Wikipedia:Teahouse

Shantavira, a Teahouse host

Welcome to the Teahouse!
Your go-to place for friendly help with using and editing Wikipedia.

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

New to Wikipedia? See our tutorial for new editors or introduction to contributing page.
Note: Newer questions appear at the bottom of the Teahouse. Completed questions are archived within 2–3 days.

Help Wikipedia

Cyprus military ranks

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

NCO and other ranks

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

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

References

Notes

IP editor keeps making seemingly accidental edits to a page, not sure what to do

An IP user on the page Country code has been randomly adding the country code for Bangladesh and deleting random parts of the page. It seems accidental, however it keeps happening constantly. The comments are various things, including their personal Facebook username (?). They have been warned twice now as well for edits on the same page. I've noticed other IP editors doing the same thing, adding the country code for Bangladesh to the page or deleting random parts of the article. I'm not really sure what I should do, if I should take it up with an administrator, or try and get the page protected. Thanks. TechnoKittyCat (talk) 06:54, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

I will help you! I can report them. Taymallah Belkadri (talk) 07:05, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the help! TechnoKittyCat (talk) 07:13, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

No problem! :) Taymallah Belkadri (talk) 07:16, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Please help get WiiUf to quit spreading misinformation so I can donate to wikipedia! $$$$$$$$ GOD BLESS TRUMP! HATERSHATEBOY (talk) 10:33, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

@TechnoKittyCat – The recommended venue is WP:AIV for cases like these (this doesn't seem "accidental"; it is vandalism per the linked policy). However, seeing as the page has been vandalized repeatedly by different IP addresses, it would probably be a good idea to start a page protection request thread. — 3PPYB6 ^{(T / C / L)} — 07:09, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

@3PPYB6 Thanks for the reply. I do agree that it is vandalism, however, most of the edits seem to not be intentionally destructive and merely users misunderstanding how to use Wikipedia. Thank you for pointing me in the correct direction, I'll look into getting the page protected and report some of the repeat infringers. TechnoKittyCat (talk) 07:15, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

@TechnoKittyCat – Noted. I will probably agree that they probably didn't intend to destroy it but they probably should have stopped upon being called out to do so. Still, such editing remains disruptive to the overall reader. — 3PPYB6 ^{(T / C / L)} — 07:21, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

@TechnoKittyCat and 3PPYB6:, please be aware that Wikipedia's definition of WP:VANDALISM differs in an important way from the definition of the English word. In particular, if the damage is not intentional on the part of the editor, then it is not vandalism, and should neither be reported as vandalism, nor taken to the WP:AIV noticeboard. Even total destruction of an article is not vandalism if the editor in question was attempting to improve it, but messed it up badly because of inattention, lack of skill or experience, or any other reason. Vandalism, in Wikipedia's sense of the word, requires malice and an intention to disrupt the article.

If they did not intend to destroy it in your opinion, then the first step is to add a friendly message on their Talk page informing them of what happened to the page (they may not know or ever find out, if no one tells them), and then explain to them how they can avoid similar problems going forward. Hope this helps. Mathglot (talk) 07:19, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Alright, thank you. Should I remove the vandalism warning on their page? I did not take the case to admin, and instead opted for page protection, and was immediately approved. TechnoKittyCat (talk) 22:17, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

TechnoKittyCat, I had a look at ip 45.125.221.170 (talk · contribs)'s contributions at Country code, and I think your initial instincts about vandalism may have been correct. What I would do now in your shoes, is leave the vandalism warning on their page for the time being, and watch the user's activity. If they do this again, then add a second vandalism warning ({{uw-v2}}) on their page, and wait a bit more. If they do it a third time, add {{uw-v3}}, and then raise an issue at WP:AIV linking to the edits you found questionable, say that you are uncertain if it is vandalism or not, and ask for advice on what to do, pretty much as you have here. If it comes to that, it is probably worth linking this discussion as well at the AIV page. Good luck! Mathglot (talk) 20:08, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. The page has been semi-protected and immediately the rush of IP editors has gone away. I'll continue to watch for any suspicious edits from this specific editor. TechnoKittyCat (talk) 20:47, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Reporting

How do I report in Wikipedia? Taymallah Belkadri (talk) 07:45, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

What kind of report are you asking about, Taymallah Belkadri? (Report of an error? Report of malicious edits? ...) -- Hoary (talk) 07:56, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

If this is related to the thread immediately above, then simply, you do not. (i) Don't promise to do something when you have little or no idea of how to do it. (ii) Another editor has already come to the rescue. -- Hoary (talk) 07:59, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Content Assessment

Hey Teahouse, I am working on improving the article Quinte Health. Could someone look over the article and see if it can be moved up class per Wikipedia:Content assessment? (It is currently "Start-class") If not what should be specifically done to improve it? Thank you! CF-501 Falcon (talk) 23:42, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi CF-501 Falcon, and welcome to the Teahouse. I have just upgraded this article to C-class, as I feel it has sufficient content and sources to merit such a grade. Regards Nick Moyes (talk) 00:54, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Nick Moyes, Thank you. Do you have any advice on what to add to further the article? Again, Thank you. CF-501 Falcon (talk) 01:05, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

@CF-501 Falcon I've not looked in detail for sources, but often organisations do get involved in disputes or controversies. Ignore any very minor news stories, but do look for major stories about treatment concerns, mismanagement or legal action. This might well fit into such a section. It's important that Wikipedia (being a neutral encyclopaedia) collates and presents all relevant stories - both good and bad - in a balanced but informative manner. Avoid trivial detail, and keep such matters short and sweet. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:40, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Hey @Nick Moyes, I completely forgot about that. I will look into any major disputes or controversies. Thanks, CF-501 Falcon (talk) 00:03, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

@CF-501 Falcon I've not looked at that specific article but there is general advice about B-class assessment at WP:ASSESS. Some people use the semi-automated tool at WP:RATER to help. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:15, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

@Michael D. Turnbull, I will check it out. Thank you, CF-501 Falcon (talk) 14:45, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Use a map captured from a U.S. Army Center of Military History book

I want to capture Map 2 at page 26 of this CMH book https://www.history.army.mil/html/books/091/91-5/index.html, upload to Wiki Commons and use for Battle of Đồng Xoài. Do I need a permission from CMH, or just need to cite the source? Leemyongpak (talk) 09:20, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

@Leemyongpak Although the book is hosted on a US Government website, I would assume that its author will retain copyright, so you can't just upload maps from it to Commons, where only CC BY licenses are allowed. In a brief search of the site, I could not find general copyright information, so your best bet is to contact them and ask. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:47, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

I think CMH allows distributed or copied for non-commerical purposes as declares at https://www.history.army.mil/sec-priv.htm. We even have ACMH template. I just don't know which license I can use for their maps. What do you think? Leemyongpak (talk) 13:04, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @Leemyongpak. Note that licences with the "non-commercial" restriction are not accepted at Commons. I doubt that the maps are available on a more permissive licence than the rest. ColinFine (talk) 15:29, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your answers. I asked another contributor and he confirmed he did it with just citing the CMH book link for source and using {{PD-USGov}} template for license. Leemyongpak (talk) 06:53, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

@Leemyongpak: What someone else did doesn't mean what they did was correct or what they did also applies to this particular map. A mentioned above by Michael Turnbull and ColinFine, being posted on a US government website doesn't automatically make something {{PD-USGov}} because US government websites sometimes host copyrighted content created by third parties, and non-commercial restrictions are too restrictive for Commons. In addition, the CHM Security and Privacy page you linked to above seems self-contradictory and doesn't make much sense from a copyright standpoint. "PD-USGov" by definition means the content isn't under copyright protection; so, there's nothing to protect from commercial re-use because there's nothing eligible for copyright protection. You'd probably be better off asking about this at c:COM:VPC just to make sure because Commons is where the content should be uploaded if it's truly PD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:20, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, someone doubts, other confirms. I just meant if someone did it, anyone can do the same. Here is an example for an editor successful in using CMH map https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Operation_Attleboro_3-4_November_1966.jpg Leemyongpak (talk) 01:33, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

​ It's a "success" only in the sense that the uploader knew how to upload a file to Commons. The licensing of a file uploaded to Commons isn't "checked" or "confirmed" by Commons prior to upload; the c:COM:ONUS falls on the uploader to make sure the file they're uploading is correctly licensed. They're plenty examples of files "successfully" uploaded to Commons eventually ending up deleted (sometimes quickly and sometimes after years have passed) because their licensing was found to be wrong for one reason or another. I only suggested you ask at VPC just to make sure since uploading the file doesn't mean it someone won't nominate or tag it for deletion. If that happens stating "someone else did the same thing" isn't going to matter much because that someone else could also be wrong or the situation might not exactly be the same. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:40, 8 December 2024 (UTC); post edited. -- 22:13, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, @Marchjuly. I was going to make exactly these points but you beat me to it. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:38, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks all for your advice. I have just tried uploading a map of CMH with {{PD-USGov}} license and haven't seen any problem yet. So I consider my problem is solved. I will come back here with a new question if I need further help. Leemyongpak (talk) 03:50, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

About my account retrieval

Hi there! I recently forgot password of my User account named "Wallu2" and unfortunately because of not having email attached to it I am unable to retrieve my account back! Can anyone please assist me in this issue regarding whether how can I now reset my password, or will I have to create new account with different username as per stated on Help:Logging in#What if I forget the password or username?, I am afraid of being caught by sockpuppetry evasion! Thanks! 202.59.13.116 (talk) 11:57, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

If you cannot remember your password and you didn't have an email address attached to your account, the account is unfortunately inaccessible. You will indeed need to create a new account. You can identify it as a successor account ("I am User5678, I was User1234 but lost access") 331dot (talk) 12:00, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

@331dot: Thank You for your assistance! I have made my new account named User:Wallu2Back, can you please help me redirect my previous user account page to this new account? Thanking in advance! Wallu2Back (talk) 06:59, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't know if I would make it an actual redirect but you can do as you did on your current user page and place a link on your old user page to your new one. 331dot (talk) 08:34, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

page veiws

is there a way to see how many views a Wikipedia page I made has? NossonLA (talk) 01:01, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

On any page, you can click on the "Page information" link, which shows information about the page, including "Page views in the last 30 days". You can then click on the view count to see more detailed information about page views. CodeTalker (talk) 01:23, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Or click "Pageviews" at top of the page history. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:48, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

thank u so much for helping me 😀 CodeTalker and PrimeHunter NossonLA (talk) 08:17, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

What if a wiki rule worsens an article? Can I ignore?

Hello, an article went backwards where for many years, it was originally so much more informative and helpful for readers like in 2019 (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Korean_War&oldid=1049732432) but regressed just to conform to a rule which doesn't suit it. Previously the results info box in article for Korean war says (Inconclusive - military stalemate and list key summary points that btw aren't even nuances but straight indisputable key facts of the war's outcome. And they are hardly taking too much space either. I was just surprised to see it all removed so in good faith, I added in this edit [1], which got reverted because of that wiki rule. It's no skin off my nose and I do not wish to edit war but I just don't understand following such an arbitrary rule that arguably worsens the article in terms of being user friendly reading at a glance. I want to know what are my options to address this issue before I give up and justt let the article regress. IP49XX (talk) 03:51, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Korean war

The Teahouse is not the best place to resolve a content dispute; you would be better off raising your concern at Talk:Korean War. I looked at the revert, which gave the reasoning and a link in the edit summary; if you disagree with their reasoning, that would be the starting point for your Talk page discussion. That said, an Infobox is intended to be a summary, and there is no need to explain an English word with a parenthetical appositive. If you think removal of the parenthetical worsens the article, by all means say that at the Talk page, and provide your reasons; perhaps other editors will agree, and if you establish consensus there, then you will be able to re-add your content. Mathglot (talk) 06:48, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

@Mathglot Kinda my point. An infobox is intended to be a summary and objectively, "inconclusive - stalemate" is arguably far superior and informative summary of Korean war's results than "inconclusive" as it quickly conveys a less vague picture. Note that I did not create this version but the collective editors of the past who together formed the 2019 version, most definitely made a decent summary of the results in results info box and it's a shame that their work has gone to waste. But the question I ask here is not focused on content perse, but more on what does an editor do when a particular rule prevents someone from improving that article? Is it Wikipedia etiquette to follow the rule always even if it's the only thing preventing a perfectly acceptable improvement to an article? Or is there a clause to wiggle room to negotiate and review on individual circumstances and make exceptions to the rule? The reason I abandoned discussion on talk is because others bring up the rule and not sure how strict it is to allow exceptions as the topic pretty much ends at "it's the rule and end of story". I can only continue if there is even an option or clause that a Wikipedia rule can be ignored under certain circumstances. IP49XX (talk) 08:53, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

IP49XX, there is almost always wiggle room for negotiation and exceptions. See WP:5P5. But if people are objecting, and your side of the negotiation fails, it's not possible merely to assert that your view reflects an actual improvement where opposing views do not. Consensus is stronger than policy, with some exceptions, typically involving legal issues. Folly Mox (talk) 12:26, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

@IP49XX Just to say that, in fact, ignore all rules is a policy. The point is that you still need to argue that the change you want to make will improve the encyclopedia and reach consensus that it will. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:56, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

IP49XX is arguing at Talk:Korean War#Stalemate against a very clear provision in the military MOS: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Military history#Primary infoboxes which states "The infobox does not have the scope to reflect nuances, and should be restricted to "X victory" or "Inconclusive". Where the result does not accurately fit with these restrictions use "See aftermath" (or similar) to direct the reader to a section where the result is discussed." and WP:Manual_of_Style/Infoboxes#Purpose. I advised them that the MOS was developed to present a consistent approach across pages and all the issues that they raise have been considered, but they are welcome to raise this for discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history, which is the appropriate venue. They do not just get to "ignore all the rules" on this. Mztourist (talk) 10:27, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

My edit got deleted

 Courtesy link: Manga outside Japan

Greetings, My edit from Manga Outside Japan Wikipedia got deleted. I am affirmative that my information are correct. I have included news links , research papers etc. to verify. What should I do to include those text again? I have copied text from the news. Should I re-write those and add the news link? I am new, so please help me. Thank you so much. Manga outside Japan Blank Leo (talk) 08:36, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

