independent of the society, such as books or articles in journals, that are not written, edited, published, or commissioned by the society or any of its members. As the existing article has no such sources, I see it has been proposed for deletion: your edit did not improve that in any way - rather, it included a lot more unsourced material, much of which was (from an encyclopaedic view) totally unrelated to the society.

The only way for you, or anyone, to cause the article to be retained, is to find sufficient independent reliable sources to establish that the society meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability. ColinFine (talk) 16:50, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

First draft editing

As title, I'm looking for assistance fixing my tone to a much more sterile one in the article and looking for the proper points to apply third party reviews to

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MikKaminsky/sandbox MikKaminsky (talk) 16:31, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

@MikKaminsky: The draft as written will unfortunately not be accepted. You need to show the game meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines, through the use of independent third party sources that have written about the game. The sources in the sandbox draft are either the web sites of the developers or the platform, known as primary sources, or dead links. See WP:YOURFIRSTARTICLE. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:05, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

For Request prmission

How to get WP:RCP rights? Endrabcwizart (talk) 18:45, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

@Endrabcwizart: I think the info you need is here Wikipedia:Recent changes patrol#Monitoring. Happy editing! TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:07, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

I'd like to contribute to Wikipedia and create articles, however I'm not confident within my English skills.

I'd like to contribute to Wikipedia and create articles, however I'm not confident within my English skills.

Requity (talk) 19:19, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Have you considered contributing to the Wikipedia project for your native language? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 19:27, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Requity: - Per the essay Wikipedia:Competence is required#What "Competence is required" does not mean, those with a less than perfect command of English can still work in maintenance categories. But it's better to avoid writing articles, as Jeske suggests above, since that requires an above average command of English. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:42, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Can I correct grammar?

I tried to make some changes to make the "gang stalking," page more grammatically correct, and a user told me that I have to site a source in order to do so?? Does not seem legit.

Someone please check this out. The grammar is off from the very first sentence on the page. A term like "gang stalking," cannot be used to mean, "a set of beliefs." Gang stalking is either a verb or a noun that refers to an alleged event. A specific event can't also be defined as a set of beliefs - that makes zero sense. Anybody? English Language grads? Help!

I also want to make the page more neutral and less skewed towards one specific opinion. Pages that are about a controversial topic generally seem to start off by stating something along the lines of, "An alleged event," "A group that *claims* something happened," or, "An unproven something or other." Usually, if there is a controversy inherent to the topic, Wikipedia mentions this immediately in order to remain neutral. NOT SO with the gang stalking page. What's with that?

Someone please reply! THANKS Ms. Ann MMO (talk) 02:28, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

The lead is hardly even paraphrased. The first source says, "Gangstalking is a novel persecutory belief system". Unless you have some reason to believe that source is unreliable (inconsistent, conflicts with other sources, etc.), then that would appear to be the definition of the word. Whether you agree that it's a good term is irrelevant. There are lots of words in English that don't make any sense if taken literally. For instance, according to the IAU, a dwarf planet is not a planet.

Anyway, the place to discuss this is on the article talk page, and if that proves insufficient, you can make a WP:request for comment. — kwami (talk) 03:03, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, needed to take a break. I don't have access to the 2nd source, but the 3rd speaks of a belief in "'gang stalking,' or surveillance and harassment at the hands of the government or private security firms," and "this is 'what happens when you report radiological weapons (a component of gang stalking) to law enforcement,'" and "I’m not convinced that the institutional 'gang stalking,' the phenomenon that Brian and others have described, is actually happening." That would seem to support your argument, that 'gang-stalking' is an activity, not a belief system, that they believe in gang-stalking or in gang-stalking conspiracy theories. If another editor is proving uncooperative, this is the kind of argument you would need to make in a request for comment -- not some a priori argument that 'that's not what the word should mean according to English grammatical rules', but 'that's not how the word is used in the majority of reliable sources.' You might then use the grammatical argument as a reason to prefer the use in some sources over that in others, or that one source is incoherent.

Anyway, IMO this isn't a matter of correcting grammar so much as of correcting the definition, when the source now used for that definition appears to be poorly worded. — kwami (talk) 04:56, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Ms. Ann MMO, you've been making extensive edits to Gang stalking while leaving edit summaries that give the impression that you're merely correcting the grammar. That does not help your credibility. Maproom (talk) 13:48, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

If there are trolls on this page it's not my problem - I'm not interested. Ms. Ann MMO (talk) 21:18, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Help with editing

I need help with editing. Like how do I create wiki tables or charts, things like that. Can someone please show me how to make wiki tables graphs weather boxes etc. 100thingsperson (talk) 22:11, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Introduction I think this could be helpful for youJaguarnik (talk) 23:29, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Request to create a page

Hello, My father Joe Portale is listed in 2 wiki pages and I would like to link his name in those pages to his own page. I have many more articles about my father and his athletic career. Most notable moments being his ohio all-american award in 1976 (already noted in wiki) playing football for the University of Florida from 1976-1979 (already noted on wiki) he was drafted twice by the New York Yankees, the first time after high-school. He played spring ball with the Yankees minor league team after his UofF football seasons. He was drafted again in 1980 after my father graduated. He played for the Yankees from 1980-1982 before being diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis. I have online links to all of his stats. He passed away on Friday and I just want to honor him any way I can. He was a phenomenal athlete and I believe is worthy of his own page. Thank you for your time. Jfpull01 (talk) 05:36, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

hi @Jfpull01 and welcome to Wikipedia! I'm sorry for your father's death. unfortunately, Wikipedia isn't the place to memorialize someone. while you could still write an article about him (although it is very hard for beginners to write a new article, and even harder for those connected to the subject they're writing about), you'd have to see if he meets the notability criteria for athletes first. find some reliable sources like news outlets online dedicated to him showing he meets one of those criteria, and you could write an article. see Your first article for more.

however, being connected to him, you'd also need to write carefully. declare a Conflict of interest before starting the article since you are his child, and you might have to forget all you know about him personally and write as if you're someone who doesn't know him only summarizing what those sources say. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 05:45, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. Absolutely, not for memorial purposes my apologies if it came across that way. While I do want to honor him I believe from what I have read he does qualify. I will keep in mind when working on the article to keep it as formal as possible. Thank you again for providing the links on how to get started. Jfpull01 (talk) 00:04, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia a trusted source of info?

I've heard about teachers saying that Wikipedia isn't a reliable source of info.

Any ideas on this?

Thanks Organic Increse45( ͡ಠ ͜ʖ ͡ಠ) (talk) 00:25, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

We don't consider ourselves a reliable source simply because we're user-generated. Cite what we cite, not us. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 00:27, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

...however for outside sources, see Reliability of Wikipedia. for me, usually it's a good source for basic information and springboarding a research, but if you're gonna cite, it's almost always better to cite the source/s instead, and lack of one likely means you shouldn't be using it. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 00:35, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Here's what Wikipedia says about that: Wikipedia:General disclaimer. Here's another take: Using Wikipedia: Crash Course Navigating Digital Information #5. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:21, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

I find WP to be a reliable source of information for my own brain, but as others mention here, it's not a good idea to use WP as a cited reference for another WP article or for a scholarly paper you are writing. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 12:50, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

• Organic Increse45 Your teachers are absolutely correct. See Wikipedia is not a reliable source. 331dot (talk) 12:55, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

  Ok, thanks.

  ~~~ Organic Increse45( ͡ಠ ͜ʖ ͡ಠ) (talk) 21:26, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

  So should I still use Wikipedia?

  ~~~ Organic Increse45( ͡ಠ ͜ʖ ͡ಠ) (talk) 21:32, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

  @Organic Increse45: That's up to you. Consider Wikipedia to be a collector of information from sources it deems reliable. You can follow the citations to learn more. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:57, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

  Organic Increse45 Wikipedia is great if you just want to read something for your own personal information. For research for an academic paper, you should not cite Wikipedia itself, but the sources that an article uses- and you should examine those sources to make sure they say what is claimed. 331dot (talk) 23:17, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

  @Organic Increse45 When following book citations, try clicking on the ISBN, and you'll be taken to the "Book Sources" page. You can try clicking on the "Find this book on Google Books" link to see if you can read the source for free. If not, scroll down on the "Book Sources" page and you'll find links to libraries near you where you might be able to find the book. Hope this helps! GoingBatty (talk) 01:02, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

  Ok, thanks to all of you for awnsering my question in great detail. Organic Increse45( ͡ಠ ͜ʖ ͡ಠ) (talk) 03:57, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

How to get rid of disambiguation page

The page Quiza has only one page on it(there was an earlier page that was deleted), continuing to have a disambiguation seems unnecessaryJaguarnik (talk) 04:03, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Jaguarnik, you can convert it to a redirect page pointing to Quiza Xenitana. Simple replace the page's text with #REDIRECT [[Quiza Xenitana]]. On the talk page of the redirect you can replace the disambiguation tag with {{WikiProject Catholicism}} to add it to that project. Interestingly Quiza Xenitana isn't being indexed currently on Google, just the dab page. Zindor (talk) 04:21, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much, I have done exactly as you advised.Jaguarnik (talk) 04:24, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Great, nicely done. Zindor (talk) 04:37, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Added a book I authored to a list, and had the edit reverted for not providing a reliable source

I understand why the editor reverted my edit (I use a pseudonym on Wikipedia, so he could not have known I am the book's author). He suggested I re-add it with a reliable source added, or leave a message on his Talk page. I visited his talk page, but could not find a way to leave a message. So, I replied to the message he left on my Talk page. He has yet to reply.

How do I add myself as a reliable source on an edit I make? How do I leave a message on his talk page?

Thank you, in advance. Trev Swain (talk) 05:41, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Trev Swain. Wikipedia is not a place for you to promote your books. There are plenty of websites where this self promotional content is acceptable. But not on this encyclopedia. You are not and never will be a reliable source about yourself or the books you have written. You have a glaring conflict of interest about yourself and your work. We require entirely independent sources to establish notability. Sources that have nothing to do with you but have freely chosen to write about you and your books without prompting from your self-promotional efforts. Cullen328 (talk) 06:17, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi Cullen328. Thanks for your reply. I don't believe I am promoting my books. I have added a few characters in them to list pages of fictional characters who hold certain occupations (doctor, secret agent). They story worlds they inhabit are close representations of the real world we live in, so references are made in the novels to real world events. Considerable reference is made in one of the books to the September 11 attacks, so I added that book's title to the list. Would you explain how this equates to promoting my books? Trev Swain (talk) 06:40, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Trev Swain. You may notice that all the books in that list (like most such lists in Wikipedia) have their titles and/or authors bluelinked to Wikipedia articles about them. To be added to the list, your book (or yourself) would first have to have a Wikipedia article about it/yourself, or at the very least obviously merit such an article. From my cursory research, neither you (under your author pseudonym) or any of your books could qualify via Wikipedia's criteria for an article, yet. This may change in time, as you and your current and future works become better known, such as by being reviewed in Reliable sources, but for now it would seem to be WP:Too soon.

Since they are not (as yet) notable, inserting mentions of your books into existing articles will be interpreted as promotion, which Wikipedia strictly forbids and treats as spam.

To leave a message on any user's Talk page, click on the link to it in their signature, click on the New section tab, and type (much as you did on this Teahouse page). If a user has left a message on your Talk page, they may well check to see if you reply to it there, and continue the dialogue. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.209.235.54 (talk) 07:07, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying and the answer to the second question I had asked in my question. As a Wikipedia newbie, I appreciate it. As a Canadian, I appreciate your politeness. Trev Swain (talk) 07:11, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Trying to Get a Peer Review

I'm working on my first article, about the 2009 murder of Joanne Witt, and I'm trying to get peer review. When I add the PR template to the article's talk page, here's what I got:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Just_Another_Cringy_Username/sandbox/Murder_of_Joanne_Witt

It isn't supposed to look like this, is it? Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 05:42, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Just Another Cringy Username, welcome to the Teahouse. In the documentation at {{PR}} it says that it can only be used in the talk namespace (talk pages of articles) otherwise it will generate an error message. As your draft is in your user space that's why. Zindor (talk) 06:10, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

But I put it on the talk page for the draft. Isn't that the same thing? If not, how do I get to the place I need to put it. Bottom line: what do I need to do next? Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 06:14, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

When you feel the article is ready, click the link which is at the top of your draft to submit it for review. As an aside, your draft appears more journalistic than encyclopedic. Try to copy the style of other murder/matricide articles on Wikipedia.--Quisqualis (talk) 06:26, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

@Just Another Cringy Username: the namespace for article talk pages is called 'Talk' and for user pages is 'User talk', despite both being talk pages they are treated differently by the software. The peer review process is for articles that already exist in mainspace. There's at least one problem with the draft, which is use of Daily Mail as a source, it's not a reliable source and that is very important, especially when writing about living people. The draft does delve into the minutae, so it will definitely have to be edited for style like Quisqualis says, and it also might contain contentious statements if the sourcing isn't up to par. See WP:BLP for more specific information. Zindor (talk) 06:33, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

I can remove the Daily Mail; that information has been mentioned in other sources. What's the difference between "journalistic" and "encyclopedic" style? I have to admit, I think of them as pretty synonymous. Are you saying there's too much emotional language in it? Funny, as I'm usually the one editing that out of other articles' plot summaries... Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 06:44, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

There's a presumption of privacy for non-public figures so the excessive detail about the sexuality and the names of previous lovers etc should be removed. The article uses a play-by-play narrative, try to zoom out and write a bit more broadly. I don't even think the topic is worth an article to be honest, just reads like gossip, but i haven't really looked into it too deeply Zindor (talk) 06:53, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

The previous lover was named in the sources cited. There was one article detailing his testimony at trial, which also mentioned him by name. I've looked at a few other murder articles and it seems like if anything, they go into even more detail than I did. The case was covered by two major networks as well as local newspapers, all of which I used as sources, and was the subject of several true crime documentaries. Do you think that's enough to establish notability? Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 07:13, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

I would like to edit an article which is semi-protected

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_in_India contains a line which says "By March 2022, India had just 22,487 cases across the country." which is incorrect. Official figures on 1 March 2022 contradict this and the same wikipedia article itself contradicts the statement. The statement does not cite any source.

I wish to remove it. Libreravi (talk) 07:13, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

I removed the line and it got removed (Libreravi (talk) 07:25, 2 June 2022 (UTC))

@Libreravi Per WP:AUTOC you can edit semi-protected articles, so WP:BOLD applies. And it's good that you wrote a clear ES, that is helpful to other editors. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:45, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Want to volunteer as a content writer

I am Ranu Agrawalfrom Gujarat, India. I want to become a part of volunteer member for Wikipedia. Please guide the process for the same. Ag ranu (talk) 07:54, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Ag ranu Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. By creating an account and posting here, you are now a Wikipedia editor, there is no formal process for this. I would suggest that you use the new user tutorial to learn some basic information about Wikipedia. I will also post some welcome information on your user talk page. Thanks for being here. 331dot (talk) 07:57, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

once you're done over there, you could hop over to your Homepage or the Task Center for easy stuff to do. you may also want to check out WikiProject India for coordination regarding India-related articles. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 10:20, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Is my company notable enough to get approved?

Hi! I am trying to create a Wikipedia page for The Murder Diaries podcast. I have been technically hired to create this page, and I know I need to disclose that information before making the page. But I just want to know how to create a Wikipedia page that gets approved. Thank you in advance. Truecrime22 (talk) 23:49, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

@Truecrime22: Based on what I'm finding in a Google search (string:["the murder diaries" podcast]), you cannot because there're no usable sources for us to work with. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 23:53, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Truecrime22. You need to comply with Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure before editing any more. This is mandatory. Cullen328 (talk) 01:37, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Truecrime22, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid that you've been hired to do what is very probably a non-job. It sounds as if your employer has the (very common) misapprehension that Wikipedia is somewhere for a company to promote themselves, like social media. It is not. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, it is none of their business whether or not Wikipedia has an article about them, or what that article will contain if there is one. Of course we all want Wikipedia articles to be accurate in their contents, but Wikipedia has its own criteria for what subjects are notable and so can be the subject of articles; and its own rules for what can go into an article. If there is an article about your employer (whoever writes it) it will not belong to them, it will not be for their benefit (except incidentally), it will not necessarily say what they want it to say, and it may end up containing material that they would definitely prefer that it didn't contain. It should be based almost entirely on what independent commentators have said about the subject, not on what they or their associates say or want to say.

ONce you have made the declarations others have mentioned, you may look for the independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the podcast, which are a non-negotiable minimum requirement for an article. If you can find them, then you use the articles for creation process to create a draft, based entirely on what those independent sources say, not on what your employers say or want to say. If you can't find the sources (and Jeske says that they have looked and not found any) then you should give up. ColinFine (talk) 10:22, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Adjusting the Great Barrington Declaration page (Covid Policy page)

I am convinced people are not arguing with me in good faith on the Great Barrington Declaration page.

I am planning to give a couple weeks for people to argue with my proposed edit of removing the slanderous comment of calling the Great Barrington Declaration and the policies it advocates for fringe. There is overwhelming evidence to the contrary, could someone please advise on how to ensure Wikipedia's standards are applied in this change. I let my emotions get the best of me and had my IP address blocked, I understand edit warring is wrong but I am finding it very difficult to assume good faith with the editors preventing the change.

The World Bank recently released data that lockdowns have killed millions of more people than the Coronavirus and resulted in 1.4 million extra teenage pregnancies alone [1][2] and I think it is crucial to peoples misunderstanding that this article be corrected as soon as reasonably possible within Wikipedia guidelines.

The Great Barrington Declaration whose main purpose was to show the lack of scientific consensus around the lockdowns and social distancing policies is improperly referenced as fringe in a smear against it and this level of misinformation is clearly costing the world many lives and unintended consequences and the faster Wikipedia changes the page the faster we can all come to a better consensus on what to do next as a world.

[1] https://www.globalfinancingfacility.org/emerging-data-estimates-each-covid-19-death-more-two-women-and-children-have-lost-their-lives-result [2] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2022-05-26/contraception-s-cost-teen-pregnancy-in-poor-countries-sets-back-gender-equality 65.175.199.251 (talk) 20:40, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi, 65, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid you may have some misconceptions about how Wikipedia works. One of our core policies is verifiability, which means that all statements in our articles must be attributable to a reliable source. As such, we have a policy against what we call "original research", and if the articles you've linked to are representative, I'm afraid you're running afoul of this policy. Put simply, a reliable source must directly support any statement that it is used for. In this case, if you're looking to support the statement "the Great Barrington Declaration represents mainstream scholarship, rather than a fringe", you will need sources that directly say that. Posting articles that provide vague support to the same ideas that are supported in the Great Barrington Declaration is not going to cut it, and since neither of the articles you've linked even mention the Great Barrington Declaration, they are going to be of extremely limited use to you. Even apart from that, the articles don't make the claims you're asserting, and are of questionable reliability regardless--press releases are usually not considered reliable, and especially not on medical topics. You need to engage civilly on the talk page, but you will need much better sources than this if you want to make major changes to that article. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:08, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

• What matters is if independent reliable sources call this fringe. If they do, there is nothing that you can do. That you disagree with this or those who tell you this does not mean that they are not acting in good faith. If this topic areas is too contentious for you, I would suggest disengaging. 331dot (talk) 21:13, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

To add onto what everyone is saying above, I would strongly consider finding a different, less controversial topic area to work in; pages and edits related to COVID-19 are under heightened scrutiny. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 21:17, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

@IP user, your reference 1 does not say that lockdowns have killed millions more people than the Coronavirus. It doesn't say that at all. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 11:26, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi IP 65.175.199.251. It certainly can be frustrating when you feel so strongly that something is a great wrong that needs to be righted and can't fathom why others simply aren't feeling the same way. However, it's not really Wikipedia's role to try and convince the world to change through its articles. Article content is primarily governed by what established reliable sources are saying about something, and reliable sources for articles about medical topics are highly scrutinized. Disagreements over article content, in general, are expected to be resolved per Wikipedia:Dispute resolution which basically means using the relevant article's talk page to establish a consensus that resolves the disagreement or at least finds some common ground that both side can accept. So, the only thing I can suggest is to continue to assume good faith and discuss things on the article's talk. Articles about medical related topics, in particular, can become quite contentious and extra special care needs to be taken, but ultimately it will be the consensus established through talk page discussion that decides the content of the article. If a large part of the outside world feels that this declaration is "fringe" (I'm not saying it is), then the change in that perception is going to have to take place first in the outside world before it's reflected on Wikipedia; in other words, a Wikipedia article isn't the place to try and make that change happen. The Teahouse isn't really a good place to try and discuss this type of thing in detail or debate the sources you're citing, but there are noticeboards such as Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard and Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard where you can. Ultimately, however, it's still going to be consensus which determines the outcomes of any such discussions. If you're unable to establish such a consensus, then there's not really much more that can be done no matter how wrong you truly believe the consensus to be. -- 21:37, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Sig not working

Hello. I’m trying to create a new signature (based off early-2016 User:Jaguar’s), but for some reason it keeps coming out like this:<span style='font:bold small-caps 1.26em "Nimbus Mono L";color:#000000'>[[User:Speatle|<span style="color:black;">'''19'''</span>]][[User talk:Speatle|<span style="color:black;">'''79'''</span>]]</span>&nbsp; (talk) 11:09, 2 June 2022 (UTC). How can I fix this?

There's a little tickbox underneath the signature field in Preferences that says "Treat the above as wiki markup." If you click that box, it should sort it for you. SamWilson989 (talk) 11:25, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, it’s fine now. 1979  11:31, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

How to reset a color within the template

Basically i was messing around some stuff with the {{color}} template. I wanted to make a rainbow text but realized i'd literally have to make a new template with each letter and color which is just time consuming. Is there any way i can reset a color? for example test and i will reset the 'e' within test to be blue. but i'd have to split it into different {{color}} templates and it's just time consuming. Leahnn Rey (talk) 08:45, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

hi @Leahnn Rey! you could place {{color}} inside {{color}} as such: {{color|red|t{{color|blue|e}}st}} test. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 10:18, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. once again. You're the best. I cannot thank you enough. Leahnn Rey (talk) 12:42, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Is it true?

Can editors not get on and dislike one and other on Wikipedia? Just curious...DragonofBatley (talk) 12:40, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

hi @DragonofBatley and welcome to the teahouse! unfortunately, there are lots of times where editors do not get along, like during edit wars where editors are causing disruption instead of cooling down and discussing in the talk page. there's also a few incidents of incivility reported over at Administrator's noticeboard/Incidents that may spill into the thread itself, which is why some people nickname it the dramaboard. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 13:10, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Is FURGOD a notable musician?

