Help desk
< February 25	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 27 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.

February 26[edit]

changing user name and creating a page[edit]

Hi, I hope you can help me. I spent months last year trying to set up a page for a new vaccine technology but for some reason it was blocked. I then changed my username, as it was recommended and I got a message just now, that because my username was associated with the company, it was blocked. It was odd as the username I chose today and confirmed was not the one that opened up on the page - I put Lauramurf1 and Lauramurfe arrived and was subsequently blocked. I am not sure what to do.

When I was going through the process last year, I also edited 11 articles as part of the process (in the original account/username) before attempting to set up a page. I feel totally stuck and do not understand what I need to do to progress with sharing the technology and clinical trial progress of this innovation for all to read on Wikipedia.

Any help, support (not in technical language!) would be hugely appreciated.

Thank you :) Lauramurfe (talk) 08:53, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is NOT a venue for "sharing the technology and clinical trial progress of this innovation" You merely copied and pasted content from their website and this was speedy deleted as "unambiguous copyright infringement of https://stablepharma.com/about/" Theroadislong (talk) 09:00, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for replying - I really appreciate that. Can you guide me as to the best way of setting up a page - I have read everything, altered the text, kept it to two sentances, only used content created by external references, not our created material. Some of the guidelines are difficult to clearly understand - is there a way to get instruction online?

Also are you able to understand why when I set up my username as Lauramurf1 it changed to Lauramurfe? Lauramurfe (talk) 10:42, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two sentences are extremely unlikely to be sufficient to demonstrate notability. Instead of thinking of this as "setting up a page" for your company's work, think of it as writing an article about it. If you have independent reliable sources that discuss this process, that's what we are looking for, not what they company says about it. I fear you are too close to your company to be able to dispassionately write about this; articles are typically written by independent editors wholly unconnected with the topic. 331dot (talk) 10:54, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the process of being closed[edit]

The National Institute Against Discrimination, Xenophobia and Racism (INADI in Spanish) has been closed some days ago. But the process is not automatic, and it will take some time to complete it. So, technically, it still exists. Should the article describe it in present ("The INADI is") or past tense ("The INADI was")? Cambalachero (talk) 13:46, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why not wait until "some time" has passed. We are not a news service that needs to update hourly. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 14:45, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Contentious topic scope procedure[edit]

Hello! There’s an article that has been marked with the ARBPIA template. I disagree that the article falls within the scope of the Arab-Israeli conflict. How can I contest or ask questions about this? Is there a record of the article’s designation as falling under ARBPIA, besides the edit diff where the template was put on the talk page? Thanks! Zanahary (talk) 15:24, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zanahary: If you refer to Self-immolation of Aaron Bushnell, whose talk page you recently edited, it's well-within scope. But if you disagree, use the talk page of the article concerned. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:09, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Yes, it’s a different article, Bushnell is certainly within scope. Zanahary (talk) 21:09, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you help me?[edit]

guys, how's it going?

I want to publish this article, but I don't know how to do it. User:Marcelosca/sandbox Could you help me?

Thanks! Marcelosca (talk) 15:52, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a button on that webpage that says "Submit your draft for review!". I think you should submit it for review. However, I will let other users/editors chime in on this. I'm still new to editing so that is just my opinion. Soafy234 (talk) 16:13, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thank you! I think I sent it, but now I don't know =/ Marcelosca (talk) 16:17, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marcelosca there is a blue button at the top of the draft marked submit for review. However, many of your supposed refs are his own papers, which are not independent verifiable sources. You must replace those with independent third party sources. His publications can be listed in a section so headed without any references for them Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:24, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

and interviews with him or other liely self-written pages are also unsuitable Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:30, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you sent it, it should appear in here I think: Category:AfC submissions by date/26 February 2024. I'm not sure what you titled it. Soafy234 (talk) 16:26, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Or it may appear here - Category:Pending AfC submissions Soafy234 (talk) 16:32, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft is not badly written, but it reads too much like a résumé, which is a common problem. The sourcing needs to be secondary, and you should read WP:BOSS if you have been asked to write this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:01, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't read like any résumé I've ever seen. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:10, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am wondering[edit]

I am wondering how do i go ahead and make edits. I know my account has to be atleast a month old with over 500 edits but i am wondering where i can start to gain trust in the wikipedia site. I think my knowledge could help topics that aret mainly talked about or maybe summaries of tv shows or movies. And i think because that would include spoilers i say that is someone is trying to research about a movie/show we could add text saying spoilers ahead incase thay havent seen the show/movie. Kobe5232 (talk) 16:25, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The 30/500 rule is only to be able to edit extended confirmed-limited articles, not editing in general. There is also a four day/10 edit rule, but you can edit most articles now. 331dot (talk) 16:33, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not provide spoiler warnings, see WP:SPOILER. 331dot (talk) 16:33, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding writing about TV shows etc, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction, and the MOS:PLOT section in particular. Writing a concise plot summary is quite an art, and probably not something I'd recommend for a beginner - its too easy to end up with something far too long, and filled with trivia, if you aren't very disciplined. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:41, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Kobe5232. As others have said, the restrictions are only in certain places - editing in contentious areas, or creating new articles. Elseswhere, anybody can edit, even peope who haven't created an account.