A reason was clearly given for the reversion of your edits: "Text copypasted from thedailystar.net omitted." Are you saying that text was not copy-pasted from thedailystar.net? -- Hoary (talk) 08:42, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

No, I copypasted. I thought I have to do that. Sorry for the mistake then. Should I write on my own based on this data instead and reedit it to fix the issue? Blank Leo (talk) 08:46, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi, Blank Leo! Welcome to Wikipedia! The reverting editor, User:Spintendo left this comment on the revert acttion: Text copypasted from thedailystar.net omitted. That means your text violates copyright of The Daily Star publisher, which is illegal. Please see the Wikipedia policy:Wikipedia:Copyright violations. Copyrighted materials must not be copied or quoted in large parts here. --CiaPan (talk) 08:51, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I understood. I will write it from the start with the help of references so it does not paraphrase or gets copy-paste the existed. Blank Leo (talk) 08:56, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Blank Leo, you absolutely cannot copy and paste from copyrighted sources, except for brief quotations clearly indicated as direct quotes and attributed to the source. Please read Wikipedia:Copyright violations. The website in question has this warning at the bottom of its pages: Copyright: Any unauthorized use or reproduction of The Daily Star content for commercial purposes is strictly prohibited and constitutes copyright infringement liable to legal action. Wikipedia content is freely licensed and routinely used for commercial purposes. Cullen328 (talk) 08:58, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! I understood.Blank Leo (talk) 09:16, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

@Blank Leo: I have added a message to your talk page wih a handful of useful links. They provide information on copyright concers at Wikipedia as well as rules and hints on effective use of external sources. Please take the time to go through them – there is WP:NORUSH on Wikipedia, and it's always easier to learn from manuals than from our errors. I hope the initial mistake will not discourage you and you'll soon find a right and satisfying way of contributing to this amazing project. CiaPan (talk) 09:06, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I have already started to read those. Sorry for my stupid mistake. Grateful to you!!Blank Leo (talk) 09:15, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @Blank Leo, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia. Your mistake was not stupid. Wikipedia is different from many sites on the internet in a number of ways: one is in its careful approach to copyright. Another is in its insistence on reliable published sources.

There is no reason why a new editor should be aware of this: you have unintentionally participated in one of the normal processes of editing Wikipedia, called Bold, Revert, Discuss. You made a bold edit, somebody reverted you, and you have discussed it. In this case, you have also learnt something you didn't know. Congratulations! ColinFine (talk) 17:32, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

So kind of you. Thank you so much!Blank Leo (talk) 06:57, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Uploading an image (logo) in an Infobox

Dear world of Wiki,

I desparately tried uploading our company logo on our German company page: d:Edwards Vacuum.

I have tried all kinds of syntax, but the image won't appear. Edwards Vacuum

Also, for the same page I have a French and Korean version ready (without image - same issue), but those won't publish and I don't understand why not. In the English, original version, the logo does appear but it has been added by a predecessor so I'm not sure how they managed and I can't ask.

Thank you all so much for helping out. E Serluppens (talk) 12:53, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

@E Serluppens Afaict, if this File:Edwards (vacuum) logo.png is the logo in question, you can't add it on other WP:s because it's locally uploaded here on en-WP as "fair use", and so it can't be used on WP:s that don't allow fair use. en-WP go by American law on this, and it's comparatively liberal compared to many other countries.

However, it seems to me that this particular logo falls under "This logo image consists only of simple geometric shapes or text. It does not meet the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection, and is therefore in the public domain." Like for example File:Enhanced Games logo.jpg. Does that make sense to you?

If so, upload your logo here, see how the Enhanced Games one is done and pretty much do it like that. Then you should be able to add it on any WP you want. Hope this helps some. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:07, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

@E Serluppens. Gråbergs Gråa Sång's advice is good and there is extra detailed information at WP:LOGO. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:26, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

@E Serluppens@Michael D. Turnbull I see now that E Serluppens did as I suggested... a year ago:[2] I made this edit on de-WP:[3] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:49, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Added it on zh-WP and wikidata [4] as well. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:58, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa SångThank you so much! E Serluppens (talk) 06:08, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Article owners

I know there are 6.9 million articles in Wikipedia. But, how can we see the creator name in an article? Taymallah Belkadri (talk) 15:43, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

The creator of an article does not own that article nor is the creator of an article ever really relevant. You can view the entire edit history of an article using the history link on each article page. Simonm223 (talk) 15:46, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

For popular-topic articles (example: Vitamin C), an article likely started years ago, with scores if not hundreds of editors modifying it since then. As Simonm223 mentioned, View history will always show the editor who started an article. David notMD (talk) 16:32, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

And newer versions of the article may contain none of the text from its earliest author. WikiBlame can show you who authored a specific part of an article; I imagine doing so for an entire article likely requires some

more sophisticated program. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 17:08, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Any article can be analysed by the page statistics tool, which is accessed from the History tab. In the case of Vitamin C, for example, there is detailed output at xtools and you can see why David notMD had it in mind. You can use the same sort of tool to analyse your own edits: see "Edit count" at the foot of your contributions page. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:19, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

why complicate things? @Taymallah Belkadri: Simply go to "history" of the page, then click on "oldest", at the bottom is the article creator. —usernamekiran (talk) 20:13, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Taymallah, the easiest way is to go to your Preferences, then click Gadgets, and find the entry in the Appearance section which says:

• XTools: dynamically show statistics about a page's history under the page heading

and check the box in front of it, and click the blue Save button. This will give you the creator of the page, and some other handy statistics, right at the top of the article. But as others have pointed out, there is a page creator, but no page "owner". Mathglot (talk) 08:38, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

What is the point of the "thank" option

Like seriously, I don't know what the point of it is. I sometimes use it when I and someone else happen to be working on an article in tandem, but no one else seems to use it. ApteryxRainWing | Roar with me!!! | My contributions 16:09, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Why do you say thank you to people in real life? To show appreciation for something they have done. The Thank feature on Wikipedia is therefore used as a way to show appreciation, usually for an edit or action, that another editor has done. Sure you could go to their Talk Page and write a personal thank you message, but using the Thank button is quicker. qcne (talk) 16:39, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

@Qcne I'm not sure if the lack of thanks I've received says more about my editing or the manners of my fellow Wikipedians, then. Either way, I guess it's a neat little feature. Barnstars are cooler, though, right? Like, if someone helps me a lot with an article, would that warrant a barnstars or just a thank you? ApteryxRainWing | Roar with me!!! | My contributions 16:43, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

@User:ApteryxRainWing I regularly use the thank feature to alert another user that I have read their message and to privately acknowledge what they have done, without having to add more text. I am sure that editors who answer at the Teahouse often get such thanks. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:09, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Mike, I think Teahouse editors also get a lot of thanks in written replies rather than with the Thank feature because a lot of newbies and toddlers don’t even know about it. I sure didn’t. I wrote countless thanks in messages to Teahouse editors who enlightened me, you included. If many editors thank in written messages because they don’t know about the Thank feature, that partly accounts for why it doesn’t get used.Augnablik (talk) 17:41, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

That's me, I'm one of those noobs! :D

but fr I really appreciate how supportive and nice everyone is in the Teahouse. ApteryxRainWing🐉 | Roar with me!!! | My contributions 17:43, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

@QcneJust curious how you’d know that “no one else seems to use it” (the Thank feature)…Augnablik (talk) 17:00, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I've made literally tens of thousands of edits over 15+ years, been 'thanked' only a handful of times, and perhaps 30 barnstars. Thank whom you wish, barnstar those who you think deserve, but I don't feel that we are here for accolades from others. David notMD (talk) 17:07, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

@Augnablik I'm pretty sure you meant to tag me, but @David notMD's response pretty much sums up what I'm talking about. I have four thanks and about 200 edits and it seems like that ratio holds even if you have thousands of edits ApteryxRainWing | Roar with me!!! | My contributions 17:09, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

You’re right @ApteryxRainWing. Carelessness on my part.

Sorry, @Qcne. Augnablik (talk) 17:15, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

@ApteryxRainWing: You have been thanked six times [5] but four were after your post here, maybe in response to it. Others cannot see which edit was thanked. I don't know thanks statistics but two thanks for 200 edits may be above average. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:46, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

My hypothesis is that if you thank other editors now and again, other editors are more likely to thank you. I have no statistics to back this up. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:23, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Seems a logical hypothesis, @Gråbergs Gråa Sång … similar to smiling:

”Countless studies have shown that the very act of seeing another person smile triggers an automatic muscular response that produces a smile on our face. Yes, smiling is contagious, and science has demonstrated that time and time again.” (“Say Cheese! The Effect of Smiling at Others,” Solara Mental Health Veterans Program, https://solaramentalhealth.com/the-effect-of-smiling-at-others/#:~:text=Countless%20studies%20have%20shown%20that,that%20time%20and%20time%20again.) *Sorry for long reference but I couldn’t find a way to link on my mobile phone.*Augnablik (talk) 12:02, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

(: Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:55, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

My submission to Articles for Creation was turned down June 29, and deleted before I returned to editing it in November.

I now have completed the article, addressing the points made by the reviewer. This article appears as a Wikipedia article when I Google the subject (Horst Kroll). My question is, how do submit the article for review? I cannot find any prompt for access to Articles for Creation. Or will the article be reviewed automatically? I hate to think of it simply disappearing.

The WikiDataItem for this new version is Q131353855.

I think the earlier submission, declined by Greenmail, was 1231712396. Dan Proudfoot (talk) 17:05, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

If this is about Draft:Horst Kroll, it exists, with a Resubmit button. David notMD (talk) 17:10, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

There is far too much in the draft that is not about Kroll. David notMD (talk) 17:14, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, David. I cannot understand why I did not see a Resubmit button. I wonder if somehow this is the Draft as originally submitted, that seemed to have disappeared and I presumed it deleted. Will look now. Dan Proudfoot (talk) 17:16, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

It looks like you moved a version from draft to mainspace on 27th November: [6]; I think perhaps you were trying to change the name of the draft? Entmaiden (talk) 18:11, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

@Dan Proudfoot You have been editing the article in mainspace at Horst Kroll, since at least 1 December, with the last edit yesterday. You should stick to that version in any future work but note that it has not yet been reviewed by the new pages patrol, who may find it deficient. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:22, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

MT is right - the article exists, so ignore the draft (it will be automatically deleted for no activity in six months). That said, the article has far too much content that is not about Kroll. Massive cuts recommended. David notMD (talk) 20:29, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

There's also a lot of puffery and nonencyclopedic language that should be removed and/or rewritten, like "He turned heads by leading the first race", "he finished third, a bittersweet podium", "the brilliantly painted Chipwich Charger", "Kroll was fully in charge as the 1986 schedule commenced", "New to ovals but feisty", "spectating became his enduring pleasure", etc. A Wikipedia article should be written in a formal tone, not like an article in a sports magazine. CodeTalker (talk) 03:23, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Sports writing calls for a level of interpretation consistent with facts, so guilty as charged. That said thank your for your direction, I will attempt a more formal tone in tomorrow's revision. Dan Proudfoot (talk) 21:29, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I will work on revising the article accordingly. Dan Proudfoot (talk) 21:26, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

I was attempting a change in title. Bad move, as it turns out. Dan Proudfoot (talk) 21:24, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

When is it okay to have multiple Wikipedia accounts, if at all?

If I want to have a second Wikipedia account, say to review changes I've made to my sandbox or an article in a different view, would it be okay to do so? And if so, should they be "linked" in some way? (or are there other uses for multiple accounts?) Or is it seen as a sock/meat puppet account and would get me into trouble? Therguy10 (talk) 17:49, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, please see WP:VALIDALT for legitimate uses of alternative accounts. 331dot (talk) 17:53, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

This has the answers I wanted; thank you! Therguy10 (talk) 17:55, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Therguy10, when you write say to review changes I've made to my sandbox, that sounds problematic to me. It could be interpreted as trying to make it appear that two people were involved with that sandbox, instead of just one. Cullen328 (talk) 18:27, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

@Cullen328 Oh no sorry that's not what I meant by that! Let me clarify that so there isn't any confusion!

I was merely suggesting another account to view said article; not make changes to it. (That would most definitely cause confusion!) If I viewed the article on an "alt" account and found issues, I would simply switch to my "main" and make the changes. (The alt account would be used to see what a fresh perspective would see viewing said article, but not making any changes to it)

I hope that clears things up! (Oh and if it's still an issue and against Wikipedia standards then please let me know!) Therguy10 (talk) 18:50, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Therguy10, what you would see with an alternate account would be identical to what you see with your main account. Cullen328 (talk) 19:10, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

the Read and Edit screens display the same whether you've been an editor on that page or not. I don't see the neet of an 'alt' view. By definition, changing to the Read page is the view of the finishied/published product. Alegh (talk) 19:15, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Understood. I won't worry about making an alt account for now then. Thank you! Therguy10 (talk) 19:30, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

@Therguy10: An alternative account can have different preferences which affect the appearance of pages. See WP:TESTALT, but it's mainly used by more advanced users who have changed important things in their main account. The vast majority of readers have no account so you can just log out to test that. If you want to check how a page looks in other skins then you can see this without changing preferences by adding ?useskin=monobook or another skin name to the url. If the url alrady has a ? then add &useskin=monobook. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:35, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

"what you would see with an alternate account would be identical to what you see with your main account" This is not necessarily true. My main account uses a non-default skin and has a number of gadgets and user-scripts which significantly modify the appearance of articles. That said, viewing an article in a private browser window without logging in works for me and should give User:Therguy10 the perspective they desire. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:14, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

That seems like a better option than an alt account for sure. Thank you! Therguy10 (talk) 20:34, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

WP Style questions

I've noticed that many articles will make statements in the top section without citation and then have more detail, with citation, below. I'm inclined to add the citation to the first mention of the fact but since I commonly see that it is not I'm wondering if there is a WP convention not to put citations in the opening.

