Wikipedia:Teahouse

RudolfRed, a Teahouse host

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

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

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

Help Wikipedia

Reverted edits on Pokemon

I got my edit reverted on Gen 3 Pokemon to add some filler in text, yet Diannaa who said to be an administer, reverted it saying it not compatible with Bulbapedia which it thinks i got it from, which i didnt as i have a google docs page of all the Pokedex entries but in my own words. What does that mean and is there a way to revert it? UB Blacephalon (talk) 16:38, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Blacephalon, welcome to the Teahouse. Information added to Wikipedia should be summarized from reliable sources. This means both that you can't copy/paste in Wikipedia from your source and that your source must be reliable. Google docs you have created for yourself are not reliable (and neither is Bulbapedia). You should find a reliable source which contains the information you want to add, summarize it in your own words, and cite the source. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:55, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Hmm I'm also confused on that. If I go to any website that popular and I cite that, is that a reliable source? What do I look for as a reliable source? What counts/doesn't count as one? UB Blacephalon (talk) 17:00, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

@Blacephalon, many popular websites are not reliable. Please read WP:Reliable source carefully. There's a list of commonly discussed sources at WP:RS/PS if you want many examples of good, middling and bad sources, with explanations of how those rankings came about. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:03, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Blacephalon, you can read Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources for a long but incomplete list of source assessments. After glancing at your talk page, it looks like you are trying to mentor new editors. That is unwise if you do not fully understand Wikipedia's core content policies. Cullen328 (talk) 17:10, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

While that is true I can help people in other ways as well. I know what to do but not how to do it. UB Blacephalon (talk) 17:46, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

So if they use Bulbapedia and its a reliable source, can I use it? UB Blacephalon (talk) 17:51, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

@Blacephalon, if a reliable source reports some information and then says "We got this information from Bulbapedia", you can summarize the information and cite the reliable source (but not Bulbapedia). Part of what makes a source reliable is that the folks in charge do some checking to make sure what they report is accurate, and retract what they've reported if it isn't. So if they decide this particular piece of information is okay, we can rely on what they say, and cite them as our authority on the information being okay. If they find out later it's not okay, they'll correct themselves and we should then correct Wikipedia. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:59, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

So if they do it it's okay. If it's on the list of reliable sources. We should update that too... UB Blacephalon (talk) 18:32, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

@Blacephalon, what do you think needs to be updated at WP:RS/PS? Keep in mind that the list doesn't usually include sources that are obviously unreliable, like wikis - it only happens if they've been discussed very frequently (IMDb, for instance, comes up all the time). I only see two past discussions which mention Bulbapedia (here and here). 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:37, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Well someone did say that the list isnt complete, though I don't know if that's true or not. UB Blacephalon (talk) 18:52, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Cullen328 said that, @Blacephalon, and it's quite true. But the list isn't meant to be complete. It's mostly a convenience. See this explanation on the page itself. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:57, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Hmm I mean I get that more can be added or removing but could it be up to date? UB Blacephalon (talk) 19:40, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

@Blacephalon, if you think that the status of one of the entries has changed, you can start a discussion at the noticeboard, WP:RSN. See this section of the page. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 19:44, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

@UB Blacephalon - to summarize, Bulbapedia is not a reliable source, because anyone can edit it. A source is a reliable source if it is published under editorial oversight with a reputation for fact checking. Wikipedia:Reliable source examples and this reliable sources quiz are examples of pages with more information about this. casualdejekyll 22:35, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Ahh I should try again with the cites. UB Blacephalon (talk) 01:33, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

@Blacephalon It's pretty much impossible for a list of sources to be "complete", if that means listing all reliable and non-reliable sources that exist in the world. That list itself is never static. David10244 (talk) 08:39, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

True, I just don't want it to be out of date. UB Blacephalon (talk) 16:49, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

@Blacephalon If you are talking about a list of sources being out of date, that is my point -- a list of sources will, pretty much always, be out of date. David10244 (talk) 07:01, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Huh. So the status of the validity wont change? UB Blacephalon (talk) 14:06, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm saying that if you consider the whole world, new sources probably appear every day. Most of the editors in the English language Wikipedia don't have much visibility into the press or reporting in other countries, so it takes time to discover whatever new sources may appear in the world. And while we are discovering and evaluating one new set of sources, new ones are appearing. The task can never be done. We can stay close, though, as long as we keep updating David10244 (talk) 07:24, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

They certainly do change, @Blacephalon. For example, take a look at the three entries for CNET (WP:CNET goes to the third and latest entry). It had quite a fall from grace. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:48, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Hmm, you're right. So another question: If I need sources to put in info, how do I do it, like wikitext. How do I type it? UB Blacephalon (talk) 23:32, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

@Blacephalon: You are going to want to look at WP:CITE. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:41, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm still confused. Doesn't it have the kinda thing? Is that how you use sources? UB Blacephalon (talk) 04:14, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that's how you cite them. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 12:19, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Oh Nice! UB Blacephalon (talk) 16:55, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Just a general comment, while Bulbapedia tends to be pretty accurate with a lot of things, they do still get things wrong (such as the Romaji for some Pokemon like Eevee) and often don't cite sources unless its an extreme claim that is hard to back up. Due to it being an editable Wiki the articles could be wrong when a user attempts to verify any information its cited to. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:53, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

But don't they tend to revert it like Wikipedia? UB Blacephalon (talk) 23:33, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean by that? ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 23:38, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Since Bulbapedia is just Pokémon Wikipedia, why don't they revert edits like Wikipedia does. They use the same kind of platform right? UB Blacephalon (talk) 23:55, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes. However their policies and guidelines are different than Wikipedia's. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 00:12, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Huh, that makes sense. So how do i type out references? UB Blacephalon (talk) 00:35, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

What do you mean? There are many ways to do so. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 01:38, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

If I want to reference my sources, how do I write that in the code? UB Blacephalon (talk) 04:09, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

@Blacephalon, Help:Referencing for beginners goes through the basics. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 13:55, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

so I just do ? UB Blacephalon (talk) 16:53, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

That is the most basic method, yes, @Blacephalon. Even better is using citation templates (like {{cite web}}). I see you mostly edit on mobile, so I don't know if there are any citation helper thingies available to you; on desktop there are some tools/buttons which will let you select from a list of citation templates, then pop up a little box in which you can just fill out the information. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:58, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

It's also possible to enable desktop mode on mobile to get what every other desktop user sees. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:47, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Really? How do i use that? UB Blacephalon (talk) 18:05, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

There should be a link that says "Desktop" at the bottom of a page. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:45, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Omg! What can i do with this? UB Blacephalon (talk) 19:45, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

References

Possible links to other X-pedias?

Is it possible to link other X-pedia pages to a real Wikipedia pages? For example, if I want to link a coding-based-pedia to a regular page of this site. I feel this might help people with finding pages with more detail on other X-pedias. I am unsure if this is against the rules to to the fact most pages have linked to other X-pedias that are owned by the same people. 2600:1700:7668:8010:7583:F09B:734F:8165 (talk) 01:19, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! I can't tell if you want to edit a Wikipedia article to add a link to an "X-pedia page", or if you want to edit an "X-pedia page" to add a link to a Wikipedia article. It's also not clear what "X-pedias" are. Could you please give a specific example? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 01:50, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

If you mean like in an "External links" section, see WP:LINKSTOAVOID #12. For example, articles on Star Trek topics sometimes link Memory Alpha. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:52, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I believe the OP is talking about other wikis, which, in that case is a no. As all wikis are edited by everyone, they cannot be used as a reliable source. Club On a Sub 20 (talk) 15:03, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

But a link in the other direction might be OK, depending on the policies of the other site. David10244 (talk) 11:50, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Citing a tweet

Is citing a tweet acceptable as a source given that the person tweeting is a notable figure, speaking about himself? under WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:TWEET and WP:TWITTER? Or does there need to be an addition? Adam4R4O (talk) 01:38, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

The reason I ask this is that information has been deleted from a wikipedia article stating that citing a tweet isn't enough, I lined to news sites like Eonline but that was deleted as well so I do need guidance, thank you. Adam4R4O (talk) 01:40, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

@Adam4R4O: WP:ABOUTSELF gives a general answer to your question. If you provide more details, we can give a more detailed answer. GoingBatty (talk) 01:47, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Well according to WP:ABOUTSELF this can be cited, as long as the person is talking about themselves, and as long as it's not the only cite. My question was regarding an actor having a knee surgery. He tweeted about it but this is also backed up by CBS news and Eonline, would this be enough to cite as sources? Thank you. Adam4R4O (talk) 02:07, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

@Adam4R4O: I don't understand why knee surgery would be notable enough to include in an article about an actor. But presuming it is, why not use the CBS News source instead of their own tweet? GoingBatty (talk) 02:31, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Adam4R4O, this seems like trivia to me, but if an actor having knee surgery is important to the actor's biography, then certainly it will have been discussed in far better sources than a tweet or a celebrity gossip site like E! Online. Cullen328 (talk) 02:35, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

1- It was talked about in CBS news as well, would that be a good source? and if it then do I add the tweet and Eonline.

2- Also following up to that, would popculture.com and daily dot be considered good sources? Since allegations that were covered to that used those sources and said they were reliable good sources. Adam4R4O (talk) 02:39, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

It was a surgery that eventually led to public lashing (fat shaming) as well as led to affect filming. Unfortunately every edit made on this article is deleted as not a reliable source (CBS news, Eonline and Hollywood life), otherwise dailydot and popculture.com are taken as a reliable source and kept, so I was checking. Adam4R4O (talk) 02:36, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

@Adam4R4O If your edits are being deleted, then I suggest you follow the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and start a discussion on the article's talk page. GoingBatty (talk) 04:59, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I have attempted that, unfortunately the person editing seems to have bias against the person in the article and with another person they are facing allegations against. They've refused multiple sources such as cbs, or eonline, or tweets or multiple other sources while citing sources similar to those, they've also refused the addition of important videos of the character A defaming character B, while insisting on keeping the baseless accusations of character B being defamatory and refusing to accept the response to that accusation. I did hope there was a way to make it work other than the talk page but that person just edits everything or reverts (within rules) rejection any other additions, that's why I have been trying to learn more as when I resorted to talking I was told that my sources were awful, I was using interviews, conventions of other people as well as Hollywood life and Eonline and CBS (I am not sure if those are awful or not) the other person has used youtube (interview) and daily dot and popculture.com, saying these were perfectly reasonable sources, so I wasn't sure which could be a reliable source or not but there felt like there was inconsistency in what was being said. I apologize for writing for too long. Adam4R4O (talk) 05:17, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

@Adam4R4O: If your question has to do with WP:BLPN#Bob Morley & Arryn Zech, then I suggest you continue to participate in that discussion and try to resolve things there. Try to concurrently hold two discussions on essentially the same topic on different noticeboards is counterproductive and confusing. The Teahouse is fine for asking general questions like the one you asked at the beginning of this thread, but your last post has moved beyond that into commenting on the motivation of others involved in the particular content dispute you're having. That kind of approach very rarely gets you very far on Wikipedia, in general, but it's not really something that can be resolved through discussion here at the Teahouse. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:34, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I apologize if it's not allowed here, I was just wondering what would happen if talk page didn't reach a consensus. Thank you for referring me to the other talk page I wasn't aware there was a discussion going there. Adam4R4O (talk) 06:00, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I realize now I have posted in it but wasn't aware of the name of the page, thank you. Adam4R4O (talk) 06:01, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

It's not so much that such a thing can never be discussed at the Teahouse, but rather that the Teahouse isn't really the best place for resolving such discussions. As for what happens if a consensus is never reached, the WP:ONUS on establishing a consensus in favor of a change typically falls upon the person wanting to make the change; so, if you want to add content about this person breaking their leg to the article, the onus falls upon you to convince others that doing so is in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If you're unable to do so, then perhaps the content shouldn't be added. If, however, you feel you're being stymied by others for reasons that have nothing to do with relevant policies and guidelines, you can seek assistance at a WP:PNB or from a WikiProject. At some point, though, you may simply have to drop the stick and move on if pretty much everyone seems to be in agreement that the content shouldn't be added. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:16, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

@Adam4R40: I think the initiation into the Wikipedia community is to propose a change to an article that looks obviously good, have it rejected by everyone else for absurd reasons, and manage to stay and drop the stick (without quitting the project out of frustration or getting blocked for defending your suggestion too zealously). Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 08:42, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Not rejected by everyone. by one person who rejects most (if not all) of suggestions. Adam4R4O (talk) 13:25, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Activist editors?

