Wikipedia:Teahouse

I need help with the NCO ranks, i already made the png files how the ranks look but i dont know how to modify the code so i make it look like the greek one, cypriot army have 2 nco ranks for every rank, one for permanent NCOs that completed military academy and the other for SYP-EPY (in Greece EPOP-EMTh) for contracted NCOs that cannot become Warrant Officers, example bellow.

NCO ranks (excl. OR-9 and conscript ranks) have undergone some changes through the years, the latest being in 2004.^[1]

NATO code	OR-9						OR-8		OR-7		OR-6						OR-5						OR-4				OR-3		OR-2						OR-1
Hellenic Army[2] v t e																																			Arm/corps insignia only
	Ανθυπασπιστής[a] Anthypaspistis						Αρχιλοχίας Archilochias		Επιλοχίας Epilochias		Λοχίας Lochias												Δεκανέας Dekaneas				Υποδεκανέας Ypodekaneas								Στρατιώτης Stratiotis
Greece (Conscripts)							No equivalent																												No insignia
	Δόκιμος Έφεδρος Αξιωματικός Dokimos Efedros Axiomatikos[a]										Λοχίας Lochias												Δεκανέας Dekaneas				Υποδεκανέας Ypodekaneas		Υποψήφιος Έφεδρος Βαθμοφόρος Ypopsifios Efedros Bathmoforos						Στρατιώτης Stratiotis

• @Hog Farm: Hi. Would you be able to answer this question? I mean, does it come under the field you are knowledgeable about (MILHIST)? I already have a program/bot that finds the creators of discussions, I will ping the OP in few hours. —usernamekiran (talk) 06:09, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  found it. the OP is Asd3131, with special:diff/1260033190 —usernamekiran (talk) 01:19, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Asd3131: Hello. Wikipedia:Wikiproject military history would be better for this question. —usernamekiran (talk) 01:21, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  already asked but no help (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 174#I need help with Cyprus Military ranks) Asd3131 (talk) 09:50, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ! I'd like to know if there are rules or recommendations to add links in an article.

I'm talking about internal links to Wikipedia in English.

As an example. We can choose the article "Bashar Al-Assad".
If there are a section or a sub-section citing "Moscow" (This is an example but I could take another subject mentionned on this article).

If Moscow is linked one time in the article. Can I do it for others sections or sub-sections if this is not the same sub-section or section ?

If you don't understand what I means with words "section" and "sub-section".
You can see the example below.

Hi!

I've been editing the timeline of Polermo where the long hyphen dominates, but I can't seem to generate one.Typing a regular hyphen, gives me just that - a regular hyphen, typing two hyphens gives me two hyphens (--) and trying to make one through the keboard shortcut which I found on internet forums (Alt+0151), just gives me one that's too long (—). So far I've been copying and pasting existing long hyphens which is kind of annoying, does anyone have any better solutions?

Thanks! Moonshane1933 (talk) 14:38, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Moonshane1933. I think you're talking about an em-dash. See MOS:EMDASH ColinFine (talk) 14:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! That's what I meant! Thank you! Moonshane1933 (talk) 15:15, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you could find a better character in "unicode table".

This "article" is listing the most common characters.

There are also the "Unicode block" entry on Wikipedia that can be maybe helpful. Anatole-berthe (talk) 14:54, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. Thank you too! Moonshane1933 (talk) 15:16, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think ressources I shared with you will help you but I hope it will. Anatole-berthe (talk) 15:45, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring the Minus sign, there are three 'horizontal line' characters most commonly used in text, the hyphen, the N-dash and the M-dash. There are various ways to insert the latter two; usually I do so with [alt]+0150 and [alt]+0151. Despite being a former professional book editor, I have not previously encountered a "long hyphen" (a term not found anywhere in Wikipedia). Note that the lengths of all these characters may look different in different typefaces: I suspect your "long hyphen" is an N-dash. [Apologies for semi-overlap with answers above.] {The poster formerly known as 897.81.230.195} 94.1.223.204 (talk) 17:00, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Moonshane1933 If you use the source editor, which you can do even if you mainly edit with the visual editor, you'll find that the N-dash and M-dash appear at the foot of the editing window, where you can click on them to insert them into text. Other useful tags like <ref></ref> are also available with a single click. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OOOOOOOHHHH... THANK YOU! That makes life easier! I hadn't even thought of looking at the source editor, because it always looks headache inducing to me. I'll give it a try. Thank you so much. Moonshane1933 (talk) 13:07, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, well, the "long hyphen" is a term that I coined, simply because I lacked the knowledge of its correct name, So I would have been very surprised if it had appeared in Wikipedia. Anyway, thank you, oh mysterious IP poster, I hope our paths cross again! Moonshane1933 (talk) 13:03, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Moonshane1933, some Christmas goodies for you:

— Merriam-Webster Dictionary has a nice clear explanation about the both kinds of dashes and the hyphen, with good examples.

— The way the two kindts of dashes is written is em-dash (for —) and en-dash ( for – ), even though we pronounce the terms "M dash" and "N dash."

— Why these terns? Because the em-dash is exactly the width of capital M and the en-dash is exactly the width of capital N.

— If you have a Macintosh, there's a real simple way to make the dashes: the em-dash by pressing Control Option Hyphen at the same time, and the en-dash by pressing Option Hyphen at the same time.

—Did you notice how Nick Moyes creatively renamed Dasher, one of Santa Claus's eight reindeer, in his "Seasonal Greetings from all at the Teahouse" post to fellow editors below?

—You may be pleased to know that I found an online reference to a "long hyphen." So, then, you weren't completely alone in doing that. But as 94.1.223.204 commented above, in professional editing we just don't use it. Like ColinFine, )I think anyone who did say "long hyphen" would probably be thinking of the em-dash; though I also think what 94.1.223.204 said above is also technically correct, that the term would have to refer to the en-dash (that's the next size up for a hyphen, after all). Augnablik (talk) 06:08, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have always been able to count on Wikipedia's search function to provide me with a list of articles connected with the term entered in the search field. Today, however, I'm not getting these, but rather only short and apparently arbitrary lists of articles that I've viewed or edited. When I type "A", for example, I get:

ajedrez
Angelou
Alvin Bragg
Abbot and Costello
Athena
Ari

When I add a "b" to this, the list becomes:

Abbot and Costello
Abe Fortas

When I add an "r", I get nothing, no Abrahams or anything else.

And so on. This is a purely arbitrary example, but I hope it serves to illustrate. What I would always get before would be a list of a dozen or so articles, which was limited but very often helpful. I checked my preferences but all I saw was "Disable the suggestions dropdown-lists of the search fields", which was unchecked as always. Any info or advice on this would be very welcome, thanks. Bret Sterling (talk) 17:36, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I personally always use advanced search, but you can try google with the modifier site:en.wikipedia.org to force it to only search wikipedia (or just type "wikipedia" before your search query) Cmrc23 ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 17:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bret Sterling Are you using the current default WP:VECTOR22 skin? I find that its search box is better than for other, older, skins and the results for "Abr" are perfectly sensible, with the first suggestion being Abr. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:35, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these suggestions, Cmrc23 and Michael D. Turnbull. The Advanced search option does provide me with many good finds and I should have been using it previously, but Content pages gives me results like I used to get directly under the search text field only more of them. I checked my WP skin and saw I was using the current default but still not getting the suggestions, so then I could figure it was something on my end and checked to see if I had "Block scripts" activated in Brave Shields. I saw that I did, deactivated it and now I'm getting the suggestions as before. Sorry, false alarm, this wasn't a Wikipedia change as I wrongly suspected. It's interesting that I could get suggestions on pages I've frequented by turning "Block scripts" back on, and I'm curious as to how that works – I mean the apparently default behavior without whatever the script is. Bret Sterling (talk) 19:32, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But wait a minute. Now I'm not getting the alternative search options (Content pages, Multimedia, Everything, Advanced). Claude AI tells me to type "Special:Search" in the search box to access these and this works, but I had them there just now today without doing this. (I couldn't have done it because I was unaware of the possibility.) So how did I have those options for a while but then didn't have them afterwards? And (what may be the same question) how do I get them without having to type "Special:Search" in the search box? I can do that, but it seems clunky and I have to remember the text to type it. Bret Sterling (talk) 19:49, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There a variety of userscripts to enhance the search function: Wikipedia:User_scripts/List#Search_form Cmrc23 ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 10:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bret Sterling I assume that by turning on "Block scripts" Brave Shields is preventing Javascript from running in your browser. The problem is that, as WP:JAVASCRIPT explains, Java is a core part of how much of Wikipedia works, both the standard Mediawiki software and many optional extras like gadgets and userscripts. So, if you are prevernting that running, you are sacrificing functionality for security. Is there an option in Brave Shields to exempt the Wikipedia domain from the block? Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:03, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Block scripts" isn't on by default, so a special exemption isn't necessary. I don't know why I turned it on for Wikipedia, but in any event it's turned off now and so my problem with not getting the desired suggestions is solved. Thanks for the explanation. Bret Sterling (talk) 16:47, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Careful, @Michael D. Turnbull: Java and Javascript are very different animals. ColinFine (talk) 14:01, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can move my English user page to media wiki to have a global page for all sister projects? I know I can just ask to delete my English page and make a media wiki one but I kinda wanna move it for the edit history. If I can't move it to media wiki ill just move it to User:Anthony2106/old user page Anthony2106 (talk) 04:55, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What you are asking for @Anthony2106: is an import. You would have to find an administrator on meta, but even so may not be actionable. Instead I would advise you just to create a new page yourself on meta, as you will find that many templates are unavailable there. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:46, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You saying they will only import important things -- not user pages? Also i'm not worried about the templates as I can use {{:w to get wikipedia templates. Anthony2106 (talk) 08:58, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On this topic, I was wondering if making an account on english wikipedia counts as a global account for wikipedia purposes Cmrc23 ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 10:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cmrc23 Did you created your account on "Wikipedia in English language" as first account for projects of Wikimedia ?

