Cannabis Ruderalis

Skip to top
Skip to bottom


How to get a mentor?[edit]

Hello all. I see that some new editors are assigned a mentor to be there as a guide, support, etc. Such a cool idea. How are folks assigned to a mentor, do you have to sign up? Do you just reach out to an editor and ask? Thanks :) Taevchoi (talk) 16:15, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Taevchoi We only have enough mentors for about 50% of new accounts to get them at present. However, if you were in the half that didn't, then you can activate the Newcomer Homepage at Special:preferences (at the bottom there is a check-box). Once you have saved that change in your preferences, the homepage tab will be visible when you navigate to your userpage and that tab has the name of your assigned mentor. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Taevchoi (talk) 18:09, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Michael D. Turnbull, are you saying a new editor can "force" themselves a mentor this way? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:46, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gråbergs Gråa Sång Yes. I am a mentor and wanted to check out how the newcomer homepage tab worked and what it looked like: in activating it on my account I was assigned a mentor (whom I have never contacted). Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:52, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Come to think of, I did that too. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:58, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Michael D. Turnbull, I'm in the 50% of editors who got a mentor. But now, two years after the Wiki start gate opened for me, I feel that so many senior editors have been like mentors in the Teahouse and other areas where we can ask questions that I'd be willing to "free up" my assigned mentor. Perhaps other editors would, too. Augnablik (talk) 01:43, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Augnablik Yes, I made exactly that point to the Growth Team at WP:Growth Team features/Mentor list#Suggestion to "retire" mentees on 15 April. That team has taken up the suggestion but it is not yet implemented (see that thread). Incidentally, I find that most of the newcomers who are assigned to me as a mentor never make contact and of those who do, most do so only once. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:58, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It can also happen that assigned mentors don’t really connect with their mentees. Augnablik (talk) 12:05, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't actively check who is being assigned to me. I await their contact, which happens on my Talk Page. I currently have 625 mentees, with new ones being added at 2 to 4 per day. If I added a welcome message to all of them I would have little time to do anything else! Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:51, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have 625 mentees? Dear God!
Is that the typical ratio per senior editor? Augnablik (talk) 14:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, my mentor dashboard is set so I get the "average" number. This perhaps explains why only 50% of new users on enWiki get the newcomer homepage. Note that, as I've already said, few of my assigned mentees ever contact me: about 30 have done so this year (see my Talk Page: they are the ones with timestamps in the section title, which is how this newcomer feature works). Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The idea of assigned mentors is a nice “warm fuzzy,” and appreciated as we start out on our Wiki editing journey making our way through the fog.
But if (1) there aren’t enough mentors to go around; and (2) mentor-mentee interaction isn’t as strong as anticipated when the program was initiated; and (3) mentees find good support from non-assigned senior editors simply through discussion like here in the Teahouse, perhaps assigned mentors aren’t really needed.
But something is. For awhile, at least. What about occasional Internet forums via threaded message boards. These could be available for all new editors to take part in, within some sort of time frame like 6 months or a year after they come to Wikipedia.
Since newbies would interact with several senior editors rather than just one — and in addition, with fellow newbies — this could actually expand their sense of connection with Wikipedia beyond what they have in the current assigned mentor arrangement. Augnablik (talk) 13:13, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you'd like to make suggestions or otherwise ask questions about the current mentor feature, you can do so at Wikipedia talk:Growth Team features. The feature was created by the Wikimedia Foundation's Growth Team. -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:58, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the invitation, @Marchjuly — can you say a little more about that team, though? Because GROWTH would seem to be a much larger focus than just mentorship. Augnablik (talk) 00:30, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a member of the Growth Team, but there is more information about it on the link I included in my earlier post. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:50, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or the other way round :). Lectonar (talk) 12:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems that some accounts don't have mentorship, even with the homepage. (Homepage seems to be rolled out to all accounts.) All accounts technically do have an assigned mentor, but the panel is not visible to the other half of the new accounts. However, based on my past testing, "claiming" a mentee (from a mentor's dashboard) makes the panel visible, as I did on my own account. ~~2NumForIce (speak|edits) 15:18, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see that option when I go to my user page. I would really like a mentor to show me how to appropriately edit various pages on Wikipedia and work on citations. So far, I've only been participating in discussion on a few talk pages, but that's the extent of my participation on Wikipedia thus far.
Butterscotch5 (talk) 21:28, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The use of euphemisms and weasel words?[edit]

I have a question about Wikipedia style policies on the use of euphemism and weasel words, in particular as used in article titles.  Eg. is it inappropriate to use the "unrest" as a euphemism for "riots". Do such style policies exist?  Can someone point me to them?

Is Wikipedia:Teahouse to ask this sort of question? RealLRLee (talk) 23:13, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See MOS:WEASEL. As for whether 'unrest' rather than 'riot' is appropriate in a title, it would depend on the context, and on how appropriate sources described the event in question. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:18, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at WP:EUPHEMISM, if the event meets the definition of riot then "riot" is preferred over "unrest". Do I have that right? RealLRLee (talk) 20:57, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. The common name is generally preferred over others. Also the definition of something is often not so important to us directly anyway. We generally go by what reliable secondary sources say rather than editor interpretations of whether something meets some definition. Reliable secondary sources will normally rely on definitions but it's not something we're independently deciding. Nil Einne (talk) 07:16, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would you please reference the applicable Wikipedia policy that supports your claim that WP:EUPHEMISM is to be ignored is selecting multiple possible common names? RealLRLee (talk) 22:35, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:COMMONNAME. Note that WP:COMMONNAME is policy whereas WP:EUPHEMISM is a guideline. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:12, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RealLRLee: COMMONNAME is a policy about article titles, not article prose. And just because something is a guideline doesn't mean we give it less value. I consider policies as our governing rules, and guidelines as our best practices. Ignoring either one isn't a great idea. If reliable sources use a euphemism to describe something, that doesn't mean we should. It also doesn't mean we should ignore what reliable sources call something. Particularly if the naming might be controversial, we should see what most reliable sources use. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:14, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
EvergreenFir -- Would you please QUOTE the specific guideline or policy text that suggests that MOS:EUPHEMISM [1] does not apply in the current case? RealLRLee (talk) 00:49, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:Nil Einne: Again, as I asked above --"Would you please reference the applicable Wikipedia policy that supports your claim that WP:EUPHEMISM is to be ignored is selecting multiple possible common names?"
RealLRLee (talk) 00:51, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unable to resubmit[edit]

I am getting an error @Theroadislongwhen trhying to resubmit this with the requested changes. Any tips?

I am getting this error message: No stashed content found for (followed by a nonsensical arrangement of letters and dashes and numbers) Saraalutz (talk) 06:01, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Previous people who helped with this error said that it might be caused by having the edit page open for a very long time before publishing the changes, that you might need to copy your changes (if they aren't lost), click edit again, paste your changes and then try again. – 2804:F14:80E4:8401:DCFE:5436:C21:470C (talk) 06:10, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can only suggest you try again, your draft Draft:Debbie Matthews is VERY poorly sourced and will not be acceptable without better referencing. Theroadislong (talk) 06:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
in what way is the draft poorly sourced? can you be more specific please Saraalutz (talk) 06:36, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the draft cites no sources at all. Where did you get all that infomation from? Only the list of "Media Appearances:" cites sources. Maproom (talk) 07:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Saraalutz The first 30+ paragraphs are totally unsourced. Theroadislong (talk) 07:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Saraalutz I believe you may have an undeclared 'conflict of interest' in writing about Debbie Matthews. Please follow the instructions and declare any connection you have with her on your userpage. See WP:COI for how to do this. If you are being paid in any way, you are obliged to declare who is paying you. Again, please read and follow WP:PAID to ensure you remain within our policy requirements whilst editing.
I am concerned that the large number of images you have uploaded to Commons suggests you have direct personal access to photographs collated by Debbie Matthews, and that you do not understand the way Wikimedia Commons works. I would point out that even if Debbie Matthews holds those photos, she will not own the copyright to many of them - especially those taken whilst she was racing on her bike and not holding the camera! Unless you were the photographer, yourself, you will not have the legal right to release another person's photos under a Creative Commons licence for anyone else to use. Equally, whilst we encourage you to cite news stories from newspapers in which she is mentioned, you may not upload photos of newspaper pages to Commons as they remain copyright of the newspaper publisher. You do not have the rights to release them, either. Do not be surprised if many of these photos are marked for future deletion. Kind regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 08:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Saraalutz, there is no way under the sun that such a poorly referenced draft can be accepted into the encyclopedia. You have provided no way for readers to verify that many, many claims in your draft are true. Please be aware that Verifiability is a core content policy, as is No original research which is also applicable. Cullen328 (talk) 08:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I declared my COI in my userpage. Where else do I need to declare it? Saraalutz (talk) 07:32, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Saraalutz I strongly recommend that you read Wikipedia:Writing Wikipedia articles backward. Shantavira|feed me 08:34, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you review it again and tell me what *specifically* the draft: Debbie Matthews still needs? @Grabup Saraalutz (talk) 07:27, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Saraalutz: Replied to my talk page. GrabUp - Talk 07:41, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have some neck charging for your poor editing! You are being paid by the subject to write this, do your client a favour and learn how Wikipedia actually works before submitting this again. Theroadislong (talk) 07:55, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It costs nothing to be kind. Try it sometime. @Theroadislong Saraalutz (talk) 01:24, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Saraalutz are you being paid for this or not? '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 01:30, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Saraalutz has declared on their user page that they are being paid, my kindness extends to editing for up to 8 hours a day to help the encyclopaedia for free. I hate seeing people being taken advantage of by poor quality paid editing. Theroadislong (talk) 05:39, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Saraalutz Your inline citations are messed up (Superscript? Why? Just use the ref tags.) Also, your sources are very questionable. Interviews on YouTube and primary sources… 48JCL (talk) 02:43, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not essays[edit]

