Wikipedia:Teahouse: Difference between revisions

Shortcuts

• WP:TEA
• WP:TH

jmcgnh, a Teahouse host

Welcome to the Teahouse!
Your go-to place for friendly help with using and editing Wikipedia.

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

New to Wikipedia? See our tutorial for new editors or introduction to contributing page.
Note: Newer questions appear at the bottom of the Teahouse. Completed questions are archived within 2-3 days.

Help Wikipedia

• To read the newest questions, skip to bottom
• About the Teahouse

Most recent archives
1220, 1221, 1222, 1223, 1224, 1225, 1226, 1227, 1228, 1229, 1230, 1231, 1232, 1233, 1234, 1235, 1236, 1237, 1238, 1239

While reviewing the Killing of George Floyd article I was momentarily struck by the fact we included an image at the top of perhaps the moment he died, was immediately dying, or already dead. While not graphic, it did kind of strike me as odd that maybe this is insensitive and for this article, and others that may be doing something similar, maybe a more neutral image should be selected or omitted entirely. It doesn't bother me personally, and at the same time I do wonder if the image will end up being burned into popular conscience like the Execution of Nguyễn Văn Lém but when looking for other similar events (murder of, execution of, killing of) we either focus on a relatively benign image or do not include one (even if it was broadcast on live TV such as Execution of Saddam Hussein). To be clear, I am not suggesting a scrub of the image - just that perhaps it shouldn't be the top image and we should consider how we present images in the future with some consideration. Anyway, curious as to other peoples thoughts are. Koncorde (talk) 15:06, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Koncorde, see WP:NOTCENSORED. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, an explicit source of information. We don't cover things just because it may cause PTSD. I think it would be doing a disservice if we are not showing the photo. See Wikipedia:Content disclaimer for the disclaimer. GeraldWL ✉ 15:15, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The image has also been shared globally, so there's no need for a cover-up anyway. GeraldWL ✉ 15:18, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is not a question of a cover-up. I explicitly stated "I do wonder if the image will end up being burned into popular conscience". I do question how graphic we are inclined to be. Is there any threshold of sensitivity? Child sex abuse images under the Pedophilia article? Pictures of dead kids in the Columbine High School massacre? Koncorde (talk) 15:50, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Koncorde The proper place to bring this up would be Talk:Killing of George Floyd- where this has been discussed several times. 331dot (talk) 15:29, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am specifically not bringing it up there because I am curious as to the wider concept of such images. Koncorde (talk) 15:50, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As noted, we don't censor images because of the potential to cause distress or offense. There are ways to suppress the display of images for those that are concerned about such things. What you propose would mean that the image of the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki would need to be moved or removed as it depicts hundreds of thousands of people being vaporized or maimed. 331dot (talk) 15:32, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between "censor" and using a different lead image - bearing in mind we don't seem to follow a standard rule of depicting the most graphic image possible on each article, only on some of them suggesting some editorial censorship is already underway. Should we be actively including such pictures where they can be found? And also there is a clear difference between the dispassionate presentation of the atomic bomb, vs the relative intimacy of Floyds death. Koncorde (talk) 15:50, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Koncorde: I think it's more about showing an image most widely associated with the topic, which, in this case, is that one. Coverage in sources routinely use that image. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 21:30, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will abhor changing the lead image, as the lead image is very much the essence of the article's subjects. It makes the readers familiar and ready for what they're going to read below. GeraldWL ✉ 03:23, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So, in that case why aren't all similar articles illustrated this way? It appears some articles are "censored" by presenting a more palatable picture? Is it the significance of the image? Is the image in and of itself notable, is that the factor? Koncorde (talk) 16:00, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Koncorde, this takes us back to the top. There are no general rules, except some guiding principles that have already been pointed out and norms that can only be understood with experience. Each article depicts images that represent a consensus of the editors who have been editing and discussing the article. If you think an image on any given article should be updated (added, removed, reorganised), the place to bring that up is the talk page of that article, if you can identify a general problem and would like to propose a general solution that ought to be binding to the whole project, the village pump is the place for it. The image guidelines at MOS:IMAGES should have most of the answers you would want before you would proceed with either of those options. (P.S. We work with what we have; the best/most-relevant images may not be freely available for all topics. I would think the biggest reason for inconsistency between articles would simply be the availability.) Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 09:28, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not trying to change policy, I am just curious about the perspectives that lead to certain images being selected. And that's the interesting bit isn't it. That consensus aspect I mean. How do we get to the point where we do or don't show the most graphic imagery without being accused of censorship? Aside from the legality of showing certain images, what is the threshold? I mean, there are certainly images of decapitation available, but instead we have artistic depictions. Is that not some form of "censorship"? Is the defence of wikipedia as not being censored enough to cover presenting pretty much any photographs in articles. For instance autopsy photographs (per John F. Kennedy autopsy). Is there any argument against including such images in other articles where the "consensus" would be to say that such an image is not relevant? Is a lack of relevance to the persons life, or the events leading to death, a defence against being accused of censorship? Koncorde (talk) 10:02, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Koncorde, it's hard to tell how much of it is rhetoric and which exactly is the question that needs answering. But like I said, read MOS:IMAGES and use common sense. Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Images#Offensive_images discusses the balance between censorship and offence (;tldr, any image that causes offence has to be relevant and almost essential to the understanding of the topic such that omission would lead to an incomplete education). Editors argue their preference for or against an image on a case by case basis with support from aforementioned guideline and WP:CONSENSUS emerges eventually (if it doesn't status quo prevails). Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:15, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not being rhetorical in any sense. I am asking for points of view because there does seem to be an internal inconsistency across articles. This is not so much about the MOS, but about what people (i.e. editors) think about when selecting what might be a controversial image. For instance when referencing the MOS; it pretty much just defers to editors. Editors say we don't censor but some articles appear to, at the very least, skirt the subject to show images that may be relevant in 1786, but are archaic representations (presumably because of a sensitivity in showing certain things) but then we seem content to go for impact on other articles (i.e. holocaust, atomic bomb etc) - is that political? Just gratuitous? Is it neutral? For instance why is it the Execution of Nguyễn Văn Lém contains the exact moment the bullet is fired, but Execution of Saddam Hussein has a presentable portrait. Talk page discussion says "This issue has been SETTLED, there was a CONSENSUS to remove graphic images long ago." which seems to tie to more protracted discussions where interestingly they argued for the inclusion of the video his actual execution because of its relevance. Again, back to the beginning, I am not actually interested in changing policy or otherwise. Just curious about how people would interpret such "common sense"? This is not a challenge, I am genuinely curious because I have never really given it much thought in all my years editing individual articles. Koncorde (talk) 12:28, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Koncorde, A different set/configuration of editors edits each of those articles, each of them uses and argues their personal editorial judgement based on their view of what's right and appropriate and their understanding of policy and guidelines, and the apparent local consensus at the time the issue was raised depending largely on which editors happened to participate ultimately directs the outcome, which explains the inconsistency among different articles. Consensus evolves and is subject to change as editors change. High profile articles may reflect broader consensus than others. Highly controversial articles may reflect which side is most persistent and vocal. And so on. Teahouse isn't really the place for gathering perspectives or meta-commentary about the nature of Wikipedia processes and their outcomes or the people editing it (whether something is political, gratuitous or whatever, falls into that category); almost no page on Wikipedia is ( except user talk pages, with some limitations). All an individual editor needs to do is choose what they think is right, and try and see if they can get others to agree. Based on your personal judgement and your understanding of the guidelines, you either think these images should be removed in which case you'll have to try and convince others at the talk pages of Van Lem and Kennedy articles (and the Holocaust and Atomic bomb articles), or you think they need to be included in which case you'll have to ask at the Saddam Hussein article that the consensuses there be revisited. The reason there are no clear lines is because there are no universally correct answers. Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:58, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Robert McClenon! Thank you for reviewing the Draft:JioTV and highlighting the concern. I would like to explain this "This draft does not show how this division of Jio Platforms is sufficiently notable to need a separate article. " Jio Platforms has many divisions and JioTV is one of those. It's a LIVE TV application that is completely different from its other applications such as JioMeet (its a video calling app) or JioSaavn (it's an online music app only). Also, I have added more independent sources that are covering JioTV. Please have a look.

Since Robert has reviewed my article that's why I tagged him here. In general, I would appreciate help from any Wikipedia editors to improve this Draft:JioTV Ritzz07 (talk) 11:27, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a question for us? Giraffer (munch) 11:53, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Giraffer This draft Draft:JioTV has been declined because of notability concerns. So I am seeking help regarding the same. --Ritzz07 (talk) 13:21, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ritzz07 - What do you want help or advice about? I wrote that the division, JioTV, does not appear to be notable independent of its parent, Jio Platforms. You can expand the draft and resubmit it with an explanation as to how the division is independently notable. Or you can make an edit request to expand the article on the parent company. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:06, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon I need advice where exactly I need to share an explanation of changes I make. Here in this thread or will I get an option to write an explanation at the time of resubmission request. Also, could you please highlight which section ( or content) you feel does not appear to be independent. Any content that doesn't have a sufficient reference link. It will help me rework on this article. Thank You Ritzz07 (talk) 07:18, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ritzz07 - First, is JioTV a division of Jio Platforms? If so, JioTV is already discussed in the article on Jio Platforms. Second, it appears that you are asking me to rewrite the draft for you in order to put it into article space. No. I do not plan to rewrite the draft for you. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:57, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon JioTV, is a division of Jio Platforms this has been explained in the beginning before even writing the draft. See Talk:Jio_Platforms . Second, I don't want you to write a draft but since you have raised this concern, I just want you to highlight that content that you feel is not independent. Just search for JioTV in google news. I believe that's how Wikipedia works. The external world should talk about the subject of the article. I have written this draft based on the reference available. Any content which is not supported by the reference, I'll take that content part down immediately. Thank You Ritzz07 (talk) 05:57, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ritzz07 - You ask me to highlight that content that I feel is not independent. You are asking me to edit the draft for you, and I will not do that. However, the answer is that no part of the draft is independent of Jio Platforms. Since JioTV is a division of Jio Platforms, it is not independent of the parent company. You have not shown why the division should have a separate article (unless you want to put advertising in the separate article). No part of the draft is independent. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:40, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Telll a reviewer to use Google search for references. It is the responsibility of the author to include the references. An editor who tells the reviewer to use Google search is insulting the reviewer. Tell your managers to get a different employee to do their paid editing, who won't insult the reviewers. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:40, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm sure someone has given me advice on this before but I've forgotten how to do it properly. I want to use this image, which is on geograph.co.uk and has a CC2.0 sharealike licence - what's the best way to get it onto commons? (The upload wizard doesn't give the option to select 2.0, only 2.5, 3.0 etc.). Thanks in advance GirthSummit _(blether) 15:44, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The stuff in the green box at the top of this Commons page has advice about transferring Geograph images to Commons. Deor (talk) 17:37, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Girth Summit: Sorry, forgot to ping. Deor (talk) 17:38, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deor, hi - I think it was probably you who gave me advice on this last time I tried to do it. I'm afraid I'm still perplexed - Magnus' tool doesn't seem to be doing anything (I click run and nothing happens), and the 'basic upload' option doesn't give me a CC2.0 option - what to do? GirthSummit _(blether) 19:52, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deor I think I cracked it, I did it manually, following the format of another file. Hope I haven't screwed it up :) Thanks GirthSummit _(blether) 10:10, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Girth Summit: Well done! For some reason, geograph2commons fails in that way on about 5% of pictures from Geograph. I've never managed to work out why. I've made one small change the the file, to change its name from c:File:Geograph-5942774-by-Jennifer-Petrie.jpg to c:File:Memoral to the Dunbar Soldiers taken prisoner at the Battle of Dunbar in 1650 (Geograph 5942774 by Jennifer Petrie).jpg. I did this because the original name didn't describe what's in the picture. It looks like the instructions on Geograph for transferring pictures don't work if you have the ImprovedUploadForm gadget enabled, as new Commons users do (but I didn't until recently). I'll see if I can find a way to fix this. --bjh21 (talk) 11:41, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bjh21, thanks - I see you changed the file name at Battle of Dunbar (1650) too - very thorough, much appreciated! Did I get the coordinates right do you think? I did all that manually, copying the formatting from another image, hope it's how it's meant to be. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 11:45, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Girth Summit: We filemovers on Commons have a tool that automatically tries to update pages on other projects when we rename files. This is how I have edits on Wikipedias whose language I've not even heard of. I think your co-ordinates are pretty close to right, but that suggests you may not have spotted this page linked from the word "reuse" below the picture. At the bottom it has wiki source text suitable for pasting into a file description on Commons, or into the basic version of c:Special:Upload. In any case, since the co-ordinates are properly marked source:geograph, my bot will fix them at the weekend if it thinks they can be improved. --bjh21 (talk) 17:44, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bjh21, sounds like it's all good - thanks for the explanation, I'll know where to come next time I have difficulties! GirthSummit _(blether) 21:35, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear fellow Wikipedians, What are the browsers that are supported for editing in mobile ? For laptop / desktop, Chrome is supported, but not for mobiie. Please help..... Cheers.... Anupam Dutta (talk) 09:47, 26 August 2020 (UTC) Anupam Dutta (talk) 09:47, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anupamdutta73, I am not entirely sure what you mean. I use Wikipedia on Chrome in my android mobile phone all the time, though I don't make many mobile edits. Could you be more specific as to the nature of the problem you are having? Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:29, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anupamdutta73, I don't know if this will help, but I use the "official" Wikipedia app for Android. This allows you to edit an article in much the same way as you can when accessing Wikipedia via a browser. There is no equivalent of the "Edit source" tab at the top of the page, but each section within the article has a pencil icon next to which serves the same purpose. I don't think I would be comfortable doing any serious editing on a mobile screen with a small touch keypad, but it can be done. Mike Marchmont (talk) 12:13, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Usedtobecool and Mike Marchmont During the lockdown period, I didn't have access to my laptop.. I had to do it all on my mobile... Now every time I edit, I am reminded that I am not using a recognised browser.. so now,. looking for that elusive offical browser... By the way, my laptop is yet to have Bengali font.... So hope, you have got a hang of my problem (though not serious , but want peace of mind).... Cheers...... Anupam Dutta (talk) 12:59, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anupamdutta73, can yo be more specific by giving us the full message that it is showing you ? —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:33, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TheDJ When I click on "edit" button , the following notice pops up "You are using a browser which is not officially supported by this editor." - Anupam Dutta (talk) 15:46, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have just tried doing an edit using Firefox on my Android device. When I click the "Edit" button, I am taken to the usual editing page. I am then able to make an edit and publish it in the usual way. So your problem is probably specific to your browser or possibly your Android version. Have you tried using a different browser and/or a different device? Mike Marchmont (talk) 17:16, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anupamdutta73, This is the Visual Editor on mobile reporting an unsupported browser. That means Chrome older than version 19 or a completely unknown browser. What browser and version are you using ? This internet page should show you the full browser information, maybe we can help if we know that. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 07:21, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear TheDJ,The result of your link - "Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; Android 9; vivo 1904) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/85.0.4183.78 Mobile Safari/537.36". Hope you can help me... Cheers... Anupam Dutta (talk) 14:52, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anupamdutta73, this indicates that you are using the Vivo browser, a device specific browser used by the Chinese brand Vivo. It's reviews include gems like: "this browser is not more than a heap of garbage". May i suggest Chrome. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:05, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, I just created a new page for Princess Lockerooo. I am not sure if it was submitted because I did not get any notification. Can you tell me if the page was created and how long in might take to go live?DanceWaack (talk) 17:09, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: User:DanceWaack/sandbox ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:19, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DanceWaack, and welcome to the Teahouse. You have not submitted your draft for review: there is a big blue button at the top to do so. (You may have been confused by the "publish changes" button when you created it: you have published it in the sense that anybody in the world can see your draft if they know where to look; but not in the sense of adding it to Wikipedia as an article). But don't submit it yet: you need to add inline citations to the specific place where the information you give was sourced from. See REFB. You also need to tone down the promotional language: it is not Wikipedia's place to talk about people "pioneering" something, or being "unique", or to say what anything "stands for", or that something is somebody's "signature brand". Please see PEACOCK. --ColinFine (talk) 17:32, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DanceWaack: Because of your username's relation to the subject you are writing about, I am also concerned that you might have a WP:COI, which you may need to disclose (click that link for details). If you are being compensated in any way, to comply with our terms of service, you must disclose that (see WP:PAID). Thanks. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 11:31, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DanceWaack:, your sandbox article must not be a cut-and-paste from copyrighted sources like this page. Wikipedia strictly adheres to copyright law. See: WP:COPY--Quisqualis (talk) 02:00, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on a new Wikipedia page for a company. I know the rules about proper information to make up the verbiage and the citations from reputable third-party sources that are required, but I'm not sure about photos. Looking at a competitive company - AGCO - there are multiple images included of the company's products, though no citations seem to be present. Is anything fair game as long as it's not promotional in nature? Is there a limitation to the number of images provided? Otherwise, it seems like logos are always fair game, correct?

