I tell them there's no problem, only solutions. :)[[User:Emailtomailorg|Emailtomailorg]] ([[User talk:Emailtomailorg|talk]]) 08:03, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
I tell them there's no problem, only solutions. :)[[User:Emailtomailorg|Emailtomailorg]] ([[User talk:Emailtomailorg|talk]]) 08:03, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
== Does an article edited by someone else automatically get resubmitted? ==
I have written a article (Lee Fardon) that was initially rejected. I edited and resubmitted and it has subsequently been edited by two others. Does this mean it will automatically be resubmitted (by them) or do I have to resubmit? How do I know if my article will be accepted? [[User:Fencedown|Fencedown]] ([[User talk:Fencedown|talk]]) 08:33, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Creating a new page for a company.
Dear all, I need help creating a page for a 41-year-old company I'm working with. What could be the reason that the page was deleted. I want to mention that I did not want to publish yet, cause it's not ready, could not find a save botton, had to publish it, knowing it will not be online.
Please advise me what to do as a beginner.
Hello, Armen Sepetjian, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid that, like many people, you have some misunderstandings about Wikipedia. First, everything, everywhere in Wikipedia is published, in the sense that it is visible (and in most cases, editable) by anybody in the world - articles, drafts, personal pages, everything. That is why the Wikimedia Foundation insisted that the "save" button be renamed "Publish". That is a different sense from when we "publish" something as an article in the main encyclopaedia.
Secondly, what we create here is not "pages for" a company or anything else; it is articles aboutnotable subjects. Not every company (just like not every sports person, politician, musician, artist...) is notable in Wikipedia's eyes: we require that an article be based close to 100% on what people who have no connection with the subject have chosen to publish about it, and therefore such independent published sources must exist. Your company may be notable, but most companies in the world are not. Thirdly, if you are working with the company, you almost certainly have a conflict of interest; and if you are in any way compensated by the company (whether as an employee or volunteer, or as a contractor) you are required to make a formal declaration of your status as a paid editor.
If you can clear those hurdles, then you may try to create a draft article about your company, using the articles for creation process. This is a very difficult task for new editors, and even more difficult for editors with a conflict of interest, because material that looks straightforward to you may look promotional to other editors. But if you want to try, Your first article is the place to look.
In short: if you are coming here to tell the world about your company, you are probably in the wrong place (I mean Wikipedia, not the Teahouse). That's not what Wikipedia is for. Sorry. --ColinFine (talk) 18:56, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Armen Sepetjian (talk) 09:01, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your prompt reply.
Honestly, I was hired months ago to accomplish certain tasks, one of the most important one in this, being present on Wikipedia. It was my fault I tested an unfinished page. The company I'm working with is not similar to any other food product distributor. It's something related to Middle Eastern Culture, Lebanese culture. I have many reasons to believe that Al Wadi company must be present on Wikipedia. All I need is your advice, as you mentioned above, I will go to the "Articles for Creation page" and proceed from that step. Hopefully when I'm in need of help I will hear from you.
thank you
Armen Sepetjian (talk) 09:01, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I just noted that the user {u|Dean197} has deleted plenty of text from this article "Mi Notebook Air" url:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mi_Notebook_Air. I had spent a lot of my time editing it and it now fees like a waste of time.... Was this article previously reviewed by a senior editor before acceptance. If so, is it ok for someone to remove most of the text from the article? Should I edit other articles or not? Can someone please review/? Thank you for your advice. Earthianyogi (talk) 01:14, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Earthianyogi, welcome to the Teahouse. From what I can tell Dean197 removed content that was considered unnecessary and/or lacked citations. I see you've left a message to Dean197 on the talk page; I have pinged them on your behalf. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:36, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tenryuu, Thank you for your response. I did read his/her comments "content that was considered unnecessary and/or lacked citations.". Thanks for pointing it out. However, I think slightly different as follows:
1. I check this user's profile and s/he seems like an inexperienced editor on Wikipedia. Also, they have not yet replied.
2. This editor seems to have made no effort to correct it themselves. If they cannot, they should at least try to find the missing references. If they cannot, they should leave a [citation needed] tag on the article and leave it for others to improve it. If they cannot, they should contact the author of the article. I feel so because the article must have been passed by a senior editor and maybe worth it.
3. How can we assess this user's credibility in deleting the text? I mean, a text that is relevant to one person may be irrelevant to another, depending on their perspective.
4. If an editor feels that some content needs to be deleted, then they should first check with the author of the article or other editors before doing so.
5. I edited a few Wikipedia articles. I noticed that references are missing in many places in various articles. That does not mean that the text is any less relevant. I just feel that sometimes authors do not have the time or the energy to add these references, or some do not even have that kind of training to do so. Therefore, we should put a collaborative effort to make and improve Wikipedia, rather than just deleting another person's effort.
6. Please note I am not the author of this article. However, I had spent time editing it, and I feel like it has been a waste of my time when someone just comes along a deletes the text. I wonder how would the author of the article feeling.
Hello, Earthianyogi. Yes, you are making sense; but no, that is not entirely how this works. The relevant policy is BRD. If you read this, you will see that your point 4 is specifically wrong. As for your other points:
1 is not relevant, except that the other editor may also be unfamiliar with how we work.
2: I agree that that would be preferable, but there are many reasons why people do, or don't edit in the most preferably way.
3: I'm not sure what the "credibility" of an editor is. Editing Wikipedia is a combination of applying rules and policies, and balancing subjective views of what is appropriate: that's why we have BRD. AGF says that we should treat all editors equally unless and until their continued behaviour gives cause for concern.
5:Wikipedia policy does not require everything to be cited, as long as it could be in principle, (see WP:PERENNIAL#Require inline citations for everything), but editors are often more picky about new material introduced. You are entitled to introduce material without citation (as long as you have verified that there is a source that could be cited - but then, why not cite it?); Dean197 is entitled to regard that as unsatisfactory, and remove it. The next step is to discuss the question and reach consensus.
6: Usually "the author of the article" is a phrase without a referent. Most Wikipedia articles are the work of several, sometimes many, separate editors. It is in the nature of how we work that sometimes people will put in effort that is ultimately discarded. This is one of the reasons why it is sometimes a good idea to propose a change on the article's talk page before making a change.
Note that I haven't even been to look at the article and your edits, so I am making no statement about whether I agree or disagree with your additions: I'm just answering your questions about the process. --ColinFine (talk) 09:30, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ColinFine, Thank you for your reply. I agree with all your points. Concerning point 4, I have not looked at the policy; however, I was just porpoising that we do so. But it is okay if that has already been thought through. I regard to credibility, I mean how do we ensure that the person has the right set of knowledge and skills to do so. Also, a text that is relevant to one person may be irrelevant to another, depending on their perspective. May be the person is just a fraud (how do we assess?). I mainly edited the text of the article, without adding any new info or removing any old info from it. It is okay that some of the work gets discarded, but It has to be done in the right way on a factual basis; otherwise, it is just discouraging. Thank you Earthianyogi (talk) 09:51, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Earthianyogi. You were bold, Dean197 reverted, now you're discussing. That's how it works. As for credibility: there is no particular knowledge required to edit any article constructively. There are some basic skills in using and understanding English, which we assume that an editor has until they give us reason to doubt that; there are some skills in how Wikipedia works, which we assume that a new editor does not have, but try to teach them gently. You are right that there are people who come on here not to build an Encyclopaedia; but we start by assuming good faith. And if a large edit is done by a vandal or POV pusher, it is usually straightforward to undo it, so nothing is completely lost. --ColinFine (talk) 11:07, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
From quick look, the article was tagged before Dean197's deletions with too much detail and citations needed - and much of what was deleted was separately tagged with citation needed - so the actions were not entirely arbitrary. If citations can be found for the deleted content it may be appropriate to restore it, or some of it. Personally, I agree that even if citations are available, there was too much esoteric detail. Keep in mind that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a document that helps a person decide which notebook to buy. David notMD (talk) 13:32, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
David notMD, Thank you. I understand, but in that case, why should this article be accepted by Wikipedia in the first place? I feel that it should be completely removed, should n't it? Earthianyogi (talk) 20:07, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tenryuu,:David notMD,:ColinFine,:Earthianyogi: This is a very insightful discussion and really helpful. As pointed out, I am a new editor. And as I noted in the edit summaries, I removed some sections due to lack of citations and what appeared to be overly specific detail that the regular person wouldn't be interested in. Some of the text also sounded like it was lifted from an advertisement, so I amended some of that to sound more impartial to the topic at hand. I can image how frustrating it would be to have someone come along and remove text you'd put considerable time and effort into making. However, so much of the instruction aimed at new editors is to be bold and as I am a professional writer in my day job I thought I'd take a crack at making the page more useful to the average reader. I could be totally wrong and have missed the point, however, and very much welcome any feedback from experienced editors out there.
Hi @Genius1112002:, welcome to Wikipedia! We strongly discourage from creating pages about yourself, and most articles about people are deleted for not being notable enough. If you really are notable, it is likely someone will have already created an article for you. I suggest reading WP:FAMOUS, that shows having a Wikipedia page about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. If you've read all that and really think you are notable, then I suggest reading WP:MFA and proceeding from there. — Yours, Berrely • Talk∕Contribs13:59, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If, by the way, you mean a bio for other users here to see, to help collaboration on shared interests, and so forth, that would go on your user page, @Genius1112002:. Just try to open your red-linked username, and you’ll see a page that says “Creating User:Genius1112002”. It’s pretty self-explanatory from there. As mentioned above, making an actual page about yourself is almost always far more trouble than it is worth. Qwirkle (talk) 21:37, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Help, Help, Help!
Hi, this is Shadowblade08 again. I only get onto Wikipedia around once a week, and every time I ask a question, it gets archived before I can read the answers that people typed. Here the deal, is there a way that I can stop people from archiving my questions, or is there a way that I can find them? Thx. Shadowblade08 (talk) 15:27, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, but I realize that you are clearly annoyed at me. If you want to just be annoyed at me, lets talk about it on my talk page, because there is no reason for me to do it here, where you are definitely not answering my questions. If you want to answer my question, then great, but your not, at least, yet. Thanks again, Shadowblade08 (talk) 15:48, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not the only people annoyed with you. You joined three weeks ago, have done ~150 edits, but none to articles. Instead, you pose questions at Teahouse and invite other editors to chat with you on your Talk page. Talk is not for chat, and Teahouse is for asking questions about how to edit articles. Get with the program. David notMD (talk) 16:21, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DavidnotMD, I would like to point out that I was only editing what I knew. I knew that there was info like that in the talk page, but people want to read the article not the talk page.
Shadowblade08, the location of your thread in the archives is linked in the message in your talk page informing you of the archival. Look for a blue "here" to click.
With that out of the way, what's with your reply to Iridescent that you modified later on, and your reply to the thread immediately below? Are you trying to find out how far you can take the trolling before the nice people at Wikipedia block you? I note that David notMD tried to advise you at your talk already; it's becoming quite clear you are not here to improve the encyclopedia. I would be very careful about your next few edits. This is not a place to hang out and troll around. Usedtobecool☎️16:35, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
By the nice people I think you mean all the people that are annoyed at me, like you and DavidnotMD, and lots of other people. Whats the deal, cant we just RIP?
I am very aware of that, however at my age, there is very little that I actually can type about, because most of the things on Wikipedia I have know idea of how to talk about. I am sorry that you are disappointed in my edits, but I am only typing what I know about. (which isn't much)
If y'all would stop arguing for a little bit, and pay attention, cause I have another question. Going back to the original question, I know how to find it. (thanks to the page that I read, not you guys) Now my question is, is there anyway to stop an comment or article, (or whatever else you want to call it) from getting achieved?
