I did a experiment about cockatiels and came to a conclusion.Then I edited Lutino-pearl cockatiel. But later I got a messang.It says I don't have good references.There is no authoritative articles on the internet.Can you help me solve the problems?Just find some authoritative articles about it is OK.Thanks. SecondFatBudgie (talk) 10:09, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

SecondFatBudgie Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If there are no independent reliable sources that write about your experiment, it would not merit a Wikipedia article at this time. 331dot (talk) 10:12, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

• Courtesy link: Draft:Lutino-pearl cockatiel. 331dot (talk) 10:13, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Given that you created the draft, you are responsible for including references. The draft was Rejected because there are no references. (You writing about your experimental breeding is forbidden as a ref as being original research.) Request that an Administrator delete your draft by adding Db-author inside of {{ }} at the top. David notMD (talk) 10:38, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks!I've already got some articles. SecondFatBudgie (talk) 10:58, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello, SecondFatBudgie - you may have missed part of what David said, or I may be misunderstanding what you have said. But until your research and your conclusions have been published by a reputable publisher, they are original research, and may not appear in any Wikipedia article.

If you write up your conclusions and are published by a reputable publisher, then it is possible that this could be cited in a Wikipedia article. But you should not make an edit based on your publication, as that is a conflict of interest. Instead, you would need to make an edit request; then an uninvolved editor would decide what change was appropriate. depending on various factors (including how far your conclusions were different from the established understandings in the field). ColinFine (talk) 11:50, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

@SecondFatBudgie Today you added text to Lutino cockatiel that had no citation to any source: this is against Wikipedia's policy that all information in articles must be capable of being verifed by the reader as being supported by the quoted source. Please go back and add the citation, or delete what you added. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:02, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Your additions to Lutino cockatiel reverted (reversed) for not having a reference, and confusing whether albino or not. David notMD (talk) 16:13, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I didn't add a reference.But I don't think I am wrong.People call it albino because at first they think it's the result of albinism,but in fact it is not.Then,the name carried on.So that's why it doesn't have albinism,I still call it albino.Its true name is whiteface lutino.

I am sorry for my mistake.I am wondering that if I can use some Chinese references.In fact,I am a Chinese student.I came here because I want to learn English and learn more about foreign countries.So it's very difficult for me to find references written in Engligh.

I mainly translate Chinese Wikipedia to write this article.But there is no reference on Chinese Wikipedia.You can go to https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E9%9B%9E%E5%B0%BE%E9%B8%9A%E9%B5%A1#%E9%A1%AF%E6%80%A7%E5%9F%BA%E5%9B%A0 to have a look.Can I just use Chinese Wikipedia as a reference?Thanks for your help. SecondFatBudgie (talk) 00:21, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

@SecondFatBudgie: Welcome to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1175. It doesn't matter whether or not you think you're wrong; information has to be verified by reliable sources per policy. You are free to use non-English sources so long as they're reliable.
Can I just use Chinese Wikipedia as a reference?
You may not, as that would be citogenesis. Wikipedia doesn't pass as a reliable source for itself as content is user-generated. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:46, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

@SecondFatBudgie Note that if the Chinese article itself cites sources, which it should because verifiability is a core policy across the whole of Wikipedia, then you can use these sources for the English article. You need to convert them into appropriate {{cite news}} or {{cite book}} or {{cite journal}} format and add |quote= alongside |trans-quote= parameters to show English readers how the source supports the point you are making. See the templates I've linked for the details. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:52, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

How can I make a start arcicle better? Should I leave it alone and go on to the article that I have to offer? CharlemagneJane (talk) 00:48, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

CharlemagneJane you look for good reliable references that contain information not in the article and add new sentences in appropriate places. Or, if the article has a sentence that seems rather awkward, you can rewrite the sentence so that it is easier to understand. Thank you for wanting to improve Wikipedia articles. Karenthewriter (talk) 02:40, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

If you'd like to read some tutorial instructions you can go to Help:Introduction, which also has links to other helpful information for beginner editors. I hope this helps. Karenthewriter (talk) 02:50, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much. CharlemagneJane (talk) 04:33, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello, CharlemagneJane. I assume that you are taking about Ray Byars and Tommy Byars. Always let us know which article you are talking about. Both articles have single sentence lead sections. According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, the lead section should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. The notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences. As in the body of the article itself, the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources. So. your lead sections are way too short and should summarize the notabilty of these people in a far better way.

On the other hand, the bodies of the two articles are way too long, and include an inappropriate level of detail, some of which is unreferenced. You need to put yourself into the shoes of an ordinary reader, and trim all unnecessary and poorly referenced detail that is more appropriate to a family history website instead of a neutral encyclopedia article. You need to write in a concise fashion that is engaging to the readers of an encyclopedia, instead of overwhelming them with excessive detail, especially when it is unreferenced. Cullen328 (talk) 04:45, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

I do not intend to do any more on the Tommy Byars and Ray Byars articles unless someone asks me to. I am leaving it up to you and the more experienced editors to make it better but I will try harder on my next article. CharlemagneJane (talk) 06:06, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

What statesments are not referenced? Nearly every statement has a news article to back it up. CharlemagneJane (talk) 13:29, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

CharlemagneJane Many (most?) of the references for the two Byars articles appear to be to URLs for images of newspaper articles (most of those behind a paywall), so I am raising a query to those more experienced than I as to whether all this represents copyright infringement. David notMD (talk) 07:08, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Why are science articles often unreadable? Azbookmobile (talk) 21:19, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Azbookmobile Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. It would help to know if there is a specific article you are referencing. 331dot (talk) 21:24, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Azbookmobile, science articles are often made by scientists who fail to make the article easily readable. Some [featured] articles have introduction versions, such as Introduction to viruses. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 21:41, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

You may find something useful at Simple English Wikipedia. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:19, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

If there are specific articles that you find incomprehensible, feel free to point them out. Some subjects are inherently difficult, but most can be explained. Articles are often written by people with a lot of knowledge about the subject, and they often forget that readers know less. There is also the fundamental problem that Wikipedia is not a textbook, and editors here are not allowed to write things that they cannot support with references. This can make it hard to add extraneous explanation to help the reader. If it's seen as original content rather than something gleaned from sources, it's liable to removal. For the purposes of learning, I would recommend not relying on Wikipedia alone. There are many resources offered by academics on their own sites, sometimes for their students, which are more approachable (less encyclopaedic, more geared towards teaching). Nevertheless, if you find an article that you feel is unnecessarily unreadable, tell us here, and/or say so on the article's talk-page. If you're lucky, a friendly editor will agree, and attempt to improve the article. If it's any consolation, I feel much as you do, about many of our maths articles. Elemimele (talk) 22:55, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Many of our articles, particularly on mathematics, science, and medical topics, are not written to be comprehensible to a layperson audience. I have been battling this since I started editing, and getting nowhere. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:59, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Again, some examples would help so that they can be improved or tagged appropriately. Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:06, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

I share sentiments expressed here. Is there a guild or project that works on this issue? I would be interested in joining such a thing. GuineaPig_C77 (𒅗𒌤) ☕ 13:39, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Why would a whole section be deleted in an article if the section was sourced with news paper articles and if the section was related to the interest of the person noted? CharlemagneJane (talk) 13:59, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

CharlemagneJane We could give you a better answer if we knew the article you are referring to. The editor may have left a reason in the edit history. 331dot (talk) 14:03, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Are you referring to this edit where an irrelevant section on hobbies and interests was removed? - UtherSRG (talk) 14:03, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Please see the edit summary, it was deleted because it was poorly sourced trivia about his hobbies. Theroadislong (talk) 14:04, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. Sorry for not understanding the difference between important and non important information! CharlemagneJane (talk) 14:36, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

How can I make and publish an article on the topic "Ferula jaeschkeana" as the topic is not available in Wikipedia?

Helix 199 (talk) 14:44, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Welcome to The Teahouse. Firstly I would suggest reading WP:YFA, creating an article from scratch is the very hardest thing to do here. Next search for reliable sources such as these,

https://www.flowersofindia.net/catalog/slides/Wild%20Asafoetida.html https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:842316-1 https://uk.inaturalist.org/taxa/921258-Ferula-jaeschkeana https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8582753/ then look at how other similar articles are formatted for example Ferula cypria and Ferula foetida then base your article on those. I would also advise using the WP:AFC process too. Goodluck. Theroadislong (talk) 14:54, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Is any one working on using Bacterial . Co2 consuming bacteria to combat global warming. 86.5.132.5 (talk) 14:40, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, a place to ask questions about improving Wikipedia articles. Are you asking if anyone is working on an article about bacterial CO2 consumption as it relates to global climate change? UtherSRG (talk) 15:36, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

IP editor: the article biological pump is the most relevant one on this topic. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:52, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

I noticed an "error" in the article Schlumberger Brothers. Henri George Doll is listed as (Conrad's brother-in-law); Henri George Doll was Conrad's "son-in-law", as he married Conrad's daughter, Anne Schlumberger. 12.231.54.50 (talk) 16:51, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello IP! Welcome to The Teahouse! Did you know that if you can't edit the article yourself (often you can), then you can place an {{edit request}} on the article's talk page? UtherSRG (talk) 16:58, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

All of the sources that I have used in the Ray Byars and Tommy Byars articles come from old newspapers and magazine articles and all statements are sourced. Why would they not be reliable? CharlemagneJane (talk) 16:20, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

You do not need to start a new section for a new question that is highly related to a previous one. UtherSRG (talk) 16:49, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Didn't know I started a new section! I really don't understand everything yet, but can you answer my question or do I need to ask it somewhere else? CharlemagneJane (talk) 17:22, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

I did not challenge the reliability. My comment was about a need to present the refs without GenealogyBank being part of the reference. David notMD (talk) 19:40, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

I edited the page Henry II, Count of Nassau-Dillenburg and want to move it to Henry II, Count of Nassau-Siegen as that is the correct title. However, I'm not allowed to move the page as the page of that name already exists. That page is a redirect from a page that has been moved (renamed). That renaming was done because Henry of Nassau-Siegen (1611–1652) has never been a reigning count.

Can someone move the page? Roelof Hendrickx (talk) 19:25, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

@Roelof Hendrickx: Done. In the future, please use WP:RM/TR for uncontroversial move requests. – dudhhr ^talk _contribs (he/they) 19:45, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much! And yes, I will use that page in the future. Thanks for the link. Roelof Hendrickx (talk) 20:04, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello! I've had autopatrolled rights for a couple months now and realized one of my preferred methods of page creation may have prevented my articles from actually benefitting from this right. Both Eastern Catholic liturgy and Disco (Surf Curse song) were originally created in sandboxes that I moved to their current titles. However, neither appears in the search bar unless I type their full names in a case-sensitive manner, reminiscent of my pre-autopatroller experience. If anyone could give me an idea on how to confirm whether I'm right or not, I'd really appreciate it. Thanks and happy new year! ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:12, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Pbritti. Eastern Catholic liturgy says in its page properties: "Indexing by robots: Allowed". I believe that means that it's marked as patrolled. ColinFine (talk) 21:37, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Alright! Maybe I just need to wait a tad longer. Thank you! ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:39, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello: I saw on the COI pages that if I felt the author of an existing page had a COI, I should contact him/her directly to suggest this and offer additional information that would provide balance. It isn't apparent to me how to find the original author or how to connect. VerniceDaniel (talk) 22:12, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

VerniceDaniel Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. All articles and pages have an edit history, which logs every edit and who makes it; you can access it by the "view history" tab at the top of the article/page. You can then use either the article talk page(for example Talk:Joe Biden) or the user talk page of the user you wish to communicate with(such as mine, User talk:331dot). 331dot (talk) 22:17, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello Teahouse folks. I have some general questions please, that doesn't relate to any specific article. Are blocked editors allowed to dispute Prods?

If not, and a Prod is disputed by a sockpuppet of an editor who was blocked at the time, then can the article be re-prodded? Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 03:51, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi MrsSnoozyTurtle. I would say no, in principle, since even an article WP:DEPRODded in bad-faith or without any reason being given is considered to be a valid deprod; thus, making the article no longer eligible for WP:PROD. Of course, there might be extenuating circumstances in which an administrator might restore a prod template removed by a sockpuppet or otherwise WP:BANned or WP:BLOCKed editor and these are covered in WP:DEPROD, but it's probably less of a hassle to simply take the article to WP:AFD and let the community determine whether it should be deleted. If the sockpuppets show up in the AfD, they will be dealt with accordingly. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:10, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If I understand you correctly, when you mention Prod you mean WP:PROD (forum to propose articles for deletion), right? Now I may not have the right answer to your question and someone else is free to correct me or advise you in a better manner. My understanding is that any blocked editor is simply blocked from making any edits for the specified period apart from appealing the block. In short, the answer is no. Volten001 ^☎ 05:17, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello Volten. To clarify, yes I mean WP:PROD. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:47, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Hmmm...simply said, a blocked editor can essentially not contest a prod; as has been mentioned, they can not edit. Would the sockpuppet you mention be a confirmed sockpuppet, or just someone who one thinks is a sockpuppet? And even though you said this isn't related to any actual article...it seems to be, to me at least, a very specific case. So if this is related to an article, listing it here would be helpful, as all circumstanceshave to be taken into account. Lectonar (talk) 07:53, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

I think both the question and answer are pretty clear. If a sock de-prod's an article it can be re-prodded. MrsSnoozyTurtle specifically stated their query does not relate to a particular article. Polyamorph (talk) 09:34, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

I would just add that it probably should be an account that's been confirmed to be a sock puppet and not just an account suspected of being a sock puppet. In the first case, WP:EVADE applies and edits made by a blocked editor using sock puppet accounts can be reverted when found. Before doing so, however, you should make sure the edits were made after the primary account had been blocked, and not before. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:47, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you everyone for the advice. There is no current article that this relates to, it is just a situation that I have seen a few times in the past, so I would like to know how it works for future reference.

Marchjuly, after your latest reply, I am confused about the earlier one sorry: "I would say no, in principle, since even an article WP:DEPRODded in bad-faith or without any reason being given is considered to be a valid deprod; thus, making the article no longer eligible for WP:PROD". Are you saying that if a PROD is removed by a confirmed sockpuppet (and the sockmaster was blocked at the time of de-PRODding), then the article can't be re-PRODded? Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:43, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

@MrsSnoozyTurtle: it's an interesting question, and my take is a little different. Of course a genuine proven sock shouldn't be editing. But there is no obligation to use PROD; in fact PROD is really supposed to be for uncontroversial deletions, with any deletion likely to require discussion going to AfD. I would take the attitude that if a blocked editor objects to a deletion, then although they have no right to be heard, nevertheless it's possible that others might share their point of view, so to be on the safe side, I'd send the article to AfD. It is unlikely that whoever closes it at AfD will have much sympathy with input from socks. If no one in good standing expresses the sock's point of view there, then the article can potentially be soft-deleted if the closing admin (in my view correctly) considers the prod-deletion invalid, and therefore the article has never previously survived a valid prod. Elemimele (talk) 11:06, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

A prod can be contested after deletion and the article restored. I really don't see any reason to consider a sock de-prod any different to vandalism. Polyamorph (talk) 11:12, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

@MrsSnoozyTurtle: The sentence that came after the one in my first post that you quoted begins with Of course, there might be extenuating circumstances in which an administrator might restore a prod template removed by a sockpuppet or otherwise WP:BANned or WP:BLOCKed editor and these are covered in WP:DEPROD. Does that answer your question? In principle, an article can only be prodded once; however, there might be certain cases (e.g. random vandalism) in which the removal of a prod tag is deemed invalid. Unless you're absolutely sure that a deprod is invalid and are sure that pretty much everyone else is going to see it that way, you're probably better off starting a discussion at AfD than trying to re-add the prod tag. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:39, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that is now clear. Thank you for all your help. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:48, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Good Evening! I'm looking to learn more about how to properly use sourcing, referencing and verification for an article to be published on "Signal Cigarettes." Thanks David TMG13655 (talk) 23:52, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello, TMG13655. Please read Referencing for beginners and Identifying reliable sources and Verifiability. Cullen328 (talk) 00:45, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Hypothetical but the same as my dilemma:

1. A man said that he went into outer space on a homemade rocket.

2. He received significant media coverage (CNN, Forbes, BBC, etc).  

3. Later it was proven that he did not go into outer space but simply tricked the media.

4. The media keeps the articles as is, with a tiny clarification.

5. A second man has proof that he went into outer space on a homemade rocket but his event was not covered by the media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8802:3A12:E700:E18A:7B24:46C8:11F5 (talk) 21:49, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

What is Wikipedia's response? Are they only interested in the notoriety of the media coverage or are they interested in factual events? Thanks 2600:8802:3A12:E700:E18A:7B24:46C8:11F5 (talk) 21:31, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello, IP user, and welcome to the Teahouse. The major criterion for allowing anything into a Wikipedia article is verifiability, not truth. If reliable sources say it happened, and no reliable sources say it didn't, then as far as Wikipedia is concerned, it happened. This does not automatically mean that it should go into an article: verifiability is only the first criterion; there are several others, for example WP:UNDUE, WP:TRIVIA, and WP:FRINGE. And merely appearing in one or more reliable sources does not necessarily establish notability (which is required for the principal subject of an article, though not necessarily for subsidiary things mentioned in an article).

If some reliable sources say it happened, and others say it didn't, or that it was a hoax, then there is a degree of editorial judgment in balancing the sources, but Wikipedia should never be arguing or drawing conclusions from multiple sources that no individual source says (see WP:synthesis). It's certainly possible to say that one source has been superseded by a later one, and ignore what the older one says.

Generally if the sources disagree, the best thing is to say that "sources A,B,C say that X, while D and E say Y, but source F says Z". This is especially important if you strongly believe one set of sources and not the other (see WP:NPOV). ColinFine (talk) 21:50, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Both hypothetical people may be covered by the policy language Subjects notable only for one event. Cullen328 (talk) 22:06, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you!!! Something similar is actually happening. The proof of the event being false is only verified by the person's Instagram posts. The articles refuse to delete. Thanks now I'm understanding Wikipedia much better. I thought it was about facts, not an article competition. For a price, CNN, Forbes, etc. articles can be bought and that's what happened. The Guinness book was caught selling fake records as well. Wikipedia removed their credibility. Thanks for the great response. 2600:8802:3A12:E700:E18A:7B24:46C8:11F5 (talk) 22:38, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

IP editor, if you would name the specific article, we could provide a more detailed answer. CNN is generally considered reliable except for their opinion and commentary pieces. They had an unreliable "citizen journalism" project but that was shut down in 2017. Reporting by Forbes staffers is considered generally reliable, but not that by Forbes "contributors" See WP:FORBES for more information. Cullen328 (talk) 00:39, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to update the issue soon. I've contacted CNN who wrote a tiny clarification and the others. They 100% know the claim is false. I'm not sure if they will remove the fake articles. All I know to do is reach out to the contacts provided. 2600:8802:3A12:E700:3587:306B:DAB4:9D55 (talk) 00:49, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello - I've read the information on reliable sources, but still am unsure as to why my citations constitute was not reliable. Is it possible to get more detail on my specific sourcing and how I can fix this? Please let me know how I can share my article from sandbox. PS - I am a newbie. Queenlily2222 (talk) 22:51, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

welcome to The Teahouse your draft includes IMDb and Wikipedia as sources, neither of these are reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 22:56, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Ah, thank you SO much for your quick and helpful reply!! Queenlily2222 (talk) 23:33, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Queenlily2222, please read WP:IMDB and WP:CIRCULAR. Cullen328 (talk) 00:51, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

I edited a page without an account (an IP edit) - Special:Contributions/68.48.130.97. Subsequently, I created an account as RDJBK. Can I attribute my IP edit to my account name? RDJBK (talk) 17:25, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello, RDJBK. You can start a user page and mention that you previously edited as an IP. You can mention which articles you edited if you want. When you mention your IP address, you may be inadvertently revealing your location. I happen to reveal my location, but that is my informed decision. Cullen328 (talk) 18:48, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

I think what I am wondering is if I can change the attribution on the edit I made from the IP address to my account. I should have created the account before I made the edit ... RDJBK (talk) 19:03, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

RDJBK, no, that is not possible, but you can make a dummy edit mentioning your account in the edit summary. See Help:Dummy edit for details. Cullen328 (talk) 19:08, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

You can also contact WP:OVERSIGHT if you want the address redacted for privacy reasons. The edits will not, however, be attributed to your account. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 19:14, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

You can request oversight. You can't link your account to an IP address.Make sure you request it as soon as possible. Wait too long then you won't be able to. Cwater1 (talk) 00:53, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello! I got a message from discospinster and her username looks cool when she sent me a welcome. How do I make my username look cool, too? Lobster from Maine (talk) 01:44, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

@lobster from maine: see wikipedia:signature tutorial. lettherebedarklight晚安 02:40, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

So I read someone's post on LinkedIn, wherein there was a few lines in his Wikipidea page that was added by an editor, and he wanted to remove them permanently. He already deleted those lines several times, but they were added over and over again. Please advise, and how to prevent this from happening.

I'm asking for future reference. Thank you. Bmjc98 (talk) 02:39, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

@bmjc98: no.

our conflict of interest guideline forbids editors to edit articles if they have a conflict of interest with that article. these editors can only suggest changes on the talk page of that article.

in addition, wikipedia articles are based on reliable, independent sources. if a statement is well-sourced, and is due in an article, it should not be removed.

if that statement is unsourced or undue, however, then an edit request can be made to remove that statement. lettherebedarklight晚安 02:56, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Okay. Thank you for your response. I do have another question, though. What if the page is about a living person, and the "few lines" he wants to get rid off but keeps coming back is negative (but well-sourced), is it still possible to remove it? I have a feeling not, but still wants to hear your answer. Thank you. Bmjc98 (talk) 03:32, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Bmjc98. Your question is a perfect example of why providing detailed information is so important. What is the precise name of the article in question? You need to provide a reason based in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to delete content. I can think of countless reasons why "a few lines" should be removed and countless reasons why those lines should stay. If there is a clear-cut policy based reason to remove the content, then administrators (such as me) have a variety of tools that can be used to prevent it from being added back, such as various levels of page protection and various types of blocks of editors. The same tools can be used to prevent removal of appropriate content. Cullen328 (talk) 03:03, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi! I'm using a phone, so it's hard to type in full detail. Anyway, I forgot the name of the page since it was in different language. But according to that post, the lines that he wants to get rid off are something that can affect the subject's name. He didn't specify what it was, though. Bmjc98 (talk) 03:32, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Bmjc98, I am using a phone too, as I almost always do, and have no problem providing the necessary details. Anyway, the Teahouse provides advice about editing the English Wikipedia only. Each language version is an entirely separate project, with its own policies and guidelines. We cannot help you with a Wikipedia article about an unknown topic in an unknown language. There are, after all, 329 different language versions and tens of millions of articles. Cullen328 (talk) 03:42, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

How do I suggest redirecting Premodern to a section of Human history? I didn’t find anything helpful about it in the WP:Redirect guide, only how to actually make the move. Vital Articles Grammar (talk) 05:00, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

You can host an Articles for deletion about it. Contrary to the name, it's not just for outright deletions, but also page moves and/or redirections. Also in this case you can just be bold and just delete all the existing text and replace it with a redirect. RPI2026F1 (talk) 05:05, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

So uh remember me the guy who said “I have a history of vandalism can I be good” yeah i am back help me from getting banned 2001:16A2:C8A0:DC00:B1F9:9870:ECD9:67CD (talk) 13:03, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, we usually assume good faith as a default. We can't, however, do that when you've edited a page by adding "Suiiii" into it. Whether or not you get blocked/banned depends on whether or not you want to follow policy. We can't do this for you. It's your call to make. The ⬡ Bestagon^[t][c] 13:09, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

hi ip user! do you have an account that was and still is blocked? please appeal your block in that account instead of continuing to edit in this one or creating another account. if you don't, you can help us by contributing constructively instead of joking around in articles or other forms of disruption. you may take a look at the task center if you'd like some easy things to do. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 13:12, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

... and they got blocked (while i was writing this). if by chance you are reading this, please avoid disrupting the wiki, adding vandalism or joking around, or harassing others once you get unblocked after two weeks (and please do not edit on another IP address or account, this won't help you) - these are great ways to not get blocked. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 13:17, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Why is the title of the page Hall & Oates instead of Daryl Hall & John Oates? Hall & Oates is a nickname coined by the media.Danzigthecat (talk) 00:44, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Danzigthecat. Your question is unclear. Please explain in detail why you think Hall & Oates is inaccurate. Cullen328 (talk) 00:48, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi Danzigthecat. Titles of Wikipedia articles tend to follow WP:COMMONNAME. So, even though the "official" name of the band might be "Darryl Hall and John Oates", Wikipedia uses the more common "Hall & Oates" since that's how pretty much all reliable sources have typically referred to the band over the years. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:59, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Then by that logic you should change Tupac Shakur for only Tupac or 2Pac because that’s how pretty much all refers to him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danzigthecat (talk • contribs) 01:16, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

The title of the Hall & Oates article seems to have been discussed several times before at Talk:Hall & Oates as early as 2008, but a WP:CONSENSUS has never been established in favor of changing the title of the article. You're free to start another discussion about it on the article's talk page. As for the Tupac Shakur article, you're also free to start a discussion about that at Talk:Tupac Shakur if you feel a change should be made. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:25, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

FWIW, this old fogey has heard of Tupak Shakur, but wouldn't have known that 'Tupac' or '2Pac' was referencing the same person (having learned that 'Beck' is not a reference to Jeff Beck). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.194.245.235 (talk) 03:59, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

"Beck" is obviously Martin Beck. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:54, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I tried editing the image in the dick pic page but it said that my upload might be unconstructive. How can I change the image to my own edit? Orangeshirt122722 (talk) 12:05, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

@Orangeshirt122722 This seems to have resulted because you tried to change the picture on Commons at Commons:File:Self_portrait_-_Just_another_head_shot.jpg, presumably to change that image to one of your own. You hit an edit filter because you can't just upload any old new picture on top of an existing one. You would have to upload your new image under its own file name and then justify why it should replace the existing picture in the article Dick pic by discussing that on its Talk Page. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:30, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

I would have to upload my image under its file name where? Under commons? Orangeshirt122722 (talk) 20:45, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Under a new file name. At Commons, if you took the picture and want to release it. David10244 (talk) 12:07, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Readers of this thread may enjoy this media-coverage: WHOSE DICK IS THAT ON THE WIKIPEDIA ‘PENIS’ PAGE?. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:51, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

There are links that one really shouldn't be tempted to follow when using institutional/employer PCs... Elemimele (talk) 18:19, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Fine journalism on a weird topic, I thought. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:13, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

N ... S ... F ... W! Uporządnicki (talk) 15:21, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Please read c:commons:Nudity before uploading these photos, There are too many photos of dicks on Wikimedia Lemonaka (talk) 17:37, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Sadly, OP blocked for WP:IDHT Lemonaka (talk) 11:23, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

@Uporządnicki (talk) Wikipedia does not censor things. Sorry! Cwater1 (talk) 00:47, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

@Cwater1 Of course! Including the penis pictures in the penis articles. (I'd thought myself of uploading something to illustrate the human foreskin, but I found that what I had in mind had already been done.) But that's all the more reason not to be stupid about opening stuff on one's work computer. (It's all right, boss! It's Wikipedia.) Uporządnicki (talk) 10:11, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi,

I was wondering what I can do to improve the article ( Draft:Dylan O'Donnell).

