Wikipedia:Teahouse

I had earlier asked how to submit an RfA application, but it was never answered properly.

Frozen902 (talk) 19:47, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1229 § Admin For what I assume they're mentioning. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 19:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, an editor there suggested WP:RFA, which links to WP:RFA/N. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:03, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Frozen902 as fellow editors mentioned in the previous thread, you don't fulfill the minimum requirement for participation in an RfA, which is to have an extended confirmed account, that means 500 edits and 30 days of activity. If you want to be an admin as you state in your profile, I suggest you start working on Wikipedia as an editor, find areas in which you enjoy contributing, and learn the various policies and mechanisms. Broc (talk) 06:50, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there something that you want to do, that you're thinking requires admin tools? -- D'n'B-t -- 07:50, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just would like to know how. I know I can't yet. I just want to know how to do it when I get to 500 edits. Frozen902 (talk) 19:50, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst the link has already been provided, there are instructions at WP:RFA/SELFNOM. I'm still curious as to what you want that for. -- D'n'B-t -- 19:55, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When describing a bill that was introduced in a prior Congress and not approved, is it better to say the bill "would do" such and such, or the bill "would have done" such and such? Can bills sit for years and get passed without being reintroduced? Seananony (talk) 04:35, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grammatically, "would have done" is the correct tense for the circumstance you describe, because the bill was rejected and therefore cannot ever "do" what it "would have". As for your second question, while the rules may vary by locale, in the U.S. Congress, bills expire at the end of each annual legislative session and must be reintroduced before they could possibly be passed. Al Begamut (talk) 17:20, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Seananony (talk) 23:31, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Have used Template {{collapse top|}} {{collapse bottom}} in nested fashion (two collapse templates in one collapse template -purpose keeping content well organized and presentable) at a user sandbox talk page. (sandbox talk page history). User:Louis P. Boog communicated me, "attempted to add a cite to Proposed additions of text 1 and now it won't open.", "Correction. checking the history I found earlier Proposed additions of text 1 do not open either! Can you fix this??"

1) Can some one well versed with 'Collapse Templates' help test and confirm if 'Collapse Templates' are functioning properly to you.

2) From the talk page history I did not get what difficulty User:Louis P. Boog may be facing, may be some one can help. Bookku (talk) 08:01, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see what happens if I nest collapse templates.

Yup, it all works. I'll have a look at Louis P. Boog's request. Maproom (talk) 07:56, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marking as resolved as of now since Louis P. Boog communicated at their user talk that they are not facing issue at their sandbox talk as of now. Many thanks.

Resolved

Bookku (talk) 08:28, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks at Maproom, editing the thread to keep it live till Louis P. Boog visits here or problem gets sorted out. Bookku (talk) 13:11, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you Maproom --Louis P. Boog (talk) 01:11, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested for article protections before, and sometimes an admin would say "Semi-protected indefinately, or Extended-Confirmed-protected" followed by "Will log as a CTOPS action". what does CTOPS mean? 74.14.6.233 (talk) 17:57, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CTOPS is shorthand for Wikipedia:Contentious topics. These topics have editing restrictions to prevent disruption. Cullen328 (talk) 18:03, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When you see an unfamiliar acronym on Wikipedia, you can often find a page about it by searching for the acronym prefixed with "WP:", like this WP:CTOPS. CodeTalker (talk) 18:04, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And often at the Wikipedia glossary. Mathglot (talk) 05:36, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Avatar: The Last Airbender - Quest for Balance Ss0jse (talk) 18:14, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ss0jse, you should start, by writing some (reliably sourced) paragraphs. 27.134.45.168 (talk) 20:38, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ss0jse. Well done for starting with finding sources. Unfortunately, none of your sources are of any use for the essential first step of writing an article, which is demonstrating that the subject meets Wikipedia's criterai for notability (this is the first step, because if you cannot find any suitable sources, then you will know that there is no point in spending any more time on and article, as it will never be accepted).

The sources you need to establish notability must all meet all three of the criteria in WP:42: they must be reliably published, independent of the subject, and contain significant coverage of the subject.

The sort of sources you require in the case of a game are usually reviews, but they might also be serious articles about the game or its development. Links to sites that sell or distribute the game have no place in the article under any circumstances.

Remember that Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. If you can't find several such sources, then there is no point in trying to continue, as you will be wasting your own and other people's time. ColinFine (talk) 20:58, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've started a taskforce at WP:WikiProject Anthropology/Oral tradition taskforce and I'm struggling to understand how tagging works. I followed the instructions to put |oral-tradition-task-force=yes in the wikiproject banner at oral tradition but it isn't showing up at Category:Oral tradition taskforce articles Kowal2701 (talk) 18:17, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kowal2701. Are you referring to the instructions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthropology/Oral tradition taskforce#Tagging and assessment? It was yourself who wrote that. {{WikiProject Anthropology}} has to be edited to actually accept the parameter. I haven't made task force edits to WikiProject banners but you could try looking at a working parameter like Philmont-task-force at {{WikiProject Scouting}}. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:30, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just used the template for new wikiprojects. Thank you, I'll make a requested edit at {WikiProject Anthropology}, have a good day Kowal2701 (talk) 20:35, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I’ve added the parameter, how do I make them go in Category:Oral tradition taskforce articles Kowal2701 (talk) 06:54, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kowal2701: You only added mention of the parameter to the documentation.[1] The parameter has to be added to {{WikiProject Anthropology}} with code to process it. I'm not making the code. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:35, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PrimeHunter sorry, I'm struggling with this, how do I access the template code? Help:Template says you can edit templates in the template space, but I can only find documentations rather than the original thing Kowal2701 (talk) 16:02, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kowal2701: Template:WikiProject Anthropology is only semi-protected. You should be able to edit it like any other page by clicking an Edit tab at top of the page. Did you instead click edit next to the "Template documentation" heading lower down? That only edits the documentation page. I haven't examined which code is needed to make a task force parameter. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:56, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's so silly of me, sorry, I'll learn off of other pages like the scouting one you linked, thank you Kowal2701 (talk) 17:13, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PrimeHunter I've put the code in at Template:WikiProject Anthropology and it does work, for instance Talk:Oral tradition says it's within the scope of oral tradition taskforce, but it isn't showing up in Category:Oral tradition taskforce articles despite using the same code as other templates use Kowal2701 (talk) 17:36, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kowal2701: I have made a null edit of Talk:Oral tradition. That's sometimes needed to update categories right away when a used template has been edited. It's listed in the category now. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:57, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your help Kowal2701 (talk) 06:10, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How can i insert a photo to my page? Encyclomason (talk) 21:06, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome. The answer depends on the copyright of the photo; Did you personally take the image with a camera(i.e. didn't take it from the internet), or does it explicitly have a copyright that allows for reuse by anyone for any purpose with attribution? 331dot (talk) 21:16, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Encyclomason, and welcome to the Teahouse.

If you're talking about Draft:Accidents and incidents involving the Boeing 777, I suggest you don't worry about pictures at this stage, but concentrate on getting your draft into a state where it can be accepted as an article. At present it has not one single source cited, and therefore cannot possibly be accepted as an article.

But even if you find and sources for each item you list, I'm not convinced that this would be accepted as an article.

First of all, it largely duplicates the existing section Boeing 777#Accidents and incidents - if there are incidents missing from that section, it might be better to add them in, rather than making a new article.

Secondly, normally articles are accepted only when the subject of the article meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and that would require sources which were about "accidents involving the 777" as a topic, not just about individual accidents. Having said that, it is possible that an article like this could be treated as a stand-alone list - I am not very familiar with the requirements for that kind of article.

