Wikipedia:Teahouse

RudolfRed, a Teahouse host

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

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

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

Help Wikipedia

Isn't available ?

Isn't visual editor available in the wikipedia app? Kushal Dev Wiki (talk) 01:57, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@Kushal Dev Wiki: Welcome to the Teahouse! As far as I know, it isn't available in the app. (Also, please don't make duplicate sections, thanks!) Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 13:41, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

visual editor on wikipedia app

Is visual editor available in wikipedia app?How to access it in the app? Kushal Dev Wiki (talk) 13:15, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@Kushal Dev Wiki: Nope. I can say from experience that the editor for mainspace articles in the iOS app is always source + syntax highlighting. (I assume Android is same.) For WYSIWYG editing, you'll need to do it in a web browser. Pelagic ( messages ) – (22:09 Tue 25, AEST) 12:09, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Infobox for Comunidad Bet El?

Hi! I'm working on the article Comunidad Bet El, and choosing an infobox has me stumped. Strictly speaking it's about the congregation and not the synagogue building, so Infobox religious building doesn't seem right, but Infobox church is designed for Christian churches, and I don't think Infobox organization fits either. Any tips will be appreciated, or anyone is welcome to set up the infobox if they'd like! ezlev^tlk
_ctrbs 03:56, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

You're looking for a solution to a non-existent problem. Infoboxes can be helpful when they point out oft-needed information that would otherwise need time to find within lengthy articles (although all too often they prioritize easily tabulatable trivia). By contrast, Comunidad Bet El is a mere stub, so an infobox would be pointless. (Gratuitous comment: Even the monoglot reader should guess that comunidad has some relation to "community"; but "Bet El"? Related to Beth-El, perhaps?) -- Hoary (talk) 06:14, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Ezlev, thanks for translating that article! I did the translation for Comunidad Amijai! Yes, Infobox religious building is probably the best option, and on the page with that information are ways to make it applicable to synagogues. If you'd like to play with it a little bit, copy the source code for the infobox from the Amijai page and try and put in Bet El's information. Hoary, I'm not sure that the Manual of Style has a specific guideline as to whether a foreign location is required to be translated. Bkissin (talk) 13:53, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Hoary and Bkissin! When I get around to building up the article to a point where an infobox will be useful, I'll add Infobox religious building, and the one on Congregation Amijai will definitely be a helpful starting point. (I'm also planning to look for more information about the name, since that interested me as well.) ezlev^tlk
_ctrbs 18:33, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Dorian Popa

Hello, why was my page that I created, Dorian Popa, was deleted? Soby • Talk • Edits 09:29, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello SobySobea! If you click the redlink in your message, you'll see who deleted it and their stated reason why. In short, the article failed the Wikipedia:Notability (people) guideline. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:43, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

May I recreate if there is more sources about him? Also, what does BLP mean? Soby • Talk • Edits 09:52, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

SobySobea, BLP = WP:BLP, WP:s rather strict policy about how a bio on a living person is to be written. If you have read Wikipedia:Notability (people) and concluded "Yeah, I have those sources, no problem", then yes, you can try again, see WP:YFA for guidance. See also WP:TUTORIAL on how to add references correctly, that is essential if an article is to "stick". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:03, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for noticing this. Soby • Talk • Edits 10:04, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

SobySobea, when assessing whether a subject is notable, the quality of the sources is more important than the quantity. Four reliable independent published with extensive discussion of the subject is enough. Fifty sources that each fail in one of those criteria will count for nothing. What you need is better sources, not more sources. Maproom (talk) 07:50, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

There may be good sources on his Romanian WP-article, but I don't know the language and can't tell the good from the bad. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:02, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I am from Romania, so I understand the language. I might gonna find these better sources soon if there is a better source. Soby • Talk • Edits 09:26, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

The articles available in different languages are translated by a translator or a wikipedian ?

Nepali wikipedia lacks so many topics.I want to create articles in Nepali by translating those one in english so that it may be easier for the Nepali users.I require suggestions and helps. Kushal Dev Wiki (talk) 02:09, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@Kushal Dev Wiki: Follow the guidance at WP:TRANSLATEUS. You should also check the guidelines at the Nepali Wikipedia, since each langauge Wikipedia has its own rules for what is an acceptable article. RudolfRed (talk) 02:13, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Anyone is welcome to edit Wikipedia, and in any language. If you speak Nepali, you are free to write articles on the Nepali Wikipedia, just as you are on the English Wikipedia. You can write them from scratch, translate them from other languages (including English), or use the sources available on the corresponding English language page. Here is a brief guide for translating from English: Wikipedia:Translate us. — HTGS (talk) 02:14, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Kushal Dev Wiki. I don't have the link right now, but somewhere there is a list of 1000 essential topics. You could look at those, and see if any are missing in Nepali. Or just pick a topic that really interests you for your initial translations. Pelagic ( messages ) – (06:27 Wed 26, AEST) 20:27, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Signature text white

Hello I was wondering why I can't make my signature text white, I put color=white in the relevant span? Thanks for your help --{{u|ALMATY}}✉ 03:23, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@Almaty: Wikipedia:Signature_tutorial#Getting_colourful... gives an example of white text on a blue background. I think it needs to be "color:white" not "color=white".Maybe give that a try? RudolfRed (talk) 03:30, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

RudolfRed giving advices on white text seems kind of funny/inspirational, but probably shouldn't be overthinked about (I am sorry and apologize for this comment). Personuser (talk) 04:21, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@Almaty: RudolfRed is correct if you're using the HTML span element. If you want something a little easier, there's {{white}} that you can use. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:59, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your help I think I got it now! --{{u|Almaty}} ^✉ 06:49, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Not receiving update about pending article

Hi Wikipedia Family, my first article is currently pending review. However, I do not receive any update about my article yet. I just want to know is there anything else I missed in my article?

Thanks, Lorheng (talk) 05:11, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:Chip Mong. "This may take 5 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 5,118 pending submissions waiting for review.". Thank you. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 05:23, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Lorheng, your draft Draft:Chip Mong won't be reviewed until you submit it for review. (And as TheAafi says, you may have to wait for months after that.) ¶ On your user page, you write I work for Chip Mong Group, a Cambodian conglomerate company. I will declare the COI right on the article that I involve. You have to do that on the draft. (You haven't done so yet.) -- Hoary (talk) 05:28, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Hoary, The draft is submitted for AfC review AFAICS. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 05:31, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

And it was when I wrote my comment, too. (It seems that I need more sleep.) -- Hoary (talk) 05:54, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Hoary, lol no. It was submitted earlier but the notice was at the bottom of the draft and when I added an AfC comment, it cleaned it up and formatted it to the right place. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 11:55, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Also, did the company really authorize releasing the logo under CC-BY-SA? RudolfRed (talk) 05:34, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for taking your time to review my article. However, at the bottom of article I saw a part called Categories containing 3 messages:

• Pending AfC submissionsAfC
• pending submissions by age/20 days ago
• AfC submissions by date/04 May 2021

Is there any action I should complete toward these messages? Lorheng (talk)
RudolfRed (talk) Yes, the company has authorized me.

As mentioned above, there is a backlog of more than 5,000 drafts. The review system is not a queue. Reviewers select what they want to review next. Thus, could be days, weeks, or (sadly) months. There is no action on your part that can speed a review. David notMD (talk) 11:51, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Help on article about Rivancindela Hudsoni

Hello! I am a university student and am new to editing. I'm working on an article on the beetle Rivancindela Hudsoni, would someone be able to read it over and give me some constructive advice? Anastasia.sck (talk) 05:32, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Rivacindela hudsoni looks interesting. Here's a tedious chore for you, though. Not

the substrate ^[7].

(etc), but instead

the substrate.^[7]

(etc). -- Hoary (talk) 06:00, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@Anastasia.sck: In other words, put the references after the punctuation. Also, the reference coding is a bit off. I’m viewing it on my mobile phone but will have some time tomorrow to look at it on my desktop to figure out what you’re doing wrong. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 06:06, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@Anastasia.sck: you have done a great job for a new editor. I made a couple of minor copy-edits, and tried to clean up the references. There are still a couple of issues there to work on:

• Some of the listed "references" were never actually referenced in the article. I have assumed that they were used to build the article and grouped them as General sources - these are permitted but really should be referenced inline in the body of the article, so the reader knows which source supports what part of the article.
• Also, some of the references have numbers at the start - these probably need to be removed so they don't confuse people.--Gronk Oz (talk) 06:27, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Wow, @Anastasia.sck, that's a great expansion for a first ouvre. I have to go and prepare for work, but I'll aim to leave some suggestions / critique on the article's talk page later.

Question for Teahouse regulars: could the CC-BY-NC image from SA Museum (see Anastasia's talk page) qualify for non-free-use if it's uploaded at low resolution?

— Pelagic ( messages ) – (07:28 Wed 26, AEST) 21:28, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

No. As far as I am aware, the Noncommercial (and No Derivatives) prongs are a hard no for Wikipedia under any circumstance. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 21:42, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you everyone! I will definitely take this into account and improve on my article. This help is much appreciated :) Anastasia.sck (talk) 03:07, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Old-accessdate

Hello, anybody hanging around being able to explain the old-accessdate? RedWolf did not come back on that and I am in the honest opinion the originale date of access to the site should be kept. Thank you for your time. URL access date The full date when the original URL was accessed; do not wikilink Lotje (talk) 05:33, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Lotje, Appears to be an old/ now invalidated parameter. It is just access-date now & archive-date now. "oldaccessdate" shows "ignored" in some articles where it is used. Just few in number.─ The Aafī ^(talk) 05:38, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you TheAafi, better to remove these, so they wan't show up in the Category:CS1 errors: unsupported parameter anymore. :-) Lotje (talk) 05:41, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Lotje, I see it is the Template:Cite peakfinder used for all of these citations. You may check with this. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 05:43, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

TheAafi, thanks, I'll @RedWolf: on this Template:Cite peakfinder Lotje (talk) 05:46, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Peakfinder went through a major update in mid 2019 which broke all of it's old links. The peak name used to be part of the URL but this was changed to an id in the site update. So then what to do about the accessdate/access-date? The description of this parameter in "cite web" was not clear in what to do in this scenario. I think I updated the accessdate but still wanted to be preserve the original access-date so old-accessdate was used. I cannot recall if this was a valid parameter for "cite web" at the time. I would prefer this parameter was preserved so as to retain an historical link for the reference. RedWolf (talk) 19:14, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

• {{cite web}} supports orig-date so old-accessdate could be changed to that to preserve the fact that the site was first referenced on that date. {{cite peakfinder}} does not currently pass that parameter to "cite web" so it won't be displayed which is probably preferable. RedWolf (talk) 21:43, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Please review trimmed and updated page of Sonu Goel

Hello Teahouse, As per your suggestions, I trimmed and updated the Sonu Goel page. You are kindly requested to review, check and give me the feedback! Rakeshsipher (talk) 06:18, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Rakeshsipher, thank you so much for your contributions, your article sounds promotional for the person. Heart ^(talk) 06:23, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Biography

How can I show myself in Wikipedia, so that anyone search my name than could find first? Sandeep A Choudhary 06:27, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@Sandeep A Choudhary: - I think you have misunderstood what Wikipedia is all about. It is not a place where people can promote their autobiographies. There are other platforms such as LinkedIn which are suitable for that.--Gronk Oz (talk) 06:32, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Sure, Thank You. Sandeep A Choudhary 07:03, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

