Wikipedia:Teahouse

Sdkb, 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

Making an article about The Ramanujan Machine

I'm not sure if making an article about The Ramanujan Machine is notable. Is it? Ratamatao ✉ 09:58, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

"If you have to ask whether some imaginable subject is notable, then it almost certainly is not," is the response that's so true (though perhaps, for politeness' sake, better left unsaid). Here, however, the coverage linked to from the site's page of "Coverage" (example) is substantial, so I'd imagine that the subject is notable. -- Hoary (talk) 13:13, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

@Hoary: I hate adding any discordant notes here, but I feel compelled to say that quote is pithy but empirically untrue often enough that I think it's rather inapt. We get the question "is X notable" daily, if not more often (which means our attempts to broadcast our standards for inclusion are working to an extent), and the answer is manifestly "Sometimes 'yes', sometime 'no'" – with the "yes" not a rare occurrence (though admittedly less than half the time).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:54, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Those results, and the method used to find them, are fascinating (I hope more such results will be reported as they're found). I doubt the topic is notable (In Wikipedia's idiosyncratic sense) yet, but I expect it will be in a year or two. Maproom (talk) 07:49, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

So, should I start making the article? Ratamatao ✉ 12:29, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Ratamatao, I suggest that you create Draft:Ramanujan Machine, and, when you think/hope that it's pretty decent, both (i) submit it, and (ii) put up a little message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics, inviting anyone interested to look at it. Above, Maproom says they don't think it merits an article: if you don't want to risk having your article-creating time wasted by the reviewer saying the same thing, then don't create the draft but instead post to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics the same question: "Do you think that the Ramanujan Machine is [Wikipedia-style] notable?" If the answer is yes, proceed. -- Hoary (talk) 11:14, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

@Hoary OK. Thanks for your advice. Ratamatao ✉ 14:42, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't really understand the subject, but continued fractions seem to be relevant. Approximating irrational numbers with continued fraction expansion looks classical, and using ai looks new. It also seems to use real numbers instead of complex functions. IMO.--SilverMatsu (talk) 10:44, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I definitely don't understand the subject, but I looked at the web site, and I don't understand what the Ramanujan Machine is. When dealing with anything called the XYZ Machine, whether in engineering, physics, or math, the first challenge for the author is to explain what the machine is and does. There are a lot of different things called Machine in various sciences, and I also know that there are a few Machine papers that can't explain what the machine is because it is a hoax. So the first task is to explain what it is. And what does it have to do with Ramanujan? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:27, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Will you accept this as a question?

A simple question: Will the hosts and other editors who participate in the Teahouse project accept a sincere thank you for helping people out and making WP a better place? Brunswicknic (talk) 09:26, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

You might want to read Expect no thanks bop34 • talk • contribs 11:01, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely, thank away. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:52, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

We definitely would but we wouldn't expect any. Most of us here are just volunteers, helping out the community on our own time. But a thank you is always welcome! Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 13:22, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you to all hosts and other editors who participate in the Teahouse project. You are making WP a better thing, not merely in content, but in helpfulness and kindness. Good on youse. Brunswicknic (talk) 10:08, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Adding Articles That Don't Meet Notability Policies?

What's the procedure if you notice an editor/group of editors creating articles or stubs for encyclopedic inclusion that they, more likely than not, know that the topic is not notable enough for Wikipedia? Evidenced by putting sources in the article that are broken/dead/non-existent/trivial mention, etc. with no additional sources to verify topic notability. Megtetg34 (talk) 20:22, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

@Megtetg: nominating those articles for deletion should be a satisfactory response for now. versacespaceleave a message! 20:24, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Would you provide links to some of those articles? Possible that Speedy deletion might be faster. David notMD (talk) 21:19, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

David notMD - Sure! And, I've mostly done as versacespace has suggested. For example though, here, here, and here, etc. Just continue nominating for AFD as find them then? Megtetg34 (talk) 23:44, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

@Megtetg: sounds good! it may be easier to check the users' article creations at special:contribs instead of looking for the articles. versacespaceleave a message! 23:49, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

versacespace Thanks for that link! Megtetg34 (talk) 03:40, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Checking editors' other article creations would take a LOT of work for your second example, as User:Edwardx has created more than 500 articles. David notMD (talk) 01:03, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

David notMD In what circumstance would it be 100% appropriate to bypass an AFD and just go straight to Speedy? Would any of the articles I provided links to, for example, have been candidates for speedy instead of AFD? Just trying to get a benchmark example moving forward. Megtetg34 (talk) 03:40, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

@Megtetg34: i don't believe so, maybe under criteria A7? versacespaceleave a message! 03:48, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I had thought that Wikipedia:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people might apply, but the criteria for that requires that the article in question "contain no sources in any form (as references, external links, etc., reliable or otherwise) supporting any statements made about the person in the biography." I suppose the regular PROD could also be applied to BLPs that obviously do not achieve notability. David notMD (talk) 07:26, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Waiting for submission / Where is my pending article now?

Hi folks,

I worked for a week on my first article (about Marianna Muntianu (don´t know who she is? Well, you won´t find her at wikipedia yet...) Whatever, I finally dared to ask for a review to convert the draft into a published text. The info popped up it would take about 4 months. Well... ok. BUT: Today I wanted to change sth. but can´t find the text anymore. I´m a bit nervous the work disappeared forever... Thanks, Uta UtaNabert (talk) 20:32, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

@UtaNabert: it's actually right here. Do what you'd like with it. versacespaceleave a message! 20:40, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

CAN take as long as months. The pile of drafts at AfC is not a queue. Reviewers select what they want to review next. So, could be days, weeks, or (sadly) months. You are welcome to continue to edit Draft:Marianna Muntianu while you wait. David notMD (talk) 21:21, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

UPDATE: @UtaNabert: Declined after some clean-up. Reviewer identified weaknesses. David notMD (talk) 08:59, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Question on Notability for Restaurant

Hi there! I'm a bit confused at the notability guidelines, so I'm asking it here. Recently, I've been doing a lot of research on a local pub/restaurant that's been around for a few hundred years, and I believe it could make a decent Wikipedia page! I was just wondering, however, would this be notable enough for Wikipedia?

Thanks in advance! Owen250708 (talk) 20:40, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Owen250708. The test is simple but the devil's in the details.

• See generally Help:Your first article. Then:

1. compile a list of reliable, secondary, independent sources that treat the topic in substantive detailTemplate:Z21 (think at least two to three paragraphs dedicated to the topic [one proviso – for a restaurant, that would have to be about its history, founding, background, etc. – matters on which an article could be based; not just different reviews of their food]), to see whether it is actually notable, as we use that concept here; the existence of those sources is what determines whether a topic is generally notability;
2. however, please be sure you unpack that standard, with its four mentioned parts, and thus look for the right types of sources and depth of treatment – you might find Wikipedia:Common sourcing mistakes (notability) of assistance with that;
3. if you can't make that list with at least three entries, with different content from one another, write nothing – no article is seemingly possible on the restaurant at this time, because it hasn't been the subject of sufficient independent publication by the wider world – and you will be wasting your time; no amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability;
4. if you can, visit the Wikipedia:Article wizard and follow the prompts to create a draft;
5. write only what the sources you've compiled first verify (without copying the words used); and
6. cite those verifying sources as you write, which will also demonstrate the topic's notability.

Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:44, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

If the building has been around for several hundred years there is a good chance of it being listed, that will give you at least one good source, possibly several covering the building from an architectural point of view. If it is listed grade I that will usually be enough to meet the notability criteria without further worry. ϢereSpielChequers 22:12, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

The Old Trip to Jerusalem, The [[Ye Olde Salutation Inn Salutation]] and the Bell (all in Nottingham) have articles with a spread of references and seem to me to be good examples of the kind of thing required. So does the Cheshire .Cheese off Fleet Street,London. The Bell at Long Hanborough and the Plumbers Arms,Belgravia are not so good. Spinney Hill (talk) 23:50, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm surprised that a building with 9th century elements is only grade II, even by English standards that is old for a building still in use. One of the great things about freedom of panorama is that we have a huge supply of photographs of the UK - I added a pic of the Bell and a reference. ϢereSpielChequers 09:21, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Offer to rewrite a draft for money

I wrote a draft about my Father Richard Kerner who is a retired professor, and the draft has been in review since January 2021. I flagged that I was related to him, but that the page in English is mostly a translation of an already written article in French, by a person not related to him. Recently, my Dad received an email from a certain Tamsin S Amanda declaring they are an experienced Wikipedian:

"I am an experienced Wikipedian. I will do online research and rewrite the content in an encyclopedic tone, format the draft according to Wikipedia guidelines and get it approved, I will forward the final draft for you to review before submitting it."