But before spending time trying to create an article which largely duplicates a section of an existing article, I strongly advise you to open a discussion on Talk:Boeing 777, and get consensus for the idea of creating a separate article. ColinFine (talk) 22:23, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey all! I was wondering if someone could give a quick look over of my draft before I submit it for review. Thank you for your time!Draft:Eiji Yoshikawa (boxer)

GgDionne (talk) 21:30, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GgDionne: Your referencing style is unacceptable, with external links in the body of the article that are repeated and identified in the "References" section. For the way to create proper references, see WP:REFB and the fuller information at WP:CS. Since you cite some sources more than once, note in particular WP:REPEATCITE. Deor (talk) 22:01, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, thank you! GgDionne (talk) 23:47, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the place where I can start making a draft for a potential page? 2603:6010:8B00:44FF:5F4D:2540:71A7:3643 (talk) 00:35, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:DRAFT. Ahri Boy (talk) 00:49, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Registering for an account is useful but not a requirement. Smart for putting in months improving existing articles before wanting to create a new article. David notMD (talk) 02:27, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the appropriate place to ask about the reliability of Investor's Business Daily in general and particularly a specific article? Mcljlm (talk) 02:44, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. Try WP:RSN. 27.134.45.168 (talk) 02:45, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On the Special:BookSources page individual libraries & library systems are listed to source the books. I'd like the Timberland Regional Library system added under Washington State in the United States under Libraries. The library system covers Grays Harbor, Lewis, Mason, Pacific, and Thurston counties within the state. (i haven't edited before and don't know how to work with protected pages so i'm chucking the request here!) EndDragon438 (talk) 02:49, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@EndDragon438: The master copy of the page is at Wikipedia:Book sources and you may make your request at Wikipedia talk:Book sources. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:42, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thanks!! i'll move this over there then. EndDragon438 (talk) 21:15, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm currently editing the article Katong and at one point, there was a plot of land between Sandy Point (present day Tanjong Rhu) and Deep Water Point (present day Katong) designated as a shipyard. I want to create a redirect link from Sandy Point to Tanjong Rhu but I can't figure out how to do so and the article redirection help page wasn't that helpful in my opinion. I'm on mobile view, by the way. Imbluey2 (talk) 03:10, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done by Ahri Boy (talk) 03:17, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HTCAP would be very helpful for you. Ahri Boy (talk) 03:20, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have just submitted a new page about the author Evelyn Toynton. One the one hand the notice 'Published' comes up, but I thought it would be subject to some editorial control first. When do I hear from anyone about this? Thanks Michalsuz Michalsuz2 (talk) 03:57, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In this context, "published" means no more than "visible to the public (if they know where to look)". 27.134.45.168 (talk) 04:08, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michalsuz2, your draft User:Michalsuz2/sandbox is entirely unreferenced and cannot possibly be accepted without a major rewrite. It looks like you are writing the article backward. By far the best way to write an acceptable Wikipedia is to first identify the reliable, independent sources that devote significant coverage to the topic, and only then start writing prose that summarizes what those sources say about the topic. Please read Wikipedia:Writing Wikipedia articles backward. Cullen328 (talk) 04:20, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I just have to go back to the places where I found the info - which are reliable and independent - and list them.

That is how I did it, forgetting that the references are IMPORTANT!

All good, shall get on to it. Michalsuz2 (talk) 05:50, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did standard formatting. Per above, all facts need to be referenced. See WP:42 for description of the types of references needed to establish notability. David notMD (talk) 10:47, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I followed everyone's instructions at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_1229#c-ColinFine-20240715093500-Junurita-20240715084300. But i failled.Someone please help me.Thank a lot😅. Junurita (talk) 05:40, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Junurita I have added to your Userpage a few userboxes that I have on my own Userpage. Feel free to remove and change them for ones that you find relevant to yourself. Use the 'Edit Source' button to use our Source Editor, as it's much harder to change templates like these using Visual Editor.

You might like to look through our gallery of pre-existing Userboxes at WP:Userboxes/Galleries, or look through the ones dedicated to the Physical Sciences at WP:Userboxes/Science/Physical.

Using the Source Editor, copy the complete template text (including the double curly brackets either side). Then paste it in between the {{userboxtop}} and {{userboxbottom}} templates. Preview your edits before properly publishing them to your Userpage. Hope this helps. Regards Nick Moyes (talk) 07:57, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much Junurita (talk) 09:59, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've been writing an article about a speedskater in the late 19th century who has made a historical impact to Dutch speedskating for women. The texts are partly translated based on the Frisian text of Wikipedia page and partly based on established newspaper articles in Dutch from 1974 and 1922 and I have not added any own feelings or comments, just used the newspaper articles text as a basis. It is not accepted and reason was given it looks like an advertisement and that the references are now acceptable. Any tips, how I can improve it? Draft:Anke Beenen. Mmbeenen (talk) 08:26, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look again. Would be better to tag {{promising draft}} on your draft. Ahri Boy (talk) 08:43, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks! Added that and rewrote some of the words that were used to make it more neutral.

Also one reference was changed into a footnote, hopefully it is improved now :) Mmbeenen (talk) 09:04, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now it's time to resubmit later. Ahri Boy (talk) 11:44, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Thanks for the comments, I worked on those still and will resubmit soon :) Mmbeenen (talk) 12:24, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While the draft at the time it was tagged did need some extra work, it in on way read like an "advertisement". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:33, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The articles on the departments of France are still kinda outdated (mostly the 'Politics' section) and many departmental council articles are pending to be made (See Template:Departmental Councils of France). Since there are 101 of these, and the next elections are in 2027, I think there should be a sort of task force on this topic. I've asked this in WP:FR but got no response. Excellenc1 (talk) 11:12, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Excellenc1, is what you write immediately above a request, or a complaint, or what? -- Hoary (talk) 11:16, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A request. Excellenc1 (talk) 11:34, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Excellenc1: You posted in the correct place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject France/Archive 7#Creation of a Departments Task Force. Most posts to that WikiProject get no replies. That's commmon for many WikiProjects. It's only meaningful to make a WikiProject task force if there are multiple interested editors. Otherwise you can just work on the articles on your own. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:54, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone help provide further thoughts on what might need to be added/edited to this article I have drafted: Draft:Peter Hawkins

Many thanks,

Dan Danrydehawkins (talk) 11:17, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes: references to reliable sources, completely independent of Hawkins, that provide intelligent descriptions of or commentary on Hawkins and his work. -- Hoary (talk) 12:01, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I feel like this is already the case? Can you point to exactly where this is failing. Much appreciated! Danrydehawkins (talk) 15:02, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you related to Peter Hawkins?

You've done a great job summarizing his activities and work- but not significant coverage of him in independent reliable sources that describe what they see as important/significant/influential about him, how he is a notable author or more broadly a a notable person. Most of your sources seem to be associated with him. 331dot (talk) 15:36, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked the first five sources cited, and they're all written by Hawkins or his employers. We need independent sources. And I while I get the impression from your draft that he's very good at expressing his views, it would help to have evidence that people sometimes listen to them. Maproom (talk) 20:49, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to report sockpuppetry. Courcelles reverted this edit by Inteqaam and Barbardo, sockpuppets of Arsi786 and the same has been added back by Fazzyk; see this diff. With this diff you can see that he has removed what Barbardo another sockpuppet of Arsi786 had objected to earlier on the Talk page of the same article - see this. Please report him/her for sockpuppetry, request chwck user and revert his edits.-Sockbuster1 (talk) 12:27, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Report sockpuppetry at Sockpuppet Investigations. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 13:08, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sungodtemple: That page is semi-protected, so please do the needful (reporting this sockpuppet)13:21, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(The OP has apparently been able to submit the report themself - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Arsi786) - 57.140.16.8 (talk) 14:22, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I need to find the name of some templates 5tgiilytyjn2 (talk) 12:36, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 5tgiilytyjn2, and welcome to the Teahouse.