My articles

Why are my articles not approved whereas others own are given approval — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ikidexoo (talk • contribs) 07:42, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Ikidexoo, these links may be of help to you: Help:Your first article and WP:TUTORIAL. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:58, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Ikidexoo. You might want to take a look at Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not in addition to the two links Gråbergs Gråa Sång mentioned above. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:10, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello @Ikidexoo, even better was for you to link the article's in question here, doing so would have enabled us give you a more precise response. Celestina007 (talk) 12:56, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Ikidexoo. Have you submitted these draft articles using some other user account? I ask because, as far as I can tell, your sandbox and the draft you have created are the only content you have created. and neither has been ever been submitted for review and not approved. (If they had, however, they would be declined for a variety of reasons, such as that they have no references to verify the content or to demonstrate the notability of the topics. They also read as personal essays, referencing yourself, and not as encyclopedia articles about topics of knowledge, already the subject of publication in the wider world in reliable, secondary, independent sources Template:Z21). By the way, we have many articles that we should not, or that have not been edited to fix poor and/or inappropriate content, so the mere fact that you find an existing article that might be similar to one that was rejected or declined is usually irrelevant. See WP:OTHERSTUFF. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:24, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

How do I clear undisclosed paid editor comment from my draft after clarification

Some days ago the comment undisclosed paid editor was placed on my Draft:Elijah Chinezim Onyeagba after which I have clarified that I am neither a paid editor nor receiving any incentive for my work. I thought since I have clarified that, the comment would have been cleared from my draft. Am I permitted to remove it or await for it to be removed when the draft has approved? Thanks. Bibihans (talk) 08:30, 24 May 2021 (UTC)Bibihans Bibihans (talk) 08:30, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Bibihans If the reviewer accepts your draft and is satisfied, they will remove tags like that. You shouldn't remove that particular tag yourself. 331dot (talk) 08:37, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@331dot: Thank you and much appreciated. Bibihans — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bibihans (talk • contribs) 08:59, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@Bibihans, Although I have removed the {{UPE}} tag from the draft article because I’m choosing to assume good faith, it is one thing for you to claim something and an entire different thing for your actions to indicate otherwise, I have re-added you to my watchlist because your edit pattern appears to be in variance with what you claim. Remember, that although frowned upon, accepting money to create an article is not against our policy, what is, is failure to disclose it. Celestina007 (talk) 18:50, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Category tag at the footer

I have summited my article for review, However, at the bottom of article I saw a part called Categories containing 3 messages:

• Pending AfC submissionsAfC
• pending submissions by age/20 days ago
• AfC submissions by date/04 May 2021

I don't understand about these tags honestly. May it cause any harm to my article? Is there any action I should take? Lorheng (talk) 09:32, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

(Question also asked above). Lorheng. Wikipedia categories are there to help people find things. In the case of a new draft, it just helps reviewers see which ones are awaiting review and how long they've been in the queue. there is no need for you to do anything about them. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:03, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, (talk) 12:03, 24 May 2021 (UTC), for your response.

How can I apply for arbitration (edit-warring)?

I would very much appreciate a simple, direct link, where I can fill in the data for the case; I hope the main instructions would be included there. Thank you! Arminden (talk) 11:27, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

ArmindenIf you are asking how to report edit warring, you do so at WP:ANEW, and instructions are there. 331dot (talk) 11:29, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@331dot:Thank you. Arminden (talk) 11:49, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Blanking my talk page of old messages.

Hello! This is my first time posting on Teahouse, so I hope I'm not doing this incorrectly. I'm a fairly new editor who's learning the ropes of editing. I'm currently getting some formal training in editing, but I had a question regarding editor talk pages and when/how to blank them appropriately. I've seen a number of more experienced editors removing old conversations and messages on their talk page, and I've never been sure if its okay to do that, or how to do it properly. Is it just as simple as just deleting all the text of older discussions? Or do we have to archive it in some way? Or do I have it totally wrong? The reason I'm asking is because I have a bunch of old discussions on my talk page that aren't active anymore, and I would like to clean up my talk page and make it more organized to avoid the extra clutter. What should I do? And how should I do it? Thanks in advance! Kalariwarrior (talk) 12:29, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@Kalariwarrior, hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The blanket answer to your question is yes, you may remove any content you do not want from your talkpage. However, it is good practice to archive the old discussions instead. Celestina007 (talk) 12:36, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@Celestina007, thank you for the answer! I think I'll follow your advice and archive the old conversations, but I'm afraid I don't know how to do so. Can you tell me how to archive them? Thanks. Kalariwarrior (talk) 12:41, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Hey, Kalariwarrior! You can see H:ARC for more details, particularly the section on automated archiving if you'd like a bot to take care of it for you. Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 12:44, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Kalariwarrior (ec) There are a very few limitations on what can be removed from a user talk page, but none of those are particuarly relevant to you. 331dot (talk) 12:42, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@Bsoyka and @331dot Thanks for the advice you two! I really appreciate it :) Kalariwarrior (talk) 12:49, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

DRAFT Rejected

Hello guys, my name is Dalila. Last year I submitted a draft for review about a duo of music producer that I love but has just been rejected. The comment I received is that does not meet WP:MUSICBIO. I just checked though and I believe the page does meet those criteria. The guys that I follow have got 2 gold records in Italy, they're last production for Ed Sheeran reached Silver in the UK and several other certifications around the world, so I don't understand why the draft has been rejected. They've also been grammy nominated musician for other work with Ed Sheeran. Can someone please help me or explain? I would like to move this page in the article space as I believe these guys deserved to be known.

This is the draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:PARISI_(Music_Producer)

Can I get help please? Dalicnc88 (talk) 12:46, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Dalicnc88 You asked at the AFC help Desk, please only use one method of seeking assistance to avoid duplication of effort. 331dot (talk) 12:56, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Oh ok, sorry about that! I thought I could ask in different pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dalicnc88 (talk • contribs) 13:22, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

help with fixing a cite error

I have not worked on the article about W Magazine but I noticed an error in the cite line. I have no idea what is going on with it, but the reference could be fixed, if someone can tell me how or if you are busy just fix it or tell me how. I don't even understand what the words "Doosan Group" means. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W_(magazine) Ty78ejui (talk) 14:13, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@Ty78ejui: Could you please specify which reference needs to be fixed, and what the error is? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 14:42, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Ref #15 is about an engagement. The man is with the Doosan Group company. The ref states that he manages Doosan Magazine and it manages the South Korean version of W Magazine. David notMD (talk) 18:54, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

The reference is fixed now, but it was easy to see because it had red on it. I looked and I no longer see the big red words (it said "Doosan Group") any longer. I think its fixed, so thank to that person who fixed it. Ty78ejui (talk) 22:24, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Richard B. Sobol American civil rights lawyer

 Annesobol (talk) 14:28, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Annesobol Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Do you have a question? 331dot (talk) 14:32, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Have I now posted Richard B. Sobol American civil rights lawyer as a draft? I do not see "tildes" on my computer keyboard, where are they? I am trying to publish a new article. This is my draft. Is this ready for submission, or should I do more first? Annesobol (talk) 15:02, 24 May 2021 (UTC)Annesobol

Annesobol Tildas are to the left of the 1 number key. Can you provide a link to the draft? TigerScientist Chat > contribs 15:27, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I think I may be having a problem because my wiki draft is stored on my computer as "RBS wikipedia.docx" and this is what I've tried to upload to Wikipedia, but on Wikipedia my article is called "Richard B. Sobol American civil rights lawyer". Does this cause a problem? I'm so leery about losing my draft, but it occurs to me the solution here is on my computer I change the document name to "Richard B. Sobol American civil rights lawyer.docx". Then, too, I've wondered if there is any glitch between whatever word processing software wikipedia uses and Word? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annesobol (talk • contribs) 15:39, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Annesobol It doesn't work that way- you need to type in the text, not just upload a file. You may draft a new article at Articles for Creation; new users cannot directly create articles and must submit a draft that they create for review. 331dot (talk) 15:46, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Annesobol Instead of creating a new section, please edit this existing section to follow up. 331dot (talk) 16:24, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I am so confused. Have I or have I not at this point inserted my draft? I tried to disclose my COI but now I can't see it anywhere. Annesobol (talk) 16:45, 24 May 2021 (UTC)Annesobol

Annesobol You have created a draft located at Draft:Richard B. Sobol American civil rights lawyer. You may add a COI declaration to your user page, User:Annesobol. Your draft, to be frank, is a long way from being a Wikipedia article, as it seems to be lacking in citations. All information in an article must be cited to an independent reliable source. Wikipedia has no deadlines, so your are welcome to take your time before submitting your draft. 331dot (talk) 16:49, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I understand and agree about the cites needed. I am assuming citing to published (online) judicial opinions is valid cite. Thank you for your help. Annesobol (talk) 16:54, 24 May 2021 (UTC)Annesobol

I copied my draft and inserted test, don't see it anywhere. Did I disclose my COI adequately? Annesobol (talk) 16:50, 24 May 2021 (UTC)Annesobol

Annesobol I don't see an edit of yours where you declared a COI, so whatever you did didn't work. You should click the following link, User:Annesobol, and simply type in a description of your conflict of interest(don't worry about wikicoding it, just type it). 331dot (talk) 16:53, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Annesobol. "I am assuming citing to published (online) judicial opinions is valid cite." There might be goods reasons to occasionally cite a legal opinion in an article on an attorney involved in the lawsuit, but I think you probably mean by this that you intend to use legal opinions as the chief type of reference to cite for verifying the proposed article's prose and to establish the subject's notability. If that's what you intended, then: No, we require reliable, secondary, independent sources; Template:Z21; independent sources directly about him. Legal opinions are a type of primary source, that do not directly contribute towards establishing notability – though if he was the attorney representing a side in cases resulting in a well known legal opinion, that makes it likely useful sources do exist – third parties writing about his involvement as counsel (e.g., newspaper articles). Though the mere fact we have an article about an individual doesn't necessarily mean it meets our standards, you might get some ideas by browsing the [better] articles in, say, Category:American civil rights lawyers. By the way, addressing your use of "(online)" above, please note that source do not have to be online. See WP:SOURCEACCESS. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:28, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, very thought-provoking. If you've looked at my draft you may see that I have thought there might be interest for readers in understanding what it means to be a civil rights lawyer, the nitty gritty, thus the extended discussion of some of the cases. Very much appreciate direction to look at Category: American civil rights lawyers. I see that few of those I looked at trace their work in anything like the detail I propose. NY Times did do a lead obit on Richard, and his obit was carried by the AP and published all over, his work on Duncan (the S.Ct. case that established right to jury trial in State courts) was documented in national press at the time, there is a book about Duncan and his work, and now a documentary film. I listed several books which refer to his work in the South. He was interviewed by the staff of the African American History Museum, interview stored on Library of Congress site. He did write a book about the Dalkon Shield Bankruptcy which won the ABA award for a book explaining a complex legal case to laymen (not yet covered in my draft). I really don't think there is any question that he was notable (I don't think it's just that I'm his wife and co-worker). He argued in the S.Ct. in hot button cases, the decisions in his cases (won and lost, or sort of lost) are cited all over. But I hear you about primary sources apparently not thought appropriate for an encyclopedia. I have to think about this. I suppose it would be a lot simpler for me to drop back to the secondary sources you prefer, but I do believe much less enlightening for your readers. Again, thanks for input. Annesobol (talk) 18:12, 24 May 2021 (UTC)Annesobol