My Father replied to thank that person, who then said:

"I will rewrite this declined draft according to Wikipedia guidelines and submit it for review. It will cost you Euro 280, pay me when the page approved and published. Regards, Tamsin S Amanda"

I understand that nothing prevents people from offering their services for a fee, but this looks very much like a scam. I should say that I support Wikipedia by making monthly donations. What is Wikimedia Foundation's position on such matters? JacquesKerner (talk) 21:39, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi JacquesKerner. It is probably is a scam – see Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Scam warning – but it might not be. There are a bunch of mostly incompetent, often predatory acting, but nevertheless actual services that do write Wikipedia articles for money. The result is often a pile of stinking garbage, done in violation of our policies, for far too much money, that most of us could do far better than in about an hour, and that get deleted, but that's not "technically" a scam, right? If it's not clear, I recommend staying far, far away. Oh, by the way, the first email content you excerpted is probably what they write to numerous people, so it's been groomed a bit. The second part is full of grammar mistakes because they had to actual tailor it to your father's message, betraying their lack of English competency, and thus assured lack of ability to write a truly competent article.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:50, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I really appreciate your quick answer! We'll just stay put and wait for a good soul to review the draft. Is there anything one can do to have such a draft processed in the following months? JacquesKerner (talk) 22:03, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

@JacquesKerner: I think it is definitely a wise decision not to respond to the people asking for your money! I took a quick look at Draft:Richard Kerner – I am not a reviewer, but I am a reasonably experienced editor, and also an academic. My gut feeling is that he is notable, but I wonder if there might be more references by independent/secondary parties writing about him? That kind of source is often hard to find for academics, and it doesn't have to mean that the person is not notable according to Wikipedia's definition, but it would help. I don't know whether you have consulted this guideline – it tells you more about what makes an academic notable in the eyes of Wikipedia, especially when there aren't many secondary sources. It is possible that User:DGG might have more input on this, since he is very knowledgeable about the notability requirements for academics. Bonne chance! --bonadea contributions talk 22:17, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the guideline on academic notability, I will read it to better understand if Richard Kerner qualifies and if so, what to provide to support the claim. --JacquesKerner (talk) 22:28, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

(e/c) @JacquesKerner: Anytime. Meanwhile, there's really nothing you can do much to speed up the review, but I can advise that it will surely be declined in its current state. We are looking almost entirely for content that is verified by citations to reliable, secondary, independent sources that treat the topic in substantive detailTemplate:Z21. The draft mostly cites primary sources, and most of the sources don't actually verify the content at all; they're databases, photographs, things like that. When you write "Kerner conducted his career as a professor and researcher at the University Pierre and Marie Curie", and then cite a source, the source should corroborate the information it is cited in relation to, directly. Here, you cite a page listing your father's supervision of many students' theses. One might induce from the fact that he did so that he must have been a professor at that university, but that's about it; utterly indirect and attenuated. This is to say, your father may be notable based on what you've said about him, and as we use that word here (despite that the vast majority of people in the world are not; I'm not), but the draft certainly doesn't demonstrate that, and relies on primary sources, used improperly.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:30, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

ANNNNNND, Declined, for lack of secondary source references. By the way, references used in Wikipedia articles other than English often are not considered reliable source, secondary references in English Wikipedia. David notMD (talk) 22:33, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Of course he's notable, and I would not have declined the article, but just adjusted it a little. He clearly will pass WP:PROF on the basis of the impact of his published works if the article is properly written, and would I think meet the notability standard of any WP. However, the different WPs go about writing articles on scientists a little differently, and this will need a little adaptation to meet our usual expectations. Since I have done this for similar articles a great many times, I will do it for you in the next few days, and then accept it. (This will be considerably easier for me than explaining just what is needed). The reviewer was apparently not taking account of our standard for academics: WP:PROF is quite separate from the general guideline WP:GNG, which requires substantial 3rd party reliable published sources. All that is necessary is 1/ to have some reliable source for the basics of the career, and it does not even have to be third party, (Ref 5 is the right kind of source for this--such institutional statements, even though not technically independent, are considered reliable) and 2/ evidence of meeting one or more of the provisions of WP:PROF. The normal way for doing this for scientists active in the last 50 years is through the citations to their published peer-reviewed papers, as found in google scholar or the equivalent, though there are various other methods. (the draft does not cite these publications exactly, and this will have to be done--it isn't difficult. Many other WPs assume anyone who wishes will be able to find them in the usual academic sources; we tend to assume that our readers need everything written out for them.

The basic difference for academics between English WP and most other WPs is that enWP actually wants to see the evidence of citations, or the special criteria such as a distinguished professorship. The other WPs assume that anyone in this person's position of being a full professor at a major university (in his case, an extremely major world-famous university) will necessarily have met them, as the standards of such universities are higher than anything any WP demands for notability. For reasons that I can explain but not justify, English WP does not make this assumption; however, for 13 years now I have worked mainly in this field and never seen an article on someone in such a position at a university the quality of his deleted, unless there were some other reason, such as their being in a subject that some WPedians have in the past not taken seriously, such as those that in previous generations were typically the province of women, or because of some other prejudice.

I confess that I thought of demonstrating this by accepting the article as is, and seeing if anyone would try to delete it, but this would not be fair to the subject or to you, to subject you to an unpleasant experience in order to make my point. I will instead do what I have done many hundreds of times here, which is standardize the article to our expectations. Other editors do similarly in other fields--the goal of AfC is just to make an acceptable article, that can be further improved in mainspace.

More generally, this is one of the problems of our AfC system. A substantial number of draft declines are done over-hastily or ignorantly. We do try to pick up the most erroneous ones and instruct the reviewers, but as generally at WP , there are only a few of us willing to do this, and too many incorrect reviews to keep track of. Myself, I try to check all the declines for academics that I can, but I get to less than half of them. I usually find a substantial number that shouldn't have been declined or could very easily have been fixed, and I fix or accept as many as practical, but I cannot properly work on more than 1 or 2 a day.

This happens in all fields-- academic articles are only a small part of it-- and our erratic reviewing provides an opportunity for the illegitimate paid editors to try their scams. They are almost always unambiguously scams, for the editors know very well that most of the time they will not be able to improve the articles sufficiently for them to actually stay in WP (either because the articles are untenable or because they haven't the skills or resources) They will sometimes by accident pass AfC, or they will have a confederate accept it for them, or they will use one of the tricks to avoid going through AfC, and hope to collect the money before the community has the necessary discussion for deletion. (They will sometimes then under another name pretend to be an administrator who can restore it--for more money.) Furthermore, even if they do improve the articles, they almost never make the necessary declaration about paid editing required by our terms of use; work submitted in violation of this will generally (although not automatically) be deleted, and they know this perfectly well., although they will often pretend to their victims they are following the rules. We have no direct method for stopping them, and can only discourage them by trying to spot their work and delete it. It shouldn't of course be necessary--everyone who submits an article in good faith should have it properly reviewed, and guided to fix it, or courteously explained why it would not meet our standards, but we have too many submissions--many of which are in fact absolutely hopeless--and too few good reviewers. One of the problems about being a system dependent on volunteers is that we have no way of getting anyone to do any work that they do not themselves actively want to do, or to do it as carefully as they ought to. DGG ( talk ) 06:32, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you David notMD for declining the draft with a clear explanation, at least that gives a clear indication of how to proceed. I really appreciate you taking the time to review it. -- JacquesKerner (talk) 15:40, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much DGG for the clarification around notability and for explaining the difference between WP:PROF and WP:GNG, it's been very educational for me. I can't thank you enough for devoting time on this draft. It's a daunting task to process all these drafts and verify their accuracy, and this is what makes Wikipedia so special. It makes me want to learn and contribute with time as well. Thank you. -- JacquesKerner (talk) 15:40, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

how to improve footnote {which?}, to fix weasel words

on this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marian_Diamond

the sentence currently reads: "won numerous film festival awards,[which?]"

the answer is a list of 15 film festivals. should that be a footnote for each one? should that be one footnote with the text listing the specific list, and if so, does one need to include additional documentation? DocumentarianX (talk) 22:24, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello, DocumentarianX. Obviously, some film festivals are more prestigious than others. I would not attempt to list all 15. Instead, I would select the three or four festivals that are most prestigious based on the Wikipedia articles about the festivals, and provide a reference for each that you choose to mention. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:30, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

thanks, @Cullen328: and so, to be clear from what you just told me, one footnote per festival cited? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DocumentarianX (talk • contribs) 23:40, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

@DocumentarianX: It doesn't matter whether you have one source for 4 festivals, or a different source for each festival. What matters is the quality of each source (e.g. independent and reliable sources). Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 00:38, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

DocumentarianX, I agree with GoingBatty. One reference per festival is the most straightforward solution. But if you can find a reliable, independent source that discusses the film's performance at several film festivals, then that is even better, because it indicates that an independent journalist was taking a broader look at the impact of the documentary film. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:29, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Blue Sky is NOT being cancelled.

Blue Sky Studios is actually back in business read this link. https://variety.com/2017/film/news/fox-blue-sky-studios-connecticut-2025-1202026529/ Spixmacaw101 (talk) 23:50, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

@Spixmacaw101: Welcome to the Teahouse. You're going to want to discuss this over at Talk:Blue Sky Studios. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:02, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Spixmacaw101That news item is over four years old.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:31, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

how to get false statement about yourself removed

how to get content removed or edited The entry for South Tucson was recently edited to include a statement about me and my business. I would prefer it be removed and if it can't to at least be edited to reflect accurate info. this is not an NFP. we support NFPs with our profits. When I tried to edit it, i was told that it couldn't be edited. what should i do?

The 1.2-square-mile city is gaining favor with businesses and residents and is attracting bohemians, artists, and musicians. This includes the relocation of the Real Things Artisans Co-op, a non-profit operated by noted artisan and educator Tommie Jayne Wasserberg. The city is trying to attract more business through a new economic development plan and an incentive program.[22] Local business owners and developers are eyeing properties in South Tucson as complementary projects to downtown Tucson with business parks, restaurants, retail shops, and multifamily investors moving into the city. Tommie Tooter (talk) 03:11, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

@Tommie Tooter: Welcome to the Teahouse! I'm not sure where you were told that the article couldn't be edited, as this is your only edit to Wikipedia (using this username). Per Wikipedia:Contact us/Article subjects, I suggest you post to the article's talk page, Talk:South Tucson, Arizona, and use the {{request edit}} template to get help from other editors. If you have any reliable sources to share to improve the article, please provide those as well. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 04:44, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I removed the sentence. It had been added on 6 February without a reference. Mentions of individual businesses not warranted unless they qualify as Wikipedia articles on their own or are referenced. David notMD (talk) 07:40, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

How do I review AfC submissions?

Hi there, Teahouse! Sorry if my English is bad. I would like to become an AfC article reviewer but no results show up on Google. How can i start reviewing AfC articles? Please tell me in the reply. By Lewis4642011 (talk) 04:29, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

@Lewis4642011: Welcome, and thanks for wanting to help. You need more experience before you can review at AFC. See here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Participants. After you have been around longer and have more experience, then you may ask to join as a reviewer. RudolfRed (talk) 04:39, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

The main 2 criteria there are: a Wikipedia account at least 90 days old, and a minimum of 500 undeleted edits to articles. Currently you have only 43 edits, so are not anywhere near experienced enough to review other's articles. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:55, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Request for help moving new article that is blocked by a redirect to a chapter of an existing article

When I tried to move my draft of a translated article User:Eli185/The Holocaust in Austria to the mainspace, the move was blocked by a redirect to a chapter in another article History_of_the_Jews_in_Austria#The_Holocaust_in_Austria.