If you go on any Wikipedia language version or another Wikimedia project. If you click on "login" you can log into it.

I created my account on "French Wikipedia" as first account for projects of Wikimedia.

I can create accounts with the stuff I explained. Anatole-berthe (talk) 11:03, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So there are not enough userboxes on meta-wiki and that trick {{w: didn't work so maybe ill just leave it on Wikipedia. Anthony2106 (talk) 06:23, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, @Anthony2106, I suspected that transclusion does not work cross-wiki, and the answer to this question on the Help Desk a few hours ago confirms this. ColinFine (talk) 14:04, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I'm trying to write a biography about an important contemporary muralist. His work has been in two Asian Art Museums in addition to murals all over the world and for corporations. He has many interviews; I included some in the citations but they were not accepted. Would love any guidance. Thank you Rnza45 (talk) 22:29, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The AFC reviewer has left a comment saying that, "Submission is about a person not yet shown to meet notability guidelines". Some faults noted by me was the way the sections were displayed and most of the citations were unreliable and not properly generated. There's also no hyperlinks and no infobox. Fixing those faults would probably help your chance for the biography to be accepted. Hope this helps. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 22:49, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Rnza45, and welcome to the Teahouse.

You have made several common beginners' errors: you have created your draft on your user page, which is not the right place for it. You have written your draft BACKWARDS (writing from what you know, and then looking for sources) - Wikipedia doesn't care what you know: it only cares what independent reliable sources say about the subject. And 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. So interviews don't count towards establishing notability.

There's nothing wrong with making mistakes: that's how we all learn. But newcomers who plunge straight into the challenging task of crating a new article often get frustrated and disillusioned. And it's even harder when you have a conflict of interest (thank you for declaring that).

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) 23:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the thorough reply. Where is the correct place to write a draft?

I don’t know why you think I cited sources backwards; I didn’t start that way. I did go back after I thought I needed more outside sources. I did look up what Wikipedia considers reliable sources, but I need to understand this better. I thought I went back and added, but they still dont seem to meet the criteria. I pulled from LA Times, ABC News, NPR, art websites and a local wiki.

I did not write the article about myself. 2603:8000:7300:CB21:AC86:1F37:7217:3A5D (talk) 00:36, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The correct place to write a draft is WP:Article Wizard. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 00:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that you cited sources backwards: I said that you wrote the draft backwards, in that you wrote the text, and then looked for sources. Since you should not be putting anything at all into your draft that is not backed up by a reliable published source, this means that once you have found your sources you are probably going to have to go back and edit your text. That's why we call this working backwards. ColinFine (talk) 14:13, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the draft to Draft:Dave Young Kim, Rnza45. Please remove the CoI template from it, and affix the former to your user page.

You tell us that:

Kim's artwork engages with the intangible quality of home and explores themes of nostalgia, war, conflict, and displacement. By incorporating cultural motifs into personal and broader histories of struggle, he examines the universal search for belonging across diverse conditions.

And you add a reference pointing to a page of Kim's website. But this is evaluative: we need a source independent of Kim to tell us that he actually explores such-and-such (and doesn't merely glance at it and hurry away). Also, this sounds curiously like PR-speak. I wondered what Kim actually wrote. Here it is:

His work engages with the intangible quality of home and explores themes of nostalgia, war, conflict, and displacement. By interpolating cultural motifs into personal and larger histories of struggle, Kim explores the unifying search for belonging across disparate conditions.

So it's just a copy 'n' paste job, with minor changes. If a quotation would benefit a draft, then it must be in quotation marks (and square brackets should make clear any changes that have been made to it). -- Hoary (talk) 03:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COI tag moved to your User page. David notMD (talk) 04:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! 2603:8000:7300:CB21:B9F0:228F:2F05:87F5 (talk) 22:04, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

what is the CoI template? There was a note that said "please remove the Col template from it and affix the former to your user page." Rnza45 (talk) 20:04, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I made a talk topic and somebody immediately archived it saying that it's already been addressed. I believe that my topic is different from what was discussed previously, and I made a comment on the talk page there proposing to un-archive my topic. Nobody responded and it's been a couple of days. Is it safe to go ahead and just un-archive it myself, or is that considered disruptive? Lardlegwarmers (talk) 03:49, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You mean Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_theory#Mention_House_Subcommittee_in_section_on_Political,_academic_and_media_attention? -- Hoary (talk) 06:38, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Lardlegwarmers (talk) 06:54, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bon courage is welcome to comment. -- Hoary (talk) 22:26, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was not archived, but closed, because that source is already being discussed ad nauseam. Bon courage (talk) 02:34, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bon courage inserted the following Wikitext markup at the top of my topic: {{archive top|Already being discussed above. [[User:Bon courage|Bon courage]] ([[User talk:Bon courage|talk]]) 04:16, 22 December 2024 (UTC)}}

Furthermore, there is a misunderstanding as to my suggestion. I was not suggesting that we use the specific source in question but rather that we mention the United States House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic’s role in the political attention section. This is a different point from what has already been addressed. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 17:19, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am a Nigerian Wikipedia editor. I have been editing for few months now. I have contributed up to thirty articles to Wikipedia within these few months, but with time, I noticed a pattern. There is the tendency for more experienced editors to ignore good articles and leave then unreviewed, but very quick at nominating an article that is still being created for deletion, rather than sending them back as drafts to be worked on for a while. I have thought about this for a long time. These articles I created are facing this unreviewed wave: Charles Nwodo Jr., Victoria Nwogu, Nick Ezeh etc. It appears to me too that Nigerian sources are being prejudiced against as not reliable even when they are. I want this to be discussed extensively in the Tea House. Can specific editors be assigned to watch new editors form Africa, especially Nigeria, who are prolific and encourage them by reviewing their good articles? I have a feeling I am speaking for many new editors who are facing similar challenges. I ask in good faith and I am ready to learn. Please, no one should be offended by my query. Royalrumblebee (talk) 16:06, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Royalrumblebee, you might be interested in participating in this current discussion: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Nigerian_newspapers. Schazjmd (talk) 16:14, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this reply. Royalrumblebee (talk) 16:24, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is a wow for me that my article, Martina Ononiwu ignited that discussion. Royalrumblebee (talk) 16:28, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Royalrumblebee. What you are describing is quality control at its finest. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martina Ononiwu shows how you wrote an article with serious problems that was effectively a hoax. So, the solution is for you to refrain from writing problematic articles. Once you place a new article in the main space of the encyclopedia, it is immediately subject to review including nomination for deletion by new page patrollers. We are not going to create a new process for editors from Nigeria when the Articles for Creation review process is already available to all editors, and perhaps you should use that instead. Wikipedia:WikiProject Nigeria is a place where you can interact with other Nigerian editors. Cullen328 (talk) 16:29, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for this very informative reply. Royalrumblebee (talk) 17:06, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Royalrumblebee I am lookkng at your original question, namely There is the tendency for more experienced editors to ignore good articles and leave then unreviewed, but very quick at nominating an article that is still being created for deletion, rather than sending them back as drafts to be worked on for a while. I have thought about this for a long time. These articles I created are facing this unreviewed wave: Charles Nwodo Jr., Victoria Nwogu, Nick Ezeh etc. It appears to me too that Nigerian sources are being prejudiced against as not reliable even when they are. I want this to be discussed extensively in the Tea House. Can specific editors be assigned to watch new editors form Africa, especially Nigeria, who are prolific and encourage them by reviewing their good articles?. Despite the lack of a second question mark I see it as a question, in two parts.

