Wikipedia:Teahouse

GreenMeansGo, 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

Adding images to an article

Hello. I recently deleted the images I had in my article because I wasn't sure if I had uploaded them correctly. I originally uploaded them to wikimedia commons a few months back and guess I had selected "own work". I am not the artist nor did I take the pictures, but I did get permission to use the images. I did not want my error to affect my article so I deleted the images. I then tried to upload directly to wikipedia, but I'm not sure if that is correct either. Would the actual artist or organization which gave permission for the images have to upload the images themselves? I feel like articles about artists really need a few images. Thanks for your help! CrissCollab (talk) 16:32, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

So I just saw my article had been reviewed and I guess everything was okay with the images - do you think I can just add them back? CrissCollab (talk) 16:41, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, CrissCollab. There are two ways for images to be used in English Wikipedia.

The preferred way is to use free images, which can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. This means either images which are in the public domain (either by explicit statement of the copyright holder, or by reason of their age), or images which the copyright holder has specifically released under a copyleft licence such as CC-BY-SA, which allows anybody to reuse or alter the image for any purpose, requiring only that they attribute the source. This licensing by the copyright holder is required, and "permission" of any other sort, from anybody, is irrelevant.

The second way is that English Wikipedia (unlike some other language versions) allows non-free images to be used in certain restricted ways, as specified in NFCC. Permission from anybody is irrelevant.

So, if your artist is willing to license their work under such a license, then it can be uploaded to Commons. There are three ways they can do this: they can make a public declaration (eg on their website) that it is so licensed; or they can upload the image to Commons themselves, declaring it as their own work, and releasing it; or they can email the WMF as detailed at donating copyright materials. But you cannot do it (though you could be the one to upload it).

If they are not so willing, it is possible that a representative work of the artist might be justified as a non-free image - but not more than one.

See Help:Upload for more. ColinFine (talk) 17:04, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your speedy response! I just want to make sure i'm abiding by the proper rules. I will look into these options. CrissCollab (talk) 17:11, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

@CrissCollab Just to say that we don't allow WP:NONFREE images for living people, so Colin's option 2 is not possible. If you have a good relationship with the individuals and already have permission from them to upload to Commons, you can do that on their behalf and then ask that they email the volunteers at Commons to confirm you have been authorised to do the uploads on their behalf. This is explained at WP:IOWN. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:23, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Oh, right. Without looking at the article, I assumed this was about pictures of works by an artist. ColinFine (talk) 21:14, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct, they are artwork images by an artist. So if the artist themselves have not licenced their images under either wiki commons or creative commons, does that basically mean they cannot be used in my wiki article?

Should I be deleting the images I added to wikicommons then? Colin above mentioned that it does not matter if I had "permission". CrissCollab (talk) 21:45, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

@CrissCollab Apologies, I misunderstood the type of picture you had uploaded. The principles are the same. For File:Prosia DeAnn L Oasis LineEtching 12x12 in 2022.jpg and any others you uploaded, you need to get the artist to email the Commons volunteers from an email address that is obviously personal to them, giving the filenames and your username, saying that they have indeed authorised you to license them for Commons. See WP:IOWN. As we don't allow nonfree images of artwork anywhere except in an article specifically about that artwork, you should not use the files in the meantime. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:14, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much. I have deleted the images for now. I can see if I can get ahold of the artist directly for this, otherwise I guess I will just have to leave off images. Appreciate your help so much! As I'm sure you can tell I'm new to wiki and learning as I go :) CrissCollab (talk) 17:18, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

@CrissCollab You deleted the files from the article DeAnn L. Prosia but I'm afraid that is not enough. You must delete them from their storage location on the Wikipedia servers as well, as they are copyright infringements. Include this one you uploaded to en:Wikipedia. Deletion is achieved by placing the template {{Db-g7}} on each file's page. Alternatively, get the artist to approve retention, as I mentioned above. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:22, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Okay got it! I will delete the file. I'm in touch with her gallery to get in touch with the artist directly so hope to have that all cleared up soon. Thank you for your continued help and support! CrissCollab (talk) 14:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I just added the template you gave me - I hope I did it correctly. This message comes up now:

This file may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion as a page where the author of the only substantial content has requested deletion or blanked the page in good faith. See CSD G7.

If this file does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, please remove this notice.

This page was last edited by CrissCollab (contribs | logs) at 14:13, 13 September 2024 (UTC) (0 seconds ago)

@CrissCollab Yes, you did that correctly and the file I linked by the URL is now gone. You need to do the same thing on the files you uploaded to Commons. When deleted, the current blue link to the filename here in this thread will turn red. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:33, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I thought I could have the artist email Wiki Commons - or do I still have to delete them and then have the artist email them if I reupload them? Thanks for clarifying CrissCollab (talk) 17:08, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

@CrissCollab You can get the artist to do the email now, without deleting them. You might find that they are removed before the artist's email gets to Commons volunteers but that won't matter as they can be undeleted by the admins there. Make sure the permissions email includes the filenames you used. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:12, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Mike! The gallery reached out to her and sent me her info to contact her so I plan to be in touch later this afternoon. CrissCollab (talk) 19:32, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Gravitation of The Moon

Please correct this page (first paragraph).— Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.176.122.147 (talk) 03:28, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Gravitation of the Moon Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 03:32, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

122.176.122.147, If it's a simple and uncontroversial change, you can do it yourself, otherwise you should discuss changes on the talk page of the relevant article, which is Talk:Gravitation of the Moon. — ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 04:00, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

The key number, 1.62 m/s², agrees with this NASA Fact Sheet. I suggest 122.176.122.147 discuss on Talk:Gravitation of the Moon. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:12, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

On tagging

Hello, @Johnuniq and (less tactfully) @Softlavender have noted that my tagging efforts may have issues, so I would like to get an understanding on how to proceed further. I've cobbled together a python script (will clarify even if I hope it's obvious with the edits I've made that I'm not running an unauthorized bot) that spits out a "link density" ratio, and while I wish I had the technical skills to refine the results, I feel like I've been able to bring attention to a lot of very old pages (pretty much every page I edited in the last day or so was created before 2005) that are in need of such. I'm aware of the issues, though apparently not enough, about overtagging, I "clearly" feel like they were constructive (or else why would I have made the edit?), but some apparently disagree, so I would like to know in particular which of my edits contained "bogus tags". Akaibu (talk) 11:32, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I looked at your list of contributions and picked this. As I look at the article I notice no shortage of internal links. I'm puzzled by the addition of the template and not surprised by its removal. -- Hoary (talk) 11:45, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Oh is that why I've had so many watchlist notifications about this category. @Akaibu, I think you might want to tweak the script a bit so that it takes the size of the article into consideration? A much longer article, if it's not repeating the same wikilinks over and over, will naturally have a lower link density than a shorter one. -- asilvering (talk) 12:18, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

@Hoary @Asilvering while yes I agree the case of Fresnel's article is already pretty well linked, it nonetheless showed up as among some of the lowest that my script has found(in the lowest 5k out of the ~million pages scanned so far), I will note that there are a number of references to "biaxial" of various nature, of which Index ellipsoid looks to have a redirect of that name, is not linked on Fresnel's article, and in fact does mention Fresnel in the article itself. I'm not sure where exactly this should/would be reference, but that's one of the reason I added these templates, is that they bring eyes to an issue, the underlinked template is in fact a newcomer task and many of the pages I've put it on has had plenty of productive edits made by other newcomers(I still regard myself as such). Akaibu (talk) 13:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

@Akaibu: The instructions for {{underlinked}} say there is no consensus on what constitutes "too few" links. Use editor discretion: you should not just be blindly tagging articles based on the output of a script. The fact that an article is in the lowest 0.5% for link density is not sufficient information to judge whether or not it is underlinked to the point of needing a cleanup tag. It would be much more useful for you to find one article which you think on your own judgement is underlinked, and then add some needed links, than it is for you to blindly tag any number of articles.

In general both script-assisted editing and adding maintenance tags are things which are probably better off left to people who have some experience with Wikipedia. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:37, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

@Caeciliusinhorto-public I'll agree that there isn't a minimum amount of links required for a page, however, I've found that low link density can be a sign of other problems, such as the case of me tagging Acoustic theory being far too technical, as well as despite describing a "field of study", makes no mention on who is part of this field(i.e. a history of the field of study), etc.

Basically, I'm not blindly tagging upon the list, but using it as a metric to have people look closer at pages that have been overlooked(this page for example has been mostly unchanged since 2008). Akaibu (talk) 16:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

@Akaibu, the people who will mostly be directed to a page when you use the "underlinked" tag are newcomers using their newcomer homepage suggestions to make easy edits. You might get some more attention to the overlooked parts of the article like this, but mostly the editors going through that tag will be looking for easy fixes to do while they dip their toes into wikipedia editing. If your script turns up some article that isn't actually all that underlinked, but could use some other attention, just tag with the other relevant maintenance tags so it gets to the right editors. (Well, hopefully.) By the way, if you find articles that aren't in any wikiprojects, that's often a reason for them being unattended, and adding the relevant wikiprojects can help sort them into the right maintenance queues. -- asilvering (talk) 19:17, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Akaibu, I recommend that you slow way down with your tagging and carefully examine each article first, and only tag when you are reasonably sure that other editors would agree. "Link density" is not a concern that I have heard in 15 years of editing. If you think that an article is underlinked, by far the best thing for you to do is add some wikilinks instead of tagging it. Cullen328 (talk) 17:53, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I have heard many concerns about link density – but only when there are too many. Usually these are placed by someone who wants to inflate the importance of their subject, or by someone who is just eager to add links. I have never heard a complaint of too few links. TooManyFingers (talk) 19:36, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I want to emphasise this point. You aren't really helping improve wikipedia by tagging lots of pages with underlinked template, especially on the basis of a script. I'd recommend using your script to find pages then actually improving the article with wikilinks. Newystats (talk) 05:53, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

@Cullen328 I bring to attention a wikitable i made during my 48-hour block, with 5000 pages created from 2005 or before with the lowest "link density", since my personal judgement seems to be in conflict with best practice, so I've taken to documenting my opinions/reviews of these pages, I was waiting till I had made more progress on the matter, but I feel the need to bring it up because in my review of the pages, I came across Colegio Tarbut, a page that has been written in Spanish since it's 2005 creation; I hope this and my documenting of other pages shows the merit of this metric. Akaibu (talk) 03:28, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Don't be too hasty - I just pulled the English version out of the page history from 2023. -- asilvering (talk) 03:41, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

@Asilvering ah! I guess I was indeed hasty, I merely checked the oldest version vs a few of the recent, thanks for the quick work! Akaibu (talk) 03:48, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

A rookie mistake! (that I also make all the time...) -- asilvering (talk) 03:55, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Akaibu, I took a brief look at an article near the top of your list about a topic that interests me. That article is Display size. I then read that article and the notion that its "link density" is too low is simply ludicrous. There are plenty of wikilinks in that article. There must be something seriously wrong with your algorithm. I noticed also that some of the other articles near that article on your list are bibliographies. As long as Wikipedia allows bibliography articles to contain works that are not themselves the subject of Wikipedia articles, then of course bibliographies of prolific authors will have relatively few wikilinks. That's another problem. So, I am sorry to say this, but I think that you have not yet demonstrated that this "link density" concept is useful for improving the encyclopedia. Cullen328 (talk) 04:08, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

@Cullen328 there are now a sufficient amount of links on Display size, see the state of the article when I had initially assessed it Akaibu (talk) 04:25, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Akaibu, I assumed that the list you asked me to look at was current instead of outdated. That illustrates the proper response to the problem: Add useful wikilinks to articles instead of spending time compiling lists such as this. Cullen328 (talk) 04:31, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

But look at who added the links, @Cullen328. They're all newbies, summoned by the newcomer module. It's a good task to tag instead of doing it yourself, if you find an article that is underlinked, because it's a task new editors feel able to do. Those of us who know the ropes already can work on the harder stuff. -- asilvering (talk) 04:37, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

@Asilvering i tried doing just that but i got blocked for that, i supposed because i was trying to document all the problems the page has and being declared that i was tagbombing, thus my solution being this list. Akaibu (talk) 04:39, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

How does wikipedia prevent political or religious bias from affecting accuracy of information?

see above Tomsinsky (talk) 16:05, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

@Tomsinsky We don't aim to remove bias, since everyone has some sort of bias. However, as editors it is our policy to represent neutrally the opinions expressed in reliable sources. If there are two equally valid opinions, then the article can and should represent them both, without false balance. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:18, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Bias has been eliminated by the principle of Neutral Point of View (NPV) Tesleemah (talk) 09:53, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it's true to say that Wikipedia is free from bias, Tesleemah. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:48, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

I was emphasising on the standard and the guideline of editing on Wikipedia. Perhaps you can tell me more about what you meant. Tesleemah (talk) 21:54, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

I had in mind the issues documented in Gender bias on Wikipedia and Racial bias on Wikipedia, for instance. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:12, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

These are all interesting reads for me, Thank you for sharing. I was referring to the non-sentimental and principle of neutrality of Wikipedia. Tesleemah (talk) 06:16, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry: While I have no doubt that you are right, the opening of the gender bias article accidentally highlights a fallacy that can sometimes justly discredit arguments it is intended to support. Disparity and bias are not reliably connected to each other, and neither of them can be used to gauge the other. It's easy to think of situations where disparity can persist despite lack of bias, and easy to see bias occurring despite parity, because they are not in a simple cause-and-effect relationship. Parity cannot just be assumed to be a natural or correct state. Certainly there are situations in which parity is good or expected or desirable, but it is not a universal default.

I'm not criticizing the thought that parity could be good, I'm criticizing the assumption that bias among Wikipedia editors must be what's preventing parity on Wikipedia. For example, Wikipedia's strict rules on notability mean that we only use outside sources; if there is not parity "out there in the world", Wikipedia would be wrong (by its own philosophy) to try to create a false parity inside the encyclopedia. To put it another way, the advice given here in the Teahouse to COI editors, that nothing is admissible without reliable third-party sources, is going to also skew the overall result, because we already know who used to own and operate nearly all the reliable sources (and I'm sure still controls far more than a parity share of them).

Wikipedia has essentially committed itself to do no more than hold up a mirror, and has explicitly written non-activism into its most fundamental rules. Aiming for gender parity among the articles on Wikipedia falls VERY squarely under the Wikipedia prohibition against "righting great wrongs"; it's exactly the kind of thing that, if it started, could bring Wikipedia crashing down.

Aiming for gender parity among EDITORS, on the other hand, is a worthwhile goal that I support. I wish we were there already. TooManyFingers (talk) 22:57, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Sure, disparity in coverage isn't necessarily a result of editor bias, but it's hard to overlook the fact that such a small proportion of Wikipedia editors are female when looking for explanations. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:21, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers: Have you seen WP:MULTSOURCES? Accounting for external bias isn't a hypothetical, it's been part of a core notability guideline since a 2018 RfC. I agree in principle that absolute parity isn't necessarily achievable or desirable, but I don't think efforts in that direction (like Women in Red) will bring Wikipedia crashing down. jlwoodwa (talk) 05:35, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I have read it, though not recently, and I really understand. "Crashing down" was intended for a if gender parity on Wikipedia became a requirement, regardless of the obvious disparity among especially the sources further back in history. For centuries, it seems clear that historians intentionally avoided mentioning most of the notable women. And those women are now literally no longer notable, because there's no documentation. For the historic notable women who were documented, good! (Though too many famous historic women were noted at the time merely for being connected with men, which is not as good.) Writers and filmmakers are notorious for neglecting women characters. These omissions were unjust to the point of being ridiculous, yet there's very little legitimate we can do anymore to repair history. "Crashing down", in the context of my comment, is "becoming an irrelevant project because we allowed POV-pushing and forced gender balance to become core values". TooManyFingers (talk) 16:57, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Issues with translating articles

So I have been trying to translate some articles, specifically into Cherokee Wikipedia. I successfully translated the article on camels and the article on Vatovia into Cherokee. However, when I tried to translate the articles about Augustus and Hitler, it created a whole new article, not a translated form of the original article. For reference, here is the translated article about Hitler: Ꭰ⁠Ꮩ⁠l⁠f⁠ ⁠Ꭿ⁠Ꮮ⁠r. Can someone tell me why this is happening? Thanks. RedactedHumanoid (talk) 18:15, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

If this wording doesn't make sense, in a nutshell, I translated the article about Hitler into Cherokee wikipedia, but the article on Cherokee wikipedia isn't showing up when I click on the other languages tab in the article about Hitler on English Wikipedia. RedactedHumanoid (talk) 18:17, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

To connect different languages you have to edit the entry in Wikidata. In this case I added the entry on chr for Hitler to wikidata:Q352, you can do the same for other articles by finding the "Wikidata item" link for an article on the sidebar and adding the article name to the list of Wikipedia pages at the bottom. Reconrabbit 18:50, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Can you provide a bit more detail as to how to use the Wikidata item link thing? RedactedHumanoid (talk) 19:26, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

There is a help page on wikidata:Help:Sitelinks. Basically scroll to the bottom of the page where there is a "Wikipedia" box and add the name of the wikipedia (chr) and the article (in this case Ꭰ⁠Ꮩ⁠l⁠f⁠ ⁠Ꭿ⁠Ꮮ⁠r). Reconrabbit 19:38, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. RedactedHumanoid (talk) 19:56, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Dialogue in writing

Hi, I found an article from the task centre, Dialogue in writing, and have been working on it and hopefully improving it. I have somehow indented part of the page, and I can't see how to reverse it. Also, (regarding a different article), what's the best way to add categories - is there a big list somewhere? thanks Blackballnz (talk) 06:38, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

When you put a blockquote, you must later put /blockquote to show where that quotation ends. (They both need the angled signs, you'll know what I mean). Also, it appears you may have fixed up the quotation marks by making them curly. Please "un-fix" those by putting the straight ones back again - Wikipedia only uses the straight type of quotation marks, for technical reasons. TooManyFingers (talk) 06:50, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers: If you want to mention an HTML tag (rather than use it), there's a handy template: {{tag|blockquote|c}} gives </blockquote>. jlwoodwa (talk) 18:16, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! TooManyFingers (talk) 21:53, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed a couple of things: 1) If you forget to end one of your blockquote sections, the entire rest of the article may be turned into a quotation, as you saw. 2) I don't know anything about categories, sorry. TooManyFingers (talk) 06:57, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Blackballnz, thank you for your work. The matter of selecting appropriate categories tends to be hard for new editors, a lot easier with even a little experience. Dialogue in writing is a somewhat abstract subject, which will make category selection a lot harder than if the article were instead something "concrete" (?), like a model of car, a painting, or baseball player. I suggest that you skip categorization for this article, practise it on another, and then perhaps return to this article in order to categorize it. -- Hoary (talk) 07:09, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for this - the article I want to put categories on is this one Katherine Heiny, but I don't know how to do that. Blackballnz (talk) 22:18, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

I did the "Example" section to show you. TooManyFingers (talk) 07:41, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I'll continue tidying up. I'm not sure about the difference between curly and straight quotation marks - can you show me what they look like so I don't do that again. Blackballnz (talk) 22:17, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

" ' (The ones we want, whether for quotation marks or apostrophes)

“ ” ‘ ’ (The ones we don't want)

If you are using a word processor, it may have an easy-to-use control or preference to turn OFF "Smart quotes". That might be easier than having to correct afterwards by hand.

If you're typing directly to Wikipedia, then just use the ordinary quotation mark and apostrophe keys on your keyboard, without doing the special keystrokes required to get fancy marks.

I hope that makes sense and actually works for you. TooManyFingers (talk) 00:53, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help. I've left a msg on the talk page as well. The article has been improved, although I'm sure there could be more to add. Should I go ahead and remove the maintenance tag, or leave it to someone else? Blackballnz (talk) 06:31, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

@Blackballnz: Have all the things mentioned in it been fully solved, so that the person who noted the problems would really have to admit it's fixed now? If that's done, then yes, go ahead. TooManyFingers (talk) 20:17, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

A serial reverter just reverted me. How do I address it graciously?

I checked the talk page for someone who just now reverted me, and the person seems to be a serial reverter who has even gotten into edit wars. Hmmm, I do know better than to pick an argument with such an individual, but I also am pretty sad that I've now been reverted two times by people who have a history of uncivil behavior in this space. I want to stick up for myself, but I want to do it both kindly and effectively. What are my best alternatives? (For now I'm just asking about the most recent reversion. The other one happened this summer.) Fortunaa (talk) 20:35, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

See handling edit war guideline and proceed to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring if it continues. --Ratekreel (talk) 20:41, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Good question. It would be helpful if you looked at the edit summary of this 'serial reverter'. Looking at your contribution history, it seems that this is the edit that was reverted. The reasoning is given in the revert summary here: WP:RELIABLESOURCE needed.

This was a valid revert. You made an assertion that cannot be verified because you did not provide a reliable source to verify it. On Wikipedia, you cannot write what you know (this is considered WP:Original research and is disallowed), you must write what reliable sources say. In this case, however, you were simply stating what another article already states, so you would be OK reverting it back, with an explanation. In fact, I will do so. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:49, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Actually, I may have acted too soon. You created the Lagenlook article, and I cannot see that the sources you cite support the assertion you're making. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:52, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for answering so quickly. It was an earlier reversion, not the two that happened after it. Sorry I wasn't clear! Somebody else legitimately reverted me after I posted here, and actually I see what I did wrong. Wow, this feels like getting my car hit three times, but I think I know how to fix it. I'm amazed that I didn't realize the need to cite each change. Duh! Thank you for your patient and thorough reply. Fortunaa (talk) 01:18, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

@Fortunaa: Not every change needs to be cited, only the changes that bring in a new idea. I guess it depends what you consider "a change" – I'm mainly the type of editor who goes around correcting clumsy sentences and removing statements that are very obvious garbage, so I rarely need to cite.