How can I remove the redirect to the chapter, then move the full article to the mainspace? (I can't find the redirect)

(All the other countries have mainspace articles for the Holocaust - Austria is an exception)

thank you. Eli185 (talk) 10:26, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Eli185. I have taken care of the move. For future reference, this could have been requested using {{db-move}} ({{db-move|1=page to be moved|2=reason}}), or by posting to WP:RM#TR. Good work on the article! Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:08, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

@Eli185: P.S. You might very well have been about to do this anyway, but I'll mention you can add to the section of the article where the former redirect pointed {{Main|The Holocaust in Austria}} I was about to do that but then thought you might want to do so to flag your own work.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:00, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! Eli185 (talk) 14:55, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

From me added links in ´See also´ deleted

Hi. I added some direct relating links in ´See also´ of Vitamin B12: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Vitamin_B12&curid=14538619&diff=1016679908&oldid=1016660194
Now they have been removed: " →‎See also: removed not useful additions Tag: Manual revert".
I am going to message as ´Vandalism´. But just do not know how. Or perhaps there is a better way.
Thanks for reading and interesst.
--Visionhelp (talk) 10:40, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Visionhelp. Please read WP:VANDNOT because the removal of those links wouldn’t be considered vandalism. The editor who removed the links is actually quite experienced and is also a Teahouse host. So, I’m sure David notMD will be happy to clarify why he felt the links didn’t meet WP:SEEALSO. — Marchjuly (talk) 10:52, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Marchjuly. Thanks. He will be happy, but will not help it. He has his very own opinion, what wikipedia is for and what not, for example: sources of other encyclopedies not wanted. (Wikipedia one rule is Sources. Sources of other encyclopedies closing off so can not be a rule of wikipedia, but he does saying. In a talk between us.)

Sadnessly, this way, not even a talk can happen for my understatement.
(Deleting links of ´Sees also´s not vandalism ? Hm.
And being able to delete and say and decline "not useful additions", he absolutly alone decides, what is useful" ?

--Visionhelp (talk) 11:28, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Visionhelp I have no power to 'decide' (I am an editor, not an Administrator). The standard path for having an edit reverted is to start a discussion on the Talk page of the article, invite the editor who reverted the changes, and see if the two and other interested editors can reach a consensus. I stand by my decision to remove what I consider not-useful 'See also" additions. Be aware that edits in good faith can be debated, but are not to be tagged as vandalism. David notMD (talk) 16:46, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

In looking back at my contributions, I see that you and I have already had discussions at Talk pages of B12 and other articles about what are valid "See also." I have added more comments. We can continue there. David notMD (talk) 17:03, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

You can also return here to Teahouse to get other opinions on this issue. David notMD (talk) 00:55, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

A lable ´not useful´ is deciding and determining, WHAT is useful and what not. You did mention, it was already linked in the article. (But now are more links removed.)
A precept of ´useful´ is a guideline, where You determine, what is useful. With this You determine with the sound of a talk. Alreday there I am out. Who determines the sound, determines the content.
´Finding´ as rule, links which have been mentioned in an article not to link in ´See also´s also works already absolutly against my conviction, links for overview and connection and relations at an own place as ´See also´.
But revoming links, which have not been mentioned in an article to remove: I only can call vandalism, sorry. But writing in an article has its already very own rules at wikipedia. And this is now my really last edit in any article, but my own, and this (one) also is being stopped, but OK.
This for me it is not a way to work with fun and sense. But this is my way, how I can and want and may work. Sorry.
Quote "We can continue there": I did. (Oh sorry. I did here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Diatomaceous_earth#%C2%B4See_also%C2%B4:_the_my_note_and_link_to_Silica_got_removed)
--Visionhelp (talk) 13:00, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Help with Editing

Good day ! I am Adolphinah Rhyn a new wikipedian student. there is an article that i would really like to edit or talk to the author about , how do i go about doing that? Rhynducy (talk) 11:34, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

If you're viewing Wikipedia in English, each article should come with a link labelled "Talk". Go to the article you want to talk about, click "Talk", and you'll arrive at the article's talk page. This is where you can ask questions about or make suggestions for the article. For most articles, you can also edit directly; but you should do this very carefully. -- Hoary (talk) 11:48, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Articles do not have individual authors. If you click on View history for an article, you will see a chronological listing of all edits, with authors identified. Some articles have hundreds of contributors. Exceptions: Very new articles may have only one author; also, if articles have recently been raised to Good Article status, many of the recent edits may be by the editor who was laboring to get to GA. David notMD (talk) 16:51, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Mistakes about Lithuanian places of interest

Main page about Lithuania consists short presentation. There are 3 photos about places of interest. Ninth forth and Trakai fotos are mixed . Please change 88.119.156.203 (talk) 11:45, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that you are talking about the article Lithuania. Are you talking about this? And if not, which article or other page are you talking about? -- Hoary (talk) 11:52, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Maybe they mean the Lithuanian Wikipedia. In which case, they should discuss it on the Lithuanian Wikipedia. (88.119, please remember that each Wikipedia is a separate community.) If I'm wrong, you may trout me. MEisSCAMMER^{(talk)(contribs)} 12:39, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I have checked several Wikipedia articles with photos of Trakai Island Castle and/or the Ninth Fort and haven't found any mix-ups. There are plenty of images of Trakai, in particular, so it is difficult to check every instance. Again, IP editor, please let us know which exact page you mean. Thanks! --bonadea contributions talk 14:56, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Help with a new page.

Hello everyone, I have created a new page but it don't look like an official page. What do I do to make it normal? Thank you! Soundsfromwater (talk) 12:29, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Soundsfromwater, it seems perfectly normal. You should probably remove the first line, though. MEisSCAMMER^{(talk)(contribs)} 12:34, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Soundsfromwater, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia. I have added a header to your sandbox so that you can submit it for review when you think it is ready. --ColinFine (talk) 14:31, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I just submitted it! What's next? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soundsfromwater (talk • contribs) 15:26, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

@Soundsfromwater: Welcome to the Teahouse! Now that you have submitted Draft:Austen (musician), please see the yellow template at the bottom of your draft that says "Review waiting, please be patient. This may take 5 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 5,525 pending submissions waiting for review." You can continue working on the draft while you're waiting (e.g. removing the first line, as MEisSCAMMER suggested above, adding more parameters to the references such as |date=, and |work= or |publisher=, adding WikiProject templates to the talk page). Happy editing! (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.) GoingBatty (talk) 15:42, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

How to change the title of the article made by myself

How to change the title of the article made by myself? Mr good man beast and beastest (talk) 13:22, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

You need to be autoconfirmed in order to be able to move pages (your account should be at least 4 days old and have made at least 10 edits). Since you're not autoconfirmed, you can request a move instead. Kleinpecan (talk) 14:09, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Also asked at the help desk. @Mr good man beast and beastest: please do not post similar questions in multiple locations. Thank you. Eagleash (talk) 17:23, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Account suddenly became active after ten years without any activity

I stumbled upon User:Keithtownley. This account has made four edits to their user page in July 2009, as well as one edit to the article Orang Pendek in August 2010, and then became inactive. On 5 August 2021, they made several edits to articles about various places in England, adding external links; those edits were later reverted.

It seems weird for an account which was not used for ten years to suddenly start adding external links to articles, so I'm inclined to think they've been hacked. On the other hand, on their user page they have written about the United Kingdom, and their newer edits are all related to England, so perhaps I'm overreacting.

What should I do? Kleinpecan (talk) 14:06, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

@Kleinpecan: Do nothing. We don't know why that is, nor do we really care. Judge the content of their edits, and if and only if the content is problematic, handle it like you would with any other problematic editor. Even if they were "hacked", since it's a relatively low-profile account, there really isn't anything that Wikipedia could or should do about it. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 14:39, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. Kleinpecan (talk) 14:43, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

• Hello @Kleinpecan, hello, what you may do is add them to your watchlist and check to see if or not the account is making disruptive or questionable edits, if they are, then this venue wouldn’t be the most appropriate place to report the incident as such incidents would require administrative intervention. Perhaps WP:AN/I would be better equipped to deal with such but you must be thoroughly convinced that the said account has been compromised. Celestina007 (talk) 15:40, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

How to get a page accepted?

 Johnw28 (talk) 14:26, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Wait and make sure that the draft complies with wikipedia's rules. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 15:16, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

@Johnw28:. Hello John, and welcome to The Teahouse. In case Blaze The Wolf's answer was too vague to provide any useful guidance, the best thing I can offer is a link to some further reading for you. First of all, the page Help:Your first article has a wealth of information on creating articles for Wikipedia. The ONE important thing, which I cannot stress enough is that in order for an article to be accepted, it needs to be about an appropriate subject. The thing that makes a subject appropriate is that other people have already written a lot about that subject. Significantly close to 100% of rejected articles are rejected because the subject of the article just didn't have sufficient source text out there in the world outside of Wikipedia. Your #1 job as an article writer is to find source texts to prove that the subject has already been written about. Everything else is a minor issue. If no one has written about your subject before, it won't ever be an appropriate subject for an article. I hope that helps. --Jayron32 15:24, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

If this is about User:Johnw28/sandbox, it has no references. David notMD (talk) 16:57, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Help!

I've been banned from Live Help. Help! 64.121.103.144 (talk) 16:30, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

There's probably a reason you were banned. I'm going to wait for another host to help answer your question further as I don't see why you would be banned just by looking at your contributions. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 16:51, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I was just asking about a dispute resolution request in Live Help: https://kiwiirc.com/nextclient/irc.freenode.net/wikipedia-en-help?nick=AmberYew60.

