Digital Rights in the Caribbean[edit]

 Courtesy link: Draft:Digital Rights in the Caribbean

Ideas, wisdom and support to fastforward review WikiLAC (talk) 12:08, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Dear Teahouse community,

I am reaching out to learn if you could help in the review process of an article I've edited about human rights in the digital era in the Caribbean. The article is the result of a Wiki edtiathon we did with different regional and international organisations. We look forward to encourage more people to edit our Wiki article. The results and participants of this process would be presented at Mozilla Festival by the beginning of March. For these reasons we would highly value any recommendation or support to fast-forward the article's review.

Thank you in adance for your time and consideration!

The above is written by WikiLAC, and about Draft:Digital Rights in the Caribbean. -- Hoary (talk) 12:20, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

WikiLAC, the article's history shows that -- aside from a single contribution by somebody who wasn't logged in, and various minor improvements -- it was created by you alone. But you talk of "we". Is "WikiLAC" a single person, or a group? -- Hoary (talk) 12:26, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

WikiLAC, you need to decide what the draft is meant to be about, and then write about that subject. "Digital Rights in the Caribbean" suggests that it's about IP law as effective in Caribbean countries. "human rights in the digital era in the Caribbean" suggests that it's about human rights in the Caribbean in the last thirty years. "Digital violence" doesn't mean jabbing someone with your fingers; it's not clear what it does mean. In fact the draft seems to be about several miscellaneous topics that concern its various writers. Maproom (talk) 13:09, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Maproom, thanks for your feedback! I have changed the title to "human rights in the digital era in the Caribbean" to help readers better understand what the article is about. Have also done minor edits to the references about online GBV in the lead to make it clearer. This is the group of organisations behind the project Wikipedia:WikiCaribbean/DigitalRights. Would it help if they do edits to the article as well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiLAC (talk • contribs)

WikiLAC, you haven't answered my question. Maproom infers plural authorship of a draft that's largely written by a single username. If "WikiLAC" is indeed a number of people, this contravenes a policy of English-language Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:Username policy. (Also, when you comment on a talk page [such as this one], please conclude your comment with four consecutive "~"; this will produce your signature and a timestamp.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:21, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Hoary, sorry that my answer was not clear. The edits to the text have been done by the group of organisations listed in the Wiki page I've shared. Due to practical reasons I have done the edits on the Wiki article. I ask again, would it help if these other organisations do edits to the article as well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiLAC (talk • contribs)

@WikiLAC: If they're the organisations that are going to mentioned in the draft, then they really shouldn't, especially if the draft gets accepted into articlespace, as that would be a conflict of interest. (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~.) —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:20, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Tenryuu, thanks for your questions. The project aims at promoting the work of third organisations focussed on digital human rights in the Caribbean - there are no references in the article from the organisations leading the project. Please let me know if this should be indicated in the lead. WikiLAC (talk) 17:38, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

@WikiLAC: That wasn't what I said. What I said was anyone who is affiliated with the organisations mentioned in the article is strongly discouraged from directly editing said article due to inherent conflicts of interest, as you said in your response to Maproom: would it help if these other organisations do edits to the article as well? Individuals from other organisations may edit without such qualms so long as they don't have a conflict of interest. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:40, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

@Tenryuu: Thanks for clarifying that. It is an important point to address when inviting more people to edit the article. Are there any other recommendations I should follow to get the article reviewed?

Mate 02

WikiLAC (talk) 18:51, 8 February 2022 (UTC).

@Tenryuu: Thank you so much for your help making the article stronger! I will push forward to try to meet the deadline at MozFest — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiLAC (talk • contribs) 16:44, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Himadri Kishore Dasgupta[edit]

This draft created by me has not been accepted as it is like an advertisement to the reviewer. I'd like to know whether it really is, considering the fact that the draft has a brief yet sufficient info about the person discussed and also which most of the daft lack, a handful of images, which I may add more if required. Cheers!Michri michri (talk) 14:24, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse @Michri michri:, I do not think more pictures need to be added to the draft, but you should focus more on the references. It does not really matter if the draft has a "brief yet sufficient info about the person discussed". It matters that the article is backed with independent reliable sources. because the reviewer said it was read like an advertisement, I would suggest reading WP:NPOV. Good luck with the draft and happy editing! ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 14:39, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

I deleted all but one photo of him. Given that he is an author versus a performing artist who might appear if different roles, one is sufficient. More or fewer images have no impact on draft reviews. David notMD (talk) 15:27, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

• @Michri michri: An important point (that was not conveyed by the editors above): the fact that the article reads like an advertisement can be fixed, but there is a more serious issue. The article needs to show that this person is "notable". For an author, that usually means multiple reviews in newspapers with critical commentary of their work (other kinds of sources would suffice, but reviews are by far the most common way for creative professionals to pass the guideline). If you cannot establish notability (in Wikipedia’s sense of the term), you should not waste time fixing the "advertising tone" issues, because the article will not be kept no matter how hard you work. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 18:16, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

@Tigraan:, I'll give up, but are you sure that this draft is really about a non-notable person? Gracias Michri michri (talk) 08:35, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I don’t know, I have not looked for sources. Digging up sources is hard, especially if you have to look across different languages. What I do know is that the reviewer left a message asking for sources that show notability - in their appreciation the sources in the article are insufficient, but maybe better ones exist. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 12:07, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

@Tigraan:, thank you again.Michri michri (talk) 17:29, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

What happened to tth[edit]

 86.9.232.220 (talk) 17:36, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi! Did you have a question? ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 17:57, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi 86.9.232.220! Welcome to Wikipedia! If you're talking about TTh, it was redirected to School timetable per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TTh. casualdejekyll 14:50, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Jay Foley[edit]

Please can this article (Jay Foley) which was deleted some years back be restored, so that I can work on it. Thank you Jwale2 (talk) 22:12, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi, you probably should request that article undeletion at WP:REFUND. Anton.bersh (talk) 22:15, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Looks like this article was deleted after this AfD. Did you find more sources now demonstrating notability? Anton.bersh (talk) 22:19, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

REFUND explicitly won't restore articles deleted as the result of a debate. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 22:47, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Jéské Couriano, A lexical ambiguity I know, but a REFUND can work for AFD’s that had little participants. Celestina007 (talk) 23:25, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

I count three participants other than the nominator. In my experience, if there's at least two other opinions admins won't REFUND. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 00:02, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Jwale2 The quickest way to find deleted articles is to check out Deletionpedia. You will find that article here.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:18, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for the support especially Shantavira for bringing back the article and also sharing links about the whole process given me a clear understand of things I did not know.

However I would want to find out how then or what is the best way to contest for this article in other for us to keep it. This is because on the AFD page has been closed and we cannot contest further more. So ones again your help on how to go about contesting it in the right way. Thanks Jwale2 (talk) 17:56, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Rather than contest the decision, just copy text into a new draft. But before you even think about that, you will need to come up with in-depth significant coverage in at least three independent reliable sources. If those sources don't exist, you will be wasting your time. See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons for more information.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 19:56, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the insight. Jwale2 (talk) 14:23, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Need a little help pls[edit]

This article contains an audio recording of the subject's name. Does anyone know how this was done? I'd like to replicate it on a couple other articles. Will appreciate any help i can get.

Best, OtuNwachinemere (talk) 22:42, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

@OtuNwachinemere: Welcome to the Teahouse! The file is at commons:File:Fr-Marion Cotillard.ogg and lists the name of the user who created it. WP:Audio might also be helpful. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 02:57, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much @GoingBatty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OtuNwachinemere (talk • contribs) 12:26, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Too small of an image for Huntingtower School page?[edit]

Hello, I just noticed that on my mac computer the top image of Huntingtower School does not show up when my mouse hovers over it. There is only text. Whereas with Claremont Fan Court School text and an image shows up. Is that because there is a limit of 100px on the Huntingtower School image? Thanks Archivingperson (talk) 23:00, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

@Archivingperson: Welcome to the Teahouse! I updated the infobox on the Huntingtower School article to remove the 100px detail. Try purging your cache and trying again. GoingBatty (talk) 03:00, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

The image appears to have been formatted incorrectly when added to the main infobox, and this has now been fixed by GoingBatty. I believe these days most infoboxes are set up to automatically display images either a default standard size for the particular infobox per WP:IUP#Infobox and lead images and this is often found on the infobox template's documentation page. Some older or less widely used infoboxes may still format their images the old way, but most of the time all that is needed is to simply to add the file syntax to relevant infobox parameter and then let the software automatically size it. Trying force a particular size on an image is not always a good idea because it can sometimes create accessiblity issues per MOS:ACCIM and WP:THUMBSIZE if it's not done properly. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:22, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

@GoingBatty: and @Marchjuly: Thank you all for working on this. It looks good... At least on my computer, even after I cleared the cache, I still have the same issue of the image not showing up when I hover over it with my mouse, Huntingtower School. I noticed that the pixels on it are 136 x 200 and I'm thinking that's pretty small? In thinking about possibilities, is there a way for me to test enlarging the pixels, just a little, and see what the page preview link looks like from another Wikipedia page before making it live? Or would I just make it live and then revert, if it didn't work? Thanks! Archivingperson (talk) 14:20, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

File:Huntingtower School Sheild.png was uploaded under a non-free license, which means it's subject to Wikipedia's non-free content use policy (i.e. things such as WP:NFCC#3b and WP:IMAGERES). File:Claremont-logo-CMYK-VECTOR-lion+torch-point.png, on the other hand, was uploaded to Wikimedia Commons under a Creative Commons license and a claim of "own work" (both of which are questionable in my opinion); so, it's not subject to the restrictions Wikipedia place on non-free content use. So, even though they are both images used in school article infoboxes, trying to compare them is like comparing an apple to an orange. You can try asking about this at WT:NFCC, but it seems unlikely (no offense intended) that an increase in size would be considered OK, at least in principle, to make it easier to see by a single user trying to hover over the link and see the image. When I hover over the article's name, I see it without any problem and notice no real difference with what I see when I hover over Claremont Fan Court School. In many cases, non-free images are uploaded at a size deemed to be too large and they end up subsequently being reduced by WP:BOTS or human editors to bring them more inline with relevant policy. That doesn't appear to be what happened in this case, but the uploader probably chose the file's size based upon what they downloaded from the source they used for the image. If the size is increased too much, the file might just end up be reduced to back where it was before by a bot. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:43, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Thanks for the feedback. It's very interesting to understand how Wikipedia thinks about images like this.Archivingperson (talk) 04:26, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Bill and Hillary Clinton National Airport fix[edit]

Hello. Please fix the first paragraph in the article, I displaced the photo of the airport, it is messed up. Also add FAA reference in inbox as well. what I tried to do. Thank you.2601:581:8402:6620:74CA:2E7D:105A:8BBD (talk) 23:11, 9 February 2022 (UTC) 2601:581:8402:6620:74CA:2E7D:105A:8BBD (talk) 23:11, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

IP, the work is done. Severestorm28 00:06, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Have a good one!2601:581:8402:6620:74CA:2E7D:105A:8BBD (talk) 00:08, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

For ther curious: the article is Clinton National Airport but the official name, per the airport's website, is "Bill and Hillary Clinton National Airport." David notMD (talk) 08:59, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi, new wikipedian in need of answers[edit]

I need help in knowing what the requirements are for moving an article into the mainspace This is my first time contributing to Wikipedia and its amazing that this community exists, I am a marketing manager for a healthcare logistics company in Nigeria that was a crucial force in 2020, during the pandemic, however, this force went unnoticed due to some reasons. I believe in honesty and I am putting it out here that I have created a page for the CEO of the company(in the required non-promotional way of course) and I seek advice on how to bring the page up to Wikipedia standards. As the experts in here, are there any pointers? I would genuinely appreciate your input and also would like to keep contributing to Wikipedia's forum moving forward.[[1]] Udenna Matthew (talk) 00:27, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Udenna Matthew Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. First, please make a formal paid editing declaration(click for instructions), this is a Terms of Use requirment and mandatory. Please also read about conflict of interest.