I'm afraid that I don't understand what you are asking. What activity are you talking about? Editing? Searching? Why do you want to backspace and then insert the same letter? And what has this to do with names of templates? ColinFine (talk) 13:29, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

someone tried order something from muscle.com on my bank card. but muscle.com my laptop says it does not come. 2603:8000:3100:B41E:8573:56C7:B4A7:40AC (talk) 15:41, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello IP, this is an encyclopedia. I suggest you contact your bank or card issuer for concerns about online purchases. --ARoseWolf 15:45, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Can you tell me if these qualify as "notable" sources in a technology solution article? Telecomreseller.com articles, informational tech podcasts, regional newspapers such as Arkansasbusiness.com, or Siliconangle.com.

Please reply to the VisualEditor.

Thank you. Stella Worth (talk) 16:15, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome. I'm not sure why you need a reply with the Visual Editor; it shouldn't matter. (I find it hard to use) Podcasts aren't normally considered reliable sources as they usually lack editorial control and fact checking, but some podcasts might. 331dot (talk) 16:30, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Stella Worth (talk) 16:34, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, Stella Worth, there is a very big difference between a source being notable and a source being reliable. Notable means eligible for a Wikipedia article. The Nazi propaganda newspaper Der Stürmer is notable but completely unreliable. A book on a niche topic published by a university press may be completely reliable for use as a reference, but not notable enough to be the the subject of a Wikipedia article about the book. Cullen328 (talk) 17:52, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just recently found out that anyone who wants to can follow my Talk page and User page. Is there a way for me to find out which editors are doing that? Can you also explain why someone would want to follow my User and Talk pages. To me it feels like stalking, although when I used that language to the person 'watching' my pages, he/she was insulted. I need this explained to me, and I want to know who is watching me. Thanks DaringDonna (talk) 17:11, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DaringDonna Wikipedia is an open project that relies on collaboration. that's why we have Userpages and associated talk pages. You can (as with any page) click on the tools menu for "Page information" when looking at your own userpage to discover it has "less than 30 page watchers". That's the only information you can get: to respect the privacy of those watching. Your privacy is respected in that you should only post on your Userpage things you are happy to share (see WP:UPYES). There are templates such as {{talk page stalker}} and (talk page watcher) that some editors use to admit they are looking at other editor's pages. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:31, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DaringDonna. Adding editors to one's watchlist is commonplace. For example, 641 editors have my userpage and user talk page on their watchlists. I have 15 years of experience and am an administrator. This is a collaborative project and productive editors look out for each other. At least a hundred times over the years, I have woken up to discover that someone has vandalized my pages while I was asleep, and that some administrator watching my pages has reverted the vandalism and blocked the vandal. If the person who noticed is not an administrator, they will revert the vandalism and report to a noticeboard. I check my watchlist frequently, and if I see something out of the ordinary happening on another editor's pages, I go there and bring things under control. I would not worry at all about your pages being watched. If a malicious stalker starts bothering you, present the evidence and they will be blocked. Cullen328 (talk) 17:37, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both Cullen328 and Michael D. Turnbull

I choose to watch articles, but not individuals. However, Wikipedia has a Mentor program, in which some new article registrants are randomly assigned to an editor. If an editor is commenting on your User or Talk pages, you can ask on their Talk page if that person is an assigned Mentor. You can ask to be delisted from their Mentees. Last, if an editor has chosen to watch an article and sees that you made an edit that either was already reverted, or in their opinion needs to be reverted (for example, vandalism), that editor may choose to look at your other recent edits, including your User and Talk. David notMD (talk) 21:26, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

my article tagged article of deletion please guide what can i do to prevent it, what changes is required in my article please help. Naqqash6 (talk) 18:25, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

this is the link of article (Tammy Tran) please help Naqqash6 (talk) 18:27, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not seek assistance in multiple forums. This duplicates effort. 331dot (talk) 18:29, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ok thanks Naqqash6 (talk) 19:10, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Wikipedia community,

I am seeking help with moving my sandbox page to a new title. I've tried to find the "Move" option as instructed, but I couldn't locate it. I'm logged in with my account and have edited on Wikipedia before.

Could someone please guide me through the process or check if there are any restrictions preventing me from moving the page? The current title of my sandbox is User:2toastygram/Sandbox, and I would like to rename it to User:2toastygram/Toasty chat: Report a topic.

Any assistance or advice would be greatly appreciated. Thank you!

Best regards,

2toasty (Chat!)

2toastygram Your account is too new to be able to move pages. 331dot (talk) 18:40, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do it for me 2toasty (Chat!)

You have a page for people to communicate with you, your user talk page, Why do you want to create another? 331dot (talk) 18:48, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To report innapropriate topics such as profanity and discrimination. 2toasty (Chat!)

I'm curious as to why you want those issues reported to you personally, when we already have WP:ANI to report behavior issues. Profanity is not censored on Wikipedia, but if it is used as personal attacks it may be reported to WP:AIV. 331dot (talk) 18:56, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To make my chat safe 2toasty (CHAT!) 23:27, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Earlier submissions of mine on the Talk page of UPtv were made without a template. Helpful editors here in the Teahouse pointed this out. They helped correct the template on two earlier submissions:

- one related to UPtv's 20th anniversary ended up being declined due to promotional language (their explanation made sense and I understand)

- another was a very small non-controversial info-box change that is now in the queue and they suggested it will be approved. I recognize wiki editors are volunteers and what might feel urgent to those submitting a change is certainly not as urgent when considering the fact that wiki editors are moderating an *entire encyclopedia.* - with that said, it would be helpful to know the average length of time it may take for edits in a queue (when non-controversial, correct, etc.) to be reflected on a live page. I'm not sure if a ballpark figure is known, or if there are places on Wikipedia where the average time is listed and can be monitored. It would just be helpful.

Beyond that, I have since made one more submission. I am hopeful that instead of needing an editor to add a template to the submission, that I have used the correct one from the start. Can this be confirmed? The newest submission was titled: Uplifting Entertainment.

Thank you for keeping Wikipedia the great resource that it is. And for your help! Austinchrps (talk) 18:43, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kazikhun, Fazzyk and Qibtimagy have been confirmed to be sockpuppets. I now request someone to revert their edits. It will be a challenge for me as it involves multiple edits, some of which are as old as two months ago. For example, this, this, this and this edit are 4 consecutive edits done 2 months ago and all of those (apart from many other edits) need to be reverted.18:51, 29 July 2024 (UTC) Sockbuster1 (talk) 18:51, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See this, the SockPuppet Investigation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sockbuster1 (talk • contribs) 19:02, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sockbuster1, it is not necessary for sockpuppet edits to be reverted. Like all other edits on Wikipedia, you should revert them only if they are making the encyclopedia worse - for example introducing unsourced information, removing sourced information, using multiple accounts to sway a discussion, or vandalizing. Sockpuppet edits aren't automatically bad just because they've been made by a sockpuppet. You can read WP:SOCKSTRIKE for more information, but please exercise caution so that you do not cause a disruption. StartGrammarTime (talk) 00:31, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I am reaching out with a great request for help in posting a new article on Wikipedia. Currently, it has been rejected, but I do not see a list of things to correct as is usually done. The assistance of an experienced Wikipedia editor would be invaluable. I am sending a link to my sandbox: User:Joanna.sokolowska/sandbox

I'll really appreciate your help.

wiki/User:Joanna.sokolowska/sandbox Joanna.sokolowska (talk) 19:05, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio detector permalinks for reference: comparison with NASA.gov (PD as a official government webpage but so much copying may need better attribution) and Astrobiology.com obit (if not copyvio then close paraphrasing that should probably be resolved first, even before any conflict of interest or sourcing issues). Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 19:23, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Joanna, and welcome to the Teahouse. Your draft has been declined, not rejected, which means that the reviewer thinks there is a possibility that it can be improved.