• Can specific editors be assigned to watch new editors form Africa, especially Nigeria, who are prolific and encourage them by reviewing their good articles? This is unlikely.There are some excellent editors from your part of the world, and making contact with them would be a good alliance, recognising always that they have good faith disagreements with you.

Regrettably there are also a number of poor editors who edit with malpractice. These folk would be good fo avoid.

• there is the tendency for more experienced editors to ignore good articles and leave then unreviewed, but very quick at nominating an article that is still being created for deletion, rather than sending them back as drafts to be worked on for a while.. As a reviewer I look at an article to determine whether I believe I am competent to review it. When I feel I have the competence I proceed to a review, otherwise I set it aside for another reviewer.

There are a few circumstances when I will nominate for speedy deletion, including:

• Copyright violation
• Blatant advertising
• Something that is not actually an article.

There are circumstances when I will reject (not decline) an article, including

• The list for speedy deletion, above
• Tendentious resubmission (repeated resubmission with no 'interest' in improvement
• Obvious areas where there is no current hope of ever establishing notability (with verification). An example might be an article on an ordinary person like me.

Otherwise I will review and accept with pleasure or decline with rationale. There is a process WP:MFD to which drafts may be submitted for discussion with a view to deletion. but that almost always leads to retention.

When I see a draft which has 'escaped' to mainspace, but is deserving of improvement, I make a judgement over whether I feel it is likely to be improved in mainspace. If I feel it is likely I flag it with the observed deficiencies, wish it well, and move on.

If I feel it is not likely, I have two options:

• Return the article to Draft space, which I may do unilaterally if this is the first time it is draftified. If not WP:DRAFTOBJECT tells me I must either leave it alone, or I must reach consensus for draftification. WP:AFD is the tool I use for reaching that consensus, nominating for Draftificatin.
• Send it immediately for a deletion process. AFD is the kindest because it allows discussion and policy based argument against or for deletion.

There is a great deal to read, above. Other editors may hold different views, and that is as it should be, except in matters of policy, which has been made by consensus. The question I have for you is "Has this helped your understanding?" 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:51, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wow @Timtrent, you have given me and, I believe, many other editors, some lessons coming from long-term experiences. Thank you for this. Royalrumblebee (talk) 14:19, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Royalrumblebee I do not guarantee, nor do I expect, that other reviewers should have the same approach that I do. By experience, however, I see that the great majority of experienced reviewers act in a similar manner to this.

Those at the start of their reviewing journey, new reviewers, may diverge widely from this. We need to remember that it is 100% fine that they do, and that each of us, experienced or new, must be able to justify a review we have made.

The parameters we are given are to accept any draft which we honestly believe has a better that 50% chance of surviving an immediate deletion process. You can see at once that this is a subjective process, and that we can be wrong, When wrongly accepting, the (now) article will be sent to AfD. When wrongly declining the creating/submitting editor can feel aggrieved.

The final point is that reviewers want to accept drafts. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:29, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have a question about citing court decisions. I understand that Wikipedia prioritizes secondary sources over primary ones and that court decisions are considered primary sources. While I have reviewed the policies on primary sources and NPOV, I am still unsure how to handle the following situation: When secondary sources are limited—such as when none are available, or they only report the outcome without context—how can one provide factual and neutral context without introducing interpretation or synthesis?

Is it entirely unacceptable to quote court decisions, or is it acceptable to quote essential parts of the decision to supplement the reasoning for the outcome? I've seen edits that include quotes from decisions and want to confirm whether this approach complies with Wikipedia's guidelines. Any advice on what to watch out for would also be appreciated.

I appreciate your help. Catworker (talk) 02:41, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Catworker: you many need to secondary source to say that the person mentioned in the court decision is in fact the one we are interested in, and not someone else with the same name as a notable person. Being a primary source means that it does not add to notability because of existence. If your secondary source only reports the same as the primary, then it is probably not substantial content either, but can be used to confirm facts, in the same way that a primary source could. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:19, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Graeme Bartlett, @Gråbergs Gråa Sång, thank you for your responses. They helped me understand the relationship between court decisions and notability. Regardless of the notability policy, I have a follow-up question about the nature of court decisions as sources. I understand that court decisions are verifiable, independent, and primary sources. Is this correct? Catworker (talk) 11:49, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Catworker You have used good logic. I think your general categorisation is correct. Thus they may be used to verify simple facts, but have no bearing on verifying any notability. There will be exceptions to this. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:27, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on situation, WP:BLPPRIMARY might apply. While primary sources have a use, they will not help an argument for WP:N. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:47, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång, I've read the WP:BLPPRIMARY policy, but I find it a bit unclear.

The policy says, 'Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source.' Does this mean that if a secondary source only mentions the conclusion of a decision, quoting the essential parts of the decision directly from the primary source to augment the secondary source is acceptable? I also believe this should be limited to straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified according to WP:PRIMARY. Thank you for your kind responses. Catworker (talk) 13:26, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Catworker, you cut off a key phrase from what you just quoted. That sentence says "Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies" (emphasis added). One of the restrictions in BLPPRIMARY is "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person." That is, if the text you want to add is about a living person, you cannot use a court decision as a citation, even if your intention is only to augment a reliable secondary source. However, if the text you wish to add is not about a living person, then BLPPRIMARY doesn't apply; instead, the relevant policy is WP:PRIMARY. FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:58, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Teahouse members, I recently submitted a draft for an article about Sivakumar G at Draft:Gsivakumar.sap, but it was declined due to concerns about it potentially being considered an autobiography. Could you please provide guidance on how to revise the draft to meet Wikipedia’s notability and neutrality standards? Specifically, I would appreciate advice on the following: How can I improve the neutrality of the article to ensure it complies with Wikipedia’s guidelines for living people? What kind of references or citations are needed to establish notability, and how can I ensure the sources meet Wikipedia’s reliability standards? Is there a better approach to presenting the information, particularly concerning professional milestones, achievements, and the company's work, that avoids being promotional? Any help or suggestions on how to improve the draft would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your time! Best regards, Sivakumar G Gsivakumar.sap (talk) 12:42, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gsivakumar.sap Wikipedia is not for self-promotion. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 13:04, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Gsivakumar.sap has been Speedy Deleted as being promotional in content and style. That means that only Administrators can view the deleted draft. Without seeing it, I can state that common errors in writing about oneself (see WP:AUTO) are including content that is true but nor confirmed by independent references (see WP:42) and using non-neutral words and phrases. You can start over, but unless a radical change in content and referencing is made, there is a risk of your account being indefintely blocked. David notMD (talk) 13:36, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AND... it appears that in November, using a different account, you created Draft:Sivakumar G, which was Speedy deleted. Tsk, tsk, tsk. David notMD (talk) 13:41, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gsivakumar.sap, as an administrator, I could read both of your drafts. Both were self-promotional and neither bore any resemblance to an actual encyclopedia article. Self-promotion is strictly forbidden on Wikipedia, so please stop. You claim to be a computer expert. Try learning how the #7 website in the world actually works. Read and study our policies and guidelines, especially regarding Conflicts of interest. Pay special attention to Your first article and write about some other topic instead of yourself. Cullen328 (talk) 17:16, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wikipedia Contributors,

Thank you for reviewing my draft and providing detailed feedback. I apologize for any violations of Wikipedia’s policies, particularly regarding self-promotion and conflict of interest. I now better understand the importance of neutrality, notability, and verifiable independent references.

I acknowledge the issues raised and regret any inconvenience caused. Moving forward, I will:

> Study Wikipedia’s guidelines.

> Avoid self-referential or promotional content.

> Focus on constructive contributions to unrelated topics using reliable sources.

If you have additional recommendations, I would appreciate your guidance. Thank you for your patience and for helping me align with Wikipedia’s principles.

Kind regards,

Gsivakumar.sap Gsivakumar.sap (talk) 17:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

General advice is put in time and effort at improving existing articles before attempting to create an article. And yes, give up writing about yourself or your company. In time, if you are famous enough, someone with no paid or personal connection to you will create and submit a draft about you. David notMD (talk) 17:35, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear David notMD,

Thank you for your feedback. I now understand the importance of neutrality and the role of independent contributors on Wikipedia.

I will focus on improving existing articles to align with the platform’s standards and refrain from writing about myself or my company.

Thanks again for your patience and guidance.