The most important places to give excellent citations are the ones where someone is likely to jump down your throat right away saying you're wrong. It doesn't even matter if their complaints are trash, you still have to have an airtight citation in that case. TooManyFingers (talk) 18:20, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for this. I read the reverter's talk page, and it is filled with people complaining that he reverted them without discussion. I was also reverted before him by someone who has had a hearing over his hostile reversion behavior. Here is the kind of notice I found that made me think he is a serial reverter. I wrote him a nicer note that you can see below this, but after briefly defending himself (correctly, because he reverted me twice and I thought he had re-reverted me, my error), he did not respond.

I'll let it go now, I think I'm just stuck with the reversions. What worries me is that his reversions will count against me as an editor. Don't we get a reversion score of some sort? Fortunaa (talk) 20:23, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any such score. There are lots of nuggets of information about users though - this, for example. Perhaps you're thinking about the "Deleted edits" figure in the first section of that page of stats? 10mmsocket (talk) 10:33, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I beleve "deleted edits" refers to edits in articles that are now deleted, not reverted edits. Hundreds of editors can contribute to an article that eventually fails WP:AFD and gets deleted, and that increases the deleted edit count for all those editors.. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:07, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

"Geoffrey Kabat" Wikipedia page

I am asking you to please study the material that I have posted over the past 2 months on the "Talk" page for "Geoffrey Kabat." Therein I have, on several occasions, with increasing detail and increasing documentation tried to explain that the article is TOTALLY one-sided and cites only derogatory sources (which are extremely political in nature), while ignoring very strong evidence that tells a different story. So far, after two months of posting these comments, I have gotten almost no response. My most recent posts are the most comprehensive and tell the story with documentation. I look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely, Geoffrey Kabat Gkabat (talk) 21:16, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

@Gkabat: The Teahouse isn't really set up to deal with requests like yours. You'll probably have a much better chance of getting assistance on one of the more specific noticeboards listed at Wikipedia:Noticeboards. Please don't make essentially the same request simultaneously, though, on multiple noticeboards because this will just make things confusing and might lead some to believe that you're forum shopping. Read the description for each noticeboard given at the top of its page and decide which one best deals with the problems you're having. In addition, please remember that all Wikipedians are WP:VOLUNTEERs and someone might not immediately respond to your post. Nobody posting here has any connection to the Wikimedia Foundation or speaks on their behalf; so, if you're looking for that, see foundationsite:About/Contact. If you do decide to post on a noticeboard, I suggest avoiding WP:SHOUTING and any kind of legal terminology when making your request because either could easily be misconstrued. As long as you remain WP:CIVIL, others will respond similarly; if, however, you start to get accusatory, then the responses you receive will likely reflect that. Finally, please also remember that Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons applies not only to what's written about you on Wikipedia, but also what you might write about others on any Wikipedia page and be very careful not to fun afoul of WP:OUTING when posting. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:26, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for this, Marchjuly. I have been very careful to be civil and to try to explain my issue. Could you possibly take a look at the 2 or 3 most recent posts on the "Talk:Geoffrey Kabat" page and suggest what route would be most appropriate for me to take. It's very hard for an outsider to understand the workings of Wikipedia and how get a one-sided and unfair portrayal of my work corrected. This has been up there since 2025 from what I can tell.

Thanks in advance,

Geoffrey Kabat Gkabat (talk) 23:04, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

A careful look shows that you are (either mainly or entirely) in the wrong, and need to step back. 1) Wikipedia requires independent reliable references without personal testimony; 2) it is ethically wrong to try to clear someone's name regarding something that they did in fact do. TooManyFingers (talk) 00:34, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

@Gkabat: Assuming that your username is authentic, then perhaps the best next step for you to take is to go to major news outlets with this revelation. When they've printed it, Wikipedia will follow. TooManyFingers (talk) 02:06, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

I neglected to add "... under their byline, as a factual report in which they exonerate you, not as an op-ed or a letter" TooManyFingers (talk) 02:11, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

@Gkabat: You might want to read Wikipedia:FAQ/Article subjects. jlwoodwa (talk) 06:09, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it's appropriate for you to suggest that Wikipedia can avoid taking responsibility for this wholesale distortion. I've put in hours of work to explain where the error lies. I've provided credible documentation from respected sources (editors at the British Medical Journal and published scientific papers). SOMEONE AT WIKIPEDIA NEEDS TO TAKE A CAREFUL LOOK AT THIS, TAKE RESPONSIBILITY, AND OUTLINE THE STEPS TO CORRECT THIS ARTICLE. Can you please bring this to the attention of those at Wikipedia who are in a position to rectify a violation of Wikipedia's own rules/principles? The careful case that I have built should be taken seriously by Wikipedia. Editors could learn a lot from this incident.

Thank you.

Geoffrey Kabat Gkabat (talk) 11:57, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

You have our attention- there is no central authority here to do what you claim- we all do. You've already been told what the next step for you is- get the news to print your claims as a factual report written by an independent reporter supervised and fact checked by an editor in which they state you are exonerated. I'm guessing that you've tried and they won't do that- in which case there is nothing we can do for you. 331dot (talk) 12:03, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't make any sense that editors at Wikipedia can be taken in by a politically-motivated hit job against two well-established scientists and publish a totally one-sided and distorted account. And now you tell that there is nothing anyone at Wikipedia can do to correct this situation. I have provided independent, respected sources. Please look at the materials I posted. You seem to be going blindly by very simplistic rules governing what can be written and what is a valid source. But one has to examine each case individually to understand what is going on. Anyone who can read will see that I have presented overwhelming evidence with strong citations showing that the claim that our paper was "discredited" is wrong. Furthermore, the claim that our results are at variance with the results of other studies on passive smoking is also wrong. If editors at Wikipedia don't take the time to look at the specific facts of each case, but just go blindly by something sensational and attention-grabbing that has been published, taking it as "the truth," then we are in big trouble. Lots of wrong and distorted things get published. That doesn't mean they are true. This story got published because it made a GOOD STORY. So no one questioned it or looked at all the other relevant evidence. Gkabat (talk) 13:44, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

@Gkabat: The evidence you're trying to give is irrelevant to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a court. There is no one here to plead your case in front of. You're doing the equivalent of trying to sell gloves to a fish. When we see the reporters' explanations in the big newspapers, we will act accordingly. TooManyFingers (talk) 20:32, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

@Gkabat, unfortunately, Wikipedia does not aim to capture the truth of a subject. Rather, it tries to summarize what "reliable sources" (as defined by Wikipedia) have said about the topic, recognizing that those sources may get things wrong. This essay elaborates on the fact that truth is not what determines an article's content here. You might also be interested in this article that criticizes some of Wikipedia's policies and notes that expert opinion doesn't always meet the reliable sources rule. That said, the page should point out that the BMJ did not retract the study. The Ungar and Bray article may also have some relevant contents. I have no expertise in this area, so I have no idea whether there's additional relevant literature out there that could help to balance what's there. Some of the literature is also paywalled, which makes the matter harder. FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:55, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

This is enormously helpful. Not only did the BMJ NOT retract the study. The Editor-in-chief and a second editor defended publication of the paper. I have cited their responses in the journal. Ungar and Bray is DEFINITELY relevant. Here is an article published by me, giving a lot of information about the BMJ affair. Also, since we were being attacked, it should be relevant to cite our response to the criticisms

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC188404/

https://quillette.com/2023/09/15/dogmatism-data-and-public-health/

Many thanks. For the first time, I feel like I am getting responses that are specific to my situation. I will keep working this.

Any more suggestions will be greatly appreciated.

Geoffrey Kabat Gkabat (talk) 23:23, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

FactOrOpinion (talk). As I said 2 days ago, this was extremely helpful and makes me feel I am being heard. You make several good points as to evidence/facts/citations that can be used. Let me list a small number and then ask a question for you or anyone else to answer.

Relevant evidence/facts/citations include:

1) page should point out that the BMJ did not retract the article

2) 2 editors defended their publication of the article and responded to criticism

3) Ungar and Bray (2005) give a sociologist's analysis of the storm of criticism in letters to the journal.

4) There are two articles by me in Quillette giving a detailed account of the BMJ affair.

https://quillette.com/2023/09/15/dogmatism-data-and-public-health/ The second one will come out this week. This second article reports on a new study from the American Cancer Society analyzing the contribution of a wide range of exposures to cancer incidence and showing that smoking is, by far, the most important risk factor for cancer, and that passive smoking had a small-to-negligible effect on cancer incidence.

https://acsjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.3322/caac.21858

I'll leave it at that, for now.

Now to my question, can you or anyone else suggest what entity at Wikipedia I should approach with this material? Should it be some group in the Wikipedia Foundation or some group of Wikipedians who handle such cases? Please give me as specific guidance as you can.

Any guidance will be greatly appreciated.

Thanks again!

Geoffrey Kabat

I also appreciated the points/feedback from TooManyFingers (talk) jlwoodwa (talk) Mjroots (talk) MarchJuly (talk) Gkabat (talk) 17:15, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

@Gkabat, first an FYI: when you write a reply, if you click on the figure with the "+" sign next to it that appears above the reply box, that allows you to add the name of a participant in the discussion in a way that the person is notified that you've mentioned them. I happened to check back here; otherwise I wouldn't have known about your reply.

Re: the substance of what you wrote: I did make a couple of edits to your page, as did someone else, and I also raised a question on the Talk page that might lead to another edit. From what I understand of WP's rules, we can only introduce material written by the subject of a biographical page for info about the person him/herself, but not to introduce claims about other people (e.g., not about people who criticized the BMJ article). I'll try to doublecheck that, but it may take a bit before I get an answer. Is there something about yourself that you'd like sourced to the Quillette article? I haven't yet thought about how to introduce a line about the Unger and Bray article. Re: the study you mentioned, I don't think that your upcoming Quillette article is an acceptable source for medical info, per this guideline. Re: your question, you can try the BLP Noticeboard. FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:13, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

@Gkabat, turns out that I was wrong about how your Quillette "Dogmatism" article could be used, and I've added a line about it to your page, and another about your third book. I think I've done about all that I can do while adhering to WP's policies. FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:13, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

@FactOrOpinion

I can't tell how much I appreciate your additions, including my third book. I do think you should cite our (Enstrom & Kabat) response to the charge that "there was no comparison group," since that was the first specific criticism made by Michael Thun, and we responded directly to it in our response to the critics: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC188404/

Also, do you see how to incorporate a sentence about Ungar and Bray?

There is a typo in the middle of the para on the BMJ affair (line 7): "on the its conclusion"

I am going to continue to combat the RICO business and the charge of industry funding/involvement by following another editor's suggestion that I get these points discussed in a reputable magazine or newspaper.

I will look into the BLP noticeboard.

By the way, since you thought to list the third book, there is a first book: Ideology and Imagination: The Image of Society in Dostoevsky (Columbia University Press, 1978. https://www.ebay.com/itm/256380837675

Once again, I really appreciate your work on this.

Geoffrey Kabat Gkabat (talk) 20:16, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

@Gkabat, Ebay isn't a reliable source for WP, but I was able to find a review of your first book and have added the book to your page. Thanks for the heads up re: the typo, which I've fixed. I didn't add a line about the Ungar and Bray article but did add it as a reference. Perhaps some subsequent editor will choose to add some text about it. Due to my lack of an appropriate background, I'm not in a position to assess whether the additional Enstrom & Kabat letter does respond to the "comparison group" isssue, so I haven't added it. Take care, FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:55, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

@FactOrOpinion Thanks again for the new additions and the added references. I feel that, thanks to all your work, the page gives a much more complete and balanced account of my career. This is really minor, but reference 22 has "Kabat" spelled "Rabat."

Best wishes. Gkabat (talk) 00:07, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

@Gkabat: I'm sure you'd agree that you came here to set the record straight. The problem is that Wikipedia is a second-hand copy of the record. "I'm going to go over there and set the second-hand copy straight!" just doesn't have the same ring to it.

And we are very adamant about remaining ONLY a second-hand copy. We refuse on principle to publish original material that people bring, and that's why this has happened to you. TooManyFingers (talk) 20:50, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate this. You’ve made it much clearer. So, when an article appears in Time magazine or in the WSJ, or some such publication, the bio will be modified to reflect the new story? Thank you.

Geoffrey Kabat 2601:41:4300:F4E0:11D5:6264:BDA7:87C0 (talk) 21:44, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

That's essentially it, yes. When a person deals with issues in a clearly straightforward and honest way, not giving the appearance of trying to put one over on anybody or "game the system" or anything like that, their path here tends to be much smoother and more successful. If a person's actions seem self-serving or suspicious, they tend to face more scrutiny and more roadblocks. You can read Wikipedia's main policy on biographies of living persons at this link: WP:BLP

That isn't the only policy that might apply in every case, but for certain it is the primary one in this case. TooManyFingers (talk) 05:10, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

@Gkabat There is no literal requirement that something be published in this or that particular source. There are full explanations in the policies of Wikipedia, but in this situation the following simplifications might be useful as a starting point:

- Very clearly outside your sphere of influence, as well as that of your publishers, colleagues, employers, employees, and family

- The reporters' voices are primary; not interviewing you, but reporting on developments in the case

- Appearing in publications with reputations such that even an adversary would have to admit they are compelling. TooManyFingers (talk) 06:37, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I see your point!

Geoffrey Kabat Gkabat (talk) 12:46, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Another way of explaining the same thing:

I have a serious legal issue that I want resolved. Oh look! A rag-tag group of volunteer librarians with no jurisdiction and no legal qualifications! They have a big placard on their desk saying "Absolutely no self-published material". Surely they will solve this for me. TooManyFingers (talk) 21:40, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

I didn't suggest that Wikipedia can avoid taking responsibility for anything. I just linked to a help page that I thought you might benefit from reading. jlwoodwa (talk) 18:59, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, your explanation is very helpful. 2601:41:4300:F4E0:11D5:6264:BDA7:87C0 (talk) 21:46, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Make sure you log in when posting, so your posts are properly attributed to you. 331dot (talk) 07:36, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Article is repeatedly getting edited and major content removed within 1 day between my lengthy edits.

Hello - Today from my own homepage, a suggestion was made by the Wikipedia system to add links to the following article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divergence-from-randomness_model FYI - I am a relatively new "editor" mostly helping to fix bare URLs and other "easy" things. I proceeded to make edits including fixing some URLs, checking content which didn't match sources, etc. Twice today alone other users (likely from the same suggestions pages it appears) have gone in and, looks to be made edits/mistakes and WIPED out large portions of the article. Since I was actively working in there it was VERY frustrating. I don't know how to make sure this doesn't happen. Also is there a way to have articles "locked" from multiple users editing same time? Jjamulla (talk) 23:09, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

@Jjamulla: This information you've been adding, what sources does it come from? TooManyFingers (talk) 00:39, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

You and WhyIsNameSoHardOmg- - need to discuss this on the Talk page of the article. David notMD (talk) 11:10, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

It comes from the sources already listed in the article, I read them myself where I added the info. One of them is a thesis on the subject. For example, I put in reference tags for some specific sentences which I found in the thesis.

I would call this vandalism now, as this users has AGAIN deleted a good portion of the article, and reverted all of my changes which I spent hrs. and hrs. on....

How do I get an admin involved. Jjamulla (talk) 11:18, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Check my Talk page. I'm sorry! I understand that things like this could be a punch to the head for your experience with this website; I do feel you. WhyIsNameSoHardOmg- - (talk) 20:07, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Link converter for Wikipedia

Hello Wikipedians

Can I convert links to Wikipedia:VisualEditor? Manually changing links to the required grammar format on Wikipedia is time-consuming. Can I convert links by Wikipedia:VisualEditor? please ping to me when I should check the answer for my inquiry. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 12:12, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

@Goodtiming8871: Welcome to the Teahouse. Your use of terminology is confusing; what do you mean by required grammar format? If you're asking whether it's okay to change links when using the visual editor, the answer is yes. Some editors might find it annoying if the wiki markup isn't perfect because of the use of the visual editor, but the end visual result is the same.

After reading the next section, I will say that the above generally applies to wikilinks within Wikipedia; Creamastra offers great advice for dealing with citing and external links. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 13:57, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind response. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 00:28, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Inquiry for reference

FYI

 – Merging with above section

Below is a sample link. I wonder if it is possible to automatically convert this link to the Wikipedia source format.

reference [1] Goodtiming8871 (talk) 12:22, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

For most links, you can press the "cite" button in the Visual Editor, paste the link into the input box, and it will produce a formatted reference. Cremastra (talk) 13:48, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

thank you and I appreciate your support. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 00:29, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Publishing new article from sandbox

I am attempting to create my first new article, but I have not been able to find the process to move my draft from the sandbox to the wikipedia page. Smedler (talk) 13:33, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

New accounts cannot directly create articles. You will need to submit it for a review, typically this is done via the article wizard, but I will add the information to your sandbox needed to submit it. However, if you were to submit it, it would likely be declined, as it is far too brief. You will need to (assuming the sources you give already do) summarize what the sources say makes this person a notable person as Wikipedia uses the term. 331dot (talk) 13:38, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I have had an account for ~2 years, but this is my first article. I created it in the sandbox a few weeks ago and I believe I did submit it for review at that time. I haven't seen any response to the review. I can easily add more information to the page if that is the issue. Smedler (talk) 13:41, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Your account is old enough, but you need 10 edits to create articles, you only have 5. 331dot (talk) 15:45, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

331dot put a submit button at the top of your sandbox draft so you can submit it for review.

I find it curious, however, that you are attempting to write a Wikipedia article that cites your own work as its primary source of information. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:46, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

@Smedler Your published biography has lots of sources and you would be better to cite those directly where possible. For example this .pdf is very useful in showing notability, since it was a review by Usherwood in Nature. You obviously have a conflict of interest (which you should declare) but that's no bar to drafting an article for Wikipedia. Keep the draft fairly short initially: your main task is to show that Hoyle meets the special notability guidelines at WP:NPROF. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:40, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Smedler, when writing for Wikipedia one should try to avoid assuming that readers are already familiar with the area they're reading about. Thus for example one should avoid specifying a journal via Behav Brain Sci and instead write Behavioral and Brain Sciences. Yes, readers could google the former and thereby find the latter, but this shouldn't be necessary. (True, we are in 2024, so most who want to chase up a paper will instead find it via its DOI -- so please investigate Template:DOI; or, better, Template:Cite journal.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:19, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

I fixed the Medler ref. I agree with Turnbull that is is more appropriate to use as references the sources for your journal article rather than your article. David notMD (talk) 02:56, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Fabio Mancini wiki page

Hi, good morning. I direct follow the discussion about the [Fabio Mancini] supermodel page who was deleted. I cannot understand why I search for many many days source a and article ton”save” the page and many people ( not admin - but normal people) vote to keep the page, save and correct but they have no consense. So my question is, if they have 7/8 people want to keep and other 5/6 to delete, why the most vote are not consider? Actually we know wiki is a free enciclopedia, but i reality we see its a kind of lobby we’re people decide if someone can stay on or not, without reason if Google Speak alone with many images and sources of the subject.

thank you so much for read me. LuciaS23 (talk) 05:17, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Have you read the notice at the top of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fabio Mancini (2nd nomination), and Liz's closing statement? In short, deletion discussions are not polls or majority votes. They're a collective assessment of whether an article meets Wikipedia's policies and standards. If an argument to keep isn't based on a solid understanding of those policies and standards, it won't hold much weight. jlwoodwa (talk) 06:22, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, LuciaS23, and welcome to the Teahouse. In addition to what others have said, please see WP:NOTDEMOCRACY ColinFine (talk) 09:21, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

When they discuss keeping or deleting, the topic is not "Do we like it?" – the topic is "Does it follow Wikipedia policy?"

If you add people who do not understand Wikipedia policy, unfortunately it makes you appear dishonest – even though you really are honest. TooManyFingers (talk) 06:53, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

regarding a page approval

I have recrated a draft , wating for approval Draft:Sumit Kumar Singh - Wikipedia Sumitfilm (talk) 05:22, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

OK, what is the question you want to ask? A reviewer will let you know the status of your draft soon. Tesleemah (talk) 06:17, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Approval of this draft

Draft:Sumit Kumar Singh - Wikipedia Sumitfilm (talk) 08:08, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Are you writing about yourself? 331dot (talk) 08:17, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Let me quote, Sumitfilm: He has lent his magical touch to a plethora of projects [...]. Recently, he astounded audiences with his directorial genius [...]. Ripe for deletion, I think. -- Hoary (talk) 07:16, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

IF you intend to try again, title your draft as Draft:Sumit Kumar Singh (film director) as there is an existing Sumit Kumar Singh who is in politics. David notMD (talk) 12:24, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

A lot of weavil words and exaggeration sighted Tesleemah (talk) 18:15, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

You meant weasel words. Weevil words would be quite different, but maybe funnier. :) TooManyFingers (talk) 21:19, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Declan J Donovan

Please create a page about Declan J Donovan in English wikipedia. (I am represented by an IP address, so I cannot create pages.) 122.176.122.147 (talk) 10:05, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

You can create an account. Or you can leave an entry at WP:Requested articles. But be aware that Wikipedia volunteers are not here to do work for you like that, especially if you tell us nothing about the subject and provide no sources demonstrating notability. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:37, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to Teahouse! We're all WP:Volunteers here. Creating an article yourself, is the most likely way to make it happen. Even without a registered account, you can check out Wikipedia:Articles for creation. Once your draft is ready for review, an experienced editor will look it over/give you feedback. Happy volunteering! Welcome to the Teahouse! Creating a new article from scratch is extremely challenging, and new editors are strongly recommended to spend a few months learning how Wikipedia works, by making improvements to some of our existing seven million articles before trying it. When you do decide to have a go at a new article, you are highly encouraged to read WP:Your first article. If you haven't already also check out WP:TUTORIAL; it's a lot of fun! Happy editing! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 11:23, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

@Shushugah: Why are you telling me this? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:50, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Andy Mabbett, it was unthinking use of the "Reply" function, most likely. -- Hoary (talk) 22:00, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

From googling, he's a 22-y-o musician with one full album released. You need to study Wikipedia:Notability (music) to determine if he meets the required criteria, but I suspect that like most artists this early in their careers, it will be a case of WP:Too soon. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.6.83.137 (talk) 13:10, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Although I'd agree it may be too soon to make an article, it might not actually be too long before one can be made. They're definitely moving up in the musical world, having worked with Martin Garrix and Third Party on a song early this year. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 13:20, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Draft checking

Can you please checkt the draft that I am working on right now? The draft is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:James_Dokhuma# I have a great knowledge (talk) 14:12, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Btw its still a work in progess I have a great knowledge (talk) 14:14, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I removed all of the subjective and non-encyclopaedic language. Why do you believe he is notable? As an author? Teacher? What justifies him being referred to as "Dr."? Can you find more references for what people have written about him? David notMD (talk) 14:50, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I have not gotten ti what made him notable because as I said, it's a work in progress. But however, he is a notable man as he is one of the leaders of the Mizo insurgency and an autjor of many different books. I have a great knowledge (talk) 15:08, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

also, I forgot to add why he was notable. sorry. 😅 I have a great knowledge (talk) 15:10, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

• in the draft

I have a great knowledge (talk) 15:11, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

also, you deleted his works that I have noted down 💀. I haven't completed it so, you will have some questions. I have a great knowledge (talk) 15:14, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

pls ignore this one I have a great knowledge (talk) 15:36, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

pls reply quick I have a great knowledge (talk) 15:29, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

No one is under any obligation to reply quickly. Do you have a particular need for a speedy resolution here? 331dot (talk) 15:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

And also from the Criminal charges, I think one can take a guess to what made him notable I have a great knowledge (talk) 15:34, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I have a great knowledge. Writing an article starts with the references that establish that the subject is notable in Wikipedia's sense, because if they are not, every single moment spent on the draft is wasted effort.