A reviewer moved my article back to draft, because, " Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because Wikipedia articles are not academic essays.". Does that mean it needs to be "dumbed down"? Any elaboration appreciated, if known. Fixingthingsguy (talk) 20:52, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixingthingsguy, I guess this is about Draft:How the PET bottle became ubiquitous. No, dumbing-down is not the issue. But there's a lot of things wrong with that draft, which would prevent it trom being accepted as a Wikipedia article:
  • It's not an article about a subject, it's an essay about how (in your view) something happened. I assume that's what the reviewer meant.
  • It uses capitalisation and italics in seemingly random ways: "Polyethylene Terephthalate", "glass", "2-Liter".
  • It says "50 years ago" rather than giving a date. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and hopes to exist for at least another 50 years, it's not a newspaper. "Today", likewise.
  • The punctuation is chaotic. Some periods are mid-sentence, some sentences have no period. Punctuation should always followprecede references, not precedefollow them.
The last three items will be fairly easy to correct. But while what you've written is not about a notable topic, it has little chance of being accepted. Maproom (talk) 21:17, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that's very helpful. Fixingthingsguy (talk) 21:47, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fixingthingsguy: a Wikipedia article should be a summary of what reliable sources have said about a subject, nothing more. It should not present any argumentation or conclusions at all, except possibly summaries of arguments or conclusions presented in one single source. It could summarise (separately) arguments or conclusions from two or more different sources, but should make no attempt to compare or reconcile them. ColinFine (talk) 22:02, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks . I'm getting a better picture of what I need to do. My grandson is likely never to ask, how did the plastic-like beverage bottle get ubiquitous! But if he was super observant, he might ask, how come all these beverage bottles in the grocery have a weird shape in the bottom. That might be a subject of interest. In which case I would tell him about these super smart people who tossed around various ideas and came up with a petal like base, that ensured the Coke bottle or Pepsi bottle would stand a lot of jostling around from manufacture to the dining table and stand upright at all times. How did they do that, grandad, and I would say, they made a preform that looks like a syringe with the small end closed, and shoved a burst of hot air that made it into a form that ends looking like a beverage bottle. And they received patents for that from the US Patent office. And, oh, by the way, they made trillions of these and now are struggling to find a way to recycle them without becoming a hazard for future generations.
How does that sound. Thanks in advance for any feedback
Regards Fixingthingsguy (talk) 00:36, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a great blog post, but like it wouldn't quite fit on Wikipedia. However, that doesn't mean the information you've collected wouldn't be useful, or couldn't be incorporated into Wikipedia!
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. A good way to think of it is that the title of a Wikipedia article should be a noun: Wikipedia articles should describe a single thing, rather than try to answer a question (like "how did X happen").
Once we've chosen a thing, we find and summarize all the information there is related to that particular thing. For example, your article could probably be split up and included in our article on plastic bottles or polyethylene terephthalate! –Sincerely, A Lime 01:01, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I'll note your suggestions as I rework the draft. Fixingthingsguy (talk) 21:08, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maproom: On punctuation and reference indices: Really? 126.33.112.247 (talk) 22:00, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Maproom is mistaken here. Punctuation should always precede references, except in limited circumstances. See MOS:CITEPUNCT. Adam Black tc 00:42, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. Now corrected. Maproom (talk) 07:58, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In anser to your question, not good. Articles consist of facts and references, not "telling". And are you aware that Polyethylene terephthalate has a section on bottles? Perhaps you have referenced content that can be added there versus a separate article. David notMD (talk) 00:46, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IKEA Foundation request help[edit]

Hi editors, I'm Altaf with the IKEA Foundation. I made a request to add a History section to the IKEA Foundation article on April 16 but so far it has not received a response. I have posted to several WikiProjects and to individual editors to see if there was any interest but so far have heard nothing. I realize there is no deadline on Wikipedia, but I was wondering if there is anything else I could do to drum up interest? Thanks in advance for your insight. AMfromIKEA (talk) 07:18, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AMfromIKEA Perhaps because they saw this discussion, an editor has suggested you go ahead with the change you proposed. There is a specific template {{edit coi}} you can use for such requests which are more likely to be followed up quickly since there are some editors who specialise in working on them. That helps when there are few people with the article on their watchlist. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:37, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AMfromIKEA, sorry that I forgot to notify you about that. From my view, I didn't find much unwanted content on the draft you made, so I suggested you can go ahead and make that edit. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 12:01, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Michael D. Turnbull and AlphaBetaGamma: thank you both for the quick response. I will keep that in mind about the edit COI template. Cheers AMfromIKEA (talk) 07:33, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article addition: Conquest of Mount Everest by first Kurd & Iraqi[edit]

Article addition: Conquest of Mount Everest by ,,Dadvan Yousuf", who became the first person worldwide to achieve this feat on May 20, 2024, as reported by reputable media sources.

Cointelegraph

The Crypto Times

Blocmates

He took also the Bitcoin Flag as first to Mount Everest. 185.206.81.126 (talk) 07:15, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Go to WP:AFC and follow the instructions. You're advised to create an account first. If you don't want to write the article, see Wikipedia:Requested articles and add your request there. ~Anachronist (talk) 07:23, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many hundreds of wealthy people spend many tens of thousands of dollars every year to be led up Mount Everest by professional guides. This is not a notable mountaineering accomplishment any more. A mountaineering accomplishment becomes worthy of mentioning on Wikipedia when it covered by reliable mountaineering publications, not by cryptocurrency publications, which have zero expertise about mountaineering matters and poor reputations for reliability in general. Cullen328 (talk) 07:26, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are saying it's not noteworthy anymore to become the first of a country to summit Mount Everest? 185.84.71.127 (talk) 08:03, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Being "first X from country Y", "youngest Ä to do Ö", etc. may make someone 'noteworthy' in some sense of the word, but that's not what we're talking about; the issue at stake here is notability, and such factors were never (AFAIK) criteria for Wikipedia notability. They may generate publicity of sufficient quality and quantity to indirectly satisfy the WP:GNG notability standard, but even then, pulling off a blatant publicity stunt like being the first to plant the Bitcoin flag on the summit (!) will carry little or no weight. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:16, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I dont know how to do that. I have no idea about Wikipedia. Just wanted to bring this input in. 185.84.71.127 (talk) 08:03, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I dont know how to do that 185.84.71.127 (talk) 08:18, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't want to write an article yourself, you can make a request at Wikipedia:Requested articles/Biography/By nationality and Wikipedia:Requested articles/Biography/By profession. By adding the person's name and sources to the appropriate section. But, like Cullen328 said above, the person is likely not notable. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 08:52, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cullen328 @Anachronist @CanonNi this is regarding the existing article Dadvan Yousuf which has a really bad history of random IPs trying to promote the person, apparently being told to do so by Dadvan himself. Qcne (talk) 13:46, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wait that's a fact here? This guy summited Everest. What exactly is the reason not to put this in the Article? 185.54.166.1 (talk) 13:51, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It might be a good conversation starter for him, but not a good reason for the information to be included in his article. See WP:NBIO and WP:GNG. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 13:57, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the OP was suggesting to create a new article. However, there's already an article on Dadvan Yousuf, apparently. There's no reason it can't have a mention in the article, but doesn't need to be in the lead section. There's already discussion about this on the article talk page. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:03, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone please take the lead here and add it in the article. 212.237.118.104 (talk) 17:47, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here is what Wikipedia:WikiProject Climbing/Article recommendations says about this: Editors should be cautious of modern climbers of eight-thousanders (especially normal routes on Mount Everest, Cho Oyu, and Makalu), which are now achievable by ambitious tourists with $50,000, but little climbing skills. These ascents are no longer covered in climbing media per above, although they are often covered in blogs run by touring companies to promote their guiding business to eight-thousanders. There has been no coverage of this person's ascent of Mount Everest in any legitimate mountaineering publication because it is of no interest to people who are serious about mountaineering. The coverage of this climb in cryptocurrency publications is duplicative, promotional and repetitive, and is obviously generated by press releases and self-promotional public relations efforts by Yousuf himself. There is literally zero original reporting because cryptocurrency publications have zero interest in reporting on actual mountaineering accomplishments. Cullen328 (talk) 02:42, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilink, s and apostrophe[edit]