The problem is that there are no inline citations: see WP:REFB. There are however inline external links, which are not permitted: see WP:EL.

Please be aware that Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources.

Creating an article starts with finding reliable, independent, sources which contain significant coverage of the subject, and then proceeds by summarising (in your own words) what those sources say. Nothing written or published by him or his associates or institutions is relevant at this stage.

More generally, My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft.. ColinFine (talk) 19:38, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please also note there is an equally poorly sourced draft here Draft:Andrew Pohorille. Theroadislong (talk) 19:44, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy link to archived Teahouse discussion on that draft: Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1229#Please help me with an article. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 22:19, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per above, do not resubmit until you have removed all of the hyperlinks and added properly formatted references. (Some of the URLs may be useful as references). Second, as his wife, you are required to state this on your User page as a conflict of interest (see WP:COI). You are allowed to create and submit a draft while having a declared COI. Third, articles about academics often list selected works, but this contributes nothing toward establishing notability. What is required as references are what people have written/published about him. David notMD (talk) 22:00, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drafts at User:Joanna.sokolowska/sandbox and Draft:Andrew Pohorille and User:Aleksandra6617/sandbox. Are all of these your efforts? Continues with one and ask that the other two be deleted. David notMD (talk) 15:15, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I am trying to post a new article (Draft:Mark Liu - Wikipedia) on Wikipedia which was rejected due to insufficient notability. I have added several sources and details to demonstrate more notability but want to check with more experienced editors to see if this would now meet the notability criteria before re-submitting for review, and any advice you might give to improve it further. Thank you in advance for any assistance! Thecatch33 (talk) 19:25, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Thecatch33, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid you are having the usual experience of editors who try to create an article before spending time learning how Wikipedia works. My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft.

I haven't looked in details at the sources you cite, but on a quick look it seems to me that hardly any of them are relevant to establishing notability. Nothing published by Liu or TSMC will help, nothing that is based on an interview or press release will help, nothing that is about TSMC with no more than a sentence or two about Liu will help.

You need to evaluate each source against the triple criteria in WP:42, and if it does not meet all three of them, it will do nothing to establish that Liu meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability. Unless you can find several sources that do meet the criteria, then you should give up, and not spend any more time on this draft.

One more point: when somebody creates an account on Wikipedia and immediately starts writing an article about somebody in business, it is often the case that the editor has a connection with that business. What is your connection, if any, with Liu and TSMC? ColinFine (talk) 19:49, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @ColinFine, I appreciate your insights. I understand your point that anything regarding TSMC is not necessarily a reflection on Mark Liu as a notable person and that any articles/sources need to be specifically about him. I did include a few such things, but your response leads me to believe I still need more.

As far as my connection to Mark Liu and TSMC, I have none beyond the fact that, like him, I am ethnically Taiwanese. I do understand the suspicion regarding a new account and such, and sadly, I also understand there's not much I can do to ameliorate that. The truth is, though, I did some research on him some years back and at that time he had a Wiki page. When I searched him again recently and found it was gone, I decided on a whim to try to recreate it and build experience editing Wikipedia.

If it gets too difficult, then I will indeed give up as you say. We all have to start somewhere, though, and your recommendation to start with making improvements notwithstanding, I'm now invested in this so will try to see if I can finish it! Thecatch33 (talk) 20:20, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to the little I can tell, his page was written by someone who was engaging in undisclosed paid editing and had done so on many occasions, leading to many if not all of their written articles being deleted. Don't let that dissuade you at all of course if this is a subject you have an interest on writing about and if you can find works that others have written on him. I found a couple articles on the Wikipedia Library that mention him in some capacity, so they may be useful to you or someone who has access: [2] [3] [4] Reconrabbit 20:38, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the encouragement and direction @Reconrabbit! Glad to know a bit more about why it was deleted in the first place. Frankly, it doesn't surprise me that Mark Liu and/or TSMC may have paid someone to publish the initial article. Thanks also for pointing me to the Wikipedia Library, although it looks like I still don't yet qualify for access. I will endeavor to get access soon in the future, though! Thecatch33 (talk) 22:29, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thecatch33, this is written in a strangely opaque style. Sample: Liu was also the architect behind the global expansion of TSMC's manufacturing footprint beyond Taiwan, initiating landmark fab buildouts in the United States, Japan, and Germany. I think that this just means Liu also planned the expansion of TSMC's manufacturing beyond Taiwan to the United States, Japan, and Germany; however, I'm not sure and of course am open to being proven wrong. Feel free to rephrase differently -- but in a way designed not to impress the reader but instead to inform the reader. -- Hoary (talk) 21:43, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback @Hoary. I'll be honest, I made it a bit more "impressive" sounding in the most recent revision of the draft because I thought that would improve the "notability" aspect. Now that I understand better what determines notability, I will move back to the more neutral tone I had in the initial draft I submitted. Thecatch33 (talk) 22:34, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm editing the sales section for the global smash hit "Baby" by Justin Bieber ft. Ludacris and I'm trying to make the US sales figure on the page show this symbol at the end: ‡. In the certifications table, the sales figures for Brazil, the UK, Australia, Denmark, Germany, Italy and Spain have that figure and when I click "edit source" there are different id numbers written in the sections for those figures and I don't know where to get those from. Maybe that could be how to get the symbol. I've successfully edited other pages but I'm stuck on this one. Somebody please respond Blooey (talk) 19:26, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Blooey, and welcome to the Teahouse. The template in question is documented, and the significance of its parameters are described, at Template:Certification Table Entry. I notice that there is different information for the different countries there, and it is possible that what you are trying to do is not supported (I haven't looked in detail, and I may be wrong). If you can't find what you need, you might try asking at Template talk:Certification Table Entry (certainly if you decide that the template needs something added to it); or alternatively on the talk page of one of the WikiProjects mentioned at the top of [Talk:Baby (Justin Bieber song)]]. ColinFine (talk) 19:57, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My article is now finished and I would like to make it live in Wikipedia. How do I name the page and move it to the mainspace? Inigo.novales (talk) 22:13, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I've added the appropriate information to allow you to submit the draft for review. New accounts cannot directly create articles. I would suggest using the Article Wizard to create drafts; doing so automatically provides the means to submit them. 331dot (talk) 22:20, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft is now at Draft:Robert T. Sharp. -- Hoary (talk) 22:21, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I am having a problem with some editors that seem to be working together and dominating edits on multiple pages in reference to one subject. One account is new and making advanced edits and the other has admitted to knowing personally said account. Is this meat puppetry and what do I do next. Thanks to anyone that can help. Foristslow (talk) 22:54, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MEATPUPPETtry could be what's happening here. That link has some details of what it is and how to recognize it. If you think they might be responsive to your talking to them directly, you can obviously try that. If you aren't comfortable doing so (or have tried it and they did not improve their behavior), a "sockpuppet investigation" page is a good place to post a list of the relevant accounts and links to on-wiki evidence you have found. See WP:SPI. DMacks (talk) 04:07, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, the "Qualification" subsection in Fencing at the 2024 Summer Olympics and the lead description of Fencing at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Qualification are nearly identical. This is my first time coming across something like this and even after reading through WP guidelines, I am not sure exactly how to proceed. My best guess is remove the text in the "Qualification" subsection from the main article and just leave the link to the Qualification page, but I would love some input! RilVi (talk) 00:41, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, RilVi. Without looking at the articles, I'd suggest cutting the text in the Qualification section to a short summary and using the {{main}} template. ColinFine (talk) 09:57, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I want to understand what is the correct order of a generic sections on any page. There are some standard sections that we have on almost all the pages, such as References, See also, External links, and other things such as Categories the articles belongs to, stub info, etc. What is the correct order of those?