The instance that provoked this post is Gail Slater. It says in the opening that she is nominee for Asst. AG for Antitrust without a citation.

Near the end of the article, it has further details with a citation. But, unless there is a reason not to, I'd be inclined to add the reference to the first mention.

Also, while I'm posting here, the citation is to a NY Times article that would be subject to a paywall. Since I am sure there are lots of reliable sources without paywalls, I'd be inclined to add one of them. These questions about about general practices more than this specific case.

So, I'll also add that if there is a good WP Style guide or FAQ that answers questions like these, I apologize for not finding it myself but willl appreciate it if you point me to it. Jreiss17 (talk) 20:00, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

@Jreiss17 The first part of an article is called the lead in Wikipedia and as that linked page explains, it is intended to be a summary of what follows, and is cited, later. Some leads do indeed also include citations but some of our very best featured articles don't. One thing that is almost always an error is when the lead has a citation which isn't also used in the body of the article, using named references. Mike Turnbull (talk) 20:08, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

.... there is a manual of style which covers many other details but is perhaps too daunting for most people. You can usually get help/guidance by using the search bar with the prefix WP: followed by the keywords you are interested in (e.g. WP:PAYWALL) but asking here at the Teahouse is also fine! Mike Turnbull (talk) 20:14, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Jreiss17, the relevant guideline can be found at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, which says Because the lead usually repeats information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Although the presence of citations in the lead is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article, there is no exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. As for the New York Times reference, I would leave it in and supplement it with a more accessible reference. The New York Times often goes into much greater detail than free sources, and there are many ways to access their content. For example, subscribers (like me) can send gift links to non-subscribers. Cullen328 (talk) 20:15, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. That's all clear and helpful. I also subscribe to NY Times but assume most WP readers do not. But I do agree the greater depth can be helpful. In general, I rarely (never?) delete citations others put in a article.Jreiss17 (talk) 06:42, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

THank you all. That is clear and helpful.Jreiss17 (talk) 07:03, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

space engineers 2

I am having trouble with this since it is my first time making a page so I was wondering if I could have help maybe? 45.78.143.73 (talk) 20:47, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:space engineers 2

I'm sorry but I think it is very unlikely that an article can be written on this topic yet as it appears to have recieved no independent, reliable coverage. There's not even a press release, just speculations which are of no interest to Wikipedia. You might need to pick another topic, or wait until there is anything concrete to say about this one. -- D'n'B-t -- 20:57, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Teahouse hosts are here to advise, not author or co-author. David notMD (talk) 04:20, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

The published rules re "conflict of interest" seem very strict. Apparently I'm to be discouraged from creating (or even editing?) an article concerning any company for which I've ever worked for -- even if my only interest is historical and I have no axe to grind (so help me!). It would seem that there is value in preserving some defunct company's contribution to the development of a key modern technology. Please advise me. JdelaF (talk) 21:03, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

@JdelaF The guideline can appear strict but is designed not to discourage editing but to encourage disclosure. Many editors work on topics for which they have some type of COI but even paid editors are allowed to draft articles here provided they use the correct process. The guidance at WP:SELFCITE allows you to use some (normally academic) source which you authored, with care. So my advice is to be as open as possible on either your Userpage or the Talk Page of the article but not worry too much about long-past associations, especially where you no longer have any financial stake or the company no longer trades. Mike Turnbull (talk) 22:57, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Illryian pure sport

Hello my page was declined I wanted to know what I should add to this car brand Mrmacrobloxteleb (talk) 21:41, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Mrmacrobloxteleb, I assume you mean Draft:Illyrian pure sport (sport car brand). I am by no means a very experienced editor so take my words with a grain of salt. The reason given by the reviewer at AfC was:

"This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources."

Your draft has one citation, while it should ideally have one for every fact that may be challenged. I would suggest reading over the blue links above and; Wikipedia:Simplified Manual of Style, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability and your first article. Good luck, CF-501 Falcon (talk) 22:21, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Mrmacrobloxteleb, and welcome to the Teahouse. I will echo CF-501's advice, and say more.

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

In this case, the crucial policy that you have not carried out before creating your draft is to determine whether the car is notable or not, in Wikipedia's sense (broadly, that there has been enough reliably published, independent material, published about it to ground an article on). This is like starting to build a house without first surveying the land to see if it is suitable to build on.

The one source you have cited looks to me as if it is reliable, but not very independent: the author says some things about the car that are probably his own thoughts, but much about it - and in particular, everything about how it came to be - are quoted from Thaqi, and so not independent. I would say therefore that this might be a useful source if you already had at least three sources that meet all three requirements in WP:42. But until you have found at least three such sources, putting any work at all into this draft is a waste of your time. ColinFine (talk) 17:15, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

How to stop vandalism?

Hi - I'm an occasional Wikipedia contributor. The entry for an acquaintance, Suzanne Blier, has been under attack, violating NPA [[7]] policy, listing out of context material and making false and misleading claims. The personal attacks have been deleted numerous times by me and other contributors, but the vandalism by the one person continues. How can this material be reviewed and handled appropriately? Thanks. Cdrp221 (talk) 21:52, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

The article has been protected to prevent editing. Please discuss issues on the talk page. You should also disclose your conflict of interest, see WP:COI. 331dot (talk) 22:13, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Cdrp221, that article has not been vandalized. Vandalism requires a deliberate, conscious intent to damage the encyclopedia. Disagreements about content are not vandalism. Suzanne Blier has been subjected to an onslaught of promotional editing pushing a specific point of view by new editors who do not understand Wikipedia's policies and guidelines despite claiming to. Promotional editing and POV pushing is forbidden on Wikipedia is strictly forbidden by policy. We have a core content policy requiring neutrality. Several previous accounts have been blocked for violating our policies so you need to be cautious. Make your case calmly at Talk: Suzanne Blier. Cullen328 (talk) 23:52, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Divock Origi

I am just totally fed up with editing Divock Origi's Wikipedia page. It is frequently "defended" by Wikipedia folks who simply cannot accept that he no longer plays for the club. The AC Milan club's own website makes it clear that he is no longer a player for the club. The club's directors made it clear that he is no longer part of the team (use your web search engine of choice and choose your trusted source (not that I agree with the concept of trusted source!). He was demoted to the Serie C side (Milan Futuro) but does not feature for that side either. It is reported that he has been allowed to train separately and spends his time between Florence and Rome. It is further reported that he remains in Italy for tax reasons. Look, saying that he "plays for" (present tense) is wrong, inaccurate. OK, let's play the Wikipedia game then: you give me your source for the claim that "he plays for AC Milan". Come on. Where's your source? Finally, I am wondering why this sort of misinformation persists at Wikipedia. 2A02:C7C:D4BF:AD00:E8B7:35B3:3F3:54CD (talk) 22:47, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

The quoted source in the article is from AC Milan itself, which says he has a four-year contract from 2022. If you wish to argue that he no longer plays, then please discuss this on the Talk Page of the article at Talk:Divock Origi. Mike Turnbull (talk) 23:04, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

How’s it going folks?

Answer by replying! 2605:B100:1129:3EBA:F5C1:F97C:E3CE:D855 (talk) 22:53, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Do you have any questions about editing Wikipedia? Cullen328 (talk) 23:19, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

The shortest pencil

Hello, my brother keeps saying that the worlds shortest pencil is just a tiny piece of led is he true? CaCaCaCatherine (talk) 00:26, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

@CaCaCaCatherine: Welcome to the Teahouse. Did you have a question about using or editing Wikipedia specifically? Questions like yours are better posed at one of the reference desks. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:38, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

@CaCaCaCatherine It is false. Pencils do not contain lead. You can read all about pencils in our pencil article. Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:27, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

I mean, graphite is almost always called lead, but it's still an effectively unanswerable question. Cremastra ‹ u — c › 15:00, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Bedford Park school artical

Hello,

My name is Mobina Maghami. I wrote an artical about my school, Bedford Park School, after spending a year researching it. My goal is to help more people learn about the school and encourage them to consider it as a great place for education.

I have attempted to publish my article several times on Wikipedia, but it keeps getting regected. I am uncure why, as I makde sure not to include anything inapproprate or incorrect. It has been a long process, and I am eager to see it published because no one has written about my school on Wikipedia yet.

I would greatly appreciate your help in understanding why it was rejected and how I can improve the article to meet Wikipedia's standards. It means a lot to me to contribute accurate information about my school.

Thank you for your time and guidance.

Mobinaa2012 (talk) 01:42, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

The article, Mobinaa2012, has been declined, not rejected. (In the context of Wikipedia drafts, there's a difference.) A notice at the top says: "the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

• "in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)
• "reliable
• "secondary
• "strictly independent of the subject

"Make sure you add references that meet all four of these criteria before resubmitting." And it says this with a profusion of links, so that if you don't know what for example "reliable" means in this context, you can click on "reliable" and find out. Certainly not all that you read will necessarily be easy to understand, and people here in the "teahouse" are willing to explain the difficult bits. But which bits are difficult? -- Hoary (talk) 02:09, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

@Mobinaa2012: Welcome to the Teahouse. I would consider maybe tackling another subject if your goal is to help more people learn about the school and encourage them to consider it as a great place for education. Wikipedia is not a place to promote its article subjects. In fact, some other veteran editors who frequent this page will strongly recommend you edit existing pages before you even think about creating a new article from scratch. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:18, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

@Mobinaa2012 Welcome to the Teahouse. As the above comment says, Wikipedia is not the place to promote its subjects, so it is unlikely your article will be published if there aren't enough WP:RELIABLE SOURCES on the topic. TheWikiToby (talk) 05:35, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi, @Mobinaa2012. I've had a look at the draft. I agree with the feedback you have had that this is not yet ready to be published, because it doesn't have enough independent, reliable sources to verify the statements in the article. But as this is a school which has existed since 1911, I think it's likely that sources do exist which could be added. This article from the Toronto Observer, for instance. I would suggest you have a hunt for newspaper and local history sources which have covered the school. WikiProject Schools may have other ideas. Have a look at referencing for beginners, too, and make sure you add all the relevant information to any sources you cite - date, publisher etc. Best wishes, Tacyarg (talk) 11:07, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Just realised, @Mobinaa2012, that it's an elementary school. This does change the picture a bit - it tends to be harder to demonstrate that elementary schools are notable in Wikipedia terms and that coverage of them is not just routine, run-of-the mill. You might do better trying out smaller tasks on Wikipedia, or the WP:ADVENTURE, to get a feel for how good content on Wiki works. Best wishes, Tacyarg (talk) 12:48, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Collapsed TOC

I've been working on Attacks on the United States, which subsequently has a lot of headers. I noticed on Timeline of the Russian invasion of Ukraine (1 August 2024 – present) that the table of contents is collapsed inside itself (drop-down arrows for "August", "September", "October", ect...). How can I set that up to help make the TOC on my article more manageable? The attacks on US article is already subdivided by "1776–1899", "1900–1945", ect... as level 3 headers, so the way the Russian timeline TOC is set up would be perfect for this article as well. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:44, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Weather Event Writer, see {{Horizontal TOC}}. Mathglot (talk) 08:14, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

the myth of the west article has a problem

 Courtesy link: Frontier myth

Frontier myth - Wikipedia: the article says that the west myth was created up through the 20th century - that would mean the myth of the west was created until 24 years ago. The myth claims that people were moving to the new frontier until the country was fully formed - Alaska and Hawaii were made states in the 1950s bringing the country to 50 states. Baby Boomers were being born from 1946 through 1963 and are not a myth nor is Vietnam or Korea or World War II. Both Teddy Roosevelt and Franklin Delano Roosevelt were US Presidents and did exist. Please read and correct the article so it makes some sense. 199.66.171.52 (talk) 05:28, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you that the wording is confusing. Currently it says:

The American frontier occurred throughout the 17th to 20th centuries as European Americans colonized and expanded across North America.

You can edit the article yourself. Feel free to do so, and make the wording clearer. I would probably go with: "through the 19th century", but use your best judgment. Mathglot (talk) 08:20, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

When writing or improving an article about the Frontier myth. one not need be too concerned about the fact that Teddy Roosevelt and FDR actually existed. Neither was mythical and Teddy, in particular, was associated as an actual popular heroic figure as a hunter, explorer, cattle rancher under extremely adverse conditions, and Rough Rider in combat against Spanish troops in Cuba. Quite shortly thereafter, he was president of the United States. To the best of my knowledge, FDR is not associated with frontier myths. Hawaii was a kingdom plagued by terrible luck in its royal family. Alaska was an unprofitable Russian commercial colony. The United States obtained both under dubious circumstances as seen from today's perspective, but they are both firmly part of the United States today. Cullen328 (talk) 09:22, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

The OP might benefit from reading the article Myth, which in the context of History has a different meaning to the everyday one. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.211.243 (talk) 18:07, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

I want to add new column in a table

column TrueMoriarty (talk) 07:22, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi, TrueMoriarty. Are you using the Visual Editor, or the source code editor? In Visual Editor, it is very easy to add a new column, just click the column header of one of the columns to visualize a small widget above the column header, then click the widget to get a drop-down which includes a pair of insert column links. Hope this helps! Mathglot (talk) 08:10, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

thank TrueMoriarty (talk) 10:58, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

From starting with editing wiki articles to publishing my third article

I am thankful to Wikipedia editors here who provided guidance and helped me with my articles editing journey to where i successfully published two articles. i am on the journey to make addition to wikipedia with my article draft:Southbridge Investments a pan-african company promoting real solutions to ailing problems that have affected the continent. The company is led by a former president of the African development bank and former prime minister. Even though the company is in Kigali, Rwanda and i am based in Nigeria, i think there are some reasonable number of sources that meets Wikipedia:Notability requirements to qualify my draft for an article. But as i keep improving i will still be relying on the assistance of the dedicated efforts of editors here. thank you Marvs100 (talk) 09:05, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Marvs100: your draft states that its subject is a division of "southbridge group". Wouldn't it make more sense to create an article about the parent company, rather than about one of its divisions? Maproom (talk) 10:29, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

I thought about that at first but later realized during my research that the sources have covered mainly about Southbridge investments and very little about Southbridge group. Most media sources published news on the investment subsidiary of the group. Thanks a great deal for the advice. Marvs100 (talk) 18:17, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

My Draft article was rejected,even I added reliable, credible and independent sources.