Seeing Project Gutenbergs' at Wikipedia:List of free online resources#Biographies and clicking edit source I found the s was outside the brackets and was followed by the apostrophe {see the Wikipedia:List of free online resources: Difference between revisions Wikipedia:List of free online resources#Biographies, scrolling to the section, and click edit source here to see how it appeared before my edit}. Why did the s appear as part of the wikilink? Mcljlm (talk) 11:02, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mcljlm See H:WIKILINK. The software is quite clever and is intended to make it easier to do links. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:40, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Turnbull Thanks. In this case it compounded the error. Mcljlm (talk) 22:48, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article Declined[edit]

Why is my article declined Sarimqureshi 6 (talk) 11:19, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarimqureshi 6 According to the messages on your Talk Page, the draft was "unambiguous promotion" and not backed up by reliable sources. As it has already been speedily deleted, I can't see what you wrote to comment further. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:29, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sarimqureshi 6, it was deleted. The oddity of Draft:Dr. Maqsood Ahmed started with its title. Albert Einstein is somebody who, rather famously, earned a doctorate, yet the article about him is titled plain "Albert Einstein", not "Dr. Albert Einstein". "Dr", "Ms" and the like don't belong in draft/article titles.
Here's a humdrum example from the rightly deleted draft:
Performed extremely well in providing protection to important personalities whenever and wherever needed.
Three problems: (i) This grand claim comes with no evidence whatever. (ii) Bits of this are in bold for no obvious reason. (iii) It should be a sentence; but as a sentence it's clearly defective: it needs a subject.
Before attempting any new article, please improve existing articles in accordance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, thereby familiarizing yourself with Wikipedia norms. -- Hoary (talk) 21:32, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore All Rules[edit]

Hey editors, I hope you all are well. I want to know when one should use WP:IAR at AfD. It is obvious that the creator of this rule knew it could be misused to save articles. So, what are the limitations of this rule? When can't someone use this guideline? GrabUp - Talk 15:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Grabup It seems to me that AfD is a discussion intended to decide whether or not an article should be deleted. As such, rules shouldn't need to be relied upon (or ignored). Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:32, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Grabup: You could use it in your post at AfD but it isn't really meant for discussions and the closer may put little weight on your post. AfD is not a straight vote and IAR is a lousy argument by itself. Do NOT use it to bypass the AfD process, e.g. by hiding links to hte discussion, posting from multiple accounts, changing or removing posts by others, closing the discussion too early or against consensus, damaging the article in hope of getting more delete support, or canvassing. Personally I almost never use IAR and only when a rule wasn't written with the specific circumstances in mind, almost everybody would probably agree with my action, and it doesn't seem important enough to start a discussion. I never use it in discussions. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:10, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your detailed information. Another thing I wanted to ask is why this rule was created. We have rules such as GNG, NPOL, NACTOR, and others, so why is there another rule that just skips them? GrabUp - Talk 17:13, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It essentially exists to say "it's OK to use common sense". Policies and guidelines shouldn't be interpreted as laws – they exist only to describe principles that the Wikipedia community thinks are generally good, and are intended to help Wikipedia, not harm it. Occasionally, some action that would be indicated by a policy might be so obviously bad for Wikipedia that nobody would reasonably agree with the policy in that scenario, so in those rare circumstances there's no good reason to follow the rule.
Think about it like how a police officer would obviously not expect a doctor to obey a law against jaywalking if someone was having a medical emergency on the other side of the road and there were no cars in sight – the rules don't need to carve out every possible exception, as long as everyone uses common sense. Tollens (talk) 17:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the detailed answer. I was asking about it because I had a small discussion with a person who is likely to use this rule at normal AfDs at the recent RFA. His question was Q26. You can see the discussion if you search for Q26 or see this diff. GrabUp - Talk 18:08, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In my 18 years on Wikipedia, the last dozen of which have been as an administrator, I have never had to invoke IAR. I consider it a cop-out. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say I'd use it personally, I just said I think it would be justifiable in that specific situation. To my knowledge, I've never invoked IAR at AfD. You can scrutinize my votes here, but I'm fairly sure I haven't. Cremastra (talk) 22:13, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Using an updated version of a web page as a source[edit]

Hello. I'm really confused when it comes to citing web pages.

Say I have a reliable website with a piece of info I want to use – so reliable in fact, that it's been already used as a reference in the article I'm working on. The issue is, I'm certain the piece of info I'm interested in was added only after the website was last "retrieved".

What is the best practice here? Do I need to update the "retrieved" date and go through all the places the reference was used to make sure it's still applicable and rewrite the parts of the article it no longer supports? Or can I just cite the new version of the page separately?

What if the old version contains a factual error that the new version has fixed, is that automatically the former case (replacing and verifying)?

And what if there's no archive available from the retrieval date, and I actually don't know if the page contained the info I'm interested in at that point in time? Is it best to update the reference/quote separately/whatever else it is you do, just in case? Or do I just re-use the old reference?

Finally, if I'm taking info from several different sections of a website (sections that take clicks to get to, with slightly different URLs), is it better to quote the website once as a whole, or separately for each case?

Sorry for the long question, and thank you very much for any answers. Vtipoman (talk) 17:50, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vtipoman! It might depend on how exactly the website was cited before. Most of the time, the reference to a website is actually just one reference in the page source, so updating it in one place will automatically change it everywhere else. Assuming that the reference has substantially changed it might be reasonable to cite it twice with a different access date (though you can absolutely go through and check if you like), but if the only thing that has changed is that information has been added, the source will clearly still support anything it supported before, so just updating the date retrieved is fine. If the source has changed so much that it now contradicts what it said before, or if you are certain it had errors before, it would certainly be a good idea to go through and check the article as you described.
In terms of citing different sections of a website, it depends what you mean. If what you mean is different parts of the same page, like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow vs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow#Scientific_history, then one citation is probably preferred. If instead, you mean two different pages on the same website, like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow vs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thunderstorm, you should use one citation per page. Tollens (talk) 03:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I think that covers the major cases. Just to make sure though, what is the best thing to do if the updated version of the website removes some other piece of information used in the article without changing substantially? I ran into a situation like that before – the new version had what I wanted to use, but was missing something else – though I ended up resolving it by finding a new, separate source.
Also, in the case of a small website with maybe a dozen pages total, is it still better to cite each used page separately? The specific example I have is the official site of these caves.
Thanks again, and sorry for adding more questions. :) 🍵 Vtipoman (talk) 17:05, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the first scenario, just adding a new reference with a different access date is probably still okay (unless you want to find another source, as you did, which is of course totally fine). With regard to the second question, you should still use multiple references. The point of a citation is not only to provide attribution but to uphold WP:V – it should be as easy as possible for a reader to see that yes, the content on Wikipedia does indeed come from reliable sources. They shouldn't have to search through the linked resource to find the source material, it should ideally be immediately available where possible (this is the same reason we often use multiple citations with different page numbers when different parts of the same book are used in an article). Tollens (talk) 21:38, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Conference League 2023-2024 Final[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


What are your predictions? Editor 28 May 2024 (talk) 18:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Editor 28 May 2024 Spero vinca la Fiorentina perché è una squadra Italiana. In Champions si tifano le squadre italiane sempre! (talk) 18:37, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This page is for help in editing Wikipedia. It is not for general knowledge questions, still less for speculating about the future. Please find another outlet (not anywhere in Wikipedia) for questions like that. ColinFine (talk) 18:41, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Outdated Info for “Consumer Cellular Inc”[edit]

The page shows an alert with concerns of a too-close major contributor. But more concerning is that the company has moved its HQ from Oregon to Scottsdale AZ, and from a user friend I've learned that it has moved its user base entirely to T-Mobile.

