was lacking some information and seemed muddled. Was I correct to create a table comparing 2 common Australian bank transfer systems? [[User:Kartane|Kartane]] ([[User talk:Kartane|talk]]) 09:09, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi! I've been editing for quite a few months now, though, I've never actually written a Wikipedia page about myself. Well, I'd like to, and would like to ask; How'd you actually go about doing this?
I've also never written a question before, so I sincerely apologise regarding any and all mistakes I've made here. belg (talk) 11:06, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello BelgianFried and welcome to the Teahouse. Creating an article about yourself is really not a good idea. You may however create a userpage with some details about yourself, e.g. where you come from, which articles you have created, your areas of interest on WP. You can find details on what's generally accepted on your userpage at WP:UP. To create your own userpage simply go to Special:MyPage. – NJD-DE (talk) 11:23, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
BelgianFried I would also suggest that you read WP:PROUD as to why an article about yourself is not necessarily a good thing. As noted, you may have a userpage about yourself, but it should be designed to tell about yourself as a Wikipedia editor- not a general social media style page where you say anything and everything about yourself. Please see WP:USERPAGE for information on acceptable (and not) user page content. 331dot (talk) 11:28, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:PA12194 created Shilpa Thakre. It was tagged as copyright violation. I copied the content to my userspace, reworded and did some clean up of references. By that time mainspace article got deleted. Then I moved my version to mainspace. Now, some article content(Authority control, Categories) , talk page banners and old edit history by that user is missing. Admins, please add it back. -- Parnaval (talk) 13:24, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Fuhghettaboutit. One more question, Is there a better way instead of copying which I may have used so I don't need to request like this. Also why you marked one line of article as clarification needed ? -- Parnaval (talk) 15:13, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Parnaval, and welcome to the Teahouse. The better way of doing it would have been to start again. It is rarely appropriate to copy material within Wikipedia at all (see Copying within Wikipedia), but unauthorised copyrighted material is forbidden anywhere in Wikipedia, even in userspace (that's one of the reasons that "Save changes" was changed to "Publish changes" a few years back) so your copying the material was in violation of Wikipedia's rules. Assuming you've changed the wording enough to fall outside copyright violation, there is no problem now (though the earlier versions should really be REVDELed) but it is not a recommended way of creating text. --ColinFine (talk) 20:07, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Parnaval. I agree with ColinFine, and would have said something similar if I was around. (ColinFine: as part of my edits I had undeleted the history to fix the copyright problem of the prior history being divorced and then I did revdelete all edits containing infringement).
As to the clarification needed tag, Parnaval, the sentence tagged says "She is known as expression queen due to her videos on Youtube, Tiktok and Likee". The phrase "expression queen" is close enough to informationless that you could almost insert any other phrase there and nearly the equivalent [lack of] information would be provided ("She is known as pepper mill due to her videos on Youtube, Tiktok and Likee"). Hundreds of thousands of people post videos at a variety of places but aren't then known as "expression superlative".
So it is not the fact that she has posted videos to these platforms that made her known as expression queen but something about those postings. Is it because she has posted so many, so far beyond the typical, that she has "expressed" herself to such an extent? Is she known for coining catchy idiomatic expressions in her videos, such that she came to be called expression queen? In sum, we don't know why she came to be known by the appellation, but one thing we can be certain of is that the mere fact she posted videos to these platforms does not provide any clarity as to why she was dubbed with the title.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:20, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
For many years now a small number of editors keep on removing ANY positive or recent information that goes on to this page, no matter how validly it is sourced! Anyone adding any positive information is labelled a sock puppet without any proof at all. I have many thousands of followers on social media, I teach many students at university, I entertain hundreds of customers, I live with other people, I have guests in my houses, and we also have volunteers in our geisha district. I don't know all of these people personally just because they have an interest in the geisha world and in the outcome for geisha in this difficult age. Every person who adds positive properly sourced information to my page is not a sock puppet. If all of those many thousands of people are not allowed to add any information to Wikipedia then who is left to do it? Recently we have had Ravensfire And Ineffable Book keeper reverse everything positive yet again so the most recent information on the page is 2015. The most recent accusation against one editor is that he is paid by me. For the record, I do not have any paid staff.
Could someone please help with this? I do not how to edit Wikipedia and I have no interest at all in editing myself.
I DO teach a class on Media and my students learn to edit Wikipedia as part of their course. They are learning how to add validly sourced correct information to various pages. I have never met them, they have no agenda, and the only thing they are doing is trying to add correct information to the page.
Unfortunately they are also learning that:
= Any Wikipedia editor can accuse anyone of being a sockpuppet and then use that as an excuse to remove any positive content from a page.
= Wikipedia is not objective at all. Any frequent editor can reverse anything at anytime without any reason at all.
= Anyone who is a business rival can say anything damaging about other people in the media and then put on Wikipedia.
= Any English speaking editor can use an IP address to delete everything positive from the Japanese page. Please look at the history there. Book book Many Many made a lot of nice careful edits from good sources a while ago, and a single English speaking editor removed everything time after time without any reason at all.
Hello and welcome. I checked the page history and there does not seem to have been much editing activity on the page since about March 2020. Regarding your students, are you saying that you are Fiona Graham, and you would like us to facilitate your students editing the Fiona Graham page? @Hoary: has been a frequent editor to that page, so perhaps they can comment on the above. Thanks.--- Possibly (talk) 04:59, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article Fiona Graham (like that on geisha) has for years intermittently been subject to obsessive interest from some editors. As Possibly says, activity in the article seems to have been rather quiet -- I think since summer '20, when I perpetrated this set of edits (which incidentally is geisha-irrelevant, and which I hope is unobjectionable). I think that semi-protection has helped here. By contrast, the Japanese article has recently had a lot of activity. And yes, much of this activity looks odd to me. However, that's the Japanese-language Wikipedia, and complaints about it should be brought up there, not here. The place to start is, I think, 存命人物の伝記/伝言板. -- Hoary (talk) 05:49, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ravensfire - come get y'all juice, we're going round it again.
This has been going for more than a decade now, though I've not been editing Wikipedia for that long. Ravensfire and I did discuss what we could potentially do the last time this happened - and honestly, I once again voluntarily put my clown hat on to say that I Though Things Had Changed This Time, No Really, I Did.
Just want to note that the last time this sort of came up here at the Teahouse was in March 2021 at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1097#Vandalism and Talk:Fukagawa Geisha. As pointed out above, the article Fiona Graham has had issues for quite a long time which have been severe enough to require page protection multiple times since 2011. The latest protection will end on May 23, and my guess then is that the article will once again end up being heavily edited (by people on both sides of the fence) and then once again end up being protected. The best way to avoid that from happening would be the subject of the article to take a look at WP:BIOSELF (even if she's done that many times in the past) and advise her students to carefully read through WP:COI and WP:BLP even if she feels they don't have a conflict of interest with respect to her. I think it would then be wise for the students to follow WP:COIADVICE and WP:PSCOI#Steps for engagement and use the article's talk page and edit requests to propose changes. The reason I suggest this is that if a number of new accounts (IP accounts or registered accounts) start showing up out of the blue after May 23 and start making major changes to the article, they are likely going to end being reverted either partially or totally by editors who've been monitoring the article over the years and asked to discuss things on the article talk page per WP:BRD. This will particularly happen if these editors start leaving edit summaries that give the impression that they have an WP:APPARENTCOI and make edits that on not in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guideline. If these new editors then try a "force through" changes, then warnings about edit warring, sock puppetry or meat puppetry are likely going to start being given and accounts may end up being blocked. If Ms. Graham is trying to teach her students how to edit Wikipedia as part of a course she's teaching, then maybe the best thing for her to do would be to get in contact with someone at the m:Wiki Education Foundation because it can provide lots of guidance on how to best do that. There is also Wikipedia:Education noticeboard which is where WikiEd advisors tend to hang out and would probably be quite happy to answer an questions that Wikipedia has and there is also some guidance about this in Wikipedia:Student assignments. Finally, Wikipedia has over six million articles and pretty much all of them are in need of improvement; so, there would seem to be lots of ways for Ms. Graham to teach her students about editing Wikipedia that have nothing to do with editing content about her. It would probably be best for Ms. Graham advise her students to avoid editing any content about her and focus on other trying to improve other articles that might interest them. A teacher is really helping their students one iota if the students end up getting blocked trying to help out their teacher by editing content about the teacher, and it's really unfair of a teacher to to ask their students to do such a thing, either directly or indirectly. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:11, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am Fiona Graham and one of the people constantly removing validly sourced information and refusing to discuss it on the Talk Page is Ineffablebookkeeper who is now suggesting here that the page be locked - why should it be locked? There is absolutely no reason to lock it. Why are you constantly removing valid information from my page? Why do take every recent edit off there and keep the most recent information from 2015? Why do you call every single person who edits the page a sockpuppet? Many people who follow my social media try to correct wrong information. Are all the 20,000 people on my LinkedIn account also sockpuppets?
The English page is okay right now if it wasn't locked without reason. The one thing that should be removed is the part about the Wanaka Gym. Please see the Talk Page about that...someone has recently found the original website and written a good argument for why it shouldn't be there. The court cases lasted over 15 years and are still being appealed. Taking one single case out of context and writing about it on Wikipedia is not fair at all, and in any case the cases are nothing at all do with the reason I am on Wikipedia and are just irrelevant beyond causing me harm by being there.
The Japanese page is a serious problem. Please look at it. One Japanese made many good edits over some months and one single English speaker has reverted everything every time using an IP address without logging in and without any reason. So please put the edits by Book Book Many Many back again as they shouldn't have been removed in the first place, all of them were from valid newspapers and television.