Some people who have automatic archiving of their user talk pages add some kind of code to stop certain posts from being archived, which means that there are ways, but Teahouse posts don't need that. (If you were to add any such code to your posts, the code would be removed, because Teahouse posts do have to be archived when there hasn't been any discussion for a while – the page would grow completely unmanageable otherwise.) As long as discussion in a section is actively going on, that section will not be archived. --bonadeacontributionstalk14:48, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I have received this following notice. I am not sure what is this and what I am suppose to do? Any help would be appreciated. Thanks Earthianyogi (talk) 11:09, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Disambiguation link notification for April 22
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
Hello, Earthianyogi. It's warning you that some of the wikilinks you added to Blended threat were to pages that are only disambiguation pages, and it would almost certainly be better to replace them with (probably piped) links to the specific topic that is relevant here: specifically Operations and Environment. There's nothing you have to do - that's why it's only a warning - but if you are going to add links to help the reader, it helps them more to link to the specific article. In my opinion, while some of the links you added were good ones, eg "Cyber-attack" I think that linking to life, information, operations, environment and property are really examples of WP:overlinking. --ColinFine (talk) 12:06, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Earthianyogi, In your preferences, go to Gadgets and in the Appearance section, enable "Display links to disambiguation pages in orange"; and every time you add a wikilink, check back to see whether it is blue or orange. Orange links need to be replaced by the appropriate blue ones, usually from among the ones listed in the page pointed to by that orange link. Best, Usedtobecool☎️11:15, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Usedtobecool, fantastic. That's a cool trick. Thank you :)
I need some help. Tried creating a page for the term 'Digital companion' and thought I needed my username to be 'Digital companion' as well. Then, I got a message that the page has a potential conflict of interest. I work for a company (Intuition Robotics) that creates digital companions (my company's name was included in my user email, perhaps this was an issue as well?), but I wrote this article about an industry term, not a particular company, and in a way that was as un-biased as possible, and mentioned numerous other companies in this industry (and removed my company's name from the article altogether). I want to know what I can do to get the page published - do I need to change my username, create a new user altogether, or start over? Do I need to disclose conflict of interest, even though I am not profiting off of this article in any way? Will I still be able to get the page published if I say I have a conflict of interest? Some help would be greatly appreciated, as I put a lot of effort already into writing and creating the page, and I was unaware that I would have issues due to either my user name or the fact that I work in the industry of the term of the page I'm trying to create. Digital companion (talk) 14:56, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Digital companion, Howdy hello, and welcome to the Teahouse! Couple of points:
Where did you get the impression you needed your username to be the same as the article? This is an honest question, as it happens occasionally and we'd like to prevent that.
I'd say it doesn't hurt to declare a conflict of interest in a case like this. It doesn't prevent it from getting approved, just informs and keeps the process transparent. A conflict of interest is different than paid editing, wherein someone is in someway compensated for your edits. I would suggest you declare a COI, though if you wanted a second opinion you could go to The COI noticeboard. Note, if you have been paid in any way for your edits, you must declare that by following the steps at WP:PAID.
Hi guys, thanks so much for your help here. It's my first time creating a page, and it's proving to be a bit more difficult than I initially thought.
1) I should submit the conflict of interest form (even though I am not profiting off of the page in any way), and it can still be published?
2) Am I allowed to mention my company name (Intuition Robotics) and include a link within the article, or will it be an issue? I deleted it since I thought this was why the page had issues.
3) Yes - I saw that there was an issue (Draft: Digital companion vs. Draft: digital compaion) - thought the draft was deleted but I guess I need an admin to merge them for me? Or can I merge it on my own?
4) Then, how do I get the page published on regular Wikipedia? I submit it to my User page, and then it can be reviewed again? I don't see an option to get Draft: Digital companion published onto regular Wikipedia. What is the difference between a User page and Draft page?
Thanks so much!!
Digital companion (talk) 15:56, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
4) When you feel that the article is ready, you can submit it for review by an experienced editor. You can add {{subst:submit} } to the top of the draft to submit it. A reviewer will then look at your draft and move it to the main article space or give you feedback on how to improve it. You can always edit the page, even while waiting for a review.
So perhaps it wasn't a good idea to submit the COI form? I just entered this code, maybe I entered it wrong:
My page has now been tagged for speedy deletion...seems pretty unfair. Is this because I submitted the conflict on interest form, as users here instructed me to do? I don't see anything wrong with the page, and whoever requested to speedily delete it said "This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic," which is not true...
Wylie39So how can I proceed? Seems like the correct one still has the speedy deletion tag on it. Is there any way for me to get it published? Or no, now that someone has put the speedy deletion tag, and I've submitted the COI form? Digital companion (talk) 06:22, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Digital companion: It looks like Draft:Digital companion has had the tag removed. I would read through the article and make sure that it is from a neutral point of view. make sure it goes over the positives and negatives of Digital companions. Then you can try to resubmit. I would also highly recommend you change your username. {{u|wylie39}} {Talk}12:40, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Help these users are threatening me that I will be blocked and deleting my work
I need help. Some people are threatening me that I will be blocked and deleting my work. First they said I did not add reference. Even though I gave all reference. Now they are removing line saying, this is duplicate. They are removing the most important information from the article abstract. The abstract needs this. I have followed the rules and not done anything wrong. Please see this and ask them to stop blocking me.Pratap Pandit (talk) 15:28, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Pratap Pandit: Per the note on your talk page, the block warning is due to edit warring. Stop making changes to the article and discuss on the article's talk page to get consensus on the changes. RudolfRed (talk) 15:38, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pratap Pandit, Howdy hello, and welcome to the Teahouse! For starters, you are edit warring, wherein you repeat the same edit. That is not helpful, and can get you blocked. The way to solve this problem is to discuss it on the talk page (Talk:2020 Palghar mob lynching). Its possible this is a simple misunderstanding, please discuss it with the other editors. If that fails, there are multiple forms of dispute resolution available. But please don't edit war, that is disruptive. CaptainEekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓15:41, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think these users are BJP agents and that is why they are removing important facts from the article to spread rumours. They must be blocked.
@Pratap Pandit: It looks like you may be engaged in a content dispute. If your change gets reverted, you can use the talk pages of articles. And no, you are not going to be blocked unless if you cause disruption. Read our block policy for more details. You can do almost anything here with common sense. Aasim15:58, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Aasim as CaptianEek asked I raised the issue on Talk:2020 Palghar mob lynching but no one is replying. Instead now they have asked administrator with false case of Edit warring.
I have not violated the 3 revert rule that this user explained on my wall. So with only 2 edits, how can they file the false report ? is this allowed ? Pratap Pandit (talk)
@Pratap Pandit: I am guessing it's been resolved to your satisfaction; sometimes erroneous reports are made, administrators review them, so nothing bad results. Sometimes, admins can make mistakes too; if that happens, there are processes to appeal, and discuss more broadly among Wikipedia community. Do note, however, that 3RR rule is not a license to revert 3 times. Wikipedia functions on common sense, and WP:GAMING can backfire spectacularly. Even in minor matters like 3RR, admins can block an editor for edit-warring even if the 3RR line has not been crossed. On the other hand, according to that report, you had not made any reverts after receiving a warning at your talk page; that reflects very highly on you. Regards! Usedtobecool☎️11:31, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Usedtobecool After reading WP:GAMING, it seems I was being lured to step into the trap for blocking. Yes, I am satisfied with the verdict given by the administrator RegentsPark on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Pratap_Pandit_reported_by_User:GreaterPonce665_(Result:_No_violation_). Yes, I have read the full page on Edit warring, and I plan to strictly follow these rules. I was surprised by the hostile manner I was treated by them. The threat of getting blocked had got me stressed and I immediately clicked the Help link on left margin that brought me here. This thread on teahouse was my last ditch effort to seek help, had I received a similar response here I would have abandoned Wikipedia. I am glad that I asked help and the users were so welcoming. RudolfRed, CaptainEek, and Aasim thankfully explained the matter well. Aasim and MrClog also discussed the issue I had raised with the other editors after which they relented and allowed my edit for which they were edit warring. I have read the welcome post by Aasim those were helpful in explaining basic things. I see that other user who was posting on my talk page is now blocked. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Brihaspati#BlockedPratap Pandit (talk) 11:59, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pratap Pandit, that editor was blocked for a completely unrelated reason.
India-Pakistan and Hindu-Muslim issues are among the riskiest and most unpleasant areas of editing in Wikipedia; even experienced editors could lose perspective over there; many avoid those areas like the plague. Naturally, most new editors from India/Pakistan are likely to start off on these very minefields and end up quickly blocked wrongly or rightly; being right about an issue isn't enough, you have to know the right way to go about convincing others too. There is something called Discretionary sanctions authorised for India-related editing where administrators have more personal discretion to enforce the rules more strictly, which you should expect to receive a notice about soon. Be especially careful when editing India-Pakistan and Hindu-Muslim articles; you could get into trouble in Wikipedia or worse, in real life. So, be careful not to divulge any information about yourself that others could use to track down your real-world identity, if you intend to continue to edit these areas. Regards! Usedtobecool☎️12:21, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Serial Number, about your reply below, I admit I had lost my nerves, but you need to understand the very stressful situation I was pushed into, please see this thread to understand. Usedtobecool how can you be so sure that it was a completely unrelated reason ? The Wikipedia article says "Swarajya (magazine) is an Indian monthly print magazine and online news-portal. The publication subscribes to right-wing liberalism and critics note it to be a pro-Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) publication". If you look at the line, which these 3 users were edit warring to remove, it perfectly fits this description. I am following the policies so I hope I will not get anymore ominous notice. Ok, I will be careful in the topic. Pratap Pandit (talk) 12:50, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Usedtobecool, the nomenclature used is really strange, why would someone call it "sanction" if it is intended to be informative ? Oxford dictionary defines Sanction as "a threatened penalty for disobeying a law or rule". Looks like Wikipedia chooses its names to strike fear into the users. Someone should think of a better name for it. The information nevertheless is useful, it will save me another heart attack. Many thanks. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 13:40, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pratap Pandit, hah! that was just my mind skipping over a word; I meant to say discretionary sanctions notice. (The sanction itself is indeed very sanctiony, and very indicative of wrongful conduct.) And, turns out, the correct terminology is even milder—it's apparently an "Alert". The template for the alert is at {{Alert}} if you're interested. Usedtobecool☎️13:55, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Phew Usedtobecool, "alert" is indeed lot less terrifying than the former. The links you gave are very helpful. Will follow what is said there. I would appreciate if you could help me to clarify one more thing. I have already read Good Faith and Civility policies. This blocked user seems to have taken a ginormous offence about my question. On his talk page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Brihaspati#Blocked, he claimed, "I called him B worker" This is absolutely false. All I did was ask him that question as I had this suspicion. A query is not the same as declaration. Is even asking such a question, considered a sanction-able offence here or was that user over reacting ? Pratap Pandit (talk) 14:22, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pratap Pandit, it's not sanctionable on its own, no. The editor was justifiably offended; I am not going to investigate the extent of their reaction and whether it goes into the "over-" territory. Context matters. If I were asking someone if they are an Ayurvedic doctor in real life because of their demonstrated expertise in the area, it would be a compliment; if I asked the same question to imply that they were pushing pseudoscience, it would be an attack, specifically, an ad-hominem attack. Neutrality is one of the three core policies of Wikipedia; so that which might as well be worded "Your edits are so biased; they could only be coming from someone brainwashed or paid by the BJP" would be offensive to any editor, especially so an editor who has possibly received all kinds of insults and accusations, having been active in one of the most unpleasant areas of the project. Tell you what, focus on content, not the editor (unless you have sufficient evidence of the editor's wrongdoing to push for some kind of sanction; even then, best focus on the actions, not motivations/affiliations) and there's never any reason to worry. While we are at it, there are some questions that you ought not ask even of friends (see WP:OUTING). Best, Usedtobecool☎️15:33, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Brihaspati has been indeffed for undisclosed paid editing wrt Swarajya, so I wouldn't worry about them taking offence, though your general remarks are well taken, Usedtobecool. Bishonen | tålk15:51, 24 April 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Indeed, Usedtobecool I am glad that you noticed. I decided not to throw a tantrum over it but it did raise a lot of questions in my mind. Which is why I had to ask, but I never got a response, only tantrums. Your advice is very useful, I agree that it is better to be careful on the safer side. Pratap Pandit (talk) 06:21, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
why so many people are so keen to reject?
Hallo,
the AFD process for the bio I wrote just finished and resulted in a keep. The bio was declined twice and than rejected. I kept asking what was the problem and the only answer was not reliable sources. when I tried to understand what were exactly the sources to cause the problem I got no answers at all. if you are too busy to feed the writer of an article with all the information he needs to understand your decision and improve his article please just don't do anything. If you fail someone's work than it would be fair for you to be available to explain your decision and help.
Honestly i don't feel that those who have rejected/declined the bio I wrote were moved by genuine intentions, otherwise they would have answered me and explained me what it was wrong in their opinion.
In the ADF talk page I was accused of going everywhere to ask for information, what was I supposed to do? if nobody answers me should I just let it be?
moreover, telling a person stuff like "fails WP:GNG", "fails WP:BASIC" or " fails WP:ANYBIO" needs to come with an explanation as those are very much interpretabile guide lines.