I'm not familiar enough with all the operations and other cases where Wikipedia's info is outdated. Does somebody else want to try? Woof! (talk) 20:01, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Woof!, and welcome to the Teahouse.
In order to make a change to the article Consumer Cellular, we'll require a reliable published source for any information to be added : "I've learned from a friend" doesn't cut it.
The best thing to do is to start a discussion on the talk page Talk:Consumer Cellular, where people who have an interest in the subject are more likely to see it. If you can find a source for the information, include it, and that makes it more likely that somebody will decide to edit the article. ColinFine (talk) 21:01, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Group Theme?[edit]

Is it possible to creat a collaborative Wikipedia Group that focuses on specific themes? If yes, how can I creat a Group on Wikipedia? IlEssere (talk) 20:55, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello IlEssere, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "themes", but I suspect that what you are looking for it WikiProjects - there are many, some of which are very active, and some inactive. ColinFine (talk) 21:02, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ref error[edit]

I need help fixing an error on here: Draft:Unomattina estate#Seasons I have tried playing around with source editing to fix the issue but couldn't find it. I preview the edited changes and the message of "Cite error: A (see the help page)". is still there after multiple attempts to fix it. Anyone know what the issue was? Soafy234 (talk) 21:11, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Soafy234. There were several errors. I haven't examined the content of the references but is [1] what you want with three references for Barbara Capponi? PrimeHunter (talk) 21:33, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that is what I would like. I would like all three references for Barbara Capponi cited. Soafy234 (talk) 21:34, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merging 2 articles of the same content[edit]

Hello! I would like to do this myself as a learning task so I've found 2 that are very low-importance and overlap. Would someone mind walking me through how you'd go about merging these 2 (in a general sense)? (please don't just do it for me) Thanks! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cedar_Grove_Plantation_(North_Carolina) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cedar_Grove_(Huntersville,_North_Carolina) Sock-the-guy (talk) 22:26, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sock-the-guy, please peruse Wikipedia:Merging. -- Hoary (talk) 23:05, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sock-the-guy. Good find. See Wikipedia:Merging#How to merge for detailed instructions. Rather than repeat a lot of that, I suggest you read it and either ask more specific questions you still need, or make the merge and ask if you did it right. The pages are not suited for history merge. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:11, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to follow what the instructions said..mind checking to be sure that it's correct? Sock-the-guy (talk) 23:13, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems fine, I re-added the image of the building and the infobox thing with all the links at the bottom (whatever that is called). Traumnovelle (talk) 23:59, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind undoing it so I can have the practice? I imagine this will be much less intimidating in the future if I've actually done it before 68.2.230.114 (talk) 00:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All I did was edit the old page that is now a redirect. If you wish to edit/view the history of a redirect you need to click on the page when it says '(Redirected from Article here))' If you are using source editor it is not that hard to find the content and copy it over. If you are using visual editor - I have no idea. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:06, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand where you are coming from. However, please try to see my perspective that as a new editor I am trying to learn how to edit. It took me a while to even find an example like this that was a bigger edit involving some actual formatting rather than just copy-editing. Please allow me to ask for directions without losing the ability to try myself (as I mentioned twice in my original post). There is much more educational value in doing something rather than looking at someone else's edits. Sock-the-guy (talk) 00:11, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can look at the history of my edits and see what I copied over and where I placed it in the new article. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:12, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to be civil but my god. Is it so bad to let an edit take slightly longer so that someone can learn? This is exhausting. I suppose what I've learned here is "don't ask for help" Sock-the-guy (talk) 00:14, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is a collaborative project and you do not WP:OWN anything. I've gone ahead and made a sandbox with the article before my edit here: User:Traumnovelle/sandbox, feel free to practice with this version. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:18, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't seem very nice to link WP:OWN as if they are violating it, they aren't - this is a collaborative project, trying to do everything yourself even when people explicitly request the opportunity to do it themselves is the opposite of collaborative. – 2804:F14:8085:6201:79B8:8DAD:273E:E996 (talk) 03:13, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only request was 'please don't just do it for me', I didn't merge the page - I merely copied over an image and navigation template that were left behind. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:34, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well they asked if it's correct, clearly there were things missing, which you did yourself instead of answering - on that topic, @Sock-the-guy, the talk pages still need to be merged or redirected. If there are more things, I don't have the experience to tell so I didn't look for them. – 2804:F1...3E:E996 (talk) 03:45, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Merged those. Sock-the-guy (talk) 16:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can I close/carry out a merge I've proposed if there has been no opposition?[edit]

Per heading, if I have requested a merge and no one has opposed it and a reasonable time has passed e.g. a fortnight would it be appropriate to simply carry out the action? Closing moves and mergers requires someone uninvolved but I feel this is somewhat different given if I had just done the merge/move before I wouldn't need to worry about that. Traumnovelle (talk) 23:54, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what merge you are referring to specifically, but on the page on mergers, it mentions that other than obvious cases the other use for the request process is if it is beneficial to have discussion, or is difficult to carry it out. If there has been no discussion, and based on the proposals around the same time as it, you don't expect any more conversation, you may want to try and WP:Be Bold, as the link above suggests. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 01:21, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just one specific request but in general, but I guess I shall just be bold. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:26, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube[edit]

Hi. Can a YouTube video ever be a source? 2600:1008:B147:373:F0E1:3CFF:FE27:7F5C (talk) 00:05, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:RSPYT Traumnovelle (talk) 00:07, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks 2600:1008:B147:373:F0E1:3CFF:FE27:7F5C (talk) 00:11, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have I done it correct?[edit]

Hey guys, I was interested in knowing if I have done the clean up correctly of the page (South African Bureau of Standards).

I am new here, and this page was a bit challenging for me... please help. Liah78 (talk) 00:07, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No big problems, but all you've done, Liah78, is to remove swathes of unreferenced material. You don't seem to have touched what you haven't removed. The material in the article of course ought either to be referenced or to be deleted. In your place I'd have added Template:Citation needed and Citation:Unreferenced section where appropriate, and returned a month later to delete what remained unreferenced. Your edit summary, "Clean up" is oddly uninformative: "Removing unreferenced material" would have been better. -- Hoary (talk) 01:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hoary Thank you so much. I will do that. Regarding the information I removed, it seemed to me that someone was attempting to add "SABS Commercial (Pty) Ltd" in the draft, which is why it was so confusing.
Thank you for the advice, I will keep it in mind. :) Liah78 (talk) 17:06, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Liah78. To enlarge a bit on what Hoary says: anybody is permitted to remove unreferenced material from an article, so in that sense you haven't done anything wrong. But this is not always the best thing to do.
In an ideal world, in a case like this you would look for the reliable sources for the information, and either add them, or remove it if you can't find any, preferably with an edit summary explaining why you've removed it. But that's a big job, so most of us don't always do this: cleanup tags such as Hoary suggested are usually a better approach. ColinFine (talk) 10:39, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ColinFine Thank you very much. I get it. :) Liah78 (talk) 17:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Appropriate to move a draft to namespace?[edit]

Hey everyone! I apologise if this is a silly question, but a draft I made recently was moved to namespace and I've been told I can now create articles without the AfC process (if I've interpreted that correctly).

I have another article (Draft:Still House Plants) that I made a couple of weeks back, before my approved article was made. This draft was declined, but in the time since, I'm pretty sure I've fixed the issues raised (information re: WP:NMUSICIAN which a reviewer directed to me at the AfC help desk). My question - is it appropriate for me to move the article myself, instead of waiting for the reviewers, now that I have the ability to do so?

Thanks so much for your help! LemurLiterature (talk) 01:34, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LemurLiterature. In my oersonal opinion, it doesn't really matter in the long run whether you or an AFC reviewer moves the article to the mainaspace per se as long as the article truly belongs in the mainspace; however, since you've already submitted the draft for review, it might be best just to let the process run its course. There's really WP:NODEADLINE in effect here; so, if you've satisfactorily improved the draft and addressed the reasons why it was previously declined, it will likely be accepted this time around. Even if, by chance, it's declined yet again, you will at least have an better idea as to what was lacking and you could use the feedback to help you avoid similar problems when creating future articles. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:22, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure in unencyclopedic[edit]

Is this section of the Anxiety Threshold article appropriate for Wikipedia? It seems odd and out of place, but I can't figure out it's actually against any specific policies. I had a look at WP:NOTGUIDE and it seems to fit, but I'm not confident enough that I feel comfortable removing/changing it and would like advice from a more experienced editor. -- NotCharizard 🗨 07:32, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: Bring up the matter at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychology. -- Hoary (talk) 08:43, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As it is an encylopedia, and all the content is sourced to multiple third parties from the medical field (only one source is broken), and one source is even used within the "Statistics" section, i would say that: No, it does indeed belong. While I understand that it is sometimes expected for an encyclopedia to be clean and sterile and therefore a "home remedy section" seems out of the ordinary, that does not mean that they do not belong into the Wikipedia. Not only problems deserve to be catatalogued into an encyclopedia, solutions are also worthy of the same. And if I were to create new page on Home remedies against anxiety I'll betcha there would be a merge request in a week. Also, you are talking about a subsection within "Management", so the content definitely belongs.
HOWEVER, you are very correct regarding the language used. Since as you rightly linked, WP:NOTGUIDE clearly disadvises the "how to-style" of speech, which is the case here. Also, nor is WP:VOICE folowed here, as shown below. So, per example,
"Be physically active. Having a routine to follow can help stay active throughout the week. Staying active throughout the week can be a great way to relieve stress and improve mood. This exercise doesn't need to be strenuous. It can start out easy and slowly increase in intensity"
should definitely be rewritten as
"The Anxiety and Depression Association of America advises physical activity, as staying active throughout the week can be a great way to relieve stress and improve mood..." etc.
Therefore, your idea of changing it seems appropriate, simply deleting it seems like a loss to the encyclopedia, as phyical activity etc. do in fact help with anxiety and mood which people should be aware of, especially if anxious, and could be corroborated even harder with more than an ADAA link.
P.S.: Maybe the odd feeling comes from the fact that the section looks eerliy similar to a copy-paste answer a modern LLM-based ChatBot might give when prompted "Can you give me a sourced list of lifestyle changes to help with my anxiety/depression?"
"Why certainly! Lifestyle can make a big difference in how people feel and think. Here are a few things people have tried to decrease anxiety throughout their everyday life:
  • Be physically..."
Also, I am a mere beginner, do not under any circumstances take my word as gospel. OnlyAQuestionOfTime (talk) 11:51, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

if a school student decides to vandalize and the whole school uses the same ip address does that just screw everyone over[edit]

i think it works like that 188.227.135.236 (talk) 10:27, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If your IP address gets blocked due to vandalism, all you need to do is WP:create an account. It's free and has many advantages. Shantavira|feed me 10:57, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

can't update logo copyright?[edit]