My Draft article was rejected,even I added reliable, credible and independent sources to verify.But I think every Wikipedia reviewer is likely here to reject every draft.Because the do no want to come up others.These was by draft.draft:Yaarian Bantomey (talk) 12:33, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Yaarian was Declined, which is less severe than Rejected. Hundreds of drafts are submitted to English Wikipedia every day, and the cadre of volunteer reviewers do their best to evaluate every draft. David notMD (talk) 12:40, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

@Bantomey Civility is important. Directing incivility towards all reviewers is deeply unpleasant. That, alone, would be sufficient to discourage anyone from making a further review.

Please confirm that you read and understood the reason it was declined. If you have further questions, generally the first person to ask is the reviewer, Idoghor Melody. Put plain, however, the song fails WP:NSONG as presented in your draft.

You have work to do. Please seek to prove it passes NSONG, and resubmit. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:41, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Your references confirm the song exists, but are not about the song, i,e, are not reviews. Also, Times of India not always considered a reliable source reference, and it is impossible that you retrieved these references in 2019 for a song released in 2023. See song articles linked at Guru Randhawa for better examples. David notMD (talk) 12:45, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

How do I get rid of a space?

In Pietro Aretino, under "The Last Judgment" is " [T]he sagging flayed skin". I can't get rid of the space after the opening quotation mark. The opening quotation mark had previously been at the end of the previous line. To move it down to the line with "[T]he sagging flayed skin" I inserted {{n b s p}}. (I just added spaces between the letters so that they would be visible in this Teahouse question.) That succeeded in moving the opening quotation mark down to the next line, but it left the inappropriate space after the opening quotation mark. How do I fix that? Maurice Magnus (talk) 13:30, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

@Maurice Magnus: There's a non-breaking space between the opening quotation mark and "[", put there by the {{nbsp}} template. Remove the template and the space will go. To stop the text breaking where you don't want it to break, use the {{nowrap}} template. Bazza 7 (talk) 13:49, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

@Bazza 7 I can't figure out how to insert the nowrap template. Would you do it please (and I'll see how you do it)? Thanks Maurice Magnus (talk) 13:58, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

@Maurice Magnus You might also want to think of better wording prior to the quotation so as to give greater understanding of the context. Something like this, maybe? James Connor notes that, in Michelangelo's The Last Judgment, completed in 1541, he had painted Saint Bartholomew displaying his own flayed skin: "[T]he sagging... Nick Moyes (talk) 14:13, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes. Good suggestion. I've put it in, and it solves the space problem without the use of any template. Thanks. Maurice Magnus (talk) 14:22, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Another editor — User talk:Deor — put in the nowrap template anyway, so now I know how to do it. Thanks, everybody. Maurice Magnus (talk) 14:35, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Archiving a talk section

Hello! I've just finished writing a section in Talk:2024 Syrian opposition offensive, and since the matter has been resolved, I'd like to archive it. However, it seems rather difficult to do based on the instructions in Help:Archiving a talk page, and I wouldn't want to mess anything up. What would be the proper way to archive it, and should I even archive it to begin with? Thanks. SirDoor (talk) 14:35, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

@SirDoor, I've added archives and archived anything that hasn't had a comment in 7 days. A bot will take over. Valereee (talk) 15:01, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia refuses Gen Beta until reputable sources say it?

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

---

The popular Media has revealed news stories as of late accepting the change officially now.

I realize it is up to more than that and Wikipedia's community will deny the switch until it's even more apparent, but I'm pointing it out now: Gen Beta cometh.

https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Living/generation-names-and-years/story?id=114802892

https://1075koolfm.com/new-generation-begins-in-2025-gen-beta/

https://www.nationthailand.com/news/general/40042288

https://www.sinardaily.my/article/223756/culture/life/2025-marks-the-dawn-of-a-new-generation-welcome-gen-beta Timelinessly Timelinessly (talk) 19:54, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

@Timelinessly Please understand that Wikipedia is not ever going to be first with the news. It's not news media. It records what is said about a topic in reliable secondary sources. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:03, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

@Timelinessly We have already had Generation Beta as a soft redirect to Wiktionary since last May. Now that the name is gaining traction in ? reliable sources, you should be able to expand that into a full article. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:11, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I would if I could, but it's fully protected and probably would get deleted soon after I do that. Timelinessly (talk) 17:11, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

@Timelinessly Please see, and use, {{Edit fully-protected}} if you wish edits to be made to a fully protected article, use the process at WP:AFC if you feel an article is merited when one is absent. Please do not feel despondent. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:18, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @Timelinessly. If you think that sources exist to establish notability (remember that they should each meet all three parts of the criteria in WP:42), then the thing I would recommend to inexperienced editors is to create a draft using WP:AFC.

Having said that, though My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft.. ColinFine (talk) 17:19, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I am fairly confident in editing Wikipedia, I understand how it works. I just want to communicate my reputable sources to warrant this article so as to not get my edits undone. Timelinessly (talk) 17:21, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

@Timelinessly Note Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Generation Beta where it was deleted by consensus. If circumstance change the consensus may be very different. Please heed the worlds of advice from@ColinFine and at the head of the deletion discussion. Indeedmplease read the discussion to become better informed about what was wrong with the article as it was then 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:21, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

From what I gathered, it was Wikipedia:Too soon because reputable news sources were not reporting on it, only primary McCrindle sources. That was April, and now ABC, VOA and others report on it, which is why I believe it is warranted now. Timelinessly (talk) 17:23, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

@Timelinessly I recommend most strongly that you use the process at WP:AFC, and get to work. Do not write what yu want to say and then find references to fit, that would be WP:BACKWARDS. Find the references that prove, (WP:V), notability and record, in your own words, what they say. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

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

John Wesley Cotton

•  Courtesy link: John Wesley Cotton

Dear Teahouse: This article about the artist is correct and should be placed under his name instead of an incorrect article by a private gallery which has the wrong nationality (his place of birth was in Canada) and date of birth. Thank you. Joan arden murray (talk) 21:11, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi Joan arden murray. Did you mean the article is "incorrect"? For reference, the naming of articles is supposed to follow the policy specified in WP:ARTICLETITLE, and the name utimtely chosen is expected to follow WP:COMMONNAME. If you feel the name of the article should be changed, the best place to propose this is at Talk:John Wesley Cotton. If you can show that reliable sources regularly refer to this person by this other name, then including links or information about those sources in your post will help get the name changed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:40, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi. I meant the article I started for Wikipedia should be placed on the internet uhder his name at the top of the page on him. Right now there is an article from a private gallery in the US placed there. Could you replace it please? Thank you.Joan arden murray (talk) 00:15, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

@Joan arden murray: Wikipedia doesn't really have any control over the how things appear or in which order they appear in Internet search results. It also doesn't have any control over how private galleries post information on their websites. You could, I guess, contact the gallery directly and explain the error if you want, but there's really nothing Wikipedia can do to "fix" this kind of thing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:24, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Got it! Thanks anyway.Joan arden murray (talk) 00:58, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Cross-site watchlist

I'm wondering if there's any way to have a single watchlist that will cover pages across Wikipedia, the Commons, and Wikimedia? I have things on my watchlist in all three places, and while I often check my watchlist on here, I often forget about the other two. – OdinintheNorth (talk) 00:01, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

@OdinintheNorth yes: meta:Special:GlobalWatchlist. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 01:22, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you!! – OdinintheNorth (talk) 01:24, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

On the link you shared. I saw only my activities on "Meta-Wiki".

I don't see anything from "Wikipedia in English language" or "Wikipedia in French language".

Can you explain to us why I don't see the others wikis ? Anatole-berthe (talk) 01:41, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

You need to click the "settings" button and add sites whose watchlists you want to see. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 01:43, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I tested but I can't add "wikidata" and "mediawiki"

It does seem normal but I have a doubt. I can add others projects without any problems. Anatole-berthe (talk) 02:27, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I think you have to do www.wikidata.org, www.mediawiki.org, etc. for multilingual sites. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 02:28, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I tried with "wikidata.org" and "mediawiki.org".

I followed your advice that is add the three "W". It's running rightly !

Thanks you ! Anatole-berthe (talk) 02:37, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

No problem. Happy editing! '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 02:41, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Reliable Sources

Hello! I just wanna ask if X (formerly Twitter) can be exception to the Government account? I was 50-50 here because I was approving a draft article and I don't know if failed on WP:SOCIALMEDIA or WP:TWITTER? Hope can help me, thanks! Royiswariii Talk! 00:03, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Royiswariii. Although I do not fully understand your question, the relevant policy language can be found at WP:TWITTER which you already linked to. If you can ask your question more clearly, perhaps we can help you in greater detail. Please explain what you mean by "Government account". Cullen328 (talk) 01:37, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Cullen328, On Draft:Upper Hand Organization the cite this post of Metropoliceuk on X a gray checkmark says This account is verified because it is a government or multilateral organization account. which is that account controlled by UK Government or I think division of UK Government. There is a exception on this reference? Royiswariii Talk! 02:04, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Royiswariii, an official tweet from a verified X/Twitter account is a primary source, and the relevant policy language can be found at WP:PRIMARY. In my opinion, that particular tweet is so vague and lacking in detail that I do not think that it adds anything of value to that draft. Cullen328 (talk) 03:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

@Royiswariii The BBC and Channeldraw sources you already cite are much better as both are secondary and the BBC at least is considered reliable for Wikipedia. There is no need for multiple extra primary sources and you should simply delete them. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:03, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Non-autoconfirmed board

Why is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Non-autoconfirmed posts in Administrators' noticeboard/ and archived to the same archive as AN, when it's only linked from WP:ANI (for non-autoconfirmed users when it's locked) and not from WP:AN? – 2804:F1...6F:C038 (::/32) (talk) 00:52, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Also for some reason the posts are still being archived at archive 300, when the latest archive is 366. – 2804:F1...6F:C038 (::/32) (talk) 01:01, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

If someone leaves a comment on my Talk page, will that person see (or at least be notified of) my reply?

If someone leaves a comment on my Talk page, will that person see (or at least be notified of) my reply? (That is, my reply posted on the same page [my Talk page], below their comment) Captain Quirk (talk) 01:25, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

If the person follow your "Talk Page" with the "Watchlist" . This person will receive a notification.

The same if the person activated notifications by mails.

Messages on a "Talk Page" are public. Everyone can read these. Anatole-berthe (talk) 01:34, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Captain Quirk. The best way to be sure that another editor is aware of your response on any page, including your own talk page, is to ping the editor. I have just pinged you. Please read Help:Notifications for a detailed description. Cullen328 (talk) 01:42, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

So then, how do you "ping" them? Instructions please. Billyshiverstick (talk) 03:02, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Use the character @. When you use this character , pseudonymous appears. Anatole-berthe (talk) 03:14, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

@Billyshiverstick If you use the [ reply ]-button, the reply-window has a little-guy-with-a-plus button that can be use to ping people. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:43, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Basically . —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 07:08, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

That's the one. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:25, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

@Captain Quirk: Welcome to the Teahouse. Assuming that they haven't fiddled with their preferences, they should get a notification in their , as they should be subscribed automatically when they made the original post. Of course, the best way to be sure is to ping them as Cullen328 pointed out. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:47, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I discovered today we can ping an user. Anatole-berthe (talk) 02:12, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Please Help me to upload "Song of Tibet.JPG to the film item

Please Help me to upload "Song of Tibet.JPG to the film item. It says it seems you do not have the copyright. It is a film poster of 24 years ago. Jingfua (talk) 02:28, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Jingfua, you don't say what help you want. And Song of Tibet.JPG is not in Wikimedia Commons or English-language Wikipedia. When you say "It says", what do you mean by "It"? Why would you think a 24-year-old poster would be in the public domain? -- Hoary (talk) 08:08, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi Jingfua, You have already succesfully uploaded Song of Tibet poster.jpg. But you do still need to awnser the copyright questions on that page before it gets deleted. A easy way to do this could be with the template {{Film poster rationale}} - just fill in who owns the image. -- D'n'B-t -- 08:07, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

youtu.be

Why is youtu.be blacklisted? How is it different to the main youtube.com url? (tag me in replies please) Industrial Metal Brain (talk) 07:43, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Because, Industrial Metal Brain, it's a redirecting address. It has no advantage over youtube.com for those who click on it. -- Hoary (talk) 08:02, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

A question

Good evening, I just noticed that anyone can edit my (or anyone's?) User Page. I was wondering, could someone explain the rationale? Isn't there a danger of User Pages being subject to vandalism? Or is there possibly an option to close my User Page to edits by foreign parties? KiltedKangaroo (talk) 10:40, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

This is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. SO by default, others can edit your user page, and perhaps vandalise it. Vandalism can be undone, reverted or possibly hidden from view. The page can be protected. But we probably still want you to be able to edit your own user page. Usually it is vandals that are opposed to you, your opinion or your work that will vandalise. But they will also be blocked if they persist. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:03, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Much to that end, I've only ever had one person vandalise my userspace, my talk page to be exact, and I've done a bunch of anti-vandalism work in the past so I'd kind of expect more. If people vandalise your user page routinely enough, you can request protection for it, but this is very rarely needed. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 11:15, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

@KiltedKangaroo In your user preferences, under 'notifications', you can choose to be notified (here or by email) if anyone edits your user page. Shantavira|^{feed me} 13:39, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Could you detail exactly how to do this, @Shantavira? I’d like that protection too but when I tried just now, I couldn’t succeed. Augnablik (talk) 14:05, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Preferences > Notifications > Scroll down to "Notify me about these events" > Edits to my user page, second option down. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 14:15, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

@Commissar Doggo, I see there’s a big difference between trying to do that on a mobile — which was where I first tried and failed — and a computer, where I am now, On the computer, I see the options you mention. They didn’t appear when I tried on my phone.