Otherwise, when this page is written, is the best place to start the "Sandbox" for proper review before going live?

Thanks for your help!

 Jthorp72 (talk) 20:10, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jthorp72, and welcome to the Teahouse. To answer the second question: my advice would be to use articles for creation, and create the draft in Draft space. Your sandbox is an alternative, but Draft is a newer technology, that I think is preferable.

As for images: the main issue with images is one of copyright. First, note that you cannot live-link to images elsewhere. You can link to them if your use is complies with the rather restricted rules of for external links, but readers will have to click the link to see the images. Images in articles must be uploaded to either Wikipedia or (preferably) Wikimedia Commons. All images uploaded to Commons must be free to use - either in the public domain (by reason of age, or explicit release) or licensed under a licence such as CC-BY-SA. So if you want to upload a photo that you took yourself, and does not show copyright material, then you can just do so with the Upload wizard, and license it on the fly. But for images that are somebody else's copyright, or that show material that is somebody else's copyright, that is often more difficult: the copyright holder will need either to have explicitly licensed the image (as is done for some images on sites like Pinterest, I believe, but not for all by any means), or will need to take the steps described in donating copyright materials - and they need to understand that that will permit anybody to use or alter the image for any purpose, commercial or not, as long as they attribute it.

There is an exception to this that may be relevant: because the rules of copyright so limit the available images, English Wikipedia allows non-free images in certain restrictive circumstances: see the non-free content criteria. The case that may be relevant here is that logos are often treated in this way.

Provided copyright rules are complied with, there is no particular limit on the number of images in an article; but if other editors think there are too many, they are free to remove some, just as they can make any other edit to an article. See BRD. --ColinFine (talk) 21:21, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jthorp72: Generally, the number of images is limited by the vertical space of matching text. A typical article has images on the right with text on the left, and looks "ugly" if there's a bunch of empty space on the left because there are too many images. Galleries that span across the page are used sparingly, and generally only for good reason. See especially the links at WP:IMAGE#Policy and guidelines for details. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 11:40, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a criteria that covers drafts that duplicate an existing article? I've happened across one that is a copy and paste of a long established article and serves no value whatsoever. – ².O.^Boxing 21:23, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Squared.Circle.Boxing: I am not seeing anything at WP:CSD that applies to this case. RudolfRed (talk) 21:37, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if it does not give proper attribution to the Wikipedia article as required by WP:CWW, then it may count as a copyright issue which would be subject to deletion. RudolfRed (talk) 21:38, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:A10, but if the new copy's title is a reasonable redirect then just redirect it to the original. Meters (talk) 03:53, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The A series CSD only applies to articles. Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:23, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia without attribution is easily solved however late it is discovered, so I don't think any page would be deleted for just that. CSD G12 specifically says that lack of attribution for otherwise non-infringing content doesn't qualify for it. Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:34, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Someone may have intended to use it as a sandbox in which case it should be in their userspace, so it should be discussed with that editor. Abandoned drafts will have to wait for CSD WP:G13, maybe blank it in the meantime. Drafts that are submitted at AFC are declined as duplicates of existing articles. If it's not submitted and it's not been abandoned, I'd leave a note on the draft, its talk page or the talk page of whoever is working on it. There is always WP:MFD if it serves no purpose and has no future. Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:34, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It began in their sandbox (still there) and they subsequently created a draft. The draft in question is Draft:Manny pacquiao. -- ².O.^Boxing 14:45, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Squared.Circle.Boxing, WP:G2 worked. Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:42, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How can I best address an IP editor who continues to remove sources/change information on an article, when the IP editor won't participate on the article's talk page? The article in question is Barbara Bush. Since 2020-08-10, an IP editor has changed the subject's birthplace multiple times and has ignored pleas to discuss changes on the talk page. I don't want to engage in an edit war, but I want to try to keep the information in the article accurate. —Eyer (If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message to let me know.) 21:50, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Eyer: If it is persistent, you can ask for semi-protection which will prevent IP editing: WP:RFPP. If it is the same IP always, you can leave warnings on the talk page and it the behavior doesnt stop you may be able to have an admin block to partially block it. RudolfRed (talk) 21:55, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The /64 has been blocked for a month. Leaving messages on a user talk page will not be useful, as they get assigned a new IP address (within the /64) for each new "session" (as is typical for IPv6). —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 11:54, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is the second article I have written and it has been declined. I do not understand what I have done wrong. I got the names from list of people needing an article, and had no issues finding outside links from places like the New York Times, Newsweek, etc, so I know this isn't an issue with the people I am choosing. I don't understand what it is about how I write that makes it sound wrong? I was told not to list accolades or quotes and to write about the person, which in my second article I was super careful to do, but it was declined very quickly just as my first article had been. Can someone please help me rewrite this so it will be approved? WikiJSPN (talk) 21:56, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The draft about Kabakibo (which cites neither the NYT nor Newsweek) claims that he was a more or less precocious child and an imaginative youth (which is pleasant, but doesn't confer notability) and that he created, or runs, something called Warin. I was about to point out that this is redlinked; but no, there's an article -- uh-oh, no there isn't: the article is about "a town in the Nordwestmecklenburg district, in Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, Germany." If Kabakibo's main claim to notability is his role in Warin, why is there no article about the latter? But OK, there's no law that there must be an article. The description of Warin in the draft comes from one source: this. It's obviously promotional. (Do I need to point out how?) Unsurprisingly, the cited source says: "Information contained on this page is provided by an independent third-party content provider." Most likely it has just recycled some PR puff. But Wikipedia doesn't want promotional articles.

You say "I got the names from list of people needing an article". One way to reduce the risk of promotionalism is to choose people who are long dead. (However, even this is no guarantee of freedom from promotionalism, as some people even post pages glorifying their ancestors.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:20, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all of your refs were derived from the same press release (identical or highly similar wording; same photograph!). That does not qualify as reliable secondary sources. David notMD (talk) 00:22, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so do I try to fix this or was this not a good person to write about in the first place? Should I try to save it or just scrap it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiJSPN (talk • contribs) 04:14, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, WikiJSPN. The answer to this question is entirely dependent on whether of not Kabakibo meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability. If he does (there are suitable sources), then we want an article on him, based almost exclusively on those independent sources. if he doesn't, then we won't accept an article on him, however much effort goes into writing it. Like everything on Wikipedia, notability is sometimes open to discussion and judgment; but in many cases it is clear. So if you want to continue with this draft, your first task is finding places where several people who have no connection at all with Kabakibo, and have not been prompted or fed information by him (ie. excluding anything based on interviews or press releases), have chosen to write a significant amount about him (not about his projects, but about him), and been published in reliable sources, with a reputation for editorial control and fact-checking. If you can find some (at least three, or two if they contain a lot about him), then it's worth carrying on. You want to throw away most of what's in the darft, because Wikipedia is basically not interested in anything the subject of an article says about themselves, only in what independent commentators say about them. --ColinFine (talk) 09:32, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiJSPN: If, by "list of people needing an article", you mean WP:RA, keep in mind that anyone can add to those lists – it doesn't mean they are notable. I imagine that it specifically contain subjects that have been deemed WP:TOOSOON and are just waiting around for their time.

As far as finding sources, if the existing improper sources have some identical language in them (from the original PR), a good way of filtering new sources as you look is to make sure those phrases are not present.

For future biographical article prospects, it certainly makes sense to stick with those that have died in recent years, as sources will be easier to find online. Remember to search WP first to make sure there isn't a history of an article on the person being deleted, a draft in progress, or other related material that might affect your article. You might want to look at WP:Wikipedia Library and get access to newspapers.com, which can be quite useful. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 12:17, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Just learned from another comment that those lists are not what I thought, and do not mean these people were already vetted, so that was completely a misunderstanding on my part. I also only recently gained a better understanding on resources. Question: Would the basic search show me drafts, other related articles and such or should I be checking for that somewhere else? WikiJSPN (talk) 19:27, 27 August 2020 (UTC)WikiJSPN[reply]

How can I add templates on my user page, e.g. Template: Babel? Thy Pyrometer (talk) 22:20, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Thy Pyrometer, Template:Babel gives examples and instructions of usage. Please go through it, try it, and come back with any questions you might have then. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:42, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Usedtobecool,I know what Template: Babel does, but how do I add it? Thy Pyrometer (talk) 22:22, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thy Pyrometer, by clicking "edit source" at the top of your userpage and typing in {{Babel|en|es-1|fr-1}}, for example. More info is at the template page linked in my previous reply. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:33, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I manage the performance duo known as Lime. Our Wikipedia page was updated last year as two imposters took over the page and inserted their likeness and fictitious information. This has evidently been going on for years now as they unsuccessfully attempted to trademark our duo's name which is Lime. Can someone, maybe (Admin Help) an administrator contact me to assist me with resolving this matter once and for all?

Thanks,

Robb Cooper Robbcoop (talk) 22:24, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Robbcoop, what exactly is the issue? Is this a band by the same name causing a conflict? Or has the page been hijacked? Ed talk! 22:33, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a hijacking. The members listed as on 20 August 2019 are presumably a couple, but now they are replaced by different people. 45.251.33.201 (talk) 03:45, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Robbcoop You're better off asking at Talk:Lime (band). If there's vandalism, you can request page protection. I removed some unsourced content since it can't be verified. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:52, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

This definitely could use admin help. It's a big can of worms that may be a real-world rights dispute, and the history is littered with multiple accounts that may be related IRL. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 12:38, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have protected the page for the time being. I have also left a note on Robbcoop's page, and TheRealLime's page to ask for more details to try to sort this one out. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:02, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I want to align this template to the left on my my user page. Can someone please help me? I tried using the align template, but it didn't work. Thanks! I-82-I | TALK 01:06, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Giraffer (munch) 13:17, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have been editing and updating a page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huawei_Mobile_Services). But every edit or addition I have made has been undone by some moderators saying that the content I input is not neutral. The source of the content is from Huawei itself. It is all factual and true information. Can you please give me tips on how could I edit the page more effectively so it wouldn't be undone? I'd appreciate your help. Thanks. Gian.cabs (talk) 03:47, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, please be advised that Wikipedia is mainly interested what people have written in WP:RS about the subject, not what the subjects want to say about themselfes, as humans tend to speak more in favor of things or other people they are closely affilated with, see Conflict of interest. Secondly, asking the same question over mutiple places is considered WP:FORUMSHOPPING and will not help, it yust wastes the time of the people trying to answer you. Thirdly, I have looked at this edit from you, and I must agree that is doesn't conform with WP:NPOV. A couple of notes:

• Since we want to remain neutral, Wikipedia articles should only use the third person to describe events, unless we are directely quting someone
• It contains a bunch of WP:PEACOCK words
• Please dont copy stuff from elsewhere. Texts not written for Wikipedia are in most cases either not under a siutable license or written from a siutable point of view. As copyright violations can get Wikipedia in legal trouble, i had to request that that revision is hidden from public view. Victor Schmidt (talk) 07:25, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is IMDB a reliable source to add as a citation in contributions? Editingwork8 (talk) 06:15, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Editingwork8. IMDb pages tend to be user-generated content and thus are not really considered to be reliable sources for Wikipedia's purposes as explained in WP:Citing IMDB, WP:RS/P#IMDb and WP:RS/IMDB. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:24, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, my article about Draft:National Management Programme (NMP) was rejected with this reason: "The proposed article does not have sufficient content to require an article of its own, but it could be merged into the existing article at Management Development Institute." I feel that NMP has a distinctive significance in the Education community due to its history and thus, I would want to keep the page independent of the Management Development Institute page. I seek your advice on this: If I add more content to the Draft:National Management Programme (NMP) page (more details) and resubmit, is there a possibility of it getting published? SanyaDuggal (talk) 08:02, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SanyaDuggal Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If there is more significant coverage in independent reliable sources to be had, you certainly can try. Any history of this program needs to be told by independent sources, not anyone associated with the program. I would note that if you are associated with this program or the Institute that offers it, you should review conflict of interest and paid editing for declarations you could be required to make. 331dot (talk) 08:14, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

331dot Thank you very much. All history that I included on the page was from independent sources and sufficiently verified per sentence. Need your suggestion please: how long should the content length be, before I resubmit it for publishing consideration?

fixing ping to 331dot. SanyaDuggal you need to sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~) for mentions to generate notifications for intended users. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:51, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about any specific length it should be; you just need to summarize what the sources say and have enough to show that it merits a standalone article instead of being part of another. 331dot (talk) 07:39, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi teahouse hosts. After reviewing wp:endorse criteria 3 where it says in the note that "...other language which can be understood as unequivocal endorsement can be discussed on a case-by-case basis (for example, "I am campaigning for Candidate X" or "I am backing Candidate X")" I had one question: can campaigning and/or holding campaign events for the candidate be considered as an endorsement under the note of criteria 3? Thanks Davidmejoradas (talk) 08:17, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To admins reading: I'm not an expert, so please correct me if I'm wrong.

