This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Teahouse. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.
Hello, ThrowAway77, and welcome to the Teahouse. If you look at Talk:E&BV Subdivision, you will see that the article has twice been nominated for deletion, and finally redirected; the more recent is here. It's perfectly possible to overturn a community decision like that, but you need to reopen the discussion, not just make the change yourself; and you need to show that something has changed so that the decision should be revisited. Specifically, you need to show that there are now sufficient independent reliable sources to establish that this line meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability. If you can find these, you can open a discussion on that talk page - and it might be a good idea to ping some of the editors who were involved in the previous discussion.
Please note that other stuff exists is hardly ever a persuasive argument. We know that among our six million articles, there are thousands, probably tens of thousands, which would not be accepted now; but for some reason nobody has been motivated to go through them systematically improving or deleting them. --ColinFine (talk)
Use of Your Information
As an 86 year old African American I have seen and participated in a lot. My granddaughters asked me to document some of my experiences. So I have written my memoir. You have information I want to use, e.g. 9/11.
Having read your copyright information, I still would like guidance on using information from this site Gma34** (talk) 22:22, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
This question has been kicking my ass for a while now. I'm about to go read every informative Wikipedia article, but anyway, how do you reply to someone else? Also, why does the Visual editor appear grayed out? This Wikipedia stuff is a lot. How can y'all do this all the time... TheKingCartii (talk) 17:34, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
@TheKingCartii: Welcome to Wikipedia. You can use the reply template like this one I used to reply to you: {{re|TheKingCartii}}. The visual editor only works on articles, not on any other pages such as talk pages or the Help Desk, Teahhouse, etc. RudolfRed (talk) 17:37, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
If that was not clear, on their Talk page. Or if an editor left a comment on your Talk page, below that (with an indent by adding one more : than the comment above) and 'ping' that editor as RudolfRed explained. David notMD (talk) 01:32, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Editing the Page for Hindu Marriage Act
While Editing the Page Hindu Marriage Act here -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hindu_Marriage_Act,_1955
I saw many irregularities, and wanted to put up the correct information. However of any edit changes, my complete information was undone with a ban notice.
I would like to know if there is any way to put forward the correct information on this page?
Thank You in advance A2c1 (talk) 19:18, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
You were reverted by more than one editor for adding content without references, and then blocked for a week. Victor's advice is good - start a new section on the Talk page and proposed content with references in proper format (not as hyperlinks in the article). Invite the editors that reverted you, to see if the group can reach consensus. David notMD (talk) 01:46, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Nervousness in doing first edits
I want to preface this question by stating that I am a first time Wikipedia editor utilizing the Wiki Education Course program and am just starting to plan my first edits. Is it normal to feel nervous about making edits on pages, especially those that are technical? If so, what are some best practices to alleviate the nervousness? Is there anything that you seasoned Wikipedia editors would go back and tell yourself when you're first starting about participating in the Wiki community? Ghorsefield (talk) 22:27, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
@Ghorsefield: Welcome to the Teahouse. Yes, I think it is normal to feel a little nervous when making one's first edits. Wikipedia is quite precise, and the rules are many! I would suggest trying out some edits in your sandbox, which can be seen along the top menu beside your user name. You could also try the Wikiepdia Adventure. Another thing to try if you want to go slowly is to do some typo corrections; see WP:Typo Team. Regarding overall advice, I would say start small. after fifty or a hundred small edits you will have a lot of confidence! ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:33, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
At your Sandbox you have tentatively identified three articles. I suggest focusing on the Start-class articles. If you think a section needs work, consider clicking on Edit, and then copying the section into your Sandbox. That will give you a relatively private place to work. David notMD (talk) 01:54, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
No, an infobox is not required. Instead, the problem noted was "Existing references do not support general, biographical, or music-related notability criteria." (per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seax Penz) In order to merit an article, a topic needs to be "notable", which is different than "interesting" or other personal opinions. Instead, we have a bunch of specific criteria, depending on the type of topic it is. The three sets of criteria mentioned are: WP:GNG, WP:BIO, or WP:BAND. DMacks (talk) 04:09, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Can You Please Say If Suriname Is A latina Country Or Not? Because some Times people say yes, and sometimes people say no, So Im confused answer my question pls!
According to the article on Suriname, its official language is Dutch, and "Spanish" and "Mestizo" are not mentioned in the list of ethnic groups. So, it's not a Latina country. Maproom (talk) 18:29, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
@Acid Of Carbon: Do you see how your post above follows immediately after the original poster's on the same line? That is undesirable. You've been asked several times to follow the WP:INDENT convention when replying on talk pages. Failing to do so is disruptive. Please stop. —[AlanM1 (talk)]—06:53, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hi Pturvill. Are you referring to The Law (novel)? Is there something written in the article that is inaccurate, i.e. it doesn't reflect what reliable sources cited as references are saying about the book? The article is only a few sentences long so perhaps you can help clarify what your concern is? If it's just that you don't agree with one of the sources cited as a reference, then there's not much that Wikipedia can do to change that. If, however, you're aware of other critical reviews of the book that were published in reliable sources that say something different, then perhaps that information can be incorporated into the article in some way as long as it's not WP:UNDUE. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:08, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Helping honest but misguided new user
Okay, I am pretty new myself here, but I feel like I've started to get a basic grasp on policy, guidelines, and the overall content goals of Wikipedia.
Recently, I reverted an edit from a new user who wished to add information about a relative of theirs to an existing page. I reverted it because the relative did not seem to meet WP:Notability and was also original research, lacking any verification from sources.
The user left a very kind and polite message on my talk page, explaining that they feel their relative has an important part in history and should be included. I want to help push them in a direction that doesn't discourage them but maintains the guidelines. Any suggestions? SpurriousCorrelation06:21, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi SpurriousCorrelation. Since you're talking about Mrinal Gore, I think you were correct to undo the other editor's edits. In general, Wikipedia's notability guidelines don't apply to article content as explained in WP:NNC, but it still needs to be reliable sourced and encyclopedically relevant to the reader. Lots of editors mean well and try to add content to Wikipedia about family, friends or other people who mean (meant) alot to them, but Wikipedia's purpose isn't really to memorialize or otherwise recognize individuals. If there are reliable sources which show how this person was an influential contemporary of Gore, then perhaps something could be added to the article (or even a stand-alone article created about this person's grandmother); however, it's not Wikipedia's purpose to prevent someone's name from being lost to history.Having said that, I will note that the same person (or someone with the same name) is also mentioned in Samyukta Maharashtra Samiti; so, perhaps this might be worth asking about at WT:INDIA. Perhaps some members of that WikiProject might've heard of this person and can help determine whether she would be a good candidate to try and create an article about. Googling her name doesn't get lots of hits (and most of them appear to be WP:MIRRORs), but there might be sources in Hindi which help establish at least WP:NEXIST. Regardless, persons (like family members) of the individual shouldn't really be trying to add her or other content about her per WP:COISELF. Another editor has removed the same content for this reason; so, now the best you can do is advise Mihir nanthur to engage in discussion on the article's talk page if they still are unsure why the information they added has been removed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:57, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Just today, 10 September 2020, I happened to see that on my entry 'Mohit Ul Alam' in Wikipedia a passage under the heading of "corruption" has printed ceratin allegations against me, of which I got absolute clearance after a thorough investigation by DUDOK (the Anti-corruption Commission, the agency responsible for such investigations) and a letter of discharge was officially issued on 16 January 2020, of which I let you know on 21st July 2020 at 9:19 am on my first sighting of the information with the reference number (04.01.6100.616.01.014.17 dated 16/01/2020) carried by the letter. To my great surprise and shock, I see that stuff being repeated and would like to request you to immediately withdraw it from my entry, as it is absolutely detrimental to my professional as well as public image in the society, and all the more reason why I am requesting you is that the charges were completely baseless as ACC's official report attests. Besides, my son was recruited by following all the rules of the university and those of the country, and for your information, following the university rules, I didn't preside over the selection committee meeting, and I withdrew from the committee following the university rules. My son, however, worked there for only six months after which he resigned on his own to join another university on a better offer.
Besides as the present profile does not give a comprehensive picture of who I am I asked one of my junior colleagues Mr. Romel, as he in our department more attuned to handling the technicalities of such websites as the Wikipedia, that he could update my profile as to suitably represent me, and I gave him the draft without ever realizing, out of our ignorance, that it could be considered as compromised by the profile rules of Wikipedia. And he told me regrettably what went on between him and Wikipedia moderators in this regard.
I am personally aggrieved as to what had transpired so far in terms of misunderstanding, and now am writing this letter to clean up all the confusion and allow me to provide updated information about myself by giving a complete list of books and a dossier about my career from verifiable sources.
I am hereby submitting an image of the letter issued by ACC on 16 January 2020, and a copy of my ID as well as a copy of the visiting card.
Please withdraw the 'Corruption' passage completely and let my mind rest in peace.
With this kindly let me know when I can give my fuller description in accordance with the Wikipedia format.
With thanks.
Mohit Ul Alam
(Professor Dr. Mohit Ul Alam) Dean, Faculty of Arts and Social Science Premier University, Chattagram Bangladesh
Formerly Vice-Chancellor of Jatiya Kabi Kazi Nazrul Islam University Trishal, Mymensingh Bangladesh
P.S. I tried to upload the images of the discharge letter by the Anti Corruption Commission of Bangladesh but Wikipedia is not allowing me to do so. The documents are ready to be produced if needed to verify my claim made above in the letter.
Hi, so in a lot of articles, when I click a link to another Wikipedia article (yet another rabbit hole adventure) I see that under the title it says "Redirected from (title with different spelling, punctuation or something else)". Should these internal links be changed to point directly at the current spelling of the title of the article it links to? Sorry if I didn't phrase my question clearly. Thanks. 314WPlay (talk) 15:37, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
In most cases, you don't need to change these. (See MOS:RDR for an example case where linking to a redirect can aid in article creation.) Of course, in some cases, such as when a word in the link is misspelled and correcting the spelling causes a direct link rather than a link to a redirect, it's OK to change the link. Deor (talk) 16:45, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Amanjodey, and welcome to the Teahouse. It is not quite clear to me what you are trying to do, but your edits in various places look as if you are trying to tell people about yourself: please don't do that. This is an encyclopaedia, not a social media site. You are allowed to share a little information about yourself, if you wish, on your user page User:Amanjodey but that is primarily for you to talk about yourself as a Wikipedia editor, and whatever you put on it before has been deleted. I have put a welcome message, with some useful links, on your user talk page. I recommend that you also read advice for younger editors. It is unlikely that anybody here is going to look at your Instagram account. --ColinFine (talk) 14:15, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
According to your contributions, you have made two edits, both of which have been reverted due to it being percieved as vandalism. If you would like help in editing wikipedia, visit WP:The Wikipedia Adventure or ask specifically what you would like help on. HeartGlow(talk)15:18, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
The issue appears to be that User:Dlku4d persists in adding tremendous amounts of content, much unreferenced, much possibly original research, much not germane, to the article, and when reverted and warning, repeatedly, restores the deleted content and adds more (and more). David notMD (talk) 15:57, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
You are within your rights to add references and publication information, but should refrain from changing text of the article, because it is about you. An alternative path would be to describe on the Talk page changes that should be made, so that a non-involved editor could decide what to do. David notMD (talk) 16:07, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Hypocrisy
Why does the American Government have double standards between Federal and State Governments. Why if we have the highest rate of juveniles in detentions are we not teaching them in school laws and morals? If our government really cared about us why would they allow the sales of meth pipes in many tobacco shops but then arrest people for using them as such? When our government has based everything on the dollar and is criminalizing homelessness, does that not mean they must be slaves to the American dollar to survive? 69.92.197.123 (talk) 15:58, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. This is a place to ask about using Wikipedia, and is not for airing grievances we might have with the government or society. Please do so in a more appropriate forum. 331dot (talk) 16:00, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, HeartGlow30797, but this is a help page about editing Wikipedia. Questions about what an article should contain should go on the article's talk page, or that of a related WikiProject; more general questions about the content of articles do not belong anywhere in Wikipedia, except possible on the Reference desk. --ColinFine (talk) 16:34, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Do sports notability guidelines really take over any notability concerns?
From what I understand, the gng is the most important thing. It says that there should be multiple, in depth sources about any topic. But some specific guidelines (for eg. The cricket one) don't really meet that. This was my best understanding and apparently I've upset a lot of editors over it. I don't think I've read it wrongly since I've read a lot about it. But I just wanted to be sure Incase I'm mistaken. Iitianeditor (talk) 15:07, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Praxidicae I'm sorry if it seemed that way, but from what I understand that page wasn't to get advice on what works and what doesn't. It's a whole discussion about the guideline. What I wanted to ask was that while the guidelines are in place, do they take precedence over gng? Iitianeditor (talk) 15:29, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Iitianeditor, welcome to the Teahouse. This is a commonly asked question that unfortunately doesn't have a simple answer. I suggest taking a look through the archives at Wikipedia talk:Notability, as many discussions on this topic have taken place there (see this for a recent example). If you have any further questions, I suggest opening a thread there. CThomas3 (talk) 16:14, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Cthomas3 thanks! This sort of discuss was what I was exactly looking for to recheck my understanding. Thanks again!
Courtesy post - this and the thread above stem from this User talk:Iitianeditor#Multiple AfDs, where the posting editor launched multiple Afds nominating Pakistanian Cricket players' articles for deletion. The advice was to do only a few at a time and wait to see the results of the deletion discussions, in order to not flood Afd. That seems to be a better strategy than trying to convince people here, many of whom may not know anything about Cricket. TimTempleton(talk)(cont)18:27, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Timtempleton I have no intention of convincing anyone of anything. And incase you might not have noticed, the advice is exactly what I did. I nominated 2 articles for deletion and then waited to see the outcome (please look at the reason for nomination I've given). After the outcome came out, I decided to nominate articles which are almost exactly like the ones that got deleted. Coming to your point about Pakistani cricketers, that's because a particle user has been making almost identical articles and all the deleted articles + the nominations are his creation. Iitianeditor (talk) 18:40, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Iitianeditor I see the numerous open AfDs with a mix of keep and delete votes. It seems that the Cricket notability rules have to be properly enforced, and if they are vague, they need to be tightened up so they can be properly interpreted. The collective discussion time (and your efforts as well) would be better spent on clarifying the notability guidelines once and for all. People posting articles against policy could then be blocked. The people who try to keep the AfD queue clear would certainly appreciate it. Good luck! TimTempleton(talk)(cont)19:12, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Timtempleton you're right about the fact that if the guidelines are cleared up once and for all it would be great, but before that can happen, on the discussion page it was claimed that AfDs are the way to to demonstrate that change is needed. But alas, I'm unlikely to participate in that since a simple nomination of 20 articles which don't meet GNG and even had precedent for deletion caused me to receive so much hate that I won't be editing those topics again since the editors over there are experts at making you feel terrible. And honestly, I don't have that patient approach to stuff. I will aggressively do what's right and will equally quickly revert it if I'm wrong, I'm not a fan of bureaucracy which seems to be the case here and thus doesn't appeal to me. Well I tried to be bold according to policy all I got was crap for it. Iitianeditor (talk) 19:50, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
How do I get my article made?
Is there a page which you can request an article be made? I am requesting a punkrock band with the name of "Seven Serpents" that I listen to myself. Also, I am not fully confident that this is congruent with the guidelines for notability. - Wikimeedian (talk) 19:56, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
I was editing a section of the article Dipotassium phosphate on my desktop. It came up in a peculiar, very bare format, without the aids I am used to, e.g. B, I, ∞, 'cite' dropdown list. It looks like a mobile format. When I went to <Menu><Settings>, the only options available iirc were Font and Advanced style. Turning Advanced off didn't make an appreciable difference. I am using Win 10 with browser FireFox.
BTW, the actual article and History also looked quite different from my desktop norm.
I then tried editing a couple of random articles (pKa, Albert Overhauser); the editing environment was the normal desktop one, with all the aids displayed. And editing this WP:TH section everything is there as usual. So there must be something peculiar about the former article? If so, IMO it should be fixed. But what is causing it? I'd be happy to fix it if someone can point me in the right direction.... D Anthony Patriarche, BSc (talk) 10:34, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Indeed, when I edit a section and click the pencil icon it shows Visual editor; however when I click source editing there is no change. And see above (updated), the article itself comes up in a format quite different from my normal view. I don't have Visual editing turned on; when I edit any other article, I get my usual Source editing format. I persist in thinking there is something peculiar about this article. I'm looking at its properties, but so far don't see anything relevant.--D Anthony Patriarche, BSc (talk) 12:09, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
"Temporarily disable the visual editor..." already checked. I notice the article properties include the Button template but I don't see any buttons in the article—maybe this is the problem? Note—as above, I now see it's not just the edit mode, the article itself displays in a different format from my usual.--D Anthony Patriarche, BSc (talk) 12:32, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Compare these images (left is the problem article, right is my normal, expected format for a similar article):
@D A Patriarche: Thank you for clarifying. Thats not the visual editor, the image on the left shows the mobile website of Wikipedia. please make sure that your URL bar contains en.wikipedia.org , not en.m.wikipedia.org. Victor Schmidt (talk) 12:52, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Thank you @Victor Schmidt. That was exactly the problem. How it happened is still a mystery: I brought up WP in my usual way and did a search for the article in question, and got the mobile URL as you describe. Tried it again just now, got the normal desktop display. I do browse (& sometimes edit) from my mobile (Kindle) but I've never seen a conflict or confusion of the two before. Have to put it down to a one-time glitch! I will watch for this now I know what to look for. Thank you once again for solving the mystery!--D Anthony Patriarche, BSc (talk) 14:00, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
I was going to read up on what a "One-party State" is so I went to the article and found that there are virtually no citations for any of the points made in the article (with the exception of citations in the table of examples). There's a banner at the top of the page saying that:
"This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these template messages)
The neutrality of this article is disputed. (September 2014)
This article needs additional citations for verification. (August 2016)"
On the talk page some users also noted that there needs to be more citations, but the banner was made in 2016 and the talk page section was made in 2018.
My question is: Is it appropriate to add the citations needed tag after bits of the article that don't have any citations? I'm relatively new and unsure when I have the authority to do something like that, especially when I'm not a primary contributor to the article. TipsyElephant (talk) 23:49, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi TipsyElephant. Everyone has the "authority" to add a maintenance template to an article as long as they do so in good-faith and believe there's an issue that needs attention. WP:TAGBOMB can be a problem and is considered disruptive; so, generally it's not a good idea to try and spend all of your time just going around and tagging articles for problems. It also is helpful when an editor actually tries to fix a problem themselves instead of just passing it on to others, but sometimes you're just not sure what to do or how to fix something.Sometimes a tag was added by mistake or it was added and the relevant problem was resolved but the tag left as is. If you come across any of those articles, you can remove the tag if you believe the problem no longer exists or was never an issue. Just leave an edit summary explaining why. If someone re-adds the same tag later on, then try and figure out why and just don't blindly revert (particularly if the editor has left an edit summary explaining why). Edit warring over maintenance templates will only lead to accounts being blocked.Finally, there are various types of tags: some apply to entire articles, some apply to specific sections, and some apply to specific sentences. If the entire article is unsourced or poorly sourced, then perhaps one tag for the entire article is sufficient. If only one particular section has problems, then tagging only that section is probably OK. If only a single sentence has problems, then tagging only that sentence is fine. What you want to try to avoid is a redundancy of tags; in other words you, don't want to tag every single sentence of an article with {{citation needed}}, and then tag each section of the article with {{Unreferenced section}} and then finally tag the entire article with {{Unreferenced}}. Use tags judiciously to point out problems that might exist, but don't use them to "punish" articles by excessively tagging them. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:22, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
How is anyone going to make an informed decision about Donald Trump?
I recently started looking through a Wikipedia article, Donald Trump on Social Media
[1]
I notice very few of the footnotes for the article actually go to Donald Trump on social media. As much controversy surrounds him, indirect sources are not going to be as convincing as quoting him directly. Mark Twain advised writers "Don't say 'The old lady screamed!' Bring her on and let her scream." I expect people to question me if I say "Donald Trump said ..." We have the technology to offer a link to an original source, even his own official Twitter feed.
As I recall, the above Wikipedia article said Trump has posted around 17,000 tweets. No one person has time to dig through all that to find the ones that reveal the content of his character. Solomon said "Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks." Anyone who registers to vote in this fall's election needs this information.
So please, many hands who understand this technology, make light work of going deeper on all these cited sources and link to Trumps original statements in social media. I would help, but (a) I don't know how, and (b) I've been through 30 years' clinical depression, wishing for a terminal illness, and I have to work hard to stay happy enough to be productive. I suggest all of you work this a little at a time, so you don't burn out.
But please fix the article cited above. It's only preaching to the converted, as is.
Hello Bill, and welcome to the Teahouse! As you can see, the article has some direct quotes, and under "External links" you'll find links to Trumps own social media. BUT. Per WP-philosophy, we are not interested in Trump's statements directly, if you want those, read his Twitter. We are interested in summarizing what WP:Reliable sources says about Donald Trump on Social Media, so that is what you get here. Or is supposed to get, few WP-articles are perfect, but that is the goal here. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:28, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
"not going to be as convincing as quoting him directly." Our goal at Wikipedia is first and foremost to be an encyclopedia; this is achieved by citing reliable sources. I sympathize with the need for voters to understand Trump, but our goal is to be neutral by citing reliable sources. Without that, the page reflects more on the people who are writing them than on our best approximation of the truth. If people want to see what Trump tweeted directly, they can look at his twitter account. But if they want encyclopedic coverage, as determined not by the whims of the editors but by reliable sources, then they would look towards Wikipedia. Zoozaz1 (talk) 02:16, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
How do I cite a newspaper publication archived in the British Library?