The different language Wikipedias are essentially different projects. There might be some overlapping in policies and guidelines, but there are also often some important differences. If you're comfortable enough in communicating in Japanese, you can post your concerns at ja:ノート:フィオナ・グラハム to see if someone responds; you could also try ja:Wikipedia:存命人物の伝記/伝言板, but I suggest the article talk page first. If you want to try and discuss your concerns in English, you can try ja:Wikipedia:Help for Non-Japanese Speakers. You will need to remember that most of the people responding to your posts are going to Japanese editors who might not want to communicate or be comfortable communicating with you in English, and editors might not interpret certain policies and guidelines exactly the same way that they are generally interpreted here on English Wikipedia. There are also probably much fewer editors which might mean it takes longer for someone to respond. Regardless of whether you're editing on English Wikipedia or Japanese Wikipedia, you should be upfront about who you are and what you want done right from the start. You should use your existing account if you have one. If you don't remember the password and don't want to create a new account, then you can use an IP account. However, you shouldn't have to be asked by another editor whether you're Fiona Graham; that should be something you clearly state in any post asking for assistance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:27, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I just wrote the following message to IneffableBookkeeper on his talk page....perhaps he could answer, and perhaps you other Wikipedia editors could finally hold him to account?
Message to IneffableBookkeeper
This is Fiona Graham. Perhaps you could explain to me exactly what your problem is? I have never edited Wikipedia in my life. I do not know how to. I have many fans, many students, many supporters on social media, many customers who visit our geisha house and geisha district, many people who attend my frequent talks and lectures around Japan and overseas, and many volunteers who help with our geisha district and the charity program we have for our young geisha. Some of them try to correct the information on Wikipedia that they can see is wrong. That does not mean they are sock puppets. I am not even exactly sure what a sock puppet is, but if you are accusing me of creating accounts in order to edit myself, then no, I have never done that. If you are saying that some people edit from the IP address of the Tokyo Fukagawa Geisha Association then that is quite possible. That doesn't mean they are sock puppets either.
What is important is that the information that is added to the page is almost always from valid sources - we haven't had any negative or incorrect media for a decade - and you keep removing it for no reason!!
Perhaps you could explain exactly what it is that makes you remove recent valid information without any reason?
As far as the current students go they are not spending the term editing Wikipedia! They can't do anything complicated. All they are trying to do is put valid information directly from reliable sources on to a page. I haven't given any instructions about content and I haven't even met these students. All I am asking is that Wikipedia editors behave the way they should behave and allow perfectly valid edits! If editors like IneffableBookkeeper don't start removing content without any reason to do so then there won't be any problem and my page will reflect recent correct information which is what Wikipedia is supposed to be about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2400:4050:B1A0:2D00:A8DA:4ADF:6DC:B9D9 (talk) 12:17, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If as you say above that your students can't do anything complicated, then perhaps the best thing for you to do would be to advise them to avoid editing related to you because that's going to be complicated. There are plenty of articles in need of improvement where students can do a little research, find reliable sources, and add content that reflects those reliable sources to the article. They can start with the Wikipedia:Adventure and then perhaps take a look at Category:Articles with unsourced statements where they find over 500,000 article tagged for having poor sourcing. If they could improve even one of those articles by finding better sources, then that would clearly be good for Wikipedia. The fact that it seems that you think that the only way your students can learn about Wikipedia and make Wikipedia better is by them editing Wikipedia content about you does make is seem that they're doing so more for you than anything else. I apologize if that's not want you're really trying to do, but what you've posted above is kind of giving that impression. If you really want to help your students learn about Wikipedia, contact the WikiEd Foundation like I suggested above and work through them. WikiEd advisors are quite experienced at editing in general, but also experienced in helping students and instructors edit Wikipedia. The WikiEd Foundation has all created all kinds of modules geared to helping students learn how to edit and help instructors develop lesson plans that make use of Wikipedia. That would be the best thing for any teacher to do you wants to use Wikipedia as part of their class. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:43, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh - I probably ought to create a list of the postings Graham has created here, on BLPN and probably a few others complaining that she can't make the page into the promotional page she wants. It's nice to see her admitting that she's been sending students here, usually denying over and over and then admitting some small connection. Fiona, you said All I am asking is that Wikipedia editors behave the way they should behave - you do realize that's exactly what's been asked of you and your students? Work within the COI guidelines. Realize that promotional puffery isn't appropriate for Wikipedia. Follow WP:NPOV. All of the things you and your connected contributor have consistently failed to do. You wonder why there's a lack of good will towards you and your students? It's been your behavior, your relentless pushing of promotional and poorly sourced material, of white-washing anything you don't want included and doing that over and over and over again. Please think on that and about how poorly it reflects on you as a person and as a teacher. Ravensfire (talk) 16:49, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've already replied to Graham's message here, but I'll repeat here as well:
You've written that "my page will reflect recent correct information which is what Wikipedia is supposed to be about" - though we endeavour for articles to be as accurate as we can make them, we do have limits. Wikipedia isn't here to chronicle your most recent activities - that's what a personal website is for - nor is it here to chronicle everything you do. If we can't find it in a reliable, secondary source - if all we have to go on for your most recent activities is primary sources - then the reason this isn't included is that you cannot rest the most recent parts of a BLP on primary references, per WP:BLPPRIMARY.
You write that "Some of [your fans, students, online supporters, customers and volunteers] try to correct the information on Wikipedia that they can see is wrong. That does not mean they are sock puppets".You're correct in this instance - a group of sockpuppets would be one person, many accounts. There's no way to verify the degree of contact or control you may or may not have over the various editors passing through the article, but if the situation is more "one person, many other people, each with their own account" - that's a meatpuppet. And that's still not acceptable.You write that "If you are saying that some people edit from the IP address of the Fukagawa Geisha Association then that is quite possible. That doesn't mean they are sock puppets either."They aren't sockpuppets - but if it is possible, encourage them to declare a connection to yourself as a member of the Fukagawa Geisha Associationas well as encouraging them strongly to follow the easy-to-digest editorial guidelines on editing as a COI editor, or, encourage them to stop, as they clearly have little intention of actually following editorial guidelines.
The most worrying thing, perhaps, is the following: "I do not how to edit Wikipedia and I have no interest at all in editing myself. I DO teach a class on Media and my students learn to edit Wikipedia as part of their course." You then state that "They are learning how to add validly sourced correct information to various pages", but that "I have never met them, they have no agenda, and the only thing they are doing is trying to add correct information to the page."This implies the following:
You do not know how to edit Wikipedia.
You are, however, teaching students at a university level how to edit English Wikipedia - as we are only a sister project to Japanese Wikipedia, and have no control over them, as they have no control equally over us.
...but these students are the ones editing the article on yourself, either from the bottom of their hearts, or because you are teaching them to edit English Wikipedia through directing them to edit your BLP - literal meatpuppetry.
Y'know, I had some pretty shoddy times at university. Not all of my tutors were especially great. But at the very least, I knew they could practice the subject they were teaching me. (Apart from one graphic design tutor, who asked a student out...lucky I can wrangle Photoshop into shape already.)
This has been going on for a decade, with no signs of improvement in sight, and no signs of WP:COMPETENCE - the bottom line, regardless of motives or intentions.
On the Talk page and in its archives, it's been explained how exactly a COI editor can contribute to the project; this has been ignored. It's been explained why various sources, edits and actions get reverted and removed; this has been ignored. I have tried time and time again to move progress along and reach a resolution where the editors involved step away from a WP:BATTLEGROUND approach, in the hopes of improving the article in question hand-in-hand; this, unsurprisingly, has been ignored.
It seems that the editors who pop up, time and time again, appear to act with the notion that they can, if they brute-force their way into it, get their way and get over editorial guidelines and standards.
I'd appreciate any kind of resolution, from more experienced editors who understand what range of actions are available in this situation, that means that we don't have to go through this rigmarole again. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 17:10, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Russian Sources\Mixed Sources for the English Page
Russian Sources\Mixed Sources for the English Page
Hi there, I'm new to English Wikipedia. Previously have been working on Russian pages and I submitted a draft for review but can't find out the info on how I shall enter the sources originally presented in Russian.
Hello ColinFine, thanks for your answer. It partly answered my question. Perhaps, I haven't formulated that right. What's about the references themselves? Shall I translate Russian references or simply put it this way?