This is part of an Educational Project and my team and I submitted it for revision 11 days ago but has not been published yet.

Any help or advice is accepted. Thanks. LIUC.Camilla03 (talk) 09:59, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Others can certainly comment, but the best I can tell, Pendergast might have taken the picture, then the subject O'Donnell e-mailed it to (presumably) LIUCLucrezia03 who uploaded it to en:WP and released it under CC BY-SA 4.0. Not sure that Lucrezia has the right to do that.

(The file details say "Uploaded a work by Kirra Pendergast from Picture sent by Dylan O'Donnell via email with UploadWizard" and the "source" says "Picture sent by Dylan O'Donnell via email". LIUCLucrezia03 did the uploading. If Pendergast really took the photo and owns the copyright, then he or she needs to license it properly.) David10244 (talk) 11:03, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Do you suggest removing it?

O'Donnell sent personally the image via e-mail to @LIUCLucrezia03. It is very difficult to find photos of him online that are coherent and acceptable with Wikipedia guidelines. LIUC.Camilla03 (talk) 22:09, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

@LIUC.Camilla03 It might be difficult to find a suitable picture, but it is necessary for Wikipedia to follow copyright law. If O'Donnell did not take the picture himself, he cannot license it himself for reuse here. Can a Teahouse host who knows more about this please give the right info, and the link to release a picture properly? Thanks. David10244 (talk) 06:59, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

@LIUC.Camilla03: The short version: you need whoever took the picture (Kirra Pendergast, if the image page is to be believed) to go to https://relgen.toolforge.org/, fill out the online form, and send the resulting text from an email address associated with them. The whole thing takes less than five minutes, but it is necessary for the picture to stay up. If that does not work out, find another photograph (either take a photograph of Dylan O'Donnell yourself if that is possible, or ask them to take a selfie and ask them to follow the steps given at the start of this paragraph).

Explanation of why: Wikipedia tries, as much as possible, to be freely-reusable content. That is not really a problem of copyright law for Wikipedia (we could almost certainly have that picture under the US "fair use" exemptions), but it is a problem for other people who might want to reuse Wikipedia content. As such, one of our rules is that we only accept photographs of living people if those are under a free license. (Details: we only accept non-free content if it satisfies all points of WP:NFCC, and photographs of living people fail the "or could be created" clause of criterion #1.) In 99.9% of cases, the only person that can validly grant a free license of a photograph is the person who took it (not the subject of the photograph). Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 17:18, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Anyone is free to edit any article or draft, so there shouldn’t be a problem with you improving it. Cheers Dinglepincter (talk) 14:47, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, you're right.

Before submitting it for review our article had a very interesting and beautiful gallery and some images, that were later removed. I did not fully understand the reason.

I asked for help because the article looks now very poor. It's a pity because we worked very hard on this project.

Maybe some suggestions or advice from other editors can be useful to improve the article. LIUC.Camilla03 (talk) 22:19, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

User:LIUC.Camilla03 - You write that "my team and I submitted it for revision". Who is your team? If this is a class project, who is the instructor? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:25, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Robert McClenon! I am one of the team members of the group that @LIUC.Camilla03 has mentioned. Ours is an educational project (we are studying in a university in Italy) whose aim is to create a wikipedia page which has to be suitable and notable enough in order to be accepted after the review. Since our deadline for acceptance (or not) should be the 31st of December we were wondering if it was possible to have any help. Thanks in advance for your precious time. LIUCLucrezia03 (talk) 23:05, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

@LIUC.Camilla03 and LIUCLucrezia03: - Who is the instructor? And who assigned the deadline for acceptance of 31 December? What happens if the deadline is not met? Wikipedia is not in the habit of following deadlines that have been arbitrarily set by outside activities or educational projects. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:26, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Our instructure is @Limelightangel (I'll tag him just to be clear). The "deadline" has been assigned by the latter and, actually, "nothing" happens if the page is not accepted before the 31st of December... simply our grades will be in some way affected by that. I mentioned the deadline just to ask for some help, if it is possible to receive any; otherwise it is obviously not a problem. LIUCLucrezia03 (talk) 23:35, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

@LIUCLucrezia03, @Limelightangel It is unfair to students when an instructor bases any student's grade on "when Wikipedia does something". One of our guidelines is there is no deadline. Related ideas: Wikipedia works on the idea that things should be done right rather than be done quickly; we don't publish "breaking news"; we don't publish articles on "emerging" or "up and coming" musical artists.

Drafts that have been submitted to be considered for publication might be reviewed quickly, especially if it is clear that the draft should be declined. If the draft is not a clear decline, it may take weeks or months for a draft to be reviewed. Article creators and class instructors cannot speed that up--reviewers are unpaid volunteers who choose what drafts to look at.

That's why it's unfair if a student's grade is affected because no Wikipedia volunteer reviewer has chosen to look at a particular draft yet. David10244 (talk) 10:23, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Please do not ever judge Wikipedia articles on how they "look" compared to articles on other websites or in print publications. We are here to provide information, not to make an eyecatching article. Verifiability of information from reliable sources is always the first priority. Photographs must be taken and documented in compliance with copyright law. That is far more important than what you characterize as "a very interesting and beautiful gallery", which many Wikipedia readers in technologically underserved parts of the world will never see because they do not have bandwidth to download the images. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 16:58, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

If anyone pliz tell me is this person are available to make a profile in Wikipedia . here is the link of google panel and some music link of her : panel - https://g.co/kgs/7JpneR some music https://open.spotify.com/album/3A65BtM8MR2d5PCrXc9JYi https://open.spotify.com/album/3A65BtM8MR2d5PCrXc9JYi Asrifali (talk) 11:02, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Asrifali Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. We do not have "profiles" here, we have articles. Search results and the availability of her music are not relevant towards whether or not someone merits an article on Wikipedia. Not every muscisian does. Please read the notability criteria for musicians. If this person meets at least one aspect of those criteria, and receives significant coverage in independent reliable sources, it may be possible to write an article. Be advised, writing a new article is the most difficult task to attempt on Wikipedia. Please read Your First Article and use the new user tutorial for more information. 331dot (talk) 11:05, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

I want to get a page on Wikipedia resembling my company profile 103.208.225.10 (talk) 06:56, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Please have a read of WP:NOT. Thanks. Firestar464 (talk) 07:03, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not have any "company pages" or "company profiles". Instead, we have encyclopedia articles about business that meet the very strict standards described at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). There are no shortcuts. Start by signing up for a Wikipedia account, and make the mandatory Paid editing disclosure. This is required and non-negotiable. Then, familiarize yourself with the behavioral guideline about editing with a Conflict of interest. Cullen328 (talk) 07:13, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

It may be useful for you to read Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. If an article about our company is published on Wikipedia it won't belong to you, and it could be edited by anyone who finds a reliable source for information, even if the additional data isn't something you want to be in the article. Karenthewriter (talk) 07:38, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello,@103.208.225.10, welcome to the Teahouse. This kind of behaviour against WP:COI and is totally discouraged. Lemonaka (talk) 08:42, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Lemonaka, that is not entirely correct. On the one hand, the IP user is allowed to contribute to Wikipedia even if he or she has a conflict of interest. On the other hand, nobody (conflict of interest or not) should put up promotional material. (Of course, most editors who do post promotional material have in fact a conflict of interest, but the problem is that they post promotional material, not that they have a COI.) Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 17:28, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Lemonaka, "This kind of behaviour" suggests that the OP did something underhanded or dishonest. In fact, it was a perfectly honest and reasonable misunderstanding. It's easy to see that there are articles in Wikipedia about many companies. Coming in here and not having yet fully grasped what Wikipedia is and isn't, it would be very easy--and not reprehensible in the least--to see them as something like company "profiles" a la Facebook or LinkedIn. And then, it's natural to wonder, how do I get one of those for my company. So one asks, and things are explained--preferably without some suggestion that one did wrong by asking. Uporządnicki (talk) 18:14, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

@Tigraan@AzseicsoKSorry, mistake happened. Lemonaka (talk) 11:33, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Lemonaka I later gathered that English is not your native language. It was sort of a judgment call--subject to interpretation. Uporządnicki (talk) 12:56, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

• You can't claim an article as your own.Cwater1 (talk) 00:40, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Why is it different in different words Jr321182 (talk) 12:47, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Probably because they are different words, but your question is unclear because it lacks context. The teahouse is for help with using or editing Wikipedia. Do you have such a question? Shantavira|^{feed me} 13:04, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Jr321182, and welcome to the Teahouse. I see that you have also asked this question (in slightly longer form) on your user talk page. Neither of these is an appropriate place to ask it (your user talk page because nobody will see that unless they have a reason to go there, and here because this is for questions about using or editing Wikipedia). The best place to ask is probably the Reference desk. But you will have to make your question clearer even than you did on your user talk page, as I still don't know what you are asking. It sounds as if you may be talking about an oddity in the printing, (presumably in the 21st Century King James Version?), but I'm not sure. ColinFine (talk) 17:24, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

@Jr321182 If you are seeing some printed text where some "k"'s are different than others, we can't give a lot of help. I will give an opinion that the letter "k" is not usually part of a ligature, as the letter "f" often is. For example, in the word "affiliated", when it is professionally typeset, the f, f, and i are usually sort of run together. That is a "ligature" for ffi. (Wow, this displayed text does the same thing, in the font that I see here. I didn't expect that in a Web page.)

We would need to see examples of the exact text that you see where the "k"'s are different. If I guessed your question right, the Reference Desk is a better place to ask. Also, what ColinFine said. David10244 (talk) 13:00, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Rᴀᴍᴋʀɪᴘᴀʟʏᴀᴅᴀᴠɢ ᴡᴀs ʙᴏʀɴ ɪɴ Kᴜᴅɪʟᴀ ᴠɪʟʟᴀɢᴇ ᴏғ Bɪʜᴀʀ. Dᴀᴛᴇ ᴏғ Bɪʀᴛʜ- Wᴀs ʙᴏʀɴ ᴏɴ _____ Hᴇ ʟɪᴠᴇs ɪɴ ᴀ sᴍᴀʟʟ ᴠɪʟʟᴀɢᴇ ɪɴ Bɪʜᴀʀ ᴛʜᴀᴛ's ᴀ ɢᴏᴏᴅ ɪᴅᴇᴀ Hᴇ ᴘᴀssᴇᴅ 𝟷𝟶ᴛʜ ɪɴ 𝟸𝟶𝟸𝟶 ᴀɴᴅ ᴘᴀssᴇᴅ 𝟷𝟸ᴛʜ ɪɴ 𝟸𝟶𝟸𝟸 Hᴇ ɪs ᴀ sᴛᴜᴅᴇɴᴛ ᴡʜᴏ ᴛᴏᴏᴋ ᴀᴅᴍɪssɪᴏɴ ɪɴ BA Hᴇ sᴛᴜᴅɪᴇᴅ ɪɴ ᴛʜᴇ sᴍᴀʟʟ ᴛᴏᴡɴ ᴏғ Jᴀᴍᴜɪ ᴅɪsᴛʀɪᴄᴛ Hɪs ғɪʙʀᴀᴛᴇ ᴄᴏʟᴏʀ ᴀʀᴛ, ʀᴇᴅ, sɪᴍᴘʟᴇ ᴇᴛᴄ. Fᴀᴄᴇʙᴏᴏᴋ, Tᴡɪᴛᴛᴇʀ, Iɴsᴛᴀɢʀᴀᴍ, WʜᴀᴛsAᴘᴘ, Oғғɪᴄɪᴀʟ ID - Rᴀᴍᴋʀɪᴘᴀʟʏᴀᴅᴀᴠɢ Ramkripalyadavgeo (talk) 00:58, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Neither here (Teahouse) nor your User page is a place to attempt to create an article. Use WP:YFA to create and then submit a draft. HOWEVER, Wikipedia is not social media. It is only for people who are so well known that other people with no connection to them create articles about them, using as references published stuff. From what you wrote, Rᴀᴍᴋʀɪᴘᴀʟʏᴀᴅᴀᴠɢ has done nothing meriting an article. David notMD (talk) 02:04, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

And, the subject is likely you, making this an attempt at an autobiography. Click here for more information. David10244 (talk) 13:07, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

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

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

2600:6C4E:1200:1E85:984E:F9AE:AD6D:15AC (talk) 02:16, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

the list of supercentenarians article says that people listed must be notable for reasons other than just longevity. as calment's notability comes from her old age alone, no, she should not be listed. lettherebedarklight晚安 02:44, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Should language like "this list is by no means exhaustive" be also used? I initially thought that this was the entire list of them, it makes sense when you mention that part about notability, but it was uncertain initially at least for me. Though I'm leaning towards not necessary as it can be inferred and I admit that I didn't read the lede.

2600:6C4E:1200:1E85:984E:F9AE:AD6D:15AC (talk) 02:52, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

That sounds like it would be an improvement. David10244 (talk) 13:09, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

How do I fix this? 2600:8802:3A12:E700:3587:306B:DAB4:9D55 (talk) 16:17, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

could you provide an example? i don't really understand your question. lettherebedarklight晚安 16:17, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the url links are numbered. If I add a url after link {25}, my new link is listed a {1} 2600:8802:3A12:E700:3587:306B:DAB4:9D55 (talk) 16:23, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

IP editor. I assume you are referring to your recent edit to World Animal Protection, which you self-reverted when you realised things had gone wrong. The problem is that you placed in links to websites as direct external links, when they should have used the {{cite web}} or related template and been placed between <ref> tags. Please read WP:Inline citation for details of how we do references. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:24, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! 2600:8802:3A12:E700:3587:306B:DAB4:9D55 (talk) 16:25, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

the post about david hunt is labelled as a gangsters which he insists he is not if this is not the way to take down a post could you imform me how to do it many thanks monk eastman

4 Roachguard (talk) 17:48, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Courtesy link David Hunt (gangster). Karenthewriter (talk) 18:07, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

In my opinion, this discussion is more appropriate for Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Cullen328 (talk) 19:55, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Americanfreedom (talk) 18:11, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Americanfreedom. Fundraising is handled by the Wikimedia Foundation and its professional staff. Volunteer Wikipedia editors have nothing to do with it. Please read Wikipedia:Contact us/Donors to learn how to communicate with them. Cullen328 (talk) 20:00, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

I want to move a page, but the moving a page guide is unclear as to whether I can’t move a page to a redirect or whether I can’t move a redirect.

Thanks In Advance,

Vital Articles Grammar (talk) 03:26, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello @Vital Articles Grammar, welcome to the teahouse!

As far as I know, you need to be a page mover or an administrator to move a page over a redirect. Anyone who is autoconfirmed can move a redirect page as they would with an ordinary page.

If you wish to move a page to a title occupied by a redirect, file a request at WP:RMTR and someone can do it for you. Thanks, echidnaLives - talk - edits 03:33, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you.

I haven’t put a post on the Talk page yet, I still need to do this, right?

Thanks again.

Vital Articles Grammar (talk) 03:35, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

{{ping}} User:echidnaLives Vital Articles Grammar (talk) 03:42, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Oops {{ping|echidanLives}} Vital Articles Grammar (talk) 03:45, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Yikes, really Sorry about that.

@EchidnaLives: Vital Articles Grammar (talk) 03:46, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

@Vital Articles Grammar Haha all good! I assume you're talking about whether you need to place a notice on the talk page of the article?

If it's a possibly controversial move, you must start a requested move, which means a discussion will need to take place on the talk page first. See the instructions at WP:PCM. If you believe it is uncontroversial, no notice is required. Just go ahead and move it or go to WP:RMTR.

Thanks, echidnaLives - talk - edits 03:56, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

@EchidnaLives:

Thank you very much.

Vital Articles Grammar (talk) 03:58, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

• @Vital Articles Grammar and EchidnaLives: Hello. I'm on mobile, and couldn't go through the history, so I'm not sure what's going on with the nowiki tags, and why or why added them. But the tags were not properly inserted, and everything below the tag on this page got messed up. I fixed it in this edit. @StarryGrandma: Hello. Were you trying to fix the error caused by nowiki tags, or was it something else? —usernamekiran (talk) 19:44, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

  It was the tags, but I didn't realize it so couldn't fix it. Thanks. StarryGrandma (talk) 19:48, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

  yes, I thought you were trying to fix the same issue. See you around :-) —usernamekiran (talk) 19:58, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

  found it. —usernamekiran (talk) 20:03, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

How do I get a page reassessed on the quality-scale? Kanna Hashimoto has been listed as start class but I feel that the work I, among others, have done for the article have made it of higher quality. Would appreciate any help in this matter. Sincerely, Atsumoo (talk) 19:45, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Atsumoo. I have upgraded the article to B class. Good work. Cullen328 (talk) 20:12, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

The article is Sakae Menda. While attempting to find sources for it, I realized that most sources listed similar facts in the same order to the article and each other. I'm unsure if Wikipedia copied these articles or vice versa. Some parts also read very awkwardly, like they were machine translated. I can't speak Japanese, so I'm not actually sure if this is true though.

Any ideas for fixing these issues, or for finding more sources and expanding the page (I'm struggling to find more online sources to expand the page with)? I've done a little work so far. 108.48.97.70 (talk) 03:16, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article was started in 2008. Have you compared the sources you've found to the state of the Wikipedia article just before the dates that those sources were published, using its View history tab? That might give some clue as to who copied who.

I agree about the awkwardly worded passages. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.194.245.235 (talk) 04:08, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

On an unrelated note, if your IP keeps on changing, I'd really suggest making an account. RPI2026F1 (talk) 05:06, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

I have been editing regularly on Wikipedia for approaching 20 years, and have deliberately refrained from opening an account, for considered reasons both personal and of principle. I use the "formerly" tag merely to ensure continuity within dialogues (it's a Prince-related quip referring to my last stable home IP). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.194.245.235 (talk) 20:21, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

@108.48.97.70@51.194.245.235, hello, welcome to the teahouse. I have tagged the article as rough translation and likely copyvio, could you provide the link (or links) which this article copied from? Thank you for your help with improving the quality of articles. Lemonaka (talk) 11:24, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

@Lemonaka: here are just a few I found: https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2020/12/06/national/sakae-menda-death-row-obituary/, https://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/13996596 108.48.97.70 (talk) 15:29, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

@108.48.97.70Done Lemonaka (talk) 15:31, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Lemonaka, this article was relatively well developed in 2018, and edits since then have been relatively minor, consisting of updates when he died and copyediting. So, how could this article be copying articles published in 2020 after his death? Isn't it more likely that those 2020 articles copied this Wikipedia article? Cullen328 (talk) 19:48, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

@Cullen328 Thanks, tag removed. I won't blame IP user who came with good faith, I was fooled by my stupidity. Lemonaka (talk) 19:52, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Lemonaka, we all make mistakes. Don't be too hard on yourself. Cullen328 (talk) 20:07, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

In the Wikipedia:Using neural network language models on Wikipedia article, the Proposed guidelines section has a different font than other sections in the articles and all that I have ever seen. I can see [when opened for edit] that its' source code is different than the other sections.

== '''Proposed guidlines'''== vs the other sections which appear as == Planning an article == why is this?

additionally, I can only edit source instead of having the option to switch to visual editing. why is that? 3point1415 (talk) 18:59, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

I took out the link to the page actually opened for edit which was displaying here. StarryGrandma (talk) 19:23, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm quite confused as to what you mean. I have also left a message on your talk page and would appreciate if you could check it out and reply. Thanks! 3point1415 (talk) 19:26, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

The first section header is in boldface, as specified by the ''' around it, unlike the other section headers. I can't tell whether it's meant to be that way; but it's unusual. Maproom (talk) 20:29, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

The logo on our Branson School page is 8 years out of date and I would like to post the current one - but it looks like I don't have access to do that, even when I log in. How can I gain access? BransonComms (talk) 21:02, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

BransonComms Hello and welcome. Please see the important information I have placed on your user talk page regarding your username. 331dot (talk) 21:05, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! Trying to update now. BransonComms (talk) 21:14, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi there,

I am drafting a new Wiki Page and have been reading through some court cases related to the topic. I am wondering: Can I use a court briefing as a source? On the one hand, they are sort of biased, since each side is arguing their own case, on the other hand, they include quite a bit of information, much of which can be reliably fact-checked else where. I am having a hard time finding a help article that touches on this, can anyone point me to helpful info?? Thanks much! Snowyday222 (talk) 21:20, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Snowyday222 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Court documents are considered to be primary sources and as such do not establish notability. An article(not a "page") should summarize what independent reliable sources say about the topic- if information only appears in court documents, it probably doesn't have a place here. 331dot (talk) 21:36, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, that makes sense. Snowyday222 (talk) 21:40, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Snowyday222: 331dot is right about notability. But sources can be relevant while not helping establish notability. I would say, a court briefing, no, because only published documents are accepted. You can use a court finding, if it was published. But it's better to use a newspaper account of a court case. You might write "the prosecution claimed ..., whereas the defense claimed ...". Maproom (talk) 21:41, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi all! I've done a bit of editing, but never a disambiguation page, and I'm not sure about the norms there. I wanted to add another meaning to Parkway (disambiguation): the space between a sidewalk and street, otherwise known as a road verge (it is used in this way several times in the road verge article). I included a citation, but now I'm not sure if disambiguation pages are even supposed to have citations. Since the alternate meaning is listed (with a citation) in the main road verge article, should I omit the citation on the disambiguation page?

Also, I found the specific citation I used in a digital version of the Dictionary of American Regional English on archive.org. From other citations I've seen, it seems like it is preferred to use url=... for the archive.org page, instead of wikilinking the book itself (since it seems like you can't do both?), but I wanted to check on that, too.

Any other advice/assistance appreciated, too. Thanks! Cleancutkid (talk) 06:08, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Cleancutkid, and welcome to the Teahouse.

The first thing to realise is that, for most sources, the URL is not an essential part of the citation, but a convenience for the reader. The important information is the title, author (if known), date, publisher, and page. If a reader has to go and order the source from a major library in order to consult it, that is acceptable (and may be the only way, for some sources which are not online).

If the source is available online, then of course it is helpful to give a URL: provided that the source is not a copyright violation (i.e. it hasn't been uploaded by some random person without authorisation from the copyright holders).

If contents of the book are available, for example on the publisher's website, or on Google books, by all means give the url, in the url= parameter. If it has been archived by a service such as archive.org, then it also worth giving that url, in the archive-url= parameter, in case the site disappears or is moved (unlikely for Google books, but you never know). ColinFine (talk) 16:29, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

On the other half of your question, I personally don't consider citations necessary on a disambiguation page. The point of such pages is merely to help the reader find what they want, similar to an index in a book (which obviously doesn't have citations). The guideline there should be "could any reasonable reader, arriving at this page, be looking for our article on X?" If we're going to provide evidence that Yuri van Gelder is nicknamed "The Lord of the Rings", the evidence should be in our article about him, not in our disambiguation page. Elemimele (talk) 22:07, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

In the Google Podcasts article revision history, there seem to be some contradicting edits that add and remove different stub notice templates. This one added a mobile software-related article stub notice, when the article already had a google-related article stub notice. Another edit has also added the podcast-related article stub notice. Then, another edit was made to remove the mobile software and podcast notices, which kept only the google-related article stub notice. The edit was quickly reverted and the article has stayed the same since.