If your point is to get something done fast please do something else. If your point is to improve wikipedia be there for giving all the necessary info.
moreover, when I received the rejection I went everywhere asking what I could do and everybody just told me there vere scarse possibilities for me to see the bio published. after I asked 1000 times someone finally offered me to put it in the AFD and I have accepted. This behavior is not constructive neither. don't Just answer "it is hard or it is almost impossible" tell also what is can be done. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 19:56, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
An acceptable article requires reliable sources that establish the subject as notable. If no-one can find such sources, then the subject isn't notable, and an article on it is not warranted. There's nothing that can be done to get round that. Maproom (talk) 07:29, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Maproom: hallo, please ping people when you give them an answer otherwise they might never see our answer. I said that my article was kept, but this is not the point. the point is not if the sourcing is good or bad but the fact that if you tell someone his sourcing is bad than you need to explain a little bit your opinion, especially if you have the power of failing his article. if you say the source is bad than explain why in detail. probably the user spent a lot of time writing his article, you can take 10 min to let him know why his work is not accepted. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 07:47, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
2, 3, 4 and 8 report what he said himself, so are not independent.
5, the link given is to a page that does not mention him.
6, the link given is to a page with no content, but apparently written by him and so not independent.
7 is to a list of articles by him, and so not independent.
Reference 1 however does seem to me to qualify as helping to establish notability. Anyway, I see that the article has now been accepted; so, congratulations! Maproom (talk) 08:16, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Maproom: I wan't talking about Marricke Kofi Gane but this one sounds like a very good answer. this is exactly the type of answers people should give when they fail an article.
I applaud Alejandro's sincerity and politeness. Thanks. I get so many snippy comments and rudeness from editors that I wonder how they ever made it through kindergarten. I am sure we all wish Alejandro success, and I, for one, hope he will stick around and help improve the encyclopedia by working on other articles. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 17:24, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
LucasA04, Definitely, what exactly are you try to upload. If you created it and have not copyrighted it you can use "this is free work" and then "entirely my own work" Then select upload. Not upload to Commons. {{u|wylie39}} {Talk}22:07, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
wylie39: I don't know what you mean by "you copyrighted it". If you created it, it is copyrighted, and usually to you, so that you have the power to license it eg under CC. --ColinFine (talk) 08:05, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Paul Ahyi. Great question! I'm sure in your country, if a police officer or government official does something bad, there will be an investigation; if found guilty, appropriate action would be taken. So it is here on Wikipedia. I was recently made a sysop. I really hope I won't do anything seriously wrong or mischievous here. But if I did, and was clearly damaging this encyclopaedia, there would be an investigation by a group of very experienced editors (bureaucrats) who form our 'Arbitration Committee'. These bureaucrats are experienced administrators, and are voted into their positions by the community - inlcuding yourself, if you so wished. If it were found that I was acting in the wrong way, I might receive a warning (possibly sent publicly or privately to me), or could have my sysop (admin) rights removed right after their deliberations, or I might possibly be blocked altogether from editing. All these have happened a number of times in the past. In fact, two sysops had their admin rights removed only last month (read more at 'The Signpost'). Just like anyone else, if an editor with enhanced rights (bureaucrat/sysop) is blocked, they will not be able to edit Wikipedia until such time as either their block has expired, or they make an appeal and it is accepted. Does that answer your question? Nick Moyes (talk) 23:56, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Paul Ahyi: no - a blocked admin cannot unblock themselves. If another admin tried to unilaterally unblock an admin who had been legitimately blocked by 'ArbCom' or by what is known as 'Office Actions' by the Wikimedia Foundation, they themselves could be the subject of blocking action. If you are really interested in the complexities of such matters, you might like to delve through thousands of kilobytes at WP:FRAMBAN - a recent saga involving a number of admins. BTW: I've just noticed on your userpage that you've asked how you can block another editor if you are not an administrator. The answer is that you cannot block them yourself, though you can report them whilst at the same time providing evidence of what they have done wrong. Two common fora for these complaints are: A) Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism (also known as WP:AIV), and B) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (also known as WP:ANI). Quite often people who are actually causing the trouble are the ones who make the first complaint at WP:ANI. This is not a place to go to lightly, but we soon see through frivolous complaints, and such complainants often find themselves to be the target of administrator sanctions in order to protect the encyclopaedia. I hope none of this happens to you! Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:12, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Paul Ahyi: Yes, User:Cabayi is an active administrator see here. Their 'block log' shows they have never been blocked. Why do you ask? I do not see their name in the collapsed version of the WP:FRAMBAN page. And yes, there is indeed a way to be a sysop. It takes some years and often tens of thousands of edits to build up the experience and to be able to demonstrate to the community that one properly understands all of Wikipedia's many policies and guidelines, and that one can be trusted with what we jokingly call 'the mop'. These are the extra commands that administrators have in order to manage, maintain and protect Wikipedia. Having spent some years getting to know these things, one can put oneself through a week-long process called 'Request for Adminship' (RfA). It's not to be taken lightly. There, other editors will look deeply into that person's past editing, asks a wide range of searching questions, and 'vote' on their suitability. If enough editors support the nominee, they are given a few extra tools to help do their work. You can see my own recent RfA here.
Quite often, these experienced editors are able to support and guide new editors; at other times they can start to grow suspicious of a new editor's motives. For example, your very first edit here, just four hours ago, was quite unusual (see diff) which prompts me to ask whether you have previously edited here, or received a block from Cabayi or some other admin which you are trying to evade? It's an honest question -you do not need to answer if you don't wish to, but these things do tend to reveal themselves sooner or later. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:56, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nick and Hillel, when they reached 30 days on Wikipedia how many edits you got? Give me a link of admins blocked. If Cabayi blocked me I will try to unblock me in the talk page. If so I will make an account called NauruTuvalu100849999, and thinking how to be polite. Paul Ahyi (talk) 01:08, 23 April 2020 (UTC) Pol Uguzhi[reply]
@Paul Ahyi: I'm afraid you stand absolutely no chance whatsoever right now, and probably not for at least the next 18 months (even assuming you put the effort in to learn and understand how we operate, as this conversation would inevitably be brought into any RfA). You might then also find yourself being accused, possibly unfairly, of being a WP:TROLL. Sorry. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:20, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe May 22, 2022. And that is if you focus on improving articles, creating articles, raising articles to GA status, appropriately identifying articles for Speedy deletion, Prod of AfD, and so on, and so on, and so on. Your "need" and Wikipedia's process are on two different planets. David notMD (talk) 01:36, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
David, but you read or you have a IQ of 0? It says 30 days and 500 edits, so, to became a sysop you must get more than 30 days, and I do not know how the votes take. Also call me Pol' Ugudzhi. What is AfD and how it works? Why maybe 22-5-22? A minimum is 23-5-2020, and you can be admin and ext. confirmed. I have viewed some wikis in where you can be sysop without logging in. Pol' Ugudzhi. Paul Ahyi (talk) 02:44, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Paul Ahyi, those are the minimum requirements to be eligible for adminship. The next few sentences are:
However, the likelihood of passing without being able to show significant positive contributions to the encyclopedia is low. The community looks for a variety of factors in candidates and discussion can be intense.
Hillel, I am not a troll. I also wanna protect pages and block users, while also deleting offensive and vandalism pages. Pol' Paul Ahyi (talk) 03:18, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You can revert vandalism now. You can nominate articles for protection now. You can submit complaints about editors because of their behavior (edit warring, attacking other editors) now. You can nominate articles for deletion (AfD) now. None of this requires being an administrator. David notMD (talk) 09:57, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks David. I will nominate the articles for protection: Kiribati & Qatar (ext.con). Paul Ahyi (talk) 16:28, 23 April 2020 (UTC) Give me the link.[reply]
Article Review
Hello. I need some help for Draft: Aaron D. Lewis, corrections have been made to this draft, I am yet to figure out why it has not been published, or why someone cannot help me with further corrections if needed. i will like someone to look into it. Thank you.TheEpistle (talk) 23:04, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Loksmythe and welcome to the Teahouse. I am certainly a bit of a veteran in more than one way, but not an expert on copyright matters by any means! In the past, I and many others relied upon a tool with the unusual name of 'Earwig's CopyVio Tool'. It analysed a Wikipedia page and compared it with other online pages, giving a report which showed where content matched. It stopped functioning a short while back for reasons I won't go into -so I stopped trying to use it. But it looks like it might be coming back into functionality. Try it out at https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/ and do check out the resources at Wikipedia:Copyright violations. The one thing to bear in mind is that matching reports doesn't always prove that someone has copied a webpage into Wikipedia; sometimes the reverse is the case. A lot of our content gets mirrored and taken/used by people who do not follow our licencing conditions and credit Wikipedia as the source. So one has to investigate as carefully as possible. Does this help? Nick Moyes (talk) 00:21, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What is the difference between the wikitext editor and the visual editor. Also I use a spell checker extension called "Grammarly" to help me with identifying misspelled words and other things, it appears to have stopped working on both visual and source editor. I believe it has to do with a change I did in my "Gadgets" tab but I do not know which it could be. LucasA04 (talk) 04:23, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, LucasA04. Our wikitext editor (also known as Source Editor) is the original -and most powerful- way of creating content. You used it to write this question here. It uses quite simple commands to create formatting for bold or italics. It's a bit like a very simple HTML. Wikipedia:VisualEditor was created to be simpler to use, giving a WYSIWYG user interface. It does many simple tasks well, but can't do others. It was intended for beginners, and you will find most long-term editors, like me, stick with Source Editor.
I have heard of Grammarly (having been forced to sit through numerous awful ads for it on YouTube.) It looks to be an American product, and therein lies the risk if you try to use it (or indeed any other spellchecker) on Wikipedia. There are often perfectly acceptable alternative spellings for innumerable words. (colour/color; centre/center spring instantly to mind). As we do not permit any editor to try to force through their preferred way of spelling, users can get into difficulty if they blindly try to follow what some piece of software is telling them, without appreciating that Wikipedia is read right around the globe. See WP:ENGVAR for more guidance on this.
Finally, if you have made changes in your personal settings that you no longer like, you do have the option of resetting them all back to the default. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 08:27, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As an addendum, I find they both outperform one another in different situations. Navigating tables is much easier with the visual editor, while building or editing templates is best done with the source editor, even if the visual editor could be used in template space. I generally refrain from using the VisualEditor as it makes me lazy with editing, particularly when I have to go into spaces like talk pages where it doesn't work. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 11:20, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Tenryuu and Nick Moyes:, Thank you both, if most of the article is written in non-american/american/other variants (or if it says to write it in a certain variant which it should), then I can just switch a setting and say "I write in British English" or "I write in Australian English." I've read WP:ENGVAR many times so I've figured out a lot of rules about it. Also, I've figured out what was wrong, (I'll send a couple of images and show you), if I turn on "Temporarily disable the Visual Editor while it is in beta" than I get reverted to the following(Disregard the legacy editing toolbar): Disable Visual editor option is on
Now this is what it looks like when it is off:Disable visual editor is off
Still being active on old pages
Hi there fellow Wikipedians, I just wanted to raise some awareness that some old articles' talk pages, e.g. Scalextric, have some unanswered questions (I have answered one of them), and no one is responding to people asking to add sections. An example is a request for a section on
digital Scalextric on the page Scalextric. Please can someone still improve old articles, and I would do it, although being an inexperienced editor, I will probably mess up!
Cheers, EGL1234 (talk) 05:10, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
EGL1234, per WP:s nature, that is quite common. There are millions more articles than there are active editors. If you can fix old issues noted on talkpages that's excellent, but the editor you replied to here [2] hasn't edited since 2006, and is unlikely to benefit from your response. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:32, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion Policy On Surnames
While browsing through random Wikipedia articles I stumbled upon Dorle. I immediately assumed that it didn't meet WP:Notability and WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a dictionary/WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a directory. However I hesitated when I realized the User that created the article was an administrator and had created many such pages. I was unable to find any helpful information on their user page so I went looking and found WP:Deletion policy/names and surnames. I then considered deleting the article because of that, but I saw the policy was historical. I saw there was debate on the matter and don't know if there was consensus. I tried to search the village pump but it's very confusing to me and I don't know how to work it. Is there a consistent set of guidelines? What should I do?
Sidequestion: Is there a larger article that explains the village pump? I haven't been able to find one that explains exactly what it does.