30 не достигших 30: молодежь московского будущего (in Russian). The Guardian. 2015-06-08. Retrieved 2021-05-10
The article you mentioned seems to have an english version, so it would make sense to change the title and the link in this case. Otherwise with some templates, if you really care, you can specify the transliterated title under |title, the cyrillic title with |script-title and the english translation with |trans-title. Whether it's worth the effort depends mostly on the kind of source. Personuser (talk) 09:36, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully right diff. Seems appropriate to leave the nowrap in this case. At least locally, if I zoom in such a way to make the two-world names to split between two lines it looks awkwards, because there's no spacing between different state/entities or what they are. Actually no-wrapping even the successor column seems to make sense (though the flags give more clarity in this case). I had some trouble with understanding the syntax, but my understanding is that you mainly removed redunant diplayed text/link text pairs and nowrap has only to do with spaces and occasionally other characters in the displayed text, so there is no reason to remove it, if it was initially appropriate and the final text is the same (replacing a two word name with a one word one is a different matter). Personuser (talk) 02:56, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I added an additional pop culture appearance to the Cao Cao article, but my citation of the High School DxD Fandom site was reverted for being untrustworthy. I understand why, but I can't find any other sites that give the specific information I included. Should I just leave it uncited? TheLobsterCache (talk) 05:14, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@TheLobsterCache: You shouldn't just slap a "citation needed" and expect other people to put a reference in for you; that's being irresponsible. There are approximately 464,000 pages with the citation needed template, and many of the tags go unsolved for years. It's unlikely that someone's going to provide one for you in the near future. Remember, verifiability, not truth; you are expected to find a source for everything you add to Wikipedia, so if you can't find a source, it's better to leave the information out because it's probably not noteworthy enough for inclusion. ◢ Ganbaruby! (talk) 07:13, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I need a infobox for Ill-tradition
Hello, I am currently writing a article about a Ill, bad Hunda of Maharashtra. I searched infobox for tradition but , I think there's no such infobox available. Can you guide me. Or I write this article without infobox . Huge Earth (talk) 06:05, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Abillionradios: To send a notification properly, you have to include a link to that user's page and sign in the same edit. Linking to a userpage can be done by {{Reply to}}, {{U}}, or simply a link. Go into edit source for this section to see how I notified you of this reply. ◢ Ganbaruby! (talk) 07:16, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, MariaCMendes, ands welcome to the Teahouse. It's not clear to me what you're asking, but if you are asking about translating articles from English Wikipedia to Portuguese Wikipedia, you are very welcome to do so, and yu can find advise at Translate us. --ColinFine (talk) 11:18, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Pepsinus, and welcome to the Teahouse. The advice I will give you is "find several reliableindependent sources with significant coverage of Barbasetti". He may well meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, but until you find the sources that establish notability, you are building a house without building any foundations - indeed, without even surveying the ground to see whether it is fit to build on. Remember that Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. At present you have one source, and I can't tell whether or not it would be regarded as either reliable or independent of Barbasetti. There is no point in doing anything to your text until you find the sources. --ColinFine (talk) 11:32, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are a lot sources,I added now, but maybe it is easier to translate the german article about Luigi Barbasetti into english?
Editing
I have been asked to provide more citations on an article that I have written and attempted to publish@ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eimear_Considine
I added them but they were not saved, possibly because I was not actually in the article. The article as named above is not giving me an 'edit' option - am I in the wrong place? How do I source the original article to correct it? Lizimbrie (talk) 11:22, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We have a small naming issue with our Field Hockey Club in Leicester, UK.
Previously the entry for "Leicester Hockey Club" had included a reference to both Leicester Hockey Club (a smaller but historic Mens Hockey Club in Midlands League) and Leicester City Hockey Club (a bigger and very successful National League Ladies Team)
The fact remains that the name Leicester Hockey Club does not refer exclusively to Leicester City Hockey Club and technically is not the name of Leicester City Hockey Club at all.
There surely ought to be some sort of acknowledgement that Leicester Hockey Club is a separate entity, even if it is on a smaller scale.
How can this be corrected?
@YorkieLeicester: Hello Yorkie and welcome to the Teahouse! If the Leicester Hockey Club is not notable, there won't be an article for it and no need to disambiguate between the 2. Also, it appears that you may be involved in the team in some way based off of you saying it was "your" team and your username containing the name of the city it's based in. If so you might want to take a look at WP:COI. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 13:11, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
my article i wrote since last month has not published .please i want to know why?
@Great akeni You did not write/publish any article so far. You have a draft in your user sandbox but you did not submit it for review. Please have a look at WP:YFA and after finishing the draft at the section "Submitting for review" at Wp:AFC. CommanderWaterford (talk) 12:11, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not social media. Articles exist about people who are considered notable because others have published content about them. Your User page and Talk page are not places to create draft articles. David notMD (talk) 16:19, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Conflict with another editor
Would like to know the procedure to escalate if a veteran editor is reverting to my edits without giving valid reason and even after explaining my edits the editor is still reverting to my edits. Whatever edit I have made are with proper citations and to the point complying with Wikipedia policies but still its more of a personal attack which is done by the editor since we do not share the exact same beliefs.Asad29591 (talk) 13:48, 17 May 2021 (UTC) Asad29591 (talk) 13:48, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Asad29591: Thanks for stopping by The Teahouse to ask this question. I have reviewed your recent edits and those of the user in question; based on what I can see there is nothing to report right now. You just now asked them for an explanation; that is the first step in any dispute process. Please give them time (it can be a day or more depending on when they next come by Wikipedia) to respond to your request for an explanation. If they do not give a satisfactory explanation, the next step is to use dispute resolution to invite uninvolved editors to assess the situation and give their opinions. There is no need to escalate anything to administrators at this point, because no one has done anything that deserves a sanction. There's just a difference of opinion on content, and that can be resolved without invoking admins. --Jayron3214:06, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cite a Book or Cite an Interview?
Can any of the veterans in here give me some advice on whether it's better to cite a book or an interview?
Suppose I wanted to prove the statement "Herman the Hermit claims that the Flying Spaghetti Monster advised him to live in a cave in the desert."
Imagine I had two sources: a) A printed biography (not an *auto*biography) of Herman the Hermit, in which the author quotes him accordingly, b) an interview (podcast) with Herman the Hermit posted on the Internet by a radio station, in which we can hear him saying just that.
Which sources should I reference? Both of them? Only the book, because although more cumbersome to obtain it is more permanent? Only the interview, because although it is more volatile, it is an original sound bite and readily available?
I would cite both. While there can be overkill when citing too many redundant sources, citing the book is important because it is a secondary source whereby the information is vetted, but insofar as you are merely reporting that he made the statement, then citing an actual example of him making that statement is also a good additional citation. WP:RS clearly states that broadcast sources are as good as print sources, The term "published" is most commonly associated with text materials, either in traditional printed format or online; however, audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable sources. Like text, media must be produced by a reliable source and be properly cited. Additionally, an archived copy of the media must exist. It is convenient, but by no means necessary, for the archived copy to be accessible via the Internet. In other words, so long as a copy of the recording can be accessed somewhere, the rules for citing recordings is the same as for printed text. --Jayron3213:58, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How can I remove something I entered in 2007. It contains my name and personal information that is now damaging. It’s about a historical home
Hi Wiki master 20009. Your edit to Maxwell Jacob Friedman was entirely inappropriate content for inserting into an encyclopedia. It was unsourced; it lacked any context, and, though it read as near nonsense, it appears to be your apparent personal opinion of what you think will happen. No edit like this will ever be accepted. It also lacked any semblance of proper, grammatical, well composed writing in coherent English. Your more recent edit to the same article was also inappropriate unsourced, contextless opinion.
I can only suggest you spend some careful time reading about this place, and do not make any similar edits. While your intent may be good, Wikipedia requires competence in editing and I fear any edits that resemble these will quickly result in a block from further editing. There are editors who are not fluent enough in English to add and edit rich content, but who make a successful go of it here by recognizing their limitations in this language, and who limit themselves to changes that do not require such skills. But that requires that recognition.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:43, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
New Articles
Hii.. Since I am new to editing and making sure I do whatever is best in Wikipedia's interest I would like to know few things as:
1. How can you add pictures in any articles that lacks the photos and with reference.
2. How to see or approve articles which are pending and need review to be published.
You must either find a photo or upload the photo. Note that the photos must be under a free license. See WP:CMF for instructions on uploading.
In order to review drafts, you must be an AfC reviewer. In order to mark new pages as 'reviewed', you must have the new page reviewer right.
YouTube is actually a perennial source, or a source that is sometimes OK and sometimes unreliable. For specific guidance see WP:RSPYT. If the uploader was reliable, like NBC News, it works. If it's uploaded by 'RandomYouTubeDude', don't cite it. It could be anyone. Sungodtemple (talk) 15:11, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
1 In general, any random picture you find on the internet is under some sort of copyright and if you add them to WP, they will be removed. However, at this link Commons is a large collection of images that can freely be used on WP. There, you can also contribute pictures you have taken yourself with your own camera. For more info, see Help:Pictures and perhaps WP:FAIRUSE.
So I recently made a proposal to have yearly based WikiProjects. I sent a notice out to some of the active members that I know that work on more current events, since my trial idea is Draft:Wikipedia:WikiProject of 2021. I checked the talk page stats where I posted it (WikiProject Year talk page) and it gets an average of like 5 views. Yesterday, it got 35, but that was with a ton of notices and no replies. I know editors can start WikiProjects if they have some members, normally 4-5 at least. Where is the best place to actually "recruit" editors for the new WikiProject idea And/OR where is the best place for me to post the talk page discussion that I started for the WikiProject idea. Thanks for the help in advance! Elijahandskip (talk) 14:19, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dantakelwara, in general, any random picture you find on the internet is under some sort of copyright and if you add them to WP, they will be removed. However, at this link Commons is a large collection of images that can freely be used on WP. There, you can also contribute pictures you have taken yourself with your own camera. For more info, see Help:Pictures and perhaps WP:FAIRUSE. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:49, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My article was not Accepted
not accepted
Hi i am aneeb i recently found out about creating articles for wikipedia and was interested.and i made an article as test and sent it to review and it was nit accepted, Anyone who knows about this issue please say the reason.The article was about andikkode an village in kerala,india. AneebAni7 (talk) 14:26, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Are press releases for references acceptable? As far as I know, press releases are copies of the company's statement, therefore, considered biased.