Maybe. It depends on you definition of campaigning. Going up on stage and speaking in support or volunteering is probably an endorsment, but tweeting 'I hope user User:Example loses to User:Placeholder in the 2020 ArbCom elections' is not an endorsement, but if they continually stated that they wanted User:Placeholder to win, and that was seen in the media as an endorsement, then you could add it.

Altogether, I would play it on the safe side and if in doubt, don't add the endorsement. The key thing to remember is that endorsement is stronger than just support - if it is an endorsement, it should be easy to tell. Hope this helps, Giraffer (munch) 09:17, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I was referring to ground campaigning, holding town halls with the candidate and helping the candidate get elected rather than just tweeting or commenting about the support. It was helpful and not sure what an admin thinks about it. Davidmejoradas (talk) 15:59, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Davidmejoradas, when a guideline is phrased like that, what it is telling you is: "Make your WP:BOLD edit. If it gets reverted, start a discussion on the article talk page." Many if not most of our guidelines are intentionally vague, so as to be flexible. The actual decision making process for article content is WP:CONSENSUS. WP:BRD explains the process. John from Idegon (talk) 23:06, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to create a draft copy of an existing page in order to overhaul it completely and give it new structure, then discuss/review it with others before replacing the original? Thanks for your help! Quaenuncabibis (talk) 08:26, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Quaenincabibis, and welcome to the Teahouse! In that instance, your best option is to create the overhauled page in your sandbox, and then propose the changes on the article's talk page, and show them what you have done in your sandbox. Doing this in a sandbox as opposed to the article ensures that minimal disruption is caused, and there is still a complete, well-written article for people to read while you work on the new version. Regards, Giraffer (munch) 08:45, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please take into consideration the editing history and length of the existing article. If it has been present for years, and edited by many people, a radical revision may be opposed. I suggest first starting a new section at the Talk page of the article to explain your intentions. If the article has few viewers, a non-current edit history, and little prior discussion on the Talk page, you may not get any comments, but at least you will have established a rationale for your major overhaul. A couple of years ago a relatively new editor proposed to completely rewrite the Grateful Dead article. This was not well received. David notMD (talk)

Hello Giraffer and David notMD! Thanks for the valuable input. I will act acodringly. Best regards, Quaenuncabibis (talk) 08:28, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From your editing history, it appears that you have been hired by École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne to improved existing articles about faculty members and create new articles about faculty members. I suggest that your User page identify each faculty member article by name, not just the school. Also, given PAID situation, for existing articles, Wikipedia's guidelines are that you do not edit these articles directly. I, for one, am of the opinion that every faculty member of an institution does not warrant an article for doing what academics are supposed to do as part of their career. David notMD (talk) 10:21, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks David notMD! As proposed I will disclose the edited article on my user page and I shall comply with the editing rules. Kind regards Quaenuncabibis (talk) 08:28, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of necessary corrections from a wikipedia page. I edited a wikipedia page by providing totally correct information but it was removed .i want to know why. (2006nishan178713) 2006nishan178713 (talk) 13:41, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@2006nishan178713: Your edits were removed as some were total copyright violations from the college website (which is wholly unacceptable) and others where not encyclopaedic in their nature, and thus worthless to the project. Those might sound rather strong words, but just because you attend this school does not give you the right to claim ownership of it. One of your deleted edits contained the following text: Author & Editor :User:2006nishan178713 Maintained by  : User:2006nishan178713 This will be updated when we receive more reliable information. Thanks for reading. From your YouTube posts you clearly have an undeclared Conflict of Interest with this subject. Please declare your connection before attempting to make any further edits. (You can probably understand now why we declined your recent request to be added to the Teahouse list of hosts, as you still have a lot to learn about our policies and guidelines.) In future, if someone removes your edits, the sensible thing to do is first read the edit summaries to get your answer and then, if still confused, contact the deleting editor and seek an explanation. Personally, I would have left a formal notice on your talk page warning you never to try that again - I'm sorry that didn't happen in this instance. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:01, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Hello, 2006nishan178713 and welcome to the Teahouse.

I take it this is about Techno India Group Public School, and particularly about the recent edits by Diannaa that removed a "vission" and a "mission statement" and many details of infrastructure. The place to discuss this is the article talk page, in this case Talk:Techno India Group Public School. In general, misison statements and the like are not independnet, tend to be promotional, and are usually omitted from articles about organizations. The kind of very detailed infrastructure information listed is often not judged encyclopedic and is omitted from Wikipedia articles, and in this particular case much of it was a copyright violation.

As it happens, Diannaa is particularly experienced in dealing with copyright issues here, and well as being a generally experienced editor. Text may not be copied from other sites into Wikipediua unless it has been released under a compatible free license (or is in the public domain), unless it is short enough to form a proper quotation and then in must be marked, attributed, and cited. (Other content such as images also may not be copied, but the detailed rules are a bit different, and do not apply in this case.)

So if you really think some of this info should be re-added to the article, please explain in detail why on Talk:Techno India Group Public School. Remember that Wikipedia article are based primarily on what others have said about a topic, not what an organization says about itself, and minor details likely to change are usually not included.

Also, you seem to havbe been concentrated on this school. Do you have any connection with it? If you do, you probably have a conflict of interest and should declare that on your user page. If you are an employee or intern at the school, or have been hired or contracted to publicize the school or to write this article, you would be considered a paid editor and you must disclose this as described in the linked policy. This is a mandatory action under the Terms of Use. ~~— Preceding unsigned comment added by DESiegel (talk • contribs)

Hi, I am a new user and have been contributing. Recently I left a comment in the talk section in calculus. I did not change any edits. Soon after the user 'Deacon Vorbis ' has been following my edits around reverting. Some of them I am in the process of getting the artist to contact directly etc...

However is there anything that can be done. For instance in the wikipedia section ' history of democracy', I made some edits ( as the section has been noticed to have a bias by wikipedia). The person soon reverted it. I have been polite but it's very frustrating. He has used tools ' twinkle etc...

 Imagetoimageless (talk) 14:02, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again Imagetoimageless. Your edits to Talk:Calculus were not removed or changed by Deacon Vorbis, they were merely indented properly to help keep the discussion clear.

Your edits to the article History of democracy were reverted by Deacon Vorbis as tending to forward a particular point of view. If you disagree, they should be discussed at Talk:History of democracy and you would probably be well advised to cite reliable sources that support your edits. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 14:39, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Imagetoimageless, in your following edit, you summarized: "Based on original research, the painting was commissioned." To give a heads-up: a wide array of original researches are not permitted on Wikipedia, including your said edit. That's why it's been nominated for deletion. See WP:NOR. GeraldWL ✉ 14:43, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gerald Waldo Luis That issue is already under discussion at Talk:Madhava of Sangamagrama#Image requirement and Imagetoimageless is participating in that discussion. Wikipedia uses the term Original research in a somewhat serialized sense, just as it does the term Notability, and I am not clear if the kind of research that Imagetoimageless was referring to is the same thing. That can be discussed on the article talk page. In any case, that is of only limited relevance to the edits on quite different pages that Imagetoimageless asked about above, althoguh it may have been what first drew the attention of Deacon Vorbis. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 14:58, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for giving your time for this. Regards to calculus, I meant he noticed I had a different opinion and has gone around targeting all my edits. Regarding the painting- I am aware and is in the process of getting the copyright, attribution validated. However ethically I find it dubious that this person, after first noticing my contribution against his opinion in calculus, has been targeting all my edits. For instance ' History of Democracy' my edits had clear citations, while some edits were just removal of bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imagetoimageless (talk • contribs) 15:02, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The user first noticed me, when I had a differing opinion for the talk section of calculus to this user. The person has been targeting all edits since

@Imagetoimageless: Quite often I, too, find one unusual edit, fix it, and then go check all the other edits made by that person -especially if they are a new editor like yourself - in case they have some fundamental misunderstanding about it. I have not looked at yours specifically, but you did the right thing by asking the editor directly and by engaging on the article's talk page. The accusation against Deacon Vorbis or 'targetting' your edits is really a bit silly and quite over the top when you only joined us seven days ago and have thus far only made eight edits in total to actual articles! It would help everyone tremendously if you would also take care to indent your reply each time (by adding one extra colon at the start of your response and then by signing your post so we can tell who is saying what, and when they said it. (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~.). Nick Moyes (talk) 15:24, 27 August 2020 (UTC)  [reply]

I second the idea of looking at all of a new editor's edits if a wrong approach to editing appears in an article I watch. At times, there is a consistency in their editing in error, in which case I post a comment on their Talk page. David notMD (talk) 19:21, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Nick Moyes, thanks for the comments. I do agree I am new to Wikipedia and do not have the experience most of you have. However I do point out that the user deacon Vorbis has infact targeted all my edits for reversion. it might be 8, but as a percentage its almost all. It so happened after I left a comment in the section of talk of calculus. I think if you look into this person's edits, The reversion for the entry in 'history of democracy' seems to hold no ground. The only comment this person hasn't reverted is a sentence I added for a scientific piece for kinesin-5. Thank you all, but I do find something ethically wrong in reverting everything by a new editor for no reason ~~~~.)

I recommend you think of each revert as a trigger to start a discussion on the Talk page of the article, inviting Deacon Vorbis to contribute. For one new editor I reverted more than 50 article edits (all fatally flawed reference additions where content had been tagged as "citation needed"), warned the editor several times to learn how to identify valid refs, and finally have them blocked. It wasn't personal. David notMD (talk) 01:46, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to add, I am a new editor too, and I had my first two articles declined almost immediately that I posted. I too felt targeted and hurt, but try not to take it personally. Ask lots of questions! I know it feels hard to do, but keep editing and being bold. You will make mistakes- but mostly people here are nice and will try and help you. You might even directly ask the user what the issue was that they reverted your edits. I just wanted to reach out there and say you are not alone in feeling this way, being new. Hang in there, keep going! WikiJSPN (talk) 02:46, 28 August 2020 (UTC)WikiJSPN[reply]

Thanks everyone. I do feel better and will take all the points aboard. It's been very constructive and I have learnt a lot :) will continue to be bold, make sure things meet wikipedias guidelines and also add every edit that might be wrong to the talk section. Also starting to intend :) ~~~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imagetoimageless (talk • contribs) 08:12, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Siennar (talk) 14:03, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Siennar! See Help:Your first article and/or the shorter version User:Ian.thomson/Howto. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:09, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

my edit got removed, in Georgina Bloomberg article, while it is the truth she can become one of the richest women in the world when inheriting all of her father's wealth Anonymous9999911 (talk) 16:04, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can see the reason given by the reverting editor in the article's history. If you wish, you can discuss it at Talk:Georgina Bloomberg. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:18, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I tried posting a story regarding an article i read in several national newspapers on the subjects Wiki page but twice now this has been removed. How do i ensure it remains? Thanks, W Whitney1122 (talk) 16:04, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Whitney1122, welcome to the Teahouse. Your edit on Gillian Keegan is removed because you did not cite the sources. You must cite your claims with reliable, independent secondary sources. Saying that you read it on newspapers-- newspapers are generally reliable-- so you can just copy your edit, and cite the sources you grabbed it from. Just make sure it's not misinformation. GeraldWL 16:07, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Whitney1122: To understand how to add a statement and then to support it with an inline citation (essential for biographies of living people) please read: Help:Referencing for beginners. (And if you're still confused, try my alternative help page and video here). Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 16:41, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! There's a topic that I feel would be worthy for inclusion in the English language Wikipedia. It's already in the German-language Wikipedia and it's a topic I know well. Am I allowed to translate and then paste the German article into English Wikipedia? Is that permitted or is that a violation of copyright rules or something? I'd add new references and new information as needed, but would prefer not to start from scratch. Please let me know if this is allowed. Kermitchemist (talk) 17:39, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Kermitchemist, and welcome to the Teahouse. It is certainly allowed, as long you as you attribute it: see Translation. I recommend that you still start with it as a draft, and go through the articles for creation process. --ColinFine (talk) 17:44, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