@Annesobol: My condolences for your recent loss. The draft you have right now has bones that could be useful in writing a good article, but it has a lot of content that needs to go. You have a great advantage over many people submitting drafts: you essentially write for a living; as is evident from the draft, forming a coherent sentence is second nature rather than an insurmountable hurdle (that bedevils many people attempting a proposed article here). Another advantage is that you're also, I expect, steeped in tailoring your writing for a particular audience, for a particular purpose (part of the art of motion practice;-), so shaping your writing in new ways is de rigueur. Nevertheless, there's a rather steep learning curve here that, as is also evident from your draft, you're at the beginning of. My best overarching advice to you at this point is to (ruthlessly, with discipline for cutting) rewrite the draft using the following rules:

1. (well, this is not really a "rule", but...) gather a list of reliable, published sources, concentrating on ones that are secondary and independent (this is like surveying the land you are about to build on, and buying the lumber and other building materials);
2. You can only write by summarizing based on what these reliable, published sources contain (obviously, digesting the material and summarizing in proper paraphrase (note that we are constantly deleting material as copyright violations, including for too close paraphrasing);
3. You can use published, primary sources–judiciously–only for "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge", and specifically not for any analysis, synthesis, evaluation or self-serving content (so put these types of sources in a "separate pile");
4. You must do your best to forget everything you know about the subject; pretend you are a person who is writing solely from these sources, with the restrictions mentioned), and could not include one word you do not learn from these sources (after all, everything you know about the topic comes from the sources you've read and digested, right?)
5. Reinforcing the "rule" above, anything you write that isn't based on these sources, or is an interpretation, or analysis, or synthesis not directly contained in them [but for matters that are utterly obvious...], is forbidden, original research);
6. (This one is especially difficult for someone deeply involved with a subject [see WP:COI]), but: as part of that pretending exercise, you also must dispense with your positive feelings, and attempt to write in a just-the-facts, neutral manner as to both content and the language used. (Look for adjectives betraying your underlying lack of neutrality; remember the writer's mantra, show, don't tell.); and
7. If you haven't done so, you might take a tour through Wikipedia's tutorial, to get some seal legs on both the variety of markup and the concepts we commonly employ here (by the way, once you do so, the cheatsheet may be a good page to quickly refer to for ministerial formatting issues).

Hope all this helps.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:06, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Annesobol Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is NOT about what might be of interest for readers, or understanding what a civil rights lawyer is, or extended discussion of cases. It is not about enlightening. Delete all that. Ditto any content that is verified by interviews with Richard, as Wikipedia does not consider interviews as reliable sources (I may think that I am strikingly handsome, but my opinion counts for nothing.) A book he wrote can be listed in a section Publication. The ABA award (properly cited) can be in an Awards section. David notMD (talk) 19:02, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that at least 80% of the draft needs to be cut before this can be submitted as a draft with any potential for being approved. What is essential is what people have written ABOUT Sobol, not documenting nor describing his accomplishments. David notMD (talk) 19:15, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Grammar pages

Most languages have sections for grammar and syntax. Major languages have seperate pages for grammar. My question is that, should these grammar pages contain all possible information related to the language's grammar, or should the content be brief?

Most people are not keen to learn from Wikipedia it seems. I can't imagine people going to Wikipedia to learn a language (except me).

There are also other websites fully dedicated to grammar of a language. Should Wikipedia's grammar articles also contain the same quality of information?

Should these pages be enough to make people fluent in the language (if the reader has a structured lexicon)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrightSunMan (talk • contribs) 14:49, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Forgot to log in... BrightSunMan (talk) 14:45, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

No, BrightSunMan, Wikipedia's grammar articles are in no way intended to "make people fluent in the language". This is an encyclopedia.--Quisqualis (talk) 22:17, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Help Setting Up A New Musician Page

HI there, I have an account called 'Quincy Queen Of Denmark', which I set up in order to publish a WIKI Page on an artist I am working with (HOLLY MACVE). However - it seems to have my user name (Quincy Queen Of Denmark) as the heading on publishing - when I want the article to be purely about the artist. Have I made a huge error? Is there a way to rectify? I've spent so long with sources and citations etc - I don't want it ruined with my obscure name at the top of the article. Any help gratefully received. This is visual editor.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:QuincyQueenOfDenmark/sandbox Holly Macve (talk) 15:26, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@QuincyQueenOfDenmark Everything is fine. That article is in your sandbox which you can use for editing tests. If you think your article is ready, you can hover over 'More' at the top of the page, click 'Move', select 'Article', and replace the text QuincyQueenOfDenmark/sandbox with the text Holly Macve. Normally another method would need to be used, but since you don't have any other edits in your sandbox that's perfect for this. I'll make a few edits once you've done that so it looks like a normal Wikipedia page. Uses x (talk • contribs) 15:41, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Please don't follow this advice and move to main space, you are a paid editor, which you need to declare on your user page, I have moved your article to draft, when you think it is ready you can submit it for review. Theroadislong (talk) 15:51, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello, QuincyQueenOfDenmark. Your problem is that, as a publicist, your goal is fundamentally incompatible with what Wikipedia stands for. Please understand that promotion of any kind is forbidden anywhere in Wikipedia, and Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. "On stage, Macve is described as having a magnetic stage presence" would be acceptable in a Wikipedia article if it were quoted from a source which is wholly independent of the subject, but as it comes from Bella Union, who appear to be her agents or managers, it does not belong in a Wikipedia article. It looks to me as if only the two reviews (from Record Collector and the NYT) are independent, and so those are the only citations capable of establishing that she meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability; but between them those two do not, in my opinion, provide significant enough coverage to establish notability. Unless you can find and add more independent sources - and trim the text to what those sources say about her - I don't believe your draft will be accepted. --ColinFine (talk) 16:53, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Colin that is helpful.. I am not a paid editor though, but did say I would help set up a page for a musician - but I thought all musicians had a page and that it was a normal thing to be on WIKI - its where most people look first when they want to find more about an artist - I am beginning to see why people would get paid though! It's taken ages. I will remove the 'reviews' which could contain bias as I can see why that would be a conflict. I do understand it should never be used for promotion. I'll look for more citations to avoid future problems. Thanks you also to talk I am actually not being paid (alas) but I am helping out - do I still need to declare that? Forgive ignorance. And if I do need to declare it - how would I go about it? This is all new to me. I can't actually tell if I am replying to you properly - but I hope I am. I do appreciate your time. Oh - and if you were able to help with edits I would be delighted. Very best wishes, Jules talk

QuincyQueenOfDenmark Yes to declaring COI (see note on your Talk page). In early life I see some close paraphrasing - verging on copying from the ref - that needs to be changed. What Macve says in interviews does not establish her Wikipedia notability and should be deleted. Lastly, Wikipedia has articles, not pages. David notMD (talk) 17:26, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Correcting

Correcting an incorrect entry in a Formula racing car drivers biography: the user Bbb23 reverts my entries to F2 and F3000 Race car driver Fritz Glatz, albeit you find the correct information on Wikipedia (e.g. that he has participated in 1985 in 4 F3000 races with Oreca, eg. in the race in Curacao on Oct. 13th 1985. Also, there is a biography that shows that his racing career started in 1965, not 1980, He also had a documented accident on the Nurburgring in 1966. And so on. And every time Bbb23  Plasonig (talk) 16:01, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Plasonig I think you placed your comment in the section header window, which is why it was cut off. Please edit this existing section and place your comment in the larger edit window. 331dot (talk) 16:04, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Plasonig, and welcome to the Teahouse. Your edits to Fritz Glatz do not appear to be vandalism, as Bbb23 said on your user talk page. I'm guessing that they thought that because your second edit was to remove material, and you didn't give an edit summary - but I don't know. Either way, once they had undone your edit, the thing for you to do then was not to reapply your edits (that is edit warring, and is regarded as disruptive, irrespective of whether the edits are good ones) but to engage in a discussion with Bbb23, either on Talk:Fritz Glatz or on your user talk page where Bbb23 had already communicated with you. See WP:BRD for how this is supposed to work. I have pinged Bbb23 here, so they should see this item and might respond. --ColinFine (talk) 17:02, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Plasonig, the substantive content you added about the driver's early career is not supported by a reliable source, which is required by the core content policy Verifiability. One Wikipedia article can never be a reliable source in another Wikipedia article per the section of that policy WP:CIRCULAR. So, you need to provide a reference to a reliable source that verifies any new information that you want to add about Glatz. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:10, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

what to do?

I have been working on list of Crayola colors but there was a mistake someone made and I fixed it but was rejected and the mistake was accepted and i tried to fix it again but got rejected so what can i do to have a better chance of my work being accepted? Thememe420 (talk) 16:03, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Thememe420. You have noted some of your concerns on the talk page of the article. That is an excellent start. One "mistake" you made when you first added some of these changes was to not explain the reason for your changes in the edit summary accompanying your edits. If any edit is not self-explanatory, you should always use the edit summary to note what you are doing, This makes a revert far less likely than otherwise. However, it looks like you figured this out on your own, leaving an edit summary for some later changes. Keep doing that. The most important thing though is that Wikipedia runs on sourcing. All of our content must be verifiable in reliable sources (most of those sources should be secondary and independent in character), and it is best practice (and is highly likely to insure against being reverted, if your edit is otherwise correct), that you actually cite a corroborating source in the article text, using an inline citation, for every edit you make that adds or changes information. (In addition to the link for "cite" in the last sentence, see also this how-to guide to the basics of citing references). To summarize: yes, discuss on the talk page; always use an edit summary to explain your edits; cite reliable, secondary, independent sources to verify your changes, and proposed changes – and take in that implied focus: ultimately, sourcing is the key to the gates of Wikipedia. Finally, as to the subject of reverts, you might find the essay Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle of interest. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:46, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

:( another unhappy newbie

So sad, since admins attack me constantly. goodbye cruel wikipedia. Perez f vivant (talk) 17:17, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@Perez f vivant: Hey there! I don't see that you've been attacked by anyone, much less by admins. One of your edits was simply reverted with a helpful message since it was deemed unconstructive. Do you have a question we can help with? Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 17:35, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Perez f vivant don't quit! We want everyone to benefit Wikipedia. One of your edits might have been unconstructive. Don't make it hurt you! I want you to keep editing and help us. Don't call us cruel. TigerScientist Chat > contribs 17:43, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I have looked at some of your edits. If they were intended to be helpful, then you went about it in a manner that was sure to be unsuccessful, such as contextless unexplained, massive changes to SES S.A., that, in the absence of explanation, gave every appearance of blanking of sourced content and the indiscriminate dumping of swaths of content written in French into an English article. You could not expect any other result but to be reverted, and thus have nothing to complain about.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:57, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Don't bite the newbies. Yes they did make a unconstructive edit maybe try to convince them to stay? TigerScientist Chat > contribs 18:22, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