But even now, I’m down to Edit to my user page and I see next to that, three options: Web, Email, and Apps. They are grayed out. What do I do now? Augnablik (talk) 14:24, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

@Augnablik: Your email is probably grayed out because you haven't defined an email address in your Wikipedia profile. You can set it from Special:Preferences. This is also necessary to recover your account if you forget your password (and it's also rather critical that you update your listed email address in the event that you lose access to your email account). Fabrickator (talk) 17:54, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Actually, my e-mail address IS saved in my User profile.

By the way, why are there two different ways to refer to Preferences, the other being Special Preferences? I came to understand they’re the same thing, but it’s very confusing. Augnablik (talk) 18:13, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I apologize if my suggestion was not helpful ... perhaps this goes to show that there's more complexity to Wikipedia than many fairly experienced users may perceive. Regarding your question about two different ways to refer to "Preferences", there is in fact a redirect from User:Preferences to Special:Preferences. Notice these are the values that work in the context where a Wikilink is expected. I'm not completely certain this is exactly on point with your question, but it's my "best guess" to explain what you described. Fabrickator (talk) 18:54, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

You picked up correctly on my concern, @Fabrickator. I just don’t “get” why the redundancy in terms. The term PREFERENCES I get — it refers to the tab on our User page. But the term SPECIAL threw me, because it doesn't appear with Preferences on our User page, and it has some abstruse connection to MediaWiki.

As a still newish editor, though, I have to confess that from time to time what seemed impossible to understand yesterday becomes clear tomorrow. Augnablik (talk) 10:28, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

@Augnablik: Special:Preferences with a colon is how to link to the preferences of a user. "Special:" means it's a special page in MediaWiki and not an editable wiki page. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:33, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Deleted page archives

I want to know if there is a place on Wikipedia that archives deleted articles, as I wanted to find the contents of a few deleted articles (specifically the article on the 2028 United States presidential election, which has been deleted.) Thank you, -Sword172 Sword172 (talk) 17:30, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

2028 United States presidential election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is an actual extant article right now though? Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 17:50, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @Sword172. There is very definitely not a place on Wikipedia that archives deleted articles, as they would then not be deleted. But admins can usually see deleted pages, and may be willing to restore them in some circumstances: see WP:UNDELETE. ColinFine (talk) 20:12, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

@Sword172: Also some other places on the Internet may copy Wikipedia pages, before they are deleted. So if you search for the topic you may be able to find a copied but now deleted page. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:17, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

@Sword172: FWIW, there are versions of "2028 United States presidential election" from before then available in the Wayback archive. There's even a history page. See November 29, 2024 version and archived history going back to November 23, 2024. Hint... on the archived history page, the links are actually good, but you have to strip off the part referring to the Wayback archive, i.e. everything before "https://en.wikipedia.org". However, you can't directly do a "diff" of two versions, though if you really need it, this can be done with "Special:diff". Fabrickator (talk) 20:24, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. -OP Sword172 (talk) 00:38, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Making Wikipedia Pages Affectively

Whenever i make wikipedia articles or edit them its kinda always been hard to see and right in that microsoft visual studios code format. Any tips? 73.193.219.32 (talk) 20:19, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi IP editor, have you tried the Wikipedia:VisualEditor? It's a WYSIWYG editor that's more like writing in a word processor like Microsoft Word. It has some limitations, but far simpler than learning Wikitext. qcne (talk) 20:36, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

More general info than specific to IP OP's question, users of the source editor may find the syntax highlighter helpful (relevant images at WP:HILITE). Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 21:02, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Making huge changes to the Restless Legs Syndrome page. Need help

I know a lot about Restless Legs Syndrome but not much about Wikipedia editing, so any advice is much appreciated! I'm making changes to the medication treatment portion to include more current information on Opioids as a viable and recommended treatment option for refractory RLS. Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restless_legs_syndrome Bookminder (talk) 21:29, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

@Bookminder Welcome to the Teahouse, and to Wikipedia! We welcome the involvement of experts, but we need to make them aware that they must never add content based upon what they know. Everything - literally everything - needs to be based upon Reliably Published Sources. Research papers and other primary sources that have not been reported upon elsewhere need to be avoided like the plague. Instead, you should cite sources that have assessed and reported upon primary research. This is one of the fundamental differences between academia and Wikipedia. In the former, we expect primary sources to be cited; here we don't. Here we are more a collation and distillation of secondary sources, written in your own words (not copied verbatim).

I will leave you a welcome message on your talk page with links for you to read and work through to learn about the editing process. If in doubt, start slowly (as you would when learning to drive a car) before setting off at high speed to write on topics you are personally connected or very familiar with. I hope this helps, and I'm sure others will offer additional advice.

I should finally add that "huge changes" must be discussed first on an article's talk page. A new editor is highly unlikely to appreciate the complexities of how Wikipedia works. So, simply laying out your concerns and proposals for changes (new sections/reworking an existing section etc.)—including citing sources you propose you use - will allow other interested editors to offer their thoughts. We have very strict requirements for sources used in medical-related articles. You will need to read and understand these by following this shortcut link: WP:RSMED. Should you be involved in research or treatments in this condition, you would have a Conflict of Interest and should declare that in advance by following guidance at this shortcut link: WP:COI. I hope this helps. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 21:37, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

If you are a published researcher for this topic, general advice is do not cite your own work. David notMD (talk) 23:00, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

@Bookminder, that article needs an update. Medical school textbooks and review articles from the past five years are the best sources. If you need help finding decent sources, ask for help at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:57, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

New Article

I'm not sure if I should put the topic's name in the title, or the subject, sorry. I've seen that Fil Henley, a YouTuber and musician who is creating controversy in the music industry and has been written about in European and Australian news and tv, has several mentions by name in other articles, but the links are either not there or go to the X-Factor article because he is mentioned as a contestant. I've assembled some friendly assistants and we're researching to write an article but I have only done edits, I've never submitted a new article. I've been reading your resources, but am still not certain how to start, but I think I can do it. Is there anyone who might be able to mentor or give me some tips? The first question I have is how to register with you that I'd like to create this. Thank you! -- ATXcheshacat (talk) 08:35, 10 December 2024 (UTC) - Cat) ATXcheshacat (talk) 21:37, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @ATXcheshacat.

Creating a new article is very challenging for new editors (I know you've had your account for more than ten years, but with only four edits, you are still a new editor, I'm afraid). My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft.

When you read your first article, it will advise you to use the WP:AFC system to create a draft, and then submit your draft for review once you think it is ready.

Absolutely your first step, even before creating a draft, should be to read WP:NCREATIVE, and make certain that Henley meets either one of the specific criteria for creatives, or the general notability criteria - because unless you can demonstrate that, your draft will not be accepted however hard you work on it.

Note that it's fine for several of you to work on a draft, but each person should have their own Wikipedia account: accounts must not be shared. ColinFine (talk) 22:52, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for responding so quickly! This request is only meant as a preliminary, I plan to continue practicing by editing more as I'm preparing to do this project. I'm not sure why there's no record of my edits in the past, but it was a long time ago. Because I know I need fresh knowledge and experience, I've been reading and viewing the many resources on WP. I'm expecting this to take time and that's good because this is a developing situation. The context is the use of pitch correction and lip-synching in the music industry. I check regularly, but I wanted to see how to avoid having others duplicate the work, whether there's a space other than this I should register my intent with this subject. If someone has already started, maybe we could work together. -- ATXcheshacat (talk) 08:35, 10 December 2024 (UTC)ATXcheshacat (talk) 00:18, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Need someone to review a page

Hello I recently made a page about the album "When You Wake Up" by the singer Molina. It's been published and I would like if someone could review it to tell if it's ok. Also I took some inspiration from other artists albums' pages (I even gave credits to one in the description of the edit you can do) is that alright too?

I don't know if this is the place sorry CrimsonScarletBurgundyy (talk) 21:38, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

@CrimsonScarletBurgundyy I've taken a look at When You Wake Up, and currently it's been nominated in a deletion discussion because it doesn't seem to meet the notability criteria for albums. To improve the article, you need to find more articles (not on Wikipedia, not autobios, etc) to establish notability, as indicated by the criteria linked above. In some cases, the song just isn't notable, and thus can't have an article in its name on Wikipedia. Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 22:43, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

By "its been published" you mean you bypassed AfC and put it in mainspace yourseof. It has been nominated for deletion. Among many problems, having a very lengthy quote from one reviewer is wrong. David notMD (talk) 23:10, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Can I upload photos from the web for my article about an actress?

Hello!

Thanks in advance for anyone willing to help. I'm writing my first Wikipedia article about my favorite actress. I had one try but the photos I uploaded seem to violate the Wikipedia guidelines. So, now I want to try one more time, but I'm not sure where to find images that are copy-free. The person I want to write about is from Slovakia, all I can do is find images online but how do I know they're copyright free. Is there any other way - may I cite the sources and how, and borrow their images? Please help, thanks. Marijakondic2023 (talk) 23:05, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @Marijakondic2023, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Unless you can find positive evidence that a picture has been released under a suitable licence (or is so old that it will be in the Public domain, then you cannot use it, I'm afraid.

But worrying about images before you have written the article is like worrying about how to decorate the rooms in a house before you have started building the house: leave it till later. Not all Wikipedia articles need to have images, but all Wikipedia articles should have inline citations to reliable independent sources.

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. ColinFine (talk) 00:03, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

AI generated text unrelated to artical title, maybe revert

I was reading through a text book on electricity when I wanted to know more about the term "specific potential energy". So I went to the Wikipedia article only to find that the article had been edited by a user using AI and the AI generated text referred to "massic gravitational potential energy" not "specific potential energy" as the unchanged article title would imply. I think that that AI edit should probably be reverted even if the original is quite bare-bones, just because the generated text is referring to a different subject to what is in the title. But since other edits have occurred since then, I think it would be better for a more experienced editor to do the reversion or remove the generated text.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Specific_potential_energy&diff=prev&oldid=1185063267 CoderThomasB (talk) 23:42, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi CoderThomasB, I hope you are well. It does seem that this article was generated using AI, and I have reverted the changes made by a suspicious user. Thank you so much for pointing this out and taking so much time out of your day to contribute! Hope you have a great week, L.E. Rainer 23:56, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Citations

Hello, I am Caman and I have a doubt, can I provide links to any reputed source I want or does it have to be my article.

Thanking you Caman9899 (talk) 00:28, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Caman9899. I'm not 100% sure what you're asking. But you are welcome to add links to Reliable Sources to support statements of fact in any article. This does not have to be in articles you started. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:47, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Also, you don't have to be the author of the source to cite it. Perception312 (talk) 02:25, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

FYI for passerbys, OP has put up the retirement banner 10 minutes after the first response for this. TheWikiToby (talk) 02:30, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

(passerby) User talk:Caman9899 § December 2024 sort of clarifies the question here. The real, unrelated problem – as tediously frequently – is super promo unencyclopaedic prose additions, which they kindly self-reverted apparently unprompted. Folly Mox (talk) 12:18, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Seeking for recognition for a company i found

I tried to create a wikipedia page to introduce a company i found and just learnt that I am not supposed to do that- makes sense- COI! - any recommendation? 18.29.3.162 (talk) 02:29, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! Before I answer your question, did you intend to post this thread without being logged into your account? By doing so, you've revealed your IP address to us volunteers for identification. TheWikiToby (talk) 03:44, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi Leyla, welcome to Wikepedia!

Given your COI, you can still feel free to contribute to Wikepedia as long as you follow these rules:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{edit COI}} template)—don't forget to give details of reliable sources supporting your suggestions;
• disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § How to disclose a COI);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Wishing you the best, and I do hope you stay and become a Wikepedian!

Best, L.E. Rainer 03:50, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

You can abandon your draft, in which case it will be Deleted at six months, or you can tag the top with Db-author inside double curley brackets {{ }} and that will signal an Administrator to delete it. Generally speaking, new editors are advised to work on improving existing articles before attempting to create an article. Articles do not have hyperlinks, and all facts must be verified by references. David notMD (talk) 03:59, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

I sent you a Wikilink to a list of articles on a topic related your yours. David notMD (talk) 12:50, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Articles for creation rejected

I have been trying to create a Articles for Music Composer with proper information, with references and using citation. Someone help me to why it has been rejected , and how to verify this?

Draft:Alish Karki (एलिश कार्की) Jasperitinc (talk) 04:23, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Jasperitinc. First of all, your draft has not been rejected, which would mean that it will no longer be considered. Instead, it has been declined, which means that you are free to make substantive improvements and then resubmit it. The obvious problem is that your draft has a very promotional tone, and promotional activity is not allowed on Wikipedia. The Neutral point of view is a core content policy that must be followed. You need to rewrite the draft to eliminate the promotional language that provides your writing. Cullen328 (talk) 04:39, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! When your draft was declined (not rejected), this paragraph was added to the page explaining why,

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 (see the guidelines on the notability of people). 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

You can read our policies WP:N, WP:V, WP:BLP, and WP:RS to learn more. In short, your article must have multiple reliable, secondary, and independent sources which support the information in the article and that establish the subject as notable enough for an article. Sources like YouTube and IMDb are not reliable sources, so you should replace them. Also, please make sure the text follows out neutrality policy, WP:NPOV. TheWikiToby (talk) 04:39, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Example of not neutral

he has established himself as a leading figure, recognized for his innovative blending of traditional Nepali elements with contemporary sounds. His work has been instrumental in elevating the musical quality of Nepali cinema

David notMD (talk) 12:55, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Articles dodging/evading AfC process.

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

---

Good morning. Avid patroller here. I've noticed from time to time users will move articles - often times promotional or autobiographic - out of their sandbox or user page and into mainspace via the move tool.
Many of these are easily dealt with as due to the nature of the article it can be reported to WP:COIN or tagged as CSD/AfD, but what about the cases that aren't?