I've noticed that there are some editors who are currently editing transgender topics who appear to express certain beliefs that go against mainstream understandings of transgender people - for example, noting on their pages that they are proud of having certain chromosomes and being born a certain way, wholesale reverting good faith edits to transgender related articles, chatting on each other's pages about plans to silo off transgender people's relation to certain topics even when it seems to make no sense, implying being transgender is violent or dangerous, etc. It seems an effort is being made to present minority opinions about transgender issues as fact on a large number of pages.

Are there any sort of standards other than calls for good faith to counter these fringe claims? I have no desire to single out any individuals (or even to spend the majority of my time editing articles about transgender medicine/politics) but it seems to me like people are spending a lot of time on talk pages and article edits simply trying to counter genuinely fringe ideas rather than being able to spend time building out good articles. Is there a sitewide consensus about appropriate ways to talk about transgender people that are in alignment with history and science? Computer-ergonomics (talk) 05:10, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi Computer-ergonomics. Generally, the best place to raise concerns like the above is first going to be on the relevant article's talk page per Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution. If nobody responds, you can try and WP:BOLDly resolving the issue yourself and see what happens, or you can seek additional input from relevant WikiProjects or community-wide noticeboard like Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard or Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard. As for a community-wide guideline regarding transgender matters, I believe that someone at Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies might know more about that. There are more general policies/guidelines like WP:BLP, WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE that almost certainly apply as well, but the members of "WikiProject LGBT studies" should be able to better figure out how. Just for reference, you'll probably have an easier time discussing this if you try and avoid labeling other users (even without mentioning them specifically by name) and instead focusing on the content that you feel is problematic. Eventually, you're going to have to start dealing with these individual editors in some way and immediately labeling them as "such and such" right out of the gate is likely going to get things off to a bit of a bumpy start. Unless the behavior of these other editors is clearly in violation of WP:BEHAVE that it needs to be addressed by administrators, it's probably best left out of the discussion whenever possible. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:06, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate the advice. Computer-ergonomics (talk) 06:09, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Computer-ergonomics, according to Wikipedia:Contentious topics, a contentious topic is one that has attracted more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project. Administrators have enhanced powers to deal with any disruption in these topic areas. One of these identified topics is gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them. As Marchjuly notes above, Wikipedia welcomes editors with a very wide variety of backgrounds, ideologies and orientations. All editors need to focus on producing neutral, well-referenced, policy compliant encyclopedia content, and that is what should be discussed, rather than the personal beliefs of other editors, unless overt hate or or outright bias against other editors is involved. Cullen328 (talk) 06:36, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Redirect draft to existing article

Can this draft, Draft:Erin & Aaron, be redirected to the article Erin & Aaron since the article exists? It appears that article was created without knowledge a draft existed. I wanted to do it myself, but I was concerned about any errors. Cwater1 (talk) 05:48, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Cwater1. Any well-referenced content that appears in the draft but not the article can be copied over to the article, attributing the draft in the edit summary. Once that is done, the draft should be deleted, since it would serve no useful purpose at that point. Cullen328 (talk) 05:59, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

How do I request for deletion of the draft? Thank you for helping me so far. :) Cwater1 (talk) 06:05, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Cwater1, please use Template:Db-g7. Cullen328 (talk) 06:40, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Done. Thank you! Cwater1 (talk) 15:28, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Does wikipedia book notablity threshold include self.gutenberg publication

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(books)#:~:text=Other%20considerations-,Threshold%20standards,has%20such%20a%20national%20library). Here it is mentioned that "a book included in Project Gutenberg or an analogous project does not need to meet the threshold standards" Does this include the self publishing platform(http:// self. gutenberg.org/) recommended by Gutenberg project too? JaffersonianDude (talk) 07:18, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it includes all self-published works. See WP:SELFPUB. Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:14, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Specifically in regards to notability, Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Self-publication, just a bit further down the page linked above. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:59, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

disambiguation page for an article not yet accepted

I read in the comment by a reviewer that my article needs a disambiguation page. Do I have to start filling it out or will the reviewers do it if they accept the article? This is the draft of the article: Draft:Ghella (company), thank you! Ddanielff (talk) 07:49, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

This isn't something you need worry about, Ddanielff. The reviewer who accepts the draft as an article will (or anyway should) also perform this minor chore. -- Hoary (talk) 08:40, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Editing

Wikipedia editing is a very complicated why? Vittoria Alessandrini (talk) 08:07, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

It isn't, Vittoria Alessandrini. It's straightforward (though demanding). You find reliable sources about a subject. You read these, you digest them, you understand them. You summarize them in your own words, and add the summaries where appropriate, citing the sources. -- Hoary (talk) 08:35, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Reverted

Why many Reverted Vittoria Alessandrini (talk) 08:08, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello. Which ones do you have questions about? I see this edit was reverted:

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Flood_geology&diff=prev&oldid=1148143141&diffmode=source

But I'm not sure what you were aiming for with the edit? Regards, Rjjiii (talk) 08:32, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

WP:BRD may be of help. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:42, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

The great majority (all?) of your edits consist of changing sentence structure gramatically, often to no better, many to worse, and so you are being reverted by many different editors. If the meaning of content as written is clear, do not continue to make changes to your preferred sentence structure. Instead, consider adding referenced content to articles in need of improvment. David notMD (talk) 08:48, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

You also seem not to be filling in the "edit summary" for your changes. These summaries are important to us. But they are also useful to yourself: they help sharpen your own mind as an editor about describing what you are trying to achieve in the edit. You might even consider writing the edit summary as the first thing you do in your edit, and only afterwards doing the edit itself to achieve your described purpose. Hope that helps. Feline Hymnic (talk) 09:32, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

You also substitute words. "Compliance" and "cooperation" (for example) are not identical in meaning. David notMD (talk) 12:56, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

@David notMD Working to build edit count, I'm sure we can all guess... weird edits. David10244 (talk) 11:57, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

@David10244 - Wikipedia:ASPERSIONS? The editor probably just thinks that they're making corrections. Nothing wrong with grammar edits, as long as they're actually grammar edits. Not every editor has a perfect grasp of English - I think that's what's happening here, personally. casualdejekyll 13:31, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

@Casualdejekyll You're right; I apologize to @Vittoria Alessandrini. Sorry. David10244 (talk) 06:25, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Article to be improved after not being accepted

Hello,

I am making the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Pau_Mueller and I have to improve it.

In one of the prompts, the expert who did the review asks me to put source to the date of birth, so I want to consult you if the social networks, for example, of Pau Mueller could be considered a reliable source for his date of birth or if I should obtain and publish a link to his birth certificate.

In one of the articles that are references to this article I made it is mentioned that she was born in December 2005, but it is true that it does not say the exact date.  Therefore, I would like to ask you for the options I mentioned in the previous paragraph.

Precisely, today I had entered to update the draft, because Pau Mueller has released new singles in these months and also appeared in other media... But regarding the birthday date I still have this doubt and for that reason I thank you because you can tell me what is the most appropriate way to reference the date of birth.

Best regards and thank you! WhiteDog2023 (talk) 14:19, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi @WhiteDog2023, welcome to the Teahouse. A social media post can be used to verify basic, uncontroversial facts, which usually includes someone's birthdate - see WP:ABOUTSELF. Verified accounts are much preferred. Definitely do not link or cite a birth certificate. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:37, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your guidance!

I will update the draft with this reference and new sources. Best regards! WhiteDog2023 (talk) 15:18, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

@WhiteDog2023 While it is important in biographies of living people to provide citations to all the information, that is not the main issue with your draft. The problem is that all your sources are either from Mueller herself or based on interviews with her. None of that shows that she meets Wikipedia's requirements for notability. You need about three sources that meet the golden rules. There is further advice in this essay. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:50, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Help asking for sources

Hello there, Is there a place where you can ask for help with finding reliable sources on a topic or is it here? LeGoldenBoots (talk) 14:23, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi again @LeGoldenBoots. Folks here might be able to give you some tips on how to find reliable sources, but you'd have to follow through on those tips yourself. Better places might be a relevant WikiProject or even one of the Reference Desks. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:31, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Alright, thank you. LeGoldenBoots (talk) 14:43, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

@LeGoldenBoots - If you meet the criteria, you can use newspapers.com for free with wikipedia credentials. It has access to millions of newspapers and is a major source. Google also has Google Books, which sometimes may have info on what you need. If your article is foreign, try searching in that language and if your article has a foreign wikipedia page, you can check the sources there, which may come of use. You can also check local libraries and local book stores. And of course, various websites might be able to be used and official youtube links could also be a source.KatoKungLee (talk) 18:03, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

math

what is math YoZhinc999 (talk) 15:20, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

@YoZhinc999: See the Wikipedia article Mathematics. GoingBatty (talk) 15:21, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia's editorial process

I've submitted a draft of a new article. I'm curious as to how the editorial process works, and the process seems a bit obscure. Who is allowed to be an editor? Are certain people given the authority to make a draft public after review? How do I know when a review is complete?

I've asked (on the talk page of my article) that editors give me their comments rather than making wholesale changes directly (except for small technical fixes). Are they bound to this?

Will I receive notification when an editor has commented (or made a modification), or do I need to revisit the draft space daily? Johsebb (talk) 16:13, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi, Johsebb, welcome to the Teahouse! A lot of things about Wikipedia are pretty obscure, so hopefully these answers help:

1. Anyone can become a Wikipedia editor, and the term "editor" doesn't imply any formal editorial authority. Indeed, it might be better to think of it as "contributor", rather than editor. As such, there aren't any specifically-authorized people who go through and publish drafts; it's whoever feels they understand Wikipedia policy and standards, and wants to help out. Wikipedia is intended to be a flat hierarchy, with no one editor having primacy over anyone else in content matters.

2. Because of this lack of hierarchy, *you* also don't have any special power or authority over the articles you create. As such, no, nobody is bound to your request, and anyone can freely edit your draft.