TLDR: should articles have more than one stub notice? (I believe the answer is yes, personally.) If so, which one should it be? 3point1415 (talk) 22:02, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi @3point1415, welcome to the Teahouse! WP:STUB states that [i]f an article overlaps several stub categories, more than one template may be used, but it is strongly recommended that only those relating to the subject's main notability be used. A limit of three or, if really necessary, four stub templates is advised. For example, Dr. Diabolical's Cliffhanger (a page in my topic area) was once a stub, and used the Amusement ride, building and Six Flags stub templates (You may see it here). Hopefully this answers your question! --Harobouri • 🎢 • 🏗️ (he/him • WP:APARKS) 22:34, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Non-free content cannot be used in cases where a free content equivalent, with an acceptable quality sufficient to serve the encyclopedic purpose, is available or could be created. - Per WP:NFCC#1

I am asking for clarification on what "could be created" means here. Does it mean that, say, if we were to use a non-free image for a living person, that would violate NFCC 1 because there could be a free content portrait of them produced or would it simply mean that if there isn't a free equivalent, that a NFC can be used? Knightoftheswords281 (talk) 04:16, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

@Knightoftheswords281, typically, if a person is still alive (no matter how difficult they might be to contact) it's not impossible to take a photo of them. Therefore, non-free images of living persons are disallowed on Wikipedia. Hope this helps.-- Quisqualis (talk) 06:35, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Knightoftheswords281, the prototypical example of this issue was Kim Jong-un, who became supreme leader of North Korea in 2011. For years, there was no available freely licensed photograph of him, and many editors argued that it was absolutely impossible to find a freely licensed photo of the ruler of the hermit kingdom, so we should use a non-free image. Then along came his diplomatic offensive and foreign travel of 2018 and 2019, and suddenly, we had plenty of freely licensed and public domain photos to choose from, many of them taken by US government photographers when he met with Donald Trump three different times. Cullen328 (talk) 07:00, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Ok, I have one problem: I want to create an article about the alolan tapu pokemon, but I don't know how! Please help me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.40.1.167 (talk) 04:21, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello, IP editor. Writing an acceptable new Wikipedia article for the first time is a challenging task that requires a considerable amount of study and practice. If you have never played music before, I do not think that you would expect to play a public lead guitar solo they day after you bought your first guitar, would you? So, I suggest that you spend some time studying Wikipedia's Policies and guidelines, and improving existing articles. Read and study Your first article until you understand it completely. Cullen328 (talk) 04:58, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Does it need its own WP article or can it be included in another existing article. Some "new" articles have come out of existing articles that have for whatever reason been sectioned off. Search pokemon in WP and see if what you want can be placed in an existing article. If others find that a new article is neede3ed then you can pow wow on it. The important thing is not that you are the author of an article but that you have contributed. Use what you find as your temporary template and go from there. There are plenty of other contributors in WP that will advise if you have gone off track. And if you think you are going off track then come on back to the Teahouse for some guidance.2603:8000:D300:D0F:A4A9:1E1:30A5:4340 (talk) 07:14, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

hi, its me again, my question is how do i even create the article draft? that is the part i dont know and im sure there isnt an article on it yet — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.193.44.202 (talk) 07:07, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

There are some Pokémon with their own articles, but I can't see any articles about specific groups as you're suggesting. The Pokémon probably aren't notable enough to warrant their own article (see Wikipedia:Pokémon_test). You could ask at the Pokémon WikiProject about this specific issue, and I'm sure they'd appreciate your help with a lot of other work, if you're interested. HerrWaus (talk) 09:53, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

I have reported the abuse of rollback by an administrator (Bbb23) to the Administrative action review page, but I'm not able to leave Bbb23 a message on his talk page because it is protected. Is there a way I am able to notify him other than that? Lobster from Maine (talk) 07:06, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Bbb23 has been notified. Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:58, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

@Lobster from Maine, welcome to the teahouse. We could help you notify them, but .... It seemed you has something related to Sockpuppetry Lemonaka (talk) 11:21, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

@Lobster from Maine: Your signature colours don't comply with the accessibility rules at MOS:CONTRAST, so you'll need to change them, please. You can see the contrast test results here. XAM2175 ^(T) 02:18, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

@Lobster from Maine Your new signature, shown at your Talk page, is MUCH better. My eyes thank you. David10244 (talk) 08:10, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

I dont understand this reason can any one help me to fix the problem ! Ahmedemad665 (talk) 18:42, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

FYI - Recent history is accepted as article on 29 December, then reverted to draft (not Rejected) on 30 December by editor who then asked Ahmeddmad665 to clarify if COI. Needs explanation of COI, and maybe of PAID. David notMD (talk) 20:32, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Can you tell me what to do to solve this problem sorry for late Ahmedemad665 (talk) 08:16, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Ahmedemad665, you've ignored the advice you've been given, and now you've sworn at those who gave it. If you're not willing to cooperate with other editors, don't expect them to cooperate with you. Maproom (talk) 21:32, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

I didn't ignore the advice, but I was asleep sorry Ahmedemad665 (talk) 08:16, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I recently created an article about Julien Vincent which has been tagged with the advert tag. Can another reviewer have a look and let me know how I can improve the article? Thanks! UMStellify (talk) 16:43, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, UMStellify. The big problem is working out what (or who) the article is about. If MarketForce is notable, write an article about it. If Vincent is notable, write about him, and focus on sources that talk about him. His receipt of a Goldman Environmental Prize would be significant, yet you don't mention it in the lead.

At the moment it looks like advertising because it does neither very well. Phrases like "The organization uses a multi-faceted approach in its campaigns, including personal meetings with finance executives, data-driven presentations on the risks and costs of coal investment, and partnerships with advocacy groups..." really grates as it 100% sounds like publicity-speak or a copy/paste job, not an encyclopaedia. That therefore leads me to ask if you are connected with the subject in some way, or have received payment to create it? If so, please declare it on your userpage, as explained here. TBH: Your article creations and barnstars thus far don't suggest you have a Conflict of Interest, but this one does somewhat set the old alarm bells ringing. Hope this helps a bit, Nick Moyes (talk) 17:34, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi Nick, based on all of the information available about Julien Vincent, he used the Market Forces platform for advocacy and combating coal financing - I think the two are inter-linked. Market Forces, in and of itself, doesn't seem to be as notable as Vincent.

Also, I have been creating articles about the Goldman Environmental Prize winners (after I edited the Prize article and found out that there are quite a few winners who don't have pages yet despite being sufficiently notable), but not the companies/organizations they created. Quite a few of them have created organizations, but currently my focus has been entirely on the Prize winners themselves.

As for the phrase: "The organization uses a multi-faceted approach in its campaigns, including personal meetings with finance executives, data-driven presentations on the risks and costs of coal investment, and partnerships with advocacy groups...", this is pretty much what they do/did. I'll figure out a way to rephrase it in a more neutral/objective way and get back to you for review, if you don't mind taking another look at it.

I hope this answers the COI question as well. I do not have any connection to the subject of this article.

Thanks for the help. UMStellify (talk) 17:59, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi, UMStellify. My immediate question about the quotation Nick brought up above is: how is this different from what every other marketing company does? If it is different, explain it (but based on what independent sources say about the company, not on what the company says itself). If it is not different, why does it belong in an encyclopaedia article about the company? ColinFine (talk) 18:46, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

@UMStellify Doesn't every company use a "multi-faceted" approach? :-) David10244 (talk) 08:18, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

I did a good job for putting references of their biographies and their stories of athletes, heads of State, etc. on Wikipedia. It's like how to improve communication skills while using phonics. I volunteered as a friendly student. 100.2.114.167 (talk) 18:58, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

What is your question regarding editing Wikipedia? If this is about Tracey Caulkins, see the reply to your post on the Help Desk. ColinFine (talk) 10:27, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Once an article has been published, when is it acceptable enough to begin a new article? I have been advised by Cullen328 to not start any new articles. CharlemagneJane (talk) 15:32, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

There is no formal restriction in this regard. However, it is good to learn from one's actions, and the corrections to them, before attempting to repeat. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:35, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

That said, I do agree with User:Cullen328 that perhaps your next efforts should be focused on editing existing articles so as to have a better idea of how good articles are constructed. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:38, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

I am also concerned about your comment on your user page "Being disruptive is my nature" disruptive editors tend not to last very long here. Theroadislong (talk) 15:40, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

I meant to say, "Being disruptive is NOT my nature." I have received conflicting information from Cullen328 and Marchjuly regarding date formats. Marhjuly told me that it is acceptable to use the day month and year format; however, Cullen328 told me that the day month year format is not acceptable and that I needed to clean up my articles before startiing a new one. Who is correct, Marchjuly or Cullen328? Who's advice shall I take? CharlemagneJane (talk) 15:51, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

@CharlemagneJane It depends on the context. See MOS:DATE and links on that page for the full story. In general, when editing existing article we follow the format first used and we try to use a single consistent format within an article. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:58, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

CharlemagneJane, I did not say that the other date format was unacceptable. I told you that the month day year format is used in a large majority of articles about US topics, and that abbreviating months in particular is not accepted practice. The software does not recognize month abbreviations, and they are contrary to the Manual of Style. I gave you some specific suggestions to improve your two motorcyclist biographies. If you want to ignore my suggestions, go ahead. Cullen328 (talk) 18:31, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Dear Cullen328, it occurs to me that I am on your bad list but I assure you that I am trying very hard to follow your instructions and take your advice along with others. I have never ignored your suggestions. It is a lot to learn and I wish that I could learn everything a little faster and be more efficient. I just wish that you would be more patient with me and a little bit more gentle in your remarks. Respectfully yours! CharlemagneJane (talk) 22:37, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

@CharlemagneJane: Sometimes it better to simply link to a discussion when trying to quote others, which in this case is Talk:Ray Byars#Date format, instead of trying to paraphrase or summarize what they posted. Cullen328 and I were posting pretty much the same thing, only in different ways. If you take another look at what I posted, you'll see that I did mention in some cases one format may be preferred over the other, and Cullen328 was just expanding on that. I also mentioned your abbreviating of the names of months as not being something typically considered OK in Wikipedia articles. Sometimes in posts it's much easier to give a link to more detailed Wikipedia policy or guideline pages than to try and cover all those details in the post. So, when you see blue words in a Wikipedia post or edit summary, it's generally the poster's way of telling you to look at this page for more details because it will explain things better. If you haven't looked at those pages yet, please do because it should clarify things for you. — Marchjuly (talk) 03:36, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

CharlemagneJane, if you were on my "bad list", as you put it, then you would be among the 7492 Wikipedia accounts that I have blocked in the 5-1/2 years that I have been an administrator. But I have not blocked you because I think that you have the potential to be a good editor if you decide to be a generalist editor instead of focusing on the geneology of your family. Just my suggestion. I do not issue instructions to any editor, except to warn them against obviously inappropriate behavior (which does not apply to you). My goal as a Teahouse/Help Desk contributor is to point out and help explain Wikipedia's policies, guidelines, behavioral norms and best practices, in the hope that my input will help new editors write and improve better encyclopedia articles. Cullen328 (talk) 04:02, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. I am glad to hear that I am not one of those 7492 others that were on your bad list. As always, I will try my best to follow the guidelines of Wikipedia and follow all your advice along with Marchjuly's and all the other editors that have been helping me. Thanks for believing that I have potential. A few positive words go a long way. CharlemagneJane (talk) 05:02, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. I worked on correcting the date formats on both aritcles for Tommy Byars and Ray Byars, but not sure if I got all of them corrected. I keep looking over both articles trying to find more inconsistencies, but I really don't want to touch the articles anymore for fear of messing them up. While editing the dates, I caused other errors and although I fixed some of them, I was unable to fix all of them. I am grateful that someone else fixed them for me. What more do I need to do for these two articles? If there is nothing else for me to do, I would like to move on to something else. CharlemagneJane (talk) 04:07, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Another issue you need to avoid before drafting any more articles. Many (most) of the references you created for the two Byars articles go to GenealogyBank, which asks visitors to create an account in order to see content. This is wrong. Content such as newspaper articles do not need to be available online. Instead, each reference should include the title of an article, the publication, the date, the byline if applicable, the pages, etc. David notMD (talk) 16:18, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. I did list the name of the newspapers, titles, dates. Most of the articles do not have authors listed. Should I list the source inline with the text? CharlemagneJane (talk) 16:23, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

One more question: should I remove all of the url links in the references on the Tommy Byars and Ray Byars articles? CharlemagneJane (talk) 05:18, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

@CharlemagneJane Yes, that is the implication of @David notMD's comments just above and also below in the next section. He and I are both concerned that GenealogyBank may be hosting copyright material that they are not entitled to. By policy mentioned at WP:COPYVIOEL, Wikipedia does not allow citations to include links to such sites. Also, in this specific case, even if GenealogyBank is not infringing copyright, a reader who clicks on the link you provided does not actually see the content, only a suggestion they should create an account. Your citations are perfectly valid without being instantly available online (see WP:OFFLINE). Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:21, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

@CharlemagneJane: This is currently being discussed at Talk:Tommy Byars#Genealogybank; so, I wouldn’t remove any links just yet. Moreover, the fact that the GenealogyBank website requires registration or even a fee doesn’t mean the links can’t be added per WP:PAYWALL. Despite what’s been posted above, it’s not wrong per se to provide links to such websites; inconvenient perhaps, but not wrong. — Marchjuly (talk) 15:12, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

@Marchjuly, @CharlemagneJane I've looked into this a bit more and it appears that GenealogyBank are a US company, NewsBank Inc, and their terms and conditions, especially section 5, cover copyright. They acknowledge that they host material provided by others and they are licensed to do so. So the use of links are OK, as in any WP:PAYWALL source. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:12, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

So, do I understand that you are saying that I can leave the url links on each reference? CharlemagneJane (talk) 17:50, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

@CharlemagneJane: There's an ongoing discussion about this at Talk:Tommy Byars#Genealogybank; so, there's no need to remove any links now. You may, however, be asked to clarify some things about the articles you've been citing, which means it might be a good idea for you to keep track of that discussion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:52, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

@Michael D. Turnbull: Yes, that seems to be at least one other person's opinion at WP:ELN#GenealogyBank and it's one of the things being discussed at Talk:Tommy Byars#Genealogybank. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:52, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

This might be a silly question, but how do I keep track of this discussion? Do I wait for the little red alert at the top of my menu or is there a better way to find it, like maybe bookmarking this page? I have not participated in any discussions with the exception of asking new questions and seeing the answers after receiving the alerts, so this might be a new learning curve for me. CharlemagneJane (talk) 04:09, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi CharlemagneJane. You'll only receive a WP:PING notification if someone specifically decides to ping you for some reason, but you can add the article to your watchlist if you want. That way the most recent edits made to it or to its corresponding talk page will appear in your watchlist. You can also just occasionally check the discussion every now and then to see whether any new comments have been made. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:44, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

@CharlemagneJane: Assuming that you have the new beta Discussion Tools turned on (at Preferences → Beta features → Discussion tools), you should be able to click on a "Subscribe" button in the top-right of the section you want to keep up on. Every time someone leaves a comment will give you a notification in your at the top of the page. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 08:59, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! CharlemagneJane (talk) 12:29, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Short version: an editor keeps attacking me and calling my edits garbage and irrelevant, and keeps deleting edits I make for no reason. How do I make him stop and/or report him? I'm combed through Wikipedia's articles but I find them confusing.

Longer version: I added a semi-famous alumna to a school page. An editor took it down saying he didn't think they were important. The person appears in numerous prominent publications and I go to the school; we love talking about how the person went there. I feel these are both objective standards of relevance to both the school and on a broader cultural significance. I also told this editor relevance is subjective and that, while they may not personally find this person important, they do meet Wikipedia's suggested objective criteria of significance. Well now this editor won't stop messaging me, reporting me for I don’t know what (I haven't done anything mean/false/or otherwise offensive to Wiki's policies), and deleting reasonable and reliable edits I have made on pages. I added the head of the Law Society to their law school's notable alumni section and he even deleted that. I added multiple sources and it's hard to defend why the head of Canada's largest provincial legal organization isn't relevant to their law school, no? Wikileeks5 (talk) 08:43, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Wikileeks5. If the alumna does not have a Wikipedia biography, then do not add that person to a list of notable alumni. That's pretty basic and a widespread standard across the encyclopedia. If you truly believe that the person belongs on that list, then do the voluntary work of writing a well-referenced, acceptable Wikipedia biography. Cullen328 (talk) 08:55, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

My concern is the harassment and name calling Wikileeks5 (talk) 09:01, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

After a quick scan of your talk and the edit summit history of the page involved, I didn't see any name calling or harrassment. What I did see is you playing WP:IDHT as they point out valid policies for why you need to stop edit warring over this inclusion unless you want to take the time to write an article. Did I miss the name calling? Link please, if I missed it? 09:11, 31 December 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heironymous Rowe (talk • contribs) 9:11, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Doesn't "You're a rather mean and nasty person" qualify as name calling? Written by Wikileeks5 on their own talk page. Maproom (talk) 09:40, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

I think it does, but thats the person making the accusations. I wanted an example of the other person doing it, because I sure didn't notice it. But I did note OP was warned to watch out for boomerangs. 10:14, 31 December 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heironymous Rowe (talk • contribs) 10:14 31 December 2022 (UTC)

• This is the wrong venue for complaints about other user behaviour, you want WP:ANI although I do not recommend going there as there does not seem to be any evidence of harassment. I would advise you listen to more experienced editors. Courtesy ping: @Meters: Polyamorph (talk) 10:25, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
• The problem is you. Wikipedia has a simple rule - names not to be added to a 'Notable' list unless an article exists about that person. Stop doing that and other editors will stop warning you for doing something wrong. David notMD (talk) 14:28, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

I want to explain the whole truth. May 26, 2020, Sports Reference have closed Olympic sites and bave it transfer into Olympedia. I need you to help me improve and correct the reference of Tracy Caulkins in her biography. https://www.olympedia.org/athletes/50983 where she competes for the Women's 100m Breaststroke https://www.olympedia.org/results/7181, 200 metres Individual Medley, Women https://www.olympedia.org/results/7214, 400 metres Individual Medley, Women https://www.olympedia.org/results/7222, 4 x 100 metres Medley Relay, Women. Thank you. 100.2.114.167 (talk) 10:08, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

This has been answered at the Help Desk. Please do not post the same question in multiple places, as it wastes people's time in duplicating effort, and may lead to separate parallel discussions. ColinFine (talk) 10:24, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Delighted. Delighted. I just ask for help and may improve some lessons of learning. I go with permission. Forgive me. 100.2.114.167 (talk) 14:57, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

I added this:

"As such, note that this list does not include every person who has reached at least an age of 110 years."

To here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_supercentenarians

It now reads

"... The following is a list of famous supercentenarians (people who have attained the age of at least 110 years) notable for reasons other than just longevity. As such, note that this list does not include every person who has reached at least an age of 110 years. ..."

It feels a little grammatically awkward to mention 110 twice. Is there a better way to word that? Or is it okay? It was added to make it more clear that the list doesn't include everyone of that age. If it's unnecessary to include that, then let me know and I'll revert it (unless someone else wants to). 2600:6C4E:1200:1E85:984E:F9AE:AD6D:15AC (talk) 11:17, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

@2600:6C4E:1200:1E85:984E:F9AE:AD6D:15AChello, welcome to the Teahouse. It's Okay, nothing grammatically awkward Lemonaka (talk) 11:20, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll leave it as is then. 2600:6C4E:1200:1E85:984E:F9AE:AD6D:15AC (talk) 11:22, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

I just changed it to "...this list does not include every person who has reached this age"; I think it was a little awkward because it had redundancy in it. —ME_isSCAMMER (scam) 14:58, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

When I try to revert/undo an edit, I get the "The edit could not be undone because it does not exist or was deleted" error message. My suspicion is that it should have said a merge conflict prevented the undo from happening.

Googling this, I found: Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_1173#Reverting_Edits

Problem is, the resulting Phabricator task T325019 is closed as resolved. But it's still happening. Maybe this isn't the same cause? Is this the same error or another one? In both cases, other editors have made edits after the edit I want to undo, which is why I suspect I'm too getting the wrong error message.

Here are two reverts I couldn't undo, where I get the above-mentioned error message: [1] [2]

CapnZapp (talk) 13:14, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello CapnZapp. I also tried to undo those edits and got the same notice ("The edit could not be undone because it does not exist or was deleted") which still does not seem appropriate for the situation. As I rather hate Phabricator, I'm pinging @Suffusion of Yellow who opened a report at Phabricator T325019, plus @MatmaRex who closed it as 'resolved'. It certainly doesn't seem to have been resolved. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 15:31, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

The bug has been fixed in the software, but the new version including the fix hasn't been deployed yet to Wikimedia wikis. It will be deployed next week, reaching English Wikipedia on Thursday, 5 January. It is unusually delayed because scheduled deployments were paused around the holidays. Sorry I didn't explain that when closing the task, I tend to only do it when the bug has been reported (or fixed) by someone unfamiliar with the process, and I didn't think anyone else would be interested in this issue. For future reference, you can look for the action by ReleaseTaggerBot on the Phabricator task to indicate when the changes will be deployed, in this case the week of 2023-01-02 (see WP:THURSDAY for details about the schedule). Matma Rex talk 20:35, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, Matma Rex, for taking the trouble to explain this. I wasn't aware one could look up a deployment date, which is helpful to us guys here at the Teahouse. Much appreciated! Nick Moyes (talk) 15:42, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Just pinging @CapnZapp to ensure they're notified of this helpful answer. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:45, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

The lead section of Zaporizhzhia (city) states that the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant (named after the oblast) is in the city, when it is actually located about 50km away in Enerhodar. My request on the talk page last week was ignored. Please fix this; the article is ECP protected so I cannot. 217.180.228.188 (talk) 02:03, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Good day, I would fix the detail but two things:

• Do you have a source.
• Next time, I would look for other places. I do not know precisely where you would go, I would go to WP:Ukraine.

✶Mitch199811✶ 03:37, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

@Mitch199811 What do you mean by "where the IP would go"? Do they need to go somewhere? David10244 (talk) 08:27, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

I meant somewhere like the village well or questions for more specific help, sorry if I was a bit unclear. ✶Mitch199811✶ 15:09, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

IP editor. You are correct to point out that an article on the city doesn't need to mention in the lead power stations that are 50 km away, so I have removed that detail. The main text of the article still mentions them. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:59, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

How/where do I apply for and earn the wikilibrary card thing so that I can access some added sources and stuff without needing to pay? That sounds really neat. :) — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 03:33, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Moops. Check out this link and just login. WP:TWL has some more information. Thanks, echidnaLives - talk - edits 03:36, 30 December 2022 (UTC).

TY. :) — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 03:54, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Ah, I thought I needed approval somewhere or something, apparently not so. TY — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 03:56, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

@Moops: I believe in the past you did have to apply for every individual resource accessible through the library; for the last couple of years every active editor in good standing gets access to the standard bundle which includes a bunch of really useful resources. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:43, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I can see that now. I find it to be very helpful. TY — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 16:43, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello!

Have you guidance or a standard for using an article when you refer to a clan name as a noun or subject?

For example, the Clan Campbell <did or was such and such> or Clan Campbell <did or was such and such>

I lean toward no article, but I see both approaches used in the content, sometimes in the same article.

Of course, I would use an article when the clan name is used as an adjective or modifier, like the Clan Campbell crest of arms is....

Thanks much. Toliverkt (talk) 00:34, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

From what I can tell it depends. Using the before the subject isn't wrong (e.g. Mississippi River). I can't think of any clans off the top of my head but the Rockefeller Family does have a the before the subject. ✶Mitch199811✶ 03:41, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

My understanding is that it would be "Clan Campbell", "the Campbell clan" or maybe "the clan Campbell" (small 'c'). I can't think of any other groups or proper nouns that work this way, but "Clan xxx" (without "the") seems idiomatic for Scottish clans particularly. ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 13:45, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Although it would be nice to have a style standard to use, an idiomatic approach works for me. I couldn't find anything in Chicago Manual of Style. Somebody holler if you don't like my associated edits. Thanks for the feedback. ktoliver ^talk 17:27, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

I am worried that I would get blocked from editing again, since I got blocked from editing two times. Can you please delete my two user talk pages, please?