Let's use this article for example. It was created by a user by being moved from the sandbox, straight into the mainspace. Is there anything specifically reportable/taggable in cases like this, or is it now down to the patroller/reviewer to find problems wrong with it, and tag it as AfD as per usual? I can't find any specific policy or guideline against this practice, but you'd think dodging the entire AfC process is not permitted, no? Synorem (talk) 07:17, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Synorem. I assume that you are referring to the Articles for Creation (AfC) process instead of the Articles for Deletion process (AfD). The AfC process is entirely optional for all editors except very new accounts and paid editors. It is recommended but not required for less experienced editors. Highly experienced editors should avoid it because it adds unnecessary work to AfC reviewers. I have written well over 100 new articles and not one has gone through AfC or ever been deleted. I draft them in my sandbox space and move them to main space when they are ready. Cullen328 (talk) 07:27, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

(ec) I think you meant "skipping the AfC process.

There's nothing wrong in principle with moving an article from userspace to article space. An experienced editor who does not wish to use draft space can certainly create an article in their userspace. Having said that, this is not an experienced user, and at first glance the article has major problems. It can be moved to draft space in case it can be improved enough to warrant an article. Meters (talk) 07:29, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree that Dr. Nada Al Mahmood (hc) is a very poorly referenced article written in a promotional tone that violates the Neutral point of view. Cullen328 (talk) 07:32, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Oops, you're both right - wrong acronym. I meant AfC process.

If they're autopatrolled, and have experience - of course; no problem. From a patroller's perspective then, what's the main course of action? Re-draftify it and notify the user? Synorem (talk) 07:33, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

That said, with all due respect to other users: User:Stylishmuffin is far from experienced, and seems brand new. As per my previous comment: is the course of action just a reminder and re-move back to the user's draftspace of the article? Synorem (talk) 07:36, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Synorem, you can clean it up and add references. Or, you can draftify it. Or, you can nominate it at WP:AFD if you do a WP:BEFORE search and conclude that the person is not notable. Your choice. Cullen328 (talk) 07:39, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Alright, no problem. I see Meters has already cleaned it up & redrafted it since. Thanks for the help! Synorem (talk) 07:42, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

User: Stylishmuffin is very new and would be well-advised to use AfC. But they are autoconfirmed and are not required to use AfC by policy. If they are a paid editors, AfC would then be required. Cullen328 (talk) 07:45, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

I am not a paid editor! :) Stylishmuffin (talk) 08:06, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

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

References

Hello!

I would like help on references for this draft Draft:Typst. Looks like the submission was declined on the basis of sources that are not good enough. My references are

- references to the official website for the pronunciation (Draft:Typst#cite ref-1), company name (Draft:Typst#cite ref-2), and design objective (Draft:Typst#cite ref-3).

1. I think the reference 3 might read as promoting the software. Can someone suggest an alternative phrasing, or should I remove the sentence altogether?

- outgoing links, e.g., published release of other software; which I think is an acceptable use of the reference syntax. If I'm wrong on that point, please tell me! Draft:Typst#cite note-11, Draft:Typst#cite note-12, Draft:Typst#cite note-13, Draft:Typst#cite note-14

- or references for the statement "The language is intended to be easier, faster to use and learn than LaTeX while still offering similar capabilities.":

1. Draft:Typst#cite note-4 (2024-11); An article in the PCLinuxOS Magazine, whose publishing started in 2006. It's in-depth, reliable, secondary and independent of the subject. I believe I should keep this one
2. Draft:Typst#cite note-5 (2024-12): A french article blogpost on a famous specialized forum (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developpez.com). I have to admit, it is a rather weak reference. I should probably remove it.
3. Draft:Typst#cite note-6 (2023-03): A blogpost on the specialized news website GNU/Linux.ch. It was developed as an alternative to https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-Linux after it's discontinuation. It is rather short, so I should also remove it.
4. Draft:Typst#cite note-7 (2023-07): it's a reference to a presentation during TUGBoat 2023, TUGboat is the journal of the TeX Users Group. I think I should keep this one, seems to meet all criteria

- two references to the orignal authors master's thesis are included Draft:Typst#cite note-9, Draft:Typst#cite note-10.

- a single reference to a high-visibility usage of the software Draft:Typst#cite note-15

There is an additional comment on the phrasing and peacock terms, which I think might refer to the sentence: "The language is intended to be easier, faster to use and learn than LaTeX while still offering similar capabilities", but this sentence is the one backed by references (or at least tentatively). Do you see any other issues with the tone employed?

Thanks in advance!!

Quachpas (talk) 09:35, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

@Quachpas Welcome to the Teahouse. If a company develops something, is there a difference between that and it officially developing something? I think not. So avoid common traps like these.

I see you have been discussing creating this article on your off-wiki Forum for Typst. If you are connected with, or are being PAID by the developer, you would have a conflict of interest, which you should declare on your talk page. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 10:55, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Nick! For officially developing, I see your point. I was trying to emphasize that it is developed both by its community, and the company itself (supporting its development). I will modify this part.

From what I understand, I do not think I have a COI. For transparency, I contribute to a dependency of the software (biblatex), maintain a package at typst-community/glossarium, and actively participate in the Forum for Typst. I am also a user of the software.

The off-wiki forum indeed has a topic about this article, but I have received no payment for that. Quachpas (talk) 13:10, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

A Jar of Cranberry Sauce; or, The Crime in Room 13

A Jar of Cranberry Sauce; or, The Crime in Room 13 may have been a silent film, but I cannot find any information about it or its plot. If anyone has any knowledge about this possibly non-existent film, I would be delighted to hear. Thank you. Oleeveeya (talk) 12:02, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

The "teahouse" is a place to ask about using Wikipedia. A better place to make this request of yours would be Wikipedia:Reference desk/Entertainment. -- Hoary (talk) 12:26, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, and I apologize; I was merely curious. Oleeveeya (talk) 12:54, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

@Oleeveeya You are probably thinking of Room 13 (Wallace novel). There is also an IMDb entry for an earlier film but I wouldn't trust that souce. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:51, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but there are several newspapers from 1910 that mention this. It's quite suspicious to me. But anyways, thank you very much. Oleeveeya (talk) 12:59, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

For info: the question has now been asked and answered on the Entertainment desk. However, further information would doubtless be welcome there. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.211.243 (talk) 14:48, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

My first nominated article for deletion

So I nominated the article about Redout for deletion due to a lack of sources and the fact that the game is so dead that no one will ever report on it again. Did I do it correctly? I never use the source editor, but everything seems to be working. Also, since the article is so niche, should I even expect a response to the deletion discussion? ApteryxRainWing🐉 | Roar with me!!! | My contributions 12:52, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

@ApteryxRainWing yeah, the AfD was done properly, thanks! For future reference, tools like Twinkle can automate the process. I've added a couple of deletion categories, which should attract other editors familiar with the area. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 12:56, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

@CanonNi Thank you. What do the deletion categories do? Like, I saw that you added the Italy category since the developers are from Italy. Are there people who look specifically for Italy-related articles that need to be deleted? ApteryxRainWing🐉 | Roar with me!!! | My contributions 12:59, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Pretty much. The AfD was added to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Italy, a feed of all open Italy-related AfDs, which will attract more editors interested in Italy topics (and who might have found sources in Italian). '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 13:03, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Articles are not deleted just because a product or a company (or a person) does not exist any more. The article in question gets more than 10,000 views a year, which is not nothing. David notMD (talk) 13:12, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

@David notMD Sorry for sounding harsh when asking this, but where did you get the idea that Redout or its developers don't exist anymore? The game, its sequel, and all the DLCs for both titles can still be purchased digitally on all major platforms, and 34BigThings still occasionally patches Redout 2. The game just doesn't have any players, but the developers still work on it. Sorry for sounding like an asshole, btw, I just couldn't find a better way to phrase my question. ApteryxRainWing🐉 | Roar with me!!! | My contributions 13:17, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

@User:ApteryxRainWing, I'm not DavidMD but I got the same impression from the game is so dead that no one will ever report on it again. If it can be purchased and the devs are still working on it, that sounds like a game that could be the subject of further articles etc. StartGrammarTime (talk) 03:50, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

At youe nomination for deletion you wrote "Unless you guys want to keep this forever-incomplete article, then it has to go unless one of you guys can do your magic and find like 15 good sources on the gameplay, development, and reception of the game..." Usually, all Wikipedia asks is for at least three references. David notMD (talk) 04:45, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Potential vandalism attacks

Hello! My username is "Blmtom34" and I have recently created my account to add more correct information to a page. The page is "Club of Rome",https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Club_of_Rome, and I have posted two different references from the Club of Rome's official website, both references are archives of the page where a certain person is mentioned as being a member of this organization, at least at the time when the articles were posted by the official website. Two different users have deleted this information as an attempt to hide this person's membership and have labeled it as "false" even thought they were unable to explain how two archived posts from the organization's official website are false information. I corrected the misinformation in the meantime, however I am asking for help so that these type of people wouldn't be able to vandalize the page in the future. Thank you very much! Blmtom34 (talk) 13:18, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

@Blmtom34 Welcome to the Teahouse. You have done the correct thing by creating a section on the Talk Page of the article where you can discuss these edits. If the IP editors do not engage with you, that would suggest they are close to edit warring, which is never a good sign. You can take various steps, such as seeking a third opinion. I would point out that one of the problems with that article is that it has too many primary sources. It would benefit if you could find reliable secondary sources for more of its content. Please read all the pages I have linked. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:15, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Isn't the organization's official website the most reliable source if the person was a member of their organization or not? For example if we have a football player that is said that he plays for a certain team, wouldn't the official team's website be the most reliable source if it states that it is in fact their player? Blmtom34 (talk) 15:21, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

It is the same process whenever a person says that they work for a certain company. The most accurate thing to do is to reach to the company and the company will state if the person is an employee of theirs or not. Blmtom34 (talk) 15:24, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Not necessarily. An organization can have a number of reasons to make false claims about its membership. Just as a general example, they might want to claim that a famous person is a member to add to their own prestige (think of the kind of restaurant that makes all kinds of claims about famous people who have eaten there). The organization is a primary source about themself, and, though the name might be counterintuitive, primary sources are frequently not the best sources for Wikipedia's purposes. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:26, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

But when you weigh the two options, I think that a club's official page where it shows that the player is part of their team is much more reliable than me writing an article on my website saying that it's not, for example. In that case, I could remove all members from that section because Club of Rome has declared them their members and their site is not reliable. So in that case, no one is a member because Club of Rome said it and I should trust an article instead. Blmtom34 (talk) 15:39, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Plus it says that secondary sources rely upon primary sources. So a secondary source would have to show how Club of Rome(primary source) lied about their membership and I did not find any evidence of that anywhere. Blmtom34 (talk) 15:42, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

You are missing the part where I said "reliable". Something you wrote on your website would be secondary but Wikipedia would have no reason to treat it as reliable. We have extensive discussions about what is and isn't reliable for our purposes. See WP:RS and WP:RSPS in particular and note that we have a special place you can ask about reliability of an uncommon source (WP:RSN). I'm not saying that in this case the Club of Rome is unreliable, I'm trying to make a more general point. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:50, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I understand. Yeah, I just looked at a bunch of articles now and read through them and I couldn't find evidence that would disprove the Club of Rome's information. I will read the stuff that you have sent me. Thank you! Blmtom34 (talk) 15:54, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

My next steps and how to do them

Let's say I finished editing from Easy to Hard (suggestions). Then let's say I created my first article and then started creating articles. (Keep in note that the editing and creating articles I said is not true.) So, what are my next steps?

Editing >> Creating articles >> ?

Make sure to notify me by using the "Mention a user" symbol. Thanks! Taymallah Belkadri (talk) 14:14, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

@Taymallah Belkadri There is no simple answer. We are mainly volunteers doing whatever takes our fancy. Developing existing articles in subjects that interest me is how I spend much of my time, only occasionally writing a whole article from scratch. I also help out here at the Teahouse. If you can't think of something to do immediately, take a look at the WP:Task Center, where there are plenty of ideas. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:05, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

@Taymallah Belkadri to second what Michael D. Turnbull said, I would say to do whatever interests you, and whatever you feel would best improve the site! I am of course assuming good faith here, and as long as you follow WP:5 and consensus you should be fine! Best, L.E. Rainer 15:12, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @Taymallah Belkadri. To add to what others say, please do not assume that "creating articles" is the only, or the best, way to contribute to Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 16:01, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

@Taymallah Belkadri Welcome to the Teahouse. As the fellows above me have said, this is a volunteer project, so you can contribute in any way that you prefer. There is no linear progression that editors have to follow. TheWikiToby (talk) 16:30, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Taymallah Belkadri, what are you hoping for? What are you trying to achieve? You make very few edit to actual articles. The most recent was to Louisville Classical Academy, where you made two minor changes to the text, both for the worse, and removed the template at the top without any attempt to address the problems it described. Maproom (talk) 16:54, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Help needed with Wikipedia app

I sign into the Wikipedia app only to be signed out two seconds later. This has happened twice now. I have the right username and password. How do I stay signed in? FleurieElizabeth (talk) 14:03, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

I've no idea, FleurieElizabeth, but since nobody else has yet responded. . . . I've never used it (or wanted to). There do seem to be a lot of questions about how to surmount this or that bug; and I don't remember ever having read anybody's description of how much better the app was after using a browser. When I use Wikipedia on my phone, I use a browser (specifically, Ghostery), more often than not with Wikipedia set in "mobile" mode but not infrequently in "desktop" mode. You may wish to try this. -- Hoary (talk) 23:04, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

I definitely will try that. Thank you. FleurieElizabeth (talk) 23:15, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Is there a way to make myself a personal bio page?