"We ought to wring his filthy little neck. Kill him! Kill him!" Ooops! Apologies, my Gollum persona got the best of me for a moment. As best I can see, Perez had an edit reverted back in 2020, and a deletion edit reverted today. The latter appeared to be in good faith - deleting what a company had promised to achieve but had failed to do so. What a company promised, referenced, can be valid history, even if it did not come true. There was a small bit of apparent vandalism involved (Perez changed Bloon to Bloop). David notMD (talk) 19:28, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

TigerScientist. You cite a policy to me I strongly believe in, quite inaptly in my view here. Our "don't bite" (and civility and assuming good faith) policies and cultural mores are not suicide pacts. They do not require us to pretend or lie; to swallow nonsense that reverses the equities, to not acknowledge or state the facts when they're relevant, etc.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:39, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah I just thought it was a little hostile (though it did say what was wrong perfectly) and especially due to them wanting to quit. TigerScientist Chat > contribs 19:49, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Okay. But I invite you to read the language of the OP (in conjunction with the edits actually involved), and think about what is fairly clearly really going on here (yes, I am intentionally being vague; I don't think discussing that here would be at all useful, and that doing so would actually implicate another policy about ... nourishment).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:58, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Archived Talk Page

Hai. I'm Ken. Just now, I created an archive for my 2020's talk page discussions. I placed every tags as instructed in Help:Archiving a talk page. After the creation, there is no shortcut link in the talk page header in my main talk page for the new archive. How to resolve this? Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 17:53, 24 May 2021 (UTC) 

Resolved in this edit. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:03, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

It is, of course, normal to delete messages from your main user talk page when you've moved them to the archive. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:07, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you David Biddulph. I kept it because if I was to delete that archive, everything would be in a mess. That's why I kept them. Anyway, now I'm gonna remove them as the problem is solved. Thank you once again. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 18:10, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

article in sand box how can i move and edit?

i have my article in sand box how can i edit and publish? Gomba 80 (talk) 18:12, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

You don't yet have a draft in your sandbox. You will find advice at WP:Your first article. - David Biddulph (talk) 18:18, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Please also read the advice which you have received on your user talk page (and at the section #Paolo giani margi page my contribution above) about the edits which you (and various IPs) have tried to make to an existing article. You need to understand about verifiability and referencing. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:22, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Indigenous

Indigenous meaning Davebeau (talk) 19:04, 24 May 2021 (UTC) The definition of indigenous is naturally existing in one place rather than arriving from somewhere else . Yet we have for example the Maoris from New Zealand called indigenous and yet they arrived from the islands of the Pacific in the 1600s

Actually, the Māori arrived in what is now New Zealand approximately 1280 to 1300 CE. New Zealand was not settled by humans previously, so they are the indigenous people. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:43, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@Davebeau: The best place to discuss this would be on the talk page. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:20, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

See Indigenous peoples. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:54, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

How do you deal with retaliation?

I am, admittedly, an old fart. And I seem to have trouble stopping digging, when I find I'm digging a hole under myself. But the culture of Wikipedia has changed so radically that I haven't really been able to adjust; I still try to approach it with an eye to the content, rather than as a battle between antagonistic pseudonymous personalities. It seems like any time I try to add any content, or fix anything, or even just argue in favor of something being fixed, some random person comes out of the woodwork and takes offense and goes all PvP and recommends anything even vaguely associated with me for speedy deletion. Not someone who has any connection with, or even opinion about, the actual content. But someone who's outraged that I would dare to touch the content without their prior approval. And they never seem to be willing to engage on the talk pages, they just launch right in with speedy-deletion retaliation.

Is this just what Wikipedia has become? Should I give up on it? Should I give up on correcting errors, for fear of offending gatekeepers? Is there a secret enclave of grownups still lurking somewhere? Bill Woodcock (talk) 20:10, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Hey Bill. I say this, without having any idea if it's truly the case, so forgive me if might miss the issue. It is human nature that when we are involved in any type of somewhat heated back and forth, it looms large in our minds. If we have more than one of those incidents that are relatively nearby in time, we tend to assume a pattern, where there is actually a statistical blip. I see the recent discussion that I think probably prompted your post. I really would have to study it far closer to have any opinion at all on a "side", but I guess I was just wondering if what I was talking about above could be playing out to some extent, and help with putting this in some perspective. I actually do think there is a level of bureaucracy that has increased, to the point where I too have been annoyed by certain reverts of my edits that I don't think would have happened years ago, or at least not "inevitably". To give you an example, I have made many edits to our polices and guidelines; years ago, what I wrote that helped form some of those pages, could never be entered anew today if not already there. Instead, when I edit any major policy page, I always get reverted under the terrible idea that you need pre-consensus to change what has become "official" (ossified, strict-constructionist-interpreted, statutes) – very much against a host of our other polices we supposedly hallow (that ironically also can't be changed without a revert), without any regard to the merits of the edit. But then I start to think, and I realize that 99% of my edits actually don't get reverted, and I just try to let it go. So can I offer you a cup of mental tea? Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:38, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Fuhghettaboutit, I'm honestly not concerned with someone reverting my edits; I get that, I've certainly reverted other people's edits... But always with reference to the veracity of the content, and I've tried (probably not always successfully) to invite conversation if they think I'm wrong. If someone reverted my edit and did me the courtesy of explaining why, yeah, the vast majority of the time I'd be grateful for the education and leave it at that. What I take issue with is people just leaping in and marking my user page for speedy deletion, because I didn't know to ask their permission before discussing a change to a page that I contributed to long before they joined Wikipedia... I mean... What am I supposed to do with that? I can't seem to get anyone to engage in discussion of the actual content of pages anymore. It's just all ego and vandalism. And it seems to be everywhere I turn. So, specifically, is there anything to be done about retaliation? Just let my user page be deleted, only make edits anonymously in the future, give up on substance? Or does anyone actually try to step in and prevent these sorts of vindictive attacks? Or is there just no structure left to make that possible? Bill Woodcock (talk) 20:48, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

It's not you. Wikipedia changed. What existed as your User page for 15 years no longer conformed, hence the Speedy deletion prod, which you addressed by removing content that did not comply with the more recently established guidelines. David notMD (talk) 01:40, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Bwoodcock. Part of the problem might've been that you were writing about yourself in the third person which gave your user page the appearance of being a WP:FAKEARTICLE. Our user pages aren't really ours per se as explained here; moreover, even though we're given some leeway when it comes to them, we're also expected to do our best to ensure they adhere to relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. There's lots of stuff that's been on Wikipedia for long time, but that doesn't mean it should be here. Perhaps at one point it was OK or maybe it was never OK to begin with, but often inappropriate stuff goes unnoticed for quite sometime until something happens which brings attention to it. It might seem a bit unfair when that happens, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's some kind of retaliation when it does happen. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:14, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

templates

 Courtesy link: Portsmouth and Arundel Canal

How do you create a template map in a page ? I want to add a line map to the Portsmouth and Arundel Canal Page. I can edit an existing one no problem just dont seem to be able to create it in the first place can someone help or even set it up with a start point at Portsmouth Harbour Hampshire and a Finish point at Ford West Sussex Southern Canalman (talk) 20:15, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Someone delete my page

I have a subpage that I find now useless. Can someone delete it for me? It is at User:TigerScientist/New signature. TigerScientist Chat > contribs 20:23, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

No such page. Did you mean User:TigerScientist/New signature? (Page names are case sensitive.) If you want it deleting, tag it with {{db-u1}}. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:27, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you TigerScientist Chat > contribs 20:34, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Please Give me IP block exempt right

Hi. I'm use to VPN please Give me IP block exempt right Gorning1 (talk) 20:48, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@Gorning1: See Wikipedia:IP_block_exemption for instructions on how to request this. RudolfRed (talk) 21:20, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Article declined

 Courtesy link: Draft:Multiscale Electrophysiology Data format

My Wikipedia submission was declined. It is an article describing a new open source format (MED) that is actually the next evolution of an existing format (MEF) for which there IS a wikipedia page. I do not understand why MEF was accepted, but MED was declined. I am the creator of both formats, but I was not the author of the existing MEF Wikipedia page.

MED == "Multiscale Electrophysiology Data" MEF == "Multiscale Electrophysiology Format" Mattstead (talk) 22:16, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

One reason may be that while Multiscale Electrophysiology Format cites three (somewhat inadequate) sources, Draft:Multiscale Electrophysiology Data format does not cite any sources in support of the statements it contains, though it does list some at the end. Another is that as creator of MEF, you have an undeclared Conflict of interest.   Maproom (talk) 22:39, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Per above, a section on your Talk page explains what you need to do given conflict of interest for both articles. David notMD (talk) 01:45, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

MAL reliable for secondary source?

Hi, I'm trying to make a article for Draft:Let's Go! Valtryek!. It recently got declined saying I need more reliable secondary sources. IMDb and Google Play shouldn't be used. But, my question is if MyAnimeList can be used as a source for reception on the particular episode in general? Thank.

WellThisIsTheReaper 10:43 UTC, 24 May 2021 WellThisIsTheReaper (talk) 22:44, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello, WellThisIsTheReaper, and welcome to the Teahouse. While myanimelist.net doesn't seem to have been discussed at the Reliable Sources/Noticeboard (except one mention in passing in 2013), it appears to me to be user-generated, and so not a reliable source. --ColinFine (talk) 23:07, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Tables

I have been editing on the Google Street View coverage page, I am trying to edit the tables but apparently they are not editable by the visual editor, in the spanish article, these tables can be edited by the visual editor, is there a reason why this happens and is there a possibility that this problem can be solved? Seb { 💬 Talk + 📝 Edits } 22:47, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@JSeb05: Welcome to the Teahouse. The only ones I can't edit directly via the visual editor are the collapsed tables, which generally shouldn't be preemptively collapsed. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:09, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

New law regarding deplatforming that has $250,000/day fine: applies to Wikipedia?

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-56952435 The legislation states that platforms can only suspend accounts for 14 days, and will be fined as much as $250,000 (£176,000) per day for violations.

NetChoice, a tech lobbying group whose members include Twitter and Facebook, testified against the bill in March.

The bill, believed to be the first of its kind, will take effect on 1 July. --- Does Wikipedia plan to comply?

Should Wikipedia limit bans or blocks to 1-2 years?