I HATE if I get blocked from editing Wikipedia. 2607:FEA8:FD04:8107:8497:A2A3:C15D:136D (talk) 01:48, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

If you evade blocks, you are highly likely to get blocked again. Which user pages are you talking about? Cullen328 (talk) 02:13, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

From this abuse log entry, probably User:Aarushthakkar153, who was blocked for harassment. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 18:39, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

dear, wikipedia team i need some personal information for your page. personal information to advertisement some people 2400:9700:111:3C11:9C73:F184:C8F2:EEFD (talk) 04:18, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

There is no "wikipedia team," just millions of registered accounts and unregistered contributors, all volunteers. David notMD (talk) 04:35, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Your English language skills are so poor that it is very difficult to understand what you are trying to say. But personal information to advertisement some people seems to be describing something that is not permitted on Wikipedia. Advertising on Wikipedia is forbidden. Cullen328 (talk) 06:13, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello, @2400:9700:111:3C11:9C73:F184:C8F2:EEFD. It seemed you are asking for other's personal information, this is called Doxxing and will not be allowed. Lemonaka (talk) 10:32, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

If you want to have a contact with Wikimedia foundation team, please go to https://wikimediafoundation.org/about/ to contact them Lemonaka (talk) 10:33, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

• I believe OP means contact info of Wikipedia editor(s), and that they want to advertise some people (their clients?). —usernamekiran (talk) 20:25, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

can someone put this [3] template on my userpage? i want it the same size place etc as on the template page Allaoii ^talk 21:02, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello Allaoii and welcome to the Teahouse. Copy the following code to the top of your user page: <div style="position: absolute; top: {{{top|3.5}}}em; width: {{{size|150}}}px; right: {{{right|2}}}em;">[[File:Cabal approved.svg|{{{size|150}}}px|right|link={{{link|WP:TINC}}}|alt=There is no Cabal]]</div> ◇HelenDegenerate◆ 21:59, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

i was hoping to maybe get it over where my topicons are, what do i need to put in for that? Allaoii ^talk 22:11, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

@Allaoii: Got it. {{Top icon|imagename = Cabal approved.svg|wikilink = WP:TINC|width = 50|height = 50}} I’ve set the image size at 50x50 pixels, but if that’s too large or too small, feel free to toy with the numbers. ◇HelenDegenerate◆ 22:20, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

no i dont want it as a topicon, i want it over where my topicons are, as in i want it to look like its covering my topicons but the topicons are still legible Allaoii ^talk 22:25, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

@Allaoii I see what you mean. Try: {{tinc| size = 50| right = 3.5| top = 1| link =WP:TINC}} ◇HelenDegenerate◆ 22:31, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

still not working, can you maybe help me to get it like it is in the template? Allaoii ^talk 23:07, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

@Allaoii Something like this {{tinc|size = 125|right = 1.5|top = 0.5|link =WP:TINC}} might work. I changed the size of the image, as well as the ‘right’ and ‘top’ parameters, so that it appears over the topicons. Let me know what you think; I’d be happy to adjust it further if needed. ◇HelenDegenerate◆ 00:15, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

its still not working, is there a way i can let you edit my userpage so you can try things out there? Allaoii ^talk 02:37, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

@Allaoii Of course! ◇HelenDegenerate◆ 02:56, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

it still doesnt work, and please don't move things around uneceraly Allaoii ^talk 03:08, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

@Allaoii Which part isn't working? Also, my apologies for that. ◇HelenDegenerate◆ 19:30, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

it isnt over the topicons, could you maybe help me to get it exactly as it is in the template page? Allaoii ^talk 20:25, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

@Allaoii, I’m unsure of what you mean by ‘over’. Do you mean to say that the template should be on top of your topicons (covering them, like this), or in the space above them (like this line)? ◇HelenDegenerate◆ 21:29, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

it should be covering them, like it is in the template page, well if it had topicons. Allaoii ^talk 18:38, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

@Allaoii Hmm, this is a tricky one. When I edited your user page, it appeared on my end the way you’ve described it, with the template covering the topicons. Are you, by any chance, on a phone or a tablet? Sometimes templates don’t render properly for these editors. ◇HelenDegenerate◆ 20:00, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

no im on a chromebook Allaoii ^talk 20:12, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

maybe its something on your end? what are you using? Allaoii ^talk 20:13, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

@Allaoii I mostly use an iPad Pro, which is what I’m on right now, but I use the desktop version (en.wikipedia.org, not en.m.wikipedia.org). ◇HelenDegenerate◆ 20:23, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

ah its your end, you said that sometimes tablet users dont render properly, since im on a chromebook, maybe the crossover is messy. by the way, on my end it has the template on just below the topicons. Allaoii ^talk 22:21, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

@Allaoii Makes sense. What I’d do from here is to fiddle with the template for a bit. If you change the numbers in the parameters ‘right’ and ‘top’, it’ll move the template around. The numbers that rendered it properly for me aren’t the same for you, so only you can decide what works. ◇HelenDegenerate◆ 19:44, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

i dont know how to work it so maybe ill ask my mentor Allaoii ^talk 21:03, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi - a new editor here. The page for Jeffrey Gramlich contains essentially a resume. What is the usual approach to removing that / rewriting the article in another way? From what a quick google can tell me, I am not even sure this article applies to the basic standards of "notability" other than this individual being a frequent publisher of tax related articles in tax related publications. I cannot see discourse about that person from other sources. As a new editor, I don't want to get in trouble for straight deletions of text. Bustlingporkchop (talk) 05:15, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Bustlingporkchop. The appicable notability guideline is Wikipedia:Notability (academics). If you truly do not believe that this person meets that standard, then familiarize yourself with the Deletion policy. Cullen328 (talk) 06:22, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Hard to believe that this has existed since 2008 with no references! Gramlich appears to have contributed, but last was 2014. Given that Gramlich as an academic occupied two endowed university chairs in his career, likely qualifies, but major rewrite and referencing needed. David notMD (talk) 14:08, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

And all the hyperlinks need to be removed. David notMD (talk) 14:09, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

https://directory.business.wsu.edu/vita/GramlichJeffrey.pdf can be a useful ref for much of the content. David notMD (talk) 14:15, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

I've just had a big discussion at the talk page of WP:NPROF about precisely this sort of situation. No, the person probably doesn't meet basic notability, but as I understand it, NPROF takes precedence over general notability, and is intended to deal with the problem that most academics, even those who've had enormous influence on human knowledge, would struggle to meet general notability. Possession of a named chair (which Gramlich has) is enough to secure a Wikipedia article, and there doesn't have to be any independent sourcing to back this up (as there is no doubt that institutional pages are honest about who occupies their professorships). A summary of his impactful publications can and should be included; as these have been assessed independently by the publishers, they are evidence of his impact in his area. But basically you've bumped into a corner of the world that is exempt both from normal notability and (largely) from referencing, but is operating to a different, parallel set of standards. On the other hand, that doesn't mean that resumé-based articles can't be improved. It is better to go looking for sources and information, than to attempt AfD, which is guaranteed to fail. Elemimele (talk) 14:57, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

You still need references to show that they have possessed a named chair or other credentials. I would suggest looking at there page at WSU, but that's a copy of Wikipedias article. I missed the pdf link above, which covers most of the details. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:17, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello everyone, I found that RTRC tool has provide us with ORES and CVN scores, may help us identify bad edits in a short time, but it's a little hard to use for me. While popup give me a lot of help when patrolling, but it doesn't have a score for all the edits. Is there any way or any tools to combine them together Lemonaka (talk) 07:06, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi all - I have edited my draft, "Jimmy Ryan (guitarist)," several times and yet it keeps being rejected as non-relevant or not of interest, or not famous enough to merit a Wiki article. I’ve searched Wikipedia and seen many articles about musicians with far less relevance and far less article support that are up on Wikipedia. I don’t understand. I have a discography that’s almost three pages long. I have a book out with a solid five-star rating with 84 reviews. I have a history of being in a rock group with three top forty records (The Critters), which actually has it’s own Wiki page and the same references that I used! I have been credited with six platinum records. I just performed at the 2022 Rock & Roll Hall of Fame inductions with three-time Grammy winner, Olivia Rodrigo. As Paul McCartney once said when being not let into a party, “How VIP do I have to be to get in?” Two of my band members have Wiki pages, Don Ciccone, and Lee Shapiro. My page is only different in that it has a lot more references. What to do?? Jrslam01 (talk) 16:30, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Jrslam01 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I can say quickly that other stuff exists is a poor argument to make. It could be that these other articles(not "pages") are also inappropriate and simply not addressed yet. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is a possible for inappropriate articles to get by us. We can only address what we know about. 331dot (talk) 16:48, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, and I understand about articles slipping through unnoticed. Is it possible that they were simply posted, not run through the draft/approval system? Is that even possible? In any case, I feel my credits are noteworthy (of course I do!) after six decades of helping superstars become famous, and all the other credits I listed in the above note. It would be very helpful if someone could explain why those credits are not noteworthy. I’m not bitter or angry. I’m fine. I just simply don’t understand what’s missing, and the vague notice is not detailed enough to help me solve the problem, if in fact it is solvable. Jrslam01 (talk) 16:55, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that's entirely possible. Standards have become much stricter as the English Wikipedia has grown to over 6 million articles. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:00, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Please read the autobiography policy. If I'm reading the draft right,(I may not be) your career seems to mostly be as part of bands- you would only merit a standalone article if there is significant coverage of a solo career. The draft was declined, not rejected. Rejection would mean resubmission is not possible. 331dot (talk) 16:51, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

@Jrslam01 Writing acceptable Wikipedia articles is hard, as you are discovering. Part of the problem here is that (I assume) you are trying to write an autobiography without learning about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, one of which is that every fact in a biography must be cited to a reliable source. The section on "Early life" cites no sources and should therefore be removed. You have added many external links in the main text: these are not appropriate and where they can't be converted into citations should also be removed. Discogs is unacceptable as a source as it is user-generated: see WP:RSDISCOGS. Some of the sources you use correctly in Draft:Jimmy Ryan (Guitarist) are based on interviews you gave, which do not establish that you are independently notable as Wikipedia defines this. Paradoxically, the draft might be much better if stripped back to a limited summary of what reliable secondary sources say, provided these are independent and provide significant coverage. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:55, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Mike. Now I have a clear picture of what’s wrong. As I said to the other person who responded, I’m fine with any response whether it is a decline or rejection, as long as I know what’s wrong. I’ll have another go with your comments in mind. One thing to consider. All those discog.com references? I’m not sure how else you would list the credits short of adding a photo of the record jackets themselves. I would appreciate any suggestions you might have regarding this. Jrslam01 (talk) 17:06, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Jrslam01, a person is considered notable and therefore eligible for a Wikipedia article when multiple reliable published sources that are independent of the person devote significant coverage to the person. There are three factors that must be present: "reliable", "independent" and "significant coverage". Having "a lot more references" is not a persuasive argument. The quality of the references is vastly more important than the quantity of the references. Think of it this way: Would you rather have three genuine gold coins or fifty pennies? So, identify whichever of your sources have those three essential elements, and point them out to the reviewer in a note at the top of the draft. Another problem is the issue of Verifiability, which is a core content policy. For example, the "Early Life" section is entirely unreferenced and is probably based on your memories of your life experiences. That violates another core content policy, No original research. Unless you can find a published reliable source that verifies that content, it must be removed. This is the biggest problem that people run into who try to write a Wikipedia autobiography. When someone writes an autobiographical book, they are encouraged to add personal anecdotes, but that is not permitted when writing a Wikipedia biography. So, go through your draft, sentence by sentence, and remove every single assertion that is not verified by a published, reliable source other than your own book. There are also stylistic problems. The draft lacks a lead section. Add one. You refer to yourself as "Jimmy" throughout, which is contrary to the Manual of style. We give the full name in the first sentence and then refer to people by their surnames thereafter, at least for most people in English speaking countries. So, "Ryan" not "Jimmy". You have a large number of external links in the body of the draft. This is not permitted. Either remove them or convert them to references. Linking to the Amazon page that sells your book is considered spam. Remove that. Reviewers hate name dropping. Your well-documented role in Carly Simon's early work is fine to mention, but the unreferenced lists of famous musicians that you worked with fleetingly hurts your goal, instead of helping you achieve it. I hope that this helps. Cullen328 (talk) 18:16, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

It helps a lot. Thank you! Looks like this is going to be a small article!! Last question. I’d like to spend a few days (or weeks) working on this to solve its problems. The draft help page is a little confusing to me. If I take out the submit code at the top and click publish, will it simply save the draft for future editing, rather than submit it prematurely for review? Jrslam01 (talk) 18:27, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes. "Publish" means "save" - it was changed in order to emphasise the fact that absolutely everything on Wikipedia - drafts, sandboxes, user pages - is public and can be read by anybody. But drafts are not indexed by external search engines, and so should not be seen unless somebody goes looking for them within Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 18:43, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Colin. That answers my question! Jrslam01 (talk) 22:18, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

@Jrslam01 I don't think anyone answered your question about "how to list credits without using Discogs". I don't know the answer, but maybe someone else does. Good luck. David10244 (talk) 08:17, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

@Jrslam01 See WP:DISCOGRAPHY and links on that page. In general, if there is a Wikipedia article about the song or album, which is mainly the case here, we just Wikilink that article and don't need a separate source. There is even a specific project for discographies where you could seek help, see WP:WikiProject Discographies Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:43, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

@Michael D. Turnbull Thanks, now I know too. David10244 (talk) 09:45, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

I'd like to be able to split my page into two columns. Maybe 2/3 of the space for text entries and historical information and the 1/3 on the right for pictures, infoboxes, maps, chronologies, etc...

Draft:Sidney P. Marland Jr. PI 71 5280 2021 (talk) 18:37, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

However, I'd persuade you don't split them into two columns, this against WP:MOS Lemonaka (talk) 18:39, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

@PI 71 5280 2021 I helped you improve this article a little. Lemonaka (talk) 18:42, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

WAY TOO MUCH about his military service and FAR TOO LITTLE about his federal service in education field, as that is what makes him notable. David notMD (talk) 19:40, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Agreed on the education work. That's my next round of adds - and there will be a bunch of that. PI 71 5280 2021 (talk) 20:11, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Articles are displayed differently on different-sized screens. You don't want to force something like that for mobile phone displays, for example. David10244 (talk) 10:06, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Wikipedians

Yesterday, I changed my name on Wikimedia Commons from something to Axadem. The problem is that, this change also affected my profile in Wikipedia.

Is it possible to keep my old name in Wikipedia but "Axadem" in Wikimedia Commons? Axadem (talk) 12:23, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

@Axadem: Hi. In short, it is not possible because of WP:SUL. If you wish you can create another account (including your previous username), and use different accounts on different projects (enwiki, commons). But you should declare all of your accounts per WP:SOCKLEGIT. Let me know if you have any doubts, or queries. —usernamekiran (talk) 12:30, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

In Ann Rutledge, in the section "Historical criticism of alleged Lincoln-Rutledge relationship, I just inserted ^{[citation needed]} in this sentence: "In his Lincoln the President,^{[citation needed]} historian James G. Randall wrote a chapter entitled "Sifting the Ann Rutledge Evidence" which cast doubt on the nature of her and Lincoln's relationship." I did this because Lincoln the President has four volumes. I tried to put "volume number needed," but was not allowed to because there is no template for that. That would be more helpful than "citation needed." What can be done? Maurice Magnus (talk) 19:45, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

@Maurice Magnushello, welcome to the teahouse. Why not have a try for {{Citation needed|reason=Your explanation here|date=December 2022}} Lemonaka (talk) 19:52, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

@Lemonaka Thanks; it worked. There is so much for Wikipedia editors to learn! Maurice Magnus (talk) 20:14, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi, everyone has a lot of things to learn on Wikipedia. We are all climbing the learning curve Lemonaka (talk) 20:16, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

@Maurice Magnus and @Lemonaka, there is actually a template for this: {{volume needed}}. There's a list you can check at for others like {{page needed}} too. If you can't find a specific one, {{full citation needed}} is the generic application for "a citation is present but incomplete". XAM2175 ^(T) 13:08, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

plz tell e how can vanished/delete my article pages Ajrun Amir'za-da (talk) 09:36, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Ajrun Amir'za-da. Every single time that you make any edit to Wikipedia, you agree to legal language that says, By publishing changes, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license. "Irrevocably" means that you have given up your right to change your mind. There may be other valid reasons to remove the content that you wrote. What are those reasons? Cullen328 (talk) 09:59, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Be specific. Your history includes two created articles, four or more either Speedy deleted or redirected, two existing drafts, and several drafts that were deleted for no activity for six months. If you mean existing drafts, abandon them, and in time will be deleted. If you mean your successfully created articles, I suppose you could start the Articles for deletion process, giving cause for deletion. David notMD (talk) 13:02, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

@Ajrun Amir'za-da: can I just clarify: is the problem (1) that articles you wrote have been deleted, and you don't know how that happened, or (2) is the problem that some articles you wrote have not been deleted, but you'd like them to be deleted? Elemimele (talk) 13:14, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

would an article about charlemagne's water clock be notable in wikipedia standard? Time Up King (talk) 12:48, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Please read Wikipedia:Notability and then determine whether the subject meets those requirements by finding significant coverage in independent WP:reliable sources. Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:56, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

First glance, there appear to be several mentions of Charlemagne receiving the gift of a water clock. Consider adding referenced content about this to the Water clock article rather than a separate article. David notMD (talk) 14:32, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi! Can I use some parts of a chatGPT result in my wikipedia article? Thanks! Tiagorangel2011 (talk) 12:52, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but that might be original research, which is not accepted on Wikipedia. The ⬡ Bestagon^[t][c] 12:59, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

ChatGPT has a informational database up to 2021. It doesn't know what happened after that (maybe they've updated it). The bot also relies on primary/secondary/reliable sources. Even if the bot's output is neutral, and reliable, I don't know what is copyright status of content provided by the bot. —usernamekiran (talk) 13:27, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

hi @Tiagorangel2011 and welcome to the Teahouse! while I haven't tested chatgpt yet (i feel like i'm overdue to try it out given i'm interested in ai technology but i'm too lazy to get an account in openai) it may not really be usable for Wikipedia. there's a thread in the help desk regarding this (link: Am I permitted to use ChatGPT to help me contribute to Wikipedia?) where the general consensus seems to be that it may not exactly be accurate (yet). perhaps once the tech advances more perhaps and it's trained more? in theory (I haven't tested it out yet), you can ask it about something and require it to back up its claims with sources, but since you're going to have to verify its output first, you might as well just feed that question to your local search engines. happy editing!

on an unrelated note, I'm now interested if and when we get an AI dedicated to writing Wikipedia articles afted being trained on information in the internet + Wikipedia articles, what will happen and what'll it be like? 💜  melecie  talk - 13:30, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Ah ChatGPT, it's not suited for Wikipedia as far as my personal experience playing with it. While, the bot does give you average writing output result based on what you have asked it however it doesn't provide any form of citations in its output, and if you were to asked for "where is the citations?" after it gave you the writing output, it simply response something like this "sorry ... I'm a language model bot ... and doesn't has access to external sources" (quote isn't a exact word-by-word of the output given but rewritten to something along the line; as I'm unsure what's the copyright, ChatGPT is using ... maybe it's written somewhere but I'm lazy) of which it also tells you that Wikipedia's articles requires citations. So, unless you want your article to be deleted or sent to draftspace or your edits to be reverted, you shouldn't be using ChatGPT for Wikipedia purposes. — 🎄🎆 Paper9oll 🎆🎄 (🔔 • 📝) 14:41, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

There is a more extended discussion on this at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Wikipedia_response_to_chatbot-generated_content. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 14:53, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

The khandayat caste page is looking like a propaganda. I am from odisha. I studies many caste and people related books like HH risely's tribe and caste of odisha and Bengal, lk mohapatra's many book, Japanese writer akio tanabe's reserch article,prasant Pradhans article, also odisha district gazetteer by many ias officers. They all written correct information and that also match with reality of odisha society. Khandayat is a martial caste and chasa is a sub caste of khandayat. We can find it in every khandayat article and books. But a editor trying to relate gouda caste to khandayat caste by misusing a books information. Sir,There is no connection of khandayat caste with goudas. This is propaganda. Pls reserch on this. Sekharblack123 (talk) 04:24, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

The proper place for discusion about Khandayat (caste) is the Talk page of that article, where I see you have already made a comment.. David notMD (talk) 04:40, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

And please be mindful that not all Wikipedia volunteers are men. "Sir" is not a well-chosen salutation. Thanks. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 05:25, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

I guess English isn't your first language, or that you are used to a particular dialect, so may find the previous comment confusing.

It is considered good manners to use both male and female forms of address in anything written for a general audience in English.

However, this is a matter of totally natural confusion, as it deals with a recent change of use. "Sir" used to be regarded as an acceptable form of written address to any unknown person in the UK, well within living memory: I would guess it is still regarded as entirely gender-inclusive in some geographical areas.

In case it helps: in this context in modern English, it is (more) correct not to use a salutation at all. If "Sir" should be used, we would usually write "Sir/Madam" in the UK. ("Sir/Madam" is usually only used in formal paper letters to an unknown recipient). I don't know if other countries have different conventions! We all welcome your contribution to improving the project. FloweringOctopus (talk) 08:29, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Except your initial post was not written to anyone, it was simply a statement of opinion. If anything your use of the word "Sir" in that context is not only a bad saultation in modern English, it's not even gramatically correct in that context. Sir/Madam are just bizaarly formal in such a context. FishandChipper 🐟🍟 08:35, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

@FishandChipper and @FloweringOctopus: It was used as an abbreviated salutation in certain forms of English until quite recently, though it is unquestionably viewed as archaic now. I used to see it used in letters to the editor in some Australian newspapers even into the early 2000s, for example. It's possible that the original poster here is addressing their communication in the assumption that we have some form of official role in managing Wikipedia's content. XAM2175 ^(T) 13:17, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello @Sekharblack123 welcome to the teahouse. I'm so sorry but I cannot understand your English, could you make it clear? Lemonaka (talk) 08:35, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

hi all, I have invited them to come to hindi wikipedia. Lemonaka (talk) 08:41, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Sekharblack123 The issue appears to be a disagreement with the last sentence of the Lead at Khandayat (caste): "Historically they originated from Oda & Gauda castes." Again, proper place to reach consensus is Talk page of that article. David notMD (talk) 12:50, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

To the language police - in my opinion, the use of "Sir" late in what Sekharnblack123 wrote was not intended as a salutation, but rather as derogatory intent, as in "Sir (you idiot), there is no connection of khandayat caste with goudas." David notMD (talk) 12:50, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

A native speaker would probably mean to be insulting, but I'd have thought that understanding when words like "please" and "Sir" are insulting rather than polite, and choosing an appropriate level of formality, are quite high up on the fluency scale! For example, I used to struggle with the formal and informal forms of "you" in German: for one teenage girl to use the formal form to another - which I did by accident - seems to have been about the equivalent of addressing a classmate, in all seriousness, as, "O, Miss Sirname."

I thought Sekharnblack123 was owed an explanation of Julietdeltalima's comment, which seemed potentially unintelligible to anyone who isn't familiar with the last fifty years of arguments about gender-specific language use in Western English-speaking countries. I'd argue that telling someone that using particular language is incorrect is problematic, as what they need to know in order to do differently is what is correct! FloweringOctopus (talk) 15:44, 1 January 2023 (UTC) FloweringOctopus (talk) 15:43, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

It's all well and good to know different levels of formality but choosing the incorrect one looks very "unfluent". All the examples you have given are absurdly high levels of formality for a forum discussion. FishandChipper 🐟🍟 17:06, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello everyone, Hope you're good and we're enjoying 2023. I have few (literally many and long) questions here I need guidance from you;

• How do I move a page without leaving a redirect, All of my pages (mainspace) were created as drafts at first but whenever I wanted to move them I don't see the option to whether leave/dont leave a redirect. That caused some problems.
• 2 of the 9 reviewed and patrolled pages I created have (disambiguation), unlike the other reviewed (without) which were indexed right away by search engines (some seconds to be precisely), but these two are forever uni-indexed. Do they need more time or they've got some problems? I asked the reviewer who told me everything was normal but insisted me to ask here too.
• Can two articles of the same names be enough to create a disambiguation category? e.g; (Lava Lava (disambiguation) with Lava Lava and Lava Lava (singer)?
• Is it normal for Talk pages to be Indexed by search engines? I saw that from one of the articles I created and one from Talk:Joe Young (horse). All Pages I created are on My userpage for refs ANU^writes 16:25, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

@Afyaniuhai: My answers:

• I don't know of anything that prevents the "move without leaving a redirect" checkbox from appearing, but maybe you need extended confirmed status first. Most drafts that are moved to article space leave a redirect behind, as standard practice.
• We have no control over how fast something is indexed, but generally a page patroller needs to patrol a page before indexing can happen. It happens when it happens.
• See WP:TWODABS. With just two articles it's sufficient to put a hatnote in each one, linking to the other, especially if neither one can be considered the "primary" topic.
• It depends on the search engine. If talk pages are indexed at all, they would not be ranked highly in the search results.

Vague answers, to be sure. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:39, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, ANU, and a happy 2023 to you.

Only pagemovers can move pages without leaving redirects. You'll either need to request the move via WP:RM, or do the move yourself and then delete the redirect (for the use case you are talking about, you can use WP:R2).

And Talk pages are normally set up as noindex, so well-behaved search engines will not index them.ColinFine (talk) 16:44, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @Anachronist: and @ColinFine: I think I got the answers I was looking for, as for the talk pages, I thought they had a noidex code on them too but Talk:Joseph Marwa (actor) and Talk:Joe Young (horse) has appeared to almost all big search engines (Google, bing, Yandex, Startpage & duckduck go) sometimes as the first pages but that was only a question to end my curiosity, the big deal/problem was about page moving which I guess I'll have to wait another 18 days to have extended confirmed status or ask page movers. ANU^writes 17:14, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Extended confirmed won't do it, ANU: you need Page mover, which has to be granted explicitly.

Talk:Joseph Marwa (actor) has got noindex, so if a search engine is indexing it, it's being naughty.. ColinFine (talk) 17:22, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

I have two articles (Business Ethics (film) and The Song Spinner (film)) that I want to de-orphan by linking the cast/crew of the films back to their respective Wikipedia articles, e.g. mention Business Ethics in Larenz Tate's page/filmography, but a few months ago, my ability to edit Wikipedia articles about living people was revoked by another Wikipedia user, as far as I can remember, so basically I can still make/edit pages for media like these films, but I can't de-orphan them. PetSematary182 (talk) 16:17, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

@PetSematary182: Your topic ban about editing or discussing living persons is there on your talk page. Proposing a link on a talk page seems harmless enough. @Tamzin: since you seem to be the person enforcing this topic ban (based on what I see on PetSemetary182's talk page) do you have any objection to posting edit requests on BLP talk pages? Or even wikilinking a word in an existing BLP article? Adding wikilinks seems like gnomish maintenance work, not affecting BLP content. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:26, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

I'll wait to hear @Tamzin 's ruling on this one, just to be on the safe side. PetSematary182 (talk) 16:49, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

@Anachronist: Thanks for the ping. @PetSematary182: You know, I'll be honest, the scope of this TBAN is one of my greater regrets as an admin. I was going to do just the "BLP controversy" half, but someone advised me that that would be hard to enforce, and so I added the "BLP article/section" half, which has just proven harder to enforce. At the same time, I've blocked you twice, including for sockpuppetry, which has kind of tied my hands in terms of walking the sanction back. How about this: You can make edit requests on BLP talk pages, as long as they don't pertain to controversies (broadly construed). If after two months of active editing no further BLP or sockpuppetry issues have come up, we can have a talk about further loosening that part of the restriction. (I don't currently have plans to loosen the "BLP-related controversy" half.) Does that work for you? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:51, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

@Tamzin yes, that sounds fine. As for the two movie pages I mentioned, as far as I know there are no BLP controversies associated with any cast/crew of either movie, and so I don't think there would be any issue there... there is a bit of contention among fans of the film The Song Spinner over its lack of a non-VHS media release, but that has nothing to do with any BLP figure in the article and isn't really even relevant to it, so I don't think it would ever even come up. That's more of a corporate issue anyway having to do with licensing rights, not any one living person. PetSematary182 (talk) 20:19, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

@PetSematary182: Alrighty then. Look good to you? Like please, ask away; I would rather answer 100 questions about a sanction's scope than block someone over a misunderstanding. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:39, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

@Tamzin, would this be acceptable? I've got this screenshot of the preview talk page post, but I haven't posted it yet and won't if it's unacceptable:

Sorry if this is a silly question but wikipedia suggested I go to the talk page for a wikiproject to discuss edits/etc but I can't find the talk page for a project. Is there a URL? I'm specifically looking for the Talk page for this project: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Disability Catchant (talk) 23:58, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

@Catchant: Welcome to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1175. If you look near the top of the page there's a "Talk" link that will bring you to the page's associated talk page. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:03, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Catchant. You'll find it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disability. In 'desktop view' there's a tab just to the right of the Project page. Are you using a mobile, in which case finding the talk page is slightly less evident, but the link it still there for you. Hope this helps. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:03, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! I was looking on the right side of the screen (since that's where it is for articles) but I get it nw! Catchant (talk) 00:51, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

(1) I have started a draft and want to refer to an existing article. The existing article is titled John Murray (judge), but his name is actually Sir John Murray Murray. I want to use his full name (JMM) in my draft but can't because the title is different (I assume). How can I (or an experienced editor) change the title? [I am JMM's granddaughter so am knowledgeable about this.]

(2) I added two sentences in the middle of JMM's article - statements about his marriage and children. The only citation I could provide is the Murray Family Register, a PDF that traces the family members from 1822 forward. Would it be appropriate to put this in Commons? Then I could refer to it.

Thanks for your help.