64.121.103.144 (talk) 16:59, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

64.121.103.144, I inquired as to the cause of your ban and was informed that you were banned for "persistent disruption spanning several days after [you] were told to stop." Please refrain from causing a ruckus, it is not appreciated. I was also told that, in the future, you should go to #wikimedia-ops to ask about or appeal the block. Thanks, EDG 543 ^{(message me)} 17:08, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

This is not the place to ask about IRC bans, you can join #wikimedia-ops to appeal and ask about it. TAXIDICAE💰 17:09, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Help! I've been banned from #wikipedia-en-ops too! Please reply on my talk page, or I may not see your respinse. 64.121.103.144 (talk) 19:07, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

You will not be unbanned and you're getting dangerously close to being blocked here if you continue hounding people about this. TAXIDICAE💰 19:09, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Need an editor to upload photos

@Michael D. Turnbull: I uploaded 3 photos to my wiki media commons and need them uploaded to Beta Technologies but I am a conflict of interest. I need the ALIA-250 picture by the section ALIA-250, the charging network (needs to be cropped) also by the ALIA-250 section, and the AVA eVTOL photo by the AVA section. Abbeyblankensop (talk) 16:31, 9 April 2021 (UTC) Abbeyblankensop (talk) 16:31, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I'm onto it: see your Talk Page in a couple of minutes. No need to post again here or at the Help desk! Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:43, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

@Abbeyblankensop Thank you for abiding by the rules. If you are employed by Beta then you need to read Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure and make the necessary disclosure on your user page. If your COI is more simple please read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and make a different declaration. It is usual to deploy either Template:Connected contributor (paid) or Template:Connected contributor for the relevant condition on the article's talk page Fiddle Faddle 16:56, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

@Abbeyblankensop: In the future, you can post your request on Talk:Beta Technologies with the {{request edit}} template, and another editor will provide assistance. GoingBatty (talk) 18:23, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Homework assignments and article views

An observation - went looking for a pattern of page views of popular science articles such as the vitamins (esp C and B12) and saw weekend dips. Suggests to me that weekday school homework assignments increase views. David notMD (talk) 17:35, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I've noticed a similar trend with various programming-related articles. (Also, we're probably both violating WP:NOTFORUM right now.) Kleinpecan (talk) 17:40, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Given that this is discussion about Wikipedia, we aren't, really. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:14, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

But isn't the Teahouse intended for questions and not observations? Kleinpecan (talk) 20:13, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

How about: Has anyone else observed that science article views dip on weekends, suggesting some of viewership is school homework assignments? David notMD (talk) 00:30, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I need help with Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

There is a problem. In the article, List of Starship flights, a dispute resolution request outcome has to be enforced. I don't have an account and don't desire to make one. I want to send a request to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. Can someone do it for me? 64.121.103.144 (talk) 17:52, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

The dispute resolution has already been closed. MEisSCAMMER^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:55, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I mean I need help enforcing the outcome of it. See note.

64.121.103.144 (talk) 18:17, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

This post illustrates an occasional problem in Wikipedia, and that is an editor stating that they need help enforcing the outcome of a dispute resolution, but there wasn't an enforceable outcome. Sometimes a dispute at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard is closed without action, but the filing editor tries to claim that it was decided in their favor. (Besides, DRN is voluntary, and very seldom makes a binding decision other than by starting an RFC, and in that case it is the RFC that is the binding process.) In this case, two DRN cases were closed without action. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:50, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

How to upload photos i did not take?

Hello, I am wondering how to upload a photo I did not take but have the permission to use? Can I not upload from Facebook? How do I use government website photos and properly attribute? Donniegardi (talk) 18:03, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

@Donniegardi: Welcome to the Teahouse! Copyright can be a tricky thing. There's lots of good information at Wikipedia:Image use policy. If someone else is giving permission for their photos to be on Wikipedia, you can ask them to follow the steps in Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. Hope this helps! GoingBatty (talk) 18:26, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Help with renaming pages

I'm a car fan and I need help with renaming the Mazda Demio page. 73.2.129.126 (talk) 18:15, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! I suggest you post your request to the article talk page, Talk:Mazda Demio, to gain consensus from other editors. Presuming there are no issues, you can post a request on Wikipedia:Requested moves. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 18:28, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

GoingBatty I see no need to gain consensus from other editors as the article itself calls it the Mazda2. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 19:32, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

IP addresses cannot do a move, hence have to ask. David notMD (talk) 00:32, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

David notMD I knew that. I was telling that to GoingBatty. I wasn't saying the the IP could move the article. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 01:33, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Anjali Kotanala

 Ravindra1762 (talk) 18:23, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

@Ravindra1762: Welcome to the Teahouse! Did you have a question about Wikipedia? GoingBatty (talk) 18:30, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Use your Sandbox rather than your User page to work on a draft of an article. Better yet, learn through WP:YFA how to create a draft. David notMD (talk) 22:20, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Categorized Pages with Uncategorized Template

Hello. I've noticed that there are a couple of pages on Category:All_uncategorized_pages that have categories. Should I just remove the template from the page if I see any more like that? Zachary Daiquiri (talk) 19:25, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

@Zachary Daiquiri: Welcome, and thanks for wanting to help. From the note at Category:All_uncategorized_pages, the answer is yes. If a page has any categories, then you should remove the uncatagorized template. RudolfRed (talk) 19:31, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

@RudolfRed: Ok, thanks for letting me know. Oh, and also a couple of pages on Category:All_uncategorized_pages have deletion templates. Should I add categories anyway? Zachary Daiquiri (talk) 19:33, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Misleading articles by smear campaign community

So, I'm not sure how to handle this, and I've only contributed to wikipedia in the long ago past. We do a podcast about a little known Canadian teen drama called Ready or Not. It's a 90's show and it's pretty obscure, but my wife loves it so we started a review podcast. We've only got 8 episodes. Right away we got people who wanted to join our FB groups, discord chats, etc, but then instantly turned on us for providing negative reviews of the show and discussing rumors about the lives of the cast; none of which we've done. We basically recap the show and then tell anecdotes and react to the characters (and sometimes the show is not great, but that's our prerogative to say as much).

Anyway, this weird trolling and claiming we're bashing the actors has spilled over to the Wiki for this show. In the Other Media, ours (Here we Come) and another show (StillNotReady, with whom we chat with occasionally) have basically been called out for trashing the show, which we aren't. They're also doing a lot of smearing on their own groups and have even petitioned (to whom, I have no idea) to get both our podcasts "removed."

So, I'm not sure what I can do at this point. We've been dealing with them for months off Wikipedia, enough to know that using the Talk pages will not net us anything. We're doing the podcast for fun, but I don't like being unfairly labeled negative by users who are basically pretending to be friends and family of cast members and have some weird ax to grind with anything that they aren't running. So, do I just edit the page? Can I submit it for deletion? On what grounds? I'm equally fine leaving it alone, but I feel it may hurt us getting listeners.

Input please. Thank you. xadrian (talk) 19:45, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Editing the page is not what you should do! You have a major conflict of interest with the article. If users are changing the article to be negative their edits will be reverted as Wikipedia is always written from a neutral perspective. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 19:54, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I had a looksee, and honestly the claims made in re the podcast seem to be not compliant with WP:BLP, as they make claims about you without any sort of source. I will likely be removing them shortly for that reason. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 20:00, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I have removed the "in other media" additions. There was no sourcing for the claims at all, and they were written in expressly non-neutral way to attack other online content per WP:NOT, particularly WP:SOAPBOX and WP:FORUM. Koncorde (talk) 20:04, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy link to Ready or Not (Canadian TV series). Another editor seems to have removed the section in question (visible at this diff) as it was unsourced and its coverage on the article was likely undue. Also pinging Grodytothemax1988, who wrote the material in question. RoxySaunders (talk · contribs) 20:06, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

User has been reprimanded on their talk page for adding the unsourced material in an apparent personal vendetta. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:28, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Request a block

Where would I go to request a user to be blocked? Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 20:47, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

For what reason? Depending on why, there's any of a number of different avenues. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 20:51, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

@Blaze The Wolf: Generally, you'd go to the ANI, but you better have sufficient evidence to support your claim (provide diffs). Note that your own behaviour will also be evaluated, so a report can be closed with sanctions taken against you. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:52, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

There's also WP:AIV for blatant vandalism, WP:AN3 for edit wars, and WP:UAA for unacceptable usernames. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 20:54, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Blaze The Wolf depending on the situation, you might look at dispute resolution first. There are lots of options there for dealing with conflict. The links given immediately above are also the right places to go for specific kinds of problem. I would not recommend going to ANI before trying other approaches. › Mortee _talk 22:54, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Seconding this. ANI should be one's last resort. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:43, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Helping people

How can I help the people that read my page? Banana10123456 (talk) 22:07, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Just concentrate on making worthwhile, solidly referenced additions to existing articles. -- Hoary (talk) 22:19, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

On your User page, you appear to be offering services to other editors. That is NOT what Wikipedia is for. David notMD (talk) 22:24, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Article: Re Gloria Hemingway/Gregory Hemingway

I recently made significant changes to this article to make it less transphobic and more inclusive but those changes aren't there now. There is more than enough evidence that Gloria Hemingway was a transgender woman, albeit struggling with her issues and more appropriate pronouns and use of her preferred name should be given a much higher priority, to respect her situation.

Jessica Ward 0419671882 Jessica T Ward (talk) 22:07, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Please see this reversion, with the edit comment "If you object to the wording, please start a talk page discussion". So yes, go to Talk:Gregory Hemingway and argue there for the rewording and retitling of this article. -- Hoary (talk) 22:17, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

(e/c) Hi Jessica T Ward. You can look at any article's page history to see what happened with respect to any edit made. In this case, the edit summary show that the user who reverted you stated in the edit summary "If you object to the wording, please start a talk page discussion", thus referring to Talk:Gregory Hemingway. That is the normal way article content is decided on, through consensus discussion. See also Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. I suggest before you post there, you visit MOS:IDENTITY, MOS:GENDERID and Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Guidelines, and any pages you find at those links, so that you have some relevant Wikipedia guidelines in your belt to focus and back up your talk page post. By the way, part of your edits added very misplaced editorializing and commentary into the article, such as, "which of course, is no determinate of what should be the appropriate pronouns to use to describe Gloria, even retrospectively" and "no doubt as a way of dealing with and suppressing her own transgender issues". I recommend you focus on the pronoun issue, and not any return of content like that, which patently has no place in an encyclopedia article. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:30, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

What is the teahouse?

What is the teahouse? Ollhg87 (talk) 22:34, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Welcome! The TeaHouse is "A friendly place where you can ask questions to get help with using and editing Wikipedia ". Feel free to ask your questions about using/editing wikipedia. RudolfRed (talk) 22:39, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Ollhg87. If you scroll to the top of this page you find more information, but it's basically a place to ask questions about Wikipedia editing or Wikipedia in general. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:42, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Did I move the page correctly?