Kind regards,

Gsivakumar.sap Gsivakumar.sap (talk) 17:50, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gsivakumar.sap, stop using ChatGPT or other LLMs to write your responses. It is irritating and counterproductive. This should be a conversation among real human beings, not robots. Cullen328 (talk) 17:54, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gsivakumar.sap Your new draft Draft:AEITY Systems, about the company you founded in 2024, had been declined for being poorly formatted, promotional, and completely lacking in independent references (as described in WP:42). LinkedIn and YouTube are not independent. Same for social media and the company's website. You have not declared your conflict-of-interest in wanting to write about your company (see WP:COI). Expect this effort to be Speedy deleted. David notMD (talk) 20:16, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

hi there,

Need help regarding a review on this page . have made changes and want to verify, if they look good.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ramesh_Prasad_Panigrahi Mitscape (talk) 18:30, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mitscape! Keep in mind that there are about 1,800 drafts waiting for review, so you can't guarantee that it will be done within a particular timeframe. I'll note that at this time most of the information doesn't have any citations on it, so it's not likely to be approved. Ideally, every claim the article makes should be supported by a citation. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:00, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The body of Draft:Ramesh Prasad Panigrahi cites no sources. (I wonder where you got all that information?) None of the works listed under "Notable works" is notable in Wikipedia's sense. Maproom (talk) 08:38, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:UDCIDE/usersubpage1tripartite revisited

Footnotes being listed in every section. How do I show them at the end of the article only? The add reference section via <references/>tag has not worked for me. UDCIDE (talk) 22:08, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt what you have composed is article material, but by putting a references section title at the end and removing all the <references/> the refs are now all at the end. David notMD (talk) 22:20, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Teahouse folks. I'm usually the last person to question the article review process, and have a fair understanding of how things work around here. However, I feel compelled to put forward an inquiry. An article I created over six months ago, Palani Falls, still remains unreviewed. I certainly understand it takes time to review the tons of articles that get created regularly on Wikipedia, and that I am not particularly entitled to special attention. However, the article has been sitting idle for six months now, hence the question. If any reviewers here could help me out with this, that'd be great. Thanks! Dissoxciate (talk) 00:00, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What has also been sitting for half a year, Dissoxciate, is the allegation that this article depends on unreliable sources. You don't seem to have done anything in response (and neither does anyone else). If you agree with the allegation, then improve one or more of the sources. If you don't, then on the talk page defend your sources, pinging Voorts (whose allegation it is). -- Hoary (talk) 00:13, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I’m sorry to bother you, but I'm still having difficulty understanding the application of WP:PRIMARY and WP:OR to court decisions. If a secondary source only briefly mentions the conclusion of a court decision, is it acceptable to directly quote essential parts of the decision to augment the factual context of the secondary source, as long as the quotes are straightforward, descriptive statements of fact and verifiable?

Thank you for your help! Catworker (talk) 00:46, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Catworker, welcome again to the Teahouse. I think we'd be able to help much more if you were to give us the name of the article and the changes you plan on making. I don't think it is a great idea in most cases to do so though. Justiyaya 09:14, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I don't think that's a good idea either- it would be your opinion as to what is factual and quoted from the decision, which would be original research. We need a secondary source that does that, we can't do it ourselves. 331dot (talk) 09:19, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Context is important, but generally, court decisions provide a much bigger challenge, since choosing the most crucial passages of a court opinion itself requires legal analysis, making the selection process more original research than editorial discretion. This contrasts with, say, a published review of a movie or album, which is far shorter, and usually written for the mass audience. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:55, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!!!! I have a wish of making an article for my friends' band BLEACHED.

They wrote, recorded and released their first song earlier this year on a few streaming platforms and although they aren't a significant name in the industry yet, I thought it'd be good to make them an article since I love writing and enjoy collecting information on bands/groups.

Of course I plan to stay fully neutral and factual, and to do this after I gain more experience on here since I'm completely new! I figured I'd as now though for future reference if this would be okay?

thank you!!!! :D Nikkicookie101 (talk) 00:53, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkicookie101, assuming that the band's name isn't pronounced like "Be ell ee aye see aych ee dee", better to write it "Bleached". (And arguably better to ask about an article about them rather than about one for them.) But let's put aside such relatively trivial matters. Have they, or has their music, been written up at some length in three or more reliable sources, each of the three independent of each other and of Bleached. If so, please (here, in this thread) point us to three. If not, the advice is "Forget it" (at least for now). -- Hoary (talk) 01:27, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Nikkicookie101. To add to Hoary's comment, you should see WP:GNG and WP:NBAND. Your subject has to be notable enough so that they deserve an article. These two guidelines are used to prove that the subject is notable. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 01:34, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bands are often "too soon" to justify articles. David notMD (talk) 02:58, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I created a Wikipedia page in my sandbox. How do I submit it for review? NTG2024 (talk) 01:28, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have done so. Next time, though, rather than copying the content of your sandbox and pasting it into a new draft, move the sandbox to the new draft. (You will be able to re-create the sandbox afresh.) -- Hoary (talk) 02:23, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm making a page about a book published in 1995, available on Amazon and other book sellers. I want to upload a cover image of the book. How do I deal with the question of permission? Thanks BaalH (talk) 03:31, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BaalH since the book and its cover is likely copyrighted, you'll have to upload it locally under fair-use. You can do this by going to Special:Upload and filling out a fair-use rationale ({{Non-free use rationale book cover}} for your case). Also note that non-free files are only allowed in articles, so you'll have to wait for your draft to be accepted before uploading and adding it. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 04:31, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks BaalH (talk) 05:28, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BaalH: You could try contacting the copyright holder of the book cover (most likely the book's publisher) per WP:PERMISSION and asking if they would be willing to release an image of the cover under free license that Wikipedia accepts. If the copyright holder doesn't want to do that, then the cover most likely can be uploaded as non-free content (which is Wikipedia's version of "fair use" but is more restrictive than fair use) as long as it's being used in accordance with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy; in that case, though, you should wait until your draft has been approved as an article as explained by CanonNi above. As for User:BaalH/sandbox, you're going to need to find better sources that clearly establish the Wikipedia notability of The Scholar's Haggadah: Ashkenazic, Sephardic and Oriental Versions, with a Historical Literary Commentary per WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG for the draft you're working to have a chance of avoiding WP:DELETION. So, I would focus on that now and worry about adding images later. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:46, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and thanks for the tip about notability. I'm considering whether I should just add to the author's existing wikipedia page, which I don't think sufficiently explains the import of his work. BaalH (talk) 05:31, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, BaalH, adding to the author's existing page would be a much better idea. -- Hoary (talk) 07:38, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A year or so ago it was determined that my appeal against deletion of an article on the subject of my book called Power Without Glory was upheld and things have been quiet since then. Now I see that there has been an edit which is logically incorrect (it now states the book is 'non fiction ... history'). However I see that I am 'blocked' until August 2025. Please could I be advised why this is so and could consideration be given to advising people when and why they are blocked. In this case this is not clear to me and it seems as if it seems as if it might be a malicious response to my successful appeal. I would like the block removed please. Tsrwright (talk) 04:48, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are not blocked. If you were, you wouldn't be able to post here. Can you explain why you believe you're blocked? Bishonen | tålk 04:53, 27 December 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Fact is I got a message that I was BLOCKED until 25 (?) August 2025 Tsrwright (talk) 07:14, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)@Tsrwright: Your account isn't blocked; if it was, you wouldn't be able to use it to post on any Wikipedia page other than your user talk page. There is also no record of your account being blocked in the your account's log. Are you perhaps referring to a different account? Anyway, what seems to have happened is that you've been advised not to directly edit the article Power Without Glory (2015 book) per WP:COI and WP:PAID because you're claiming to be the book's author. So, if you've got concerns about the article, you should be using Talk:Power Without Glory (2015 book) to discuss them. You can make edit requests using the template {{Edit COI}} on the article's talk page and someone will review the request. If the changes you propose are in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, they will be made; if not, they won't. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:05, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier I kept getting messages that I was BLOCKED. Having logged out, changed my password and logged-in again this seems no longer to be the case. Looks like some sort of bug perhaps? Tsrwright (talk) 07:05, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I get the point about not editing content about my own book and I agree but had overlooked this rule.

However, when I next attempted to reply to the comments above I got a new full-in-the face upper case bold message that I was BLOCKED.

I then logged out and logged in, changed my password, and was able to open this page whereas previously it was telling me I was BLOCKED. Tsrwright (talk) 07:03, 27 December 2024 (UTC). Unless I am missing something I again suggest some sort of bug at work.[reply]

You might want to add this to your previous topic with the same title instead of making a new one.