Wondering if it's alright to remove PR used as reference in articles. HeythereitsBella (talk) 14:27, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @HeythereitsBella: and welcome to the Teahouse! It depends entirely on what the press release is being used as a reference for. It is a self-published source, and as such, it cannot be used to provide evidence of notability, it cannot be used for statements about unrelated entities presented in Wikipedias voice, and should not be used to cite controversial or contested information. However, such self-published sources can be used in limited cases such as a) providing a direct quote, which is clearly attributed to the source in text and not provided in Wikipedia's voice or b) providing banal and uncontroversial facts, such as number of employees or basic statistics. Such sources should never be used to uncritically present any potentially contentious or overly self-serving statement in Wikipedia's voice, however. --Jayron3214:47, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm adding some biographical information to an existing biography page. I have information about the person's siblings / nephews and nieces such as birth and death dates, who they married, etc. Is this relevant to add? Should information about other relatives only be added if they are of public interest e.g. the person has their own Wiki page? Ruthhenrietta (talk) 14:49, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to the Teahouse, Ruthhenrietta. Insofar as they have siblings or other confirmed family members, short statements about their family life is okay, as well as connections to people who themselves are notable enough for their own Wikipedia articles, such as "John Doe was the third child of seven, and had three older sisters, as well as three younger brothers. Jane Doe, the well-known archaeologist and fashion model, was his paternal aunt". However, private people, who are otherwise not notable enough for their own Wikipedia articles, probably don't need to be named, and be very wary are naming children who themselves are not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. --Jayron3215:00, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hey all! Working on edits for Association for Cooperative Operations Research and Development and just wondering how I might be able to edit the page's title. This company is primarily referred to by its acronym, ACORD, within the industry and in most press coverage, so it'd probably be best to list it as such. Any advice is appreciated, thanks! Hemeiling (talk) 15:02, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @CommanderWaterford! Nope, not using a different account. This is my first account ever, and this would also be my first edit! Just trying to get some practice in and build up my Wikipedia editing resume, I guess. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hemeiling (talk • contribs) 15:14, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Creation of new wiki page
hi, I have created new wiki page for MCOPS12 (microphthalmia syndromic 12) by searching wiki and using link for creation of new page, after testing how this is done in sandbox.
I did not use a wizard, and I can see my newly created page under "Contributions". How could I push this page for review and to be published?
Do I need start from scratch and use Wizard for creation?
Thanks in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by IvanaUrsicIvic (talk • contribs) 15:25, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Teahousers, glad you're here doing what you do. Quick (i hope) questions:
How can I see a list of articles in my userspace? I know this can be done somehow, maybe even from navigating links on the left-hand-side of my interface, but i never recorded how.
Similarly, is there some easy way to see all articles started by me which are in Draftspace. Or possibly even all Draftspace articles edited by me. I have a lot out there which I have not indexed/tracked.
@Doncram: Missed a part of your question. The XTools link above is for draftspace articles you created. This link is a tally of all your edits in the draftspace. Note that drafts that have since been moved won't show up here. XTools has a lot of other cool statistics for you to play around as well. ◢ Ganbaruby! (talk) 15:51, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c) Hi Doncram. If you go to your contributions, you will find a link at the bottom of the page labeled "Articles created", which will result in this search playing out. If you want to isolate pages you've created in a different namespace, such as the draft namespace, you can go directly to the tool, here, enter your username and change the default from "Main" to draft, resulting in this search of article created by you as drafts. To permanently have a link to that search, you can save that link at your userpage.
Although you could use this tool to find pages in your userspace as well, another option is to go to the same set of contribution links, and click on "Subpages", which will result in this prefix index search playing out, showing all pages existing in your userspace. If you might have created some subpages in your user talk namespace, you can change the search parameter to "User talk". Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:52, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, thanks, that answers all my questions! Am copying these responses to where I will be able to find them. I was right there is a "subpages" link to select somewhere, but i could never find it, it seems bizarre to me that it shows up when select "contributions" (at least when at my own userpage?). Thanks for all the info. It helps me right away; i do have a lot of articles in Draft space that I want to get back to, besides when getting notified they're up for G7(?) deletion. Youse guys and other teahousers oughta get more props. :) --Doncram (talk) 19:31, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Doncram: You're most welcome. Yeah, these links are not in an immediately obvious place, but it does make sense – they're all about deeper searches of one's own "contributions".--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:27, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Number of children
Someone has edited my friend's Wikipedia page to show they've had more children then they actually have. What's the best approach to make this change since I couldn't make it due to conflict of interest. Occasionalpedestrian (talk) 15:51, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Occasionalpedestrian. In addition, when an edit is made that is unsourced/improperly sourced (or in this case, sourced to something supporting different information), you can challenge the edit and remove the unsourced information under the WP:BURDEN section of the verifiability policy. It is especially effective if you link the policy at the time you make the change, and indicate the policy-based meaning of such challenge to the unsourced information. The result is that the person who made the change, the proponent of it, cannot return it unless they cite a reliable source that directly supports the information, using an inline citation. I was doing so here, but edit conflicted, so I left the challenge in a subsequent (dummy) edit, seen in this diff. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:18, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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, 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;
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;
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 topic 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;
write only what the sources you've compiled first verify (without copying the words used); and
cite those verifying sources as you write, which will also demonstrate the topic's notability.
As to an image, it very much depends on how you are situated with respect to it – how you own the copyright to the image, or don't, such as "I found it "_here_"; or "I took it with my own camera" or a host of other possibilities. Can you provide some context for that? Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:23, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As for pictures, Wikipedia can't just use any picture found somewhere on the internet due to copyright restrictions. Because of that, all images must either be uploaded locally or to our sister project Wikimedia Commons. We do not accept any given image, images hosted on Wikimedia Commons must either be licensed under a acceptable free license or Public Domain (which is not the same as being avaialable in a public place, see Gratis versus libre. Images hosted locally may, in addition to the images that Commons accepts, be uploaded if they meet all of the non-free content criteria. Images that are neither liicensed under a acceptable license nor meet all of the non-free content criteria must not be uploaded. Once an image has been uploaded, it can then be included in the article using [[File:Filename.extension|thumb|Image description]] Inserting File:Example.jpg via this method renders as shown on the right. Image description Happy Editing! Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:29, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Help with rejected draft
Hi - I've had a draft rejected, but don't know what to do to improve it. This is the current text:
think tank dedicated to shaping the higher education policy debate through evidence. It is based at 99 Banbury Road, Oxford.
Higher Education Policy Institute
Type Think tank
Registration no. Charity Commission in England and Wales: 1099645..[1] Legal status Private company limited by guarantee
Location Oxford, United Kingdom President Bahram Bekhradnia Chairman of Trustees Professor Sir Ivor Crewe Director Nick Hillman Revenue (2019) £464,882[1] Expenses (2019) £572,558[1] Staff (2021) 4[2] Website hepi.ac.uk
History
HEPI is a charity established in 2002, originally as an offshoot of the old Higher Education Funding Council for England, to promote research into, and understanding of, all aspects of higher education, and to disseminate the findings to policy makers and the general public in the UK and beyond. HEPI is funded by higher education institutions, corporate organisations and a variety of events[3]. As a charity, HEPI’s editorial independence is guarded by its Trustees and an Advisory Board.
In recent years, HEPI has produced 20 to 30 reports a year on issues such as the graduate gender pay gap[4],future demand for UK higher education[5],reducing racial inequalities in higher education[6] and whether the UK still has a single higher education sector. In partnership with Advance HE, HEPI also produces an annual Student Academic Experience Survey which covers students’ perceptions of value for money, wellbeing and workload[7]
HEPI’s research has often been referred to in official UK documents, such as a higher education white paper (2016)[8], the Augar review of higher education (2019)[9] and the International Education Strategy (2019)[ ].
References[edit source]
^ [1]Charity Commission, Higher Education Policy Institute, registered charity no.1099645
^ For list of staff as at 25 January 2021, see https://www.hepi.ac.uk/about-us/who-we-are/staff/.
^ [2]UK Department for Education (8 June 2018). “Education in the Media”. Retrieved 24 January 2021.
^ [3]Owen, Julian (12 November 2020). “Graduate gender pay gap remains pervasive, says Hepi”. University Business. Retrieved 24 January 2022.
^ [4]Baker, Simon (22 October 2020). “London and South East to drive increased demand for HE to 2035”. Times Higher Education. Retrieved 24 January 2022.
^ [5]Suen, Evianne (26 November 2019), “Higher Education think tank proposes six recommendations against racial inequality”. The Boar, University of Warwick. Retrieved 24 January 2022.
^ [6]Office for Students (11 June 2020). “Office for Students responds to HEPI/Advance HE student survey”. Retrieved 24 January 2022.
^ [7]UK Department for Business Innovation & Skills (May 2016), “Success as a Knowledge Economy: Teaching Excellence, Social Mobility and Student Choice”. Retrieved 25 January 2021.
^ [8]Independent panel report to the Review of Post-18 Education and Funding (May 2019). Retrieved 25 January 2021.
The review comments are these
This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
I'm puzzled, for the text is not dissimilar to other entries for think tanks (see, for example,Policy Exchange), and all the references are to third parties.
I have no relationship with HEPI (save having had some blogs published there), and believe they should be represented on Wikipedia - hence why submission.
Barlingsouth Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The draft just tells about the existence of HEPI and what they do. Wikipedia articles must do more, they must summarize what independent reliable sourceswith significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about HEPI, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. "Significant coverage" goes beyond just telling about the organization and what it does, and includes in depth discussion of it. While noting that other articles on other think tanks does not necessarily mean that this one merits an article too(see other stuff exists) the article you cite(while not perfect) does a better job at citing what others say about it. Please see Your First Article for more information.
Major restructuring Desigual, asking for help
I did a complete remodeling of Desigual article trying to provide as much information as possible and avoiding that this information was a pamphlet or advertising brochure. With the help of the editors :Deb and :David notMD, whom I thank for their contributions, I have cleaned the article of phrases that could sound like marketing and we have introduced the history of the company in the second heading. They also helped me to write some phrases in a more neutral way in both the Sustainable Production and the Brand Image sections.
On Deb's recommendation I have looked up all the necessary references on alliances. We have also deleted the list of the 107 countries in the commercial network and only provided the most significant ones along with the necessary references.