At the Luis Chavez talk page, I started a discussion about FURGOD's notability. Someone removed the redirect and added a bio of a musician whose real name is Luis Chavez (I reverted it); he goes by "FURGOD". The sourcing provided was almost entirely self-promotional, if not entirely. Would appreciate any help in judging those links. Wes sideman (talk) 12:28, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Courtesy diff link: Luis Chavez + Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL 💜  melecie  talk - 13:15, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

How do you use bold, italic and superscript text at the same time

Basically, i was messing around with some stuff in the sandbox when i came across a problem, I can't use a bold and italic at the same time, the superscript works with the boldtext and italic, but i can't seem to make them work all together, the superscript, boldtext and italic like this:

^abc

but when i use italic, it appears like this, so basically italic needs double quotation marks like this. But when i use it, it appears like this:

^"abc" Leahnn Rey (talk) 05:58, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Leahnn Rey, welcome to the teahouse. The only way I know how to make bold italics is to wrap the word or phrase in quintuple single quotes. bold italic--Quisqualis (talk) 06:04, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Still does not work. The bold works but the italic doesn't. It just displays: ^'abc' Leahnn Rey (talk) 06:12, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

@Leahnn Rey: italics are not made using double quotation marks, but rather two single ones. (And you must have the matching number of quotation marks on both sides of the text to be formatted.)

This does work: ^{'''''abc'''''} renders as ^abc -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:35, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, i did that and it still doesn't work for some reason. i will try to figure it out. Leahnn Rey (talk) 08:00, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Okay, i figured it out, it was my own mistake. I forgot one single quotation mark. Leahnn Rey (talk) 08:02, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

@Leahnn Rey - You may find it helpful to use the VisualEditor to change text formatting. I find it's easier to highlight the text and select bold and/or italics than to count the single quotation marks. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 14:11, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Contributions disappeared

I made some contributions which later disappeared What should I do now? KingBiscuitBlues (talk) 06:07, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

@KingBiscuitBlues, some of your contributions were reverted because they were not backed with reliable sources. Kpddg ^(talk) 06:13, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm the blues researcher that I'm crediting in the contributions I should have been front page news but there's a campaign to suppress the information because of my personal identity No one has ever challenged the validity of the information because they wouldn't be able to because you can see very plainly who those people are in the film Their excuses may include things like not wanting to eclipse the work of Wardlow KingBiscuitBlues (talk) 06:20, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Also, the discovery of the identities of the people in the films reveals that there was a conspiracy against the blues men in the film, and the film's maker William Fox which in turn sheds horrible light on the MGM Studio bosses Mayer and Thalberg Concerned people are afraid that I'm going to continue to rant about these things but actually I share their concerns to a limited degree I'm a truther, but not a ranter KingBiscuitBlues (talk) 06:27, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, KingBiscuitBlues, but citing facts to your own work will almost certainly fall foul of WP:Conflict of interest, and/or WP:No original research, and/or the requirements for WP:Reliable sources. No-one on Wikipedia is likely to be involved in any campaign to suppress such information (and on this globally edited project with a core policy of WP:Neutral point of view it's almost impossible that any such campaign could go undetected), but Wikipedia has to have policies and rules about the verifiability of the information it summarises from published sources – which is all that Wikipedia does: it certainly does not set out to WP:Right great wrongs. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.209.235.54 (talk) 07:25, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

@KingBiscuitBlues Per the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, you may start a discussion on the article's talk page (e.g. Talk:Mississippi Fred McDowell to share your ideas on how to improve the articles, and provide reliable sources. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 14:14, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Removal of 'biography of living person' panel

 Courtesy link: John Sinclair (sociologist)

What do I have to do in the way of providing additional sources and citations for an entry on myself? In addition to my university-moderated website, I have cited four academic articles in which my work is discussed (not just cited), and five reviews of my books. I have recently added an award from a professional organisation, but don't know how to reference it. Source is AILASA_Newsletter_2021Dec.pdf file:///C:/Users/acame/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/INetCache/Content.Outlook/MJJRUS47/ Johngs 06:19, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Johngs, you're free to announce all of this on Talk:John Sinclair (sociologist). However, any address starting "file:///" is utterly useless to those very many people (such as myself) who don't have access to that particular computer. -- Hoary (talk) 08:46, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

@Johngs: Is the newsletter available on the public internet? If so, you can provide the URL for that issue of the newsletter when you post on the article's talk page. You can also add the {{request edit}} template on the article's talk page to get the attention of other editors who can help you update the article. Another alternative is to use the Wikipedia:Edit Request Wizard. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 14:18, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

changing a photo

Dear Guys, could you please help me. I have recently edited this page: Balázs Hidvéghi. However, I cannot seem to find a way to change the photo. Could you please advise. Peterep (talk) 12:53, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

hi @Peterep and welcome to the teahouse! I'm assuming you're talking about File:Hidvéghi Balázs.jpg. first of all, do you own the photo you're uploading (did you take the photo) or is there a declaration somewhere on the site that it's in CC BY-SA 4.0? if not, you're not allowed to use it in either here or hungarian wiki. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 13:05, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I am talking about this photo. We have been using this for some time, and we want to use it here as well. But I could not really find a way to replace current one in the English page. Peterep (talk) 14:21, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

You uploaded the file saying it was the work of Magyar Hírlap. They, as photographer, own the copyright and must release it under a suitable license before it can be held on Wikimedia Commons or used in the encyclopaedia. that's the priority currently, Peterep. Assuming you had the photographer's permission to upload the file, you still need to follow the steps at Commons:Volunteer_Response_Team#Licensing images: when do I contact VRT?. Once that's done, swapping the image into the article is very easy. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:38, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

@Peterep, could you clarify what you mean by "we"? Are you associated with the article subject or the website hosting that photo in any way? 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:41, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

I have uploaded the photo again. The Wikimedia Permissions email has been sent as far as I know. So, am I allowed to put the photo into the webpage? Or will I get a notification about the permission being granted? By "we", yes, I mean that I am a colleague of the subject. Thank you for your help. Peterep (talk) 05:34, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, we have just realized that the photo was made by a different newspaper (Demokrata). I have modified the source and author of course, and they have sent the email. However, the comment field still shows "magyar hírlap". Can we modify that please or is that a problem. (Unfortunately, I could not upload the photo again, as the system would not allow me since it already exists. I also could not find a way to modify the mentioned details in this one.) Peterep (talk) 10:07, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Account banning

Will Wikipedia delete users that doesn't active for a long time? Please answer! H0MARUP (talk) 15:15, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

No. It is not possible to delete a User account anyway. Shantavira|^{feed me} 15:16, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Then how would they ban a user who is a troll? H0MARUP (talk) 15:18, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

H0MARUP: we can block accounts to prevent them from editing (or even lock them so that they cannot be logged into), but there is no way to actually *delete* a Wikipedia account. And no, we don't do any of that for accounts that just aren't active for a time; it requires active disruption. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:20, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Q re Unblock ticket request system

Another user has been indeffed, and their talk page access was turned off. I'd like to be notified if they appeal via UTRS. So my question is, does the UTRS system add anything to a users talk page, when the user themself has been denied talk page access? If the answer is "yes", then I will hear about it via my watchlist. Thanks NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:19, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi NewsAndEventsGuy, it won't add to their talk page and you won't be notified currently; see Wikipedia:Unblock_Ticket_Request_System#Access_requirements. Hope this helps, Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 16:10, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Oh well, thanks for saving me the effort of looking for something that wouldn't happen anyway! Have a great day, and thanks for serving the Teahouse NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:13, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Unassessed draft moved to mainspace

There is a certain Wikipedia article about a person who may or may not be notable, that did not go through drafts and was automatically moved to mainspace, and made by a Wikipedia editor who themself stated does not have much experience. When I put a proposed deletion tag on the article due to non-notability the creator of the article removed it. Would it then be appropriate to open a deletion discussion?Jaguarnik (talk) 23:25, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, though kicking it back to draft also helps. Name the page. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 23:47, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

it is Eve Barlow. while it is true that the writer has written for several prominent news outlets I do not feel this necessarily makes a person notable, and I don't feel she passes WP:Author, however I myself don't have a lot of experience writing for Wikipedia so maybe I'm wrong. That's why I would like to open up a discussionJaguarnik (talk) 01:19, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Given the extensive coverage that Barlow has received in connection with Depp v. Heard, I think that it is unlikely that this article will be deleted. She has also received coverage as an activist against antisemitism, so the article is not an example of WP:BLP1E. But maybe I'm wrong. Cullen328 (talk) 01:34, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Alright, I'll leave it alone then.Jaguarnik (talk) 02:00, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

In fairness, the article has cite-overkill issues, and it probably won't hurt to expand it using the sources already there. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 18:31, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Citation (and other) templates

I am struggling with learning how to find templates. So far, I have been able to use them okay, but I have sometimes had trouble finding the exact template I wanted. Specifically, I want to use the template that says a page needs more sources/citations to support the content, but I don't know how to find it. What is it called, so that I can find it, and does anyone have any general advice on how to more easily find and use templates? Thanks. A. E. Katz (talk) 18:31, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi @A. E. Katz, welcome to the Teahouse. Do you know about Wikipedia:Template index? In the past I've had a bookmark to that page; usually I jump there by typing WP:Template index into the search bar. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:40, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

In this case, you'd specifically want Wikipedia:Template index/Cleanup#Verifiability and sources. Choose the best fit from the list. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:42, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much, that's exactly what I needed! I have seen the page before, but I didn't think to look at it / didn't remember how to access it. A. E. Katz (talk) 18:50, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Writing without log in

Hello. I have changed an article but did not have an account .. is my IP address now visible to the public? I have now made the change logged in .. does this help? thanks. Somewhereovertherainbow33 (talk) 19:42, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Somewhereovertherainbow33, welcome to the Teahouse. Yes, the IP address you made the edit with is now publicly visible, and making the same edit with an account will not change that; in fact, it might make things worse (from a privacy standpoint), because then people could directly associate the IP and the account. Fortunately you haven't actually made any edits with this account - that I can see - so that won't happen to you. If you have serious privacy concerns, we do have ways to hide edits from public view (WP:REVDEL and WP:OVERSIGHT) but a compelling reason is needed to do so. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 19:54, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Linked Wikipedia-article to a google-business-entry

Hi there, google sent me here, but I think, you cannot help me. A google-business-location is linked to the wrong wikipedia-entry. I cannot imagine, that this connection is caused by wikipedia but by google. Can you confirm this? Cbk882 (talk) 20:30, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi, @Cbk882. Can you tell me what location you are referring to? Search engines make that mistake a lot... 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊|🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦|☎️|📄 20:39, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

We can confirm that. We have no control over Google's (ab)use of its platform, and we especially hate that they keep blaming us for shit on their end. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 20:39, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Are you by any chance referring to a photo or text shown to the right of a Google search? Google's Knowledge Graph uses a wide variety of sources. There may be a text paragraph ending with "Wikipedia" to indicate that particular text was copied from Wikipedia. An image and other text before or after the Wikipedia excerpt may be from sources completely unrelated to Wikipedia. We have no control over how Google presents our information, but Google's Knowledge Graph has a "Feedback" link where anyone can mark a field as wrong. The same feedback facility is also provided on Bing and some other search engines. ColinFine (talk) 21:30, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Tyler Kistner: notable?

Hello! I'm currently writing Draft:Tyler Kistner, a article about a American politician (still rough!). I believe it meets WP:GNG/WP:POLITICIAN, but I would like a second opinion. If it does not, I can move some of the content to the 2022 United States House of Representatives elections in Minnesota article. Thank you. Any copyediting would be appreciated (this draft will be expanded). TreadsOfThird (talk) 18:16, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Just being a candidate, even a perennial one, is usually not sufficient to meet Wikipedia's notability standards. The coverage of the subject is routine and largely local. ValarianB (talk) 18:27, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply! WP:POLITICIAN states that "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage" are notable. I think I meet that standard, regardless of the source's geographical location (unless our definitions differ). Two questions, if you don't mind: Why do you think the draft doesn't meet the above guideline and what parts of the article are "routine" in your view? TreadsOfThird (talk) 18:43, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello, TreadsOfThird. Kistner is not a major local political figure. The coverage in the draft is routine coverage of the sort that all major party Congressional candidates receive. If Kistner is notable then every losing major party Congressional candidate in U.S. history is notable. And how about losing parliamentary candidates in other countries? As an editor since 2009, I have participated in hundreds of deletion debates about losing political candidates and I can assure you that there is a very strong consensus among experienced editors that the vast majority of losing candidates are not notable. There are occasional exceptions when a candidate receives ongoing, in depth coverage from many national publications. This is not such a case. Cullen328 (talk) 23:21, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Working on 1st article

My first article, it was declined ( its okay, my first attempt). Main reason was not proper references for my submission Nepisiguit Bay. Part of the reason I wanted to create this article was to bring attention to the proper name for the bay. All of the comminuties on the coast don't even mention the bay, they refer to the larger bay, Chaleur bay instead. Need help referencing the bay, how to prove its there??? I tried emails with Coast Guard in Canada, they gave a link that I can zoom in to see the bays name. Any Ideas? Harry12555 (talk) 12:00, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:Nepisiguit Bay

hi @Harry12555 and welcome to the teahouse! you don't need to prove it exists (there are numerous bays in the world and not all of them have articles), you need to prove it's notable. please check out notability for geographic features for more on that. are there sources and articles that discuss Nepisiguit Bay in detail? if so, use those. unfortunately, you would have to rely on those sources, so if those sources state that the bay isn't nepisiguit bay, you have to use the name these sources agree on instead. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 13:22, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

also, I'd like to note Righting great wrongs: We can record the righting of great wrongs, but we can't ride the crest of the wave because we can only report what is verifiable from reliable and secondary sources, giving appropriate weight to the balance of informed opinion: even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 13:28, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the info and links. I ll keep digging. Most of what I have found is maps, some from the Canadian Government. I ll search more Harry12555 (talk) 13:43, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

@Harry12555: If you're referring to Wikipedia articles about the communities, it's not exactly true that "all of the comminuties on the coast don't even mention the bay". See, for example, the first sentence of Bathurst, New Brunswick#Geography. The Canadian Geographical Names Database page is something you'll want to use as a reference (and a source for geographic coordinates), even if it can't be the only one. The Bathurst article also mentions "the timber trade of Nepisiguit Bay" in the 1800s; that might be something you could look into for further info and refs. Deor (talk) 19:17, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Great link to the The Canadian Geographical Names Database page, I added that as a source. Harry12555 (talk) 23:33, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. I'm contining to search for more articles, adding anything I find to my sandbox version. Harry12555 (talk) 23:31, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Admins blocking account creation after blocking the vandal

OP blocked for ban evasion.

Do you wonder why admins disable account creation after blocking the vandal's account? I think it is very unfair for admins to disable the account creation for the user, when it is something for them to create new account freely. Plus anyone can edit Wikipedia no matter what edits they made and how they contribute. Any reason why implemented account creation disable? An example is "account creation blocked." Also, creating another account is the fresh new start. -- 76.20.110.116 (talk) 22:36, 2 June 2022 (UTC) No, "anyone can edit" does not mean that blocked users should just be able to create anew account and continue editing. That's WP:BLOCKEVASION. A block applies to the user behind the account or IP, not just the specific account or IP. Meters (talk) 22:42, 2 June 2022 (UTC) Hi, IP, users aren't allowed to 'clean start' if they're actively blocked. See Wikipedia:Clean start. Allowing account creation for blocked users would entirely defeat the object, perhaps less so for those with significant tenure but still not a good idea. Regards, Zindor (talk) 22:45, 2 June 2022 (UTC) And yes, but why users aren't allowed to have a clean start if they're actively blocked and why would they implement that? How is not a good idea? 76.20.110.116 (talk) 22:48, 2 June 2022 (UTC) because WP:CLEANSTART specifically excludes blocked accounts and for the sake of transparency. PRAXIDICAE💕 22:49, 2 June 2022 (UTC) 76.20.110.116, perhaps you could describe what you see as injustice at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/76.20.110.116. But if the matter isn't specifically about yourself, and you want to discuss policy more generally, then the place to do so is neither here nor there but instead Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Though I don't think that you will get far. -- Hoary (talk) 23:18, 2 June 2022 (UTC) Alright then! I might make some good faith and constructive edits. Have a good day! 76.20.110.116 (talk) 23:43, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Is Iran International a "Reliable Source"?

I am fairly certain the answer is no, but I just wanted to confirm. Pburkart (talk) 00:50, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi Pburkart, from what I could find out, no, I wouldn't say so. Editors discuss which sources are reliable more at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 00:55, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Help

I am trying to upload a 8-minute webm video but again and again the page gets redirected to this. Peter Ormond 💬 21:58, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

hi @Peter Ormond and welcome to the teahouse! i see you have found the place I've been spending all my time these past few days! jokes aside, this seems like a bug, I believe the proper place for this would be at Village pump/technical or maybe Phabricator. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 01:12, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Source of biography

When some forum or platform invites an artist to perform there, it announces the program on its official site and also gives a brief bio of the guest artist. Can it be used as a reference for writing wiki bio of that artist? Would it be independent? Insight 3 (talk) 07:20, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

@Insight 3, welcome! Per your description, I'd say it could be considered reliable for some not WP:EXTRAORDINARY stuff, but it's not independant (doesn't help with WP:N), since they have the common goal of drawing an audience. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:41, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

[Edit Conflict] My tuppenceworth – it might depend on the venue: information published by The Royal Albert Hall is likely to have been better checked than that from a street-corner band-hosting bar, but very frequently the venue will rely on information supplied by the artist (or their management) so it won't be independent.

It would show that the artist was booked to appear there on a given date, but not that they actually did (cancellations happen). Possibly direct quotes, identified as such, could be used to show what the venue chose to publish, but if this was on a website (whose content is likely frequently updated) it would be harder to cite than if it were in, say, a printed programme.

Reviews of the artist's performance after the fact would be far more useful, since the organ they appear in is much more likely to have done its editorial research and checking.

Long story short; probably depends on the particular instance. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.209.235.54 (talk) 07:43, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks guys! Yes I also realize the hosing venue may exaggerate some info about the guest artist for advertisement purposes, so better to avoid it.Insight 3 (talk) 11:42, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

It's not just a question of exaggeration for advertising/promotional motives. The major point is – where did the venue get the information? Venue management staff are not journalists and researchers working to professional editorial standards: most of what they "publish" will have been fed to them by the performers or their agents, or looked up in non-Reliable sources (like Wikipedia!), and they will usually not cite any reliable sources they do use. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.209.235.54 (talk) 04:05, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Why does the bulleted list glitch

I was messing around with some language families like so (keep in mind i'm using {{color}} template, the blue one, it's not a link):

• north luzon
  • isnag
  • ibanagic
    • atta, ibanag, itawis, yogad

It's fine when i make every single bullet list outside the {{color}} template, it displays up the top of this text. But when i make the bulleted list inside the {{color}} template, it appears like this:

• north luzon
  • isnag
  • ibanagic

You might be saying: 'this is absolutely normal, i don't see anything wrong with this', well think again, because the glitch only happens when i'm in visual editing? But when i switched to source editing and previewed the page it was completely normal. Leahnn Rey (talk) 13:25, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Leahnn Rey. I'm not clear why you're playing around with colour. We don't often use colour to distinguish things in Wikipedia, mostly because of concerns about accessibility. If you are intending to use colour in an article, please make sure you are familiar with the guidelines at WP:COLOR. ColinFine (talk) 15:06, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm basically just testing the color to see the arguments and how it works because i want to make a 'parameter' some time around the future Leahnn Rey (talk) 08:10, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Bullets strip that template. I've corrected this live case of "Misnested tag with different rendering in HTML5 and HTML4" error, if any future reader needs to see this in the broken state, see this previous page version. Zinnober9 (talk) 23:07, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

DRAFT DECLINED FOR MORE THAN A YEAR

Greetings, Editors! First and foremost, thank you for your constant assistance; greatly appreciate it. Second, I'm writing to seek clarification on the matter of BOB Finance's draft being rejected. Since it is a Western Union accredited agent, and wikipedia is a platform that is widely accessible and provides information on all branches of knowledge, this financial service agent has been attempting to establish a presence on the site. It changed the promotional content to a minimum instructive script based on your advice, however it was still rejected. Noting that it's well aware of the rules, restrictions, and reference policies of Wikipedias. For over a year, we've been making personal accounts and trying to fulfill each editor's standards, but still getting blocked and rejected constantly. Since 1997, BOB Finance has been one of Lebanon's leading financial services networks. Kindly send us reasonable clarification of this matter. Please accept my heartfelt gratitude. Melanienakad (talk) 12:06, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Melanieakad. I see that Draft:BOB Finance has just been declined again. Please note that this financial service agent has been attempting to establish a presence on the site is precisely what we mean by promotion, and is forbidden anywehre on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not interested in providing anybody with "a presence". If an article on BOB finance is eventually accepted, the article will not belong to the company, will not be for the benefit of the company, will not be controlled by the company, and will not necessarily say what the company would like it to say. ColinFine (talk) 12:50, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello, @Melanienakad, and welcome to the Teahouse! First of all, I feel that you might fundamentally misunderstand what Wikipedia is for. Wikipedia is not a platform for the promotion of companies and other organisations, it is a free online encyclopaedia with articles about subjects who are deemed notable by Wikipedia's standards. With that out of way, please also familiarise yourself with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines regarding editing with a conflict of interest if you haven't already. Regarding the draft (Draft:BOB Finance), if you want it to read as more neutral, consider removing the section regarding "Growth" and rewriting most of the prose to read less like a PR piece, avoiding "marketing speak". However, even if you address all these issue, you still would need to prove notability. Regardless, have a great day! [Edit conflict] HenryTemplo (talk) 12:56, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello @HenryTemplo ,

We are overwhelmed with your heart-full way of communicating, been trying to get a proper help on wikipedia for a while, and you are making this concern easier to deal with.

Firstly, we find it necessary to clarify that our presence on wikipedia is purely informative rather than promotional in reply to your colleague.

Secondly, thank you for pointing out the fact that "Growth" section is wrongly used. BOB Finance's written content has been inspired by articles already accepted and shared by international companies such as Visa, American Express and Bank of America. We took into consideration avoiding the promotional content: fees, card types, advertising campaigns, products, and partnerships. Although all the previously mentioned are existing information shared on wikipedia by the cited companies. Still got rejected for the same reason multiple times. Hoping to take this point into consideration while reviewing our next draft.

Lastly, we have deep knowledge about wikipedias notability regulations. To be more accurate, we linked articles from local newspapers already existent on your platform.

Thank you for your time and consideration Henry, really appreciate it!

Looking forward for your guidance.

Best,

Melanie Melanienakad (talk) 07:40, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

@Melanienakad, I'm very glad that you have found my advice helpful! I will say that demonstrating notability on Wikipedia can be very frustrating on Wikipedia, especially the notability of companies and organisations, which has its own policy. The tricky thing with notability is that no amount of editing of an article will make it notable, which can be disheartening. When it comes to the draft BOB Finance, I'm afraid I don't feel like I could accurately judge the notability, due to almost all the sources being in (presumably) Arabic, which I unfortunately cannot understand (nor easily machine-translate). However, a good rule of thumb here on Wikipedia is if your company truly is notable, chances are another editor will come along and start an article. Bigger companies who are considered notable by Wikipedia don't usually have their articles started by an employee or their boss, they're generally started by some random editor like me who have seen the companies name in the news a lot. With that out the way, have a great day and happy editing! HenryTemplo (talk) 08:46, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Teresa Teng

I have something to say regarding the page Teresa Teng. I want to know if there are some improvements needed to be made to this page. If yes, then plz suggest what more needed to be done? Arorapriyansh333 (talk) 10:11, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't have time to read the whole article, which looks fairly complete. I noticed there are some grammar issues, a non sequitur in the Personal Life section, and some details that conflict with MOS:CURRENT, MOS:NUMERAL, and WP:Passed away. Shantavira|^{feed me} 10:46, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! I corrected it. Arorapriyansh333 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 08:52, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Why Wikipedia is not a directory and about the BFDI article?