I have no opinion, just reading the news. Inkfo (talk) 23:24, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I mean, it's a Florida state law that only applies to candidates in Florida state elections, and regardless, the WMF is not based out of Florida AFAIK, so no, Wikipedia should not take notice of this. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:52, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thank you, Inkfo, and welcome to the Teahouse. That is an interesting article, but not actually relevant to the Teahouse, or indeed to Wikipedia. We block users who breach a range of our WP:RULES, including impersonating or appearing to be real, living people until they can prove their identity. Whilst we often get interns and other minor characters trying to big up their favourite political candidate, it's unlikely that the politicians themselves would ever edit here. So this seems a moot point, even though it's not the kind of thing the Teahouse would ever advise on. It's really a matter for The Wikimedia Foundation to consider, so maybe wait and see how it responds to legislation in one small state of one country in this entire world. I doubt Florida legislation would ever apply to this Project. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:54, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

The Foundation has attorneys to advise it on things like this. This law will likely be tossed out by the courts as interfering with interstate commerce or as a first amendment violation. 331dot (talk) 00:00, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

The law applies to social media platforms. Wikipedia is explicitly not a social media platform. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:03, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

One think I would look at is the bill's definition of "social media platform" (>100 million gross revenue/year or partecipants/month), but is probably better to leave this to lawyers and similar. Personuser (talk) 00:21, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• Wikipedia could also open up a theme park somewhere; there is a carve out in the law for owners of theme parks or entertainment areas of 25 acres or more. 16:23, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Counting Stars

Hello, I made a page called [[1]] but It's now a draft, I'm afraid it will get declined, then my hard work will be detsoryed for that page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by JustNickYT (talk • contribs) 01:01, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi JustNickYT. If you're draft is declined, it won't be "destroyed" or otherwise deleted; it will simply remain a draft. Your draft is likely to be declined, however, because you haven't provided any citations to reliable sources to allow its content to be verified as explained here. You can continue to improve the draft even while it's waiting to be reviewed and can continue to work on it even if it's been declined. You might want to take a look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Television for some suggestions on creating or editing articles about TV programs. You many also want to ask for assistance at Wikipedia:WikiProject Television since that's where you're likely to find editors familiar with such articles. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:36, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Advice for helping other editors

hi! admittedly I've caused minor problems in the Teahouse in the past, but as I plan to start helping new editors as well (I work on helping new editors who end up in my talk page), what are some tips in giving advice to new editors? I've been here for a month (I joined a few years ago, but my regular editing started on april 2021). • | melecie | t 02:47, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

MelecieDiancie, Be kind, explain the details, link to useful things, and know when you can't be of assistance. Its easy to point folks in a direction that can help them more, like the Teahouse or help desk. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 03:00, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Submission of a Page

I had approached earlier for Assistance regarding submission of a Page but despite 48 hours there is no response? What is the way forward? Infantry28 (talk) 02:56, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Infantry28, You asked about creating a page about yourself. Our advice: don't. See WP:AUTOBIO if you want more. Its next to impossible to write a neutral article about yourself. If you'd like to write about another person, depends on who they. If they're alive, we have special guidelines, see WP:BLP. If they are deceased, it mostly depends on what they did. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 03:04, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Infantry28, there were two responses (and CaptainEek has now provided you with a third).. -- Hoary (talk) 04:54, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

A method to create article didn't work.

I entered a text in the search field that I sought to create a new article.The page notified that no such article exists but didn't provide a red link .The page named- Wikipedia:how to create an article- suggested me so. What's your opinion? Kushal Dev Wiki (talk) 02:57, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Kushal Dev Wiki. In order to create a new article, an account must be WP:AUTOCONFIRMED. That means an account four days old with at least ten edits. You have over 10 edits but your account is not yet four days old. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:03, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

(EC) Your account is too young. I would suggest creating a draft instead of creating an article directly in mainspace, because anything found to be not up to snuff in mainspace will likely either be kicked to draft or outright deleted. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 03:05, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Kushal Dev Wiki, What are you looking to write about? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 03:05, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

How can I establish a mundane fact not found in reliable published sources? (The height a tree will reach)

Ligustrum lucidum. Sanxuanín de la China (tamañu)

I am trying to contribute information about a tree that is mischaracterized in all the sources I can find. Glossy privet (Ligustrum lucidum) is described in its Wikipedia entry as being 10 m (33 ft) tall. Although I cannot find a published source to refute this statement—for example, The Illustrated Flora of North Central Texas (p. 850) specifically says it gets up to 10 meters tall.

But that's false: · I personally have cut down trees of this species that ranged up to 45 feet tall, and they are not the tallest in the area. · A friend is removing one (they are invasive in our area) that is 60 feet tall. He has documented the tree and its removal on iNaturalist. · A photo on Harvard University's website shows the botanist Frank Meyer standing next to one in China that must have been 70 to 80 feet tall, based on how many heights of Frank Meyer and his colleague it takes to reach the top of the tree. · Anyone who has visited Mexico City has seen glossy privets close to 20 meters tall in parks, streets, and squares all over the place.

Yet I have not found a reputable source that states this fact.

This is significant because L. lucidum is often mistakenly identified as L. japonicum, a shrub that typically tops out at 12 feet. The difference is dramatic. L. lucidum can grow 20 feet in a year, and more typically grows 5 to 10 feet a year during its period of fastest growth (probably years 3 or 4 to 10), but L. japonicum grows only 2 feet a year.

One reason this difference is important is that L. lucidum is highly invasive, especially across the American South, but from South Carolina to Texas L. japonicum seldom if ever escapes cultivation. Nonetheless, official databases consistently report both as being invasive because L. lucidum is so frequently misidentified as L. japonicum. I would say that even professional botanists and foresters get this wrong, but the truth of the matter might well be that especially professional botanists and foresters get it wrong.

So is there a way to get the information correct in Wikipedia, even though the works prepared by experts deny the empirical realities of the physical world?

And I must point out that I am not a botanist. I am just a volunteer who organizes projects to remove these invasive trees from parks and green spaces in my area. Through that work I have direct knowledge of the properties of this particular plant.

Thanks! EditorCliff (talk) 04:27, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

No, you have to cite reliable sources. The reading public have no more reason to believe what you say than they have to believe what I say (and they really shouldn't buy a used car from this man). If professional dendrologists get it wrong, let them know. Invite one or more along to view these giant plants. The fruits of your persuasion will make it into print, and then Wikipedia can cite it. -- Hoary (talk) 04:51, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@EditorCliff: Speaking as the author of a Flora, and also as a Wikipedian, I would have to agree with Hoary. As botanical writers, we do occasionally list exceptional plants in our floras, but tend to give average maxima, not world records, or unusual growing situations. The best source for height I can find is 15 metres (50ft) (here). But if you have a reliably-identified photograph, that could at least be added to Commons, or used in the article, providing it's appropriately captioned and relevant. The problem with Commons - and you said it yourself with this species - is that there is little to no verification of the identity of what has been uploaded. That said, the image I have inserted here does 'appear' to have been uploaded by a competent naturalist. But I wouldn't want to attempt to guess its identity or its height. Unless content has been properly published and available for anyone to check, then putting in information from one's personal experiences (no matter how true it is) just isn't something we do here. Nick Moyes (talk) 07:44, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Would writing a sentence this way be considered WP:NOR?

Let's say I have this sentence:

I-190, NY 5 and NY 33 are the primary freeways serving the city, and at their busiest points carry about 94,000, 41,000 and 110,000 vehicles, respectively.

If I changed it to this:

I-190, NY 5 and NY 33 are the primary freeways serving the city, and combined carry over 245,000 vehicles daily.

Would that be considered WP:OR? The guidelines at WP:CALC state that routine calculations are acceptable, and these numbers are in the document. Combining them would make the prose succinct. Buffaboy ^talk 04:35, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@Buffaboy: Yes, that would fall under WP:CALC and is thus not original research. dudhhr_Contribs 06:27, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Great, thank you. Buffaboy ^t and ^c 06:29, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

MARKETING AND COMMUNICATIONS

Hello, I'm new and I'm really glad to be here. I can't wait to get my hands-on editing, but I'll like to start with topics I have deep knowledge about, articles including company culture, marketing, comms, and biographies. I'll appreciate any pointers or advice.

Thanks! Grey Matter Copy (talk) 04:48, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Welcome. I note that on your user page you say "I'm currently the lead copywriter at a reputable Digitrad Advertising Agency [...]." First, note that the purpose of copywriting and the purpose of encyclopedia editing are very different, and that their styles of writing are very different too. Secondly, work on improving existing articles where you can cite reliable, independent, published sources. Once you have experience of doing this successfully, you can consider starting new articles. -- Hoary (talk) 04:59, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Grey Matter Copy "Write about what you know" is common advice here, but be aware of potential conflict of interest (see WP:COI). David notMD (talk) 08:46, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointers, really encouraged by the support! I hope I get my signing right lol Grey Matter Copy (talk) 17:52, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Wow, I did.lol Grey Matter Copy (talk) 17:55, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Allyx Nicole Ross (TM)

Asking for myself

Please let me know, how to not get blocked. I used to write HTML for PGA, ComplexCon etc. Look at my Legit History :) Thanks! Allyx Nicole Ross AllyxNicoleRoss (talk) 05:58, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@AllyxNicoleRoss: You are using Wikipedia as a means of promotion, which violates the What Wikipedia is not policy. dudhhr_Contribs 06:16, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

AllyxNicoleRoss, your activity seems to be limited to writing Draft:Allyx Nicole Ross and, on the talk page for that draft, providing odd and utterly unconvincing attempts to justify its continuing existence -- attempts that show that you have no idea of what an encyclopedia is about. When somebody is notable, there will be reliable, independent, published sources about that person (in newspaper websites and so forth); and other, unrelated people will want to use these sources to create a draft or article. Until that happens, don't try. -- Hoary (talk) 06:23, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Please let me know how to get this done AllyxNicoleRoss (talk) 06:31, 25 May 2021 (UTC)https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Template:Done/See_also&action=edit

AllyxNicoleRoss, you may not edit templates. What is your purpose here in Wikipedia? -- Hoary (talk) 06:36, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

If by "get this done" you meant create an article about yourself, don't. Your draft was declined and then deleted as not being appropriate for what Wikipedia is. David notMD (talk) 08:51, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Move draft to article but nothing shows in main wiki page

I wrote my article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:The_School_House,_Staines-upon-Thames,_UK) in draft then moved it (admittedly draft to draft the first time which was a mistake) then draft to article but is has not appeared as an article. I have now amended the draft to have the pictures placed better but I can't move that as it says the article name is already in use, but I still can't access it in main wiki. I would like to replace the draft I submitted to move with the latest draft or be able to edit the moved article (as opposed to a draft). Sorry newbie question....

Thank you. TreebG (talk) 06:44, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

TreebG, that accidentally became a redirect page. I tagged that for speedy deletion now. The Admins maybe deleting it in sometime. Then, you will be able to move your page to the mainspace. Lightbluerain❄ (Talk | contribs) 06:58, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@TreebG: although, the draft is not yet ready for the mainspace in my opinion. WP:YFA might be helpful for you. And, welcome to Wikipedia! Lightbluerain❄ (Talk | contribs) 07:03, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@lightbluerain - thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by TreebG (talk • contribs) 10:37, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Do editors get blocked for using foul language?

I just saw an editor who used bad words in their edit summary when someone moved the article they were concerned about to the draftspace. Can they get blocked for this? Should I report this to Admins? Or, should I ignore this? The editor is not new. They've written more than 50 articles. Lightbluerain❄ (Talk | contribs) 06:52, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

That mostly depends on what the "foul language" or "bad words" were used for. Imaginably, it's a blockable offense. Imaginably, it isn't at all. (For example, I might make an edit, and then in the next edit revert it with the edit summary "I fucked up, sorry. Self-reverting", which I think is perfectly OK, other perhaps than for editors with particularly delicate sensibilities.) If it's bad, take it to WP:ANI. -- Hoary (talk) 07:02, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Lightbluerain, Editors could be blocked if it gets out of hand, however. You can learn more on what to act on by visiting WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. Panini!^🥪 12:11, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. Lightbluerain❄ (Talk | contribs) 12:49, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

mf,um,umn

 103.119.198.4 (talk) 07:19, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

It helps if you take your mittens off. -Roxy . wooF 07:25, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

How to not feel overwhelmed?