An article is a summary of what independent reliable sources have said about a subject, nothing less, and not very much more. A selected list of a subject's creations/works may be included, but unless the article explains why they are notable (by summarising what published sources have said about them) there is no point. ColinFine (talk) 15:43, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

kk I have a great knowledge (talk) 14:10, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

btw, what do you think should be the minimum number of references? I have a great knowledge (talk) 14:19, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

You should have at least three independent reliable sources. Right now you have one - one of the sources you have cited is a book written by the biography subject so it is not independent. MrOllie (talk) 14:28, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Can you please review my draft again? I have a great knowledge (talk) 16:06, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

oh, no, no. The one that I am citing is a republished version of the original book. In the book that I cited, the publisher was R. Lalrawna, a stranger not even related to Dr. James Dokhuma. In the book that I cited, he created a section of the life of James so that people who did not know him well could get to know him. So, it is independent.@MrOllie I have a great knowledge (talk) 15:36, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

It is very clearly not independent, the biography subject wrote the book himself. MrOllie (talk) 15:41, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

no. The the person Dr James, wrote the book Ṭawng Un Hrilhfiahna without the section of his life. It is only after the publication of R. Lalrawna that the section describing his life came. How do I know? You may ask. Its because I have the whole book with me. One from 1987 and one from 2018. The newest version was revised a little, with corrections of typing mistakes and such and the addition of the section of his life. If you are still not clear, just ask it very specifically. I have a great knowledge (talk) 16:46, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I think the point MrOllie is trying to make is that the bulk of the content remains autobiographical. The content from the original (even if altered a little for the purposes of fixing errors in spelling, grammar, etc.) is still not independent of the subject who wrote it originally, as it has essentially been reprinted. To the best of my knowledge, Wikipedia doesn't believe in what I personally call source laundering, where the provenance of content magically changes when it is reprinted by a third party; as far as I can tell, the book still credits Dokhuma as the author as the bulk of it is still his writing.
From what I understand, the only significant addition that is only present in the second book is a publisher's(?) note on who Dokhuma is. Theoretically, whoever wrote the biographical section could be used as a source if it satisfies the golden rule, but I suspect using that section for citations will be limited due to its proximity with Dokhuma's reprinted content. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:41, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

but the only thing added extra was that section describing his life. After that, nothing on the book changed(except some spelling mistake). The book is about Mizo Ṭawng Upa( roughly translated to Elderly Language, its a bit like idioms and phrases but there is a big difference. They can be somehow grouped together) I have a great knowledge (talk) 14:15, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Also, can you please review my draft pls? the link is Draft:James Dokhuma# I have a great knowledge (talk) 14:21, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

but the only thing added extra was that section describing his life. After that, nothing on the book changed(except some spelling mistake).
— User:I have a great knowledge 14:15, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Exactly the point I'm making. It's still his writing, so it's not independent from him to be used as a source that demonstrates wikinotability, regardless of who the publisher is and whatever addenda were added. You may be able to use it as a primary source in a limited fashion, but it doesn't contribute to the (ideally at least) three independent reliable sources that reviewers want to see in drafts to show Dokhuma is wikinotable.

Also, can you please review my draft pls?
No; I am not an AFC reviewer and I have no intention of being one. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:20, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

No, its the writing of R. Lalrawna, not Dokhuma. If I am not saying what you mean, please clarify it more. I have a great knowledge (talk) 15:53, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Incorrect. Lalrawna is credited as the publisher in your citation, not the author. The work is still Dokhuma's. That's like saying I Am Malala is a source that can establish wikinotability for Malala Yousafzai because it was published by Weidenfeld & Nicolson in the UK, or Little, Brown and Company in the US, even though the author is the subject herself. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:13, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

but that section was not created by Dokhuma, so it cannot be an autobiography I have a great knowledge (talk) 16:16, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Which is why I said the book might be possibly used to establish wikinotability (in a limited fashion) if you're only using that section and nothing else, but reviewers are more likely to ask you to use another source as it's far too close in proximity to the author's writing that makes up the majority of the book. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:29, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

You need more references that show he is notable, I can only see two references repeatedly used. You can also remove statements you can't find references for, that way the article can stand as a stub. But, generally two citations are not enough for biography Tesleemah (talk) 18:28, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Association Football Club Kits

Hello. How do I upload football kits to a football club article and if the kit is not available, how do i create them?

i have been struggling with this specific problem ever since i became an editer and i would appreciate it if someone could help me out. Greg (talk) 14:46, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Does "kit" mean uniform, e.g. File:WHL-Uniform-VIC.png? jlwoodwa (talk) 14:53, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Greg. See Template:Football kit.

@jlwoodwa, "Kit" is the standard word for team clothing in sport in Britain: "uniform" is hardly ever used. See wikt:kit, sense 6. ColinFine (talk) 15:46, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

@Soccerking.greg127: I don't know if this entirely answers your question, but it's probably a good start at least: {{Football kit}}. (That template, in turn, is used in {{Infobox football club}}.) HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:56, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

It helped alot but the thing i didn't understand after reading the article is when creating the patterns. Do i require any specific applications to create the patterns, is so, which one? Greg (talk) 16:30, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Greg. If you need a pattern that is not already available then you'll need to create an image. I don't think there's any particular program required for that. But I suggest asking at Template talk:Football kit, or at WT:WikiProject Football. ColinFine (talk) 16:42, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Greg (talk) 06:07, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Requesting help with band photo upload

Hi there. I've noticed that several band articles on Wikipedia are using a press kit photo, from the group's prime years, as the main infobox image. This phenomenon can be seen on the pages for acts like Duran Duran, Soft Cell and New Order (among a number of others).

Perhaps someone would know if this[2] 1985 photo of Orchestral Manoeuvres in the Dark meets the relevant [non-]copyright criteria to be placed in their infobox. The entire press kit can be seen here.[3] This image would be useful as it captures the band at their peak of popularity in the 80s and is likely how most people best remember the visual of OMD.

If the photo is determined to be permissible, I would be most grateful if a more experienced user could upload it using the relevant settings. I have upped this crop to ImgHippo[4] (with a slight rotation applied and an artefact removed). Thank you for any assistance. Paulie302 (talk) 17:05, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

The question to be answered is whether the non-free images provides something that can't be represented by a free image. In this case I'd say that the free image currently used on the page represents the subject just as well as the proposed non-free image and so there's no justification to use the non-free image. fr33kman 17:12, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps I wasn't altogether clear in my original post: I am not at all advocating for the use of a non-free image. The Duran, Soft Cell and New Order press kit images are free, per the attached licensing details. Since the OMD image is also from a press kit of the same period, I am hoping that someone with expertise can determine whether it too is public domain. Paulie302 (talk) 17:32, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

The point is two things: 1) The image you're suggesting isn't free, AND 2) a good-enough image exists that IS free. Non-free images are all ignored, as soon as a good-enough free one exists. TooManyFingers (talk) 18:02, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

You have done all the due diligence and can confirm the OMD image is not free? The Duran, Soft Cell and New Order images are free, and they too are from 1980s press kits. Paulie302 (talk) 18:09, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I thought this had already been settled by the previous person's response. Obviously not. Sorry for misleading you. TooManyFingers (talk) 21:15, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Ah no worries. :) Paulie302 (talk) 21:46, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

The relevant public domain template is {{PD-US-1989}}. If you look at c:File:Duran Duran 1983.jpg § Summary, c:File:Soft Cell (1983 Sire publicity photo) 02.jpg § Summary, and c:File:New Order, 1985.jpg § Summary, it should give you a sense of how to establish that the template applies. (I'm on my phone right now, so I can't check the copyright status myself, but I should be able to help later today.) jlwoodwa (talk) 18:12, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for this. The image looks to be permissible along the same lines as the Duran one. I think I've managed the upload. Paulie302 (talk) 18:27, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Cnn blocked?

I tried to cite a cnn article and it says it's blocked as not a reliable source. SeashellPirate22 (talk) 18:01, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Where on Wikipedia did you try? Which CNN article do you mean? TooManyFingers (talk) 18:05, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

You can delete this.. it was an issue wthe u SeashellPirate22 (talk) 19:10, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Url SeashellPirate22 (talk) 19:10, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Can I Duplicate An Existing Article on German Wikipedia to English Wikipedia?

There is currently an article on German Wikipedia about an author. Is there a way to duplicate or copy the existing article on German Wikipedia to English Wikipedia? A lot of the content would remain the same, except the English Wikipedia article would focus on the author's impact in the United States. The German article on German Wikipedia has a greater focus on the author's impact in Germany. Sa2840 (talk) 19:21, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

@Sa2840 Maybe. en-WP articles must be inline with WP:N and, if it applies, WP:BLP or your translation will be deleted. Just existing on another WP does not necessarily mean the article will stick here. Read Help:Translation carefully, it goes into detail. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:32, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Assuming the article will stick here, is there a way I can duplicate the article with the approved formatting here so it is easier for me to just edit the article, rather than make a completely new page? Or must I make an entirely new page on English Wikipedia? Sa2840 (talk) 13:09, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

@Sa2840: I think what you're asking for is your User Sandbox. You can paste the German material in there and work on your English version; feel free to make a complete mess, because sandboxes cannot be found through a normal Wikipedia search. (But never place anyone's sensitive personal information in there, nor any personal attacks or potential copyright violations, because the sandbox does belong to Wikipedia.) TooManyFingers (talk) 18:48, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Sorry – I forgot. After making sure you are logged in with your username, you can find your sandbox from one of the menus at the top of your screen. On mine it's in the menu with the icon of a person. TooManyFingers (talk) 18:54, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree with @Gråbergs Gråa Sång.

In addition, make sure the references are notable and they are translated with neutral point of view. Tesleemah (talk) 19:45, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I think that's slightly incorrect. References don't need to be notable, but they should be reliable. jlwoodwa (talk) 19:56, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Agree with this point....... the reason that many translated articles get deleted is because other Wikipedia's don't have the same higher level of sources.Moxy🍁 19:59, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I was referring to a strong independent reference, so yes! Reliable. Tesleemah (talk) 20:02, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Probably meant to say they need to demonstrate notability. There are often references that don't do that. (and are therefore only usable as supplementary, if that) TooManyFingers (talk) 21:10, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Who is this author, Sa2840? -- Hoary (talk) 22:02, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Brianna Wiest. Sa2840 (talk) 13:06, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Sa2840, the article de:Brianna Wiest isn't obviously impressive. Which would you say are the best three sources about Wiest or her work? Each must treat her or her work in depth, be independent of her -- be disinterested (not one of her publishers) and not based on interviews -- and be independent of each other. The sources don't have to be in English. -- Hoary (talk) 23:53, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Requesting articles for protection

Today, I requested that the article Botswana Defence Force should be protected, But I really wanted it to be request for semi-protection, but I emailed Cyberpower678 to fix the issue and I got no response. What can I do? Sparkbean (talk) 21:44, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Have you checked back on your request yet? Someone's responded there. jlwoodwa (talk) 21:55, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

@Sparkbean: According to the reply at WP:RFPP, it looks like the disruptive IP user was blocked instead of adding semi=protection to the page. RudolfRed (talk) 21:56, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

@RudolfRed and @Jlwoodwa: Turns out another user will have to protect the article. Sparkbean (talk) 21:57, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Sparkbean, when the disruption is coming from a single IP, the solution is to block the IP instead of semi-protecting the article. Cullen328 (talk) 22:01, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

@Cullen328 Oh! That explains it. Sparkbean (talk) 22:03, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Featured lists and inclusion in good topics

Howdy all,

Maybe better for Wikipedia talk:Good topics, but that talk page seems rather inactive, so figure I'd bring it here.

I'm planning to eventually do a good topic centered around the Vegas Golden Knights (see here). I've currently got List of Vegas Golden Knights general managers up for featured list status as part of that pursuit; however, there's an emerging consensus that it's unfortunately currently not long enough to meet FL criteria. The same issue would apply to List of Vegas Golden Knights head coaches, which I haven't overhauled quite yet. Without unexpected circumstances, it'll likely be decades until both lists are at the requisite 7-8 entries for FL status, given turnover rates for NHL franchises.

On one hand, delaying a good topic by such a comical length of time due to the criteria feels, to put it bluntly, unfair, especially if (when, hopefully) all of the hypothetical articles are of good quality. On the other, I can't really pull off a GT that excludes these lists, given the importance of GMs and HCs to a team.

I suppose my question would be: is a good topic still possible to create if the lists are high-quality, even if they're not technically able to make FL? If not, would it be acceptable to exclude them, despite their importance? The Kip ^(contribs) 21:59, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

The Kip, you have created a list of two people with a massive lead section and 29 references. I hate to be unkind, but can't you see that this is a little bit . . . silly? Cullen328 (talk) 22:07, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

@Cullen328 I didn't create it myself - it's been around for some time now, I overhauled it from what had previously been a two-sentence stub. The lead was intended to mirror that of similar WP:IH FLs, specifically that of List of Detroit Red Wings general managers.

As for the refs, I added (probably too many) citations after feedback at the FL nom for List of Vegas Golden Knights players, where one user critiqued an already-detailed lead for not having enough citations. Perhaps an overreaction on my part, though such citations were necessary on the GMs list for individual trades/claims. The Kip ^(contribs) 22:12, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Items that are ineligible for featured article, featured list or good article status, either due to their limited subject (in the case of lists only) or due to inherent instability (in the case of either articles or lists), must have passed an individual quality audit that included a completed peer review, with all important problems fixed. Such items do not count towards criteria 1(a), 3(a)(ii), or 3(b)(i).
— Wikipedia:Featured and good topic criteria § 3c

So yes, if it's justified and the items are independently considered high-quality, you can exclude a limited number of items from the "good articles and featured lists" requirement. jlwoodwa (talk) 22:10, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

@Jlwoodwa Much appreciated, and good to know. The Kip ^(contribs) 22:13, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

No Trivia like on FANDOM

Why is there no "Trivia" section on Wikipedia articles like there is on FANDOM articles? They were both made by the same person! 69.160.112.31 (talk) 22:06, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

This used to be common on Wikipedia, but is now discouraged. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trivia sections for details. jlwoodwa (talk) 22:12, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia while fandom is a fan site. They have entirely different purposes. I can assure you that most Wikipedia editors do not contribute to Fandom. I certainly don't. Cullen328 (talk)

Please read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trivia sections. Cullen328 (talk) 22:15, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Because usually its inclusion is WP:UNDUE and does not add any understanding for the reader. See WP:TRIVIA EvergreenFir (talk) 22:18, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Deleting a reference

If I delete a sentence connected to a reference number, do I delete the reference as well? Cherie.phoenix (talk) 22:32, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Sometimes, but not always. For example, if the article currently has The sun is big. The sun is hot., where the citation supports both sentences, and you delete the second sentence, you should keep the citation: The sun is big. For more details, see this section on text–source integrity. jlwoodwa (talk) 22:43, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, cherie.phoenix. It depends on the article. If you delete the material covered by a reference, you should also delete that reference. In some articles, nearly every sentence is cited. In others, citations cover whole paragraphs. In the example at User:Rjjiii/TSI, citation 1 could only cover a single sentence, but citation 4 likely covers multiple sentences. Sometimes, you can tell what content the citation covers from the footnote alone. Other times, it will be hard to say without looking at the actual reference. I would also echo jlwoodwa's advice above to check out Wikipedia:Citing sources#Text–source integrity. Good luck, and feel free to ask follow-up questions, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:30, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

@Cherie.phoenix One other pitfall you need to beware of is that the reference may be a named reference used elsewhere in the article as well as at the sentence you are removing. Make sure that it's not the first instance of that reference or you'll start to get a red error messages like "Cite error: xxxxx was invoked but never defined" in the list of references. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:35, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

@Cherie.phoenix: This edit worked: [5] The reference was a named reference like Mike Turnbull mentioned above. The way the Visual Editor handles deleting a named reference that has been used multiple times, is that it will only remove the citation when the last usage has been removed. Good luck, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:05, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Considering the good advice you've already received, it would be nice in your situation if the first few times you remove references you did them one at a time (which makes them easier to undo), and in articles that aren't overwhelmingly complicated. (The part about uncomplicated articles isn't necessarily the most practical advice, just would be a more comfortable introduction.) TooManyFingers (talk) 18:04, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Does this read like an ad / promotional copy?

Came across a string of recent edits on Acacia Research and some of it sort of reads like an advertisement / I wonder about the neutrality of the author. My first time posting to Teahouse, apologies if this is not the right place to ask. (I was thinking of adding to Talk page first but noticed a similar posting for another topic already here). Should any templates be added or content removed? --Colinstu (talk) 22:40, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it's soporific corporate advertising speak. Sample: Acacia is focused on acquiring public or private businesses across industries including the mature technology, energy and industrials/manufacturing sectors where it believes it can generate shareholder value. Meaning: "Acacia acquires public and private companies in technology, energy and industrial/manufacturing sectors", I suppose. ("Generate shareholder value" I suppose means "make money". But readers don't need to be told that profit is the motive.) Feel free to cut the junk. -- Hoary (talk) 22:50, 16 September 2024 (UTC) And on second thoughts "is focused on acquiring" may mean just "hopes to acquire", without asserting that any have yet been acquired. This article is bad. Unsheathe your editorial machete and get to work. -- Hoary (talk) 23:13, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for confirming. And wow, thanks all for the edits already! --Colinstu (talk) 14:06, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Cullen328 and I have cut some of the waffle, Colinstu. That was pretty easy. What would take a little longer is determining which parts of what's stated are based on reliable sources that are independent of the company and disinterested. We can take the company's word for it when it says that, say, the CEO is such-and-such a person; but claims for what may be called accomplishments need good sources. Wikipedia provides a cornucopia of templates to warn of sourcing problems/inadequacy. -- Hoary (talk) 02:00, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I just cut out a lot of corporate fluff cited to press releases and added a short section about legal issues. This company appears to be considered a patent troll, based on my brief search for sources. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:11, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

The biggest problem that I now see with this article is that the references do not include any independent, reliable sources that devote significant coverage to this company. It is all about what the company says about itself. Cullen328 (talk) 02:23, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

It was worse before. What I cut out was cited to nothing but press releases and other primary sources. I added citations to independent sources in the legal issues section. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:31, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Expert Advice about an Esoteric topic

Hello Everyone,

I’ve been working really hard to create a page on Wikipedia: Draft:Memnun about the Etruscan hero who has lots of his own mythological evidence

I keep facing rejection due to the sources I’ve provided. I’ve gathered reliable primary and second sources that I spent a lot of time researching and verifying, but it seems like they still seems like no one is bothering to note the actual topic when there are plenty of independent articles on Wikipedia about other Etruscan gods and here is that list:

List of Etruscan mythological figures

And here are examples of independent Etruscan articles about Etruscan gods that essentially are the same as Greco-Roman gods. I am wondering why these pages got approved and mine about the newly revived research page: Memnon is being so summarily dismissed and it seems by editors without the expertise to understand the Etruscans were their own ancient society.

Tinia - who is Zeus with his own Wikipedia approved Etruscan page.

Menrva -who is Minerva or Athena with her own Wikipedia approved Etruscan page.

Uni - -who is Juno Hera with her own Wikipedia approved Etruscan page.

I really feel like the first wikipedia editor just summarily rejected the idea that a new page was being offered simply because Memnun sounds and reads so similar to Memnon (as the hero is known in the Greek tradition) . I believe the editor saw the research as a typo and then a series of strange conversations began that don't reflect the academic research I provided.

I would really appreciate any help or guidance on how to improve my draft and ensure my sources are acceptable. If anyone could take a look or offer some advice, that would be amazing! Magistracraig (talk) 00:12, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Memnon and Draft:Memnun indeed look like similar articles, however if you think they are different which I am not so sure seeing the contents (birth, death and origin of the author) all look similar, perhaps you move the title of your draft to another one not having the same spelling as Memnon. This is the main issue as pointed out by the reviewer. Tesleemah (talk) 07:01, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

The first sentence of Draft:Memnun makes it clear that Memnun and Memnon are the same person, in different languages and cultures. But this is also true of Zeus and Jupiter, who have separate articles. Maproom (talk) 07:23, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Can Wikipedia stop using the term "Asian and Pacific Islander"? on the demographics section for pages on U.S. places?