I am trying to tag this image as a fair use logo (File:Schwarzman Scholars.jpg - Wikipedia) but it keeps on giving me an error. Can someone help me? SnoopyStudent (talk) 10:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @SnoopyStudent: as I don't know what exactly you're trying to do and what error message you're getting, I can't comprehensively answer your question, but the first thing that jumps at me is that 2500 x 1400 is almost certainly too high-res to qualify under the fair-use provisions, per WP:IMAGERES. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:18, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It should be 422 X 237, if I'm using this tool correctly. I'll scale it down. Cremastra (talk) 20:59, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done @SnoopyStudent: I've added {{non-free use rationale}} to the file, you should be able to fill out the required parameters (for starters, what is the source of the image?) Cremastra (talk) 21:04, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the correct handling of old sources[edit]

Hello! Thank you for your time.

As I am new to the fray, and want to learn and to do it right, I will make use of this here establishment by asking the following, all though I have a set viewpoint to a certain extent which will now doubt be evident:

When a website moves its content from "https://www.subsection.example.com" to merely "https://subsection.example.com", and, ten years ago, "https://www.subsection.example.com" contained information which allowed the corroboration of a certain factoid (lets say "It used to be XYZ, and now is only ABC") written in the body of the page, and a user had created a source to the effect of "Examplesite (2013), Linktoexamplesite, Example Ltd, Retrieved 2013-02-13", then the link SHOULD STAY AS IS in its entirety and should not be changed, even though it is currently broken and leads to a 404, right?

If someone wanted to "repair" the source by mereley deleting "www." from the link and changing nothing more, that is plain wrong, correct?

If they actually want to help here, they should either resource the material, use and integrated webarchive link, or just leave it alone so that someone else can do one of the above, yes? And if they do change the link, they would have to do their due dilligance, and then also change the date of retrieval. What should not be done is to say, quote, "The www. being there or not is a technical issue, it does not change the webpage but rather how the server deliver that webpage. That I didn't access the webpage in 2011 is irrelevant, someone else did. If you want to know what the webpage looked like in 2011, use WebArchive or similar.", because if I, as a hypothetical clueless third party, would then try to find the "https://subsection.example.com" from supposedly 10 years ago, I could not find a thing since back then it was "https://www.subsection.example.com", yes?

Addendum: Especially if, after doing so, they then go and deleted part of the text, to the extend of "It used to be XYZ, and now is only ABC", leading to only "And now is only ABC" left in the body (at least they capitalized the first leter of the now gramatically rather dangling sentence), because, quote, "As for "[It used to be XYZ, and now is only ABC]", there is no source to support the '[XYZ] anywhere.", based on the now "new" source (which by the way also does not corroborate ABC anymore as times have changed, and the same site contains new info (duh)).

When need be, I can link the Page and Talkpage in question if you want to see the situation in not a generalized form but "in the wild" so to speak, I however hope to have made a general enough case to not have to drag anyone down.

As I am new, yet they pride themselves as a seasoned editor roaming the Wikipedia since time immemorial, I don't want to, and most likely can't, just haggle it out with them, as I would 10 out of 10 pull the short straw.

All the best, OnlyAQuestionOfTime (talk) 11:20, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Help me please!!! OnlyAQuestionOfTime (talk) 10:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(1) Please don't SHOUT! We are all volunteers here, answering in our own spare time, so no-one is obliged to respond to you rapidly.
(2) Frankly, your query is so convoluted and over-detailed that I cannot fully understand it, and am not sufficiently motivated to try any further.
Speaking generally, if a citation's internet link is broken it should be replaced: if it can be 'repaired' by redirecting it to a new url for the same original source, that is OK, but if not it would be perfectly correct to replace it with a different Reliable source that corroborates the same information. It would also be perfectly in order to replace a working link with one to a different, perhaps more recent, Reliable source that corroborates the information better. Wikipedia Articles are, by design, ever-changing and hopefully improving, and are not intended in themselves to preserve internet history – in any case all older versions, edit by edit, can be found in their page histories. I hope that helps; if not, perhaps someone else can untangle your problem. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.2.67.173 (talk) 13:35, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Search from one name to the proper title[edit]

Hi

I am a very, very intermittent editor who maybe once or twice a year makes minor fixes to articles.

I was looking in Wikipedia for information on a specific "think tank", but couldn't find it by the name it was referred to in an article. Eventually using a search engine I found that is not its formal name, which I then used to find it on Wikipedia. I thus feel that there should be a link in Wikipedia that redirects from a search using the name it is sometimes referred to.

I notice this frequently. For instance: searching for "National Aeronautics and Space Administration" redirects to "NASA"; "JB Priestly" to "J. B. Priestly"; etc.

In this case, I searched for "Misgav Institute" after seeing it in a mainstream newspaper article identifying a writer. I finally found using a search engine its proper name, "Institute for Zionist Strategies". Its Wikipedia's first line says: "The Misgav Institute for National Security and Zionist Strategy (formerly named Institute for Zionist Strategies) ...".

What I want to do is add to the Wikipedia search function a link to that article if "Misgav Institute" is entered. How?

Thanks for your help.

BESTEST

David Life-Is-An-Adventure (talk) 12:23, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Life-Is-An-Adventure: This is done by creating a WP:REDIRECT page at the title Misgav Institute targeted at Institute for Zionist Strategies, which I have done. Deor (talk) 13:18, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Deor - much appreciated! Life-Is-An-Adventure (talk) 10:03, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Guidelines on adding information currently unavailable on the internet?[edit]

Edit: I realise the title isn't semantically correct by saying only "on the internet." Here I mean something more along the lines of there's no source (book, website, otherwise) for this factoid available.

Hi! I'm relatively new to Wikipedia editing, despite my account being a few years old by now. I've read and understand WP:NOR and that Wikipedia is very strict on zero first-party research being allowed in articles due to conflicts of interest, etc, etc. However, I've had this hypothetical that actually had a good example in a stub I was reading the other day (I can't remember what), and I'm curious as to what the protocol would be for it.

Say that an under-cited/under-written section/article was in need of citations or would benefit from more relevant information (within encyclopedic reason/relevance): How can I get information—that has no reference/source extant on the internet—added there? My first thought is to publish (on my website or something of the like) a secondary documentation that cites the original primary/reliable source of my information; my goal would be to get the information I would want in the section/article on the internet to start. But, as per WP:NOR's policy, I would not add this to Wikipedia myself. I can respect that.

Assuming my reliability can be 100% proven to Wikipedia beyond doubt (not sure on the details of proving what I'm saying online when I'm the first person to say it…it's a hypothetical!)—what's the precedent for getting this info into the article? Is there some protocol, like when one has a conflict of interest when creating an article, they can request it be written by someone unassociated, where I can give my documentation as a reference for some fact(s) that should be added?