3. You'll know your draft has been reviewed when the big yellow box at the top changes, indicating its new status post-review. I believe it's standard practice for the reviewer to notify you on your talk page, so you shouldn't need to check the draft itself every day or anything like that. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:20, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

A nitpick: while anyone can accept/decline/reject drafts which have been submitted to AfC, if they do so without being an AfC reviewer, they're going to come under a lot of scrutiny. They'd better know what they're doing. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:32, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Fair, 199, thanks for the correction. I'm perhaps not as up on the AfC process as maybe I should be. :P Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:35, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

@Johsebb: See also Wikipedia:Articles for creation. GoingBatty (talk) 16:41, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks to you as well. Johsebb (talk) 20:54, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you -- that's very helpful. Johsebb (talk) 20:53, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

@Johsebb, if you add the draft to your watchlist and then set your preferences as explained at Help:Watchlist#Email notification, you can get email notifications when edits are made to the draft. However, if you have any other pages on your watchlist, you'll also get emails when those are edited - it's all or none, unfortunately. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:41, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Johsebb (talk) 20:53, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Jung

How do you edit Wikipedia? KittyCat68 (talk) 17:13, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

@KittyCat68 WP:TUTORIAL is a good start. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:22, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

hey I'm working on a article on ns 1065 and i need help making reliable sources

Hope you can help! TitanicSankUnderWater (talk) 17:18, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

@TitanicSankUnderWater You can try asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains. I assume you mean finding reliable sources. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:30, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Page deletion

We posted a deletion notice to a very out of date page about a movie that we own, but 7 days have passed and the page has not been removed. What do we need to do? Montana Amazon Redux (talk) 18:42, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

@Montana Amazon Redux: Who is "we"? Accounts used by more than one person are not permitted. Additionally, this post to the Teahouse is your account's only edit. What movie are you referring to? – dudhhr ^talk _contribs (he/they) 18:48, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm guessing this is about The Misadventures of the Dunderheads, where there has been some interesting recent activity. Specifically, it was PRODded on March 28th by Audiblefeast, and the notice was removed the same day by Donaldd23. This process is outlined at Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Proposed deletion. The next step would be to propose the article for deletion per the instructions here. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 19:05, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Montana Amazon Redux, welcome to the Teahouse. Please review our policy on paid editing - WP:PAID - as your post implies that you have some kind of business stake in this topic. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:49, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Also, Montana Amazon Redux appears to be a movie title; specifically, the name of a remake of The Misadventures of the Dunderheads. @Montana Amazon Redux, this is not appropriate per our username policy. I highly recommend either abandoning this account or applying for a change of username - I've left instructions on your talk page. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 19:00, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

In addition to what other people have said, please note that, though you may own the movie, you do not OWN Wikipedia's article about it. If the article meets Wikipedia's criteria for Deletion (which it may well do: at present it has no independent sources, and there may be none to find) then it can be deleted, but it will not be deleted just because you want it deleted. ColinFine (talk) 09:13, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

how imake aticle

me want make one of me 207.228.111.53 (talk) 19:44, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

It is strongly advised that you don't. See WP:AUTO. If you want to proceed after reading that, then follow the guide at WP:YFA for creating a draft article for review. RudolfRed (talk) 19:53, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

You may want to read:Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. Karenthewriter (talk) 22:11, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Also read WP:42. If other people are not writing about you, not going to happen. David notMD (talk) 02:06, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Fluency in English is very helpful when writing a draft about anything at en:WP, but as mentioned, please don't write a draft about yourself. David10244 (talk) 12:02, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

sources and adding information

Hello, I wanted to add information to the Cannabis in Uruguay page. I wanted to add, in the commercial distribution section, firstly that originally it was 9% THC in the bag (since it only says it had "relatively low THC content"), and secondly that since 2022 legal cannabis sold in farmacies accross uruguay now has a THC level of 15% which is average (after all this change was made to match the levels found in clubs throughout uruguay) and no longer "relatively low". I also looked forward to adding a picture of the bags it comes in, since the Cannabis in Canada page provides an image of the container cannabis comes in for them.

I'd appreciate help understanding if these are even worthwhile contributions, how to make the edit, add the picture (which I could take myself), and how to provide the source. I have [1] this news report. Jackstone66 (talk) 20:12, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

@Jackstone66, I'd recommend starting with this introduction. To add an image go here. For info on citing sources, see this. I think those contributions would be good. PalauanReich (talk) 21:55, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Britannica pulling from WP?

I added a comment of concern in the talk section of the Colonial Mozambique article. Do I need to take further action? A Tree In A Box (talk) 20:20, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm looking at it now. I would say, if it is only that sentence, let it go. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 22:38, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Writing an article about a startup

I want to write an article about a startup. I attempted to write one from a neutral point of view but as soon as I submitted the draft it was marked for "speedy deletion". Is it because there are not enough third-party sources? Is it too early to create a page for such a startup? Does it have to be in the news? funded? show revenue? etc. Abdul Karim Syed (talk) 23:41, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Abdul Karim Syed, a startup, like anything else, must already be the subject of a substantial amount of material from reliable sources. Reliability has a number of components, and one of these is independence from the subject. Well, let's take a look at a draft deleted for being promotional: URDER was founded in 2022 with the goal of improving the online shopping experience by making it more accessible, convenient and sustainable. The platform supports local economies and meets customer needs by offering products from a wide range of categories, providing service to customers. My guess is that the name isn't pronounced "You arr dee ee arr" but instead, perhaps rather unfortunately, rhymes with "murder"; if so, it's "Urder". Was/is a major goal not to make money for the people heading it or investing in it? (But anyway, corporate goals are of little concern to an encyclopedia.) Is "the online shopping experience" somehow different from "online shopping", and if so, how? Does "platform" mean company, or website, or what? Which reliable sources say that it supports local economies and meets customer needs, etc? And anyway, why the rush to create an article about a company that might not even be a year old? -- Hoary (talk) 01:01, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse @Abdul Karim Syed! Your draft was tagged for deletion because it read like an advertisement. I would create a new draft filling what Hoary said above and not making it very promotional. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 01:03, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Can anyone who wants to submit/create a listing?

Asking for a friend...no really. Interested in submitting/creating a listing for a semi-well-known author and celebrity in the Asheville NC area. 69.77.138.82 (talk) 01:10, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi 69.77.188.82. Wikipedia doesn't have "listings" per se; rather it has encyclopedic articles about subjects considered to meet one of Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Try taking a look at Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not for some general information on Wikipedia. You might also want to take a look at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing since those also contain information that you might find helpful. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:31, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

69.77.138.82, your friend should read Help:Your first article, which explains the process for creating and submitting a draft article on Wikipedia. The notability requirements for authors can be found at WP:AUTHOR; unless the "semi-well-known author and celebrity" meets at least one of those, an article about him or her is unlikely to be accepted. Finding and citing a number of reliable, independent sources about the person is the most crucial step, as these are the backbone of any article and no successful article can exist without them. Deor (talk) 12:15, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Will there be issues with my school IP?

Long time reader, first time making an account. I was wondering if it would be an issue editing articles at my school on my school computer (with this account) as the IP address has been blocked for vandalism (as you can imagine many high schools are). Thank you! Oddvio (talk) 02:17, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello. You're good. Making an account like you've done is exactly the right thing to do in your situation. Take care, Rjjiii (talk) 04:22, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

@Oddvio - You are most likely fine, but sometimes in severe cases IPs can be "hard-blocked", which would require an IP-block exemption for your account if you wanted to edit under. Therefore, if you encounter any issues with being unable to edit at school with your account, you should request an exemption using the Unblock Ticket Request System - however, if you don't have any issues right now, then it's probably not necessary. casualdejekyll 17:05, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Should be fine, most IPs are only blocked from editing as a non-account user, so using an account should be fine. FusionSub (talk) 09:31, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

My best guess is that accounts would be allowed to edit, but if someone with an account vandalised, you may be blocked for 24 hours as you share the IP of a vandal account. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 10:04, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Where is my article?

Hi, I am a first time user and used sandbox to write a new article. When I was finished I press publish which I believe sends it to the editors for checking. I now cannot find the article anywhere and have not received any notifications about it. I'm not sure if it has been rejected or lost. RockyHistory (talk) 04:30, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi RockyHistory. The only edit showing in your contributions' history that I can see is the one for your post here at the Teahouse. Did you, by chance, use a different account when you tried to create that new article? Do you remember if you tried to create an article using Wikipedia:Sandbox? Generally, "Publish changes" just means "save changes" in the sense that the content on the page is "saved and now publicly viewable"; it doesn't mean you're submitting something for review. If you would like to develop a draft for a future article that you can submit for review, try following the instructions given in Wikipedia:Articles for creation. If you did use the Wikipedia Sandbox and did use another account, then it should be possible to retrieve whatever you created from the sandbox's page history. If you find what you previously created, you can copy-and-paste that content into a new draft, and you can then submit that draft for review when you think it's ready. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:54, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

I think the OP is talking about Draft:Benjamin T. Jones, which has been speedy deleted by administrator Jimfbleak. Lectonar (talk) 12:45, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

• RockyHistory Hello. The draft was deleted as a "self written vanity page". Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves. Wikipedia articles about people should summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the person, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Writing about yourself, while not forbidden, is highly discouraged per the autobiography policy. To write about yourself you must set aside everything you know about yourself, all materials you and your associates put out, and only write based on the content of independent sources. 331dot (talk) 12:57, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Changing the topic and title of an article

Hi there, this is my first time editing Wikipedia and I decided to edit the Okawa Elementary School page because it looked like a lot could be added to it. I want to add an info box that lists the deaths (and other things such as the location) that resulted from the tsunami hitting the school, but I don't know if it would be ok to list the deaths since the article is about the place and not the event and that wouldn't be fit.

Would it be ok if I added it anyways? Or should I instead change the article title and writing for it to cover the event instead of the school, such as "Okawa Elementary School Tragedy"? The event that happened to the school is referred to as a tragedy by many sources. I also feel like the main focus of the article is about the tragedy instead of the elementary school itself, so it would be more fitting. Or should I just not add the deaths to the info box? Thanks. Igor60e (talk) 05:37, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Igor60e, few would dispute that the school's destruction was tragic, yet "tragedy" is a subjective matter. I think it would be better to use another word ("flooding", perhaps?) if this is moved. In its current state, the article tells us: "74 of its 108 students [...] were killed in the tsunami". Are you proposing to list the 74? Ninety-seven died in the Hillsborough disaster (itself a surprising title, come to think of it); but they aren't listed. -- Hoary (talk) 05:47, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Igor60e, changing the title of an article and rewriting it to be about something else is regarded as hijacking, and is not accepted. Maproom (talk) 09:15, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

But Maproom, if an editor believes that the overwhelmingly major notability of a school is that on one occasion most of its pupils died within that very same school (and not a namesake elsewhere), then rewriting and retitling the article accordingly doesn't seem what I'd call hijacking. It's not necessarily the right thing to do, and this probably isn't the best place to propose doing it, but I don't find it an outrageous proposal. Igor60e, what you might do is create an expanded section about the flooding in your sandbox, and when you think it's more or less done, ask if (A) it should be added to the existing article (and if so, whether it should retain the current title or get a new title), or (B) be spun off into a separate article. -- Hoary (talk) 12:02, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

But the article isn't really about the school, it's about fallout from the event, which is covered at 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami. I'm not sure this shouldn't just be merged into that article. Valereee (talk) 13:25, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

I can see why the drastic change to the article can be seen as controversial, so I will follow Hoary's advice on working on the article in my sandbox and I probably wont revisit the issue for simplicity sake. As for merging the article, the article as of now is definitely in that state where it would be considered but in the future I'm planning on adding more to distinguish it from the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami article. Thanks for the discussion Igor60e (talk) 17:32, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Collab

Hi, is there any wikiproject that contains users looking for collaboration for ce? 456legend(talk) 06:35, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello 456legend. What do you mean by "ce"? Combustion engineering? Common era? Continuing education? Cheat engine? The element Cerium? Consumer electronics? Or possibly copy editing? You need to be unambiguous when you ask a question. Cullen328 (talk) 06:48, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

@Cullen328.Oh I am really sorry for the confusion. Here ce was supposed to be copy editing. I usually use this term in my edit summary, so that was carried here. Sorry for that. 456legend(talk) 07:04, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