I'm working on an article about Mark Steele (conspiracy theorist). He was briefly notorious in the 1980s, and a number of newspapers in his local area published articles about him. Unfortunately none of these are easily viewed online, but all are available in the British Library's extensive newspaper archive. These archives are free to view, but are behind a login-wall. Can somebody describe the correct way to cite an archived newspaper article? Salimfadhley (talk) 10:01, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi Salimfadhley. The source you’ll be citing is the newspaper, not the archives where a copy can be found; so, you should just cite the newspaper per WP:CITEHOW. As long as the source is reliable, published and accessible, it doesn’t necessarily need to be available online; however, if the archives makes the source available online and you’re sure it’s a true copy, you probably can treat the link as a WP:CONVENIENCE link. For example, if you use the citation template{{cite news}}, you can use the parameter |via= to indicate the source of the link. If the online source requires some sort of payment or registration, you can use the parameter |url-access=. See Template:Cite news#Parameters for specific instructions on how to use these parameters. — Marchjuly (talk) 11:18, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi Salimfadhley if it's in the British Newspaper Archive, there is a suggested format (on Wikipedia:BNA,a partnership we used to have with the British Library): <ref> {{cite news |title=Terrific Gale |work=Burnley Gazette |date=2 October 1875 |accessdate=7 September 2020 |url=http://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000280/18751002/009/0007| via = [[British Newspaper Archive]]|url-access=subscription }}</ref> So you site the actual newspaper and put via the British Newspaper Archive (or British Library, if it's not part of the BNA collection). Joseph2302 (talk)11:27, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Actually, BNA only let you view 3 pages for free when you register, but that's all without paying, so I guess it should be |url-access=limited, though that's so limited, using |url-access=subscription seems reasonable, too. I recently asked them if they were interested in partnering like other sources we have available through Wikipedia Library, or even just granting me limited-time, but they declined. :| I should ask the WL folks to try to negotiate a deal with them. —[AlanM1 (talk)]—02:25, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Password Reset not working
I tried to RESET my password through the request, but I never got any email.
I did this over a period of a few days but with no success.
I am sure about my email address and my login name. 97.102.135.121 (talk) 15:38, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
HeartGlow30797 This is not correct advice, administrators can do nothing about login issues whatsoever. If password reset isn't working it could be because there is no email associated with the account, the account has a different email or there is an issue with the email itself. Praxidicae (talk) 15:57, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
There is a BOT that advises editors that they have linked to a disambiguation page rather than directly to the article in question.
My suggestion is to mark disambiguated links as soon as they occur, instead of waiting days for the BOT to advise you. Something like this:
I wish more people would enable that gadget. It's incredibly useful. Instead of the gadget, I use a more orangeish color by simply adding the following line to Special:MyPage/common.css:
I just wanna ask 'bout the adminship probabilities for me citing that I possess over 1.5 years of experience and edit'd 7.1k edits. Futhermore, citing that I've been profoundly thank'd and admir'd by a lot of editors.
SHISHIR DUA18:57, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
@Ed6767: I seriously doubt this candidate's adminship probabilities (as they put it). They are an obvious hat collector [1][2][3][4], were taken to ANI for CIR, canvass on a meta-give away [5], [6] and [7]. Self support their self nom. and word it like they were nominated by someone else on both their RFA and meta-giveaway. The user has also been trying to flirt with girls (Usernamekiran brought this up on meta) [8][9]. And on the same giveaway removed my opinion when it was "neutral" (which has since changed) [10]Bingobro(Chat)05:36, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
@SHISHIR DUA: Hi. Even though it was one year ago, you confused a list of Wikipedia editors who are willing to nominate other candidates for adminship, with a place to get adminship; and nominated yourself for adminship - it shows lack of basic understanding of English language regardless of your English vocabulary. But like I said, that was an year ago. Your experience on enwiki, and English fluency must have changed. But WP:RFAADVICE has not changed since the last time Kudpung had told you on talkpage. But that was again an year ago, you may have forgotten about it even though it still on your talkpage unarchived, and even though you had thanked Kudpund for the guidance on his talkpage.
To answer your question about your chances (probabilities is grammatically incorrect here) about adminship: English wikipedia looks for certain qualities in editors for becoming an admin. The most important of them is that the candidate should be trusted with tools. As an admin, an editor has access to deleted material, and the admins are expected to protect personal information of other editors. Asking a girl for her facebook, or Instagram is certainly not a good indicator. Another trait wikipedians look for is that the candidate should be civil, and should know how to behave around other editors. Calling another lady editor "bae", and trying to flirt is not a good sign. I understand, everybody makes mistakes, but repeating them is not a good thing, and certainly not for an admin. But even after being told explicitly not to call someone bae, calling other lady as bae while canvassing to get merchandise from metawiki is certainly not a good sign. My apologies for drifting off the topic. Regarding your chances of adminship, under a guideline "Admin Accountability", admins/admin candidates are expected to communicate with other editors, and to respond to queries/concerns/doubts. Taking a quick look to your talkpage, I can see a few unanswered conversations including one of my own. While I stated in the comment that it was not mandatory, a response is expected from admin candidate, any response. Also, WP:CANVASSING is trait that editors dont want in an admin at all, which have you done as recently as yesterday with multiple editors editors including the one diff provided above. I recommend to edit more maturely for at least six months to one year for getting past these issues. Another thing about the RfAs, if the candidate has a block in last year, the RfA always fails. But as you were blocked in June 2019 (2 weeks), then for disruptive editing in August 2019 (72 hours), and again in April 2020 (2 weeks) for "Disruptive editing; WP:CIR and consistent WP:IDHT behaviour; see also deleted contribs"; I'd say postpone your RfA for at least two years, as someone would definitely bring up your "I dont hear it (IDHT)" in the RfA. Talking about IDHT behaviour, it reminds me of your request for autopatrol flag, where Swarm had explicitly warned you that you are not eligible for autopatrol or any other right. Yet just within a few days you requested for Template Editor access, which is by far the most advanced authorisation except for interface admin; just shows more "IDHT" behaviour from your side. After going through everything I just said, I would say you should wait for at least three yearsof editing maturely before thinking about becoming an admin, and after that, you should read WP:RFAADVICE carefully, and thoroughly like Kudpung had suggested you. Regards, —usernamekiran (talk)06:29, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
I thought Wikipedia Articles are interesting , and I like article writing , so I thought , "Why not give it a shot ? Its free and easy after all !" And it was ! Until my idea 'popped' . You see , when I typed in the search box for articles , I thought it would be easy , and there could be several articles no one ever wrote ! Or so I thought . There's nothing in the world that Wikipedia doesn't write !! I mean it as half compliment , half annoyance . I respect Wikipedia , yes very much , but I want to write at least something !! Please help me think of anything ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiWolfiePedia (talk • contribs) 08:10, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Hello WikiWolfiePedia and welcome to the Teahouse. My advice, worth every cent you paid for it, is to not focus on creating new articles as a new editor, creating an article that "sticks" can be hard. But a lot of stuff needs improvement, and improving stuff is the way to get the hang of WP. Take a look at "Help out" at Wikipedia:Community portal.
I want to thank Wikipedia reviewer Hoary for looking at my draft. I am making the changes he advises. I have several cut-up newspaper articles from an old Oswaldo Castro scrapbook but many of them have no newspaper name or date. Because of pandemic restrictions, the libraries and newspapers that have this information and to whom I have written cannot access their archives:
Hello Oscar Waldoosty. You cannot possibly use an undated newspaper clipping that does not identify the newspaper as a reference on Wikipedia. One of our core content policies is Verifiability, which means that a reader should be able to verify the content in the original source, which is impossible if the name of the publication is unknown. Wikipedia summarizes only what reliable sources say, and editors cannot evaluate the reliability of a newspaper (or any other publication) without knowing its name. You are welcome to use hints and clues from those clippings to search for acceptable sources. Cullen328Let's discuss it02:30, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi Oscar Waldoosty. In addition to what Cullen328 posted above, I'm just going to add that sources cited in Wikipedia articles aren't required to be available online; they are only required to be reliable, published and accessible. Sources don't even have to be free for viewing. So, there's no need for you to upload scans or photo copies of any newspaper articles/clippings; you can cite the source as explained in WP:SAYWHERE and WP:CITEHOW. Being available online does make it easier for editors to verify a source, but it's not required. There's other reasons why you shouldn't upload photocopies/scans of articles that have to do with WP:COPY#Guidelines for images and other media files and WP:CONVENIENCE#Existing policy and guidelines regarding convenience links. Most newspaper articles are protected by copyright and simply photographing them doesn't transfer that copyright to you. Same goes for photos taken by others; photographing a photo taken by someone else doesn't make you the copyright holder the photo. Most of the files you've already uploaded to Commons for use in the draft have licensing issues that need to be resolved; so, I wouldn't suggest you uploading any more files to Commons until you've got a better grasp of what "own work" means in a copyright sense and of c:Commons:Licensing in general. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:39, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Middle name
I'm working on a new wiki page about a living person, is it better to have the firs and last name only as a title for the article or should I include the middle name as well? Omar Almazruei (talk) 11:47, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm being personally attacked by multiple editors who are kinda ganging up on me
I've spent hours researching and understanding Wikipedia policy. This was after my first tryst with deletion where I made a bunch of mistakes and educated myself. Now I'm being personally attacked and have also been called a racist. On some discussion page, I'm being disparaged by a bunch of editor, I can't find it now but they basically said that i have some bad intentions. This is incredibly disrespectful and does Wikipedia have a way to work with this. I'm very upset that if I spend such an incredible amount of time understanding and learning everything just to be accused of I can't even list it all. And why are my edits not being judged on their merit? No one has pointed out any mistakes, all I'm getting are personal attacks. Only one particular editor seems to focus on the edits I make. But this is very upsetting and shouldn't be acceptable. I hope this isn't a place where bullying is encouraged like I am being currently. Sorry for sounding so dramatic, but I'm really pissed. I've tried to be as civil as possible. Iitianeditor (talk) 14:57, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
HeartGlow30797 The editor named joseph2302 basically said that I'm biased against Pakistani's because I'm indian. That's an accusation of racism. I have no bias against any nationality or against anyone at all. He just said it without any basis bringing into question my credibility. Iitianeditor (talk) 15:26, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
The only contribution @Joseph2302: has made is this diff. This does have anything close to your accusations you are stating. The content explains why those cricket players should be kept in the mainspace due to challenged notability. Also, he pointed out your selectiveness. I do not see this as cruel or harsh, which believes me to think that the page in which they called you a racist could have been a mistake in interpretation. HeartGlow(talk)15:37, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
HeartGlow30797 yes, in that line I'll quote "And why are you specifically picking out bios of Pakistani cricketers? There's nothing that makes Pakistani cricketers less notable, and this would indicate that you may have a bias against them." I perceive that as a personal attack on me. Now, people now a days are smart enough to not call someone "racist" to their face but this is exactly what he's trying to imply by writing it on my talk page. That I'm biased against pakistanis. He's being passive aggresive, but if you look closely he's basically calling into question my character. And if he wants to explain the reasons for why they should be kept (when precident shows they shouldn't, I've even mentioned it in the nomination reason), why the need for the quoted text above. He's trying to win an argument by questioning my credibility.Iitianeditor (talk) 15:50, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Their is nothing we can do here further. Please look at posting at or WP:AN/I and an administrator can look at it. Personally, it does not come to me as being called racist, but I think a third opinion can be made at the aforementioned noticeboard. HeartGlow(talk)15:57, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
HeartGlow30797 thanks for understanding my concern. I do want to post it there, but I don't want to lose all the discussion over here since it would take a large amount of effort to repear. How can I post it with all the info over here?Iitianeditor (talk) 16:07, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Hey, FTR, IMO telling an editor with 500 edits to take it to ANI is terrible advice. It would have been much more helpful to simply explain to them why it wasn't a personal attack, why they weren't actually being ganged up on even though it felt like it, and given them another chance to realize they weren't experienced enough to understand what was happening. This is Teahouse. We should be helping new editors avoid ending up boomeranged, like this one just did. —valereee (talk) 11:59, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Who to alert about a new article whose contents don't correspond to the title?
I'm a "learner"-stage editor and haven't ever created a chart before, and when I went looking for info, I ended up on the page Wikipedia:Charts format template. But the contents of that page have nothing to do with charts. It was created today by someone who has only made a few edits total, looks like it may be a mistake -- intended only as a sandbox effort? I'm not sure whether to just create a talk page for that user or if I'm supposed to say something elsewhere and would appreciate guidance. Thanks -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:44, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
I have noticed that the above user is making a huge number of changes (both additions and deletions) at various Vital Article List without any consensus [12], [13], [14], [15]. This seems to have been going on for the last week but picked up drastic pace in last 3 days. The user has already received a Level 2 warning for nonconstructive edits on a talk-page and then Level 3 & 4 warnings from me.
I would like help in following:
1. Where should I report such an incident? I reported this at WP:ANI but no one has responded
2. Experienced User investigating if my claim is right
3. In case it is right, rollback the changes made by the user and appropriately warning/blocking them.
Hi Roller26. Since you've already started a discussion about this at WP:ANI, that's where it should be resolved. There's nothing anyone can do really here at the Teahouse now at this point. If nobody has responded to you yet at ANI, just be patient; ANI is fairly active page, but even WP:ADMINs get WP:BUSY every now and then. Finally, for future reference, once you pick a noticeboard to start a discussion, you should just let things play out there. Starting multiple discussions about the same matter on different noticeboards is not a good idea because it creates lots of redundancy and maybe even some confusion; it might also be seen as WP:FORUMSHOPPING which is generally frowned upon. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:59, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Lslch: Firstly, can you fill out the sections in the draft? Right now there are just empty headers. Aside from that, most article lengths are okay - there are plenty of stub articles on Wikipedia that are just fine! It's not ideal, but it's not always easy or practical to fill out more.
Second, based on the declining comments, you'll need to find reliable, ideally secondary sources discussing the coast in relative detail. As Grabergs said, WP:TUTORIAL is excellent, but if you still need help I can help you with sources later if you find a few - please post on my talk page if you'd like me to - but without sources, the article is not viable, unfortunately. The easiest way to find sources is to Google. If you have a public or other library near you that is open, that's another good place to look. -- a ladinsane(channel two)09:19, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
@Lslch, hello, articles are reviewed at random so there isn’t any fixed time for that to happen, but a suggestion would be for you to contact the editor that declined the article initially and ask them to have a second look. Celestina00710:20, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Thank you everyone for the answers, I have another question if that's okay ( i started not long ago and am still new) Is there anyway to speed up the review process as this is for a university process and I do not have a lot of time ?
Hello again, Alisha rains. To answer your question, I tried putting WP:Recent deaths into the search bar, and it brought up the information page explaining the criteria and the procedure. Note what it says there: normally only people who Wikipedia already has an article about are appropriate entries. --ColinFine (talk) 14:19, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Thank you I will try that. Alisha rains ([[Alisha rains ([[User talk:Alisha rains 10:00, 10 September
I am new to Wikipedia and am trying to publish an article about myself (Alan Safahi). I signed up under username USSKING and edited the page but when I click on Publish Changes button, nothing seems to happen. The article has been sitting in limbo for a couple of weeks now. Is there a review/approval process that is taking longer than 2 weeks?
In addition to what already written, no hyperlinks in body of articles, all statements of fact need to be referenced, refs are inserted in body of articles, neutral point of view required. Lastly, one a draft is submitted, a review can take place in days, weeks, months, as there is a backlog of >3,000 drafts. David notMD (talk) 20:11, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
You might rephrase "create disruptive innovations", "payments orchestration layer", "embedded FinTech", etc so that they'll be understood. (If the goal is instead just to impress, then the draft is doomed.) -- Hoary (talk) 20:56, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Are BBC documentaries a good source for Wikipedia. I know that BBC articles themselves are publications and are therefore not good sources, but it seems to me that the documentary solely exists to convey information to the public. I guess this question extends to all documentaries though. What do you guys think? Is the documentary itself a good enough source or should I try to find the sources they use to make it? CJMcKenna98 (talk) 22:21, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
In the VisualEditor interface, you can also use the Cite button and paste the URL of the Google reference in the text box of the Automatic tab. It will then generate the relevant information. You just need to Edit it to add the page numbers because it is not included in the data. Regards, Darwin Naz (talk) 22:40, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Question
Wikipedia CakeTarta de la fiesta del 17 aniversario de Wikipedia
Not a newbie question, but hoping to pick your brains on something. I recall there used to be funding from the WMF for cake (with personalised writing) at local Wikipedia meetups, does anybody also remember this and do you have links to any old pages about this? Zindor (talk) 21:46, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
@Zindor: I can't offer an answer, but I do quite fancy a slice of one of these with my Teahouse tea. If you search for "Wikipedia cake" on Commons, you can check file useage and see which past projects have used the images, (such as this one). My guess would be that local chapters might have funded them, rather than WMF. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:31, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
What WMF funds via grants has changed over time. Now they only fund projects $500 and up, and all in-person events are on hold because of covid. I don't specifically remember that they funded cake or any page about this, but they would fund food for meetups and the like, and I imagine that a cake would generally have been acceptable. There used to be no minimum for grants. Here is a page about the smaller-scale things they fund these days: [16]. You can look at the page histories of the grants pages on Meta to see how things have changed over time. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:34, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks both of you, that answers my question. My memory was a little hazy on this, the subject just popped into my head because i was thinking about Wikipedia approaching its 20th birthday and i wondered if there will be birthday cake, and if so, how one acquires a slice! My tea sadly lacks that Teahouse zing, i've been meaning to help out here for years but i keep forgetting. Kind regards, Zindor (talk) 22:55, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Draft:Meta Runner was originally declined last year, due to a number of reasons. Earlier this year, I updated the draft according to the feedback gotten from past rejections, and more critical reception, external news sources, and footnotes were added to verify the information in the article. The information about the series overall was updated to be more accurate too, and I submitted it for review, however, it got moved to drafts and then rejected, and the reason was that it was too similar to the original, even though numerous edits according to the feedback were made.
Because I had accidentally resubmitted the page for review twice earlier this month, one version was rejected and the other one Draft:Meta Runner is still awaiting review. I'm not sure what else could be needed for it to be approved and this is my first time trying to edit an article, so any help would be appreciated! JessGlitchProd (talk) 00:59, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Hello JessGlitchProd, I noticed that your query almost went unanswered here; I'll try to be blunt in the interest of being helpful, so, apologies in advance. First of all, I can not find the paid-editing disclosure you are required to make according to the terms of use. Please follow the instructions at WP:PAID to do so (there's a new wizard at WP:ERW which might help you do it more easily). Showing a willingness to follow guidelines and policies is one of the ways you can demonstrate your good faith, which in turn makes other editors more inclined to help you (we are all volunteers here, and no one is obligated to donate their time and skill for free in order to help someone else make more money when they give no reason to make them want to). Secondly, in my experience, WP:COI editors always seem to have a hard time deciding between getting their articles published and getting published the kind of articles they want. If the subject you were writing about were so notable that a full-length article could be written on it, I reckon someone else would have done it (there are enough sports and entertainment fans here). Since the topic seems to be borderline on notability, it follows that there are not that many sources, which means when you try to push a full-length article, it contains a lot of information that you would know because of your close involvement with the subject or want included for the same reason, but WP:V, one of the core content policies can not be satisfied by such an article causing reviewers to decline it. You need to start from what the sources that you will have support, rather than drafting your preferred article and trying to find sources to fit it. The latter is how you end up with an IMDb source for one of the most consequential claims about the subject. As long as your article makes extraordinary claims like that unsupported or supported by fake references, it won't get accepted. My advice to you is find a few sources that meet the criteria described at WP:SIGCOV and write a well-sourced article, however brief. If you can't find the sources, you'll just have to wait for the topic to get further attention in the media. If there are enough sources and your draft contains well-verified neutrally worded claims only, the draft will easily get accepted. You can then use WP:Edit requests to try and get it expanded as more sources become available. Best, Usedtobecool☎️02:28, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Sources for articles about individuals
I am a new editor enrolled in a course using the WikiEducation program and am preparing to edit articles for the first time. We are encouraged to find scholarly sources for our contributions to pages, especially ones that come from reputable publications. I am wondering: what constitutes a high quality source for an article about an individual? Especially for less famous individuals, it would seem that there wouldn't be many truly "scholarly" sources that could be found to supplement their biography. With this in mind, what kind of sources do Wikipedians expect when it comes to filling in details about a person's life/views/works? APG2000 (talk) 03:53, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Books from reputable publishers; the news sections (but usually not the opinion sections) of reputable newspapers; reputable magazines -- but of course I'm doing little more than replacing a mystery over "scholarly" with a mystery over "reputable". Think of individuals who are comparable to the one you're writing about, and look for the articles on these people. Try to find a handful that seem well-developed, convincing, and (as you can infer from a quick inspection of the article histories and the articles' talk pages) stable and not contentious. See which sources have been used for these. Use similar sources for your own article. For a web and news source that might be convenient but also seems iffy, see what if anything is written about it in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. If you have a question about the reliability (or not) of a particular potential source, ask about it at "WP:RSN". -- Hoary (talk) 04:17, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
@Deisenbe and Victor Schmidt: Someone recently explained here that, in order to avoid marking links that are only temporarily dead as (permanently) dead, the bot will not do so unless it has tried (I think) the link and found it dead three times at least a day apart. —[AlanM1 (talk)]—10:01, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
citing an old newspaper article that is not on the internet
citing an old newspaper article that is not on the internet
@RBTWI19-620827: In other words, all the same information that is desired if the article were online (except of course the URL, which is the least important part). If it's not a well-known paper (e.g., Le Monde, Financial Times, The Hindu, etc.), or one with a title used by multiple papers (e.g., Herald-Examiner), the location, publisher, and ISSN (if available) should also be included. —[AlanM1 (talk)]—10:18, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Removing A Tag
I was editing this article Poor Boy Blues. I am trying to add citation to all the Renditions given (still working).
Alanzie Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If you feel that you have addressed the concern of the tag, you may remove it. It would be a good idea to post an explanation of why you think so on the article talk page. 331dot (talk) 08:43, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, @Lauralaelbart:. (Please do not write in capital letters - it is the online equivalent of SHOUTING!) Yes, the copyright holder of the image (i.e. the person who took the photo) can release their image under a Creative Commons commercial licence. We have a system whereby the owner can email the image to what we call our OTRS Team, along with a precise form of words to release it. The email would have to come from an account which could be verified as belonging to that person. Is that what you are trying to achieve? If so, we'll dig out the relevant link to the page so you know how to get it submitted. Nick Moyes (talk) 19:55, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
There is a BOT that advises editors that they have linked to a disambiguation page rather than directly to the article in question.