…Or is the NOR policy that strict? I don't know; I'm curious. Thanks! toydotgame talk
contribs
14:04, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Toydotgame and welcome to the Teahouse. Sources for your citations technically doesn't need to be on the internet to be sourced for information. You can use WP:OFFLINE sources. If you do use offline sources, make sure you use a parameter in the citation template to show that the source is offline. If this doesn't answer your question, please let me know. Thank you, Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 14:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah sorry I realised after writing my question that "not on the internet" isn't semantically correct and I was thinking under the assumption that the internet is where knowledge exclusively exists[? not sure why]. I meant more along the lines of there are no extant books/papers/journal articles/newspaper clippings/audiovisual media or web sources for a certain thing.
My hypothetical is quite flimsy but in essence I'm trying to ask if I had relevant/useful information (that exists nowhere) I can publish and defend myself—and I'm not allowed to add own research to Wikipedia—how can I get the info into the article (as a caption or article text/whatever) in order to improve the article's reliability/encyclopedic value? Thanks for your response! toydotgame talk
contribs
14:40, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the information is not sourced and you can not find any information about it, it is best to remove it as original research. You adding the information into a webpage would make the source unreliable and the sources verifiability would be questionable. So if I had an article say "Foobar had voted Republican in 2000" without a citation, I would delete it if I did not find a reliable source for the information. If you are uncomfortable with making the edit, you can link the article here and I can take a look at it. Thank you, Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 14:45, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah I see, that makes sense. In my mind as much information as possible should be there (within WP:NOTDB reason, obviously)—but the policy of no own research (and un-cited info counting as own research) taking precedent over the comprehensiveness of an article is understandable and I can agree to that! Now that you say it, {{Unreferenced section}} templates meaning a section is "own research" and its existence is in jeopardy because no dubious information is better than having a section that's completely unverified by anything. Thanks for clarifying! toydotgame talk
contribs
15:04, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closing a long dead WikiProject[edit]

I would like to close a long since deceased WikiProject Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/House task force after discussing on that talk page, but neither I nor the other people in the talk discussion know how to do that. Is there a WP:Teahouse host that would be able to help close/delete this project page? Iljhgtn (talk) 14:46, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Iljhgtn and welcome to the Teahouse. Try asking the WikiProject coordinators in the main WikiProject's talk page. Ask here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television! Thank you, Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 14:49, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

article on Dan Earl May[edit]

Hi,

I'm a new user. I need some advice on accepted practices.

I created an article on the artist Dan Earl May. I see that it has recently been revised. Many of the additions (on exhibits, publications, etc.) strengthen the article. The first sentence has been changed, however, to note the artist's association with a specific art gallery. (The original highlighted what May was known for.) To me it reads as if it is promoting the gallery.

I'm not sure how to proceed. If I were to change it back, it could be seen as a petty attempt to maintain my original work. Is there a third party or someone to look at this? Thanks in advance for the advice.

Dan Earl May

I'd like a reply in this format. Owleyesinthelibrary (talk) 18:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Owleyesinthelibrary. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and nobody owns any article. Editors regularly have disagreements about what is best for an article, and are expected to discuss the matter calmly and attempt to reach consensus. If you collectively are unable to achieve this, then dispute resolution tells you ways to proceed.
If you disagree with the edits that another editor has made, the best thing to do is to open a discussion on the article's talk page Dan Earl May, and make sure you ping the other editor there. Please see WP:BRD for how this is supposed to work. (It says that you are permitted to revert their edit once, but in this case I suggest that you go straight to the discussion phase). ColinFine (talk) 19:54, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Many of the additions (on exhibits, publications, etc.) strengthen the article." Owleyesinthelibrary, the bulky additions on exhibitions do not strengthen the article, as they're unreferenced. Almost all of the group exhibitions sound very minor and I suspect that the great majority, perhaps all, are better deleted, unless some editor can cite an art critic/journalist/historian commenting on them. The list of awards, too, is unreferenced. -- Hoary (talk) 22:29, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

Someone took my thing down on a page and said I need a reference, but I was adding to a chart where other columns of the same thing didn't have references. Jd101991 (talk) 18:40, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you get the info from? Cremastra (talk) 20:57, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An insta post Jd101991 (talk) 21:52, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That I also cited. Jd101991 (talk) 21:52, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jd101991 Unfortunately, social media sites like instagram are generally unreliable — any one can basically say anything, and there's no fact-checking. However, if it's an instagram post about the subject, by the subject, it can be used. Which article is it? See WP:RS and WP:INSTAGRAM for more information. Cremastra (talk) 21:54, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just find it weird because the entire page is about a YouTube channel and people seem to be doing exactly what I did and I’m confused why theirs aren’t being taken down. Jd101991 (talk) 21:56, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
people seem to be doing exactly what I did and I’m confused why theirs aren’t being taken down. Hmm, that is weird. Which article is it, please? You can link to the article by putting the title in two square brackets like this: [[Paris]] (That results in Paris) Cremastra (talk) 21:58, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
||Jet Lag: The Game|| Jd101991 (talk) 21:59, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry - Jet Lag: The Game Jd101991 (talk) 22:00, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And I spent so long doing it today, just for it to be taken down. Jd101991 (talk) 22:00, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Looking at the edit history (a timeline of changes to the page, see Help:Page history) two different editors have undone your changes. @Cerebral726: said not a sufficient source to establish that this is when they began filming. They are simply posting the photo that day. Lots of WP:OR here. The second user seems to agree, saying season 11 has not yet happened, nor official confirmed Cremastra (talk) 22:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, I’m not here to argue. If I’m not mistaken, you were telling me it’s not that I didn’t do it correct, it’s just that there wasn’t enough evidence? Also, where can I see these feedback notes? Jd101991 (talk) 22:06, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jd101991 The reason for that is WP:PLOTCITE and WP:PLOTSOURCE, which essentially says that while yes, you do need inline sources for quotes and analysis, you don't need them for the overall summary (although they are nice to have), which is what is being done in the prior seasons.
What you tried to add wasn't a plot summary, it was information about a game show that hasn't been shown yet, thus it requires a source. CommissarDoggoTalk? 22:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And yes- I linked the source, and there was a subscript number in the top right Jd101991 (talk) 22:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the problem is that the existence of season 11 hasn't been confirmed yet. My search for it only finds some Reddit speculation. While it's fun to speculate about when the next season of your favourite show is coming out, Wikipedia isn't really the place for it. We need a really solid source — something like a new article saying "The long awaited eleventh season of Jet Lag: The Game is now being filmed!"
In response to your comment above-- you can see the feedback (called "edit summaries") by going to the article and clicking on the "View History" tab— or just following this link. Cheers, Cremastra (talk) 22:07, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Instagram post that was used as a source was unfortunately insufficient, as it doesn't state anywhere that the 11th season was confirmed or that it's being filmed, it only shows them posed in front of a building. CommissarDoggoTalk? 22:07, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jd101991 see WP:INSTAGRAM. Instagram is not reliable. 48JCL (talk) 02:53, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@48JCL Well, not quite. Reading above, it looks like the post qualifies as a self-published primary source. The main issue mentioned is that it's being used for WP:OR, as the post doesn't explicitly say season 11 exists. ayakanaa ( t ) 04:39, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well everyone who watches know's it's starting and when this happened for S10 someone did it and it didn't get taken down. Jd101991 (talk) 12:57, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See, here's the weird thing about Wikipedia. We don't say what "people know is true". We just summarize what reliable sources say is true. That's it. Wikipedia doesn't deal with the truth, it just compiles what reliable sources have said about something. Cremastra (talk) 19:33, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jd101991 the only times these claims are allowed is when something is obviously true. See Wikipedia:SKYISBLUE for more info. 48JCL (talk) 19:58, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By obviously true, I mean that like 99.999999999 percent of people in the world know. 48JCL (talk) 19:58, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia vs. Simple Wikipedia[edit]

Pretty much just a basic question; is this Wikipedia in any way affiliated with Simple Wikipedia? (In my case, Simple English Wikipedia)

The reason I ask is I noticed there are very little sources and frequent vandalism on some articles, and when I tried to fix the SEW article on Amun (SEW) as best as I could, I realized that they're two different websites. Madamepestilence (talk) 20:20, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Madamepestilence! It's a little complicated. The English and Simple English Wikipedias are both administered by the Wikimedia Foundation, so in that way yes, but the Wikimedia Foundation is not responsible for article content. Articles are written and maintained by volunteers on each project, and while some of them work on both projects, most do not, and users with advanced rights (administrators, for example) on one of the projects don't automatically get them on the other. Policies on each project may also differ significantly. For most purposes, no, they are not affiliated. Tollens (talk) 20:27, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Adding to what Tollens said, there are discussions about merging the two language editions, and implementing a similar feature for other language editions of Wikipedia. See a discussion from 2018 meta:Proposals for closing projects/Closure of Simple English Wikipedia (3) ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 21:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Shushugah, as a curious outsider, can you give me an example as to what the merger of the languages would look like? ✶Quxyz 02:20, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A separate tab called "Simple" on every language edition of Wikipedia, which shows the simplified summary using approved list of simplified words/grammar, but is summarizing somehow the regular language edition. I know Simple English is a distinct language, which complicates this, but this would enable English Wikipedia editors to contribute to both English/Simple English.
A similar concept is the WP:SHORTDESCRIPTION which functions as a preview. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 13:48, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can RfCs be removed for any cause?[edit]

I have come across an RfC that was removed by another editor (without any discussion, withdrawal, or close ensuing), see diff (though the editor has notified the submitter thereof on the appropriate talk page section).