However, Kermitchemist you should be aware that the standards for notability and article inclusion are different on different language versions of Wikipedia. That an article exists on one version does not mean it will be accepted and retained on a different version. Articles on en.Wikipedia must conform to en standards on sourcing and notability, and may be deleted if they do not conform. Adding additional reliable sources (whether in German, English or any other language) to support statements not so supported in the DE version may well be a good idea. Indeed adding sources may be essential to avoid deletion here. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:11, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the advice.Kermitchemist (talk) 18:15, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So I have been an editor on Wikipedia for a decent amount of time. I know how to use the article wizard (for the AFC draft/submission system) and I know how to directly create a new article. Is there an easy way to create a draft without doing the article wizard or creating an article then moving it to a draft? Thanks for help in advance. Elijahandskip (talk) 18:33, 27 August 2020 (UTC) Elijahandskip (talk) 18:33, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Elijahandskip: Thanks for wanting to create new articles and use the drafting process. You can create the draft directly in draft space. Just goto Draft:YouNewDraftName and start editing just like you would if you were creating it in mainspace. RudolfRed (talk) 18:42, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And when you are ready for review, place {{subst:Submit}} on the draft. RudolfRed (talk) 18:45, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can use "Create a new draft" at WP:DRAFT, it adds some basic code like reflist. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:12, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am looking for a Wikipedia guideline on the following situation: In "Foreign relations of" articles (For example Foreign relations of North Korea or Foreign relations of Syria), often, there are lists for each "continent", which means that Europe and Asia are seperate categories.
Turkey and Russia are two examples for countries that span multiple continents. Often, but not always, one finds Turkey in the "Asia" category in such articles, and Russia in either the "Asia" or "Europe" category. Depending on the viewpoint, you could either argue that the majority of the landmass is located in one continent, for example Asia for Turkey and Russia, Africa for Egypt; or you could argue that the country has historically been located on and is culturally linked to one continent but at some point in time extended into another, for example Asia for Turkey (ex. East Thrace), Europe for Russia (ex. Siberia), Europe for France (ex. French Guiana), Spain (ex. Canary Islands) or the UK (ex. Falklands).
I have tried to find a guideline and looked in the Manual of Style, however, I did not find one.
My question is: Does Wikipedia have a guideline that lists criteria on how to categorize countries in lists that are seperated into "continents"?
I am very thankful for any experienced Wikipedia user who could tell me whether such a guideline exists. 2003:F6:271B:400:DD7E:4C4E:3BD9:D568 (talk) 19:11, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can't think of any, but you could try Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:19, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First, since the article is about relations between country x and countries 1 through n, how those countries are grouped is really of secondary importance unless we are trying to show a pattern of relations with countries on continent y, in which case we should use the grouping used by the cite for the pattern claim. Otherwise, pick one of the sources if they specify a grouping, or maybe one of the groupings used in the continent articles and cite it. Having an RS to lean on for the definition of the groups should provide content for a statement in an edit notice and talk page notice regarding the grouping to prevent (or at least shorten) the edit-warring over whether Turkey is Asian or European. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 19:40, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your answers. It certainly is of secondary importance, but in almost all of these "Foreign relations of" articles with enough countries listed, there is a categorization into continents. While I personally would even be fine with the removal of these categories in these articles, instead listing all countries in a single list, I assume these categories are probably made to make the article clearer and more well ordered. The contents of the individual country entries are often pieced together from multiple references which do not necessarily specify countries into continents. I was looking for a guideline to prevent such possible edit warring and to make all "Foreign relations of" Wikipedia articles appear more uniform. Since it doesn't seem to exist and I think that it should exist (because, in my opinion, there should be a uniform standard across Wikipedia -- whether Turkey is classified as "Europe", "Asia", "Eurasian", "Asia and Europe" or something else—interestingly, I just noticed that North and South America are usually grouped together as "Americas" in these articles, so why not for example Europe and Asia as Eurasia, too?), where can I propose it? Would that be the above-mentioned Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories? --2003:F6:271B:400:DD7E:4C4E:3BD9:D568 (talk) 01:42, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would be a good place to start. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:55, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote about a parent company, IXL Learning, submitted the draft and I was declined. I was thinking about where to start but I'm just stuck. Can someone review and give me some tips where to start? I believe this is a company that should be in the collection. If abcya has an article, I think the company that owns it and many others should ber here too. }} Le Panini (talk) 20:55, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Le Panini: Inclusion is based on Notability. One company owning a notable company does not make it notable. See WP:NCORP for guidelines on the notability for a company. In your case IXL Learning must be notable on its own, not just because it owns company abcya. RudolfRed (talk) 21:17, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For others, here is the draft Draft:IXL_Learning. The issue may not be notability (I was just clarifying our policy above), but instead the wriing style. RudolfRed (talk) 21:20, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell me what I am doing wrong here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Cedar_Point_peninsula_(Ohio) 2600:1009:B16D:882D:21B1:E29C:4E9E:BC34 (talk) 21:39, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@2600:1009:B16D:882D:21B1:E29C:4E9E:BC34: Please go through the comments on the draft, the reviewers have already discussed the problems for declines and rejection in details. ~ Amkgp 💬 05:04, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that the topic is notable. The subject was once a peninsula, and is now an island connected to the mainland by two causeways. It's now entirely covered by a large amusement park, Cedar Point – I don't know if it's inhabited overnight. The Cedar Point refers to "[t]he Cedar Point peninsula". Maproom (talk) 07:26, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Twice, you have attempted to remove the history of Declines and those editors' comments. That is contrary to Wikipedia practice, and has been restored. As you wrote, the amusement park, Cedar Point has its own article. You might consider abandoning your draft and adding content to the History section of that article instead. David notMD (talk) 10:41, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have created a sandbox and have been working on an article, James Ewing here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mollifiednow/sandbox/James_D._Ewing

Please see the page and (talk) for more details. I'm not sure if I'm following the correct procedure, if I should have notified anyone about my work (?) i would sincerely appreciate it if someone could take a look and advise me if they see anything wrong or if I need to do anything else until I finish. Honestly, I'm not exactly sure of what to do when I'm finished.

Thanks in advance for any help/advice Mollifiednow (talk) 22:37, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mollifiednow. Your draft looks better than most first time efforts. Some things you might want to look at are MOS:SECTIONCAPS, WP:REFPUNC and WP:PEA, but those are minor formatting/style issues which most likely can be easily cleaned up. The main thing which will determine whether your draft is accepted is going to be Wikipedia:Notability (in particular WP:BIO); at first glance, it looks like that's not going to be much of an issue but that's how the draft will be assessed. When you think you've done all you can do and that the draft is ready for review, you can click the "Submit your draft for review" button near the top of the page. That will send the draft to WP:AFC for review where it will be assessed. An AfC reviewer will assess the draft and decide whether it's OK to upgrade to article status. If the reviewer accepts the draft, they will move it to the article namespace and take care of the "paperwork" that's needed to do that; if the reviewer declines/rejects the draft, they will leave a message at the top of the draft explaining why and offer suggestions as to how to improve it. A draft can be submitted more than once as long as it keeps being improved over the last time it was submitted.

One last suggestion if you do decide to submit the draft for AfC review is that I wouldn't do so with any empty sections (sections with section headings only); either find content to add to the section or remove it completely. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:28, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mollifiednow I rewrote the lead sentence to be more effective. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 00:42, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello I am very new here. I have just joined WikiProject:Education and I am looking towards expanding some of their stub articles. However, there are many stubs that are just too short, and I have nothing to work with; nothing to expand from. Can someone give me something to read about this or give me some advice? Thank you. HelloImAStudent (talk) 23:25, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HelloImAStudent. I think that "expand" in this sense can also mean to "improve by adding new content2. So, if you find a stub that has very little content and that you think you'd like to try and improve it, then perhaps a good way to think about it would be to treat it as a "new" article. Start from scratch looking for reliable sources that might discuss the subject matter, and then figure out it there's an encyclopedic way to incorporate that content into the article. Perhaps the editor who created the stub just (for whatever reason) created a foundation for others to build upon. You don't have to complete the article per se, but perhaps you can add a little more to that foundation for the next person who comes along to build upon. You can even rebuild the old foundation if you want if you think it would be an improvement.

Now, having said that, you should make sure your improvements are in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines; if you add lots of content to a stub that is unsourced or otherwise a problem per some Wikipedia policy or guideline, there's a good chance it will end up being removed (either completely or partially) by someone who comes along after you. In addition, there might be a reason that a stub is a stub in that the subject isn't really Wikipedia notable and the stub probably shouldn't have been created in the first place. So, if you start Googling the subject and you're not finding anything that resembles the type of WP:SIGCOV generally needed to establish Wikipedia notability, you might not be able to improve the stub no matter how hard you try and it might need to considered for deletion.

Finally, a good thing to do might be to ask for suggestions at WT:EDUCATION; some WikiProjects keep a list of articles which fall under their scope that need improvement. So, a member of that WikiProject might be able to suggest some stubs which need improving. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:13, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thank you, Marchjuly. This has been very helpful. HelloImAStudent (talk) 11:23, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, what do I need to do if I cannot find reliable sources like website or published material but I know the information is correct because I am a fan who studied the artists life Newport2020 (talk) 00:22, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Newport2020. Sadly, if there are no published and publicly accessible, independent sources that talk about that person, then you will not be able to demonstrate that they meet our notability guidelines (see WP:NARTIST). This means that you will not be able to create a page about them, sorry. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:27, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But the artist already has a wikipedia page without the reliable sources in a different language. The artist use to have a wikipedia page before as well so how come I cannot create it this time? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newport2020 (talk • contribs) 00:29, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy link Draft:Habib Qaderi. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 00:32, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) @Newport2020: Each language Wikipedia is an independent project, with its own policies, procedures, etc. The existence of an article on another wiki contributes nothing at all to the notability criteria for inclusion on enwiki. If you really cannot find sources that discuss the person, there cannot be an article here about them. Sorry. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 00:38, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Hi Newport2020. Reliable sources don't need to be available online, but they do need to be published and somewhat available as explained in WP:PUBLISH and WP:PUBLISHED. Online availability makes things easier to verify and assess, but it's not a requirement; however, you still will need to cite reliable sources (as defined by Wikipedia) and avoid anything that might be seen as WP:OR regardless of whether it's true.

Reliable source don't need to be in English as explained in WP:NOTENG, but they still need to be reliable as defined by Wikipedia. Non-English sources, even reliable sources, can be hard to verify so you might be asked to further clarify the source by others.

Finally, each langauge Wikipedia project has it's own policies and guidelines; so, just because an article exist on one project that doesn't mean it should exist on all projects. English Wikipedia's policies and guidelines apply to English Wikipedia pages; so, if you want to create an article about this person on English Wikipedia, you're going to have establish that this person is notable by English Wikipedia standards or that content about them complies with English Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:41, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for feedback or further editing on this article. I will gladly take a second, third, fourth, or tenth pair of eyes, all suggestions and edits welcome! Thank you in advance! (If you don't think he is notable enough, please do say so, but no need to get angry or be mean about it!) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Josh_Clarke_(American_football) WikiJSPN (talk) 03:27, 28 August 2020 (UTC)WikiJSPN WikiJSPN (talk) 03:27, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiJSPN: I'm told that some of the possessors of those eyes might object to being called "guys". —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 09:22, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A) not notable, as only a college player with no national awards for football career. B) In looking at your contributions and Talk page history, no one has been angry or mean to you. In fact, deeply experienced editor DGG went to extraordinary lengths to explain the nature of reliable source referencing vis-a-vis one of your Declined drafts. David notMD (talk) 10:55, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

David notMD I was in no way at all referencing DGG who was very kind to me, and explained several aspects I didn't understand. If you had read our interaction you would see that I sincerely thanked him and asked him other questions seeing that he had significant knowledge. It has become clear, including with your message here, flat out telling me that the sarcastic message with the "uh-oh" wasn't someone being offended by my post and being rude. I didn't mean to offend anyone, I just wanted to help with a resource that I often use and thought was cool. I have removed all that I could of my drafts and am working on the removal of my article that was approved. I will try to figure out how to revert any copyediting I did. I am so sorry I could not be part of this. I have no idea what I did so wrong, I really don't- but a couple of you have mad it very clear that my creating articles was not ok, that mistakes are not ok, and asking questions to fix them is a real annoyance. WikiJSPN (talk) 13:47, 28 August 2020 (UTC)WikiJSPN[reply]

Article removed. Sorry for attempting. WikiJSPN (talk) 14:02, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for guessing wrong about your comment. David notMD (talk) 17:04, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

David notMD Thanks for understanding. Seriously though, can you be so kind as to explain what I did in attempting to write those articles that rubbed people the wrong way? I get I made a mistake, but I am new and trying to figure it out. I am perfectly willing to correct my mistakes (to the best of my ability). Is this not the place to ask questions? What's up with the instant ill will? I would really appreciate an answer because I would like to be able to stay and work on stuff, but not if I am unwelcome. WikiJSPN (talk) 19:10, 28 August 2020 (UTC)WikiJSPN[reply]

To some degree, choice of topics for drafts and referencing for same. At Danny Kabakibo, most of the refs were derived from the same press release. In fact, I was surprised that you were not challenged as possibly being an undeclared paid editor. At some future time Kabakibo may be Wikipedia noteworthy, but right now (WP:TOOSOON). Josh Clarke just an example of a person who does not meet athlete notability. For all of us, the early end of the learning curve can be harsh. David notMD (talk) 19:22, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

David notMD Thank you, beyond words, for explaining! In fact, it would have been easier for me had someone made a direct accusation- then I would have understood at least where I went wrong and why some reactions were inappropriately harsh. I declare here and now that I am not and have not been paid. My only article published is on Katya Cengel (I had no idea who she was before I found her name!), the other two drafts, I removed. The reason I was asking about Josh Clarke was because I quickly realized I was definitely upsetting people (when I attempted to write about Kabakibo) by who I picked, and I wanted to ask before causing more upset- but then my asking caused upset. I actually felt kind of attacked and I hope in the future you guys might be a bit more direct if you think someone is doing something against your rules. An accusation can be either proven or not, but just being harsh with someone pushes people out as opposed to getting to any truth. I am not speaking here to you personally, but to all who read this. I really want to be here. I want to contribute. I haven't been around, so I was unaware that there is a major issue with undeclared paid editors or that by simply choosing to write about living people in any type of flattering light or not having correct references, that it would make me look like that is what I was trying to do. This all makes much more sense now! I will continue to write articles, but I will be much more careful considering all the things I have learned in the last day or so. WikiJSPN (talk) 20:10, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, recently I search about something and i saw that there is many wrong information so i go to the talk page and participate there with articles (reliable sources) but i didn't see any correction and didn't get any response from wikipedia team. Why? Mega flames (talk) 04:08, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, recently I have search about something and I saw many wrong information so I go the talk page and participate their with articles(reliable sources) but i didn't get any response from wikipedia team. Why? Mega flames (talk) 04:17, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First, in this attempt of yours, for example, you provide no evidence, and therefore nobody reading has any reason to believe what you say. People could ask you to provide evidence, but it's at least as likely that they'll ignore you. Secondly, you haven't waited long. Wait a week or so. -- Hoary (talk) 05:32, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Many wrong information" seems like a bit of overstatement, as you complained about just one - Alha and Udal are not Ahir, according to you. Also there is no "Wikipedia team" it's just 270,000 volunteers, who edits the Wikipedia because they want to, and not because they have to. If they see something they don't want to address, they will not, and not one can tell them to that they have have to address it.