Slim8029 (talk) 02:28, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

1. You can refer to an article by any (reasonable) term you wish, by using a piped link. Click on the blue text to read about it.
2. I have reverted your changes to John Murray (judge) because you did not provide a source. Read WP:RS for information about what sources are considered reliable. A PDF with no provenance is useless as a source, because anyone can create a PDF and write anything they wish in it. You need to find published sources, as explained in WP:RS. CodeTalker (talk) 02:53, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

I fixed you problem #1 and added section heads as a replacement for you bold headings.

You need to transfer all the references that are on your user page to the draft article. Read WP:REF for how to format inline references. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 02:57, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

As Ariconte points out, all that content on your User page needs to be moved to a draft that you can start by using WP:YFA. Also, at John Murray (judge) it appears that you contributed a photograph to Commons, claiming it as your own work. That term applies only to photographs you yourself have taken. Hence removed from the article, and I expect, soon to be removed from Commons. David notMD (talk) 12:33, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the section heads and the updated link..

Side question - I assume you've decided the Michael Shapiro topic is "notable" enough to include in Wikipedia??

Re item 2.

Well, there are a couple of published sources that contain the information I added to John Murray Murray's entry.

THE MURRAY FAMILY REGISTER 1794 -1977 by Caroline Murray - shows up on a google search

Murray-Stamregister 1794-1954 by Emma Horn shows up on biblio.com.

I don't have copies of these books so could not upload them to Commons. Can I nevertheless use one of them as a citation?

The current version of the Family Register is 300 pages long and is privately issued but has an ISBN number.

Re the photo.

I think this was taken by my mother (now deceased). So am I permitted to upload it? I have other photos of lesser quality taken by either my mother or me. I assume I could upload one or more of them?

Re references

Yes, I plan on adding the other references to the Michael Shapiro document. But I now gather I can't refer to casual information I've gathered. For instance, Beverley Hooper has been most helpful with her comments about earlier Word drafts. But her remarks are not published, obviously, so can't be referenced, I assume?

Re a specific reference.

One of the documents I have is "Speech at the Memorial Meeting for Michael Shapiro, October 21, 1986, Xinhua News Agency". I would like to add this to Commons since it has relevant details in it. But I am not its creator. I think it was prepared by Michael's wife and sons (all now deceased or incapacitated), possibly with input from Michael's Xinhua colleagues. What can I do with this document?

Your help is appreciated.

Sallie Slim8029 (talk) 23:26, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

I will copy the above questions to the draft article's talk page Draft_talk:Michael_Shapiro and try to answer them there. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 03:38, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello I’m a music producer who has produced for several major artists. Including Stitches which I produced most of his biggest songs including brick in yo face, Molly Cyrus, kilos in my bag etc I wanted to add I was the one behind the production on his Wikipedia and find a way to make my self one since I have worked with several other artists like Kevin gates, Mistah fab, Travis barker etc if anyone can instruct me on how I should do this it would be great please and thank you. 2600:1700:1E7E:6810:C427:7341:CF63:224A (talk) 23:48, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello IP editor, and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia which collates information about notable topics. This means things, people, concepts or places that have been written about by multiple reliably-published sources, independent of the subject. If you can show us at least three such sources that talk about you in detail and in depth, then you may well qualify for an article. See WP:NBIO for our notability criteria. From what you say, you might well meet those critieria - I've no idea. But if independently published sources don't exist, then no article can be created.

That said, we still very strongly advise everyone not to attempt to create an article about themselves here - it's a huge Conflict of Interest and best left to other, unconnected people to write about any such notable person. See also WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY, for reasons why it isn't always a good idea to even try.

You'd be welcome to upload a selfie of yourself to Wikimedia Commons, which could be associated with any such article, now or n the future which may be created. But bear in mind that if the community here doesn't deem someone notable, then any attempt is doomed to failure. Submitting any draft to Articles for Creation is the best way for all new editors to avoid disappointment and gain feedback and guidance.

Finally, as a music producer, it might well be appropriate to add your name to an artist's page or to a music track in its WP:INFOBOX, but only if supported by a reference to a Reliable Source which clearly names you as that producer. Minor names (sound engineers, etc) would not be OK to add as this would amount to WP:TRIVIA, which we try to avoid. I can't offer much more advice as I know nothing about the music industry, but I hope this helps you a bit. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:20, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for all the information ! Attaching an article from a press run https://www.wwlp.com/business/press-releases/ein-presswire/608945456/rising-music-executive-luxury-living-kirb-launches-luxury-living-music-featuring-songs-from-stitches/ as far as other links I can provide YouTube links with major artists that have produced by my company in the description. One of our songs was also placed in Comedy Centrals South Park. I haven’t been in many article but I do have alot of well known music out. As far as adding produced by to the songs I produced how should I go about doing that ? My producer tag is on all the songs and on YouTube almost all of them say produced by in the description. 2600:1700:1E7E:6810:3419:7F64:618F:F7A4 (talk) 04:18, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Please note that YouTube is not considered to be a reliable source, unless it is the official YouTube account of a major news organization. Most YouTube videos are self-published and lack editorial review, making them unreliable sources. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 04:55, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

What would be a more reliable source that’s usually used  ? Would genius work? If not the copyrights with the library of congress maybe ? 2600:1700:1E7E:6810:0:0:0:1B (talk) 05:55, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Also note that press releases, like the one you linked to on wwlp, are not considered reliable sources for the purpose of establishing notability. You should read the Reliable Source link that @Nick Moyes linked to above to understand what are considered reliable sources here on Wikipedia. The number of your songs, how well-known they are, or where they have been featured isn't really relevant; the only important thing is that reliable independent sources have published information about you. CodeTalker (talk) 05:57, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I just created a new article that I transferred from Simple Wikipedia and removed the redirect, Lisa M. Montgomery. There are lots of pages that have her name in them and it will take a long time to link all of them to the Lisa page. Is there a tool I can use to speed the process? Another thing, the new article is not shown on the new pages feed or any other system or this, Is there a reason? Thanks!`~HelpingWorld~` ^(👽🛸) 06:04, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

@HelpingWorld, see https://edwardbetts.com/find_link/Lisa_M._Montgomery — Qwerfjkltalk 07:45, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

The Ajuran Sultanate (Empire) was not shared in Somali history. The Ajuran Empire (Sultanate) ruled East Africa (Large Part of Somalia) from 13th Century to 18th century. The editor limits their history as that of middle ages. It is obvious that the Ajuran Sultanate existed three hundred years past the middle ages. Their Trump card is they defeated the Portuguese and saved East African from certain exploitations of their people. Also saved the Islamic world as the Portuguese would have used Somalia as stepping stone to conquer the Arabian peninsula from the South. I am requesting permission to add such important Somali Empire that had navy to add the History of Somalis. Let not ignorance or tribal minded historian undermine such powerful empire as they may have a narrow minded tribal limited ambitions and deny such powerful part of Somali history. A history that every Somali and African should be proud of knowing the Somali Armada of Ships attacking the Portuguese Navy in 16th century. Yes, the Ajuran Empire denied the Portuguese ambition of conquering East Africa by limiting their colony to Mozambique. Sofala (go plow in Somali) in Mozambique was the Ajuran Empire sentinel was located to watch any Portuguese movement north from there. SomaliAmerican1 (talk) 07:34, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Ajuran Sultanate   Maproom (talk) 10:02, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, SomaliAmerican1, and welcome to the Teahouse. You do not need permission to add anything to an article, but you do need to cite reliable published sources. I think you may have some difficulties with English (I have no idea what you mean by "was not shared"), so it would probably be best if you start a discussion on Talk:Ajuran Sultanate, explaining what you would like to change in the article, and what are your published sources. It may be that not many people follow that talk page, so you might also put a note on Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Somalia pointing to the talk page discussion that you have started. ColinFine (talk) 11:00, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

C# Abdullahzebari (talk) 11:35, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

@Abdullahzebari: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I am afraid that Your post above is not clear enough on what your question is, but perhaps start reading our article about C#. Victor Schmidt (talk) 12:05, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: John Campbell (YouTuber)

there is a bit of confusion around about some editings on john campbell page... somebody used as source this:

"Campbell says in the video that the National Institute of Health and the Wuhan Institute of Virology were conducting experiments with monkeypox prior to the outbreak and misleadingly suggests viewers may “draw some parallels” between the origins of the monkeypox outbreak and the origins of SARS-CoV-2."

to modify the wiki page to make him appear like a conspiracy supporter... if you watch the video saying “draw some parallels” he clearly didn't meant the same origin for both viruses...

My question is: how is possible that this source passed like "truth" to the extend to destroy the reputation of a person that always showed respect for scientific methodslike John Campbell...

I say "leftists" because the page used as source ask in popoups to support far left organizations. The very same author of the article is clearly a person in paranoia anti-anti-vaxxers and clearly a Trump hater https://twitter.com/gorskon/status/1378718911831638020 95.157.71.108 (talk) 11:37, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

If you have a suggestion for the article John Campbell (YouTuber), please make the suggestion at the foot of Talk:John Campbell (YouTuber). Be sure to make it concise, precise, and backed up by reliable sources. -- Hoary (talk) 12:13, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi! I am new to entertainment journalism and my first article was on Filmmaker Melicka Jamshidabadi but it got rejected. Are you able to help me fix the article and learn more about how to write my future articles on other notable public figures? The link to my article is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Melicka_Jamshidabadi Ashley Andersons (talk) 08:32, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

It hasn't been rejected, Ashley Andersons, it has merely been declined. I've tinkered with it a little but I haven't made it more likely to be accepted. From what I read in the draft, Jamshidabadi seems to be what's often called an "emerging" artist. Better to wait till such artists have emerged. Still, if you hope to press ahead, then please link here to three online sources that you believe both (1) are reliable and (2) treat Jamshidabadi and/or her work in depth. -- Hoary (talk) 12:36, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Vinegarymass911 Thanks a lot, and I appreciate your concern and the short note attached to my article where you mentioned the cause of decline! I am learning with time. I will definitely edit the area where 'Blogs, Amazon, and articles written by him' is used. Can you enlighten me a bit more about this part, Should i absolutely avoid his own articles and other's 'blog post' in the entire article, or just the part that deals with 'notability"? i mean, can i cite from his own article to describe his opinion about something? regards. Morshedul Alam Talukdar (talk) 06:42, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

@Morshedul Alam Talukdar Welcome to Teahouse! Wikipedia is not interested in what a subject has to say about themselves (including their own blog posts), because Wikipedia is interested in WP:SECONDARY sourcing, meaning, what do other people say about him? Additionally I noticed you are WP:OVERCITING in your draft random words, that link to WP:DISAMBIGUATION articles instead of actually relevant links. E.g. Modern is so broad of a term, it doesn't enhance the draft. Also link to Draft:Rifat Hasan next time, so people know what draft you are referring to. Happy editing! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 12:43, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, there is a draft I cannot find. How do I restore a draft please? thank you, BarI2021 (talk) 12:26, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

BarI2021 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. It depends on the draft and why it was deleted, but WP:REFUND is probably a good place to start. 331dot (talk) 12:27, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I am not sure but I assume it's due to the fact it wasnt written good nor actions for the last months. BarI2021 (talk) 13:06, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

If this was about Draft:Michal Alberstein, it appears that your request for undeletion of a draft that had timed out due to inactivity was approved. David notMD (talk) 14:53, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi everyone, nice to meet y'all! I hope everyone around the world had a great new year. Let me introduce myself, I am PlainCroissant. I am new to Wikipedia, despite this account being created in April 2022. I aspire to become a Wikipedian as I believe an individual can learn a lot by editing an encyclopedia, as per the saying "knowledge is power". Going forward, I wish to create articles about living people as per BLP policy, edit articles, and improve articles. My niche of interest is music, sports, and comedy. Furthermore, I am looking for a mentor to help me along the way, so I have somebody to provide me clarification regarding any doubts. Kindly ping me by replying here or posting a message on my talk page if you're interested. I am looking forward to meeting you. PlainCroissant (talk) 08:07, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

@PlainCroissant Welcome to Teahouse and English Wikipedia! You can find a list of volunteers willing to mentor at Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user. Happy editing! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 12:39, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Hey Shushugah: Thanks for your reply, sincerely appreciate it. I'll post the same message there and hopefully I will find someone soon! Take care and have a good day ahead, PlainCroissant (talk) 14:24, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Advice, often repeated here at Teahouse, is put in months attempting to improve existing articles - as part of the learning curve - before attempting to to create articles. Formatting references is non-obvious, so practice getting that right in your Sandbox. Welcome. David notMD (talk) 14:31, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Hey David notMD, thanks for your reply, I will take note of that. PlainCroissant (talk) 15:43, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I have been adding a small martial arts info box to a page but they delete it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Robert_Downey_Jr.#Martial_Arts_infobox why can't it stay? I find editors on this page don't allow regular users to make changes. The info box is constructive, in one day viewers have opened it and clicked on Eric Oram's page his stats show a jump from 59 views in a day to 118 just cause of the box. The are over a dozen quality references stating Downey trains Wing Chun he even went on Oprah to discuss it and show where he trains and with who. The photo in the info box show three notable persons so it is relevant. I don't understand what the problem is cause the info box is small and collapsible doesn't take up space but very interesting to fans. Australianblackbelt (talk) 15:52, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Australianblackbelt, you might misunderstand the purpose of Wikipedia. It is foremost an encyclopedia, so content should not be oriented towards fans or getting more page views. The martial arts infobox portrays Robert Downey Jr. as a martial artist, which is true, but not important enough to include in detail. He is *mostly* an actor. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 16:38, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

@Australianblackbelt: there was also a referencing issue. Although you've given citations, which is good, one of them contains a url to facebook, which is almost never a reliable source to anything. The reference claims to be to a Spanish newspaper, which would be a good source. I'm guessing the fb url is either a photo of the newspaper, or someone saying the newspaper says it. If the latter, it's not a reliable source. If the former, it's a real problem because the fb page would almost certainly be a breach of copyright, and we never link to breaches of copyright. It would have been better to cite the newspaper without giving a url, assuming you are utterly sure the newspaper supports the fact. But given that he's primarily an actor and producer, an info-box as a martial artist is probably a step too far, so the point is moot. Elemimele (talk) 16:43, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

The photo is more appropriate where you put it after your three (!) attempts at a second infobox were reverted. David notMD (talk) 16:46, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I have registered a username Ricaltman about twelve years ago with an email address I no longer have. I can no longer log on, having lost my password. How would I edit my account? 24.75.161.96 (talk) 14:49, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Unfortunately, if you no longer have access to the email address associated with your old account, it is not possible to regain access unless you are able to remember the password. You will need to create a new account and identify it as a successor to your old one("I am User5678, I was previously User1234 but lost access") 331dot (talk) 14:51, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

@24.75.161.96. Welcomed to the teahouse, if you want to edit in a new account, you need to follow Wikipedia:LEGITSOCK Lemonaka (talk) 16:48, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Currently I try to write about armenian scientists,who already passed away. They have been leaving in Era where was no internet,and all publications are paper. How can I cite their works,if they are no online. 147.92.91.224 (talk) 08:35, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello 147, and welcome to the Teahouse. See WP:OFFLINE. Basically, you include the the info you have in your citation, like title of book/article, publication, pagenumber, ISBN, DOI, author etc, but you don't add a weblink. WP:TUTORIAL has the basics on how to add references properly, and if you want to make edits on WP that can "stick", This is ESSENTIAL. If you haven't checked WP:N and WP:YFA you probably should. Good luck! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:51, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Citing their science publications, while useful to articles about scientists, does not contribute to what Wikipedia calls notability. What is essential is finding references to content in newspapers, etc. written about them. David notMD (talk) 14:46, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

If they're a scientist who worked in academia, a University, you should check WP:NPROF. If they meet any of the criteria there, it is possible to create a Wikipedia article for them. Broadly, the most likely ways to qualify are holding an endowed or named chair, having published a large number of highly-cited works, or being author of a widely-used textbook, winning a major award, or being an elected member of a particularly prestigious learned society. If they have already died, you may be able to find an obituary for them, perhaps published as an editorial by a journal in the field in which they worked. But the academic community tends to be more forgiving of not-quite-independent sources than most of Wikipedia, so even if all you can find is an obituary published by the academic's own university, it can probably be included. We trust Uni professors to be honest about facts. And yes, offline sources are fine; a lot of exciting things happened before the internet, which will remain unknown to 99.9% of the population unless someone goes reading real paper. Good luck! Elemimele (talk) 16:53, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello! I was looking over the article for the 2022 Kazakh presidential election after finding it listed in Category:All articles needing copy edit and I find that article needs some work such as a through copy edit and also a shortening of the opening segment but I do not find myself adequately versed in the subject at hand to do such myself. Is there a way one could note for a future editor of the page, who is more capable in the subject matter, what they feel the article is in need of? Would that just go in the talk page? Thank you for your time.

P.S I apologize if anything here breaks some sort of social convention here that I am not aware of or seems like something very obvious. Planetberaure (talk) 03:20, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Planetberaure, as detailed on the documentation page, you can use the |for= parameter to say what the problem is specifically. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 03:28, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Sungodtemple I may have misstated. For clarity I am asking if a Template such as Template:Lead too long would be alright to add in this situation. My confusion stems from template saying to "Please discuss this issue on the article's talk page", thus making me unsure if I need to discuss the issue in the article's talk page before adding the template, despite the lead currently having more then the 3 or 4 paragraphs stated as appropriate for it's length in MOS:LEADLENGTH. I am also unsure if an article is allowed to have more than one template at a time. Planetberaure (talk) 04:00, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

@Planetberaure, it's fine on both accounts. — Qwerfjkltalk 07:44, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Alright, thank you! Planetberaure (talk) 17:09, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

life science 41.114.147.243 (talk) 17:11, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, do you have a question to ask regarding editing? Blanchey (talk) 17:19, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Are you looking for our List of life sciences? Shantavira|^{feed me} 17:21, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I recently made edits. One was pointed out needing a better reference. My changes have been deleted. Is there someone to talk with or can I get a number of questions answered? Thanks.Speaker Tom Murphy Migliare (talk) 16:59, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

• Courtesy link: Tom Murphy (Georgia politician) 331dot (talk) 17:01, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Migliare Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You are welcome to ask your questions here, or you may ask the user who removed your edits directly on their own user talk page, or the article talk page(Talk:Tom Murphy (Georgia politician). I think that the main issue is that you provided no source for your edits. 331dot (talk) 17:03, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

@Migliare We welcome new editors like yourself but there can be a steep learning curve. You need to read some of the links provided on your own Talk Page, especially the one about our process of being bold but discussing reverts on the Talk Page of articles. Wikipedia content evolves based on consensus but all substantive additions need references to reliable sources. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:11, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Rather than making so many changes as one large edit, break into pieces. That way, some changes may have merit and will remain, while other will be challenged and needed to be taking to the Talk page to reach consensus. David notMD (talk) 18:00, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

In a template, I consider the addition of a newly added item lacking support from reliable sources, so I used the inline template {{citation needed span}} on the item. But the editor who added the item removed the inline template and claimed that "We don't use citations in templates."

Is his removal of the inline citation-related template appropriate? If yes, how do we mark something in a template as lacking support from reliable sources? --Matt Smith (talk) 02:08, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

@Matt Smith, it's not clear why you felt that particular footer entry needed a citation, as nothing else in the Template:Alt-right footer has one. Footer entries are put there on the basis of logic and consensus only, and a citation that Truth social is part of Alt-tech isn't called for. If you strongly feel that TS is not in a category with Gab and Parler, please discuss it on the talk page of the footer.-- Quisqualis (talk) 07:12, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

I see. So {{citation needed span}} shouldn't be used in that template. Thank you. Matt Smith (talk) 07:35, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

@Matt Smith Hello, welcome to the Teahouse. A discussion has been taken on the related talk page, please continue the discussion to get a consensus. Lemonaka (talk) 07:19, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome. Yes, a discussion has been in progress. Meanwhile, I'm seeking for an inline template which can be used to indicate that the newly added item is in dispute. Can {{Disputed inline}} or {{Under discussion inline}} be used in this case? Matt Smith (talk) 07:31, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

We seldom use {{citation needed span}} on template, For pages other than articles, we don't use {{Disputed inline}}, instead, we use {{Under discussion inline}}. Did I make it clear? Lemonaka (talk) 07:37, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

I understand. Thanks! Matt Smith (talk) 07:39, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

I was kind of surprised that nobody made an issue of putting a warning about the template itself wihin a template, i.e. it's perfectly fine for the template to generate a warning when it is used in a questionable or erroneous manner. Putting in a {{citation needed}} in this manner would give the impression that the template itself is being used incorrectly. The result is that existing correct uses of the template would get the warning, which would be inappropriate. Fabrickator (talk) 22:12, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

love always 207.204.77.75 (talk) 23:50, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, IP editor. Do you have a genuine question about the Merlene Ottey article that we can help you with? Nick Moyes (talk) 00:12, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Some interprising admin should create a WP:and/or article for guidance that corresponds to the and/or article so that editors can cite it to support otherwise excising that awkwardly ambiguous Janus-faced monstrosity from Wikepedia. Kent Dominic·(talk) 14:49, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

@Kent Dominic Welcome to Teahouse! this is not something an Admin has special rights over. You can create the grammar essay if you're inclined. It would fit well within MOS:And/Or namespace or something similar. That said, this could also be WP:INSTRUCTIONCREEP. A comparable essay (not official policy) is Wikipedia:Comprised of. Be bold and make your case if you wish! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 15:01, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Courtesy corrected wikilink: MOS#And/or. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195) 51.194.245.235 (talk) 19:23, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello 51.194.245.235 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), MOS would be the wrong target, because that's a Disambiguation page in the Article namespace, whereas the original poster wanted something in the Wikipedia:Project namespace cite/reference in editing discussions. MOS: is a shortcut for Wikipedia:Manual of Style, e.g Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility is different from Accessibility. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 22:23, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

True dat. I appreciate the earlier recommendation to create the grammar essay myself. The essay isn't the daunting part, but the tools & templates for making the correct links and formatting protocols are outside my present kit. Kent Dominic·(talk) 02:09, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

@Kent Dominic Feel free to ping me once your essay is in a good enough state, and I'd be happy to help you link/categorize it accordingly. I have the opposite problem, very comfortable navigating the Wiki bureaucracy, less so comfortable navigating linguistic bureaucracy. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 02:17, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

How can I add things like:

• County
• Post Town
• Postcode Area
• Postcode District etc

To a template like Template:Infobox building? Danstarr69 (talk) 19:09, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Danstarr69 Hello, because the page is protected, you’d have to get a template editor to make the edits on your behalf, and for that to happen, you’d need to get consensus for those sections to be added. Blanchey (talk) 19:15, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Blanchey and how do I do that?

I've only started using the building infobox recently, as it's a better template for buildings, however the extra location details I've suggested I would have thought should have been added in the first place, as the specific location is the most important thing about a building in my opinion. Danstarr69 (talk) 19:25, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

You would have to start a discussion on the templates talk page. Hope this helps, Blanchey (talk) 19:28, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

@Danstarr69 from a technical point of view, address/location data is rather complex, which is why I see the longitude/latitude coordinates being preferable, because they can automatically render a map/location. That said, if changing the template doesn't work, you can always embedd another template inside. E.g.

{{Infobox building
| name =
| <!-- etc. -->
| embedded = 
  {{Infobox ABC
  | embed = yes <!-- or child=yes or subbox=yes-->
  | <!-- etc. -->
  }}
}}

~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 22:32, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Shushugah addresses are simple, for me at least, but not so simple for most of the world clearly, and that includes organisations some of which can't even get their own addresses correct, like one I saw yesterday which used a non-specific countryside area (some mountain or hill) as part of their address, rather than the actual post town.

In the UK they should go...

Building Name/Number > Street > Neighbourhood/Village/Small Town > Larger Town/City > Ceremonial County

Obviously as Royal Mail can't be bothered to correct the post towns as they claim it would be too expensive, there's post towns which are 49 years out of date (58 years out of date in Greater London's case), but there's no getting away from that fact.

All of the above address examples should be easy to find for every location in the UK, apart from maybe the Neighbourhood/Village/Small Town as they get contradicted a lot, even by the same sources.

For example, yesterday Google contradicted itself by saying a location I was looking for was in one neighbourhood underneath the map on the main page, but when you actually clicked on the map, it said it was in a different neighbourhood. So I searched for the first neighbourhood to see where exactly it was, and found that it was a few miles North, and nowhere near the location of the place. The correct neighbourhood was the one on the map itself. Where did Google get that first neighbourhood from? I have no idea, as even the various estate agent websites didn't have the street listed in that neighbourhood.

Basically locations can have names and/or numbers.

Those names/numbers correspond to the street/road/lane/avenue/square etc.

The streets will be in a neighbourhood, which could also be a village or a small town.

Those neighbourhoods will be part of a bigger town/city/borough.

Those bigger towns/cities/boroughs will be in a ceremonial county.

Next comes the 9 regions of England, or the entire country regions of Wales, Scotland, or Northern Ireland. Danstarr69 (talk) 00:39, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

:*Please note that the discussion needs to take place here Template talk:Infobox person. Also be aware that fields like that were deprecated through WP:CONSENSUS quite some time ago. It was at least 9 or 10 years ago but the discussions are still in the archives. MarnetteD|Talk 00:46, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

• MarnetteD What? This is about place locations, not people.

  Eg.