I appreciate that RfCs without prior discussion on an article’s talk page are not encouraged, but I thought it was against community policy to remove an RfC from community purview once submitted – no matter how rushed or ill-advised the RfC may have been. I am aware of WP:RFCBEFORE, but that is, per the project page itself, not a policy, nor a guideline, so not all steps listed therein necessarily reflect consensus.

What are the established rules for RfCs that are submitted too soon? Can they be removed so unceremoniously? Thanks in advance!
(P.S.: If any editors should be notified of what I consider an informal question, please let me know!)
Konanen (talk) 21:53, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since @Primefac: removed the tag, I assume they're knowledgeable on this point? Cremastra (talk) 22:10, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to speak for Primefac, but his comment at Talk:Vaush#Pronunciation of 'Vaush' was I've removed the RFC tag - there has been little in the way of previous discussion, and we don't need all and sundry giving opinions when likely the folks watching this page will be able to make a well-informed opinion on the matter. Deor (talk) 23:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And that did happen; a good discussion developed. Primefac (talk) 06:03, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, well, uhm… I have as of now not received an answer to the core of my question. I am trying to learn the massive amount of existing WP P&G, so I will elaborate some more: I thought consensus was key for most things, especially when it came to RfCs or other community-widely requested input. I do not disagree with the outcome, nor with the opinion that the RfC in question was a bit too rushed, but would the only permissible courses of action not have been to either
(a) ask the submitter to withdraw, or else
(b) move for a procedural close (if they exist in RfCs)?
Konanen (talk) 12:00, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Ads[edit]

Hey everyone! I should ask this at the help desk but this is way more active. Anyways, for Wikipedia ads, I was trying to create one (which I did successfully) and after reading the tutorials, I found something slightly confusing. The tutorials talk about how only gifs can be approved which was enforced, I assume, considering around the first one hundred ads were all gifs. However, now, there is an influx of non-gif ads being png ads with not much to say other than “WikiProject Thing” and a logo. Should all these ads be removed? I wanted to try the talk page but after seeing how inactive it is… yeah. Does this require a concensus somewhere? If so, where? 48JCL (talk) 02:31, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

48JCL, the string "gif" nowhere appears within Template:Wikipedia ads/doc. Neither does the string "png". -- Hoary (talk) 07:20, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@48JCL: I think GIF is required for animated images. If you saw a page which says GIF is required but doesn't say it's for animated images then please link it. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:16, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hoary There are tutorials in the user space that say gif 48JCL (talk) 12:00, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
48JCL, all sorts of stuff appears in user space. It can be safely ignored, though some of it may be helpful. Incidentally, I wonder why you want to create ads. Or perhaps I'm unusual in regarding them as a minor annoyance. -- Hoary (talk) 21:57, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio[edit]

Hi, I can't get access to the book used as the source but it looks like a large chunk ("The Last Will and Testament of Miss Sophia Smith") of this article was directly copied from a source. This isn't okay... is it? And if it isn't, do I just delete it (and request revision delete)? Thanks. GoldRomean (talk) 03:14, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The will must have been published before she died (1870 based on the article), so is therefore in the public domain and freely reproducible anywhere. In my personal opinion it should probably be summarized rather than placed there verbatim for readability but there is no legal issue with how the article is currently written. You are correct that if the text was eligible for copyright protection (which it isn't), you would delete it and request revision deletion. Tollens (talk) 05:29, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How to work on articles about politics[edit]

I've been on Wikipedia since 2008, but only off-and-on. I'm an academic in the fields of political science and international relations. I'd really like to get back to editing regularly, and I'd love to help improve articles and resolve disputes in those topic areas. But I don't know quite where to start.

I've signed up to receive RFC notices about politics. Can anyone offer some other ideas for how to get involved in the editing community on those topics? Pecopteris (talk) 04:22, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Pecopteris: have you considered joining some of the WikiProjects, eg. WikiProject Politics and/or WikiProject International relations? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:43, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't considered it, but that sounds like a great idea. Thank you, @DoubleGrazing! Pecopteris (talk) 05:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

wiki code to Excel, any Ideas??[edit]

I was working Indian Constituencies and Indian Assembly Election for all states, I need Wiki Table code to Excel table

any online tool or Excel Formula

for e-g

1 Nippani Shashikala Jolle BJP
2 Chikkodi-Sadalga Ganesh Hukkeri INC
3 Athani Mahesh Kumathalli INC
4 Kagwad Srimant Patil INC

actual code

{|
|1
|[[Nippani Assembly constituency|Nippani]]
|[[Shashikala Annasaheb Jolle|Shashikala Jolle]]
|[[Bharatiya Janata Party|BJP]]
|-
|2
|[[Chikkodi-Sadalga Assembly constituency|Chikkodi-Sadalga]]
|[[Ganesh Hukkeri]]
|[[Indian National Congress|INC]]
|-
|3
|[[Athani Assembly constituency|Athani]]
|[[Mahesh Kumathalli]]
|[[Indian National Congress|INC]]
|-
|4
|[[Kagwad Assembly constituency|Kagwad]]
|[[Shrimant Patil|Srimant Patil]]
|[[Indian National Congress|INC]]
|}

I wanna like this

1
[[Nippani Assembly constituency|Nippani]]
[[Shashikala Annasaheb Jolle|Shashikala Jolle]]
[[Bharatiya Janata Party|BJP]]
2
[[Chikkodi-Sadalga Assembly constituency|Chikkodi-Sadalga]]
[[Ganesh Hukkeri]]
[[Indian National Congress|INC]]
3
[[Athani Assembly constituency|Athani]]
[[Mahesh Kumathalli]]
[[Indian National Congress|INC]]
4
[[Kagwad Assembly constituency|Kagwad]]
[[Shrimant Patil|Srimant Patil]]
[[Indian National Congress|INC]]

IJohnKennady (talk) 05:10, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@IJohnKennady I was able to copy and paste the table directly into Excel. Not the MediaWiki source code, but the displayed table itself, the thing you have after "e-g". Toadspike [Talk] 12:20, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's just en example, I have lots tables IJohnKennady (talk) 14:39, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


I was used this link | https://tableconvert.com/mediawiki-to-csv, i didn't get expected result, need help — Preceding unsigned comment added by IJohnKennady (talk • contribs) 05:13, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect reversions (repeated)[edit]

Hello - how do I deal with somebody repeatedly reverting an article to put incorrect information in it. It is quite frustrating - I have addresed the issue in the edits, but every time I do they revert it back.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=European_Air_Transport_(Belgium)&action=history D-AIFF (talk) 06:14, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, D-AIFF. I haven't looked at the article, but by the sound of it, both of you are edit warring, which is regarded as disruptive editing and may get you blocked.
If you have a disagreement with another editor, you must not keep reverting them, but must instead discuss it on the article's talk page - if you cannot reach consensus, then dispute resolution tell you how to proceed. See WP:BRD for an overview of the process.
One other thing I will say is "I am right and they are wrong" is not a helpful approach to the collaborative process that is Wikipedia. You may be right, you may be wrong, I don't know. But the object is achieving consensus, not bludgeoning your version into the encyclopaedia. ColinFine (talk) 10:29, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

editing a Page[edit]

Hello Everybody, Im looking for a mentor who could construct my band's page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beast_in_Black Unfortunately i dont have the time or knowledge and especially the energy to learn how to make a proper wikipedia page but id like to have a great page which goes well with all the wikipedia rules. Because i think wikipedia is the most important online platform to deliver accurate and up to date information to people. Thanks in advance Mate Molnar Wisdommetal (talk) 08:54, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wisdom metal Hello and welcome. I would encourage you to think of it more as an article about your band, and not your band's page- the article is not for the benefit of your band in any way. There may be benefits, but those are not our primary mission. An important thing to remember is that the article about your band is not a place for your band to provide current, up to the minute information about itself- you should do that on your band website and social media. The article about your band is for summarizing what independent reliable sources choose to say about it. This can include current information, but our goal is to provide a good summary of general information about the band and what makes it an important band as Wikipedia defines it.
This isn't really the place to seek out editors to edit the article for you- you are welcome to propose edits on the talk page(Talk:Beast in Black) as formal edit requests(click for instructions) that detail the specific changes you want to see. You will need to declare your relationship with the band, please see conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 09:04, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Beast in Black is already a "proper wikipedia page" and it is not clear what you think requires improvement, but if you have specific suggestions the place to do so is the talk page of that article. If you are looking for someone to create a page for some other band, you should be aware that by saying so you are liable to be scammed. Do not pay anyone to create an article for you as it is very unlikely to be published. See WP:SCAM for more information. Shantavira|feed me 09:12, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Wisdommetal. I see no problems with the Wikipedia article on Beast in Black, and after checking the View history I see that several editors have voluntarily chosen to improve the article over the years. Could you explain why you want an article "constructed" when the article already exists? Karenthewriter (talk) 13:54, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you want to create an article about the band in the Hungarian Wikipedia? David notMD (talk) 14:13, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First Iraqi on Everest[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


,,Dadvan Yousuf" needs to be added in Wiki List with first summits of each country.