I changed the hyphen to en-dash, but I would like to make sure I was hitting en-dash correctly before fixing the link. see Infinite–dimensional holomorphy. thanks!--SilverMatsu (talk) 22:58, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

But why did you move Infinite-dimensional holomorphy to Infinite–dimensional holomorphy? -- Hoary (talk) 23:09, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi SilverMatsu. You moved to an en dash but as far as I know (English is my second language), infinite-dimensional is a compound modifier and should have a hyphen in English and according to Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Hyphens. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:20, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for teaching me. I seem to have made a mistake. I'm sorry. I can't delete the page, would you revert it?--SilverMatsu (talk) 23:30, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Apparently, I'll can it revert myself, but the redirect seems to remain. If I make a mistake like this, should I revert myself and apply to remove the remaining redirects? I seem to more need to be careful now.--SilverMatsu (talk) 00:42, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Addendum:Perhaps the administrator can move the page without leaving a redirect, so I'm wondering which is more appropriate to move and apply for deletion by myself.--SilverMatsu (talk) 00:54, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

The article is now again titled Infinite-dimensional holomorphy, and Infinite–dimensional holomorphy redirects to it. -- Hoary (talk) 01:59, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much!--SilverMatsu (talk) 04:29, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Copyright Infringement?

G'day, I here because I don't know how to deal with a wikipedia commons file that appears to be misattributed as 'own work', specifically the file on the British Indian Army about Captain Mit Singh. Admittedly I have been involved in an edit war with the uploader of the file, but I don't have much expertise in this area. Could anyone advise me on this? IronBattalion (talk) 22:59, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

As this is a Commons copyright matter, you'd better ask at commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright. -- Hoary (talk) 23:14, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello

Is it possible to insert a photo into a page? I'm new here and I'm very confuzzled. VRchat (talk) 23:20, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

@VRchat: This may help Wikipedia:Images. The hard part is getting permission for the image. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:29, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi VRchat.

• If you want to upload an image for use in an article, you must determine the copyright status of the image. If you know the image is in the public domain or bears a suitably free and compatible copyright license, upload it to the Wikimedia Commons instead of here, so that all projects have access to the image (sign up). If you are unsure of the copyright status, see the file upload wizard for more information, but please be aware that most images you find on the internet are copyrighted, are assumed so unless you have affirmative evidence to the contrary, and do not need to display any copyright symbol. Please also read Wikipedia's image use policy.
• If you want to add a free image that has already been uploaded to Wikipedia or to the Wikimedia Commons, add [[File:File name.jpg|thumb|Caption text]] to the area of the article where you want the image to appear – replacing File name.jpg with the actual file name of the image, and Caption text with a short description of the image. See our picture tutorial for more information. I hope this helps.Template:Z40--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:32, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

How is my Draft promotional???

Hello, an editor place a deletion tag on my Draft. I don't even understand how that is applicable. The language seems to be neutral to me :/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Austen_(musician) Soundsfromwater (talk) 23:47, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

This editor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:TheChronium is doing this to many other pages, when he himself, isn't an experienced editor :/ His pages look look just like mine with only a few references as well.

If anyone can place a tag on any page, then how is this fair??? Aren't we suppose to contribute in all aspects and not just place tags when not really experienced???

An Admin removed the Speedy deletion tag. However, while TheChronium is a recent account, the editor has a successful track record of Speedy deletion nominations: 14 approved, 1 reverted, and 5 pending decisions. David notMD (talk) 00:36, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

rejected twice

I created a "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Misa_Tamagawa" page, but it was rejected twice. The first time was due to the lack of footnotes in the "Radio" section, so I added footnotes to that section. The second time, I added footnotes to the "Radio" section, and it was rejected because it had too many external links. I'm not sure what to do next. Please let me know if there is a better way. Shampoooo (talk) 00:35, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

@Shampoooo: Welcome to the Teahouse. Out of pedantry, the draft has been declined twice, not rejected, which is way worse. If Tamagawa has an official website, link to that in §External links; links to her social accounts are really iffy and unnecessary. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:40, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

@Tenryuu 🐲: Thank you for your reply. The official page is of course put as an external link at the end of the page. The second review comment said "Way too many external links, we do not need all those socials. I have decided that the problem is that there are too many external links, is that wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shampoooo (talk • contribs)

@Shampoooo: I believe that is the reviewer's concern, yes. (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.) —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:41, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

WAY too much information in Personal that has nothing to do with her career as a radio personality. David notMD (talk) 21:40, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Declined twice. Rejected is a much stronger denial. David notMD (talk) 21:40, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

William Robert Spencer

I have been browsing 18th-century lives for research, making minor edits as I go (mainly typos, spelling, grammar). Some needed edits are beyond my experience, so I've been keeping a list for future projects. Recently I stumbled upon a puzzler in the entry for William Robert Spencer... In the text, his birthdate is listed as 1769-01-09, but in the sidebar (bio box, I don't know the actual term) the date is 1770-01-09. Thinking this should be a quick and easy fix, I began checking other sources... only to find about half list 1769 and half 1770. My question is, "What should I consider a definitive source?" (and of course, "When the heck was Spencer born?") Wendigo Lake (talk) 00:52, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

William Robert Spencer Wendigo Lake (talk) 00:52, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

If it were a couple of decades earlier, I'd suggest civil year 1769, historical year 1770. But this complication should have evaporated by 1769. Is it possible that some recent writer misunderstood the civil/historical distinction as continuing as late as this? If it helps, I've faced a similar disagreement among sources (though merely of day, not of year), and dealt with it in a note, explaining the matter more fully in the article's talk page. -- Hoary (talk) 01:52, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Blanking talk pages

Hi Teahouse, is it okay for a user to blank their talk page and remove warnings they have received? Here's the diff where they have done so [1]; if not, what should happen? Thanks! xRENEGADEx ^{(talk | contribs)} 02:28, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

@XRENEGADEx: Yes it is OK. See Wikipedia:User_pages#Removal_of_comments,_notices,_and_warnings. There are only a few items on talk pages that can't be removed, such as a CSD tag or an declined unblock request as examples. RudolfRed (talk) 02:38, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

@XRENEGADEx:, when an editor removes warnings from their talk page, that is evidence that they have read and, we can hope, understood the warnings. The warnings remain in the history of their talk page, and can be recovered easily if needed. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:30, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

When am I canvassing for my own RfD nomination?

You might know which one it is already, but please let me re-iterate: I think that a redirect should be re-targeted to a certain page. Can I notify the WikiProject which said page belong to about my submission? Thanks, DePlume (talk) 03:35, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

@DePlume: Yes you can! It is completely appropriate (encouraged, even!) to post a neutrally worded notification about a discussion to a relevant WikiProject noticeboard, as well as to the talk pages of editors who may be interested. See WP:APPNOTE for further examples of appropriate notifications. Canvassing specifically refers to notifications which intend to sway the outcome of a discussion in a particular way. For example, if you specifically targeted editors you knew would agree with you (called Votestacking), or if your notification presented the discussion in a non-neutral light (called Campaigning). Hope this helps, RoxySaunders (talk · contribs) 04:20, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

What if the Wikiproject does not have a noticeboard? DePlume (talk) 04:30, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

@DePlume: the talkpage of the wikiproject is the appropriate location. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:25, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Questions on my own userspace template

I have just made this template. I have a few questions for it:

1. Is it permissible to use such a template with the face of a real person?
2. If yes, is my disclaimer good enough?
3. Also, why can't I transclude it elsewhere?

Thank you, DePlume (talk) 05:51, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

@DePlume: I'd say it's probably fine. Not sure why you can't transclude it - {{User:DePlume/Soroka}} should work. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:52, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Though, I am curious why you seem to have such an obsession with Soroka. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:55, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Good question - it is because he is one of my favourite ballplayers, and is the reason I re-started Wikipedia-ing (see Project:Articles for deletion/Mike Soroka). In fact, a few days ago, I have lodged a request with the stewards to change my username to NotReallySoroka, since I'm, well, not really a Soroka in the first place. DePlume (talk) 05:58, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

It is indeed something strange. I cannot do so. DePlume (talk) 05:58, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

@DePlume: what happens when you try?

Are you perhaps using visualeditor? Elli (talk | contribs) 06:01, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Nothing. No pictures of Mike, no red links, nothing. And I am using the source editor. DePlume (talk) 06:03, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

@DePlume: noinclude wasn't closed correctly. I have fixed it. The license of File:Mike Soroka (48266240306) (cropped).jpg requires attribution by a link to the file page. You have removed the normal link with |link=Talk:Michael John Graydon Soroka. Apart from that I don't think it breaks any policies but it is odd. If you use it then users are likely to spend time trying to figure out the significance of the image or person. Apparently there isn't any. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:01, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Identifying the deprecated source?

Is there a way to tell which reference in an article is a deprecated source without having to sort through them and cross-checking with the perennial sources page? nearlyevil665 06:23, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Nvm, figured it out! nearlyevil665 06:32, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

question

I am trying to maintain a wikipedia page by updating it and expanding it but an automated bot is all the time dismantling it and making it appear like it was before.

why is that? Boxofideas (talk) 08:22, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Boxofideas You are not being reverted by an automated bot, but by a human. Please read the information on your user talk page. 331dot (talk) 08:24, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Blocked as suspected sockpuppet. David notMD (talk) 15:52, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Links

Highlighting text How do you make it so that when you click on some blue text, it sends you to another article? Dannycreatire (talk) 09:09, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Dannycreatire Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You place the title of the page you wish to link to in double brackets like this: [[Page title here]]. For example, [[Joe Biden]] appears as Joe Biden. 331dot (talk) 09:12, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

@Dannycreatire: I see you often use VisualEditor. See Wikipedia:VisualEditor/User guide#Editing links for that. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:36, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Anyone handy at creating graphics?