I have very recent started on Wikipedia and I feel very overwhelmed in terms of doing anything really. There's so much to think about in terms of bias, style of writing, copyright... especially when adding images! Very often I feel my only virtue is checking for correct formatting(grammar, punctuation, formatting etc.) and even then, I am nervous that I have made a mistake and damaged what was a perfectly good article. Did anyone else have a first experience similar to mine or am I just over-thinking this? ArcticFox037 (talk) 08:22, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@ArcticFox037 Hello, I think everyone has/had this feelings. Just edit little things, use your sandbox for testing, read the topics at the teahouse and ask questions, if and when they come up. 🍩 --Maresa63 ^Talk 08:40, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

ArcticFox037, It is perfectly fine to be overwhelmed. It's a lot to learn! I had a lot to overcome when I first started doing major edits on my first good article, Super Mario Bros. 35. Naturally, you will learn most of the policies and guidelines as you go forth by other contributors directing you to them and teaching you. After all, we're all here to contribute. For further guidance from other contributors in a general topic, check out WP:Wikiprojects. Panini!^🥪 12:16, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• @ArcticFox037, it is perfectly normal, when I began editing, I was always on my toes whenever I made an edit as it was almost always reverted and a template left on my talk page. If you remain consistent, In time, that phase would pass as you would have had enough experience under your belt to tell a good edit from a disruptive one. Practicing in your sandbox is a good place to start and reading up some basic policies would go a long way into helping you to develop your editing skills. Addendum: The blanket answer to your question is do not edit in areas that are controversial and do not edit directly to live articles if you have a gut feeling that it would be reverted. Celestina007 (talk) 14:45, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Adding copyrighted picture to Wikipedia

Hi there; I recently expanded the Rouran Khaganate article, and created the article Tomb of Princess Linhe. Many clay figurines were unearthed from the latter, including the figure of a shaman, thought to represent her Rouran descent, thus inspired by the Rouran shamans, with the Rouran visiting the court of Wei frequently. I was thinking of uploading a picture of this Shaman figurine for the Rouran Khaganate article to show the figurine itself, but also because we have only one depiction of the Rourans. In this jstor article there is a photograph of this shaman figure. As a sculpture, it can't be uploaded at Wikimedia under a free license; but I was wondering whether the jstor article's picture might be uploaded at Wikipedia. Technically, a picture of it could be created.--Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 10:35, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Marchjuly, sounds like a question for you. Haldir Marchwarden, please try WP:MCQ next if you do not receive an answer here. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:15, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Okay, thanks!--Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 09:36, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

References

 Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 10:35, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Heh, I suspect you intended {{Reflist}}, not {{References}}, Haldir. Though have a look at {{Reflist-talk}}. Pelagic ( messages ) – (21:13 Tue 25, AEST) 11:13, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

FYI

 – combined with previous topic --Maresa63 ^Talk 11:27, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

References

Yes, thanks Maresa63.--Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 15:39, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Kindly guide/help or edit the content to get it approved Sonu Goel Wikipedia page

I have completely revamped the entire content of Sonu Goel page as per suggestion provided by you, so that it doesn't look promotional. However you my guide/help or edit the content. I shall be highly thankful to you Rakeshsipher (talk) 14:24, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@Rakeshsipher, hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I believe you are referencing Draft:Sonu Goel. The draft article still appears to be promotional in nature, you should read WP:LARD and avoid the optimization of promotional words or sentences. To guide you, you may want to read WP:NPOV. Furthermore you can diversify your editing, there are lots of articles that require attention. Focusing on just one biographical article for seven months doesn’t pass across the right message. Celestina007 (talk) 14:35, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Can I replace the source with another source that have logopedia as a source?

Can I replace the source with another source that have logopedia as a source? Like this file https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:KNTV_11_NBC_Bay_Area.svg — Preceding unsigned comment added by ItsJustdancefan (talk • contribs) 14:36, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@ItsJustdancefan: Welcome to the Teahouse! For questions about Commons, I suggest you go to commons:Help:Contents. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 15:30, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Secondary source AP?

Is anime-planet.com a reliable source for reception? WellThisIsTheReaper (talk) 14:45, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@WellThisIsTheReaper: Welcome to the Teahouse! You may be interested in the conversation at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive 60#RS evaluation of anime-planet.com. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 15:25, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Contemporary classical music - silence?

Hello all, I've expanded a stub Rosa - A Horse Drama and left messages on the talk page there and that of the composer Louis Andriessen. As I am considering creating a page for a later stage work (Theatre of the World) I have asked what to call it as it needs disambiguation. There has been no response for some while. I was looking to create a draft in my sandbox but confused immediately - do I need to create it there? How would I title it temporarily? Do I need to? And lastly, I wonder whether to proceed if it may not be accepted and would prefer some discussion first. The piece is considered the composer's fourth major stage work - the other three all have their own pages - should I assume we 'complete the collection'? Thank's - the contemporary classical community appears inactive. Thelisteninghand (talk) 15:03, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@Thelisteninghand: I responded at Talk:Louis Andriessen. Each work would need to meet Wikipedia's notability requirements in order to have its own article. We wouldn't "complete the collection" by creating an article for each work by Andriessen just because some of his works are notable. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 15:18, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Thelisteninghand. At that talk page you've listed two source but the question is, is there enough (in such reliable, secondary, independent sources Template:Z21) to sustain a stand-alone article? I suspect there is, but just these two are not enough. The first source has some substantive content; the second could only be used to verify details about one staging of the production—which certainly is a valid topic for an article on the opera—but has little content directly about the opera itself. In any event, the correct way to write an article is to gather your sources first, and then summarize only what they verify, writing in proper paraphrase. So doing that task—that needs to be done anyway in order to write the article—should answer the question for you.

As to a name, it really isn't very important what a proposed article is titled while it's outside the article mainspace. You can create it as a subpage of your user space, or in the draft namespace – the latter is commonly preferred – which would be fine as Draft:Theatre of the World. As to a sandbox, though we provide the automatic sandbox link for each user, with the generic title "Username/sandbox", you can use any name after the forward slash to designate a sandbox subpage, so the common way is to use the proposed title as the "subpage part" of the name, e.g., User:Thelisteninghand/Theatre of the World. Both of the red links I've set out here can simply be clicked on to create the page.

Finally, if a stand-alone article is warranted, once it's ready to "go live", I do not think the ultimate title that the draft should should be moved to needs title disambiguation. Rather (per many implicated parts of Wikipedia:Article titles and Wikipedia:Disambiguation), since the existing title is occupied by a redirect to Theatrum Orbis Terrarum, simply because it translates to the (adjacent but not direct) English name "Theatre of the Orb of the World", an article on the opera can be moved over the redirect, and disambiguation should be addressed by a hatnote pointing at the current redirect target. I would suggest suggest something like {{for|the 1570 atlas translating to "Theatre of the Orb of the World" in English|Theatrum Orbis Terrarum}}. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:22, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks very much Fuhghettaboutit. Two sources were quick refs as an indicator - I think there is enough elsewhere. Thanks for your guidance on disambiguation processes. I started the piece on my sandbox page so I will title it as you suggest - I think you are right there. All very helpful. Thelisteninghand (talk) 18:48, 25 May 2021 (UTC) Ah - now I have already started the page I cannot change the title! I'll carry on for now Thelisteninghand (talk) 18:58, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Thelisteninghand, to change the title, you move the page from its old title to the new one! (Counter-intuitive maybe, but makes sense once you get used to it.) Pelagic ( messages ) – (06:46 Wed 26, AEST) 20:46, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Confirmed and Autoconfirmed

What is difference between confirmed users and autoconfirmed users? ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 15:14, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@ExclusiveEditor: Welcome to the Teahouse! There's a nice explanation at WP:AUTOCONFIRM. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 15:21, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I need help with approving an article

I wrote an article about a personality that, in my opinion, has a Wikipedian notability. The draft exists but the reviewer wrote that I did not add a notable reference. All I could find online is interviews with the person I wrote the article about. That is the link for the draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Chris_Lukhaup You can look at articles such as Takashi Amano which are similar and appear on Wikipedia. From my Experience Mr. Lukhaup is a very known person in the shrimp keeping hobby, and maybe the most famous and dominant person this days. For that reason, if the article of Amano is notable, so is Lukhaup's. How can I publish this article if I can't find any good reference? Ronenspierer (talk) 15:35, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@Ronenspierer, hello and welcome to the Teahouse, first off, an individual is notable when they possess in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources, an interview doesn’t nothing to prove one is notable. Secondly, fame and notability aren’t the same thing, one can be very famous but extremely non notable. A person is notable when they satisfy our general notability criteria or WP:BASIC or the relevant SNG. It is also good practice to dialogue with the individual that declined your draft. I hope I was able to help, if you need more answers I’m more than willing to provide them. Celestina007 (talk) 15:56, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Bahru Kegne photo upload okay not okay?

Hello, can i upload photos of a notable Ethiopian folk musician that passed away two decades ago, under fair use terms? Or is there a photo archived somewhere? Name Bahru Kegne(1929-2000). He has no wiki article yet, i'm in the process of gathering sources @ Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library/Research desk. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 15:39, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Dawit S Gondaria. There is no freely licensed photo of Bahru Kegne on Wikimedia Commons. The policy on Non-free content/images #10 allows use of a low resolution image, but only in an encyclopedia article about the person, and only if the person is now dead. So, finish the article first and then add the image, following the policy carefully. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:12, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@Cullen328: thanks for the info! Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 23:54, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Dawit S Gondaria, happy to be of assistance. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:16, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry to be back so soon @Cullen328: it's still kind of complicated. I want to upload the photo below @ [[2]], then i come across this question>> Now tell us why you are sure you have the right to publish this work:

The copyright holder published this work with the right Creative Commons license

The copyright holder published their photo or video on Flickr with the right license

The copyright has definitely expired in the USA

This work was made by the United States government

Another reason not mentioned above

I found it on the Internet — I'm not sure

Which one should i answer? Another reason not mentioned above? Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 01:03, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Dawit S Gondaria, I thought that I was clear previously, but let me be very clear: You CANNOT upload any non-free images unless you have already written a biography about Bahru Kegne, and it has already been accepted into the encyclopedia. Also, non-free images are uploaded locally here on English Wikipedia, not on Wikimedia Commons. The software will not allow uploading a non-free image for an article that does not exist. Forget about the image for now and focus on writing a well-referenced policy compliant biography article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:18, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Several small edits vs few consolidated edits?

Hello Teahouse, wondering if there was any WP policy/guide on edits and the etiquette on the number of edits. Just a quick reply will do!
To me, it seems most rational to condense many changes to a page into a few edits, rather than making several small edits. Just saw this edit list here. Obviously this editor has been improving Wikipedia, but just looking to point to something concrete should I run into this in the future. Thanks! PerpetuityGrat (talk) 15:49, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

PerpetutityGrat, both are fine. Some editors like to add thousands of bytes in one edit, while others add small portions at a time. Edit count is the only thing that is really affected by the difference. Sungodtemple (talk) 16:00, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Great that works thanks! PerpetuityGrat (talk) 16:03, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@PerpetuityGrat: Some editors like to make a series of smaller changes so that anyone who objects to an edit can revert just that one edit. If a massive change to an article has some good parts and some bad parts, it's much harder for an editor who objects to one or more parts of the edit to deal with. Deor (talk) 18:49, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Why is my page being deleted? How do I get it posted?