In my own edit summaries, I prefer things along the lines of "Fixing grammar abomination." Uporządnicki (talk) 14:44, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

@AzseicsoK - If I were you, I would not use such an edit summary, as it's overly negative. (If I were you, I would also make it so my signature contains my username, making it easier for people to identify me in discussions.) casualdejekyll 15:48, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

In that case, 456legend, I suggest that you check out the Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors. Cullen328 (talk) 07:11, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you @Cullen328 for the input. Hopefully this will help. 456legend(talk) 07:24, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Page does not exist issue

This page does not exist. The deletion, protection, and move log for the page are provided below for reference. 11:23, 18 April 2023 Fram talk contribs moved page John Samuel Malayalam Writer to Draft:John Samuel Malayalam Writer without leaving a redirect (Unsourced BLP, autobiography, lots of unverifiable info) (revert) Tag: Disambiguation links added (thank) [[John Samuel Malayalam Writer|John Samuel Malayalam Writer]] (talk) 06:43, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello, John Samuel Malayalam Writer It appears that you have attempted to write an autobiography, and that it is entirely unreferenced. Unreferenced biographies of living people are contrary to policy. The overwhelming majority of people who try to write autobiographies fail and many people waste their time trying to write them. The guideline says, Writing an autobiography on Wikipedia is an example of conflict-of-interest editing and is strongly discouraged. You are obligated to fully comply with all of Wikipedia's Policies and guidelines. At present, you are nowhere near close to complying with the relevant policies and guidelines. Cullen328 (talk) 07:02, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

The draft exists here, if that helps: Draft:John Samuel Malayalam Writer. It's not an acceptable WP-article at this time. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:16, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

OP has now moved it back to mainspace. Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:30, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello, John Samuel. Please understand that Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. An article must be based almost entirely on such independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 09:18, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

John Samuel Malayalam Writer I hope you have all content of Draft:John Samuel Malayalam Writer saved on your computer, as it has been nominated for Speedy deletion. If an Administrator agrees with the merits of the Speedy, it will be deleted without leaving a means to salvage the content other than to petition the Admin. The reasons are promotional in tone and complete lack of references. You will be able to try again, perhaps with title "John Samuel (author)" but only if you understand the requirement that all information in a biography of a living person must be verified by reliable source references, meaning what other people have written and published ABOUT Samuel. David notMD (talk) 10:49, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Palestine vs Taiwan

What's the Wikipedia consensus for what defines a country? Is there even a clear criteria or is it simply something that's voted on and consensus override international majority views? I see Wikipedia call Taiwan a country but Palestine isn't labelled one but instead just called a state. But I know most of the world doesn't recognise Taiwan as a country. Even less so than Palestine. Yet when I look at wiki article on Taiwan and Palestine, the difference couldn't be more stark. Also Taiwan isn't even a full legal state when you really weigh the legal requirements [2] just like Palestine. But they are labelled so differently on Wikipedia. So why can't Palestine also be called a country in wikipedia like Taiwan? What is the rule there?Tudor89manners (talk) 08:02, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Tudor89manners Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If you want to discuss what Palestine is referred to as, the best place to do that is its article talk page, Talk:State of Palestine(which is the name of the entity that claims Palestinian territory, the name of the entity that controls Taiwan is "Republic of China".). I would highly advise you to review the archives of that talk page as I'm sure you aren't the first person to bring this up. I will also notify you of special rules with regards to contributing about topics related to the Arab-Israeli dispute. 331dot (talk) 08:20, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Judging by the user's edits, I think they're more interested in Taiwan not being called a country. - X201 (talk) 09:39, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

COI to an edit

Hey guys, My friend made an edit to a page but there was a COI and the edit was removed how to address it? Women in the workforce edit date 16:03, 20 March 2023‎ Kholizio (talk) 13:07, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Kholizio, welcome to the Teahouse. If your friend has a conflict of interest and wants to add information to an article, the proper thing to do is to make an edit request on the talk page of the article. They can use either the {{edit request}} template or the Edit Request Wizard. An uninvolved editor will then look at the information and decide whether the edit should be made. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:27, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Kholizio The account Swathi S Suresh has only ever made two edits to Wikipedia, both reverted by Graham87 as clearly against the WP:COI and possibly WP:PAID policy, which says that editors should not add material if they have a conflict of interest but should instead make an {{edit request}} on the Talk Page of the article so that others without such a COI can judge whether the material should be incorporated. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:28, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

First article unilaterally deleted as "advertising"

Hello...who can help me discover why the wikipedia article I wrote this morning was unilaterally deleted when I requested review and if I can get a re-review, and some understanding why this happened.

This is honestly...a truly awful experience for a first time editor...so folks, here is your chance to correct a horrific first impression. Danbrotherston (talk) 13:14, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

(The page was todo.txt by the way) Danbrotherston (talk) 13:15, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

The reasons given for deletion is Unambiguous advertising or promotion: no proper references (criteria G11). @Danbrotherston, Wikipedia articles are summaries of what has been published in reliable sources on notable subjects. If you read Help:Your first article, you'll get some idea of what went wrong and where to go from here. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:33, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

I am aware that is the reason as I stated it in my title. The article was clearly not advertising. It may not have had a neutral tone or sufficient references to satisfy the editor. But deleting it does not allow me to correct those deficiencies.

I now understand very well why wikipedia cannot recruit new editors. Danbrotherston (talk) 18:25, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Tagging @Jimfbleak, the person who deleted Draft:Todo.txt - I assume there's probably a good explanation here, @Danbrotherston, and I hope that you don't give up on Wikipedia because of a bad experience! casualdejekyll 13:35, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

@Danbrotherston, I don't mean this to be unsympathetic and unkind, and I hope it won't come across that way. But a first time editor plunging in and writing an article strikes me as sort of like someone who's never been on a ski before strapping on a pair and launching himself down an Olympic ski jump. It's likely to be a horrific first--and quite possibly last, of any kind--impression. Sure, it's sad. But don't blame the institution. I have no special access to things, so I have no way of knowing what you were trying to do. But a lot of people come into Wikipedia and try to do big things, with erroneous and incomplete impressions about what Wikipedia is, and--perhaps more importantly--what it isn't; how it works and how it doesn't. Uporządnicki (talk) 14:39, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

@Casualdejekyll and AzseicsoK:, thanks, I replied on Danbrotherston's talk page Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:15, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

There was a topic that I was surprised did not exist. I wrote an article for it. This is the whole concept. I expected comments on my article, suggestions, improvements, reviews, not unilateral deletion of my work.

Frankly, I won't be contributing again, and that is a shame. There are a number of articles about wikipedia struggling to recruit new editors. I see clearly why this is a problem given how they treat new contributors.

I am happy to work and improve my work, but I cannot do that now, it is deleted. Danbrotherston (talk) 18:25, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately @Casualdejekyll I won't be contributing further. I can certainly see why there is difficulty recruiting new editors.

I had hoped that there was a good reason, missinterpretation, working too quickly, or something. It appears that is not the case. If Wikipedia wanted to recruit new editors, they should give feedback and give an opportunity to improve. Danbrotherston (talk) 18:28, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

@Danbrotherston - I highly disagree with what you just said - there was both 1. a good reason and 2. feedback. The "good reason" was that the article was not sourced. Wikipedia Articles need to be sourced to reliable, secondary sources independent of the subject- for more information, see WP:V and WP:N. The "feedback" was the comment Jimfbleak posted on your talk page, which can be found here, in which he gave feedback - feedback which I know you saw, because you replied to it. Because of this, to me it does not look like an "awful experience" at all, but rather that you are reacting to the deletion of your draft by giving up entirely. Not everything is possible on your first attempt, you know. Imagine if you were learning to play the piano - would you give up immediately because you can't play perfectly after one lesson?

However, @Jimfbleak - in my opinion it is WP:BITEy to delete someone's first draft without ever touching their user talk page. Dan here did not even know which admin deleted the draft until I checked the deletion logs for them, which as you may be able to guess results in plenty of confusion and frustration. As such, I really can't blame them for freaking out about it. In future, could you make sure to at least drop a welcome message, or something? casualdejekyll 18:51, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

@Casualdejekyll Those are good reasons for not accepting a page or for requesting edits, not a good reason for deletion.

I can no longer work on the draft at all. In fact, I do not even know what I wrote that was so offensive that it needed to be deleted immediately. Danbrotherston (talk) 18:56, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

@Danbrotherston, you're free to start a new draft, but - this is key - first you should make sure that you have the reliable, independent, secondary sources which are required. If you can't find any, it's best to not proceed further. If can find some, then start building a new draft by reading those sources, summarizing in your own words what they say, and citing them as you go. Again I recommend reading Help:Your first article. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 19:01, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks anonymous commenter. But I think I'll pass. Danbrotherston (talk) 19:06, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

The cited reason is WP:G11 - the draft was promotional and read like an advertisement - however, the examples Jim provided in his feedback do not strike me as that bad, promotional wise. If you wish, you could take it to Deletion review, but I don't know what was in the draft and therefore do not know whether or not it was promotional. casualdejekyll 19:22, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the link and suggestion. I was not even aware such a review could be requested.

I personally don't think it read like an advertisement. I certainly do not think it was "exclusively" promotional as the G11 criteria suggests. I had a section specifying the format of the file, and I really don't see how that could read as "promotional" as it was a description of a file format.

But, again, I can't even review what I wrote, so I can't make an assessment.

Jeff did give a list of specific (and valid) issues with my work. But they also noted copyright infringement which absolutely does not apply. Then Jeff offered to see what he can "salvage" from my draft tomorrow. No thanks.

I really do appreciate you taking the time with me, but this experience has been extremely negative. You're right, I did "freak out" about it, I'm confused and frankly hurt. So I'm not going to bother asking for a review, mostly because it would be out of nothing more than spite, I won't be contributing even if the deletion was reverted.

Please. I love wikipedia...it's an amazing resource, I hope the next potential contributor gets a better experience. Danbrotherston (talk) 19:37, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

@Danbrotherston - Jim declined my request to see the deleted material, so I cannot help you further. I hope you come back some day, though. casualdejekyll 12:53, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate the efforts and sentiment. Honestly, I find this whole situation very weird. I work in software, but not with Wikimedia specifically...is there some cost to reverting something that I'm unaware of? Like, resource wise? Process wise? My assumption would be that it would be a push of a button, am I missing something? Danbrotherston (talk) 14:09, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

@Danbrotherston, we have deletion processes and undeletion processes, and they're overseen by admins, who are the only ones with access to the buttons. If you want your article back, you'll need to ask an admin for it - either directly (on their talk page or thru email) or via WP:DRV. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:12, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Jeff is an admin I assume...they are the persona we are talking about, they unilaterally deleted the page under the WP:G11 quick deletion criteria as we have discussed in this thread, I assume reverting the deletion would be equally as straight forward, but they have resisted doing so. Danbrotherston (talk) 14:26, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

@199.208.172.35 Danbrotherston (talk) 14:26, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

@Danbrotherston, then you'll need to either ask another admin or go to WP:DRV. Here is a link to a list of admins who have said they are willing to provide copies of deleted articles on request: Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to provide copies of deleted articles, but the proper avenue is WP:DRV, as that page says. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:35, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

The initial message you received on your user talk page contained a 'one size fits all' template message. The information about copyright was part of that. MrOllie (talk) 14:34, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

@MrOllie The message contained actual quotes from my article, every single point, except for the copyright point directly referred to my article, in some cases explicitly to issues I now see that I have like incorrect linking. It clearly wasn't a template. The message might have taken snippets of text from existing sources, but the specific points to copy were clearly selected.