Hi all. I'm a member of the Cricket Project and I'm looking for volunteers who are great at creating graphics. I'm working on a range of new initiatives for the project, which require a range of new graphics to be created. I wouldn't have the first idea how to create the below graphics, so I'm hoping someone here might be kind enough to donate their time and create some of these :)

• A logo for the new project newsletter to be launched in the UK summer, I'm running with the title The Off Stump at the moment.
• Trophies for the Awards section to include:
  • Cricket Newcomer of the Year (for a new user who has made consistent and positive contributions)
  • All-Rounder of the Year (for a user who edits anything and everything about cricket, big and small)
  • The Champions Trophy (for the winner of the cricket quiz)
  • The Golden Bat and Silver Bat (cricket bats awarded monthly for 1st and 2nd place in the new article contest)
  • The Article Creator's Cup (awarded to the overall year ending leader of the above competition)
  • Cricket Editor of the Year (the year ending winner of the general contest which is all about getting articles up the assessment ladder)
  • The Champions Trophy (awarded to the year ending winner of the cricket quiz)
• Various national barnstars, specifically for: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Ireland, Pakistan, New Zealand, Scotland, West Indies and Zimbabwe.

If there is anyone who can offer their time to make these, it would be very much appreciated :) Cheers, StickyWicket (talk) 10:34, 10 April 2021 (UTC) StickyWicket (talk) 10:34, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

@StickyWicket: Hello and Welcome to the Teahouse. I think you are better off asking at the Graphics Lab Victor Schmidt (talk) 11:29, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Victor Schmidt thanks for pointing me in the right direction! StickyWicket (talk) 12:08, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Adding research on topic

Hello! I was wondering about adding research done on a subject by myself, if I could add it to a wikipedia page? I think I saw something on this but I am not sure. I have written a few articles on a rapper and wanted to add them to his Wiki page. Johndvandevert (talk) 11:51, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

You may be an expert on the subject; please see Wikipedia:Expert editors. Briefly, what you're welcome to do is add your suggestions to the talk page of the article, and wait for disinterested editors to take up these suggestions (or not). -- Hoary (talk) 12:08, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

See also WP:SELFCITE. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:38, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

In the past ten days you have more than tripled the length of Husky (rapper. There's more? David notMD (talk) 21:09, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

+ Yes. It's not done yet, his impact in Russia is huge. Also, you're telling me that it's too much when I am fairly sure you know nothing about the rapper and his legacy within Russia. It's like me going to the wiki page about dialectical materialism and acting like I'm a scholar in the subject. Do not meddle where you don't belong.

Images uploaded under 'own work'

Theoretically speaking, suppose I suspected someone of being a WP:UPE but didn't have any ironclad evidence to move this forward with a report, but the suspect had a number of images for a variety of musicians and performers uploaded under 'own work'. What would be the proper approach going forward in terms of flagging said images? Or would it be uncustomary to flag them as erroneously marked as 'own work' based solely on a hunch? Thank you in advance! nearlyevil665 14:36, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

@Nearlyevil665: That person could go to a lot of events relating to that musician, so maybe they took them themselves? Examples: concerts, fansigns, etc. ~Wizdzy 15:07, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Some of the photos uploaded are blatant professional photoshoots. nearlyevil665 15:17, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Maybe the photographer is a professional? I wouldn't hold that against him or her. I suggest you look a their Talk Page on Commons to see if comments have been made there about the images. To go further, you will have to name names. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:29, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

The descriptions read nothing but "Uploaded own work with UploadWizard". Am I allowed to post the user's Commons page here? I know the rules are pretty straightforward about making accusations without any proof so I want to confirm I wouldn't be crossing that line. nearlyevil665 17:09, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

About Skye Sweetnam

Talk about something about her

Please see Skye Sweetnam.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 16:13, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Creating a Page

 Courtesy link: Draft:Masande Ntshanga TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:00, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

On average, how long can I expect to wait before I have my draft reviewed? Mdlsee (talk) 16:21, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

It can be maximum 2 or 3 days. EditJuice (talk) 16:41, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

@EditJuice: That is highly unlikely, unless the draft has obvious problems such that it can be almost immediately declined. @Mdlsee: There are over 5,500 drafts in the backlog, so it can take around 4 months. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:50, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. I wanted to say that. EditJuice (talk) 16:52, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

@EditJuice: I'm curious as to what your need for a speedy review is, as Wikipedia has no deadlines. Is it related to the conflict of interest that you declared? 331dot (talk) 16:53, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes. Wikipedia has no deadlines. EditJuice (talk) 16:58, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

@EditJuice: To be frank, Wikipedia is not concerned with any deadlines you are under or what you have been tasked with doing. Are you declining to answer my question? 331dot (talk) 17:02, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I guess I'm declining to answer your question... EditJuice (talk) 17:04, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

@331dot: I think you're talking to the wrong person. Mdlsee is the one who asked "how long can I expect to wait before I have my draft reviewed?" and EditJuice just replied to that question. Kleinpecan (talk) 17:31, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, that's indeed what I did. 331dot (talk) 18:48, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Mdlsee To answer your question, the backlog of drafts is not a queue. Reviewers pick what they want to review. Can be days, weeks, or (sadly) months. David notMD (talk) 21:17, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

@EditJuice: @331dot: I just wanted to confirm the 4 months timeline. I want to understand how Wikipedia works.

Mdlsee, if you're keen to see the draft reviewed soon, you can help by greatly reducing the number of references. In particular, remove all those which are to press releases, to content written by the subject, and to interviews with the subject. Wikipedia in not interested in anything a subject says about himself. 49 references, many of them doing nothing to help establish that the subject is notable, is a lot to expect a reviewer to wade through, and the long list may induce a reviewer to ignore this draft and move on to something easier.Maproom (talk) 22:32, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

@Maproom: Thank you, but I'm okay. There was a user before you who advised raising the number of sources and that's what I chose to do. I'd rather be thorough and I'm okay with waiting.

@Mdlsee, Having gone through your talkpage & the comment left on the draft I don’t see anyone expressly asking you to increase the number of references. More references are of no value, when it comes to sourcing, the quality of the sources are what counts. Three good reliable sources are enough to prove or substantiate notability. Anyway if you want the article to be reviewed as soon as can be I am happy to review it for you albeit I doubt you’d be happy with the outcome. I’d like to know, in what capacity do you have a conflict of interest with your article's subject? Do you merely know them too well that it would constitute a COI or are you being compensated for creating the article, which exactly is it? Celestina007 (talk) 00:23, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@Mdlsee,  Done, I’m dazed myself that the article surprisingly met our notability threshold, I was more than ready to decline this but having observed the sources used in the article, and their awards won i had a change of heart. I take it that you heeded the advice of Theroadislong and substantiated the awards won via RS. In any case, I have proceeded to accept the article. congratulations. Celestina007 (talk) 00:42, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Is this a good source?

Moved to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Is this a good source?

Renomination for deletion two weeks after the last nomination

I am a little concerned about the renomination for deletion of Northern Independence Party. A discussion was closed on the 27th of March with a consensus of keep, and very little has changed, except that there is now even more coverage in RS. Is this ok, or does it go against rules? Boynamedsue (talk) 19:50, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

@Boynamedsue: Wikipedia:Renominating_for_deletion says to wait six months if previous decision was keep, but that is an essay not a policy or guideline. You can raise your concern at the discussion you linked to, if you haven't already. RudolfRed (talk) 20:16, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I see now that other participants have already raised the issue of the quick relisting, and discussion is underway. RudolfRed (talk) 20:21, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks a million for the advice. Procedurally, what happens now, does an uninvolved admin who happens along have the right to close it or does it have to run its course?Boynamedsue (talk) 20:31, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Unless it meets one of the criteria at Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Early_closure, it will need to run its course. Could possibly be a speedy close (keep) but there are a couple of comments that support deleting it, so I am not sure. It could also possibly meet snow closing. RudolfRed (talk) 21:35, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

It is closed now. RudolfRed (talk) 22:31, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Aces Up

This concerns the probability of winning the solitaire card game 'Aces Up' (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aces_Up)

When I read the article in Wikipedia, I was sure the probability was less than that given ('about 1 in 10'). I've written a simulation, which shows the probability to be about 1:40.6, within very tight limits. I would like to correct the probability given (straightforward) plus also put the C program I wrote to compute this probability somewhere in Wikipedia where readers can see and/or download it.

Is there a way to make the program available in this way?

The program is instead of giving a reference - there isn't a correct one, as far as I know. The article refers to a book, Hoyle's Rules of Games, which gives the wrong probability of about 1:10.

I am about to retire and there's no guarantee that my web page, which is associated with my work, will persist - otherwise I could just put the link there.

Jonathan Deane 217.155.28.98 (talk) 19:52, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Jonathan, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid the answer is, No: that counts as original research, which is not accepted anywhere in Wikipedia. If you write up your result and get it published by a reliable source, then that could be cited in the Wikipedia article, but otherwise, no. Sorry. --ColinFine (talk) 20:23, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

That applies to not citing your webpage, as it is original research. David notMD (talk) 21:26, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Signature with no content

 Marista28112000 (talk) 20:04, 10 April 2021 (

What are the requirements to become a Global Renamer?