Here is another question: Can anybody explain why Wikipedia is not a directory especially listing anchor stores? Also, some users tried to create an article about BFDI, but it got deleted soon. And when attempting to create again, its name or title got protected. Here is the link to this: Battle For Dream Island

Have a good time! 76.20.110.116 (talk) 01:45, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Because this Wikipedia thing presents itself as an encyclopedia, and an encyclopedia is not a directory. (If you propose to change this, this isn't the right page for your proposal.) And please see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Battle for Dream Island. -- Hoary (talk) 01:51, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Directories like that, which include a list of stores in a shopping center, can easily get out of date. Wikipedia doesn't assign editors to review articles like this every few months, which is what's required to keep such a list up to date. Anyone who wants to know that info is much better served by using a search engine, which should lead them to the shopping center's own web page, where the info is presumably up to date. That's probably why Wikipedia doesn't want to be a directory. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 08:14, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

hi IP user! the BFDI community on Wikipedia has had a rather... interesting history as you can see by the deleted pages. it's been created, deleted, created, deleted, chain continues on until it gets salted, created, deleted and salted again at the draft, and now we have a draft on its fourth season specifically plus your draft on the subgenre it created. saltings basically happen if the article is repeatedly recreated, which is the case here (and I think BFDI is one of the most egregious cases here, to the point where I believe it's been completely blacklisted from creation), and unfortunately I don't think it will ever be lifted in the near future to allow an article to be created.

a long while back (maybe 2017 or so, during an attempt by the discord community to create an article), I did a search to help with article creation and if I recall correctly, there was no sources that came close to being reliable. even today it doesn't have reliable sources, the only news article I can find is a Forbes Contributor article on that Fandom Fantasy Food contest where jnj basically pulled their fans to victory, which is not exactly reliable and does not even have significant coverage since it focuses on the contest itself.

I think this is one of, if not the defining example of fame =/= notability. bfdi has a giant fanbase enough to spawn lots of fanfics and shows inspired by it, wins popularity contests, episode 1a has 63m views and the compilation of its first season has 20m, jacknjellify has 1.2m subs, yet it has absolutely no significant coverage in reliable sources and nothing backing its claim to notability unlike other webfics such as Homestar Runner, Don't Hug Me I'm Scared, Hazbin Hotel, and Eddsworld. and I'm not saying this as someone against the creation of a potential BFDI article, as I would've planned to make one once I had enough experience with article creation, but (surprisingly for a 10yo web series) it's still too soon to make one.

oh and regarding anchor stores, I'd also suggest you read Wikipedia is not a directory, but the tl;dr has been stated above. I mostly just wanted to mention this all since I feel I should give my input as someone who is both a fan of the series and a semi-experienced editor. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 10:54, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Renaming to an inactive user on different Wikipedia

Hi. I want to rename my username to “1979”, but the username is taken on de.wikipedia. I thought I found a notice board to request a change to an inactive user’s name, but apparently it’s only for en.wikipedia natives, and “1979” is not. Is there a noticeboard which allows for taking inactive usernames from other Wikipedias? 1979 (contribs)   11:06, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Speatle Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I think you are referring to WP:USURPNAME. 331dot (talk) 11:09, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, but it’s only for en.wikipedia usernames, and 1979 is on the German one. 1979 (contribs)   11:10, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Just realized that. :) That board is at this page on Meta. 331dot (talk) 11:10, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

It says in the preview that the wiki is meta. Does that mean the name change will only be for that Wikimedia project? 1979 (contribs)   11:16, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

@Speatle, all accounts are linked globally, so whatever username you'll have on meta will be the same on enwiki, and vice versa. that's also why you can't rename to 1979 just yet despite them not being in enwiki, the username is still taken globally across all wikimedia wikis including both dewiki and enwiki, so you can't change to "1979" without changing the other 1979's username to something else, like 1979~dewiki. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 11:38, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Expanding article

I need to understand, what the heading should be in an article to expand the article? Like using aftermath or something else, where a company left a country due to its rules or regulations. Basically need to know what should be the heading in article under which mentioning the context and sources, for example " Overseas Operation, Exiting (Country name) and etc". @Venkat TL Love2read&write (talk) 08:20, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Venkat TL Welcome to the Teahouse. "Aftermath" may well be appropriate. You can find some guidance at MOS:HEAD. Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:29, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

(responding to ping) @Love2read&write Can you name which article you are referring to? It will be easier to answer. @Shantavira link is helpful. May be a section named as "Overseas operations" or "Countries served" can have such kind of info. Venkat TL (talk) 09:25, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for providing right information. In regards to my question, i did some changes over there, kindly review it once. Thanks again Love2read&write (talk) 13:36, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia page

Hello, i'm Musical artsit, how can i have Wikipedia page for myself? My knowledge panel : https://g.co/kgs/Ty7es8 Drillbaz (talk) 14:25, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

@Drillbaz: Welcome to the Teahouse. An article about you could be written if you meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines (some extra to consider for musicians). Having a Google Knowledge Panel does not have any bearing on Wikipedia's criteria. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:40, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

But note that if Wikipedia ever does have an article about you, it will not belong to you, will not be controlled by you, and may end up saying things that you would prefer it didn't say. Please see an article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. ColinFine (talk) 15:06, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Request move draft intro a page article

(Someone edited this page to remove this section. I hope I did the right thing by putting it back. Feel free to Fix it if I messed up.) 73.127.147.187 (talk) 12:21, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

(Sockpuppet?) 73.127.147.187 (talk) 12:40, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for resolve this issue 196.78.238.51 (talk) 12:35, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm a fairly new Wikipedia editor, I request to know how to update the draft move intro of the Wikipedia article page? Or someone make a merge Draft:Soufia Taloni intro Soufia Taloni Please a strong belief that all my articles are best on people that require the wikipedia kind of recognition

However the rules of notability do not seem that clear for me maybe to understand

Aanywell wisher will be grately appreciated 196.78.238.51 (talk) 00:01, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

hi ip user! firstly, you may've forgotten to log in, you might wanna do that. there's a near-identical question that you may've asked a while ago found over at #Created page for : Ali Sabri Musician, which I responded with the following:

you'd want to read the notability guidelines for music topics in this case.

• first, you would need Reliable sources: sources from stuff such as news outlets or trusted sites in the music industry that have a reputation for editorial oversight and fact-checking (not blogs, not wikis, not social media).
• if you do have them, check whether these sources prove that he fits in one of these criteria.
• if you do not have reliable sources or they don't fit the notability criteria, then stop: an article won't be created.. perhaps it may be too soon to create the article, you should wait until they get notability and outlet coverage first.

once you feel like you're ready to take it to being article, you can submit it with the button in your draft: this turns it into an active submission that can be reviewed, and if it is accepted they'll move it to an article. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 00:41, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi melecie, I am so very thankful for your timeand the assistance you provide my business. It is sincerely appreciated

It was very kind of you to refer me to her. I hope I can find a way to return the favor soon! For the Draft:Soufia Taloni merge intro move to page article Soufia Taloni Thank you for your help. and we hope if you can find way to help us as soon as possible you can

And thank you for your understanding

Warm Regards,

Sam 196.78.238.51 (talk) 00:52, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

...one more thing. by my business and us, do you happen to have a connection to Taloni or are they your client? if so, you have to declare your Conflict of interest, see that link for more information on that. if you've been paid, it's doubly more important as undisclosed paid editing is forbidden under the Terms of Use. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 01:07, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi melecie again,

sorry my english is not good): because im french people i try to translate on google I mean you, our business support, and i'm big fan of "Taloni" and i'm his best friend, I speak it every day she's asking me to solve this problem, and because there are many people pretending to be her and cause her a lot of problems

thank you for your understanding

Waiting for your help move draft info namespace article page 196.78.238.51 (talk) 01:22, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

I assume this would be for twitter verification? unfortunately, I am unable to and am not qualified to review drafts and make them articles (plus I am using my phone right now so I am unable to translate the news articles). however, I'd advise you to read Your first article, Writing better articles and gather more reliable sources in the meantime, plus also disclose your Conflict of Interest in your talk due to you being their friend. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 03:24, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello, 196.78.238.51 It's fairly apparent that your motivations for putting a profile of Taloni on Wikipedia are contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. You have said: "because there are many people pretending to be her and cause her a lot of problems", as well as "belief that all my articles are best on people that require the wikipedia kind of recognition". Gaining recognition and solving online problems do not comprise any of Wikipedia's goals. I'm afraid you misunderstand that Wikipedia is not social media; it's an encyclopedia of notable subjects. Please note that trying to help a friend is not a bad thing, it's simply not appropriate for Wikipedia, which is a serious encyclopedia.--Quisqualis (talk) 04:00, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

IP user, I know that English is not your native language. However, you'll need to improve sentences like This coherent playlist to spend a day with a personality, known or not, but with a specificity. so that it makes sense in English. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 12:22, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks you so much for responding and i hope someone will help me to restored the page articles 196.78.238.51 (talk) 12:34, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Ah, I think the OP is a sockpuppet, if it's this user User_talk:Baderantar01. I didn't think we deleted the entire section in that case, but I could be wrong. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 12:39, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

So far only that account has actually been tagged as a sock. We've had posts from socks before and they were not removed after confirmation. (In this case, it was the initial IP who tried to remove their own thread; I agree with the restoration, I restored it myself a moment ago before noticing you'd done it elsewhere). 97.113.167.129 (talk) 14:23, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for that info. I was about 80% sure that the section should not have been removed. Is there enough evidence that 196.78.238.51 is the same person as the one who was blocked? He or she keeps asking for the article to be accepted or restored... 73.127.147.187 (talk) 10:58, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Oh, right, I probably didn't restore ths section to the same place. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 10:59, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

There are odd things going on at that draft, but I'm not sure if anything "illegal" is actually happening, or if there's enough good evidence for an SPI. It might be fans or family members or one person whose IP keeps changing and who doesn't bother to log in. 97.113.167.129 (talk) 12:35, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Resolution, for anyone still interested: apparently a case of long term cross-wiki abuse. Several more accounts/IPs blocked, draft rejected and semi-protected. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 15:14, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia based on consensus or hierarchy?

I started to create pages for missing high impact academic journals. I included all necessary information to represent the journal and prove its notability. Two experienced editors rampaged my talk page with job description that I cannot leave the hard work to others for collecting further information. All the pages I created are more complete than at least 80% of similar pages on Wikipedia.

Why are older editors bossing new ones by telling what to do (not guide/assistance, but outlines of job description)?

Every page I created was in compliance with the policies. Where is it ruled that a journal page can be created if the name of the editor is added? If they feel it is needed, they can add it themselves. Why are they complaining that they are doing my job? What is my job here?

If Wikipedia (not one editor or two) does not want me to create missing pages, I can stop doing it; but why trolling me and my contributions? MojoDiJi (talk) 21:22, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi MojoDiJi, sorry to hear that you're feeling frustrated with your editing experience. Creating new articles is unfortunately relatively difficult. I looked at this article you created, Energy Storage Materials. While it's better than no article, it is very short and could do with some expansion. The page Wikipedia:WikiProject_Academic_Journals/Writing_guide was linked for you; the users who linked this are more experienced in this area than me. I would try to follow it when creating articles in the future. Also adding categories etc is needed for new articles. You could take more time to research first. I hope you still feel willing to contribute; we need editors, but creating new articles is a lot to get the hang of and it can take a while. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 22:12, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

@Rubbish computer: thanks for your kind message. As I mentioned before, these short articles are based on the template given to me by one of the editors. This is the common format for all journal pages. My problem is that they boss me that because I did not fill a few items on the template, they should clean up my mess to complete it. It is not my job. I have no obligation to provide all the information. I always add categories, but I don't understand the order that I must add all categories. MojoDiJi (talk) 00:17, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi MojoDiJi, no worries. You describe the articles you are creating as making a "mess". That's not how creating articles should go; while it's a lot to get the hang of, if you know you're creating a mess then it's disruptive editing. I would try to plan out the articles better in future, and try to follow the above guideline. While technically we're not obligated to absolutely do anything here, we should be contributing constructively, not making more work for other editors. I hope this helps, Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 00:38, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

@Rubbish computer: You misread me. My articles are nothing close to a mess. I create them based on the standard and common template for journals. The editors in question call it cleaning up the mess because they add more info (not changing, adding more). Nothing I ever created/edited was disruptive in any sense. MojoDiJi (talk) 00:44, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi MojoDiJi, while I don't doubt you have good intentions, this thread was started by you because you didn't like the messages left on your talk page. They're explaining that you need to meet certain quality standards when writing an article. Unfortunately it's not one that I'm that familiar with; not written about a journal before as far as I remember. I would re read that guideline and try to take the advice on board. I can also try to help, I don't know much about this area though. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 00:49, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

@Rubbish computer: It is not being me liking a message or not. It is not about about guidelines. A page, which is not according to the guidelines, can be deleted (but it was not the case). It is about dictating job descriptions for others. I like to create new pages. They say, no, you must spend your time to expand your articles because they don't like to do so. This is what I like to contribute to Wikipedia. What is wrong with that? MojoDiJi (talk) 01:01, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

MojoDiJi, I've given you the advice you need. You need to re-read that guideline, and follow certain minimal quality standards when creating an article. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 01:17, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

MojoDiJi, Wiktionary defines rampage as "To move about wildly or violently". I have never previously seen it used to mean "politely request, providing reasons for doing so", or "politely second another person's polite and reasoned request". Here's one of your creations: Energy Storage Materials. There's no evidence within that stub that the journal in question has been discussed elsewhere. If it has been, then show that it has been. (Here's my own most recent creation. It's rather a mess, one that was improved in revisions made soon afterwards [some of them made by myself], but I think that even its very first version manages to indicate significance.) -- Hoary (talk) 22:16, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

@Hoary: I will stop cleaning up your mess or cleaning up after you is very tedious about a volunteering contribution is polite to you? By clean up, they mean adding more information. MojoDiJi (talk) 00:20, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Let's look at this in context, MojoDiJi. It's not very collaborative to create scores of sub-stubs and leave it to others to do the hard work. You don't even tag articles for the appropriate WikiProjects on their talk pages. So do continue to "contribute to the comprehensiveness of Wikipedia" in a superficial way, but I will stop cleaning up your mess. "Clean up", means, I think, "attempt to transform into something worth viewing". The first two sentences seem polite to me. The invitation that's the first half of the third sentence seems unnecessarily hospitable, and the very last part just describes what Randykitty won't do. -- Hoary (talk) 02:06, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

MojoDiJi - To answer your title question, it's based on both hierarchy and consensus. New articles and article contributions by newer editors tend to be given extra scrutiny, while editors with longer editing histories are given more leeway. As a specific example of the fluid nature of the site, articles for deletion discussions and outcomes tend to fluctuate between consensus and policy, depending on how skilled the closer is at sifting through the arguments and making the right decision. So it's kind of like real life. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:50, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

@Timtempleton: I have no problem with scrutiny, but commanding me that I must add information, which are not stated as mandatory in the official policy, is a different story. MojoDiJi (talk) 00:22, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

There's more than one obvious option, MojoDiJi: Add information to the substubs you've already created; create articles that aren't mere substubs; work on other, existing articles.... -- Hoary (talk) 02:06, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

@MojoDiJi: I see that you gave a barnstar as your third edit, so I assume that you are somewhat familiar with the backstage process on Wikipedia, whether because you edited without an account before or just lurked long enough. I do not think you should cling to the mantle of "new editor" much longer.

You are entirely correct that creating incomplete stubs is allowed. Whether it is useful for our readers or not is debatable. But please consider that annoying other editors is a problem, even if you think you are 100% right and those other editors are idiots, divas, etc.. If lots of people wish that you would be blocked, even if you don’t actually get blocked, it makes editing a miserable experience.

Your behaviour is similar to deleting images without cleaning up the redlinks (an example taken from that humorous page). Deleting images according to policy is good, but leaving redlinks is bad, even if a lawyer-ish reading of WP:VOLUNTEER means you can do it without fear of administrative sanctions. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 15:34, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

How to propose a draft for deletion?

It seems to me that the draft Draft:Matt Walsh (pundit) should be deleted, as the page Matt Walsh (political commentator) is on the same subject; however I do not know how to let the editors know or propose it for deletion(the PROD says to use only on articles). Jaguarnik (talk) 03:27, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

@Jaguarnik: It's done via a process similar to Articles for Deletion; see WP:Miscellany for deletion. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 03:33, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

User:Jaguarnik - Please do not nominate drafts for deletion only because there is an article in article space. The draft should be redirected to the article, and that is what will normally be decided at MFD, but the deletion nomination is work for volunteer editors. Redirect the draft to the article. If you do nominate it for deletion, the MFD will normally be closed as Speedy Redirect. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:26, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Question about a new User.

Hi, I have been editing off and on for about a decade. I had a question about a new user who joined this week, Achmad Rachmani, who focuses primarily on International versions of Television programmes, with a bit of grammar correction on the side. I've noticed that he likes to do a lot of small edits off and on over the course of many days. The programme that I know him from is Family Fortunes. Before his arrival, there was a list of International versions of Family Fortunes, about 6 or 7. Achmad proceeded to make 2 lists One was International versions and the second is now titled International versions which use similar elements to All Star Family Fortunes. Then he deleted the first grid International versions which featured actual versions of the programme. I try and correct certain mistakes he makes and he reverts them and then a few hours later he reverts the corrections that I made back on his own terms.

I see that he is correcting pages every day, doing small edits each day a little bit at a time, not all at once. He's a very busy guy. I see, there is a certain editor on Wikipedia, AldezD who sent him a message askig about his multiple minor edits and advised him to become a Pending Changes reviewer. He made the request early yesterday, but then deleted it after about an hour. It all seems a bit suspect to me.

I know that it's only one of the pages that I contribute to and I can lay off, but this editor is making continuous minor edits to the same pages, a little at a time each day, since he began earlier this week. They are erasing good data, and may continue in subsequent days perhaps making unnecessary edits. Iam not sure of the other programmes they edit, but they are getting a bit impossible with trying to figure them out. Can someone please give me advice on howw to handle them or other editors like him. Thanks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?target=Achmad+Rachmani&namespace=all&tagfilter=&start=&end=&title=Special%3AContributions&limit=50

135.0.252.54 (talk) 13:40, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

• Well, the usual advice is to try to talk to them first, then follow the steps at WP:DR if that fails. Unless they are doing really wrong edits, in which case WP:AIV or WP:ANI is the way to go, but it does not apply here. In any case, you should come with specific WP:DIFFs of the specific edits that cause problems, not with a general complaint.

Now... I do find their editing pattern a bit weird. For the last four days (May 29 - June 2), they started editing around 1:30 - 2:00 (UTC), did at least one edit every 30 min, and stopped around 17:30 (UTC). Now, that’s not impossible, but it means they are editing nonstop for basically all the time they are awake (a 16-hour timespan). Achmad Rachmani, can you please confirm that you are not using automated or semi-automated tools to make edits? If you are, please stop right now and read Wikipedia:Bot policy first. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 15:54, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Tigraan for the advice. Maybe We should address his talk page to talk to him?

As for specific examples, I know that on the Family Fortunes entry before his arrival, there was a list of 7 international versions listed at the bottom of the page. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Family_Fortunes&diff=1090181931&oldid=1090124512. Achmad in his many edits on the page, got rid of some internatonal versions ansseperated the International versions into 2 grids International versions and International versions that use the same graphics.https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Family_Fortunes&diff=1090885280&oldid=1090885091. I fixed the header of the second grid, adding extra equals signs to make the header identical to the one on the top, he then reverted my edit soon after and about a few hours later, unexpectedly, went back to my edit. He soon after got rid of the "International versions" grid and kept the "use the same graphics" grid. Is this grid even valid and the original version simply listing the International versions would be better suited?

A couple of days later, he updated the name of the Irish show Alan Hughes Family Fotune to Alan Hughes' Family Fortune. To do a test, I reverted and rereverted the edit, keeping the added apostrophe to see what he would do, as I did not get rid of anything. Two Hours later, he himself unexplicably removed the apostrophe he added that morning. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Family_Fortunes&diff=1091158584&oldid=1091147387

The thing is I can forget about this for a while and let this go for the time being to let him have his fun, but, as you stated, he has a strange editing pattern with a passion for minor edits on various pages for many days straight. I can only vouch for what happens on Family Fortunes, but it just seems to me that something is weird with Achmad Rachmani.135.0.252.54 (talk) 16:45, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

WIKIPEDIA CONTENTS BY LANGUAGE

I'm a native Portuguese speaker. Too little original knowledge is produced in Portuguese. To the contrary, almost all knowledge produced in any language is available in English. Furthermore, here in Latin America, there's much politically affected opinions. So, I'd suggest to make the contents already available in English also available in other languages. This would have an enormous effect in making better knowledge accessible to the world. It could be done using bots. Right? Thank you so much!!! Ecelso Zanato (talk) 13:21, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

@Ecelso Zanato: We already have projects that are working to create articles in other languages feel free to translate or contribute to them as well. You may find some great projects at the Portuguese language Wikipedia at [9] McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 13:26, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you McMatter!

What you said, it seems to me, is a labour intensive task, as you mentioned "to create articles in other languages" Ecelso Zanato (talk) 13:34, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

It is quite labor intensive, @Ecelso Zanato. Translating an article from one language to another is often the equivalent of creating a whole new article. Bots - as they currently exist - do a poor job of translating, especially if the languages are quite different, so it takes a person with a good knowledge of the languages involved to create a good translation. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:36, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

You know,McMatter, my experience with Google Translate from English into Portuguese is that it works quite well. There are few errors of translation, but this is a very cheap price to pay for the wealth of good knoledge it would bring into our Portuguese world, that is now completely unavailable for so many hundreds of millions of creatures that are now like hostages of this beautiful but poor language... Ecelso Zanato (talk) 14:58, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Machine translation is not allowed on English Wikipedia, but each Wikipedia has its own rules. You should ask at the Portuguese Wikipedia what their rules are for machine translation. RudolfRed (talk) 16:13, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Ecelso Zanato - two things. One is that you would need to request such a change (allowing machine translations) on portugese wikipedia. The other is just a note that need for care is critical on things like biographies of living people. It would be cold comfort to someone libelled by a mis-translation that most articles were understandable. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:21, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Oh, thank you Nosebagbear! You're so kind!