For instance, should the "stub" info. be after "Categories" or before? Will "External links" go after the "See also" or vice versa? Is there any standard page design for the order of such things? Please guide me to the resources where I can get more idea about this. TIA. Waonderer (talk) 01:27, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Waonderer. Much of this is covered by MOS:LAYOUT. Stub tags go after categories, and §External links goes after §See also. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:31, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thanks for quick reply. I'll go through the manual. Waonderer (talk) 01:33, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How do you edit a page so that you can have two pictures of different versions of something (eg: original version and remake)?

Gaius Helen Mohiam Randomresearchperson (talk) 01:28, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Randomresearchperson. If the two pictures are on Wikimedia Commons, then you simply link to the file pages for the images in the article. If you can be more specific in your question, you may get a more specific answer. Cullen328 (talk) 01:39, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As for Gaius Helen Mohiam, we can only use one non-free image of a fictional character in an article about that character. Cullen328 (talk) 01:42, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If other editors agree, you could add a freely licensed photo of Charlotte Rampling, the actress who payed the role most recently. Cullen328 (talk) 01:48, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328 I generally agree with you, but we do have some articles like Willy Wonka. I'm not saying it's right, but they exist. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:49, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gråbergs Gråa Sång, all that and a cosplayer too. Hmm. Cullen328 (talk) 19:44, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just created article Ethyl copper .If it have any problem ,please remind me .Thank you. Junurita (talk) 01:59, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Junurita. Interesting structure! I fixed the Wikidata link: WD lists links to each Wikipedia article, and then all of them automatically display the links to each other. But what the article really needs is reliable sources about the chemical. Not database entries that merely list the formula and structure and link back and forth among other such databases, and not patents, but journal articles, textbooks, or similar that discuss it. DMacks (talk) 04:02, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Junurita, please familiarize yourself with Template:Chem and Template:Chem2, and use one or other where appropriate. When you provide a source that's a web page, be sure to specify its author(s) (if specified), its title, the website's title, its date (if specified), etc. (Use of Template:Cite web is a good idea. If the source is reproduced from a journal, then Template:Cite journal instead; for other alternatives, see Template:Citation Style 1.) Incidentally, does ethyl copper have any known applications? -- Hoary (talk) 05:20, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. Junurita (talk) 09:38, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Junurita If the compound has no uses, then it almost certainly doesn't merit a Wikipedia article! (There are only a few exceptions.) The good news is that the Chemspider link you provided leads to the RSC's website there I can see six references under the "Articles" tab. If you take a look at these, you may find something more worth mentioning about the compound. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:20, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How do i place a picture inside a wiki page Sigmamale888 (talk) 02:29, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As described in Help:Pictures. -- Hoary (talk) 02:57, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone,

I'm Feli, a member of the Frente de Estudiantes en Lucha and I'm currently studying the Bachelor's and Professor's degrees in Philosophy. I also have a YouTube channel called 'kratofas' where I share content related to philosophy and student politics. Recently, I've been working on a project about the history and impact of the Frente de Estudiantes en Lucha, and I'd like to create a Wikipedia article on this topic.

I'm looking for guidance and help in putting together a solid draft for this article. Here are some key points I want to include:

History of the Frente de Estudiantes en Lucha: From its formation to the present day. Aims and Principles: What it seeks to achieve and what its core values ​​are. Activities and Achievements: Demonstrations, projects, and any notable impact it has had. Relationships and Collaborations: With other student groups and organizations (national and international). Current Context: The relevance and necessity of the Front in the context of the current government of Javier Milei. Any advice on how to structure the article, reliable sources I can use, and examples of other articles from similar organizations would be very helpful. I am also open to suggestions on what else I could include to make the article more complete and balanced.

Thank you in advance for your time and assistance!

Regards,

Feli Rennis970 (talk) 02:30, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Before making a draft article, make sure that you read WP:GNG, WP:RS, etc. Ahri Boy (talk) 02:40, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Rennis970, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia.

Please note that creating a new article is much more challenging than most people realise, and people who try it before they have spent time learning how Wikipedia works often have a frustrating experience. My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. (You have had an account for several months, but you have made only 12 edits, all to new drafts). ColinFine (talk) 10:09, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the following file, one out of the three revisions are non-free. The non-free revision should be hidden/deleted

If you're wondering how it ended up on here, somebody did it by mistake while trying to upload a non-free image Civic Nexus (talk) 03:03, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks for letting us know! DMacks (talk) 03:53, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone, I have a bit of a unique request. I wrote an article Sheri Yan, which was accepted through AfC. After that was accepted, I created a follow up article on Roger Uren, who is her husband. The two have been investigated by Australian intelligence services for their roles in espionage & bribery. I'm proud of having written those articles and wanted to show them to a friend: they tried to Google their names + Wikipedia. Sheri Yan popped up but Roger Uren did not, only articles where he is mentioned. Is there any reason for this? 30Four (talk) 04:24, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there @30Four! When I created my first article, this was actually one of the first things I did, only to find out that it never popped up when I did a quick Google search. Since pages can take a hot second to be stored in databases after being created, it can take a while for them to appear on a search engine.

Sidenote: I did a quick Google search on "Roger Uren", and would you look at that - he popped up. It may just be an issue with your friend's devices or error with Google itself. If you want to show a friend, just send them the article links :)

Hope this helps! :) Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 04:30, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick reply! It's interesting that he appears in your searches, his page still isn't appearing in mine. I should check back in with my friend to see what they say as well, but searching on Wikipedia was obviously more direct when he didn't pop up the first time. I read a similar post from July 27th not too far above this one where someone asked a similar question (I guess my request isn't so unique) and wanted to note that I created Uren's page back in early April, so it's over that 90 day threshold. If you're seeing it, maybe it's a problem on my end? Who knows. 30Four (talk) 04:41, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, in that case I'm not sure. Also to clarify, I just searched up "Roger Uren" and the page showed up (it was the 5th or 6th result though, which is weird)

Edit: I also looked up "Roger Uren wikipedia" because I was curious, and nothing popped up. You may need to report this at the Village pump for technical issues, as searching up "roger uren wikipedia" should pull up something. Hope this helps :) Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 04:45, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@30Four: FWIW, I've just searched for 'Roger Uren' (I'm based in the UK, in case that matters), and nothing came up on Google, at least not in the first ten pages of results.

New Wikipedia articles become available for search engine indexing when they have been reviewed by New Pages Patrol, created or accepted for publication at AfC by a user who is autopatrolled, or when 90 days have passed from publication, whichever comes first. I say this just to explain that new articles don't in most cases automatically become visible to search engines.

That said, you moved the Roger Uren draft to the main article space on 5 April, therefore although it hasn't been patrolled yet, it is well past the 90 days, and should therefore be visible, as far as I can tell. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:18, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@30Four As I mentioned below, in my experience Google may index articles once they are >90 days old and often does so when there is a subsequent edit. Roger Uren has been edited again today, so I'd expect that to happen soon. There may be some difference according to whether you search on google.com, google.co.us, google.co.uk or other version. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:12, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

... on google.co.uk it is now the first hit. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:19, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I use Template:Proposed deletion, it says "this template must be substituted". How do I format it properly? Roasted (talk) 04:56, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there @Roastedbeanz1! Did you use the "{{subst:proposed deletion|concern=put concern here}}" template? You should be able to paste that at the top of an article in the source code editor (obviously changing the "put concern here" part though) and it should automatically set up the template. Hope this helps! :) Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 04:59, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Hi, Roasted! That means to put "subst:" at the beginning of the template when you put it at the top of the article, like this: {{subst:Proposed deletion|concern=reason for proposed deletion}}

You can read more about substitution here if you like. Happy editing! Perfect4th (talk) 05:02, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little nervous to start editing, I see in a lot of the "suggested edits" articles that need to be edited to not sound like thinly veiled advertisements. If someone could give me a few articles to read that they think really follow the format a good article has so I can get the feel of the writing I'd really appreciate that. Whosiewhatsie (talk) 05:50, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Whosiewhatsie This is one of the best ways of learning Wikipedia guidelines and norms! To answer your question, it sort of depends on the topic. If the article you're looking at is connected to a WP:Wikiproject (you can check by looking at the talk page), then you can use that to find similar, high-quality articles. Most Wikiprojects (even the defunct ones) have lists of all their articles, rating by quality. For example, Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aerospace biography task force#Tagging and assessment, Wikipedia:WikiProject Socialism#Statistics, , Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Green#Assessment statistics for articles about women. If you look at those tables and click the number under "FA"-"Total" or "GA"-"Total", you'll see a list of their articles which have passed some form of peer review. If you look at B or C class articles, you get a good feeling for what the "Average" Wikipedia article should look like. I hope that helps? Sometimes Wikiprojects like to hide their assesment tables.

GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 06:24, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

that absolutely helps! I was looking for a single fish but you taught me how to fish, thank you very much. Whosiewhatsie (talk) 06:47, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Whosiewhatsie it's no problem; I'm glad you're finding it useful! And I hope you don't mind, I looked at your contributions- don't worry, you're not breaking anything by doing text edits in your sandbox. Personal sandboxes can contain pretty much anything within reason (no copyright violations or personal attacks against other editors, obviously) but other than that they're pretty much fair game! Some people use them for playing around with templates and Wiki-code, some people use them for drafting articles, and some people use them for making to-do lists and gathering notes for articles they wish to rewrite or expand. They don't have to be pretty at all- mine certainly isn't!

And I don't know how much of a chance you've had to explore the back-end of Wikipedia, but there's a lot of low-stakes, beginner friendly projects out there! There's a project for finding and correcting typos, a project for copy editing articles, and so many more! You can look at the Wikipedia:Task Center for more jobs like this, all sorted by difficulty. (Though, if you're confident in a certain subject matter, you can ignore the difficulty ranking and go straight into what you're best suited towards). GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 22:04, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I made correction and updation on the nawazuddin page as per his latest findings and research, and corrected the info putted by random users that change the narratives of famous personnels. But wikipedia is not letting me to do it making it all reset. Pratham1998 (talk) 10:08, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pratham1998 your edits to Nawazuddin Siddiqui have been reverted by other editors. This is part of the natural process of bold, revert, discuss process. I suggest you open a discussion in the talk page about the changes you want to introduce to the page. I'm pinging the editors @Revirvlkodlaku and @Tacyarg who reverted the edits, perhaps they can provide a more detailed explanation. Broc (talk) 11:04, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pratham1998 is not a serious editor. They have consistently deleted sound, referenced content and replaced it with personal opinions and poorly rewritten content, as well as making various unexplained changes. This can be seen here, here, etc. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 14:08, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, they are being disingenuous in the way they've approached the Teahouse. The matter of inappropriate edits on the Nawazuddin Siddiqui page has been brought to their attention more than once on their talk page, so they have been acquainted with the issues connected to their editing activity, and they are certainly not in the dark about the nature of the opposition they've faced. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 14:13, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Every edit you have made to Nawazuddin Siddiqui has been reverted - actions by several editors - reasons given and warnings left on your Talk page. You were advised to start a discussion on the article's Talk page, but have not. David notMD (talk) 15:27, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve been making a defunct airline in Congo. ArthurGilf0rd (talk) 10:50, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @ArthurGilf0rd, you might want to follow the Wikipedia:Article wizard.

I also strongly suggest you familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's golden rule before drafting your first article. Broc (talk) 10:57, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I am new to wikipedia and would appreciated any advice. I have been trying to amend the wikipedia draft page: Draft:Dan Keeling, but this has been declined twice now. I have added in many additional references that are from reliable sources and directly discuss the key points I have used in the wikipedia page, and have tried to make the text more neutral in tone. Would any be able to look over this and assist any further please?

Thank you, LunaPudding23 (talk) 11:10, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@LunaPudding23 If you feel the draft is now in an acceptable state, you should hit the big blue "Resubmit" button. That places it back in the bundle of unreviewed articles to be checked again by those who specialise in that task. The text still reads like a cv to me and notability would be greatly improved if you could show that any of the awards he received were themselves notable: which often means they also have articles in Wikipedia you could WP:Wikilink. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:02, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Mike.

I've updated the page based on your suggestions, and have changed the formatting so that his early career is not isolated. Draft:Dan Keeling LunaPudding23 (talk) 16:07, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was in the middle of a converation on the talkpage with an editor that was guiding me through COI and they restored the page before even checking that all my contributions to the page were very well cited. Wikipedia's inappropraite usage pocity states:

Editors involved in content disputes or edit wars should focus on resolving the dispute, rather than preserving the stable version, and the decision to temporarily preserve the stable version for the purposes of deescalating a dispute may only be made by an uninvolved administrator.

Editors who attempt to enforce a stable version may be blocked from editing without warning.

What do I do now? Cinematracker (talk) 11:26, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please kindly use the edit request wizard to propose changes (and references to cite supporting said changes) to Brendan Bellomo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). If you could also please kindly write on your userpage that you're "a production coordinator that works with Brendan [Bellomo]", that would really help. Thank you, Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 11:50, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It has been 100 days since I created the article Elmich. It is in the main space for consecutive 100 days, but it does not show up on google. I thought if it persisted for 90 days it would be indexed automatically. Any changes to this rule? or what ... Thanks for your helpful comments in advance. HungGreat (talk) 11:34, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After 90 days, the page will automatically be allowed to be indexed by search engines. However we can't control what Google indexes, so it can take longer than that to show up. Reconrabbit 12:31, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HungGreat Following the above, Reconrabbit made a small edit to the article today. I suspect that Google is alert to new edits on Wikipedia and may now index it. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:53, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am looking to add the field "Collected in" to Template:Infobox short story. This would allow the template to display when a short story by an author was later collected in a book by that author. I have raised this on the talk page with no objections. I am however not sure how to actually implement this change. Any advice would be much appreciated. McPhail (talk) 11:47, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Fetisov Journalism awards is the largest (in terms of prize money) journalism award in the world. I want to set up a wikipedia page. How do I go about this? Aidanpwhite (talk) 12:22, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're going to have to address the conflict of interest mentioned on your talk page first. Removing a line from the draft won't make it go away. -- D'n'B-t -- 13:53, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Aidanpwhite. Once you have made the formal declaration of your status as a paid editor, you will need to address the fact that the draft Draft:Fetisov Journalism Awards does not have a single citation, and the only thing it links to is the awards' website.

Your use of the phrase "set up a page" suggests that, like many people, you have a completely wrong understanding of what Wikipedia is, and think it is like social media, where you can "set up a page for" somebody or something.

Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, and the activity is writing a neutral, well-referenced, encyclopaedia article. Note that an article about the Fetisov awards (whoever writes it) will not belong to, or be controlled by, you or anybody associated with the awards: almost anybody in the world will be entitled to edit it except you and anybody else associated with the awards (you will be allowed to suggest changes, but not to make them).

Note also that Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. Writing a draft begins with finding reliable independent sources that contain significant coverage of the subject: at this stage you should evaluate every proposed source carefully againt the triple criteria of WP:42. If you can find several which meet the criteria, that will establish notability as Wikipedia uses the term, and you should then forget absolutely everything that you personally know about the awards, and write a neutral summary of what these sources say. ColinFine (talk) 16:56, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, my account is roughly 20something days old, and i wonder when will i be able to publish my translations? i'm doing translations here from czech to english as a part of my university practice (am in the final semester). Here's an example link of a translation i made, and i don't know if its publicly available or if only i can look it up https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Praxe1/Saskia_Bure%C5%A1ov%C3%A1. in case that it is publicly visible, i'd want to ask how big of a deal is the header template missing, how do i add it in case it's a big deal, and how do i edit references, because every time i try to manually edit it and click the line in the references box, it opens a general references menu. thanks in advance. Praxe1 (talk) 12:35, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Praxe1. The draft Draft:Saskia Burešová is in draft space, which means that it is publicly visible to anybody that finds it, but it is not yet part of the encyclopaedia, and will not be indexed by external search enginges such as Google.