FWIW if the admin had sent me that message instead of simply deleting my article as "spam or advertising" without comment, we wouldn't be having this conversation and I'd be happily improving my article. Even if the admin had restored the draft so that I could improve it after giving me their comments I'd probably still be open to contributing. But that is not what has happened. Danbrotherston (talk) 14:47, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, they added some personalized stuff to a form letter. The copyright stuff was part of the form letter. MrOllie (talk) 14:48, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

@MrOllie Maybe...it seems an oddly specific set of criteria that happen to all but one apply directly to my work.

But that wasn't really my main issue here. This has clearly been a problematic and hostile interaction for me. Deleting my article off hand, on what I feel are incorrect basis. Being unwilling to restore the draft even after providing feedback. Danbrotherston (talk) 14:55, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

@Danbrotherston, I'm not entirely sure what you're hoping for us, here at the Teahouse, to do. We can't sanction folks - those things are handled at WP:ANI, WP:AN or, in extreme cases, WP:ArbCom. If you think that the speedy deletion criteria were incorrectly applied, you can take your case to WP:DRV. There's no way to force an admin to restore an article they've decided should be deleted, or even to apologize. They can only be dragged to "court", so to speak, and desysoped for bad behavior. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 15:04, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

You folks have done more than enough. Everyone here has been extremely helpful. But ultimately I don't think there's anything to be done. I could go to deletion review, but I'm already put off here, and I don't think I'd be interested in continuing. Certainly not enough to get involved with some significant process for which I don't fully understand, and cannot effectively leverage.

I appreciate the help from everyone. They've given great advice to engage with the original admin, or to consider a deletion review, but I've gone as far as I'm willing to. I'm not asking for anything further. But I think it's worth understanding what went wrong hence, I'll reply to any comments here. Danbrotherston (talk) 17:08, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

• Danbrotherston I'm sorry to hear that you have not had a good experience. I must agree with some of the analogies that other users have offered- you dived right in to creating articles- the most difficult task to attempt on Wikipedia- and are upset with us that it didn't go perfectly on the first attempt and want to quit. There is a definite learning curve here, but there is also people willing to help you understand if you are willing to hear it. I can certainly understand being upset and having frustration at something that you likely spent a long time on being deleted. We usually recommend that to avoid frustration and anger that new users not dive right in to creating articles, and instead first spend time editing existing articles in areas that interest them, to get a feel for how Wikipedia operates and what is expected of article content.

As an admin I can examine the draft; it just documented the existence of the topic- that is considered promotional here, you don't have to be soliciting or selling something. Wikipedia articles summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the topic, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability. Do you have independent reliable sources that discuss the importance of your topic? 331dot (talk) 15:35, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

@331dot "didn't go perfectly." Is an understatement. My draft was unilaterally deleted with almost no feedback. That's well beyond "didn't go perfectly". As I've said a few times, I was happy and eager for feedback. It was what I expected. It's what I understood of the process. I was happy to work and anticipating working on it further. I didn't even understand how it came to happen at first. I assumed it must have been a mistake. I was given feedback after the fact, but the draft is still deleted, so I cannot act on that feedback.

Certainly this is not the only article to document the existence of something. For example this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_To_Do basically documents the existence of MS Todo and it's history. My article more or less does the same thing. If more comprehensive citations are needed, great, I was happy to do that, todo.txt isn't exactly an unknown format, it's supported by several major open source todo apps like Gnome Todo, as documented on those pages and on open source articles.

But again, this isn't really the point. I cannot improve my draft, because it is deleted. I appreciate that the tone, and citations were not up to standards. I definitely appreciate the help others have given me here (and in the IRC). I followed their advice and engaged with the admin who deleted, and I got feedback. You can read the exchange on my talk page, the admin Jeff didn't revert the deletion. He made the "conciliation" of maybe tomorrow seeing if there is anything that he could "salvage". Not exactly encouraging I would say.

It seems I can request a review of the deletion, but I'm not inclined to. I'm (relatively) new here, I don't want to get involved in a process like this...I don't want to try and lawyer in a system I have no familiarity with. And ultimately, it would be out of spite. After this experience, I have no interest in contributing further. I certainly would never write another article, I wouldn't risk having my work deleted.

Again, I appreciate the help given here, folks have done a great job. But in the end there is no further resolution. Fix the processes so this doesn't happen to the next person, or make peace with the fact that deleting article in this manner will bully away new contributors (biting I take it is the term used here). Danbrotherston (talk) 17:03, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

If it would help, I can email you the deleted text. Please note that other poor content existing does not justify adding more poor content. In looking at the draft, I would have made the same decision. I will restate that you are like a beginner skier deciding to go down the Olympic slalom course or ski jump, you did so, crashed, and now want to quit- where if you had instead taken a class and gone down the bunny slope first, you would still want to ski. If you'd take things slower, read some guidelines, hear our advice, edit existing articles and the like first, you would now be happier. I urge you to reconsider, but if not, I wish you well. 331dot (talk) 17:27, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

@331dot I would actually urge you to reconsider. A policy of deletion is harmful to your goals. Deleting a page without feedback or action items does not accomplish encourage or welcome a new contributor and not deleting the page would seem to costs nothing. It also assumes bad faith. It assumes that I intended to write an advertisement and have gotten caught. If I wrote the article in good faith, which I did, then a path to improve it should be given.

And frankly I have read many of the guidelines now. In fact, it seems like deletion in situations like this does not really comply with policies. Specifically https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers#How_to_avoid_being_a_%22biter%22 seems to explicitly advise against doing this under number 14.

Unfortunately, I am not going to reconsider. I wish you folks well, wikipedia is a fantastic resource, I use it extensively, and it's clear there are many great people working on it. But this has also been a hostile unpleasant experience and I'm not willing to subject myself to that, at this point, it's going to be a sore spot any time I use wikipedia as a resource again...and I regret ever getting involved. Danbrotherston (talk) 18:04, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

HELP I'm trying to start a page

Hi, I need help to create a wikipedia page, yesterday I did create a TALK page I PUBLISH IT and today I got a message that the page doesn't exist, that it was EREASED I got a kind of message but I don't understand what does it means. I did try to create the page again and I got a warning message about trying to create again a page that was EREASED. Can somebody help me? Contact Aesus (talk) 13:47, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

@Contact Aesus This Teahouse edit is the only one this account of yours has made and there is no associated Talk Page where messages to you would be posted. Were you not logged in when you saved/published your draft: and where was the warning message posted? Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:17, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Aesus Packaging Systems was the deleted page. - David Biddulph (talk) 14:20, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Contact Aesus, welcome to the Teahouse! Unfortunately, there are a few problems I see here. First of all, you tried to create an article in the Talk: namespace, which is only for discussing improvements to existing articles. Your new article would be better placed in the Draft: namespace, at Draft:Aesus Packaging Systems, for example. This is why your page was deleted.

However, I do not recommend that you try to create your article there. Looking over the content of the deleted page (at Talk:Aesus Packaging Systems, for those without admin vision), the tone was entirely promotional, which is not acceptable for Wikipedia. It reads as a product directory for your company, not a neutral encyclopedia article. There are more problems relating to your username and the like, but I'll move that conversation to User talk:Contact Aesus for now. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:22, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

My Problem With anonymous

One thing I want to say is that there are several anonymous people out there my theory was that anonymous people are either a bunch of idiots who don't understand or an underaged child since I revert things in good faith from the wrongs that Anonymous have done like the short "Bring Me The Head Of Charlie Brown" where an anonymous put MGM IN THE DISTRIBUTOR, Anonymous put the opening of the movie "Weird Science" on the cut out page even though the opening uses traditional animation, someone put up a fake company called "Toshiba Vestron Video" in the OLM Inc article (an anime company that made pokémon) and etc. also that anonymous people access wikipedia more than an account created, they make me angry for doing nonsense things and now what are you going to do with anonymous people? LeronJomes (talk) 14:40, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

I need to stop them too! what are you going to do? LeronJomes (talk) 14:41, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello, LeronJomes, and welcome to the Teahouse. Please don't fall prey to prejudice: while some anonymous edits are disruptive, many are not, and there are some long-term contributors who do good work, but who choose not to register an account. Conversely, if you look at WP:AIV, and through its history, you will see that there are many registered accounts that get blocked for vandalism. ColinFine (talk) 16:32, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

@LeronJomes - Inquiring minds want to know - are you over 18? You don't have to say if you don't want to, but the reason I ask is that I feel like you might be interested in reading our guidance for younger editors. casualdejekyll 16:48, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Additionally, you say that your home wiki is Portuguese, but you don't appear to have ever edited the Portuguese Wikipedia - have you tried contributing there? casualdejekyll 18:55, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm Brazilian I've never done any Portuguese Wikipedia editing but in the near future I might do LeronJomes (talk) 22:04, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

I usually edit wikipedia in English LeronJomes (talk) 22:07, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi again @LeronJomes. There have been many proposals to ban IP editing on English Wikipedia (which I think is what you mean by "anonymous"), but none have been successful. So far, only Portuguese Wikipedia has passed such a proposal. See here for a summary of past discussions on English Wikipedia, and read the instructions at the very top of the page if you want to try such a proposal again. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:55, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

WHOA this was pretty tense when I found out that anonymous was never extinct on wikipedia LeronJomes (talk) 15:19, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

except that it was extinct in my language wikipedia (portuguese) LeronJomes (talk) 15:21, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

A new author

<Potential copyvio removed> Rlfictionbook17 (talk) 14:42, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Rlfictionbook17, welcome to the Teahouse. If you want to create a Wikipedia article about this person, you should start by reading Help:Your first article. Wikipedia articles are summaries of what reliable sources have published about notable subjects. The particular notability guideline for creative professionals, such as authors, is here. Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources.

If you are the subject being discussed here, you should also read WP:AUTOBIO. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:47, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Rlfictionbook17 (talk) 14:49, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

@Rlfictionbook17, unfortunately, it seems you copy-pasted the above from the subject's website, with minimal rewording. It's very likely a copyright violation. I'm afraid I'll have to remove it (and go refresh my memory on how to request revdel). 199.208.172.35 (talk) 15:00, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

That's mine! Again an interest conflict? I'm contributing facts to the conversation. My first book was published in July of last year, yet Wikipedia has not yet included it. What happens once two more follow? Please let me know who I'm up against. Wikipedia ought to be used to promote knowledge, right? Rlfictionbook17 (talk) 15:13, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

@Rlfictionbook17, please re-read what I posted above. Wikipedia hosts articles on notable subjects. If either you or your books become notable by our standards, an article will then be warranted.