New users cannot directly create articles; typically they use Articles for Creation, which provides information to submit a draft- but that's okay. I have added this information to your draft. However, if you were to submit it now, it would be declined quickly, as it does not summarize what independent reliable sources say about Dr. Abiola. A Wikipedia article about a person must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a person, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. Please read Your First Article. Typically, we encourage new users to first edit existing articles, to learn more about Wikipedia, as well as advising them to use the new user tutorial. Successfully creating a new article is probably the hardest task to perform on Wikipedia, and diving right in can lead to disappointment and frustration, when you do not get some experience first. 331dot (talk) 00:36, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Udenna Matthew, if the major factor in the notability of your biographee is that he's the CEO of a company (Carter Biggs), then I'd expect an article to be produced about the company before an article about him. You say that the company "was a crucial force in 2020, during the pandemic". This sounds promising. However, you add that "this force went unnoticed". This means that no mention can be made in Wikipedia of its crucialness. It seems from what you say that any attempt at an article on your company's CEO is doomed -- not necessarily forever, but until notability (as understood by Wikipedia) can be demonstrated. -- Hoary (talk) 01:19, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

COURTESY: Draft is at User:Udenna Matthew/sandbox. David notMD (talk) 09:01, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I cleaned up format, but the most important failure is that none of the references are about him. David notMD (talk) 09:12, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Using IMDB & Turner Classic Movies database et al as sources[edit]

Can you please confirm whether or not I can use Internet Movie Database and Turner Classic Movies database as sources? As well as the British Film Institute database, the National Film Board of Canada database and the Broadway League database? I've been told not to. However, without these databases, it is impossible to complete the filmographies of performers and, in many cases, the discographies of musicians and bands. It is impossible to confirm what they (and their publicists) have written on Wikipedia. And without complete filmographies and/or discographies, biographies are incomplete and/or incorrect. Thanks LJA123 (talk) 00:33, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

LJA123 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I know that IMDB is not considered a reliable source as it is user-editable. I don't know about the other sources you mention. However, while I could be mistaken- I think that a filmography need only be cited to the productions themselves(as the participation of the person can be confirmed by the film credits), meaning that no specific citation is needed to source a mere appearance in a film. If the person is not credited, it might be a little harder, especially if it is a crew member and not someone who appeared on screen. 331dot (talk) 00:38, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

OK thanks. If I need to, I'll use sources that aren't user-editable. 'Cept IMDB is often the only source of a film's credits....--LJA123 (talk) 00:43, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

LJA123 The film itself is the source of the film credits. Just as with a plot summary for a film or book- no citation is needed as it can be confirmed by watching the film/reading the book. 331dot (talk) 00:59, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Oh I see.... But when it comes to soundtracks and production credits, you need to see the physical list. Although I suppose that people could find the movie (if it's still available) and look for non-performing credits. But that kind of defeats the purpose of Wikipedia as a reference tool.--LJA123 (talk) 01:21, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

LJA123, not really, WP is not a reference, it's a portal to references. I don't think TCMDb has much information, but if there is you can cite it; its mostly put in Externals links sections though. BFI, NFBC, and Broadway League are welcome, since they are official associations and can be trusted. GeraldWL 01:43, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

OK thanks. One more question: I've been over the YouTube thing already today (I can use obviously trustworthy sources). But can I use music tracks uploaded to YouTube from the albums which the YouTube users own? Not videos--just the songs. If a film, in itself, is a source, then surely a recorded song must also be a source? Regardless of how it came to be online? Thanks!--LJA123 (talk) 07:37, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

LJA123, hmm, tricky. If you are editing a musician article and you wanna link the album playlist to cite the album, sure. If they have a description detailing it, you can also cite a video (official from the musician/band, not those uploaded by amateur channels) to cite the personnel. However if there is a link of the same type on Apple Music or Spotify I suggest using them as they're more accepted. In Ben&Ben discography, I cited the music videos to YouTube, but that's because the videos are officially from the band. GeraldWL 08:46, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Oh we can use Apple and Spotify...I thought they'd be less accepted. I've been avoiding them because musician pages sometimes use them as encouragements to purchase. In the case of a lot of old music, or music that's more obscure, people load entire albums onto YouTube, and that's the only record of that music. So it's good to upload it, so people can find it and it's not lost. Also good to know that I can use official band videos. That's great, thanks very much.--LJA123 (talk) 16:25, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

LJA123, you're welcome. Keep in mind that many people can upload stuff to YouTube, but in most cases they're random people who just upload whatever they have; unless it is official from the band or record, or unless they're an official archiving effort channel, don't use the videos. There's 80% chance a vinyl exist, you can cite the vinyl (remember, not every source needs a link). Happy editing! GeraldWL 02:29, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

What counts as a reputable source when writing about a fiction film?[edit]

Hi - sorry if this information is already somewhere. I'm really overwhelmed by how much information there is about editing Wikipedia pages and could use some guidance.

There's a film that I spent all last semester researching for a big essay project (I'm a university student) and the film's Wikipedia page is still just a stub so I feel like I'm a good candidate to expand it. However, I'm really unclear on what counts as a reliable source for a film. Pretty much all the information I have on the film comes from film reviews and interviews with the director - I just haven't found anything else written about it (it came out in 2020).

Here is what my instinct is:

1. If an opinion on/attitude towards the film is expressed across several reviews, I could potentially use those articles as sources for stating that the film is perceived a certain way. But information expressed as fact in reviews can't be used unless I can verify it with another source I know to be trustworthy. This is a problem since pretty much all the available information about the film that isn't coming directly from the film's director is contained in reviews. And if they are usable, I have a bunch of other questions about that!

2. The director makes a lot of claims but I should verify them elsewhere before using them. I don't know that it's even possible to verify a lot of what he says, but he makes certain assertions about the film that I would definitely want to include if I could confirm them (for example, that the film is the first of its kind in a certain category). If he is making a claim about himself, for instance about his inspiration for the film, could I use that on its own or is anything like that too opinion-y to go on a Wikipedia page? Is anything the director says usable on its own or does it all need to be verified unless I'm presenting it solely as his opinion?

Are my thoughts correct or am I way off base? Where do you get reliable information about a film that was made too recently to have any film journal articles written about it?

I didn't initially say what the film is because it felt a little embarrassing, but it's Ainu Mosir. I speak Japanese so I could look for Japanese-language sources, but it would be a bit of a pain.

Thanks so much for any help! MenoEnds (talk) 03:20, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

@MenoEnds: Welcome to the Teahouse! You may find Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Resources helpful for you. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 03:28, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi MenoEnds. Your item #1 sounds kind of sounds like WP:SYNTHESIS which is something editors shouldn't be doing. Item 2 sounds like a case of self-publication by the director in that it would need to be treated as a WP:PRIMARY source and used with caution. If you wanted to quote the director regarding what inspired them to make the film, then that might be OK as long as it's properly attributed and treated as a MOS:QUOTE. Any other claims which might be about other persons or things, even like something that seems as benign a "this is the first film of its type", would need WP:SECONDARY sourcing instead. Finally, non-English sources are acceptable as long as they meet the Wikipedia's definition of a reliable source. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:35, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

It seems the film did win some awards, which helps bolster its notability. However at present the two awards don't have any references for verification, so that would be a good place to add something, MenoEnds. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:26, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the feedback! I get what you mean about Synthesis, Marchjuly, so I definitely won't do that. The resources GoingBatty linked have been helpful in finding sources I can use for some of the information I want to add. As Mike Turnbull suggested, I'll start by adding citations for the awards section. Thank you all! MenoEnds (talk) 18:15, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Project Rachel[edit]

Can someone please create an entry for Project Rachel? This be extremely helpful. Thanks Vertigo2222 (talk) 07:15, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, Vertigo2222. It's an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. For example, you. I know nothing about "Project Rachel" except that Project Rachel redirects to Priests for Life, and that something is wrong about this, because it's not mentioned in that article. Once you have determined that "Project Rachel" is "notable", as that word is understood (perhaps strangely) here, you are welcome to click on Draft:Project Rachel, to edit this (of course providing a reliable reference for anything that it says), and to submit it as an article candidate. However, I don't recommend that you do this until you've amassed some experience in editing existing articles in Wikipedia. Furthermore, my guess is that it has something to do with abortion, and more specifically the politics of abortion in the US; I recommend that you avoid any editing in this area (other perhaps the correction of discrete, unambiguous mistakes, again of course providing reliable references), until you've successfully made a few dozen edits in other areas. -- Hoary (talk) 07:49, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

From quick search, I found "Project Rachel is the Catholic Church's confidential ministry to those who have been involved in an abortion. ... Project Rachel is a diocesan-based network of specially trained priests, religious, counselors, and laypersons who provide a team response of care for those suffering in the aftermath of an abortion." In my opinion that should NOT redirect to Priests for Life, and instead would qualify for its own article. Per Hoary's comment, creating a new article is very hard for new editors. Look at WP:YFA, but I also advise gaining experience first. David notMD (talk) 09:22, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Need help getting a page published[edit]

Hi @teahouse. I have recently drafted a page and it has been declined because;

- (1) "This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia" and - (2) "This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies. "

Can you please assist with the page Draft:Prilenia Therapeutics published. Thank you, your assistance is kindly appreciated. Keleidoscope Dream (talk) 08:16, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Very unlikely that an article about a pharmaceutical company that only has one drug, and that in clinical trials, not yet approved for use for any indication, qualifies for notable by Wikipedia's criteria. David notMD (talk) 09:57, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

The drug itself, Pridopidine, is the subject of an article which you have been editing. What is your connection to the company? If you are paid (see WP:PAID). declaration of your status is required, and you are prohibited from directly editing Pridopidine. My concerns about that article are that many of the references, including the 13 you added, do not meet the standards required per WP:MEDRS. However, I am not sure MEDRS applies, as otherwise how else to write an a drug in development? David notMD (talk) 10:03, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Need help after changing my username[edit]

I have changed my username yesterday and now facing disrupting other's !vote as claimed by @Djm-leighpark:. I have updated my signature, wherever I am involved in voting. If anything left, please help me to resolve the issue. NeverTry4Me - TT Page 08:26, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Note: this is already under discussion at WP:ANI#Problems including repeated XfD discussion interference. --ColinFine (talk) 11:09, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

What constitutes as vandalism and how should I deal with it?[edit]

So I've been editing for about a month now and have come across a bit of vandalism. But I usually see this in varying degrees. Sometimes I don't even know if the poor edits I see are even considered vandalism. So I shall list a few edits, as well as what I would classify them and how I think one should approach dealing with such edits. I'd like to know what you guys think and whether my judgements are accurate or how they could be improved.

1. Edit: mypersonalwebsiteinthemiddleofnowherefornoreason.com

* Classification: Vandalism

* Response: revert + {{subst:uw-vandalism2}} in user page.

2. Edit: [person in article] is a horrible person and has raped three women but has not been charged for any of them

* Classification: Good Faith edit

* Response: Not sure. If that's completely false it should be removed. But if there have been some allegations made covered by multiple reliable sources then it might be worth mentioning. Either way, I'm not going to research, I just know that the sentence above probably should not be written like that in the article. Ideas I have are {{Dubious}}, {{Citation needed}} (though that still doesn't take care of the tone used in the edit). Maybe {{subst:uw-vandalism1}}?.

3. Edit: This cock sucker deserves to die in the lowest depths of hell!

* Classification: Vandalism

* Response: revert + {{subst:uw-vandalism2}} or maybe {{subst:uw-vandalism3}}?

* Additional notes: First time seeing this? then response is as mentioned above. Second/third time: {{subst:uw-vandalism3}}, Fourth or more: {{subst:uw-vandalism4}} + report to WP:AIV

4. Edit: Computers can be used to play video games and things like xbox and also like talking to friends

* Classification: Good Faith edit

* Response: revert + {{subst:uw-vandalism1}}? But then again it's not exactly vandalism, so I'm unsure.

5. Edit: [subject] has done [something] → [subject] has not done [something].

* Classification: Vandalism...? Let us assume that the sentence they changed it to is a false statement.

* Response: revert + {{subst:uw-vandalism2}}?

6. Edit: TROLOLOL. HAHAHA.

* Classification: Vandalism.

* Response: revert + {{subst:uw-vandalism1}} or {{subst:uw-vandalism2}}? Maybe the former since it's not as extreme as no. 3 (cock sucker one).