Hi there RedBulbBlueBlood9911, I have just reviewed your case, and I noticed that your table is styled the same for all episodes, including 9 and 10. If you did submit it now, the table would not look different for the different episodes, it would just have the blue styling that you put on.
Ah, thanks for pointing that out, PrimeHunter. The table is rendering properly now that I’ve replaced the offending code. On a side note, I have no idea how the LineColor became Linecolor, since I copied the syntax using copy-paste. Anyways, thanks! RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 09:18, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Creating an Article that has a Redirect Link
Hi! I wanted to create an article for a member of the band Pentatonix, Scott Hoying. I was trying to create a link from the article for the Pentatonix's page, but when I try to link his name, the link automatically redirects back to the Pentatonix's article. How do I remove this redirect in order to create an independent article? Mayag224 (talk) 08:13, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mayag224 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I would first note that individual band members do not typically merit standalone articles, unless they have a solo career independent of the band and they meet the Wikipedia definition of a notable musician by themselves. If that's the case here, you can edit the redirect to be an actual article; if you go to Scott Hoying, you will be taken to(as you already know) Pentatonix. If you are using a computer or the desktop version on your phone, you should see small text underneath the title that says "redirect from Scott Hoying". If you click the link in that text, it will take you to the redirect page, and you can edit that page. 331dot (talk) 08:17, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Mayag224. While you can certainly do as 331dot has suggested, I would give you the advice that I always give people who are not very experienced at creating new encyclopaedia articles: it is one of the hardest tasks there is in editing Wikipedia (some say the hardest task) and unless you are certain that you can make an acceptable article at your very first try, I advise you to use the articles for creation process to make a draft. When you submit your draft for review, and a reviewer accepts it, they will sort out the issue with the redirect. Please look at your first article if you haven't already done so. --ColinFine (talk) 08:31, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Mayag224: I'll note that Scott hoying was previously an article, created by User:Scotthawk (perhaps the subject himself; see User talk:Scotthawk), deleted, re-created as an article, and then redirected to the band's article. If Scott Hoying (the correct capitalization) becomes a standalone article, Scott hoying should be redirected to it instead of Pentatonix, though deleting it would proably be better, as it's an unnecessary variant (and not linked to from any mainspace articles). —[AlanM1 (talk)]—16:36, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Attempt at improving a stub
I was interested in the article about Harris Lebus which apparently was once the largest furniture manufacturer in the world. I noticed that references 2 and 4 (apparently identical but presumably referring to different parts of a source) no longer worked. To compensate I tried to provide a new source (https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/read/34201802/a-history-of-harris-lebus-1840-1947-unpublished-manuscript-by-ls-) via the web template. However, the new reference 1 just leads to the yumpu.com web site. If, however, the URL is put directly into the web it goes to the source.
I would like help in correcting this problem as well as being able to update the history comment that I put in. 10:52, 23 April 2020 (UTC)BFP1 (talk)
Thank you EGL1234. If you click on the URL in this message it goes to the source. If you click on reference 1 in the article, which includes the same URL, it does not. I would like reference 1 to go to the source. Also, is it possible to retrieve references 2 and 4?BFP1 (talk) 12:44, 23 April 2020 (UTC) I should have done this @EGL1234:BFP1 (talk) 13:52, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much @Hillelfrei:. That is so useful! I will study the methodology.
@BFP1: A link containing "unpublished-manuscript-by-ls" is a red flag that this is not a reliable source. Yumpu.com sounds like a self-publishing outlet (can't actually see the content without allowing javascript, and I don't have the time/will to investigate whether it's safe or not). —[AlanM1 (talk)]—16:41, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@AlanM1: I have read the manuscript (which can now be easily read by readers of the article). It is a very detailed account (37 pages) by a member of the Lebus family (who apologises in a Foreward for his lack of literary style) and contains much information not available in other accounts. I have checked some of this extra information, of which I have personal knowledge, and it is correct. I think it is worth making it available to a wider audience.BFP1 (talk) 17:56, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Barnstar
Hi everyone,
I just wondered if you could possibly add a barnstar for giving lots of contributions to old articles, and paying attention to them too. This could help encourage the editing and improvement of old articles as well as new ones.
Welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia, XUser132. Yes, barnstars can be given for all sorts of reasons. They're just an informal and friendly way of saying 'thank you', and way of showing someone that you've noticed their contributions. Nick Moyes (talk) 12:54, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, XUser132: I think you are asking for somebody to create a new barnstar - presumably you've looked through all the ones in barnstars and decided none of them are quite what you're looking for. One answer is that you can just go ahead and create one. Alternatively, you could bring it up on WT:barnstars. --ColinFine (talk) 13:15, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I know someone who had served in the US Army during WWII from October of 1942 until November of 1944.
He was discharged from Fort Dix in November of 1944. Now, this seems odd to me. Why would someone be discharged from the US Army
with so much of the war yet to be fought. He did not have any injury. In fact, I don't think that he was even in any
frontline duty. Most of his time I believe was within the United States.
I thought that all WWII enlistments or draftees were extended for the duration of the war.
Why would someone get out in November of 1944. 13:03, 23 April 2020 (UTC)66.211.253.226 (talk)
Hello IP editor. I'm afraid we cannot assist you. This forum is here solely to give help and advice to people on how to edit Wikipedia content. This sounds more like a Google search, or maybe a general query to ask the folks over at our REFDESK. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 13:13, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To the IP, yes, please re-ask at the Reference Desks. I can think of at least one good reason why this might have occurred, but in deference to the protocols I won't give it here. {The poster formrely known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.178.214 (talk) 06:43, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Wylie39: i want to change or atleast try something new layout style for talk page. default signature style is good enough and i dont want to add few extra bits or bytes everytime i use signature. Leela52452 (talk) 14:31, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Leela52452: But, as regards signature style, please don't place anything else after the ~~~~ (as you did above and elsewhere). The timestamp it creates should be the last thing in your post. There's no reason to provide a link to your meta talk page on enwiki – discussions about enwiki should remain here. Thanks. —[AlanM1 (talk)]—16:51, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to add a youtube link to my father's page of a video that I created for my father. I insert it, but the next day it disappears (someone removes it). Please advise how to add this link to stay permanently. Thank you
Although you did not create Nader Jahanbani, you have been editing it since 2015. As 331dot informed you, external links embedded in the article are against policy, and also, Youtube is not considered a reliable reference source. Additionally, if you are in fact his son, you have what Wikipedia considers a conflict of interest (meaning no more than the fact that you have a personal connection), and that should be declared on your User page. David notMD (talk) 16:01, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Help for the publication of Panos Zeritis biography
Hello, I am writing a biography of Draft:Panos Zeritis. It is the second time that the article has been rejected. After the first rejection, I tried to find every source and add every reference to him that can be included. If anyone could help me, I would appreciate it. Thank you.Zggala (talk) 14:19, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Zggala Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Unfortunately, it seems that the subject of your draft does not meet Wikipedia's special definition of notability, as the reviewers have told you. No amount of editing can overcome this. The sources need to be independent reliable sources that have chosen to give him significant coverage. 331dot (talk) 14:29, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To establish that the subject is notable, you'll need several reliable independent sources with in-depth discussion of the subject. I've checked the first four English-language sources, and found none that qualify (and none from a newspaper). Ref. 2 is to a Wikipedia article, and therefore cannot count as a reliable source (to avoid circularity). Ref. 3 is to a page that's "under construction", and has no content. Ref. 4 has no mention of the subject, let alone in-depth discussion. Ref. 6 is currently giving a "site unavailable" message. Maproom (talk) 15:16, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @Zggala: While you did a good job on the amount of sources you included in your draft, these are not included in Wikipedia's definition of reliable sources. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which only includes notable topics, and the way we define notability is significant coverage in reliable sources only. For example, you referenced other language's Wikipedia pages which doesn't count as a reference. The kind of coverage you would want to look for would be for example what you find in a Google News search on real websites, not blogs. I did a quick search for you and only one article came up. As 331dot said, no amount of editing can overcome this so further attempts at creating the article will only frustrate editors, and I suggest leaving it for now. Feel free to contribute to other articles though. --Hillelfrei• talk •15:20, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sourcing biographical info
Hi there, I've written an article (Draft:Ron Britton), which was rejected first time. The editor said that I needed to source all the biographical information, but looking at lots of other Wikipedia articles, most of them don't have any sources for details like date and place of birth, schooling etc. I don't understand why I need to do this when lots of others don't (as just one example, on a similar subject: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Fonagy). Could you advise me on this? Thanks in advance.Fatbookreader (talk) 15:21, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to know how to access the Reading lists and history on the desktop Wikipedia page. I know this seems like a really basic question, but I can't find them. Thank you for your answer : D
Hello Teahouse, thank you all for you helping hand in the past.
I have drafted an article about an African-American Activist, which has been declined twice, meaning there is something I do not know of, I admit my ignorance and require clarity.
Firstly, on notability the person in question @ Draft: Aaron D. Lewis he are a few things:
He ran for Mayor of Hartford, CT in the elections last year, was a Democrat but change affiliation to Libertarian before the election, and if my memory is perfect, he was a leader of Obama's campaign in Connecticut back in 2008.
He was awarded the Shirley Chisholm Community Leadership Award by the Manchester Community College for his humanitarianism, which included an incident well covered by the oldest continuous newspaper publication in the US - the Hartford Courant (I presume this to be a reliable source, correct me if I am wrong), the incident was about an educational official who was involved in a sexting incident, Lewis contacted the police about the issue, and on the request of the mother, pursued the case for activism, and both the Hartford Courant and Eyewitness News described him as a "Child Advocacy Leader in Hartford" - in their own words.
He organizes the Martin Luther King Jr. Award for Literacy and Learning which is a fundraiser for children of color in Hartford.
He is an inaugural recipient of the 100 Men of Color Award in CT
He has been featured as panel by Hazard Gazette, his picture is featured on there as well.
He is a publisher with books on Amazon and Google among others.
He is involved in many mission outreaches to third world countries and was described by Winnie Mandela as a man with a divine call to blacks on his visit to SA in 2010 (which I didn't bother including in the article since citation was self-published).
I can go on and on, but i do not wish to sound like a.....
I am really wondering what else is required for notability having read the notability policies over and over again, I sternly opine that this article is ready for mainspace, but again I admit I may be wrong.
Anyway can another editor take a look at the article again and offer explanatory comments.TheEpistle (talk) 15:40, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The draft has been declined twice, each time with reasons, plus comments (below the declines). I agree with the comment that running for mayor does not contribute to notability, nor his changing his political party, and the entire Humanitarianism section should be deleted. The tone is not neutral - if feels more like part of his mayoral campaign. I suggest not submitting again unless he wins the election. David notMD (talk) 16:08, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you David notMD (talk) but I really think that this article Draft: Aaron D. Lewis meets notability guidelines. I also agree that indeed running for mayor does not contribute to notability but other listed factors can and have. I have deleted the Humanitarian section cos this is not a campaign. And any reviewer is free to delete sections further, you may delete sections but i don't think this deserves a decline, since this user is a notability. A honest opinion.
Thank you.
TheEpistle (talk) 16:55, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
TheEpistle: if you believe that he is notable, by Wikipedia's standards, it should be on the basis of some reliable published independent sources with significant discussion of him (and not because of anything in you bulletted list above). Four should be enough. Can you list four such sources? Maproom (talk) 17:22, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Because you asked, I cut everything I believe did not contribute to notability or did not belong in the article. For example, since he lost the 2019 election, no need to provide his explanations for why he was running. David notMD (talk) 17:34, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The wrong person, disambiguation and interlanguage links
We have an article on Guillaume Bonnet, a 14th-century bishop. It has quite a few incoming links. A look on .fr shows there are a number of different fr:Guillaume Bonnets including a rugby league player, a cyclist and a sculptor. There are also a tennis player and a badminton player who don't even have French articles. I suspect that many of the people arriving at our article either directly or by following a link are looking for one of the others rather than the bishop. Ideally, we would have an article for any of these that are notable but, in the meantime, would it be good to have a disambiguation page with a link to the bishop and interlanguage links the various .fr pages? More generally, I don't see a lot of interlanguage links but I did notice an editor adding a number to The Last Kingdom (TV series) today. Is there a policy or guideline on where they are appropriate?Cavrdg (talk) 16:07, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cavrdg, if we have only one article under that name we have nothing to disambiguate. It's up to the French Wikipedia to disambiguate their articles. We never disambiguate subjects that we don't have articles about. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:43, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Cavrdg: I see what you mean. The first thing to do is to decide which of the incoming links are in fact relevant, and then either unlink the others (that is, remove the square brackets from the name) or change the wikilinks to plausible alternative titles (such as Guillaume Bonnet (rugby league)). It's fortunate that fr.wiki has disambiguated the names – it makes it easier to differentiate between them. I suspect that the rugby league player, at least, is definitely notable but I know too little about the topic to know which sources would be appropriate to use, or how to write the article. A sourced stub might be a lot better than nothing, in this case... --bonadeacontributionstalk18:39, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I jumped the gun and changed the link in the template to point to Guillaume Bonnet (rugby league). I am not sure what the policies/guidelines are about interlanguage links outside the sidebar, but I think it is a better idea to have the redlink when it is an article that could very plausibly be created. Feel free to revert me! There is certainly a case to be made for the usefulness of having a link lead to an actual article, even if it is in a different language, too. --bonadeacontributionstalk18:53, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia.