I would like to become one. I know that I have to apply at Meta-Wiki, but will I likely get approved there? Thanks, DePlume (talk) 20:32, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

@DePlume: pretty sure to be a global renamer, you should generally be a bureaucrat at some other wiki first so... you don't have much of a chance. It's a pretty advanced and high-trust permission. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:54, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

ok, looking at the criteria again, crat isn't really necessary, but it's still a high-trust permission. Take a look at some archived succeeded and failed requests, say at m:Steward requests/Global permissions/2020-12#Requests for global rename permissions. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:00, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

What does a Global Renamer do, anyway? What do they rename? User accounts? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:08, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Robert McClenon - Yes. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:02, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I then assume that any applicant will be asked by the stewards what they plan to do with that permission. I won't ask that question, because I don't know what a Global Renamer does, after many years of editing. But the stewards will ask. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:08, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, take a look at this page which explains it. There are 84 users with that right worldwide. I notice a few familiar names, like Deepfriedokra and Oshwah. Perhaps one of them will comment. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:50, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining, User:Cullen328. That looks like a lot of complicated responsibility without even really much added "power". Robert McClenon (talk) 02:29, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Nationality of Thaddea Graham

Can someone adjudicate the nationality of Thaddea Graham - variously stated as British, Irish, Northern Irish by different editors. Thank you 76.14.39.120 (talk) 22:13, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Please start a discussion at Talk:Thaddea_Graham. RudolfRed (talk) 22:16, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

"Stephanie Adams" inconsistency

I'm reporting an inconsistency. The page for "Stephanie Adams" describes her as the Playboy Playmate of the Month for 1988 January. But in the List Of Playboy Playmates, Kimberley Conrad is listed in that month. Stephanie Adams is in the List Of Penthouse Pets for 1988 January. One or the other two pages must be wrong, but I don't know which one. I suspect the description in the Stephanie Adams page is wrong. Scott Blair H (talk) 22:15, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

@Scott Blair H: Stephanie_Adams Says November 1992 Playboy Playmate. Which article are you referring to? RudolfRed (talk) 22:18, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

@RudolfRed: Aren't they referring to the Stephanie Adams article? I believe you meant to say which heading. ~Wizdzy 22:37, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I see nothing in that article that says she was playmate in 1988. Do you? RudolfRed (talk) 22:39, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

My bad. The List Of Playboy Playmates lists Stephanie Adams as the 1992 Playmate Of The Month for November. From the Stephanie Adams page: "Stephanie Adams (July 24, 1970 – May 18, 2018)[1][2] was an American model, author, and murderer. She was the November 1992 Playboy Playmate." But from The List Of Penthouse Pets: Stephanie Adams is listed as the 1988 January Pet Of The Month. But there is no link to the Stephanie Adams page. Is it possibly not the same woman? Or the link has not been established? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scott Blair H (talk • contribs)

Maybe it's simply not there and she actually was Playmate? ~Wizdzy 00:05, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@Scott Blair H: They are different women. Stephanie Adams (November 1992 Playboy Playmate) is part African-American and dark-skinned. Stephanie Adams (January 1988 Penthouse Pet Of The Month) is Caucasian (white). PrimeHunter (talk) 02:09, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Lost Article

Few days ago, I saw an article about Malliyoor Sree Sankaran Namboothiri. But I can't find the article now. What happened to that article? 27.59.224.151 (talk) 02:09, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Malliyoor Sankaran Namboothiri was deleted 1 April as created by a banned user. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:17, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

PrimeHunter, is there is any way to get the history or Deletion details or something like that?

Okay 27.59.224.151 (talk) 02:23, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Most likely not, though, if the article was itself useable, you might be able to ask Drmies if he can prodive you the text (hard with unregistered editors - IP's can change) or restore it to draft. Be advised that it is often better to create a new article, because, in my personal experience, suffer from all sorts of problems, depending on the banned individual. Victor Schmidt (talk) 06:10, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Sandbox

It is ok to use the sandbox for like, writing narrative essays or whatever i want(Non-vulgar, of course), instead of wikipedia editing. I know I can always change it, of course. Just wanted to know. Also, are user sandboxes viewable by other wikipedia editors? Fun81 (talk) 02:28, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@Fun81: anyone can view your sandbox. Generally, writings unrelated to Wikipedia are not acceptable, see WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:U5 (a policy allowing such writings to be speedily deleted). Elli (talk | contribs) 02:33, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. That was easy. Well, time to go somewhere else then for that. This sentence basically tells you everything. ¨Your user page is not yours. It is a part of Wikipedia, and exists to make collaboration among Wikipedians easier, not for self promotion.¨ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fun81 (talk • contribs) 02:41, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Nominating article for deletion

My question is: How to nominate an article for deletion? Thanks in advance. Hyderabadi (talk) 03:12, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@Hyderabadi: there are multiple methods: speedy deletion for some strict criteria (such as spam), proposed deletion for non-controversial article deletion, and articles for deletion, where you create a deletion discussion, and an administrator determines the outcome after seven days. Most long-standing articles should use the third option. Elli (talk | contribs) 03:20, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

How is Wikipedia not a reliable source for articles?

It is kind of self defeating if Wikipedia does not consider itself a reliable source... 747pilot (talk) 03:43, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

One reason is to minimize the risk of the woozle effect. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:49, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

See also: citogenesis. Elli (talk | contribs) 03:50, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

The vast majority of Wikipedia articles are unprotected and can be edited, and therefore vandalized, at any time. There is no official final authorized version of any article. Anti-vandalism bots and human Wikipedia editors do our best to revert vandalism, but there is always the possibility that an article could be in a vandalized state when you read it. If you want to read reliable sources about a topic, take a look at the reference list at the end of an article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:21, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

WP:RSPWP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:42, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Dutch cricket team in South Africa in 2021-22

I can't understand why this article was moved to draft by Lugnuts. He explained the reason as nothing has been confirmed. But nothing has also been confirmed about this tour - Pakistani cricket team in Bangladesh in 2021-22. But there is already an article about that. Besides, the article which I created was also curated and was found no problem earlier.If the tour was scheduled to take place in next year or later then, it would be WP:TOOSOON. But, September is not too far, only 5 months away. I wanted help by leaving a message on the page mover's talk page. But he neglected my request by deleting my message and saying at edit summary that he took four attempts but couldn't make me right. I just wonder, What's this. Is Wikipedia a place for biting the newcomers. Please anybody help me about this. A.A Prinon (talk) 04:06, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

How do I report misconduct and rudeness from rude users?

 Epictrex (talk) 04:18, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I think you can report it at Please do not bite the newcomers talk page. A.A Prinon (talk) 04:23, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

A better place is at the WP:ANI noticeboard, but be aware that your own conduct will also come under scrutiny. I suggest that you read Dispute resolution. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:27, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Please see User talk:Epictrex#WP:CITE, this diff, this edit summary and User talk:ThadeusOfNazereth#Epictrex for a bit of explanation. Heiro 04:33, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello sir, I'm new here, I think you deleted one of my cited sources in an article

 Courtesy link: Judiciary of California

I'm wondering what was wrong with the link I made to the California state constitution official site, It is actually used by a lot of the other links, mine was a link to a specific article. If this is an inappropriate link for an encyclopedia then I would like to know why. Thank you. SuprPuzishin (talk) 04:30, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@SuprPuzishin: your edit was fine, link additions from new users attract some scrutiny (as many are spam). I've re-instated your edits. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:44, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

One thing though: generally, don't use external links in the main text of the article - only in citations. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:45, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

How do I delete my Wikipedia account? There are some abusive users on Wikipedia

Someone said that they would get ANI involved, and I don’t even know what that is. I am super scared right now. I am sweating, anxious and nervous.  Epictrex (talk) 04:52, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Per this edit and summary, where I removed this editors disruptive change of a section heading. For further info, see 2 sections above this one. WP:ANI is the admins noticeboard for incidents. It's where you make posts when other editors are behaving badly, being disruptive, and uncivil. But I urge you to calm down please. Heiro 05:00, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, Heironymous Rowe I promise you that I am calm. I am sorry for getting upset. I was just hurt by some of the hurtful stuff you said.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Epictrex (talk • contribs)

Please see this, and no need to respond, I've said all I intend to. Heiro 05:24, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Waiting and waiting for approval

I submitted a draft a while ago and I’ve made changes where necessary as one of the references wasn’t trustworthy.

I think it’s waiting for approval but seems to be stuck in drafts still and it’s been 4 months now.

Could you tell me what I need to redo to submit?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Clip-On_Veneers 79.66.226.78 (talk) 06:12, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

First of all, if you are Dwhkabsl: Please Log in. Draft:Clip-On_Veneers hasn't been submitted for review. I will shortly add the appropiate informationt o allow you to do so. Victor Schmidt (talk) 07:25, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Creating a bot

Hello. How can I create a bot? I need a bot for archiving my talk page every week. EditJuice (talk) 06:46, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@EditJuice: Hello, and Welcome to the Teahouse. Before you try to create a bot, please be advised that there are already existing bots that can archive talk pages. See Help:Archiving_a_talk_page#Choosing_a_bot._Table_comparing_the_2_main_bots for more info. Victor Schmidt (talk) 07:23, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

But how can I choose one of them? EditJuice (talk) 07:31, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@EditJuice: I suggest lowercase sigmabot III for a user talk page. Every week is very frequent. I suggest 30 to 90 days unless your talk page has huge activity. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:44, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: I don't want it to be 30 to 90 days. I think it can be every week... EditJuice (talk) 16:42, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Help me with my new page

Hey there! Hope you are you doing good! I'm new to the Wikipedia and I am trying to create a page of a TV Show. I have filled most of the details but I needed help To create a content table like they made it with the details For e.g. Directed by, produced by, Poster, run time, etc. on the right side of the page. How do I create that box? I tried but couldn't do it so it would be great if somebody could help.

This is the link of my page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jainvighnesh/sandbox

Regards, Vighnesh. Jainvighnesh (talk) 10:44, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@Jainvighnesh: Hello and Welcome to the Teahouse. That box is called an Infobox. In your case, the most appropiate one is probbably {{Infobox television}}. Template:Infobox_television#Usage has some code you can copy. Victor Schmidt (talk) 12:27, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

And While we are at it, User:Jainvighnesh/sandbox would benefit from some sources. Victor Schmidt (talk) 12:28, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Jainvighnesh, and welcome to the Teahouse, and to Wikipedia. I'm delighted by your enthusiasm, but I'm afraid that your post is a bit like saying "Hello, I'm new to building, and I'm trying to build a house. I've propped up some walls like I've seen in other houses, and I want to know how to put that thing on top, I think you call it the roof". Unless you learn a bit about building before you try, you are likely to have a frustrating time. In particular, what you haven't done is to survey the ground first, and check that it's fit to build on: in Wikipedia's terms, you haven't looked for the independent, reliably published sources about the subject, without which it will not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and your house will fall down (draft get deleted). In the same way that nobody who knows anything about building would try to build a house without surveying the ground first, nobody who knows about writing Wikipedia articles would write so much as a single word of an article before looking for the sources; because in both cases they know that if the ground is not suitable, any work they put in is likely to be wasted. I suggest you leave your draft for a few months, while you find some existing articles that interest you and that you can contribute to in small ways while you learn how Wikipedia works. --ColinFine (talk) 12:47, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Help with case of sockpuppetry

Recently, I've been reverting vandalism on the page Bob Cicherillo, mainly involving a bunch of IP addresses from the same country trying to change the the subject's last name without providing sources. I believe this is obviously sockpuppetry, and I know that there are steps to report such incidents (and I'm also familiar with WP:BOLD), but what with there being more than five separate IP addresses and me being a relatively inexperienced editor, I'm a bit lost. Is it possible for someone to step in here? HeyArtemis (talk) 13:01, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello HeyArtemis. As a first step, and because there are multiple addresses making similar sorts of disruptive edits, I have semi-protected the article for 7 days. Please check and ensure the article is in the best state, and make any corrections to it. There are two things you could do if this occurs again. Firstly, make sure after you've reverted any editor that you leave them a warning notice, rising to 4th level, after which an individual editor can be blocked. If you enable WP:TWINKLE in your preferences, you'll find it a quick and easy process to leave templated warning messages, relevant to different types of editing behaviour (ranging from edits unsupported by sources, BLP violations, vandalism and spam etc). Secondly, where there are multiple editors disrupting a page , as you've experienced here, it can be best to ensure the page itself is protected from new account holders. So you can do this by reporting it at WP:RFPP. Hoping this helps, Nick Moyes (talk) 13:19, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: That was very helpful, thank you! HeyArtemis (talk) 14:18, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

My new Draft???