* Additional notes: around 3 of these: {{subst:uw-vandalism3}}. Four or more: {{subst:uw-vandalism4}} + report to WP:AIV.

7. Edit: Test. {{cite we

* Classification: Unintentional vandalism.

* Response: revert + {{subst:uw-vandalism1}}.

Are the responses I listed appropriate ways of handling the situation and are my classifications accurate? Please let me know, thanks! Satricious (talk) 08:56, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Some notes from me:

• 0th edit:vandalism means to intentionally disrupt Wikipedia.
• 1st edit: not vandalism, though an inappropriate external link. Ise {{uw-spam1}} if applicable from context.
• 2nd edit: not vandalism unless deliberately accusing the person despite knowing otherwise. If its unsourced, revert as a BLP violation. Warn using {{uw-biog1}}.
• 3rd edit, escalate by two warning levels instead of one.
• 4th edit: good faith edit, revert as such, leave a handwritten welcome
• 5th edit: depends on context, but probably not vandalism.
• 6th edit: revert as vandalism, warn using 1 level above previous. Note that placing a warning and reporting at the same time is useless. If you warn, only report for new edits after the user could reasonably seen the warning.
• 7th edit: classic test edit. Warn using {{uw-test1}}.

Hpe this helps, Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 10:22, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Also, if you want to have the ability to easily place warnings, you can use WP:TWINKLE. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:32, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

My two öre: Edit 2 is just as bad as edit 3, and in some ways it is worse. Both of them may or may not be good-faith edits, both of them call somebody an awful person, but edit 2 accuses a person of a particularly vile crime, while edit 3 is just random profanity. Both should be reverted and a level 2 warning will be appropriate in both cases; in addition, edit 2 should be revdeleted. If well-sourced and neutrally phrased allegations of rape are added to an article, that may be a different thing. As for edit 5, {{subst:uw-error1}} or {{subst:uw-error2}} are useful for that situation. --bonadea contributions talk 14:21, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the responses! I shall check out twinkle (definitely seen it tagged a lot in edits). And I'll be sure to look into and familiarize myself with the templates that have been mentioned. Satricious (talk) 20:05, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

@Satricious: - I'd go as far to say that edit 2 is, especially if it's on a BLP, justification for an immediate {{subst:uw-vandalism4im}}. Putting an allegation as serious as that that on a person's page is very dangerous.

How should I report a person using more than one username?[edit]

There is a person clearly using more than one username. Is that allowed? Where should this be reported? Look at [2] and [3]. MGetudiant (talk) 12:32, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, MGetudiant. having more than one account is not prohibited provided they are not used for nefarious purposes. See WP:SOCKLEGIT. The rest of that page also describes the misuse of multiple accounts, which (with evidence) can be reported at WP:SPI. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:42, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! MGetudiant (talk) 12:49, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Creating a Reference Tooltip for an article[edit]

I would like to create a reference tooltip note. the International System of Units has an example of what I would like to add. I looked for a WP page on the topic but couldn't find one. ScientistBuilder (talk) 14:12, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

@ScientistBuilder: You can use {{efn|Text}} to make a letter note if that's what you mean. --The Tips of Apmh 14:20, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I am working on adding a tooltip to the lead of Iter but the note does not display when you hover. ScientistBuilder (talk) 14:29, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

How does one create a page with the mobile app?[edit]

Thanks.  Apokrif (talk) 15:43, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Apokrif, Someone may have a more technical answer but if you create the link newpageiwanttocreate or Draft:newpageiwanttocreate in your sandbox, click said link and you will get option to create a new page.15:49, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Apokrif, you should create a link in a sandbox. This will generate a red link: by clicking on it, you will reach the editor and create the new page. However, redlinks on the app don't necessarily work (at least, they don't work for me). To see them, you should scroll down to the very bottom of the page and click "view article in browser"; from there, you can easily use the procedure I described.
Llaaww (talk) 17:04, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Uncited categories[edit]

A month ago, I added the "Uncited Categories" template to a handful of films (well, three films and some cartoons), and there's been no action on their talk pages since then. What are the steps I take to remove this category from these films, and how do I document it? There's the templates at the top of the articles, the categories at the bottom, and the films are listed on the Category: page. Pete Best Beatles (talk) 16:34, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Go forth and be WP:BOLD, though would suggest take it slow at first so if there is an objection, it gets raised before its hundreds of edits (i have no idea how many it actually is, if its a small number then disregard).Slywriter (talk) 17:02, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

@Pete Best Beatles: One set of steps could be to go to the article, click the Edit source tab, delete the categories and the {{Uncited categories}} template, add an edit summary explaining you're deleting the categories because they're uncited, and then click "Publish changes".

Another set of steps could be to go to the article, click the Edit source tab, delete the {{Uncited categories}} template, comment out the uncited categories with <!--...--> and a note stating that you're commenting them out because they're uncited, add an edit summary explaining you're deleting the categories because they're uncited, and then click "Publish changes". Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 03:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I guess I just wanted to know if I had to leave a message on the article's talk page too. The articles were missing from the Categories page when I went there after taking care of the articles on their pages, and I didn't see it mentioned on the View history page... -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) 06:56, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

InputBox[edit]

How do I create an InputBox where when an information is typed in it by a participants it would send them to a view page which has question for the participants to fill based on the project they want to run or engage on and also when the project is published where can I find most of the project list after participant are done. Thanks Jwale2 (talk) 18:14, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

@Jwale2: see mw:Extension:InputBox for the input types that can be created using pure Wikitext. All other variants require soem sort of gadget or at least a js file in the MediaWiki: Mainspace that can be loaded by passing &withJS=Pagename to a url. Victor Schmidt (talk) 19:44, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

how do improve an article on a person who has been on life sentence for 44 years? (no longer want help)[edit]

hi, i´m writing a article that was requested on a 80s serial killer who killed 3 people and was sentenced to life in the 80s, the issue is finding articales that dont just mention him in passing, and finding refrences about him in general, as he is a serial killer who isnt mentioned much now a days, being on life sentance since before the internet and all

how can i improve my draft? (draft is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Im_really_bad_at_this/sandbox by the way[if the link works]) Im really bad at this (talk) 18:19, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

@Im really bad at this: Remember that the sources you use for references don't have to be online - you can use books or magazines or newspapers from the 1980s from reliable sources that provide significant coverage. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 03:42, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

what do i even do[edit]

im not versed enough to use afd and dont have enough knowledge to write an article about anything, i cant even find articales i want to improve, what do i even do at this point, beside quit editing entirely Im really bad at this (talk) 19:03, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

@Im really bad at this: Check out WP:TASKS for some ideas on areas to work on. There is also WP:TUTORIAL and WP:ADVENTURE to help you learn how to edit. RudolfRed (talk) 19:28, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

How to contribute my article[edit]

I have written my first Wikipedia article, a short biography. I want to submit it to be edited and published, but I don't know how, and cannot make sense of any instructions I've found on your pages. Please advise. My wikipedia username is Ajo47 Thank you. Ajo47 (talk) 19:04, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

In your sandbox draft, your wikilinks are malformatted; see WP:wikilinks. When you are ready to submit, add {{subst:submit}} to the top of the draft. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:24, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Before you submit, however, you need to ensure that the material is properly referenced. There seem to be a number of sections with no references at all. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:26, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Airport reference redirect[edit]

Hello and good day. Go to Phoenix-mesa Gateway Airport article, go to infobox, go to bottom where FAA reference is, Reference#2, can you please correct so it goes to the Tourism AZ website, December 2021 passenger data, and also give Reference #2 a title? Thank you for your time and effort.2601:581:8402:6620:304C:CD3D:3958:6A95 (talk) 19:13, 10 February 2022 (UTC) 2601:581:8402:6620:304C:CD3D:3958:6A95 (talk) 19:13, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Courtesy link: Phoenix–Mesa_Gateway_Airport casualdejekyll 21:54, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi @2601:581:8402:6620:304C:CD3D:3958:6A95:! Welcome to Wikipedia! Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. You can edit it yourself! (If you can't edit the article because of a conflict of interest, you can open an edit request at Talk:Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Airport. I would also recommend creating an account, which has many advantages.) casualdejekyll 22:01, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Biographies[edit]

I have gone through the documentation on writing biographies and I am wondering if biographies are only posted for popular people. This is after I posted a biography of someone which was declined. I'm fairly inexperienced please help. Thank you for your patience with me. TekkWeb (talk) 19:14, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

@TekkWeb: Hello Tekk! You are partially correct. Articles on living people (covered in WP:BLP) are only created if someone is deemed to be notable, which usually also means they are popular. However, the difference is in order to be notable, you need to have reliable, secondary sources cover info on you. There are lots of people who are popular who don't have articles on Wikipedia because they aren't notable (such as many Youtubers for example, a Youtuber may have millions of subs, but if they aren't deemed to be notable then an article shouldn't be written about them). ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:18, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

@TekkWeb: To clarify what Blaze Wolf said: in order to have a biography on Wikipedia, the person has to be notable, but not necessarily famous in conventional sense or known by general public. For example, Serial killer article lists many notable and infamous (famous for bad things) people. Also, people can be notable within their field but otherwise not famous and not known by the general public. For example, just a few paragraphs above there is discussion about Daniel Musher: this person is probably not known by most people, but still qualifies for Wikipedia article since he made some notable contributions to medical research.

However, your article draft at User:TekkWeb/sandbox looks like a resume or promotional page and most definitely would not meet Wikipedia notability or content guidelines. Anton.bersh (talk) 20:12, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Existe la Pagina en ingles pero no en español.[edit]

En la pagina https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magdalena_de_Kino

al final de la página se menciona al personaje Sergio Robles Valenzuela, pero no tiene link de sus datos.

Lo quise vincular a la página https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergio_Robles

pero no pude vincularlo, me dice que no existe la pagina.

Creo que se refiere a la página en español. ¿Cómo se tiene que hacer para vincularlo? Tacicuri (talk) 19:58, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

It sounds as if what you need is the equivalent of the enwiki Template:ill. The Spanish version is es:Plantilla:Enlace_interlingüístico. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:05, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

@Tacicuri: ¡Hola Tacicuri, bienvenido a Wikipedia! Si bien todos los esfuerzos para mejorar la Wikipedia son bien recibidos, desdichadamente su nivel de inglés no parece idóneo para hacer contribuciones de utilidad, o las contribuciones no estan escritas en inglés. ¿Sabía que existe una Wikipedia en español? Quizás prefiera contribuir ahí. Gracias, ― Levi_OP^Talk 20:30, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I feel like at least reading the message before templating them would have been the appropriate response, especially since David already gave them an answer. casualdejekyll 21:52, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Well if the user is asking a question in Spanish they probably aren't going to be able to read David's response. I did realize afterward, though, that they already have contributed to the Spanish wikipedia and this template doesn't fit very well. ― Levi_OP^Talk 22:03, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Information about descent i articles[edit]

Hi! I'm not sure how you do about descent.

Bibian Mentel was born, lived and died in Netherlands. Someone added "of Indonesian-Dutch descent". Should the statement be kept and need a cite? Or should it be deleted? // Zquid (talk) 21:06, 10 February 2022 (UTC) Zquid (talk) 21:06, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi User:Zquid! Welcome to the Teahouse!

Yeah, this definitely needs a citation - as a statement about a living person that is likely to be challenged, it even needs one in the lead. I'd delete - since it's a biography of a living person, a citation needed tag doesn't seem to be the right course of action here. casualdejekyll 21:46, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

How do I cite the source when the subject of the article IS the source?[edit]

Hello, I'm trying to update a notable person's wikipedia page for him. David W. Orr. David has provided me with written updates and corrections of his accomplishments. What is the appropriate way to cite the changes if the source of the new information is the subject of the article?