I don't understand why the page I've tried to create is being rejected. The rejection seems to say that it is a promotional page as opposed to a "informational page" and I disagree. I have looked at other pages that are similar to the one I'm trying to create. I've used references from the news tab of google and did not use any that came from press releases only articles written by 3rd parties for a reputable source, such as Daily News NewspaperTWAH64 (talk) 16:28, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@TWAH64: I agree with the rejection of Draft:Dale Okorodudu. The articles do not provide significant coverage about the subject of this article. They're primarily about other topics to which he is connected. The closest is [3], about his book, but it's just from the website of a local radio station. And this Forbes piece is written by a "contributor" -- i.e. it's a junky piece with basically no editorial review. He may qualify for a Wikipedia article later, but he does not today (at least based on the sources presently in the article). Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:03, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How to find Knight Rider userbox to add to user page?
A Nigerian musician[1]
a viddoe editor[2] and tiktok creator
frrrrrf 20:48, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, Farouk fy. What is your question, and how can we help you? I can at least advise you that you have created a draft article on your userpage, which is not the right thing to do. Are you this person, trying to promote yourself? If you are trying to create a draft article, please do it at this article-creation page. Or move it all over into your sandbox where I see you ahve already got one version of the text about emask. I'm afraid if you leave it where it is it will be soon deleted by an administrator. That page is for you just to say a little bit about yourself in terms of your interest in editing Wikipedia - or to declare a connection with the person you are writing about. (See Wikipedia:User pages if you want to know what is and is not allowed there. Please let us know what it is you trying to do, and what help you seek. Nothing in the article you have written so far leads me to feel the person is in any notable enough to have an article about them on Wikipedia. Not one of the references you've put in actually mentions this person at all. If independent sources haven't written about this person, then there's no chance for an article about them to remain on Wikipedia - sorry. See WP:NMUSIC for more information on our 'notability criteria' for musicians. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:11, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there. How does one link to a specific section within an article rather than linking to the entire article. For instance, when referring to the nightclub "Studio 54" how does one link here: Studio 54 within an article; rather than just Studio 54 which is the building in general. Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 20:51, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Maineartists: You could link to it like this. Simply put a hash symbol after the title, followed by the section name (and pray nobody changes the section name later!). The actual source code needed to create the link I just used will look like this: [[Studio_54#Nightclub_era|like this]]. Does that help? Nick Moyes (talk) 20:58, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to see what next steps are while waiting for a decision on a discussion. It has been suggested the article I proposed be merged with a parent page [[4]]. I can make edits to the current talk page; however, I'm concerned that if I submit without a decision being made I run the risk of the article being deleted.
Sunvidal, your link has a bad character. While I can access the page, I do not know where exactly in the article you intended to bring readers to. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:15, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How can I submit a draft for review?
Hello everyone! I've just created a draft named Draft:Alessio Cocchi about an Italian photographer, I clicked on the button "Publish changes" but I can't seem to find the "submit for review" button. Can you please help me? Thanks a lot!Cinnich (talk) 20:58, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tenryuu Thank you very much! Just submitted the article, fingers crossed!
Customized signatures
I’ve seen a lot of people’s comments on talk pages, and most of them have signatures that look really cool. How can I make mine look cool with colors and stuff? -- Total Eclipse 2017 (talk) 21:03, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to thank all who are trying to help me in creating an Article specially ( Andrzej Kamil Rybicki ) who has been mailing me and guiding me, I am totally new to Wikipedia, I am trying not to make mistakes but one way or the other I am making mistakes, if any one can please guide me after reading my Article and can point out the mistake so that I can fix them or any one who can do that.
I will be great full.Shahkarshah (talk) 22:44, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Shahkarshah. Welcome to the Teahouse. Actually, you are not totally new to Wikipedia are you? That's really rather misleading. As an administrator here, I can see all the deleted pages and edits you made about yourself back in 2016. But today, and assuming 'good faith', there are five glaringly obvious problems right now.
First off, I don't see any references to support anything you have written about yourself at User:Shahkarshah/sandbox. Wikipedia articles must be based upon content already published in reliable, independent sources - not from your personal memory.
Secondly, just two or three images are sufficient on a page. There are far, far, far, far too many pictures there; this is an encyclopaedia, not LinkedIn - see WP:NOTWEBHOST.
Thirdly, there's a terrible use of random capital letters in various nouns within sentences; you might wish to sort that out, though it's a minor point.
Fourthly, and most importantly, you tried to write about yourself back in 2016, and the page was deleted for failing to meet our 'notability criteria' (see WP:NBIO). I often tell people that "less is more", so cut back all the waffle that is irrelevant, and show us clearly why you genuinely meet our notability criteria. Use reliable sources to do that, please. The rest is irrelevant if you can't show that you reach that bar.
And finally, you have a clear and obvious Conflict of Interest in wanting to promote yourself here. You MUST declare that COI - so please read the link I've just given you to show what you must do. In essence, use your userpage to explain who you are and who you are wanting to write about. See WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY for some reasons why this is a bad idea, and one I advise you not to try to do.
Ooh - and a final point: I've just looked again. I now see lots of inline external links, but no reference section. See my guide at WP:EASYREFBEGIN to help you add inline citations properly. And why not remove all the irrelevant wikilinks? There are so many of them, and so poorly linked, that most go to 'disambiguation' pages, demonstrating that the links are not the right ones to use. Again, less is more. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:07, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How do you create a Page notice?
When I say page notice I mean, like the "welcome to the TeaHouse editing window!" and then more stuff. How can I do this on my talk page? Thanks.
I am having a hard time trying to find articles that I can edit...
Is one of you out there able to post on my talk page some articles for me to see if I can edit? Thanks, cause I don't want to spend the time looking for articles, when I could be editing them. Thanks!Shadowblade08 (talk) 00:32, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Shadowblade08: Please tell us what subjects you are interested in, or the type of editing you fancy doing. We are not mind readers. We have 6 million articles here; help us to help you! Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:52, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, (I'm talking to Nick Moyes) um, something I like writing about is biking, and the musical instruments piano, and ukulele. (is that not broad enough?) and I like doing tweaking more than writing concrete bases for articles. I hope that helps, but if it doesn't, I can give you more info. Cheerio,
@Shadowblade08: For general ideas for contributing, please visit Wikipedia:Community portal. But for specific topics, your best bet is to browse through articles listed in 'Categories' that you are interested in. You will encounter some articles with obvious notices at the top of their pages - these need action! So, just a few suggestions,: try Category:Ukuleles; Category:Piano; Category:Musical instruments. You can find article categories right at the very bottom of any article page. But we also have specific 'WikiProjects' which are groups of editors interested in improving certain themed topics, like Wikipedia:WikiProject Musical Instruments. Most, but not all such projects, maintain table of articles, tabulating them by quality and importance. (example). I would go to the row of really short 'stub' articles, then click the number shown and view the articles now listed. Some my well be in need of urgent help. Hope this helps a bit, Nick Moyes (talk) 01:20, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, Nick Moyes, thanks so much, your really helpful. I can't wait to check those out, and dig in!
Right now you have a draft of an article on your User page and on your Sandbox. Delete the content from your User page. Next step is for an editor to convert your Sandbox to a draft and put a 'Submit' button on it. When you are ready, submit. Once submitted it will go to Articles for Creation and wait for a reviewer to either approve or Decline. The wait can be days to months. Declines can be worked on and resubmitted. Gook luck to you. David notMD (talk) 01:56, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Subtitle
How can I add a subtitle (or a subname) to an article?
Hello,
Is it possible to add subtitles on Wikipedia pages? I'd like to include the standardized common names of species as subtitles on their Wikipedia pages.
@Menon1717: unfortunately, this subject does not appear to qualify for an article on Wikipedia. See WP:N. If after reading that linked page, you still believe that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia page, please reply with the reason why, providing the very best available sources that discuss that topic. Thanks, Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:13, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This seems perfectly fine to have a Wikipedia Article on, it is a Hindu Tradition and although it doesn't seem to very well it does seem to be especially well known ritual, simply because something is obscure doesn't disqualify something for being an article. Lets say there is some obscure animal found in the wild which few people know about, for the sake of argument let's say only 10 people know about this obscure species? Should that animal be denied an Article because of Obscurity? This tradition appears to be thousands of Years old and one of Millions of Hindu traditions as well as Millions of Hindu gods. Obviously there is a need for articles to have a certain level of notoriety to them, my short lived Folk Punk band obviously does not hold any spot on Wikipedia and also shouldn't, however there are so many obscure species and wild-life and scientific techniques which are far less known then mahapurushartha yagam yet they still are important, as an example: Eubranchus cucullus a Type of Sea Slug has far less results then mahapurushartha yagam when accounting for Hindi and English Results, however are you to argue that this entire not just species of this Sea Slug should be denied representation because obscurity? Moreover should a Cultural practice that is thousands years old be denied simply because it not well known? The answer is obvious, of course not because both although obscure are undeniably important, even if Humans don't know it Eubranchus cucullus plays a vital role in its Eco-system and perhaps people will see this fairly common Sea Slug in the Caribbean and wonder what it is, maybe someone visiting India will see this practice in a obscure village, and wonder what it is. The point of there not being an Article on my horrible Folk Punk band called See onto, is that nobody will ever have a need to look at it, nobody will ever need to think about it, unless I am in a direct conversation with someone and I bring it up no one will ever know about it, it has no *importance* on anything, Obscure practices, places, religions, traditions, are all extremely important. Vallee01 (talk) 06:12, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One of Wikipedia's rules is no original research. Articles exist because content has been written AND PUBLISHED first. Wikipedia only contains what is verifiable by referencing to reliable sources. Your draft Draft:Maha purushartha Yagam is too short and has no references. David notMD (talk) 11:28, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Vallee01, if there's independent reliable sources on the subject, sure, that's something that we can work on. But if there isn't, it's not going to be suitable for publication on here until those exist. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:40, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Edit warring
Hi there fellow Wikipedians,
I have noticed the start of an edit war on the page Kowloon, and I have informed that they may be blocked if they carry on participating, although I'm not sure if I should just revert the edits they all made, and leave it how it was, or if I should just leave it 100%, and the warning is enough.