My suggestion is to mark disambiguated links as soon as they occur, instead of waiting days for the BOT to advise you. Something like this:
Ho - orange - disambiguation page - if editor does not make following change it will be blue like good link and BOT will tell you about this days later ----MountVic127 (talk) 09:16, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
I wish more people would enable that gadget. It's incredibly useful. Instead of the gadget, I use a more orangeish color by simply adding the following line to Special:MyPage/common.css:
Hello MountVic127. You cannot expect numerous bots working on over six million articles to produce instant results. Unless you have bot coding skills and can help streamline their operations, I suggest that you be patient and grateful for the useful work that these bots do. Cullen328Let's discuss it06:47, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
@MountVic127: It is very helpful for editors, I agree, but I think that if it were made the default setting it could be confusing for Wikipedia readers who are not editors. That's just my immediate thought, and you could suggest this at the Idea lab (which is part of the Village pump), to get more input. There's quite a few helpful tools and scripts that make editing easier, and it's hard to say which is the most useful one... check out WP:TOOLS!
As for adding a copy of a post to the end of the Teahouse page (or any talk page) to keep it visible, that's not a good idea for a couple of reasons: the original post is still there, currently near the top of the page and subsequently in the archives, and this post will gradually move up on the page as well – there is no way to keep it at the bottom without copying it repeatedly, and we'd end up with hundreds of copies of the same post in the archives. Secondly, when copying the entire post and thread you also copied the replies and signatures of other editors, which is something you should always avoid doing. And finally, it would not be read by very many editors here. New editors who come to the Teahouse don't usually read other posts, not even the ones immediately above their own post, and a brand-new editor does not necessarily know what a disambiguation page is. --bonadeacontributionstalk08:03, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
There is also User:Anomie/linkclassifier.js which I have been using for a very long time, and is very useful. It basically colour codes the links on the page that you are viewing, or previewing while editing. —usernamekiran (talk)11:01, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Can you please help me by telling me what's wrong about this draft: Draft:Evan S. Luthra
Which sources should be added/maintained and which one should be removed?
Have to ask - what is your connection to Evan Luthra? Your very first edits ever were today's creation of the draft. Are you being paid to create this article? David notMD (talk) 20:04, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Hey Again,
I have no connection with Evan S. Luthra. I'm just a fan following every new about his life.
Hello, DavidConx. The first two are not independent; I didn't look further. Bear in mind that, in an article about Luthra, Wikipedia is basically not interested in anything said by Luthra, his associates, his employers, or institutions connected with him, wherever they are published. If you want volunteer editors to spend more time looking over your sources, you need to help them by presenting three or four of your absolute best quality independent sources, rather than flooding us with many inadequate ones. You should also be aware that Wikipedia editors tend to look very critically at articles related to blockchain and cryptocurrencies, because of the number of attempts over several years to insert promotion and advertising into Wikipedia in this area: see this discussion from two years ago. --ColinFine (talk) 21:36, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Hello Mr Colin,
Thanks for replying and advising.
I fully understand the importance of cleaning and protecting Wikipedia from promotional content and scam. And I'll be happy to help in my journey as a Wikipedia editor that started today. You all made me excited about this voluntary job.
However, the page is talking about Evan S. Luthra and the blockhain part is just to show his interest about this industry. Should I remove it?
That's cool to know Robert !
I will make a research to see if he meets notability. Eitherwise, I will be supposed to forget about it for now, and go for another article about another subject.
In addition, I have noticed a number of cites targeting globalgrasshopper.com, which also appear to be suspicious.
I'm not sure what the procedure here might be since I have connections in the travel space where there is crossover, I am not sure if I should be taking this to the noticeboard or otherwise being connected to any inquiry on this.
@David Biddulph: I'm not sure what you mean by ignored due to 12 months activity. Does that mean their edits can be removed without any special process/notification? Also, I think I was not clear enough in the message above that the other cites are not from the same user. I'm trying to see what the best way to help remove this SPAM is, when I have a potential COI being that these sites are in a vertical I work in. Mlepisto (talk) 13:32, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
I have reformatted your query and added a section title. Please let me know if I did something wrong in that process. You are free to rename the section header to your preference. Best, Usedtobecool☎️13:06, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Kjsarat, could you be a little more specific? Do you want it to be fact checked? Do you want to know if it will pass AfC? It's hard to tell from the phrasing of your question. Giraffer (munch) 13:58, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Well, I've been developing a draft entitled "Rotea Gilford" and, not realizing I couldn't delete it, I did something very stupid and added a photo to the article that is now not going to be accepted. I had asked a question about whether or not I could use it (the newspaper it came from has been defunct since 1965). One person who answered me thought it might be usable and while I was answering his/her additional questions about the photo, I added it to the article. The next person said it absolutely can not be used. Now I can't figure out how to delete it. I expect to be burned at the stake for this . . . but can someone help me? Kilitzianf (talk) 10:40, 12 September 2020 (UTC) Kilitzianf (talk) 10:40, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi Kilitzianf, welcome to the Teahouse. I wouldn't worry yourself, it's a small localised issue, and we'll happily help you deal with it. The important thing is that you're discussing the problem with other editors, and we have standard procedures for deleting images. Is this the image you are talking about? Zindor (talk) 11:11, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
@Kilitzianf: it would be possible for you to place a speedy deletion tag on the picture over at Wikimedia Commons, because you uploaded it, and are the only one using it. Just place {{SD|G7}} in the source code of the page. I have however already nominated the file for deletion here, and hopefully a useful discussion about the copyright will take place. Let me know if you need any further assistance. Regards, Zindor (talk) 14:51, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Help About Protected Article
Hello, Admin I wanna create an article , name Swastika Dutta . And @ColinFine: said that the article salted after deleted fourth time. And he told me to post all her news article link here(At least 3 from different news portal). And I have collected some article's from Google. So I am going to post those article here. So can anyone help me by checking those article is suitable or not for creating Swastika Dutta's article on Wikipedia.
Bijoyonline30. The four of those I have looked at are all based on interviews with Dutta. You have missed the part where I said that the articles must be completely unconnected with Dutta (and not based on an interview or press release). --ColinFine (talk) 16:25, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Hello @ColinFine: , thanks for your review. Actually I serached and send all those article. So is there any article will work for creating and article named Swastika Dutta or I will post more article ???
Bijoyonline30. Attempts to write this article have been deleted four times. The participants in those discussions will have looked for evidence of notability before they decided to delete. If you want to create an article on her now, the onus is on you to find the sources which either they overlooked, or which have been published since: sources that are reliable and independent and contain significant coverage of her. I haven't looked at all the ones you posted above: if you wish to get me (or probably anybody else) to spend any more time on this, you need to persuade me that it is even worth opening the sources to look at them. --ColinFine (talk) 16:53, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Can someone please update The Happy Prince's (movie starring Rupert Everett) wikipedia page? The movie has garnered 13 nominations and they've won 4 times, but there's no section in the page indicating that. Is it possible to add an Awards and Nominations category showing their achievements? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashleexry (talk • contribs) 15:18, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
A page I created for Mahesh Paudyal, a famous author from Nepal, got deleted. I also provided sufficient links, links of his works in Goodread, reference links of his books, and resources for his writings. Why this happened? Fairnesssm11 (talk) 06:34, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Your Contributions do not show that you created this article or draft. Rather, you requested undeletion, which was denied. Attempts to create an article about Paudyal have been deleted for cause in the past, so very unlikely a new attempt will succeed. David notMD (talk) 10:08, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Fairnessm11, our criteria for including a biography is not based on anybody's (not yours, not mine, not anybody's) subjective opinion on a person's fame. Instead, it's based on notability, or in other words, the far more objective criteria of how much has been written about a person. John from Idegon (talk) 17:22, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi, Esslalsammarraie. Your draft only cited primary sources, which while useful for confirming facts, aren't a means of establishing whether the topic is notable; which is the standard for inclusion for an article on Wikipedia. As the AfC reviewer suggested in the box at the top of the page, you need to provide evidence of significant coverage in reliable independent secondary sources. Regards, Zindor (talk) 10:10, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Hello admin, I need help about reliable sources. Is Asian age , Deccan Chronicle, The Statesman reliable sources just like TOI ???
Is those sorces are valid for wikiedia article creation ???
Waiting for your valuable answer. Bijoyonline30 (talk) 15:38, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Hello, thanks for your help. Can you please help me to tell that, which news sources is reliable in Odisha based in India. Waiting for your valuable reply.
Hi, Bijoyonline30. The best place to ask about reliability of sources is at WP:RSN . I don't know whether anybody there would respond to an open question like your last one, but if you ask "Is this source reliable for this kind of information?" you'll probably get an answer. You can also search its archives, to see if a particular publication has been discussed there before. --ColinFine (talk) 17:40, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I am a newcomer to this platform, so sorry if my question doesn't fit. When I use Wikipedia on this account, LaTeX doesn't appear to me in the 'math' mode. All I see is the source text with the $'s and the \\s. Does anyone know if there's a setting I can enable to see it again? This only doesn't work on my account. When I'm logged out I see things fine. Dawkin Verbier (talk) 14:12, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Dawkin Verbier, this may be a problem with your browser's rendering engine. I suggest going to Preferences Appearance then scrolling down to the bottom where it says "Math" Select "PNG images". I also suggest trying another browser. — Yours, Berrely • Talk∕Contribs14:15, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Berrely. Hello there Berrely, thank you very much for this. It works now, and I feel so stupid that I didn't think of looking through the Appearance tab first. Thank you very much! Dawkin Verbier (talk) 14:22, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Berrely, please note there are several user interfaces for Wikipedia and it doesn't work that way on several. So step by step instructions on how you change your preferences might not work for the person asking the question. Further, there are a gazillion things that can cause a rendering error. You cannot really answer general questions very well; no one can. Luckily your answer did work for this editor. Generally it's better to locate the specific error and speak to the specific problem. There are very few "one size fits all" answers on Wikipedia. John from Idegon (talk) 18:04, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Question about referencing
So, my Great Great Grandparents created the brand Rexona. I happen to know some pretty interesting and quite crazy facts about the early history of the brand from Nanna that I thought would be interesting to put in. And I'd like to put in what I know as it preserves their memory. Especially, as they both actually died of malignant malaria promoting the brand. It was this big family tragedy.
My problem is, how do I prove all this? I have some photos and copies of articles from the time about their company and its early development in Australia from my Nanna. And I can prove I'm related to them. But how do you "prove" or reference oral family history? BrittaRose (talk) 17:16, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Hello, BrittaRose, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid that unpublished information never belongs in a Wikipedia article. The problem is that, since anybody can edit most articles, a reader has no way of verifying what's in an article unless it cites a published source: suppose you put some information in, and another editor comes along and changes it (whether maliciously, in error, or because they have a different understanding from you of what happened). A reader has no way to know whether your information or the changed inforamtion (or both or neither) is correct. See Original research for more information. --ColinFine (talk) 17:45, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
BrittaRose, an encyclopedia is a collection of information paraphrased from previously published reliable sources. You obviously are not a published source; you're a person, not a publication. If you write a book about your ancestors and get it published by a reliable publisher (not a vanity press), that book could be cited. However, even then, someone else who isn't related to the principals should write the article. See WP:COI and WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. "Autobiography" obviously isn't exactly on point, but most of the reasons one shouldn't write about oneself also apply when writing about a relative. John from Idegon (talk) 19:45, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Does removing {{ow}} constitute a violation of Wikipedia's policies?
I have been browsing through our sister projects to obtain a rudimentary understanding of them, and so I went to our Wikidata, which claims to be a large body of incremental data, though I still cannot understand how exactly the structure is formatted. I am asking how each data item is related to another. ~ Wikimeedian (talk) 20:41, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
@Oscar Waldoosty: Since it was about a question you posted here at the Teahouse, the best way to follow up is to edit that section again instead of starting a new one. If you start it with {{Re|Marchjuly}} (which renders as "@Marchjuly:"; like I did here), they will be notified. —[AlanM1 (talk)]—10:09, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks @AlanM1:! I'm beginning to get the drift of how it works. I just couldn't understand how one communicated directly to the individual reviewer. Hope I got it now :-) Oscar Waldoosty (talk) 14:08, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Yup, you got it Oscar Waldoosty. You can also use {{U|Username}} if you don't want the '@' prefix and ':' suffix in mid-sentence (as I did here). Also, when adding a comment to an existing thread, you can start it with one or more colons (':') to indent it one more level than the person to whom you're responding. In this case, I indented yours for you by prefixing it with three colons (":::"), and I indented this response with four colons ("::::") because I responded to your three-colon post. It makes it easier to follow a conversation. Cheers! —[AlanM1 (talk)]—22:36, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
It's been some time since I created these two articles which are not being reviewed until now. It would be awesome if someone can review it or help me in the process. As I want to contribute to more subjects and it's really proving a block to me. Utkarshgarg13 (talk) 00:21, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
@Utkarshgarg13: As the notice on the draft says, it will take some time to get the review done, so just be patient. In the meantime you can continue to work on improving the drafts. See WP:YFA for guidance. You can also work to improve existing articles, which is a great way to get experience at Wikipedia. RudolfRed (talk) 00:27, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Thank you so much RudolfRed for the advice :) I'm aware.
But, the notice also says that "if the review is taking a lot of time, you can try asking for help on the talk page of a relevant WikiProject.", so I asked for help in regards with the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Utkarshgarg13 (talk • contribs) 00:36, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Sometime between 2001 and 2008, I submitted 'evascension" as a new word with a definintion. It did not exist as a recognized word in any language. The definition was put up for about three months and then disappeared. If you google it now, almost everything related to it is from me. Someone in Japan recently named a short musical tune evascension, and it will pop up. someone else got a website domain evascend.com. I have the domains evascension.com, .net, .org, and evascen.com. I also have a book on Amazon "Evascension The Journey from Instincts to Intellect" available as a paperback and an eBook. It is actually the 2nd and 3rd prequel in a series I started in 1989. I had an account long ago. but I suspect I had it under raycloninger or raymondcloninger@aol.com, but I let that die long ago. Your system says I can't use Ray Cloninger because it is taken, but if it is, I'm sure that is what I used long ago. If so and you keep old records, it will be linked to evascension. I would like to put up a definition of the word, a history of the books (the one on Amazon is the only one published). If anyone wishes to read it, I will be having a few free ebook day promotions starting within a week. It is currently only $2.99 (the lowest price they wanted me to put on it), and it is a free read for kindle prime members. How do I start and can anyone check my history from over a decade ago? Ray Cloninger.
@R.E. Cloninger: Whilst not wanting to sound unduly rude, Wikipedia is not interested in your one-man band attempt to invent and promote a new word. It is only interested in notable topics; the fact that the only mentions of said invented word are sourced to you might be a hint that you're never going to promote it here, or on Wiktionary. I fear you have a gross misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is about, and I would be pretty amazed if anyone here were interested in assisting you. Sorry. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:43, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Annette O'Toole
To
Hello, I'm Awesome Aasim. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Annette O'Toole have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks. Aasim 00:56, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
I responded
To the contrary! In the article "Annette O'Toole", I edited the field "birth_name = Annette O’Toole" to "birth_name = Annette Toole", to be consistent with the sentence "O'Toole was born Annette Toole in Houston, Texas, the daughter of Dorothy Geraldine (née Niland) and William West Toole Jr." which already appears. Not doing so would leave the born name as both Annette O'Toole and Annette Toole, which is inconsistent.98.149.97.245 (talk) 02:47, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Hah, looks like I did not look super closely. Thanks for explaining! For future reference, there is a field titled "edit summary". It is a good idea to look carefully to make sure other editors do not confuse your edits as vandalism. Thanks :) Aasim03:14, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Aggressive Editor
Hi,
I am new to Wikipedia, but wish to give the history of 'Legs On The Wall' - a performing arts company in Australia. The early history is in the 1980s and so is reliant on piecing together newspaper articles, mentions etc.
I have a very aggressive editor called HickoryOughtShirt?4 who doesn't appear to read my references. I get great swathes of work cut out and the reference now has gone back to something that existed years ago that has little truth (not deliberate - it is a later version of the history).
Are all the editors aggressive like this? Is this just to teach me a lesson (you know, whip me into shape)? The first edits gave no comments on my user page...now they are aggressive comments.
Please help... I wish to learn...and hopefully give a version of history with some truth....
An Original Leg, I saw one of your edits where you primarily reference to IMDb. IMDb is generally unreliable as a source as it is user-generated and can be innacurate.
Second, the coincidence between your username and the article title signals me that you have some sort of connection towards the subject? Mind clarifying, so that I can dive deeper? Cheers, GeraldWL05:32, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi Gerald,
That's correct. I started this company with many others. I have been encouraging original members to log in and create the early history. One other has responded and I am hopeful of others. We do have lots of primary sources in the form of media reviews and reports, but as it was the 80's it is a slow build up. Thanks for your help and time...I am the Brian Keogh in the group— Preceding unsigned comment added by An Original Leg (talk • contribs) 05:39, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
An Original Leg, then you should be familiar with WP:COI or perhaps WP:PAID. We are not interested in what the company likes to say about them, but rather WP:RS sayings on the subject. I suggest you declare a connection, or a paid declaration in accordance with Wikimedia's Terms of Use. If you can filter your writings to make it neutral and unbiased and unreferenced, great, go on. GeraldWL07:08, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Ha, ha...now I am in a labyrinth...what is sock/meatpuppetry??? And just to declare (and I will work this out), I am not paid, this is a charity which I created (with others), I have long since passed on any control, and we particularly interested in getting the first ten years right ...this was a blooming period in Australian Theatre (chuck off our colonial past)....many people helped to make breakthroughs in this area...but the history is really important. I come with innocent hands... hopefully I (with your help) can make this work.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by An Original Leg (talk • contribs) 07:40, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
@Glen: per WP:MEAT: "High-profile disputes on Wikipedia often bring new editors to the site. Some individuals may promote their causes by bringing like-minded editors into the dispute, including enlisting assistance off-Wiki. These editors are sometimes referred to as meatpuppets."
Is this a high-profile dispute article? Frankly, encouraging new, like-minded editors to register an acct and join WP to enrich an article, with sources, seems like a Good Thing! I agree with the cmts made below by User:David notMD. New editors need to learn our ways, in regard to sourcing, of course. But it seems unfair of WP to "label" a group of off-wiki colleagues as " meatpuppets" when they innocently try to work together to improve an article. Your stmt that "You've actually already admitted to soliciting help on the article." is rather chilling, not only to the new editor/colleagues, but to others, as well. I, and others on WP solicit help from each other on a regular basis, and view this as "collaboration". If an editor is working on an article, and knows that an off-wiki friend has access to sources, is it "meatpuppetry" to ask them to register an acct., and add the information? Soliciting help is not a WP crime. The purpose behind the solicitaltion is the concern. We don't want to drive new good-faith editors away. Tribe of TigerLet's Purrfect!23:05, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Tribe of Tiger, for clarity it wasn't a vague aspersion on my part, AOL has acknowledged he has "encouraged other founding members to also sign in to Wikipedia and build the history" - you only have to look at the history to see two editors and an IP are clearly working in conjunction with each other. However I do agree the comment did come off rather BITEy and have since been discussing the matter on AOL's wall where you'll see I have tried to help so progress is being made. Glen (talk) 04:29, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Glen Thanks for this kind reply! I do see, per your links, that some good conversation is taking place, and will move any further cmts/questions regarding WP:BLP to your talk. I sincerely appreciate that you considered my edits and comments. Best wishes, and thanks again, Tribe of TigerLet's Purrfect!04:49, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Ha, ha ...thanks. Yes, I think knowledge is not mine, but rather a collective experience. This is how Legs on the Wall was started. Because we listened to everyone, we were able to create an innovative form of theatre. And so yes, I have definitely asked people to check my work and add theirs (all the original Legs on the Wall members). Unless you all object, I would like to copy this page. This conversation is great. Thanks to everyone. What a great site...I am not sure I will ever get my edits or versions through, but its fabulous chatting....An Original Leg (talk) 08:10, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
This may not qualify as meatpuppetry if members/former members of the group each create accounts and declare their COI, i.e., connection to the organization, on their respective User pages. Essential, however, for changes to the article to be based on published sources rather than personal knowledge. David notMD (talk) 09:57, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Hello, An Original Leg. Your problem is that, in an article about Legs on the Wall, Wikipedia is basically not interested in anything that you or your members know or remember, unless it has been reported in independent reliable sources. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject have chosen to publish about it. I think you might find it better to collect your memories somewhere else. --ColinFine (talk) 17:13, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
My apologies if I came off aggressive, that certainly was never my intent. I was trying to inform you of our conflict of interest and verifiability guidelines. I hope the advice given above has helped. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 21:51, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
How do I completely change an existing Bob Keyes Infobox say from "NFL" to California Republican politics?
Bob Hayes might be better known as a football player than a politician; however, D7keyes' interest is in Bob Keyes. Bob Keyes is undoubtedly better known as a politician, or actually anything else, as his NFL career was a single season with the Oakland Raiders and the San Francisco 49ers in 1960 and his stats is a single rush for seven yards.
