Wikipedia:Teahouse

ColinFine, 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

Corporate notability

Hi, my draft is being rejected due to notability reasons. In my opinion, I have addressed these issues by adding more references by independent sources, but it doesn't seem to be enough. Unfortunately, most of the sources are in other languages than English. Could this be the reason? Surely there must be a way of checking the independence and reliability of sources in other languages? Should I explain the sources/references further in the comments on what I have changed? I'd love some more help forward! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Hanza_(company) Kajsac (talk) 10:01, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Welcome to Teahouse! Your whole draft is extremely short (barely 8 sentences), even the review comments draft received are longer than the draft itself. Since many of the sources are in Swedish, it might be easier to write a decent stub article in Swedish. Then, it could be expanded and translated into other languages. Anton.bersh (talk) 10:17, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! Does this mean that a longer article would improve the chances of the subjuect being considered notable? There is already a longer article in Swedish, and it would be great to have that translated instead. However, I have only found instructions on how to get a translation of a page in English, not the other way around. Grateful for tips on that too! Kajsac (talk)

Hello, Kajsac. Wikipedia:Translation provides instruction on how to translate articles in other language Wikipedias into English. Please read Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) if you have not yet done so. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:19, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Actually, w:sv:Hanza (företag) is also 3 paragraphs and has fewer references than the draft. But it's not necessarily a question of length: as a reader, I would want to know what is different or interesting about the company. Are its "manufacturing clusters" widely regarded as an innovative approach? Does its size put it in the top x Swedish companies? (Citation needed for any such claims, of course.) ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) – (07:20 Sat 05, AEST) 21:20, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Oops, forgot ping @Kajsac. ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) – (07:21 Sat 05, AEST) 21:21, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

@Kajsac: I have looked at most of the the sources in your draft, and I'm afraid they don't actually show that Hanza is notable according to this policy. Nya Wermlands-Tidningen and Värmlands Folkblad are locked so it is not possible for me to evaluate whether the articles there are independent, or whether they discuss the company in any depth, but since both newspapers are regional, they do not weigh that heavily in terms of notability. NWT is considerably larger than VF, but even so, one article in NWT with a heading that consists of a (promotional) quote from the company itself is not very promising. Dagens Industri is a more weighty publication, but the three references to it include one listing with basic facts about the company, and one press release which is not a secondary source; the third DI reference is perhaps OK (it is behind a paywall), but one such reference is not sufficient. Other references include brief notices about new acquisitions, an interview in evertiq.se with the company CEO, and somewhere around there I stopped evaluating the sources. Please read this information, and in the draft, identify at least three sources that would meet those requirements. Another thing: after reading a few sources and the Swedish Wikipedia article, I could still not quite identify what the company does. The Swedish article talks about "outsourced electronics manufacturing" (which is not very explanatory), the interview in evertiq mentions the company's factories without saying anything about what kind of factories they are, and the notice in etn.se mentions the acquisition of manufacturers... And finally, the information and the sources in the current draft have a rather narrow focus – there are notices and press releases about acquisitions several years ago, but much more recent notices such as this, about downsizing and the closure of one of their manufacturers/factories, are conspiciously absent. This is not an in-depth text about the company, but it is certainly independent and much more recent than any of the other sources, and if (it is a big "if") Hanza is in fact notable, that kind of critical evaluation should not be left out. --bonadea contributions talk 16:39, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Harassed

A group of people instrumental in having a page taken down on my sisters murder are online here sending me messages cyberbullying me. Is there away to block them? Cha20raca (talk) 17:20, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Cha20raca Thanks for coming to the Teahouse, I'm sorry about what happened, I'm assuming that you are referring to the redacted edits from your contributions page on the Nicholas L. Bissell Jr. article. The editor that edit warred is currently involved in a sock puppet investigation, if the editor is found guilty of sock puppetry, they will be banned. If not, generally an editor needs to ignore a level 4 warning to be banned, but depending on the contents of the redacted messages, it might justify an immediate ban. Justiyaya (talk) 17:42, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Also, remember to be civil when communicating with another editor even when they are not being civil, thanks. Justiyaya (talk) 17:46, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Cha20raca. I have blocked an account clearly set up to harass you. I have also blocked you from editing the single article Nicholas L. Bissell Jr., because you have a conflict of interest and are repeatedly adding inappropriate content. You must gain consensus for any changes you want to make by discussing the matter at Talk: Nicholas L. Bissell Jr.. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:50, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I blocked another harassment only account. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:29, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