What you need to do is to submit it for review, by picking the blue "Submit" button. However, I do not believe that it is adequately sourced for a article about a living person in English Wikipedia. Each language Wikipedia is a separate project, with its own rules and practices; and English Wikipedia is one of the strictest on sourcing: merely translating the content of an article from another Wikipedia is often not enough (see translation).

If you submit it, you will eventually get a review, which will say whether or not it is adequately sourced; but I encourage you to read WP:BLP (already linked above), notability, WP:RS, and WP:REFB and to continue to work on it. ColinFine (talk) 17:03, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone. I really need your help. I am being hounded by an editor. They are notifying all the pages i have ever created or contributed to for deletion OR leaving hostile twinkles line FANPOV etc. Instead of being collaborative and assuming good faith or helping with contributions or , they're being incredibly hostile. Month after month, they keep stalking my new contributions and disrupting my edits. Please help me with what to do. Wikipedia has become such a hostile space because of this one editor. TechGenWikinator03 (talk) 12:55, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TechGenWikinator03: Do you refer to User:Thewikizoomer? Either way, please see WP:DR. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:39, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see one article you created (1M1B) and one you edited (Niharika Lyra Dutt) nominated for deletion by User:Thewikizoomer. Is there more 'hounding' than that? David notMD (talk) 15:43, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kazikhun, Fazzyk and Qibtimagy have been confirmed to be sockpuppets. I now request someone to revert their edits. It will be a challenge for me as it involves multiple edits, some of which are as old as two months ago. For example, this, this, this and this edit are 4 consecutive edits done 2 months ago and all of those (apart from many other edits) need to be reverted. See this, the SockPuppet Investigation.16:06, 30 July 2024 (UTC)~ Sockbuster1 (talk) 16:06, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What should we do if a person tampers entire page, which was entirely designed by Me VideshiBhaktNRI (talk) 16:45, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No one has exclusive rights to any article, even the initial editor. Please discuss your concerns with the other editor involved, either on the article talk page, or the user's user talk page. 331dot (talk) 16:48, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, VidshiBhakiNRI. I would advise you to assume good faith, and not use judgmental terms like "tamper". Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and editors often disagree about what should be in an article. I recommend starting from the position of "how can we reach a consensus about this?" rather than from "I am right and they are wrong and somebody should make them stop". Please read WP:BRD carefully.

I also notice that you and @WikiEdits2003 are coming close to edit warring in List of megaprojects in India, and should both stop reverting each other's edits and discuss on the talk page. (I don't know if that is the article you are talking about). ColinFine (talk) 17:13, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"What should we do if a person tampers entire page, which was entirely designed by Me" Well you could say "Thank You for improving upon what I started on this here collaborative project". -- D'n'B-t -- 17:36, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of megaprojects in India was created in 2018. VideshiBhaktNRI's account was created only six days ago. He must be complaining about some other article. Maproom (talk) 22:53, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is incredibly obscure, but maybe someone has the answer. I noticed in a list of Reader's Digest Condensed Books there's book that has a Wikipedia article that I recently edited, Hide My Eyes. However, the book was published under different titles in the UK and the US. The article is under the original UK title, but the list of books has the US title (Tether's End). I was thinking of trying to link it, but I'm not sure how to do that given the words and the link are not the same (and there's no redirect). It's not that big a deal, but since things are often published under different titles, it would be useful to know how to handle it. Itsagazornum (talk) 17:15, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like you need a piped link: Tether's End (you may use the source editor to copy my link or see H:PIPE for detailed instructions). Perception312 (talk) 18:38, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

hey wiki, we are officially from Dr Meena Sharma's team. We have full details about her life, Journalism, awards education Qualifications and More. We want updated her profile. JournoRohit (talk) 17:41, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, JournoRohit, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Absolutely the first thing you must do is to read paid editing. Understand what the restrictions are on you editing that article, and put the mandatory declaration on your user page.

Note also that accounts may not be shared: if there is more than one of you working on this, you must each have a personal account, and put the declaration on each user page. (If new people join your team, they may not take over this account, but must create new personal accounts).

Next, note that Meena Sharma is not a "profile", but an encyclopaedia article about Sharma. It does not belong to Sharma, it is not controlled by her or her team, and it will not necessarily say what she, or you, want it to say. You are welcome to make edit requests on the article's talk page: be as specific as possible, and always cite reliable (and preferably independent) sources for any information you want to add. An uninvolved editor will in time come and decide whether and how to implement your request.

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

At present, it has, as far as I can see, not one single source that meets the triple requirement of being reliably published, independent of Sharma, and containing significant coverage of her (see WP:42). I have therefore tagged it as problematic in that way, and also Sharma as possibly not notable (in Wikipedia's special sense). So the best thing you can do is to find some sources which do meet that requirement, and request that they be added. Adding such independent sources, and information from those sources, is likely to be welcomed. Adding information which she or you want in the article, without independent sources, is not likely to happen. ColinFine (talk) 18:56, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have a brother who needs a Wikipedia page. How do I get someone to start one for him? Annebellah (talk) 20:30, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By offering money? This would attract the attention of any of a number of shady outfits, so in effect you'd probably just be throwing the money away. Would this be Kyle D Knoth (subject of your abortive Draft:Kyle D Knoth)? If so, then right here, in this thread, please present links to three substantive descriptions of Knoth or his work. These descriptions should be independent of Knoth and of each other. -- Hoary (talk) 21:13, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Annebellah Nobody "needs" a Wikipedia page! And nobody gets one even if they think they do need one. They get one if, and only if, they meet our notability criteria. See both THIS ONE and THIS ONE for more details.

If you can demonstrate (using links to independent sources not in any way connected with your brother) that he meets either of these sets of notability criteria, then we might we might be able to point you in the right direction at Wikipedia:Requested articles. If they're genuinely notable, someone will undoubtedly love to create an article about him. If he's not deemed 'notable' by our standards then I'm afraid no amount of wanting or needing is going to deliver the desired page. Sorry. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:21, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In Draft:Spotlight (television program) - currently working on it ,all of the episode summaries to date are coming directly from RaiPlay.it How do I provide proper citation that it coming from this website and that it is not me producing the summaries? Episode summaries from RaiPlay are translated into English.