Osomite, good catch. Thanks. Your pings work, but I'm a volunteer just like you. Help on Wikipedia isn't real time. We'd have to have paid staff for that and we don't (and won't). D7keyes, I've left you a message on your talk page. You'll need to deal with that prior to editing Mr. Keyes's biography. BTW, per WP:BLP, I've removed everything from the article that isn't sourced. BLP requires inline citations for every fact. John from Idegon (talk) 21:03, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
@John from Idegon: Reading WP:BLPRS, "all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed." I don't see anything that says that "BLP requires inline citations for every fact" as you have stated. Would you please provide a link to the WP page that supports your assertion? Thanks! Tribe of TigerLet's Purrfect!21:50, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
@Cullen328: What you have said about "challenged" unsourced content is fair and reasonable, and I have no quarrel with your statement, nor did I challenge User:John from Idegon's "challenge". (The challenge seems to be "by the book, per WP".) My objection (or lack of understanding?), as I stated, relates to the declaration that: "BLP requires inline citations for every fact". AFAIK, this is not true. That is why I asked for a supporting link. Frankly, sports and politics are at the bottom of the rung in terms of my editing interests. However, I do wish to see our BLP policies represented accurately, esp here at the Teahouse. If I have not read BLP properly, I am entirely open to correction, which is why I asked for a link. I am not arguing in support of this particular article, nor about the edits that User:John from Idegon has made, but only about their declaration of WP BLP policy. Tribe of TigerLet's Purrfect!01:42, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
It's about politics. There are few non contentious facts concerning politics. There's also no reason to give anyone any advice regarding references that states otherwise. If it's about a person, reference it. All contentious means is someone disagrees. Do you honestly think anything can be asserted about a politician that wouldn't be contentious? Not even all the extraordinary claims about his athletics career were sourced. As a matter of fact, unless the claim of All American that I removed from the article verifies, I don't see anything that shows notability. All SNGs do is suggest a level of achievement that should generate enough coverage to meet GNG. they're not automatic. John from Idegon (talk) 23:41, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
@John from Idegon:Please, go back and read my edit. In answer to your question "Do you honestly think anything can be asserted about a politician that wouldn't be contentious?" no, of course I do not! My edit was made to question the declaration that "BLP requires inline citations for every fact", and that was the only subject I addressed in my edit! And that was my only interest in the topic. I did not state a disagreement with you in any other way! Yes, as a WikiGnome, I have made minor corrections to sports or political articles, from time to time, but they are certainly not my personal area of interest. But I do think it is important to state our BLP policies correctly, per WP:BLP. Many of us read the Teahouse, in order to learn. Stating our policies correctly is important. So, please, if I have misunderstood the basic policy, and there is a "page" I have failed to find, then do me the kindness of directing me to it. I only asked about policy, I did not voice nor do I have any disagreement with your edits to the article. I am sorry that both you and @Cullen328: thought that I was disagreeing with edits to the article. Sincerely, Tribe of TigerLet's Purrfect!02:47, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Any editor interested in improving this specific article should make constructive comments at Talk:Bob Keyes. Tribe of Tiger, Wikipedia does not have a strict rule set. We use a flexible combination of policies, guidelines, essays, precedent, consensus and good editorial judgment to decide how best to write good encyclopedia articles. Cullen328Let's discuss it05:06, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
@Cullen328: Thanks for your reply. My personal perception regarding "a strict rule set" varies from what you are saying here. Many of them seem to be pretty straightforward, often quoted, and enforced using our "alphabet soup" of WP (very good, IMO) policies. I am not an article writer, and I really do not care about, nor do I intend to edit this particular article. I do thank you for replying to me, and will post any further concerns on your talk. However, in this particular instance, the phrase "scope creep"? comes to mind, but I will make any further cmts elsewhere. Best wishes, and thanks again, Tribe of TigerLet's Purrfect!05:43, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Edit count broken
Somehow I joined Italian Wikipedia. Since then my live edit counters no longer work. I don’t know if the two events are related. How do I dump
Italian wikipedia? Fat Irish Guy (talk) 03:34, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
@Fat Irish Guy: You can't, AFAIK. Since your login works across most of the WMF projects, if you visit an article that retrieves content from a project, it attaches to your account. However, as was mentioned on your talk page, I don't think it's related. There's an ongoing problem with "replication lag" that affects things like edit counters. It's being worked on. See WP:VPT#Toolforge problems?. —[AlanM1 (talk)]—05:37, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. It’s not been working for four days. I guess that’s not unusual?
The Italian wikipedia thing happened the same day so I thought it might be related.
@Fat Irish Guy: Update: the lag seems to have gotten "un-stuck". Based on samples taken over a 30-minute period around 2020-09-11 20:00 UTC, it will be caught up about 28 hours from now (2020-09-13 00:00 UTC). Pinging BrownHairedGirl, who was interested in the Phab thread) —[AlanM1 (talk)]—20:23, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Update 2: It's looking more like finishing ~ 2020-09-13 13:00 UTC, based on the current lag of ~ 60 hours at 2020-09-12 09:00 UTC and a rate of π hours reduction in lag increase in time of last revision per hour. My earlier calculation was flawed, and should have reflected that same time. —[AlanM1 (talk)]—09:40, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
• curprev 12:49, 26 December 2019 Cushnieent talk contribs m 70,296 bytes +109 →External links: Added link for the most recent map of the Chanonry at Elgin. undo Tag: possible conflict of interest
• curprev 12:46, 26 December 2019 Cushnieent talk contribs m 70,187 bytes -35 →External links: Updated website address undo Tag: possible conflict of interest
Cushnieent is not a company, organisation, income-generator, ... of any kind.
Is it because I use "Cushnieent" as my Wikipedia username? Cushnieent (talk) 10:57, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Cushnieent Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. That's part of it. Usernames generally cannot be that of a website per the username policy, though "plain domain names (without .com, .co.kr, etc.) are sometimes acceptable, such as when the purpose is simply to identify the user as a person, they are inappropriate if they promote a commercial Web page.". If the only purpose of your username is to identify you personally, it's okay. You do, however have a conflict of interest. Please review that policy for more information. You should not add links to or information from your website without talk page discussion. 331dot (talk) 11:08, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
@TranElliott: Just a minor nit: when you say gender, heterosexual, racial or other Western biases, it sounds like you're laying all those biases on the West, while many of them are even more severely entrenched in the East. —[AlanM1 (talk)]—12:27, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Draft: Wenke Synak
Hello,
Can you please tell me what's wrong with this page ( Draft:Wenke Synak )?
@MariaNovach, hello & welcome, From what I can see here it appears HitroMilanese, was kind enough to leave you a comment as to why your draft article was declined but I’d say in summary what they said to you, the subject of your article as of now isn’t notable enough for it to be retained on Wikipedia as your articles subject doesn’t satisfy WP:GNG, which is one of the most imperative ways we ascertain notability of an article’s subject. Read our golden rule & WP:NACTOR. Celestina00712:41, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Is replacing a TfD template with a different non-TfD one ok - or not?
Help: Not clear about this at the moment - and new to me - several of my templates, [including "Template:LocationOfEarth", "Template:LifeOnEarth", "Template:Nature-h", "Template:Nature-v" and "Template:LifeOnEarth-v"], are being considered at TfD ( see "Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 September 6" ) - I've tried adding a different, but equivalent, template (ie, "Template:Multiple image") that is *not* being considered at TfD to the transcluded article pages - all the newly added templates seem to have been reverted back to the templates being considered at TfD by one editor - Question: Are the newly added (not-TfD) templates not permitted to be added to the articles for some reason at a time when the TfD templates are being considered? Seems one editor may think this is the case - But I always thought this would be *entirely* ok to do - Please let me know one way or the other if possible - Specific instances of related reverted edit diffs are as follows: 1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8+9+10+11+12+13+14 - Thanks in advance for your help with this - and perhaps sorting this out - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 02:44, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Hello Drbogdan, I see that the editor tried to explain it to you on your talk page but you reverted them, I am guessing because of how it was worded, as there is a long history of unreverted edits by that user to your talk page. I reckon the best way for you to find the answer to your question would have been to just ask them. The fact that this query has remained unanswered for so long tells me that there likely are no obvious alternatives to that. When you run into an editing dispute, and this appears to be just that, either you have to be willing to stand your ground and discuss it out or just move on and find something else to do. Your record on Wikipedia (70% to "main" and <1% to "Wikipedia", of your 70K+ edits; no blocks) suggests you've earned all the help you could possibly want on rare occasions that you do, so I am pinging experienced editors, @Nick Moyes and Valereee: whom I've seen patiently advise editors about handling stressful situations on Wikipedia and @Primefac and Trialpears: who have a lot of experience with templates as well as elsewhere, in case there is additional advice (or help "sorting this out") you could benefit from. Best, Usedtobecool☎️06:55, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Drbogdan, I think what you're asking is did you do anything wrong, like the editor posted at your talk. I personally have no idea. I think what I'd do is what UTBC suggested: talk to the other editor. If you honestly weren't trying to do what they suggested -- game the system -- just explain that you thought what you did was completely okay, apologize for any unintended transgression, and ask them to explain what they thought you were doing wrong or why it was wrong. As UTBC pointed out, you have a long history of useful editing, there's no reason to disbelieve you if you say you weren't trying to game the system. (Again I have to point out that I personally have zero ability to assess that.) —valereee (talk) 11:35, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
@Usedtobecool, Valereee, Nick Moyes, Primefac, and Trialpears: - Thank you *very much* for taking the time and effort to answer my question - no - not at all trying to "game" the system - I simply did not know (and currently do not yet know) if there is some Wikipedia rule that detemines this particular template situation - as far as I know - there's not - but there may be some Wikipedia rules about this I don't know - but perhaps should know - esp for newer similar situations - should note that I see this primarily as a Wikipedia policy issue - and not otherwise - in any case - Thanks again for your own comments and suggestions - they're *greatly* appreciated - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 12:34, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi, Drbogdan. As I was amongst those pinged by Usedtobecool, I took a quick look at this thread and a few of the links you gave. (I did not look at DeaconVorbis's comments to you, which I gather you deleted) To answer your first question, no, in principle there's nothing stopping you replacing one type of element which is up for a deletion discussion with some other element which is accepted by the community. But just because the replacement element might be generally deemed acceptable by the community in some circumstances, it's particular use in one specific application might not be. I feel this is the issue here, as it's about whether or not it's necessary to add a load of images in a gallery (like a navbox) to the very bottom of an article. In the examples I looked at (Earth and Milky Way) I don't think either are necessary, though your intentions were well-meaning enough. In other words the template of images that you created in 2018 were not seen as necessary, and 2 years later they have been put up for deletion. That template you made in 2018 seems to have replaced earlier image multiple image galleries that you added in November 2017 (here and then here). Unless I've made some fundamental error in interpreting the situation, it comes down to whether or not such images add to the encyclopaedic nature of an article, or whether they detract from it. Although nice looking, my feeling is that they add nothing, so neither the multiple image gallery nor the template should be in the article. Other editors have removed the picture selection over the years as 'image spam', and I think that was right. It looks like you then re-added a multiple image template to create the same visual effect as your bespoke template. I suspect that, as the template is up for deletion, it was re-added back into the article so that others could see its effect. Once the template has been deleted (as I think it should) I would also want to remove the multiple image gallery as being not needed within the article. None of us ever get our way over content and layout 100% of the time, though you clearly did all this in good faith, and it comes down to consensus whether any given element should be included in an article, or not. Does this help? Nick Moyes (talk) 13:13, 13 September 2020 (UTC).
@Nick Moyes, Usedtobecool, and Valereee: Thank you *very much* for your *excellent* comments - and *excellent* answer to my question - yes - I *entirely* agree with all of your comments - and have been thinking *exactly* the same as well - no problem whatsoever - Thanks again for your reply - your comments and all are *greatly* appreciated - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 13:56, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Browse history interactively
All of a sudden recently, when I want the difference between two versions of an article, I get this "Browse History Interactively" section at the top of the page. Of course, I have usually come there from the article history page, so no thank you, this is pathetic waste of screen space. How can I make it go away? Bruce leverett (talk) 01:36, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
I don't really see the utility of that gadget. In my interface, it has to be called before it's displayed. Not sure how you could hide it completely. John from Idegon (talk) 01:49, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
For you, it's opt-in, but for me, it's opt-out, so I have to click that button every time. I would settle for something in my preferences that would make it opt-in. Bruce leverett (talk) 14:32, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
How do I archive a talk page discussion on my talk page?
Acid Of Carbon, if you want to have a counter based system (as in Archive 1, 2, 3...) then add the following code (this will archive the page every thirty days) to the top of your talk page:
Hi, I am familiarizing myself with my sandbox page. To that end, I copied some code there from the talk page and main page of the Melanie Stansbury article and put them together to see what it would look like as a complete article, should my request on the articles talk page be approved, and did some edits. When I was done, I noticed that there was a "submit your draft for review" button at the top of the sandbox page that had not been there before. I'm not sure what would happen if I clicked it. Is that an avenue through which I can ask for a review of what I've done to get advice and suggestions for revision? If so, I'd like to take advantage of the opportunity. If those on the other end, however, would view it as a request for review for approval as a new article then I don't want to click it, as there is already an article on the topic. So, my question is: "Is using the sandbox only a way to submit material to create a new page, or can it also be used to get a review of requested edits and/or a way to just get informal critique from an experienced editor?" BiostatSci (talk) 19:08, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Pretty much, you can put anything you want in your sandbox, as long as it doesn't violate the law (eg, libel, copyright violation). You can also create multiple sandboxes. I've got about 7. One I just store templates in for easy access, one is my general sandbox, where I keep various links I need, and 5 have the starts of various articles I may work on. John from Idegon (talk) 19:28, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
BiostatSci, your sandbox can be used for more or less anything (within reason). Most people use it to draft new articles, work on large changes, test certain templates or functions, or experiment with semi-automated tools. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by 'review of requested edits' (would you mind clarifying?), but you can get help from other editors. If you are drafting something in your sandbox, you can ask for help or guidance by either asking at WP:HD or here, although it is recommended that you be specific in what you want to happen. Does this answer your question? Regards, Giraffer (munch) 19:30, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Giraffer and ThatMontrealIP, MontrealIP is correct, I made one minor edit to the page before I knew that knowing Ms. Stansbury constituted a COI. For that I was blocked, unfairly imo. Whatever, once I knew, I put up a COI tag and have done everything else that has been suggested to me since. I never intended to break any rules and once I learned that I did have a COI I made no further edits to the page and have been requesting revisions on the articles talk page. While waiting for responses to those requests, I was playing in the sandbox and these questions arose: "What happens if I click the 'submit draft' button in the sandbox? Who sees what is submitted and what action do they think I am asking them to take?" I don't want them to think that I am trying to submit a draft of a new article for approval, because the page already exists. I would like to get input from editor(s) about what I have written in the sandbox. It might help me revise my request to make it more Wikipedia worthy, and it would help me when writing other articles in the future. So, if clicking 'submit draft' would lead to me getting help, I will submit. Thanks for fielding these questions. BiostatSci (talk) 01:09, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
BiostatSci, the "submit draft" button is only for submitting drafts of new articles for review. If used for any other purpose, the draft will be swiftly declined. The proper place to discuss changes to an existing article is the article's talk page. So, continue on that path, always deferring to editors who do not have a conflict of interest. Cullen328Let's discuss it05:38, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Seconded. The submit draft button is only for requesting review of a new article, not changes to a current one. I suggest instead of copy pasting all the info from your sandbox to the talk page, either you collapse it or just link to the sandbox. It currently takes up a lot of room on the talk page. Also, when requesting changes, try saying 'Change X to Y per [reliable source]' or 'Add this [sourced] paragraph in [named] location' as opposed to just providing a wall of text. It will make people more willing to help you. Giraffer (munch) 08:29, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your answers Cullen328 and Giraffer. You have answered my questions fully, which I appreciate. The text I am proposing for review by other editors is a single, long edit that I proposed be added at the end of the article. I will hide it, as suggested by Giraffer. Thanks. BiostatSci (talk) 14:46, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
How Best to Gain Experience
Hello! I wrote a couple of articles years ago and recently have come back. I value Wikipedia and would like to contribute content. However, recently I made lots of mistakes and realize that I have much to learn. Would like to gain experience. I was thinking of starting with learning more about references. I went to the Wiki pages that discuss references and the ones you tagged here about notability. Many Wikipedia pages have tags that request additional references. Would it be OK to start with some of these pages and simply add references (following all guidelines)? Is it possible to have an editor check my work? Do I add it to the page and then make proof request on the talk page? Do I ping a specific editor or is there a notice for any editor that is willing to assist? Thanks for your advice.Cher Skoubo (talk) 14:24, 13 September 2020 (UTC) Cher Skoubo (talk) 14:24, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
I am currently taking a class for learning how to edit wikipedia. I am super excited and nervous about this course. My question is, when you were first starting out on Wikipedia what do you wish someone had told you?
Welcome to Wikipedia, Bekah01. In my opinion, the most important thing for you to understand is that what Wikipedia editors do is to neutrally summarize, in our own words, what published reliable sources say about a topic. Only topics that have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are completely independent of the topic are eligible for Wikipedia articles. Cullen328Let's discuss it23:49, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
I was lucky enough to obtain a mentor when I started (see WP:ADOPTION. That project isn't nearly as active now as 9 years ago, unfortunately). However, something I've wished we'd tell new editors: There's no boss here. You answer to your peers. Except for pressing buttons to enact disciplinary and protective measures, there is nothing an administrator can do that anyone else can't also do. No individual editors have more rights than others. Some may have "user rights" gramted to them, but those are just access to more advanced tools. Also, although we have thousands of them, rules are not that important. Consensus is how things are decided and although consensus is guided by policies and guidelines, consensus can also over rule guidelines and most policies. Consensus is also how all policy was created. And they can be modified by consensus too. John from Idegon (talk) 02:54, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
@Bekah01: Great question! When I first started I had no idea that there was an easy-to-use 'Cite' button in either of the two editing tools you choose to use to add content. I had no idea that in just two click I could select and start filling in the required template for a book, journal, website or newspaper. Because of my lack of knowledge, I had to copy existing references from another article, paste it into what I was working on, and then manually edit each one. It was horrible. Life is so much simpler when you discover there's an easier way to do things. (I even made this little help page for others: WP:ERB). Good luck at the start of your own personal Wikipedia Adventure! Nick Moyes (talk) 10:38, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi, Bekah01, and welcome to Wikipedia. The two main things I wish I had known were 1) What you know does not belong anywhere in Wikipedia unless you can find a reliable published source that says it. 2) Creqating a new article is not necessarily the most valuable contribution you can make to Wikipedia. We have tens of thousands of articles which are seriously below the standard which would be accepted in a new article today, and improving some of those (or, sometimes, getting them deleted because their subjects don't belong in Wikipedia) can add much more value than many of the articles which get created and deleted every day. --ColinFine (talk) 15:02, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
I found an article that does not seem objective, what should I do?
A friend sent me a wikipedia article featuring a company, promoting it for their lack of controversies as normally seen on other company pages. I'm not an english, political science, or psychology major, but the article felt like it was written by an employee rather than a user as the tone of the article did not seem objective. It did not help that nearly all the citations for the page were of reviews praising a product. I went elsewhere for information about the website and found several other websites dedicated to allegations of the company, providing reasonable proof and citations.
Most of us here are rather wont disinclined to offer general advice. Please let us know what article you are talking about. The OP is the only edit this IP has made. John from Idegon (talk) 03:30, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
IP editor, I must agree with John from Idegon that we can give a better answer here if you name or better yet link to the article you are asking about. But you could post on the article's talk page indicating that you think it is not neutral and why. You might also tag the article with {{POV}}. DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs15:24, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Wikidata Identifiers
I have recently been editing our sister project Wikidata, and I am creating an item on the second period of the periodic table of elements. How do I add identifiers? - Wikimeedian (talk) 14:27, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Wikimeedian,I will ask to have it removed. Please learn a lot more about Wikidata before editing there. Most items are created automatically when articles are added to the various Wikipedias. And don't add aliases unless an article in the Wikipedias say they are aliases. Just like the English Wikipedia, Wikidata is not a place to add stuff just because you know it. Also it is better if you use one account on all the Wikipedia projects. Accounts are global. StarryGrandma (talk) 15:40, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Userbox for Participation in "Wikipedia Loves Monuments"
Dear fellow Wikipedians, I have participated in Wikipedia Loves Monuments 2020". Is there any userbox that I can use with logo in my user page ? Cheers..... Anupam Dutta (talk) 14:23, 13 September 2020 (UTC) Anupam Dutta (talk) 14:23, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Anupamdutta73, I don't believe do, but you can create one yourself using {{Userbox}} or this website. Here is one I quickly made (press edit source to copy the code):
Amelia Kinkade here! I need to update my profile! Can you help me, please?
Hi! I'm a movie star and bestselling author, and my wiki profile is incomplete and has many errors. I'd like to edit my profile and add a photo. Can you please help me? It should read,
"Amelia Kinkade is the star of Night of the Demons Parts 1, 2, and 3. She is the president of Amelia's Ark Angel Society, a non-profit charity that educates children in rural Africa about wildlife conservation and helps stop poaching before it starts. Amelia is the author of the international bestseller, Straight From the Horse's Mouth: How to Talk to Animals and Get Answers (New World Library, Harper Collins) The Language of Miracles: A Celebrated Psychic Teaches You to Talk to Animals (New World Library,) The Winged One (CreateSpace,) Aurora's Secret (CreateSpace,) Soulmates With Paws Hooves and Wings (CreateSpace,) and Whispers From the Wild: Listening to Messages from the Animal Kingdom (New World Library.)
Please delete the words that say Brendan is another name for me! Brendan is my brother! And please delete the sentence that says I'm "famous for bit parts." It is impossible to get famous for bit parts. I starred in three movies and was a lead on The Young and the Restless, as well as dancing in multiple films and TV shows. Thanks so much for helping me! Amelia Kinkade (talk) 22:24, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Bishonen, hi, I've deprodded because it had already had one failed PROD. The reason I ping though is to ask if action is needed here, per WP:REALNAME. Has the editor provided proof of identity? If not (and I can't know, but I reckon you can if anyone I know can), the account probably deserves a block pending a rename or verification. On a related note, editors should probably refrain from making any edits that attribute User:Amelia Kinkade's edits to Amelia Kinkade, in the mean time. Best, Usedtobecool☎️14:08, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Oh, I missed the earlier PROD, thank you, Usedtobecool. Though I must say... it was prodded in 2007. We ought to have a statute of limitations for those things! Yes, I suppose the user ought to be blocked, theoretically at least, pending proof of identity. But there's a bit of a paradox in telling her the name belongs to a well-known person, while at the same time attempting to delete the bio on the principle that it's not about a well-known ("notable") person. Because I'm still doing that; I've taken it to AfD. I'm not up for blocking the user as well. Maybe another admin will. Bishonen | tålk16:04, 13 September 2020 (UTC).