I didn't invent Macmatter. See it above! (McMatter (talk)/). Your Further note: ((I am not McMatter (as far as I know), I'm an IP editor - something you won't see on Portuguese Wikipedia anymore)) It really hurts me. I'm not an expert in Wikipedia like you are, sorry! I was only trying to find a speedy way to make available for poor Portugueses-only-speaking people the great contents of English Wikipedia. Sorry!!!!

In this video ([10]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTtqKXRoy10) they say that to do something to Wikipedia you must have a thick skin. I now have experienced what they mean. So sorry!!!

Just yesterday I've made a donation to Wikimedia. To be treated this way?

You don't have to answer me. It was enough! Ecelso Zanato (talk) 17:53, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

@Ecelso Zanato, I apologize if that came off as an insult of some kind. I was just pointing out that you weren't replying to who you apparently thought you were replying to. And adding, as an aside, that IP editing has been banned at ptWP, so you won't see IP editors there. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:02, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

And this, Ecelso Zanato, demonstrates just how hard it is to translate articles from one language Wikipedia to another. You are a Portuguese speaker whose written English is quite good, but even so you misunderstood what 199.208.172.35 was saying to you, and – completely mistakenly – thought that they were somehow insulting or belittling you instead of pointing out a minor mistake in a wholly neutral tone, and adding some entirely factual information in a slightly oblique fashion.

The work of translating articles from English to Portuguese really needs to be done by Portuguese speakers whose English is even better than yours, or English speakers with equally good Portuguese. Unfortunately, there are very few Wikipedia volunteer editors (all Wikipedia contributors are volunteers) with these skills and with enough time to make a detectable dent in translating English Wikipedia's 6¹/₂ million articles, which hundreds of thousands of editors have between them taken over 20 years to create, improve and accumulate. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.209.235.54 (talk) 04:30, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Further note: I am not McMatter (as far as I know), I'm an IP editor - something you won't see on Portuguese Wikipedia anymore! 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:24, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

• Ecelso Zanato The reason machine translations are forbidden on en-Wikipedia is a bad experience in 2015-2016 (see Wikipedia:Content_translation_tool#English_Wikipedia_restrictions). I am relatively confident that machine translation tools (at least between the most common languages) are, or will soon be (before 2030), at a level equal or above that of bilingual speakers that are not professional translators.

However, the technical task of translating is only part of the job. Another part is checking whether the subject of the article conforms to the standards (guidelines) of the new Wikipedia - some topics in pt-Wikipedia are not acceptable in en-Wikipedia and vice-versa.

The hardest part is checking that the content of the article are useful. en-Wikipedia contains many poor articles, and a few outright hoaxes. I am confident I could write an article about a minor Brazilian politician and include an incorrect fact such as politician X was accused of corruption in 2018. If I do it well enough, with a source to a long newspaper article in Portuguese that talks about that politician, it would take quite a long time to be detected (few editors will read that article, and most of those who do would just see that there’s a plausible-looking source, not check it, especially if it’s in a foreign language). If a bot later translates that "fact" into the pt-Wikipedia article, that becomes a much more significant issue.

Maybe at some point we could imagine automatic translation of articles that passed a certain threshold (WP:GA?). But those are few. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 16:54, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Fake information (Treatment of Crimea on maps of Russia etc)

The map used in the following article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magadan

Includes Crimea which is not an internationally recognized part of Russia.Magadan 84.28.243.32 (talk) 22:02, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

If you look closely (or click on the location map to see the file), you'll see that Crimea is colored with alternate yellow and gray stripes. That means that its status is disputed. Deor (talk) 22:20, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

I actually mistook the link. I was referring to Magadan Oblast: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magadan_Oblast 84.28.243.32 (talk) 22:30, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Here as well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chukotka_Autonomous_Okrug 84.28.243.32 (talk) 22:51, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, if you find more please leave a message at my usertalk. I'm not promising I'll do anything about this, but I'm at least thinking about it. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:07, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

@Mzajac:, as the creator of a Russia map used on the Russia article NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:10, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Decline article

 Courtesy link: Draft:Don Destani
Hi dear Wikipedia team, hope you are doing well

I just made an article for one new artist, I wroted all what need bio, career etc... and on the end you declined my article can you please tell me more reason why did you do this to me?

Or you need more information about this Artist Don Destani!

Best Regards,

Naser Ademi Naserademi2 (talk) 00:20, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

@Naserademi2: Welcome to the Teahouse. As the reviewer noted, the sources used don't demonstrate the subject's notability as Wikipedia defines it. Resubmitting it without making any changes is likely to irk any reviewer looking at it in the future. Also, external links shouldn't go in the body of the article. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:46, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Additionally, @Naserademi2, your user page is a place to write a little about yourself as a Wikipedia editor. It is not for hosting promotional, unsourced content about an organization. It has already been deleted once - please do not continue restoring inappropriate material. 97.113.167.129 (talk) 01:02, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

It also appears to be a possible copyright violation of the About Us section of the store's website. @Naserademi2, you can not copy+paste from your sources into Wikipedia - you must paraphrase the information in your own words. 97.113.167.129 (talk) 01:11, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

@Naserademi2, do not remove posts of yours that have already received replies. They will be automatically archived after a few days of inactivity. 97.113.167.129 (talk) 01:29, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

http url wrongly rewritten as https for icecast.rte.ie in href

I tried to add a link to a file under http://icecast.rte.ie to ga.wikipedia.org but it seems wikipedia replaces http with https in the href for hosts in rte.ie even though icecast.rte.ie only serves http. I have had to use the nowiki tag to stop wikipedia from generating the broken href, or any href for that matter: surely this is a step backwards from the web of hyperlinks! How can I get wikipedia to respect my urls, particularly http? 121.127.206.113 (talk) 21:33, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

if you put brackets [ ] around the url it will preserve the http RudolfRed (talk) 22:36, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

[11] no it doesn't, as you can see here. 121.127.206.113 (talk) 22:42, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Wierd. I was using [12] and it seems to preserve the http for me in that case. Not sure how to solve your problem. If you don't get an answer here try WP:VPT RudolfRed (talk) 23:37, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

iirc the automatic converting to https is a change that happened on mediawiki several years ago as part of a greater expectation internet-wide that https should be the standard everywhere. If the external site doesn't handle the redirect to HTTP that's a problem on their end. I'm not sure why the example.com doesn't get changed but maybe it's whitelisted. Zindor (talk) 23:55, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

@Zindor we don't for all links to http, it is more nuanced, see the link below and the linked tasks if you want to know more. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:16, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Zindor (talk) 01:35, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#http_url_wrongly_rewritten_as_https_in_href_for_icecast.rte.ie where this was also explained. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:15, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

How to Improve Draft

Can anyone tell me please how can I improve this Draft:Lubna Marium draft? I have given a lot of references. I would be happy to tell you in detail how to do it. Thanks.--Ayatul nish (talk) 18:51, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

@Ayatul nish: Get rid of EVERY CLAIM that is not cited to a source. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 19:13, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

@Jéské Couriano Didn't understand well. Would you please explain the details?--Ayatul nish (talk) 19:44, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't think Jeske possibly could be any more clear. Every statement needs to be sourced. PRAXIDICAE💕 19:45, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Praxidicae Ok thanks brother, If i do, i can expect good reviews right? Ayatul nish (talk) 20:14, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

@Ayatul nish: Refer to the bottom table at User:Jéské Couriano/Decode and remember: YOU ASKED FOR THIS.

• Lubna has been part of Bangladesh’s Cultural Movement from childhood. - Source?
• Before the war in 1971 she participated in many demonstrations, rallies and cultural performances protesting oppression by the Pakistani regime. - Source?
• In 1971, with her family, she worked in the Kalyani Refugee Camp in India, under the aegis of the Cent for Communal Harmony run by the late Smt. Maitreyee Devi. - Source?
• Later, she was part of the Advanced Dressing Center in Sector 7 of the Mukti Bahini, where her father Lt.Col. Quazi Nooruzzaman was the Sector Commander of Sector 7. - Source?
• He was, later, one of the Founding Members of Ekattorer Ghatok Dalal Nirmul Committee.^[sic] - Source?
• Lubna can be seen in the film ‘Muktir Gaan’ as part of the ‘cultural troupe, named Bangladesh Mukti Shangrami Shilpi Shangstha which used to travel to refugee camps and different areas of the Mukta Anchal, to perform patriotic songs, arrange puppet shows and stage dramas to inspire the freedom fighters and refugees with the Spirit of Liberation. - Irrelevant/tangential and promotional; 86 this.
• Completed a ‘Pilot ICH inventory Project’, by UNESCO (Dhaka), involving local communities and practitioners on a selected number of intangible cultural heritages of Bangladesh in 2017. - Source?
• Researched and revived Bengal’s martial dance, ‘Raibesh’ and the medieval dance form ‘Charya Nritya’ within dance practice of Bangladesh. - Source?
• Researched and worked with folk theatre companies performing the ritual theatre of Manasa Mangal. - Source?
• Researched ‘Lathikhela’ country-wide in 2010 – 2016. - Source?
• Lubna was married to Jamal Ahmed Sufi, Managing Director of Charuta Private Ltd. - Source?
• Lubna’s father was Kazi Nuruzzaman and her mother Dr. Sultana Zaman Professor Emeritus of the University of Dhaka, was the founder of Bangladesh Protibandhi Foundation (BPF), an organization for the mentally disabled people. - Source?
• Dr. Sultana Zaman was awarded Begum Rokeya Padak in 2008 by the Government of Bangladesh. - Irrelevant. The article should be about Lubna, not her immediate family.
• Her daughter Anusheh Anadil is a Bangladeshi musician, artist, cultural activist. - Irrelevant.
• Lubna’s son, Kushan Omar Sufi, is a designer and musician. - Irrelevant.

EVERYTHING I called out above with "Source?" either needs to be properly cited to a source that corroborates it or straight-up removed. You CANNOT just slap sources at the end of the paragraph and call it good; they need to be cited at the claim itself. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 20:11, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

I understand, thank you brother. I will do it the way you said. agin thanks.Ayatul nish (talk) 20:28, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

@Ayatul nish The draft now says ...under the aegis of the Cent for Communal Harmony run by the late Smt. Maitreyee Devi. Two questions: if "Cent" means "Center", please spell it out. And what does "Smt." mean? 73.127.147.187 (talk) 02:58, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

 Note: OP has been blocked as a sockpuppet. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:01, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Article Regrade?

Hello! I hope all is well!

Out of curiosity, I was wondering how the process works for getting an article regraded? Before any edits to my article, my article was a S (start class) rating and I wanted to see if the additions I made is enough to get it from an S grade to at least a C grade. If you have any information on getting my article graded, I would really much appreciate it.

Thank you,

Jtruongucr (talk) 06:19, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Up to C, and perhaps even up to B, it's informal. I've just now upgraded it to B. It's good, but it is rather wordy and even a little repetitive. Try reading it out loud: I think you'll find yourself thinking "Hmm, didn't I already say that?" -- Hoary (talk) 07:53, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the feedback and regrade! I will edit it and hopefully fix those wordy and repetitive errors! Thank you so much for the help, I really appreciate it

Jtruongucr (talk) 15:35, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Jtruongucr, I quote: Friday, 3 June 2022 / Milestones / Everyone should have finished all of the work they'll do on Wikipedia, and be ready for grading. Whew -- I hope you met that deadline. Anyway, well done. Even after the deadline (and any minor extension allowed to it), do please stick around, even if it's only for minor tinkering with what has already been written. -- Hoary (talk) 21:26, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

My professor kindly extended the deadline for us! I will stick around as I think this community is pretty cool and it's neat to edit articles that help educate others (even if I'm not the best writer ).

Jtruongucr (talk) 21:30, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Hoary likes this. 07:59, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Tools/gadgets for downloading references

I've become interested in a subject I know little about. To get started, I'd like to download ALL of the references cited in a given article (Eco-economic decoupling) into one local library, and then read offline at my leisure. Are there any scripts gadgets tools etc that help automate the download chore? Thanks NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:05, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

@NewsAndEventsGuy we do not have a utility for that, many references may not even be "downloadable" - as they could be books, journals, or other things that don't include a web address. You can browse down to the references section (Eco-economic_decoupling#Notes_and_references) and use your browser to open things that do have links in multiple tabs, - then use a browser extension of some sort. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:32, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Bummer but thanks for the reply. I use endnote. A script could do this, and generate a table reporting results, including "not downloaded, reason unknown" or whatever. If I care enough, I'll bring it bring it up at the Vpump NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 08:03, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

How do you do the shortcut thing

i was on IPA when i saw this table.

		BL	LD	D	A	PA	RF	P	V	U	EG
Ejective	Stop	pʼ			tʼ		ʈʼ	cʼ	kʼ	qʼ	ʡʼ
	Affricate		p̪fʼ	t̪θʼ	tsʼ	t̠ʃʼ	tʂʼ	tɕʼ	kxʼ	qχʼ
	Fricative	ɸʼ	fʼ	θʼ	sʼ	ʃʼ	ʂʼ	ɕʼ	xʼ	χʼ
	Lateral affricate				tɬʼ			c𝼆ʼ	k𝼄ʼ	q𝼄ʼ
	Lateral fricative				ɬʼ
Click (top: velar; bottom: uvular)	Tenuis	kʘ qʘ		kǀ qǀ	kǃ qǃ		k𝼊 q𝼊	kǂ qǂ
	Voiced	ɡʘ ɢʘ		ɡǀ ɢǀ	ɡǃ ɢǃ		ɡ𝼊 ɢ𝼊	ɡǂ ɢǂ
	Nasal	ŋʘ ɴʘ		ŋǀ ɴǀ	ŋǃ ɴǃ		ŋ𝼊 ɴ𝼊	ŋǂ ɴǂ	ʞ
	Tenuis lateral				kǁ qǁ
	Voiced lateral				ɡǁ ɢǁ
	Nasal lateral				ŋǁ ɴǁ
Implosive	Voiced	ɓ			ɗ		ᶑ	ʄ	ɠ	ʛ
	Voiceless	ɓ̥			ɗ̥		ᶑ̊	ʄ̊	ɠ̊	ʛ̥

• IPA help
•  audio
• full chart
• template

Shaded areas denote articulations judged impossible.

the BL, LD, D, A, PA, RF and other stuff have dots underneath them and when i hover over them, my cursor changes to a question mark symbol (?) and a grey box appears with the meaning underneath my mouse. Leahnn Rey (talk) 08:03, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

hi @Leahnn Rey! that would be a tooltip, and you can do one using {{tooltip}}. for example: {{tooltip|Did you know...|...that Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia?}} to create Did you know... happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 08:11, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Wow thank you melecie. You're the best. Leahnn Rey (talk) 08:13, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Removing deletion tag from copyright violating image

One user who copied a photo from Twitter at File:Dmitry Utkin.jpeg is edit warring to remove the speedy deletion tag.

This user has no license and no permission from the original poster. He believes that just because it was posted on Twitter, it means it should be posted here too. 106.222.78.155 (talk) 06:48, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Really? You surprise me. It seems to me that Abovfold isn't claiming "The fact that it's on Twitter means it should be on Wikipedia too", but instead is claiming "fair use" within a particular article. The teahouse isn't the right place either to debate whether a non-free file satisfies Wikipedia:Non-free content or to report edit warring. -- Hoary (talk) 08:14, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

On the english Wikipedia, non-freely licensed images are permitted under the US Fair Use doctrine, iff they meet all of the non-free content criteria (other Wikimedia Projects might have other rules, Wikimedia Commons and the German Wikipedia do not permit Fair Use images, for example). In this case, however, I am not convinced that this image meets Criterion 1, because it might be possible to create a free image, depending on how far the subject is involved within the current Russian-Ukrainian conflict. Victor Schmidt (talk) 08:25, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Uploading and using photos

I have uploaded loads of photos of public transport and I will upload another ones to Commons: https://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedista:Penguin9/Moje_fotogalerie_MHD

Where can I tell to Wikipedists: “You have photos here, feel free to use some if you like them”?

Also, where can I find out which photos are needed to be uploaded? I will try to find them in my archive or take them. Penguin9 (talk) 10:50, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Penguin9, welcome. The most central place to let people know about the photos would be to post on the talk page/discussion board of the related Wikiproject, additionally if there is a specific article you think could benefit from them but are unsure about whether to add them, you could post on the article's talk page, or just be bold and add them. As an example you could post on the talk page of Wikiproject Czech Republic. To find out some articles that are missing images you can look in the related category, such as Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in the Czech Republic. Thanks, Zindor (talk) 11:10, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

That's an excellent gallery, Penguin9. But perhaps it would be better at commons:User:Penguin9 (or a subpage thereof). Or if you'd prefer to leave it where it is, then on commons:User:Penguin9 you might say a little about what people will see if they click the link to cs:Wikipedista:Penguin9/Moje_fotogalerie_MHD. And ... Ostrava! It's odd: the images I have of the city are those of Viktor Kolář. -- Hoary (talk) 13:07, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

it is possible to get off earth so why havent we

we have been able to get off earth for multiple millenea so why are we still here 222.154.243.198 (talk) 08:36, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Do you have a question about the use of Wikipedia? -- Hoary (talk) 08:53, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

I think this guy is a troll. Leahnn Rey (talk) 09:19, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

if trolls had been online in the silurian how would we know?NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:41, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm getting confused

So I created this article under three months ago, where there was general consensus that it should be published to mainspace and it somehow barely does not fail WP:BLP1E (courtesy link here). But then someone redirected it back, saying it does fail BLP1E. I opened a discussion at Talk:Toki Pona to gather some consensus, but I thought I might seek more community input here. Thank you. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 13:41, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi, 3PPYB6, welcome. You're doing the right thing by discussing the situation with those involved. For future reference though, while the Teahouse is central, it's not a noticeboard. Regards, Zindor (talk) 14:04, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons edit summary not possible

I uploaded something to Wikimedia commons however after doing some changes am no longer able to edit the summary of my upload, I believe it is because I not knowing any better added a reference to the top most line in the source editor, but I dont know for sure, is there any way for me to fix this? Frislr (talk) 14:19, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Frislr, Wikimedia Commons is an image repository and has a different function than Wikipedia. You should be able to leave a summary in the upload form though (commons:Special:Upload). Sungodtemple (talk) 14:24, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Frislr, there may be some confusion here between (1) the Help:Edit summary that appears in the history as "Uploaded own work with UploadWizard" versus (2) your ability to edit the Summary section of the file description page c:File:Byzantine Empire 1340.png#Summary. "Edit summary" has a special meaning here which is different from "editing the summary" ;). For case (2), I still see the Edit link myself. Have you tried reloading the page? ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 23:57, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind response, and I am sorry for misusing "edit summary". I have tried to reload the page, however the file in question is this one https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Byzantine_Empire_1350.png where the edit link no longer exists Frislr (talk) 11:15, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

No need to apologise, Frislr. Is not misuse, just an unlucky collision of terminology. I now see that the int:filedesc (Summary) heading got broken here. The == signs need to be at the beginning of a line for it to be recognised as a heading and to have an edit link. (I might have been mistakenly looking at an old revision when I said it looked fine to me, sorry.) A workaround is to use the Edit tab at the top of the page and do a whole-page edit instead of a section edit. Another user has since repaired the heading; I moved the ref, but not sure if the place I dropped it is where you intended. Hope that helps! ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 13:10, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much this did very much help! I will try to keep this info in my mind should I ever do this editing mistake again, and the reference also indeed is where I wanted it to be.

Kind Regards! :P Frislr (talk) 14:41, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Two questions related to editing a Wikipedia article

That is my talk with one of editor. Please read and answer my questions!

Me :- you removed my edit from Umran Malik without any significant reason. I added references and nothing was puffery there every reference is from reliable website. I did everything according to Wikipedia Guidelines. You should have to explain me reason or revert your edit! -Gorav Sharma Thegoravsharma (talk) 14:55, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Editor :- Hi. You added "He is famous for his fast bowling and is considered to be India's fastest bowler at present." That's not encyclopedic for starters. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:58, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Me :- Ohk! I have two questions : Q1) After how many edits i won't be a beginner? Q2) Wikipedia article related to your point “That's not encyclopedic for starters”? Thegoravsharma (talk) 15:08, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Editor :- Hi. Please ask at the WP:TEAHOUSE - it's the place for new editors to raise questions. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:13, 4 June 2022 (UTC) Thegoravsharma (talk) 15:38, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

@Thegoravsharma, there is no specific amount of edits required for you to "not be a beginner". You need to have a clear understanding of the editing guidelines. Articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and be backed with reliable sources. Also keep in mind to avoid puffery. Thanks, Kpddg ^(talk) 16:12, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Further, to be more specific, the bowling speeds of the article subject is already mentioned. He has not yet represented the national team as well. Kpddg ^(talk) 16:33, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Would I be fit for being an Edit Filter Helper?

I am wondering whether I am qualified enough to become an edit filter helper if I want to help with AIV. Thank you! NotReallySoroka (talk) 16:42, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi NotReallySoroka, you could ask at Wikipedia:Edit filter noticeboard. Cheers, Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 17:07, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Can someone close this RfC?

This RfC has been open for a month. Can someone close it please? JimKaatFan (talk) 19:51, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

@JimKaatFan You need to post on WP:ANRFC Venkat TL (talk) 19:56, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Aditing

can I please get help about aditing am struggling and how to share some of my biography I wanna right a story about my life and share it with the world P.V.Mkhaliphi (talk) 13:19, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

If you want to write a story about your life and share it with the world, Phumzza, please do so on your own website. This is an encyclopedia, not a collection of autobiographies. -- Hoary (talk) 13:32, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

P.V.Mkhaliphi, Wikipedia, unlike Facebook, is not the place to post poems or to ask for help with life's problems. Wikipedia is not social media. --Quisqualis (talk) 22:27, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Surname Links

Question 1:Template:Surname links provides a useful link to Living People. For example, Living People whose surname is Smith is this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Living_people&from=Smith . If you use that link in the See Also section of the Smith (surname) page, then XTools (https://xtools.wmflabs.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Smith_(surname)) flags an error and says "The script finds an external link that should be replaced with a wikilink." (It doesn't do that now as this is just an example). Is there a wikilink for this URL?

Question 2: Template:Look from provides a list of pages beginning with Smith, for example. Is there any template or way to search for pages ending in a word or phrase? 2A00:23C8:4384:FB01:6CC0:F487:94EC:C4DE (talk) 00:54, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I.P. , just to partially answer Q1, it would be more appropriate in an article to link to List of people with surname Smith instead of a category page, as categories are for maintenance purposes rather than for readers Zindor (talk)

Thank you. I delete my first question then! 2A00:23C8:4384:FB01:6CC0:F487:94EC:C4DE (talk) 01:48, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Talk to improve the page.

Historians are confused about the history of Prithviraj Chauhan. Books which do not match with history should be removed from this page. That's why it is necessary to have this conversation. -- Karsan Chanda (talk) 01:49, 5 June 2022 (UTC) Karsan Chanda (talk) 01:49, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

References

hi @Karsan Chanda and welcome to the teahouse! the proper place to have this talk would be at Talk:Prithviraj Chauhan, where you can get inputs from those watching the article. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 01:55, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Articles Not Showing On Google

Dear community, I have worked on this articles for sometime now but they do not show up on Google search. What might be the reason?