Never mind, done as I was typing this lol Doopliss 👻 (she) | Creepy Steeple 🏚️ 07:06, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tsrwright, there is no record whatsoever of the Tsrwright account ever being blocked. If you edit logged out, it is possible that your IP address may be caught up in a range block. Just be sure that you are logged in. There is no need to change a secure password. Cullen328 (talk) 17:34, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I would like to know what makes these sources for this article not in-depth? These sources specifically focus about the airport, hence their heading and topic is literally about the airport. Please tell me all about it, thanks. Bollardant (talk) 06:30, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Bollardant! Welcome to the Teahouse. The concern with the sources is not that they are not in-depth, but that they don't prove that the subject is notable enough according to WP:GNG. In short, what they want is reliable sources that are independent of the subject, that is they are sources not operated or published by the subject of the article, that is the airport. The other thing is that this airport has not even begun its construction, and it will be years before it is operational, therefore according to WP:CRYSTAL, this does not merit an article as of now. Feel free to ask any other questions if you have! TNM101 (chat) 06:52, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, perhaps I will play the waiting game as for now. Bollardant (talk) 07:27, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am very interested in having a mentor to guide me through Wikipedia. I’ve been lurking here since I was little but I wanted to contribute seriously and be a part of a community. If anyone accepts my offer, thank you so much <3

i know about the adopt a user page, but I don’t know who to pick from there. Doopliss 👻 (she) | Creepy Steeple 🏚️ 06:32, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DooplissTTYD Do you have the Newcomer homepage activated? You should have a "Your mentor" box there. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:53, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I don’t see a mentor box anywhere, just add email, suggested edits, your impact and how to get help. I’m on mobile. Doopliss 👻 (she) | Creepy Steeple 🏚️ 17:40, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, in mobile view I see it under "Your impact." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:03, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’m on mobile web, on an iPhone. Still don’t see it and I tapped on the your impact. Do I have to get assigned one first or… Doopliss 👻 (she) | Creepy Steeple 🏚️ 20:00, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DooplissTTYD! The mentorship program automatically assigns every user a mentor, but only randomly selected editors in a set percentage (I think currently 25 or 50%, but I’m not sure) receive access to a homepage feature allowing them to ask questions. This is because the English Wikipedia doesn’t have enough mentors yet for the full volume of new accounts. This means that while you have a mentor, you have no way to see that because you’re in the percentage without the “Ask a question” module, so neither you nor your mentor know the other exists. It looks like your mentor is HouseBlaster; I’d suggest asking on their talk page if they’d mentor you. You should be in good hands there, but if you have any issues, feel free to comment further here or on my talk page and I’d be happy to help out however you need! Happy editing, Perfect4th (talk) 20:51, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks 🙏 Doopliss 👻 (she) | Creepy Steeple 🏚️ 21:01, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

im currently trying to update the long outdated preview version referenced in the GNU Emacs, i have added the current preview version to wikidata[1] but i cant seem to figure out how to update the reference in the infobox Wobbling handshake (talk) 08:24, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wobbling handshake It is already updated automatically. For such wikidata-linked values, if you are still seeing the older values, please purge the cache of the article, Page > Purge Cache. – robertsky (talk) 09:19, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is now updated, thank you for explaining this to me Wobbling handshake (talk) 09:39, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have written an article, they have told me its looking like a essay than an article. I have pasted the review below. Please help me to learn more to choose tone

"Hello, Williamoliverhenry! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! DoubleGrazing (talk)" Williamoliverhenry (talk) 09:00, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Williamoliverhenry The draft Draft:Mining in Australia: Challenges, Improvements, and Current Threats sounds like you're trying to start Mining in Australia again, but we already already have that article. On WP, we shouldn't have 2 articles basically on the same subject. Instead, improve the existing article if you can. Also the reviewer stated (on the draft page) "This article may incorporate text from a large language model. It may include hallucinated information or fictitious references. Copyright violations or claims lacking verification should be removed. Additional guidance is available on the associated project page.

You also need to check your references, I assume this is because you're using some sort of AI, not actually reading them. For example check your sentences "Australia is one of the biggest mining countries in the world. It is known for having large amounts of coal, iron ore, gold, and other minerals. Mining brings billions of dollars to the country through exports. In 2023, the industry generated about $250 billion in exports, making it one of the largest parts of Australia’s economy." and then check the inline ref you added to that. Nothing of that is on the page you linked, it's just the startpage of... something. On WP, this is not good enough. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:23, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I get it.

so to write new article topic should be unique enough that should not be covered before. Williamoliverhenry (talk) 09:44, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Williamoliverhenry: I would also suggest that you take a look at a few articles on similar topics, especially ones that have been rated 'good' (say, Economic history of Argentina or Effects of climate change), to get a feel for how Wikipedia articles are written. For example, we don't have 'Introduction' section at the beginning (we instead have an untitled lead section, see MOS:LEAD), likewise we don't finish with 'Conclusion'; these are among the factors that make your draft essay-like. And the article title should be as simple as possible (MOS:TITLE).

Articles also shouldn't be written using AI (LLM), which your draft appears to be. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:34, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright! @DoubleGrazing , Its so kind to get these responses from your side. Williamoliverhenry (talk) 10:49, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Williamoliverhenry, and welcome to the Teahouse. I think it's more than "should not be covered before" (though that is also applicable). The point is that a Wikipedia article should be a summary of what several reliable indepedent sources say about a subject, and very little more. It should not contain any analysis, argumentation, or conclusions, except when it is summarising some analysis, argumentation, or conclusions from a single cited source: it should not even synthesise analysis or arguments from more than one source, or make any attempt to reconcile them - if different sources have come to different conclusions, it should merely state the fact. See original research. ColinFine (talk) 10:58, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To delete your draft, at the top enter Db-author inside double curly brackets {{ }} (should be on the keys to the left of the letter P). This will request an Administrator to delete the draft. David notMD (talk) 12:01, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(More probably to the right of the letter P) - Arjayay (talk) 14:32, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On my keyboard they're above the letters U and P Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:04, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, my dyslexia kicked in. David notMD (talk) 19:49, 27 December 2024 (UTC) [reply]

I recently translated two Articles from German into English and they have not been accepted into the English Wikipedia. I would love to get some help on how to improve on them, as I find the feedback of the reviewer to be very generic and not helpful. Article 1 Article 2

Looking forward to your help, animexamera Animexamera (talk) 09:55, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome. You don't specify the drafts you are referring to, but I assume that they are Draft:Otto Bruckner and Draft:Tibor Zenker.

First note that each language Wikipedia is a separate project, with their own editors and policies. As such, what is acceptable on one is not necessarily acceptable on another. The English Wikipedia tends to be stricter than others. It's up to the translator to make sure that what they are translating meets the requirements of the target Wikipedia.

In both cases, reviewers expressed concern that the sources used are not reliable sources, sources with a reputation of fact checking and editorial control. 331dot (talk) 10:00, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you kindly provide more details on why it was declined? I want to better understand the issues so I can address and built the page effectively. Hemantlc2018 (talk) 09:57, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome. I assume this is regarding Draft:Hemant Mishra. You have not shown that this man meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable creative professional. You provide some references, but they are not in line with the text that they support. Please see Referencing for Beginners.

You also seem to have a connection with him as you took his image and he posed for you. Please read conflict of interest and paid editing. 331dot (talk) 10:02, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For a living person, all content must be refereced. At present, no content is properly verified by valid, independent (see WP:42) references. David notMD (talk) 12:13, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I want to upload information about me here on wikipedia. What's the guidelines? 102.91.77.58 (talk) 12:18, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is.... no autobiographies. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 12:19, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not absolutely forbidden to write about yourself, but it is highly discouraged. Wikipedia is not for people to tell about themselves. Wikipedia articles summarize what independent reliable sources say about people that meet our special definition of a notable person. That's usually very hard for even experienced article writers to do. Also, an article about yourself is not necessarily a good thing. 331dot (talk) 12:41, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you are so famous that people who have no personal connection to you are publishing about you, you have no available references. All facts about a living person need to be verifiable via independent references. Your own website, social media, interviews, press releases, etc., do not count. David notMD (talk) 19:47, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does this template work?'{subst:requested move|New name|reason=Place here your rationale for the proposed page name change, ideally referring to applicable naming convention policies and guidelines, and providing evidence in support where appropriate. If your reasoning includes search engine results, please prioritize searches limited to reliable sources (e.g. books, news, scholarly papers) over other web results. You don't need to add your signature at the end, as this template will do so automatically.}' (Substituted brackets to make no issues) gtp (talk) 12:51, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @MC12GT1. Sorry, but I don't understand what you're asking. What are you trying to do, and where are you trying to do it? What happens when you try? ColinFine (talk) 14:15, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'm trying to request a Move of a page, copied the template "{{subst:requested move...[...], paste it on the talk page new section (void title) of the page I'm asking but the template seems not recognized. Maybe, because of the Bold character? gtp (talk) 14:34, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, right. You seem to have attempted to put that template on several pages, or perhaps after the first couple you were asking about inserting it. In any case, every time, you put a couple of <nowiki>..</nowiki> round parts of it, which prevents the template from being transcluded/substituted. I think this is the first one.