Thanks, Keep Colorado Wild Keep Colorado Wild (talk) 21:29, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

You don't. Get a published source he didn't author (whether news, magazine, or scholarly book) that contains the information, then cite that. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 21:31, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

To amplify Jeske's answer, Keep Colorado Wild, it is a core principle of Wikipedia that all information in an article be verifiable from published sources. Information which has not been published anywhere should not appear in an article, and information which has been published only in a non-independent source may be used only in limited way. --ColinFine (talk) 22:59, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

@Keep Colorado Wild A person is not a source. Only information that has been published (or made available to the public in some way as described at WP:PUBLISHED) can ever be an acceptable source. You seem to be conflating subject and source. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 23:08, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

VAST AMOUNTS of David W. Orr are not referenced. Tagged acccordingly. David notMD (talk) 01:58, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I am tempted to revert back to Special:Diff/1003146772 which is last edit before a significant COI campaign began including by am account that appears to be the subject.Slywriter (talk) 02:11, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I say do it. KCW has in effect proclaimed a COI ("DAVID W. ORR, ASKED ME TO UPDATE HIS WIKIPEDIA PAGE."). I also wonder if prior to registering an account, CDW was editing as IP 97.118.230.116. I tagged the article as refs needed, because that was true before either the IP of KCW started editing. Lastly, I think thiere is a copyright violation. David notMD (talk) 02:20, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Restored. No obvious need to re-add your tag. Sourcing not great but much briefer article and WP:NACADEMIC met, I checked google scholar and there's an AfD from 2008. I'll take a look later and make a rev-del request if history needs a wipe for copyvio.Slywriter (talk) 02:27, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Re-reading your statement, I'll restore the tag. It still could use secondary sourcing.Slywriter (talk) 02:29, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Keep Colorado Wild, alot just happened and it's probably incredibly frustrating. Wikipedia wants the article improved. We want the world to know more about notable academics who have been cited thousands of times in their field and why they have been cited so many times. The best thing you can do for the subject is help find reliable sources that discuss his contributions and life story. WP:ABOUTSELF covers what can be included about the subject in their own published words. Additionally, presumably in those thousands of times their work has been cited, notable theories or contributions by the subject have been discussed. There are projects that can help guide, just requires research and a willingness to edit within the rules of wikipedia.Slywriter (talk) 04:32, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

The content you added is not lost. Click on View history, and then on "Prev" (left side) for any of your entries. The content can be copied to your Sandbox to be revised there (and referenced) before being brought back to the article. You could even click on Slywriter's massive deletion and capture all of your content. An important note: some of what was deleted was verbatim from references, and therefore a copyright infringement. Information can be used, but it has to be significantly paraphrased. David notMD (talk) 10:24, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

editing a name that no longer is current.[edit]

In the link "the town of clint" the name of the Mayor is not current, how can I change the name to the new mayor?? Eddiedeclint (talk) 22:34, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

@Eddiedeclint: Hello, and welcome to the teahouse. You can edit the page if you want to change the mayor; if it is semi-protected or extended-confirmed protected, you may enter an edit request if you would like. Many editors change the mayors of cities and principals of schools and all kinds of stuff without a source, if you would like to include one, please do so, just add the source. If you don't know any sources, you may want to Google it up. Severestorm28 22:40, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

@Eddiedeclint: The Wikipedia article Clint, Texas does not mention the mayor.

Are you by any chance referring to a photo or text shown to the right of a Google search? Google's Knowledge Graph uses a wide variety of sources. There may be a text paragraph ending with "Wikipedia" to indicate that particular text was copied from Wikipedia. An image and other text before or after the Wikipedia excerpt may be from sources completely unrelated to Wikipedia. We have no control over how Google presents our information, but Google's Knowledge Graph has a "Feedback" link where anyone can mark a field as wrong. The same feedback facility is also provided on Bing and some other search engines. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:43, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

History[edit]

Determine the factors that have influenced the acceptance and practice of the Muslim religion by Ethiopian people? 196.189.243.101 (talk) 22:58, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello. This page is for help in editing Wikipedia, not for general questions. You might find some useful information in our article Islam in Ethiopia; or else you can ask at the Reference Desk. Nobody here will do your homework for you though. --ColinFine (talk) 23:02, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Questions about notability[edit]

To Whom It May Concern,

I am very confused about notability guidelines, and have several questions about them. I know my article needs major revisions in several areas; I am not asking about the current content of the article, but rather how I might demonstrate notability of my subject.

1. Are the guidelines for notability different for academics than for individuals in the general biography category? The Wikipedia page addressing notability for academics states "This guideline [academic notability] is independent from the other subject-specific notability guidelines, such as WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:AUTH, etc., and is explicitly listed as an alternative to the general notability guideline.[1]" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)#Citation_metrics). It seems this statement asserts that there is a different set of guidelines that may be applied to academics to determine their notability. Is this correct?

2. I am not sure how to navigate criterion #1. It states that "The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work..." My subject's works are cited by others, but how do I know if they are cited frequently enough? According to Google Scholar, one book is cited 78x, another 45x, another 33x, yet another 22x, and still another 11x. Is this considered frequent in the niche realm of evangelical/confessional preaching? How might I determine this?

3. This brings up another question: The specific guidelines for criterion #1 note "(f) For the purposes of satisfying Criterion 1, the academic discipline of the person in question needs to be sufficiently broadly construed." Is evangelical homiletics/preaching too narrow to adequately judge using these guidelines?

I think the subject of my article qualifies as notable under at lease one or two of the criteria. The page notes "Academics meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable."

4. According to the guidelines, criterion #5 is met if "The person has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon." Under the specific criteria for this category are three elements: "(a) For documenting that a person has held such an appointment (but not for a judgement of whether or not the institution is a major one), publications of the appointing institution are considered a reliable source. (b) Criterion 5 can be applied reliably only for persons who are tenured at the full professor level, and not for junior faculty members with endowed appointments. (c) Major institutions, for these purposes, are those that have a reputation for excellence or selectivity. Named chairs at other institutions are not necessarily sufficient to establish notability."

My professor holds a named (endowed chair), and is a fully tenured, senior faculty member. He is also the director of a graduate program at Baylor University. Baylor University recently was named an R1 institution in recognition for its research activity. Do these facts satisfy the requirements of criterion #5 for the notability of academics?

5. The specific criterion c states that "(c) The publication of an anniversary or memorial journal volume or a Festschrift dedicated to a particular person is usually enough to satisfy Criterion 1, except in the case of publication in vanity, fringe, or non-selective journals or presses."

My professor has a Festschrift written in his honor by a non-vanity press (Wipf and Stock). Does satisfying this criterion meet the notability requirements for an academic?

My professor wants me to continue to try and get the article about him approved; the more specific responses are, the better I will be able to communicate to him why the article may or may not be approved.

I appreciate any guidance you can give in this matter. Dgregory4 (talk) 23:28, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Dgregory4, some comments:

• It seems this statement asserts that there is a different set of guidelines that may be applied to academics to determine their notability. Is this correct? Yes. (NB "may", not "must".)
• Is this considered frequent in the niche realm of evangelical/confessional preaching? How might I determine this? I really don't know, as the very notion of "professor of preaching" is incomprehensible to me. However, in the academic fields with which I'm familiar, I've never seen numbers cited. Rather, one summarizes what has been written about these works within other academic works. (Blurbs, even by experts, don't count.)
• My professor holds a named (endowed chair), and is a fully tenured, senior faculty member. He is also the director of a graduate program at Baylor University. Baylor University recently was named an R1 institution in recognition for its research activity. Do these facts satisfy the requirements of criterion #5 for the notability of academics? I would think so (though the notion of research in preaching baffles me).
• My professor has a Festschrift written in his honor by a non-vanity press (Wipf and Stock). Does satisfying this criterion meet the notability requirements for an academic? Indeed, Wipf and Stock doesn't seem to be a vanity press.
• My professor wants me to continue to try and get the article about him approved Then it's clear that you have a conflict of interest. You are free to create a draft, but if it is accepted as an article you should no longer edit it (other than to revert obvious vandalism and the like). What it says will be out of your control, the biographee's control, or the control of any of his students, employees, etc.

-- Hoary (talk) 00:40, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

@Dgregory4:

1. The notability guidelines are indeed different for academics than for general biographies, and both are different from the general notability guidelines. The former are called subject-specific notability guidelines, and technically, if the article meets any of these notability guidelines (including GNG), it is considered notable for Wikipedia.

2. This question would be better asked at WikiProject Academics. I would suggest providing examples in the article of where the subjects work has been cited in other academic works.

3. I suggest asking this at WikiProject Academics.

4. I do not see any reason why they would not meet criterion #5, assuming there is a reliable source that states they're the chair. I am also not certain if Baylor University meets the standard of "those that have a reputation for excellence or selectivity", but I assume it would.

5. Yes, I'm almost certain this meets Criterion #1.

Now, even if your article meets notability guidelines, that does not necessarily guarantee approval of the draft, and there could be other changes that may be required for the article to be sustained in Wikipedia mainspace. ––FormalDude talk 00:46, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:Scott M. Gibson TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 01:48, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

@Dgregory4: I tweaked the layout for you. For each piece of information on the draft, I suggest you provide a published reliable source or remove the item. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 03:52, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

@Dgregory4: I would have thought that the Festschrift could be a good source of material to establish notablility of the academic. I assume that at least some of it will be material ABOUT him written by respected colleagues. When I was looking for sources for an article on Coral Bell the existence of a similar document, in this case available online, made the draft very straightforward to compose. Her Festschrift included a complete list of her publications, from which I coud select just a few important ones for the Wikipedia article. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:33, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

@Dgregory4 the Festschrift is most probably your best source, so you should rely on it quite heavily for information about your subject. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:22, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

How to see Good Article nomination Feedback if any[edit]

I am wondering how to see what the reasons for a good article nomination reviewer's decision are. I nominated ITER for good article status and I never got a notice that I needed to improve it. How can I figure out what led to ITER being demoted to Level C article? ScientistBuilder (talk) 02:33, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

If I leave a note on an unregistered user's talk page that links to their IP address, will the person be able to see and respond the message?

How often do unregistered users engage in using talk pages? ScientistBuilder (talk) 02:47, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

@ScientistBuilder: You've received an answer to your first question in this post already. To answer your other 2 questions, yes and I don't know. I usually don't see unregistered users responding to talk page messages that often because they probably don't know what a talk page is. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 02:48, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Blaze Wolf, some do actually, if they're experienced editors merely identified as an IP. But yeah, 90% don't really respond. GeraldWL 02:50, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Gerald Waldo Luis, yep I know. Hence why I said "usually". I've seen an IP respond to a message before (in a constructive way). For example, KingAviationKid was an IP who I reverted an edit they made and they responded to it (i think on my talk page) saying that they're not a new user and are wanting to contribute constructively, however they didn't like how the editor looked. So I suggested to use one of the beta features and they made an account and here they are now as an actual user. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 02:53, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

What is a good range for a healthy amount of citations vs citation overkill for number of words and paragraphs? ScientistBuilder (talk) 02:54, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

ScientistBuilder, Well, say you have the sentence "The film was released on 13 March, 1970." How many sources do you need to back it up? Say there's a NYT source saying 1970 and a book source saying 13 March. Then use those two sources. Any other sources are not needed; if there's an extraneous source then that's overkill. GeraldWL 02:57, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I would like to be notified when a comment I make here or on a Talk page gets a reply.