Historical rankings of prime ministers of Australia
Would adding a table comparing election results be relevant because on one hand the election is the ultimate popularity test on the other it is not really a super great method for direct comparison Hopetounblunder (talk) 10:54, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Hello Hopetounblunder, it sounds unencyclopaedic to me, personally. I think the proper test though, one that is likely to decide the outcome of any discussion on such content, assuming you were to add it, would be: "Has any reliable source ever made that comparison between them?" "Have multiple?" coupled with "Is it relevant?" "Due?" depending on where you add it. Best, Usedtobecool☎️11:51, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Hopetounblunder, please do not at all hesitate to ask any questions you might have. Most editors will happily help any editor who is here in good faith to build the encyclopaedia. I have just left you a standard welcome message at your user talk page, in the hopes that you might find some of the links useful in getting started. The recommended strategy is to be WP:BOLD in your editing. There isn't anything you can break beyond repair, and as long as you are willing to listen and engage civilly with editors who disagree with you, you should not get into any trouble even if you make a few mistakes. Best, Usedtobecool☎️17:21, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Hello, JyuHachiJyu we do not normally create redirects that differ from the target only in case (uppercase vs lowercase), because the built-in search will find such targets without a redirect. See WP:REDIRECT for more information. Also, any autoconfirmed user may create redirects, as that page describes. DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs18:48, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Awards and Nominations
I recently added some awards and nominations garnered by the show Nicky, Ricky, Dicky and Dawn. It had nominations the show garnered, such as for cinematography, individual cast members, ensemble cast, etc., but a user reverted the article, claiming "We only list awards for the series. Actor awards belong on the actor pages, if they exist", but other wikipedia (movie and tv show) articles have the nominations and awards won by the actor/actress for doing that particular tv show/movie. Example: Black Panther, Riverdale, The Vampire Diaries, etc. Why are the rules different for different movies/shows? Why aren't the actors' achievements for the tv show included in the Nicky, Ricky, Dicky and Dawn page? Example: Outstanding Young Ensemble Cast in a Television Series from "Young Artist Awards" or Favorite TV Actor for Aiden Gallagher for "2016 Kids' Choice Awards"? Ashleexry (talk) 17:44, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Ashleexry and welcoem to the Teahouse. I do not think there is any general rule about this, tht awrds for actiors are either always or never included in the article for the show. I would think it depended on how significant the award was. This should be discussed on the article talk page, in my view. DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs18:55, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
SIR
REFERENCE TO MY SUBJECT ABOVE I NEED YOUR HELP TO FIND MY ANCESTORS STARTING FROM MIAN GHULAM RASOOL IN THE YEAR 1001 / ISLAMIC YEAR 391-392.
MIAN GHULAM RASOOL MIGRATED TO SUBCONTINENT INDIA IN THE YEAR 1001 AS Commander / Commanding Officer / سپہ سالار /Sipa Salar. with
the sultan Mahmud of Ghazni.
From the year 1001 onwards I have the history of my family.Before year 1001 i am searching the history of MIAN GHULAM RASOOL commander of
SULTAN MAHMUD. Ghaznavi
I am Saqib Saeed s/o Muhammad Saeed
Mian Ghulam Rasool was my great great great grand father.
for the reference i have attached the first page of my family history.
Mian Ghulam Rasool started the state of
RASOOL PUR BAZURGAN (NIHALGARH) TEHSIL BHOLATH KAPURTHALA STATE DISTRICT JALANDHAR EAST PUNJAB IN INDIAN SUBCONTINENT IN THE YEAR 1001
NOW WE ARRE LIVING IN LAHORE PAKISTAN. it is my humble request to kindly help find the complete history of my family. Ghaznavi ruled some parts of IRAN and AFGHANISTAN at that time.
Please i again request to help me find my family
You've come to the wrong place. At the top of this page it explains that the Teahouse is "A friendly place where you can ask questions and get help with using and editing Wikipedia". --David Biddulph (talk) 21:02, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a place were people find your relatives Alisha rains (talk) 9:07 , 14,September 2020 (UTC)
@Acid Of Carbon: Apologies, I meant to add a link that showed how but totally forgot. I think taking a quick look at Help:Redirect should be enough. Wikipedia:Redirect has some more detailed information about guidelines surrounding redirects, but there's no rush on that one. Please let me know here (please ping me if you do) or on my talk page if you still need any help. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:25, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Is there a service within Wikipedia to access specific content behind paywalls for the purpose of verifying sources? Suggestion
I'm reviewing an article which makes use of a source which is behind a paywall. Is there a way (other than subscribing to that publication) that will allow me to obtain the text or ask somebody with a subscription to verify that the text of the paywalled article is consistent with what the article purports it to mean. --Salimfadhley (talk) 17:16, 13 September 2020 (UTC) Salimfadhley (talk) 17:16, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
(ec)Salimfadhley, please check out WP:RX where you can ask to borrow specific sources (ask for the sources so you can check them yourself; do not ask someone else to do the verifying for you). There is also WP:Library which recommends editors with good history and justified needs, for free access to some repositories. Some editors who have access through this platform will have userboxes in their userpages indicating the kind of resources they have access to, and their willingness to help out. You can ask those editors directly on their user talk page, much as you would at the aforementioned WP:RX. Some paywalled sources may be available in full or in part in archival websites as well. Best, Usedtobecool☎️17:34, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Yes, Salimfadhley that is exactly the sort of thing the Resource Exchange is intended for. I have asked for and gotten sources that way. Normally the provider will send this by email or point you to a link, not paste the content on a public page, and you are expected to use it only in writing or verifying Wikipedia articles. This constitutes fair use under US law, and may well be "fair dealing" under UK law. DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs18:51, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
@Salimfadhley: While I'm sure someone will provide the requested article at RX, you might also investigate other sources here, some of which are free-to-read. Though the Daily Mail is generally regarded here as "not reliable", it seems that it is reasonable, as long as you have The Times article, to see if it is accurate in this particular case, and if so, to additionally cite it for the convenience of the reader (as a free-to-read source). Does this make sense, DESiegel? —[AlanM1 (talk)]—00:21, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Hello! Is there anyone here who is fluent in Spanish? I’m not fluent in it and for an endorsement, I’d like someone to confirm that this article [19] is (or is not) an endorsement of the former Costa Rican president. Someone added his name on the endorsement page of Joe Biden and it appears that he supports him (based on his tweets and Facebook posts) but the only articles I find on it are in Spanish. If this is not an endorsement, I will delete the name. Just wanted to confirm first. Thank you! Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 00:34, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi @Lima Bean Farmer: There is no mention of Figueres supporting Joe Biden's candidacy in that article. He is very much against Trump's decisions concerning the BID, and that they should wait until the end of the US elections, but that's about it. Sorry if I misunderstood your question! Isabelle🔔01:09, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
@Lima Bean Farmer: (ec) I'm nowhere near fluent either, but the article is about who is to be the president of the Interamerican Development Bank, and Biden is only mentioned in the context of Figueres wanting to wait a while after the US elections before the IDB election so they know who's going to be the U.S. president before deciding whether to (apparently) allow the U.S. to appoint the leader of the IDB. It's decidedly anti-Trump, but can't be considered a Biden endorsement at all. It's really about wanting Laura Chinchilla Miranda to lead the IDB. —[AlanM1 (talk)]—01:12, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Let's say, purely hypothetically, that an editor makes an error in filling out a template, failing to fill an entry that he (or she) should have filled in. Is there a way to go back to the partially filled out template - let us say an infobox for books, and fill in the neglected line, without having to fill in all the others, again. Truth is KingTALK01:06, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
@Truth Is King 24: Unless the template is substituted (i.e., it began with {{subst: before you saved it), you just edit the article and fill in the parm. It's an odd question, so I'm not sure I understood. Seeing the actual example would help. —[AlanM1 (talk)]—01:15, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Hello Truth Is King 24. Simply go to the section of the draft where the wikicode for the reference appears, click "edit", and make any corrections that you want, then click "Publish changes". I recommend that you edit the source code instead of using a WYSIWYG tool like the Visual Editor. Cullen328Let's discuss it03:02, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
(ec) @Truth Is King 24: You just edit the article and add or edit any of the parameters as needed (I see you are apparently using the source editor). It doesn't seem that {{Infobox book}} is designed to handle more than one edition very well, though see the doc for |publisher2= and |published= for some specific situations that may be applicable. I would say you should probably just use the information about the first publication (the UK edition on 1 March 2011). Alternatively, you could semicolon-separate the values that are different, though this could just end up being confusing, e.g. |title=The Popes, A History; Absolute Monarchs: A History of the Papacy and |isbn=978-0701182908; 978-1400067152. Another option would be two infoboxes, one after the other. I'd suggest looking at other book articles to see what they do. There's also WP:WikiProject Books, which may have some useful info. —[AlanM1 (talk)]—03:08, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
How do you spot vandalism quickly like most Wikipedians do? When I was still a vandal, I vandalised and it got taken down within 3 minutes. Hockeycatcat (talk) 10:59, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
There are automated tools that detect vandalism, and many people monitor the Recent Changes feed for inappropriate edits. Vandalism is any edit that defaces an article or page. Is there any particular reason you are asking these questions? 331dot (talk) 11:11, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
@Hockeycatcat: I always use this setting at Recent Changes whenevr I'm monitoring for vandalism, with colours to indicate level of likely vandalism, then Twinkle to leave warnings of increasing severity. Only if that vandalism then constitutes to I report the editors at WP:AIV. In other words, don't warn and then immediately report - this just wastes admin's time. Don't just linger at the top of the Recent Cahges list, but scroll down and look for edits that have been missed. Keywords like 'fixed typo' or 'I made it better' are giveaways. Also worth enabling NavPopups, then all you need do is mouseover the word 'diff' to see that edit appear on screen without moving away.
It's great to see you returning, having seen the light as to how vandalism is disruptive to Wikipedia. So thank you for that. I suggest you confirm on your userpage that your past block has indeed now expired, and give the name of that past account for openness. I'm sure you are aware that editing whilst blocked is not allowed, but that we look leniently on those who request unblocking, after recognising their past errors, as you clearly do. Best wishes, Nick Moyes (talk) 13:49, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
I am approaching 3RR, at Lazarus Chakwera, who is the new President of Malawi. An IP editor(who has reached, but not exceeded 3RR), is adding unsourced info. The part that troubles me most is "He has several family members who currently live abroad and is believed to have gotten some financial support for his Presidential campaign from one of his brothers-in-law." When the editor reverted me the first time (after I asked for sources in my edsum) they said...."this is well known in Malawi. Please spread news not false news." Obviously, I can just wait this out for 24hrs, and another WP editor has also reverted them, and may lend a hand, going forward. I would not worry so much if the edits had been something innocent, for example, " he likes to eat XYZ for breakfast", but talking about campaign contributions is serious info that needs support.
My question to the Teahouse is: Do these sort of reverts count as "anti-vandalism" type reverts, which may not be subject to 3RR? Or, in this type of situation, am I still bound by our 3RR rules? It is not what I normally think of as vandalism, but the unsourced info has been challenged, etc. I have little experience with 3RR situations, thank goodness. I tend to err on the side of caution. Thanks! Tribe of TigerLet's Purrfect!23:37, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that: is unsourced or poorly sourced ... Note that, although the three-revert rule does not apply to such removals, what counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Editors who find themselves in edit wars over potentially defamatory material about living persons should consider raising the matter at the biographies of living persons noticeboard instead of relying on the exemption.
Tribe of Tiger, it's best to reach out to an uninvolved admin and request for assistance when you are approaching 3RR and problem persists. Please note though that edits that clearly claim to be made to fix BLPvios are exempt from 3RR restrictions. Repeatedly adding contested material in a BLP without going to the talk page puts the IP clearly in the wrong; if they persist after being informed and warned, you can report them. Please see WP:3RR which lists edits exempt from 3RR; it has seven points, and obviously only one of them is about vandalism. Best, Usedtobecool☎️01:33, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
@DESiegel: Thanks so much for looking at the situation, and warning the IP. Going back and forth, and reverting seems to be a fruitless exercise, which can be construed as edit warring. I will save the info about the BLP noticeboard, which I did not know about, thanks! I did post a note at the IP's talk, inviting them to the article's talkpage. But later, I noticed that their IP number seemed to change, from edit to edit. At any rate, you have provided me with the information I needed, and warned the IP. I will post at the noticeboard, or contact you, if problems continue. Thanks for your reply, and my thanks also to @Usedtobecool:, for the very good advice. Fortunately, by posting here, I have attracted the attention of a helpful Admin. The Teahouse is a wonderful resource. Best, Tribe of TigerLet's Purrfect!02:22, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
IMHO, it should be relatively obvious when to break it. I made 18 reverts in 15 minutes hours against a user who socked thrice for textbook vandalism and I was not at all worried about receiving a 3RR block. (That was a monster AIV report, btw). Regards, Giraffermunch06:53, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
New Entry
Nigel Daly
I need help with this article. I do not want to look like a 'sock pocket' I am new to this. Mr Daly has an OBE and was head of BAFTA and BRITWEEK in Los Angeles. He is important in Los Angeles. I have edited but not from scratch and do not know the structure. Can anyone help? Thank you,
Mysteryman13 (talk) 06:49, 14 September 2020 (UTC) Mysteryman13 (talk) 06:49, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Hello sir ! I am from Nepal.I have recently joined Wikipedia and i want to improve pages of different things like cricket,football and many more but my problem is that Everest Premier League is the page that i want to improve their logo but i have try many times but image can't upload .so i need your help sir. Fade258 (talk) 09:52, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
@Fade258: Please be aware that inserting images requires two steps:
I recently proposed a move of the article George Washington Bush. Following the 7 day comment period I requested that the discussion be closed and the page moved. An editor updated the proposed move with the word Relisted. What does this mean? Johnosaunders (talk) 20:03, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
@Johnosaunders: The short answer is that the closer did not find consensus among the (generally small number of) respondents, and so has re-listed it for discussion to get more response. —[AlanM1 (talk)]—00:35, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
@Johnosaunders: Hi. In very short: when there is no clear consensus, a discussion is relisted. Regarding this particular move discussion, there are two options: move to the suggested title, or keep the article where it is (oppose). Like AlanM1 suggested above, I did not find a clear consensus in favour of "move/support", or in favour of "dont move/oppose" either. When any discussion on wikipedia is relisted, it stays open for discussion for 7 more days from relisting. That way it gets more input, and a clear consensus can be formed. Generally on 8th ot 9th day, an editor who is not involved in the discussion gauges the consensus, and closes it appropriately. I hope my answer clears your doubt. If you have any doubts, please feel free to ask here, or on my talkpage. But I recommend asking here, as questions here get responses from multiple editors :) —usernamekiran (talk)15:42, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Autoconfirmed
Why have I not been autoconfirmed after 10 edits and an account over 7 days old?
I'd like to become autoconfirmed so that I can create a new page. Despite having seemingly met the criteria, I'm still not autoconfirmed. Do I need to get in touch with someone to request it manually? Thanks :) WallPort1 (talk) 10:56, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
But, given the COI you have declared (thank you for being open) I would very strongly advise you not to attempt to create an article directly, but to use the articles for creation process and create a draft, WallPort1 - you don't need to be autoconfirmed to do that, though since you are, that is now irrelevant. Even if you did not have a COI, I would always advise an inexperienced editor against trying to create a new article in mainspace. Hav you read Your first article, and understood that Wikipedia has basically no interest in anything said or published by the subject of an article or their associates, including in interviews and press releases? Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and have not been prompted or fed information by the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable places. --ColinFine (talk) 14:52, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice - have submitted as a draft. I know what you mean about Wikipedia's preferences - I merely thought I'd give it a go. If the draft gets rejected, that's a shame, but I understand. WallPort1 (talk) 16:07, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Protection
So I'm the creator of the page "Saturday Night Live (season 46)" and I found out that someone else is but a semi-lock on it. How do I claim the page and put a full lock to block out anyone else? Blu30Top (talk) 15:42, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Blu30Top. I'm afraid the answer is "you don't". Nobody owns a Wikipedia article, nobody has privileged control over the contents of an article. If an article has been subject to recent continued vandalism (which means "editing intended to damage Wikipedia", not "editing I don't agree with") then you can request page protection at WP:RFP. If there is a content dispute at the article, you follow the steps in dispute resolution, which begin with discussing the issue on the article's talk page, and trying to reach consensus. --ColinFine (talk) 17:17, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Add my channel to the 2018 Closed YouTube Channel list, my username is Cesar Jr [CJ]
No, sorry, we won't do that. With 132 subscribers, yours is never going to make it to Wikipedia. (And please stop messing around with pages, 'cos you're gonna get blocked if you carry on like that). Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 19:15, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Hello everyone!
Hello everyone! I am currently new to Wikipedia and am taking a class this semester using the WikiEducation program. I enjoy the course thus far and enjoy navigating and learning everything there is to offer on Wikipedia. I have one question, as I understand Wikipedia is extremely strict with citing only reliable scholarly sources. As you edit or write articles on Wikipedia, do you ever refer to the list on this link of reliable sources? - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources
What are the advantages and disadvantages of referring to the list? Corrinfish (talk) 19:20, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
@Corrinfish, hello and welcome, although your question is quite vague and somewhat confusing I’d try to answer it in the manner I think you are asking them. Coupled with what @Victor Schmidt already told you, the sources listed there are sources vetted by the community. An obvious advantage would be an editor unsure of the status of a particular source could always cross check there to determine how the community views the source to see which are reliable, borderline reliable or outright unreliable. I would also add that there are other reliable sources not vetted yet by the community that are out there hence aren’t listed at WP:RSPSOURCES so to aid you in identifying a reliable source you could use in your article(s) a simple formula to keep in your mind is to look for sources with editorial oversight and a reputation for fact checking. Please let me know how else I could be of help if need arises. Celestina00719:53, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
There is a widely held consensus among experienced editors that books written by academics and published by respected university presses are reliable. So you will rarely see any debates about that type of source. It is the edge cases that get lots of discussion. Cullen328Let's discuss it21:52, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Common Mistakes
Hi, I am a new Wikipedia editor, learning how to use Wikipedia in my information literacy course! My question is what are the most common mistakes that new editors make when writing for Wikipedia and what are the best ways to avoid those mistakes? Stewartjordan625 (talk) 21:47, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Stewartjordan625, That's an interesting question, one I suspect has been asked before but if there is a standard answer I don't recall it. It sounds like the basis for a decent research project.
Responding, not based on any study, but on my gut reactions, I guess is one of the most common mistakes of new editors is failing to provide a reference to a published, reliable source.
I will also add, admitting my bias because of the area tend to work in, that many new editors apparently haven't been taught the concept of plagiarism and edit as if finding something on the Internet means they can add it to an article, whether text or photos. This particular error may not make the top 10 in terms of volume but it's fairly common. S Philbrick(Talk)21:52, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
The main error I made when I started, Stewartjordan625 (and that I see new editors making all the time) was to insert information I knew into articles. Wikipedia isn't interested in what I know, or what you know, or what any random person on the internet knows: it is only interested in information which has been published in a reliable place. Now, if I want to add information to an article, I go looking for a source, and only add it if I find one. If there's something I'm sure of but I can't find a source, I don't add it. I might put a question on the article's talk page, or at the Reference desk, to see if anybody else can find a source. --ColinFine (talk) 22:10, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
@Stewartjordan625: I agree with all the above. Knowing what to do goes a long way toward knowing what not to do. I've left a second welcome message on your talk page with what should be the "required reading" for new editors. Of course, let us know here if you have questions. —[AlanM1 (talk)]—00:43, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Editing punctuation errors and improving clarify in Syd Barrett's Wikipedia page
I would like to make some edits correcting incorrect punctuation and adding clarity to Syd Barrett's Wikipedia entry. For instance, this paragraph:
Barrett's decline had a profound effect on Waters' songwriting, and the theme of mental illness permeated Pink Floyd's later albums, particularly 1973's The Dark Side of the Moon and 1975's Wish You Were Here[194] which was a deliberate and affectionate tribute to Barrett, the song, "Shine on You Crazy Diamond",[195] and also 1979's The Wall.[194] "Wish You Were Here", partly about Barrett,[196] borrows imagery of a "steel rail" from Barrett's solo song, "If It's in You," from The Madcap Laughs album.
Should read:
Barrett's decline had a profound effect on Waters' songwriting, and the theme of mental illness permeated three of Pink Floyd's later albums: 1973's The Dark Side of the Moon, 1975's Wish You Were Here, and 1979's The Wall[194]. The reference to a "steel rail" in the title track of Wish You Were Here[196] -- "can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail?" -- was a deliberate reference to a recurring theme in Barrett's song "If It's In You" from A Madcap Laughs. The two versions of "Shine On You Crazy Diamond"[195] that open and close "Wish You Were Here" were also widely recognized as a tribute the Barrett. Glasselevators (talk) 22:00, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, Glasselevators. You could either suggest this change on the 'talk page' of the article concerned, or you could simply go ahead (and BEBOLD) and make the change yourself (providing the factual interpretation in your suggested changes are still supported by the relvant references.) Nick Moyes (talk) 22:14, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Because you have only been an editor for one day and most of you article edits have been reverted, strongly suggesting you are not yet ready to answer questions about how Wikipedia works. David notMD (talk) 00:13, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
If a wikipedia profile was on a foreign language, can I create an english one just by translating it?
Please see Wikipedia:Translation for further details, but Wikipedia's licensing does allow articles from other language Wikipedias to be translated into English Wikipedia articles as long as proper attribution is given to the source article as explained in WP:TFOLWP. However, each Wikipedia project has its own policies and guidelines and just because an article exist on another Wikipedia doesn't mean it should also exist on English Wikipedia; so, any translation of another language Wikipedia article would still have to comply with all of English Wikipedia's policies and guidelines (e.g. WP:N, WP:NPOV, WP:V) for it to avoid being tagged or nominated for deletion. Some Wikipedia's are quite lax when it comes to enforcing their policies and guidelines so lots of articles are accepted that probably shouldn't be accepted. English Wikipedia has similar issues but its policies and guidelines tend to be more rigorously enforced and applied because it has the most articles and the most editors -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:49, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
@FlosRomanus: Note that we specifically don't have "profiles" here. Profiles are something written usually by a user or someone close to and/or paid by them in order to tell the world about that person and all their accomplishments, in a way that is most flattering to them, for the purpose of promoting their "brand" or whatever it is they want to promote. On English Wikipedia, we have encyclopedic "articles" about notable people. These articles are to be written by independent contributors in a dry, encyclopedic tone, with a neutral point of view. Their purpose is decidedly not to promote the subject, but instead to impartially describe what reliable sources have written about the subject. Other language Wikipedia projects have their own standards and enforcement, often making their articles unsuitable, even as starting points, for an article on English Wikipedia. —[AlanM1 (talk)]—00:17, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
At what point do we accept truth?