  Address - 123 Street Road, Wikipediaville

  Town or City - Wikipediatown

  County - County of Wikipedia

  Post Town - Wikipediatown

  Postcode Area - WK

  Postcode District - WK1 Danstarr69 (talk) 01:16, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

D'oh. My apologies Danstarr69. Zoom - that was yet one more thing going over my head :-P I have struck my comment.. MarnetteD|Talk 03:25, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Is he eligible for a Wikipedia page? https://www.encyclopedia.com/education/news-wires-white-papers-and-books/davis-nolan-1942 2600:8802:3A12:E700:65F6:ED00:6F05:B184 (talk) 22:38, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello IP user, the mere existence of an Encyclopedia.com entry does not connote notability, nor verifiability in secondary sources, because Encyclopedia.com (like Wikipedia) is a WP:TERTIARY source. Sometimes it cites notable WP:SECONDARY sources and sometimes it doesn't. See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_279#Encyclopedia.com for discussion on the Publisher. Regarding David Nolan specifically, can you find 2-3 secondary and independent WP:SIGCOV sources? Happy editing and citation researching! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 22:43, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the information

https://www.encyclopedia.com/education/news-wires-white-papers-and-books/davis-nolan-1942

https://worldcat.org/identities/lccn-n85301213/

https://bbip.ku.edu/1970-1972

Ebony

https://books.google.com/books?id=YHZ2VMzAqpkC&pg=PA30&lpg=PA30&dq=nolan+davis+six+black+horses&source=bl&ots=RvdiZQhUz6&sig=ACfU3U1VY_-3TuntUPTc3AE4FfdT1qOv_g&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwizib2k_Kn8AhWAEEQIHWNjDlc4HhDoAXoECAIQAw#v=onepage&q=nolan%20davis%20six%20black%20horses&f=false

Newsweek

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Newsweek/JvHjAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=nolan+davis+six+black+horses&dq=nolan+davis+six+black+horses&printsec=frontcover

And on Newspaper.com I found three write-ups on his book. 2600:8802:3A12:E700:CCA3:3F83:6AF5:C0F1 (talk) 23:03, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

https://www.newspapers.com/image/7569120/?terms=six%20black%20horses%20nolan&match=1

https://www.newspapers.com/image/385576226/?terms=six%20black%20horses%20nolan&match=1

https://www.newspapers.com/image/99105353/?terms=six%20black%20horses%20nolan&match=1

https://www.newspapers.com/image/438045088/?terms=six%20black%20horses%20nolan&match=1

https://www.newspapers.com/image/359907814/?terms=six%20black%20horses%20nolan&match=1

https://www.newspapers.com/image/625439292/?terms=six%20black%20horses%20nolan&match=1

https://www.newspapers.com/image/675979185/?terms=six%20black%20horses%20nolan&match=1

https://www.newspapers.com/image/853540502/?terms=six%20black%20horses%20nolan&match=1

https://www.newspapers.com/image/816460432/?terms=six%20black%20horses%20nolan&match=1 2600:8802:3A12:E700:CCA3:3F83:6AF5:C0F1 (talk) 23:23, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Noting here that Encyclopedia.com is a kind of aggregator site. The actual publisher in this case seems to be "Contemporary Black Biography". I see no glaring reason why this shouldn't count towards WP:N. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 23:25, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Do you allow newspaper.com links? 2600:8802:3A12:E700:CCA3:3F83:6AF5:C0F1 (talk) 23:48, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Yup! They're even promoted and provided for free in the WP:Wikipedia Library subscription for eligible users. Newspaper.com is a publisher, while The Olathe News is the publication in some of your linked examples. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 23:51, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I had no idea Encyclopedia.com was so poorly thought of. 2600:8802:3A12:E700:CCA3:3F83:6AF5:C0F1 (talk) 23:49, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! Creating a new article from scratch is extremely challenging, and new editors are strongly recommended to spend a few months learning how Wikipedia works, by making improvements to some of our existing six million articles before trying it. When you do decide to have a go at a new article, you are highly encouraged to read WP:Your first article. If you haven't already also check out WP:TUTORIAL; it's a lot of fun! Happy editing! I encourage you to start a draft at Draft:Nolan Davis ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 23:54, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! 2600:8802:3A12:E700:CCA3:3F83:6AF5:C0F1 (talk) 01:02, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it's poorly thought of but should be used correctly. Compare WP:BRITANNICA and perhaps WP:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Yahoo_News. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:02, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I have done extensive work on the article I have created and I think it deserves a B review now, well sourced and has a lot of information. Is there a place where I can request it? Thanks! `~HelpingWorld~` ^(👽🛸) 01:52, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

@HelpingWorld Welcome to Teahouse! The WP:MILHIST WikiProject currently rates it C level. You can learn about their review process at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment. Most other WikiProjects are much less formal, and you can directly change the assessments yourself following Wikipedia:Content assessment. Have fun improving Wikipedia! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 02:03, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

@Shushugah, I read the criteria for B level, and it meets all of it. Can I change it myself and how would I do that?`~HelpingWorld~` ^(👽🛸) 02:06, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

@HelpingWorld Any individual (including author) can change for B ratings and below. For WP:GA there is the WP:GAN process. For your case, you can change it directly at Talk:National Military Appreciation Month. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 02:09, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

HelpingWorld, I recommend against promoting to B class. The article says with the president commemorating the observance with a ceremonial speech and proclamation but that assertion is not verified by the reference that follows. The date format is not consistent, with both month-day-year formats being used alongside day-month-year formats. The article should be checked over carefully. Cullen328 (talk) 03:31, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello @Cullen328, could you elobarate in the date format is not consistent, with both month-day-year formats being used alongside day-month-year formats? I can fix the first one but the second one has no issue.`~HelpingWorld~` ^(👽🛸) 06:22, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

HelpingWorld, look at the "History" section. At one point it says February 9, 1999 and at another point it says 30 May 1999. Those are incompatible date formats. Date formatting should be standardized within each individual article. Cullen328 (talk) 06:33, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

@Cullen328, one says February 9, 1999 and the other says may 30,1999 should I format it like 30 May 1999 and 9 February 1999 ? Most articles do it the way I did.

HelpingWorld, you need to take a very careful look at every single date in that article. The second sentence of the "History " section uses a date format inconsistent with the first sentence of the same section. The lead section says 1st day of May to the 31st of May, which not anything close to standard date formatting. Please check all of your dates, and standardize them. Added at 06:53, 3 January 2023 by Cullen328

HelpingWorld, the article is about a subject that's specific to the US. So Wikipedia practice, backed up by a MoS page that I can't be bothered to look for right now, is to write primarily for readers expecting American practice. This includes "American" spelling, antique units of measurement, and a date format that changes direction in the middle. Thus "May 30, 1999" and similar. -- Hoary (talk) 07:16, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Cullen328 and Hoary. I fixed the format, Now it says May 1st and may 31st.`~HelpingWorld~` ^(👽🛸) 07:31, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

HelpingWorld, I am sorry but you have not yet fixed the date problems. WP:MOSDATES says Do not use ordinals (1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc.) and yet you are using ordinals in the lead section. Plus, the first sentence of the "History" section still has date formatting incompatible with the date formatting in the second sentence. You have multiple date formats mixed together in one article. Please standardize the dates. Cullen328 (talk) 07:41, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I was so confused what you meant but I forgot to check the 2nd sentence. I finally finished correcting it, I would of never known, thanks!`~HelpingWorld~` ^(👽🛸) 07:48, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

@HelpingWorld The first two sentences of the "History" section say the same thing, I think. And the first sentence would be much better as two sentences; it is almost a run-on sentence. David10244 (talk) 10:42, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

The observance was designated by the US Congress, but it's "not a nationally recognized month". How is this possible? (Or what does "designation" mean?) Also I'd never call May a "date". And that's just in the one-paragraph "History" section, which is so convoluted that I had trouble following it. (Tip: Try reading it out loud.) -- Hoary (talk) 07:50, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

At what point does an article get published? I began an article in my sandbox, to make sure I really understood what I was doing. At some point all of a sudden it was apparently visible to all and got deleted because it was considered to have violated copyright. I wanted to keep correcting the content but couldn't because it had been removed. How to keep an article in the sandbox until it is really ready? Km4water (talk) 20:00, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

As soon as you save content anywhere on Wikipedia it is published and is viewable by anybody. Your draft was an unambiguous copyright infringement of https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/water-overview/protecting-freshwater/canada-water-agency-stakeholder-public-engagement-what-we-heard.html, https://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2021/0812/Canada-gets-serious-about-water-woes.-Will-Indigenous-voices-be-heard, and other sources, so was speedy deleted. Theroadislong (talk) 20:05, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

My question is: does the content created in the Sandbox get shared right away? If not, at what point? Km4water (talk) 20:07, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Welcome back to the Teahouse, Km4water. While the draft you started in your sandbox was moved to what is called "draftspace", that had no bearing on its visibility or deletion. Every page on Wikipedia is visible to other editors/readers as soon as it's saved. Sandbox pages need to comply with copyright rules as much as "published" articles. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:09, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

All edits to every page and article on Wikipedia appear in the Recent Changes feed, which is usually monitored by many editors, even if the page itself is not otherwise highly visible. If you don't want people to see what you are doing, don't put it on Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 20:11, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

OK so it is safer to draft offline and then upload it. I know that the whole point is to allow editing right away so that content gets improved, but there is a big risk of discouraging would-be editors if everything they have worked on is quickly deleted. Copyright infringement is serious but perhaps the best way of dealing with it is with an edit of the offending section. That way the originator learns what is OK and can go about replacing what has been deleted with something better. Currently, the experience feels more like a thuggish 'seek and punish' operation rather than a collaboration. Km4water (talk) 20:16, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Km4water You are welcome to write a draft here if it is not a copyright violation. We must take those seriously as they potentially put this project in legal jeopardy if they are allowed. Preferably, an article should be original content that summarizes what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the topic. 331dot (talk) 20:23, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

@Km4water: Unfortunately, every revision is public when changes are saved and published, so even if you tweak the content, the original infringing material is still viewable from the article's history until an admin scrubs it. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:42, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you -- that is useful to know. Wikipedia says that the sandbox is a "testing spot and page development space for the user and is not an encyclopedia article". Somewhat misleading, as one assumes that only published encyclopedia articles are available to view.

If someone other than the originator goes in to edit a published article and infringes copyright, will the entire article be deleted or just the edited section? Km4water (talk) 20:49, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Generally if an earlier revision exists where copyright isn't infringed, changes get rolled back to that one and all the offending diffs become inaccessible from the article's history. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:03, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

That makes sense -- thank you. Km4water (talk) 21:05, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Km4water I've only created 2 articles (as far as I remember. It's possible I've created a few more that I've forgotten about), while the rest of my edits have been to improve existing articles.

However what I would do if I was you, would be to do what I've done with an article I started years ago, but haven't touched in years so isn't published yet...

What did I do? I saved it on one of my private Blogger blogs, just like I do with practically every piece of useful information I find, or list that I write, so that I can update/share/publish it at a later date. Danstarr69 (talk) 20:48, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for that tip. It is easy to see how uncertainty/fear prevents more engagement with this resource. I am thinking that the best approach, if you think something is important enough to include in Wikipedia, may be to create a stub, wait for edits, and then slowly add in more content. Km4water (talk) 20:54, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

The BEST approach is not to copy and paste anything on Wkipedia, it's quite simple. Theroadislong (talk) 21:01, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that is clear. I wonder what impact the use of AI summarizers will have. Km4water (talk) 21:04, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

@Km4water I think AI writing tools are going to become a nightmare for many people, and internet at large. I was involved in testing some unreleased AI software tools for blog-writing recently. My feedback to them included my views that I find the idea of half-writing a blog post and letting the software finish the job by searching for other content on the internet and then creating new sub-topics and sections, all artificially, to be utterly horrendous in the extreme. Not only does it take away creativity and fact-checking, it will mean that, eventually, a vast amount of content on the web will be written by AI, based predominantly on other AI-written content which, in turn, was partly written by other AI tools. I don't mind tools offering to rewrite a sentence or paragraph, but to vomit out AI blog posts in this way will fill the internet with more and more banal mush. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:21, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I do not understand what you mean by, "Thanks for that tip." 98.97.116.80 (talk) 21:54, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello IP editor - I have joined your question into the thread above, as it clearly related to it. "Thanks for that tip" is another way of saying "thank you for making a good suggestion" - namely, to save certain content away from Wikipedia on a private website or personal computer file until you're ready to share it on Wikipedia. Hope that clears things up for you if English isn't your primary language. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:31, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! 71.17.29.195 (talk) 12:43, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi, for more than 3 months I have seen something unusual with the infobox in Santali Wikipedia. Compare infobox in English - Narendra Modi (Normal info) and Santali - ᱱᱚᱨᱮᱱᱫᱽᱨᱚ ᱢᱳᱫᱤ (infobox widened in desktop mode). But, it seems to work normal in mobile minerva theme (mobile view). Can anyone point me to the solution to this problem. It would be a great help. Rocky 734 (talk) 07:25, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

@Rocky 734: Hi. I haven't clicked on the links you provided, but from what you've described, it seems to be a technical issue for Santali Wikipedia, which is beyond the scope/understanding/user privileges of English Wikipedia, and their users. The best venue for you to get your answer is meta:Tech. —usernamekiran (talk) 10:27, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the link @Usernamekiran . I'm going to ask there. Rocky 734 (talk) 12:55, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

@Rocky 734: my pleasure :-) 13:01, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello everyone! I just submitted my first wikipedia article yesturday and would love some feedback for its next review. Any feedback is much appreciated. Sustainablequeen (talk) 12:24, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Sustainablequeen Hello and welcome. You have already submitted the draft for a review; when it is reviewed, the reviewer will give you feedback. 331dot (talk) 12:31, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

331dot, thank you. If you do have any feedback on the draft, I'd love to hear and amend before it it reviewed again. Sustainablequeen (talk) 12:33, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Sustainablequeen, there's a lot of "Rahman said [such and such]" in your draft. But Wikipedia isn't much interested in what the subjects of articles have said about themselves. What have sources independent of Rahman said about him or his work? -- Hoary (talk) 13:25, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Brilliant, thank you - I shall amend these. Sustainablequeen (talk) 13:26, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Sustainablequeen, and welcome to the Teahouse. Reviewers choose which drafts they look at in their own time (which is why we cannot predict how long a review will take). But I am reasonably confident that the long list of bare URLs in the reference section of your draft will be a turn-off for a reviewer. Please look at referencing for beginners, and work on making your references more informative. The important part of a reference is to see the author, publisher, title, date: this enables a reviewer to make a quick initial assessment of how valuable a resource it is likely to be. For example, it is important to know whether a source is independent of the subject: if it originates from the subject, or from their associates, employers, agents, or producers, it contributes nothing towards establishing notability, and is limited in what information it may be used to support. ColinFine (talk) 13:40, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Hey Colin,

This is great advice, thank you so much. I'll read through and make the references more informative. Sustainablequeen (talk) 13:42, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello again! Hope you're fine, I have a problem with WP:LAYOUT especially a statement, Infobox goes before the introduction. One of the editor had to come and recorrect all of the articles I created and I really feel bad to burden him/her/them/it.

• The editor puts infobox (which I alway place after introduction) right after description/on top then introduction follows but when an article is reviewed/saved, an introduction starts then infobox follows, when I tried to put infobox before the introduction on the new draft I'm working on Draft:Meddy (singer), infobox remains on top introduction lays low when reviewed/saved. Is there any additional stuff?

ANU^writes 13:22, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

afyaniuhai, I don't know how an article such as this benefits from an infobox. In your place, I wouldn't have created an infobox; but its position looks OK to me. What's a lot more important is that the draft has unsourced personal information about the man, e.g. the name of his wife. In view of this, I for one would decline the draft. -- Hoary (talk) 13:33, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Hoary for a reply, I though submitted drafts/articles can be declined as not enough for an article since the editor submitted them as completed but that's still in maintainance, but it's alright. I only had the problem with Infobox (I've also cited all those regions with 5 refs, And I'll add them up to 10, I'll kindly notify you to see the article when finished. ANU^writes 13:54, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

What's good y'all.

I've noticed that since my article on Émile Reutlinger, some of the article's I have created have not been showing up in seach results (unless you type in its exact name). This also applies to the articles for Johann Eustach von Westernach, Johann Kaspar von Stadion, and Death and funeral of Pope Benedict XVI. All of them are articles that I have made that fail to appear in search results even when linking to them in other articles. There doesn't seem to be an corelary between any of them, besides that I made them and all of them, with the exception of the article on Johann Eustach von Westernach, had the under construction template on them. Is this a known issue and what can I do to combat this? Knightoftheswords281 (talk) 00:26, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

@Knightoftheswords281 Do you mean they're not showing up in Wikipedia's search results, or not appearing on Google (other browsers exist) results pages? All the links you gave are to incredibly new articles, so I am wondering if your expectations are greater than the reality of indexing. I've found similar issues with new articles I've written. Maybe patience is all that's needed? Nick Moyes (talk) 00:32, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Knightoftheswords281. A new article is not indexed by search engines unless one of two things happens: Either the article has been reviewed by a New pages patroller, or the article is more than 90 days old. Please read Wikipedia:Controlling search engine indexing for more information. Cullen328 (talk) 00:36, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Hey @Nick Moyes and @Cullen328. I actually just realized that I should of specified (after reading this section). I mean that they don't appear on Wikipedia. I've known since my first article that it takes time to index pages on search engines. What I mean is that they aren't appearing on Wikipedia's internal search engine. Ironically enough they all appear on search engines like Google. Knightoftheswords281 (talk) 00:39, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

@Knightoftheswords281: They all show up in my searches. Are you using the normal search box on pages here at en.wikipedia.org? What are your search terms? Always be specific when you report an issue. Does the search results page say "(Article)" at "Search in:"? PrimeHunter (talk) 01:18, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

It does say (article) and I used every type of search box (the one at wikipedia.org, the one at the top of every article, and the dedicated search page).

Interestingly enough however, I checked on my phone to see if the articles would show up, and they did. It seems to be an issue with my computer (I searched incognito and it didn't appear either). Knightoftheswords281 (talk) 03:01, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

@Knightoftheswords281 I can confirm I'm finding the same as you using the Edge browser on my PC. Using the standard Wikipedia search box at the top of the page here I can start typing e m i l e... (without the spaces, obviously, just put in to imply I'm looking out for the titles offered below the search box). Once I get to "emile reutl" all that is offered is Emile Reuter. However, if I continue and type the whole "emile reutlinger" followed by a carriage-return, I go straight to the article Émile Reutlinger (without being notified of any redirect). At first I assumed this was an issue about the article title having a leading e-acute but exactly the same is true for Johann Eustach von Westernach. By the time I've typed "johann eustac", there are no suggestions left below the search box, yet continuing to the full title as "johann eustach von westernach" followed by carriage-return gets me right to Johann Eustach von Westernach. It seems that the searching tool has something against your authorship! Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:33, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Are you all using Edge? Do other browsers suffer from the same problem? My impression is that every time Edge actually gets something right, Microsoft quickly release a very large windows update to get things back to normal. Elemimele (talk) 13:02, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

@Michael D. Turnbull I remember having a similar problem with an accented 'E' when I created Émile Rey. I got around it by making a WP:REDIRECT from Emile Rey, which does show up as you type their name in Wikipedia's search box. (Knightoftheswords281 could do the same by making a redirect from Emile Reutlinger. But that doesn't actually address the root cause of the problem being reported here. I guess it comes down to not very advanced search algorithms being deployed here on Wikipedia, or something technical like that that I'm never going to fully comprehend.

I note one can search for 'emile reutlinge' (with the last letter intentionally left off) and Google offers me your article on Émile Reutlinger as its second option (see here). Meanwhile Wikipedia fails to show anything remotely close, offering instead nearest matches to 'emily reutlingen' (see here). Searching for 'emile reut*' does get your article offered in a list of search results. The asterisk was the old way of saying 'any character or characters from this point on'. So perhaps Google has made us come to expect too much from search algorithms. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:15, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I have recently re-written a Wikipedia article that contained inaccuracies and missed many crucial pieces of information. Having made the changes and clicked 'publish' I checked and confirmed that the new entry was online. But I now find that the old article has re-appeared and my new one is nowhere to be seen. Is there a delay between re-submitting a new article or should it be instantly available and the old one superceded? Hayneman (talk) 11:53, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Hayneman Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm not clear on which article you are referring to; your recent edits to Harry Pitch to add an image were removed, I think because you are claiming the image as your own work, though it seems professionally taken and Mr. Pitch is deceased. Did you take the image? 331dot (talk) 11:57, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

As far as I know my late father bought the rights to the photo. But I could remove it if it's still a problem. Otherwise all the information is correct and far more detailed than the earlier anonymous version. Also, are all new submissions peer-reviewed before final permanent addition to Wikipedia? Hayneman (talk) 12:46, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

It looks like you also removed a "[circa]" and as well as removing the category tags from the article. Your edits were reverted. UtherSRG (talk) 12:14, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Hayneman, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm guessing that you made some edits to Harry Pitch as an unregistered user, and then created your account in case that was why they were undone, yes?

It is perfectly acceptable to edit without an account, but it is helpful for communication to have an account and use it, so thank you for creating your account.

It looks to me as if your edits were quite substantial, and at least some of them were not constructive, in that you removed cited information, and added unsourced information. It is a core policy of Wikipedia that all information in articles be sourced from published sources: unpublished information is never acceptable.

It is usually best to make multiple small edits rather than one huge one, so that if somebody thinks some of your work is not appropriate, they can revert that part without reverting the whole lot. If you look at the history of the article, you can see who the editors were who reverted your changes, and what their edit summaries were.

The best approach for you now is to follow WP:BRD and open discussions on the article's talk page Talk:Harry Pitch. ColinFine (talk) 13:05, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions Colin. It's difficult to make 'many small changes to the original' text because it is one continuous chunk of writing and I think my new version tells a much better story by breaking my father's career into separate, more logical sections. If I keep all the original references and remove the photo, do yuou think that my new version will be acceptable? Hayneman (talk) 13:24, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Hayneman As made clear on your Talk page, Harry Pitch being your father is absolutely a conflict of interest in the Wikipedia use of the term (see WP:COI). As such declare that connection on your User page if you have not already. Wat you know to be true cannot be included unless verified by reliable source references. Also, and this will be annoying, because of the COI, you are prohibited from directly editing the article. Instead, you are limited to proposing changes on the Talk page, so that a not-connected editor can decide to incorporate or not. David notMD (talk) 13:58, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Another option: User:Ghmyrtle created the article in December, and also reverted your rewrite. You could contact Ghmyrtle on that editor's Talk page, describe what is not correct and what can be added, in all instances providing properly formated references to reliable sources in support of your proposed changes. G, as an editor without COI, can edit the article directly. David notMD (talk) 14:06, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for having this discussion. The article I put together drew on a number of published sources, and obviously some may have contained inaccuracies of which I was not aware, and the process of rewriting may have introduced more inaccuracies. If any were of my doing, I apologise - it's of course also possible that any errors were in the original sources. What concerned me more, however, when I saw Hayneman's edits, was that a great deal - it may have been the entire text, I'm not sure - seemed to be a blatant copyright infringement, by lifting whole sections (and the image) directly from the Daily Telegraph obituary here. Obviously that cannot be allowed. There was also a good deal of peacock wording, promoting a person's uniqueness, etc., which may be appropriate for an obituary but not for a purely factual encyclopedia article. What Hayneman needs to do - as I've already suggested - is to explain on the article talk page exactly what the errors are. If they can be corrected without diverging too much from what the sources say, they can and will be corrected. But, it is inappropriate for a family member (or friend) to edit the article themselves - conflict of interest. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:18, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi there. I've written an Article for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Manfred_Doss . Unfortunately i cannot publish it or move it to the namespace due to the missing "more"-Button? What am I doing wrong? Username: User:AnnaZwei

AnnaZwei (talk) 14:27, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, AnnaZwei. Another editor (and one experienced in article reviewing) has now added a 'submit for review' button to your draft. (Brand new users here cannot move drafts into mainspace until they have a few more edits than you do).

That editor (Theroadislong) has left a note on the draft, which needs addressing before you submit it again. In essence, there's an awful lot of factual statements, but none are directly supported by inline citations. You need to address this, linking each statement to a source. Just a link to a website at the end is not sufficient. If you are connected with the person (i.e. you worked with him or knew him), you should declare any such connection on your userpage. See WP:COI for guidance on that. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 14:44, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I am trying to understand guideline Wikipedia:NACTOR. If an actor has a significant role in a TV Based notable show, buy that show was super hit and then again they create the 2nd season of it. Then that actor will be consider notable or not? As now he is acting in multiple shows but the show is same, just a new season. Will we consider it as multiple show or one?

Thanks Lordofhunter (talk) 07:36, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Lordofhunter. Special notability guidelines like WP:NACTOR function as a quick assessment tool and do not guarantee that an article will be accepted. In other words, it might be reasonable to assume that an actor who has a significant role (what precisely does "significant" mean?) is likely to be notable. But what really counts is whether or not the actor has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are entirely independent of the actor, his management, his PR team and the PR teams of any production he has been a part of. The presumption is that an actor with a "significant role" in what you call a "super hit" (how do you quantify that?) will have received such coverage. So, you need to furnish the evidence of such coverage in the form of references. Cullen328 (talk) 08:07, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Cullen328 I guess, you are referring to WP:GNG, but what I believe is as per point 1 of WP:NACTOR it clearly says if a person had significant roles in multiple television shows, he is considered as notable. This guideline has nothing to do with PR material here etc because he/she has shown credibility and merit. That's why I asked if a person who is an actor in 2 series, can he or she consider notable.

Cullen328 I am just reading old random AFd to understand notability. In this AFD also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Franklin Prestage once people got reliable sources then he was considered as notable instead of finding significant coverage and checking if it is independent or not etc. Lordofhunter (talk) 11:19, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Lordofhunter. You are missing the import of the paragraph "Additional criteria" further up the page, which says People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included.. ColinFine (talk) 11:22, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

@Lordofhunter: To answer what I think was your original question, I don't think having a role in two seasons of a single TV show counts as having roles in multiple shows. Deor (talk) 14:31, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank You Cullen328, Deor for your valuable time. Lordofhunter (talk) 14:55, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I am LordVoldemort728 and I am here to know that how to archive my talk page in different archive numbers? I am able to archive my talk page at User talk:LordVoldemort728/Archive 1 but I want to archive 5 messages to User talk:LordVoldemort728/Archive 2, 5 messages to User talk:LordVoldemort728/Archive 3, 5 messages to User talk:LordVoldemort728/Archive 4 ....... But I don't know how to do like this pattern via a user script so can anyone tell me that how to archive messages of talk page to different archive page numbers. Thanks. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 14:56, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, once the archive 1 reaches a certain size, lowercase sigmabot will automatically start archiving to archive 2, then 3 and so on. The reason for this is so that they are in chronological order. Hope this helps. Blanchey (talk) 15:10, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

@Blanchey Can I change the certain size. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 15:17, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

@LordVoldemort728: Hi. In the archive settings at the top of your talkpage, there is parameter maxarchivesize, currently it is set in raw format as 100000, this works. But you can set it as 100k as well. 100000 is the standard, and recommended value for the size of archive page. 80k would be very small, and that value will generate a lot of archive pages. I recommend you to stick to your current settings. When the current page (User talk:LordVoldemort728/Archive 1) gets to the size of 100k, the bot will automatically create /Archive 2. —usernamekiran (talk) 15:33, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 15:35, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@LordVoldemort728: oh I just understood your question. Having only 5 threads/messages per archive page will also spawn a lot of pages. You can try 75k as the size, but you shouldn't go any lower than that. —usernamekiran (talk) 15:39, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Ok ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 15:40, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

@LordVoldemort728 In addition to advising you to keep your archives reasonably lengthy (or else it will be hard to find stuff again), I would also suggest your current setting of having just a 24 hour period before allowing the archive bot to archive the oldest of your four threads is also extremely unwise and unhelpful to everyone who engages with you. It will constantly be clearing out what you've told it are old messages, yet 24 hours or more is quite often the length of time between receiving replies to a thread.