Most pages for cities and counties in the U.S. have tables showing the ethnic demographics of the city, listing the percentages of the population who identify as "Non-Hispanic White", "Black", "Hispanic or Latino", etc. Most of these tables use the term "Asian", while some pages like Orange County, Florida and Cleveland say "Asian and Pacific Islander". I've tried to edit these tables to just say Asian but my edits get reverted back. The US census hasn't used this term "Asian and Pacific Islander" in over two decades, so there's no need to use it now. As an an American of Vietnamese descent, I personally feel uncomfortable seeing this term used because I find it to be too broad, lumping together many different people groups that have very distinct appearances and cultures, and because I do not feel a strong connection to Pacific Islanders.

Can Wikipedia use the terms "Asian" or "Asian American" in the demographics section of places in the U.S. instead of "Asian or Pacific Islander"? PIs should be listed under their own category or left off. That's all I want to change. JohnIllinois1827 (talk) 00:25, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

They did split it off to "Native Hawaiian or other Pacific islander" some time ago, so this is a good question, but I'm not sure it is one that can be handled by the Teahouse. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 00:54, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I know the census did, but I am talking about Wikipedia's use of the term API Americans. It's inconsistent across pages and yet when I wish to shorten it to just Asian other users will revert my edits back as if this term must be used. Where on Wikipedia should I take this issue? JohnIllinois1827 (talk) 03:37, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

@JohnIllinois1827: I think it will probably have to continue being shown, every time someone talks about an old census. The old census says what it says, and we can't pretend it said something else.

But if people are continuing to use it for newer census data too, because they mistakenly think it's still official, in those cases I think you're absolutely right. TooManyFingers (talk) 19:03, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, newer census data split the AA and PI. The Cleveland page will say Asian and Pacific Islander, but it's source for the 2020 statistic splits the two groups. JohnIllinois1827 (talk) 19:20, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

But therein lies the problem. The source for the 1990 census does not split the two groups, and its data is being directly compared in a table to other decades. You can't simply rename the row at Cleveland#Demographics to "Asian" without impacting the accuracy of the data represented throughout that entire row.

One possible solution would be to add another row for "Pacific Islander" in every table. For the decades that combine the two, you could combine both rows in that column and display a single, combined percentage just as the sources do. Have a look at HELP:TABLE#Colspan and rowspan on how this can be accomplished (example BBB), or perhaps an editor at one of those pages can assist (if not, reach back out here, and I'm sure one of us will be glad to).

One quick note about your "too broad concern" due to "very distinct appearances and cultures"...

Asian is still broad, ranging from Pakistani and Indian all the way to Korean and Japanese. One could reasonably present the same argument that each of these groups "have very distinct appearances and culture". The census grouping Black could even be considered more broad by definition. It would probably be best to drop this line of reasoning. The stronger argument is following the change made by the U.S. census report. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 22:44, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm trying to follow your advice on combining two rows but I'm stuck. Sorry. JohnIllinois1827 (talk) 03:11, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I understand what you're arguing, but saying "Asian and Pacific Islander also wouldn't be accurate for labeling the newer data, since that isn't the term used now. Also, Cleveland's 2020 census reveals that PIs are 0.0% of Cleveland's population, so even if the 1990 numbers are different, I doubt that the percentages are. It wouldn't really change the percentages for Asians that much. It is what it is, but I don't know why we as a nation focus so much on a group whose population is often low enough to round down to zero and overall nationwide doesn't even cross 0.5%.

I agree that "Asian" itself is very broad, but why make it even broader and more diverse by dragging another continent into the label? It's simply too broad. Asia is already the largest continent in the world, larger than both Americas combined, and yet the continent has to be made even larger by including Oceania. JohnIllinois1827 (talk) 14:49, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

@JohnIllinois1827: I get it, but to fix this the way you want to fix it you're going to have to travel backwards in time and convince long-dead government officials and bureaucrats to un-write their census categories. We aren't free to decide to give false reports of what it said back then; the census stuff is history, and we can't do present-day politics to it. Real people had to answer that question even though it wasn't a good question, and we can't suddenly claim they were answering a different question. They might have answered differently if the question had been better. TooManyFingers (talk) 17:33, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Okay, but why is it more preferable to use the old, outdated term over the current term? JohnIllinois1827 (talk) 20:26, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

• "Asian and Pacific Islander also wouldn't be accurate for labeling the newer data" – More than likely, the editor that added the newer data (back when it was released) didn't see an easy way to handle this predicament and just combined the two percentages in the table to avoid disturbing the historical data. This is all a moot point now, since the earlier suggestion above should solve that concern, assuming you can achieve consensus to do so.
• "even if the 1990 numbers are different, I doubt that the percentages are" – You could be correct, but this would be a personal observation and speculative, which is a form of original research. We couldn't use this in any way on Wikipedia unless it was directly backed by a reliable source.
• "Asian itself is very broad, but why make it even broader...by dragging another continent into the label" – To be clear, this broadness isn't being "made" by Wikipedians. In fact, Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. All of this came from older U.S. census reports, which are still being cited and compared in tables.

-- GoneIn60 (talk) 08:41, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Since the term "Asian and Pacific Islander" was retired after 2000, I think one solution would be to only show census data from 2000 onward to avoid this predicament. Or, another answer would be to use the term "Asian", but include a footnote saying "Included Pacific Islanders until 2000". Are these solutions feasible? 2601:248:601:A010:F0F3:40DE:7D21:1E74 (talk) 14:23, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

The footnote sounds feasible as well. Lots of possibilities I'm sure. Probably best to discuss solutions at a WikiProject like the one Hoary suggested below. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 16:03, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

JohnIllinois1827, how about bringing up the matter at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States? (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Asian Americans might seem better, but responses to suggestions etc posted there are rare indeed.) -- Hoary (talk) 05:29, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

How to start engaging with the community?

Heyo! I'm relatively new to editing Wikipedia and picked it up on an impulse, and so far I've found it to be a surprisingly interesting and engaging pastime. It's nice to be able to make a difference in even the smallest ways by performing simple tasks like copyedits and chasing down sources and the like, and I think I'll continue to do those on my own for a while until I gain enough interest/experience in a specific topic/subject to start making dedicated edits that add meat to the bones of those articles.

In the meanwhile though, could someone direct me towards some social spaces for Wikipedians to chat? Places like Discord servers, web chatrooms, etc. I want to get more engaged with this vast community and its members, and I'd like some tips on that in general as well. Cheers! ^w^ Sirocco745 (talk) 04:47, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions, Sirocco745. I'd say "Yes, baby steps at first: very wise"; except that chasing down sources is hard work. Do please keep chasing them down. Is the page Wikipedia:Discord helpful? -- Hoary (talk) 05:23, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Yup, I'll join the Discord server later when I have some more free time to chat on there. Thanks for that!

Chasing down sources is kinda fun to be honest. You find yourself diving through all sorts of rabbit holes, but the most important thing I've recognized as a new editor is to find your limit. If research on a specific claim is taking too long, then I think it's best for me to leave a ^{[citation needed]} and flag it on the talk page along with the other claims I find in the same vein. Sirocco745 (talk) 06:22, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

How do I submit a Wikipedia article?

How do I submit a Wikipedia article? Boys4tam (talk) 06:19, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello. You may use the Article Wizard to create and submit a draft. Be advised that writing a new article is the most difficult task to attempt on Wikipedia, and it is highly recommended that you first gain experience and knowledge by spending much time editing existing articles in areas that interest you, as well as using the new user tutorial. These will greatly increase your chances of success compared to diving right in to article creation. 331dot (talk) 06:24, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

If you decide to try this, you should start by assessing if an article about the subject you're thinking of has any chance of being accepted. See WP:BACKWARD. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:51, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Boys4tam, So, get references first - perhaps park in your Sandbox - then only write content that is verified by those references. What you personally know to be true cannot be used unless verified by references. David notMD (talk) 17:23, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Railway stations

I have come across the Wikipedia:NTRAINSTATION page and found that many train station articles don't meet such a notability guideline. For instance, many articles in List of railway stations in Pakistan are purely the documentation of the stations' geographical location and nothing else. Does anything need to be done? If so, I may be unable to clean up all these articles and would require assistance. Pygos (talk) 08:17, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

@Pygos Wikipedia_talk:Notability#RfC:_Notability_and_British_Rail_stations may be of interest to you. Consider asking for input at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains. You can perhaps pick a few bad ones (3-4 perhaps), WP:PROD them and see what happens. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:25, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! I have also posted this at the Wikiproject page. Pygos (talk) 08:32, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

How to Connect with Fellow Wikipedians for Collaborative Writing

Hello everyone,

I've been contributing to Wikipedia for a while but haven't yet connected with others who share my interests.

I'm particularly focused on documenting contemporary art and would love to collaborate with fellow Wikipedians in this field.

Could anyone suggest the best ways to find Wikipedians with similar interests and explore potential collaboration opportunities? IlEssere (talk) 14:02, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

The contemporary art wikiproject has apparently been renamed to Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts. It still has sub-pages under the old contemporary arts title, such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Contemporary Art/Notability. Anyway check out the visual arts wikiproject page and other pages linked there including the talk page. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:38, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

@IlEssere: It also helps to simply start in, by improving existing articles that interest you and appear to need work. After doing that for a while, you may notice (from their edit summaries and their contributions on Talk pages) that you are often working alongside the same people. TooManyFingers (talk) 18:32, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

About section right side

Hello, i'm creating a page on wikipedia and would like to know how do i insert a box on the right where I can place a picture. Thank you User972364 (talk) 14:34, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

@User972364: It looks as though you need {{Infobox television channel}}. (Click on the link to see the available fields.) Deor (talk) 14:47, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, User072364. I'm afraid that, like most editors who try to create an article before they have spent time learning how Wikipedia works, you have written your draft BACKWARDS: first find the (independent reliable) sources, and then write your draft from them.

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. ColinFine (talk) 15:32, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Having an infobox or images has no impact on getting a draft approved. David notMD (talk) 17:24, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Your one 'reference' for Draft:The Destination Channel is to a press release service, so does not contribute to confirming Wikipedia-notability. 17:28, 17 September 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by David notMD (talk • contribs)

Do you work for The Destination Channel? If so, then WP:PAID applies. David notMD (talk) 17:29, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Editing and creating content re Iowa railroads 1850-1880

I am new to this but less new than my previous Teahouse. Is it possible and appropriate to ask anyone who is interested to see what I have done and give me feedback? The last time I posted in Teahouse I got lots of helpful comments. Should I be using a bot to clean up citations or is it automatic?MarkWHowe (talk) 15:27, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

@MarkWHowe I think it's okay to just WP:be bold and edit. If you have any questions and would like to seek help, you could ask anyone that you think is interested or maybe come here to the Teahouse for specific editing questions. Usually, if someone thinks your edit is not constructive or appropriate they will revert and leave a useful message on your talk page. There, you could discuss the matter with the editor about your edit.

You can use a variety of bots to clean up citations, including User:Citation bot, User:InternetArchiveBot, and more. However, if you use these bots, you should check the results and making sure they're correct. I often forget to do that, sometimes. Myrealnamm (💬pros · ✏️cons) 15:33, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

For you could ask anyone that you think is interested, another place to find such people is the WikiProject relevant to whatever you're working on. jlwoodwa (talk) 16:24, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I did put my name and interest under 'trains' but there are hundreds there and no response. So I'm stirring the pot.  :-} MarkWHowe (talk) 23:40, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I recall there is a way to see all the edits that have been made to a topic in the previous few months but I can't recall how I got there. And also if there were any reversions/ deletions that were made. Sadly I keep getting to some great new site but then can't recall how I got there.  :-{ MarkWHowe (talk) 21:35, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

@MarkWHowe To see edits for a certain article, click on the View History tab on the right hand side of the navigation bar (after Read, Edit, Edit Source). To see your own edits, use Special:MyContributions. Myrealnamm (💬pros · ✏️cons) 21:38, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I just reorganized the Wikipedia "Galena and Chicago Union Railroad" history sections titled:

"Looking at Iowa and the Missouri River"

"The 1864 Great Consolidation of the Chicago & NorthWestern Railway"

I went bold like you advised but I would be discouraged if it were reverted. I would much rather get it fixed quickly in place. MarkWHowe (talk) 21:34, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

@MarkWHowe: The edits you made can't be fixed in place per se because that's really how Wikipedia works. The best you can hope for is that others also feel your edits were improvements and WP:SILENCE. FWIW, being reverted is part of the Wikipedia experience; so, it's not really a reason to feel discouraged. If it happens and the revert is not really a clear-cut case of WP:VANDALISM, you should try and sort things out through article talk page discussion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:48, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

IDU - there is no reason I can see that edits cannot be fixed. To me a reversion is a 'start from scratch'. I have already been thru' that phase. Now I would much prefer something more productive, like '3rd paragraph needs more citations' or 'citation #19 doesn't work'. We should be here to help each other. MarkWHowe (talk) 22:37, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

​ I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "fixed". Are you asking whether mistakes can be "fixed" or whether pages can be "locked"? If you're asking about the former, then for sure mistakes can be corrected as long as doing so is in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If you're asking about the latter, then pages can be WP:PROTECTed, but this is almost always only done in cases of ongoing serious disruption or a long history of repeated disruption.

Wikipedia is, after all, intended to be a collaborative editing project and pages aren't WP:OWNed by any one particular editor or group of editors. For this reason, pages aren't protected (i.e. "locked") simply for the sake of preserving one editor's or one group of editors' preferred version of the page. Wikipedia gives everyone a chance to be WP:BOLD, and disagreements over article content are expected to be resolved in accordance with WP:DISPUTERESOLUTION and WP:CONSENSUS. So, if the edits you made as seen by others as being in accordanc with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, they will likely stand the test of time or be used by others as a foundtion for further improving the article. If, on the other hand, others find them to be lacking in some way, they might be reverted (entirely or partially) or otherwise corrected. This is essentially what you're agreeing to everytime you click the "Publish changes" button and acknowledge your acceptance of foundation:Terms of Use. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:44, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not aware of 'locked' and I don't think I would approve of that. My background is science and peer review is the only way to arrive at 'truth', if there is such a thing, or at least as close as we can get. If someone can 'revert' a page for bureaucratic reasons without giving the author a chance to correct it , I think we would both agree that is wrong. Disagreement on the 'facts' is a different issue and that is how we get closer to 'truth'. That is where we come up with the term 'alternate facts' and those discussions are the most interesting. I don't expect that will be an issue in my present case however, but unless someone responds there can be no review.

Sadly, the only scholars I know about on the subject seem to die just as I learn about them. To wit; H. Roger Grant. I'm hoping my edits will flush out somebody taking up the torch. MarkWHowe (talk) 03:53, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

@MarkWHowe: See WP:VNT and WP:EXPERT for more details, but Wikipedia articles aren't peered reviewed in the sense that you'd expect from a peer-reviewed journal or other type of publication; there is WP:PEERREVIEW, but articles are essentially be reviewed by those reading them. So, if someone feels that the content you added isn't an improvement, they are allowed to revert it or correct it. The hope is that they will do so in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and leave an WP:ES explaining why. This, however, isn't already the case. The idea behind WP:DR is to encourage discussion as a way to resolve content disputes and avoid WP:EDITWARs; the former can help establish a consensus one way or the other whereas the latter only leads to disruption. So, if you edits are reverted for some reason and it doesn't appear to be a clear-cut case of vandalism, then it's probably better to try and sort things out through talk page discussion than though dueling edit summaries. Not matter how right you'll might know yourself to be, you won't be given any special consideration if you simply resort to back and forth reverting absent any real serious policy problems. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:52, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

That does sound ugly, and unproductive. Thanks. MarkWHowe (talk) 03:21, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Another interesting issue is the validity of letters as source material. It is frequently stated here that a letter doesn't establish the validity of a statement. True, but if the validity of the letter can be established, like signature or statement of an authority, then what can be established as fact is that that person wrote that. One of my battles may be that issue; I have letters written by presidents, governors, senators and superintendents etc. that I use as sources, not so much as that what they said is true but that they said it. Then you may say that sounds like original research, but if it can be backed up by published means it simply adds interest to the article. I have seen examples of letters in Wikip. articles, entered with apparent impunity. Another interesting discussion. MarkWHowe (talk) 04:08, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

​Personal letters are WP:PRIMARY and WP:ABOUTSELF types of sources at best and can only be used in certain ways, and any interpretations of them might be considered WP:OR if written in Wikipedia's voice; personal letters which have been discussed in WP:SECONDARY sources, however, can often be cited as long as the secondary sources is considered to be a WP:RS, the source is used in proper WP:RSCONTEXT and the source is properly WP:ATTRIBUTEd. So, if you're considered to clearly be an established content expert per WP:CITESELF and WP:EXPERTSPS, then you could possibly add citations to your own work if there are no WP:UNDUE issues and you can do so in a WP:NPOV; if, others disagree, you'll have to establish a consensus to the contrary through article talk page discussion or at WP:RSN. As for the examples you might have seen in other articles, Wikipedia has over six million articles and many if not most aren't being constanly monitored or assessed. So, lots of WP:OTHERCONTENT gets added that probably shouldn't have been added. So, if you come across some content, you can be WP:BOLD by trying to fix it yourself or by removing it. If someone disagrees, you can try to engage them in discussion on the article's talk page to see whether things can be resolved. If they refuse to engage, you can move to the next step of the DR process and WP:SEEKHELP. As long as you remain cool and WP:CIVIL, you've done your part. If the other party starts getting really out of line, you can seek administrator assistance at one of the administrator noticeboards. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:12, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

I avoid that at all costs! What I have seen made perfect sense historically and verifiable as legit. Thanks again. MarkWHowe (talk) 03:25, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: User:MarkWHowe/sandbox --ColinFine (talk) 15:34, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Regarding an Article

I want to know what improvement should be done in this article, as i have mentioned an article

Bagri Kumhar having RAJ Era sources and i also added disclaimer about that, after that it was not accepted. Tizzythewhale (talk) 16:45, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

@Tizzythewhale If there are no sources for sections of the article, then you simply can't write about it for Wikipedia. Disclaimers don't help and won't be accepted as we don't allow original research. See also the comments others have addded to the top of the draft. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:23, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

There are no other sources present on the internet or in any books besides RAJ Era books regarding "Bagri Kumhars." Tizzythewhale (talk) 17:26, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

@Tizzythewhale Yes, indeed and WP:RAJ, which you have already been pointed to in the comments, specifically says you should not use such sources. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:30, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

so what i do to publish that article as no source is available on internet besides Raj era books Tizzythewhale (talk) 17:34, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Your only choices:

- find good sources

- give up TooManyFingers (talk) 17:50, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

To ask that the draft be deleted, put Db-author at the top inside double curly brackets {{ }} and an Administrator will delete it. David notMD (talk) 17:31, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Why is it so vital to cite stuff and source it

Im always getting my edits removed because my edits as unsourced, and only once have my facts been incorrect. They now describe me as a "highloy disruptive user". In my opinion, it doesnt really have to be sourced because if you really want to delete my meesage, check the fact first. So, why is it so vital? 94.192.32.22 (talk) 16:54, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Verifiability is a core principle of Wikipedia. I could put on anyone's article that they are a space alien from Mars, that doesn't make it true. It need to be verifiable somewhere. 331dot (talk) 17:16, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Looks like they were blocked. 331dot (talk) 17:16, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Were blocked, 10 days ago. Not blocked now. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:19, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks 331dot (talk) 17:44, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

IP editor. Wikipedia is, by consensus based on a number of policies. Of these verification is the most relevant. How would a reader know that you had not just made something up if you added it to an article without a reliable source? Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:17, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

@331dot They were blocked on 7 September but are currently not, I think. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:18, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

"I now shall sit in the darkness and cry..." is your perogative for being temp blocked, but a better approach would be to register an account and provide content with references at the same time. Adding content without references while expecting others to fact check and verify for you is akin to expecting strangers to clean up your dog's poop. David notMD (talk) 17:35, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

while they were doing that i was just learning it myself 94.192.32.22 (talk) 17:40, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

check the page about "list of skateparks" and go to united kingdom 94.192.32.22 (talk) 17:41, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I added st neot and corby, with citing 94.192.32.22 (talk) 17:41, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

st neots* 94.192.32.22 (talk) 17:42, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

For clarification they are both good known skateparks across the uk 94.192.32.22 (talk) 18:12, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Youll endlessly be scrolling youtube when you search st neots skatepark 94.192.32.22 (talk) 18:13, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

And adrenaline alley is Europe's largest indoor skatepark 94.192.32.22 (talk) 18:14, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, IP user. Suppose you put in some information which you absolutely know from your experience is correct.

Next month, somebody changes it. Maybe they think you were wrong, maybe they misunderstand what you were saying, maybe they made a mistake, maybe they want to promote something they are associated with, maybe they are a vandal.

What happens then? If somebody who patrols new changes looks at it, they see that some unreferenced material has been changed, but is still unrefernced. They may very well have no idea themselves about the material - so should they leave it, revert it, or remove it?

And if nobody happens to review it, the changed version will stay there, and a random reader next year will see the changed version, not your original. If they are clued up on Wikipedia, they may notice that it is not sourced, and know to be sceptical. But most users will take what it says.