And his article needs to be updated with it. He summited 20 May 2024.

Dont know how to add here. If someone help, thank you. Iraqi77255 (talk) 08:55, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate of #Article addition: Conquest of Mount Everest by first Kurd & Iraqi above. See the discussion there. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 08:57, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
??? Iraqi77255 (talk) 08:58, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How does that help? 95.170.203.162 (talk) 09:44, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I no longer have access to some pages[edit]

Hello, I can no longer access some pages that I have been working on for several years. These include: Cardano (blockchain platform). Can anyone tell me what's happened? GreyStar456 (talk) 09:05, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GreyStar456: The article you linked has been EC protected since 2021. But your account is already extended-confirmed, so you should be able to edit it. Could you describe the situation with more detail? '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 09:10, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for responding. I have made edits to this page many times, most recently 23:34, 26 March 2024 diff hist  +82‎  Cardano (blockchain platform). Now, I see the EC padlock. I noticed it this morning. That's all I know. I've made 1,173 edits since 20 April 2020. GreyStar456 (talk) 10:13, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does it save your edits when you click "publish"? '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 10:15, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Panic over. There's now no problem. I don't know what happened. Apologies for bothering you. Thanks again. GreyStar456 (talk) 10:18, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's good. No problem at all. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 10:19, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @GreyStar456: - I see the issue has been resolved. What might have happened is that you tried to edit the page without being logged in. Madam Fatal (talk) 18:15, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

internal links and inviting to a talk[edit]

I would like to do two things and am struggling to see information about them: 1 Put a link in a talk to page to an internal wp page eg this one or a wp policy? 2 invite someone to a talk page? Hewer7 (talk) 11:55, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hewer7 The classic way to link to a WP-page of any kind is putting the title between double square brackets, for example [[gold]] gives gold. To WP:PING another editor, one way is writing like this: [[User:Hewer7]]. If you're in conversation, using the "reply" link in a WP-thread, there is a button that can be used for that, little guy with a plus. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:22, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hewer7 To link to a talk page, type [[Talk:Article_name]] in source editor. To invite someone, you can ping them using @[[User:Hewer7|Hewer7]], like I did here. Toadspike [Talk] 12:22, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both. Hewer7 (talk) 12:24, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of sourced content[edit]

 Courtesy link: Talk:M._K._Stalin § Removal_of_sourced_content GrabUp - Talk 15:31, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An editor, Grabup reverted my edit which can be seen here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=M._K._Stalin&diff=prev&oldid=1226277559&title=M._K._Stalin&diffonly=1 as it seems to break the WP:NPOV rule. How to add that without breaking the WP:NPOV rule? If you can form and give me a sentence I can add, it will be nice!-Biddaki (talk) 15:23, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The proper place to ask this is the talk page of the article which you have already done. Esolo5002 (talk) 15:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Title of a draft[edit]

So I'm currently working on this draft right here which is a novel by John Connolly but there is already a article on the mainspace called Dark Hollow which is a novel by a different author. Both novels have the same name which can be confusing so what can I name the draft so it isn't confusing? Soapforduck(Say what?)(Did what?) 15:35, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you submit your draft through the AFC process, see the "submit for review" button on the top of the draft, and the draft is accepted, the reviewer who accepts your article will properly rename both articles. Esolo5002 (talk) 15:44, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So whoever accepts the article will rename it? Soapforduck(Say what?)(Did what?) 16:01, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The typical way this would be disambiguated is that the Connolly novel would be titled Dark Hollow (Connolly novel) and the other article would be titled Dark Hollow (Keene novel) based on the way I see other pages doing it. Reconrabbit 15:57, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How can i add a image In visual edit?[edit]

Asking, as I need it for my page Föli Honk! (talk) 16:31, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Surfing Goose: I've never tried it, but you should be able to use the "Insert" menu for this. See Help:VisualEditor#Editing_images_and_other_media_files RudolfRed (talk) 19:57, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Text coming and going[edit]

A query...I added a section to a page about a book store called Cody's Books as the history section was thin. I have no connection to the bookstore and have never been there. The text I added was based on information I had gleaned from a book written by the people who founded the book store and owned it for years. The book details the history of the store. My additional text was reverted without explanation. I put it back and asked the editor via their talk page, politely, to explain why they had removed the text. They removed it again claiming that it had been copied and pasted from a website and they gave the link to a site. The link led to text nothing like mine. Also I still have the original source and double checked to verify that nothing was copied from the book. The information is gleaned from the book but is written up in my own words. Is this the start of what is known as an Editor war? I have not experienced one before. What should I do? It seems that a page about a book store that has a section on History should have information about the history of the store. If this is in the editor's own words and is correctly cited, I cannot see the problem. Any advice gratefully received. Balance person (talk) 17:35, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Balance person:, if someone removes your edit, per WP:BRD the best thing to do is start a discussion on the article's Talk: page (Talk:Cody's Books), and ping the other editor. Replacing your edit risks an WP:EDITWAR and you risk being blocked. Madam Fatal (talk) 18:22, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First offence edit warring typically leads to a temporary block on both parties - sometimes 31 hours. David notMD (talk) 19:28, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I see! I didn't know that. Thanks for the warning! Balance person (talk) 19:54, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for your advice! I will do. Balance person (talk) 19:53, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Help with research & article[edit]

I need guidance and help for my wiki I'm working on Draft:Early Echoic Skills Assessment

Can someone help me make sure this meets wiki standards? After the initial denial, I've made more edits, added a lot of references and uses of research. If someone could point me to what else I need to do, or given help research these assessments themselves that'd be great. (Verbal Behavior Milestones Assessment and Placement Program) Needs more citations too which was created in 2008~. Risinglms (talk) 19:09, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Risinglms: A couple of quick obervations: You should either add citations to the "Measurement criterias section," or remove it, don't leave it with a tag. Any interviews or articles written by Barbara Esch are not independent and won't demonstrate notability. Many articles need improvement, but that doesn't lower the standard of acceptability: please read WP:OTHERSTUFF. Beyond that, please be patient and wait for the AFC review. RudolfRed (talk) 19:36, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How do I edit and upload my biography on Wikipedia[edit]

How do I edit and upload my biography on Wikipedia Dibire Ronald (talk) 19:11, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dibire Ronald: You should not. Read the advice at WP:AUTO RudolfRed (talk) 19:14, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question on the course of action for a particular article that caught my attention[edit]

Hey Teahouse,

I perused this article on Wikipedia regarding the formatting of the references and the article's brevity and the lack of clarity.

I'm currently at an impasse about the appropriate remedial measures to rectify these issues..could someone elucidate the correct course of action to ameliorate this article? GoodHue291 (talk) 19:55, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GoodHue291 see the Introduction to Referencing page. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 20:58, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This does not align with my intended discussion. I was referring for the right course of action for the article, because I'm uncertain what to do with it. GoodHue291 (talk) 01:01, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe if you put down the thesaurus and asked your question more plainly you would get more useful replies. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 01:09, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To simplify the OP's question: How do I fix the referencing issues of the page? '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 01:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GoodHue291, regarding the article's brevity and lack of clarity - a good way to start addressing that is to find some more sources that talk about Robert N. Cox. Then, you can add those sources & their content to the article. Pecopteris (talk) 01:11, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedians with most Articles Created[edit]

Why is the top 100 kept secret? 37.163.115.97 (talk) 20:18, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What has led you to believe this is secret information? Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 20:43, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Just Step Sideways Because it says nowhere who are the 100 most prolific article writers, ranked. 37.163.115.97 (talk) 20:55, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Probably because mass article creation had a time and place in the early days of this project, but as time went on it became increasingly viewed as a problem rather than a positive way to expand knowledge. In other words, in the interest of not rewarding poor contributions. It seems from your comments you are already familiar with where such information is recorded, so do feel free to bring this up at Wikipedia talk:List of Wikipedians by article count if it bothers you so. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 21:05, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Just Step Sideways ok, thank you so much for your answer 37.163.115.97 (talk) 21:51, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

edit[edit]

want to edit a page that is semi protected, how does one do that? SPykrex (talk) 22:11, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you figured it out. Polygnotus (talk) 22:17, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Resolving copyright violation by rewriting copied content[edit]

Hi all! I got a newcomer task to copyedit an article, but someone before me happened to have also marked a copyright violation. I think I can help resolve both of these issues, but the copyright violation template dictates that "Your rewrite should be placed on this page." How do I place it on that page? Should it be within the copyvio template tags, or should I link to the temporary page that it has me create? Sophon96 (talk) 00:11, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blum integers[edit]

Shouldn't the list of the first few Blum integers, in the entry for Blum integers, include the number 149, which Google's Genesis AI says is a Blum integer? Ozziemaland (talk) 01:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leave a Reply