It would be fine to have other editors reading this because my eyesight is already blurred and I can't see the errors anymore. In any case, I am removing the label "under construction". --Ursulabela (talk) 16:56, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Saving Wikipedia Articles
Is it possible to save Wikipedia articles, sort of in a personal "book", just for your own use. Specifically, I was wondering if you can save multiple articles on one subject, such as saving articles which are from links from another article, so that you can save a whole "book" of articles on one subject? Amateur Astrophysicist (talk) 17:14, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello - I've written a draft article on Edmond "Moen" Chait that cites 3 books (2 published by university presses, one in French), a third party webpage (in Dutch) and a tv documentary on the subject (in Dutch). It was declined for insufficient citations, meaning just passing references that are not substantial enough. I don't understand what that means. There's a long webpage devoted solely to Chait. He was extensively interviewed in the documentary. One of the books published by an academic press mentions Chait constantly because he was absolutely critical to the events described in the book. It is true, however, that one of the books glosses over his role and does not mention him all that much. How do I write the citations to convey how important Chait was in the references? Right now I have the page numbers in the citation refer to the specific event or activity mentioned in the sentence. But the article is a summary so it does not mention everything, with the result that it maybe looks like Chait gets only passing references, but that is not an accurate reflection of how he is portrayed in either of the academic books. Thanks for your help. DP1944 DP1944 (talk) 17:37, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I won't keep you for too long, but the thing is that I've been looking up old tv shows and series for kids and young adults. I've personally had shows which names I couldn't remember prying on my mind. And sadly, the pages Wikipedia had to offer were rather short, so I decided to do something about that. I'm clearly not the only one trying to find old shows and series nowadays.
So I'm pretty much ready to start editing the list, but there's one problem. See, I'm actually Swedish, and a lot of shows were imported, so while I couldn't find too many pages in Swedish I found a lot in English and a few other languages. So now I'm just wondering how to connect my edits (which will be in Swedish) to their respective, English, pages. And you know here on Wikipedia, if something is marked blue, it's clickable. If it's marked red, it's still clickable, but it doesn't lead you anywhere. And I would of course want my edits to be blue marked. I hope this can be done, somehow.
Hi @Denkichu, welcome to the Teahouse! Interlanguage links are added from Wikidata, a repository of data that all Wikimedia projects can use, regardless of their language. To add an article in another language, simply click the "Edit links" button on the left sidebar below the Languages heading. I'm not sure what you're referencing to in your first question. red links are links to page that do not exist, like this page does not exist. If a page does exist, it would be blue, like example. Hope this helps! — Berrely • Talk∕Contribs18:37, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Denkichu, if I've understood correctly, what you are looking for is I believe Mall:ILL, which appears to be the equivalent of our {{ill}} template. That leaves the local link looking red until the page is actually created, but allows readers to follow an additional link to the equivalent page in another language. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:45, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Berrely @Justlettersandnumbers Hi! I didn't now how else to reply which is why I'm writing here. But I think you're both right, so thanks to the both of you! But I gotta say that all these links that you have to edit yourself is a bit confusing... I've never been very technical. Maybe there's a simplified video tutorial somewhere? Or if Wikipedia could fix the links on it's own? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Denkichu (talk • contribs) 20:36, May 17, 2021 (UTC)
Hi Denkichu. The "problem" is that what you are talking about is to some extent counter to the way we (inspirationally) want links to work. Generally speaking, we want readers to see a red link, which flags that "no article be here", and then fill that hole in the Swedish Wikipedia by clicking and creating the article. So turning them blue through regular interlanguage links would be counter to that goal.
The template referred to above, {{ill}} here, Mall:ILL at the Swedish Wikipedia, is essentially a compromise. It allows the red link to remain, with a blue link to another language's article (linked by the name of the language). Of course, we all know that English is somewhat of a lingua franca worldwide, and especially in Skandinavian countries, but we still wouldn't, I don't think, want a sea of these compromise links.
All this is to say, this is not a "fix", and so won't be done en masse anywhere – unless some other language Wikipedia "gives up" on the idea of having their own articles and inviting their creation, or decides to take up this half blue, half red practice on a large scale. That means it must always be done selectively by someone like you. Anyway, since you said there was a technical barrier, here's how you would do it at the Swedish Wikipedia, in sufficient detail I hope to make the barrier very scalable
To create a piped, interlanguage link at the Swedish Wikipedia to an existing English article, you'd type there and save:
Hi ItsJustdancefan. Are you speaking of some other problem than what was provided in the draft's Articles for Creation (AfC) decline notices and comments? If so, please clarify.
Since those decline notices and accompanying AfC comments are prominently displayed, this seems fairly redundant but, in summary: the "problem" identified as to the draft and its topic is the sufficiency of its citations to reliable, secondary, independent sources that treat the topic in substantive detailTemplate:Z21 to sustain the content of a substantive encyclopedia article, while demonstrating the subject's notability. Also, that with that decline in place, you re-submitted the draft for review without adding "any independent reliable sources since the last" review (as GoingBatty noted in their comment given with the decline). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:24, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: Posts below were affected by the problem identified in my edit summary here (the second response post below was added to the duplicate thread)
I am currently working on a draft for an article that uses a book for several sources throughout, should I have several difference reference lines for the different pages the quotes come from? JorodHistory (talk) 19:44, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi JerodHistory. Yes, you should. Verfiability is very important, and part and parcel of that is making the reader not have to comb through multiple pages of a larger work to find the source. I personally think the best method for doing this is to use some form of shortened footnotes. By the way, this came up very recently, though in a different context, with more expansive answers (than yet here), and can be viewed here. If possible helpful, an example article of mine that uses shortened footnotes (using the {{sfn}} template, to link to a set of books listed at the end of the article) and which (mostly) individuates page numbers is Glossary of bird terms. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:59, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@JorodHistory I think you answered your own question by asking it. In general we try to make life easiest for the reader, not for the editor, so, unless the pages are in a short contiguous range, it is optimal to have several references stating page numbers FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me20:27, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tibusheikh. Your userpage can be used for posting some short information about yourself as a Wikipedia editor, and similar matters. Please see WP:UPYES for what you can have on your userpage, and WP:UPNO for what you cannot. It is not ever the correct place for the text of an article. That being said, what you posted there (now deleted) an attempted, unsourced autobiography, would not be welcome anywhere on Wikipedia. I'm afraid you may have a misunderstanding about what Wikipedia is for. It is not a social media site, and it is not a place for promotion; we do not host profiles of anyone or anything, but only encyclopedia articles about subjects of knowledge, that the wider world has already written about in substantive detail. All indications are that you are not notable (just as I, and most people are not), and that no suitable article, citing reliable, secondary, independent sources, Template:Z21 could ever be written, even if it wasn't inappropriate for you to write about yourself.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:33, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
“Indonesian wikipidean” message
I have a message that’s says “Indonesian wikipidean” and it happens to be send by a person I don’t know. I previously accidentally clicked the “Indonesian language”. I don’t no what happened.
-Syplo Syplo (talk) 20:06, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Syplo. At some other language Wikipedias, when you visit them the first time while globally logged in, that automatically triggers a bot posting a welcome to your talk page there. I think that's all this is about, so don't worry about it; just ignore it (don't bother responding there, since it's just a robot).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:21, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Syplo! Pardon me for being a bit late but go go back into English you have to delete your search history with the Indonesian Wikipedia and go back in and it will be English. Also just like articles without English there is a google translate thing on top that you could put to the English language and read in English Josh cant edit at all (talk) 21:34, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Non-Census sources in the US Census population infobox
Hi there! I have just a couple of questions about adding population data from non-census sources to the infobox that's ubiquitous to pretty much all pages for cities and towns in the United States. (I also asked this question at the Help Desk. Sorry if duplicate questions go against Wikipedia rules!)
There are a lot of towns and cities in the United States I have found in my research on nineteenth-century America that, for whatever reason, did not have separately-counted population statistics returned to the U.S. Census bureau. However, many of these places did have population figures and/or estimates that show up in contemporaneous, but non-census sources, particularly in gazetteers of the United States, and in fact a lot of these numbers already appear in articles across Wikipedia, albeit without any sources provided for where the numbers came from. Since the historical population table used in most U.S. city articles was seemingly intended to be filled out using official census counts, I presume that any additional data that I add to the tables should be noted as being non-census sources using a reference or footnote marker (such as the number from 1852 provided for the article on the history of San Francisco). Are there any "best practices" that I should follow when adding these types of data to articles?
I have two rather interesting cases (both derived from the same source) where both cities' populations were not officially reported in the final census count, but were nevertheless recorded and reported to a local newspaper in the same year as the census in question (1850), and these figures were furthermore provided by an individual who I was later able to verify was the person responsible for conducting the U.S. census operations in the county where these two cities were located. Since this particular case would seem to involve an unusual gray area between official and unofficial counts (considering that they were conducted as part of the federal counting procedure, but for some reason never made their way to the final census reports), if I were to add these numbers to the respective city articles, what would be the best way to acknowledge the unusual circumstances surrounding how these numbers were found?
NB: The above was duplicated on the Help Desk, where it was answered.
Prussian Fool, please do not place a query on more than one forum: this often leads to duplicating the effort and thus wasting the time of (at least some of) the responders, all of whom are unpaid volunteers. It may also lead to confusion on your or others' part, if answers on different fora are, or appear to be, contradictory because of someone's misinterpretation.