Unless you have things you want hidden away from view and put immediately into an archive (and that tends to make people like me somewhat suspicious) my advice would be to keep at least the last 30 days of discussions (and at least the latest 10 to 20 threads) visible on your user talk page, and keep the archive files pretty large so you don't end up with myriads of them. Expecting someone who wants to engage with you to hunt through old archives after you've tidied them away is not really that helpful. You will also find it easier to keep track of recent interactions with others.

I admit that I could be seen as taking things to extremes, but I like to keep my own talk messages visible for about 6 months, and to have fewer, reasonably lengthy archives, too. Hope this helps, Nick Moyes (talk) 16:00, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

@LordVoldemort728: I hadn't realised the 24 hours setting. I mistook it for 24 days. I agree with Nick. I strongly recommend at least a week, and the longest for a month. 14 to 20 days is a good amount. —usernamekiran (talk) 16:42, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

@LordVoldemort728: You can also look at what others do. For example, I archive my talk pages by year, not by size threshold, and I keep six months (180d) of history on my talk page. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:52, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello! Happy new year and thank you for the invite. I am currently making a page for the Indycar team I work for, Steinbrenner Racing. This is part of my job, I have photos and logos that they have asked me to use. I am having trouble uploading the logo without it being deleted. How should I go about it as far as selecting the correct license(s) for the logo and our other photos? They are all ours and I have been told to use them so there is no issue there. Thank you! Ajusc21 (talk) 17:32, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

@Ajusc21 The logo won't make any difference to the review of your draft when you submit it to WP:AFC, so I'd not worry about it at present. Once the article is accepted (if it is) then please read WP:LOGO for the process. I doubt that your racing team really want the logo to be available for anyone to use for any purpose whatsoever, so it won't be appropriate for Commons but can go (at low resolution) here on the English Wikipedia, as explained at the page I linked. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:39, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Hey there ! Last year I tried to transfer a biographical article from the German-language Wiki to the English one – and I learned that self-referencing is not appropriate and some sources were not viewed as reliable. Now, I want to learn how to get it right. First, I will shorten the article to basics and make it about facts mostly. Still, some questions popped up. May I ask where the right place or who the right person/group is to ask them? Thank you and have a good start into the year, Jens JensOhle PS I read already the relevant help pages and have three more specific questions. (talk) 11:05, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

@JensOhle Guten Rutsch! welcome to Teahouse! This is the right place to ask general/policy questions, as you did. If your questions are super specific to German articles, e.g conventions for citing German legislation/area names, you can also ask on WP:GERMANY. Happy editing/translating! I'm editing from Berlin myself by the way ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 12:37, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply and greetings from Sweden ;-) ... no, not specific to DE ... may be I just ask them here and we look what will/can resolve?

A) Birthdate – I assume that there is no totally reliable source for that, e.g. nobody checked on Robert de Niro’s driver license or passport. It’s just believed when he stated it to an editor at some point. In my case, when the birthdate of “my” person is known to me by announcements on social media or direct involvement (e.g. having been at a birthday party) and it is stated on de.wikipedia.org for 12 months and not disputed, can I use it then?

B) Facts in artist/band website – After reading through the Wiki article on Reliable Sources, I understood that the primary artist's website contain information about and from "themselves" and are viewed most likely as self-published and questionable sources. My question: When a post is about factual information (a fact that can be verified easily), can it be used? E.g. in my case, the artist becomes part of the band (again).

C) Factual statements by the artist – Same type of question: If an artist states that s/he uses equipment A and B in an interview or podcast, can this be used?

Some part of the rejection last year was around the source for the catalogue of work and I found a confirming source under “WikiProject Albums/Sources”. With clarity on the above, I’d be comfortable to submit a re-newed and shorter article quickly. Thank you. JensOhle (talk) 15:29, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

@JensOhle, as far as your first question goes, an announcement on a verified social media account is usually sufficient; direct involvement is not, and appearing on de.wiki is not (see WP:SOCIALMEDIA). Your other questions involve using self-published or primary sources. These are generally fine for uncontroversial statements of fact, but articles should not start to rely on them for their information. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 15:55, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks :) JensOhle (talk) 19:14, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Advice, please: user Роман Сергеевич Сидоров seems to be developing his Talk page as a personal website for himself, though I have advised him several times not to do this. He has also developed some sort of grievance against me, in spite of my efforts to answer questions he has sent me, and has been sending me confrontational messages on my Talk page (posting on the topic 'Voiced retroflex consonant in RP' is the most recent example). I am not sure what to do about this, but I find it disturbing to have these messages sent to me on WP. RoachPeter (talk) 19:41, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

RoachPeter Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. This isn't the forum to report user conduct issues- such issues should be reported to WP:ANI. 331dot (talk) 19:47, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

All the resources I was able to find look reliable to me. I am not sure how I can improve Reliable sources when I found all of them third party and reliable. Ddujmovic (talk) 18:54, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:Ned Krtolica (I assume this is the subject of the inquiry) - 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:56, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Forgot to list the article link

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Ned_Krtolica&oldid=1123126098 Ddujmovic (talk) 18:57, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Ddjumovic, and welcome to the Teahouse. We often say "reliable sources", but in fact there are three separate criteria that are required for each source that is to be used to establish notability. reliability is one, but the others are independence from the subject, and containing significant coverage of the subject.

Looking at your list of citations, it doesn't look to me as if a single one meets those criteria. Listings are useless. Items written or published by the subject may sometimes be cited, but cannot contribute to notability. Press releases are useless.

Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. With that in mind, have you got any sources which qualify? (They don't have to be in English). ColinFine (talk) 20:30, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Hiya User:Ddujmovic and welcome to The Teahouse! The first thing you can do is compare the references you used against this list or perennial sources to see which are good and which are not. UtherSRG (talk) 19:14, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Additionally, you need to remove all external links from the body of the article. Those should be in the External Links section. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:17, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Hey, uh, if you look in these two articles, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/77th_Armor_Regiment#Commanders_of_the_753rd,_Co_A_77th_Tank_Bn,_77th_Armor_Regiment and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/67th_Armored_Regiment, there is nothing about its current structure, and I don't have access to external links that would tell me. Can someone please help? Faithful15 (talk) 20:17, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

@Faithful15 Welcome to Teahouse. You can ask on their respective talk pages Talk:77th Armor Regiment and Talk:67th Armor Regiment. Also read WP:LINKING to learn how to properly wikilink while on Wikipedia. Additionally, WP:MILHIST may be a good place to ask. Happy learning! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 20:37, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Its weird, ive never looked someone up to find wikipedia refusing them a spot. I wanted to learn more about her, it woukd seem based on her authorship alone she would be deserving? Could someone please explain? 97.115.136.1 (talk) 20:39, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello IP. read Welcome to the Teahouse! Creating a new article from scratch is extremely challenging, and new editors are strongly recommended to spend a few months learning how Wikipedia works, by making improvements to some of our existing six million articles before trying it. When you do decide to have a go at a new article, you are highly encouraged to read WP:Your first article. If you haven't already also check out WP:TUTORIAL; it's a lot of fun! Happy editing! Additionally I recommend WP:NAUTHOR to understand which authors may be notable by Wikipedia bureaucratic standards and which ones not. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 20:49, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

The name is "Dolores". Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dolores Cannon was a debate that took place nine years ago. Cullen328 (talk) 20:52, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Regarding "ive never looked someone up to find wikipedia refusing them a spot": count yourself lucky! Some of us (patrolling drafts and new articles) see cases everyday of someone writing about themselves or their goldfish or their brother-in-law's cousin (one of his Soundcloud songs has nearly 10,000 listens!). We have minimum "notability" policies to limit our scope and stop people from using Wikipedia to promote themselves. This means we can also ensure that there is something to say in every article, some verifiable information from reliable sources independent of the subject that exists. — Bilorv (talk) 21:13, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

It appears that no one has attempted to create an article about her since the article deletion in 2013. David notMD (talk) 21:31, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Can you please help me properly format my nomination of the 2023 Speaker of the United States House of Representatives election to ITN? Joesom333 (talk) 19:37, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

@Joesom333: I believe Fuzheado fixed this here, as Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#Speaker Election (US) looks properly formatted at time of writing. From your edit here, it looks to me like there were two issues:

1. The {{ITN candidate}} template should go after the section header (i.e. after the closing equal symbols, ====).
2. The template needed two curly brackets at the start (one was missing).

Hope this helps! — Bilorv (talk) 21:23, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you!Joesom333 (talk) 22:13, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I'm a paid contributor but I am only a beginner here in wikipedia so I submitted a draft of a politician's biography for review and it was already assessed thanks to the editors who helped me improve the article. Since there was an issue with the picture when I submitted the article for review... it was removed while I was trying to settle the issue. Now that it is resolved and is back in wkicommons, I wanted to edit the article myself and just insert the picture into the article. Would that be okay? I'm just scared of violating the policies. Madona Jace (talk) 03:00, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

@Madona Jace Welcomne to Teahouse and thank you for asking instead of doing it first. No, you should make an edit request using Wikipedia:Edit Request Wizard.  Courtesy link: Anthony Golez ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 03:22, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! Madona Jace (talk) 03:52, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

@Madona Jace I've added back the image, since the licensing on Commons is now correct and it is an appropriate picture. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:03, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Madona Jace (talk) 01:10, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I created a long draft article over several hours, then needed to stop. I looked for a save draft button but did not find one. Now I came back to continue editing, and the draft article has zero content. Empty. Did I lose those hours of work? How do I save a draft before it's ready to publish? BlueChippy (talk) 21:56, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

BlueChippy, to save a draft that's not ready to publish (in the sentence of "make into an article"), you click "Publish changes". This confusing label on the button is recommended by our lawyers, as anything you save in Wikipedia, including drafts and sandboxes, is legally published. You are not the first, nor the thousandth, person to have been misled by this. Maproom (talk) 22:32, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the response! I did lose the article so had to restart, but lots of learning! Agree, it is not obvious that hitting "publish" creates a draft. Now I know! It has now been submitted for review. BlueChippy (talk) 02:00, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello BlueChippy (talk)! You can save an article you are working on creating by copying it & pasting into a notepad (do make sure to then save the notepad contents). As long as you are not using the Visual Editor at the time of copying your text, you'll be able to copy the wiki markup included in your article. With the wiki markup intact, when you paste the text back into Wikipedia things like inline citations & other coded features will be retained. You can use "Show Preview" button to see how the article is working without the need to prematurely publish. I just recently created an article & used this method to ensure I could get everything right before posting & also safely take breaks without fear of losing everything. I actually do this for anything of any length I write on a computer. Copy/pasting frequently to a text document in this way protects against crashes or power cuts which always have a habit of happening at the most inconvenient times, like when a draft is almost complete. Hope this is of help to you! Take care, LooksGreatInATurtleNeck (talk) 23:34, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! I did have to recreate it from my Word draft - most of the rework was re-inserting 40 citations! I learned that I must Publish (this is not obvious) and do repeatedly for changes within each section. The article has now been submitted for review. BlueChippy (talk) 01:57, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I believe that the visual editor will store an open editing session for a maximum of 24 hours. If you want to save an offline copy, you can switch from visual to wikitext modes (the pencil button, next to the big blue "Publish page" button). Then cut and paste the wikitext to your local computer. When you come back, you can paste the wikitext into either the wikitext or visual editor. The visual editor "understands" wikitext (though it might take a couple of minutes, if you're adding 40 citations in one go!). Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 01:14, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Someone can revert me like I said last time, but I just wanted to tell all of you that 2022 (in UTC) has officially passed, and we have entered the fresh new year of 2023! Thank you for your contributions; all of you!
Happy New Year! — 3PPYB6 ^{(T / C / L)} — 00:00, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

@3PPYB6 Welcome to the Teahouse. I'm so excited to best wishes to you and everyone with a new 2023 is very happy. I hope this 2023 to see with everything of your fantastic work this fourthcoming year and you making an Wikipedian.
Happy New Year! 2402:800:63B0:81F6:BD40:A76:26A7:55BA (talk) 02:28, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

This brings to mind my recent block for wishing a 'Happy New Year' to so many, so quickly. I'd like to continue if I can get support for that. See my post below, and the context here. TY — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 21:23, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

• • Same to you allCwater1 (talk) 01:42, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

User:RPSkokie, have reverted my edits from Divya Gokulnath. If (ASU + GSV Summit 2019 Power of Women Award) is non notable, then why it is here on Cindy Mi's wiki article? and why RPSkokie has removed this. Please note i am not an employee of Byju's, not a paid editor or not a family of Divya Gokulnath. I'm just trying to understand out whether Wikipedia's policy is not same for all entries.Gaargi Puri (talk) 08:36, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Gaargi Puri Hello, and welcome! The reason for the change was explained in the summary, the source you used was not reliable and possibly promotional. I also see that the editor suspected you were being paid, although if you claim that you are not, I don’t see any reason why you wouldn’t be believed. Blanchey (talk) 09:05, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Blanchey, I am still trying to understand whether Wikipedia's policy is not same for adding the same entry on different articles. i have no complaint from removing my edits but i didn't get the answer of my question. Gaargi Puri (talk) 09:12, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Gaarga Puri, and welcome to the Teahouse. The answer is that Wikipedia's policy is the same, but it has not historically always been applied. We have many thousands of articles which were created before we were as careful as we are today, and which would not be accepted if they were submitted today. Unfortunately, as this is a volunteer endeavour, it is nobody's "job" to go through those thousands and thousands of articles improving or deleting them, so it doesn't happen very much. If you find an article which is not up to today's standards, you are quite welcome to work on it, to improve it if possible, or to nominate it for deletion if the subject is not notable or the article of such low quality that it cannot be saved. Please see Other stuff exists. ColinFine (talk) 11:28, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Please read my conversation on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RPSkokie#You_removed_an_award . Gaargi Puri (talk) 09:13, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Gaargi Puri when you say entry I take it you mean source? If so, no, I don’t think so, although an experienced Wikipedian might want to explain this better. What I think you should do going forward is to make sure that all additions to the article are backed up by reliable sources and if you are unsure about anything, take it to the talk page and see what other editors think, to stop any possible disruption to the article. I hope this helps. Blanchey (talk) 09:23, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

• • It depends if the statement was sourced or if it meets stands. Cwater1 (talk) 01:44, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

can i just for clean delete my all talk pages? or, something else. Ajrun Amir'za-da (talk) 19:13, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Ajrun Amir'za-da Hello, talk pages are usually not deleted as discussions are really important and are usually kept for reference. If you want to clean your talk page, you can always blank it, I would be happy to do that for you if you don’t know how to. Blanchey (talk) 19:17, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

@Ajrun Amir'za-da Do you want your talk page content to disappear completely? It is still visible under the "view history" tab. If you want the talk page history completely "rev-deleted", you'll need to ask if that is possible. David10244 (talk) 10:34, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Sure i would be happy if you do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajrun Amir'za-da (talk • contribs)

That’s done for you. If any other editor has an issue with me doing this, feel free to revert me. Blanchey (talk) 19:29, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

@Ajrun Amir'za-da @Blanchey Welcome to Teahouse! In most cases, you're allowed to blank your own User Talk page. See WP:BLANKING for further clarifications. Happy editing and blanking! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 22:13, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Shushugah Hi, thanks for clarifying, and pointing out that essay. Happy editing! Blanchey (talk) 22:24, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

• • Hi. You can create archives. See Help:Archiving a talk page.Cwater1 (talk) 01:47, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

It annoys me how every single, British, right leaning source is either listed as:

Generally Unreliable or Deprecated

Whereas every single, British, left leaning source is listed as:

Generally Reliable

Even though I see mistakes from sources like The Guardian and The Independent every single time I read a story from them.

Therefore the left is just as bad as the right, except on Wikipedia it seems, which just like the world of film and TV, is clearly run by liberals, as practically every single Daily Mail, The Mail on Sunday, Daily Express, The Sun, Daily Star, News of the World, Metro, GB News etc reference I see on Wikipedia or use myself is removed by someone eventually no matter what the context of the reference is.

Earlier last year I created this One Pair of Eyes (TV series).

I used the BBC Programme Index to reference every episode date...

And then I used the few random references I could find which were talking about this long-forgotten show or one of the episodes.

One of those random references was from the deprecated Daily Mail.

It was written by Shirley Conran who presented one of the episodes, and was simply a brief mention that she made the episode.

I noticed yesterday that the reference had been removed, so after double checking the reliable source guidelines which say:

"The Daily Mail may be used in rare cases in an about-self fashion. Some editors regard the Daily Mail as reliable historically, so old articles may be used in a historical context."

And then reading the linked about self-fashion section here Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves which says:

Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they are published experts in the field, so long as:

• 1 - The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;
• 2 - It does not involve claims about third parties;
• 3 - It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
• 4 - There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and
• 5 - The article is not based primarily on such sources.

Therefore I reverted that incorrect reference removal, and explained what the guidelines said.

Today my reversion has been reverted again, so I've re-added it, and I suspect it will be reverted again.

Why are so many people allowed to remove right-leaning references no matter what the context without being questioned?

As I said at the start, I'm always seeing them being removed when I look through the history of articles, no matter what the context of the reference is.

They also get removed even when there's no other sources available to reference non-controversial information, like with another reference of mine that I noticed got removed last year, which I'm pretty sure was about a farmer appearing in a TV show. How is proving that a farmer appeared in a TV show controversial? It isn't, yet it got removed anyway, despite it being the only article I could find with photographic proof of whoever it was appearing in whatever show it was. Danstarr69 (talk) 23:51, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

A lot of people on this website can't think critically so when they see a citation from a no-no site they instantly remove it FishandChipper 🐟🍟 23:57, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

The teahouse can't help with this. You could ask Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard if you provide evidence and diffs to prove what you're saying. Also, don't editwar. Remember 3RR. echidnaLives - talk - edits 02:29, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Avoid the excessive bolding, please. But yeah, per EchidnaLives, the Teahouse isn't the place for this. DecafPotato (talk) 03:16, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

While I am not a super experienced editor, I might be able to give an explanation. I just hovered over the magazines for context and when I see Germans declaring war on the pound, I kinda get a bit on edge about the source. While the Guardian seems about as reliable as the New York Times, Washington Post, Atlantic, or the local paper.

If the issue is more an editor making a mistake, then I would bring that up at the articles talk page or their user page. ✶Mitch199811✶ 03:22, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Could someone direct me to where it is discussed the phrasing style for national Olympic committee names? I do not totally understand all the bits and pieces of WP but i do need to know what is if it has been established how original language titles are phrased in English such as "Comité Olímpico Chile" is the name for the nation of Chile but it is translated into "Chilean Olympic Committee" in an attempt to coincide with English grammar rules when in fact it is a legal title that the translation should be more literal than figurative and at least phrased as "Chile Olympic Committee" instead of "Chilean Comité Olímpico" as what it would be if translated "Chilean Olympic Committee"?2603:8000:D300:D0F:A4A9:1E1:30A5:4340 (talk) 04:46, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello. Wikipedia:COMMONNAME is the relevant guideline. We use common English language article names, not "official" names in any language. Cullen328 (talk) 05:57, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, after the various discussions on National Football Team name phrasing it seems that rule does not apply when grammar seemed to get in the way of literal translation. These are legally recognized names of organizations that are being dealt with and sometimes it seems that what someone believes is correct merely because of a rule of grammar versus a use of the title in the original context, or in the context that the policy noted being COMMON. We dont say Englandan or United Statesian. COMMON is just the beginning of consideration to be refined through a better understanding about what is it that is to be accomplished without offending. If it were only as simple as using COMMON always we would not have as many variants in all the phrasing policies and guidelines.2603:8000:D300:D0F:A4A9:1E1:30A5:4340 (talk) 07:16, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I've almost edited 300 pages so far with my account! After I reach the 500 mark will I instantly be able to edit level 3 security extended confirmed articles or is there more to activating that privilege? Hgh1985 (talk) 00:12, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, once you reach 500 edits and have had your account for 30 days, you will gain extended confirmed user rights allowing them to edit those articles. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 01:01, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Hgh1985, accuracy is really important here on Wikipedia. You have 240 edits, not almost 300 edits. Plus, you have been vandalizing in recent days. If you do not stop vandalizing forever right now, you will never receive extended confirmed status. I hope you take this warning seriously. Cullen328 (talk) 01:30, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Alright, I will stop the "test" edits right now, but with all due respect I still feel like this is a threat, the way you wrote this message. Hgh1985 (talk) 05:37, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Hgh1985, you can try to call your vandalism "tests" all you want but that does not change the fact that you repeatedly tried to damage the encyclopedia, just for the fun of it. Similarly, you can call my entirely legitimate warnings "threats" all you want. None of that changes the fact that I am an administrator, that you have been engaging in disruption, and that I will block you if I see any more bad behavior from you. Is that clear? Cullen328 (talk) 07:01, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Alright Jim, if I stop the disruptive editing permanently and immediately, can you forgive me on a personal level as well? Yes or no Hgh1985 (talk) 12:01, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Time will tell. Cullen328 (talk) 19:54, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

@Hgh1985 Why were you making disruptive edits? What was the purpose? David10244 (talk) 11:21, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

@Hgh1985 You admit the edits were disruptive here. On your Talk page, you dismissed them as accidental (you "could've swore" you undid each of them). Sonething doesn't add up. David10244 (talk) 11:56, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

User:David10244 - In view of the fact that this thread is about obtaining extended confirmed status, they were probably making the disruptive edits in order to game extended confirmed status. It does add up, because they are trying to get their edits to add up to 500. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:36, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon True... David10244 (talk) 10:26, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

wow, nice constructive way to engage someone, sable rattling threats on blocks, and parading your administrator badge @Cullen328, sadly finding this attitude more and more often on wikipedia nice way to welcome newcomers, in the end this trend will wind up into 10-20 guys controlling the whole project Juanriveranava (talk) 03:22, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Juanriveranava. I guess that you think that an administrator should just refrain from commenting when an editor with a very recent history of overt vandalism asks about advanced permissions. Despite your speculative observations, Wikipedia remains a top ten website worldwide, because of its clearly productive policies and guidelines. Also, there are about 450 active administrators, not 10 to 20. And there are far more active, highly productive editors than that who provide input on issues like this. If we turn Wikipedia over to vandals, it will rapidly devolve into a steaming pile of crap. I will then resign, and you can become an administrator of garbage. Cullen328 (talk) 03:45, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

User:Juanriveranava - Some editors read the guideline not to bite the new editors a little too expansively, and that appears to be what you have done. It means not to bite new good-faith editors, but User:Cullen328 was biting a new editor who had made some bad-faith edits. I am aware that reasonable editors can disagree as to how severely editors who engage in irresponsible play should be warned. I thought that the warning was appropriate. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:10, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

User:Cullen328 - I think that you lost your temper in biting a newbie, but I mean User:Juanriveranava. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:10, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

@Cullen328 Don't even hint that actions like theirs would leave them in charge, and you not here...

I wish they would respond to my "why" question but I suppose there is no way to explain that. I believe @Robert McClenon is right, but I wanted to hear something from Hgh1985. He or she hasn't posted since their question at your Talk page (Cullen) on the 28th. Maybe they left. David10244 (talk) 09:02, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

User:David10244 - They have probably abandoned that account and are trying to game extended-confirmed status with a different account. Maybe they have already been working three or four accounts. When you say that there may be no way to explain it, you mean that there may be no good-faith explanation. Robert McClenon (talk) 09:26, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon Yes, that's what I meant. David10244 (talk) 13:06, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Holy shit this was just a question my bad, I didn't realize I would cause such a huge controversy Hgh1985 (talk) 21:01, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

No @Cullen328, sorry but now you're overstating me, and making speculative observations (speaking of) , what I meant is if you're so upset with said editor behaviour or because you spilled your coffee on the way back home does not grant you the right to mistreat anybody like that even if you co-founded the project or own the servers, being such a seasoned productive administrator I would expect more restraint and a didactic and assistance focused response, but thank you for showing me what kind of things to expect from the more veteran editors like you, I'll glady preside over crap if that means being able to engage in constructive dialogue, @Robert McClenon, I understand the guideline, but I tend to believe vandals usually don't ask for permission or guidance from administrators, if that doesn't shows a hint of good faith, then well I can have nothing else to say. @Cullen328 response wasn't called for, but hey you're free to excercise your almighty banning powers on me if that makes you feel better. 240 edits for non retirees, people like me with a day job that doesn't have much time to spare shows a little commitment at least, what's the whole point of allowing anyone to participate on editions if not, that response is counterintuitive to said policies and guidlines, and the defensive stance is counter productive. Juanriveranava (talk) 22:37, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

User:Juanriveranava - You wrote: I understand the guideline, but I tend to believe vandals usually don't ask for permission or guidance from administrators, if that doesn't shows a hint of good faith, then well I can have nothing else to say. There are various types of vandals. If they ask for guidance from administrators, it may be because they are acting like good-faith editors in order to be mistaken for good-faith editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:39, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

thank you @Robert McClenon I understand and appreciate the pointer, I'll try to balance what you said with this part of the policy; Remember Hanlon's Razor. Behavior that appears malicious might be from ignorance of our expectations and rules. Even if you are 100% sure that someone is a worthless, no-good Internet troll, vandal, or worse, conduct yourself as if they are not. Remember that the apparent test editors have the potential to be tomorrow's editors. By giving a polite, honest and noncondemning answer to newcomers, you have the opportunity to teach them Wikipedia policy. By being calm, interested, and respectful, you do credit to your dignity, and to our project. cheers. Juanriveranava (talk) 04:19, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Warning an editor who has been vandalizing is not mistreatment. I have no reason to block you, Juanriveranava. Feel free to insult me all you want. I have thick skin. I do not block people to feel better. I block people only to protect the encyclopedia from disruption. Cullen328 (talk) 23:01, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

if you feel insulted by my comment, just think how yours seem to a newcomer entering the teahouse. there might be 1 or 2 things you might need to work on yourself Jim, one of them is resilience to critique, now you're showing a non productive behaviour and I won't engage in this with you anymore, I made my point clear. have a nice day. Juanriveranava (talk) 23:10, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Maybe those that want to tally up contributions for higher qualifications can limit those edits to things such as spelling or date styles? That way certain reflections can be avoided and we all can get back to editing in earnest instead of making things personal and petty.2603:8000:D300:D0F:A4A9:1E1:30A5:4340 (talk) 05:03, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I can't believe I was responsible for this entire sections dramatic controversy Hgh1985 (talk) 07:46, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Suspicious Quesions

I have known that when an editor asks about when an article that they have created will show up on Google searches, they are almost certainly a conflict of interest editor who is trying to game the system of reviewing and indexing and New Page Patrol. I think that we have identified another area of questions that should be cause for concern, that if a new editor asks about extended-confirmed status, they are likely to be trying to game extended-confirmed status. I think that experienced editors should be aware that we do not need to assume good faith in these cases. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:24, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Why do I keep seeing that?