Thanks

1. Tima Kumkum
2. Ghandour Cosmetics Limited
3. DJ Loft
4. Kweku Darlington

Dallez (talk) 00:49, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

• Hello, Dallez. A new article has a hidden noindex tag that prevents search engines from indexing it. The tag goes away if a new page patroller marks the article as patrolled/reviewed, or if 90 days goes by without a review. An exception is that highly experienced editors who have created many problem-free articles may be granted the autopatrolled user right. Their articles are indexed by search engines promptly, often in minutes. See WP:NOINDEX and WP:AUTOPATROL for more information. Cullen328 (talk) 01:00, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

@Dallez: If you want to find out if a page can be indexed by robots, you can press "Page Information" in the sidebar. There'll be a row that says "Indexing by robots: Allowed" or "Indexing by robots: Disallowed." As Cullen328 said, articles are indexed if they are over 90 days old or are marked as reviewed. I.hate.spam.mail.here (message me | my contributions) 05:29, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

@I.hate.spam.mail.here: I am afraid that is this incorrect. The Search engine status listed in the page information does not reflect the actual status in all cases. Ghandour Cosmetics Limited, for example, is flagged as allowing search engine indexing in its page information, however, it is still flagged as <meta name="robots" content="noindex,nofollow"> in the HTML source. AFAIK the only reliable method to determine wether a page is allowing indexing is to look for the robots meta tag in the HTML source. Victor Schmidt (talk) 07:12, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the information, Cullen328 Victor Schmidt — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dallez (talk • contribs) 08:39, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

How long does it take before a new article show up on google search , article I created not showing

Hello Wikipedia editors, I’m delighted to ask questions, we have more experience editors here, I’d want to know how long those a new article that has lasted for more than a week take to show up on search engine like google. The article has been edited be different editors yet it’s not showing on google search, someone should help. this is the article Dotun Oladipo , I just need clarification on this. Thanks Kenpmi (talk) 11:14, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

hi @Kenpmi and welcome to the teahouse! pages aren't shown by search engines unless it has been reviewed by a new page patroller. however if it takes 90 days before it could be reviewed, it will be shown by search engines by then. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 11:39, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Please help me.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alvinsaldanhaecd/Dayana_Erappa I am uploading links and references. Please do not delete my page. Alvin J Saldanha 10:25, 5 June 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alvinsaldanhaecd (talk • contribs)

hi Alvinsaldanhaecd and welcome to the teahouse! drafts won't typically be deleted unless it's been 6 months, so as long as you're actively working on your draft, it probably won't be deleted. happy editing! (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.) 💜  melecie  talk - 11:02, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Alvinsaldanhaecd, I imagine that you want this to become an article. I quote from it: Erappa has been the lead model and a key part of campaigns for [list of over twenty brands] -- with a total of zero references. You'll need to cite a reference for each brand, and the references must be independent of her. -- Hoary (talk) 11:57, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

why

why did wiki revert my edit even though it was true? 2405:6E00:1E62:C401:8835:8414:CF36:7484 (talk) 11:53, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Your edits were reverted because you did not provide reliable sources. Kpddg ^(talk) 11:58, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Assuming you mean your edits here [13], see WP:VANDAL. If you want to play, go somewhere else. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:01, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict)All content on Wikipedia must be verifiable. You might know its true, however, to the furthest of my knowledge it is not possible to tell who is on the other end of the Network cable. The verifiability requirements are particularely strict for living (and recently departed) people, because we're not interested in a rerun of this. See also: Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth Victor Schmidt (talk) 12:01, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

And it's unlikely that person was 500 or even 223 cm tall. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:13, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Link

Can someone link the article 2022 Trooping the Colour with the commons category c:Category:Trooping the Colour 2022? Peter Ormond 💬 10:55, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

It should have been as simple as adding {{Commons category|Trooping the Colour 2022}} to the article but previewing that gives an error related to Wikidata. I'll leave it to someone more experienced with the intricacies to sort this out.... Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:25, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

I added the WD sitelink at 2022 Trooping the Colour (Q112169010). The situation is a bit crap, because some topics (not this one) have both a Commons gallery and a Commons category, then which one gets the sitelink? (the cat. is more preferred, but not universally so). ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 12:16, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

oops, forgot ping @Peter Ormond ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 12:17, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Ref Error

FYI

 – I added section header Kpddg ^(talk) 15:48, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi. My 1st visit to the Teahouse. I'm having trouble w the Journal template on a new article:

Gertrude Sans Souci

spec. I keep getting error messages on ref 5:

{{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

What's wrong with the date? And why {{cite journal}} warning? I'm accessing JSTOR through Hennepin Co. Library. Help appreciated.

DET (talk) 14:55, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

@Davidevanthomas, I have fixed the problem in this edit. Kpddg ^(talk) 15:36, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Report

Hi, I maybe found an editor that have 2 other accounts and im quite sure about that 'cause those two accounts do the same edits, write the same things and one of this accounts entered into the talk page of the editor in question claiming to be another editor who had been making edits of that type for months, in reality this account has only existed for 2 days and also, if it were really another editor, he should not know about the conversation between me and the editor, but strangely he know about the conversation. However, I would like to report this fact and also the fact that the editor previously ignored me when I tried to talk to him about some of my changes that he undo. User:MorteBiancaFan MorteBiancaFan (talk) 15:35, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello, @MorteBiancaFan, and welcome to the Teahouse! Please see WP:Sockpuppetry for more information. At this stage, it would be great if you could start a sockpuppet investigation into the users, and provide evidence like diffs to support your claims. If you need anymore help, feel free to ask here. Have a great day! HenryTemplo (talk) 16:03, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Dutch name sorting and capitalising

Hello,
As explained in more depth here and here, Dutch names that have prepositions, do not have the preposition capitalised. They are also not sorted by preposition. Both these things happen regularly on EN:WP and I find myself fixing that equally regularly when I come across it. Both of these do happen correctly when such Dutch people (and their descendants) immigrate. Example:Martin Van Buren.
I came across Mark Van Drumpt in Category:Sportspeople from Arnhem and fixed his name to Mark van Drumpt. However, this man is only notable for things he did in Ireland and so I was wondering if What I did was correct. 2nd Q.) He is defaultsorted by Van Drumpt. Do I leave this as is? Change it to Drumpt? Or, do I use the |pipe and do it different for Irish and Dutch categories? Dutchy45 (talk) 13:38, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

@Dutchy45: Welcome to the Teahouse. This is one of those Wikipedia things that can be confusing to maneuver around. This subsection in Wikipedia:Categorization of people acknowledges that categorisation of people when they have particles in their names can depend on factors like individual's personal preference, traditional cultural usage or the custom's of one's nationality. You may want to ask at a place like Wikipedia:WikiProject Categories for additional, more specialised input. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 13:59, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

@Tenryuu Ok I will, but what about Van/van? Dutchy45 (talk) 16:04, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

@Dutchy45: Again, that's something you should discuss with Wikipedia:WikiProject Categories or on the article's talk page, especially when sources seem to refer to him with and without the capitalisation —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:54, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Companions of Liberation

I am making a draft on Companions of Liberation, but an article on the list of Companions already exists. Since my draft is a translation of the same in French and that the article is just majorly the list, can I merge this list to my article after completion (or delete the list and keep mine because it contains the list + extra info)? Excellenc1 (talk) 12:37, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

@Excellenc1, welcome to the Teahouse! Merging seems a better choice to me. However, I think discussing it at the talk page of the article or the relevant Wikiprojects should be the first step. Regards. Lightbluerain (Talk💬 Contribs✏️) 18:14, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Propose re-adding Muslim League Attack book

The article on the book "Muslim League Attack on Sikhs and Hindus in the Punjab 1947" got deleted on what seems to me were very weak grounds. (Here's an archived copy of the article and here's the AfD discussion.) What steps would I take to propose reversing this decision? Fabrickator (talk) 16:20, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

@Fabrickator, you can follow the steps at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Kpddg ^(talk) 16:22, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello Fabrickator. See WP:DELREV. ColinFine (talk) 16:30, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Fabrickator, if you want Wikipedia to have an article on the book, I think you'd do best to start afresh – the archived version cited no sources, and the referencing of the version discussed in the AFD was not great. Your first step should be to find several reliable independent published sources with extensive discussion of the book. Once you've done that, the rest should be easy: write the article basing it on what the sources say, citing them as you go. Maproom (talk) 18:45, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

That. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:54, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Date of death

"Rotha Beryl Lintorn Lintorn-Orman (7 February 1895 – 10 March 1935) Born 7 February 1895 London, United Kingdom Died 10 May 1935 (aged 40)"

10 March 1935\10 May 1935??? 31.173.81.8 (talk) 19:49, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

This is about Rotha Lintorn-Orman. Her gravestone, as cited in the article, gives her date of death as "10th March, 1935". Do you know of a source that says otherwise? Maproom (talk) 20:08, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

I believe the user was trying to highlight that there was a confusion in the article regarding March/May. Lead and body of the article (and the gravestone) stated March, whereas the infobox stated May. I have fixed the date of death in the infobox now. – NJD-DE (talk) 20:11, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia Statistics

I am wondering if there is a way to see my user statistics such as the date I created my account, the date I gained access to the Wikipedia library, and the number of edits I have done.

ScientistBuilder (talk) 20:30, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

@ScientistBuilder: Your preferences page lists your number of edits and the date your account was created. Dunno about Wikipedia Library access. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 20:32, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello, ScientistBuilder. Go to your userpage, and click the "User contribution" link in the left menu. Scroll to the very bottom and click "Edit count". You will find a wide variety of statistics. Cullen328 (talk) 20:36, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Color templates not working in sig

Hi. When I try to add a color, say aqua, into my sig, it doesn’t turn to that color, but is just the blue link to my user page instead, like this:blueskiesdry... 22:21, 5 June 2022 (UTC). Any idea how to fix this?

Hi, Speatle, try putting the formatting inside the link like this: [[User:Speatle|<span style="color:green;">blueskiesdry</span>]] instead. Hope that works, Zindor (talk) 22:30, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

what I believe is happening here is that the <span> is coloring the text, but since there's a link inside it, the link's style overrides the span for the text. if you put <span> inside the link, the span overrides the link's style instead, allowing the text to be colored inside the link. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 22:59, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @Zindor and @Melecie, it’s working fine now. blueskiesdry… (cloudy contribs…) 23:04, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Switching usernames

I had to switch usernames since I forgot my password and didn't set up an email at the time. Is there a way to move my talk page to my new name? Wcdowchb (talk) 23:05, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately no, but I do recommend and suggest back-linking to your old username and user talk page. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 23:10, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Would this be okay for the sandbox?

Is it okay to paste an American English article in the sandbox and translate it to omorocononogolosoho? (American English O's, not significantly related to Cheerios)

Example: Google's free service instantly translates words, phrases, and web pages between English and over 100 other languages

Translated Example: ogogolosoforo, osorovoconosotonotolo, otoronosolotosoworodoso, opohorososonodo, owobopogosobotowono, onogolosohonodo, ovoronohonodorodo, otohorolonogogoso

>Convert all numbers to English word equivalents >Replace all vowels with o >Put an o between each two consecutive consonants >Any 'word' with 5 or fewer consonants is concatenated with the previous 'word', or the next 'word' if no previous 'word' is present. >if a 'word' doesn't have an o at the beginning and end of it, add them tonod becomes otonodo >Any two or more adjacent o's become one o, otoono becomes otono >Put a comma after each 'word', remove all other punctuation

Use Google translate to parse the paragraph if you want to hear it.

2600:6C4E:1200:1E85:B039:FC34:FBAE:FD28 (talk) 22:22, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. That doesn't sound to me as if it would be a suitable use of a sandbox: how does it assist in creating the encyclopaedia. See WP:UPYES for what user pages (including your sandbox) can be used for. ColinFine (talk) 22:34, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Writing an article that will probably get deleted

says that it's okay though?

"But if you really have a temptation to, do it in the Sandbox where no one really cares as it gets automatically reverted once in a while anyways."

Also... it could be considered funny? Sorry, no citation for this. Can't find a reliable source, and OR isn't allowed...

2600:6C4E:1200:1E85:B039:FC34:FBAE:FD28 (talk) 22:40, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

WP:NOTWEBHOST is the relevant policy. The page you linked is humorous and clearly disavows being rooted in policy.Slywriter (talk) 22:45, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

you could always just keep it in your computer instead. that way the only one who can delete it is you. barring you let anyone access to your computer, but eh 💜  melecie  talk - 22:49, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Would uncyclopedia accept it? Perhaps another one? How hard is it to start your own wiki? Could Jimbo be persuaded to recognize it as a language? If enough reliable sources accepted it as an official language would that work?

Okay, that's probably enough... I'll step aside for more pertinent matters. 2600:6C4E:1200:1E85:B039:FC34:FBAE:FD28 (talk) 22:54, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Good idea 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊|🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦|☎️|📄 00:08, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

When is original research OK?

Hi there,

On the article Asian handicap, the (uncited) description of quarter goal betting is factually incorrect. It's true in half of cases (by coincidence), but is flat-out wrong in the other half. (I've given the correct answer on the talk page)

Now, I of course don't expect you to believe me, nor should you. And my understanding is that this would be original research. I haven't been able to find a source for my claim, and it's not the sort of thing you'd expect to find.

So what should I do?

1. Remove the (half-correct) uncited information, leave the article silent on the matter of quarter-goal handicaps
2. "Be bold" and add original research that I know personally to be true, hoping that nobody will check
3. Leave the page alone with demonstrably incorrect information

Thankful for any advice!

98.128.180.201 (talk) 00:46, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Do number 1. WP:ORIGINAL applies against for number 2, WP:BOLD applies against number 3. 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊|🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦|☎️|📄 01:10, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

This would have me remove everything in the article save for the lede, since nothing appears to have any source. Also, on the topic of sources, all of them except for one are pretty obvious spam, so to be consistent I should cut about 90% of the lede. The only source that isn't obvious blogspam is SCMP, which only says the following:

Football bets are made according to what has become known as the Asian handicap system. Teams are handicapped according to their form, so a top team playing a lesser one will be given a handicap of 2.5 or three, meaning they must win by three goals or more for a punter betting on them to win.

"The Asian handicap system was invented in Indonesia after the 1990 World Cup, when football betting really began to become popular in Asia. It's a way of creating viable odds for the bookmakers," says Visanu Vongsinsirikul, an expert in football betting at the Centre for Gambling Studies at Bangkok's Chulalongkorn University.

To be frank, I think that this would be a terrible outcome, since about 80% of the article is entirely accurate, and I would be sad to cut it away just because it doesn't have a source even if it's entirely true - it's not like we're defaming the numbers by being mean to them. Is there something less brutal that could be done here?

98.128.180.201 (talk) 01:22, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Try and find citations, perhaps. 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊|🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦|☎️|📄 01:24, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Put {{citation needed}} alongside every suspect assertion. Works for me.Doug butler (talk) 04:25, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Can someone please help me align the text in this table to the left

"Der Fischer"

"The Fisher"

Das Wasser rauscht', das Wasser schwoll, Ein Fischer saß daran, Sah nach dem Angel ruhevoll, Kühl bis ans Herz hinan. Und wie er sitzt und wie er lauscht, Teilt sich die Flut empor: Aus dem bewegten Wasser rauscht Ein feuchtes Weib hervor. Sie sang zu ihm, sie sprach zu ihm: »Was lockst du meine Brut Mit Menschenwitz und Menschenlist Hinauf in Todesglut? Ach wüßtest du, wie's Fischlein ist So wohlig auf dem Grund, Du stiegst herunter, wie du bist, Und würdest erst gesund. Labt sich die liebe Sonne nicht, Der Mond sich nicht im Meer? Kehrt wellenatmend ihr Gesicht Nicht doppelt schöner her? Lockt dich der tiefe Himmel nicht, Das feuchtverklärte Blau? Lockt dich dein eigen Angesicht Nicht her in ew'gen Tau?« Das Wasser rauscht', das Wasser schwoll, Netzt' ihm den nackten Fuß; Sein Herz wuchs ihm so sehnsuchtsvoll Wie bei der Liebsten Gruß. Sie sprach zu ihm, sie sang zu ihm; Da war's um ihn geschehn; Halb zog sie ihn, halb sank er hin Und ward nicht mehr gesehn.

The waters purled, the waters swelled,— A fisher sat near by, And earnestly his line beheld With tranquil heart and eye; And while he sits and watches there, He sees the waves divide, And, lo! a maid, with glistening hair, Springs from the troubled tide. She sang to him, she spake to him,— “Why lur’st thou from below, In cruel mood, my tender brood, To die in day’s fierce glow? Ah! didst thou know how sweetly there The little fishes dwell, Thou wouldst come down their lot to share, And be forever well. “Bathes not the smiling sun at night— The moon too—in the waves? Comes he not forth more fresh and bright From ocean’s cooling caves? Canst thou unmoved that deep world see, That heaven of tranquil blue, Where thine own face is beckoning thee Down to the eternal dew?” The waters purled, the waters swelled, They kissed his naked feet; His heart a nameless transport held, As if his love did greet. She spake to him, she sang to him; Then all with him was o’er,— Half drew she him, half sank he in,— He sank to rise no more.

𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 12:45, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Ficaia, I hope you don't mind, i've done it in the table you posted. Is that better? Poetry is often presented centrally, i'm actually not sure of en-wiki standard though. Regards, Zindor (talk) 13:06, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

You might want to use template:verse translation instead. --small jars tc 13:09, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

@Zindor:, @SmallJarsWithGreenLabels: Thanks for your help. Now I'm wondering why the 2 columns of text don't want to align properly. Hmmmm. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 13:12, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Ficaia, it's the non-strict inline styling, which is a practice best avoided as it has varying results and is time-consuming to fix. In other words, if you remove the instances of &nbsp ; the text will align itself flush left. The <br> tags could be replaced with wikitext but that's not needed for the alignment to work Zindor (talk) 13:25, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

I've removed them now to illustrate the change Zindor (talk) 13:28, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

A very minor point, but I hope that font-weight:bold; will go. -- Hoary (talk) 13:35, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, as far as i'm concerned you're welcome to remove it entirely or replace it with a non-deprecated attribute, i just slipped it in quickly to remain consistent with style of the original table. Zindor (talk) 13:58, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, folks 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 15:52, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

@SmallJarsWithGreenLabels: @Ficaia: The text doesn't align on narrow displays due to word wrapping. One way to guarantee alignment is to put each line in its own table cell, but that isn't really what tables are for. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:50, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

login ussue

i have an account but i am unable to login and trying to reset my password but not getting any email from wikipedia Syed md ataullah (talk) 08:11, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

See Help:Logging_in#What_if_I_forget_the_password?. Make sure to check your spam folder. If the emails truely don't arrive, I am afraid it will be impossible to recover the account. Victor Schmidt (talk) 08:22, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Grammar assistance, please!

What is the proper form for this statement? "Since both parents worked XXX days per week, XXX was often responsible for (child care)." OR: "Because both parents worked XXX days per week.." OR: "As both parents worked XXX days per week.." I'm old and befuddled. Thanks, Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 21:02, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Maybe 'Due to X's parents working X days a week, X was often responsible for the childcare of his/her older/younger sibling [insert name]' Zindor (talk) 21:31, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Tribe of Tiger, all three of your alternatives are fine. I wouldn't use Zindor's no doubt well-intentioned suggestion: its first half sounds somehow constipated to me (and conventionally calls for an apostrophe on "parents", an addition that would do nothing to aid the constipation); and we can infer from the context that the care is childcare (and not aftercare, Medicare, etc). -- Hoary (talk) 21:53, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

I debated that apostrophe for half a second and considered it archaic and superfluous. The 'since' in the first example can be read two different ways, one of which may be incorrect. The second example starts with 'because', an odd sentence starter, and the third sentence sounds too casual. My example might be 'constipated' but it allows for specific details and doesn't create ambiguity. Zindor (talk) 22:04, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Zindor, I fear that we have to disagree. For me, "since" would only be ambiguous if it introduced one or more events (e.g. "Since both parents lost their jobs"), nothing seems even slightly odd about starting a sentence with "because", and nothing about the third option sounds particularly casual. -- Hoary (talk) 22:20, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

If you're worried about ambiguity, just turn the sentence the other way round: XXX was often responsible for child care because his/her parents worked XXX days per week. Elemimele (talk) 22:23, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

One would ordinarily precede "because" with either direct context or a clause. Example: ('X had to look after X because...'). You can read 'since' as meaning a) since the specific date the parents starting working that many days a week or b) just a general reference to the fact the parents work those days. 'As' seems casual to me but i admit it is the best option of the three. At the end of the day it's all English and doesn't really matter Zindor (talk) 22:34, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks to Hoary for support, I also prefer an apostrophe on "parents". Elemimele, this is an elegant solution, thanks! Zindor, your suggestion of a clause to precede "because", is very sensible. Friends, sorry for the Tempest in the Teahouse! Years ago, I was dragged over the coals, per a similar use of "because". Yes, Zindor, I agree that it's all English, & perfectly understandable to me, as a native speaker. But one editor became very picky, and the nuances really mattered to them! So, I doubted my abilities. (45 years+ since middle school, etc, etc) Thanks to all, I have the confidence to proceed. Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 02:08, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

• The Guardian style guide, entry "as or since?", says: “As” is causal (...) “since” is temporal (...). Merriam-Webster says that’s snobbery overly formal, "since" can be used just fine as a causal link, and that some snobbery people might also object to "as" as causal. I have not looked much further but I suspect much ink (electronic or physical) has been spent on the subject.