If I had not previously checked for newish queries on the Help desk just before doing the same here on the Teahouse, I might have spent substantial effort on answering you here when in fact you had already received good answers from other respondants there. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.27.217 (talk) 04:48, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Duly noted! What you said is completely true, and for that I apologize for re-posting the question. Rest assured, it won't happen again! Prussian Fool (talk) 04:59, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Abbas Rafei
Hello. my article is about an Iranian well-known Director,writer and producer with name Abbas Rafei, but it has been declined because of it resources. could you please tell me how can i fix this problem? of course i have a lot of new resources for myarticle but i dont know that will wikipedia confirm it or it will decline my article again. Mehdi Moradi644 (talk) 00:22, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You have not edited since Draft:Abbas Rafei was Declined. His own website, Letterboxd and IMDb are not considered reliable source references. [added at 01:47, 18 May 2021 by David notMD]
Mehdi Moradi644, if you have other sources/resources, first look them up in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. If any displays a "no entrance" sign (a red circle with a red diagonal line), or a white hand on red, don't use it. If any displays an exclamation point in a triangle, read the explanation and use the source with great care, if at all. For any source that isn't mentioned in "Perennial sources" (and most sources are not), check that it's independent of Abbas Rafei, that it's not "user generated", and that it meets the other requirements laid out in Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Incidentally, the claim that several of his films "have won various prestigious awards from national and international festivals" epitomizes the problems with the draft. A number of awards genuinely are prestigious: but even if these awards are, don't say that they are, because doing so sounds promotional. Which films? Which awards? And for each award, provide a clear reference from the prize-awarding organization, or, better, from an independent source (e.g. a non-gossipy news website). Good luck! -- Hoary (talk) 06:27, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sir My Article was declined by Wikipedia today. This is the original content. Sir please you help me to create and correct this article. Draft name St Michael Academy, Sasaram. SachinAryanInd (talk) 07:45, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello My name is Tayyab Mahmood Sheikh Now these days I want to make my Wikipedia profile so can you tell me how to get create it and what is speedy deletion? Tibusheikh (talk). 10:39, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does not contain "profiles" (thats a social media term, but we are not social media) but articles. Speedy deletion is a process under which pages which obviviously break certain rules may be deleted without an extended discussion. See WP:CSD for more info. Victor Schmidt (talk) 10:43, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tibusheikh. I hope you read my post responding to you higher on this page. In short, unlike your userpage, where you previously posted this autobiographical content, your sandbox with the same information is less likely to be deleted outright, but it's a shame when people waste their own precious time on writing a proposed article that has no chance of ever being accepted, which I believe is true here.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:42, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Tibusheikh, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia. I'm afraid that, like many people, you have a fundamentally wrong understanding of what Wikipedia is. Wikipedia is not for telling the world about something, and especially not for telling the world about yourself. Wikipedia is only interested in subjects (people, or anything else) which the world has already been told about, in the sense that several people who have no connection with the subject have already chosen to publish material (in reliable places) about the subject. On your user page you are allowed to tell Wikipedia editors about yourself as a Wikipedia editor; and you can round this out with a small amount of information about yourself outside editing Wikipedia. But anything which looks like an article, or a biography, or a 'profile', or a sales pitch, is not allowed, and is likely to get speedily deleted.
For what it's worth, I don't think that the edits you made to existing articles were vandalism: I think you had good intentions, but as David not MD said on your talk page, they were not constructive, and editors were right to revert them. I suggest you take The Wikipedia Adventure and learn more about how Wikipedia works. --ColinFine (talk) 12:48, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can I resubmit?
Hello, my draft was not accepted. I've worked on it lately and want to know if I could be missing anything. Draft name is Greg Mbajiorgu Draft:Greg_Mbajiorgu. Thank you. Solver d (talk) 11:40, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's a lot in this that briefly notes what he has achieved, but it's rather bare because there's very little commentary on this (from reliable sources). And then, suddenly, there's a list of "Academic works about his writings". I'd hope that each says something intelligible and worthwhile (although with literary criticism, I can't take this for granted); for any of them that is worthwhile, don't just list it; instead, cite it in an illuminating way within the body of the article. (You might aim for something like the "Writings" section of the article on Morris Bishop; but keep it brief, don't pad it.) Good luck! -- Hoary (talk) 12:06, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Factelf4, and welcome to the Teahouse! Articles for Creation submissions have an average waiting time of 5 months due to the backlog. Of course, it varies, but expect a 5 month wait. --Aknell4 (talk • contribs) 12:56, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While you're waiting, Factelf4, you might add references for Mariani lives in Tuckahoe, New York with his wife. He has two sons and three granddaughters. / John Mariani began his career writing for New York Magazine in 1973, covering arts and entertainment stories. He wrote for numerous other publications including The New York Times, Financial Times, and Chicago Tribune. / His cover story for New York magazine focused on changing focus on the much-used theme of "Women in Jeopardy". He also wrote profiles and did interviews with film directors like Frank Capra, Stanley Donen and Richard Brooks and actors like Henry Fonda, Ann Miller, Sylvester Stallone, Jack Nicholson, Audrey Hepburn, Sam Waterston, Debbie Reynolds and Jon Voight. -- Hoary (talk) 13:02, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Hoary - I did have references to the actual articles in there, but removed them as I understand that citing the subject's own work is not correct. Any guidance on how what other type of references I can add would be much appreciated. --Factelf4 (talk) 14:00, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Factelf4 In March a message was left on your Talk page to either acknowledge or deny that this draft is undisclosed paid editing (UPE). You have not responded. If Yes, state that clearly on your User page. If not, reply to the query on your Talk page. Only then can the UPE tag on the draft be addressed. As a separate issue, many of your contributions to article are quite large and significant, so do not tag that type of editing as minor. David notMD (talk) 13:44, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
David notMD I thought I had done that by adding the declaration to the talk page back in March when requested. Perhaps I have not done so correctly? Noted re edits - thanks and apols --Factelf4 (talk) 14:00, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Standard location is your User page. I suggest you copy the paid statement to there. Once done, the UPE tag on the draft can be removed. ONCE this becomes an article, you - as a paid editor - will be restricted to requesting future changes on the Talk page of the article rather than editing directly, so if there are edits or references that should be added, do that ASAP. David notMD (talk) 14:12, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Factelf4. Removing that citation was right: you can cite limited information from self-published sources, but only uncontroversial factual information which is not unduly self-serving - most of the material Hoary quoted does not meet that criterion. But leaving it uncited is even worse. Unless you can find sources wholly independent of Mariani that talk about all those things he has done, they do not belong in a Wikipedia article on him, period. --ColinFine (talk) 16:48, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Writing articles
Hello! I am looking for any beginner guidance on writing articles and whatnot. Is there a guide or tutorial page available? Thank you so much and I hope my questions aren't a bother. Abillionradios (talk) 13:15, 18 May 2021 (UTC) Abillionradios (talk) 13:15, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Abillionradios. There is a tutorial available at: Wikipedia:Tutorial. As to writing articles, I second the linked page recommended above as providing a good overview. I have some standard advice geared towards trying to give a focus to new users that is often alien to them: the need for sourcing as the keys to Wikipedia's gates; that it should be their first concern and starting point for writing (the path that when not traveled from the start, causes so much wasted effort). Having taken a quick look at your contributions, I know this is is not completely new to you, so rather than post anew, please see that advice above to another user. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:16, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, Abillionradios, if Wikipedia editing is building work, then creating an article is building a house from scratch, and finding sources is surveying the ground and digging the foundations. Without those, the house will fall down. --ColinFine (talk) 16:53, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The length of the months in a year
Why has the current length of the months been chosen: 7 months with 31 days, 4 months with 30 days and one "stupid" month with 28 days instead of a simpler choice like 5 months with 31 days and 7 months with 30 days?
Both result 365 days per year, but with the "new" choice there is no need for a month of 28 days.
Of course, a leap year is still needed and I propose to have the month of December with 30 days except every leap year when we would have a longer end of the year.
Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. This is a place to ask questions about using Wikipedia, it is not a general question asking forum. You may want to read the article about the Gregorian calendar to learn why it is the way it is, or you may wish to ask at the Reference Desk. 331dot (talk) 14:18, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused. I just started by clicking on "English" on the left of the article. I get a pop up that then asks, in German, whether I want to translate. Then I click on that. Then I get a bifurcated page, with German on the left and blank space on the right, where I can presumably put my translation. But at the top of this bifurcated page there is a note: "Your translation cannot be published because publishing is only allowed to more experienced editors on this wiki." What does this mean? Somewhat similarly, when I click on the beta button, the translation tool is not available. I started translating the first paragraph, but what do I do when I'm finished, if I'm apparently not able to publish? --GustavChristian (talk) 15:40, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi GustavChristian. They should fix this, if it's what I think is happening. The issue I believe you're facing is that (as advised at this part of the page CommanderWaterford linked), the Content Translation Tool is restricted to extended confirmed editors (users who have been here for both (i) 30 days tenure; and (ii) who have at least 500 edits). I think it would be better if those who don't meet that threshold were turned away from the tool, rather than placed in your situation, where it's allowing you to run it partly, without being able to actually save. This means that you will need to do the translation manually, i.e., creating a page here, and saving your edits (being sure to follow the copyright attribution licensing requirements instructed here and here). However, while I am not very familiar with the visual editor, from what I do know, I think it may be much easier and even necessary to copy the text of the page using source editing, and then pasting the content here while also using source editing, rather than using the visual editor. Once you've saved the new page (with the licensing edit summary containing an interlanguage link to the source German article to meet the attribution requirements I advised about), then switching to the visual editor might work. Best regards.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:01, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you,Fuhghettaboutit. Here is what I wonder about. If I were to translate the German article as a “new” article in the English Wikipedia, will that lead an editor to make changes of a scope that might perhaps be warranted in the case of a truly new article, but that would not make sense in the case of an article that has been heavily vetted over the years, as in the case of the article I referred to above, even if there is an appropriate attribution and link in the edit history of the English translation to the German heavily edited version? Is there some practical way to cut through this? For instance, can I be granted access to the Translate Tool? (I’ve been a Wikipedia member since last July and have edited extensively in German Wikipedia)--GustavChristian (talk) 20:45, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@GustavChristian: I'm not sure what you mean exactly by "changes of a scope ... that would not make sense in the case of an [established] article", but the English Wikipedia is its own community with its own standards and own processes. So yes, it would be treated as a new article, and if the Germans liked it on their side then that's great, but we have our own autonomy. It still has to satisfy English notability standards, for instance. And you don't own the article so anyone can improve it in any way they see fit. — Bilorv (talk) 22:19, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Bilorv. I wonder how this is going to work. There are many sources in German that address this subject and that demonstrate the notability of the subject, but the sources cited in the article are all in German. If an editor of the English version can't read German, how will he know that the subject meets the notability standard? --GustavChristian (talk) 23:07, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I understand your question now. As David notMD says, non-English language references are perfectly fine, per WP:RSUE. If someone doesn't understand German and machine translations don't help then they can find someone that knows German, or leave whatever task they're doing to somebody else. — Bilorv (talk) 23:38, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Breckishere, and welcome to the Teahouse. The place to ask about sources is RSN: but be aware that reliability of sources may depend on what information they are being used to support, and also that independence from the subject of the article is nearly as important as reliability. --ColinFine (talk) 16:57, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Breckishere, I'll give you my opinion. The first says "Pomegranate Arts is an independent production company based in New York City dedicated to the development of international performing arts projects." This in an organization writing about itself, the second seems similar. They may have WP:ABOUTSELF uses, but they don't help an argument for WP:N for themselves or associated acts. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:14, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Another option I've had some success in sending people is the OTRS release generator, but it's also come with unsuccess (for the reasons Timtempleton gives). I would, however, emphasise that if they agree to release an image, it's not just for Wikipedia, but for anyone to reuse in any they want (with attribution), including commercial uses. — Bilorv (talk) 22:16, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Vda47 (ec) Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Changing the title of an article requires a page move. If you expect that such a move would be relatively uncontroversial, you may request one at Requested Moves. If you think that there might be controversy over such a move, you should first start a discussion on the relevant article talk page explaining why you think the article should be moved to a different title- keeping in mind that there might be reasons the article is at its current title. Note that Wikipedia tends to use the most common name for an article subject as its title, per WP:COMMONNAME, and not necessarily an official or legal name. It's Bill Clinton, not William Jefferson Clinton, which is a redirect. 331dot (talk) 19:09, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello there. I'm trying to submit the Destination Marfa wikipedia page and might need help.