A good way to get a response on Wikipedia is not removing other people's edit request (if you can't respect others, others will not respect you), writing in a more easy to understand way (the question you posted here is pretty difficult to understand, like "so i go to the talk page and participate there with articles (reliable sources) but i didn't see any correction"), and make a request that's credible (like not proposing that your personal knowledge is better than reliable sources). I hope this helps. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 06:30, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping: @Mega flames: GeraldWL 06:11, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

how do i become a hacker?!?!?!?!?! Anonymous1357908 Anonymous1357908 (talk) 04:28, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous1357908 Welcome to Wikipedia. We are here to help regarding Wikipedia editing and usage. Thank you ~ Amkgp 💬 04:59, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Anonymous1357908: Just wanted to check if you were asking about Wikipedia Hackathon events? Nick Moyes (talk) 08:36, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Launghing at this question. GeraldWL 06:14, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article title spells it as DaKAH, while the proper spelling is "daKAH". How can I get the title to spell right? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 05:32, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, on the rare occasions where the title should start with a lower-case letter, you can place a tag {{lowercase title}} at the top of the article, and it will display in lower case. Pi (Talk to me!) 06:05, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Aditya Kabir: Now that you've got the title sorted, could you find and add some Reliable Sources that show this group meets our notability criteria? I am rather minded to put it forward for a deletion discussion, as I am not convinced at first sight that it merits a page here (see WP:MUSICBIO). Thanks Nick Moyes (talk) 09:29, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The "Sources" need to become references if this is to survive. David notMD (talk) 11:01, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick Moyes: Thanks. That's the first thing I checked. And, since there are not too many people interested, I believe WP:BOP is now upon me. Give me a couple of days, if you can, as my internet connect for next three days will remain sketchy at the best. If I fail to establish notability, I would support your WP:AFD. By the way, I am working on this as a tribute to User:Intrigue who last edited in June, 2006. I want to do this because, she/he started the article that I have been busy with for two months now, and I am an emotional fool.

@David notMD: Thanks. I know. I have rescued random articles from deletion before. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 11:14, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Aditya Kabir. By default, I am always in favour of retention rather than deletion, so I, for one, would not want to rush for a deletion discussion if there's a chance something can be improved, as this probably can. Thank you so much. Nick Moyes (talk) 11:56, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Please, check. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 14:09, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone tell me just how to edit "bundoora uited" (114 hits) in various australian soccer teams/player articles if it is in a linked table? Thank you. 2605:E000:1301:4777:9D5E:6901:9210:E465 (talk) 06:58, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. I am assuming you are asking about Template:Football Federation Victoria. If you want to edit such a template in an article, you can click on the "V-T-E" part in the upper left corner of the template box. "E" will open the edit window for this template, just like you would edit an article or talkpage. Please make sure to double-check your changes with "Show preview" before you publish them, as changes to such templates affect all articles where they are used. If you have further questions, please feel free to ask here again anytime. GermanJoe (talk) 07:10, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the answer is I dont know. All I know is that when I do a search there are 114 hits. When I go to edit the article it does not show. So I assume it is in a link. What template I do not know.2605:E000:1301:4777:9D5E:6901:9210:E465 (talk) 08:35, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I dont follow Aussie football so the who what and where I really could not tell you. Maybe if the editing procedure was not out of the usual I just might know where to go.2605:E000:1301:4777:9D5E:6901:9210:E465 (talk) 08:38, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the spelling in Template:Football Federation Victoria. Not sure how long it takes our search to update, but this shows no hits on that mis-spelling in articles that do not use that NavBox. Thanks for catching it. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 09:42, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed It appears that the spelling error was confined to that one template, as this search now returns nothing. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 01:30, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can this content be replaced with the first two paragraphs ? I've deleted the sentences mentioning GLAAD's view on 'The Office' and references associated with them. Please review this:

"Oscar Martinez is a fictional character from the US mockumentary-style television series The Office played by Cuban-American actor Oscar Nunez. Martinez is seen working as an accountant at the Scranton, Pennsylvania, in Dunder Mifflin’s office of a paper distribution company."

The character was implied to be gay in the second-season episode "The Secret", when Dwight catches him faking sickness to spend the day with his boyfriend (Dwight remains oblivious to this fakeness as he was obsessed with proving that Oscar was not ill). In earlier episodes, many co-workers erroneously attribute to him various Mexican stereotypes (e.g. being involved in drug cartels) but after his ousting, his stereotypes are more concentrated on his being gay, particularly by Michael, which may explain their conflicted relationship. Editingwork8 (talk) 07:20, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Editingwork8: The place to discuss it would be at the talk page of the article, Talk:The Office (U.S. TV series). I fixed your formatting above – starting a line with a space causes it to render in a non-proportional font, which can be undesirable. Also note there is a grammatical error in the last sentence ("... at the Scranton ..."). —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 09:48, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@[AlanM1 (talk)]Thank you for guiding and correcting my work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editingwork8 (talk • contribs) 10:33, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How would i know that the source i provide are enough for wikipedia confirmation to edit the article Mega flames (talk) 08:01, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Check that your sources are:

• From books (other than self-published books, and books from vanity publishers)
• From academic journals (other than those from predatory publishers)
• From magazines, newspapers, or news websites, other than those we are warned away from in the table within Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources

Check that your sources are not:

• From blogs
• From "social media"
• From the people, organizations, etc that you're writing about.

For more, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources. -- Hoary (talk) 08:14, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Mega flames, good question, and it's not always that easy to "know", because context matters. The question is always "Is this source good for this content?" There is a noticeboard, WP:RSN, for that. Few sources fits all. If you think an edit is reasonable, do it, and be prepared to talk if other people disagree (WP:BRD).

Blogs and social media are very seldom useful as sources. Aim for reliably published books, newspapers/sites, magazines and the like. Is the topic history? Aim for historybooks. Medicine or living people? High quality is demanded. Some sources have been discussed many times, there's a list of them at WP:RSP, that may get you an idea on what is generally accepted.

And then, having a source is not always enough, see for example WP:BALANCE an WP:PROPORTION. Hope this helps some. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:19, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,I recently provide reliable sources to edit a article so how much time it take to edit Mega flames (talk) 09:25, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you are reffereing to your edit request on Talk:Banaphar. Generally, edit requests can take from a few minutes to about two weeks, as with every review process on Wikipedia. Victor Schmidt (talk) 10:57, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No. You have not. I have gone through the 9 edits you made to the Wikipedia, and none of them has any reliable source for anything, unless you and User:Ultimate survi are the same person. Are you the same person? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 00:54, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please suggest how the editing done by me was wrong that the bot reverted my edit. Please check the original content and the edited first two paragraphs as given below and decide which one to keep. I made an edit recently on Oscar Martinez (The Office) page as follows:

"Oscar Martinez is a fictional character from the US mockumentary-style television series The Office played by Cuban-American actor Oscar Nunez. Martinez is seen working as an accountant at the Scranton, Pennsylvania, in Dunder Mifflin’s office of a paper distribution company."

The character was implied to be gay in the second-season episode "The Secret", when Dwight catches him faking sickness to spend the day with his boyfriend (Dwight remains oblivious to this fakeness as he was obsessed with proving that Oscar was not ill). In earlier episodes, many co-workers erroneously attribute to him various Mexican stereotypes (e.g. being involved in drug cartels) but after his ousting, his stereotypes are more concentrated on his being gay, particularly by Michael, which may explain their conflicted relationship. Editingwork8 (talk) 10:20, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You removed referenced content and replaced it with unreferenced content. David notMD (talk) 11:08, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I sense this was part of fancruft deletion, so might well have been quite justified, and certainly not a bad faith edit, even if the automated tool sensed it as such. (Will add some more thoughts later when im back on my PC.) Nick Moyes (talk) 12:00, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Editingwork8: (back again) ...because Wikipedia attracts an inordinate amount of vandalism by silly schoolkids and other bored individuals, we have various automated tools to revert to most obvious bad faith edits. Content deletion is one such common form of it. The 'bots' aren't always 100% correct (just as humans aren't either) and I think in this instance the bot was wrong. It left an automated edit on your talk page, with a link to enable you to report this as an inappropriate revert, with instructions to then repeat the edit. I would support you doing that, as it's clear there are ongoing and sensible attempts to remove 'fancruft' (trivia) from the article. You did the right thing asking here; when it comes to another human doing something you don't understand, it's often best to directly approach them {politely) on their talk page and ask for clarification of what you did wrong. Not possible with software, of course.

On a different note, it's great to see you as a qualified librarian wanting to contribute to Wikipedia. Are you aware of this project bringing museums, libraries and Wikipedia together for the greater good? Or the #1lib#1ref hashtag - a worldwide event encouraging librarians to add references to articles (see here for more). Finally, I note your talk page says you're interesting in adding content to start and C-class articles, but don't forget the 'STUB' articles which are even shorter and need more TLC, but reward you with easy improvements You can find them via so-called 'wiki-projects' which are simply editors with common interests working to improve that one topic area. Each Wikiproject usually has a table showing the number of articles relating to it, both by importance (low to top) and also by quality assessment (Stub to Featured Article). So, at that Projects's first section (Article quality assessment) I see there are currently 2,525 stub articles, of which 763 have been assessed for their 'importance' to that project. I then note there are 69 stub articles deemed as 'High Importance' which could be worked on first to greatest effect. Just click on the number to see a list of those articles ((example). Browsing through them reveals pages like the Ailefroide which have no inline sources, and just one external link. These are the things that some editors get real motivation from when they find topics that interest them and appreciate that they can easily improve the encyclopaedia. That's a really empowering feeling. Good luck in all you do. Nick Moyes (talk) 19:53, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What is the appropriate way to cite an article available in the ACM digital library? For example the article at https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/75277.75283 JorKadeen (talk) 11:47, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JorKadeenThis place is onlyforWikipedia doubts. What is your question regarding Wikipedia. Is it how to cite in Wikipedia?Chemmy bear Discuss in more detail?

Hi, @JorKadeen: You have to select Cite>Journal and in the dialog box you have to paste the DOI in DOI section, click on the magnifying glass icon. It will auto fill all the details. In this case you have to just paste https://doi.org/10.1145/75277.75283 . Thanks Rocky 734 (talk) 13:57, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Exactly what I needed. JorKadeen —Preceding undated comment added 14:05, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@JorKadeen and Rocky 734: Actually, only the DOI itself (the part after https://doi.org/ starting with "10."), in this case just "10.1145/75277.75283" (without the quotes), should be pasted in the DOI field. The cite tool happens to work with the prefix in there, but it fails to strip the prefix out when generating the cite, which will result in a cite that generates an error. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 23:23, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

I'm trying to learn my craft as a Wikipedian. As part of this I'm undertaking a rewrite of the Door handle page, which needed some love. I've posted my rewrite aims on the Door handle talk page. This is certain to be a piecemeal project for me. So far I've added a History section and started rearranging some other material. Is there a host/editor that would be willing to keep an occasional eye on what I am doing? I've done some editing elsewhere and added a page on Pistol duelling but this is the largest project I've attempted so far.

I'm not looking for hand-holding. Just the knowledge that an experienced editor is aware of what I'm doing. Also, if the Pistol duelling page flags any "don'ts" that I'm doing, it would be good to know now so I don't replicate them on the Door handle page or any others.

Thank you all as always for your constructive help. Universal Kakistocrat (talk) 12:13, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Universal Kakistocrat, added it in my watchlist. I'll see what I can do too. GeraldWL 12:33, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You might reach out to User talk:Larry Hockett, as he has been an editing presence at the article for a while, and has reverted a few of your edits. David notMD (talk) 13:02, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see an indication of him reverting my edits, assuming you're replying to me. GeraldWL 06:17, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Gerald Waldo Luis. I appreciate it. Thank you too for the good suggestion David notMD. I had a conversation about this with Larry Hockett. His interest looks to be infection control. He was very helpful on the importance of sources in that section. The history, for example, wasn't his interest when I asked. So I'm especially grateful to Gerald Waldo Luis for picking this up.Universal Kakistocrat (talk) 13:24, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Tried to resolve the issues at Karmapa Controversy without calling in the administrators. There's an editor that won't build consensus, hasn't responded to attempts to build consensus, and meanwhile has rewritten the article with heavy POV while deleting, it appears, almost all previous work. I re-edited the opening after efforts at communicating didn't work. The editor responded with a threat of a block... Worse, I just scanned the entire article and it's full of POV, unbalanced, and is an editing mess. Yes, the editor writes well so their work is deceptively coherent; and they cite books as RS, which are typically one sided ( they agree) and unverifiable as RS. I've asked them to stop and build consensus before continuing, but they apparently refuse. I think a block is past due - so they understand the situation. Is there another option? Advise? Thanks! Pasdecomplot (talk) 13:19, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Pasdecomplot, from what I can observe this began about a month ago. Why didn’t you report this earlier? It’s easier to curtail this at the initial stage. I have however left a warning on their talk page & would be also monitoring their activities. I am not so sure but I may have to undo most of their edits on that article & take it to back to how it was on the 24th of July which was(I stand to be corrected) the most neutral version.Celestina007 13:42, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ThanksCelestina007 for looking into the matter. I wasn't editing for a couple of months, so didn't see the issue. So, is it best to wait until their edits are reverted instead of trying to re-edit? The POV is so dense, maybe too thick to just repair with reedits.

Pasdecomplot 11:19, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know this isn't the right place but please someone should review this article for me, if it's good to be on Wikipedia. If yes, I would like to go ahead and create the other ones. I've done the same at WP:Football Josedimaria237 (talk) 13:39, 28 August 2020 (UTC) Josedimaria237 (talk) 13:39, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Josedimaria237, Hello, your article is on a queue & would be reviewed accordingly at the appropriate time. Celestina007 13:45, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How do I remove an article that I created that has already been approved? WikiJSPN (talk) 13:49, 28 August 2020 (UTC)WikiJSPN WikiJSPN (talk) 13:49, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiJSPN, hello, could you be so kind as to be specific about what article in particular? Regardless, by using the word “remove” I assume you mean 'delete' if you were the sole contributor to the article, using WP:TWINKLE you may apply a G7 or preferably you simply nominate it for deletion using WP:TWINKLE also. You might also want to see WP:AFDHOWTO. Celestina007 14:15, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!! Much appreciated!!WikiJSPN (talk) 16:45, 28 August 2020 (UTC)WikiJSPN[reply]

What are the steps or activities that happen once I make edits to a wikipedia page (improbing grammar or restructuring sentences etc.) ? Could someone explain the lifecycle of a wikipedia page across its journey of edits that people like me make to it?Shokap (talk) 13:58, 28 August 2020 (UTC) Shokap (talk) 13:58, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Shokap, and welcome to the Teahouse. For most articles, there isn't any kind of approval: you make your edits and they are published. If another editor disagrees that they are improvements, they can revert them; and if you disagree with their reversion, you can start a discussion. Please see BRD, which I think will answer your question. --ColinFine (talk) 14:24, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, View history shows all edits in chronological order. Clicking on prev (to left) for an entry shows what that editor did. David notMD (talk) 16:54, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Shokap, ColinFine, and David notMD: Here's a couple of interesting treatments of the subject I found by typing WP:Life into search and seeing the suggestions: Wikipedia:Life of an article and Wikipedia:Life cycle of the ideal article (both redirects, the first to the "outreach" wiki, which I've never heard of :) ). Not sure how current they are —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 23:41, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Genetic_translation or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:DNA_replication ; these are subject (discipline) related template; different from "noticeboard type" or administration related templates (indexed here).