There is one more. I am so sorry to bother you guys. The name is Jilleelean - this is one of the people cyberbullying my child. I believe they are writing to me now. I am again so sorry to bother you guys. Cha20raca (talk) 20:28, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Cha20raca, I do not see an account named "Jilleelean". Can you please double check the spelling? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:39, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi and thank you again. It is JilleeLean

The person has been stalking my daughter for 3 years. Articles have been written on this. It is extremely scary and frustrating. Like tonight. This person has emailed me 60 times at my gmail account. It is alot to emotionally handle. Cha20raca (talk) 01:53, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Cha20raca. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is part of the WP:REALWORLD and there are some people who will try to use Wikipedia to fight real world disputes. There's not much anyone here can do if you're being harassed outside of Wikipedia except perhaps to suggest that you take a look at this. Real world problems typically require a real world solution; many social media platforms as well as many communties have taken steps to help people who are the victims of cyberbulling, which in some cases include criminal penalties or revocation of accounts. Problems taking place on Wikipedia can be dealt with as explained here, but you should seek outside assistance asap to help with problems outside of Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:32, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Cha20raca, I have already blocked User:JilleeLean. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:13, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

@Cha20raca, you are still making accusations of a person stalking you here, when it has already been proven here that those accounts have all different IP. I don’t know about messages, but I don’t see other accounts here harassing you but one that was blocked. The other account was just clarifying all the irrelevant information you were adding into an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1004:B039:8C09:CDDF:95D0:2AB5:BDFE (talk) 13:54, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

That does not excuse the behavior, period. You are effectively victim-blaming right now. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 23:26, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

    @MarioSuperstar77, I am not victim blaming. I don’t know where did you read that. That person Cha20raca is known on other websites for harassing, stalking, and doxing people. I didn’t see anyone here harassing Cha20raca, but one person which was already blocked here for that reason. No where did I victim blame. The other individual here only respectfully pointed out the irrelevant information and inappropriate content that Cha20raca was adding in an article. It obviously did not make Cha20raca happy, because she wanted to add her daughter’s name on an article that has nothing to do with her.

Yes you are. Proof or that didn't happen. You are the one harassing her with your multiple sockpuppets and I cannot believe you still have not been blocked for ban evasion. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 11:33, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

    You can go to the other thread discussion and see them yourself. You are accusing me of of having multiple accounts without proof? You can literally find this out through my IP. The other editors here have already confirm this. They even blocked Cha20raca from editing the article because she was adding inappropriate information. Go to the article edit history and see it yourself.

My edit count

Please help me with the number of edits I've done Shdjaoalxmx (talk) 12:37, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Shdjaoalxmx! You can use XTools for a fairly reliable count. Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 12:41, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Shdjaoalxmx! Please consider that edit count is not a good metric of the value of user's contribution to Wikipedia. Don't stress about your edit count and instead focus on quality over quantity. Anton.bersh (talk) 13:27, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Many of your edits, especially today, were small changes to wording that made the sentences read worse rather than better, and so have been reverted. Please stop inserting or deleting a word or two or three from existing articles. David notMD (talk) 14:15, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

You also appear to be in a slow edit war at List of political parties in Tamil Nadu. The proper step there is to start a discussion on the Talk page of the article rather than re-adding content you changed and another editor changed back. David notMD (talk) 14:21, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

@Shdjaoalxmx: Also, please use edit summary field to explain what the edit you are making is trying to acheive. You have one of the most non-transparent and in-descript edit logs I have ever seen. Anton.bersh (talk) 15:18, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

@Shdjaoalxmx: Please note that majority of your edits were reverted or required another follow-up edit to fix. These edits are not helpful to Wikipedia, they can be outright disruptive. Please do not worry about your edit count and do not try to artificially inflate your edit count by making lots of small edits which are actually making articles worse. Instead, please focus on making articles better. Thank you, Anton.bersh (talk) 16:49, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