@EGL1234: - that IP editor is now blocked, with no more edits in the last 8 hours or so, so in that sense the war has stopped. The edits have also been reverted, so in this case there's no further action. The more general question of "should edits in an edit war (which usually have multiple parties at fault) be reverted" is somewhat of a judgement call. If it's a short EW then I prefer to revert to the last stable version, but sometimes these things run for ages or have non-EW edits scattered through it, and so it might be best to start discussion from that point. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:42, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Free access tag making refs not recognized as cite:news by Visual Editor
Adding free access tags is required of refs from newspapers.com and newspaperarchive.com. After doing so, these refs are no longer recognized as news citations when editing them in Visual Editor. For example, try editing both refs in Visual Editor, the second having the free access tag included.[1][2] This problem has not existed in the past and it certainly does not encourage citing or using proper style. Is Wikipedia aware of the glitch and is a real solution available? Thanks — 05:26, 24 April 2020 (UTC)βox73 (৳alk)
Hey! I’ve been a fairly active editor for the past year, but lately have felt emotionally drained editing and have felt like I’ve come across poorly to fellow Wikipedians. Is there any sort of “support group” or community discussion areas where one can converse positively? I was running through this page and saw how kind all the responses have been despite the confusing and occasionally trying questions. It gave me hope after a bit of feeling pretty down about my involvement for a while and want to be more substantive. If this isn’t the page to ask these questions, I apologize; I’m still getting the hang of the “back-end” pages. Thanks! ~ 05:36, 24 April 2020 (UTC)Pbritti (talk)
@Pbritti: I'm sorry to hear you feel that you're burning out. Wikipedia focuses intensely on improving and creating good articles, so there aren't official spaces (that I'm aware of) where support groups are held. Have you thought about taking a WP:BREAK? Please put your emotional health before editing. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:22, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Pbritti: I try to stay upbeat on Wikipedia by reading the weekly/monthly "on the bright sides" Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2020-03-29/On the bright side. If you're looking for less formal places to discuss issues, I'd suggest joining the English Wikipedia WP:DISCORD. The conversation is certainly varied, and not structured as a support group, but I find it quite helpful and chat in there a great deal. A good place to ask for instant help/feedback or just share a funny page you saw while editing. Tenryuu is right though, if you're burnt out, sometimes its good to step back for a bit and do something else. Take care of yourself! Smooth sailing, CaptainEekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓10:31, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tenryuu and CaptainEek, thanks for your advice! I'm going to look into the break option, but probably will be taking a look at the "Bright Side" page as well! I'm glad that there are some aspects of community here! ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:56, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Pbritti: I believe your comments on the page you and I are on, are constructive and well thought out. These times are emotional for most people, the world is in turmoil. Thank-you, for all your help with wikipedia that I'm aware of, and beyond. GunnisonMarmot (talk) 23:51, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A user had posted a link about WP:BLP policy on my talk page. I must say it was quite an engaging read. Very helpful indeed. I was wondering if these policies only apply to article or also on the article talk ? I am asking because there is a User:Imlipop who is rambling obnoxious things about living persons. What should I do in such case ? Can an admin talk some sense into him. And delete his comments if it is found in conflict of the Wikipedia policy.Pratap Pandit (talk) 11:20, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Pratap Pandit and Imlipop:WP:BLP applies everywhere on the English Wiipedia, including talk pages. That's an emotional topic, to be sure: everyone should perhaps take a step back for a while. Without accusing you, Pratap of anything in particular, but as an example of how to inflame rather than descale tensions, accusations that other editors are threatening and ganging up on me are not in the best taste on an article about a lynching? But, likewise, Imlipop, suggestions that other editors are effectively government stooges are equally unhelpful. ——SN5412912:17, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Serial Number 54129, I believe you wanted to type Wikipedia and ended up saying Wiipedia. (Wii's are fun). If it applies to article talk page then please delete both the comments. They are disgusting and outright defamatory. Wikipedia page come up in google search so The admins must quickly delete such obnoxious violations of wikipedia policy. Please help to remove them. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 13:08, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
AFD nominee
Hallo,
I tried to nominate to AFD the bio Steve Cruz (actor). It is the first time I nominate a page and think I did something wrong. could you help me and tell me what I did wrong? thank you --11:45, 24 April 2020 (UTC)AlejandroLeloirRey (talk)
"2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United Kingdom" - Page is out of control
Giving notice to people who perhaps have more experience of concise, condensed page writing. There doesn't seem to be a system for people taking responsibility (as opposed to ownership) of any page. The page mentioned above is out of control. Ironically it has reached epidemic proportions of content, and much of it unnecessary for adding to one's knowledge of the outbreak. Some major issues:
Analysis
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
- The pre-amble / intro is five paragraphs long, four of them long.
- The shortcuts menu is two scrolling pages, and I use a taller monitor than most.
- There is far too much content regarding responses from sectors that frankly can be put in its own article away from this page.
- The stats page is HUGE. The length is unmanageable, and the width is becoming equally so, since the number totals are forcing column widths wider. I did suggest to one editor about a month ago to combine all the England regions in to one nation, and the table would look a lot less messy.
- There IS an England page, but as per the usual mentality of some people, it is almost empty, and the UK page is getting all England's data. As such, the UK page is bigger than it needs to be because of editor laziness or because editors are trying to promote inequality.
Please look into this. I would recommend a short total of the four nations' statistics, and links to each, with day by day across each page, if people want to do that. If every region of the UK is to be included, then I suggest they add the regions of Scotland, Wales, and the six counties of Northern Ireland.
It gets very, very boring, having to scroll 3-4 pages to get to the stats link in the menu, then scrolling 3-4 pages in the stats to get to the totals, and having to scroll up again to get to the column headers. Then having to scroll left and right too. The simple, simple answer (said twice to highlight, is it very simple) is to have condensed columns to prevent horizontal scrolling, and have scrolling table headers. If wiki isn't capable of this, then it's not the place to have the data presented !!
Either data is complete, and able to be read, or it is pointless. A link to a spreadsheet would be more useful, and those accessing the data wouldn't be forced to deal with the messy text presentation of Wikipedia.
Too much data, not enough info. People get overloaded and give up. Please fix this. I would, but will end up in a turf war with one or more wiki editors, who probably have more experience of the editing systems, the network of people, and the politics of wikipedia. Life is too damn short for that.
P.S. I'm not criticising any single editor or wikipedia in general. Just this page. Sort it please. It's out of control. Some examples:
2 Government response
2.1 Overview
2.1.1 Progression between phases
2.1.2 Classification of the disease
2.1.3 Communications
2.2 Regulations and legislation
2.3 Criticism of the Government's response
7 Response in other sectors
7.1 Arts and entertainment
7.1.1 Music
7.1.2 Visual arts
7.1.3 Theatre and cinema
7.1.4 Television and radio
Someone thinks that 'arts response' is as note worthy as the Government here. Do we seriously need to separate arts into sectors in the main menu? There's even women's events and LGBT pride mentions further down. What has that to do with a viral outbreak? Nothing.
I suggest a simple paragraph making mention of many responses, and a link to "Responses from various sectors".
I did complain to one editor of this page a month ago. The complaint(s) were brushed off and ignored, despite the points made. The editors opinion wins...
The proper place for this sort of statement is on the article talk page. If there are changes that you want to see, you need to be the one to work to see them implemented. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and all editors interested in a topic must work together on arriving at a consensus. You are welcome to make your suggestions as a formal edit request which will be seen by other editors(ones who might not necessarily be following that article). 331dot (talk) 12:52, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Hello IP editor! I have hatted your analysis to make the post more accessible; of course, all of it is just a click away. About your concerns, I fear I have only a disappointing answer; it follows:
Issues with 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United Kingdom should be discussed at Talk:2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United Kingdom. That is where the editors most likely to be interested in making the article better are most likely to be watching for suggestions. Wikipedia has far too many articles, and far too few editors. So, unless it's an urgent issue with very immediate real-life concerns, the best way to see an article fixed is to fix it yourself. People are very aware of the article explosion related to COVID-19 and the inevitable dip in quality it can only be expected to bring (see, for example, User_talk:Iridescent#origin of covid); most responsible users are busy trying to prevent fake news and fake medicine from risking our readers' lives.
How to properly understand reliable source guidelines
india is so diverse, and high population. how much population is enough to call it popular. As even if a single kannada newspaper cover only one major city like Bangalore in Karnataka. It will have readership of crores. But editor being from north india or english speaking may judge it not reliable.
Saamna newspaper by shiv sena and national herald by Indian national congress Saamna is popular then its own circulation, will it be considered as unbiased and reliable source citing ownership by a political party. Lokmat is only Marathi its demographics is limited to Marathi speaking population only. The hitwad i know is some of oldest newspaper but no popularity.
Some language like konkani, sindhi have very less speaking population, but a specific news paper have loyal readership in the language speaking population.
Above all no single newspaper can represent entire nation in detail, hence the need for regional newspapers.
So my question is how notability is really established, which news source can be considered reliable.
I went through guidelines several times, but have hard time understanding then in context of my question above.Nealtylor (talk) 13:54, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You ask a question that would require an essay to answer, Nealtylor; unfortunately, I don't know of any that already exist.
Readership has nothing to do with what makes a source reliable. There is some correlation, but that doesn't indicate a causative relationship. And reliability is just one of several characteristics required of a source for it to contribute toward notability. Others being that the sources be "secondary" as well as "independent" and the coverage be substantial, not just a passing mention or a routine coverage.
A source is judged reliable if, for example, it has been mentioned as a reliable source by other reliable sources, or if it has a reputation for accuracy and prompt redaction when mistakes are made, or if it is written by a known expert in the field with good reputation for accuracy and other desirable qualities, or if it has some kind of responsible editorial mechanism/board and there is no evidence that it publishes inaccurate/fake news, I think you get the picture. That means, "a Kannada newspaper that covers only Bangalore" would be reliable if it is one of those things I mentioned above. Same with Lokmat, hitwad, and "a specific newspaper in Konkani or Sindhi". Saamna and National Herald would have to be evaluated in light of their affiliations with Shiv sena and The Congress respectively. They could be reliable about certain things, and unreliable about other things. They will not contribute to notability of anybody or anything connected with their respective parties because whether they are reliable or not, they are not "independent" or "secondary" when it comes to their own parties. As to whether the local/regional papers contribute to notability, there is no general answer that would fit all. For example, if the topic is a Marathi writer or a book from before 1900s, and there is substantial coverage in Marathi papers and a few mentions outside Maharastra, that may be considered sufficient; but if it's a Marathi writer or a book from today, people might wonder, why there is no substantial coverage in national and international level,and even suspect that someone could have paid the Marathi sources to cover the topic, then that would not contribute to notability. Deccan Herald, AFAIK, counts toward notability most of the times. Isn't that a regional paper?
The actual content of the coverage matters too. Time and again, Wikipedians discuss whether Times of India should be considered unsuitable for evaluating notability of Bolly- / Tolly- / Kolly- wood related topics, because it writes filmy articles which read very much like paid placements, but then, people say, all Indian film coverage is bad; so, it's tolerated, last I checked, lest we run out of sources to use. On the other hand, English world has a ton of global sources, so there is a very high standard, and even large multi-national/global newspapers can get blacklisted.
It makes complete sense, but how i can use this information in real time situations, like it is a unwritten code of conduct between publications, to not publish about each other due to competitive nature between. Now how a new but going good in circulation publication can be cited in wikipedia. I seen several brands and publication pages in wikipedia in which publication page have its own links as references like bhaskar, jagran, how it is allowed and how a rather new publication will be or not be allowed to use its own references as it may marked as advertisement.
But other publication are never going to write about it.
Same for journalists and editors, except for few who keep on switching jobs i do not see accredited journalists mention in editorials for any award except for government website.
In this case journalist award reference link can be provided but no other references will be available.
All editorial mechanisms and responsibilities big brands automatically qualify, but how a new will be able to, on what points wikipedia editors will judge it.
Same for movies, short films which did good in film festivals but no coverage in big newspapers.
Nealtylor had asked this question to me as well, so I found this response helpful. I also found these links that I feel are good advice. Please take a look.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Submission declined on 24 April 2020 by Dan arndt (talk).
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you have not resolved the issues listed above, your draft will be declined again and potentially deleted.
If you need extra help, please ask us a question at the AfC Help Desk or get live help from experienced editors.
Please do not remove reviewer comments or this notice until the submission is accepted.
Where to get help
If you need help editing or submitting your draft, please ask us a question at the AfC Help Desk or get live help from experienced editors. These venues are only for help with editing and the submission process, not to get reviews.
If you need feedback on your draft, or if the review is taking a lot of time, you can try asking for help on the talk page of a relevant WikiProject. Some WikiProjects are more active than others so a speedy reply is not guaranteed.
To improve your odds of a faster review, tag your draft with relevant WikiProject tags using the button below. This will let reviewers know a new draft has been submitted in their area of interest. For instance, if you wrote about a female astronomer, you would want to add the Biography, Astronomy, and Women scientists tags.
Alexander Z. Nosler (born 1972) is an American business entrepreneur, mechanical engineer, and founder of Kitsbow[1] mountain biking apparel company. He is also known for being CEO of Coffee Equipment Company and inventing the "Clover" coffee machine.[2][3]
Hello Josephi krakowski aka "lenny", please do not copy whole articles/drafts into other pages. Instead, link the page by putting the pages title between a pair of nested large brackets like this: [[Draft:Zander Nosler]]. I have done additional formatting of your post, hope you do not mind.