@Tribe of Tiger: Your options are either to write whatever you want without thinking too much about it, or proposing an MOS entry for a point of snobbery detail. (Guess which one I recommend?) Tigraan^{[[User talk:|Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)]]} 16:07, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

@Tigraan: Thanks for the excellent and interesting links, esp the Merriam-Webster essay. I am going with "because", prefaced by a clause, per Zindor's suggestion. Best, Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 06:55, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Tigraan, those are some useful links but neither gives justification to start calling people snobs. I kindly ask that you keep those opinions to yourself. Thanks, Zindor (talk)

Tigraan (repointing ping)

@Zindor: if Merriam-Webster mentioned snobs, it was in a rather humorous manner. I don't see that Tigraan accused anyone of being a snob. Best, Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 06:55, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

@Tribe of Tiger: just for posterity's sake i'm going to address this. Merriam-Webster didn't use it, there was a throwaway comment at the end of the article about a related term, but no actual usage and not carte blanche to use snob thrice in a different context. The implication is clear from what's written above, that anyone prescribing to those certain views on grammar is apparently a snob. It's not the first time the term has been bandied about here at the Teahouse and it needed addressing. That's all, i'm not otherwise concerned, there's bound to be diverging views on a question of grammar. Zindor (talk) 10:57, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

@Zindor, I have read MW again and you are so obviously correct. Apologies for not reviewing carefully, prior to my comment. Thanks for explaining that the term has been a problem here at the Teahouse. Very respectfully, Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 03:13, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Withdrawing "snob" since apparently that’s offensive. For the record, as the rest of my post shows, I have no really strong opinions about whether the use of "since" as a causal word is acceptable or not. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 08:48, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

page editing

How to page edit because my autobiography was declined Saravjeet shah (talk) 06:02, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Just don't write about yourself on Wikipedia. It's that simple. Given the notices on your talk page, it is apparent that you are unable to write about yourself in a neutral manner. You can try again via WP:AFC however, but be sure to read and fully comprehend Wikipedia:Golden rule first. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:43, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Saravjeet shah Actually, Speedy deleted, which is more severe than declined. Given that expert editors saw no potential in there being an article about you at this time - as in you provided no references to indicate notability in the Wikipedia sense of the world - unlikely you will succeed in a third attempt. If in time your career progresses, someone with no connection to you might craft and submit a draft about you. David notMD (talk) 09:50, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

If somebody does successfully write an article about you at some time, Saravjeet Shah, please note that the article will not belong to you, will not be controlled by you, will not be for your benefit except incidentally, should be based on what people unconnected with you have chosen to publish about you (not on what you or your associates say or want to say), and may end up containing material you would rather it did not contain. See an article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. ColinFine (talk) 10:43, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Writing a Biography of a Living Person

Hi everyone,

I would like to know what is required exactly to write a solid Wikipedia article as a biography of living person.

Thank you in Advance Klick2Link (talk) 08:17, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse Klick2Link there is some useful help here Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Theroadislong (talk) 08:19, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

While writing about a living person, it is essential that the article is written from a neutral point of view and backed by reliable sources. See WP:BLP for more information. Kpddg ^(talk) 08:20, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Your user name suggests that you are being paid to edit, (https://www.instagram.com/klick2link/) you will need to change the name and disclose your paid editing status on your user page. Theroadislong (talk) 08:24, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

See WP:PAID for disclosing paid contributor status. RandomBlobby (talk) 12:53, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

@Klick2Link You need to find several solid independent sources, and write your article as a summary of them, with inline citations in the right places. See WP:BASIC and WP:TUTORIAL. No good sources, no WP-article. See also WP:ISU. If you want, you can have a username like "Kim at Klick2Link". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:40, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Time from "publishing" translation to article available to the public

Hello. Four months ago, I translated and published an article that existed in Spanish into English (User:Mcfellie/Manuel Álvarez Ortega - Wikipedia). I can't really find any information on how long it takes from when I publish the translation to when it is then available to the public and attached to the original article in Spanish. I can see the translation in my contributions, but it hasn't advanced anywhere. Is it in a queue to be reviewed? How long does this take? Or did I miss a step somewhere? Thanks for your help! Mcfellie (talk) 13:02, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Mcfellie, your article is still in your userspace so without submitting it to WP:AFC or boldly moving into mainspace, it won't be visible to readers. Though, I would advise not to be bold in this case as the sourcing requirements for en-wiki mean the article is not ready in current form. En-wiki wants in-line citations for a biography, not a general list of references, a requirement not always found with other languages. See WP:INLINE and WP:BLP for more information.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Slywriter (talk • contribs) 13:23, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of moving it to draft space here Draft:Manuel Álvarez Ortega and added the submit template, but it does need inline citations before submitting for review. Theroadislong (talk) 13:48, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Mcfellie, the article is of course available to the public now, which is what is meant by "publish", and anyone can read it. If you mean when will it be found by search engines, that will not happen until it has been approved as a Wikipedia article.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 14:04, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Isabella Macdonald Macdonald or Isabella Macdonald ??

Hello, I wonder whether Isabella Macdonald Macdonald is her real name or if it could be Isabella Macdonald (a printing mistake of the BMJ ?) BMJ wrote "Isabella Macdonald Macdonald" [14] The Times wrote "Isabella Macdonald" [15]. Her sister is Louisa Macdonald. [16] Best regards, Pierrette13 (talk) 07:20, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello Pierrette13!

You can ask this question on the talk page of the article. I noticed there are two articles: Isabella Macdonald and Isabella Macdonald Macdonald so you might be confusing them.

If you have any questions, you can leave them on my talk page. Rhinocesus (talk) 08:42, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello @Rhinocesus:, thank you for your answer. Isabella Macdonald is someone else (Canadian lady). --Pierrette13 (talk) 15:11, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

"Isabella Macdonald (physician)" could be a better title, but again, I'm not sure what's "best" here. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:49, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

@Pierrette13 Good question. I think these names do exist, but "Isabella Macdonald" may be the WP:COMMONNAME anyway, it's hard to say per sources in the article. You could try asking at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:46, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello @Gråbergs Gråa Sång: and thank you. There is such a lack of sources that it's for the moment impossible to understand where the "Macdonald Macdonald" comes from. Best regards, --Pierrette13 (talk) 15:11, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

It could be the result of her marrying a man with the surname Macdonald. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:22, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello @Gråbergs Gråa Sång:, but there's no husband around... --Pierrette13 (talk) 06:15, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

@Pierrette13 Do you know that per available sources or do they just not mention one? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:00, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Or could it be a patronymic-familyname thing? Did they "do that"? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:10, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

This source [17] also gives "Macdonald Macdonald", making printing mistake less likely. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:16, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

And [18][19] pretty much confirms it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:26, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

In Scotland it was at one time extremely common to give the mother's maiden name as a middle name for the first born child - this is how footballer Bob Wilson ended up with the odd (for a man) middle name "Primrose". In the case being discussed it may be that a Miss Macdonald married a Mr Macdonald (it is a very common surname after all) and they followed that practice even though it didn't really make much sense..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:50, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

She is the elder sibling that WP knows about, but we also state that her mother was née Kid. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:00, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: - ah, I hadn't spotted that. Don't know then, in that case..... :-S -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:39, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Thank you for your help ! Mystery remains... Have a nice day, --Pierrette13 (talk) 10:57, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

@Pierrette13 and @ChrisTheDude, sequel at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities#Isabella Macdonald Macdonald. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:26, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

My KFMB-TV Edit was reverted in 10 minutes

I added subheadings to the Wikipedia page for KFMB-TV in San Diego. The history section goes on for many paragraphs and I thought it would read better with subheadings. In ten minutes someone reverted everything I did. How does this happen? A bell goes off and someone races to the computer to undo someone else's work? It only takes ten minutes to figure out everything I did was wrong? There was no effort to keep anything I did. And no explanation of what I did wrong was given. I'm sure others will feel discouraged from helping do any editing of Wikipedia articles if met with this event. Greg Colamonico (talk) 15:17, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Greg Colamonico Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm sorry that you feel discouraged. There are many ways that someone could see your edit. All edits appear in the Recent Changes feed, which is monitored by many users. Users may also have articles in their watchlists and see your edit. Reversion is a common practice, and isn't meant to discourage (although it does). Please engage the other editor in discussion on the article talk page, so you can each offer an explanation and arrive at a consensus. 331dot (talk) 15:29, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

@Greg Colamonico: Welcome to the Teahouse. In addition to 331dot's comment, I'll point out that your edit summary is misleading: while some subheadings were added, you also changed some of the wording in sentences. In any case, please discuss this with Mvcg66b3r on Talk:KFMB-TV. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:59, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello Tenyuu. I hope I wasn't misleading. For brevity, I didn't mention I changed a few things like "located on Mount Soledad" to "atop Mount Soledad." I divided some run-on sentences. I added a link for "network affiliate." Etc. But nothing substantial was changed in the article. The main difference was adding subheadings.

The person who reverted my changes has also reverted changes made by other people on April 20 (about 500 characters), March 15, December 22, June 17, June 5, etc.

I'm not sure how I discuss this with the person who keeps reverting. Is there a way to contact? Greg Colamonico (talk) 17:19, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

You should first attempt to use the article talk page; you can use user talk pages, which you can find links to in the article edit history, if that doesn't result in a response. 331dot (talk) 17:25, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

OK, figured out how to use the Talk:KFMB-TV page. I will post my questions there. Thanks! Greg Colamonico (talk) 17:36, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Beginner Needs Help

I have three questions that I think are easy to answer by most of you.

1. How do I create a box that contains info?
2. How do I add images in a box or article?
3. How do I create a new page on Wikipedia?

MK882 (talk) 18:39, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi MK882, you can find out more about infoboxes at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes. To insert an infobox, use an infobox template inside {{these signs}}. For example, {{infobox}}. To add an image, write [[File:Image name.jpg]] inside the infobox; if not jpg, delete and replace that part as applicable. To create a new article is difficult, but more info on it is covered at Wikipedia:My first article. Hope this helps, Rubbish computer (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 18:52, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Also to actually physically create an article, just search the title on Wikipedia and if it hasn't been created yet, a red link should come up. Follow the link to create an article. It's complicated to get the hang of though; there are strict standards concerning which articles are allowed, which I would read about first at Wikipedia:My first article. Rubbish computer (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 18:55, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Abstract indicator tag for paywalled scientific sources?

This is about the {{cite journal|title= |etc.=}} reference tag. Sometimes I find a scientific paper that would make an excellent source, but I only have access to the abstract, BUT the abstract has useful information in it. The abstract is a mini-introduction that the science journal allows people to read for free, with the rest of the paper behind a paywayll.

What I'm asking is if there's a way in the ref tag to indicate that the source is abstract-only. (At least until someone with a subscription or access through their university JSTOR etc. makes improvements). So far, I've been writing the word "Abstract" in the "title" space, like so: [20] I couldn't access the full text of the paper, but the abstract said how big the frog was and what it looked like.

Almost all professional science papers have abstracts, and huge numbers of papers are paywalled. Has someone on Wikipedia addressed this already? Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:14, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

@Darkfrog24, referring to Help:Citation Style 1#Type, it seems this parameter already exists in some templates (including cite journal, it looks like) and will take "abstract" as a value. Does that help? 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:28, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Oooh, it also has meta-analysis! Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:25, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Yep. I have no idea what that means, but it sounds Very Important. Happy hopping! 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:27, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

(I have educated myself, it's very important indeed!) 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:26, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

@Darkfrog24: thank you for your very sensible question (and thank you to the IP who answered it). The future is brighter. You are probably already aware of this, but "Plan S" is gaining ground. Here's the explanation from Nature: [21]. Nature of course are likely to play this down, because they're a publisher who have traditionally operated a very non-open policy. But in some areas plan S is huge: it covers more or less all academic funding in the sciences in the UK. It links public funding to an expectation that the public will be allowed to read what they funded. In future, you will get more than just the abstract! Elemimele (talk) 19:06, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

We may hope. One of the reasons for the violent insanity of the past several years is that the facts are behind a paywall, while the lies are available for free. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:10, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

How can I have my user talk page under archives?

I'm wanting a Wikipedia page archiving robot to archive my user talk page before she gets too long. How can I make these requests? Angela Kate Maureen Pears 13:43, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

@Tropical Storm Angela, see Help:Archiving a talk page. Kpddg ^(talk) 15:37, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Tropical Storm Angela, would you like someone to give you a hand sorting this out? I'm not great with archiving, otherwise i'd help, but i'm sure someone else here would be able to lend a hand. Kind regards, Zindor (talk) 18:08, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes! I'd like someone to lend a personal hand before my own user talk page extends much too long. Angela Kate Maureen Pears 20:02, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Ok, great, hopefully someone notices and is able to give you a hand today. Otherwise i'll see what i can do tomorrow. Zindor (talk) 20:25, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Tropical Storm Angela, i've added the template for the archive bot onto your talkpage. Once your talk page gets to 10 threads long it should automatically archive it for you. If you'd like it adjusted or if there's any problems just let us know. Thanks Zindor (talk) 21:10, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Musical instruments specialist

Hello, I'm searching for someone who worked on articles about music, musical instruments, experimental instruments to help me to improve the article I'm currently working on. Could you please help me to find such contributor(s). Thank you!!! KatrinKultur (talk) 12:22, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

KatrinKultur. Welcome to Wikipedia editing. I suggest you look a the page WP:WikiProject Council/Directory/Culture/Music, which is the relevant Project page. From there you should be able to navigate to the places where such editors are active and seek assistance. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:39, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you loads @Michael D. Turnbull will try to find someone there. KatrinKultur (talk) 12:42, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

KatrinKultur, I assume that this is about Draft:FuseTar. It's unclear whether your proposed article will be about one particular instrument, or a type of instrument. Maybe the type is "FuseTar" and the specimen you're writing about is "Lucifer"? Or the other way round? You need to make this clear. Maproom (talk) 12:44, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Maproom I try to develop article about particular instrument that, in my humble, opinion belongs to experimental instruments but only one such thing exists or I cannot find any other. Do you suggest to title it as FuseTar 'Lucifer' to be more specific, correct? KatrinKultur (talk) 12:48, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I tried but it doesn't let me to amend the title :( KatrinKultur (talk) 12:53, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

KatrinKultur, the title can be amended, but it's not so easy (and doesn't really matter for a draft). What you should do is to make it clear, in the first paragraph, that the draft is about one particular instrument, unlike say sitar which is about a type of instrument. Maproom (talk) 13:01, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you tons, for that advice will try to do per analogy to sitar. If you see any other ideas improvements please let me know. Or if there is any real-time collaboration tool that you post notes for improvements in the article I'll be happy to see you contribution there. KatrinKultur (talk) 13:04, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musical Instruments#New music instrument article. -- Hoary (talk) 22:01, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Change the title

I am trying to change the title of the webpage, the stadium name has changed and the page needs to be updated accordingly. 2607:FEA8:1121:2600:C4EB:3F4B:25E:67EC (talk) 18:43, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Courtesy link: Aviva Centre. I'm sorry, but I had to revert your edits, fellow IP - they caused a number of problems. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:48, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Changing an article (not a "page") requires a page move, which can be requested at WP:RM. 331dot (talk) 18:52, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I have verified that the stadium has a new name, and have moved the article accordingly. SkyWarrior 01:20, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello

Can an extended confirmed user like me can make an archive page for my messages in my talkpage? Thanks. NewManila2000 (talk) 00:00, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

@NewManila2000 welcome to Teahouse! Check out WP:AUTOARCHIVE for some ideas. Happy archiving and editing! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 01:04, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. NewManila2000 (talk) 01:39, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

A little help will mean a lot

Hello sir/ma i want someone to help me do cleanup and other necessary contributions on Buga (Lo Lo Lo) to improve it, i would be very grateful! Thandks in advance. Celeboyz (talk) 16:49, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

You created the article today - skipping Articles for Creation review - so it is on you to improve the article. David notMD (talk) 20:03, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Celeboyz, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid that, like many new editors, you have plunged into the difficult task of creating a new article long before you have had time to acquire the necessary skills in evaluating sources and establishing notability. A large number of low-quality citations actually add negative value to an article or draft, because a reviewer has to spend time ploughing through them looking for anything of value. I only got a little way through the citations before I got bored, but as far as I have gone: nos 1, 3, 4 are essentially the same text, most of which is quoting the subject; and the commonality between them leaves little doubt that they are all based on the same press release from his team: this means that they are almost worthless, and certainly useless for establishing notability - remember 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. Nos 2 and 5 have essentially no content.

As I say, I got fed up wading through them after that. You need to find at least three sources which each (individually) meet all three of the following criteria: 1) they are reliably published, by a publisher with a reputation for fact checking and editorial control (I have no idea whether the publications of nos 1-5 meet that criterion or not: possibly they do). 2) They are wholly independent of the singer - not quoting him, not written by his team, not commissioned by his team, not published by his distributor or agent, etc. 3) they contain significant coverage of the song, not just a sentence or two.

If you can find three or more such sources, then throw away all the rest, and rewrite your article based on those sources. If you can't, give up and don't waste any more time on a subject will is not suitable for a Wikipedia article.

If you keep any of the existing citations, byou also need to adjust them so that their "access date" is after they were published, not before. ColinFine (talk) 21:55, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

The article is in mainspace now; @ColinFine, will anyone follow up to see if your suggestions are made? I hope so. The article needs grammar cleanup also, which I would do if I thought the article was notable. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 02:25, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

How can I upload logos in the infobox in an article page ?

I was drafting this article about Schoolhouse.world and wanted to upload logos in the infobox . I'm using visual edit from my tablet . How can i upload the logo? Philonoist03 (talk) 07:51, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Philonoist03 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Images are not relevant to the draft approval process, which only considers the text and sources. Fair use images like logos cannot be in drafts anyway. You may add it once the draft is accepted and in the encyclopedia. 331dot (talk) 07:55, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

A couple of (logo-irrelevant) suggestions, Philonoist03. First, the draft tells us that As of September 2021, partnerships include the [...] Colorado Department of Education, which doesn't seem to be the kind of assertion that needs four references. (Indeed, I'm not sure that any kind does.) All you need is one good reference. Secondly, the draft makes numerous mentions of "platforms" and "initiatives". I guess that the former are websites, but I could be wrong. The latter, I really don't know. Please make the descriptions clearer. -- Hoary (talk) 08:29, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Jules Mutebusi

In the article linked above, multiple sources differ on the actual name of the individual. I was wondering which of the following names I should choose for the article, and if there were any wikipedia policies that could help me.

Amnesty International, Newvision, and BBC call him Jules Mutebusi,

The Rwandan, The Guardian, and the UN Security Council call him Jules Mutebutsi

and this one source that the simple english wiki cites calls him both Jean Mutebusi and Jules Mutebusi

There are other sources that support both spellings of his name, and there seems to be no clear majority for either side (besides Jean Mutebusi which I couldn't find many sources on)

Also kind of an off topic question but what is the benefit to creating an account on wikipedia? 2604:3D08:4F83:4500:41F7:1588:BA53:12E5 (talk) 00:30, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Welcome. For your last question, see Wikipedia:Why create an account?, it has some reasons to create an account. RudolfRed (talk) 00:51, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

That's a good first question {{U| -- oh, I was about to ping you, but that's something I can only do for a username. I'd never heard of the website whoispopulartoday.com; but (i) clearly the piece is confused, and (ii) the piece describes itself (rather inconspicuously) as recycled from Wikipedia, so here in not-so-simple Wikipedia it's not thought to be worth taking seriously. That confused piece aside, we have putatively reliable sources using one version of his name, and putatively reliable sources using another. The article started as about Mutebusi, but an IP changed this to Mutebutsi without explaining why. (Let's ping them and ask! Ah, no, can't....) The article should be internally consistent: you or I or anyone could change the spellings within it, and I could retitle ("move") it, and if you had a not-brand-new user account, you could too. But let's first decide which is better. Hang on a minute..... Hoary (talk) 08:49, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Please see, and consider participating in, a discussion I've opened: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rwanda#Jules Mutebu(t)si. -- Hoary (talk) 08:57, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Question

How to create an article? Emkay2004 (talk) 10:16, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Besides creating an article what are the other ways to contribute to Wikipedia? Emkay2004 (talk) 10:18, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

There are more than six million articles in English Wikipedia, of which fewer than 2% are considered Good or Featured articles. The others need improvement. Look at what you know. Remember that facts need to be verified by references. There are other tasks, such as copyediting or vandalism patrol. Go forth! David notMD (talk) 11:24, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

WP:TUTORIAL is a helpful link to get started with. And if you want to create an article, see Wikipedia:Your First Article. Kpddg ^(talk) 13:21, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Giúp tôi cách để bài viết không bị từ chối

Làm thế nào để tạo một bài báo? Emkay2004 ( nói chuyện ) 10:16, ngày 7 tháng 6 năm 2022 (UTC)[Đáp lại]

Ngoài việc tạo một bài báo, những cách khác để đóng góp cho Wikipedia là gì? Emkay2004 ( nói chuyện ) 10:18, ngày 7 tháng 6 năm 2022 (UTC)[Đáp lại]

Hieueuro (talk) 13:31, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello and welcome Hieueuro, this is the English Wikipedia. This is the link for the Vietnamese one. But you have just copied and translated another editor's query. And as for why your article got declined, it was because it was a blank submission Kpddg ^(talk) 13:41, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

gonna be honest this is the weirdest thing ive seen on the tea house. they translated a stolen query into vietnamese on the english wiki. hope they find help on the Vietnamese wiki Smotoe (talk) 13:51, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Request for improvement of categories

I had added an article named Mothparja and improved and expanded it a lot. But still it's categories are as unknown important articles and unassessed important articles . So I think they should changed and also it's class,If and only article is able to. And may you please also review this article to find it's mistakes and to correct them. I will be thankful to you if you help me to improve it a bit.Thanks. FAAHS (talk) 11:05, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

First, do not ask the same question here and at Help. Mothparja is currently unrated. If you want to rate it as Start, do so. The History section needs references. A suggestion: in my opinion the images of mosques and schools add nothing to the article (the buildings are not themselves in any way notable or historic), so I suggest deleting the entire gallery of images as not contributing to the value of the article. David notMD (talk) 11:30, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

@FAAHS This might also help you contribute successfully. You did it three times, consistently, so I'm assuming it's not a typo or one time brain burp. "... still ITS (not IT'S) categories are as ..." "... they should [be?] changed and also ITS (not IT'S) class ..." "to find ITS (not IT'S) mistakes ..." "It's" means "it has" or "it is." In any other context, the word is "its." Uporządnicki (talk) 14:23, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Rated Start / low. Johnbod (talk) 15:22, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Did not mean to be a 'vandal' and ref format question

Just found an edit summary removing changes I made to LGBT rights in Brunei that says "vandal ip". I thought I improved it, as the newer source did not seem to support the other person's addition. I mainly restored what was there before, so did not realise I would be doing anything bad. I moved the person's source into further reading, and added some extra references. I am sorry if I did the wrong thing. After looking around, I can see the editor does lots on LGBT pages, so probably knows lots, and maybe I should have asked them first. I left a message on the talk page saying I am not a vandal. Is that okay? Can someone check if that at least that was done right, please?

Also, I tried to use the multiref template here, but I did it wrong, because I ended up with a lot of white space at the bottom of the group. I was going to check with you about that, but it's been removed now anyway. Maybe I'm not as ready as I thought I was to dive in. 175.39.74.32 (talk) 01:35, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

IP editor, it looks to me like your additions are sourced, and are not vandalism. I'll ping the reverting editor User:Lmharding here to see what they say. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 02:33, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

This is the reply I received from the editor, "accepting" my "apology". Their change was incorrect and has made the article wrong, but I have asked for a quote in reply.

But my main concern is being called a vandal. I have been reading up on policy, which seems to suggest that should not happen. I felt really bad that I had been called that, but see now it should not have even happened. I would like that person's acknowledgement that they should not have said it, and then will leave it all alone, inaccurate or not. I did not realise Wikipedia would be so stressful! 175.39.74.32 (talk) 09:58, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

It can indeed be stressful, especially as an IP, since - as you've learned - we're under more scrutiny. People will make mistakes and disagree and have long arguments about minutiae, even when operating entirely in good faith (and then there are the bad faith types). But if you believe in "the cause", it's worth sticking around. Signing up for an account would make people slightly less suspicious. 97.113.167.129 (talk) 12:26, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

That editor is not acting in good faith, I now realise, having had a good long look around at the merry dance they're leading other people on. They misuse sources and spout off at others. I was all ready to sign up, but if people can blithely fling out the epithet "vandal" (that's in quite a number of their edit summaries) on a thoroughly explained edit that had multiple sources included, without any compunction or anyone even mildly remonstrating with them, then this is not the place for me.