It's interesting to consider what we accept as truth on Wikipedia. Some facts typically can't be debated, such as celebrity's birthdays and such, but there are other topics that walk the line between fact and interpretation. How does one go about navigating that line where information is still being presented, but in a way that everyone agrees? Rpowers2 (talk) 00:22, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Rpowers2 (talk) 00:22, 15 September 2020 (UTC) Rylee Powers
Rpowers2 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia does not deal in "truth", but in what can be verified. That includes celebrity birthdays(some celebrities lie about or conceal their dates of birth) as well as other concepts. Most content on Wikipedia is determined by a consensus amongst the editors involved, ideally arrived at through a discussion on the article talk page using logical arguments based in Wikipedia guidelines. 331dot (talk) 00:26, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
And, not to be outdone, here's an article giving you the locations of the five Wikimedia Foundation servers around the globe. (Interesting to see that, between them, they consume 2GigaWatt hours (GWh) of electricity per annum.) Nick Moyes (talk) 22:08, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
I asked because I wanted to know because you see I joined Wikipedia but I didn't know much about the website so I asked Alisha rains (talk) 14:32,15 September 2020 (UTC)
Articles needing help
Hi. I've done a little editing at WP and would enjoy doing a bit more when I'm able. I've seen referenced here articles that "need help." Perhaps someone here could share links to those areas. Thanks. VictorMooney (talk) 02:38, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
I'd say that the great majority of articles need help. (A significant minority need deletion, but let's put this aside.) Clearly you're interested in at least one 21st-century American photographer. (Thank you for that article.) Look in Category:21st-century American photographers for half a dozen or so familiar names (or indeed unfamiliar names). Click on their articles. At least one will be in grievous need of help. There you go. -- Hoary (talk) 04:23, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
You can also look at Wikipedia Projects that match your interest or expertise. These project pages usually curate articles around a specific subject, including a categorization based on quality and importance or what needs improvement (e.g. Stubs). An example is the Project Photography. If you want to make minor changes, you can also try Category:All articles needing copy edit. Regards, Darwin Naz (talk) 23:17, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Hello! I would like to ask any people out there to help edit some chemistry pages, as some of them may have intrinsic mistakes, less didactic information and overall having a beige quality. One page i am indeed thoroughly editing, (which i shall refer to) albeit i (maybe) cannot immediately also abet the other pages. I've also asked in Wikipedia project about chemistry, yet up to now none still replied. Ok enough tedious talk, here's my list of possibly improbable pages:
Quantum number: this page has been proposed to be merged to another analogous page due to a lot of unreferenced information/mistakes.
Effective nuclear charge: lacking information
Core charge: almost no reference
Shielding effect: few references
Electron affinity and Lattice energy: maybe there's room for improvements.
Anyways, these are only the articles that I've visited. If you visit a scientific page that you deem can be ameliorated, feel free to also help. Thanks for reading my tedious query! Adios komrads! Ice bear johny (talk) 15:29, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse,, Ice bear johny. I appreciate your desire to improve articles, and you did the right thing to raise it at the relevant 'WikiProject'. Sadly, although the Teahouse is a help forum to guide people having problems editing Wikipedia, posting the names of specific artcicles here is unlikely to attract many takers to work on them directly. But it does no harm to mention it. One other thing you could do is post individual concerns and recommendations about each article on their respective 'talk pages'. Those editors interested in seeing how the adticles devleop, and who is making edits to them, will almost certainly have added them to their 'Watchlists' and thus receive a notification to page changes and to talk page changes. Good luck! Nick Moyes (talk) 22:25, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
I tried to make a contribution and it was instantly rejected. The reason read "it did not appear relevant", but clearly it was. Perhaps I did not follow some guideline or rule. In any case I am willing to spend the time here and elsewhere gaining the needed savvy to be a contributor. How can you help me help myself? Thanks!
Hi Justseekingtruthandjustice. Just going to add that Wikipedia articles aren't places to try and seek truth and justice, and article talk pages aren't places for general discussion of the subject of the article or listing rebuttals. If there's a problem with the article content in terms of relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, then that would be fine to discuss at Talk:Jesse Ventura as long as the discussion focuses on these policies and guidelines and how they are or aren't being applied. If, on the other hand, you want to simply discuss whether Ventura's recollection of the alleged incident is true, then Wikipedia's not really the place for that. First, get reliable sources (as defined by Wikipedia) to discuss the matter and then start a discusison about it on the article's talk page. Facebook posts are not only considered to be unreliable for Wikipedia's purposes per WP:RS/P#Facebook in a general sense, Facebook posts about third-parties who are still living are particularly never going to be considered acceptable as references per WP:BLPSPS. Look for more mainstream coverage of this in major newspapers or magazines which have some sort of established editorial oversight or in books, etc. released by reputable publishers who also do some vetting of content prior to publication. Interviews (for the most part), social media posts or anything that resembles user-generated or primary sources aren't part really going to be considered acceptable for content such as this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:01, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Jackovski1, and welcome to the Teahouse. Thanks for asking about this, and wanting to help improve Wikipedia. The answer is that you have a range of possible actions, but there is nothing that you should do. If you have the time and interest, the best thing to do is to research the topic, and either find some good independent reliably-published sources, and edit the article to cite them, or conclude that there is not enough material to establish the subject as notable, and nominate it for deletion. If you believe you have added adequate sources, you can remove the {{unreferenced}} tag. Ideally you'll then edit the article to make sure that it contains only material which is found in the sources. A less effortful option is to find one or two sources and add them - you could then change the tag to {{refimprove}}. And a third option is that you do nothing at all but pass on by, as hundreds or thousands of other people have probably done over the last 11 years. --ColinFine (talk)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is discussion about this also ongoing at User talk:TheChunky#Basant Rath moved to draftspace and it seems a bit counterproductive to be concurrently discussing the same thing on two different talk pages. So, I'm closing this discussion and suggest that any further comments be added to the discussion on The Chunky's user talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:08, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Well, after reviewing the article, I sent it back to draft. TheChunky, please explain why you moved it to mainspace in the first place. It's weakly sourced and very poorly written. Please work on your sourcing and if you need help with style, come back and ask. Out of curiosity, what is your relationship with the subject of the article? John from Idegon (talk) 00:50, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
John from Idegon reverting to draft is not the solution. I have the pending changes reviewer rights. That's why I put it to mainspace via AFC. And remaining style, there was copy-editing tag already there. It was written in almost good way. And I don't have any links to the subject, the subject is an controversial IPS officer in Jammu and Kashmir who became viral on various controversies available in references as well as you can check news too. Hence it falls under WP:GNG and also crosses WP:THREE . Reverting it to draft without placing any discussion is not the rule. You know better than me. — The Chunky urf Al Kashmiri(Speak🗣️ or Write✍️)12:12, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
TheChunky, pending changes reviewer rights has nothing whatsoever to do with getting articles to mainspace. Draftifying articles unready for mainspace is one of the options available to article reviewers. This is done in accordance with WP:NPPDRAFT. However, because the use of WP:AFC is voluntary, no one may force another to put articles through that process. Therefore, if you object to the draftification of your article, you may move it back to mainspace and ask that the reviewer put it through WP:AFD instead. Lastly, a general FYI to consider before challenging draftification: If one moves a draftified article back to mainspace without adequate improvement, AFD can redraftify the article and force it to go through AFC. In addition, repeatedly adding unready articles to mainspace may be seen as disruptive and a resulting community discussion may impose editing restrictions on such editors to only create articles via AFC. Best, Usedtobecool☎️07:51, 15 September 2020 (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.
Status on the article upload
Hi there,
can you please let me know what the status is for the article submitted titled International Fund for Houbara Conservation? I have tried multiple times to upload it with no luck.
ActionGavril I did some format clean up. Major weakness is still lack of references. The sections Conservation activities and Conservation model and strategy appear twice (subsections in History and as sections). David notMD (talk) 07:30, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
@ActionGavril: I agree with David. At a cursory glance, the article has no lead, lacks references, and is full of promotional 'peacock' phrases (no pun intended). Example: "The programme’s blended learning approach builds on the wisdom of the late Sheikh Zayed and the UAE Government’s ambitions to create tomorrow’s leaders through education and initiatives." I'd be happy to see a WP:REDIRECT to the conservation section within the bustard article in the first instance. Nick Moyes (talk) 09:15, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
my references are in the wrong section
I am working on creating an article in my sandbox. I have a reference section and a list of the references I used, only they are not together, the references show up at the end, just prior to my categories. While I know I can move my reference section to the end to make a make shift fix- as it it will appear that the references are in the correct place, how do I actually get them there.I am hoping there is an easy fix for this.
Hi David,
sorry about the copy and paste, I didn't realize. My references are still in the incorrect place despite following the correct formula, I even tried matching the spacing in the heading to see if that might fix it. This is the 11th article I have written and none so far have had this issue.
The difference is that on most of your earlier articles you didn't try to use list-defined references. You did try to use them on the most recent article before this one, but once the syntax was corrected it can be seen that you defined one reference which you weren't actually using to support the text. David Biddulph (talk) 10:38, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks so much for the help. I didn't realize I had done it differently!
BF (talk)
Please help me finding the exact issue in this draft Draft:Camden Monarchs.
I have used reference of only those secondary links which are already used inside the other published articles. Also websites( abaliveaction.com; basketball.usbasket.com; nypost.com; bronzemagonline.com; nationalblackguide; inquirer.com, etc) are independent in nature
I am open to modify or remove those part of this article which does not fit.
Someone removed my photos which relate to the wiki page
I added two photos of Troika pottery objects that I own to the relevant Troika Pottery wikipage but some user called 'Theroadislong' has removed them with the comment.... 'These do NOT illustrate anything mentioned in the text'.
As the two photos are very relevant to the page by showing what other items the pottery produced and rarity etc they should not have been deleted. I did earlier mistakenly add two links under the photos which I appreciate I should not have done and I removed them.
Surely the photos on their own do not cause a problem and add to the page?
Welcome to the Teahouse, Franburke2. That's a very good question. Each language wikipedia is a separate entity. If you can write fluently in German or Dutch, you could edit those pages yourself in the relevant language. Your user account name is valid on all Wikipedias. Because I only speak 'Urlaub Deutch', there have been a couple of times when I felt it worthwhile to leave a short message in English on the article's talk page, apologising for writing in the wrong language, but pointing to some iportant reference or some major improvements I've made to the English Wikipedia article. It's then up to any editors watching that page to decide if my note is worth acting on (or simply deleting as not being in the right langauge!).
Because each Wikipedia operates under its own policies, it's possible that a person notable in one Wikipedia might not be deemed notable here, or vice versa. See WP:NMUSICIAN or WP:NARTIST for what our notability criteria are for such people. If they do meet them, then you could start a Draft article at WP:AFC and submit it for review and feedback. Don't rely just on 'Google Translate' to convert an article - it needs thoough human checking before going live. See also WP:TRANSLATE. Nick Moyes (talk) 07:01, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
@Franburke2: You're very welcome. I'v only now had a chance to look at the de-wiki and nl-wiki pages and, to be honest, there's insufficient there to merit a page here via a direct translation. Our [[WP:N|notability criteria] are somewhat higher, I'm afraid, so you will need to look around to find more detailed references about him, or evidence of his musical achievements meeting our specific music criteria. Im not a music buff, so I won't offer detailed advice on how to do that - but it's in the guidance pages. I'm not saying you won't find them, but focusing on that (in the context of the notability criteria I gave you) will avoid you wasting time on the wrong things. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 11:15, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
PS: I tried but I cannot focus within multiple HTML tags and column divide tags. So I request more expert editors to add the paragraph or column
RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 11:15, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
I imagine this must have been discussed before, but I haven't found it. Most editors have unguessable identities, and I don't understand why that is allowed. When I first registered in June I used my real name (Athel Cornish-Bowden) but then I noticed that hardly anyone else did, so I asked for it to be changed to something slightly less obvious, but easily guessable by anyone who knows me.
However, most names are totally obscure, and I don't think that is a good idea, as it allows people to make scurrilous edits secure in the knowledge that they are effectively anonymous.
Something I hadn't realized is that it's apparently possible to make edits without being registered at all, just using an IP address like 68.163.55.110 -- about as anonymous as one could want. 68.163.55.110 posted a series of edits to the article on Maud Menten I was working on today, introducing sentences like "she was also a loser who sucked dick n was a big bitch with no life" -- as clear a case of vandalism as I've seen. That was in 2006, and I hope procedures for detecting vandalism have evolved since then. I imagine that 68.163.55.110 now has a permanent block, but how to find out? Was 68.163.55.110 blocked? When? Permanently? Athel cb (talk) 17:40, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Hello Athel cb! Many editors value their Wikipedia:Privacy (see that link) and anonymity is an integrated aspect of WP. Personally I want my WP-stuff on WP, and is quite pleased to edit under pseudonym. Others think differently, and that's up to them. IP:s are not more anonymous, they are for example easily geographically located. Well, so am I, but that's becase I put it on my userpage (and it could be an elaborate lie/online persona thing).
As you can see in the article history [20], that IP was on a brief vandal spree February 6, 2006 and the edits were swiftly dealt with. Anyone can edit, but from that follows that someone else can edit again. I don't know if they were blocked or not, but it's not that interesting by now since IP:s change. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:18, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
@Athel cb: Nowadays we have a range of 'bots' which can detect and immediately revert bad faith edits like that, and even give an automated warning to the editor. If they continue, we block them! That said, we do still have problems, but the most insidious are either the intentional or the unintentional introductions of incorrect information. (Look out for next months Wikipedia newspaper called 'The Signpost' for a recent shocking and accidental case of an innocent person being wrongly accused of being a child murderer, which nobody spotted for a while, and which we're all very concerned could have happened in the first place.) Bear in mind, too, that many editors work in contentious areas or in countries where freedoms to use the internet are far more controlled than they are where you or I live. So being able to edit pseudonymously or as an IP gives those people access to contribute safely. Because interested editors can watch specific pages, they get alerted whenever a page changes and can assess the value of the edit. Oh, and we even use AI to assess the likelihood or otherwise of edits being made in good or bad faith (see here for how editors can use it to monitor 'Recent Changes'). It's quite fun to see what the kiddies like to get up to here... and then revert them! Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 19:03, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Thank you both. I wondered if there was an efficient automatic bot for detecting common typos, such as repeated words or writing "teh" for "the". I've noticed that when I've written, say, "in terms of of" it gets flagged within a matter of hours. That's one that I do fairly often, because if I type "ito" it gets expanded immediately to "in terms of" but I sometimes forget that "of" is part of the expansion. I think the reason I was taken aback by the vandalism of the article on Maud Menten as she is by no means a controversial figure. No doubt if I were editing an article about Donald Trump I'd see a great mass of vandalism. Athel cb (talk) 06:36, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Vandalism comes in many flavors. If you notice an active vandal editor/IP you can ask for blocking at WP:AIV. If you notice an article that has vandal problems from several editors/IPs, you can ask that the article is protected at WP:RFPP. Donald Trump, for example, has such protection, marked with a padlock in the upper right corner. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:49, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Hello, IZeeYou2, and welcome to the Teahouse. I presume you are talking about your User:IZeeYou2/sandbox. The only way that that can be made to meet the guidelines for a Wikipedia article is for it to demonstrate that McJoeGames meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability - roughly, that several people who have no connection with him, and have not been prompted or fed information by him, have chosen to write about him and been published in reliable sources. Nothing that you know about him is relevant to Wikipedia unless it has been published in a reliable source. Hardly anything that he or his associates have said or published are relevant to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is only interested in sources independent of the subject.
By choosing to start your career as a Wikipedia editor with probably the most difficult task there is - creating a new article - you have I'm afraid embarked on what is likely to be a course of frustration and disappointment. I always advise new editors to spend a few months improving some of our six million articles, and learning how Wikipedia works, before trying it. --ColinFine (talk) 14:06, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Well ColinFine, why doesn't SocialBlade count as a third party of YouTube, i dont think it has any connection to it, but third party of YouTube sources does wikipedia like? IZeeYou2 (talk)
I edited Wikipedia using my mobile tablet. I have the permission to have rollback rights, to end vandalism. Is the rollback feature appear or available on some of the mobile devices? Rdp060707 (talk) 08:31, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Rdp060707 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I don't know about the app or mobile version, but they do appear if you use the full desktop version in a browser on your tablet. 331dot (talk) 08:40, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Celestina007: Is that true that a rollback feature will appear on all smartphones, but desktop version? Rdp060707 (talk) 01:33, 15 September 2020
@Rdp060707: yes. Rollback links show up on all devices, no matter if they are a tablet/smartphone/Desktop Computer/Laptop/... if you use the desktop version of Wikipedia. (Hint from me: Use a responsive skin in your preferences - makes things easier. I prefer timeless) Victor Schmidt (talk) 15:20, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
hi I raised concerns about malicious editing of the biography of a living person Peter Tufano. An editor reverted the version to a previous one, and asked that edits be discussed in the talk. That change has now been undone, without discussion. What should I do next? Nasilemak1973 (talk) 15:35, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Hello Nasilemak1973, any material about living persons, if challenged, must remain out of the article, until a consensus is reached for its inclusion. It is incumbent upon editors seeking to add any such material to start a talk page discussion and attempt to gain consensus. Challenged material should not be restored before that happens (WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE). See WP:DR for how consensus may be reached. An admin and teahouse host has now protected the article. Best, Usedtobecool☎️15:49, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi Magister001, welcome to Wikipedia. To link words to other articles you simply have to place the word inside square brackets, [[Buffalo]] would create Buffalo. If you would like the text to display a different word than the title of the page you are linking to, you need to add a pipe character, like this [[Bubalina|Buffalo]]. You can find more info about linking at Help:Wikilink.
When creating paragraphs in articles be sure to leave a blank line in-between each paragraph and remember not to start sentences with numbers. If you would like to create new sections, most of the time you would place two equals signs = on either side of the section title. There are other types of headings and you can find more information about this here. When replying to people on talk pages, you should indent replies and start your new paragraph immediately below the other editors text. Let me know if you need any further assistance. Regards, Zindor (talk) 17:32, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Arceus24, yes it comes automatically when there are enough items for it (4 sections, if I remember correctly). There are magic words to control its appearance but that's not something you need to worry about as a beginner. Read all about it at WP:TOC. Best, Usedtobecool☎️18:12, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Is there a reason your User name is Arceus24 but your signature is Magister001? That can confuse other editors who are trying to contact you. David notMD (talk) 18:43, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
How do we deal with a page that no notability but I am a new user?
What's the best way to find a great article to write about?
Hello, I am new here and I wanted to write an article that hasn't been talked about. While there are many articles like that, whenever I find something that's very interesting, I realize that it's something that's already been written about here in Wikipedia. How did you find the right sources to create your article? W AnwarAfnan (talk) 00:14, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Alif Anwar
@AnwarAfnan: Welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for wanting to add to it. Browse the list at WP:RA where there are many articles requested by other editors. See if you can find one that looks interesting. Read WP:YFA on what's needed for an article and use the wizard there to create a draft for review. RudolfRed (talk) 00:24, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
@AnwarAfnan: Do realize, though, that writing a whole new article from scratch is one of the most difficult tasks to do here. It requires understanding a policy and guidelines including notability, WP:TONE, WP:NPOV, how to find and citereliable sources, article layout and the Manual of Style, etc.. The best way to gain that knowledge is usually from the experience of making small improvements to existing articles to see how they are put together and how the syntax works. Of course, as you hinted at, the most important first step is to find sources that demonstrate notability of the subject, without which the article will not be allowed to exist, regardless of how well put-together it is. Finding those sources about recent subjects is usually a matter of Google-searching for it, preferably among the "News" and "Books" categories. Access to stores of academic journals, like JSTOR, EBSCO, T&F, Cambridge, etc. helps. Older subjects may require some searching at WorldCat and actual legwork at libraries (WP:RX can sometimes help if you have a specific request). —[AlanM1 (talk)]—00:38, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
AnwarAfnan, consider browsing topics you're interested in and have some knowledge of, looking for improvements you can make. You may find a factual error that you can find a reliable source for correcting, or a typo you can fix. Doing that for a while helps you learn WP policies, so when you discover a missing article, you'll know how to write it. For me, I often discover missing articles by reading or listening to coverage about topics that are non-white/male/western. You'll find a ton of missing articles in topics centered on women, people of color, and countries where English isn't a primary language. —valereee (talk) 02:01, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
There are literally millions of articles that need to be improved. Quality rankings (shown on article Talk pages) rise from Stub to Featured Article. David notMD (talk) 04:06, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Uploading Photos
I am trying to upload a photo that I took myself and own all the rights to, but I keep getting an error message saying I can't upload it and that I must own the content in order to do so, but I DO own the rights to the photo. How can I fix this? TlntAgnt (talk) 22:02, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
@TlntAgnt: Just to be clear, barring a valid free-use argument, by uploading and licensing images with CC-BY-SA, you are allowing anyone to re-use the image for any purpose, including commercial, as long as they attribute the source, which will be "Wikipedia" and, if they want to dig for it, the history of the page/image, which would show your username (TlntAgnt). Even with a free-use image, someone wanting to re-use it can make a similar argument to re-use it. This is all pretty atypical for what I assume are commercial headshots. —[AlanM1 (talk)]—01:49, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
TlntAgnt, generally, for uploading photos, you want to go to Wikimedia Commons, the sister project to Wikipedia that serves as the repository for most images used on Wikipedia. (Uploading images directly to Wikipedia is mainly for images that we do not own the license to and are using only under free use.) The conflict of interest rules there are also less strict than those on Wikipedia. Once you upload an image to Commons, you will be able to use it on Wikipedia; see WP:IMAGESTART. {{u|Sdkb}}talk04:10, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Have a Nice Life (Band)
Hey there I was wondering why there isn’t a page for the album “Sea of Worry” by Have a Nice Life?
Articles are only written when somebody is in the mood to write them. If you can derive material about this album from independent, reliable, published sources, you're welcome to create a draft, at Draft:Sea of Worry. -- Hoary (talk) 05:04, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi TRod1155. Just going to add to what Hoary posted above in that albums are expected to at least satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Recordings in order for a Wikipedia article to be written about them. So, if you feel that the album does, then you can start working on draft for a potential article. If, on the other hand, you're not sure whether the album is Wikipedia notable, perhaps you should try asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums because the members of that WikiProject should be able to help you sort things out. FWIW, articles are being created all of the time, but one of reasons articles end up deleted is because their respective subjects aren't considered to be Wikipedia notable enough for a stand-alone article to be written. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:02, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Yes, TRod1155: Marchjuly makes an excellent point. It's particularly important here because the band Have a Nice Life has such a short article. If this is all that can be said about the band (from independent, reliable, published sources), then this suggests that you'd be wasting your time attempting to create a draft on one of their albums. If on the other hand it's not all that can be said about the band (from ditto), then improving the article about them is probably a better idea than creating the new draft. -- Hoary (talk) 07:40, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Trying to figure out reference error for Steve Warren
@Gettingpasttaken: I moved your question into the body and renamed the section. Some things don't react well to having wikimarkup in section headings; they should just be concise plain-text headlines. —[AlanM1 (talk)]—21:00, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Yesterday, I added a name to a list, and, though imperfect (programming is Greek to me) I published it, and viewed it after logging out. Today it's gone. Might it return, or do I need to try adding it again? Gettingpasttaken (talk) 15:23, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
It looks like the relevant guideline is at WP:LISTPEOPLE, and it refers to notability, not having an article. I'm going to re-add Kuempel to the page with the refs. {{u|Sdkb}}talk03:29, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Where can I start a new topic/article and work on it before publishing it? Will it be possible to work on it without other members contributing before it is ready? Gabby 09:21, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Vedlagt Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If you wish to draft a new article, you should use Articles for Creation. Other users should see that you are working on a draft(assuming you save your edits as you progress by clicking "publish changes" which should be understood to simply mean "save") and refrain from editing it. 331dot (talk) 09:29, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Too many references?