I'm not seeing it posting yet.
This is the page right here below and I have the producer's permission (I'm working on some of their press and social media pages for them) to use their poster and upload all the details. I'm trying to understand why the page isn't posting. Thanks, Phil
ProdOffice18 You have created a draft, not an actual encyclopedia article. I have added the appropriate information to allow you to submit it for review(though this will not be in a timely manner due to a severe backlog). As you are working for the production, please review conflict of interest and paid editing for information on required formal disclosures. You will also need to change your username immediately to something more individualistic, please visit Special:GlobalRenameRequest or WP:CHUS to do so. 331dot (talk) 19:50, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Whether you have the permission of the producer or not is irrelevant, as permission from the subject(or those making the subject) is not required for a Wikipedia article to exist. 331dot (talk) 19:51, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
RESPNODING TO YOUR MESSAGE
Thanks so much for the quick response.
Just to clarify because you're connecting the dots incorrectly.
I'm a volunteer. I'm not getting paid a dime. By 'working on some of their press and social media pages' what I meant was that I was technically uploading the info and inputting it, not literally 'working' or getting paid - they don't have that kind of budget. This is a small independent film that I'm helping out because I believe in them. I'm very grateful for your help but please don't state that I'm getting paid when its not true. This is on my own time.
Thanks so much and thank you even more for submitting the appropriate information for reviewal submission as an encyclopedia article.
Phil
ProdOffice18 If you don't work for the production office as your username suggests, okay, but you still have a conflict of interest and will need to make the declaration called for by that policy. You will need to change your username as I describe above. 331dot (talk) 20:39, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You guys are awesome and on it so fast.
There is no conflict of interest and I will take your advice and change my username, I have to figure out how to do that so please give me a minute.
In the meanwhile please change my status as it says the following below which is untrue. I'm not being paid a dime and I'm not in any way contractually affiliated with the production or even receiving a credit. I love films and I often reach out and help them. There's no conflict of interest, if anything Wikipedia should be grateful that there are volunteers like me that do this and provide factual info. There's nothing on that page that shows favoritism. Its these exact kind of rules that have made folks use imdb instead of you and I much prefer Wikipedia. Please change my below status sir, I'm a volunteer and no money has been exchanged, it's embarrassing that's even been stated.
This article may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments, a violation of Wikipedia's terms of use. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. (May 2021)
See WP:COI for explanation on declaring your COI, which applies even though no renumeration. It's enough that you know the people involved. And 'sign' your comments by typing for of ~ at end. David notMD (talk) 23:26, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your patience, I have now requested the user name change as per your instructions/recommendation.
Below is what I received in return. But you still need to remove what you've listed as my being paid to do this, it's not true.
Below is what the Destination Marfa page currently says which is not correct and under it is my request for name change.
And the name prod that you made me change is not connected with a film's production office - it is the name we selected because it matches our wifi account username. My wife used to be a producer up until 2002 and we didn't want to use our personal names on here. PLEASE REMOVE THE SECTION THAT SAYS WE'VE BEEN PAID BECAUSE WE HAVE NOT. THANK YOU KINDLY.
This article may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments, a violation of Wikipedia's terms of use. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. (May 2021)
Rename request pending approval
Jump to navigationJump to search
Your username change request has been queued and is awaiting approval from a steward or global renamer. You will be notified by email when the request is processed.
@ProdOffice18: this is a general help desk, so you're not talking directly to the users who have been dealing with your various submissions (you can see in the page history of all relevant pages who they are). The process of the rename is not down to us—that's for a steward or global renamer (as the notice you got says). I've removed the {{Undisclosed paid}} tag on Destination Marfa (film) per your comments here, but three things to help you assume good faith of everyone who's been helping you: (1) the reason someone placed that tag is because in 9 out of 10 cases like this, the person who wrote the article is being paid and refusing to disclose it, in violation of our rules (and you're the 1 out of 10 who isn't—that's great); (2) writing in uppercase ("PLEASE REMOVE ...") makes it sound like you're shouting, which can come across as rude; (3) rather than copying and pasting text, it's better if you can provide links—either by URL, or where possible by enclosing the text between two square brackets (so e.g. [[Test]] produces Test). — Bilorv (talk) 22:03, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Riders Share, "Airbnb of motorcycles"
Is Riders Share notable enough for a wikipedia article?
The 'WE', if you did read it in context was referring to my wife and I in terms of our wi-fi username; nothing to do with Wikipedia.
Thank you for explaining the username change process; again I was doing exactly as you instructed that I do. I'll be patient and certainly wait.
But the info about my being paid still needs to come off the Destination Marfa page. It is not true and or reflective of what's going on. I'm a volunteer for crying out loud. ProdOffice18 (talk) 22:27, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please make future follow up comments in this existing section, instead of creating additional sections. Please be patient, it will eventually be removed. 331dot (talk) 22:38, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I am having a problem with a ip address out of Florida that keeps changing and he is doing disruptive editing on the Newark NJ Fire Dept Wikipedia page. I have warned him more than several times and he has had his edits reverted by others also. Would like to see him blocked at least temporarily. Thanks,Doriden Doriden (talk) 22:57, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Doriden: I don't entirely agree with the advice from Bsoyka. There is point in reporting to AIV without clear evidence of vandalism, and I see no such evidence. You and the IP appear to be having a content dispute, and no effort has been made to discuss it on the article talk page. I suggest that you read the advice at WP:Vandalism. --David Biddulph (talk) 00:00, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I edited this article at the request of my friend, Jan Reeves, to remove her name from the article. Jan has no recollection of making the comment attributed to her, and was not interviewed by any of the cited references. I see today that the article shows her name and in the history after my edit is the word "reverted". Please explain situation to me and advise me how Jan can have her name permanently removed from the article. She is a private person, but someone from a media group has sent correspondence to her home. Embroiling her in this issue makes her a target for papparazzi. The edit I provided retained the gist of the sentence, which is no less factual, if it is so, with the ommission of her name.
Jnh4mx4dc89r, Welcome to the Teahouse! I checked the reference used for Jan Reeves' claim and I didn't find it in that. I removed that statement as of now but mentioned the editor, who previously undid your edit. However, I did find Dana Reeves' claim in the reference so I didn't remove it yet. If you have any other issues with the article, the best place to discuss that is the Talk page of the article. And, you may also find reading WP:COI page helpful for future edits. We, generally, discourage people from editing about themselves or someone/something they are close to. Lightbluerain❄ (Talk | contribs)02:40, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really not happy about what you've stated regarding me, it feels like blatant slander and character assassination. I'm not closely connected to the project at all. My wife is from the main town in Texas where they shot this film so I looked up one of the producers on social media and reached out and asked them if they'd like help with their social media pages and if I could upload their Wikipedia page and they said yes. Marfa is hardly ever used in films and it makes my wife proud. I'm a volunteer that reached out to the producer on social media asking him if I can do this. He said it's fine as long as I don't expect payment. All of the info posted on the Destination Marfa page is already avail to the public on google, I haven't added or subtracted a word from it and you have no right to slander me like this. You're implying that I was paid to do it, and they have not paid me. You're implying that I'm connected to the project and I'm not. Please provide your email because I'll reach out to this same producer on social media immediately and ask him to email you directly to explain exactly all of the above.