Also, read Donating copyrighted material to get an understanding of how to donate copyrighted material to Wikipedia, including text. The website has an incompatible copyright notice; that can't be circumvented by signing up for an account and declaring yourself to be the copyright holder. This is a legal issue. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 15:18, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Helping to create article in Wikipedia

I am searching for a editor to help me to improve my article, enabling me to submit it for revision. Thanks in advance. Noobsaiboth (talk) 14:43, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Noobsaiboth, welcome to the Teahouse. Since Draft:Ararat Aleksanyan is about an Armenian artist, the folks most likely to be interested are those at WikiProject Art and WikiProject Armenia. You're free to leave a note on the talk pages I've just linked. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:49, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Article now deleted for blatant copyright infringement. Shantavira|^{feed me} 17:12, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Oh dear. @Noobsaiboth, please don't copy text from other sources into Wikipedia, except in very limited cases. You should build an article by finding reliable sources, summarizing them in your own words, and citing them. Maybe this section from the essay on close paraphrasing will help. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:40, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

JUSTIN SUN Wikipedia Page Updates

Hello,

I have requested changes to HE Justin Suns wikipedia page for awhile now and I have not gotten any response. It is a closed wikipedia page so is there anyway we can speed up the approval process or I can get feedback. I am just trying to update the page to better reflect current events surrounding him and add picture. Thank you so much and I am looking forward to hearing back. MelfarraTron (talk) 17:36, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

You already got a response that the image was copyrighted. They responded after 20 minutes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Justin_Sun#Extended-confirmed-protected_edit_request_on_17_April_2023 PalauanReich (talk) 17:42, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

@PalauanReich, they have two other, open ones further up the page. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:46, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't see that. Do you think we should unprotect it. Why was it protected in the first place PalauanReich (talk) 17:51, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi @MelfarraTron, welcome to the Teahouse. There's not really a way to speed up the process, but what could help is to pare down and/or split up the two edit requests you still have pending so that they're more manageable by volunteers who stop by to check. If someone only has, say, ten minutes to work on edit requests, they'll probably choose to fulfill five two-minute requests rather than a single ten-minute one. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:45, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

e/c Your edit requests amount to completely re-writing the article, you are more likely to succeed if you make a smaller number of edit requests at a time. Theroadislong (talk) 17:47, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

@MelfarraTron It looks like the page protection will expire in 3 days. You may just want to wait for that so edit the page PalauanReich (talk) 17:54, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

@PalauanReich, that is probably not something they should be doing, since they are a paid editor. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:55, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

As long as he follows the guidelines, I think it should be fine. The edit requests don't look promotional PalauanReich (talk) 17:56, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

I strongly disagree User:MelfarraTron has a conflict of interest so should NOT edit the page directly. Theroadislong (talk) 17:58, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't mind if I am allowed to directly edit it or get approval. I just would like my requests to have some sort of response and input or be approved. They have been at a stand-still for nearly 2 months now. They aren't promotional either and are backed by valid sources so directly applying edits would be great.

I will wait the 3 days though and see if I am allowed to make direct edits, regardless I am fine with whatever process is given to me. As long as that wikipedia page is being properly updated. Thank you for the responses everyone! @PalauanReich@Theroadislong MelfarraTron (talk) 18:17, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Sara Yumiseba - NYC DRAFT

Hello,

How are you? I tried submitting my new draft for a rough page for NYC Care. However, I can not tell if it's actually submitted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Draft:NYC_Care&oldid=1146299375

I would appreciate your time and patience on this little problem. If I have not submitted the new version, what can I do in order for you guys to review it? If it is submitted, what is the rough timeframe for it to be reviewed and published?

Thanks again. Yumisebasara (talk) 18:10, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Yumisebasara, welcome to the Teahouse. Draft:NYC Care has not been submitted for review. I'll place the appropriate template on it for you, if no one else beats me to it. Confusingly, there's a copy of the draft on your talk page, User talk:Yumisebasara; I'd recommend removing that. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:15, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

All done. I've also added a References section and the {{reflist}} template. One nitpick, @Yumisebasara - references should be placed after punctuation, not before. The current wait time at AfC is about four months (at the most, not average). 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:20, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Promotion in ‘Did you know’

If there is a better section to raise this concern then please refer me to it. Thank you.

I read the ‘did you know’(dyk) section daily. I’m seeing some “Facts” that look to me as their purpose is promotional and manipulating the dyk intention.

Example today: “…that the 2018 book The Longevity Diet claims that a "fast-mimicking diet" increases lifespan and healthspan?“

Basically a ‘claim’ is made in a book about increasing lifespan… better rush out and buy?

There are other ‘dyks’ that seem to be subtly drawing attention to a side of current political situations.

Example: ”…that Rihanna and Dua Lipa participated in #BlueforSudan to bring attention to the 3 June 2019 Khartoum massacre?“

The hashtag really stands out, and this looks to me like it’s associating desirable celebrities with a political topic to add favourable weight… or promote as you might say.

@Link to screenshot of todays ‘did you know’ Niveknage (talk) 19:14, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Niveknage, welcome to the Teahouse. Discussion of the DYK process takes place at Wikipedia talk:Did you know. If you're curious, you can take a look at Template talk:Did you know to see all of the current nominations and the discussions taking place about them. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 19:17, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Multiple types of sources for a wikipedia page

Hello Teahouse,

I am currently writing an article and I have gathered multiple sources. Some of them are books, some of them are journals, and some of them are websites.

Right now, I use sfn (in-line citation) and cite book (at the end in the "References" section) for the books I used, and <ref name = .../ > (in-line citation) for the journal articles and the websites. Am I doing this correctly?

This is my very first "long" article, and I am not sure if I am describing my problem clearly. I wonder if there a place where I can request other Wikipedians to read my draft in my sandbox?

Many thanks! -- TheLonelyPather (talk) 19:41, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Clarification: I am putting all the books in the "Bibliography" subsection under the "References" section, and I am putting all the in-line citations of the book together with the in-line citations of websites and journals together in the "Citations" subsection under the "References" section. I am not sure if I am doing this correctly, it feels weird to me. TheLonelyPather (talk) 19:43, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

@TheLonelyPather: Welcome to the Teahouse! Are you referring to User:TheLonelyPather/sandbox2? In general, it looks OK to me. The page is included in Category:User pages with reference errors, so there's something that's not quite right. I also suggest using |language= and |trans-title= for each reference that is not in English. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 19:51, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi GoingBatty:

Thanks for getting back to me! Yes, I am referring to User:TheLonelyPather/sandbox2. Thanks for letting me know! TheLonelyPather (talk) 19:53, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

@GoingBatty: I have one more question. If I am referencing a journal article for *multiple* times (like, 15+), should I put it in the "Bibliography" subsection along with the books and do a sfn for each time I reference it, or should I just use the inline <ref>{{cite journal|... and leave it be? TheLonelyPather (talk) 19:58, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

@TheLonelyPather, neither one. The biblography section and "sfn" are used to cite different pages within the same long source. Journal articles are usually short enough so that isn't needed. Instead just reuse the citation as explained at Wikipedia:Citing sources#Repeated citations. StarryGrandma (talk) 20:35, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know! TheLonelyPather (talk) 21:57, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Surname COI

What is COI stance on surname articles like Kellerhoff 122.59.183.243 (talk) 20:56, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi IP editor, welcome to the Teahouse. Unless you're creating the article so that you can cram it full of the names of your immediate relatives, I think COI concerns are minimal. You're always free to simply put a COI statement in your edit summary, though, and let others decide. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 21:28, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, IP editor. I'm not quite sure what you are getting at. If someone with that name edits an article about themselves, that would be a strong WP:COI, and they should not do it, but make an WP:EDITREQUEST on the talk page instead. However, if they were to simply add an extra name to a set article about the surname Kellerhoff, I wouldn't regard that as any sort of conflict of interest. If they wanted to add extra content about the origins of that surname in general, they would need to base it upon Reliable Sources, and not blogs or other user-generated sites lacking any form of editorial oversight. Does that help address your question? Nick Moyes (talk) 21:28, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes both of you have helped with addressing the question, thanks! 122.59.183.243 (talk) 22:22, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Names of songs

Should names of songs , i.e. Ana Ng be put as "Ana Ng" or Ana Ng? I looked at WP:MOST and I'm still not sure. Adeeta (talk) 21:13, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

@Adeeta, song titles are styled with quotation marks. See this section. When guidance is confusing, another trick is to find a featured article and see how they did it. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 21:23, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks so much random IP human! Adeeta (talk) 21:25, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Why what ask but mean

what is your name Trevor Maqashalala (talk) 21:53, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Trevor Maqashalala. I cannot understand what you are saying. Do you have a question about editing Wikipedia? Please clarify. Cullen328 (talk) 22:10, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Trevor. I too do not know what you are asking. But I can tell you that the sandbox that you have submitted for review has zero chance of being accepted. Please read WP:NOT, WP:YFA, WP:notability and WP:autobiography. ColinFine (talk) 22:23, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I think you can be more successful if you contribute in other language that you speak. English Wikipedia is not the only Wikipedia. There are other language Wikipedias as well. Carpimaps (talk) 22:34, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Block mouseover/search images for a specific article?

Hello! I am a member of the Baha'i Faith, which forbids viewing images of our Prophet, Baha'u'llah. While I was able to use a provided line of CSS to block all images on Baha'u'llah's page, the image still appears when I mouse over the link, or search for it in the search bar. Is there any way to stop it from appearing (apart from removing the image or placing another above it, which would fall under vandalism)?

Sorry if this is not a good place to ask Education-over-easy (talk) 23:27, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi Education-over-easy. You can hide links to the article with this in your CSS:

body a[href="/wiki/Bah%C3%A1%CA%BCu%27ll%C3%A1h"] {display: none;}

If there is no link to mouse over then you don't get a popup with the image. The image in search results is linked to the article so it also hides the image there. If you actually want to read the article then you can for example enter its exact name in the search box, or a redirect like Bahaullah. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:07, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Block editing changes

Which it says

Blocked by Example
Block will expire in ---- 
Reason ----- which pressing View source, Log in, OK.

2001:44C8:4523:1D54:852:17FE:F2CB:644B (talk) 00:14, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

I cannot understand what you are trying to say. Do you have a question about editing Wikipedia? Cullen328 (talk) 00:27, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! If your username has been blocked, please tell us your username. If you're having another issue, please provide more information detailing how we can duplicate your issue. GoingBatty (talk) 01:19, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

What is the point of Subject-specific notability guidelines(SNG)?

My understanding of SNGs is that if a subject meets the listed criteria, it would most likely also pass GNG. But I also read that it cannot override GNGs. So what is the point of these guidelines if it is made redundant by GNG. From what I know, SNGs are just Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes. Carpimaps (talk) 03:10, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

@Carpimaps That is my understanding too, and I think there are cases where SNG:s have been deleted for straying to far from GNG (they tend to some extent be written by "fans"). However, they can be of some help about what to look for, and there is currently one, WP:NACADEMIC, that actually "overpowers" GNG. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:15, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

@Carpimaps: some SNGs do provide a valid test of notability; it's not a case of overriding GNG, but rather supplementing it. For example, certain academic positions will make the post-holder inherently notable per WP:NACADEMIC, even if there is no secondary source coverage of them (which can happen, esp. in some branches of science, and/or with certain types of scientist). Similarly, a building listed in some heritage registers is notable per WP:NBUILD by virtue of that listing alone. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:51, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

@Carpimaps the point about SNGs not overriding GNG actually works in the reverse direction. If a subject passes GNG then not passing an SNG cannot block the article's existence. A fairly frequent example is if a person becomes a candidate for political office, that is usually insufficient to pass the SNG for politicians. However if the person is already notable for some other reason that passes GNG then the fact that they don't pass NPOL is irrelevant. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:56, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

One example: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kathy Barnette (3rd nomination) Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:29, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for all the answers! So my new understanding is that if a subject meets SNGs, sources are almost always guaranteed to exist, removing the need to look for sources. Carpimaps (talk) 13:56, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

@Carpimaps, you'll need to look for sources eventually, to base the article on, but at least you know in advance that sources are likely to exist. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:09, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

If it comes to an afd, saying "there's probably sources somewhere" doesn't usually cut it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:31, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Any preventative measures available for autoconfirmed account builders?