@Shdjaoalxmx: Once again, I'm writing this here in hopes that this message will reach you. Please consider this:

1. Once again, please don't stress about your edit count and focus on quality over quantity. Your edits are still being reverted (every single one except Talk page edits).
2. If you are trying to reach 500 edits to become "extendedconfirmed" user to edit some protected pages, then I want to let you know that other "extendedconfirmed" users will still be able to revert your edits as they do now. Most likely, your "extendedconfirmed" edits will come under extra scrutiny precisely because your past edits attracted the critical attention of other users. Anton.bersh (talk) 09:38, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Page keeps getting declined even though I found pages with little to none citations for artists that are lesser known

Hi Wikipedia editors, I would like to know how the publication process works. I want to create a page for the Italian Producer Alex Pizzuti, and I had my page rejected two times. I found out in Wikipedia that there are lesser known producers with fewer informations that got accepted. How this works? I would like to create other pages for Legendary Deejays like Flavio Vecchi & Richy Montanari.

Thank you, Antonio Antonio Laccetti (talk) 18:00, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

WP:WAX Victor Schmidt (talk) 18:15, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Antoniolaccetti Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Please read other stuff exists. That other inappropriate articles exist does not automatically mean that yours can too. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible to get inappropriate articles by us. We can only address what we know about. Article standards have also changed over the life of Wikipedia, and what was once acceptable may not be any longer.

If you are interested in helping, you are welcome to identify these other inappropriate articles you have seen for possible action.

The good news is that your draft was only declined, not rejected. This means that the reviewer thinks that it is at least possible for this person to meet the definition of a notable musician. Please review that definition. You may also want to read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 18:16, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your replies, I will check the Your First Article page and see what I can do about it. Not that it's a matter of life and death, but I think electronic music artists that made charts and international collaborations should be available on Wikipedia, Thank you again! Antonio Laccetti (talk) 14:35, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

The 'Paris is the Capital of France' issue here

TheSovereign Military Order of Malta are not involved in jazz. That would be an uncontroversial statement which would not need citation I think. There exists a claim that in 1988 they awarded a knighthood to Miles Davis which cannot be true. Instead it was probably a prank. I have slightly altered the wording in the Davis article to say that there were 'reports' of this happening based on the objective fact that it is not possible. Otherwise, readers following the the link to the Order of Malta's article may be somewhat puzzled. It's an interesting edit conundrum and not without some dissent. Any comment would be valuable. Thelisteninghand (talk) 19:51, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Thelisteninghand. I don't see why this would be impossible. It's common to give honorary titles to people in culture. The New York Times wrote it in 1992.[1] PrimeHunter (talk) 23:24, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks PrimeHunter especially for your citation which is from four years after the event - and which establishes just how vague this is. There is no reference from the period - try any search. I am saying the Knights of Malta are not involved in jazz. ie Paris is not the capital of Russia. Honours for the arts come from sovereign nations not sovereign Catholic military orders. This was a prank - if you know about the order and Miles Davis, it's funny. If anyone has a moment here's the website https://www.orderofmalta.int - the idea of this Catholic organisation even listening, for example to Bitches Brew, is highly amusing.Thelisteninghand (talk) 22:54, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

@Thelisteninghand: His 1990 autobiography says "I was knighted and inducted into The Knights of Malta". PrimeHunter (talk) 00:19, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

[Edit Conflict] Thelisteninghand, your assertion that the Knights of Malta do not acknowledge cultural achievements appears to be purely your own assumption: it may be so, but can you cite a Reliable source that confirms it? In any case, his admission to such an order (knighthoods are not "awarded", they are a membership) may not have been specifically for playing jazz, but for other matters such as charitable donations or activities.