That is we we prefer (and in many cases required) citing sources. ColinFine (talk) 18:13, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Colin. 94.192.32.22 (talk) 18:14, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Lack of refrences Draft:Macedonian Student Organization in Slovenia

Hello i have a question. I sent a draft for a page and it got returned because i had no references. I wrote about an organization that i am apart and the only source is our website. Any suggestions what to do? Handjiski1234 (talk) 18:21, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello. If no independent reliable sources have written about your organization and shown how it is notable as Wikipedia defines a notable organization, it would not merit an article at this time. Wikipedia is not a place for organizations to tell about themselves. 331dot (talk) 18:24, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

i agree. It primarily depends on how famous it really is to be on wikipedia 94.192.32.22 (talk) 18:29, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

and also as how wikipedia defines it, as you mentioned 94.192.32.22 (talk) 18:30, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Notability isn't quite the same as fame. jlwoodwa (talk) 19:02, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Handjiski. Please note that Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 09:39, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Breaking News

I am currently editing this article, which is being updated in light of new information (2024 Bangladesh anti-Hindu violence). However, I am aware that breaking news is not always accurately captured. At what point should one revisit the cited references to identify appropriate sources? Given that this is a sensitive topic, I do not want to dismiss it altogether and would appreciate an objective approach. LeónGonsalvesofGoa (talk) 18:28, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I'd recommend keeping note of sources that they show on tv about that specific report 94.192.32.22 (talk) 18:31, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

And make sure the source is checked to be correct or otherwise some other people could undo your edits due to incorrect sources 94.192.32.22 (talk) 18:34, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

You won't find objectivity, but at least you can be thoughtful and diligent.

In my opinion, it would be nice to revisit quite often for an event that is very recent, and less often as time passes. But this can cause a problem: at the beginning, many people are passionate about the situation, many are trying to say something, and it's hard for them to stay reasonable and civil. Compromise can be necessary, in terms of how quickly you act. TooManyFingers (talk) 19:18, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Editing references to provide Internet archive links

Hello all, I am a newer editor here at wikipedia and would like some guidance - I am unsure of the procedure for editing a broken reference link to add a working one that uses the internet archive. If there's a related article to read that would be great. Some information is readily available here, but some of the details are hard to track down. Thank you for your time. HelenaBertrand (talk) 19:00, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

If the reference is using {{cite web}} or a similar template, then the procedure is described at Template:Cite web/doc § archive-url. jlwoodwa (talk) 19:04, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your help! This was just what I was looking for. HelenaBertrand (talk) 12:25, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I need someone to help me back up this page

im trying to edit the Huntingdonshire page. What im trying to add is "The largest settlement is the town of St Neots and the town the district was named after is Huntingdon" . Unfortunately i cant find any sources to back this up, even though it is true. So could somebody help me find sources that say st neots is the largest settlement in huntingdonshire and another source saying Huntingdon is the town the district is named after. 94.192.32.22 (talk) 19:11, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

What type of "largest" is it meant to be? Area? Population? 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:21, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Population 94.192.32.22 (talk) 19:27, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

It's possible that citing a source for the naming process might be unnecessary because it's uncontroversial. TooManyFingers (talk) 19:28, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

every edit i do without sources gets deleted. Ill even name the people too theres so much 94.192.32.22 (talk) 19:29, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

In such a situation (editors being difficult about things that are frankly not important), it's often better to give up for a few months and hope they go away. It's also important in such cases to discuss things on the Talk page, partly because if you end up needing to make a formal complaint, your own behaviour is up for discussion as well. TooManyFingers (talk) 19:35, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Nah they need to accept not everything had to be sourced 94.192.32.22 (talk) 19:48, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

They need to realise the actual truth that we're currently pointing out 94.192.32.22 (talk) 19:49, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

But in case, i still need the sources 94.192.32.22 (talk) 19:49, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

TooManyFingers, I will quickly add that this wasn't "difficult editors", this IP was blocked for disruptive editing after several warnings. Anyways, here's the source you requested: http://abcounties.com/huntingdonshire/about-huntingdonshire/ SirMemeGod  19:54, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks legend 94.192.32.22 (talk) 21:17, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

So, you're trying to make two assertions: "The largest settlement is the town of St Neots and the town the district was named after is Huntingdon". And you don't have sources? Then how can you possibly know they are true? Where did you get this information? ~Anachronist (talk) 19:57, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Huntingdon shire wikipedia, research of my own, and i live in st neots 🙂 94.192.32.22 (talk) 19:59, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

and how could the town Huntingdonshire was named after be any different then Huntingdon?💀 94.192.32.22 (talk) 20:00, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Research of your own? Surely you must have found some sources then. Are you aware of our policy Wikipedia:No original research? That is why you are being reverted. Also, if something is obvious as you are implying, it need not be stated. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:44, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Yeah but i just read wiki there's no other sources. And in all due respect, that policy is flipping rubbish. I mean, an AI, that knows everything in the world as it gets updated every hour, tried to edit wikipedia with out citing sources, you lots would still make it not to be put on there. See what im trying to hint at? It just doesn't make sense .this website is to display the truth but if your stopping me from telling the truth because i didnt waste another 2 to 10 minutes looking for sources to back the truth up, it just doesn't make sense. Its like they expect us to pull out a sheet of sources out of our bums as if we are a real life Google. 94.192.32.22 (talk) 21:16, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

and straight after i submit it, the same dude who always does it comes to ruin it. If you need me I'll be rethinking my life choices 94.192.32.22 (talk) 21:37, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

The lead in a Wikipedia article is meant be a succinct summary of the content of the article. You added information that was already covered adequately in the following paragraph. It did not need to be mentioned twice. Nor did it need citing, as it was in the lead and thus a summary of cited information in the body of the article. If you want to be treated like a grown up then please behave like one. Your rants here are doing you no favours. 10mmsocket (talk) 21:52, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

You're fully entitled to your opinion, but it's incompatible with Wikipedia. So either (A) suppress your opinion and either (i) find and cite good sources or (ii) realize that whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent; or (B) find some other website that's more compatible with your opinion. -- Hoary (talk) 21:45, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Wise words 10mmsocket (talk) 21:52, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Those wise words are over a century old. Perhaps they could be be paraphrased for Wikipedia purposes as "if you can't find significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources about a topic, don't start a Wikipedia article about that topic". Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 11:18, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

If you think the WP:OR policy is rubbish, you are welcome to go to the policy talk page and gain consensus for eliminating it. The policies on Wikipedia weren't made up one day out of thin air, but evolved over many years through community discussion. In all due respect, if you cannot be bothered to learn the basics of how an encyclopedia works, then perhaps you should, as you say, rethink your life's choices. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:44, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

This is a message from Amazon. I'm sorry but the person you are trying to speak to has written a custom status "dead". Thank you. 94.192.32.22 (talk) 06:35, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

COPYVIO on Plummer Terrier

See Special:Diff/1246248739. The text was copied directly from the cited source. Was it appropriate for me to blank the section, and what are the next steps? Svampesky (talk) 20:32, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

{{copyvio-revdel}} is the way to tell an administrator that a page's history contains copyright violations. There's a script to make it easier: User:Enterprisey/cv-revdel. jlwoodwa (talk) 20:41, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Svampesky (talk) 20:46, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Adding a template to a redirect using the visual editor

How can I add a template to a redirect using the visual editor? I would like to add the Template:R from alternative language template to Notes sur le cinématographe redirect. Can someone help me, and not just do it for me, but teach me how please Iljhgtn (talk) 21:18, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Notes sur le cinématographe might be the better location of the redirec that I am trying to add the Fr (french) language ISO code to based on the aforementioned template. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:19, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Click on Notes sur le cinématographe. You arrive at Notes on the Cinematographer. Near the top of this, you see "(Redirected from Notes sur le cinématographe)". Click on the link within that. You're now at the redirect. Edit it, as you'd edit a regular article. -- Hoary (talk) 21:50, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

No I know how to edit a redirect, I was saying that I do not know how to make a certain type of edit to the redirect (which is adding a template such as Template:R from alternative language) once the redirect is already created. I can do so when I am first setting up the redirect, but once made, that category appears blocked from use within visual editor. Does my question now make sense? I apologize if it was unclear. Iljhgtn (talk) 15:42, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Help editing to get published

Draft:The Killing of Miles Hall I am working on editing this page and am unsure on what exactly I can do better. "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations." These are the comments of why the page was declined. I used Google News sources and am un sure on the second comment. Thank you for your help. Patty Mitchell (talk) 21:59, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure that his biography is necessary here. But now (just to look at one area of your draft), there's a one-paragraph biography. It has no references whatever. Why should the reader believe what it says? Well, it does say for example "Miles Anthony Hall was the first born to his proud parents". In a sense, it's too easily believable. Why "proud"? A significant and regrettable minority of parents aren't proud of their kids; but can't we assume that, unless we have evidence to the contrary, parents are proud of them? (It looks to me as if "proud" was added for politeness' sake or similar.) Another point: you have external links in the body text, for example police officers from the [https://www.walnutcreekpdca.gov/ Walnut Creek California Police Department]. That's not permissible. (If you must have a link there, then perhaps: police officers from the Walnut Creek California Police Department{{Efn|[https://www.walnutcreekpdca.gov/ Walnut Creek California Police Department]}}.) -- Hoary (talk) 22:16, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Updating linking article

Knox County, Ohio - Wikipedia

Can someone please help me update this page to say "Brinkhaven" instead of "Gann?" We got the main article for Brinkhaven updated, but this one still links to "Gann." Christopher from Brinkhaven (talk) 22:14, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

You're demonstrably able to edit Wikipedia. (If you weren't, this request of yours wouldn't appear.) Where's the difficulty in editing Knox County, Ohio#Villages? -- Hoary (talk) 22:21, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

It's not really my strength. I tried last time and got a lot of blowback. So I'm asking for someone who can. Christopher from Brinkhaven (talk) 22:23, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

User talk:Christopher from Brinkhaven#Name suggests that it's a conflict-of-interest matter. If you have a conflict of interest concerning Brinkhaven, Ohio, then (i) add Template:UserboxCOI to your user page (be sure to read the instructions for this), and (ii) please make requests and suggestions for that article on Talk:Brinkhaven, Ohio. -- Hoary (talk) 23:16, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Really, dude?

If you aren't able/willing, I'm sure someone else will assist. It's a pretty simple thing. Christopher from Brinkhaven (talk) 23:22, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Really dude, this was a trivial edit that you could have done yourself. I just did it for you. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:50, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. That's all I asked. Christopher from Brinkhaven (talk) 23:50, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Help, not related to editing

where can I get help from experienced editors if i am having trouble in finding something on wiki- for e.g: I am trying to find discussion on kolkata rape case vistim's name removal. I read article's talk page and left a comment. I am just trying to see if it was picked up by editors/community for more discussion and any policy discussions/ admin discussion on the same topic. I just want to try to help in policy discussion if there is one happening.

Also, where to find wiki policies, any directories prepared by wiki on this? `~ᴀɴᴋʀᴀᴊ ɢɪʀɪ🎇✨( C • Talk ) 23:30, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:List of policies and guidelines. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:46, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Ohh wow, Thank you, I would enjoy reading it all at my comfort. What about the policy discussion thing? where do those happen? creating new policy, proposing changes, etc... `~ᴀɴᴋʀᴀᴊ ɢɪʀɪ🎇✨( C • Talk ) 02:06, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Every page on Wikipedia also has a "talk" page, where discussions take place about improving the content of the page to which the talk page is attached. If you want to discuss the Wikipedia:Notability policy, for example, you would use Wikipedia talk:Notability. And for that Kolkata discussion, it's at Talk:2024 Kolkata rape and murder incident#RfC: Name of victim. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:45, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

There is an extensive and ongoing WP:RfC about this issue on the article's talk page, with a large number of editors contributing (and also a comment from the Wikimedia Foundation). The RfC was listed on both the general RfC page and the BLP Noticeboard. You can also find short but more general discussions about naming rape victims, such as this one, on the BLP talk page. The policy most relevant to this situation is probably WP:BLPNAME. FactOrOpinion (talk) 02:06, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks!! <3 `~ᴀɴᴋʀᴀᴊ ɢɪʀɪ🎇✨( C • Talk ) 02:08, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Alan Watt (author, radio commentator)

how can I contribute to Wikipedia by submitting a quote written by a man whose name appears in a Wikipedia disambiguation page in red letters? the page I am referring to is https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Watt

I will be creating a new page about him and his work, but first — if it is doable — I would like to submit some of his most enlightening quotes to Wikiquote. Thanks, Charles Fabara Writing is easy (talk) 23:43, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Writing is easy, I think you may be mistaking Wikipedia (which is where we find ourselves) for Wikiquote. -- Hoary (talk) 23:57, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Not knowing if there is a teahouse for wiki quote, I am wondering if someone in the Wikipedia teahouse knows if I can, or if anyone can, or is permitted to, submit a quote by someone whose name appears and Wikipedia and red letters. 2600:1017:B8C0:CF4A:3D87:1ED5:A326:20E9 (talk) 00:05, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Dear Hoary: I need to create a new Wikipedia page for "Alan Watt" (author and radio commentator). Can you help me do that? Thanks, Charles (username: Writing is easy) Writing is easy (talk) 16:40, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Create the page Draft:Alan Watt (author and radio commentator) and submit it for review, but don't write the article WP:BACKWARD. Write it forward. That means, find reliable source coverage of him that is independent of him first, before you write a single word. If he's obscure, you may not get traction with Wikiquote. I have removed your addition of his name to the disambiguation page because it seems like you're trying to promote his website. What is your association with this person? ~Anachronist (talk) 01:30, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Anachronist.

Good and correct and knowledable advice.I am trying to make people aware of the mountains of data his website makes available. I am endeavoring to, now that he died, having dedicated his life to educating people about the workings of the New World Order. He has been a guest on hundreds of Internet radio shows. Those hosts interviewed Alan Watt, which is to say the "covered him", because he is obscure, but worth knowing about. It seems he worked to not be part of mainstream society, such as Wikipedia. Now that he died of a heart attack in 2021. His wife is thinking whether she wants to have Wikipedia have a page about her deceased husband or not. If she tells me she does. I want to be ready to write it. I never met Alan Watt in person. I only emailed him a few times. I bought two of his books. And I am in email contact with his wife, Melissa. I thank you for, and agree with, your advice to, "Write it forward" (not "BACKWARD"), meaning after finding reliable source coverage of him that is independent of him. He was well known in certain underground Internet networks or large groups. In 2006, Alex Jones interviewed him on PrisonPlanet.com and Infowars.com. I look forward to reading your kind reply. Thanks, Charles (Writing is easy) Writing is easy (talk) 17:13, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

His wife's desire to have a Wikipedia article, or not, doesn't matter. We have a policy: Wikipedia is not a memorial site and shouldn't be used that way. Nor is it a platform for "getting the word out". Wikipedia publishes articles about topics that are notable, with notability defined as significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Interviews aren't independent of the subject, so those sources don't count toward notability; they can be used only to verify statements he made. And InfoWars fails the reliability requirement; in fact it is blacklisted on Wikipedia so you couldn't link to it anyway; see WP:INFOWARS.

Articles on demonstrably notable topics are kept. Articles on non-notable subjects are deleted (or never started). If those outcomes are against his wife's wishes, there's really nothing she can do about it. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:09, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Dear Anachronist:

I agree that Wikipedia is not and should never start being a "memorial site". It is an excellent and unique encyclopedia. "Getting the word out" is an interesting idea. I do want to make Wikipedia's users and Internet searchers aware of his research findings. That is why I am interesed in creating a Wikipedia page for Alan Watt, an author whose main point was to suggest people think for themselves.

The essence of his notability, of the value of his findings, may ultimately lie in his findings themselves. Anyone who reads some of his findings can rationally decide if they are or are not "notable" and worth sharing on Wikipedia.

Do you see of a way his notability requirement could be fulfilled? The challenge is that because his research and his conclusions were so different, sometimes opposite the mainstream views that he stayed away from mainstream media.

The conundrum is that author Alan Watt was a mostly a recluse, but his research reveals the inner workings of the ruling elites throughout the ages. Inner workings conscious individuals like you would probably be very happy to become aware of.

I don't see a way to present some independent source as VALIDATING Alan Watt and his research findings. I see that his might be a similar situation as Galileo's who discovered some shocking facts, but the establishment put him under house arrest. The only light at the end of this tunnel we seem to be in might be for some Wikipedia judges to read at least one of Alan Watt's articles, or see the video I send you a link to, titled "Reality Check", and thinking for themselves see for themselves that Alan Watt knew things the more intelligent people will be grateful someone told them about.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhrYRzvVssM&list=PL0273C286EBCA0464&index=1

All the best,

Charles

"Writing is Easy" Writing is easy (talk) 15:47, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Until you can grasp what "notability" actually means in the context of Wikipedia, I do not see a way forward. Please read the pages I lined to earlier if you haven't yet. Notability doesn't mean importance, it doesn't mean value, it doesn't mean validation. It means significant coverage by reliable independent sources, nothing else. I could self-publish a rock-solid plan for achieving world peace, which is undeniably important and has value, but if there is no coverage of my work, then it isn't notable. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:13, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I will be studying your quick and kind reply, Sir. Writing is easy (talk) 16:14, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Anachronist points out that you'd need "reliable source coverage of him that is independent of him". True. It means coverage of him that (i) is independent of him and (ii) is from what Wikipedia regards as reliable sources. Not what he, or you, or I would regard as reliable sources, but what Wikipedia would. As I gaze at his website, I sense that amassing such coverage would be difficult, if not impossible. -- Hoary (talk) 01:55, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

That website sure doesn't give you a confident feeling, does it? Lots of promotion of self-published works. Even the website about the Pacific Northwest tree octopus was more convincing. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:06, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

But the formatting/design has a certain period charm. (1996 or so, perhaps?). -- Hoary (talk) 02:12, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, Hoary, his website is original-looking and unique. Originality and uniqueness are good.

Since you know Wikipedia, do you see a way we or I could fulfill that notability requirement? The catch or challenge is that because his research and his conclusions were so esoteric, so different or sometimes opposite the mainstream views, he stayed away from mainstream media. All that presents a conundrum. An author who was a mostly a recluse, but whose research reveals the inner workings of the ruling elites throughoutthe ages. Writing is easy (talk) 15:14, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikiquote says "We limit ourselves to quotations which are notable. A quotation can be notable because it has achieved fame due to its enduring relevance to many people, or because it is attributed to a notable individual, or appeared in a notable work." Perhaps not a good fit for Alan Watt. -- Hoary (talk) 02:12, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I would just add that redlinks are not permitted on disambiguation pages, per WP:DDD. Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:44, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

using non-SPS written by a BLP's subject for claim about third parties

WP:BLPSPS discusses the conditions under which a SPS by the subject of a BLP article can be used, one of which is "the material ... does not involve claims about third parties." But the BLP guidelines don't address non-SPS written by the subject of an article. Does the same condition apply for non-SPS? And does "the material" refer to the WP text, or to the source? (Background: a BLP discusses criticism of a 2003 scientific paper that the subject wrote, and the subject has asked that a non-SPS he wrote be mentioned, where that non-SPS addresses the criticism and critics. The WP text might be something like "the subject lamented that the [unnamed] critics objected to the paper's conclusion instead of engaging with the paper's methods and analysis" or might instead be limited to "in 2023, the subject wrote a reflection on the paper's origin and responses to it.") Thanks. FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:54, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

You can cite a SPS for assertions made by the subject as long as those assertions are attributed properly in prose. The two examples you mentioned are fine (although I wouldn't use the word "lamented"). ~Anachronist (talk) 01:37, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

FactOrOpinion, if a living person who is the subject of a Wikipedia article writes a reliably published article or book, then there are absolutely no restrictions on use of that reliable non-SPS source, other than normal editorial judgment and our content policies. If a Wikipedia article about such a person includes properly cited criticism of them or their work, then, of course, their reliably published rebuttal should be included and summarized with a comparable level of detail as the criticism. Cullen328 (talk) 04:23, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

@Anachronist, @Cullen328, thank you both for your help! FactOrOpinion (talk) 13:20, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Lucy R. Lippard unsourced edits

FYI

 – Adjusted heading level. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:06, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, could someone have a look at recent edits to the page Lucy R. Lippard. An IP address and then a new user named Qc311 has been adding fairly large sections of unsourced text. I've reversed them twice, but I'd rather not get into an edit war, and am unfamiliar with further administrative steps. Thanks,  Curiocurio (talk) 01:03, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

@Curiocurio: Welcome to the Teahouse. You may wish to let the user in question know on their user talk page that they run the risk of edit warring, and that persisting in such an endeavour may bring their actions before the edit warring noticeboard. Please read the relevant information on those pages for more information. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:10, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I've semiprotected the article for now. Adding large quantities of unsourced prose to a BLP isn't permitted on Wikipedia. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:35, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! Curiocurio (talk) 10:47, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Feedback on a draft article

Hello: I have revised the draft article several times but it has been rejected twice. Can you please read and suggest what more is needed to get it to be an encyclopedia article? This is my first full article. I have read the pages suggested by the other editors. The draft is Draft:Private_school_scandals_in_the_United_States Angel94117 (talk) 05:22, 18 September 2024 (UTC) Angel94117 (talk) 05:22, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

The reviewer is correct, it's an essay, not an article. Have a look at WP:LAYOUT. You need a lead paragraph that summarizes the body text, and the body text needs to discuss the subject of the article, not tell a journalistic story - and it isn't a good story because you are tying together unrelated events into one article. That's called a WP:COATRACK, and isn't allowed. The title of the draft implies that multiple examples would be described in different paragraphs, but instead it's one big section with no structure. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:54, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

@Angel94117: I think that the most important part of Anachronist's advice is that on Wikipedia you can't have a story to tell. All you're permitted to do is prove that others have told a story already. TooManyFingers (talk) 17:18, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers and @Anachronist I made some changes based on your suggestions. Initially I wanted this to be a section in the private schools page, but it was met with resistance by two editors. The advice I was given then was to have more info about issues that were not just one school, so I revised for that with the Boston Globe article that I believe led to the sense it was one big section with no structure. I am a former journalist so it is tricky getting the Wikipedia style down, but I am trying and appreciate anyone's advice on it. Thanks! Angel94117 (talk) 00:13, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Getting there. You don't have to summarize each example in the lead section. The lead section is mainly for a general overview. A reader should be able to read the lead section and have a good idea of the contents of the article.