I sometimes come across contribution histories where I suspect the user is building an autoconfirmed account to be used solely for later vandalism: add-a-space, remove-the-space edits, exactly ten edits. I realize there is also a requirement for a few days to pass before autoconfirm is autogranted, so I will check in on the editor some time later; but I've seen autoconfirm accounts lay dormant for months, even years, before the vandalism starts. Are there any preventative measures available to block the account before vandalism occurs? _signed, Willondon (talk) 04:57, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything that can be done about a WP:SLEEPER account until it actually starts being used inappropriately; in other words, inactive accounts aren't going to be blocked in order to prevent them from someday being possibly used for vandalism. Having said that, there may be cases where an administrator determines that such an account should be blocked based on technical or behavioral evidence, and the account may be blocked for that reason (I guess). This, however, seem to be more of an exception than the norm, and the evicence needs to be pretty strong. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:50, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Draft Page Rejection: Daf James

I had written a contribution on this Welsh writer, who has had international success and whose most recent work Lost Boys and Fairies (for BBC) is currently filming in Cardiff and has had widespread media attention. I have extensively sourced the article with 42 external references, however the rejection states not of significant coverage or lack of references, neither of which is accurate. Look forward to hearing more on why this article was rejected. Caerdyddcymru (talk) 05:51, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Please don't post the same question in multiple places – this has been answered at the AfC help desk. --bonadea contributions talk 06:57, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Also, a case now open at WP:DRN. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:10, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Apologies for this, and thanks for highlighting. :-) Caerdyddcymru (talk) 07:27, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Comic source repository

Good morning friendly people of Wikipedia! =) As some of you may have had the misfortune of finding out I'm working at cleaning up the comics pages through a mixture of unsettlingly obsessive behaviour, procedural clumsiness and flagrant overuse of the phrase "struck a deal". This has involved a lot of fun research but I'm a selfish person, so this research has largely been put to use on stuff I'm interested in. However, it's also turned up a lot of potential sources for stuff I'm either never going to get around to doing or have no interest in doing myself. I feel a bit bad just not using this information based entirely on my personal tastes, especially when a lot of comics pages have notability and/or referencing issues. Would a user page listing some of these sources, maybe flagged on the appropriate talk pages for anyone who is interested, be a good idea? Or would that be an irritant? BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 10:28, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

@BoomboxTestarossa perhaps an appropriate WikiProject might be the best venue for discussing your idea. It's not a topic area I'm familiar with at all so I can't point you to any particular page, but you should find links to relevant Wikiprojects on the talk pages of the articles you are working on. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:46, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

@BoomboxTestarossa, Template:Refideas may be something to look at. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:36, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Ooooh, new toy! =D thanks! BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 15:40, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Matthew McAdow

I am trying to add "Matthew McAdow" as a page on the website (Cincinnati Sports Writer in 25+ newspapers across Ohio). How can I get this added? Matthewmcadow (talk) 11:29, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't have pages, it has articles on notable topics, if Matthew McAdow is notable then you can start an article at WP:AFC, being a writer for 25+ newspapers doesn't necessarily make them notable in Wikipedia terms though. Theroadislong (talk) 11:33, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Matthewmcadow (ec) Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. We prefer to call the content of the encyclopedia articles, not "pages". I'm not sure what efforts you have made as this is your only edit, but if you are attempting to write about yourself, this is highly discouraged, please read the autobiography policy. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves; articles summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about (in this case) a person, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. It's usually very difficult for people to do that about themselves, as it requires setting aside what they know about themselves, all materials they put out, and what their associates say about them, and only writing based on the content of independent sources. New accounts cannot directly create articles, and one should not directly create an article about themselves- but you may use Aricles for Creation to create and submit a draft if you think that you can edit as I describe, and have gathered at least three sources that give you significant coverage on their own and describe how you are important/significant/influential. Please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 11:35, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Blog Post Inquiry - A&A Associate LLC

We need to publish an article in Wikipedia to get create quality backlinks to our site. Kindly provide the answers for the following. 1. Is there any guidelines top follow while preparing the contents? 2. Please explain how to add the contents in Wikipedia 3.Can we use anchor texts in wiki? A& A Associate (talk) 12:07, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

@A& A Associate, are you trying to write a wikipedia article about your company? If so Wikipedia discourages you from doing that. See WP:PAID PalauanReich (talk) 13:01, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia tags all external links as nofollow. You will not get 'quality backlinks' here. Adding links to your site will not help your SEO efforts. MrOllie (talk) 13:03, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Is my production company notable?

I'm thinking about having an article about Dulce Cine www.dulcecine.com since we're doing works that are having impact locally in Uruguay but also internationally (the best example is our short film "Antes de Madrid" that had its international premiere at the Berlinale, and now is having a very good distribution route worldwide.

Would you please help me with how may I approach this? Thank you UP.FACUNDO (talk) 12:11, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

UP.FACUNDO Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The best thing you can do is- go on about the business of your company and don't worry about a Wikipedia article. If your company truly meets the definition of a notable company, as shown with significant coverage in independent reliable sources, someone will eventually write about it after they take note of your company in those sources. Due to the conflict of interest you present, you are not necessarily the best person to write about your company.

Please read the paid editing policy. 331dot (talk) 12:15, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

You will find advice on notability of organisations at WP:NCORP, and you also ought to read about conflict of interest. - David Biddulph (talk) 12:17, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

@UP.FACUNDO: To start with, congratulations on trying to read the guidelines and asking before spending time to write a draft yourself. I wish more new editors had your wisdom. As a start, please read WP:PAID and make the mandatory disclosure.

The first step to any Wikipedia article about any subject is to find sources that are (1) independent of the subject, (2) reliable, and (3) deal with the subject at length. I did a quick online search for "Dulce Cine" and found no such sources, but I cannot speak Spanish and I am not familiar with reliable sources in the cinema industry, so I would not be surprised to learn I missed something. For "Antes de Madrid", I did not find anything myself, but there is a page on German Wikipedia. That does not guarantee an article would be acceptable on the English Wikipedia (guidelines vary across projects), but it does include one potentially-useful source: [3] (it is not perfect by any means, but at least it’s a start).

Could you share with us the three best sources you can find that meet the criteria above for either the company or the film? (See WP:THREE for why.) We will then be able to tell if there’s any chance for an article (if no, there’s no point in taking time writing it; see WP:BACKWARD). Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 12:32, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for replying and all your comments, I think I can do that but for sure those sources aren't going to be ideal and I also read the comment made by David and I'm realizing that it may be better to not write about Dulce Cine myself and wait to get that done by others like it happened with the short film. The thing about that article you found is that it doesn't mention Dulce Cine as its production company neither the associated production companies, and I have the fear that it gets abandoned only in the German language and without being properly updated (now the short film has more international recognition) Thanks again for replying both of you and I hope there is an easy solution for this... even if I cannot write Dulce Cine article, at least I would want Antes de Madrid to be a better article... UP.FACUNDO (talk) 16:59, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Citing the same source twice

How would I cite the same source twice in the source editor? LeGoldenBoots (talk) 14:21, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

LeGoldenBoots see WP:REFNAME. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 14:23, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Alright, thank you. LeGoldenBoots (talk) 14:24, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Personal

Do you know A Mr. Schumann Jshoes1976 (talk) 16:13, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Well I thought I did. Jshoes1976 (talk) 16:13, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Jshoes1976, welcome to the Teahouse. Do you have a question about using or editing Wikipedia? 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:17, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Schumann is a common name. Take your pick from this list. Shantavira|^{feed me} 16:29, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Not a host, but I believe OP is referring to Draft:Mr.Jason Eric Schumann on eIn St. eIn. Schumann, which was speedy deleted as a test page (G2). Vamsi20 (ask me questions) (see what I've edited) 20:48, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Page was speedily deleted due to an unknown copyright violation

Hello,

I wrote Miss All Nations. The page was up for close to a week with no issue and was fine this morning. I went away for a few hours and the page was speedily removed before I could even see it.

Where can I discuss this or at least see what the page even had on it? I have no idea what the actual issue was because I can't see the article and I don't want to re-create it and have the same issue again.

Thanks KatoKungLee (talk) 16:30, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

@KatoKungLee, you've already asked the deleting admin and the person who posted the notice on your page about it. That is the correct thing to do. Give them some time to respond. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:35, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @199.208.172.35 KatoKungLee (talk) 16:40, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

@KatoKungLee: In addition to the other (correct) replies, clicking on the red link for the deleted page brings up the deletion log entry, which says it was a copyright violation of this link.

If you indeed copied large swathes of that external page into the article, but you don’t understand how that’s a problem, feel free to ask here.

Sometimes, external websites copy from Wikipedia (which is allowed under certain conditions) and the original Wikipedia article can be flagged as a copyright violation. However, here, I see that the Wikipedia page was created in April 2023, but archive.org has a copy of the external page from February 2022 with (at a glance) the same content. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 16:49, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Tigraan - I did not copy anything to my knowledge and I have no idea what line or lines were problematic. I also cannot compare the two pages because there's no way for normal users to see the original deleted page. The other issue is that a lot of my sources were foreign, and are going to require some work to track down due to being in different languages.KatoKungLee (talk) 16:53, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

In that case, let’s wait what the deleting administrator has to say. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 17:11, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Ping to @Jimfbleak who deleted it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:34, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello, KatoKungLee. The article you wrote violated the copyright of this Wordpress page. Cullen328 (talk) 16:49, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Cullen328 - I did not copy anything to my knowledge and I have no idea what line or lines were problematic. I also cannot compare the two pages because there's no way for normal users to see the original deleted page. The other issue is that a lot of my sources were foreign, and are going to require some work to track down due to being in different languages.KatoKungLee (talk) 16:53, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

KatoKungLee, I am an administrator and can read the deleted article.

The Wordpress page begins Miss All Nations is a female beauty contest created by Charlie See and in 1989 onwards the pageant License been transfer and manage by Mr. Alex Liu. The event on 1989 took on great proportions and a second edition was held in 1990 in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia but soon it was discontinued. Until in 2010 – 20 years later – the organization of ERM Marketing (ERM) own by Alex Liu and Sean Chia took over the franchise and re-launch the Pageant. This page is dated November 22, 2021.

Right before it was deleted, the Wikipedia article began Miss All Nations is a female beauty contest created by Charlie See and in 1989 onwards the pageant License been transfer and manage by Mr. Alex Liu. The event on 1989 took on great proportions and a second edition was held in 1990 in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia but soon it was discontinued. Until in 2010 – 20 years later – the organization of ERM Marketing (ERM) own by Alex Liu and Sean Chia took over the franchise and re-launch the Pageant.

The copyright violation is quite clear. Cullen328 (talk) 17:13, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

@Cullen328 - Cullen, I did not write that. Are you absolutely 100% certain it says that was written and that I wrote it? Because it it does, then I need to contact wikipedia security. I'm being 100% serious here. All I wrote was one line in the intro about it being an irregular comp since 1989 and I wrote about it being held in 1989 and the winner getting dethroned. The last edit I did over it was either a screw up with Maria Fernando being from Venezuela or an addition of a russian source. KatoKungLee (talk) 17:19, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

KatoKungLee, the copyright violations were added by Gharusa Latonia earlier today. This is not your fault. Cullen328 (talk) 17:24, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

@Cullen328 - THANK GOD. What would be the next step? I'd obviously like to get the page back.KatoKungLee (talk) 17:26, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

@Cullen328, FYI, based on what you posted above, looks like there are also copyright violations in the history of User:Gharusa Latonia. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:27, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

I am not an expert in dealing with copyright violations. It would be good to get another administrator involved. Cullen328 (talk) 17:50, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

I have requested assistance at WP:Copyright problems. Cullen328 (talk) 17:58, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. @KatoKungLee, hopefully Jimfbleak will be able to restore the pre-copyvio version, or at least email it to you; they've been inactive for several hours now, though, and may not be back until tomorrow. You could try asking at WP:DRV, or you could ask one of the admins mentioned at Wikipedia administrators willing to provide copies of deleted articles if you're not willing to wait, though the copyright issue will complicate things. Maybe try either User:Moneytrees or User:Sphilbrick, since they're also listed at Wikipedia administrators willing to investigate copyright matters.