I searched "WP:Notifications" and would like to learn how to automatically recieve a notification when someone replies and not only when my talk page is edited. ScientistBuilder (talk) 02:58, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

ScientistBuilder, actually you must be able to get a notif if someone pings you (like what I did). Considering ur on desktop, go to Special:Preferences, then Notifications, tick "Mention" for Web. GeraldWL 03:05, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

ScientistBuilderThe best way to find out why an article's quality status has been changed is to ask the person who changed it or ask on the talk page. The GA review process often has a substantial backlog. There may be a long wait until you get a response. To avoid adding to the backlog, it is a good idea to open a discussion on the talk page of the article about nominating before you actually make a nomination. Talk page discussions take time. Wait a few days for a response and consensus. Constant314 (talk) 03:35, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

To return to your original question, you have now twice made modest changes to an existing article over the course of a day or two and then nominated the article for a GA review. Both times an editor (not the same editor) decided, perhaps arbitrarily, that a GA review would be a waste of the reviewer's time, and reverted your nomination. My own experience with nominating a B-class or C-class article for a GA review (16 succesfully so far) is that the preparation process takes weeks and scores of edits, including, in some instances, dicarding dozens of references, adding dozens of references, and revising more than half the text. As for downgrading from B-class to C-class (or the reverse), anyone can do that, even a non-registered editor. David notMD (talk) 11:00, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Downgrades happen because standards have become higher over time. For same reason, articles have lost GA status. David notMD (talk) 11:15, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Chaplin Court Treatt[edit]

I want to create an article on the first person mentioned in this article (1). How much info exactly would I be able to source from here without getting flagged for copyvio? Ficaia (talk) 02:55, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Ficaia, hey there. Generally you would be able to avoid CV by using your own words to describe the quotes, or use minimal quotes. So let's say, quote "The expedition was the brainchild of Major Chaplin Court Treatt known as C.T." You can paraphrase this to "Major Chaplin Court Treatt, commonly referred to as C.T., was the magnum opus of the expedition." GeraldWL 03:01, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Gerald Waldo Luis, I think you need to look up magnum opus in a dictionary. Also, if I saw your sentence in an article, I would probably have an urge to rewrite it less convolutedly. --ColinFine (talk) 12:34, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

ColinFine, sorry for that misunderstanding. I do tend to think my edits are far from perfect, that's why I've been putting the standard of PR and GOCE before a GAN/FAC. I must admit I'm ESL, so yes, please do rewrite if that means more readability :) GeraldWL 15:14, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, I've made the article using minimal info from the copyright source, so hopefully it doesn't get flaggged. Ficaia (talk) 03:22, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Courtesy link Stella Court Treatt GeraldWL 04:41, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Ficaia, no copyright detected for that specific sentence, but there's still a ton of copyright issues with other sources. See this; concern the networthlist and celebnetworthpost, the other ones are just minor. GeraldWL 04:45, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

How to make a redirect in source mode?[edit]

I created a template on the Simple English Wikipedia but I want to make it redirect to another template. Templates are only editable in source mode, and I don't know how to make a page a redirect in source mode. Can somebody please tell me how? Poopykibble (talk) 04:57, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello. To redirect to a template, see this. Kpddg ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:14, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Submission declined for Sabaq Foundation[edit]

Hi,

I created a page for NON=Profit E-Learning platform named named Sabaq Foundation here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Sabaq_Foundation

I submitted a page with almost 16 references but it got rejected. Can somebody please guide me what type of references should i use?

This is a Pakistan based NGO and I have added 3-4 leading News paper references. I have added CrunchBase. Please help me getting this page reviewed successfully.

This is my first page. I need help. Ayeshairshad (talk) 06:16, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi! Your draft was rejected because of two reasons. Your article looks like an advertisement and also the references do not give significant coverage about your title. MyNewBall88 (talk) 06:27, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

What he said. No amount of references will stop a draft from reading like an advertizement or press release. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 06:30, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Those matters aside, the draft confused me. Is its subject a "foundation" (financially), is it (metaphorically) a "firm foundation", is it a business oligopoly, is it a trust of a general sort, or is it an "E-learning" "platform"? -- Hoary (talk) 11:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Will my account block?[edit]

Hello, My IP address was blocked in Wikipedia for sockpuppetry. So, I made new account from my friend's computer. Then I logged in my device whose IP address was blocked. If I not do anything wrong, so will my account not be blocked again? MyNewBall88 (talk) 06:21, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

As long as you're not causing problems, the account shouldn't be blocked. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 06:30, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Will my account NOT be blocked even if I log in on my blocked IP address device? I will not cause any problems. MyNewBall88 (talk) 06:34, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

As long as you edit constructively, you will not be blocked. Kpddg ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:36, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi, MyNewBall88: Whether you can edit from there depends what kind of block is on the IP. You can apply for an WP:IPBE if necessary. (Assuming you're not the sock and have picked up an address that was blocked because of what someone else did.) ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 09:29, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

MyNewBall88 has now been blocked for sockpuppetry. Jéské Couriano and Kpddg, if an editor reveals that they've previously been blocked for sockpuppetry, then you shouldn't advise them that they can edit using their new account as long as they're constructive. The advice should be that the only way they'll be able to edit again is if they successfully appeal their block using their original account. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:34, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

The people responding above were all clearly assuming the OP was an innocent editor caught up in an IP block of someone else. No one above is advising anyone to evade a block. -Floquenbeam (talk) 20:43, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Fair point, Floquenbeam. If that was the case, Jéské Couriano and Kpddg, please accept my apologies. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:45, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for informing. Will give a more clear response in the future. Kpddg ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:14, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Articles for deletion[edit]

Hello, I seen some AFD discussions, in which some people written "delete per nom". What does "delete per nom" means?? MyNewBall88 (talk) 06:49, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

"I argue for deletion, because the nominator's rationale is persuasive in favour of it." —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 06:57, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

It means that you are in favour of deletion, for the reasons given by the nominator. Kpddg ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:19, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Om Nom :p ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 09:35, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

The descriptions above are correct, and it is also worth noting that a vote like this is considered to be of very little value. When the time comes to close the AfD, the closing Admin looks at the reasoning offered - this response contributes nothing new to the reasoning. Having people effectively say just "me too" doesn't help - see "Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions".--Gronk Oz (talk) 11:51, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Squid Game Metacritic[edit]

I was reading the article Squid Game and it was said that the show was critically acclaimed. The source from this came from an article from Salon saying that the show received acclaim, and that source was used instead of the Metacritic one, which claims that it has "positive reviews." I did some research on it and there was a talk page discussion saying that reliable sources that say "this show is acclaimed" (if they exist) are used primarily before aggregator sites such as Metacritic.

Is this true? Is there any policy/guideline/essay that says that we use sources that describe a critical reception first before general consensus sites such as metacritic? I'm having a dispute over a similar thing at another article, and would like to back my stuff up with actual guidelines/policies. Thank you! shanghai.^{talk to me} 07:09, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

RogueShanghai, MOS:TV doesn't have a specific guideline on what a reception section should start with. But there's no problem with citing consensus to other (reliable) sources. Aggregators (especially MC which aggregates less reviews) is not always what determines what all critics think. In this case I'm right: MC only aggregates a disappointing amount of 13 reviews, and thus their score does not reflect the wider view. So yes, it's already in good shape. However I would suggest changing the MC sentence to "However on Metacritic, the series has a weighted average score of 69 out of 100 based on 13 critics, merely indicating "generally favorable reviews". GeraldWL 07:27, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

@Gerald Waldo Luis: Actually, the similar dispute in regards to Metacritic vs other sources actually has to do with music, not TV shows. But you're right. Is the MC sentence necessary? (i.e, nothing that this show has this score on MC) and also, does citing consensus to other sources that mean something is acclaimed, also allow the lead of that thing to say it was acclaimed? For example, lead section of squid game like "this show was critically acclaimed" I hope you get what I mean :b shanghai.^{talk to me} 07:49, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

RogueShanghai, yeah it's not really just music, and MC is a pretty polarizing site as sometimes it'll be right sometimes it'll be wrong. I wouldn't remove it as it is kinda expected for there to be an MC sentence. And yes, it is acceptable for the lead part. :) GeraldWL 07:52, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:BLP doubt[edit]

I just had a glance at the WP:BLP page, and I wanted to know whether we need to source even very minor edits? I'm also asking this because one of my first edits was tagged as a Blp issue, all I did was change the spelling according to the title. Vial of Power (talk) 09:03, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Vial of Power, hi! I'm assuming you're referring to this? Apologies for that; the tag is automatically made to warn editors of potential vandalism, and it can misdetect sometimes. Happy editing :) GeraldWL 09:07, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Oh thanks for the clarity @Gerald Waldo Luis, much appreciated. Vial of Power (talk) 09:10, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

No problem, comrade. GeraldWL 09:11, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

uh, correction, I had just capitalised the name in the box on the right side. Vial of Power (talk) 09:09, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Vial of Power, a little note: that's called an infobox. GeraldWL 09:10, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you again. Vial of Power (talk) 09:24, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

How to find copyright free images?[edit]

Hi! I am looking for copyright free photos to add in a draft article. How to find copyright free images? How to know if an image is copyrighted or not? Resmise (talk) 11:23, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Your best starting place is the Wikimedia Commons. Images are uploaded there with the explicit purpose of being used on Wikipedia (though just to be safe you should still check the license underneath an image anyway!) — Czello 11:24, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Resmise (edit conflict) Hello. Please note that photos are not necessary in terms of getting a draft approved; the draft approval process is largely concerned with sourcing and notability only. The best way to get a photo is to take one yourself with your own camera. 331dot (talk) 11:28, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

@Czello:I had searched on Commons but, I can't find images related to the subject. Resmise (talk) 11:49, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Resmise I would advise you to concentrate on getting your draft approved; you can always find images later. Bands/musical groups are often tough to find appropriate images for as most of them are owned by the band or its publicity firm. 331dot (talk) 11:53, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

@Resmise: Just for further information: If an image is not clearly linked to an obvious statement saying that it is either Public Domain or available under a Creative Commons licence which permits commercial re-use, then always assume the image is not suitable here. For your draft on Draft:Madkid you might want to make sure they meet our notabiltiy criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia. By no means all musicians and bands do. See WP:NMUSIC for details. Nick Moyes (talk) 12:01, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, Resmise, Nick Moyes is right. "If an image is not clearly linked to [...]": yes, true. Indeed, I had already explained this to you, or anyway had tried to. -- Hoary (talk) 13:14, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Google images (and perhaps other search engines) has a facility that can help. Do a standard image search and then on the results page click on the "Tools" option. This opens a menu of filters, of which one is "Usage Rights" and can be specified to find those images with Creative Commons licenses from Wikimedia and elsewhere. You still need to check the licensing but the filter can be a big help. Google image search is sometimes better for finding items here on Commons, rather than using Categories etc. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:18, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

New page[edit]

I would like to write a page about Danish company PE-Redskaber. What do they stand for, the heritage atc. The main subject would be Airtracks, because they are founders of it. Would it be a great idea? GretaPr (talk) 12:09, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

GretaPr Hello and welcoem to the Teahouse. We use the term "articles", not "pages" to refer to the encyclopedia. Creating an article being a good idea depends on if the company meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company, as shown with significant coverage in independent reliable sources that is not based on any materials put out by the company(such as interviews, the company website, announcements of routine business actvities). Be advised that successfully creating a new article is the hardest task to perform on Wikipedia, and it is usually recommended that you first spend time editing existing articles, and use the new user tutorial, to get a feel for how Wikipedia operates and what is expected of article content. If you feel you are ready, you may draft and submit an article at Articles for Creation. 331dot (talk) 12:15, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

GretaPr, if you do write a draft, please skip what the company "stands for". Instead, what has it delivered? (According to reliable, independent, published sources, of course.) -- Hoary (talk) 13:17, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Someone used my friends name[edit]

Someone took down some verified but controversial information, but used my friends name. I want the article republished and the person who used the wrong name- ban them from Wikipedia Theater Nurse (talk) 12:55, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

It sounds like you're talking about an article being deleted? If so, please note that no one individual can do this arbitrarily, it's done by community consensus. We don't ban users for that. — Czello 12:58, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

We can't even investigate what you say without more information. As Czello says, if an article was deleted, this will have been by community consensus, and there may be ways of appealing: see WP:DRV. If somebody removed some information from an article, that may or may not be justified: see WP:BRD. If somebody is impersonating a public figure, that is serious, and the account could be blocked pending investigation; but different people can have the same name. You'll need to be more specific. --ColinFine (talk) 13:10, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

PInging Theater Nurse --ColinFine (talk) 13:11, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I added some controversial information (complete with published newspaper references) to an article about a local theater. The theater is in violation of union contracts, and it made national headlines. Someone deleted what I wrote and impersonated my friend, by using her name as the one who took the information down. While there are many people with the same name, there’s only one person by this name in the union in question. It was intentional slander and defamation of character. Theater Nurse (talk) 13:23, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

moved from a new section this user created to here ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 13:28, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Theater Nurse Your account has not made any edits other than to this page, so it is difficult to look into what you say. Please tell the title of the article involved. 331dot (talk) 13:31, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

@Theater Nurse: Can you also tell us the name of the user who you have said framed your friend so we can help you. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 13:34, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

• Courtesy; seems to be Casa Mañana. 331dot (talk) 13:39, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

  Which means the other user involved is probably User:Elainedavidson.