The "Press coverage" section seems out of place in the middle of a list of examples. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:38, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

@AnachronistThanks for the feedback! Will work on it.Angel94117 (talk) 02:29, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Factual errors in citing

It is important that we do not have lies in Wikipedia. The article There's a Small Hotel asserts that a cited book contains a particular statement. It does not. This is easily confirmed by searching the book on line. I removed the lie and substituted a different citation that gives a sensible explanation of the story. Someone has reverted the text to what it was before, apparently failing to notice what I said in the Edit Summary. What can be done? It would be unseemly for this to be changed back and forth ad infinitum.Roryjohnston (talk) 06:44, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

You can contact them on their talk page to point this out, perhaps they didn't see the error you are trying to correct. Tesleemah (talk) 06:55, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Roryjohnston. This is probably something you should discuss on the article's talk page. The editor who reverted you has provided a quote from the source in support of the content they restored. The source might be wrong, but that's something to at least first try to resolve through article talk page discussion. Finally, it might be a good idea to consider the reversion of your edit as having been made in good faith, and refrain from referring to the content in question as a "lie". It's not uncommon for reliable sources to provide conflicting information on the same subject. Whether that's the case here is something to figure out through talk page discussion. Using the word "lie" runs the risk of starting the discussion off on the wrong foot and creating an atmosphere not conducive to friendly discussion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:03, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for yours. There is confusion that needs to be cleared up. This has nothing to do with two sources disagreeing with each other. It’s about correctly interpreting what a source says. The quotation from Nolan does not establish that Richard Rodgers went to Stockton. I have posted my reasoning on the article’s Talk page.Roryjohnston (talk) 19:41, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Roryjohnston, your "someone" is Pdebee. As Marchjuly suggests, you and Pdebee should discuss this on Talk:There's a Small Hotel. It's been 16 years since anyone discussed a proposed or actual edit there. -- Hoary (talk) 08:07, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

To: Roryjohnston

Copy: Tesleemah, Marchjuly, Hoary

Dear Colleague,
Thank you for your interest in "There's a Small Hotel" and in aiming to get it right. As Marchjuly suggested, I am happy to work with you in a collaborative way, per WP:DISPUTED. In the past, when I came across similar situations while creating articles myself, I opted to write a footnote to indicate that the fact in question is disputed across the sources, as I did in the first entry, here (see "i"). This way, we demonstrate to the reader that various sources themselves are in conflict about the fact, without us having to do any more than simply point this out. With this in mind, I will now continue this discussion at the article's talk page later today, and I invite you to join me in this constructive effort. Thank you.
With kind regards for now;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^{(talk)(become old-fashioned!)} 11:37, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for yours. I have figured out that this has nothing to do with two sources disagreeing. I have posted my reasoning on the article’s Talk page.Roryjohnston (talk) 19:37, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Rory; I have replied to your entry at the article's talk page and will now apply your suggested correction. Thank you for following up on this and please accept my apologies for my part in this confusion.
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^{(talk)(become old-fashioned!)} 07:53, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Where do I help for linking orphan articles?

I use User:SupportBot but it only gives 3 orphan articles per suggestion. Solise (talk) 08:04, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Have you tried Wikipedia:Orphan#Step 1: Finding an orphaned article? Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:35, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Hia, i would like to know why it was rejected

about the article submitted Kaul7 (talk) 08:59, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello. If you are referring to your sandbox, it was declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning in the draft process, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means that it may be resubmitted. Your draft is completely unsourced. All information, especially about a living person, must bs sourced to an independent reliable source. Please see Referencing for beginners. 331dot (talk) 09:10, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

The article was declined for lack of reliable independent sources. You can go through citing sources. Also, since you are pretty new (5 day old here) , I will suggest you take things slow and master how to edit on Wikipedia first Tesleemah (talk) 09:12, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Tesleemah, the draft was declined, not rejected. If you want to answer Teahouse questions, please try harder to be accurate. Cullen328 (talk) 09:31, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Now, this will gear me up. Cheers! Tesleemah (talk) 09:54, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Kaul7, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Like most beginners, you have written your draft BACKWARDS: writing an article begins by finding solid indpendent published sources, otherwise there can be no article. What you know (or what I know, or what any random person on hte internet knows) is irrelevant, unless it is backed up by published sources.

More generally: My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. ColinFine (talk) 09:41, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

A) no references B) after Declined, do not resubmit to AfC without first addressing the comments in the Declined notice, as that just wastes a reviewer's time. David notMD (talk) 12:59, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Regarding a username change…

Hi.

So I’ve been waiting for weeks for a username change and it has become apparent to me that that group that manages that is critically understaffed. I would like to volunteer to be a name changer. How would I go about this business? Alexysun (talk) 09:37, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Here's the easier way, Alexysun. You start by becoming an administrator in some Wikipedia. With that accomplished, you become a bureaucrat in some Wikipedia. With that accomplished, you become a global renamer. (Or so I believe. I may be making one or more mistakes here.) -- Hoary (talk) 10:36, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

@Alexysun: I can't find anywhere in your contribution history where you requested a username change. Maybe you started the request and didn't save it? Go to WP:CHU/Simple. Your username won't change unless you request it, and the response time isn't unreasonably slow. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:23, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

This article needs additional citations for verification.

I get this error message "This article needs additional citations for verification." when I only use Wikipedia quotes through out the page including one external reference. The page is in my sandbox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lagosman/sandbox) . I'd like to publish but nOt with this error messagE. What do I do to remove it ? Lagosman 09:49, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I will not advise you publish the page with just one reference, what you added so far has been linking the author to other connecting pages on Wikipedia.

You still need more references to back up your claim about the author and these references needs to be Independent and reliable as per reliable sources. You should also check citing sources.

On a final note, see how M. Visvesvaraya was written for further sample on how to edit yours to meet WP:Notable(people) Tesleemah (talk) 10:18, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Lagosman, and welcome to the Teahouse. A Wikipedia article should be almost 100% based on what independent reliable sources say about a subject. Wikipedia itself is not regarded as a reliable source, because it is user-generated.

You have written your draft BACKWARDS, in that you didn't start with the reliable independent sources.

Please see WP:YFA. ColinFine (talk) 10:44, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks - I've learnt something I need ideally minimum three good sources independent of Wikipedia. Lagosman 17:59, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

How do I check my edit score?

You know how when you edit, if it’s a good edit, the number goes up, but if it’s a bad edit, it goes down? how do I check that number? Cornishrom20 (talk) 09:49, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

@Cornishrom20: If you are referring to the + or - number that displays in the article's History, that is nothing to do with whether an edit is "good" or "bad". It just shows how the SIZE of the article changed: longer or shorter. (If that is not what you meant, then can you please provide a bit more information about where you are seeing a number go up or down?) --Gronk Oz (talk) 09:55, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Oh ok. I thought there was some kind of point system Cornishrom20 (talk) 10:37, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

@Cornishrom20: - LOL. If you want to see a summary of your edits, click on "Contributions" near the top of the screen. Then from the Contributions page, click on "Edit count" near the bottom. This will give you more stats than you could ever want about all the edits you have made. Enjoy!--Gronk Oz (talk) 11:27, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Ok thanks Cornishrom20 (talk) 11:29, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

lol my average edit change number is -432.4 bytes.

that came from the time I section blanked the Austrian empire. I’m still trying to work that off, I was really dumb back then Cornishrom20 (talk) 11:38, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

@Cornishrom20:, you don't need to "work it off". There's no negative connotation in having a net reduction in the size of the articles that you edit. In fact, reducing the size of an article can sometimes lead to an improvement in its quality. Mike Marchmont (talk) 11:44, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Yea but section blanking Cornishrom20 (talk) 11:45, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

My average is probably even more negative. As an administrator, I've deleted entire articles. There isn't an easy way to factor in deletions, however. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:18, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

If there was a "wikiscore" that mattered, I think it might somewhat resemble a "signal-to-noise ratio", which might need tricky sabermetrics-style formulas to calculate properly. But unlike in baseball (where "success" is almost exactly equal to "winning games"), relative edit values on Wikipedia aren't clear because there are different interpretations of success; the math might be even harder to do correctly. But "How much good have I done here, minus the sum of (any permanent harm I've caused and any good I've prevented by disruption)" would be interesting if it was possible. TooManyFingers (talk) 18:11, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Sometimes administrators need to judge a sort of "wikiscore", and it's hard. Occasionally we need to answer the question "is this editor a net positive or net negative for the Wikipedia project?" If negative, then we block the editor, which is difficult to do when the editor is trying to contribute in good faith but keeps leaving messes behind for others to clean up, and shows no sign of improving. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:33, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Targeted for COI for creation of the page Hassan & Roshaan

Hello. I am stuck in a situation and I don't know how to get out of it. Two days ago, I created the page Hassan & Roshaan. a music band based in Pakistan. They garnered attention and became quite popular in 2020. As I was searching for subjects to work on, I found it would be great to create a page for this music band and I found locally-known platforms featuring this music band. However, when I published the page and shared it in my circle as an achievement, it was pointed out that I got the spelling wrong, so I corrected the spelling of it. An editor moved it to the draft space, saying that it feels like its written like an advertisement and requires references, it also said to move back to article space once changes are made. I altered the content a bit and added new references and moved it back. The same editor started accusing me of UPE after I made changes upon their message on my talk page. When I tried to defend it, they threatened me with an Afd and they in fact did that. Now, another editor has started a discussion about COI on the noticeboard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#WikiProCreate. I need to understand what proofs/evidence do I need to provide to defend this claim? I am really worried about my reputation as an editor. Please help. Thank you WikiProCreate (talk) 10:00, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I'd suggest confining this to the COI noticeboard where you have already posted, to avoid duplicating effort. 331dot (talk) 10:02, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I believe this is a place to ask questions? I am here, asking what proofs/evidence do I need to provide to defend this claim? Please don't tell me, even this is something that I cannot do or it would not help me?

WikiProCreate (talk) 10:19, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

You don't necessarily need to defend anything if you haven't been paid for writing, just state in clear and civil way how you have been contributing out of good will. I will suggest you stick to the page dedicated for the issue as stated by @331dot Tesleemah (talk) 10:22, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Alright. Noted with thanks. Appreciate the direction @Tesleemah and @331dot. WikiProCreate (talk) 10:24, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

My suggestion was simply that, out a desire to keep things consolidated in one location. 331dot (talk) 11:40, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, i understand. Thanks a bunch.

WikiProCreate (talk) 11:42, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Clarification on Link Removal and Tone of Feedback Regarding Demidov Contribution

Hello, Teahouse community! I recently made an addition to the Nikolai Vasilievich Demidov Wikipedia page, including a reference to the International Demidov Association, specifically linking to a page about Andrei Malaev-Babel and the Assotiation (the link in the page are dead). Malaev-Babel is a well-regarded expert on Demidov’s techniques and has been instrumental in preserving and promoting these methods through his work as a professor and as a leader within the association. The link I included was removed, and the editor, APK, left a message stating that my contribution "did not appear constructive," with an utterly insulting suggestion to "experiment" in my sandbox next time.

While I understand the importance of ensuring Wikipedia maintains high standards, I found the tone of the feedback somewhat dismissive and not conducive to constructive dialogue. I believe that Malaev-Babel’s contributions are highly relevant to understanding Demidov’s legacy, and the link provides verifiable information on his work and influence. Could someone help clarify why the link might have been considered inappropriate, and how I can reintroduce this important information properly? Is there a more appropriate way to cite this source or explain Malaev-Babel’s significance in the article? I’d appreciate any guidance on how to handle this situation and ensure that the content meets Wikipedia’s standards. Thank you so much for your help! Best regards, kimon Fioretos

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolai_Vasilievich_Demidov Kimon fioretos (talk) 10:44, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

@Kimon fioretos You added bare url with no explanation whatsoever. Please read WP:External links. I see that you are now discussing this issue with the reverting edtior on your talk page. Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:10, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Orlando International Airport - Annual traffic table adjustment

Hello. Go to Orlando Int'l Airport article, scroll down to Annual Traffic table. Can you make Year column slightly smaller, Passengers column; center data in column and make column slightly smaller; and Change from previous year column, center data and make column slightly smaller. Thank you and have a good day.Theairportman33531 (talk) 14:41, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Theairportmant33531, and welcome to the Teahouse. Column sizes in tables are almost always calculated by the browser you are using, according to the width of the window, and the length of the cell contents in the column. While they can be controlled to some extent, this is usually a bad idea, as it restricts what the browser can do, and may make the display worse on some screen sizes. (The table looks fine to me on a computer and on my phone).

You can centre the data, but I think you have to do so in each row separately. See Help:Table. ColinFine (talk) 14:50, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

@Theairportman33531: In that table, the width of each column is defined with the code style="width:75px" or style="width:100px". You can adjust the widths of the columns by changing the width number. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 14:21, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

How do you download all the catergories

I want to download all categories and what categories they are in and what categories and pages are in them 4.39.220.106 (talk) 15:01, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't know about downloading them. But here is a list of all categories on English-language Wikipedia. Maproom (talk) 15:33, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

You can also look at WP:EXPLORE. It has several options for seeing where everything is. TooManyFingers (talk) 17:42, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

An interesting undertaking, since I might be just about to create a couple more (as subcategories to existing categories--those are still categories). I doubt if I'm the only one doing things like that. The point is, such a download would probably be out of date within an hour. Uporządnicki (talk) 21:07, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Sometimes, when people say "download", they just mean "see". (People who don't have a lot of computer knowledge say it more often.) TooManyFingers (talk) 03:05, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Exploding pagers article image

Hello, was going to post this on the talk page for the relevant article but the article and talk page is protected as of now, i just wanted to get word out that the supposed image added to the article today in some revision does not appear to be of an exploded pager but rather a handheld radio transceiver, the Gold Apollo 924 is a more standard pager size.

The image appears to be dated from the 17th so i'm not sure if it's from todays 2nd wave of HT's exploding, but if it's not then that must also mean that it wasn't just 924s exploding. OGWFP (talk) 16:04, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

@OGWFP, if a talk page is protected, you can use WP:RFPP/E to make an edit request if you have a specific edit you want made. Note that since you are not extended confirmed and the topic area is under strict sanctions, you are only allowed to make edit requests, and cannot discuss the subject otherwise anywhere on Wikipedia (including the Teahouse). Keep that in mind. 57.140.16.35 (talk) 14:27, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Recurring Issues with User:RodRabelo7

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

(Non-administrator comment) The Teahouse isn't really set up to deal with editor behavioral issues beyond providing some general guidance; moreover, it shouldn't be used as a substitute for Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (ANI), which is the direction where this discussion seems to be heading after the last couple of posts. Those involved in this disagreement can seek further assistance at ANI if they want, but I strongly suggest they carefully read through the instructions given at the top of the ANI page as well as perhaps Wikipedia:ANI advice before doing so to make sure they understand what's going to be expected of them. Anything not related to editor behavior that others would like to continue discussing can be done on user talk pages, article talk pages, or other relevant noticeboards. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:59, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

---

Guys, I've been facing issues with the user RodRabelo7 for quite some time now. Since the incident involving the fake profile "Alexandre Exalts" in 2023 (which led to my first block and block discussion), he has reverted several of my edits, and on one occasion, he even proposed the deletion of my sandbox page on the English Wikipedia.

Due to this history, I started suspecting his intentions and associating him with other problematic users, such as Pórokhov and Quintinense. For a while now, I’ve been raising the possibility that he may have some kind of partnership or relationship with these two, both known for engaging in sockpuppetry (use of alternative accounts). I’ve even made some mentions of this on the Portuguese Wikipedia.

Recently, on Wikimedia Commons, he once again reverted one of my edits without providing any justification in the edit history.

Given this situation, what can I do to deal with this on Wikimedia wikis? Is there a specific procedure for handling this type of behavior?

Warning: I will be sending this same text to WP pt

At WP pt, I have already made more than 7 thousand edits Fox de Quintal (talk) 16:20, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

The first thing to do in case of dispute is to discuss it with the person involved. You do not seem to have posted at User talk:RodRabelo7 at all. ColinFine (talk) 16:53, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Fox de Quintal, as for the version of User:Fox de Quintal/sandbox which was deleted on 10 September, that was Portuguese language content harshly criticizing other editors. We do not host extended content in other languages anywhere on the English language Wikipedia and we do not host "enemies lists" on the English Wikipedia. Please be aware that English Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons and Portuguese Wikipedia are three separate projects with separate policies and guidelines. Let me advise you that it is a very bad idea to bring disputes and grudges from other projects and in other languages to the English Wikipedia and I encourage you to be very cautious in the future. Cullen328 (talk) 17:22, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

But here it is, if I try to send him a message, he will revert, he has already reverted several times! Fox de Quintal (talk) 19:37, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

It's simple false that I "reverted one of [your] edits without providing any justification in the edit history [sic]". Read it: "wrong section". RodRabelo7 (talk) 18:30, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

And one of Commons's administrators do agree with me. And now, Mr. do Quintal? RodRabelo7 (talk) 18:34, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

@RodRabelo7:, you know very well that this is not an isolated case, furthermore, you have never given any explanations for this behavior of yours.

Reverteds:

• (Commons, 2023)
• (Sandbox, Maria Marçal)
• (DARIO SEVERI)
• (I ask him to forget about me)
• (Commons in 2024)

@RodRabelo7: In 2023, Pórokhov started bothering me. Is it just a coincidence that you requested the deletion of a file honoring one of his sockpuppets? Why do you revert my edits and never explain why? I’ve read somewhere that you have connections with a friend of of Pórokhov.

You have NEVER given any explanations! Fox de Quintal (talk) 20:33, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Prohibit interaction

@Cullen328 and ColinFine: Once I saw on the Portuguese Wikipedia that two users were prohibited from interacting. Is it possible to place a restriction preventing me from interacting with RodRabelo7? Since he reverts edits without explaining (meaning, THERE IS NO CONVERSATION!), the tendency is that one will end up speaking poorly of the other. Fox de Quintal (talk) 21:02, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

FYI: Yes, the English Wikipedia does have interaction bans. jlwoodwa (talk) 21:41, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Fox de Quintal: the place to request such actions is WP:ANI. Make sure you read the notes at the top of the page carefully before posting. ColinFine (talk) 21:41, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

@Jlwoodwa and ColinFine: it's simple false that I revert them without explaning why... Fox de Quintal is literally harassing me in three projects simultaneously and is trying to pass as the victim! See here and better yet this comment... RodRabelo7 (talk) 21:44, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I can confirm that this is not isolated. Recently User:RodRabelo7 also, completely unexplained: (1) reverted my 1 month old edit (fixing an obvious typo), (2) left no edit summary, then proceeded to (3) accuse me on my talk page of a misleading edit summary (huh?), (4) templated an almost 20-year Wikipedian, (5) has since failed to reply back or engage with me whatsoever, and (6) has not had the decency to explain even one iota of the preceding actions. I thought this was just one random, confusing, unhappy Wikipedia editing experience until I checked if RodRabelo7 had logged on to respond to me and found the above.

I'm glad I found this because whatever RodRabelo7 is doing doesn't make any sense to me. His refusal to explain or discuss anything, instead immediately escalating to admins with accusations of harassment (although I know absolutely nothing about other situations), seems problematic, provocative, and disruptive. If he cannot satisfactorily explain whatever he is up to, at least with regards to his behavior towards me, I also will request that an interaction ban be applied as well. Hftf (talk) 00:47, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Hftf, in the specific case linked, I may have made a mistake due to the language barrier, as I am not a native English speaker. It seemed to me that the summary was misleading because I am unable to identify the typo in the previous text. Could it be a case of preferring the surname over the first name? And I don't receive pings because I disabled them in the settings. But even so, you didn't ping me. You could have reached out to me on my talk page, but you didn't. That makes it complicated... RodRabelo7 (talk) 00:51, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Hftf, oh, I just identified the typo. It really did exist. I must have gotten confused because the introduction of the article repeatedly used "He" to refer to Jiankui, and I mixed it up with an incorrectly capitalized personal pronoun ("He" instead of "he"), which led me to think there had been some recent vandalism. It's a misunderstanding I created, but I want to make it clear that it's just an isolated case that I never imagined was still causing issues for another editor. I sincerely apologize and would like to mention this is unrelated to the de Quintal case, which was even blocked here on Wikipedia. Best regards, RodRabelo7 (talk) 00:58, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

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

Wanting to add to the List of wars involving the United States.

Hi everyone. So I am a newcomer. I have for a long time wanted to edit on Wikipedia, but felt intimated in the editing process. Thankfully I tried it out and I love the practice edits. In particular I have wanted to contribute to the list of wars page involving the United States. I have noticed there are actually at least two wars that have not been designated on the page. But I don't want to just in without consulting people, or messing up since I am so new. I want to be respectful to the hard work everyone puts in, while adding information that helps people.

So here are my questions: Which group or groups do I talk to about this? How do I find groups on my own for future references? What types of edits should I practice on first before I jump in? I want to work on the list, but also some of the pages themselves. List of wars involving the United States

Thank you so much. I really appreciate your help. I think this will be fun and meaningful to people. Historyguy1138 (talk) 20:11, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Historyguy1138. The place to discuss such things is on the Talk page of the article. If there is not much interaction there, there is usually a box at the top of a talk page identifying which WikiProject(s) might be interested in that article - and you can put a note on the talk page of the corresponding WikiProject(s) pointing to the discussion you have started. ColinFine (talk) 21:43, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

@Historyguy1138 Just adding to what ColinFine has suggested: Pages like that one are described as 'List articles' and every entry in it should be to an existing Wikipedia article. So, my first question is have you found a Wikipedia article about a war involving the US which is not on that list? If so, it should be easy and non-controversial to add it to that List article. If not, consider creating a new article about that war first.