Now my questions are,

1. Is there an index for subject related (academic discipline related) template? I have seaarched a lot but I didn't found any. Such as all Cell-related templates, all Biochemistry related templates etc.

2. Is there a term for these purple-coloured, subject-related templates (those are usually inserted at bottom of pages)?

PS. These templates are very useful, informative and good for comparative study. I am trying to make a few PDF books with collection of subjectwise templates, but its difficult to track existing templates due to lack of an index. Thanks in advance. RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 14:22, 28 August 2020 (UTC) RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 14:22, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, RIT RAJARSHI. Those are navigation templates. Please see that link for more information. --ColinFine (talk) 14:26, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ColinFine: Thank you I am searching if there is an index for navigation templates. If it does not exist, I will be glad to participate making it. With all the best wishes.

It's worth looking at which categories the templates are in. The first you mention is in Category:Protein biosynthesis templates, and the second is in Category:Biochemistry templates. You can then see which categories those categories are in. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:52, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@David Biddulph:Thank you so muchRIT RAJARSHI (talk) 18:13, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@RIT RAJARSHI: How about Category:Navigational boxes by topic. (Please also check out the article on indenting, especially example 4.) —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 23:55, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AlanM1:Thank you so much it is very helpful. RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 05:09, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Next time I will try to follow indentation guidelines RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 05:36, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at the second table (black and white) here: Genetic_code#RNA_codon_table. Is it technically feasible to place a small image (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:3D_Genetic_Code.jpg) directly to the right of this table? Charles Juvon (talk) 14:39, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Charles, type in the link to the right of the table and you are done . I am not a user on Commons or a person who uploads pictures but with my experience,you can rely on it. Hope this helps . Chemmy bear (Discuss in more detail?) —Preceding undated comment added 14:51, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but

did not work. The added figure (looks like a cube) should be twice as big and directly to the right of the table. Charles Juvon (talk) 15:03, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Charles Juvon: Looks like the table is not just a table is actually a "template page" which locates at .https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Inverse_codon_table, and being embedded into other pages with the command {{Inverse codon table|T=U}} . So it looks like the desired change would be more complicated than inserting a column at right side to a table on a page. I'm afraid if it is impossible to do.

However image size can be increased. here are some samples.

	Source code: [[File:3D Genetic Code.jpg|50px|thumb|50px cube]]
	Source code: [[File:3D Genetic Code.jpg|100px|thumb|100px cube]]
	Source code: [[File:3D Genetic Code.jpg|200px|thumb|200px cube]]

Best wishes RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 18:08, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nihaal The Wikipedian: Is this what you want? Just place the image first and invoke the table template after it, like you would with any other content that you want to flow to the left of an image:

Hello, as the headline suggests, I have come across a Wikipedian editing their own article. I'm aware of this essay but was not able to find out any more information on the subject. I would prefer not to name the Wikipedian. Also it is almost certainly not just someone else using the same name because they own the copyright of the image used in the article. What is the precedence & should any action be taken? Cunme (talk) 15:13, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cunme Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Without knowing the circumstances in this case, I can say users generally should not make autobiographical edits. You could attempt to suggest that the user make edit requests on the article talk page, and see how they respond before doing anything else. 331dot (talk) 15:22, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How do I change a user name to give it my personal name? And how do I link my page so that it shows up as part of the category African-American Country Musician? My page is not linked to that page. [[User:CWILL46461|CWILL46461]] ([[User talk:CWILL46461|talk]]) (talk) 15:38, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not answering that question, but what you have created is an unsubmitted draft of an article (Wikipedia does not have pages) at User:CWILL46461/sandbox. IF submitted in current form it would be declined, as hyperlinks are not allowed in External links with exception of the official website. That means no Youtube. And references are done entirely differently. See WP: Your first article. David notMD (talk) 17:01, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I could see lots of deleted contents and edits in this page. Referring to today's content in the Bunt (community) page. I could see massive changes are made in the contents, many of the valid contents being deleted. There were some citing regarding the varnas classification. Few years back I remember some citing related to Jain Bunt and Hindu Bunt(Nagavamshi Kshatriya) along with some elaborated details, the details were genuinely sort of interlinked.

Let me try to explain why.

Below content is sort of void details to agree.

"Varna Classification

The traditional chaturvarna system is largely not found in South India. Bunts were classified as Sat-Shudras or Upper Shudras.[52] In Southern India, the upper Shudras were generally the landholding ruling classes of South India and occupied and controlled similar spaces of power as the Kshatriyas and Vaishyas in North India.[52]"

Let me justify why;

Well, the varna system did follow in the south however the region has gone through many spiritual transitions in-terms of acceptance of religions, local spiritual ideologies which is becoming more complex to find sources to the origin. Also the locals can't find appropriate explanation due to deteriorated knowledge as the generations passed on with so many transitions, regarding the local history, philosophies and backgrounds/foregrounds.

Majority of Indian community who have accepted Jainism are major coverts from Kshatriya community within Hindus, from many ruling kingdoms across India who accepted Ahimsa. Similarly, the Kshatriya community who hail in the region of the south western coastal Karnataka and some parts of Kerala belong to Nagavamshi Kshatriya(Hailing from the land of Nagas, of Parashuram Shrusti)

The regional community has a confusion as to which varna does the Hindu side of Bunts community belong to. The current Hindu Bunt community don't follow Upanayanam kriya based on the varna specification and the men belonging to Hindu Bunt community don't wear the holy thread which is leading to the confusion within the local community and the region.

Actual thesis of understanding history is Hindu Bunts are reconverts from Jain Bunt community, gave up Ahimsa in order to defend the region for dynasty's citizen's interest, also for defense purpose during warlike situations. While giving up Jainism, men had to remove the holy thread and follow Kshatriya(warrior class) leadership again. The same thesis applies for many communities who claim to be Kshatriyas across India but don't wear the holy thread, all are reconverts from Jain community who still carry surnames from Royal Lineages accorded under many dynasties within ancient India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seshat 96 (talk • contribs) 16:11, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

.

@Seshat 96, Could you be more precise as to what your question is? Celestina007 20:54, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please check if at all there were any deletions or edits in past 3 years and try if they can be restored back. Also please help me as to how I can add more details to this page. Will try my best to come up with some detailed information.

I did my first score of edits today, and in one case ran up against parties related to the living person (in this case, an account seemingly set up for the purpose of sanitising the Peter Hitchens page, with a careful measure of other pages edited to conceal the vested interest). The account in question simply removed a criticism of the living person (which cited a notable source and was sourced from a world famous academic), then gave a flimsy pretext (that rationalised moving this criticism, not removing it) when I brought this to his/her/their attention. What does one do about pages overridden with vested interests? Looking at the page in question, the living person is a tabloid journalist who has written about fighting to change his Wikipedia page, and looking at the talk page it is clear a lot of information is being hidden/suppressed from the page. Anti-Anti-Vaxxer2 (talk) 16:39, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Anti-Anti-Vaxxer2, I haven’t taken a look at anything yet but generally if there is a content dispute, the best place to resolve the issue would be at the talk page of that article & if that doesn’t work out well then seeking a third opinion is the next best option. Furthermore if you feel a COI is present then you should report the editor/incident appropriately at the WP:COIBOARD. I hope I have been helpful.Celestina007 20:52, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Anti-Anti-Vaxxer2: Having spent the last hour or so wading through that page's history, I agree with your general concerns. But I think it is a bit more nuanced. One editor has been revamping and adding content (eg the subject's views on gun control and on his Wikipedia article), but another editor has been removing it on the flawed belief that it's a primary source. I have expressed my concerns on the talk page. That said, please avoid accusing other editors of a WP:COI or of bias if that isn't clearly the case. (I'm not totally convinced that's the issue here). Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:58, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Javicia_Leslie

I got permission and copied the email from Javicia Leslie whom owns rights to the photo. It stayed for about 3 weeks and now it is gone. what am I doing wrong? Lauralaelbart (talk) 18:23, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lauralaelbart, does [1] help? If not you can try to ask the Commons-editor who deleted it at their talkpage. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:54, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More to the point, Lauralaelbart, look at commons:user talk:lauralaelbart#File tagging File:JAVICIA LESLIE. 2020.jpg, where a notice explaining the issue was posted to you. You say that you "copied the mail from Javicia Leslie"; but copyright is picky stuff, and Commons requires a an email with particular information sent directly to them by the copyright holder, not somebody else posting a personal email: see donating copyright materials. (Also note that the subject of a photo typically does not hold the copyright: they may do, if it was taken in pursuance of a contract that assigns the copyright to them; but otherwise, unless it's a selfie, the photographer probably holds the copyright). --ColinFine (talk) 22:11, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. I am new to this community and have been requested to help create a wiki page for an artist friend. I have tried a few different ways, even using DJ Khalid as a reference in style for the DJ I am creating it for. Even in doing that the article/page was denied and deleted. If anyone can give me any tips to go about building his page, I would truly appreciate it. Thank you. HollywodDJ (talk) 18:40, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HollywodDJ, creating an article about somebody you know personally, and especially creating a page at their request is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. I suggest reading over Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for Wikipedia's policies around creating an article that you have a conflict of interest with. If you still decide that you definitely want to try to create this article, bear in mind that Wikipedia only accepts articles about people who are sufficiently notable and have multiple independent reliable sources establishing this. Help:Your first article is a guide to creating an article that you could read over. Pi (Talk to me!) 18:45, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, HollywodDJ, and wecome to the Teahouse. If you are new to this community, then my advice would be to not even think about trying to create a new article until you have been editing for at least a few weeks, improving existing articles and learning how Wikipedia works. People who plunge in and try the extremely difficult task of creating a new article before they have understood how Wikipedia works typically have a frustrating and unhappy time. And that advice is for people who haven't got a conflict of interest: doing it with a conflict of interest makes it even harder, because once you have found the independent published sources that are required, you'll need to forget everything you know about your friend, and just write from what the independent sources say. This is because Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, and has basically no interest at all in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their friends or associates say about them: it is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and haven't been prompted or given information by the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable places. --ColinFine (talk) 22:17, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to continue my article and declare I do not have a conflict of interest. What do I need to do next? My article has been declined but I would like to add many more sources for this article about my father, Lore Noto. Thank you, user: Notohelmers Notohelmers (talk) 19:19, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You do have a conflict of interest as he is your father. Praxidicae (talk) 19:21, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy Draft:Lore Noto Yes, you have a COI. And the draft needs references for all of the content. David notMD (talk) 19:41, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, my recent draft, Draft:Evo (company), was rejected. I reached out on the reviewer's Talk Page but did not receive a response. Following the advice on their Talk Page, I'm looking to get some feedback on the draft here.

One of the pieces of feedback on the draft was about notability and significant coverage. The draft has citations from several reputable independent sources including The AP, Outside Magazine, GeekWire, The Denver Post, a government website, and more - 16 sources in total. Nearly all of these articles are directly about the company or its founder/CEO in relation to the company. This coverage appears equal to or greater than similar companies in the same industry that have live pages. I am unsure if the feedback here suggesting that the sources themselves were inadequate? Or that the sum of their coverage did not meet the notability standard?

The other issue outlined was POV, "This draft is written from the viewpoint of the company, focusing on what the company says about itself. Corporate notability is based on what independent reliable sources have written about the subject." Each point of coverage was from the independent sources discussed above, only the introduction of the company's core functions (what it sells) is sourced from the company. Since I have a (disclosed) COI, I wanted to keep the draft very factual. Does this feedback mean I should try to write more about the company's impact rather than just facts and timeline? There are some published independent articles from notable sources that cover unique aspects of the company business model that could be included. How else might the POV be improved to be more neutral?

Looking forward to getting feedback. Thanks, Msklar12 (talk) 19:37, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Msklar12. The first five references (which was as far as I looked) are not independent, being based on interviews or press releases. To enlarge on the point you quoted above: Wikipedia has basically no interested in what the subject says or wants to say about themselves, whether directly, or in interviews or press releases. Wikipedia is only interested in what people wholly unconnected with the subject, and not prompted or fed information by the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable places. If there is such stuff, then most of the artice needs to be based on it, and nearly of the citations need to be to it. If there isn't then it is not possible to write an acceptable article, because there is nothing that can go into it: that what the criteria for notability are about.

It is unfortunately likely that there are some articles about other companies which do not meet the criteria: Wikipedia used to be less careful about this, and being a volunteer operation, many things which should be done (like deleting or improving substandard articles) often don't get done. --ColinFine (talk) 22:28, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So after (somewhat) a false start in which I began to edit the History section in Pernambuco then realized I should work on History of Pernambuco first, I have been editing the latter for several days. I discovered "talk" pages and made a post to the "talk' page on both of these. I am guessing that no one is following either of these pages, which is ok. I am progressing at one or two sentences a day as I find appropriate references to insert. So I am happy. Nevertheless, I do wonder if after several months someone will look at what I've done and want to revert everything because I didn't use the magic ring decoder or something? I don't really think I need a lot of oversight, I'm just sort of wondering what to expect. Thanks. P2dwight (talk) 19:38, 28 August 2020 (UTC) P2dwight (talk) 19:38, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to The Teahouse. All your edits look very good to me. Theroadislong (talk) 19:44, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@P2dwight, Hello, coupled with what Theroadislong already told you, generally the answer should be no, as no policy mandates any editor to police the work of any other editor. But if you have done a good job, any editor may drop a positive message on your talk page to show your efforts are appreciated, usually by a personal message or in the form of a barnstar and if the inverse is the case they may undo your edit & let you know what policy you may have contravened. However, if you want a honest feedback for specific type of edits you make, you may specifically ask any editor here to give you feedbacks. Celestina007 20:37, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, both. I'm surprised to learn I have a personal talk page! Must have missed that part. Guess I should find it.P2dwight (talk) 20:56, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

P2dwight, you’re welcome colleague. Give me a minute & I’d leave a message for you on your own talk page. Celestina007 21:10, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to WP:VPT

 – Ed talk! 20:16, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know for the year 2020 article, the latest permanent link revision up to this point in time that I'm writing this is https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2020&oldid=975505928

But how do I get a "permanent link" for the revision, for example, from 21:46 on 25 August 2020? The only thing I got is this https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2020&diff=974933481&oldid=974932175

That however, isn't exactly a permanent link as it is just "comparing revisions". How can I get a permanent link of that exact revision? I was only able to find a permanent link for the latest one by going to page information on the left hand side.