  Everyone involved, please note that the Teahouse (and Wikipedia in general) is a civil place, and you are expected to remain calm. Throwing accusations around may cause more hurt then intended. casualdejekyll 14:14, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

@Theater Nurse: The first addition to the article Casa Mañana referring to the recent "contract issue" was done from an IP address that geolocates to Irving, Texas. I assume that was by you and that you subsequently created an account to re-insert what Elainedavidson reverted in what has been that account's only edit to Wikipedia. It is irrelevant whether that name corresponds to a friend of yours: how could anyone know from just seeing an IP address? No Wikipedia policy has been breached according to our usual bold, revert, discuss processes and the article now contains the material you re-added. You could improve the bare URL references using the {{cite web}} method (see WP:REFB) and if further changes you think are incorrect should occur then you should discuss these on the Talk Page of the article to reach consensus. Meanwhile, no-one is gong to get banned for a single reversion. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:21, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Article Declined[edit]

I created an article with authentic sources (newspaper press release).but even then wikipedia declined my article...I want to know that To submit an article on Wikipedia is too much hard.....that's not good..... Muhammadyeakubhasan111 (talk) 13:35, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Courtesy link: Draft:Anudip_Foundation

Hello Muhammadyeakubhasan111! Welcome to Wikipedia!

Yes, writing your first article is pretty hard. I haven't even written one yet myself, to be plainly honest with you. But the most important things for a Wikipedia article are notability and verifiability. In the case of your draft, however, you never even submitted it. In order to submit a draft, you need to click the blue button at the top of your page that says "Submit the draft for review!". Additionally, the edits made to your draft were because you copied text from other places. Although citing sources is the basics of a Wikipedia article, copying text directly from sources is a copyright violation, which is illegal. So.. don't do that. casualdejekyll 13:47, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Just tell me anyone please..... that, to write an article about this (Anudip Foundation) NGO and publish it on Wikipedia is possible?? this NGO has more significant works like that they teach to poor, deprived people about modern technology like (computer and it's different programs) to make them Self-reliant....there are many NEWSPAPER press release are here

1. https://www.bridgespan.org/locations/bridgespan-india/resources/story-of-impact-anudip-foundation
2. https://www.ifc.org/wps/wcm/connect/1988302b-65f7-49c4-8132-403f573e9a57/Digital+Skills_Final_WEB_Anudip.pdf?MOD=AJPERES
3. https://www.3blmedia.com/News/Cisco-VIDEO-Empowering-New-Orleans-Youth-Digital-Skills
4. https://www.thebetterindia.com/87591/anudip-foundation-skills-training-women-youth/
5. https://www.nasscomfoundation.org/nsif-winners/anudip-foundation-for-social-welfare-kolkata/
6. https://www.engochallenge.org/anudip-foundation-for-social-welfare/
7. https://www.hbsp.harvard.edu/product/313090-PDF-ENG
8. https://www.business-standard.com/article/news-ani/anudip-appoints-new-chief-executive-officer-119040300496_1.html
9. https://www.telegraphindia.com/education/lockdown-has-led-young-men-and-women-to-rethink/cid/1802616
10. https://www.businesswireindia.com/anudip-appoints-new-chief-executive-officer-62659.html
11. https://www.icaonline.org/pages/golden-jubliee-celebrations/radha-basu.html
12. https://www.newindianexpress.com/magazine/2017/nov/18/sultans--of-skill-1703090.html
13. https://www.edexlive.com/beinspired/2018/oct/04/this-kolkata-based-organisation-is-helping-marginalised-youth-including-victims-of-trafficking-find-4094.html
14. https://www.nationalskillsnetwork.in/anudip-foundation-digital-skills/
15. https://www.accenture.com/in-en/about/corporate-citizenship/anudip-foundation
16. https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/about/csr/community/partners/anudip.html

KINDLY LET ME KNOW ASAP and tell me that how can write an article about this with these and many more references........ Muhammadyeakubhasan111 (talk) 14:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

@Muhammadyeakubhasan111: if you would like to request that an article could be made, please add your request to Wikipedia:Requested articles. Alternatively, if you judge that the subject is notable enough, you can write thce article yourself and submit it to Wikipedia:Articles for Creation. Wgullyn // talk // contribs 15:17, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

@Muhammadyeakubhasan111: You might also check out WP:YOURFIRSTARTICLE TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:34, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

9, 12 and 13 look decent, but you'll need more. The rest are commercial sites, directory listings or syndicated feeds. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:39, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Thenderking35[edit]

I am working on essay, any advice? Thenderking35 (talk) 14:28, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Moved to new section as courtesy casualdejekyll 14:42, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

@ Thenderking35 if you mean that you are working on a draft for a new Wikipedia article my advice is to read many articles about similar subjects to get a sense of what is typically included in such online articles. Practice making edits to existing articles to gain useful experience. When you are ready to take on the difficult task of writing a new article be sure and read Your first article and References for beginners. Best wishes on your volunteer work at Wikipedia. Karenthewriter (talk) 15:00, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

@Thenderking35: Do you mean your sandbox essay, or something else? --The Tips of Apmh 15:14, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Who is he[edit]

Who is Itcouldbepossible, and did he say that he will block me. What is unconstructive edit. I jus said the truth. Who are you mad man. 42.110.168.223 (talk) 14:57, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Your contributions don't show that you've edited any pages, or had anything reverted. I would assume you edited under another device? What was your edit? ― Levi_OP^Talk 15:00, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Itcouldbepossible is one of our vandalism fighters. Please see WP:NOTTRUTH -- Wikipedia is a place for neutral, sourced content, not what one person thinks is "the truth". Wgullyn // talk // contribs 15:20, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I looked at your IP range. This edit was judged unconstructive by Itcouldbepossible at User talk:42.110.170.143. There was no reason to add that to an encyclopedia article. Constructive edits try to build the encyclopedia or improve the work around it. You have vandalised User talk:Itcouldbepossible and been warned for it. Don't vandalise Wikipedia. That includes user pages. Itcouldbepossible is not an administrator so he cannot block users but everybody can give vandalism warnings. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:45, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

He may not be an admin, but he can still report you to admins and get you blocked if you continue (Referring to the IP range, not you Prime). ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:47, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter May I ask you something. How did you find the contributions of that IP? He had no contributions. How did you find the IP range? And how did you see the contributions of an IP range? I thought contributions can only be found for a specific IP or a specific user, not groups of IP. I would love to gain this new knowledge, as then it will help me to provide evidences at SPI, and also find the contributions of an IP range (though if that is possible). Itcouldbepossible^Talk 03:07, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

OK, let me be straight. I have just warned him, and he is thinking that I have told him that I will block him. Moreover, I said

Hello, I'm Itcouldbepossible. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Marian Zelazek have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks.

There was no mention that I would block him, or I even did not give him an {{uw-vandalism4}} warning. So why is he saying that I have told him that I will block him? Itcouldbepossible^Talk 03:02, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

People assume wild things when they receive warnings. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 04:29, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

@Blaze Wolf But what was the edit that he had made? Itcouldbepossible^Talk 04:35, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I can't tell you that because I don't know the IP in the first place. HOwever you can actually view the contributions for an entire IP range. You simply do that by adding something like /64 (Most common one I see for IPv6 addresses) after setting some of the numbers in the IP to 0 (last 4 sets of 4 digits for IPv6. I don't know what it would be for IPv4 since I usually don't see those get rangeblocked often). ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 04:39, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

@Blaze Wolf I did not get you properly. Can you show me how to do it? Itcouldbepossible^Talk 04:41, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

For example, for an IPv6 address (I'm going to use one I recently reported and got blocked as an example) say you wanted to find the contributions for 2603:6080:7204:1972:907f:f2de:be5f:d3a5 but you wanted to view the contributions for all IPs within the range. To do that you would take the last 4 sets of 4 numbers and letters (in this case 907f:f2de:be5f:d3a5) and make it all 0, making the IP 2603:6080:7204:1972:0000:0000:0000:0000 (often shortened as 2603:6080:7204:1972:::) and then add /64 to the end of it. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 04:45, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

@Blaze Wolf Like Special:Contributions/2603:6080:7204:1972:0:0:0:0/64 Itcouldbepossible^Talk 04:49, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Yep! I think it might be explained at IPv6 (which isn't a policy or essay, just an article on that particular type of IP address, the only one I knew about before coming to Wikipedia is IPv4). ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 04:50, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

@Blaze Wolf Ok, thanks. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 04:59, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

@Blaze Wolf What will we append at the end of 0000 for IP v4 s Itcouldbepossible^Talk 04:56, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't know. I don't have enough experience with seeing IPv4 ranges to know what you would append (for IPv4 you would just change the last 2 sets of 3 digits to 0 (so in this case it would be 42.110.0.0). ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 05:03, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

@Blaze Wolf Ok, thanks for showing your interest in answering my question.

PS: I always love your answers at the Teahouse. Are you a Teahouse host, if not then why don't you nominate yourself? Itcouldbepossible^Talk 05:06, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

No problem! I'm not a host yet, however I will probably nominate myself as one once I get this privacy issue solved. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 05:09, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

@Blaze Wolf privacy issue? Itcouldbepossible^Talk 05:16, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I'd rather not explain (especially not here at the Teahouse). ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 05:18, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

@Blaze Wolf Sorry for enquiring about your private info. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 05:35, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Being able to see an IP range is important for anti-vandal work because sometimes a user will be vandalising across multiple IPs, making blocking just one completely useless since there are still other IPs in the range that can vandalize. Hence why there are range blocks (probably should've recommended that although I just looked that up since all that was my own knowledge). ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 05:11, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

@Blaze Wolf Yes, I need to learn about that also for my anti-vandalism work. Can you tell me why sometimes admins block IPs and why sometimes IP ranges? Do they also check if there were other vandalism made from the IP range? Itcouldbepossible^Talk 05:17, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

My guess would be yes. An admin will probably only block a single IP if either the other IPs in the range aren't vandalizing or there might be too much collateral damage (or possibly some other reasons I don't know I'm not an admin). ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 05:19, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

@Blaze Wolf How will they know there would be too much collateral damage? Itcouldbepossible^Talk 05:34, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

When there are some IPs within the range that are making constructive edits. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 05:35, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

@Blaze Wolf Thanks for all your help. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 05:40, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I see the IP now, however since I'm unfamiliar with how to give a correct range for IPv4 addresses I can't tell you how to view the range for it. However in this instance, I do know the range would be 42.110.0.0/XX (x since I Don't know what the number there would be. My guess is 16?) ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 04:41, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

@Blaze Wolf One more thing. What is this (edit conflict) thing that I see sometimes at the Teahouse, and sometimes at other discussion boards? Itcouldbepossible^Talk 04:42, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Just means that someone replied at the same time as you. Using the reply tool it doesn't really seem to matter, however without it you might have to retype your comment or someone else's (i don't know since I don't often run into an edit conflict). ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 04:46, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Reviewal of foreign language page[edit]

I have translated a page on Martin Garrix to Latin (see here) and would like to have it checked. However, I cannot seem to figure out how, as I am using mobile app. Can anyone help me? Thanks.
Llaaww (Talk) 14:27, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Salve, Llaaw. I'm afraid you're going to need to ask at Latin Wikipedia: it's unlikely anybody here can help. --ColinFine (talk) 18:09, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Its 9 days old now. Should it be merged already[edit]

Okay i dont wanna spam this but when is it gonna be merged as it TzarN64 (talk) 16:36, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

For those wondering, Tzar is talking about this merge discussion. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

And, this question was already answered here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:41, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

This user has had a pattern of not quite getting it. casualdejekyll 18:24, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I mean, I"m working on trying to figure out how to request closure for the discussion. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:34, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

No discussion since the 6th, and it's been more then a week since it was started.. consensus seems to merge. Per WP:MERGECLOSE, anyone can close a merge discussion, even the nominator, which depending on how you count is either you or Tzar. Frankly, I could just close it myself, but I'm not feeling it. casualdejekyll 19:48, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I'd rather have someone who can actually evaluate all the points made just so I don't close it as merge because it looks like there's consensus to merge. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:49, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Seeking a Wikipedian to update Wiki article on David W. Orr[edit]