Thanks for your kind help. 175.39.74.32 (talk) 12:47, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

The experienced, long-term editors here do not like others to throw around the word "vandal" when it doesn't apply. Vandalism only applies to edits made in bad faith, intended to disrupt the encyclopedia. Your edits were clearly not vandalism and that word should never have been used. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 14:27, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

I added a note to the reverting editor's Talk page, since they have not replied here. It looks like they have had a couple of admonishments recently. I think your edits were good, and were useful. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 15:30, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Help with modified article

Hello - I have started drafting articles for local scientists and had my first draft declined (for good reason!). I have now modified this in line with the comments and looking at other pages. The link is below and I would appreciate any guidance on the article. I am in the process of drafting my second now.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Philippe_B._Wilson Juliemaddocks24 (talk) 10:00, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Juliemaddocks24 Before doing anything else, clear up if you are paid or otherwise compensated. If yes, declare on your User page. If not, declare on your Talk page. David notMD (talk) 11:14, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

J has denied Paid or otherwise compensated, on own Talk page, so I removed the UPE tag from the draft. David notMD (talk) 15:38, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Kritagyata Trust

Need help in editing the content of this page. Currently the page is parked in draft section User:Naveensrikantaiah (talk) 15:25, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Naveensrikantaiah Burden is on you to provide references for Draft:Kritagyata Trust. David notMD (talk) 15:34, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello. Please do not pipe a website address into your signature, that is advertising. Please review the important information on your user talk page. 331dot (talk) 15:36, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

@Naveensrikantaiah: Please read WP:YOURFIRSTARTICLE. This [[22]] might help also. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:45, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

IMBD only?

Of IMBD notable enough in persons article despite poor reliable sources? Goodvibes500 (talk) 12:32, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't fully understand your question, Goodvibes500; but if you're asking "Is being listing in IMdB evidence of notability?", then no, certainly not. -- Hoary (talk) 12:35, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

@Goodvibes500, could you specify your question? If you are asking whether IMDB is reliable, the answer is no, for the reasons mentioned here. However, it can be used as an external link in some cases. Kpddg ^(talk) 12:36, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

What if IMBD is used as an external link but references are poor or mot present? Goodvibes500 (talk) 12:42, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Goodvibes500, IMDB can be used as an external link sometimes, but that will not compensate for a lack of sources. Reliable sources are a must for establishing notablity. Kpddg ^(talk) 12:44, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

IMDB from my knowledge is just as reliable to essays and articles as to Wikipedia is. Check the sources, see if they're notable, and use them instead of linking the page. I don't know if IMDB shows the sources, but if they do, link them. Smotoe (talk) 16:48, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

i want to talk to my friends

happy 206.126.213.215 (talk) 17:31, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi. Please be aware that Wikipedia is not a social network. However, you are welcome to discuss issues on talk pages. weeklyd3 (message me | my contributions) 17:32, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

hi 206.126.213.215 (talk) 17:33, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Advice on the addition of documentation

I would like advice on how to proceed (if at all) to post a systematic tabulation of works by over 200 artists, many of whom are the subject of articles in Wikipedia. The information is compiled from the publication, Le Musée français, and from historical documentation relating to its publication.

My effort to post the table with this article has been denied for several different reasons: (1) an engineer did this for me under their own account because I am not confident with procedures, (2) because the table utilizes an online source it was said to be redundant, (3) because the table utilizes descriptive information from a widely cited Masters thesis it was held to be unauthoritative and (4) although, consequently, redundant and unauthoritative, the posting was also held to be self-promoting, because the thesis was mine from 40 years ago. (Btw, I retired 10 yrs. ago.)

On the other hand, the posting on Wikipedia would provide opportunity to connect dozens articles about major and minor artists through reference to their works ... and also it would be a unique occasion to identify and appreciate the content of a publication which was admired as a work of art, above all others of similar character when it was produced.

Does the table belong in a separate but related article, e.g. “Engravings of the Le Musée français?” Or on Wikipedia.fr, rather than on Wikipedia.en? George-Amherst (talk) 16:55, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello George-Amherst and welcome to the Teahouse. It sounds like this is outside the scope of Wikipedia, although I'm not familiar with fr.wikipedia and how they operate, mainly as I don't speak French. The proposal sounds like original research and synthesis, which Wikipedia doesn't allow. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 17:32, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

• Hello, George-Amherst. If I understand correctly, you are talking about the information that was added in this edit by Practice2learn, and removed in that edit by Justlettersandnumbers. There’s a few things to consider here.

The only real problem here is whether inclusion of the table is "due". That the table is available elsewhere online is not a consideration for that criterion - the periodic table is available online at many places, but we still have an image of it in Wikipedia. But the periodic table is a major work of physics/chemistry, which has been commented upon by numerous authors, so an encyclopedia containing "the sum of human knowledge" ought to include it. Is that the case for detailed list of the engravings in Le Musée français? Honestly, I do not know. If you have a couple of sources (for example articles in art journals) that cite the list (not just the master’s thesis, but use the list it compiled), I would say it can be made a standalone article linked to the main article, with a short introductory paragraph describing the sources, possible methodology problems in compiling it, etc. (but make sure all of that comes from the existing sources, not your own interpretation of your master’s degree work, else that would indeed be original research which we do not allow here).

I do not think self-promotion is a significant issue here. In the context of academic writing, self-promotion is when you cite your own work in preference to the work of others, or give it undue prominence in Wikipedia articles. But when your own work is indeed the most relevant, or only, scholarly work about a particular point, it’s fine to cite it.

I am not familiar with the guidelines at fr-Wikipedia, but I suppose the main issue will be the same - you will have to prove that the list is not just something off a master’s thesis, but that it has some external validation, most likely in the way of other articles citing the list as authoritative.

Finally, in the future, if you ask someone off-wiki for help to edit (as was the case here with Practice2learn’s edit if I understand correctly), it is a good practice to make that visible to other editors (for instance with an edit summary that says uploading the table on behalf of User:X who asked me for assistance in real life). That is because secret off-wiki coordination can give the impression that multiple independent editors have the same opinion, which biases potential debates (see WP:MEAT). Here, I do not think that is a significant concern (after all, 19th-century art journals is not a really controversial topic area on Wikipedia), but still. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 16:37, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

George-Amherst, my recollection of that article and its problems has faded somewhat. Do I recall correctly that the "widely cited Master[']s thesis" you refer to is in fact something that you wrote yourself? And that you have already been told that a master's thesis is not normally regarded as a reliable source ("Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence"? Perhaps Theroadislong will remember more clearly than I do? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:11, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Tigraan ... Thank you for your remarks. I would like to reply carefully ... and do not have opportunity to do this before early next week, by which time this exchange may become archived.

It appears that the inclusion of information from the Master's thesis is a problem for some editors. Let's remember that the information being considered is (a) putting numbers to an otherwise determined sequence and (b) the dimensions of printed images that are easily verified from the objects themselves and which will serve to identify copies of them ... two columns out of eight. If this is a problem, then why not post the table without any reference to thesis? Many would regard citation of the thesis simply as a benefit to the reader.

Repeatedly, in my exchanges with editors, I've needed to point out that the thesis is cited as the only reference for information about the contents of the publication by the general catalogue of the Bibliotheque nationale de France, by the Lbrary catalogue of the Royal Academy of Art in London and by the online ongoing edition of Fritz Lugt's Les Marques de collections ... maintained by the Fondation Custodia in Paris. Yes, it is also cited in art historical scholarship, although I have only a couple of examples of this.

I believe the table is "due" ... (1) because there is no other means of presenting the contents of the publication itself than by an enumeration such as this, (2) there is no other documentary basis for reference to the work of the many artists (over 200) who contributed to it, (3) it is the only documentary basis for identifying objects removed from the publication which have survived as independent art works. Of course, one can add references to Le Musee francais from articles on its artists, but without the availability of this table, the references are simply allegations.

Let me add, the publication itself has no list of contents and no index of contributors. Even persons having access to copies of the publication itself have need to this table to understand what it contains. In this sense, perhaps, it is indeed comparable to the periodic table of elements. George-Amherst (talk) 00:09, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Can someone please advise me where this deliberation stands.

Two commenters have suggested that the documentation in question, a table of 503 rows and 8 columns, might form a separate article in Wkipedia.en, if it is sufficiently “due” and not “just something off a master’s thesis.”

The “dueness” of this information is evident in the dozens of articles in Wikipedia.en on artists whose works are identified through this list – it completes these references by providing (1) the actual engraved titles of their works, (2) the dimensions of the images, (3) the circumstance and date of publication and (4) the earliest exhibition.  Because it is systematically arranged, the table divulges additional works of interest, and finally, it points to the illustration of examples of most of these works on the Internet.  Keep in mind, the subject is immense: the significant output of over 150 engravers, some of whom are probably not yet the subject articles in Wikipedia.en but deserve to be.

Is there reason to belabor here, in this setting, the importance for future historical research and discussion of having this kind of systematic documentation centrally available on the Internet? Isn’t this what an encyclopedia like this is intended to accomplish? – to provide a common, readily accessible basis of reference to historical fact.  Isn’t this what Wikipedia undertakes to offer, without the biases of institutional propriety or academic theorization?

While I’d be glad to try to proceed to post the table in a separate article ... I’m concerned that the two articles be linked as closely as possible.  Is there any technical means of linking two articles such as these which treat the same subject? George-Amherst (talk) 23:08, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

The "dueness" of a subject must be determined by the subject itself, not by the fact that there may be similar articles on other subjects. Can you point to any analogous Wikipedia articles which contain such a list? We do have articles that list works by specific artists, and a manual of style guideline (MOS:WORKS) for such pages. But as I understand it, this proposed article is would be about all works that happened to be listed in one particular publication. I'm not sure that would merit an article, although this is not really my area of expertise. In answer to your question of whether the purpose of Wikipedia is to provide systematic documentation for future research, I'd say no. The purpose of Wikipedia is to summarize what other secondary sources have published. If the only thing these works share in common is they happened to be published in Le Musee francais, I don't see that as meriting a separate list. See also WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:LISTCRIT. CodeTalker (talk) 03:52, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

CodeTalker, you write: "But as I understand it, this proposed article is would be about all works that happened to be listed in one particular publication." No. The proposed article is about the works of which the publication consists, i.e., the works which the publication provoked, commissioned, caused to exist. It is not a list of a list. It is a list of the works themselves, along with related documentation (artists, dimensions, illustration, date of publication, exhibition). It appears to me that Wikipedia is full of tabulations of historical information which may be charaterized as systematic documentation. A purpose of this table is to contribute to understanding of the works and careers of the many artists which is records ... and to link with and to supplement their articles in Wikipedia.

About "dueness" ... if Wikipedia supports an article about a publication recognized in its time because of the works which it contained (engravings), a list of the works themselves is surely a natural consequence of the subject of the article. Is this not "due"? -- i.e., an illustration of the rule you suggest: "The "dueness" of a subject must be determined by the subject itself." Because there are NOT other publications like Le Musee francais, I cannot cited any similar examples for you. But if there were, I'd certainly suggest that they were treated similarly. George-Amherst (talk) 17:38, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

If it was to be on Wikipedia, I'd think a separate list article List of engravings at Le Musée français, rather than a section in Le Musée français. Should every museum and gallery have their catalogue mirrored here? If you have detail like dimensions, then Wikidata would be a perfect repository. But importing bulk info into WD is a non-trivial undertaking. ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 13:54, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes ... I think a separate article, e.g. "Engravings of the Le Musée français and Le Musée royal..." would be justified, along with several paragraphs of explanation. Yes, the dimension of images is an important feature of the table. When this was previously done in March (and removed by editors here), it didn't appear to be technically difficult to drop the entire (immense) table into the visual editor. However, I suppose the engineer who did this could do it again for me (with the clarifications suggested above).

What I'd like to avoid (above all) is the continuing unpleasantness of getting shot down again by editors who do not ask first. George-Amherst (talk) 16:14, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Multiple infoboxes

Is there a policy or guideline that discusses the use of multiple infoboxes in a single article? My gut instinct would be to only ever use a single infobox at the beginning of a Wikipedia page. I'm wondering if it would be inappropriate to remove the infoboxes being used in 1Up Network. They just seem like overkill and clutter that distract from the prose rather than clarifying or highlighting information. TipsyElephant (talk) 17:35, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

@TipsyElephant I think it's pretty much local consensus. IMO it looks awful, and many of the sections they're in are completely uncited anyway. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:50, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Question regarding citations

Hey there fellow Wikipedians,

I hope you all are having a wonderful week. I'm writing this message as I was wondering if anyone could help me go over the citations I've used so far in Draft:Star Wars: War of the Bounty Hunters, I've only just started this article - and have a lot more to write. But currently the sites that I've cited (site - cite, it rhymes (:), are going to be the sites I use predominantly for the rest of the page, and I'd really appreciate to know if they're ok for use.

Thank you all so so much - I'm very greatful

AdmiralAckbar1977 (talk) 17:44, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Oopsy, didn't catch that spelling error. Grateful, not greatful :) AdmiralAckbar1977 (talk) 17:45, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

@AdmiralAckbar1977, Never heard of youtini.com, but it may be considered acceptable per [23], they have what can be seen as staff. Or they can be seen as a WP:BLOG. The other 3 can be good for info but don't help the case for WP:GNG since they're not independent of the subject. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:02, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll tentatively keep the Marvel/Star Wars stuff, but I'll make sure to back it up with (hopefully), good third party sites. Same with Youtini, though I'll also try to back it up with additional information. AdmiralAckbar1977 (talk) 18:08, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

I need help with adding sources to articles

Hi, can anyone out there help me with adding sources to articles, I have my hands full with editing and could use some help. Here is one article John Sackville Labatt that could use some more sources . Davidgoodheart (talk) 17:26, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

@Davidgoodheart Have you tried checking some of the hits at [24]? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:43, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Teahouse hosts are here to advise, not be co-authors. From look at your User page (>100,000 edits) I would think you are beyond the advise stage. David notMD (talk) 18:42, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

How can you prevent persistent rejection of facts from a vexatious editor?

Hi - I am the Club Secretary of Wanderers Football Club. The original club, as you can see in the Wikipedia entry, was formed in 1859 but folded in 1887. I reformed the club with the endorsement of the original club's great-grand-daughter (proof of which I have via email). We have been recognised by the Football Association as the continuation of the original club - of which I have photographic evidence, including the FA Chairman and I at a restaging of the 1872 FA Cup Final at The Oval in 2012, the secretary and chairman of the Royal Engineers and the secretary and chairman of Wanderers launching the FA Cup tournament in 2012, and video footage from the widely viewed 2022 FA Cup Final when the chairman of the Royal Engineers and I were invited - by the FA - to parade the former FA Cup trophies on to the pitch at Wembley. There is absolutely nothing in any formal documentary evidence to suggest that the Wanderers (2009- ) is not a direct continuation from Wanderers (1859-1887?). However, two users seem set on dismantling the information about our club. I do not know who they are or why they are doing it and I am not sure how best to resolve this issue - or how best to share the evidence I have, if this were appropriate to add to the sum knowledge of Wikipedia. Can anybody help? Ukmarkwilson (talk) 15:33, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Courtesy link: Wanderers F.C. Relevant discussion on talk. 97.113.167.129 (talk) 15:51, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

@Ukmarkwilson, the best place to resolve such issues and present evidence is the talk page of the article. Reviving an old club isn't uncommon (Alumni Athletic Club vs Asociación Alumni, for instance) but claiming to be a direct continuation is liable to be controversial, especially when claiming the old honors/titles (see all the wrangling between FCSB and CSA SB). Photographic evidence and video footage are not going to meet our standards for sourcing, unfortunately; see Zindor's post below about that. If your club ever becomes notable by our standards ("Club notability" at WP:FOOTYN offers guidance) it will probably just get its own article with a mention of the tie to the original. 97.113.167.129 (talk) 18:51, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Ukmarkwilson, unless i'm missing something, a gap of over a century would by definition be a lack of continuation. Have you found coverage in independent reliable sources that say specifically that the new club called Wanderers F.C is the same club as the one dissolved in 1887? Zindor (talk) 16:02, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

• Ukmarkwilson A key aspect of Wikipedia is assume good faith. I haven't reviewed the edits in question here, but the term "vexatious editor" is a serious accusation that needs evidence. I'm not soliciting that evidence here, but please keep that in mind. 331dot (talk) 16:17, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

@Ukmarkwilson: This tangential to your question, but if you're going to be writing about your continuation of Wanderers F.C. on Wikipedia, please specify that you are the Club Secretary of the club on your user page per WP:DISCLOSE. ~Cherri of Arctic Circle System (talk) 16:44, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Ukmarkwilson, you write "There is absolutely nothing ... to suggest that the Wanderers (2009- ) is not a direct continuation from Wanderers (1859-1887?)". Sure, but absence of evidence is not proof, at least by Wikipedia's standards. If you want to make this claim in a Wikipedia article, you're going to need to cite a reliable published source for it. Maproom (talk) 18:51, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

I understand your frustration, but Wikipedia policy is that every claim must have a reliable source, preferably a non-primary source (meaning something that was not published by the company/group/person that the article is about) in writing that has already been published and is available to the public (for example, print newspaper articles, books, online journals, etc.). While I don't doubt that your writings are true, if there aren't enough of what Wikipedia considers reliable sources on the topic, it doesn't meet the notability standards and will face pushback. Please know that this is not personal, it is just Wikipedia policy and it applies to everyone. While nothing is stopping you from writing things without sources, the article will get flagged and it will be up to someone else to fix the article by finding sources or removing unsourced material. Think of it this way: Wikipedia is available for anyone to use. Someone could write in an article that Lady Gaga is an alien from the planet Mars. Maybe there isn't concrete evidence to disprove this, but it is obviously false. By requiring sources for everything, Wikipedia weeds out all the people who make stuff up for fun. I think that most people, you included, write things that are most likely true, but we can't apply the rules to just some people and not others. I hope you understand. None of us mean to be rude, we are just trying to ensure that everyone complies with policy. A. E. Katz (talk) 22:41, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Direct new page creation

Another person started Draft:Schoolhouse.world, and I then helped out. When he submitted the page, it entered a possibly-4-month review queue. I was not previously familiar with the Afc process, but I now find a request under Afc to avoid cluttering up the review queue with unnecessary work.

I believe I have sufficient experience and editing history to entitle me to create new pages w/o going through the Afc review process. Is there some way that I can create the new page myself, and remove the draft from the review queue? GreenEyewash (talk) 19:27, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

The draft reads like advertising to me and has a LOT of unsourced content, moving it to main space may just trigger the articles for deletion process. Theroadislong (talk) 19:42, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Also, the review system is not a queue. MAY take as long as four months, but a reviewer could decide to review it within days to weeks. David notMD (talk) 00:24, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Sponsors does not need 23 refs to confirm that 11 states use the system. One per state enough. David notMD (talk) 00:27, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Just a wondering

I have seen lots of newsletters on Wikipedia. Although this might not be a good teahouse question, is there any newsletters that I can join? Waylon111 (talk) 23:51, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Waylon111, and welcome to the Teahouse! A list is here and here If you were to subscribe to only one, I would recommend The Signpost, the Wikimedia movement's newspaper. Cheers! 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 01:01, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Regarding Approval of Wiki content

we have tried lots of times for the approval of Wikipedia page. while uploading each time it shows a new error. can anyone help on this Aatralashokumar 1970 (talk) 08:00, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

@Aatralashokumar 1970: Please view your talk page where other Wikipedians have been contacting you about your draft article submissions. ––FormalDude talk 08:21, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

There are two versions of a draft about the same person - apparently you - each of which have been declined several times. It is possible you are using two accounts - this one and User:Clover Thoughts. Blank one draft and going forward only one account (does matter if it was you with two or you and a person you know). As to the draft, all of the refs are at the end and as URLS. Learn to ref properly. David notMD (talk) 08:49, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

See also WP:AUTO for why Wikipedia is against attempts at autobiography. David notMD (talk) 08:58, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia Articles Loading Problem. Any idea how to fix it?

I turned my new-ish computer off for the first time in weeks yesterday, and since I turned it back on Wikipedia articles won't load. I have to keep pressing "Enter Immersive Reader" to see an article. However when I click on an article after going into "Immersive Reader" the Wikipedia articles load fine. I've tried pressing the padlock symbol to reset permissions and clear cookies a couple of times, yet still the Wikipedia articles won't load. However the tabs for the other 50+ websites I have open all load fine, it's just Wikipedia which won't load. Danstarr69 (talk) 05:08, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

@Danstarr69: Sounds like it could be an issue with your web browser if you're using Microsoft Edge. Try using a different browser like Firefox or Google Chrome. ––FormalDude talk 05:12, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

@Danstarr69 What browser and operating system are you using? Are you using any browser extensions? Have you tried using a different browser? 163.1.15.238 (talk) 11:19, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm using Edge like I have done for a few years, as it never crashes like Firefox and Chrome, and never takes up loads of memory like Chrome.

I fixed the problem however by turning off all my image downloader, video downloader, and sole VPN extensions, which have never affected Wikipedia before.

Therefore I don't know if the problem will come back again when I eventually switch them back on, however I won't know that for a while as I'm busy sorting, adding, and updating the 100s of productions I've downloaded recently on IMDB.

If the problem does come back when I switch them back on, I'll just switch them back off, and turn them on one at a time to see which one is causing the problem, then keep it off when I don't need it. Danstarr69 (talk) 11:37, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

How can I upload a profile to Wikipedia

Hi I would like to know how I can upload a profile to Wikipedia Horseman42 (talk) 12:35, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Horseman42. You already asked the same question at the "help desk", and you already got answers there. -- Hoary (talk) 12:44, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Is there a way to request a copy of a deleted article?

I want to salvage some of the contents of a recently deleted article. Is there a way I can do this? 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 12:46, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

@Ficaia, see WP:REFUND. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:04, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't want to request undeletion though. I just want to incubate some of the contents in my sandbox. Never mind, I'm blind 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 13:08, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

can a company be published on wikipedia?

In recent times Nigeria has been badly affected by one of the worst electricity crisis in the country's history and one of the organizations on the front burner is this problem is the transmission company of Nigeria (tcn). Despite the huge impact the recent events have made on the country's economy, this organization is yet to be brought to wikipedia lens. I wish to publish this organization and help the public zoom in for more indepth analysis. Does wikipedia accept publications about organizations? If it does, then how can I go about it? Thanks Marvs100 (talk) 11:40, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

@Marvs100 Welcome to Wikipedia. For an article on a company to "stick", you must have the sources that meets the demands of WP:GNG. These sources must be at the same time reliably published, independent of the subject and about the subject in some detail. If you have these sources, what you write should be a summary of them, but you must not WP:COPYPASTE. If you have these sources and want to give it a go, see WP:TUTORIAL on how to add citations, this is essential, and WP:YFA on how to start an article.