It is likely that some of your early edits will get reverted, because you won't yet have learnt about some relevant policies. Please don't get disheartened by this: we all needed to learn how things work. Please have a look at WP:BRD for how this dynamic is built into Wikipedia.

A general guideline which will help is that Wikipedia isn't interested in what you know (or what I know, or what any random person on the internet knows): it's only interested in information that is documented in a reliable published source. If you want to add some infoermation, then find a source (and cite it) or don't add it. (Plot summaries are a partial exception to this, as the work itself is regarded as the source; but as Andy says, this is not always as easy as it looks, and you need to be very careful to add only a factual description of the plot, not anything that is your own opinion or interpretation of something in the plot).

Happy editing! ColinFine (talk) 17:56, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thank you guys i just have a close friend who does work in wikipedia and since i am kind of a tv freak they suggested that i should maybe sign and gain trust in the community to maybe share my knowledge but i get how it cannot be my own opinion and actual facts but thank everyone for replying to me i thank you very much. Kobe5232 (talk) 18:10, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Procect a page; Ariyan Mehedi[edit]

Sock, blocked

Ariyan Mehedi is 100% eligible for Wikipedia page, but a user created “G11 Promotional article” but it’s not like that. He is is Orgininal and Authentic Bangladeshi music artist. Don’t delete it

this page approved by @Wikishovel

He is is Orgininal and Authentic Bangladeshi music artist. Don’t delalet it (please protect it)

This person also available on VIAF : https://viaf.org/viaf/23167440891088532257/Ahhabib24 (talk) 20:13, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I already told you when you asked at my user talk page: I haven't "approved" anything. Please stop trying to involve me with this. Wikishovel (talk) 20:38, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks this page has been editted by Authority control admin panel, thanks for moving this page.... Ahhabib24 (talk) 21:15, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added an {{Authority control}} template, that's all. It has nothing to do with "admin". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:20, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment the article is not up for deletion, so it's not clear what you are asking. But notice that being original and authentic have absolutely nothing to do with establishing notability in Wikipedia's sense. ColinFine (talk) 21:10, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've just noticed the header: apparently you are asking that the article be protected. Articles are not protected unless there has been significant vandalism or edit warring, neither of which is the case: see the protection policy ColinFine (talk) 21:12, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One more comment: "rose to mainstream" and "became widely popular" are promotional. See Peacock. ColinFine (talk) 21:20, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

can I use limelight? Ahhabib24 (talk) 21:34, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Getting an article uploaded for my boss.[edit]

My boss is not patient and wants this page up by Wednesday. I thought I already made an account like a month prior but it did not recognize my account so I had to make a new one. Please help me be able to upload this page. Harrisonbevis112 (talk) 22:06, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Harrisonbevis112.

Please carefully read WP:BOSS, and perhaps show it to your boss too.

As it stands I have requested your user page be speedily deleted as it is an inappropriate use of your user page. A user page is not an article page. However if you were to try and submit that text of your boss as an article it would be speedily deleted as being blatant promotion and you will likely find your account being blocked.

Please understand any kind of promotion is prohibited on Wikipedia. We only have articles of people who meet our special category of notability. There is zero indication that your boss Shane Quick meets this criteria - he therefore does not merit a Wikipedia article at this time.

Let me know if you have any questions, Qcne (talk) 22:16, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not an article really it is more of a bio. I did not know the proper way to explain it at first please do not get my account deleted this is not for promotion of anything and is a bio. If my information were to get read, nothing is being promoted. Harrisonbevis112 (talk) 23:58, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You must make the Terms of Use required paid editing disclosure. Instructions have been provided on your user talk page.

Wikipedia is composed of articles, articles that summarize what independent reliable sources say about a topic, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability, like a notable person. What you are doing- just telling the world about your boss- is considered promotion here. If you just want to tell about him, that's what social media is for. 331dot (talk) 00:08, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's "a bio", and "nothing is being promoted", Harrisonbevis112? I quote: Starting humbly, Quick has evolved over nearly two decades to curate over 600 shows annually across the globe. Yet, amid these professional milestones, his most cherished accomplishment remains being a devoted husband to Laura and a father to Ethan and Clay. Quick invests his heart and soul not only into his work but also into his community. And though he has achieved much, this relentless force shows no signs of slowing down – the best, it seems, is yet to come. Just what did the boss ask for, a hagiography? -- Hoary (talk) 12:40, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:BOSS and have them read it too. Wikipedia is not concerned with any deadlines you are under.

It appears you edited your user page, which is not article space. New accounts cannot direcly create articles, and need to create a draft via the Article Wizard. You will first need to make the terms of use required paid editing disclosure and read conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 22:17, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, as others have said please read WP:BOSS (and ideally your boss too) and WP:PAID and WP:COI.
If you still want to publish the article in your sandbox, there's a button marked "Submit your draft for review!" at the bottom of your sandbox. However, in it's current state it would be rejected. All articles need to be written in an neutral encyclopedic tone and external links should not usually be in the main body of the text. But even if those were remedied, articles need to be able to show notability, especially the notability guide for people which can be shown with multiple in-depth reliable secondary sources. Those are sources which have no connection to the article's subject and cover the subject in-detail, not just a passing mention, and not interviews or social media. Shaws username . talk . 00:03, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HarrisonBevis112, Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 11:33, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]