However, I notice that List of wars involving the United States is structured entirely using TABLES. To be frank, these can be extremely difficult for a completely new editor to edit, simply because of the complicated 'markup' used by our WP:Source Editor, or the limitations of our alternative editing tool, the Viusal Editor.

I often shy away from editing tables at times, and I've made some pretty complex tables in the past. So, yes, putting forward your suggested addition via the talk page is a very good solution, with the advantage that someone else can tie themselves in knots getting it sorted for you! LOL.

That said, we do encourage folk to WP:BE BOLD when learning to edit here. So the choice is yours. If, despite Previewing your edit, if you make a mess of an edit, you can always click the 'View History' tab straight afterwards to see that latest addition at the top of the list of edits, and then simply click the 'undo' button to revert it back to how it was before. That tip has saved my bacon a few times when I've mangled making a tiny edit to a complex table! Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:16, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Nick. Was having trouble replying to you before. (The reply button was greyed out).

Great tips. You guys Rock. (: Historyguy1138 (talk) 13:34, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

By the way, if you're interested in military history, I recommend joining WP:MILHIST. It's a large and very active wikiproject. Wikiprojects are a good way to get involved with the community. -- asilvering (talk) 05:13, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Editing ‘Related Articles’ text

I apologize if this has been asked and answered already, but I’m curious how one would go about editing disparaging text in a ‘related articles’ link.

For example, the Connor Stalions article (Connor Stalions) is followed by a link to a related article about Sherrone Moore.

Unfortunately, that link includes the disparaging text, “American football player and horrible coach”

I am not remotely connected to this person, but I feel that this description should be edited. The problem is, I’m not an editor and have no idea how to fix this myself.

Thank you for whatever information you can provide, and again, I apologize if my question has been addressed in an existing article. Waldohammer (talk) 21:37, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not seeing anything about Sherrone Moore on the page Connor Stalions. jlwoodwa (talk) 21:48, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Waldohammer. Thank you for pointing out this vandalism to Sherrone Moore, which I have reverted.

You are an editor, and you could have reverted it (though as it is in the "short description", which doesn't appear in the text of the article, it's a bit hard to find). ColinFine (talk) 21:50, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

@Waldohammer: "Related Articles" is a feature of the mobile version: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connor_Stalions. Most editors use the desktop version and don't see that feature. The description is taken from the target article so it was fixed there.[6] PrimeHunter (talk) 22:14, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Why can't you just delete an article instead of "cleaning it up"

If an article has "no citations" or "original research", then just delete it. Why do you keep the articles up if they're bad 2601:246:5C80:65F0:82AC:9F0F:D865:608B (talk) 01:05, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. See WP:BEFORE. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:15, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I don’t want to be blocked

Hello. A message from an admin told me I will be blocked if I continue disruptive edits. How can I make constructive contributions? 2607:FEA8:FD04:8183:4D4C:9B9E:68A:AB12 (talk) 01:06, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

There isn't a need to link the word Wikipedia in that article. I'm not sure why you received a final warning for it. Knitsey (talk) 01:15, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. It appears that the user who warned you (and isn't an admin) has been blocked. As long as your contributions don't violate Wikipedia policies, no one will have a sanctionable issue with you. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:17, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, those edits are not disruptive and no admin would block you for them. The turnip edit is the expected best practice, and the other edit is also fine. It's common to get reverted, but it was inappropriate for them to leave a warning about it. Don't sweat it, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:11, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Vandalism and Eliminating redundant phrases

Could someone please explain to me just how is the following vandalism: removing "against" in the following phrase: "The club successfully appealed against Cardle's sending off against Ayr United ....". Thank you.2603:8000:D300:3650:1847:225A:5EE0:EECA (talk) 01:08, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. The user who left the message on your talk page has been indefinitely blocked for not being here to build an encyclopedia. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:18, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I knew that first edit they reverted as it added up to the same characteristics that i have encountered recently while editing where things such as spelling s were corrected then reverted with threats of blocking if such vandalism continued. What i was concerned with was last time it happened I ended up being banned for two weeks because i pointed out a sock puppet. This same approach of reverting and issuing threats seem to come from accounts that have been in existence for a while but have spurts of activity that seem to concentrate on reverting IP edits. Glad someone with some authority was able to take care of the culprit.2603:8000:D300:3650:1847:225A:5EE0:EECA (talk) 06:34, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Direct information

I need more information on the Enlightenment,please and thank you. 2600:8800:9E00:D700:2C1C:F56E:3915:5471 (talk) 01:31, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi IP 2600:8800:9E00:D700:2C1C:F56E:3915:5471. You could try reading the Wikipedia article Age of Enlightenment for a general overview of the subject. Perhaps it will give you the information you need or suggest some some sources which might be helpful. You could also try asking more specific questions at Wikipedia:Reference desk or simply just Googling whatever specific information you need. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:46, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Redundant words removal

Could someone explain to me why "against" in the following use is not redundant: "In February 2013, Churchill received media attention after it appealed against a High Court of Justice judgement in the case of Bethany Probert, who, in 2009 when she was 13 years old, was hit by a car driven by one of the insurer's customers whilst walking along a country lane." Appeals are always because you lost therefore are against so why the double wording? 2603:8000:D300:3650:1847:225A:5EE0:EECA (talk) 06:27, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Not every Wikipedia editor is the world's best writer. Actually, none of them are. Feel free to copyedit. Cullen328 (talk) 06:30, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Please bear in mind that "appeal against" is standard in British English, which uses prepositions with verbs far more than AmEng does. Bare appeal is used in BrEng in legal language, but it isn't common usage. Please see e.g. Cambridge dictionary, which lists British usage first. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 07:08, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Your question isn't rude or improper in any other way; but if you have other questions rather like it, you'd be better off posting them at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language: there'd be a greater appetite for answering them. -- Hoary (talk) 07:22, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Comment on Jats article narration Possible COI Influence

 The reference which he arrogantly trying to assimilate is completely wrong or out of context which not support the relevance regarding to prosperity of the Jats while Original word resemble it exponentially mattered on Jatt word nothing to do with Jats normality(You Can Double Check it)'additional have look on This It clearly mentioned Jatt as Higher caste not Jat as broader term respectively!!

I just want to suggest the minor intro is quite overweighted and possess way more acquisition on the phrase observation such as Jat spelt also Jaat and Jatt which was undisputed expansion perform by @Dimpies [7] on his latest edit and In additional, the supporting line of article detail is partially just bit more exposure of Jat integral definition thus, hypothetically emphasised the literal meaning of Jat into such narrow complexity of Jatt and Jaat without consolidating any professional commitment In my genuine consideration i would likely to recommend to add the alternates of Jat such as Jatt with double "t" and Jaat with long vowel "a" with other notable word derivative such as Jutt or Zutt into a whole ethical section of terminology which he unfortunately not mentioned prior to the proximity of Jat entity

 Comment: I thinks it should genuinely need an dedicated acknowledgment in the terminology to ensure an systematic resemblance of Jat identity. Thank and regard

Approach me for more reference

References

Expanded the application Replace the first appendix of stanza is not making any constructive presentation due to lack of its content accuracy's while the @User:Dimpies hypothetically change the wording of sensitive information and features Jatts and Jaat without any solidified assessment 121.139.240.24 (talk) 08:23, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello IP editor, and welcome to the Teahouse. This is a content issue which I see you have already raised (using a different IP address) at the appropriate talk page for the article. I see there that you have had a response, asking you to be clearer and more specific in what edit you seek to have made and why. But you have not responded yet. Please do so there, as the Teahouse is not the place where we intervene in content discussions such as this; instead we advise and help people who need to know more about the practicalities of the editing process. I hope you can achieve the outcome you seek. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 09:20, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Seeking feedback about a reference

Hello Teahouse editors, I have tried to author an article which got declined even after incorporating a couple of rounds of feedback from experienced editors who responded to my request for feedback in the Teahouse. I sort of gave up on it over many months. Thanks to a google news alert I have come across another news article from The Hindu which is regarded as a reliable source WP:Reliable sources. The article covers news about an award

https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/tamil-nadu/india-led-team-gets-award-for-work-on-digital-vaccines/article68509644.ece

I seek your feedback to help improve the draft.

It is a BLP article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Bhargav_Sri_Prakash

The original press release from Carnegie Mellon University is here https://www.heinz.cmu.edu/media/2024/August/heinz-college-professor-rema-padman-and-her-collaborators-receive-chita-award-for-research-on-digital-vaccines-to-promote-health-literacy-for-kids

The 2024 CHITA conference proceedings can also be downloaded the CDHAI website of Johns Hopkins Center for Digital health & AI

https://carey.jhu.edu/chita2024

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/381745361_Proceedings_of_the_14th_Conference_on_Health_IT_Analytics_CHITA_2024

Can you please suggest ways to incorporate this recent article in my draft? I also would appreciate any of your edits to improve my draft.

Thanks KrisJohanssen (talk) 09:14, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Since the piece you cite from The Hindu is derived from the press release, it is of no value for establishing notability. Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 09:52, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Error in Reference

Hi, I was citing at Draft:Asteria Aerospace but, suddenly I found that all the references that I had cited earlier were vaniced and, showed something like ...boolean index error. I want to know, will that create any problem for my draft and my account. or, it was just a glitch.? and, how did it come up there.? —𝐏𝐞𝐫𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨(𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔) 10:57, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Ho Perfectodefecto. I don't see issues now or in the version at the time so I guess it's resolved now. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:17, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Yeah. Now it's resolved. in fact, it was appeared for a moment and disappeared then after refreshing. —𝐏𝐞𝐫𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨(𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔) 13:43, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Copy of a documentary

How does one obtain a copy of a documentary? Archived 12-07-2916

History of a great Nation

Johann Gottfried Schadel, by Valentyn Sokolovsky (1995)

National Television Company of Ukraine

Please reply: Alla Leever Thank you 134.56.195.248 (talk) 12:12, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

This is the encyclopedia Wikipedia. We have an article about National Television Company of Ukraine but are not affiliated with them. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:16, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm afraid Wikipedia hasn't invented time travel yet. You'll just have to wait 892 years for it to be archived.^[Humor] jlwoodwa (talk) 20:04, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi there, I am new here on this english site and wanted to ask how i could translate a german wiki site, that I created myself in english and publish it here?

Translation of articels in the german wikipedia to english wikipedia Lester1960 (talk) 14:23, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

See Help:Translation Lectonar (talk) 14:39, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to Teahouse @Lester1960! In short, absolutely. See Help:Translation as Lectonar suggested and check out WP:Wikiproject Germany in case it is relevant to Germany. I am happy to look it over as well, as someone who frequently translates articles from German to English (see Deutsche Wohnen & Co. enteignen, Works Constitution Act) etc.. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 14:45, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Lester1960, and welcome to the Teahouse. I presume this is de:Mario Lachat? It looks to me as if all the citations in that article are either to works by Lachat, or to sites published by organisations he belongs to; in other words, none of them are indepedent. This is not normally sufficient to establish notability in English Wikipedia - though the requirements for notability of academics are a bit different, and I don't fully understand them. ColinFine (talk) 14:51, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Lester1960 (talk) 14:16, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Add an entry on an individual

I would like to contribute an entry on an individual. The individual is a fiction novelist from South Africa. 102.32.60.15 (talk) 14:48, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, IP user, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia.

You are welcome to contribute, but I would give you a couple of cautions:

First, unless you can show that the novelist meets the conditions for notability on English Wikipedia, you will not succeed and you should not put any further time into this.

Secondly, if you are connected with that novelist, you should read carefully the restrictions on editing with a conflict of interest (If you are actually that novelist yourself, please don't try it: see autobiography for why this is hardly ever successful.)

Thirdly, even if you can show the novelist meets Wikipedia's criterai for notability, writing a new article is a very challenging task for new editors. My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. ColinFine (talk) 14:56, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Learned basics of editing - What next?

Hi! I have learned the basics of editing and have read a lot of Wikipedia policies, what can I do next? BrandenburgBlue (talk) 15:47, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Congrats and welcome! From here, the world's your oyster. My suggestion is to get involved with some wikiprojects you're interested in, since that's a good way to find some community. You can also "adopt" a particular backlog. I recommend Category:Wikipedia introduction cleanup for new editors looking for a satisfying and meaningful task that doesn't take any extra skills. You don't (or shouldn't) need to do any research to fix these articles - most of them are here because they are tagged with "lead too short". Find one of those, read the article, then rewrite the lead so it summarizes it accurately. Now you can remove the "lead too short" tag. Done! -- asilvering (talk) 15:54, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Citations

When taking out the exact words from sources, do we put it in italics or any other special fonts? I want to make sure that my draft doesn't get instantly deleted. My draft is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:James_Dokhuma# I have a great knowledge (talk) 16:27, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I have a great knowledge. You can find advice about when to quote directly, and how to present quotations, at WP:Quotations. ColinFine (talk) 16:35, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I do not understand why my draft is being rejected

draft:Aggelina Papadopoulou.Actress in 'Maria'by Pablo Larrain (imdb has all her information) 2A02:85F:E0DF:3800:599:614F:A547:848D (talk) 16:39, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

IMDB is not a reliable source, per WP:IMDB Babysharkboss2!! ^{(No Life 'Til Leather)} 16:59, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

COMMENT to 2A02: Once a query has been answered by an editor it is wrong to delete the query and answer, so I reverted your deletion. Draft:Aggelina Papadopoulou has been Declined five times, so it may be time to abandon your effort. David notMD (talk) 17:34, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Also, one really shouldn't be writing about oneself in the first place. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:09, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

IDK, it doesn't reek of self-promo/autobio to me. Just a poorly put together filmography. Babysharkboss2!! ^{(No Life 'Til Leather)} 18:12, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi!

You still need to add more independent reliable references for your article to be notable. Tesleemah (talk) 07:26, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

How should I move Draft:Childhood dementia to the mainspace?

Hello. I created a draft for Childhood dementia (a devastating yet under-recognised group of diseases) 14 days ago, and have progressively improved it. I've now been trying to make sure it meets Wikipedia's policies well enough to move on to the article space , especially the core policies (WP:NPOV, V, and NOR). From my understanding reading the policies, I *think* it's in a state where it can be moved to the mainspace. But it's possible I'm mistaken.

While I am auto-confirmed, since Childhood dementia is currently a redirect {{r with possibilities}}, trying to publish the draft through the normal path fails.

How should I proceed? Should I make a request at WP:RM? Does the article need more work before being published? Or should I proceed with a different option?

Thank you in advance for your time. Irina Rainbow (talk) 18:18, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've notified WikiProject Medicine of this discussion to see if anyone has suggestions for improvement. Moving over a redirect merely requires a technical move request, but a page mover may hesitate to fufill such a request if the draft appears unready. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 18:35, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

There's that big blue button that says "submit the draft for review". Click that and follow the process.

Though I will say with empty sections, it's doubtful people will accept it as ready for prime time. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:35, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

• It's certainly a viable topic with some decent sourcing available/used. Bon courage (talk) 18:38, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Ah, thank you Rotideypoc41352, Headbomb, and Bon courage.

To Headbomb: I've thought about submitting it for review, but since I heard it can take some weeks to months for an article to be, and this is still a fairly unknown yet very important topic, I thought it'd be better to put in work to make it ready relatively quickly and publish it directly.

Important note: I do want to make it clear that the reason I made this article *is* to raise awareness (so advocacy in a way. I did make sure to read WP:NOTADVOCACY and WP:ADVOCACY) but I will try my darnest to respect wikipedia's rules and help make the article encyclopedic. Irina Rainbow (talk) 18:59, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Weeks/months tend to be for articles that are less well written (e.g. missing sections), or for topics no one cares about (random tech investor). The better written an article is, the easier (and more interesting) it is to review. Make sure to tag the talk page with relevant wikiproject banners (here, {{WP Medicine}} and {{WP Disability}} come to mind, Talk:Dementia might have more), so they get notified when the article is submitted for review. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:05, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Ah I see. I'll try to work on fleshing out the placeholder sections, which should help.

Also, I see I've already heeded your advice! Tagging the talk page with relevant wikiprojects (including {{WP Medicine}}, {{WP Disability}} and others) was one of the first things I did after creating the draft, since I saw it recommended in "Improving your odds of a speedy review" on the AfC submission template. Irina Rainbow (talk) 20:22, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I can't speak for everyone, but to me, the way you've described your advocacy point of view sounds like it ought to be fine: as long as the article has no elements of advocacy in it, you are who you are. It may be uncomfortable to have to avoid adding things such as advice, treatments that aren't well recognized yet, or unofficial symptoms to the article. TooManyFingers (talk) 19:24, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

This type of situation requires admin help, which can be requested here: Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests It's possible that dropping a simple sentence in each of the empty sections – though theoretically not required – would reassure the admin that it's really an uncontroversial move.

I like the variety of sources that you've used. The one about psychosocial impact would probably be useful for putting something in the ==Society and culture== section (e.g., anything about school and friendship). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:16, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Haha. I think the variety is mostly an accident, since I just couldn't find all that many sources on it, which is to be expected. Though, before I found some of the other sources, I did add verywellhealth.com for a bit but quickly realized its blocked and considered unreliable, or at least inconsistent. Wouldn't be a good look for the article to use it instead of higher quality sources. Irina Rainbow (talk) 20:26, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I recommend you submit Draft:Childhood dementia to AfC rather than move it to mainspace. The AfC backlog is not a queue, so it may be reviewed sooner than your think. If to mainspace, in time the New Pages Patrol could move it back to draft. Also either remove or fill in the now-blank sections. What you have is typical for diseases, but there may not be available refs for those sections. Otherwise, interesting topic. David notMD (talk) 06:17, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Question about my page

Hi, my name is Eric Kessler. I searched for "Wikipedia Help" and was directed to this forum. Right now there is a Wikipedia article about me (just search for my name). Several of the details in the article are incorrect, including my title as identified in the first sentence. I haven’t been a senior managing director or in an executive role at Arabella Advisors since 2020.

The article only has five references, and of those five only one article is actually about me. There is also an "external link" to a site called InfluenceWatch that doesn't seem to be encyclopedic.

Given the above, I have a question that I'm hoping one of you can answer: Is it possible to ask for an article about yourself to be deleted? I'm flattered that Wikipedia thinks I'm important enough for a page, but given that the information on the page is incorrect and the sourcing is so thin, I have a hard time believing such an entry should exist. Any information you can provide (or resources you can point me to) would be greatly appreciated. Are there any other forums where biographical issues like this are discussed? EJKessler (talk) 18:30, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Your best bet it to likely go to the talk page and point out the errors (with sources backing your point, or pointing out how the current refs don't back the claims made in the article), and that things need to be updated. I've removed the InfluenceWatch link as obvious political nonsense. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:41, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Go to Wikipedia:Edit Request Wizard and use it to propose changes. However, given the dearth of significant coverage about you, the Eric Kessler article could also be nominated for deletion. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:15, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

You can also nominate the article for deletion - taking a quick look at the available sourcing, it looks like it probably doesn't meet our guidelines for notability and should be merged into the Arabella Advisors article, though you'd want to do a more careful search before nominating. (As a general rule, we look for 2-3 reliable independent sources primarily about the subject, and interviews do not count here). The process is described at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_nominate_a_single_page_for_deletion, or I can do it on your behalf. Rusalkii (talk) 19:15, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I did a search on Google News and found a few obituaries for people with the same name, and this article, but that's all. I think it qualifies for WP:AFD. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:17, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I have nominated the article for deletion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Kessler. Anyone is welcome to comment there. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:26, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you all for removing InfluenceWatch and nominating the article for deletion. As Anarchonist noted, there is very little existing coverage of me which is why I was so amazed that I had my own Wikipedia article. Would it be appropriate for me to comment on the deletion discussion? EJKessler (talk) 20:55, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

You are certainly allowed to comment, but in general it may be wiser to leave it alone if it is going your way. Wikipedians can react unpredictably to comments from article subjects, particularly on anything related to politics. MrOllie (talk) 21:00, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Just so you're aware of the process, a deletion discussion generally lasts for one week, after which the end date is either extended if there has been no participation, or the discussion is closed and the article is kept or deleted. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:17, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Help with my draft

Hi, this is my first Wikipedia article. I don’t want to keep trying to publish it until it gets approved. Most information that I could get online is linked and referenced in the page. Could you please get me helpful tips to get it approved for publishing? Thank you!

Draft:Valdemar Cardoso da Rocha Jr. Strlbr (talk) 19:45, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

@Strlbr: You have not shown that he is notable. (Wikipedia uses the word "notable" in a special way.) If this is really all the information you can find, it means you cannot make an article about him. TooManyFingers (talk) 19:59, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick reply. His work is definitely “notable”, so I have to understand how to show it. I looked up a few pages that would be comparable and was not able to understand based on what they were notable. Could you please explain it to me?

Like this one for instance : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joachim_Hagenauer Strlbr (talk) 20:07, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not an expert in this subject, but I think the Hagenauer article you linked would probably not be accepted today. Notability standards have gone up.

Also, I did not make a mistake when I said "he" (Cardoso) might not be notable. It is not his work, but his notability as a person that they are talking about. Wikipedia is looking for reports about Cardoso made by publishers who are not connected to him (not the ones who publish his work, not his colleagues or his employees, etc). TooManyFingers (talk) 20:20, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

@Strlbr: All of the best tips are given to you already – the links in the "declined" notices show you a lot of things to read. All of them show something about what went wrong, and all of them show tips for what to do next. But here's an extra example (it's silly, but it's useful):

If I say "Einstein was important in his field of study", but Wikipedia doesn't believe me, I can show articles in major newspapers saying stuff like "Einstein is one of the major scientists of the 20th century", I can show a lot of books about Einstein's work written by people who never met him, ... the Einstein article is easy to support, because there's so much proof that Einstein has major importance.