Regarding the draft, I don't think the subject meets the notability criteria for biographies. No amount of editing can compensate for the lack of notability. Sorry. If you think the subject is notable, it rests upon you to convince others by providing significant coverage from independent reliable sources. If you can provide at least three such sources, editors may reconsider (see WP:THREE). Usedtobecool☎️14:53, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's your responsibility to find quality references and incorporate those into the draft. Right now, #1 is his bike company website, #2 is list of patents and patent applications, and #3 is a brief description of the fancy coffee maker, with just a name-only mention of the inventors. Unless there are independently written articles that have content AT LENGTH about Nosler, no chance that this can become an article. David notMD (talk) 14:57, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Uses and indications of Traditional Herbal Medicines
Hello
I want to post some changes and add Traditional Herbal uses of some of th entries in Wikipedia, can someone help me to understand what you refer to as reliable sources. In my work, I have used many traditional textbooks, such as Bartrams Encyclopedia of Herbal Medicine. Are these considered reliable sources for the information about the action and uses of herbs as remedies?Herbalthyme (talk) 14:24, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Herbalthyme, please visit WP:RSN, the reliable sources noticeboard to discuss reliability of a particular source in general or in a particular context. Please read the notice on the top of that page before you make a post. Editors there are more specialised in evaluating reliability of sources. Wikipedia has a rather strict interpretation of what counts as reliable in health-related contexts (see WP:MEDRS), so my guess is, you could say "This book says this herb does this" (provided it is DUE), but you can't say "this herb is medicinal for this purpose". Best, Usedtobecool☎️14:42, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If this band meets the Wikipedia definition of a notable band, as shown with significant coverage in published, independent reliable sources, you are welcome to use Articles for Creation to create and submit a draft for review- though be advised successfully writing a new article is the absolute hardest task to perform here. 331dot (talk) 15:50, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How do I use the "use British English template?" I've been trying to use this template "{{Use British English|date=April 2020}}" And this "{{Use British English}}" on a talk page but for some reason they both don't work. Could you give me insight on what I'm doing wrong? (Check source editor to see) LucasA04 (talk) 17:44, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@LucasA04: Converted to Tl tags so that we can see them. Two things:
"Use British English" is used on articles to give them the hidden category "Articles that use British English". It doesn't visually produce anything on the article. I find that it helps to remind editors that the article should use British English though.
Advice on removing clean-up tag and publishing draft article previously marked as promotional
Greetings, I have been hired for clean-up efforts in regard to Draft:Daniel_O._Griffin. My job is to see it through that this article has been properly edited as per WP:NPOV. Could you please advise what should be done next for the tag to be removed and the draft considered for publication into the mainspace? Thank you in advance.Charmanderblue (talk) 17:49, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Charmanderblue. At present I do not see a single source in that draft that is both independent of Griffin (and the organisations he is part of) and contains substantial text about him. Basically, WIkipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article has said or published, or even, much what they have done: it is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject have chosen to publish (in reliable places) about the subject and what they have said, published, and done. Please see CSMN --ColinFine (talk) 18:03, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, ColinFine, thank you for the swift response. I feel a bit baffled as I swear I've come across many articles in the mainspace with little or no references that is independent of persons/entities connected to the subject of the article. Would I be correct to understand that (reliable) media citations such as from CNN, Fox News and Times of said person would not qualify as appropriate sources to establish notability? Because I can swear I've come across many instances of articles of living scientists that have been published in this manner. Also, thank you for taking the time for helping me out on this! Charmanderblue (talk) 18:17, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Charmanderblue. In the course of Wikipedia's existence, its editorial standards have constantly evolved. During its period of very rapid growth, standards were relaxed. Currently, standards are much tighter. Unfortunately, many older articles from the period of rapid growth still remain, due to the large number (over six million) of articles on Wikipedia and the huge task of vetting all of them against current standards. For more insight into this situation, see: Other stuff exists.--Quisqualis (talk) 19:21, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Quisqualis, thanks for chiming in and sharing the resources to that end, it's very insightful. Nonetheless, I think the article in question deserves more merit, considering the emerging notability of the person in media and his demonstrable contributions to scientific work. Could you advice how a formal discussion moving the page to mainspace is to be launched? I am not sure what the proper route is for articles that have been deleted and tagged with the clean-up tag. Any input is highly appreciated! Charmanderblue (talk) 19:34, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Charmanderblue. It's apparent that I am thinking like an encyclopedia editor and you are thinking like a public relations person. The bottom line is that the reliable, published, in-depth sources are currently mandatory. When you refer to "the emerging notability of the person in media", you are forecasting the future notability of the subject, and should therefore take a look at WP:TOOSOON. Wikkpedia does not publish articles pre-emptively.--Quisqualis (talk) 19:46, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again, Quisqualis. I will heed your advice. Last question: Is it possible to remove the current paid promotional tag on the article? I have been hired particularly for the purpose of redoing and cleaning up the article, which I have done to the best of my ability. I would prefer that tag not hover over the article until the draft is ready for publication. Please advise! Charmanderblue (talk) 19:49, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Charmanderblue. The tag will have to remain, per the rules on paid editing. User preference is not a consideration, and the tag should not influence the review outcome, given that the issue there is sourcing.--Quisqualis (talk) 20:07, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Quisqualis, since Charmanderblue has disclosed both on here and on their user page their affiliation, can we change the {{UPE}} to another template to show that they have abided by Wikipedia's Terms of Service? If there isn't one I propose one be made. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:20, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Teahouse hosts. I am considering another article for Wikipedia; however, it will entail much work, so I am inquiring regarding wp:notability before writing the article and having it rejected due to to lack of notability. The article I am considering is list article about native Texas, firewise trees. There is an article already on Wikipedia, Natural landscaping from which the phrase native landscaping redirects from the search box. While there is no firewise landsccape Wikipecia article (and I am considering an article about that subject), I have found several reliable sources (at least I believe they are) regarding the subject:
Interesting question, Hu Nhu! I've mulled over this quite a bit before replying, and I should say, first off, that I don't really like the sources you've found. But even with great sources, I would still urge against a list article, and especially one that is specific to listing species of relevance to one small geographic region of the planet - or there'd potentially be tens of thousands of such lists!
If anything, the topic of Firewise landscaping is itself notable - and one that has recently come to awareness (though here in the UK we prefer to focus on species that don't go mouldy in prolonged rain!). Firewise landscaping seems almost the opposite of Xeriscaping, and I think quite appropriate to Wikipedia. I would base any new article on what firewise landcaping is, and not on listing individual species. A quick search found me a number of US government sites that could form the basis of a short article, such as this, this, this, this and this. Plus this on the Firewise Communities Program, which could be noted within the article. Just a few example tree/shrub and herb species would be appropriate - not long lists.
Any article on Wikipedia should be short and to the point about what the concept is and not a manual on how to do it. If you don't feel confident, I would be happy to cast an eye over any sandbox or draft article you might prepare. I hope this gives you the kind of answer you were seeking. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 19:52, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Most excellent and thank you Nick Moyes. I very well may do a firewise landscaping article and accept your generous offer for an occasional perusal. I am currently composing articles on two very interesting women, both major generals in overall command their respective states' National Guard and with significant press reporting them in the context as the first female commanders in their states' history.
Also, as an inquiry strictly meant to improve my work as an editor, I am curious as to what the sources I found lack and to what I might look in the future sources. Most kind regards, and again, appreciation.Hu Nhu (talk) 22:40, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Earthianyogi please collate the sources carefully and make sure that the subject meets either WP:GNG or one of the criteria at WP:ENT, then use the WP:Article Wizard. Reading WP:YFA before you start is recommended. Other editors can weigh in once you have a rudimentary draft with, for WP:GNG, a list of three best sources (WP:THREE) that establish notability, or failing that, requisite evidence for WP:ENT. On a sidenote, do you know why your signature is after the timestamp in your post? Usedtobecool☎️19:03, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Usedtobecool, Thanks for your reply. I have no idea why my signature is after the timestamp in my post :( Is it a problem?
331dot, Thanks for your reply. Just for fun. Can I not? I have only created technical page/articles so far on Wikipedia, and want to make/write another type of page/articles as well. It seems slightly complicated...
Earthianyogi When a newer user says that they have a "need" to create an article, they often have a specific reason for their need. If you just want to create an article, that's fine. Be advised that creating a new article is the absolute hardest thing to do on Wikipedia. I would second the advice given to you by Usedtobecool. You may also wish to spend some time editing existing articles in areas that interest you, so you get a feel for how Wikipedia works and what is expected of article content. It may also help you to use the new user tutorial. 331dot (talk) 19:17, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
331dot, Thank you, but I created other technical articles as well and have made significant additions to other articles (like copula, Positron Emission Tomography, Time-activity curve, etc.). I wanted to contribute (maybe I should have said - I wish to create....). I see now why it is hard to publish an article on Wikipedia, it can get complicated :) :) Earthianyogi (talk) 19:25, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Earthianyogi, well, when the order is messed up, the reply-link tool doesn't work; makes it harder to leave a reply. That also suggests, at least a possibility that bots might potentially have a problem too. IDK for sure. It was weird enough to make me curious, that's all. Usedtobecool☎️20:03, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Usedtobecool: Having fixed the same (sig) problem in the section above, I fixed this one as well, not realizing it was being discussed. Odd that it happened to two different editors, and not in all their posts. —[AlanM1 (talk)]—01:03, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Usedtobecool: Mystery solved. If you type 8 tildes in a row, it is interpreted as 5 tildes followed by 3 tildes, yielding a timestamp followed by a userlink. Since we added the preload when people use the Ask a question at the top of the page, which has a somewhat obfuscated auto-signature in it, some more experienced users that are used to signing their posts, when they use that button, don't notice it and add their own ~~~~, which usually results in two signatures. There was a change made to the preload form that removed a space, so the two sets of tildes now run against each other. Pinging Tenryuu. —[AlanM1 (talk)]—01:24, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi AlanM1, the reason why I removed the space is because it would always render the signature as code in preformatted space due to the space preceding it, which as far as I could tell wouldn't allow reply-link to work. I tried to find examples in the archives, but they've been copyedited away by editors. Perhaps we should add another comment in the preload? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:32, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Tenryuu: I tried a couple of different things and didn't come up with a good solution. At least a comment that tells people not to manually sign it would be good. I'll work on it some more tomorrow. —[AlanM1 (talk)]—02:45, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@AlanM1: I've added a new comment to the reload. A possible thing we could do is add any one character before the signature, like "." and format its colour into white so that it is essentially invisible. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:54, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Tenryuu: After fixing three more flipped sigs (the last at 2020-04-25T06:04Z), I inserted a space in front of the tildes in the preload, which seems to work fine (and is a good idea anyway so people's sigs aren't crammed up against their post). We'll see if any more show up. —[AlanM1 (talk)]—08:05, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(Clarification added above) I also played a bit with the Lua String module to try to catch and remove the four tildes if the user types them, but from the results, it seems that the tilde substitution happens too early – the String module gets the already-substituted signature instead. So, we may just have to live with the double sigs if they don't see the instruction. —[AlanM1 (talk)]—08:31, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting content from my talk page
Hi, Is it ok to delete some content from my talk page? One of my articles was rejected the first time, and a suggestion was made to merge the content with another article later. I have already merged the content. Can I now delete these notices on my talk page? ThxEarthianyogi (talk) 19:41, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But, archiving is preferred. People you later encounter might suspect you are averse to criticism and wanted to hide posts you did not like by deleting them; archiving at least prevents that. Posts that have absolutely no productive reason to be archived, such as vandalisms, or mistaken warnings, etc. can be deleted. Usedtobecool☎️20:07, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Uploading old images of open source newspaper and city directory ads