Hey everyone, I have created a draft @ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Flowersoftheblue/sandbox

I want to add a LOGO, but what should be the licensing?

Also, does it really take 5 months to get it reviewed?

Thank you! Flowersoftheblue (talk) 13:28, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Flowersoftheblue. It may take five minutes or five months: it depends on whether a reviewer decides to pick it up sooner or later. That's the nature of a volunteer project. As for Logos: nearly all logos are uploaded as non-free materials, and so may not be used in drafts, but only in articles. --ColinFine (talk) 13:35, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Flowersoftheblue WRONG NAME! That's my username. Not my page's name. How to correct this??? I didn't change it.

Hello Flowersoftheblue (I assume that was you). Normally, adjusting a page title requires a page move. However, in the case of Draft:Flowersoftheblue I wouldn't worry about that right now: The reviewer will take care of that when accepting the draft. Victor Schmidt (talk) 15:17, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Rowspan and Colspan

FYI

 – Heading added by Tenryuu.

What’s the difference between colspan and rowspan? Superman011 (talk) 13:41, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@Superman011: Rowspan makes a cell span over multiple rows and colspan makes a cell span across multiple columns. Please use the "New section" link at the top or the Ask a question button if you have a new question. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:49, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Superman011. See more at Help:Table#Combined use of COLSPAN and ROWSPAN. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:30, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Widsith: long poem or short?

Hi there, I've been wondering how Widsith should properly be marked up. If it's a long poem, like Beowulf, then it is italicized, but if it's short, then it only takes quotation marks, right? Is there a general consensus on this question? The Widsith page itself doesn't seem of much help as it includes a mix of italicized and non-italicized mentions of the name. Thanks! Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 13:55, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Maybe someone else can point you to an Official Decision on the matter, but at 143 lines it's shorter than "A Lover's Complaint", and the latter's title is formatted with quotation marks rather than italics. Wikignome Wintergreen^talk 14:42, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@Revirvlkodlaku: Forgot to ping, why do I always remember after posting a reply... Wikignome Wintergreen^talk 15:24, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@Revirvlkodlaku: A rule of thumb that I was taught a long time ago is that a poem's title should be italicized only if the poem is often published (or was originally published) by itself as a book (like, for instance, The Song of Hiawatha or Evangeline). So "Widsith" by that rule would be enclosed in quotation marks rather than italicized. Deor (talk) 15:49, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you both for your input, it is much appreciated! Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 18:21, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Article

Somebody please have a look at Majiziya Bhanu. The achievements mentioned there have no references. Many fault statements are there. Please have a watch. ♠Devan Lallu ^Talk 14:17, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello Devan Lallu. I encourage you to be WP:BOLD and edit the article on your own. What you can do is look for the sources that would back the statements provided, or remove the statements that look dubious per WP:BLP. There are also a couple of projects that deal with article improvement such asWP:FACT or WP:GUILD, you can post a request there. Happy editing and thank you for your contributions. Less Unless (talk) 15:25, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Vandalism

So how do you know if an edit is vandalism? Superman011 (talk) 14:52, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello Superman011 and welcome to Wikipedia. Generally vandalism is something disruptive or malicious, but also inappropriate addition, removal or modification of texts, humor or hoaxes. Anything that is not aimed at constructive improvement can be considered vandalism. If you want to learn more, please take a look here Vandalism on Wikipedia and WP:VANDAL. Best, Less Unless (talk) 15:10, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@Superman011: Adding on to that, a lot of the time it is pretty clear when an edit is vandalism. For example, vandals commonly insert obscenities, add racist/homophobic/sexist "information", or blank parts or all of the page. Sometimes vandalism can be a lot more subtle and you should always watch out for that, but a lot of the time it is pretty clear. bop34 • talk • contribs 15:19, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Not as common, but deletions can be vandalism. However, sometimes editors remove text and the references that supported it because they believe that content did not belong in the article. What is written in Edit summaries can help determine intent. David notMD (talk) 16:35, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

It's important to understand that vandalism is largely determined by the INTENT of the editor; vandalism is a DELIBERATE intent to defeat or obstruct the purpose of this encyclopedia. A poor edit which introduces incorrect information, invalid markup, POV content or incomprehensible language is not vandalism if it was done with the intention of improving the encyclopedia, however misguided or incompetent the result is. See WP:VANDNOT for important details on this point. Be careful that you are sure you understand the intention of the editor before calling an edit "vandalism". CodeTalker (talk) 17:15, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

It's vandalism if it adds new information without consensus. 91.142.213.109 (talk) 17:36, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

No it is not. That's bold editing and is encouraged. Of course if the edit is challenged then the bold, revert, discuss cycle should begin. But even then it is not vandalism if the INTENT of the edit was to improve the encyclopedia. CodeTalker (talk) 17:46, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I find it extremely difficult to edit or create a Wiki page

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnny_Hott I know Johnny Hott very well, we have played together almost forty years. Does that make me not able to edit his wiki page? I have lots of information of value, plus photos, to make the page great. Things that I have witnessed personally. I could not figure out how to edit, where is the edit button? Why is it so complicated? I only have so much time to fool with this. But I will keep trying, and it's not only Johnny's page, but many others I can make valuable contributions to. Do I need to pay an expert to make the changes? The guide to making the changes is confusing. At least I could upload a photo of Johnny, but it looks that is being rejected for "Conflict of Interest"? How can an authentic photography of Johnny Hott be a conflict of interest? Thanks Brooke Saunders Richmond, VA Brookesaunders (talk) 15:58, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Aaaaaaaah, hope this helps: Your knowing Johnny Hott personally makes you potentially a source of good information, but Wikipedia puts a (surmountable) barrier between you and editing the article directly. Conflict of interest (see WP:COI) calls for you to declare a COI on your User page, and to restrict your efforts to making suggested article changes on the Talk page of the JH article. What you know cannot be used at all, as that is considered "original research." Only what has been published and can therefore be referenced. It's a true-and-verify thing. On the Talk page, start a new section (top menu), give it a title, an in the section, be specific on changes you propose. A non-involved editor will act to either implement or deny.

In general answer to how to edit, each article as a whole has an Edit option on the top menu, and edit for each section (but you shouldn't, for reasons given above).

As to the photo you added, the description clearly states that you are not the photographer. With certain exceptions, only the photographer can add a photo. David notMD (talk) 16:45, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello Brookesaunders. Just wanted to add a link to a guideline on creating a request - WP:COIREQ. Also I feel sorry you find it difficult to edit Wikipedia. This tutorial H:EDIT helped me personally, I hope it will be of good use for you - there are also videos which I find especially helpful.

As for the photos - you can upload any amount of photos to Wikimedia Commons (that is an image-related project of Wikipedia) if you are the author and willing to post it for free use. If you don't own the copyright for the photos, unfortunatelly you can't add them.

Best, Less Unless (talk) 16:57, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

(ec) Brookesaunders WP and Commons are very strict concerning copyright. When you say that something is own work, on these websites that means that you took the picture with your camera. If you have pics you have taken, and not published elsewhere already, you are welcome to upload them on Commons, other pics will be deleted sooner or later.

Yes, WP is difficult in parts, but it's possible to get the hang of it. Adding references is an essential skill, see WP:TUTORIAL. If you can't ref it, don't add it. Apart from WP:COI, also take the time to read WP:BLP. And keep asking questions as they occur. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:07, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

• Brookesaunders Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm sorry you've had difficulty. Aside from the other advice given here, I wanted to say that the purpose of a Wikipedia article is to summarize what publicly available, published, independent reliable sources say about article subjects. It is not a place for people to share their personal knowledge, as we have no way to verify what your personal knowledge is. If you have independent sources that chose on their own to write about your personal knowledge, that would be something we could add, because readers could verify that information. 331dot (talk) 17:32, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Starting a page, but with an issue.

So, let's say I wanted to start a page on something, however, there is no media coverage of it or any other notable documentation besides the person who created it. What do I do then? 

I

Am

Llanfairwyll

17:38, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to The Teahouse. Wikipedia only publishes articles for topics that have received significant coverage in reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 17:43, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Llanfairwyll. Just to take the above to it's logical conclusion, if it's not obvious, what you do is not create the page. If the premises of your post is accurate, then you will waste your time; any such page created will be deleted if submitted directly, or if submitted as a draft, declined and eventually deleted, as not able to meet threshold standards for inclusion. There are plenty of places online to post about topics that aren't encyclopedias. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:27, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Should Affenpinschers be classified as an endangered breed? Plus, why are they called pinschers, when they dont have any of those characteristics?

1. On Akc’s popularity rank, Affenpinschers rank 148 out of 197, definitely meaning that they’re rare.

2. Should affenpinschers be classified as a pinscher? The other pinschers have a slender body, pointed ears, a long snout, and are usually Black and Tan. The affenpinscher shares none of these characteristics, and looks more like a black wire haired Pug.

Answermeplease11 Answermeplease11 (talk) 18:07, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Answermeplease11. The Teahouse is for asking questions about editing Wikipedia. Try the Reference desk for general knowledge questions. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:10, 11 April 2021 (UTC)