I attempted to create a page for a wealth management firm which interns need to see on Wikipedia to understand. This firm is different to the other firms so requires an explanation, explaining the way in which it works and how it invests differently to traditional methods.

This knowledge is backed by sources and needs to be published. However, wikipedia is threatening to delete the page. OmarA777 (talk) 16:05, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

OmarA777 I'm sorry, but Wikipedia has no interest in aiding your company interns, investors, customers, or in otherwise aiding your company. You should do that on social media or some alternative forum where that is permitted. Wikipedia is not interested in what a company says about itself, but in what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about it, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable company. Please review WP:COI and WP:PAID for information on required formal disclosures. 331dot (talk) 16:26, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@OmarA777: I don't understand how using Wikipedia helps interns understand the firm. Wouldn't a page on the company's website be better? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:27, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@OmarA777: I don’t see any articles you have created in your editing history. Is it possible you edited using your IP address or under a different account? TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:39, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@Timtempleton: The OP may have been talking about Draft:Binary Capital Investment Management. - David Biddulph (talk) 23:02, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@David Biddulph: Thanks - I didn't see that in the history. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 00:08, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

TimTempleton, deleted edits are not listed in the contributions page. It's a good idea to check user talk page or its history because deleted pages usually leave deletion notices there. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:21, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

... or use the "Edit count" link at the foot of the user's contribution page. --David Biddulph (talk) 06:25, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

board

I have been working on list of Crayola colors and is starting to become board so is there any place that is struggling or any tactics to find some place that still needs lots of work? Thememe420 (talk) 16:39, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I go to WP:TASKS. Many things to do there. TigerScientist Chat > contribs 16:43, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

oops I didn't ping them Thememe420 TigerScientist Chat > contribs 16:43, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

You might check out User:SuggestBot which specialises in delivering suggestions based on your editing history and articles that need work. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:24, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

help?

im not sure whats happening but im trying to edit my bosses page and its not letting me make changes. It keeps removing fscts about his life when indeed they are facts about his life! 32.213.31.218 (talk) 19:24, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Your edits are completely unsourced- we can't just take your word for it, all information(especially in articles about living people, see WP:BLP) must be sourced to an independent reliable source. In addition, if you are editing about your boss, you have a conflict of interest and are a paid editor. Please review those policies for information on required formal disclosures you should make. It would be easier if you had an account for that, but it's not necessary. You should propose changes you feel are needed to the article about your boss (not "your bosses page") on the article talk page in the form of a formal edit request(click for instructions) 331dot (talk) 19:30, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

And before that, was GEM MGMT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) also you? Victor Schmidt (talk) 19:54, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I have blocked the IP for obvious block evasion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:47, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

what would you suggest

Hello, I am newer to Wikipedia and i am interested in being a editor on the site. What tutorials would you suggest?

Thank you, 19IQ (talk) 19:42, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

19IQ Hello and welcome to the Teahouse and Wikipedia. There is a new user tutorial(click the link to access) available to use. 331dot (talk) 19:45, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

How This Place Works

I really don't know how Wikipedia works. It all seems so...intricate. I kinda need help. Eclectic-Polymath (talk) 20:14, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@Eclectic-Polymath: Maybe start with Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Adventure. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:30, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Trouble removing "in use" Template

While editing this page, I inserted an "in use" template to display while I was making changes. I am finished with the changes, but I am having difficulty deleting the template. Please advise! Thanks EroniousThunk (talk) 20:43, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I removed the template, not sure what was the problem. Your edit about removing the template removed a ref name and it's reuse, so you may wan't to recheck if all worked out fine. If after reviewing the article history you are still confused about what happened, feel free to ask for additional delucidations. Personuser (talk) 20:54, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Publishing content

I am trying to publish a short article that defines the profession Certified Divorce Financial Analyst (CDFA). This should be a short blurb simply defining a profession, but I keep getting declined. I have added some more resources, but not sure if it will be published. Any help will be appreciated.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Certified_Divorce_Financial_Analyst Keirac2 (talk) 22:19, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

See WP:FIRST Keirac2 TigerScientist Chat > contribs 22:43, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@Keirac2: I think you're better off adding a section to Divorce#Effects called Financial impact, where you can discuss the financial impact of divorce, and note the fact that there is a related profession called a Certified Divorce Financial Analyst. You can then redirect "Certified Divorce Financial Analyst" to that spot, rather than creating an entirely new short article. If there's enough info for a standalone article, down the road you can then consider doing a WP:FORK. But since you are relatively new, and don't have a lot of experience editing, I recommend you reach out to other editors on that article's talk page to build consensus for and get help with the changes. My personal feeling is that there will never be enough for a standalone, since the term and profession are so obscure. None of the sources currently in your draft suggest otherwise. Good luck! TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 00:22, 26 May 2021 (UTC) ‎

Gumustekin Gazi

 SavageBWiki (talk) 22:50, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@SavageBWiki: Did you have a question about using or editing Wikipedia? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:58, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

English variant templates

Recently there was a TFD for the now deleted "Template:Commonwealth English" and "Template:Use Commonwealth English". While the discussion is clear about deletion, the same doesn't seem to be true for the details of conversion. The best approach seems to be replacing "Use Commonwealth English" to Template:EngvarB. What I find confusing is that there isn't a clear talk page counterpart for this template and that it isn't clear if these templates are a statement about the used variant, a statement about the variant that should be used or just a way to bring some articles to the attention of editors more interested in spelling. If the matter is worth some more serious discussion, suggestion about the best place to address it are naturally welcomed (the ratio between my typos/spelling errors and how often I talk about the topic is interesting, but probably doesn't matter much in talk pages/Teahouse) Personuser (talk) 23:13, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Personuser. The Manual of Style, in WP:ENGVAR, discusses the consistency of styles of English within articles, and does not discuss article talk pages. As an American, if I comment on the talk page of an article on a British topic, I do not try to write in British English. I will mention the color of something without worrying about spelling the word as "colour". Those distinctions are for articles, so I do not think any Engvar templates are needed for talk page discussions. Other editors may have more to say. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:28, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree that talk pages don't need any nitpicking about variants, as long as the comments are clear (for this other things are usually more important than color/colour or even its/it's or worse), but my understanding is that the talk page templates refer to the mainspace article, since the mainspace templates are invisible. They may have some different function (talk page templates give advice to editors about the variant to use, mainspace ones place the article in a cathegory, probably for spelling fixes, EngvarB may be a special case), but the template documentation doesn't seem exceptionally clear. Still thank you for the reply. Personuser (talk) 00:06, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Template talk:EngvarB shows that you are not the only editor who finds this template confusing, Personuser. Add me to the list. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:24, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Drafts

I cannot understand what I did. I tried to translate something and I thing I ended up publishing it as a draft or something. I think it is not visible for the average user but I am scared it is because it is a musician's wikipedia page and I think it looks like this (with my name):

User:Rosamgmira/Roman Filiú

Anyway, I would like to publish my translation but I cannot do it because I am not an experienced user. Could anyone please delete that page above and create the translation? (which I have already done but I am unable to upload). Rosamgmira (talk) 23:39, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

"Publishing" a draft just means saving it (and making it visible for anyone who knows where to look). It doesn't mean publication in the normal sense. The (Spanish-language) original is not suitable for (English-language) Wikipedia even if translated conscientiously, because it's poorly referenced. However, if you think that you can find references for what it says, then you'd be welcome to add them gradually to your draft, with the hope of eventually having the result published (in the normal sense of the word) as an article. -- Hoary (talk) 00:02, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Rosamgmira publishing is just saving your changes to a article or draft. TigerScientist Chat > contribs 00:09, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

@Rosamgmira: Welcome to the English Wikipedia. Your draft is currently in userspace, which is not indexed by search engines and most users typing in Roman Filiú will not get a suggestion to it. Would you like it to be moved into draftspace (Draft:Roman Filiú)? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:46, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Endorsements Box (continued)

 Courtesy link: 2022 New York gubernatorial election

Six candidates are in a political race. Only one of those six are campaigning. That one candidate is getting endorsements. At least three people have tried to create an endorsements box for this candidate, but two users continually removes the endorsements box, citing it as non constructive with no further context. The party has indicated in the past that they want to pick a nominee in the next few months, so these endorsements are important and there is a sense of urgnency to accurately display this important information. What can we do? Capisred (talk) 00:40, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Capisred, you might make a request for comment or ask on this noticeboard. -- Hoary (talk) 01:39, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello Capisred, please note that Wikipedia user accounts are supposed to be used by a single user. So, if by "we", you mean more than one person are using your account, you'll need to change that. Also note that if you belong to a political campaign, you need to disclose those connections on your userpage, per WP:PAID. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:44, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

No, Capisred, there is no urgency. There are no deadlines on Wikipedia. The 2022 election is almost a year and a half away. Endorsements are far more significant a month or two before the primary. If you are a supporter of one of the candidates, then you have a conflict of interest and should defer to uninvolved editors. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:15, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Greetings, friendly responders! I would like to clarify a few things. First by "we" I mean myself, and two other users I do not know (02rufus02 and General Dwight David Eisenhower) who also tried to add an endorsements box that got removed for being "non-constructive". Secondly, I am not related to, I have no connections to, I do not work with, and I do not support the candidate in question. Third, the NY GOP Chairman has stated that he wants to pick a nominee this June (LINK). Going off of 2018 New York gubernatorial election, I see that there are seperate endorsements boxes for primary elections and general elections, therefore, It is my understanding that a primary endorsements box should be allowed to be put in place before the primary process is over. Because this decision will be made in June, how long do I have to wait/what rules do I have to play by so that Wikipedia users can submit relevant endorsements that are not dismissed as "non-constructive" before the primary endorsements box becomes obselete? Capisred (talk) 14:15, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Chinese People in Turkey

Hi! Would you interested in including my article "Chinese People in Turkey" in your Wikiproject? Requiemrelenquished (talk) 01:06, 26 May 2021 (UTC) Requiemrelenquished (talk) 01:06, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Requiemrelenquished, the article Chinese people in Turkey looks most worthwhile; but its section "Chinatown in Istanbul" lacks a single reference. Good work so far; a lot more work required! (And what do you mean by including the article in a Wikiproject?) -- Hoary (talk) 01:15, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Improving grade of article - Malignancy

 Courtesy link: Malignancy

I have edited and am still continuing to edit the Wikipedia article Malignancy. I was wondering when someone will look at it so I can see if the grade has been improved from a stub article ? Becomingeditor (talk) 01:35, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

@Becomingeditor: Definitely not a stub anymore; it's for sure a Start, maybe even a C, so good work! Just a quick tip: the punctuation always goes before the reference, like this. Your code should look like: This is a sentence.<ref>This is a reference</ref> ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 02:38, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Weeeellll, in most cases: citations go before dashes and (in the case of references that only apply to content in parentheses) before a closing parenthesis. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:16, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