In addition, is there anything else that should be included in the episode infobox/table such as translating the episode title to English or is that not needed? Soafy234 (talk) 20:36, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Soafy234, I'll address your first paragraph. See the content guideline "Do not include the full text of lengthy primary sources". Each is not the full text, you say? No matter: the guideline says in part "we can quote a sentence or two from a movie review in an article on the movie"; an implicature is that multiple sentences cannot be quoted. If summaries are appropriate, they should be written by Wikipedia editors, not by RaiPlay. -- Hoary (talk) 22:00, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for answering my question. I have a follow up question: Is it ok to paraphrase the summaries written by whoever wrote the episode summary/description on raiplay,it or would this violate copyright and/or plagiarism policy on Wikipedia? Soafy234 (talk) 22:33, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's OK to summarize (paraphrase and shorten) a source that you specify via a reference. -- Hoary (talk) 23:28, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be possible to do attribution of the entire translated quote from RaiPlay of their episode summary/description in the event that after I summarize and/or paraphrase that it is closely similar? Soafy234 (talk) 23:55, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Soafy234, Draft:Spotlight (television program) currently presents little or no evidence for the notability (as understood by and for Wikipedia) of Spotlight. First, cite descriptions of and commentary on this TV show, from reliable sources that are independent of the show's producers and distributors and of each other. Because if you can't do that, then the draft won't become an article (or, if it becomes one, won't survive), and all your work on the minutiae of each episode will be wasted. -- Hoary (talk) 00:20, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

oh boy, time to request the eyes of admins (or at least more experienced users) on a matter that "doesn't seem like active vandalism, trolling, or bad-faith conduct, but does seem like a newer user unwilling to act in a collaborative environment"!

what would be the preferable venue for cases where someone seems to be trying to game the system by creating a ruleset of their own and expecting the site to adapt to it? i feel like it could be a little early for ani, aiv would be actively unfitting, and an would quite possibly be one of the options available cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 20:38, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cogsan If you'd link to a diff or something that lets us know the user whose edits you're a bit worried by, that'd be helpful (I can't easily see what you're referring to by going through all your own recent contributions, I'm afraid; there are too many)

Obviously. WP:CIR applies to everyone. If you can politely explain to a user where they're repeatedly going wrong, and keep reverting and alerting them to future issues on their talk page, then we build up a 'case history' of an editor trying to helpfully steer a user, and an admin can drop by and add to that concern if necessary. A new user might not appreciate the significance of WP:ANI and, you're right, sometimes that seems a bit heavy-handed and offputting for someone who might be acting in good faith, but making a real mess of things.

So, if 1-2-1 gentle communication fails to change their ways, I'd suggest (using Twinkle if you wish) considering working up through the {{uw-disruptive}} templates. Disruptive editing doesn't have to be vandalism, but non-collaborative editing can be very disruptive if it's allowed to continue. Hopefully, some of this helps. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 21:12, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the diff and the very next one are the big examples of what i believe is a case of idht

that aside, got it, it seems the best solution for now would be to just give them time. they seem to have at least managed to make the signature fit (from my analysis, it's exactly 255 characters), so... eh cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 22:06, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

eh, that's really nbd, aside from screaming "underage editor" at top volume. So long as they're not screwing things up outside of their userspace I see no reason for any action at all. -- asilvering (talk) 22:11, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think I can guess what you're talking about. Unless they actually leave their own userspace, I'd just wait for them to get bored and move on. Ideally they will soon, whether they're a troll or an overly-enthusiastic kid. Unless their sandbox crosses the line into WP:harassment- even good faith harassment can be taken to ANI. WP:UNOT might be more relevant than the disruptive editor templates. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 21:45, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cogsan Yes, having now taken a look, I'm really not at all bothered at this stage in what I see. New editors - and especially young editors - like to play around on their user pages and, TBH, it can be a good way for some to learn how to edit without causing problems elsewhere. AFAICR, I have only ever felt the need to remove editing rights from a couple of new users in the last 4 years, but only after checking back in on their activities over a few weeks and after having gently warned them about being WP:NOTHERE, as well as asking them what their plans for genuinely contributing to this encyclopaedia are, and offering help. Having explained the consequences of continuing just to mess about in userspace could be, only then would I take more drastic action if I saw no change in editing behaviour.

Just as with any user whose editing rationale you might be uncertain about, do keep a watching eye on them - but not to the extent of harassing them over every silly edit in their own userspace. Awful signatures don't become much of an issue until they start posting on other talk pages, so I'd suggest giving them some leeway. What GLL and AS said above is spot on. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:26, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the signature being "awful" or not wasn't the problem, it was having to manually add it and then the time any given comment was written, which they did using a time zone not related to utc (though it seems theirs would be utc-4), resulting in some malformed comments that couldn't be replied to with the reply tool (at least not without convenient discussions, though i'm not sure that would have helped much if the time didn't display at all on my end), as seen in a thread above

that aside, yeah, i don't think this situation will escalate past their userspace cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 00:58, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently trying to improve the page Mixed connective tissue disease and I've ran into a bit of an issue. For context Mixed connective tissue disease (MCTD) has 4 different sets of diagnostic/classification criteria. Usually when I add in classification or diagnostic criteria for a disorder I'll just re word it a bit. The issue is that the diagnostic criteria for MCTD is so specefic that it's hard to reword it without losing meaning. I'm not super familiar with the details of copyright rules but I believe some of this falls under WP:LIMITED. If someone could check out the classification section of my draft for the artcle (User:CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath/sandbox3) and let me know if what I have is appropriate, that would be much appreciated. I also used an open access article for the diagnostic criteria (link) so I think it would also be okay to leave the text the same and put in an attribution template but I'm not fully sure if that's needed or what the logistics of that are. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 22:21, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good news! While the article being open access is pretty irrelavent- it doesn't have a strict definition, even on PubMed, as you've pointed out, the article is listed as being under a Creative Commons Attribution Liscence. Looking at the International Journal of Rheumatology's Permission page, [5], it's apparently licensed under [6]. Which, as detailed in WP:COMPLIC, is compatible. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 23:11, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dose this mean I should add an attribution template for that part of the article? Thanks for the help! CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 23:15, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yep! Inside the ref tag of the source(just in between the curly brackets(}}) and </ref>), add :::{{Creative Commons text attribution notice|cc=|url=|authors=|from this source=yes}} :::, filling in the request parameters. For this particular article, in the cc= paramater, you're going to put by3.

This doesn't work with visual editor very well. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 23:29, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed that Wikipedia content is made by volunteers, and some of them have their own agendas that can ruin people's reputations. In my case, there is an article made by one of your volunteers that contains my family name. The problem is that when people search for my family name on Google, this article appears as the first result. Therefore, I am asking you as admins to please help me fix this article, at least by removing my family name from it. Thank you. A1324a (talk) 23:16, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@A1324a I'm not sure how this is an issue, as we have over 100 thousand articles on surnames, and most of them are just lists of people with the name. Could you link to the problematic article? '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 23:20, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Further, we have (what seems like) squillions of articles that contain family names. (Even an article such as Periodic function contains several.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:35, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@A1324a Yes, please be more specific about the issue, though I really don't think there is anything we can do if Google searches return your family name. Whenever I search on my own surname I get a load of annoying footballer-related results! Nick Moyes (talk) 23:37, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for your reply

https://ar.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%A3%D8%A8%D9%88_%D8%AC%D9%86%D8%AF%D9%84_%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%83%D9%88%D9%8A%D8%AA%D9%8A

this is the article

the issue here with the type of this article. Several people thought we are related and it caused many issues for us.

the name I want to remove is “ الزغيلان " in arabic A1324a (talk) 23:42, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@A1324a Ah, I can see that an article about a Jihadist on Arabic Wikipedia might cause you some concern if they have the same name as you. Sadly, I see two problems. Firstly, there must be thousands of people in the world with the same name as infamous people or murderers, but who are not connected in any way with them. I can see this could be awkward, but I fear this is the reality of internet browsers and search results.

Secondly, this is English Wikipedia (en.wikipedia.org), and we have no control or say in what happens on Arabic Wikipedia - it's an entirely different project. I do not know any Arabic myself, but I do know there is a Teahouse equivalent at Arabic Wikipedia (ar.wikipedia.org). You can find it here, and I suggest you raise your concerns in your own language over there. I'm afraid I think this is about as far as we can assist you on English Wikipedia. Kind regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:53, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the help. I will try my best to explain the issue for them. A1324a (talk) 23:57, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per Special:Diff/1237419834, the current president of Indonesia has moved to Nusantara. Does it means that the capital of Indonesia is no longer Jakarta and hence the article Capital of Indonesia and the infobox in the article Indonesia should be updated? 132.234.229.222 (talk) 00:24, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wait until it strikes the formal date. There's no need to change until the day the formal change occurs. Ahri Boy (talk) 00:58, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]