I've done nothing wrong here and your rigidity in allowing someone to provide factual and correct info on a film when that person is not affiliated with the film in anyway is really infantile. My point of view is 100% neutral. All I've included on the page is where it filmed, who is in the cast, and when it will be distributed. And all of this info is already all over the internet and doesn't require opposing viewpoints that are for or against because it is factual. Please google it yourself. So it is a neutral point of view, it is all factual and readily available. Please remove the below
A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. Please discuss further on the talk page. (May 2021) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)ProdOffice18 (talk) 23:30, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The text you refer to as slander and character assassination is standard boilerplate wording. Conflict of interest does not require someone being "closely connected." Your speaking to the producer of the film is sufficient. Over time, other editors will add to the article, and at some point in the future an editor (not you) will decide that the tag can be removed. As to the query about you being paid, all that is required is that on your User page you make a statement that you are not paid or in anyway benefiting from having worked on the article. At the same time you should state that you have been in contact with the producers, hence have what Wikipedia considers a COI. As you pointed out, the facts of the article are verified by citations rather than what you know. Kudos for creating an article. David notMD (talk) 23:39, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What you and the producers of the film need to understand is that neither they, nor anyone associated with the film, nor anyone associated with the town where it was shot has any claim of ownership over the content of the article as explained here. In other words, it's not their Wikipedia page in any way shape or form. You've stated that you weren't receiving any compensation to create the article, which (at least in my opinion) is good enough for now with respect to Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure; at the same time though, the fact that were in direct contact with someone who does have a financial conflict of interest with the film does at least give the impression of an WP:APPARENTCOI on your part. Perhaps this is also not the case as you claim above, but it's best to let others who are clearly not connected to the film (even in an apparent way) to look the article over and assess it. The {{COI}} template added to the article is not intended to be a slight against you or anyone else; it's just meant to let other editors know that there might be some issues with this article that need to be addressed. Eventually the article will be assessed by someone, and the template will be removed if they feel there's no longer an issue. I will ask if someone at Wikipedia: WikiProject Film coud take a look at the article and assess it; it might take a bit of time for someone to do that (try to remember that all Wikipedia editors are WP:VOLUNTEERs), but eventually it will be done. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:57, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're not reading my response in context.
Again, you're not reading my response in context.
I clearly said that I had to find them on social media to track them down. It took them months to respond. I don't know these people personally, it's only through social media. And the info on the film is exactly what is out there and avail on google. You can't have it both ways, you cannot accuse me and defame me by telling me I'm with the production and getting paid (which you've already said twice in the thread) and then tell me even I don't know them that I'm not neutral in my point of view because I've used info about the film that is already found online. It's either one or the other. It cannot be both. That defies logic and makes no sense. For crying out loud, why would you accuse, abuse and labal a volunteer who is adding factual neutral info to your encyclopedia that should already be on there?
I'll say it again.
I am not getting paid.
I'm not connected to the film in anyway.
Everything I've written is already easily available on the internet. The film seems to have a huge following when you google it. There's nothing that is non 'neutral point of view' about what I've factually included on the page. There's nothing on there that says the film is good or that it has to be watched or anything like that.
Please do the right thing here and stop penalizing me, this is pathetic. Honestly you're treating me like a child and a criminal. Remove the mandate or whatever it is you're calling it. ProdOffice18 (talk) 00:02, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You were told in an earlier reply not to keep creating new sections, but to reply in the existing section. Obviously people won't read your response in context unless you place it in the correct context. I have moved this to your previous section, and you need to read the reply which you received there from David notMD . --David Biddulph (talk) 00:10, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You say you aren't connected to the film but you are in communication with the producer. That's a connection. You don't have to be friends with the producer or have them over for dinner. The vast majority of editors here do not communicate with the subjects of the articles they write. Presumably the producer is willing to communicate with you as it gives their film more attention. We're trying to help you and you seem to be taking it poorly for some reason, calling it "abuse". 331dot (talk) 00:15, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have spent 8 years compiling this book below. I have went through numerous articles, dates and fact about how Shoeless Joe received his nickname. The story I presented to Wikipedia is true, but apparently some folks care not to look into the references I have presented. Now the paragraph that these folks prefer to present is totally incorrect, and this is not how Joe came about his nickname, where are all these references? Yet I presented many and obviously you will not take a serious look at them. If you want to check the credibility of the information I presented, how about contacting Blackbetsy.com or info@shoelessjoejackson.org, both will validate what I presented as being true and both are your top sources for Joe Jackson. Now if the only thing that is a concern to you folks is how I presented it please let me know that this is the case, give me some helpful ideas and I will try to rework it. Thanks for your time!
https://cdm17168.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/shoelessjoe/id/3005?fbclid=IwAR2_yb2ImWAdFo4Ob367b2B9NlFhFyoUY5oA0FsysUbLxd6-oyyrTDOp2lwSCGRISSOMFAN (talk) 00:16, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are obviously edit warring, and that is liable to result in your being blocked from editing. The place to resolve your content dispute is in discussion on the article talk page, not here at the Teahouse. --David Biddulph (talk) 00:25, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
When is a hatnote pointing to another Wikipedia article irrelevant?
Hi, dear teahouse people! I am not sure if I should put my question here or at Village Pump but here goes (let me know if I should rather move it to Village Pump):
I am working on the article marine biology and I would like to delete the hatnote that points to another Wikipedia article with a similar name (The Marine Biologist) which is actually an episode from the Seinfeld sitcom from 1994. Another editor reverted my edit and I've written about it on the talk page here. I've said there: As per WP:HATCHEAP: "Hatnotes take up minimal space on articles, but they do consume a prominent position. They are helpful when it's one of the first things a reader should know.". Is a 1994 episode of an American sitcom really so important that it deserves a hatnote? Would those people searching for it not find it via the Seinfeld article anyway? Having that hatnote about an American sitcom episode from decades ago in such a prominent spot is strange in my opinion. Isn't it yet another example how Wikipedia is North America centric and Europe centric? I bet if there was a "famous" sitcom from Nigeria and India with that title we wouldn't be mentioning it in the hatnote. - So my question is, is my argument sound and justified? Or are we compelled to mention another Wikipedia article in the hatnote just because it happens to exist? - Thanks for your advice in advance. EMsmile (talk) 00:24, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We have a guideline at Wikipedia:Hatnote that can be used to support arguments one way or the other. I'm sympathetic to the frustration of having a hatnote for a more minor topic sitting at the top of a more major article, but sometimes it's necessary. I'd recommend against raising the specific issue along with your argument at the Village pump, as that might be seen as canvassing. One thing you could do to seek additional input would be to put a neutral {{Please see}} notice at WT:Hatnote; beyond that, the path would be to create an RfC (which also needs to be neutrally worded). {{u|Sdkb}}talk01:24, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Earlier I took Stan Freese to AfD on notability grounds; it survived, which is fine of course. However, there's a related problem (which, had the AfD gone the other way, would have been resolved, alas...) in that the article is a BLP of some length, yet it's only supported by two (IMO flaky) sources, each cited once, ie. the vast majority of it is unreferenced. And it has been, and been tagged, like that for years. What should I do next (other than moving on and minding my own business) — should I delete the unsupported content, which would mean removing entire sections? Should I expressly not do that, since I'm the one who moved the AfD? (I should also mention that there is evidence of at least some COI editing, see here, and it looks like removing content might not go down very well with certain IP editors.) Any advice? Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:22, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, DoubleGrazing. Several sources were identified in the AfD. Use the best of them to improve and expand the article. Or move on. The choice is yours, though my first recommendation is the best, in my opinion. Cullen328Let's discuss it06:45, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Cullen328. Yes, a number of sources were identified, that's true, and they might be enough to establish notability; whether they are enough to support the article contents needs looking into. (Just to mention, though, that the LA Times piece is an interview, the Disney one a close source, one returns 404, one only mentions this person once in passing... so basically we're down to a single source that actually is worth anything, AFAICS.) Anyway, if those two are my options — work on the article myself (which I've zero interest in doing) or move on, I guess I'll choose the latter. :) Cheers, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:00, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. But if you're starting to wonder whether perhaps it's just you who thinks that the article is wretched, no, the article is wretched. -- Hoary (talk) 06:51, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the note of solidary, @Hoary: I just think that it makes a mockery of the BLP policy, that articles like this can be published and left there for years, and there doesn't seem to be an obvious, easy way of enforcing the rules. But I'm too old and tired (IRL) to even try to right such great wrongs... ;) Best, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:30, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DoubleGrazing. You could be WP:BOLD and just improve the article as you deem necessary either by finding sources for content you feel is important or removing unsourced content that you feel is superfulous or not as important. If the AfD was a bit contentious or there were quite a few WP:BEFORE or WP:NEXIST comments made by those who felt the article should be kept, then it might be better to be WP:CAUTIOUS instead. Try stating your concerns on the article's talk page and notifying those who participated in the AfD and inviting them to discuss things. The editors who felt the article should be kept might have some ideas on how to improve it. If you don't get lots of responses, you can always then try asking for feedback from relevant WikiProjects. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:53, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That discussion is pretty short, although some sources were provided to that appear to establish notability. But, if there are no significant improvements to the BLP in the next 12-24 months then a second AfD could be justified to obtain a more thorough consensus. Although I would not do this if you can find significant coverage yourself in the meantime, per WP:BEFORE. Polyamorph (talk) 07:53, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Lóqlen. You can find out how to do this at Help:Link, but what you do depends on what type of link you want to create. For example, if you want to create a link to an existing Wikipedia page like "Wikipedia:Teahouse", you just need to add two square brackets before and after the name of the page like [[Wikipedia]] so that it looks like Wikipedia. This will only work, however, when the target page (i.e. the page you want to link to) already has been created; if you try to link to a non-exist page like [[Pediawiki]], then the link will be red like PediaWiki as long as the page doesn't exist. Now if you want to add a link to to an external website or a url address like https://www.example.com, then there are a couple of ways to do so. The easiest is perhaps [https://www.example.com Example.com] which looks like Example.com. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:16, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Next discussion : #Requested Username change per your recommendation
Previous discussion : #Destination Marfa page
Courtesy link: Mark David Chapman