Is there a way to make myself a personal bio page? If someone clicks on my account, I want them to know some stuff about me. Station24pride (talk) 14:40, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

@Station24pride click the person icon and then your username, then click "user page". Edit that page like a normal wikipedia article. That page will be what people see when they click on your name. JarJarInks (talk) 14:53, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! Station24pride (talk) 15:10, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

@Station24pride You can click the redlink in your signature, type something and publish. However, that page is meant for typing something about who you are and what you do/think as a Wikipedian. More at WP:UPYES. It's not meant to drive traffic to your social media etc. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:54, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

I just mean to tell people about me like what I do, what I like, etc. Station24pride (talk) 15:09, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

As noted, it's not for posting anything and everything about yourself, just information about you as a Wikipedia editor or user. 331dot (talk) 15:11, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

@Station24pride If you want, take a look at my userpage for example. I kept it short, with two paragraphs about my editing style and four short little paragraphs about myself. Make it yours, maybe add some infoboxes, userboxes, and images. Check out the userpages of other more experienced users for inspiration (and for any helpful templates you can steal!) and formatting. In the end, your userpage isn't really important since most people who visit your page are there to use your talk page so don't worry too much about it. ApteryxRainWing🐉 | Roar with me!!! | My contributions 15:23, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

I just want to do it because I am bored. Am I able to use it for personal info? Or just editing style. Station24pride (talk) 16:07, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

There's a sort of invisible line you shouldn't cross when making a userpage. Mine only has two paragraphs exclusively about myself, but technically it should have no biographical information. I don't know, enforcement on this whole thing is really spotty and no one really cares, just look at the userpages of established Wikipedians to know for sure what you should add. No one has complained about mine, though, so do whatever you want ApteryxRainWing🐉 | Roar with me!!! | My contributions 16:11, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Alright, I appreciate it. Station24pride (talk) 16:27, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

I would suggest reading Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors and remove any details that identify you. Theroadislong (talk) 17:38, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

I didn't write town, name, location, etc. Station24pride (talk) 17:43, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

They're likely talking about your age. Since IP addresses are public on Wikipedia, your age can be used to narrow down who/where you are. ApteryxRainWing🐉 | Roar with me!!! | My contributions 17:49, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

As long as Station24pride is logged in while editing, ApteryxRainWing, their IP address is not publicly visible on Wikipedia. Indeed, it's not visible to anyone, other than a tiny number of Wikipedia users; and even those people would need to cite a special reason for seeing it (as described in Wikipedia:CheckUser). -- Hoary (talk) 23:12, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

oh I thought it was still visible, my bad ApteryxRainWing🐉 | Roar with me!!! | My contributions 12:33, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

How to deal with an obsessed editor

Recently, I have been dealing with an editor whom I will not name to avoid drama who seems to be really obsessed and possessive over certain articles, mostly related to transgender issues. I made a small edit to the page about a certain south carolina politician who is in some hot water right now, and this editor wrote a small book on the talk page about why I was wrong. I tried to be polite in my explanation but to avoid a fight, I simply took the appeasement route (which in retrospect was the wrong choice). This isn't an isolated incident, this editor seems to love yelling into the void on article talk pages, protesting any edit that they don't like. Is this a normal thing, and is there anything I should do? I also am interested in LGBTQ topics but I don't want to start an edit war with this editor if we run into each other while having conflicting viewpoints. ApteryxRainWing🐉 | Roar with me!!! | My contributions 15:32, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

I have warned the user, so hopefully this won't happen again! Best, L.E. Rainer 15:45, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

@Luke Elaine Burke Thank you. For the record, I don't actually believe some of the stuff I said to that editor, but I felt that it was the best thing to say to keep them happy. In the future, is it a good idea to pretend to agree with someone to avoid an argument? ApteryxRainWing🐉 | Roar with me!!! | My contributions 15:49, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that's a good idea but equally you shouldn't deliberately take on more stress than you can cope with. If someone is trying to WP:BLUDGEON you, there are various thing you can do, as discussed at WP:Dispute resolution. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:57, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

@Michael D. Turnbull Alright. Sort of unrelated note but I am sorry for bludgeoning you on the Redout deletion discussion. I didn't even realize I was doing it, my bad. As for the other editor on the Nancy Mace talk page, I'll just ignore them and let them yell their frustrations into the void. Maybe (hopefully) they'll realize no one cares and they'll give up ApteryxRainWing🐉 | Roar with me!!! | My contributions 16:00, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

If you mean WP:Articles for deletion/Redout (video game) then I'm not involved and I don't know which other editor you need to apologise to! Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:35, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, got you mixed up with someone else 😅 ApteryxRainWing🐉 | Roar with me!!! | My contributions 18:37, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

How to update current Bio pic without getting rejected

anyone knows how to update current Bio pic without getting rejected, Please let me know Dan H Barouch (talk) 16:49, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm assuming you'd like to update the image on the article Dan Barouch, take a look at Wikipedia:A picture of you for a guide to accomplishing your goal. Amstrad00 (talk) 16:55, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

@Dan H Barouch Uploading a picture of yourself is difficult. You must have the right to upload it. But you not always, perhaps often, likely to have that.

If it is, or appears to be, a picture of the uploader, but there is no evidence that the image is under an acceptable free licence, then there are issues of copyright breach. Ownership or possession of a photo, proprietorship of the equipment used to take the photo, or being the subject of the photo does not equate holding the copyright. The copyright holder is the photographer (i.e. the person who took the photo), rather than the subject (the person who appears in the photo) or the person possessing the photo, unless transferred by operation of law (e.g. inheritance, etc.) or by contract (written and signed by the copyright holder, and explicitly transfers the copyright). Evidence of any transfer of licencing must be sent via WP:VRT

So the answer its, 'It's complicated', the more so if you are uploading to Wikimedia Commons, the place you ought to be uploading to 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:00, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

The simplest answer is to take a "selfie". As you chose the equipment, angle, lighting and the exact moment to press the shutter, you will be the copyright owner. Explain it is a selfie when you upload it. - Arjayay (talk) 18:09, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Oh, and don't upload it somewhere else on the internet before uploading it here. I'd advise you to not upload it elsewhere at all - although as you will release the copyright when uploading it to Wikipedia, someone else may do that in the future. - Arjayay (talk) 18:14, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Article being searched don't show

Laheriasarai article is'nt showing when searched on web browsers, instead it show Hindi version of it and Lakhisarai. For why?

can you edit and correct it Maithil hoon (talk) 17:35, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

No, @Maithil hoon, we can't. Laheriasarai was only recently changed from being a redirect, and search engines haven't caught up with the change. There is nothing Wikipedia can do about it. ColinFine (talk) 17:43, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

yup, i have changed it from redirect but also edited the whole article, is it just a glitch and will be sorted in few days? and can be visible on search engines? Maithil hoon (talk) 17:48, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

@Maithil hoon: The search engines don't update immediately, they need to crawl the page before indexing it. Expect to wait a few days before it's indexed. – dudhhr ^talk_contribs^she_her 18:03, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Ok thanks Maithil hoon (talk) 18:07, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Adding to what dudhhr said, and to answer your question, it is not a "glitch" but rather just a way that search engines act. It's related to SEO if you want to learn more about it, and it will indeed be sorted in a few days, so no need to worry, as it will be visible on search engines! Best, L.E. Rainer 18:07, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

I will see, Thanks Maithil hoon (talk) 18:08, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Maithil hoon. Please read Wikipedia:Controlling search engine indexing. In order to be indexed, a new article must either be 90 days old, or be approved by a new pages patroller, or be created by an editor with the autopatrolled user right. Autopatrolled is limited to highly experienced editors with an established record of creating policy compliant articles. Cullen328 (talk) 22:35, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Maithil hoon, new Wikipedia pages that have been patrolled are usually picked up very quickly. Laheriasarai is visible now on search engines. Mathglot (talk) 10:48, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

No resolution yet for WP:ANI#Persistent disruptive behaviour and unsubstantiated MOS:PUFFERY by 155.69.190.63

More than 12 hours on, there doesn't seem to be any action or solution taken about an IP address' personal attacks and casting aspersions in bad faith. Will there be a resolution, or if further action is necessary? hundenvonPG (talk) 18:21, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

@HundenvonPenang, once an issue is at ANI, it really isn't appropriate to bring it to the Teahouse. Please wait for the discussion at ANI to play out. ColinFine (talk) 18:54, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

why wont my article be published i added all the press i need

why wont my article be published i added all the press i need Liljosiey (talk) 18:36, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: User:Liljosiey/sandbox

Is the draft ☩ ^{(Babysharkboss2)} 18:40, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

@Liljosiey Interviews are not considered independent, and you have provided no other sources to back up your information. If no one has taken it upon themselves to write about you in reliabale sources then he is not considered notable enough yet to have an encyclopedia article on you. Review WP:NMUSIC as well. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 18:43, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse @Liljosiey. Your draft was declined. This reason was given,

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 (see the guidelines on the notability of people). 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.

You can read our policies WP:N, WP:V, WP:BLP, and WP:RS to learn more. In short, your article must have multiple reliable, secondary, and independent sources which support the information in the article and that establish the subject as notable enough for an article. The content in your article is also very promotional which does not follow our policy of neutrality, WP:NPOV. Also note that external links do not count as sources. TheWikiToby (talk) 18:43, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Others above have linked the comprehensive guidelines; if you need somewhere to start, consider looking at the Plain and simple conflict of interest guide first, then going back to the comprehensive versions when you need more details. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 18:48, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Aside from all of the above which is required to have an article in the first place, Wikipedia articles are expected to be written from a neutral point of view so descriptions like "...a rising force in the music industry. Known for his unique ability to blend genres ... captivated listeners with his authentic approach and heartfelt storytelling. His music is more than just sound..." is not appropriate. -- D'n'B-t -- 18:53, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't think anybody here has yet pointed you to the policy on autobiography, which says that writing about yourself is very strongly discouraged, and almost always leads to frustration and disappointment.

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. ColinFine (talk) 18:56, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Sandbox

Hello I'm trying to publish an article about a living athlete. Im not aware of all the requirements and am grateful for the opportunity to learn. What would I need to fix in my sandbox? Macrovoyant (talk) 20:53, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi Macrovoyant, hope you are well! To start,

Your submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

I would encourage you to keep working! You seem to be doing great and have put alot of effort into this draft! I would also suggest learning more about the rules of Wikepedia and other parts as it will help in the creation of this (and future) articles if you decide you want to keep editing!

Please let me know if you have any more questions, I would love to answer them here or on my talk page.

Best, L.E. Rainer 20:58, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @Macrovoyant, and welcome to the Teahouse, and to Wikipedia.

I'm afraid you have made several of the common mistakes that new editors often make, and so your first go at creating an article may well be disappointing for you:

1. You did not start by establishing that Morris meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability.
2. You don't appear to have a single source that is all three of reliably published, independent, and containing significant coverage of him (see WP:42)
3. You appear to have written the draft Draft:Landon Morris from what you know, rather than from what reliable independent sources say about him.
4. You have uploaded an image to which you don't appear to hold the copyright.

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. ColinFine (talk) 22:12, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Repeat/Reuse Citation in a single article - How To

I want the quick and easy way to correctly refer to the same external source more than once.

All I can find online is something about "foo."

Thank you!!!!!!!! LBDon (talk) 20:57, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

You can give the reference a name, and then use that to refer back to it. See WP:REPEATCITE. LizardJr8 (talk) 21:14, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Dear Lizard, tx for getting back to me so quickly. I found that earlier, but seemed to recall an easier process I used once but forgot.

That said, I need to learn to do what you advise.

In this convention:

Can you help me understand what is what? I believe that "name" which appears in italics, is the English name I arbitrarily choose to refer to the original citation, but I do not understand what "TEXT OF THE CITATION" means. Is that the entire original hyertext that generated the original citation? LBDon (talk) 21:47, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it would be the whole original text. So you could use <ref name="cbc">{{cite web|url=https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoon/saskatoon-regina-working-on-solutions-as-more-encampments-pop-up-in-frigid-temperatures-1.7403970|title=Saskatoon, Regina working on solutions as more encampments pop up in frigid temperatures|publisher=CBC News|date=9 Dec 2024}}</ref>

Then later on to re-use it, just use <ref name="cbc" />. LizardJr8 (talk) 21:51, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

If you are using the ref toolbar, see also WP:INTREF3 -- that might be the easier way you used previously? LizardJr8 (talk) 21:55, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I used the first paragraph of your sandbox as an example, if that helps. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 21:59, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

References

How to sign edits

Everyone appears to sign there edits how to do it Hideja (talk) 21:29, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Use 4 tildes. (four of these ~) (~~~~) Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 21:33, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

@Hideja If you use the "reply" option to comment on someone's post, the software automatically signs and dates it for you. It is only when using the "edit source" method that you need to add the tildes yourself and in that case you can always "preview" before you "save/publish" to check that it looks OK. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:35, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

How to place my comment

My comments in Afd are getting moved as I appear to place them at the wrong place. How to do them.I place the comment at the top of the page Hideja (talk) 22:04, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Your comments are being added in the wrong place, new comments should be at the bottom, not the top, which is why they are being moved. - Arjayay (talk) 22:09, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Improving an article

Talk:Foundations of Real-World Economics#Foundations of Real-World Economics

Anyone interested in this? Janosabel (talk) 22:24, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Teahouse hosts are her to advise, not to be authors or co-authors. Contributors to Foundations of Real-World Economics are morelikely to respond the the query your posted on its Talk page. David notMD (talk) 04:58, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

How do I put a box that says I speak Surzhyk in my profile

How do I put a box (1) in my profile that says I speak Surzhyk? I can't find a template and I don't know how to make one

(1) one like this {{user Europe}}
Красный Октябрь (talk) 01:31, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi Красный Октябрь. What you're asking about are called Wikipedia:Userboxes, in particular one of the user-language-related templates found in Category:Language user templates. I'm not sure whether there is a specific userbox template for Surzhyk speakers, but there seem to be several for speakers of Ukrainian found at Category:User templates uk and several for speakers of Russian found at Category:User templates ru.. You might want to ask about this at WT:Ukraine, WT:Russia or WT:LANG to see whether a member of one of those WikiProjects is aware of any such template. FWIW, if no such userbox already exists, you could, in principle, create one yourself; you could also just post something like "I speak Surzhyk" on your user page without using a userbox. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:53, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I found one thank you! Красный Октябрь (talk) 02:02, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Can excel files be uploaded as a valid source?