I don't know what other violations might be in that user's page history, but if someone is reading this with eye toward cleanup, the specific text mentioned above was added here and removed today, in the latest edit. I'd request copyvio revdel, but I can't edit the page. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:30, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

And as I was typing this up, they reappeared and did restore the earlier version. Hopefully that's all taken care of. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:32, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

This is now moot, correct? S Philbrick(Talk) 18:36, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

All except the identical violations in the user page history, @Sphilbrick. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:39, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Automate tedious edits

I have a UN spreadsheet of all the Lebanese municipalities with their updated coordinates. Instead of all 1000+ coordinates individually, is there a program or bot that would help me with this or speed up this process. Also, is this even a good edit to all these pages? Here is the spreadsheet. PalauanReich (talk) 16:45, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

@PalauanReich With the caveat that I have no idea if this is a good idea or not, you can try asking at Wikipedia:Bot requests. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:03, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

@PalauanReich: GGS is correct that the place to go for such requests would be WP:BOTREQ. Here’s my $0.02 anyway.

First, you should get consensus for the changes - adding the coordinates is likely not controversial, the only question is whether the UN spreadsheet is a reliable source for it. Note that we do not care that those are the "official UN coordinates" - if anything, we would rather take the coordinates from the Lebanese government, unless there are border disputes etc. The spreadsheet you linked is from the refugee agency and it gives "UNDP / Arabia GIS" as the source of its geoloc data. Given that arabiagis.com is an expired domain and UNDP is another UN agency with no clear place to look for the geoloc info, I am not sure that’s reliable. You could ask at WP:LB (but the project seems to be dead), or at WP:RSN.

Assuming you obtain that consensus, the part of the bot that reads the spreadsheet would probably be trivial to write (well, trivial for anyone with some data science background at least). The hard part would be (1) mapping the municipality name in the spreadsheet to a Wikipedia article, and (2) deciding how to edit that article. One possibility would be to only edit articles whose name matches exactly the Municipality Name_EN column, and of those only edit those who have an {{infobox settlement}}, to add or modify the parameter coordinates. I have no idea if that covers almost all articles, or just a tiny fraction of them - a dry run (i.e. having the bot tell which articles would be edited, but not actually performing the edits) would be a good idea. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 17:10, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice PalauanReich (talk) 17:18, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Loral Langemeier page updates

Hello to whom this may concern. I work directly with Loral Langmeier's marketing team and was tasked to update the wiki page Loral Langemeierwith a new photo and more current information. I made the changes on Monday April 17th 2023 which included a better headshot, a bio of her life and some media articles that she has written or been featured in. At some point on Tuesday April 18th 2023 the entirety of my updates were reverted back to the empty page and old picture. There was no information as to why the reversion, no explanation and no mediation? Can someone please reach out and let me know why the page was reverted and what steps need to be taken in order to update the Loral Langemeierpage. Thank you in advance. @Askloral Askloral (talk) 17:31, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Askloral, welcome to the Teahouse. You should start by properly declaring your status as a paid editor - please read WP:PAID for more information and instructions. After that, you should make edit requests on the talk page, Talk:Loral Langemeier. It's best to keep the requests short and simple, and be sure to provide reliable sources to back up the information. You can add your requests to the edit request queue by either tagging them with {{edit request}} or using the WP:Edit Request Wizard to do everything automatically. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:36, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Also, @Askloral - are you the photographer who took this photo, which you've uploaded as "own work"? 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:38, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

@Askloral Take the time to read Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. You inserted "an American money expert, sought-after speaker, entrepreneurial thought leader and six time Bestselling author." cited to her own book. You can do that on her websites and social media, not here, WP is neither. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:08, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Askloral, your changes included drivel like In 2013 she was named Delta Zetas woman of the year and is on a relentless mission to change the conversation about money and empower people around the world to become millionaires. That type of nonsense is a violation of the Neutral point of view, which is a core content policy. Marketing, promotion and advertising are not permitted on Wikipedia. Please comply with the mandatory Paid contributions disclosure immediately. Cullen328 (talk) 18:11, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

See also WP:COPYPASTE. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:13, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, an overt Copyright violation. Cullen328 (talk) 18:23, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

The thing to understand, Askloral, is that Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. ColinFine (talk) 21:07, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Hyperlinking to Amazon for her books is wrong. David notMD (talk) 21:26, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Claim of significance

my article reference has no claim of significance Radhey8 (talk) 20:01, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

(Context for hosts) The user has created an article about themself with no credible claim of significance, and they also have a COI. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 20:02, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

I am on the verge of whether it’s significance or notability, I would go towards significance, but I would like some opinions. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 20:05, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

This is about Draft:Krishna Kant Singh Bundela. David notMD (talk) 21:29, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

@Zippybonzo - I'd say "well known" is a pretty unambiguous claim of significance, but the draft as submitted does not even come close to GNG, so I've declined it for now. casualdejekyll 21:57, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

How to mention a PhD dissertation that's under way

I am editing a Wiki article about a prolific author. Two PhD students have chosen to focus on him and his writing in their dissertations. Since it's an honor to be selected in this way, I want to mention it in a section on miscellaneous honors he has received. I don't plan to cite findings from the yet-unpublished research, just the fact that there are two dissertations under way that focus on him.

Can I do this in a Wiki article? Here is what I had in mind:

"His stature as an author is reflected in the decision by two students in Ph.D. programs to include him and his writing in their doctoral research" ... then I would go on to name the students, their dissertation topics, and their universities.

Augnablik (talk) 20:20, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

You cannot obviously cite or even mention unpublished works. Ruslik_Zero 20:23, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Augnablik, just in case you're thinking "Uh, OK -- I'll cite them, but not obviously", I'll reword Ruslik0's warning: "Obviously, you cannot cite or even mention unpublished works." If both are eventually published (and not just by Edwin Mellen Press, OmniScriptum, or similar), then the resulting books can be cited. But there'd still be no need for the "His stature as an author is reflected" kind of stuff. -- Hoary (talk) 22:39, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Improving to good article

Hi, I'm thinking of improving German Empire to good article status, and I'm planning on expanding some sections. Is there anything else I need to do on that page? Also the translation template may be outdated, plus the German Wikipedia article barely cites any sources or only cites primary sources.

P.S. How do you check how many megabytes a page is? Vamsi20 (ask me questions) (see what I've edited) 20:41, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Vamsi20, welcome to the Teahouse. The answer to your last question is: click on the Page information link. For me this is located in the dropdown Tools menu at top right. Page length (in bytes) is third from the top. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 21:02, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

@Vamsi20 It's 146,136 bytes. Also, the main problem with German empire is the citations. If that could be improved, and 1 or 2 sections added, I think it would definetly be GA PalauanReich (talk) 21:04, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

199.208.172.35, you can just click view history and it's right there as well PalauanReich (talk) 21:05, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

@PalauanReich, I don't see it on the revision history page - where should I be looking? 199.208.172.35 (talk) 21:09, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Oh, next to the edits themselves. Quite right. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 21:10, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Alright, what sections could be added there? I have an idea for subsections (and I do have to add a large amount of text to qualify as a non-drive-by nom) but not full sections. Vamsi20 (ask me questions) (see what I've edited) 21:20, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't know much about the topic so I couldn't tell you. Maybe ask on the talk page or on the WP:GERMANY talk page PalauanReich (talk) 22:50, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Ribbons

Some people have barnstar-ribbon things. What are they for?

~~JustAnotherUndertaleFrantic~~ JustAnotherUndertaleFrantic (talk) 21:44, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello, JustAnotherUndertaleFrantic. Please read WP:Service awards and WP:Barnstars. Cullen328 (talk) 21:50, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Hospital and doctor

Hello, I am accessing here for the first time from Japan.　I couldn't get a response on #wikipedia-en-help, so I came here.

I have written an English version of a wiki introducing a certain hospital and doctor in Japan, but I have been told that it is advertisement-like. Which points should I rewrite or delete in order to get permission to publish it? I am a beginner and would appreciate a detailed explanation. I'm in a bind and it would be really helpful if you could get back to me.

- Kuma Hospital https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:KumaHospital

- Dr. Akira Miyauchi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:AkiraMiyauchi,MD,PhD Sayuri8934 (talk) 22:01, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Sayuri, and welcome to the Teahouse. I think you might find it helpful to read WP:BACKWARD. Also note that Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. ColinFine (talk) 22:06, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Sayuri8934. An article about a hospital needs to summarize the significant coverage that reliable, published sources that are entirely independent of the hospital say about the hospital. What the hospital says about itself is of no value in establishing notability. Cullen328 (talk) 22:10, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Google knowledge graph ID

I know this may somewhat be out of wiki expertise but i hope to get help over here. Ever created an article it was somehow not linked to the target destination google knowledge panel? To clarify that, a musician automatically gets a google knowledge panel after distributing music, so after creating an article of that particular musician the article should/must be attached to that existing panel right? Well i have a situation where few articles i produced didnt quite get attached to the already existing panel but new ones where created, i think if maybe i could add the knowledge graph id to wikidata they will get attached to the already existing knowledge panel where the artist's music is, but i don't know how to generate GOOGLE KNOWLEDGE GRAPH ID and that's why I'm here.shelovesneo (talk) 23:25, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

@Shelovesneo: If there is an error in an Google Knowledge Graph, you need to report that to Google. Wikipedia is not involved with that. RudolfRed (talk) 23:57, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

GMT Token

Hey I'm writing Wikipedia About GMT Token but is was declined, i can't understand reason Wequant (talk) 23:30, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Good day, Draft:GMT Token currently has no citations, which are need in order for an article to pass wp:GNG and wp:Reliability. Ignoring that, there is nothing in the text that makes it too notable compared to any other "infrastructure initiative". There is also some questionable formatting and a lack of wikilinks, however, that can most likely be quickly fixed. ✶Mitch199811✶ 23:41, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Where to find old fundraising banners?

Special:Permalink/1123763881#RfC_on_the_banners_for_the_December_2022_fundraising_campaign contains refrences to the old banners. Is there a page which contains these banners, for the purpose of citation? I am not writing a Wikipedia article, I am writing a Works Cited. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 00:37, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

If you click on the links on the left side of the chart. You will see the banners pop up. Such as: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia?banner=WMFOnlineFR_dsk_sm_control_example PalauanReich (talk) 01:27, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Question

Hello im ‘Ali Berke Sağır’ I’m professional volleyball player..I have Wikipedia page but not professional can you edit my Wikipedia page and can you put some pictures? Thank you.. 79.106.123.213 (talk) 00:36, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

https://tr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Berke_Sağır This is my Wikipedia page url 79.106.123.213 (talk) 00:37, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello IP editor, this is a matter on the Turkish Wikipedia, which is not related to the English Wikipedia. Resolve any issues there. I have also added a header on your question. Go to the Turkish Wikipedia Help Desk. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 00:41, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Cast template duplicate name hyperlink reference resolution

Recently I edited an article that was referencing the wrong link to an actor in a cast list because the name of the actor was the same as a writer. The actor was distinguished in their article with an (actor) specification after their name which when specified provided a proper link. However having a cast list with only one actor specified visually with (actor) looks odd. Is there no way to uniquely reference a wiki article with a unique identifier to the page while using a more generic text description for the link? Thanks. Corvus1313 (talk) 01:55, 21 April 2023 (UTC)