References

@Becomingeditor: I fixed the punctuation with a quick spin through AWB's general fixes. GoingBatty (talk) 04:57, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Becomingeditor, you have done a very good job improving that article and I thank you for it. Stub tags should be removed from any article that provides a good introductory overview of the topic, if the article is well referenced. This article is now far past stub status. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:05, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

can someone please tell me what to click on to start typing for a gfm for my wife who has stage 4 cancer

 Candelbox (talk) 07:23, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm so sorry for your situation User:Candelbox, and I wish you both strength and love. However, we are unfortunately unable to publish biographical or memorial material for private persons. I'm not sure what "gfm" is but if you mean an article, I'm afraid that the Wikipedia is not a proper place for that. May luck and grace be with you. Herostratus (talk) 07:42, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

"gfm" means GoFundMe, which has become more-or-less a backup health insurance plan. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 08:12, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Candelbox. If you do mean "goFundMe" then you need to start at the gofundme website. I can't link to it because it is blacklisted.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 10:01, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Quantative versus qualitive references

Hi. I had stumbled upon a historical meterological chain reaction which despite operating for millions of years had inadvertently been altered then removed by human activity. Unfortunatly this event refered to as the Nile Climate Engine aka NiCE happened to be a precursor to one of the planets largest weather systems; African Easterly Waves (AEWs). This human intervention has resulted in the degredation of the equatorial cloud mass, allowing for more solar radiation to heat the oceans, which inturn helps melt polar ice and warm the atmosphere. More unfortunate still is that a multi billion dollar industry has grown up on the presumption that these events are the result of industrial emissions. So there is now a politiacl, accademic industrial complex geared to subverting and removing the factual reference to this NICE Effect, whilst exagerating the reliability of 'opinion' which is upholding and promoting the emissions theory. This situation relates directly to wikipedia, where there are vast references to emissions 'opinion', yet deliberatly few for the factual NiCE effect. It's a bit like cholera when 'everybody knows it is due to bad air', but the science determined it caused by contaminated water. The science is being subverted in favour of the highly publicised 'overwhelming majority of scientific opinion'. Sooooooo how can you help yourself and descendents, by unraveling or subduing this intilectual tar baby? Conor MacCloed (talk) 08:54, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

In a cursory internet search I found only a couple of references to this topic, from which it seems that it is the theory of a single meteorologist, one Conor McMenemie, who has succeeded in getting it mentioned in a couple of government-related fora: I found no reference to any paper in a recognised peer-reviewed publication, though others may have more success.

This suggests (perhaps wrongly) that the concept is not yet recognised by mainstream science, which would currently place it into the category of WP:FRINGE, or at best WP:TOOSOON.

Wikipedia is strictly limited to summarising what has already been written about a subject at substantial length by people completely independent of it, and been published in reputable Reliable sources such as peer-reviewed scientific journals, with several such sources being required. Wikipedia's purpose is not to introduce or publicise new concepts, never hosts what it defines as Original research, and strongly discourages articles being directly created or contributed to by anyone with a Conflict of Interest in the matter.

When and if this subject receives appropriate coverage in suitable sources, it can and pretty certainly will have an article created by disinterested editors, but not before that happens. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.27.217 (talk) 10:02, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Request experienced editors to edit this page

Draft:Ramdas_Padhye I need help in editing this page. I request experienced editors to edit it properly. I put all the required citations to this page Indiapuppet (talk) 10:49, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Help in Editing Page. Can you please help in editing this page Draft:Ramdas Padhye I request experienced editors to edit this page. I am new to wikipedia and don't know. Indiapuppet (talk) 10:53, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

First, Indiapuppet, please respond to the question that Theroadislong has posed to you in User_talk:Indiapuppet#paid_editing?. -- Hoary (talk) 12:30, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Editing information about a company you work for

Hi, I'm new to Wikipedia and have only made a few edits so far. I noticed that there are a couple of errors on the page for the company I work for, particularly relating to its location and headquarters. I'm aware that editing this page directly would not be a good idea due to the COI. Should I request an edit on the talk page and use a connected contributor template when doing so? How does that show up, and would I do this in combination with a "request edit" template, or instead? How would you recommend I go about this in a way that ensures the correct information is available while sticking to the rules and guidelines?

Ps. I've been looking through the rules in this article: Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia, but got a bit confused about the general consensus around making changes to articles you're associated with. So any help/advice would be very much appreciated!

Thank you :) Catytac (talk) 11:44, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! I appreciate that you follow integrity principles of Wikipedia. I can help you with this :). Just do the following:

1. Open the Talk page associated with the page you want to edit

2. On the Talk page and crate a new section at the very end and place { {Request edit} } (without spaces between { signs) right after the title of your new section. See Template:Request edit for details.

3. Describe exactly what you want to be changed and provide sources.

4. Wait for an experienced user (summoned by the "Request edit" template) to come in and implement your request or leave a comment.

Anton.bersh (talk) 12:07, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

That's great, thank you so much for the instructions! Catytac (talk) 13:18, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Article creation needed

Dear All,

I'm looking for someone to integrate a correct biography about one artist, there is someone who's can help me ? I'm not English speaker and the website is super complex, it would be amazing if someone can upload this bio for me.

thanks in advance !

best regards,

194.209.50.2 (talk) 11:56, 26 May 2021 (UTC) 194.209.50.2 (talk) 11:56, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not for hosting bios of anyone as you believe. Wikipedia is not a social media, so unless they have information written about them in reliable sources they have a very small chance of getting into wikipedia as an article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gandalf the Groovy (talk • contribs)

I presume Gandalf the Groovy meant to link to WP:NOTSOCIAL, a subesction of WP:NOT. Victor Schmidt (talk) 12:24, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia code command

I'm new to the code commands found in many Wikipedia articles and I was wondering what are these codes for, for example, "{Use mdy datesldate=March 2021" Any explanation would be appreciated! 47.152.150.237 (talk) 12:14, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello 47.152.150.237, and welcome to the Teahouse. Information about the Syntax we use can be found at Help:Wikitext, with a short introduction being available at Help:Cheatsheet. This particular code is there to remind you to please use the MDY - Month Day YEAR date format when inserting dates in this particular article. See also MOS:DATEFORMAT. Victor Schmidt (talk) 12:20, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

@47.152.150.237: welcome to the Teahouse! {{use mdy dates}} is used to remind editors of the correct way to format dates. A mdy date for example would be "May 1, 2021" as the first part is the month, the second is the day, the third part is the year, respectively. versacespaceleave a message! 12:23, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello, IP user. Whenever you see something in a pair of curly brackets, that is a Template being used on the page. You'll find that particular one at Template:Use mdy dates. --ColinFine (talk) 12:52, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

As others have said {{Use mdy dates|date=March 2021}} is to keep track of what date format a particular article uses. The March 2021 part is purely their for categorization purposes, so that automated maintenance tools know when the article was last checked. - X201 (talk) 13:45, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Can you help me?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Alaattin_%C3%87a%C4%9F%C4%B1l

I have completely read and analyzed the item rules. Said person is eligible to be added as an item Its success and effects are officially proven. What is the reason for not being added? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.18.169.66 (talk) 12:56, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi. I have deleted the draft for having its content copied from existing writing. This means that it was apparent plagiarism and violated copyright, and so did not meet with our policies.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk)

Should we add a new bio for Wikipedia? Also, do you have an e-mail address that I can contact?

Any question you have can be asked here. Individual editors can be contacted on their own Talk pages. David notMD (talk) 15:04, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Shouldn't we add a new biography for this item? I still haven't gotten a good response. What should I do? There is one person who meets all the criteria. But what's the problem? Can you help me? Thank you very much, kind regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.18.169.66 (talk) 16:15, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Feedback on government documents article expansion

Hi all, I'm editing this article on the Xinjiang papers. It's my first Wikipedia article I've really contributed to, and I generally feel like it's an important topic. I'm struggling to expand the article and would like some feedback on the changes I've made. Feel free to make edits or leave your comments on the talk page. Thank you! Couchcupcross (talk) 13:22, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Couchcupcross. It looks like you've added some very good material to the article – polished writing, good information, appropriately placed – good stuff, thank you! There is unfortunately a "but...": a large portion of the material you've added has been done without verifying the material through citations to reliable sources. Using citations to verify additions to articles should not be an afterthought but your first and primary focus. Moreover, much of the material you've added has included quotations, as well as writing speaking of living persons, without adding accompanying citations (for quotes, the citation should not just be placed at the end of the paragraph, but right after the quote, or at least at the end of the sentence that the quote appears in). Unlike the surrounding material – that very much should be sourced – such material (quotations and content about living persons) MUST be sourced. This focus (and mandate for some material) on sourcing—as essentially the be-all, end-all of proper contributions—is often foreign to new users. I hope you'll take it in because you have the skills to be a sterling contributor, but the writing suffering from this problem should be removed if those sources are not added soon – regardless of how good and well written the content is. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:05, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Fuhghettaboutit, thanks for your feedback! I read your comment and looked back at my article-- you're right, and once you pointed out the issue I can definitely see how I didn't insert enough citations. I think my main problem was that I inserted all my citations at the end of the paragraph instead of putting them right after the quote/sentence (I was not aware I should do that). I also had chunks of text that were sourced from the same article, but I didn't space out my citations throughout my text because I felt odd about hitting the "Re-use citation" button. I think a big problem is just unfamiliarity with the conventions of Wikipedia citing. I've gone back into the article and added citations (especially after direct quotations of living people), please let me know if you can think of further improvements I can make! Thanks again for the feedback :) Couchcupcross (talk) 15:53, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Creating a person page

I am making a page on a criminal that I think would benefit from having a page as all the information is cohesive. It has been previously deleted, I think it is because they may have thought it was an "attack page". I am writing with a neuatral view but do you think with more references (as it was poorly referenced so far) it could be published? Catfishingongoogledoc (talk) 13:29, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy: Current article draft is at Draft:Sophie Elms. There is no history there of an earlier attempt being deleted. David notMD (talk) 15:15, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Catfishingongoogledoc, you should check these links: WP:BLP, WP:THESUN and WP:BLPPRIMARY. They apply to convicted criminals as well. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:35, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Removal or Template

If there is an unsourced line on Wikipedia, should it be removed or the citation needed template should be added? ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 14:45, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

ExclusiveEditor, it's best to use a citation needed template unless if it is contested the material is removed. Think of it like court; innocent until proven guilty. In this case, true, but missing a source, until proven elsewise. Panini!^🥪 15:12, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

ExclusiveEditor, depends on context. If you look around for or a reference, you may actually find one, and then you can add it, possibly tweaking the content depending on what your ref actually says. If you look around for a reference but don't find one, you may make the editorial decision to remove. If someone objects, they should ideally make an effort to find a ref themselves. If the content is about a living person, WP:BLP, removing first and asking questions later is often the way to go. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:27, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Improving article Jean-Max Albert

I have improved the article Jean-Max Albert following the advice of the template messages. This advices are pertinent, but the border between encyclopedic tone and résumé, personal reflection, etc… is sometimes thin… Would it be possible to point out the mistakes that might persist in the new edit ? This would be helpful here and for a new article I’m working on. I hope I was right to remove the templates? 

With my best regards and thank you. F.While (talk) 16:08, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Jean-Max Albert — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 16:12, 26 May 2021 (UTC)