If it is that one, you entered:

<nowiki>{{</nowiki>subst:requested move<nowiki>|2021–2022_Gulf_12_Hours|reason=Per coherence with 2020-21 edition which was on Janurary, we could move this to 2021-22. Since 22 (december) all were raced in Dec.}}</nowiki>

(I've done some magic to make the <nowiki> that you entered actually appear here).

What you needed to enter was

{{subst:requested move|2021–2022_Gulf_12_Hours|reason=Per coherence with 2020-21 edition which was on Janurary, we could move this to 2021-22. Since 22 (december) all were raced in Dec.}}

(I've removed the bolding: I don't know whether it matters or not, but it was the <nowiki> that stopped it working).

I believe that this sort of thing happens sometimes when people use the visual editor to insert templates, but I hardly ever use it myself, so I'm not sure. ColinFine (talk) 15:03, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

this question is assuming you know how warning on twinkle works, so...

where could a starving young lady (or me) go to ask about having user warnings, in this case the uw-rfd series, added to the warning options on twinkle? i'm assuming it would be azatoth or novem linguae's talk pages, but there might be a better (or at least more proper) place to go consarn _{(formerly cogsan)} 13:29, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Consarn. I'd start at WT:Twinkle. ColinFine (talk) 13:57, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, moving my caboose there consarn _{(formerly cogsan)} 14:01, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Someone who IDed themselves as a WM emailed me soliciting to help me publish a wiki page about my research career. Is this on the up and up? GTalaska (talk) 14:21, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's almost assuredly a WP:SCAM. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:24, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GTalaska I sincerely doubt it. As a general rule, people who email or contact you out of the blue to help you get a page published either for a fee or from some position of authority tend not to be on the up and up. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 14:26, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such thing as a Wikipedia Moderator, so they are either deluded or lying. ColinFine (talk) 15:04, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.wikipediaxperts.com/ says We are certified Wikipedia Moderators who have highest ratio of Wiki page approval. so it's likely related to them, or some other paid editing scam. Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2024-01-31/Disinformation report has some more examples. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:08, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Radish, those "experts" are rank amateurs, aren't they? Now, if they wanted to impress, they could simply have written We are certified Wikipedia Arbitrators who have highest ratio of Wiki page approval. (Possibly even with a "the" in front of "highest".) -- Hoary (talk) 02:23, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am an accredited Wikipedia pubah with the highest ratio of closures challenged. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:35, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As an accredited barge toter and bale lifter who owes his soul to the company store, I resemble that remark. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:32, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone, I need assistance with some sources for the Aeye Health page. The article has been nominated for deletion due to a lack of sources. I am trying to collaborate with the editor who raised the issue by providing new supporting articles. Among these are two scientific studies which, however, are not being considered independent because some of the authors work for the company. Nonetheless, these are research papers and reports published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, which means it underwent independent evaluation by experts in the field. Could anyone help me review these sources [2] [3] and determine whether they can be used or not?

Furthermore, it would be really great if someone could partecipate to delete discussion and help me review the other articles brought as support as well: you can find everything in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AEYE Health. Thanks in advance! Dirindalex1988 (talk) 15:13, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Dirindalex1988. Peer review makes a source reliable: it doesn't make it indepedent. Notability generally requires that people unconnected with the subject have written about it. ColinFine (talk) 15:38, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ColinFine, thanks for clarification! Just one more question: can these two studies be used regardless of the notability issue, or are they completely unusable? Dirindalex1988 (talk) 17:25, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion the first - a journal article - yes, but the second - a website - no. Articles about academics or companies in the healthcare industry often have a section titled Selected publications. That information is considered informative even though it does not contribute to Wikipedia-notability. David notMD (talk) 19:46, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I participated at the discussion. To me, much of the sources read like summaries of press releases or interviews with staff. The Time bio cited was written by someone who was paid $50K specifically to promote A.I. companies. Just Al (talk) 20:52, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recently uploaded a photo of an unmarked PAP Mitsubishi Pajero car onto wikimedia commons, and added the Mitsubishi Pajero into the equipment section of the PAP article.

May I ask if the photo itself is enough evidence to add the Mitsubishi Pajero into the equipment section, and if yes is there any template(like cite web or cite sign) to reference photos? Thehistorianisaac (talk) 16:26, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It would be original research or a WP:synthesis of information to state this in words. And to include the picture in the article would be the same problem. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:37, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Moved from WT:WPAFC (diff)

I don't know in my Userpage there is a black popup United Blasters (talk) 16:40, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that at User:United Blasters you added and then deleted a Userbox. Is that what you are asking about? David notMD (talk) 16:59, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

自己最清楚自己， 但为何维基百科顾虑当事人会不客观， 而寧許非關人士编辑权呢？谢谢。 Allpeoplearepeopleofcolor (talk) 17:26, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Allpeoplearepeopleofcolor Already asked and answered at WP:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_1244#Can_I_draft_an_article_about_myself_and_get_it_published_on_this_site?, in English, since this is the English WIkipedia. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:52, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded at their talk. Valereee (talk) 20:53, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all! Currently trying to open a request for comment (RfC) for Talk:Imelda Marcos regarding the best infobox image the community thinks is best. There was a discussion three years ago, but there was a brief talk about reopening discussion/maybe it's worth having another round of talks. Just did everything for a proper RfC such as by adding the template, but I'm not sure if I did it right in terms of the RfC id number. I used the RfC for Bob Barker's talk page for reference. Could someone take a look at the Marcos's RfC and check if I did everything right? Any help/guidance will be greatly appreciated for my benefit :) TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:52, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of films shot near Victoria, British Columbia

42 references of 43 cite imdb

69.181.17.113 (talk) 22:48, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is unfortunate. I've tagged the article as needing more reliable sources. If you're interested, you could be bold and add some. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:11, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have an article all ready to go in my Sandbox--it was submitted before and I was notified of changes, which I made—but have no idea how to resubmit the thing. It’s just sitting there and I don’t know how to get it to the next step in the process. The help page says there’s a ‘submit’ button but I can’t find it.

Am I missing something? VisibleEvidence (talk) 23:00, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your sandbox lacked the appropriate information needed to submit the draft, I have added it. This is provided if you use the Article Wizard to create a draft. 331dot (talk) 23:07, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@VisibleEvidence You can edit in the template {{user sandbox}} and that will include a submit button. However, your draft would be declined very quickly. It is almost entirely sourced from the unreliable IMDb and includes many links to that website within the body text, which is not a valid way to do external links (see WP:ELPOINTS). Mike Turnbull (talk) 23:08, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @VisibleEvidence, I don't know the template to add but I'm sure someone helpful will add it for you. But before you click submit, the draft needs more work.

• Remove all the external URLs in the body.
• Reduce the summary to 700 words or less.
• Cite independent reliable sources; as it is, almost the entire article is based on what Thibault has written about his own movie.
• Don't cite imdb.
• Get rid of all the social media external links.

Hope that helps! Schazjmd (talk) 23:08, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Wished to know how to contact the members of a certain WikiProject for help regarding a certain topic under the jurisdiction of that WikiProject. To be specific, I wish to contact members of WP:INDIA and WP:RIVERS for assistance, but the respective WikiProject description pages weren't of much help. I also fear asking questions on WikiProject talk pages, seeing as some WikiProject talk page inquiries take forever to get attended to. Please help me out! Thanks, Dissoxciate (talk) 23:25, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject talk pages are the main way to do it, but as you noticed, a lot of them just aren't that active. One other thing you could do would be to find out which individual editors are active in the area and reach out to them directly. Though you might have some luck on the WikiProject talk page for India, since that's a larger topic with a more active editor base. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:16, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am doing suggested edits for Wikipedia articles, but how can I tell if those source I find on the Internet are reliable? I know sources that are User-generated content are usually not reliable, but how can I exactly tell if a source on the Internet is reliable for Wikipedia? NicePrettyFlower (talk) 00:51, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! The page at Wikipedia:Reliable sources explains the official guideline around reliable sources. The main thing is that the author and publisher are reputable. So major news websites with professional journalists will usually be reliable, but some random guy's blog is not. If you encounter a specific source you're not sure about, you can ask about it at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. But first you can check Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, which lists the ones that have been discussed the most, and search the noticeboard's archives to see if it's been discussed before. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:10, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I can try to do this. NicePrettyFlower (talk) 05:48, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. I work for Lane Community College. Our Wikipedia page hasn't been updated for a decade. It was outdated, overly long, and felt biased. I've never edited a Wikipedia page before, so I didn't make an account. I just dove in. I tried to make it as concise, accurate, and objective as possible with many references. But now I'm worried that it will all be deleted. I've made an account now and am hoping to get forgiveness for any faux pas I may have committed and guidance on how to do this better in the future. Tythetitan (talk) 00:55, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the biased view may come from one of the heavy contributors @Grand'mere Eugene who was a member faculty. The COI is disclosed on their user Talk page. The insider knowledge may have contributed to the detailed history of the school. There is a Talk page for the article that might benefit from discussion and disclosure. Just Al (talk) 01:23, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tythetitan, your first edits are fine. The history I included was largely from a detailed document posted on the LCC website, so a primary source written by the director of Research and Planning, the text of which was posted long before I began to work there. Like you, I was inexperienced and just plunged in.