Hi,

David Orr is seeking a Wikipedian to update the Wiki article called "David W. Orr". The information is out of date. If you can help, please contact me. Thanks. Keep Colorado Wild Keep Colorado Wild (talk) 17:16, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Discussion should be kept at Wikipedia:Teahouse#How_do_I_cite_the_source_when_the_subject_of_the_article_IS_the_source?. Alyo (chat·edits) 17:51, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Keep Colorado Wild Teahouse hosts are volunteers who answer questions about how to edit Wikipedia article, i.e., not a place to see co-authors. There is an article request page for requests for new articles, but not improving existing articles. Of the 43,046,177 users who have registered a username with English Wikipedia, you (and David) are the people most interested in revising the article about David W. Orr. Given your apparent COI, your path is a long slog of proposing changes on the Orr Talk page so that non-connected volunteer editors can decide to implement or not. David notMD (talk) 21:31, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Youtube links[edit]

moved to separate section ― Levi_OP^Talk 18:01, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Kindly, anyone tells me, Is mainstream media's (youtube) link is allowed in Wikipedia. like that CNN video report about an NGO then I entered this on my article reference list Muhammadyeakubhasan111 (talk) 17:55, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Muhammadyeakubhasan111. What matters for reliability is who published it, not the medium. A great deal of Youtube is is uploaded by random people with no reputation for fact checking (and some of it is copyright violations as well), and none of that is reliable. But an article by CNN on their official YouTube channel is as reliable as an article by CNN published anywhere else: see WP:YOUTUBE. (Remember that for notability, sources must also be independent of the subject, and have significant coverage of the subject). I haven't looked at the sources in Draft:Anudip Foundation, because, since you've formatted them just as titles, I'd have to go into them to see where they came from. It's good that you're formatting sources as more than a URL; but the publisher and date are absolutely crucial information for evaluating sources, as well as the title. --ColinFine (talk) 18:21, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi! Welcome back to the Teahouse, Muhammadyeakubhasan111!

Per WP:YOUTUBE, many videos on Youtube are copyright violations and can't be cited per WP:COPYLINK. However, if a video is from a reliable source, you can treat it as if it came directly from the reliable source, provided the video was uploaded from the reliable source's own YouTube channel. Or, to rephrase, if the CNN video report is uploaded to CNN's official YouTube channel, then you can cite it. casualdejekyll 18:23, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, genius people of Wikipedia kindly tell me that, "will I be able to use this newspaper report (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DO8-AByvuio&t=10s&ab_channel=CNBC-TV18) as a citation or reference to my article? kindly let me know something ASAP........Please Muhammadyeakubhasan111 (talk) 19:26, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Can I use my Wikipedia Library access for non-Wikipedia purposes?[edit]

Can I use my Wikipedia Library for non-Wikipedia purposes? I don't make edits that require citations, usually.

I think it'll be more helpful for my schoolwork, instead of using sci-hub.

Is this allowed? Quick Quokka ^[talk] 20:13, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Generally the rule is if you have free access to it elsewhere, you should use that instead of applying for a collection in the Wikipedia Library. But if you're talking about one of the collections included in the base card, then yeah, that's totally fine. casualdejekyll 20:22, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Oh thanks!

Quick Quokka ^[talk] 20:44, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Deletion of numerous drum and bugle corps articles.[edit]

Can someone please tell explain why there were so many attacks and AFD's on several national-level "old-school" drum and bugle corps in October 2021? Several admins made an agreement in October to do AFD on many drum and bugle corps articles - both championship level corps and non-championship level corps. One editor deleted an article with many years of scores (showing finalist placements for years 1959-1973) with only an explanation that it was "cruft" information. (Not mentioning any user names here, but proof can be obtained that this agreement was made in October, on their user talk pages, and several admins went to work do the RFD pages for numerous drum and bugle corps.) Thanks so much - fairly new here. 136.35.223.97 (talk) 20:52, 11 February 2022 (UTC) 136.35.223.97 (talk) 20:52, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Seems like a perfectly sensible action to me. HiLo48 (talk) 21:08, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

As part of the "anyone may edit Wikipedia" ethos, then anyone may nominate any article for deletion. I haven't looked further than this one discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forte Drum and Bugle Corps but the reason for the nomination is clear; the article lacked the necessary coverage in reliable, independent sources to establish notability. There is nothing to stop another article being created as long as it can satisfy the notability criteria, or if that is problematic to add a section to the article List of defunct Drum Corps International member corps. Nthep (talk) 21:11, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi @136.35.223.97:! Welcome to the Teahouse! Describing these deletions as "attacks" seems a little over-the-top. You have to remember, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and it's not a database either. casualdejekyll 22:40, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

This block evading IP has been blocked.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:21, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I understand how disappointing it can be to put the work into creating an article, only to have it deleted. However, all is not lost. First, you need to look at the reason(s) given for the deletions. The one mentioned above was for lack of notability, but check if that is generally the case. If it is, then check whether you can find more independent, reliable sources that talk about them in detail. If you can find enough coverage for each corps then it might justify re-creating those articles; I suggest contacting the deleting Admin, showing them the sources you have collected, and asking their opinion. Finally, if that fails, then you might be able to amalgamate some of that information into a larger article such as Drum and bugle corps (modern) - raise the suggestion on the Talk page for that article first to discuss your proposal and make sure the level of detail is considered appropriate.--Gronk Oz (talk) 23:35, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I wanted to edit the article on the Riesz-Thorin theorem, but the code is weird[edit]

I am used to working with Latex, but when I decided to edit the article on the Riesz–Thorin theorem - more precisely the part on the statement of the theorem, I found that the code is really weird. Usually math formulas are put inside the math environment math.../math, but here it is different. Can someone say more about this? What kind of "language" has been used there? Is it outdated or should I leave it the way it is?  01Filippo (talk) 21:18, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

@01Filippo: Welcome to the Teahouse. You might want to take a look at the {{math}} template's documentation. I'd suggest keeping it consistent, but you could try asking on the talk page to see if any interested editors think using standard math tags with LaTeX is fine. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:46, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

@01Filippo: This is HTML and wikimarkup inside Template:Math; a little bit of documentation is on the template page. I don't know how popular it is these days; probably best to ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics. (Personally, I think it should be converted to LaTeX to make the code readable to mathematicians, but you should check with other mathematicians). —Kusma (talk) 21:50, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Request Help understanding Citations and Decline[edit]

Regarding: Draft:Peter M. Walzer

I submitted this to the AFC help desk and haven't seen any responses so far. Please pardon my ignorance. While I have edited small things before, this is my first solo flight.

This article entry was declined for sounding like an advertisement. There was no particular reference to content areas in the article that are at fault, just a generalization. This was paired with a comment that it was also declined for not having sufficient independent references. While there is a section of bibliographic works, none of these are used in citations. There are 70 citations with the exception of 3 or 4, from sources the subject does not control. Of these 3 or 4 citations, they were used to confirm an interview topic with a mass market media source the subject does not control. Having seen numerous attorney articles with less citations or relevance, I understand it is no fair to compare, it would be good to understand how to get this article in a better position.

To that end my questions remain:

1) What areas of the entry are violating a neutral statement of facts? 2) There are 70 citations from international media organizations down to local media sources, from broadcast news to industry trades. Are these not enough? If so, what type of citations will be needed?

I appreciate any assistance you can provide. Garvin Carter (talk) 22:19, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Garvincarter, and welcome to the Teahouse. I haven't looked far through Draft:Peter M. Walzer, but in the first paragraph of the "Career" section I find Walzer’s dedication to the profession of family law is apparent in his long-term commitment to leadership within industry organizations and in prolific legal scholarship and teaching. If a reliable source wholly unconnected with Walzer said this of him, then you could openly quote that source, but such evaluative language should never appear in any article in Wikipedia's voice. Please see WP:PEACOCK. --ColinFine (talk) 22:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I've looked at the beginning of the reference list, without going into the items. It looks rather as if you have made the common error of thinking the more references, the better. Too many weak references make it look as if you're desparately trying to make them add up into a strong one, and furthermore they tend to make the draft unattractive to reviewers, meaning that it's likely to wait longer for a review (there isn't a queue). You rarely need multiple sources for the same statement, and if a piece of information is available only in run-of-the-mill directories, yearbooks, and non-independent "profiles", you should seriously consider whether it belongs in the article at all. Remember, 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. --ColinFine (talk) 22:50, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

@Garvincarter: Welcome to the Teahouse. Further in the draft you have Peter Walzer is a highly distinguished professional having received peer recognition from the family law organizations he has served, which also shouldn't be in Wikipedia's voice. It says nothing about which organisations he's received peer recognition from.
External links also shouldn't be in the body of an article. You may want to consider making a further reading section to add those titles.
I notice on your userpage stating that [you] are paid to do historical research projects. Are you also being paid by Walzer or one of his affiliates to write the draft on his behalf? If so, please disclose your paid relationship ideally on your user page; the draft's talk page will also suffice. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:01, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Dealing with persistent disruptive editing[edit]

Hello - I'm a novice editor and I'm having trouble dealing with persistent disruptive editing I've seen on two pages - Military Intelligence and Reconnaissance (Egypt) and General Intelligence Directorate (Egypt). The edits consist of:

• removing Template:More citations needed and replacing it with Template:Verified: [4][5][6][7][8]
• adding unsourced information about tasks and leadership of these organizations that I cannot verify in any source: [9][10][11][12]

and more recently,

• adding similar information but citing sources that do not actually contain the information added: [13][14][15]

These are only some examples of these edits. These are pretty clearly coming from one person, and I have twice filed sockpuppet investigations which successfully resulted in blocks, but as this is now the third occurrence of socking to continue, I'm wondering what I can do to help make it more likely this does not persist. I have been trying to familiarize myself with the ins and outs of this community's processes for dealing with problematic edits, but I am unsure what to do here as this seems to fit into multiple categories. Just reporting the newest account as a sockpuppet again seems like it would be limited in its effectiveness considering the user demonstrates the ability to continue editing after blocks have been put in place. What is the appropriate next step for an editor like myself in this situation? Bring it up at the AIV noticeboard? Request protection for the pages? Edit warring noticeboard? Report the sockpuppet again and move on? Help me learn :) Thanks! Mkcaldwell (talk) 23:10, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Mkcaldwell! I would 100% file at SPI here. Additionally, RFPP is the right place to go to ask for protection. casualdejekyll 23:24, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! I've opened an SPI for the user and reverted the edits, and will request semi-protection if the vandalism persists. Mkcaldwell (talk) 00:21, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Independent secondary source doesn't match official source[edit]

Hello! So I've run into some kind of an issue. On Nintendo Switch Sports (which I don't think is notable enough for an article yet but that's besides the point right now) a user is saying that while the sources that are independent and secondary and not directly connected to the subject say the game is a direct sequel to Wii Sports, Nintendo themselves say it's the 3rd main entry in the Wii Sports series of titles, making it a direct sequel to Wii Sports Resort. I'm fairly sure we're supposed to go by what the secondary, independent, reliable sources say and not what Nintendo officially says, however I'd rather know for sure instead of reverting on an assumption I have that could be incorrect. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 00:44, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

(What, did even Nintendo themselves forget about Club?) casualdejekyll 00:47, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

To be honest I didn't even know Club was technically a remake of Wii Sports until that user said so.― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 04:31, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Wellll... it party depends on the source. We also don't usually completely disregard official sources unless they're self-dealing, which I don't see what advantage Nintendo would get from being mendacious here (I could be wrong). There's been a lot of editing on that page recently, so could you tell us which source? Is it a single source, or sources which do not appear to be copying from each other? It sounds like maybe a matter of opinion where we can't say "this is the deal, stone cold true", so would it be possible to say "According to Nintendo its this, according to Such-and-Such it's that"? Herostratus (talk) 04:39, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

The source that says it's a direct sequel is engadget. Can't check if the IGN source says the same thing (for reasons I will not say for the sake of my privacy). ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 04:49, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Tags[edit]

What are they tags for every single editor? 2001:44B8:41C6:F700:C8D9:E13C:6D8A:FA06 (talk) 05:15, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello IP! Could you explain what you mean by "tags"? ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 05:16, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

How long does a post have to be to not be considered a stub?[edit]

Is there any general rule or somewhere where I can get lengths by topic? WikipediaNeko (talk) 05:37, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

@WikipediaNeko: Hello WikipediaNeko! There isn't really a set rule anywhere on how long something has to be to no longer be considered a stub, or at least there isn't to my knowledge. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 05:40, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick replay.