Note that making an acceptable WP-article without any WP-editing experience is hard, and it's recommended you try learnig some basics of editing first. Perhaps you have some good ideas for articles like Energy in Nigeria? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:11, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

I have been going through WP:TUTORIAL an studying WP standard. I will keep learning. Just thought trying my hands on my first article will enhance my learning faster. Thanks Marvs100 (talk) 12:23, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Opposite is true. Often, a premature attempt at creating an article results in a series of Declined, all for different reasons. The learning curve is steep, and all you would be doing is wasting time of Reviewers who are already unable to keep up with submitted drafts. David notMD (talk) 14:04, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

WP:NCORP adds more on corporation articles. For practice, you could look at every reference in Energy in Nigeria and delete the useless ones, for example in the Radiation section. Refs not needed for definitions of words, especially when there are Wikilinks to articles about those terms. David notMD (talk) 14:14, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

• I have a hard time believing a national company in Nigeria is not notable. Looking through international media, I could not find coverage of the company specifically, though there is lots of things about the general state of access to electricity (for example, this piece from Al Jazeera). Local news probably do talk about the company, but I have no idea what are the reputable newspapers in Nigeria.

There is definitely enough for an article Electricity access in Nigeria or something like that. Of course, the above advice is still correct, trying to write that from scratch is not going to be a fun experience for a new editor. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 14:25, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Article about my film

Dear All,

Is it OK to create an article about my (Youtube) video which is kind of an animated movie (once I published, of course)?

I'd like to inform viewers about the details of the video, plot, characters, the same stuff any movies, etc. have in their articles.

No opinion, only datas.

(I read about NPOV of course, but I'm not sure, being creator of the video and communicating only datas at the same time would be acceptable or not.)

Thank you in advance for the answer and sorry for maybe misinterpreting the guidelines. TeddyDePlush (talk) 09:24, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

TeddyDePlush Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia's purpose is to summarize what independent reliable sources state about topics that meet the special Wikipedia definition of notability(in this case, a notable film or notable web content). Wikipedia does not want to know what a subject wants to say about itself. If independent sources have written about your film, it may merit an article, but it is ususally difficult for someone with a conflict of interest to set aside what they know about the topic and only write summarizing what others say about it. If you really think that you can do that, and you have at least three independent sources that chose to write about your film on their own, you may create and submit a draft at Articles for Creation once you formally declare your conflict of interest on your user page. 331dot (talk) 09:40, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

WP:TOOSOON applies. David notMD (talk) 11:24, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

In summary to all of what has been said, Your animated movie / series, while probably going to be very good, is not yet ready to be put onto Wikipedia. ( Wikipedia:Too soon ) (and I try to say that in the least meanest way possible) In time, when some internet news sites or any notable sites for that matter cover it, then an article can be made, from my understanding.

If all does not go your way and you cant find reliable sources, maybe, just maybe use Fandom (website)? I'd hate to stray you away from Wikipedia and I hope you can make an article, but if it doesn't go well, make a fandom wiki if you really want to tell viewers about the characters. I like the idea, and hope you don't have to resort to Fandom.

- Smotoe (talk) 12:33, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

It wasn't mean at all, thank you for that and the infos, too. :) TeddyDePlush (talk) 17:24, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

You're very welcome! Smotoe (talk) 18:20, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the info! TeddyDePlush (talk) 17:22, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying the situation for me and all the instructions! TeddyDePlush (talk) 17:21, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Reliable sources!

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

 Courtesy link: Draft:Verxil Inc

The reason why I am reaching out is because after submitting the article, the reviewer said the sources were not reliable. These sources were published by the best 2 universities in Canada. The company I am writing about is new and not peer reviewed article has been written about it. All the sources I get are from the schools and news letter that have published the company. I don't know what else to do because I thought my sources were reliable since the University of Toronto and Queen's university are the best in Canada and all the sources cited in the article came from them. Please advise me on how I should proceed because I have tried my very very best and also consulted many people who agreed that the sources I provided should be considered reliable considering that the company is new and there haven't been any peer article written about it yet. Liao.benny (talk) 15:56, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Liao.benny You have asked this(and gotten replies) at the AFC Help Desk, please only use one method of seeking assistance to avoid duplication of effort. 331dot (talk) 15:59, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

My apologies. Sorry Liao.benny (talk) 16:07, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

@Liao.benny: No worries! I've archived this discussion and linked to the one at WP:WPAFC/HD. Welcome, and good luck with your draft! RoxySaunders (talk · contribs) 18:44, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

My revision was edited out by Carlstak. Why?

I made some edits to the Ponce de León page. My revisions were erased by Carlstak, using as his reason the fact that my book, "The Maps That Change Florida's History" was self-published. I seriously doubt that he read the book. I'd like to write directly to him, but don't know how to connect with him. He has been most unfair. While I certainly agree that a person with expertise on a subject with "editorial" privileges should be able to correct an error, I don't understand why any person should be allowed to entirely remove something that someone else had painstakingly added to Wikipedia, solely because the reference used was self-published. Does the fact that a book is self-published automatically remove it as a valid reference source? If it does, you should remove Henry Harrisse and his "Discovery of North America". That book is probably the most valuable single reference work on the subject. None of Harrisse's books ever found a publisher in the United States. All were self-published, in English, in France. On the other hand, there are many books that are published by "legitimate" publishers that contain astoundingly incorrect conclusions by the author that are presented not as opinions, but as facts. The best example at hand is "A Land So Strange" by Andrés Reséndez. It was published by a "proper" press, and written by a PhD professor of history. It is often cited on Wikipedia, yet is so grossly incorrect as to the basis by which Narváez found himself in Florida that it is laughable, as are his descriptions as to navigation and piloting of the era. Should I go and erase all references to that silly book? It is a best seller! The information in my book is about very, very rare maps. I have provided hi res scans of the maps to the University of Florida. They have been placed on the UF website for all (including Carlstak) to see. My book refers to place names (Bahia de Juan Ponce, Rio de la Paz) on the maps, as well as to the latitudes shown on them. The maps provide clear proof that the Bay of Juan Ponce is Tampa Bay, not Charlotte Harbor, as has been previously believed. It is not me, or my book, that is significant. What is significant is that I found the maps, studied them and the history surrounding them, wrote a book about them, and then put the maps in the public domain. That is a service to any scholar or researcher, and I'm proud to have done it. But Carlstak unilaterally removed all reference to the book. That's not right. I will not add-back the information that Carlstak erased, because he or someone else might just erase it again. That's a loss to anyone truly interested in Ponce de León, Narváez, and the Spanish entradas into La Florida. Jim MacDougald (talk) 13:49, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Jim MacDougald, WP:SELFPUB is a part of WP:V, which makes it a core policy of Wikipedia. That policy does leave some exception for self-published works, but the bar is recognized expert. Are there reviews of your book? Is it cited by media organizations or other scholars? or some other verifiable way of establishing you as a recognized expert through third-party sources accessible to the wikipedia community? In a brief search, I found the potential for you to meet the bar. While I found no reviews of the book and no obvious citations to it, it's clear that at minimum local media coverage exists including acknowledgment you are a historian and your biographical and professional background arw readily available. Is this enough to pass the bar? Maybe, but the best place for that discussion and inclusion of the book would be the talk page of the article, located at Talk:Juan Ponce de León.

Second, presumably your book used other sources as references. Are those sources available to cite the information?

Third, even with all this said, inclusion of your book may still face significant scrutiny if it presents an alternative theory not currently supported by other historians.

Slywriter (talk) 14:29, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! Your response was extremely informative. I think that the Wikipedia policy of automatically excluding self-published works should be revisited. I decided not to even submit my work to university presses (probably the only potential publisher for a book primarily intended for academicians) because each publisher has ironclad and specific requirements for the format of every footnote, etc, and each publisher has different requirements. The work entailed to meet the mechanics of the varying submission restrictions presented a high barrier that I chose to avoid. Frankly, there are not that many people interested in the Spanish entradas in Florida and I doubted that even if I met the format requirements, the potential market for the book would be too small to warrant publication. As to credentials, my book's back cover has quotes from three PhD's attesting to the value of the research, and these are also presented on the Amazon listing page. I also have had some press in the local newspaper. The best "reference" is the map itself. On the cover of the book is an enlargement of a scan of 2 square inches on a 1,000 sq inch map, dated 1527. I could find no evidence that this detailed enlargement had been seen by previous historians although I have 130+ reference works on the subject. Essentially, the book says, "See the map. See what it says as to place names. See the latitude scales. The Bay of Juan Ponce is Tampa Bay. The Rio de la Paz (Peace River) is Charlotte Harbor." That's big...not because I say so, but because the map says so. I can get letters from PhD historians attesting to the value of the research. Would that help? If so, where would I send them? Thank you! Jim MacDougald (talk) 14:58, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Reviews in academic journals would help; the rest not much. Meanwhile, most of your edits, judging by the reversion cover fairly general points, & are not doubt covered by other historians (indeed at one point you say "most historians think" or something). You should be able to reinsert these citing them, and perhaps yourself as well. Many of the changes before did not cite any sources. On the specific stuff that is original to you, I'd take it up on the article talk, aiming to get agreement for a bit "according to the theory of Jim MacDougald" added, citing the local press, & whatever else you have. Johnbod (talk) 15:18, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Jim MacDougald. To address your point I think that the Wikipedia policy of automatically excluding self-published works should be revisited, all Wikipedia policies are determined by consensus, and it is possible in principle to change those policies (though obviously it's difficult to change deeply entrenched policies). If you wish to pursue this path, try opening a discussion at WP:VPP. You would need to persuade people that any change was for the benefit of Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 16:32, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

FYI for all: Article is Juan Ponce de León and Jim's additions (reverted) were done in October 2021. David notMD (talk) 15:21, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

I had edited some of the details in this listing based on research that I had done for my book, "The Maps That Change Florida's History." All of my edits were removed by "Carlstak" because Wikipedia does not allow self-published books as reliable sources. I doubt that Carlstak has any specific knowledge of the subject matter. The actual "sources" of my information were two rare maps that were contained in another "self-published" book, "Die Beiden Altesten General-Karten von Amerika Ausgefürt den Jahren 1527 und 1529" by Johann Georg Kohl, published in 1860. Dr. Kohl's book, and the two large maps that are folded and inserted in the book, are referenced by most cartographers and many historians studying the Spanish colonization of the New World in the early 16th century. The book is very, very rare. I cannot find evidence that the maps contained in it have ever before been referenced by a Florida or Spanish-Colonial historian. There was, at the time I acquired it, only one copy of this book available for sale in the world. I bought it for $3,000 and had the maps that it contained scanned at high resolution for further study. (I also provided hi res scans to the University of Florida, which has posted them online at their George A. Smathers Digital Collection.) After a year of intensive study I concluded that hi res enlargements of these two maps have not before been available to historians or researchers. The maps contain latitude scales, which, when compared to GPS locations of various toponyms on the map, are remarkably accurate. I also found that the Bahia de Juan Ponce appears for the first time on these maps, drawn about 6 years after Ponce de Leon's failed settlement expedition of 1521. I also noticed that other toponyms on the map, south of the Bahia de Juan Ponce, included the Rio de Canoas and the Rio de la Paz. Being a Floridian, I recognized that the Peace (Paz) River flows into Charlotte Harbor. I also noted that in the chronicles of Juan Ponce's original 1513 visit, he had attempted to establish a Peace (Rio de la Paz?) with Chief Carlos, but had been betrayed when the Spaniards arrived for a subsequent meeting and were ambushed by many Indians in canoes (Rio de Canoas?). The book is important because it displays on the cover and within, maps that have not been enlarged and published before. It also includes an enormous amount of research (particularly concerning the marine environment of La Florida in the early 1500's) that has not been published before. My book was reviewed by noted historians. Their reviews are printed on the back cover of the book and reproduced below. Does it advance scholarship on the subject of Juan Ponce de León if my book, conclusions, and references cannot make it to Wikipedia, while other far less documented conclusions are included in this listing? I really need help here. I'm not sure what I can do to put this info into the Ponce de León entry. It does say "Important" and "Needs help", which it does, and I DO have reliable info. But I am getting pretty discouraged. Here are the reviews:

MacDougald demonstrates that the harbor the Spanish called the Bahia de Juan Ponce is certainly Tampa Bay. Why is that important? It equates Juan Ponce de León with Tampa Bay. MacDougald’s recognition that the Bay of Juan Ponce is Tampa Bay suggests that rather than Charlotte Harbor being the location of Ponce’s 1521 attempted settlement it was instead Tampa Bay. I am especially intrigued by the suggestion that Ponce de León’s 1521 attempted settlement on Florida’s Gulf coast was on Old Tampa Bay among the Tocobaga Indians, exactly where Narváez found himself seven years later.

- Jerald T. Milanich, Ph.D., Curator Emeritus of Archaeology at the Florida Museum of Natural History at the University of Florida, and author of Florida Indians and the Invasion from Europe.

In his second foray into the subject of early Spanish voyages to Florida’s west coast, James MacDougald once again presents the results of his meticulous, well-documented research and analysis. In The Maps That Change Florida’s History he tells how the toponym “Bay of Juan Ponce” at what is today named “Old Tampa Bay” prompted him to examine large-scale detailed official maps of the period for evidence that Ponce’s 1521 settlement attempt took place on its shores. Throughout, MacDougald combines his familiarity with the area, his extensive sailing experience, and his findings to provide a cohesive and persuasive argument for locating Ponce’s 1521 settlement on the shores of Old Tampa Bay. A real contribution to the study of early Spanish expeditions to Florida and a “must-read” for anyone interested in the field.

- Martin A. Favata, Professor Emeritus, University of Tampa

As we approach the quincentennial of Juan Ponce de Leon’s attempt to establish the first Spanish settlement in Florida, MacDougald presents new insight and documentation regarding the settlement’s location. Charlotte Harbor in Southwest Florida has long been thought to be the settlement’s most likely site. Combining his personal knowledge of the Gulf waterways and nautical navigation skills, penetrating reexamination of the historical record, and rediscovery of an historic map, MacDougald builds a strong case for location of this first settlement endeavor on Tampa Bay. The Maps That Change Florida’s History represents an important new contribution to our understanding of the Spanish Entrada in Florida.

- Will Michaels, Ph.D., Retired Director of the St. Petersburg Museum of History, and author of The Making of St. Petersburg. Jim MacDougald (talk) 19:51, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

I really need help here. I'm not sure what I can do to put this info into the Ponce de León entry. Wait for other historians, writing in conventionally published journal articles, etc, to agree with you; and then wait for some other person to cite this in Wikipedia. -- Hoary (talk) 21:15, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

I'll leave a comment similar to the one I left on the Juan Ponce de León talk page in response:

I don't see anything in our reliable sources policy that says citing reliable sources in one's work makes it reliable by extension. MacDougald's book is self-published, which anyone with the cash can do, and books published by vanity presses are not subject to the more rigorous standards of editorial oversight and fact-checking implemented by established publishing houses with large staffs. Our policy says:

"Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book and claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published sources are largely not acceptable. Self-published books... are examples of self-published media. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications."

As far as I can see, his cites of favorable comments by experts that read like blurbs are not a substitute for "work in the relevant field that has previously been published by reliable, independent publications". His case would be more convincing if he were able to cite works of his that meet our criterion. Without them, his attempt to insert the material comes off as marketing to sell his book. Carlstak (talk) 21:50, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

PS: I would also say that MacDougald's work so far, even if complimented by experts, is still thin gruel at this point on which to try to upend established scholarship on Juan Ponce de León. Mighty thin gruel. I would also say that his method of trying to do so seems quite irregular to me. I mean really, a scholar shouldn't try to do that in this venue, Wikipedia, for god's sake. It seems off to me. Carlstak (talk) 22:01, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Will you please allow me to send you a complimentary copy of my book? The book is about maps...very rare maps. You will not find these maps elsewhere. It is important that historians at least know that the maps exist, and how to see them for themselves. I found them and put them online in the public domain, via the University of Florida. I also scanned these huge maps and enlarged the area of Florida, and provide them in the book, for you (or any other researcher) to see for yourself. The combination of (a) unfettered access to these very rare maps, and (b) the new technology that enabled me to scan and enlarge areas of the maps, allowed me to see things (and share them with you) that scholars cited in the Ponce de Leon article could never have seen. I am not claiming anything in my book other than the fact that the latitudes on the map scale, and the toponyms on the map, provide eveidence of the location of the Bay of Juan Ponce. Jim MacDougald (talk) 15:36, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

OK. Don’t put my book as a reference in Wikipedia. Your comments about my work are insulting. You needn’t do that. You take on the mantle of one who can judge the quality of a submission without having any knowledge at all of the subject matter. You should at least provide the benefit of a doubt to someone who has worked so assiduously to earn at least a respectful review of their submission. Wikipedia cites many, many works that are published by “real” publishers, and you base your assumption that citing them is therefore, automatically acceptable. That is a naïve, even stupid, assumption. My bookshelves are littered with garbage that you find acceptable as citations, without any effort made by you at all to vet the accuracy of the citation or the credentials of the author. If Joe Windward Publishing Company published it, it is reliable. Hogwash! But I give up. I have a final request before I go away from this topic: Can you at least make the information that you provide reasonably accurate. Is that a fair request?

Merely because a scholar is cited as a source in Wikipedia, it does not automatically follow that the source has been quoted correctly. Fuson, one of only two sources used in this section, wrote that it is “highly unlikely” that Juan Ponce would have returned to the Charlotte Harbor area in 1521, the same place that he had two battles with Indians in 1513. Yet your description, based on a few sentences from Weddle’s book, says the landing “likely occurred” in Charlotte Harbor.

Wikipedia has only three brief paragraphs concerning the final, 1521, attempt to establish a settlement on the west coast of Florida.

Here, in its entirety, is Wikipedia re the 1521 settlement expedition of Ponce de Leon. I have added my comments in brackets [ ]:

Extended content

“In early 1521, Ponce de León organized a colonizing expedition consisting of some 200 men, including priests, farmers and artisans, 50 horses and other domestic animals, and farming implements carried on two ships. The expedition landed somewhere on the coast of southwest Florida, likely in the vicinity of Charlotte Harbor or the Caloosahatchee River, areas which Ponce de León had visited in his earlier voyage to Florida.[80] [Who determined that it is likely that this was the landing site? Weddle, alone? What about Fuson and Harrisse?] Before the settlement could be established, the colonists were attacked by the Calusa, the indigenous people who dominated southern Florida and whose principal town was nearby. [The Calusa were in the Charlotte Harbor area. The Tocobaga were in Tampa Bay area. How does the writer know that the Indians who repulsed Juan Ponce were Calusa? Fusn and Harrisse both wrote that Ponce de Leon would have avoided Calusa territory] Ponce de León was mortally wounded in the skirmish when, historians believe, an arrow poisoned with the sap of the manchineel tree struck his thigh.[81] [Historians believe? What historians? When and where? This is a myth.] The expedition immediately abandoned the colonization attempt [Who says that? Not Fuson or Harrisse, who BOTH wrote that the settlement lasted about four months] and sailed to Havana, Cuba, where Ponce de León soon died of his wounds. He was buried in Puerto Rico, in the crypt of San José Church from 1559 to 1836, when his remains were exhumed and transferred to the Cathedral of San Juan Bautista.[82]” Cited above are footnotes 60 and 61: 60 . Weddle, pp. 43–45. 61. Fuson, pp. 108–110 References: • Fuson, Robert H. (2000). Juan Ponce de León and the Discovery of Puerto Rico and Florida. McDonald & Woodward Publishing Co. • Weddle, Robert S. (1985). Spanish Sea: the Gulf Of Mexico in North American Discovery, 1500–1685. Texas A&M University Here are quotes from the books that are cited in Wikipedia: 1. Spanish Sea. Robert S. Weddle. Texas A&M University Press. College Station. 1985 P. 48. Weddle wrote: “It has generally been assumed [by whom?] that his second landing in 1521, was at or near the site of the first, in 1513. This assumption raises a question as to what Ponce saw in the Florida Everglades that caused him to believe this area a suitable place to settle. Was he motivated by the report he had heard that the cacique Carlos had gold? If so, it was a tragic mistake.” [Please see the Fuson quote, below] P. 53. Weddle cites Henry Harrisse as hypothesizing that Ponce ranged the west coast of Florida from Charlotte Harbor to Tampa Bay and even further north. Also cites Velasco [writing in 1583] “in locating the Bahia de Carlos near the keys, says that Ponce disembarked there in the year 15, and was fatally wounded. This is perhaps the only source for the site of Ponce’s final disaster.” [Velasco wrote this 62 YEARS after the expedition had occurred and he had obviously conflated the Bay of Carlos with the Bay of Juan Ponce, which were two different places. He even got the year wrong!]. 2. Juan Ponce de Leon and the Spanish Discovery of Puerto Rico and Florida. Robert H. Fuson. The McDonald & Woodward Publishing Company. Blacksburg, Virginia. 2000 [Is McDonald & Woodward Publishing Company known for their rigorous standards in vetting claims made by authors in books that they published?] Fuson wrote that Juan Ponce would have avoided the Charlotte Harbor area altogether. He explained that “Juan Ponce had a terrible experience with the Caloosa Indians during his first voyage to Florida, probably at Pine Island in Charlotte Harbor . . . it is highly unlikely that he would have chosen Pine Island or any of the other nearby islands—today’s Sanibel, Captiva, Estero, or others—for the site of his Colony.” He suggested that a location further north would have included good sites in Ft. Myers, Naples, Tampa Bay, and others. He added that “On some maps drawn a century after Juan Ponce’s second voyage, Tampa Bay is labeled ‘the Bay of Juan Ponce.’ This has caused a number of people to immediately jump to the conclusion that Juan Ponce’s colony was somewhere on the shores of Tampa Bay. This label, however, is at best weak evidence for such a conclusion, and is probably not evidence at all.” [Fuson acknowledged that “a number of people” believed the Bay of Juan Ponce was Tampa Bay. If Fuson had known that the Ribero and Colón maps were drawn, not a century after, but within six years after the Ponce de León settlement had occurred, he would undoubtedly have considered them to be better evidence.]

Jim MacDougald (talk) 18:25, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

I have collapsed some of the above, as this section is already getting very long. @Jim MacDougald, the talk page of the article is the appropriate place to have this discussion, not the Teahouse. Also, you should not copy+paste from one place to another within Wikipedia without stating where the material came from in your edit summary (see WP:Copying within Wikipedia). I attributed the source for you in my previous edit. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:38, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Sorry. I'm obviously over my head here. I give up. Thanks. Jim MacDougald (talk) 18:49, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank god that's over. What a wall of text.;-) Carlstak (talk) 19:19, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

The maps are cool, though. It would've been nice to have photos of them over at Commons. Oh well. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 20:17, 8 June 2022 (UTC)