I appreciate your edits so far, and am glad to see the updates, but we each have COIs because of our work at LCC. The article can still benefit from other editors' contributions, and the Teahouse is the best place to seek that help. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 04:13, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Tythetitan, and welcome to the Teahouse. If you work for the college, please do declare your status as a paid editor - this is mandatory, whereas declaring a COI is strongly encouraged.

To both of you, you and @Grand'mere Eugene: the best way for you to suggest changes to the article is to use the Edit request wizard to raise eidt requests on the article's talk page. Be as specific as possible (eg "In para starting... replace ... with ...") and remember to include a source for any information you wish to insert - if possible, a source independent of the College.

Remember that this is an encyclopaedia, not a marketing tool, so information does not become invalid simply because it is no longer current (though sometimes the way it is described needs changing). Remember too 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. In my opinion, the article is full of promotional language.

As for the logo - I see that the College's website has a different logo at the top, but is still using the one in the article further down. If that "60" logo is a temporary one in use only for the year, then I would argue that it should certainly not replace the logo in the Infobox. ColinFine (talk) 21:27, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Teahouse,

I'm looking across wikipedia's multiple articles about thyroid hormones and there's inconsistency. I'd like to discuss with other editors whether it's better to bring about consistency by merging articles, splitting articles, creating new articles, or best to leave it alone because the inconsistency reflects real-world differences. Where can I go to talk about that? I tried wikiproject medicine but nobody had input there. The talk pages don't feel like the right place for a multi-article change? I haven't decided whether to propose a merge or split or creation yet so I don't think the proposal pages are right for this purpose? Daphne Morrow (talk) 01:32, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised you haven't gotten any feedback at WikiProject Medicine; it's one of the most active projects. I'd give it a few more days there. If this is something that affects many articles, you could make a post at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) or Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) for more general feedback, though I don't know how much specialized knowledge might be necessary to weigh in here. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:19, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou, I'll do that. Daphne Morrow (talk) 06:27, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am working on improving a BLP and have access to a better image than the one that is there. I understand that the creator of the image is willing to have it used in Wikipedia. What steps do I need to take to get the creator to document that she gives permission for the image to be used in Wikipedia? Thanks for your help. Fhnewell (talk) 03:22, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fhnewell, in short, she must have rights to the image, and she must license it in a CC-BY-SA compatible license. More detailed advice is at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. To upload the file itself, you can follow the File upload wizard. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 04:27, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fhnewell WP:A picture of you may be of help. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:20, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone please explain the process of Merging two articles. AstuteFlicker (talk) 05:05, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The main information page about the process is WP:MERGE. There are several variations of the process, depending on the current status of the relevant articles, the reason for merging, etc. So that info page might have lots of needless detail for your situation. Feel free to ask with specifics (and with links to the articles, if you think that would help us give more accurate guidance). DMacks (talk) 05:50, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

so I encountered a false narrative in one of the biography I'm editing, it's basically an assumption by the author of a book based on a single letter written by the subject. I've read the book and needless to say there's a lot of assumptions and over romanticized narrative based on flimsy evidences.

This was about Dido Elizabeth Belle, whom author Paula Byrne assumed that she was her uncle's amanuensis and secretary based on a single letter she wrote for her uncle, but I actually found that the single letter contained evidence contrary to her assumptions.

the question is can I removed it? or present the information as mere assumption? Wentwort12 (talk) 06:13, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

because I think this was quoted by many publications and imo create false history based on little to no evidence, and even then this was still taken way out of context to further romanticize false history Wentwort12 (talk) 06:16, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Wentwort12. The best place to begin discussing this issue is Talk: Dido Elizabeth Belle, where you posted earlier this year. It is not the role of Wikipedia editors to challenge what a reliable source says based on our own reading of a primary source letter written well over 200 years ago. If you believe that the source is not reliable, then bring that up at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. If consensus emerges that the source in question is unreliable, then the assertion and the reference can then be removed. Cullen328 (talk) 06:47, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ok thanks for the reply. I will consider the suggestion, but yes many reviews on the autobiographical book had complained about the very wild assumptions and romanticizing slavery, this is the same book that try to say the conception of Dido Belle from an adult and 14 yo child slave was loving and "possibly" consensual Wentwort12 (talk) 08:18, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - How can somebody submit a page for a notable person? My husband has one of the country's worst wrongful convictions in the United States and I'd love to have somebody neutral put information up regarding his wrongful conviction case. We believe he will be exonerated someday. His name is Temujin Kensu and you can google search his name to learn more about this horrible case. Thank you! 65.111.210.82 (talk) 06:21, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Based on my Google search, I consider it almost certain that Temujin Kensu is notable and that Wikipedia ought to have an article about him. Cullen328 (talk) 07:39, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For anyone interested in starting a draft some of these Google hits could easily be used to pass WP:GNG. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:21, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Realistically, you may not get a volunteer. Teahouse Hosts volunteer here to advise, not to be authors or co-authors. David notMD (talk) 20:18, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there! I am writing a biography for a famous YouTuber. I want to take screenshots of frames from his videos, and add these pictures in my article for better description. Am I allowed to do this without asking for permission under copyright laws? Thank You! ArPerfectlyEdits (talk) 06:34, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ArPerfectlyEdits. I do not think it would be appropriate to use non-free screenshots in a biography of a person. The article would be about the person, not about his videos which could be described by text. If the subject of your article was a YouTube channel rather than a person, then it may be permitted under Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images #5, but you would have to follow the entire policy scrupulously because there are legal implications. Cullen328 (talk) 07:49, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are free images found on the internet after doing some research. Am I allowed to use these? I have checked the terms of these sources, and they say it's fine! ArPerfectlyEdits (talk) 08:05, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ArPerfectlyEdits Saying "it's fine" is not really good enough. The images would need to be released under a Wikipedia-compatible licence. But since this is your first article I strongly suggest you follow the guidance at WP:Your first article and create a draft establishing that this person qualifies for a Wikipedia article. Being "famous" is not really relevant. If and when that draft has been accepted you can turn your mind to the addition of appropriate images. Shantavira|^{feed me} 10:01, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArPerfectlyEdits, the vast majority of free images found on the internet are actually restricted by copyright. When it comes to free images that can be used on Wikipedia, then we need solid evidence that the image is either in the public domain, or has been released by the copyright holder in specific legally binding license language. Cullen328 (talk) 17:35, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I have tried to upload this image to Wikipedia: File:Northern Ireland Public Services Ombudsman.svg. It seems that there is some kind of issue. I don't understand - there are lots of logos of government agencies on Wikipedia, so it shouldn't be an issue. What license should I use? Aŭstriano (talk) 10:02, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Aŭstriano: the most obvious problem is that this logo isn't used in any article, which is a requirement for hosting non-free images. (It was also uploaded in too high quality, but a bot has taken care of that issue.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:48, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I used it in the article about the agency (which is probably the only place it will be used). How should I proceed? Aŭstriano (talk) 10:53, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A bot removed it from the article, which appears to be what caused the issue. I've put it back it in. -- D'n'B-t -- 11:33, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What’s the difference between an AO place article and a Wikipedia article? I used an AO place article in the mystery coke machine of Seattle page and got good faith reverted. Would you get goodfaith reverted if you used a Wikipedia article as source for another article?? Xanzs (talk) 16:28, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Xanzs, you should be reverted, as Wikipedia is not a reliable source, please see WP:RSPWP for the details - Arjayay (talk) 16:32, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SO YOU ADMIT! I”m not trusting Wikipedia because Wikipedia doesn’t trust.. Wikipedia… wait that’s a paradox Xanzs (talk) 16:40, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Xanzs, no, it is not a paradox. Wikipedia is an exceptionally useful website, but it is a user edited website. Accordingly, any given article is subject to vandalism at any moment and low traffic articles are often very low quality. We are very effective at fighting vandalism but not 100% effective, and plausible vandalism can go undetected for some time. The greatest strength of a well-written Wikipedia article is the list of references to reliable, published sources that verify the content in the article. In many cases, those references also provide more in-depth coverage of the topic. Wikipedia is a success. It is the #7 website in the world with tens of billions of monthly page views. A big part of that success is that we are strict about the reliability of the sources that we cite. Please read Wikipedia:General disclaimer for more information. Cullen328 (talk) 17:25, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At a practical level, do not cite Wikipedia, but instead cite the references that were used in a Wikipedia article, with the caveat that those should be checked to confirm that the references actually verify the fact statements in the Wikipedia articles, that the references are considered reliable source refs, and so on. David notMD (talk) 20:14, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a to download these lists ? ( For example : the list in "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_sodium" )

I have written a c# application that describes the relations between elements, isotopes, decays, fusions ... etc.(originating from the question "Where the carbon atoms in the cafeine in your coffee come from ?")