Please help me, and THANK YOU! 47.150.227.254 (talk) 22:55, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello IP editor. Welcome! I'm not sure if I'm missing something, but the answer seems quite simple. By going to the 'View History' tab and clicking the actual date of that edit, you get taken to this page. To me, that suffices as a perma-link as to how the page looked after that edit, on that date and that exact time (see Help:Permanent link for more details) Is that what you wanted, or have I misunderstood your question? Nick Moyes (talk) 23:35, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just created a new article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Classics_of_Western_Spirituality and would like to link to the German wiki entry (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classics_of_Western_Spirituality) which I have modified. But I don't know how to add the link under "Languages" on the left of the screen. Can someone help? BikrBoy (talk) 23:50, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello BikrBoy, I think that's because it's a draft. When it becomes an article, the two should be linked together through Wikidata. There are bots and dedicated editors who take care of that stuff. Wikidata item, this one, seems to be the one. Whoever does it, the article on the English Wikipedia will have to be listed alongside the German one in that item page, then both will show up on each other's sidebar. See Wikipedia:Wikidata#New_articles. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:29, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Link: Daniel Algrant

Hello,

I am editing a page for an artist. All of the information is directly from them. How can i retrieve my progress and continue editing? Anesiasaun (talk) 01:45, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Anesiasaun, did you read the messages left at your page? I'd add the importance of reading WP:COI, too. 2601:188:180:B8E0:51C4:A213:DDE6:49FA (talk) 01:47, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I plan to include all of the appropriate links and I can neutralize the tone further.. Is there any way I can retrieve my inital edits so I can go from there rather than start over? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anesiasaun (talk • contribs) 01:54, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any way I can retrieve my progress so I can go back and further neutralize the tone and add further sources? Anesiasaun (talk) 02:00, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• This was one of the edits you made [2]. Please understand that I'm not being glib when I say it's not salvageable. Read Wikipedia's guidelines, especially those that I referred to here and at your talk page. 2601:188:180:B8E0:51C4:A213:DDE6:49FA (talk) 02:02, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All is not lost. The content may be true, but you provided no references. The article Daniel Algrant exists, and all of the deleted content can be seen at View history, and then for each edit you made, click on prev (for previous), on the left. A suggestion - copy the content into your own Sandbox, then work on achieving neutral point of view and appropriate referencing there before pasting the revised content back into the article. David notMD (talk) 02:28, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On your Talk page you were left mention of COI and PAID. Comply with that before doing any editing to the article. David notMD (talk) 02:30, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Anesiasaun: Well, the edit needs sources, of course. But otherwise, it seems decent. Not unsalvageable, IMO! Please observe User:David notMD's good advice. Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 02:34, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious, Tribe of Tiger, how was that content decent? [3]; [4]; [5]; [6]; [7]; [8]. 2601:188:180:B8E0:51C4:A213:DDE6:49FA (talk) 03:08, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do beg your pardon, but my comment was made in reference to the only edit you mentioned, [9], which obviously needed to be sourced. It was not in reference to the additional six edits now noted above. I don't wish to argue, but I don't understand what is so problematic about this one edit. So, I am curious about what was "in-decent" or unsalvageable about this one edit. If I do not ask questions, I cannot learn. Thanks,Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 04:22, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tribe of Tiger, the single diff I started with wasn't a comprehensive listing of the edits--as I noted, it was just one, and my presumption was that editors would read the others before commenting. My mistake. From that edit alone, here's what's not acceptable:

• The cast includes Eric Stolz, Mary-Louise Parker, Ralph Macchio, along with Tony Curtis, Kathleen Turner, Tim Dalton and Whoopi Goldberg. It won the Critic’s Prize at the Deauville International Film Festival and went on to compete at the Tokyo International Film Festival. The New York Times called the film “as knowing and clever as it is charming”. We don't need a cast listing, which is the first tip-off of promotional intent here. Went on to compete is just a copy edit eyeroll. NYT blurb is promotional.
• Following the success of Naked in New York (1993), Algrant went on to direct episodes of the popular sitcom Sex and The City (1999-2000). Promotional and WP:PEACOCK, with another "went on to"; again, it's a standard phrase used by public relations minded-editors.
• Algrant went on to do People I Know (2002) starring Al Pacino. A film about a veteran publicist battling addiction and alcoholism. The piece was eventually ensnared in controversy before its premiere as it depicted the World Trade Center as a metaphor for cultural corruption prior to the tragic attack that took place during editing. The film also includes a scene where a woman is forced to flee a man named Harvey in a limousine - which was intended as a reference to Weinstein’s abusive behavior in the film industry. Weinstein would purchase the film, request that scene to be removed, and eventually stall it’s global release. Reads like there may be some WP:OR. "Ensnared in controversy" really needs a source, as does the reference to Weinstein, both for WP:BLP reasons and to support its significance in the plot. Overall, reads like an effort to pump up the movie's controversy, omitting a mixed critical reception.
• Greetings from Tim Buckley (2012) is a film co-written and directed by Algrant, depicting rockstar Jeff Buckley (Penn Badgley), making his debut performance honoring his estranged and late father Tim Buckley. The film premiered at the Toronto Film Festival and was bought by Focus World and Tribeca Pictures. It was described by Peter Travers in Rolling Stone as a “heartfelt and deeply moving film.” The Hollywood Reporter said it was a "sensitive, well-cast film about father-son musicians Tim and Jeff Buckley” and “gets the emotions and music just right". Young also praised lead actor Badgley for his "vibrant break-out performance" noting his "seductive energy" and Poots pointing out her "strong screen presence". Same as above, primarily promotional blurbs. And this isn't the most egregious of the edits. 2601:188:180:B8E0:51C4:A213:DDE6:49FA (talk) 15:12, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My sincere thanks for producing this analysis. I find it to be very helpful, indeed. Now that I have "learned", I with agree with and understand your assessments. I rarely copyedit in this topic area, and will steer well clear. Thanks again, Sincerely,Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 20:39, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I'm in no way intending to discourage you from participating, especially if you're interested in reading up more at WP:BLP. But I did not want to give a new WP:SPA undue encouragement, especially if they came here solely to add promotional content. Cheers 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:52, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just left a note at your talk, before I saw this. Honestly, I have worked more with removing detrimental info from BLPs versus the over-the-top peacock type. Nonetheless, I have seen/removed "peacock" because it was unsourced. "Greatest XYZ in the world!", easy decision, as it is unsourced. Your lesson provided good info per PR-type statements that may be sourced, but are still unacceptable, etc. Sincerely, Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 22:48, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Additional cmts at your talk....Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 22:51, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_on_a_Rope

I am largely responsible for this entry but I am new to writing Wikipedia entries and I'm wondering why outside search engines such as Google do not pick up this entry. If I search within Wikipedia I am taken directly to the entry but if I enter the search string "Three on a Rope" in Google's search engine, for example, it does not take me to this entry. Is there something that can be done to make this happen? Any guidance would be much appreciated. Thanks! Donna Dmbrinton (talk) 02:17, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dmbrinton: Welcome to Wikipedia, and thanks for wanting to expand it. New articles are hidden from search engines until they are reviewed by the new page patrol or for 90 days whichever comes first. RudolfRed (talk) 02:29, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@RudolfRed - Many thanks and good to know, Donna — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmbrinton (talk • contribs) 02:35, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dmbrinton, please do not use IMDb as a reference. It hosts user-generated content and is therefore not an acceptable source per WP:RS guidelines. If the rest of the sources are reliable and support the claims they are cited for, the article should have no problem getting approved as it seems fairly well-written. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:34, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I always wanted to be semi-auto-confirmed users which I need at least 500 contributions/edits to reach the level. However, I can't seem to figure out how to find the quantities of edits. Also, I always check my edit quantities on mobile, but the numbers never changed, even when I edit more. Can anyone please help me. Hypersonic man11^Talk Hypersonic man 11 (talk) 03:31, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

morning Hypersonic, at the top of the page, click on "preferences", it should show user profile tab, showing no of edits fourth line down. Hope that helps, Cheers. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 03:37, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Hypersonic man 11. Using a computer you can click on "contribuitions" on the top of the page and then on "edit count" on the bottom. It will show you how many edits you have. As I can see here, you have 354 edits on En.WP.--SirEdimon ^Dimmi!!! 03:44, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Look at it, it is always 354 edits... but thanks. can someone resolve it... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hypersonic man 11 (talk • contribs) 03:50, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hypersonic man 11, you're at 356, and I see from you contributions that you made two edits after posting this section, so it would seem to be working just fine. Please bookmark this and recheck after making additional edits. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:43, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am thinking if i can nominate Chengdu J-20 fifth-generation stealth fighter to the Wikipedia good article nomination. I've checked, it has no issues and additional problems. Also, all the information available are there, as you know the fighter is still somehow very secretive as of now. JF-17 can be nominated, so does the J-20 right. If you guy give the green light, let me put it in nomination box, because I like to try... Hypersonic man11^Talk Hypersonic man 11 (talk) 03:43, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hypersonic man 11, you are not one of the principal contributors to that article. This page gives all the statistics on it. You'd have to reach out the editors who have made significant contributions to the article and convince them that it is ready. Have you checked to see if the problems highlighted in the last good article review have been addressed? Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:50, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can I link to copyrighted sources, as long as I don't blatantly copy the source? K=caklin (talk) 04:03, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kinecaklin You can, unless they are reliable and independent. This is the right place to place your question. Chemmy bear Discuss in more detail? —Preceding undated comment added 04:57, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kinecaklin: Yes. Most of the sources we use as references or external links are copyrighted (newspapers and their online equivalents, books, journals, official websites, etc.). I think Chemmy bear mistakenly wrote "unless they are reliable and independent"; references must be reliable sources. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 07:51, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have entered an url in a citation template that has an equal sign in it. This causes the template to produce the error message 'Unknown parameter'. There is a 'help' link next to the error message, but when I click on it the 'Leave' window pops-up as if I have been logged out. Is there a solution to this problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BiostatSci (talk • contribs) 05:50, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Throw your friends a line. Which article?Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 07:04, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

... and more importantly, which URL? URLs used in cites very commonly have un-encoded '=' in them, which works fine. My guess is that you have un-encoded quotes ("), which you can solve by changing them to %22. Spaces should be changed to %20. For example, this Google Books URL:

• https://books.google.com/books?id=_NNmFiUnSmUC&vq="dark side of the moon"

becomes:

• https://books.google.com/books?id=_NNmFiUnSmUC&vq=%22dark%20side%20of%20the%20moon%22

Yes, it would be nice if the RefToolBar took care of this for you. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 08:00, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging BiostatSci. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 08:12, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed @BiostatSci: This appears to be about Talk:Melanie Stansbury. Cite #3 to followthemoney.org was:

• url=https://www.followthemoney.org/show-me?dt=1&c-t-eid=44581391&c-t-id=240407#[{1|gro=y,d-ins

I changed it to:

• url=https://www.followthemoney.org/show-me?dt=1&c-t-eid=44581391&c-t-id=240407#%5B{1%7Cgro=y,d-ins

That is, the '[' needed to be changed to %5B and the '|' needed to be changed to %7C. I've corrected it and the other ref to that site with a problem. I'll hunt for the table that tells you what needs to be encoded, and hopefully a tool that does it for you (unless someone beats me to it; please ). —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 08:27, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that was easy: Help:Citation Style 1#Special characters has the list. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 08:32, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks @AlanM1:! Greatly appreciated. 73.242.164.128 (talk) 14:26, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When I edit the chembox{{Chembox}}, it breaks. I type the correct code like {{Chembox Properties and it breaks. User:Nihaal The Wikipedian Discuss in more detail

@Nihaal The Wikipedian: (I removed some stray markup from your post above) I expect you mean "when you try to transclude the {{Chembox}} template"? You'll have to be more specific, like put the code you're trying to use in your sandbox so we can see what you're trying to do. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 08:06, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

i feels even though i am a qualified person from a registered health university in india. I tried to edit an article which is of my speciality some senior editors are deleting the edit. and the fun fact is that they believe they are only true. What i can do in this situation ? Drnisamudheen (talk) 09:15, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Drnisamudheen Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Please see this guidance for expert editors. Wikipedia does not deal in truth, as truth is in the eye of the beholder, but we do deal in what is verifiable in independent reliable sources. If you have published independent reliable source to support edits you wish to make, please discuss this with the other editors involved on the article talk page. 331dot (talk) 09:21, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

why wikipedia host delete my artical about me? Nihal Kumar Singh (talk) 09:24, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nihal Kumar Singh Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia is not a place for people to write about themselves. Please review the autobiography policy. While not forbidden, autobiographical articles are strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. This is because people naturally write favorably about themselves. Wikipedia is not interested in what people have to say about themselves, but in what independent reliable sources with significant coverage choose to say about them. If you just want to tell the world about yourself, you should use social media. 331dot (talk) 09:27, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Minorax has already posted the reason to your talk page. Please go theough the reason Minorax posted, click on the links in his explanation, and read the pages that open when you click the links. By the way, your account was not deleted, only that userpage you created. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 09:31, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nihal Kumar Singh, you are more than welcome to create a userpage, but it should reflect your personality on Wikipedia (your editing topics, experience, permissions etc.) A couple fun things such as userboxes & banners describing yourself in real life are nice, but writing an autobiography about yourself is not. That is using Wikipedia to write about yourself, instead of explaining what you do here. Take a look at some of the userpages of people who have replied here for inspiration. My userpage can be found here → Giraffer (munch) 10:42, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Bengali language article has a serious formatting disaster. Take a look.

I think it's because of one or more navboxes/infoboxes used have bad coding that is interfering with all other images and templates around it. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 09:25, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed @Aditya Kabir: The size of the image was not being set at all in that template, and the file on Commons was updated in July to be much bigger than it was before, so that's how it appeared in the Navbox. I set the size to a reasonable 100px, but then commented it out, since only one other navbox in the Category:Indo-Iranian languages templates has an image ({{Sinhala language}}), probably because of something related to MOS:NOINDICSCRIPT. I'd suggest discussing it somewhere before uncommenting it. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 10:49, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but the mess remained.