But if I say "I am an important scientist", and Wikipedia doesn't believe me, I might ask my friends to vouch for me ... but that's not useful. Nobody has written reports about me. Nobody has written books about me. Wikipedia should not believe my friends. TooManyFingers (talk) 22:38, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Ethiopian Government Works

In some pages works of the Ethiopian Government are deemed Public Domain with the following reason: Important note: Works prepared by the Government of Ethiopia and its employees are prepared in a fashion for general news format and noncommercial publication and for public dissemination freely an equivalent to how laws and non-laws at the legislative and administrative ministerial positions are free and public in a general distributable format: and as such copyright laws usually do not legally apply for such a basis. I would like to use some footage in a documentary but my legal department is looking for a source for this information. Can anyone point me to an official Ethiopian government site/document that states this. He does not consider Proclamation No. 410/2004 on Copyright and Neighboring Rights Protection Part 1 Section 5 sufficient. 65.95.141.171 (talk) 19:56, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

That was added to Template:PD-Ethiopia a few months ago, by CtasACT. @CtasACT: can you explain? DS (talk) 23:59, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

We have information on Ethiopian copyright at c:Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Ethiopia. -- asilvering (talk) 03:21, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Second Attempted assassination of Donald Trump

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_International_Golf_Club_shooting Needs to bew updated. The title needs to be changed to "Second Attempted assassination of Donald Trump" sicne the FBI and Secrert Service have confirmed that former president Trump was the target of the gunman 72.218.87.16 (talk) 19:58, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Additionally, not calling it what it actually is goes against Wikipedia's policy about political opinions.

The only people who are referring to this event as the "Trump International Golf Club shooting" are the Far Left. Literally every media organization, every federal and state agency, Trump, his political opponents, and even foreign dignitaries have acknowledged it as an assassination attempt. 72.218.87.16 (talk) 20:04, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Hey there! See the active discussion at Talk:Trump_International_Golf_Club_shooting#Requested_move_15_September_2024, where there is a lengthy discussion about exactly that. :) SirMemeGod  20:06, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Reading complexity within articles

There's obviously not a one size fits all answer to this, but in general, at what reading level should articles be written at? I was skimming through Blades in the Dark and, despite playing the game myself, I found the section on mechanics to be complex enough that I needed to consult a dictionary for words like "elide" or "eschew" (I also feel it goes into excessive detail that may go against WP:NOTAGUIDE, but that's beside my immediate question)

My own reading level isn't quite where I'd like it to be, but I feel like I shouldn't be confused trying to read about a topic I'm familiar with. Is there possibly a WP or MOS page I can look through regarding this? LaffyTaffer (talk) 19:59, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

@LaffyTaffer: About the article you described, I think there's no need for those words because easier more common ones would be just as good. I would be inclined to edit them out (probably while simplifying a few other things along the way).

Whoever famously said something like "... as simple as possible – but not simpler", I tend to agree with them. I think we should never "dumb down" a TOPIC, but I think, keeping that in mind, we should keep our WORDS reasonably simple. TooManyFingers (talk) 20:09, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. When I get time, I'll see about replacing the words to ones simple enough for someone like me to understand haha LaffyTaffer (talk) 20:25, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

LaffyTaffer, you may find Wikipedia:Writing better articles to be well worth reading. Cullen328 (talk) 01:52, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

After looking closer at that content, there's enough odd writing and plain inaccuracies to game rules that I started wondering if might have been AI generated. I'm gonna try doing a big rewrite, which will be a big enough edit that I'm intimidated. But I'm sure this essay is going to be a great starting point to help me out. Thank you so much!!! ❤️ LaffyTaffer (talk) 02:19, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers it was Einstein, probably: [8]. I was surprised - I expected to find it in Strunk and White. -- asilvering (talk) 03:16, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I can see why. To me, Strunk and White is valuable (if at all) only for some little quotations like that, that hit on something important. Mostly, there are enough books better than theirs that they hardly merit a look. The way they ignore their own advice is instructive. TooManyFingers (talk) 06:23, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

For what it's worth, LaffyTaffer, that unreferenced content was written by an editor with little experience who has not edited since 2017. Cullen328 (talk)

My opinion: 8th grade level. Not only because our target audience includes 8th-graders, but because many high school graduates read at (what the "experts" call) 8th grade level. Of course there are web-based tools to tell you the reading level for a body of text, so it's not hard to do. It's our mission to inform, not to improve reading skills skills, and not to show how smart Wikipedia is. Wouldn't it be great if there was a site-wide consensus on this? One can dream. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:24, 20 September 2024 (UTC) Edited 07:24, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion, some articles could get away with a lower level, and if they can then they should. There are certainly articles that might require a higher level than you're suggesting, but I think they should do so because they can't get by with less, not because they're free to do more. TooManyFingers (talk) 06:30, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

In theory, a "site-wide consensus" could make provisions for sensible variances, without being overly complex or uselessly vague. Speaking more practically, I doubt the community could withstand the shock. And consensus would become hopelessly mired in debate about the sensible variances. variances. Before you could sneeze, it would be overly complex or uselessly vague. (Moral: We are limited by our model of decision-making—this is but one example.) ―Mandruss ☎ 07:14, 20 September 2024 (UTC) Edited 08:29, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

As for the 8th grade reading level, that style belongs on the Simple English Wikipedia, in my view. My personal metric is the reading level of a high school senior getting better than average grades. But this "reading level" issue is topic specific. Except for the opening sentence or two, we should not expect the same reading level in an article about a pop culture topic as in articles about advanced topics in subatomic physics, biochemistry or advanced mathematics. To name a few. Cullen328 (talk) 07:34, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

I think you're relegating half of our readers to Simple English Wikipedia (to their embarrassment), but there is no easy way to know. If I had the energy, I'd do a deeper dive into the literature, which no doubt exists. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:44, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Mandruss, if the reading level of our articles about our most searched topics was too high, then social media would be flooded with complaints like "Wows thet weekipoudua article were 2 kompleekated!!!", and yet for years, we remain the #7 website in traffic and #1 by far in originally written educational content. We have ten plus billion pageviews each month. Cullen328 (talk) 07:54, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

You assume that people care to admit publicly that Wikipedia is 2 kompleekated for them—even under the "anonymity" of the internet. The stats tell us there is nothing better available for free. They don't tell us how much the average reader is actually comprehending. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:18, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

For clarity, "kompleekated" refers to things like word and sentence length in this context. Has nothing to do with the difficulty of the ideas being conveyed, and everything to do with how they are conveyed. Most subjects can be conveyed with simple, Trumanesque language, and the rest could be accommodated under "sensible variances". In theory. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:58, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

@LaffyTaffer I don't think that anyone has yet pointed you to WP:TECHNICAL which is the established guidance that answers your original question. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:44, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

This is exactly what I was looking for, all of the resources provided as well as the above discussion have been tremendously helpful. Much appreciated. LaffyTaffer (talk) 14:09, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Inquiry about images (logos from student competitions)

In the case of creating/editing articles about student competitions or the like, which have an official logo, but don't have an exact regulamentation to use it, how do I safely add the logo in the article? I'm asking this as I included a logo in Draft:Olimpíada Nacional de Ciências, mistakingly labeling it as "Own work" in order to add the image to the page. I might've transgressed some image rule on Wikimedia Commons, so I would appreciate if someone could help! G4B-XD-3l (talk) 21:14, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

To clarify, the olympiad doesn't present any license for logo usage, but neither any logo copyright, leaving to assume that the logo can be used freely. Just want to confirm

G4B-XD-3l (talk) 21:16, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

@G4B-XD-3l: When they don't clearly say it's free to use, and license information is not posted, that means it is not free.

The copyright law is written so that it is basically impossible for anyone to give up their rights by accident or default. (The law even makes things inconvenient for someone who WANTS to give up their rights!) TooManyFingers (talk) 22:06, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Got it. I'll remove the logo to prevent any problems. Thanks for the info

G4B-XD-3l (talk) 22:11, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

That is best, for now. But you might want to explore the rules more carefully, when you have time; there may be reasons why this use is OK and can be put back up. I am not an images expert. I just know that when copyright is the issue, be very cautious, and assume that nothing is OK to use – until you really know.

WP:LOGOS is one important place to look. It may have much better news than what I gave. TooManyFingers (talk) 22:51, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

@G4B-XD-3l: Just hoping you see this; I don't want you to think removing it was the final answer. TooManyFingers (talk) 15:44, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I understand. I kept it removed as I'm not acquainted entirely with the rules yet, and I haven't read the page you suggested yet. I'll check it out whenever I have enough time. Thanks for the help

G4B-XD-3l (talk) 16:20, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Clearing my talk page

So I want to clear my talk page, just a generic purge of discussions that are now long irrelevant. The thing is, I can't figure out how to clear it. How do I clear it? RedactedHumanoid (talk) 00:13, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Best practice is to archive things. Help:Archiving (plain and simple) explains the simplest way. Help:Archiving a talk page has more details. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:23, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

You can simply just delete all of the text on your talk page, though archiving is much more preferred as recommended above. TheWikiToby (talk) 01:50, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Plot for movies

are there any rules for writing the plot for wikipedia movie articles? Do we describe the movie in full or just the basic outline? Random8999 (talk) 03:02, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Full is great, outline is fine. MOS:PLOT has more information (but very dense). Don't forget to tell us the ending! Many editors try to avoid "spoilers", but one of the most helpful things a wikipedia article can provide about a work is its full plot, since most other websites only carry a teaser-style synopsis. -- asilvering (talk) 03:14, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion, a few overenthusiastic people start tending toward too much detail when explaining plots. I know it's only because they love their topic (or they have a thing for detail), but ... A non-passionate telling of the plot often works better. TooManyFingers (talk) 03:39, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

The guideline calling for a plot summary of 400 to 700 words is excellent advice. As TooManyFingers points out, a "passionate" plot summary is inappropriate because of the core content policy of the Neutral point of view. The plot summary of an a acclaimed film that won many Oscars should be written in the same emotionless "just the facts" style as the plot summary of a clunker that flopped at the box office and was panned by the critics. Concentrate only on the plot when writing plot summaries and ignore reception by fans and critics in that particular section. There are other sections of the article that discuss reception and acclaim. Cullen328 (talk) 08:10, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Help with validity of sources and notability?

Myself and a team of others are currently trying to get a page published for Nasser Bin Ghaith, an imprisoned human rights activist. Our helpful mentor has raised the issue of human rights organisations and the possibility that they aren't valid as sources as they may appear biased. These are international organisations that do work with governments. Should these sources be stricken or is it worth attempting to publish?

Our mentor also raised questions on notability, in that a lot of sources are passing mentions and not explicitly and exclusively discussing Dr. Bin Ghaith. He has appeared in mentions in numerous international news publications, as well as United Nations and Human Rights Council discussions, as well as government documents. I would argue that part of the notability issue is that due to the United Arab Emirates governments history of censorship and undisclosed legal sources, he may not come up near as much publicly. I would make the case that this page would contribute to his notability, free of the influence of government. There are also others within the same trials he was tried on that have their own Wikipedia pages.

Any help clearing up these issues would be greatly appreciated.

Regards UndergradSolidarity4AcademicFreedom (talk) 04:23, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:Nasser Bin Ghaith Al Marri -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:20, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't have the skill to answer all of this properly, but I can say one thing: EVERY source is biased, and "biased" does not mean "lying".

I hope that people with experience and intelligence better than mine will respond soon with more useful information, and I hope the people governing UAE learn fairness and compassion. TooManyFingers (talk) 07:05, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Please see other stuff exists; these other articles(what you term "pages") could also be inappropriate and just not yet addressed by a volunteer. We cannot invent sources that do not exist- if government censorship prevents their from being sources, we can do nothing about that- you would need to pressure the UAE to allow a free press/free speech(yes, I know that's not an easy task). You have submitted the draft for review, a volunteer will eventually review it.

If you're working with a team of editors, you will want to make that clear on your user pages, to avoid accusations of sock puppetry. 331dot (talk) 07:12, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

UndergradSolidarity4AcademicFreedom, when you write Myself and a team of others, that makes experienced Wikipedia editors immediately concerned. A Wikipedia account is for one person and one person only, and team use of a Wikipedia account is forbidden. It could possibly be acceptable if every person on the team had their own separate Wikipedia account and openly disclosed their membership in that team. I see no other team accounts editing that draft. And your Right great wrongs style of username also raises concern. Your username is problematic and you should change it. As for your statement that this page would contribute to his notability, free of the influence of government, that idealistic statement indicates that you do not yet understand how Wikipedia actually works. Wikipedia articles do not contribute to notability. Instead, they neutrally describe topics that are already notable. Cullen328 (talk) 08:36, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Question about copyright and images

Guten morgen. I apologise if this is not the right place, but I come here to ask about images about copyrighted characters. I notice that in the English Wikipedia, fair use is used much more liberally than in other languages--for instance, see the image used for Homer Simpson on here, vs the image used on Spanish Wikipedia [Homer Simpson]. That is to say, I want to know how copyright would work on Wikipedia regarding [9]this image I've made (Image description: Construction paper cutout of Kenny from South Park). I was hoping to upload it as an alternative, much like how Spanish Wikipedia uses graffiti images to represent characters, but I'm not sure how it would all go down. I saw one guideline against fan art of copyrighted characters, and the entire point of the fair use images here is to represent ideas where no free use alternative exists, but considering how Spanish Wikipedia has their graffiti images I want to know about how it works. Thank you. WeInTheUSA (talk) 05:02, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

WeInTheUSA, your question actually raises a number of questions. One is of the copyright status of the Homer Simpson photo you point to. Its uploader says that it's their "own work", but it's not clear from this whether the painting too is their own work. (I think that we can assume that the comic character the painting is based on is not their own work.) "Common sense" may say that we don't have to worry about such niceties because the photo's hosting at Commons (and its use in articles) demonstrates that its copyright status is OK. Wrong, as files hosted by Commons are often removed because of belatedly realized copyright problems. Maybe it's OK on Commons (imaginably it's a freedom-of-panorama matter), maybe not; the best place to ask is c:Commons:Village pump/Copyright. Let's suppose for a moment that there are no copyright concerns (and for reasons other than freedom of panorama). We could infer that your picture of Kenny from South Park would also raise no copyright concerns. Then a question would be: Does en:Wikipedia want comic characters to be illustrated by people's imitations of authentic representations of those characters? (I have no idea.) -- Hoary (talk) 07:23, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Username COI

Out of curiosity, if I were to try editing the Sirocco article, would that trigger a Conflict of Interest bot flag because of my username? I don't plan on adding anything to articles titled "Sirocco", this question is purely out of interest and me not wanting to test it for fear of being slapped by a bot. Sirocco745 (talk) 06:38, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

The wind is not a person, so really you're fine. But could there be an error like this? Honestly I don't know. TooManyFingers (talk) 07:08, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

If you were instead "Scirocco745", and you were spotted augmenting/debasing the article Volkswagen Scirocco with material about, let's say, some company's eco-friendly, economical, and generally amazing opportunities for electrifying these old cars, you might expect some attention. -- Hoary (talk) 07:32, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough! If that were the case, I definitely wouldn't blame the bot hehe. Thanks for answering my silly question! Sirocco745 (talk) 07:46, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Who governs the censorship in Wikipedia?

Is there a body which fact checks and censors the articles? If yes, then how do they prevent biases from emerging? Ibditaafsan (talk) 09:45, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Ut oh. <covers head> ―Mandruss ☎ 09:55, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

[Edit conflict] Firstly, see WP:Not censored.

Articles are either Drafted and submitted for assessment, or created directly and then (nearly always) assessed by the New Pages Patrol before being made visible to search engine webcrawlers. In either case, they are checked to confirm that they are properly corroborated by citations referencing Reliable sources that verify the facts they contain.

The assessors will also decline (pending satisfactory improvements) drafts that show obvious bias or imbalance (or anything else contrary to Wikipedia's principles and policies), but even after acceptance, articles are subject to perpetual further improvement, and anyone who reads and edits Wikipedia (and about 100,000 different individuals do so every month) can both point out an article's deficiencies and/or actively edit it to improve it. Hope this sheds some light. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.171.3 (talk) 10:07, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Note that Wikipedia does not claim to be free of bias, as all sources have biases. Sources are presented to readers so they can evaluate and judge them for themselves. 331dot (talk) 15:48, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

It is unavoidable for there to be bias. Here are a couple of interesting essays about bias on Wikipedia:

• Wikipedia:Systemic bias
• User:Guy Macon/Yes. We are biased.

Some bias is a good thing. It's also a good thing to have an open mind, but not open to the point where your brain falls out. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:24, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

No Stash Content

Please how do I resolve this

No stashed content found for 0/01640d0f-7511-11ef-bda1-cde2bc2321fe

I am trying to publish an article ISAAC CARES (talk) 10:15, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, ISAAC CARES, and welcome to the Teahouse. That message is a technical message (nothing to do with the content of what you are writing), and usually means that you have left an editing session open for too long before saving. ColinFine (talk) 10:35, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

number of lakes in bangalore

reliable research papers Amitprasad123456 (talk) 10:27, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Amitprasad, and welcome to the Teahouse. This place is for getting help with editing Wikipedia, not for general knowledge questions.

Unless you can find the answer in our article Bangalore, I suggest asking at the Humanities section of the Reference Desk. ColinFine (talk) 10:37, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Adding more citations and removing a maintenance template

Hello, I created an article, after some helpful advice from the community and further edits/citations it was in review status and then after several weeks it was published.

Recently I got notification that the article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for companies and organizations.

I have found another potential citation which I can add.

Should I remove the maintenance template or not? My understanding is that only a user without conflict of interest should remove. Therefore as I wrote the article and have updated I do have a COI and thus I should NOT remove the template.

Have I understood correctly? MotionMogul123 (talk) 11:58, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

@MotionMogul123 The article Eurospares was accepted through artciles for creation on 13 September, so I find it a bit odd that another new page reviewer User:MaxnaCarta marked it with having problems of notability. Maybe they would like to reconsider, after your recent addition of another source. You are correct that in view of your COI, you should not yourself remove the tag. Strictly speaking as a declared WP:PAID editor you should only make very limited changes to the article now it is in mainspace (see WP:ASFAQ), and add most new material via edit requests on its Talk Page. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:29, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

to formate a quote

Hello, fellow-wikipedians, as i don't add quotes often, i do have a small problem with formatting... i can formate it like this {{blockquote |text=Each stroke of paint, each thickened line<br /> Slashes the sky in a sudden design<br /> That shatters us on the inside<br /><br /> Is it the path to holiness<br />Is it the math, the map to bliss<br />Is it the pulse of the galaxies<br />Or is it the song that sings in me? |author=Amy Antin |source=Song ‘’Ivo Ringe’’ in the album ‘’The First Song in the Morning’’, 2020 }} - but i would like to add the source more precisely: {{cite book |last=Antin |first=Amy |publisher=Werner Meyer |title=Ivo Ringe. In: First Song of the Morning: Lyrics and Intros |place=Husum |date=2022 |isbn=978-3-87062-354-8 |page=141}}</ref>}} - and how would i do this???

I know that there must be a way, i just don't know: HOW :-) Kind regards, Naomi Hennig (talk) 12:03, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

@Naomi Hennig I think that the template {{Poem quote}} does what you want. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:18, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Dear Mike, this looks great, but i still need a way to give the reference... normally i would write "Amy Antin: Song Ivo Ringe in "First Song in the Morning", 2020" - but then the reference to the book is missing still. Naomi Hennig (talk) 13:34, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Can I include a hyperlink to the copyrighted image as an inline citation?

If a paragraph requires a figure to clarify its meaning, but I found no suitable free images to add to the article due to copyright restrictions, can I include a hyperlink to the copyrighted image as an inline citation for readers to access the image directly and enhance their understanding of the content?

Can I make something like this inline citation? PecMo (talk) 14:36, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi PecMo, and thanks for your work on biomedical topics. Generally, yes. If an image is published by a reliable source, and if the image is the best part of the source to cite for a given bit of article content, go for it. I would cite it differently, by specifying the journal article using Template:Cite journal and using the at= parameter to specify the figure number. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:45, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

References

Not sure what they are looking for.

This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these messages) This biography of a living person relies too much on references to primary sources. (June 2024) This biographical article is written like a résumé. (June 2024) Dehmling (talk) 15:10, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

It would help to know which article you are referring to, but that is a standard message and it will contain blue links that will lead you to further explanations. Shantavira|^{feed me} 15:19, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

"Primary sources" means "people with firsthand knowledge". Please try to erase all material that comes from "someone who really knows", and replace it with what third parties have said.

"Like a résumé" means "listing every accomplishment, especially those no one cares about". Please cut back the list of accomplishments to just the essential few. TooManyFingers (talk) 15:38, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello Dehmling and welcome to the Teahouse.

You also asked this question under a help template on your user talk page, where, at least, you gave the additional context that you are asking about Chuck Douglas.

That maintenance message or 'tag' has not simply 'popped up'. It was placed by another editor some months ago. As these other helpers have explained, the tag is asking editors to help improve the article by supplying additional references - it currently has a lot of material without footnotes - and by changing the writing style, as it currently reads too much like a CV or resume. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:05, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Draft submission

Something very strange happened. When I was just reading my draft, I realized that the submission button disappeared. What to do? I have a great knowledge (talk) 16:09, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

I doubt if a submission button is really needed today ...

Is it true that reference number 1 is a book that he wrote? A book by the subject of the article is generally a poor reference, except in the little parts of the article where that book is being discussed. How would the article be affected if reference number 1 was removed, and replaced with references from third parties? TooManyFingers (talk) 16:32, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Please link the draft you're asking about. Draft:Lusei has been submitted for review. RudolfRed (talk) 16:33, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Child Star 2024 Demi Lovato

Child Star (film) is like no other film article I have ever read. The main section is Promotion. There seems to be an excess of superlative adjectives, and indirect sentences. It does not seem "encyclopedic". Would someone take a look and steer the the article in a better direction? 69.181.17.113 (talk) 16:16, 20 September 2024 (UTC)