When you make normal modifications to these lists, it takes me about 2 weeks to refresh my database for over 3000 isotopes and 5000 decays coming from 118 pages (and subject to typing errors...)

I have tried to download one of these pages but I get one of these mumbo-jumbo network message ( about security and the correction looks like "set the web_client.Tchic_Tchac to Fling_Flang" ... and none of them works... )

Do you have a suggestion ?

Thank you very much Michel Béliveau (talk) 17:49, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Describing a message as a "mumbo-jumbo network message" is not very helpful in determining what your problem is. If you quote the error message exactly it might be more useful. In any case, I can successfully download articles using curl like this:

curl -k https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_sodium

CodeTalker (talk) 19:52, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this fast (and good) answer.

The mumbo-jumbo error message was : "The request was aborted: Could not create SSL/TLS secure channel." I was not using the good approach to download the content of the web page.

>>> However the CURL function does what I need.

Here is want to do In my application :

For each Element ( 118 !!! ) get the "List of Isotopes" for this Element. Then for each Isotope : get its mass, half-life, decay mode(s) and decay product(s). This yields for over 3500 isotopes and over 4500 decays. Refreshing the data took quite a long time.

Analyzing the results of the curl command is not so hard and will eliminate typing mistakes. Even if I need a few days to program the analysis, it will be faster than re-typing the data.

I will take a look at Wikidata.

Thanks again. Michel Béliveau (talk) 23:02, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Without really understanding what you are trying to do, I would suspect that Wikidata was a more useful resource than Wikipedia for your purpose, as it is a database which contains relations between its elements. ColinFine (talk) 21:34, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Teahouse,

I recently worked on the Draft:Saber Bamatraf, which has been waiting for review for over 6 months. I fully understand that this space isn’t for formal reviews and appreciate the standard waiting procedure. However, I thought I’d give it a shot here to see if anyone might offer insights or advice, as the draft is well-structured and ready for consideration.

Thank you for your time and any guidance! Wikiyem (talk) 18:34, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have submitted it and it is pending. It was submitted on the 18th, not six months ago. Please be patient, drafts are reviewed in no particular order by volunteers. 331dot (talk) 18:39, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, it was submitted by its creator MuseScot on 18th Dec, (as it had been twice on 23 June, both swiftly declined). One trusts that Wikiyem and MuseScot are not the same person. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.223.204 (talk) 19:59, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification! I had mistakenly assumed the review wait time started from the decline date because when I began editing it, I saw it was already awaiting review. My apologies for any confusion caused! Wikiyem (talk) 20:41, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Good Folk of Teahouse!

I wonder if you can help me as a longtime user but complete newcomer to editing Wikipedia. If im completely honest, im finding it all completely baffling...

My question is about creating a page about myself as an artist. My name already appears on Wikipedia in two separate articles by association with other artists and art movements, however clicking on my name as a hyperlink results in a dead page. Is there a way for me to create an article about myself - if it falls within the boundaries of being neutral and only citing reputable websites that reference me and my work?

I gave this a go already in Sandbox thinking that this would be the place to create a first draft and possibly get feedback on what needs to be altered and amended before if would be suitable for publishing, but it was deleted without detailing where I had gone wrong.

Is this possible to do - or is it pointless trying to write an article about yourself?

Many thanks for your time in advance, any help you can give would be much appreciated. AceroneUK (talk) 20:29, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AceroneUK Hello. Please see the autobiography policy. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell about themselves. Wikipedia articles about artists summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the artist, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable creative professional. We don't want to know what you say about yourself, we want to know what others say about you. That's usually very hard for people to do about themselves. People also naturally write favorably about themselves. It's not forbidden to write about yourself, but it is highly discouraged. Also see that an article about yourself isn't not necessarily desirable. If you truly are notable, someone will eventually write about you; trying to force the issue is rarely successful. 331dot (talk) 20:35, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your time and explanation, I do understand more clearly now. I was careful to only reference news and magazine websites that had previously featured my work but I accept that perhaps this was not impartial enough. I guess I will have to live with my name linking to a dead page until I am notable enough for someone else to sort it for me! AceroneUK (talk) 23:47, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please review this draft and submit article if it meets the expectations Sarahalohi (talk) 20:32, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please be patient as drafts will be reviewed by AFC reviewers in a random order. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 20:35, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You need to click the "Submit your draft for review!" button in the box at the top to actually submit it. 331dot (talk) 20:39, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am taking part in a talk page discussion where consensus seems to be clearly apparent now by all involved editors, but no one on the talk page seems to know how to actually implement a merge. The merge is here, can anyone help, or maybe better yet, direct me or teach me how to do the merge myself? I know how to do a page move, but this is moving content from an existing page and then only leaving a redirect behind. That is more than I have done before, but there is a first time for everything they say! Iljhgtn (talk) 21:35, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to learn also how to help on the Teahouse. I have received a ton of helpful support here over the years. What are the prerequisites for being a TH moderator? Iljhgtn (talk) 21:37, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They aren’t mods, just hosts. I think anyone can be one, but take that with a grain of salt. TTYDDoopliss (talk) 21:57, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Iljhgtn: We don't have moderators at the Teahouse; there are only volunteers that contribute their knowledge to people who need it. There aren't any hard prerequisites that I'm aware of (though being autoconfirmed is usually expected), but Teahouse hosts are expected to give useful, correct answers. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:06, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I tried answering some once, and the answers were "useful" and "correct", but I am not a formal Teahouse volunteer. Is there training or some formal process? Iljhgtn (talk) 22:16, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of a training program, @Iljhgtn, here’s something you might try:

Pick a Teahouse question … read it … then stop and think what you might answer the person who asked it … then go ahead and read the response(s) to see what was similar and different.

— A different sort of training, and kind of fun! Augnablik (talk) 05:37, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Iljhgtn. There are no specific requirements to answer questions on the Teahouse. If you know the answer to a question, then you are free to answer as long as you stay kind and patient towards newcomers. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 22:28, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK Iljhgtn (talk) 22:44, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I got locked out of my DooplissTTYD account because I forgot the complex password and didn’t have an email address linked to it. Is there any way that account can be renamed to something else and I change this one to DooplissTTYD? TTYDDoopliss (talk) 21:50, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You would have to request a renaming from the account you want renamed. It can't be requested by in essence a third party(as we have no way to know who is on the other end of the computer). The best you can do is post on your current and previous user pages that you lost access to your old account and have a new one. 331dot (talk) 00:06, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am new to wikipedia and would like a little more information on a problem with an article about the actor Leonard Ceeley that was refused (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Leonard_Ceeley). Something about the sources not beeing reliable enough. This is the translation of an article I did that was accepted in the French Wikipedia but I know submission conditions differ from one wikipedia to another : Basically what I should do is have more sources than the two I mentioned (IMDB and Playbill)? Thanks for your help. Edmond Furax Edmond Furax (talk) 22:40, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Edmond Furax: Welcome to the Teahouse. As you suspect, policies and guidelines differ between different language Wikipedia projects; English Wikipedia (enWP) takes the concept of wikinotability very seriously. IMDb is noted to be full of user-generated content, which makes a source unreliable by enWP standards. I'm not a regular at the reliable sources noticeboard, but I think Playbill would likely be treated as a primary source. You're going to want to find secondary sources that satisfy the golden rule: that they are independent, reliable, and significantly cover the subject. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:19, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't there originally a link permitting someone to download the entirety of Wikipedia?

I know you'll think I'm alarmist, but I read the other day that an oligarch named Musk would like to destroy Wikipedia, because, I suppose, ignorance helps people like that get their way.

But I do worry, because if we look back in history, the Great Library of Alexandria was lost at some point, and Wikipedia has to be a treasure on at least the same scale as that.

Thank you for reading and for any insight Progman3K (talk) 23:14, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Progman3K I do recall there being some way and some of my friends have for taking tests (though they use a third-party application). WP:1.0 might be a good starting place to look. ✶Quxyz✶ 23:27, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You might also find WP:DUMP helpful. Schazjmd (talk) 00:19, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Database download. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:21, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]