You can't put any image in the first section without them being pushed between the first and second sections. Also there remained a very wide empty space between the sections.

Right now the only way to ammend that is remove "all images" or remove navobxes from the first and second sections. But "remove all images" to makes way for coding that interfere with page layout may not be the best solution.

I hope this is fixable, because most navboxes and infoboxes don't interfere with page layouts. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 11:15, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Aditya Kabir: By "NavBox", I mean the navigation template displayed at the bottom of the article with other related articles, in this case, {{Bengali language}}, in which I removed the huge Bangla on the right side.

(For the following, I narrowed my browser to about 1024px width, much smaller than the 1600px or so that I normally use, to exaggerate any placement problems). If, by "can't put any image in the first section", you mean the lead section (above the table of contents), it is not typical to put images there because the infobox already takes up a significant part of the screen, it would be ugly to have images to the left of it (right of the text), and we also try not to "sandwich" text (especially the lead) by putting an image on the left there. There just isn't room at all at 1K screen width.

The "Part of a series on Bengalis" box ends near the bottom of the ToC, where a media player then spans down into the History section, which could be cleared up, since it starts with an image on the left. The Geographical distribution section does have a "sandwich" that could be fixed.

Other than those little adjustments, I don't see much else to do here, certainly not "a big mess" and I see very little whitespace. There's not room for much more imagery in the top sections, but that's just the nature of it – they already have plenty.

If you're seeing something different, perhaps you can post a screen shot at the article's talk page for discussion. You might also find a version of the page in history (if necessary, at archive.org if the problem is in templates, so all the templates are contemporaneous with the page). I urge you to skip the hyperbole ("mess" and "disaster" and "bad coding"), which does nothing but put people on the defensive and provoke arguments about the hyperbole instead of the issue.

Anyone with more layout issue experience is welcome to chime in here or there, of course. Thanks. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 14:57, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. That's interesting. I am posting a screenshot of what I am seeing (I use Chrome on an Asus ZenBook running Win10). As you can see it does looks like a big mess from here, and a whole lot of whitespace. Also I tried placing the images of the coins and monuments in various ways, and nothing worked. Could it be {{Bengalis}}? I am sure it is not {{Infobox language}}. But, who knows. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 15:34, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi and good morning. I've uploaded an image to WP Commons which I would like to post to the article David J. Zimmerman. I haven't yet posted images to WP, and, as a new editor, would hate to make a mess of an article that I need someone else to fix! I edited the original article in Visual Editor. Can you direct me to "help" pages which might help me do this? Thanks. VictorMooney (talk) 13:27, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, VictorMooney. If you go to the file's page in Commons commons:File:Picture_of_David_J._Zimmerman_in_the_Indian_Himalayas.jpg, there are buttons at the top "Use this file", one of them with the Wikipedia logo,. --ColinFine (talk) 13:35, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi VictorMooney. The photo you're referring to is of David J. Zimmerman yet you also describe the photo as being sen to you by David J. Zimmerman. Generally, it's the person who take a photo, not the the subject of the photo that is considered the copyright holder. Do you know whether Zimmerman took this photo himself or whether it was taken by another person? Since you don't seem to have taken the photo, the person who did is probably going to have to email their WP:CONSENT to WP:Contact OTRS#Wikimedia OTRS to verify the file's licensing and the copyright holder's intention to release it under said license.. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:01, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sakura School Akademi JaidenMama (talk) 13:59, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JaidenMama. Do you have a question about Wikipedia or Wikipedia editing? Perhaps you're trying to find the page Sakura School Akademi? It was draftified by another Wikipedia editor and can be nw found at Draft:Sakura School Akademi. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:05, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When I turn airplane mode on and off momentarily on my phone, my IP changes. Could vandals abuse this to vandalize Wikipedia without getting blocked?   ApChrKey   ^Talk 15:46, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ApChrKey: We block all vandals! Nick Moyes (talk) 15:53, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think if you poke around, a lot of such IP switching techniques have been blocked for a long time, such as large blocks of IPs used by the larger VPNs. Although there were many who pointed out this would block dissidents in some countries from editing, so I don't know what the current status is. -- Kendrick7^talk 15:59, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! My question is how to deal with frequent (in this case ideologically based) unjustified undoings/removings of facts with (in this case !5!) reliable sources. In my particular case "Croatian" and the 5 sources referring to it have been removed as a common language in the Bosnian Kingdom It was later replaced by the same user (MckenzieBosanac21) with "Serbian", having no sources. I undid this by changing it to the older version with the sources, but I fear this scenario might repeat itself in the future. The URL is:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kingdom_of_Bosnia&action=history Gretings, Stjepan StjepanGr. (talk) 16:09, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, StjepanGr. and welcome to the Teahouse. A good-faith content dispute is not vandalism. However, removing valid sources is not usually well thought of, unless thjere is a good reason.

I would advise you to post on the article talk page, Talk:Kingdom of Bosnia, describing what changes you made and why, and what changes other have made that you disagree with, and why. List the sources you feel support these changes clearly, please, and mention whether they are already cited in the article or not. Please do not make accusations of improper behavior, confine yourself to discussion what should or should not be in the article, in accordance with the reliable sources and with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I see that there have been several disputes over that article in the past. Articles about that area of the world are often quite controversial, and it is best to attempt to avoid conflict here by sticking strictly to questions of what should be in the article and why. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:37, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh in future, please use wiki-links to refer to articles here when possible. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:37, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you have extensive citations to my four articles on Governor Ronald Reagan, Speaker Bob Moretti, Jeese "Big Daddy" Unruh and CA Politics and welfare reform in the 1970's, and also numerous citations to my book and articles on the Oklahoma Socialist Party, its leaders, and the Green Corn Rebellion, but DO NOT give me an article. One was proposed once by one of my students, but your reviewer was so slipshod that they did not see any of the prominent articles on Governor Reagan, a world-historical figure. How Come? 65.93.200.230 (talk) 16:40, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, unregistered user. Many authors of reliable sources cited here on Wikipedia do not have Articles about them. For a Wikipedia article it is usually more important what others have written about a subject than what the subjet has personally written and published. See WP:NACADEMIC, notability, and Wikipedia's golden rule.

Also it is helpful if you provide links to the specific articles you mention here, and state the specific citation(s) you have in mind.

Moreover, use of terms such as "slipshod " does not encourage others to help you. Wikipedia is created by volunteers, the vast majority of whom are doing their best without pay and with limited recognition to improve the project. They may well make errors. Some misunderstand guidelines and policies. But please assume good faith. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:54, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is there sustained coverage of you as an individual in independent secondary sources? Many writers are widely used as sources but do not have their own article because while they themselves write, what we require is independent sources writing about them as a person. GMG^talk 16:57, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seconding the statement that what a person publishes can be a reliable source for a Wikipedia article without the person themselves qualifying as Wikipedia-notable. David notMD (talk) 18:42, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Two more things: First, as an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is a tertiary source; we primarily summarize what reliable secondary sources have written about a subject, with very limited info (some basic biographical, etc.) allowed to come from primary sources (in this case, like the works written by the subject themself). Consequently, if (as I suspect) there are few or no such secondary sources with significant qualifying (i.e., reliable and independent) material, we have nothing on which to base an article.

Second, an article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 22:50, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am trying to publish my draft on Michael K. Hole: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Michael_K._Hole

I'm wondering how I do that. Thanks! Victoria7yu (talk) 18:25, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria7yu Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I have added the appropriate information to allow you to submit the draft for review. If you have been paid to make your contributions or represent Dr. Hole, you must make the required paid editing declaration. 331dot (talk) 18:48, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per notes on your Talk page, you must either declare paid or state not paid on your User page before submitting the draft. And answer question about you taking the photo that is with the draft. David notMD (talk) 18:51, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My draft article Pomogailo Anatoliy unfortunately has been declined. I have a question - why are the references not enough for Wikipedia? They do show the texts of publications concerning the subject of the article. In addition, the reference to the web-site "math-net.ru", the reference to the web-site of the Russian Foundation for Basic Research, the reference to the web-site "lifelib.ru" and the reference to the "Intellectual system of the thematic research of the scientometric data" - all of them are the independant and publidhed sources of information in Russia concerning the subject of the article. All these web-sites are the international data bases of the articles and details about their authors. The subject matter of the article is the Soviet and Russian scientist - so, the information about his articles are the main part of the references. I do not understand - why are they not reliable and not enough for Wikipedia? Could ypu please clarify it? So that I could fix the draft of the article. Looking forward to your reply. Thank you! Kind regards, Rhodium66 (talk) 20:29, 29 August 2020 (UTC)Rhodium66 Rhodium66 (talk) 20:29, 29 August 2020 (UTC)Rhodium66[reply]

Courtesy, it is at Draft:Pomogailo Anatoliy. David notMD (talk) 20:37, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Rhodium66. English Wikipedia requires (especially for a biography of a living person) that each statement in the article be cited to the particular source that supports it; and that nearly all the sources be independent of the subject. Wikipedia is basically not interested in what the subject has said, done, or published except insofar as people wholly unconnected with the subject have chosen to publish about the subject and their activities. Please see REFB and CSMN. --ColinFine (talk) 20:50, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm Aziz. I added an article about myself. After a few hours, my article was rejected. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Aziz_Karimov Why my article was rejected? Thank you for your attention. Ezop2676 (talk) 20:42, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ezop2676, and welcome to the Teahouse.

• First of all, your draft was not "rejected", but rather "declined". This is a subtle but important difference. "Declined" means "this isn't ready yet, please improve it and we will look at it again". "Rejected" means "This will never be a valid article. Don't waste your own time by working on it, or our time by submitting it for review."
• Secondly, the decline message told you what the problem is: This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Please read the linked guideline and policy pages, and also notability, Wikipedia's Golden Rule, WP:NBIO, and our guideline on autobiography.
• Lets take a quick look at the sources now cited in the article:
  • The flickr page simply shows that you have posted a photo to the web. Anyone can do that. It does not show that other people have taken note of you in any way.
  • The .yarat.az page does not appear to say anything about you at all. (source links should go directly to the place where supporting info may be found.) But if your name is somewhere further down the list of those short bios of participants, those appear to be written by the participants themselves, and so do not count at all for notability.
  • The contact.az page shows that Aziz Karimov won an award from the Photographers Association of Azerbaijan in 2013. But how significant was that award? The accompanying text is not at all significant coverage.
  • The /frittord.no page shows another award, and is of soemwhat greater value, but is still not really significant coverage.

You should include at least three independent reliable sources that show significant coverage for this to be approved. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:47, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A suggestion, it would help people to know if the city they are viewing has a cinema or not. Yes, I know, I can go to Google Maps and search, but just listing the fact, not the name, of a cinema in the city would be helpful.

Thank you, Ron 173.243.77.145 (talk) 22:26, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but Wikipedia is not a directory of such things – that's the purpose and specialty of Google Maps and various topic-specific directory sites. One good reason is that it is really not maintainable. The current crisis is a perfect object lesson. Many theaters (and theatres) have closed and will not re-open. Based on experience, it's not terribly likely that editors will go around and remove the ones that are no more or mark them closed. In general, people are in a big hurry to add things to Wikipedia, and largely dis-interested in maintaining that information through their life cycle. Over time, that's a recipe for a big pile of poor-quality information. Instead, Wikipedia wants to take a longer-term view, with durable, maintainable information. Places that have historical significance, like the Globe Theatre, are a good example of information that is suitable. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 23:08, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In Wikipedia, Bob Hawke's fourth ministry is named as the 57th government of Australia and we are told that the next government is Paul Keating's first ministry. Yet Keating's first ministry is named as the 59th government of Australia. Surely Keating's first ministry should be number 58, and all the rest of the governments, up to Morrison's second ministry, are therefore currently named in Wikipedia with the wrong number. Morrison's second ministry should, taking a line through Hawke's fourth ministry, be number 72, not number 73. What happened to number 59, or is this simply an error which needs to be corrected?  CarinaBoy (talk) 22:55, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CarinaBoy: Please try to provide a link to the article you refer to when posting here. Hawke Government does not have 57 in it and you have no other contributions for me to be able to figure out which article you are discussing. Also, the talk page of an article is generally the best place to discuss a particular article with editors who are knowledgeable and interested in the subject. For example, in the case of Hawke Government, that would be Talk:Hawke Government. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 23:14, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can I become admin in Wikipedia? 182.75.63.86 (talk) 00:38, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I added a header to your question. If you create an account, and work hard, make a large number of good contributing edits over an extended period of time, and build a good reputation, and show that you need the admin tools, then you can apply at WP:RFA. Almost everything at Wikipedia can be done without being an admin, and you should consider it more of a cleanup job than anything else. RudolfRed (talk) 01:06, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Hello, unregistered editor. Eventually, yes, if you work at it and have the needed skills. Anytime soon, no.

One must be a registered editor with over 500 edits even to apply. But I don't think i have ever seen a person approved with less than several thousand edits and 2-3 years of active editing, and more than that is more common. An admin should have practical experience in several different areas of Wikipedia, and be recognized by many as doing work that improves the project. A person thought of as doing work in order to become an admin is not nearly as likely to be approved. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:10, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IP: Why do you want to be an admin? You'll be asked to answer that question (and many more) and come up with a good reason the community should grant and trust you with tools than can easily be mis-used. You may be mistaken as to the nature of Wikipedia. Please see WP:NOT – being an admin here is nothing like being one on social media or forums. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 01:36, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have recently received an e-mail requesting that I send authorisation and confirmation for two photographs placed on the page Caroline Freeman College, Otago. I sent the necessary information to the requested e-mail address but it bounced back to me as undeliverable. Any advice? CFCWarden (talk) 01:18, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CFCWarden: To what address did you send the email? Please copy and paste the address from the copy in your sent items folder. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 01:38, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When I visited the Bengali language article a couple of days backs, I found that all the images in the first sections were getting pushed down, no matter where they are being placed, left or right. And it was leaving a lot of white space between two sections.

After a discussion here and some attempts to fix it by AlanM1, the whitespace and the pushing down of images remained. So I tried to do something about it. Removed one video, placed all the images in the top sections to left. Now the whitespace is gone. But all the images in the top section are still pushed down, and they are now in a bunch near the end of the top sections. None of them are showing in the position where they were placed.

Because of that it is currently not possible to put any image in the history section to show beside the relevant text. BTW, I tried to put another image in another article and that got pushed downwards as well.

What is the problem? And how can it be fixed? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 01:39, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]