Hi. The article Bilal U. Haq shows a maintenance box that says:
"This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. The specific problem is: The huge set of references authored by him are inappropriate and need to be trimmed, or the text trimmed. The are a bibliography though peer reviewed papers can be references used sparingly"
I find it difficult to know the best number of references to use. Before the article was approved, a reviewer said there were not enough references.
If I remove references 1 through 12, 16 and 25, will it be good enough to remove the maintenance box?
Removing the citations of his own works would be a good start. Also, you should remove the citation of Wikipedia, which does not regard itself as a reliable source, to avoid circularity. Maproom (talk) 08:35, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Transition Integrity Project says it is a bipartisan organization!
Why isn't there a link as to "all of its affiliations"?
"The Transition Integrity Project, an organization with ties to George Soros’ Open Society Foundations and to the Chinese Communist Party-linked think tank The Berggruen Institute, has outlined several tactics the Left and Deep State plan to use to secure a Biden victory in the 2020 presidential election, including mail-in voting, suppression of speech via social-media censorship, and “mass mobilization” (read: riots) on America’s streets".
https://www.newsbreak.com/news/2055812827751/soros-linked-org-prepares-for-election-coup-calls-for-mass-street-uprisingsJustinell (talk) 13:29, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
I'd like to request someone to upload 3 images for me so I can use them on the same article (Teppen), I'm aware Wikipedia:Files for upload exists but I find it complicated to request this there as well as to upload the images myself (I'm afraid of selecting an incorrect license when uploading). The 3 images and their sources are below:
Hello, JyuHachiJyu. I've only looked at the first one, but I see no evidence that it has been freely licensed, and therefore it may not be used in Wikipedia unless you can show (and the onus is on you, wanting to upload it) that its use meets all the criteria in the non-free content criteria. The Logo is a different case, and according to logos, logos are often uploaded as non-free images. --ColinFine (talk) 17:27, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Liibtard, I have added a header to your post to prevent it from interfering with the previous poster's query. Please in future click the big blue "Ask a question" button at the top of this page, which will automatically start a new section, rather than just adding your post on to the bottom of someone else's.
Oh, and Welcome to the Teahouse. Did you have a query about editing Wikipedia?
[You should reply, if you want to, by going to the next line after this post, starting it with three colons and immediately continuing with your text (no space needed).] {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.218.14.16 (talk) 17:28, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Talk page
I am very new to Wikipedia and haven't been here for a while.
If someone leaves a message for you on your talk page, there's an assumption that they've also temporarily added your talk page to their watch list. This means they get notified of any edit made by anyone to that page. That way they can keep an eye out for a reply. (I therefore saw your attempt to reply to me, and your subsequent deletion of it)
To ensure another editor receives a red 'notification' (shown above), you need to correctly include their username and correctly sign your post with four keyboard tildes and save everything together in one single edit. (it doesn't work if you forget one bit and add it later). The correct way to name someone is Vedlagt or User:Vedlagt or @Vedlagt: which are written as {{u|Vedlagt}} or [[User:Vedlagt]] or {{re|Vedlagt}}. You cannot simply type an @ symbol in front of the name: use the third format to create that. PS: Your signature is still wrong - you've omitted your username. Why not go back to your user preferences and set the signature to default to avoid more problems? Nick Moyes (talk) 17:39, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Huge problems with an administrator, help needed fast
There's an administrator that has issues with me that go beyond policy, into PA. I've learned to avoid them. Today they (unilaterally?) changed a page from Bio without living parameters to a BLP [24], which stopped me [25] from reediting
[26] problems on a controversial page 11th Panchen Lama. I've a block on BLP due to the same administrator, ends 29 September. Also today, they just threatened a block for PA
[27], but I have no idea what they're referring to. I am very careful with conduct. Received PA's yesterday, threats today of sockpuppetry and other rubbish. It seems they're not following policy or guidelines, and not worried about it. I've tried to resolve matters but any communication with them seems to get. twisted. Is it possibe for you to reason with them? Or explain to me what's best to do? Thanks so much!
Pasdecomplot (talk) 14:03, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
HeartGlow30797, perhaps you missed it because you were not pinged (see this thread if you did), but your premature advice to escalate the situation got a teahouse guest in trouble very recently. Luckily, this time the links don't go to anywhere like WP:ANI (which actually has an advice on its header that reads:"If you're just plain confused, ask at the Teahouse.") or WP:ARC directly, but please stop playing a guessing game with the answers, there are no awards. Regards! Usedtobecool☎️14:48, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Pasdecomplot, I am looking into it and will post a full reply soon. In the meantime, please do not worry or take any drastic action. I am quite sure she will not block you (she was just warning you that someone else might). Best, Usedtobecool☎️14:51, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Pasdecomplot, if you are topic banned from BLPs, that means that you are topic banned from articles about living people and making any edits about living people in any other article or talk page. It does not matter whether it was marked as a BLP in the talk page. You should have known you were violating your topic ban when you were typing in the text that you added to that article as you were clearly writing about one or more living people. If any other admin aware of your topic ban had seen your edit, they would have bocked you. Valereee seems to have chosen instead to add the notices on the talk page and to inform you so you would stop editing the article before someone else noticed.As for the template about PA, that is one of the standard templates that editors give when they notice a personal attack; admins and non-admins, everyone can give that notice. It does not mean that they will block you. But an admin visiting your page may notice it, investigate it, and block you if they too agree that it was a personal attack. Or, if you make another edit that she considers a personal attack, she might report you to another admin. Valereee and you now have a significant history, so she can not block you per WP:INVOLVED. IIRC, she was not aware of this when she blocked you the first time, but she does after the ANI discussion that followed. She is just trying to help you. She realised that some issues with your editing stem from you being in mobile platform and tried to say as much at the recent ANI but you were quite hostile to her there. At this point, I think it's best the two of you stay away from each other, and I am sure she will do so if you ask. But I am also quite sure you will get into more trouble not less with her staying away (to give just one example, if you have a BLP topic ban, any other admin would have blocked you for making that edit to the Panchen Lama article, and asked questions later). Regards! Usedtobecool☎️15:20, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi @Usedtobecool pinged you on talk. I understand your logic, but the official categories are what matters in this issue. The page in question is officially a Bio without living parameters, as clarified by admin last June, and as of today in the page's info. I have permission to edit the Buddhist pages since their category is not BLP. So, it not about " should have known" since there was nothing to know. Aside from that, thanks for reaching out and the advice! Pasdecomplot16:34 15 September 2020 (UTC)16:40, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
There is much BS to refute above, almost as if digging oneself into a bottomless pit, and at Teahouse of all places.
Received PA's yesterday, threats today of sockpuppetry: Where are the specific personal attack(s)? This message on potential sockpuppetry is a calmly-worded advice against yourself hypothetically engaging in such, not a "threat" that sockpuppetry would occur.
I've a block on BLP due to the same administrator: Nope, that was placed by El_Con 29 Jun.
Gosh, CaradhrasAiguo, those edits..."Chinese leadership" and "leadership by China"... Thinking of humbly proposing a category of policy called WP:AKGG (apparatchik goobolee-gook). Pasdecomplot16:41 15 September 202016:40, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
The four tildes will be automatically converted to a signature that contains your linked username and a timestamp, which helps readers understand who said what. You don't have to rely on your own clock being right or that you format it correctly if you let the server take care of it (the one above was missing a comma, which I just fixed; bots and user scripts rely on the format being correct in order to find the timestamp). —[AlanM1 (talk)]—19:41, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
What should I do if I made multiple mistakes reporting a WP:COPYVIO?
So I attempted to report a possible copyvio on Let's Hurt Tonight. However, I messed up at multiple stages involving the source of the lyrics, and I may have used the wrong templates. What is the recommended course of action? Should I get a rollback of the mistaken sourcing? Opalzukor (talk) 17:08, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
@Opalzukor: The main issue I see, from an outside perspective, is that template is designed for a different situation (when the issue is a whole article, not a whole section). I've just reverted the article to right before the offending lyrics were inserted, and asked an admin to revision-delete the page history where they were shown. Template:Copyvio-revdel I think is closer to the correct one you were looking for, for future reference - it comes with usage instructions as well. The fact that some of your edits were hidden reflects nothing on you - it's simply the best way to hide the copy-vio. -- a ladinsane(channel two)19:20, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks a ton. The problem was, I couldn't find a source, so I was unsure on exactly what to do. I know, I should be bold, however I should also check other examples of similar things. Again, thanks. Opalzukor (talk) 20:01, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
@IBG2018: from a first view it looks good now. One minor point though (that will not prevent the draft from being promoted to an article): Please use past tense to refer to past events. For example, when you state "In January 2020, a randomly selected and representative group of 108 UK citizens, aged 16-79 is selected." you likely wanted to say "In January 2020, a randomly selected and representative group of 108 UK citizens, aged 16-79 were selected", since the selection is completed. Victor Schmidt (talk) 19:09, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
When would it become obvious that a consensus has been reached?
On an RFC I started about whether 20 kilobytes of character descriptions being warred in and out is appropriate, 4 users, including me, have commented that the content is appropriate; that the descriptions are short, basic, and factual enough that there are no concerns of original research; and that the series itself works as an unreferenced primary source (thus going within the verifiability guidelines. In addition, a fifth user who did not take part in the discussion has added the content back in after its most recent removal. The other party in the discussion, Serial Number 54129 and Drmies, have not commented on the RFC at all, and the few examples of original research that Drmies gave in an edit summary have been taken out of the page. Does this mean that a consensus has been reached, and if either of them removed he content without discussion again (I’m personally more worried about Serial Number based on him reverting to the same version without an edit summary once a month for quite some time), would it be appropriate to report them to ANI for breaking WP:DISRUPT, WP:STONEWALL, WP:DROPTHESTICK, WP:WABBITSEASON, and WP:IDHT? For reference, several merge proposals on Talk:List of recurring The Simpsons characters passed with only 2 or 3 votes on some of them, but those were far less controversial prior to the proposals. Seeing the merge proposals on the Simpsons pages reach consensus with so little votes makes me believe that my RFC has a consensus based on it having more votes, but I’m not 100% sure. Unnamed anon (talk) 19:22, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi Unnamed anon, welcome to the Teahouse. I'm sorry to hear that you've been caught up in a content dispute, it's one of those unfortunate situations that we all would like to avoid. My advice would be to let the water settle rather than bringing this to WP:ANI. It might be the case that the editors involved are exhausted of the topic, and so avoided the RfC. ANI is a last resort and it might boomerang back on you.
@Zindor: Thank you for your regards and suggestions. I probably shouldn't have mentioned my ANI plans, as I did ask about that in a previous Teahouse question. After all, the last removals done by the other party have been almost a month ago, though I am nervous that they will return. My question was mostly about whether 5 users is enough for it to be considered a consensus, and if I or someone else should close the RFC as "consensus in favor of including the content". Unnamed anon (talk) 20:16, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Unnamed anon: I normally refrain from assessing discussions because my opinion might differ from the editor that actually closes it. But because this seems to be concerning you, I'll give you my thoughts on how it looks generally. There's a lack of thorough discussion in the RfC, and some editors in support have noted the lack of participation; therefore it wouldn't be surprising if it was closed as no consensus.
The positive thing here is that several editors noted support for your proposal. So if you have to start another RfC, don't be disheartened, they'll probably turn up again to support a similar proposal. I hope this helps. Zindor (talk) 20:38, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
All that being said, if the content addition isn't reverted again, you might end up with what's called a 'stable consensus'; where the new status quo is assumed to be the consensus Zindor (talk) 20:48, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
this concerns https://www.inaturalist.org/places/cibolo-creek-ranch, which is located in Bulverde Texas.The Wikipedia entry that iNaturalist is using drags up https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cibolo_Creek_Ranch, which is 435 miles west of my place. I just need to be able to use a correct description of our ranch on the iNaturalist page. Our ranch legally has the name. It is registered with the state of Texas as Cibolo Creek Ranch and also with Dunn and Bradstreet as Cibolo Creek Ranch. I don't want to edit the west Texas historic ranch away, even though it legally doesn't own the name. How do you settle when two entities have the same name and can I edit? I am 75 years old, so please folks, be kind. 162.72.8.110 (talk) 16:28, 16 September 2020 (UTC) 162.72.8.110 (talk) 16:28, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Hello IP editor. I am 68 years old and respect my elders so I will try to be kind. First of all, Wikipedia has no control over how another website displays information so you would have to take that up with the iNaturalist website. The ranch described in the current Wikipedia article definitely deserves an article because it is historic, on the National Register of Historic Places, movies were made there, a Supreme Court justice died there, and so on. We do not pay much attention to legal formalities regarding names and instead go by what published reliable sources say. I have no idea whether your ranch deserves a Wikipedia article. As for the matter of how Wikipedia deals with two or more entities with the same name, we call that disambiguation and we deal with that all the time. Can you edit? Yes, you can but you have an obvious conflict of interest regarding these two ranches. Set up an account, declare your conflict of interest, and I will be willing to help you further. Cullen328Let's discuss it17:46, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Request to turn the Wikipedia page named "Pootis" into a redirect page
I wanted to turn the Wikipedia article named "Pootis" into a redirect to the article for Heavy Weapons Guy, which instead is a redirect to this section about him on the Team Fortress 2 article. Unfortunately, it said only administrators can create the page. I wanted to do this because the would-be subject of the article, "pootis", a misheard phrase derived from "Put dispenser here", a voice command of his in Team Fortress 2, is mainly associated with him, and I wanted trying to access the page to not lead to a dead end, the intent of many redirects on Wikipedia on and to any page. I eventually thought to come here to seek permission for the redirect to be created, hoping this would eventually result in the redirect being created. Childishbeat (talk) 21:28, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi Childishbeat, welcome. I suspect most people would just type in 'Heavy' if 'Pootis' didn't redirect them. Anyone who knows the alternative names (Pootis, Pootis Spencer, Pootisbirb, Fat Scout) also knows the official name 'Heavy'. Others might have a different opinion but I think this isn't worth a redirect. Zindor (talk) 21:47, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hello, Childishbeat, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm really sorry to disappoint you, but (assuming I understand you correctly) It would not be justifiable at this stage to create a redirect from a minor catchphrase in a video game to an as yet non-existent article about one character in that game (currently at Team Fortress 2#Heavy Weapons Guy. It would be based, I assume, on this, which doesn't recognise it as his catchphrase, but an internet meme based upon themisunderstanding of that fictional character's accent. The best you could do is actually mention this in a single sentence in that section of Team Fortress 2 (with a citation, of course), but be aware others might well remove it as WP:FANCRUFT which it does rather sound in danger of becoming. Then, that word might be found if anyone used our search facility to look for it. But a redirect is - if you pardon the pun - overkill. Hope this helps, Nick Moyes (talk) 21:55, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
@Jonyk56: I just googled Xent and XenText and can find no media coverage suggesting an article will be accepted at this time. The two sources you currently use in the article are a primary source and a paywalled textbook that I can't read. It's likely WP:TOOSOON. This information was left by the patrollers. It doesn't matter since the sourcing is so weak, but the phrasing also isn't right, and you wouldn't put someone's Twitter handle in an encyclopedia article. TimTempleton(talk)(cont)18:48, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi, Jonyk56. I'm really sorry, but I agree with Tim templeton in that, in its present form your daft draft article is simply an attempt at promotion of a new, non-notable product, and stands absolutely zero chance of getting into what we call 'article space' on Wikipedia. (See WP:PROMOTION for why that's not ok with us). That's not to say it isn't a marvellous programme - there are millions of marvellous things out in the real world (including me!) which will never, ever meet our 'notability criteria' and thus will never have an article here. You might like to read WP:NSOFTWARE to appreciate that until mainstream, independent media outlets have written in detail and in depth about an item, it will never be covered here. So WP:TOOSOON is a reasonable page to point you to, with the faint hope that maybe, one day, it will be big enough, noticed, written about and deserve its own article here. But that time is not now, I'm afraid. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 20:06, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Goodness, sorry, no insult whatsoever was intended by that typo. I do apologise, and have fixed it. Thanks, AlanM1 for spotting that. (It's so easy to make innocent mistakes like that in pubic platforms. It happens to me all the time! I now sometimes ask Lee, my grandmother, to check what I write, but I've not found GrandmaLee to be as good as the adverts on YouTube suggest.) Nick Moyes (talk) 22:07, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, Taeeees. That's a very hard question to answer (and not really what the Teahouse is about), but there is a very marked difference between the number of accounts created each day and the number of new real, editors actively contributing (even with just one edit) each day. I couldn't find the answer at this page of Wikipedia statistics, but you could visit Special:Log/newusers and extrapolate a daily average if you were so minded. (If the 'contribs' link is still red, and not blue, it means that account name has not yet made any edits. You could try asking at the WP:REFDESK as that's a place for asking esoteric questions, whereas we are here just to give help and assistance in the actual processing of editing Wikipedia. (PS: Well done on starting The Wikipedia Adventure - you've just 13 more badges left to collect now!) Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:51, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Sorting by more citations needed or refimprove
Hello. Is it possible to sort for articles based on "refimprove" or "more citations needed" tags? I know that you can sort for unclear notability. Thank you very much. Caro7200 (talk) 21:48, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I've just translated a wikipedia page from english to portuguese and I am trying to post it, but as soon as I hit the button to do so, it gives me a warning about how "this action was identified as a copy of a wikipedia page". Can I post it anyway? It isn't a copy, it's just the english page translated to portuguese. Thank you.02:19, 17 September 2020 (UTC)IsaCesco (talk)
@IsaCesco:, different language versions of Wikipedia are separate organizations. We cannot help you with issues on another Wikipedia. You'll need to find the help you need at Portuguese Wikipedia. John from Idegon (talk) 02:57, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Request a page or write myself?
Hi everyone -- I work for Portland Pet Food Company and would love for a page to be created about our company. Given my work, I know there is a conflict of interest. I'm happy to try and draft a page for review, but thought it was worth asking to see if someone would be open to writing it for me. I went ahead and compiled some relevant links, if helpful. Please let me know! Thanks.
Hello, HannahPortlandPetFoodCo. Welcome, and thank you very much for coming here to ask. Looking at those sources, I see nothing that merits an article on Wikipedia. They're all insider business articles and brief mentions of products. there's nothing in them that suggests the world at large (outside of the pet food industry) has sat up and begged for others to pay attention to your company. That's not to say your company isn't a great business - like hundreds of thousands of others, but we need at least three independent, in-depth articles about your company that are not based on promotional insider press releases before our essential criterion of 'Notability' is met. You can read more about that by going to this shortcut: WP:NCORP. You should probably also read this bit about ';what Wikipedia is not: WP:NOTADVERTISING. Unless you can find far better and more detailed, mainstream media-type sources, then I'm afraid you would simply be wasting your time and that of our reviewers in having to reject it. Sorry to disappoint you, but I hope you appreciate it was eminently sensible to have asked here first. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:21, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Sadly, requesting an article is a dead letter office (great majority of requests never get acted on). Also, not just COI, but paid, so if you intend to pursue this (and I agree with Nick, to not to), you must declare paid on your User page. See WP:PAID. David notMD (talk) 05:34, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Biden Contact: How to get message to Joe Biden
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Although the original question didn't really fall within the scope of the Teahouse, it was asked and answered in good faith and there's probably nothing more which needs to be added. The OP should try and directly contact Biden's campaign as suggested below if he wants to further reach out to Biden regarding this kind of thing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:44, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
I would like to get message to Joe Biden. How can I do this?
Extended content
I do not want Biden to lose this election.
Here some things I want Biden to consider. "Joe you do not have a plan for Covid-19, just a slogan." Trump is developing a detailed plan.
This is a political leadership issue, not science. Science is a resource that we will use identify options, but you Joe Biden must identify
values and priorities and lead a reluctant nation. Brian11lloyd (talk) 20:20, 16 September 2020 (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.
The wikipage updated by me has been labeled as ' created or edited for undisclosed payments'
Two editors, one since blocked as a sock puppet and the other suspected of being a public relations company doing undisclosed paid editing (UPE), were instrumental in creating and editing this article. The label is there (Rashika Singh) because of them, not you. David notMD (talk) 14:03, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
why my page is deleted before submitting.