I am editing a page which currently has no sources verifying its total population count. The latest census published by the Census of India was in 2011, and i would like to add it as a source. However, the information about the total population is given as a download link which opens an Excel sheet. So, i was wondering if we should cite the website or upload the excel document as reference. (Website: https://censusindia.gov.in/nada/index.php/catalog/41277)

please help me out asap! :) Random8999 (talk) 04:43, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I suppose that you mean the file PCA_CDB-3214-F-Census.xlsx , which is described and prominently linked to within "PCA: Primary Census Abstract C.D. Block wise, Kerala - District Thiruvananthapuram - 2011". You can link to the latter. Strictly speaking, doing so might not be entirely satisfactory, as you'd be implying that the information came from that web page whereas it instead came from an XLSX file linked to from the web page, but as the point of the web page is to describe the XLSX file, I don't suppose people would object. (For at least two reasons, I don't suggest that you instead link directly to https://censusindia.gov.in/nada/index.php/catalog/41277/download/44908/PCA_CDB-3214-F-Census.xlsx.) And no, please do not attempt to upload the file either to Commons or here. -- Hoary (talk) 04:57, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

No don't upload it, but you could name the xlsx file linked from the web page somewhere in your citation. Web pages can change, and if the data is in the Excel file which is later removed (or changed) on the web page, your citation no longer verifies the content. Another way to handle the situation, is how we generally handle the problem of a web page whose content may change, namely, by adding param |url-archive= pointing to an archival copy of the web page. That will preserve the link to the Excel file at the time of your citation, so verifiability is preserved. Mathglot (talk) 10:36, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Foreign Language Quotes

According to MOS:FOREIGNQUOTE: Quotations from non-English language sources should appear with a translation into English, preferably a modern one. Quotations that are translations should be explicitly distinguished from those that are not. Indicate the original source of a translation (if it is available, and not first published within Wikipedia), and the original language (if that is not clear from the context). It also points to the Wikipedia:Translation for help, but that seems mostly about translating from other Wikipedias. What is actually the policy on translating quotes from sources? How is the translation made explicit? Tinynanorobots (talk) 08:31, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

If you're looking for an example, this is from the Victor Hugo article:

Je donne cinquante mille francs aux pauvres. Je veux être enterré dans leur corbillard.
Je refuse l'oraison de toutes les Églises. Je demande une prière à toutes les âmes.
Je crois en Dieu.

I leave 50,000 francs to the poor. I wish to be buried in their hearse.
I refuse [funeral] orations from all Churches. I ask [for] a prayer to all souls.
I believe in God.

Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:31, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

@Tinynanorobots and Shantavira: You can see another example with a reference [2] in Borsuk's conjecture § Problem. --CiaPan (talk) 09:59, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Shantavira, not the best example: the original French is incorrect as the second sentence is off. See s:fr:Page:Hugo - Actes et paroles - volume 8.djvu/64. A better example might help, but even that wouldn't answer OP's policy question. Mathglot (talk) 10:04, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure how well the policies are fleshed-out, but it's largely common sense.

(1) Most quotes are going to be similar to the Victor Hugo situation, obviously a quote because the original and the English stand side-by-side. All that is necessary is (a) use a "professional" translation if available, and (b) give references for both the original text and the translation. When I translate Wikipedia articles from other Wikipedias it frequently arises that there is a quote in the original language from which I'm translating, and where the source is in the original language and therefore doesn't translate. In this situation, I probably can't find a "professional" translation, so I translate it myself, and give no reference; I would not do this for a contentious piece of text.

(2) Where the reader may not know the language, state it. For example, 'Dying on the cross, Jesus spoke in Aramaic: "Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?", which is to say, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"' (attach sources as desired!).

(3) If you come across a situation where it's not clear that the quote is a translation, and you don't intend to give the original language, you may have to add a note, or in parenthesis, to clarify that it's translated. Another trick is to state the language, so as to indicate that it's translated: 'As he invaded Britain, Julius Caesar declared in Latin: "I came, I saw, I conquered!"' Elemimele (talk) 13:34, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I've found an error in an entry, and the entry is "semi-protected" status.

I've found an error in an entry, and the entry is "semi-protected" status. It's a minor error, but it is mildly irksome. There does not seem to be an "edit" tab. Is it still possible for someone to correct the error? BENOWITZ0512 (talk) 10:24, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @BENOWITZ0512, and welcome to the Teahouse. Every article has an associated talk page, and you can post your request there. If you use the edit request wizard, it will put it in the right place, and flag your request so that it goes on a list that editors will see who do not necessarily watch that article. ColinFine (talk) 10:39, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

A possible notable person

Could you please search for a person name Junius W.Yu and please verify the links if this counts as notable since he is a special and only representative for a school that is crucial for it’s achievements namely this link https://www.dlsu.edu.ph/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/contributors-041519.pdf aside from this https://www.philstar.com/sports/2017/05/05/1691143/teng-confirms-applying-pba-draft https://animorepository.dlsu.edu.ph/faculty_research/12754/ https://manilastandard.net/?p=315807 Toadster15 (talk) 11:00, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:Junius Yu

@Toadster15 solely based on the sources you linked above, they don't seem like a notable individual, as the sources are not independent or significant coverage. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 11:03, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Could you please check the links since I read some Toadster15 (talk) 11:05, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

A facebook video of themselves cannot establish notability. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 11:09, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

A possible notable in school

https://www.facebook.com/DLSUBCG/videos/teachers-monthbehind-every-leader-is-a-great-teacher-and-educatorin-commemoratio/427353551305113/ A continuation Toadster15 (talk) 11:07, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

https://books.google.com.ph/books/about/Legend_of_the_9.html?id=dqKe0AEACAAJ&redir_esc=y He also wrote a book Toadster15 (talk) 11:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

@Toadster15, please read Wikipedia:Independent sources. Their book cannot be used to establish notability. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 11:13, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

@Toadster15 What is important to show wikinotability is not just the fact that he wrote a book but that others have read his work and commented on it in reliable published sources, other than any blurb on its cover. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:24, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Page block

Hi Yesterday I spent several hours doing some editing on the John the Baptist page. However, all the edits seem to be blocked for something to do with my last edit that I do not understand. I have tried to undo that last edit to no avail and this morning I see a message with a big red exclamation mark that I cannot remove. Can someone please help me to unblock these edits? I'm new to this process and I'm sure I'll get better with time! Many thanks Rendham (talk) 11:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

@Rendham your edits to John the Baptist were reverted by Darth Stabro for reasons written in their edit summary. I'd suggest asking them on their talk page. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 11:15, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

In addition to what was already said, the minor edit checkbox is only for extremely uncontroversial things, such as fixing typos, structure, or reverting obvious vandalism. See WP:MINOR for more. If you're convincing others of a change, edit summaries such as "minor edit" or "small edit" give absolutely no context to other editors about why an edit was made. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:08, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm a newbie and I'll get the hang of it. Rendham (talk) 16:09, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Why won't my translations get published?

Dear Wiki-wizards,

I would kindly request your help with my company's history page.

Colleagues from around the world have provided translations for our Wikipedia page, but I can't manage to get them published. Chinese and German are online, but French and Korean are still stuck and we don't understand why.

Thank you so much for your help. Edwards Vacuum E Serluppens (talk) 11:12, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

@E Serluppens this is the English Wikipedia, and we can't help with projects in other languages. You say Colleagues from around, so please make a paid editing declaration on your user page, thanks. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 11:16, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

There is already a declaration at Talk:Edwards Vacuum. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:18, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Also note that every Wikipedia is a separate project, with their own editors and policies. What is acceptable on one is not necessarily acceptable on another. 331dot (talk) 11:57, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

dummy edit doesn't work

why is it that when I follow the instructions here my edit doesn't show in history or on my contributions? But it seems to work with other users. How did that user do it? ☆SuperNinja2☆ TALK! 12:05, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

@Super ninja2 Difficult to say, since obviously I can't see your contribution! However, I guess that you may have gone into edit mode and not actually changed anything before trying to save/publish with your new edit summary. Note how in the example diff you linked the editor had swapped stuff around, although it made no difference to what readers would see. I suggest you try a few things in your sandbox to practice, where you deliberately don't change anything and when you do, to see the difference. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:15, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Note how in the example diff you linked the editor had swapped stuff around, although it made no difference to what readers would see.

how did he do it? ☆SuperNinja2☆ TALK! 13:16, 10 December 2024 (UTC) I see it now. Thx!

If I add an empty line or a space at the end of the article and then published it, is it supposed to appear in article history? cuz that is what I'm having problem with. ☆SuperNinja2☆ TALK! 13:21, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

White space at the end of a page is always trimmed, so the end result is always the same and nothing changes. Anywhere else should work (some places obviously better or worse than others). -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:36, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

what about a white line at the end of a page? ☆SuperNinja2☆ TALK! 13:38, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

By white space I mean whitespace character, so no, any string of whitespace characters, including new lines or lines only containing spaces, at the end of the page won't work because it's always removed and the page is unchanged. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:47, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

@Super ninja2, I make dummy edits by adding a single space at the end of a paragraph and it works fine. They aren't automatically trimmed before saving. If I run into something strange while editing I experiment with it in my sandbox. Try dummy edits in your sandbox and see if you are still seeing the problem. StarryGrandma (talk) 18:37, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

What add-on does this user use for showing diff (in picture)

What gadget or user script does this user use un the pic to show diff like this? ☆SuperNinja2☆ TALK! 13:37, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

@Super ninja2 Looking at the image I doubt there's anything special going on here, just using the visual editor version of the diff and then pasting screenshots from it into some photo editor like Photoshop or paint.net as a way to compact the image and improve readability. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 13:53, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

@Super ninja2: It's a view from Visual diff view instead of the Inline one. --CiaPan (talk) 14:03, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

wow, thank you! ive ben around in wikipedia for almost 9 years and never noticed this feature! ☆SuperNinja2☆ TALK! 18:15, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Joe Gatto

The image that I have been trying to add to the info box on Joe Gatto has been reverted a few times as it is a newer picture I am trying to add. Am I in the wrong? WhyIsThisSoHard575483838 (talk) 15:38, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @WhyIsThisSoHard575483838, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Like anything else in an article, the choice of photo is something that editors sometimes disagree on. This doesn't mean that one editor is right and the other wrong, just that there is disagreement.

When this happens, please follow WP:BRD, and discuss the matter to try and reach consensus. Do not edit war. ColinFine (talk) 15:45, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Never Use Alone

Hi team, this is an organization that was recently mentioned on the public radio program This American Life. It's a hotline for drug users in the USA to call and be matched with a live person who stays on the phone with them as they use, ensuring they're safe and checking in on them. They collect information for emergency services in case the user stops responding. I was curious if it's notable enough to create an article. Unfortunately, most of the research I've done only points to the Never Use Alone website (neverusealone.com), is it 'notable' enough for a page? Mnuber (talk) 15:47, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

@Mnuber, it would require coverage from several independent reliable sources to be considered notable by Wikipedia standards. Their goals are noble, but it may not be they are notable enough yet for an encyclopedia article on them. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 15:54, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

How to create.

Hello. I am wondering how to create an article. Please answer as soon as possible. Thanks. Polarbear121 (talk) 16:04, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello. Creating a new article is the most difficult task to attempt on Wikipedia. It's like asking "how do I build a house" without any experience in land acquisition or construction. It's highly recommended that you first gain experience and knowledge about how Wikipedia works by using the new user tutorial, and spend much time editing existing articles, to learn more about what is expected of article content.

If you still want to create a new article now, you may use the Article Wizard to create and submit a draft. You will first want to gather independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the topic you wish to write about that you can summarize. You should also examine the notability criteria to see if the topic meets it. 331dot (talk) 16:12, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

WE NEED TO MAKE A PAGE THAT YOU CAN VANDALISE

IT WILL DRIVE EVERYONE TO THERE 64.226.155.157 (talk) 16:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

The Sandbox is available for test edits, though not "vandalism". And please don't yell. 331dot (talk) 16:21, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

sorry i had caps lock on. but dosent sandbox get deleted every day 64.226.155.157 (talk) 16:30, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

It gets wiped multiple times a day ☩ ^{(Babysharkboss2)} 16:42, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

WHY ARE YOU YELLING JohnR1Roberts (talk) 16:43, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

i had caps lock on MILATSCHOOL (talk) 16:46, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

This has been tried in real life (e.g. by providing a blank wall that people are allowed to graffiti), and it doesn't work – the vandalism carries on elswhere just as much.

Part of the reason why people vandalise is that they get a kick out of annoying others and breaking their stuff. See also Mischief.

Sites like Wikipedia are particularly attractive because there's no meaningful real-world consequences – no-one is going to be arrested, or fined, or sent to jail for it. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.211.243 (talk) 16:44, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Depends on the vandalism. Didn't a guy get arrested because he wrote in a page that someone died, minutes before the news was announced to the public? JohnR1Roberts (talk) 16:46, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes! ☩ ^{(Babysharkboss2)} 16:56, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

This idea was already proposed years ago. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:45, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Sir John Fitzpatrick

Please can you restore this entry and suggest someone who could help me edit it so that it can be published? Shepreth (talk) 16:38, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @Shepreth.

The draft Draft:Sir John Fitzpatrick was deleted for inaction (for the third time) on 28 October. Again, you can ask for it to be undeleted: see WP:REFUND/G13.

It is unlikely (not impossible, but unlikely) that anybody is going to want to work with you on this: you are the one that wants to create the article. The one time that you submitted it for review, it was inadequately sourced - that is a very common outcome for drafts created by editors who have not spent time learning about Wikipedia's requirements before trying to create an article.

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. ColinFine (talk) 16:56, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Teahouse hosts are here to advise, not co-author. There are people who offer to create articles for payment, but most of those are scams (either nothing gets done, or the work is so poor that it will not be accepted). David notMD (talk) 17:24, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Accessing old public admin archives and sockpuppet lists, Questions about Userboxes, and Question about topicons

Hi there,

I have a few quesitons so I greatly appreciate the patience and kindness in advance!

1. How to access old public admin archives and sockpuppet lists, and if that would be possible?

2. Are userboxes that display permissions required?

3. Is there a standard (syntax) way to take template data and then turn that into a topicon?

Best, L.E. Rainer 17:35, 10 December 2024 (UTC)