Have some tea.

WikipediaNeko (talk) 05:46, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

reply* WikipediaNeko (talk) 05:46, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

@WikipediaNeko: No problem! I think usually it varies by WikiProject how long an article has to be before it is no longer considered a stub. I'd recommend reading WP:STUB since it provides more information on this. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 05:50, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, WikipediaNeko. A stub is defined as an article deemed too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject. Also, an article that, although providing some useful information, lacks the breadth of coverage expected from an encyclopedia, and that is capable of expansion. So, the first definition is more restrictive but both are useful. In my opinion, a stub is often equivalent to a database inquiry, contains a few data points about the topic, but lacks written original prose summarizing significant coverage in independent reliable sources discussing the topic. I see a lot of articles tagged as stubs that actually provide a pretty decent beginning overview of the topic. I routinely upgrade those articles to "Start". Cullen328 (talk) 05:56, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

OK, I think I will use definition #2. WikipediaNeko (talk) 06:03, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

@WikipediaNeko Have you picked up enough to understand how to display a list of all the most important 'stub' articles in any given WikiProject? If not, and rather than bombard you with extra information here, take a look at this example I prepared, using as an example a WikiProject about mountains of the Alps. You might possibly find Wikipedia:Content assessment of some interest should you want to delve even further into this often overlooked area. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 11:52, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

WikipediaNeko; It generally differs area to area. But I'd likely say an article that has 1500 characters isn't a stub. This is my personal opinion and other editors would possibly disagree with me. I use this tool to exactly know how much words and characters an article has! ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 11:59, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

WikipediaNeko - of interest to you might be the examples given for very short featured articles on Wikipedia; this may give some example as to how an article can be short, but not classed as a stub.--Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) ({{ping}} me!) 13:20, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Youtube Source[edit]

Hi There! Will I be able to use this(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DO8-AByvuio) Video Report as a citation on my article........kindly anyone let me know something ASAP.......I think I will be able to.. Muhammadyeakubhasan111 (talk) 05:51, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

When using YouTube as a citation, it depends on the source.

That is from CNBC, which is a professional news source, witch is reputable.

So, yes. WikipediaNeko (talk) 06:07, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

which* WikipediaNeko (talk) 06:09, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Muhammadyeakubhasan111. Context matters. At a quick glance, that looks like a video produced by a commercial venture, Cisco Systems, in collaboration with some usually reliable media outlets. So, the question is, what sort of assertion do you hope to use this video for? If it is something mundane and neutral like "CEO John Jones retired in 2021, and was succeeded by new CEO Beverly Baxter" (names made up), then that is fine. But if it is something like, "It will be very difficult for newcomer Beverly Baxter to fill the large shoes left by widely acclaimed retiring CEO John Jones", then an independent source would be required, and sources praising Baxter should also be summarized. The website in question should be examined carefully to see whether or not it displays the signs of journalistic integrity. Cullen328 (talk) 06:19, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

@Muhammadyeakubhasan111: I will also add that you should probably read WP:RSPYT. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 13:23, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Ancient jellyfish identification[edit]

Hello I would like to know what the jellyfish fossil in this photo is and what ancient species it is, the photo can be found here https://www.livescience.com/1971-oldest-jellyfish-fossils.html compared to a jellyfish called Cunina (the red one). I would also like to know if there exists and article for that ancient species of jellyfish since I also want to use this as a reference for it. thanks.Rugoconites Tenuirugosus (talk) 08:32, 12 February 2022 (UTC)User:Rugoconites_Tenuirugosus Rugoconites Tenuirugosus (talk) 08:32, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

@Rugoconites Tenuirugosus: Your question is very worrying, as you seem not to have the ability to judge how reliable a source is, what the article is about, and want someone to tell you what Wikipedia page it relates to because you then want to use it as a reference. I honestly don't know what to say except "Stop!" Your enthusiasm for creating and editing articles on obscure taxa seems to be outstripping your ability to understand proper sources, and the need to base content on scientific sources, not journalistic mush. That article is just a filler article of no scientific merit, and should not be trusted or used as a source - especially if its not clear what it's about, or how reliable it is. However, you could be a detective and use information provided in the article to do a Google search and find a proper article featuring that fossil photo (hint: search on the photographer's name). In which case you would discover a published paper which suggest this may a cnidarian of the Middle Cambrian which might be in the class Scyphozoa, but that there was no certainty around it. Forget trying to identify the taxon (the scientists can't give you one) - maybe consider using that paper to helpfully add a little more content to Marjum Formation, and steer clear from populist science news outlets which just regurgitate small bits of much better sources. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:29, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: While I now know that the article is just a filler (given because of the information you gave me in the response) , I now also know that species of possible jellyfish are undescribed thanks to how I was not able to find any information about their names , scientific names and the groups they belong in other than the groups jellyfish belong in and the phylum cnidaria. The only specific article I was able to find which had this image were the previously mentioned jumbled mess of filler , http://qvcproject.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-joys-of-jellies_2.html (which states that the jellyfish themselves do not have any scientific name) Which isn't reliable given to how it is not secure by any means, another article which says like the exact same thing as the jumbled mess of filler https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna21552161 and this one https://creation.com/fossils-out-of-order which doesn't include the exact image of the fossil specimen found by Victor B. Lieberman originally. The source from the Not-Secure site only briefly , and by briefly I mean REALLY briefly mentions very little about their name and nothing else.

I've also recently found a source which says that the jellyfish in that specific image might be in the class itself , but it isn't the paper , and instead it's this https://blog.everythingdinosaur.co.uk/blog/_archives/2007/11/01/3326553.html which also includes other specimens that B. Lieberman (and his team) found in Utah when searching for fossils

Those were the only "articles" I was able to find, if I do manage to find the paper by instead searching "B. lierberman fossil discoveries" or "B. Lierberman fossil jellyfish" I will be putting a message on your talk page.Rugoconites Tenuirugosus (talk) 08:32, 12 February 2022 (UTC)User:Rugoconites_Tenuirugosus Rugoconites Tenuirugosus (talk) 08:32, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

@Rugoconites Tenuirugosus OK. Forgive me: I'm not going to supply it for you right now as I feel it will help develop your Google searching skills to find the best sources. But all the clues you need to find it are in those summarised sources. There is certainly a short academic paper out there, so let me know on my talk page if you really can't find it, and I'll send you the link in due course. I'm sure you appreciate that the fossil records is a fickle friend. When you only have a faint impression on fine-grained mudstone of a soft-celled organism, it can be near impossible to distinguish it from other species, or to determine of it is a new species. If it's live 50 million years before the previous known earliest similar-looking fossil, chances are it will indeed be a different species (unless its like the coelocanth or Ginkgo biloba). Not every fossil gets named immediately (or at all), and sometimes it can be 100 years before someone is able to make comparative studies with other material from the same formation and to draw conclusions about relationships and to allocate names at whatever taxonomic level is appropriate. I just urge you to stick with moderately well-defined species, rather than to desperately seek to create new pages based on these poor sources when you're neither a palaeontologist nor a taxonomist. The best motto for Wikipedia ought to be: "When in doubt; leave it out!" (By the way: how did you conclude the photographer/palaeontologist was named Victor B Lieberman? That's quite wrong. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 14:33, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: The way I concluded it was Victor B. Lieberman was by looking at the image which was in the first source (the jumbled mess of filler) and looked at the image which included the specific fossil specimens and the comparison between the jellyfish which looked most like the fossil specimen cnidarian , in the bottom right of the image , it says the person which took the image of the jelly which is alive today (helmet jellyfish) and the unidentified fossil specimen, and it said that the photo of the fossil was taken by B. Lieberman. If this is wrong , I'll be on the look out for whoever actually found the fossil specimen and who actually took the photo itself and described the animal originally. Regards.Rugoconites Tenuirugosus (talk) 08:32, 12 February 2022 (UTC)User:Rugoconites_Tenuirugosus Rugoconites Tenuirugosus (talk) 08:32, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but Victor? Where did you get Victor come from? That makes him a different person - and the wrong one. Completely! Nick Moyes (talk) 15:12, 12 February 2022 (UTC). Nick Moyes (talk) 15:12, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Belle Alliance (1817 ship)[edit]

Hi, In the abovementioned article it is mentioned that "On 13 November 1840 Belle Alliance arrived at Saint Helena. Two days later her passengers and crew joined the procession that carried Napoleon's body from his grave to the wharf where it was to be conveyed to France to be reburied. The crew of Belle Alliance wore ribbons around their hats with in letters of gold La Belle Alliance". I have done extensive work on this ship's information and believe this entry is incorrect. Napoleon fought a battle at La Belle Alliance, but the ship that took his body back to France was the "LA BELLE POULE" and not La Belle Alliance.

Can someone either prove me wrong or help to correct the Wikipedia entry please?

Please see my article https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1512694188890297&id=109096649250065

Much appreciated, C. Gainsford

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belle_Alliance_(1817_ship)?fbclid=IwAR2k0GJS5NSs7t9CGEyFFl0C6bbV2KaO0SJsxSy6KzdNJN_6ExeKasz2Efk 2001:8003:E180:1300:D88B:BD9A:4758:C7CE (talk) 09:58, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

The place to discuss it is at Talk:Belle Alliance (1817 ship), supplying details of published reliable sources. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:02, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

The article doesn't say that the Belle Alliance carried the body back, but merely that the crew took part in the procession to the wharf. Perhaps clarification could be added to say that the body was brought back on the Belle Poule. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:13, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I've now added that clarification. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:15, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Questions about improving The Principia page.[edit]

Hello, I noticed that the alumni section of The Principia page did not cite any sources. In starting to do this process I also noticed that there was a lot of overlap with its partner page Principia College. 1. If it were up to me, I'd probably just have an alumni list on the Principia College page only. Is that a possibility or is that overstepping what others have done? 2. If I can't find references for the alumni section on The Principia page, is it possible to remove them until there are references? Thanks! Archivingperson (talk) 12:31, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

@Archivingperson: One thing I would note is that IMDB is not a reliable source as much of its content is user-generated. See WP:IMDB. If you cannot find an reliable source for a something it would be considered original research and should just be removed. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 13:17, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the idea of having alumni listed at only one of these two articles, and the College page make more sense. The first article links to the second, so people would know to go there. As to the alumni list, very often, lists of notable people (for towns, schools) do not have references. The assumption is that if one goes to the articles about the people, the connection to PC would be there, and referenced. THIS MAY NOT BE TRUE, mostly meaning that the connection to the people having attended Principia College may be mentioned, but not always referenced. Personally, I would err on the side of inclusion. David notMD (talk) 14:32, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

How do I edit this "Decadebox" template?[edit]

Hi, on the page 2000s there is a Decadebox template. In this template, it says that the year 2000 was part of the 21st century. However, because the Gregorian Calender isn't 0-indexed (that is, there is 1 BC and 1 AD but no year 0 in the Gregorian Calendar), the first century is from year 1 to year 100, second century from 101 to 200, et cetera, 21st century from 2001 to 2100.

How can I edit this template? Xland44 (talk) 14:06, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Xland44. Template:Decadebox appears to be protected which means that only certain editors are able to edit it. Templates which are widely used are often protected because even a minor change can affect many articles. My suggestion to you would be to start a discussion about the change you think needs to be made on the template's talk page at Template talk:Decadebox. You can find out a little more on how to do this at Wikipedia:Edit requests. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:17, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

XLand44, to be clear, that is not a minor edit and would require consensus even if the page was unprotected. This is not an "issue" you just discovered, instead it has been discussed over the years and the current ordering of centuries is the result of consensus among the community.Slywriter (talk) 14:47, 12 February 2022 (UTC)