I. am having difficulty uploading any photo I have from old stationary to excerpts from historical newspapers and city directories. All of the items are available from the Library of Congress or from my own collection, but the format and questions asked when when uploading always results in the image being denied. I have looked at a number of forums and helpful hints and although I can upload in the (can't remember the wikipedia name for it) space and receive a URL, I can't seem to access the photo later. Very frustrating.Mofongo1234 (talk) 20:46, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mofongo1234, How historical? Wikipedia and WikiCommons (who host most of our photos) may only host material that is available under a free license or is in the public domain. In the US, only works published prior to 1925 are in the public domain. If the paper you were adding was from after 1925, it was probably deleted as a copyright violation. Since we're a free and open source platform whose material is reusable by anyone with attribution, so must be the work we host. CaptainEekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓21:22, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Everything I am trying to add are from US newspapers before 1925. I've added them to the commons but cannot find them after uploading and could only use when I created them and copied the link before exiting the commons. Especially hard adding photos directly from the edit source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mofongo1234 (talk • contribs) 21:28, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Mofongo1234, and welcome to the Teahouse. You seem to have succeeded in uploading two public-domain images to Wikimedia Commons: File:Image 4-23-20 at 7.49 PM.jpg and File:1863 Walter Karmann CoacH Maker Ad.png. Note that to use these in a Wikipedia article, you need to give the filename precisely - extension, puncutation, odd capitalization, everything. (In the links to them above, the initial colon stops the software from displaying the image itself on this page). --ColinFine (talk) 21:30, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I get the following error when trying to upload from the commons:
"You do not have permission to upload this file, for the following reason: The action you have requested is limited to users in one of the groups: Autoconfirmed users, Administrators, Confirmed users." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mofongo1234 (talk • contribs) 22:04, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Mofongo1234. You shouldn't ever need to upload from Commons. You have successfully uploaded at least the two files I mentioned to Commons, and the whole point of Commons is that all Wikimedia projects (and in particular, all the different-language Wikipedias) can use files from Commons directly, just by Wikilinking the file with "File:" on the front. --ColinFine (talk) 22:21, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Mofongo1234: If you are going to add the location inline with the text, you would normally add a {{Coord}} transclusion inside parentheses, like the following (look at it in source editor to see the actual code used):
If you have more than one of these in an article, one of them should use |display=inline,title (the others should just use |display=inline). —[AlanM1 (talk)]—07:38, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
MoS
I'm trying to figure out what would be the preferred spelling in British English of "1 Field Engineer Squadron." Would you put "st" after "1" or no? LucasA04 (talk) 21:50, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have been given a barnstar, and am curious on how am I supposed to display it. Is it possible for someone to create a page that I could display them? Thanks.Shadowblade08 (talk) 21:53, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Shadowblade08: whilst you could make a whilenew page for them yourself (e.g. at: User:Shadowblade08/barnstars), you could simply create a normal or even a collapsed section on your Userpage for them. I use quite a few collapsed sections on mine for various purposes.Take a look. Oh, and well done for getting your first barnstar, too! Nick Moyes (talk) 22:41, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This has been a really helpful resource for me on my journey to publishing a Wikipedia page and I was wondering if I could ask for a bit more help. Last time I was here I was requesting an edit on the Voxa page, and Ian.thomson and ColinFine were incredibly helpful in telling me what I was doing wrong and steps I could take moving forward. They suggested that I write a page on Voxa's main product, the Mochii, which I have done here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Mochii. I have taken their advice on both source collection and tone (I did my best to write it as if I was one of their industry competitors sticking to facts that I found from reputable sources). I was hoping either of those two or someone else would be so kind as to look over the Draft:Mochii page and let me know if I'm headed in the right direction and what I can do to improve it to be Wikipedia level content. Thankful for all the help, Sachin Zachariah (talk) 23:53, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just reading through the article, I suspect that the article's sources are pretty shallow in their coverage. This is because I came away with more questions than answers. The emphasis on use in space causes me to wonder what other situations the Mochii might good for, and who would use it. Was it modified for use on Earth (that would reduce costs)? As a casual reader, the specs are kind of over-kill in the absence of any mention of the history of small EMs and the market's development. Was NASA involved in the product's design from the start? Is the Mochii a substitute for an EM in certain situations other than space? Did the Mochii have a predecessor? Context is vital.--Quisqualis (talk) 00:33, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for the quick review and comments Quisqualis, extremely helpful. I was originally planning on adding an Applications subpage where I use sources that talk specifically about the different applications of the Mochii and how it differentiates itself and creates a new niche in the market. I was originally wary of doing this because I thought it could sound too promotional, but I guess if I keep the tone correct it seems that this would be a super helpful part of the article. Do you recommend cutting all of the specs or comparing them to how regular electron microscopes function. If not, where would you suggest doing most of the differentiating between the Mochii and its competitors, and how do you recommend doing that without sounding promotional as if I were working for the company. I plan on adding more context about the competitors and how it's different. Thank you! Sachin Zachariah (talk) 05:44, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sachin Zachariah, the specs are pretty dry reading for a general reader; I believe you could leave them out. As far as differentiating the Mochii, you might state what the company intended to achieve when they entered that market, rather than enumerating differences with other products.--Quisqualis (talk) 06:39, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What is the Process for Creating a Page that Exists in a Foreign Langauge?
1987atomheartbrother, welcome to the Teahouse. There is a good deal of information at WP:TRANS about your query. In short, you can begin a short article about the person in English, as described at WP:YFA, then, assuming you want to do it yourself, you can start translating. It's best not to use sites like Google Translate; make sure you also include citations. If you do choose to do this, make sure you provide an appropriate edit summary for your additions e.g. "Content in this edit is translated from the existing Italian Wikipedia article at it:Gustavo Simoni; see its history for attribution." If you don't want to do it yourself, place Template:Expand Italian on the page, and someone else will translate it for you. Hopefully that makes sense. Thatoneweirdwikier | Say hi08:15, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wiki user mmm Hi, welcome to the TEAHOUSE. If you have already found an image on Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons you can use
[[File:filenamehere.jpg|thumb|caption here.]]. The filename will be the name of the image. If you want to upload an image see Wikipedia:Uploading images
Quandry on how to proceed
I recently edited the article Haruhi Fujioka in which I edited what has often been a contentious opinion about the fictional character. I tried to be as factual and neutral as possible in my language. Without explanation, the editor of some of the original text (from 12/2018), reverted my edits back to their own, which (imo) reflects an unsubstantiated opinion. I left the editor a TALK message on 4/24/20 asking if there is a way we can collaborate on the language and am waiting for an answer. QUESTION: If the editor user:Maplestrip refuses to collaborate, what do I do next? This editor, in another area of the article, deleted a direct quote, removed language, re-inserted their interpretation of the quote, then used the original citation to validate their interp (see 07:32 1 August, 2016). I replaced the interp with the direct quote again. That was left in place, but the other edits were reverted without reason and without citation (in one case) to support their validity. Is simply asking for citation enough? And if we still differ, even after conversing, how do both non-cited opinions get listed within the article to comply with WP:NPOV?
I just woke up and am currently responding to @Ouranista: on my talk page. I hope we can figure things out. I didn't intend to come across as so difficult, but yes, I did revert stuff without explaining way and I shouldn't have done that. I hope I can be a better editor and we can figure this out together. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:24, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wikicommons Licensing Question
This is actually a wiki commons question. If this is an inappropriate place to ask this question, I apologize and request help finding a better place to ask the question.
I’m looking at this page [6] which contains a picture of a Greek vase.
The licensing information seems inconsistent. I see thIs statement:
I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license: This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license.
That sounds good but in a previous section I see:
Please note: The above museum permits photography of its exhibits for private, educational, scientific, non-commercial purposes. If you intend to use the photo for any commercial aims, please contact the museum and ask for permission.
Are these consistent? Can you release something under CC share alike with a caveat that the photo cannot be used for commercial purposes? If not, what should be done about the image? Can there be an image on Wiki commons that is not available for commercial use?
I should mention that I didn’t take the photo or create the page in question but I’m curious about the licensing issues. I was under the impression that photos on Commons should be available for commercial use.
I am unsure if my article on filmmaker Suzanne Guacci has been submitted. How can I tell? and if so, what comes next? New to wikipedia. Thank you. Upintheairalways (talk) 02:47, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Upintheairalways, your content was published in your sandbox. Generally drafts are created in draftspace, and I have moved yours to Draft:Suzanne Guacci. Feel free to delete the redirect by clicking on the link in "Redirected from User:Upintheairalways/sandbox" and deleting the content there. I suggest having a look at other articles to see how they're laid out; for example, section headings in all caps are not allowed and we do not link to Wikipedia in external links like you did with "Official website" and "Suzanne Guacci". I'm not the one to talk about image licencing with, but just to confirm, do you have permission to use the image? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:03, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You state on your user page that you "work in the film industry in management." You should disclose any conflict of interest you may have, especially if there's any financial ties involved, on your user page as well. It doesn't matter if you're not being directly paid per edit. If Guacci or any business associated with her is in any way connected to your business, you have a conflict of interest. If she or someone representing her are paying you for services, you are considered a paid editor even if you were not explicitly ordered to make a Wikipedia article or even if you were not explicitly ordered to ""get the word out" about her.
Wikipedia is not a PR service for new info by paid workers, it is a volunteer-driven summary of already-published independent sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:12, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
porqué quitaron el contenido de la última empresa que decía que era un esquema piramidal o estafa ???
Welcome to the Teahouse, IP editor. This place is for new editors to ask questions about navigating and using Wikipedia, not about if a subject is part of a pyramid scheme or not. Perhaps you might want to try the Spanish Wikipedia project? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:07, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The IP USER 95.146.118.29 has had four warnings against vandalism, although has vandalised once more on Carl Cox. As I am not an admin, I cannot block him, although can someone please do so to prevent him/her vandalising in future.EGL1234 (talk) 03:43, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot insert images hosted elsewhere, that includes files hosted on your own computer. In the latter case, you may upload it via Special:Upload. However, we need to adhere to certain rules there. WP:IMAGE should have more on this. Once you have uploaded the image, you can insert it. If you uploaded it as "File:Example.jpg" the following code will generate a nice thumbnail on the right side as it is used widely (Check the source in edit mode) Just an example. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 05:57, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Confused on how to update virus taxobox
Hi folks, I am updating the page on Rabbit Hemorrhagic Disease https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbit_haemorrhagic_disease and noticed that the taxobox information is outdated. The current taxonomy can be found at https://talk.ictvonline.org/taxonomy/p/taxonomy-history?taxnode_id=19950818&src=NCBI&ictv_id=19950818 and should read Riboviria > Orthornavirae > Pisuviricota > Pisoniviricetes > Picornavirales > Caliciviridae > Lagovirus > Rabbit hemorrhagic disease virus. But I cannot for the life of me figure out how to do this! After 90 minutes of trying to figure it out I thought I'd elicit some help! I am not a coder, and so all of the information on the taxobox pages is going over my head. Is there someone here who can fix this for me? Thanks for your help, Rabbit Vet (talk) 06:04, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Covid-19 Survival phone numbers for those without internet, to stay inside.
Is Wikipedia tenable to use for our Wiki for this project. http://emailtomail.org
33,000+ USA (eventually world wide) records, one per Zip/Postal Code, with one printed
mailing page. example: https://emailtomail.org/Downloads/Pre%20Survival%20List.txt
Each page should have about 15 essential sources, mostly food. With a medical, laundry,
smartphone acquisition, GOV hot lines, essentials, etc. PHONE numbers. Not Links, as
33 Million Americans (many more Worldwide) do not have internet, PC, smartphone, or
even phone books! (enough to re-infect the world, many times over) In fact, many do
not have 911 or 311 also.
Can it be controlled at all, assuring as much accuracy as possible, guarding against
foul play, unique records(one record per zip code), crowd vetted, etc.
Can there be the same system for each country. There are many data to Postal Mail
services in the world, (for one's family) and we should be able to get GOV, donors
to pay for Postal organizations to deliver one to each mailbox in the world ASAP.
Most web pages have and other formatting, which cause extra lines to be pasted
into mailing WYSIWYG forms. The example link above is to a txt file which does work
without the extra lines. Can a
and or be implemented to solve this?
With this pandemic, each life we save, may be our own. Soon, the recovered should
serve the quarantined. Only then, do we have a chance to outlast this virus.
We may not have the will to do this now, but when this comes back in the Fall, as
Dr. Anthony Fauci insists it will, maybe we will.
This infrastructure will serve the world for this and future disasters, for rapid
deployment of LOCAL hard copy public health information. "All Politics is Local"
Thank You.
I tell them there's no problem, only solutions. :)Emailtomailorg (talk) 08:03, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Does an article edited by someone else automatically get resubmitted?
I have written a article (Lee Fardon) that was initially rejected. I edited and resubmitted and it has subsequently been edited by two others. Does this mean it will automatically be resubmitted (by them) or do I have to resubmit? How do I know if my article will be accepted? Fencedown (talk) 08:33, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
. From there you can use wikitext to customise your signature as you like, like something I did right here. → —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:06, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Resolved
Courtesy link: Draft:Olwethu Trevor Cokile
IP blocked by User:Callanecc. @EGL1234: in future report such users to WP:AIV. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 06:01, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
![[6]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Manner_of_Hermonax_ARV_495_1_birth_of_Erichthonios_-_Zeus_and_Iris_(01).jpg){kind=link}