Is it a problem on Wikipedia?

Or is it something like a cache/cookies problem? Danstarr69 (talk) 08:59, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

It generally means that the particular page you are trying to read or edit simply has too many template calls. The solution is simplifying or splitting the page. Sometimes this can affect many pages, if a template that is used widely has been changed and either mistakenly includes a load of stuff that it shouldn't, or has actually been significantly expanded. ColinFine (talk) 09:42, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Hey team, what redirects used to target Southern Cross Ten?

Southern Cross Ten has since been moved to 10 (Southern Cross Austereo), so I am trying to find out what redirects used to target Southern Cross Ten and don't target 10 (Southern Cross Austereo) nowadays. Can you help me please? From Bas. Bassie f (talk) 08:57, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I know that Ten Capital News used to target to Southern Cross Ten and 10 (Southern Cross Austereo) but Ten Capital News now targets CTC (TV station), so can you please find the rest of these redirects that used to target Southern Cross Ten but don’t target 10 (Southern Cross Austereo) nowadays. Bassie f (talk) 09:01, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Bassie f, and welcome to the Teahouse. If you go to Southern Cross Ten, and pick "(Redirected from Southern Cross Ten)" at the top, it will take you to the redirection page. You can then pick "What links here" from the tools in the sidebar. ColinFine (talk) 09:45, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Felix_Leong

Apart from these 3 TV news coverage 1. https://www.9news.com.au/national/fire-adelaide-king-fu-felis-leong/550e2804-8b91-47f9-8f1a-022c8434ef15 2. https://www.facebook.com/10NewsAdl/videos/2069357169823106/ 3. https://www.facebook.com/grandmaster.leong1/videos/349970479036036

Felix has been published in a national Spanish newspaper https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=5715589521893738&set=a.4444647332321303 He has been in the Latin Australian Times that is out of print but those sources were deleted before the AFD. https://web.archive.org/web/20170217092946im_/http://sifu.maurice.net.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Sum_Nung.jpg https://web.archive.org/web/20170217092858im_/http://sifu.maurice.net.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/LAT-10-Nov.jpg https://web.archive.org/web/20170217093153im_/http://sifu.maurice.net.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/felix-LAT-402x1024.jpg Advertiser; https://web.archive.org/web/20170217093137im_/http://sifu.maurice.net.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Felix-Leong-559x1024.jpg

Happy new year! Australianblackbelt (talk) 06:19, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

@Australianblackbelt Welcome to the teahouse! If you believe the article now has enough coverage to overcome the issues that were brought up at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Felix Leong, you can create a new page and submit it for AfC review at WP:Article wizard. It will not be directly undeleted as there was unanimous support for deletion during the discussion. It must be recreated and completely different/fixed, or it will not be accepted. If you directly recreate it in the mainspace, it will be speedily deleted per criteria G4.

Thanks, echidnaLives - talk - edits 06:25, 4 January 2023 (UTC).

Hello, Australianblackbelt. Facebook is not a reliable source so if you start out by putting forward Facebook pages as reliable sources, do not be surprised that reviewers are unwilling to pay much attention to a mediocre submission. If you are willing to put the work into transforming this draft into something much more like an encyclopedia article, then maybe it will be accepted. Otherwise, it is likely to be declined. Read Your first article. Cullen328 (talk) 06:36, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I understand facebook is not a source but the TV news story in mainstream media is there and so if the scanned copy of the notional newspaper. Perhaps I leave the links to facebook till it gets approved then I delete them and leave the reference details. Australianblackbelt (talk) 07:56, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Australianblackbelt. You should be citing the channel and the newspaper properly, not the facebook link. And while the TV segment looks as if it is the channel's official FB account, the scan of the newspaper is probably a copyright violation, and it is forbidden to link to these anywhere in Wikipedia.

A citation should consist of the information necessary for a reader to evaluate whether it is likely to be worth looking at the source, and enable the reader to obtain the source if they wish to. This means such things as publication, publisher, title, author, date, page number. A link is a convenience for the reader, not (usually) an essential part of the citation. (Sources do not even have to be available on line: as long as they have been published, so that a reader could in principle get them, say through a major library, that is enough). ColinFine (talk) 10:13, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

hello folks, a quick question: how do i create the talk page for an article? this question is apropos of an article i recently created, Bride's Toilet. the article currently lacks a talk page – and i'm not too sure what to add in there. wikiprojects? hope someone can help. Dissoxciate (talk) 09:26, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

@Dissoxciate Just go to the article and click on the redlinked tab that says "Talk" (in the same place as on any other article's page). Then you'll be able to add new material by editing the page that will open up. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:07, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

@Mike Turnbull thanks for the input mate but i'm not really confused about that part in particular. i am not sure what to add in there. as in, the content of the talk page. i've never created an article's talk page previously, so i am having a hard time figuring this out. Dissoxciate (talk) 10:25, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

@Dissoxciate I suggest you look at the Talk Page for Talk:Three Girls (painting) which is by the same artist and use the same two templates. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:31, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

@Mike Turnbull that seems to work. thanks for the help, mike! Dissoxciate (talk) 10:55, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

can i edit article in wikipedia :-Coupon Code Amank134 (talk) 10:41, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

hi @Amank134 and welcome to the Teahouse! you may edit articles in Wikipedia, but you may not use it to advertise promotions, schools, or anything else. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 11:01, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Amank134, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm not sure what you're asking. You may edit articles (I see you have been editing Physicswallah). But you may not do any kind of promotion anywhere in Wikipedia. Not only should you not add anything about coupons to that article, but you shoukd remove the blatant WP:promotion which you have put on your user talk page. ColinFine (talk) 11:06, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I have to quote a lot of hyper links, I give the links, it appears on the page with an icon which when clicked gives the image. I need only the icon. The link can vanish. For that what to do? Sreejit TK Ramchand (talk) 11:29, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Regarding the draft in your sandbox, you should not be including hyperlinks to images. Before you do anything else please read and understand WP:COI, WP:RS, and Wikipedia:Wikimedia Commons which tells you how to embed a Wikimedia Commons image into an article. I also strongly suggest you remove the picture of your identiy card from your talk page. It proves absolutely nothing and enables anyone in the world to use it for their own purpose. Shantavira|^{feed me} 14:05, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, pinging @Sreejit TK Ramchand, you should REMOVE the image of your identity card from your Talk page as Shantavira recommends. Should one of us editors do that for safety? David10244 (talk) 12:46, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

You do it for me. Thanks a lot. I am an old fellow aged 91. I have my own limitations. Further I do not know how to remove it. thanks. Sreejit TK Ramchand (talk) 12:55, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

I request some one to come forward to create the article BHARATHI, The New Script. I am not boasting myself. It is a real fact that BHARATHI is a ery good script. Once you go through its details you will understand it. What I want to see is that it should not be lost to the world. It is for that I am trying to create this article. My age 91 is not permitting me to toil too much for that. Will kindly someone come forward to take up the job. I shall supply all the details and all the images. The images are already uploaded to Wikimedia. I shall give all the links too. Kindly contact me who can do the job. Thanking you in anticipation. Sreejit TK Ramchand (talk) 13:11, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

As you were told when you asked this question last week, There has been a Wikipedia article about the script since October this year. It is at Bharati Script and of course you can add information there provided you can cite reliable sources for it. ColinFine (talk) 18:29, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

I have moved that article to Bharati script, and added it to the disambiguation page Bharati. ColinFine (talk) 18:37, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Dear MR. Colin,

That one Bharati Script is entirely different. The one I am indulged is Bharathi Script. Kindly notice the Difference in spelling. There is proof for the fact that Bharathi script was there in 1995. But Bharati script was created only in 2017. Bharati is a constructed script in their words. But, Bharathi Script in an invented script.

Thanking you:

Sincerely yours,

Ramchand Sreejit TK Ramchand (talk) 04:19, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

@Sreejit TK Ramchand It seems that I was confused because of the similarity of names and purposes of these scripts. You want to describe Bharathi script and have started a draft about it at User:Sreejit TK Ramchand/sandbox, declaring on your User page that you have a conflict of interest since you invented the script. I have to point out that Wikipedia cannot be used to describe things that have not already been featured in reliable sources and as far as I can ascertain there is no published material on your script except what you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. IF you can provide references to externally published descriptions of the script and independent commentary about it then there could perhaps be an article written based on those sources. Otherwise you are wasting your time as Wikipedia cannot host such material. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:19, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

My Dear Mike Turnbull,

Thank you for writing. I am not interested saying anything about me. Even I shall avoid my name coming anywhere in the article. My aim is only to save the script from extinction. I am not boasting myself when I say it is a very good script, with a lot of unique features. Once you go through it you will be convinced. I am just trying to do something to save it, so that the world may not loss such a good script. It is in detail available at more than nine sites including Internet archive. You kindly go through its features you will be convinced. I aged 91 is toiling to save it. You kindly help me in whatever ways you can to save it. The script and Font are free for all. Thanking you very much for taking the pain to write to me. Ramchand. Sreejit TK Ramchand (talk) 07:00, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

@Sreejit TK Ramchand At your request, I have removed the image of your ID card from your Talk page. Wikipedia editors are allowed to remain anonymous if they wish. Even if you use your real name, which is fine to do, you should not post a phone number, your email address, your home address, or any forms of ID here. I know it takes a while to learn all of WP's policies, but this is for your own safety. Thanks. David10244 (talk) 07:59, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

The ID card is now removed altogether from commons. DMacks (talk) 07:12, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, @DMacks. David10244 (talk) 09:36, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. Sreejit TK Ramchand (talk) 11:16, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Lately it has come to my attention the rude and unwelcoming manners of a certain number of administrators and seasoned editors, either in the teahouse or in the interactions on talk pages on different articles, even though I understand that disruptive/vandalizing behaviour is harmful for the project and must be addressed swiftly and that the administrator positions entails certain rights and prerogatives, i extend a cordial invitation on everyone here to adjust the attitude to reflect the expectations of welcoming, politeness and patience and even more keenly to those who have spent more time and effort on wikipedia to follow the guidelines and policies that they're so eager to enforce, lets continue building a better and more inclusive and welcoming project. Juanriveranava (talk) 18:50, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Juanriveranava, welcome to the Teahouse. If you have specific behavioral complaints, you can bring them up on the talk pages of the specific users or at WP:ANI. A general complaint is, unfortunately, not likely to get far, especially since the Teahouse is not set up to address such things. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:54, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

thank you, before pointing fingers I want to address to the whole editor community, but appreciate the pointer though.Juanriveranava (talk) 19:01, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

@Juanriveranava, a post at the Teahouse is not likely to be seen by a large portion of the editing community; mostly it will be seen by the few editors who answer questions here, since those asking the questions rarely read further than their own section. If you have a solution to propose to this problem, Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) might be a place to offer it. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 19:17, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

once again, thank you!, I'll repost it there. Juanriveranava (talk) 21:09, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Those aspiring to become Teahouse hosts are already charged with being friendly and informative to newcomers. See Wikipedia:Teahouse/Host lounge/Expectations. David notMD (talk) 21:18, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Without specifics, your general reminder is useless wherever it is posted. As someone who reads teahouse regularly including already answered questions, I rarely see any of the behavior you describe. More problematic are newish editors who find the teahouse and decide to stick around to answer questions they have limited knowledge on and cause issues that experienced editors need to clean up.Slywriter (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

isn't it the whole purpose of the teahouse? to ask questions?, I've been just the recipient of said behaviour, but maybe I'm an anomaly of the system and my observations and experiences are a complete delusion on my part, thank you anyways for pointing the uselessness of my participations, I'll take it in consideration for future exchanges. Juanriveranava (talk) 22:26, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Slywriter the complete opposite of IMDB then apparently, where the admins know less about their own rules and policies than the regular users, and answered/solved much less questions/problems than the regular users too.

On their community/help pages from 2022 and earlier they would have just 1 admin answering questions/solving problems on a daily basis.

However she would only ever answer/solve 3 or 4 a day.

Occasionally another 1 or 2 admins would come on and answer/solve a few questions/problems in a row, before disappearing again for months, or even years.

The rest of the questions/problems were left to helpful people like me.

So after getting frustrated by their uselessness one day, I pointed out:

• The lack of admins and the ratio of the number of questions/problems they've answered/solved over the months/years
• The fact that admins rarely know their own policies/guidelines
• The fact that their answer for most questions/problems is to paste a link for a section of the guidelines which they clearly haven't read or understood themselves, even though the user has usually already been there, and/or it's a problem which needs admin assistance.
• The fact that around 5 to 10 specific contribution types get declined repeatedly, even when they contain references as proof in the explanation box. What types? I've forgotten most of them, however birth dates, death dates and movie connections were 3 of them. In the last month, things like profile merges have started to get declined repeatedly too, even though I find countless duplicates every single time I check and update the credits on a production, or I'm looking for someone who has a common name.
• The 20 or 30+ posts of mine which had been ignored for months by putting them into a single post along with the dates they were posted or last interacted with by an admin.

I was then blocked from the community around a year ago after writing that post by IMDB's founder Col Needham, for pointing out those facts, and he's blocked another two of my emails once he realised it was me, even though at the time of the last block I had just helped them find a film which a woman falsely claimed had nothing to do with her co-director and co-star, and was trying to get his credits removed from films they made together. He was credited in the film. He appeared in the film. Plus he was in the cast and crew photos, yet she still tried to deny he worked on the film.

I had previously helped them find countless early productions starring people who wanted to hide their work from early in their career, most likely because they were embarrassed about the poor quality of their early stuff.

Since then, I now use the contact form instead, however the admins there aren't much better.

There's 2, at a push 3 admins who actually solve problems most of the time.

The rest, predicably paste a link to the guidelines, for things which can't be solved with the guidelines, and which I already know about as 1 of the Top 100 IMDB Contributors in the world (without any helpful programs to cheat the system like the Top 15 Contributors have).

However, even with IMDB's incompetent admin problems, I still prefer IMDB to Wikipedia.

Why? Because even though there's a lot of stuff missing, once it's added, it is never removed, unless it's completely false obviously, and can be proven by something like posting the entire credits of a production.

Whereas on Wikipedia there's a lot of admins who remove information like references because they claim there's "too many references" or because of the fact they're on the "unreliable" or "deprecated" references list no matter what the context of the reference.

There's also admins who remove information in general, to make an article "look less cluttered."

If they replaced the references with better references that contain the same information, then fair enough, however the large majority don't. There's certain admins who clearly spend most of their editing time, going around removing useful information on a daily basis without even reading it, as you can see by looking at their "Contribution" History. Danstarr69 (talk) 12:44, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

That's what I inferred, but I perceived and experience another thing, thus my now (I reckon) very unwelcome comment. Juanriveranava (talk) 22:28, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

On my notifications bell, it says I have a new message, but when I click on it, there are no new notifications. Is it a notification from another wiki, and if so, is there a place where I can view cross-wiki notifications. Please help. --Justyouraveragelechuga ^talk 12:49, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Justyouraveragelechuga, if you are on mobile, switch to desktop, at bottom of screen, for a moment and see if the notification is visible there. It's worked for me in the past. Slywriter (talk) 13:04, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Slywriter I am on mobile (kindle e-reader) and I always use desktop mode. I tried switching to mobile and it didn't work. --~~

Brittanica WorldCat works entry Pulse News in Nigeria Google book paragraph about the person seeking a Wikipedia page. 2600:8802:3A12:E700:246A:5770:5E30:1A69 (talk) 18:07, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

It would be easier to give a useful answer if you could be more specific about what sources you wanted to use and who you wanted to write an article about, but as a general idea:

• An Encyclopedia Britannica article about a topic almost certainly counts towards establishing notability.
• A WorldCat works entry probably doesn't, but if you can find reviews of those works that might help establish notability via WP:NAUTHOR
• A book paragraph may or may not count, depending on whether the book is independent of the subject and considered a reliable source

Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:51, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

WP:BRITANNICA has disputed reliability and may or may not count. Pulse News likely counts, but it cannot be an interview or press release, as they are not independent. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 18:57, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Interesting. So it's better if a publication writes about you without an interview? What if it's a blend of both? 2600:8802:3A12:E700:246A:5770:5E30:1A69 (talk) 23:46, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

An interview can be a reliable source, but it isn't independent of the subject; establishing notability requires sources that are both independent and reliable. I'm unsure of what you mean by "a blend of both": it is much easier for us to answer this question with concrete examples rather than having to guess what exactly you mean, but in the end it would come down to whether editors were persuaded that the source was sufficiently independent of the subject. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:08, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

The page is King Gug and it was tagged with "speedy deletion" but I cannot see why it is "irrelevant". Can somebody tell me why? MaxAvery1999 (talk) 03:23, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

The article was tagged with A7 as it contains no verifiable references to reliable sources (the only source cited is Discogs). per the consensus formed from the discussions listed at WP:RSDISCOGS, Discogs is not a reliable source, as its content is user-generated. – dudhhr ^talk _contribs (he/they) 03:34, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, MaxAvery1999. When you say that you see nothing wrong with your draft, then that indicates that you have not read basic help pages like Your first article and studied it in depth. Your draft completely fails to establish that this person is notable. You need to step up your game if you hope to write Wikipedia articles that will stick. Cullen328 (talk) 05:35, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

It now exists at Draft:King Gug. David notMD (talk) 15:41, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

It, and your other attempts at articles, were all converted to drafts due to lack of references. No references = no articles. And if King Gug is not notable, very unlikely that his albums could be notable. David notMD (talk) 15:41, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Today i edited the page of Alex Beaton. After a few searches on Google, i found out that there was a Producer with the same name that had a Emmy Nomination once. Now i'm not sure if that is enough to count him as notable. He's also already mentioned in a few wikipeda articles.⁽¹⁾ Emmy Nomination Obituary IMDB

My question now is if this person could be notable. Thanks for any help 1AmNobody24 (talk) 14:57, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

1AmNobody24 I don't know what Wikipedia thinks about EMMY's reliability, however I know what I think about it...

Roughly 18 months to 24 months ago I was updating something on IMDB, and was reminded that a former child actor from my city in England, is now a producer in the USA who has produced the sister shows for some of the biggest dramas in the world.

He has a common name, so there's over 300 people on IMDB with his name, and while searching for those profiles looking for duplicates I found that he had at least 5 duplicate profiles.

While I was looking around Google searching for links listing the shows he has produced 100s of episodes for, to see if there were any I don't know about (which is very likely as he barely has an online presence) I found an EMMY Bio with his name, containing a total of 7 awards/nominations.

2 of those 7 awards/nominations are definitely him.

However I'm pretty certain that the other 5 awards/nominations belong to someone else with the same name, as he doesn't seem to have mentioned those credits in any of his online CV's.

I still haven't merged his duplicate profiles or added any missing credits on IMDB yet, as that EMMY Bio containing suspected misinformation put me off slightly, plus there's no doubt many director/producers with similar credits which will take forever to look through in detail. I'll get around to it eventually though. Danstarr69 (talk) 16:22, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, 1AmNobody24, and welcome to the Teahouse. Certainly he could be notable. But notability in Wikipedia's sense isn't (directly) about what a person has said, done or created: it's about what others, unconnected with him, have chosen to publish about him. WP:NCREATIVE suggests some criteria that, if they are met, mean that a person is likely to meet the standard. But there is (literally) no substitute for going and looking for the sources - remembering that each source must be all three of reliable, independent of the subject, and contain significant coverage of the subject. If you can find them, he's probably notable. If you can't he's almost certainly not notable. ColinFine (talk) 16:44, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi -- I submitted an article via AfC, not really thinking about why I was doing it that way, and since then have posted another article directly in the mainspace. I just saw on the AFC page that it says "Established users in good standing, however, are encouraged to not clutter up the AfC queue with pages that do not need support or guidance from AfC reviewers." I'm inclined to just post the article currently in the queue directly but would like to know the proper procedure for removing it from the queue. Much thanks. Iguana0000 (talk) 18:14, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Iguana0000, welcome to the Teahouse. As I can see, you have published Robert Paine (anthropologist) directly into mainspace bypassing the AfC, you should be having knowledge about it. If in case, an article is put into AfC queue, one can simply remove the AfC tags from it and the article gets removed from the queue. ─ The Aafī (talk) 18:27, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

You can simply revert the submission edit, I believe. UtherSRG (talk) 18:27, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

@Iguana0000: There is no "queue" at AFC; the wording on that page should be corrected. Any reviewer can choose to review any draft in any order. Sometimes a review can happen the same day a draft is submitted, and sometimes it can take months.

I've published several article directly in main space, but even as an established editor I have used AFC to get comments about drafts I was not quite comfortable with. My article Gameknight999, for example, started out as a biography of the author but the AFC reviewer thought it would be best to re-cast it into an article about the book series. It sat for a year before I finally rewrote it and resubmitted. I didn't consider this to "clutter up" anything, it's a way to get good advice. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:34, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks so much, my plan was to post it in main space and request peer review. Curiously enough at the moment I'm getting a rather rarefied sort of review. As I'm reaching out to Robert Paine's colleagues in search of a photo that can be uploaded consistent with WM policies, I'm asking them each for their thoughts on the article currently sitting in AfC (which I'll remove from the pool as per the instructions above). Thanks again. Iguana0000 (talk) 19:04, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Iguana. I recommend being cautious about comments from the subject's colleagues. Some of their comments may be valuable for Wikipedia, but it is likely that 1) they are not familiar with the requirements of verifiability and neutrality in Wikipedia, and 2) they have a conflict of interest, so may tend to be biased in his favour. ColinFine (talk) 19:09, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes thanks aware of that and also let them know re high standard of verifiability. TBH I think they are as likely to be biased against him as for him as Prof. Paine published a number of 'critiques' of his colleagues' works.... in any case thanks and will take your advice to heart. Iguana0000 (talk) 19:19, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Why was this notice about copyediting put on the article? — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 14:13, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Vortex3427. I think the answer lies int he fact that you have made a lot of detailed edits to this article since November, and another editor has not unreasonably highlighted that the style or writing could be made to fit in better with Wikipedi's encyclopaedic voice. There are some quite long sentences full of clauses, and a fair bit of trivia. They felt that the article would benefit from being trimmed back with some relatively minor editing to make it more readable - hence the notice.

Here's one example the editor might have been a bit thinking about: "As a child, Stovall had severe asthma and visited Hendrick Medical Center over a dozen times, although it has since grown milder with age. He also spent three months at the National Jewish Hospital. A large hospital, it had an onsite kindergarten and field trips. Stovall first visited an arcade on one such field trip and played Night Driver (1976). He lived in Abilene, Texas, where he attended Alta Vista Elementary School and Cooper High School." It's rather full of trivia, and the subjects of the sentences do jump around a bit, nor is it in the most logical order. So, some copy editing would be welcome to polish it a bit further. But I also know from experience that, having worked hard on researching and writing a whole load of text over many weeks, it can often be easier for a fresh pair of eyes to do that final work. Don't be offended by this - it actually a way of saying this is interesting, but it could be made to flow better with a little more work. Hope this helps. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:30, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Generally, I'd say, Ask the editor who added the tag. In this case, I see it was an IP editor, and that was their only edit from that IP address. You could still put a question on that IP user's talk page, but there's no guarantee they would see it.

If you consider the text carefully, and decide that the tag is not appropriate, you can remove it - make sure you explain in the edit summary what you're doing. If the IP user (or anybody else) disagrees, they can open a discussion. ColinFine (talk) 14:30, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I hope that it is understood that some people have no control over what IP is given them when they come onto the site so basing a decision on the number of times edits appear under an IP can be irrelevant.2603:8000:D300:D0F:A4A9:1E1:30A5:4340 (talk) 05:08, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree completely. Unless you look at contributions made across the /64 range of an IP address (like this), one has no idea of the totality of edits made from that individual IPv6 address. Even then, it doesn't mean that is all the edits someone has made. A very experienced editor may well simply fail to log on one day, be using a mobile phone, or using a machine at work without logging on, lest their password is recorded and seen by someone else. Thus, we must avoid being biased against edits made by a single IP address. Judge them on their quality, not their quantity. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:25, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

How do i move images up and down in visual editing mode?

Thanks. Klad 2 (talk) 19:42, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

@Klad 2 Welcome to Teahouse! You can copy/paste an image, which will copy its wiki code and then paste it before/after a different section of text on the Article. If you want to use advanced settings like float left/float right, read HELP:IMAGES. The visual editor has many options (including floating), but not all of them work as well as source editor. Happy tinkering! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 20:39, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

@Shushugah, I'm popping in to say that the correct link is actually Help:Pictures. DecafPotato (talk) 03:17, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Many thanks. Klad 2 (talk) 14:45, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

You can also drag and drop images to the correct location. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 01:33, 5 January 2023 (UTC)