I have been trying to create a profile of mine from past one week but wikipedians are deleting it and not letting me publishing it for review. they state that it contains advertising content but that certainly is not the case. kindly help me out with this Devraj Priju (talk) 06:02, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Secondly, if you write yourself, you have an obvivous conflict of interest which makes things hard for you, as people tend to write more favourable about themselves
mr. victor i certainly understand your point but i have written the facts about my life and moreover i am not publishing this article for advertising, i am doing it to establish my existence in entertainment field as other colleagues of mine
Devraj Priju All content here must be based on what good-quality, independent, published sources have written about a subject, and never on what the subject wants to say about themselves. If you do actually meet our notability requirements, someone is sure to want to write about you (see WP:NBIO or WP:NACTOR.) Nick Moyes (talk) 07:01, 17 September 2020 (UTC).
mr. victor schmidt , mr. nick moyes and mr. jimfbleak please help me out with this page i really dont know how you want me to write this page because i have taken reference of shiamak davar's page and remo d souzas page ... my content is also kind of similar to their pattern only words are different. kindly help guys
@Devraj Priju: I strongly suggest that you abandon this effort to write a Wikipedia article(not a "profile", we don't have "profiles") about yourself. You've been told why this is not a good idea. Please also review other stuff exists; other similar article existing is not a reason for yours to exist. 331dot (talk) 10:23, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
@Devraj Priju: Please supply links to at least three online resources which have written about you in detail and in depth, and which would have allowed anyone to have verified everything you wrote about yourself in your deleted sandbox. It was very promotional and self-serving, and totally unsupported by citations. That is not how this encyclopaedia operates. Unless you can at least do that, you cannot create even a draft article about yourself here, and any attempt will also be deleted again. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:46, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Archived discussions
Hi, what on earth is Lowercase sigmabot III and Muninnbot? What do they do, how do they work, what does it all mean? I keep getting messages from them on my talk page. 314WPlay (talk) 08:33, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
@314WPlay: You seem annoyed. Note that it does provide useful information that is deemed necessary because of the principles of WP:TPO. The archiving of Teahouse threads older than three (?) days is necessary because of the volume – to keep the page down to a manageable size for readers. Because the archive bot moves your post (that you may have bookmarked), it is necessary to inform you that it happened and to give you a link to the new location. Is there something the bot maintainers can do that would make these reminders less annoying? Suggestions can be made to Muninnbot's maintainer at User talk:Tigraan. —[AlanM1 (talk)]—23:59, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
@AlanM1: I've calmed down a bit now. "For readers" - you mean people scroll through and read this? I thought I was the only one who looked through the questions other editors were asking here. The reminders could be useful if I ever want to review my question. I guess I ask questions at Teahouse so I should face the consequences! 314WPlay (talk) 19:22, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
@314WPlay: If nobody scrolled through and read questions, they would not get answered, would they?
You can turn off Muninnbot's notifications by copy-pasting the following magic words (including the curly brackets): {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} at the top of your user talk page (User talk:314WPlay). This tells the bot not to bother you. (That information can also be found in the bot's notification itself.)
I am completely open to a change in the design of the notifications but I would need more detailed feedback: is the notification too big? The color too pale? The font too frightening? TigraanClick here to contact me16:00, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
@Tigraan: I think you’re right. Obviously the good people that host Teahouse read the questions, yes. I sometimes also review them (of course I can’t answer). I’ll tell you if I have a specific suggestion for a change of the notification design but nothing specific comes to mind. 314WPlay (talk) 12:39, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Controversial topics
Hi, I am a new student editor in a class using the WikiEducation Course program and was wondering how to best represent controversial topics. I want to accurately portray all perspectives found in the relevant literature while editing but I also don't want to risk having one of my first posts deleted. Any suggestions? Bellanapodano (talk) 11:22, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Even experienced editors get reverted (not deleted, as the View history will show what you changed and that it was reversed by a subsequent edit, with reasons given by that editor). There is no penalty for editing in good faith. Given you are considering editing B-class articles with a long and contentious history of edits, I suggest you look at the Talk pages of those articles, including archived Talk content, to see if your intended change has been hashed over previously. David notMD (talk) 11:38, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) Hi Bellanapodano. Welcome to Wikipedia editing. It looks like the Wiki-Ed advisors for your course are Helaine (Wiki Ed) and Ian (Wiki Ed), who are both quite experienced in helping students navigate through Wikipedia's various policies and guidelines; so, you might want to discuss this with them. Editing a controversial topic can, in general, be quite tricky even for experienced editors, but students in particular often seem to run in trouble with others when they try do so. You seem to be interested in Transcendental Meditation, but that article is under discretionary sanctions because it tends to attract lots of attention and generates a bit of drama because it seems to be a topic where there's lots of disagreement. So, my gut feeling is to suggest that you try to avoid such topics like that until you've been around awhile and are not facing any time constraints or deadlines related to your class work. Wikipedia editing can sometimes move at a slow pace, but that pace can become even slower when dealing with a controversial subject and trying to establish a WP:CONSENSUS among concerned editors to make even what might seem to be a minor change. -- Marchjuly (talk)
Having peeked at your list of possible articles to edit, and your position that "Transcendental Meditation" predates the Maharishi, I predict that any content you add along those lines will by swiftly reverted. David notMD (talk) 11:51, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Hello Teahouse, I'm working on creating my first article, Draft:Theresa_Greenfield_(2). An initial draft was rejected for not sufficiently establishing notability, so I have made edits to: (1) add new sources demonstrating significant national news coverage and importance, (2) replace primary sources with reliable secondary sources where possible, and (3) provide further details. Is there anything else I can do to make the article more likely to be accepted now? Thanks! Js2112 (talk) 19:58, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Js2112 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Typically, merely being a candidate for office does not meet the notability guidelines for politicians- which would mean that she would need to be notable for something else to merit an article at this time(unless she wins her election in which case she would then merit an article, even before being sworn in). There are rare exceptions to this (such as Christine O'Donnell) but in those cases the subject needs to have extensive coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, nationally if possible. Based on what I see I'm not convinced that Greenfield rises to the needed level of notability at this time, but nothing will happen to the draft for six months(assuming you don't edit it) so my advice would be to wait and see if she wins. 331dot (talk) 20:04, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, 331dot. Yes, I understand that simply being a candidate doesn't necessarily establish notability, but it shouldn't preclude it either. In this case, I do think that there's substantial national coverage of Greenfield in multiple reliable sources, as well as copious amounts of state level coverage, as I've tried to document in the article. I also thought that the race being close and reasonably likely to decide the overall control of the Senate makes it notable. As far as I can tell, every single other 2020 Senate candidate in a competitive race already has a page, and Greenfield is at least as notable as many of those (clearly more notable than some). Js2112 (talk) 20:37, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Js2112, the only thing that affects the notability of this person is the facts about this person. What is or isn't in other articles, nor the existence of other articles, has any bearing whatsoever on this article. John from Idegon (talk) 00:55, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
John from Idegon, in my opinion, notability is met in this case under "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." Of course, terms like "major" and "significant" in this context are somewhat subjective. One way of evaluating these words is to see how much press coverage other similarly situated politicians who have already been judged to pass the notability threshold have received. By definition, that amount of coverage can be assumed to meet the "significant" criterion. That's the sense in which the comparison may be relevant. Js2112 (talk) 02:58, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Js2112, there is a very strong presumption among experienced editors that unelected candidates for political office are not notable except in highly unusual circumstances that do not seem to be present here. In most cases, these people will have had Wikipedia articles long before their candidacies were announced, for other reasons. Perhaps they are movie stars or major corporate CEOs or the like. Instead, these unelected candidates should be described in neutral articles about the political race, which devote equal attention to all major candidates. In this case, that article is 2020 United States Senate election in Iowa, and that is where neutral information about Greenfield belongs. If there are other 2020 Senate challengers in other states who have never been elected to high office or achieved significant notability outside politics, please bring them to our attention here, so that we can evaluate their notability. Cullen328Let's discuss it06:10, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
I disagree with some of the above. Assuming that all the cites are as legitimate (that they say what they are quoted to say) as the 5 I read, it seems that the case has successfully been made for notability. It's an important race (for the balance of power), with both candidates polling inside the margin of error, according to the well-cited national sources. I dislike politics and most politicians pretty intensely, so I can understand if the preference here among like minds is to cover these candidates in hindsight, and I would be OK with that. However, if other candidates are being covered in advance, I think to not allow this one would be inconsistent unless I'm grossly mis-understanding a much (perhaps unreasonably) higher-than-normal bar for notability. —[AlanM1 (talk)]—12:07, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi Cullen328. Yes, I've noticed this strong presumption in browsing through other related discussions! What I don't understand is where it comes from. It's not in WP:NPOL, which just says that running for office on its own doesn't guarantee notability, and then provides two specific criteria to define notability: holding state/national office or receiving significant press coverage. How did this additional presumption evolve into the standard, and why does the second NPOL criterion no longer apply? Js2112 (talk) 17:08, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Js2112 I thi8nk this comes from an excess of promotion. Many candidate staffs, political operatives, and activists have thought that a Wikipedia article about their favored candidate would enhance that person's chance of election. Thus there have been many attempts to create articles about people whose only claim to notability is being a candidate, and the more or less routine coverage that comes with any candidacy, particularly for an office which would confer notability on an elected holder. As a result many editors have tended to discount coverage of a candidate as a candidate. The argument has also been made that the entire electoral campaign constitutes a single event, and thus WP:BLP1E applies to deny notability. I think this reaction has gone too far, and I think we probably need an RfC to clarify just what our policy and practice should be. That said, when a candidate has no coverage except in connection with a campaign, and is no more extensive than J. Random Candidate for that office would expect, an article is quite possibly not justified. Significant Coverage unrelated tom the campaign would significantly help any attempt to argue for retention of an article about a current candidate. DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs20:31, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Js2112 I.e., find sufficient coverage about her pre-political life that would make her notable as an "urban planner, businesswoman, and real estate developer", yes DESiegel? At the risk of being WP:POINTy, do you think someone is reviewing all the other candidates in this election to ensure we aren't letting some slip through the cracks (by trivially auto-confirmed editors who didn't try to follow the rules)? —[AlanM1 (talk)]—02:11, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Yes that would be sufficient, AlanM1. But If there are sources about the person's pre-campaign life that at least contribute to notability, even if they do not clearly establish it, along with above-average coverage of the candidate, say national coverage for a state-level office (in the US system), I would be inclined to accept that. However, not all editors will agree with that position. The exact details might matter at an AfD, along with exactly who joins the discussion. I hope,you find this helpful, Js2112. But I will say that the position taken by John from Idegon above does not, in my view, have a broad general consensus. Rather the matter is disputed. DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs02:19, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
AlanM1 Having dug up everything I can in the course of writing the article, I think one would be hard-pressed to make a strong case for notability based on her pre-political career. She certainly had significant success in real estate at the local and state level, but there is very little coverage of those achievements. I don't know whether anyone else has reviewed the other 2020 Senate candidates for omissions or notability (I rather doubt it, based on what I've seen), but I have. As I mentioned above, there are several other candidates who do not appear to have better-established notability but whose Wikipedia articles have been accepted uncontroversially. I haven't posted specifics because I'm not trying to get pages deleted; I'm arguing for a more inclusive standard. I have not found any other competitive races where a major party candidate lacks their own article. Js2112 (talk) 07:15, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Js2112, in my opinion, it is likely to be easier to make the current notability standards less inclusive, than more. So, as far as levelling the playing field among legislature candidates who have not previously been elected is concerned, seeking deletion of those that have gone through the cracks may be the only viable option available.As for your draft, AFC reviewers give their individual opinions based on their experience and the criteria that they judge on is whether the article is likely to survive a community-wide deletion discussion (WP:AFD). If you are convinced that the subject is notable, and would like to settle it at AFD, you can ask the reviewer to accept the article solely to put it through AFD. I recommend you carefully go through arguments for deletion made in this discussion on a similar subject before you decide whether to take that option. Best, Usedtobecool☎️08:20, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, Usedtobecool. When I wrote "I'm arguing for a more inclusive standard," that was a bit imprecise. What I'm actually arguing for is the WP:NPOL standard to be applied as written, rather than how the interpretation appears to have evolved away from that since the rule was defined.As a relative newcomer here, I'm not totally clear on what the difference is (in practical terms) between the article being declined by an individual reviewer and being accepted and then nominated for deletion. Just that then multiple people get to weigh in? On the Annamie Paul page, there was only really one vocal contributor (who has expressed the same opinion elsewhere) arguing strongly for deletion and a strict standard. Almost everyone else seemed to be somewhere between neutral and in favor of keeping the article. Js2112 (talk) 08:50, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Js2112, yes, Wikipedia works on WP:Consensus which would what an AFD outcome would constitute. I mentioned it because (1) AFC does sometimes get it wrong, some accepted articles are later deleted by AFD and Carlo Masi, for example, was rejected by AFC but kept in an AFD. (2) All editors are equal and no one editor, however experienced, on principle, has the right to dictate whether another's article may be included in the encyclopedia, only the community consensus has the power to do that. So, in the interest of complete transparency, you ought to know that that is the last option available to you (3) At least one editor above seemed to suggest that Greenfield may be notable, so it's not a clear-cut failure of Wikipedia notability for an AFD to constitute a waste of everyone's time (4) Sometimes it's just more efficient for everyone to have a definitive seven day discussion than to have months of reworking, resubmitting, declining, and discussing in multiple fora.
I linked the Annamie Paul page because the one vocal contributor is one of the representative voices of that position (which I agree with almost entirely) and they presented almost exhaustively their argument for the same. Do note that Paul and Greenfield may not be at the same level of pre-election notability, and that that AFD was called a weak-ish consensus by the closer despite it having as you say one vocal advocate for deletion. They also noted that the result was unusual, for "redirect" was the expected usual outcome. Best, Usedtobecool☎️12:03, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
As for applying standards as written, because of the nature of Wikipedia, it is more a feedback loop rather than a hierarchy from someone who gives the commandments to the rest that abide by them. Guidelines are deliberately written so as to allow subjectivity and interpretation. When they are first written, they are written by a consensus of editors and the consensus may evolve and change as editors grow and change. Sometimes, practice may become so entrenched as to make the written guides archaic in which case the written rules get changed rather than the community adjusting itself to outdated rules that no longer seems to have consensus. I am generally for limiting AFD discussions to exactly what the notability guides say because that's what the page creators do when creating new articles. But, that does not always happen. Best, Usedtobecool☎️12:14, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Usedtobecool, I would have no objection to revising the guidelines so as to more accurately reflect the current consensus. That seems like it a productive step forward, and would be completely consistent with the Wikipedia ethos. As you say, a situation where people write articles based on the official guidelines, only to be told afterward that the de facto standard is something completely different, is not ideal.Given the current situation for the page in question, is there anything to lose from AfD? Js2112 (talk) 20:18, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
@Js2112: I think Usedtobecool was describing the general way guidelines are formed rather than discussing the specific case. In the case of the article you have written, the written guideline (WP:NPOL: Just being (...) an unelected candidate for political office does not guarantee notability (...)) and the practice at AfD align fairly well.
If you have searched for notability evidence (outside of the election coverage) and found none, the AfD is virtually guaranteed to go "delete". "Nothing to lose by going to AfD" might be true for you now that the article is already written, but if you force an AfD on an open-and-shut case (wasting the time of all AfD participants in the process) you will not make many friends. TigraanClick here to contact me15:52, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Tigraan, what I've been trying to get across is that the NPOL guideline is not limited to stating that "an unelected candidate for political office does not guarantee notability." Another part of the guideline says that "[m]ajor local political figures who have received significant press coverage" are "presumed to be notable." It doesn't say anywhere that election-related coverage doesn't count. To take some limiting cases, presumably we would all agree that a serious US presidential candidate is notable by virtue of his/her candidacy alone, even if there was nothing notable about their earlier life. On the other hand, a city council candidate who has never held any other office or been previously notable is generally not going to qualify. (Although I see that my local city council candidate in the November election actually does have an article despite zero non-campaign related coverage.) Then the question is where in the middle ground to draw the line. To me, a major party Senate candidate in a competitive race should be considered notable with sufficient independent coverage, even if that coverage is mostly or entirely related to the election. But I recognize that others may disagree. Js2112 (talk) 23:59, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Js2112, the draft seems to be quite poor (excellent formatting, excellent campaign ad, but makes poor encyclopedic entry and raises all the red flags). It is obvious from reading it that you have a close connection with the subject. So, you need to disclose it per WP:COI. Media frequently picks up on rule-breaking on Wikipedia associated with political campaigns. So, attempt to misuse Wikipedia without transparency can hurt the campaign itself, not just the integrity of Wikipedia. I just made a few illustrative edits and rolled it back to your version. You can access my edits from page's history and see if it helps. Less focus on aspects of her life outside-of/before politics, dial the way down on political talking points and if there is, better coverage about both her runs; do that and it may start to resemble a Wikipedia article. As it is, I don't think AFD would do you any good. The obvious downside is that AFD might say she should not have an article until she wins which would make it harder to try again even if she receives loads of coverage before election day. Having now looked at the draft, I think right now, AFD would only have downsides; there's work to be done to make it read like an encyclopedia entry. Best, Usedtobecool☎️ 06:21, 16 September 2020 (UTC)merged here after an accident split the discussion into two. Usedtobecool☎️15:18, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Usedtobecool, thanks for the suggested edits - I appreciate that very constructive effort. I will go through them more carefully when I have a little bit of time. As I said above, this is the first article I've written, and I attempted to pattern it after those of other Senate candidates, so either I missed the mark a bit or was misled by them. To be clear, I have no connection to Greenfield or her campaign; I don't think I even know anyone who lives in the state of Iowa. Js2112 (talk) 17:34, 16 September 2020 (UTC)merged here after an accident split the discussion into two. Usedtobecool☎️15:18, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Is there a tool to help determine what pages people ultimately choose after using the search bar (context: Russia investigation)?
I'm thinking of creating a "Russia investigation (disambiguation)" page, and I'm wondering whether there's any WP tool that would let me check how often someone who enters "Russia investigation" into the search bar selects the page with that title vs. selecting "containing ... Russia investigation," and if they select the latter, what page they eventually choose to look at after scanning the search results.
There are also multiple pages along the lines of Timeline of investigations into Donald Trump and Russia (2019), each with a different time-span (before July 2016, July through election day 2016, the transition, the first and second halves of 2017, the first and second halves of 2018, 2019, 2020-2021).
I recognize that I'm unlikely to do any harm by creating a disambiguation page, and my sense is that it should be secondary, leaving the primary as a redirect to Special Counsel investigation (2017–2019) and adding a hatnote there, though if the consensus were to make the disambiguation page primary, I can do that instead and eliminate the redirect. But right now, I'm mostly wondering if there are any tools that will help me investigate whether it would be good to create a disambiguation page and what pages to include. Thanks. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:17, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, FactOrOpinion. I'm afraid we have no sophisticated 'Google Analytics'-way of seeing who has searched any of our 6,000,000+ articles. It is possible to see 'article views' for any individual page. And if there's a possibility for confusion, different types of HATNOTE can be added to the top of an article to help those arriving discern if this is the page they wanted, or to push them off to a more appropriate page or pages. I won't comment on the specific alternatives here, but it could be worth raising any concerns on the talk pages of the respective articles. This search lets you see which articles have used the term "Russia investigation" anywhere within it. Hope this brief reply is of some help. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:39, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
@Nick Moyes: Thanks. I'd done a quoted search prior to posting my question, but am not familiar with using a tilde as part of the search term. What is the effect of the tilde? -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 12:53, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
@FactOrOpinion: The single tilde before a word or couplet in the search box stops the search tool finding just that word and returning only that result, or taking you to that page - instead it displays all occurrences of that word. At times, this can be very helpful. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:43, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Can I write a page about an International Artist ?
Chhapaak, if you want to create an article about Pramod Sahu, you should start by ignoring those two web site you have mentioned, and instead find several reliable independent published sources that discuss him. Then you should base your article on what those independent sources say. Maproom (talk) 07:22, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, Chhapaak. Your username suggests that this account is both promotional and might have multiple users, including Pramod Sahu, its founder and CEO. As such, this is not an acceptable username to have, and you would be best advised to cease using it and to create a new account to edit from. An acceptable one might be PramodAtChapaak as this is clearly one person. But then your account would need to declare that it has a Conflict of Interest and in editing a topic as a founder or paid employee. We would also need a clear declaration of 'paid editing, explained at this link: WP:PAID. You would also be advised not to write about yourself, but leave it to others to do -see WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. If the basis for an article on you/him is the Art Award, it would need to be a major, nationally respected award, and you'd also need sources that talk about him/you that are independent of the artists own writings, websites, employment and social media. (I won the Derby Arts Festival for my slip-trailed ceramic stoneware pottery some two decades ago, but that will never make me a notable person in Wikipedia's eyes!) So, the significance of the award itself would be of great relevance here, as well as being able to demonstrate that reliable, third party sources have written about the subject in detail and in depth. You/he is clearly a wonderfully skilled artist, but that isn't sufficient in its own right to merit an article about them/you here. See WP:NBIO and WP:NARTIST for more advice on what meets our 'Notability' criteria. Hoping this helps. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 16:13, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
How can I fix an article that was declined?
I'm a first time editor and have had my first article rejected. I'm not sure I'm using the references correctly as the subject matter is worthy of an article. She is a Canadian actor and activist and is the Co-chair of Canada's only actor's union and is doing very important work for diversity, inclusion, and anti-racism. As an actor, she has appeared on show like Star Trek and in the cult award-winning film Berkshire County. I look forward to any help you can offer. Samdal35ton (talk) 16:13, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Please read WP:NACTOR,which specifies Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.. Minor roles do not count towards notability. See also WP:BIO. Note that sources used to establish notability must be reliable, published independent sources, and each must include significant coverage of the subject. Blogs, fora, and fan sites are not considered reliable and should not be cited at all. Neither should the IMDB. Interviews with teh subject and pieces written by her employers and associates are not considered independent. Neither are press releases or stories closely based on them. and brief mentions in the cour5se of stories about other things are not significant coverage. I see some blogs and interviews in Draft:Samora Smallwood. I have not had time to look at the other sources in detail yet. DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs16:26, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Eligibility of an Article
Hey there, I just got some article of Chahna Soni from google. And I thought about to contribute on wikpedia. So can anyone tell me is this sources enough to create her Wikipedia article.
Hi, Bijoyonline30, welcome to the Teahouse. While you have found some significant coverage published in reliable secondary sources, there's some further analysis needed here about the independence of the information.
The Hindustan Times for instance marked their article a 'brand-post', and state at the bottom that it's a company press release. This means it's a primary source and we can't use it for establishing notability.
When it becomes apparent that an individual or company is willing to pay for news coverage, it means that you have to scrutinize sources even more closely than usual, and look for significant coverage in only the most reliable of sources.
Out of those sources, i'd say the Hindustan Times is the most reliable, which is shown by their transparency. Editors have noted concerns about promotional content in the Times of India being disguised as reporting, and i have suspicions that the TOI is being less than transparent in this case too.
International Business Times is unreliable per WP:RSPSOURCES. The News Track and IBG News articles are primary source interviews, so not usable.
So in short, based on your sources, i wouldn't consider Soni notable enough for an article on Wikipedia. Kind regards, Zindor (talk) 16:42, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
@The4lines: FYI, to avoid plagiarism and reader concern/confusion, we should acknowledge where we have incorporated public-domain materials. I've added a template in the footnote that does so. Thanks for pointing this out! Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:50, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Appearance 
Done Replication lag is now zero. 
—[AlanM1 (talk)]— 09:16, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