You also appear to assume that Catholics must automatically disapprove of jazz. This seems to me to be another unsupported assumption: for what it's worth, I am familiar with (and if you wish can provide a link to) a Franciscan friar who is a great fan of Heavy metal and conducts erudite analyses of its structure and lyrics on his YouTube Channel. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.121.163.176 (talk) 00:32, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Thelisteninghand. In Miles Davis: The Definitive Biography, on page 496, it says: "On 13 November, at Alhambra Palace, Granada , Miles Davis, along with three African doctors and a Portuguese doctor, was inducted into what he describes as the 'Sovereign Military Hospitaller Order of Saint John of Jerusalem, of Rhodes and of Malta'." Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:16, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

OK Thanks everyone. Let me outline a few problems with this as I see them. Alhambra Palace is Islamic in origin and not listed here List of Knights Hospitaller sites. Also Miles Davis is not listed here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Knights_of_Malta. There are two articles for the Order on WP Sovereign Military Order of Malta and Knights Hospitaller neither mention honours for any jazz musician. There are no results for any searches containing 'Knights of Malta' and 'Jazz'. I am aware of the few later references to the knighthood - the autobiography, NY Times 1992, UK Independent 2014. No words quoted from Knights of Malta ANYWHERE - you might think they'd shout about knighting a jazz legend. I await a published statement from SMOM, might take a while!Thelisteninghand (talk) 18:19, 6 June 2021 (UTC) Addendum: Order pro Merito Melitensi is the order of merit from the SMOM and the only honour they have that does not require religious commitment. From this, Cullen328 (-and thank you, I just ordered it!) you can see that if Miles Davis was a Knight of Malta he'd have sworn an oath of obedience to the Pope. I would love to hear just one voice that will recognise that as problematic. It's also very important.

To IP address - I certainly do not assume that! And thanks, that's a wonderful story.Thelisteninghand (talk) 21:57, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Thelisteninghand, several published sources say that he received the award and here we have you, an anonymous Wikipedia editor, using your own perception of things to say that it never happened. In effect, you are accusing Davis of lying. Well, perhaps you are right and Davis made it all up. But we summarize what published reliable sources say, and an individual editor's original research is disallowed by policy. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:08, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Also, the fact that something is not mentioned in various Wikipedia articles is evidence of nothing. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:11, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

It is conceivable that Miles Davis made it up or misremembered it but multiple reliable sources have stated it and none have refuted it so it satisfies Wikipedia:Verifiability. There were few websites in 1988. Lots of things from that time are not found by Google and the order doesn't appear to have a public list of knights. Considereing you find it impossible, you may think it falls under Wikipedia:Verifiability#Exceptional claims require exceptional sources, but others don't find it exceptional. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:33, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Sir Miles. Fantastic. -Roxy . wooF 14:38, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Bio deleted

 Courtesy link: Draft:SILA ESER Violist

Hi They deleted my bio just because its same as my own website biyography :))) that I also wrote it too.. SO its a bio basicially If I write there I played there as a performer how would you say it different to be approved in wikipedia just wondered.. Its my own copyrigt and this is my own page as well :))) Im sure they are having fun deieting them easily so plz help me then where would you want me to not go and delete.. like where shall I not go or play then I would write it differently.. how would wiki prefer me to say when I wrıte the places concert halls or cities or teachers this is all I need to write it down.. plz wouldnt make that difference its alllm my bio my info my writign :D so noone can sue wiki :) wiki should write maybe in that case wouldnt be perfect :) I mean who can help me to write then plz let me know thanks ! zobodoc (talk) 00:11, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Zobodoc Your draft, Draft:SILA ESER Violist, is not deleted yet, but it is about to be deleted. Most of it is a copy from a website. Yes, you say it is your website, But Wikipedia has no proof of that, and it is copyright protected. Second, Wikipedia discourages but does not prohibit people from trying to create an article about themselves. What is essential is having as references what people have written about you.

I suggest you go to List of female violinists and sort the list be birthdate, so the youngest are listed first. Your draft should be modeled on these. The process of creating a draft is explained and guided at WP:YFA. The site Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians/Article guidelines may also help. When you think your draft is ready, you can submit it for review via Articles for Creation. David notMD (talk) 01:43, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Zobodoc. Like many inexperienced editors, you have come here and tried to create an article immediately: that's like trying to perform a concerto after your very first music lesson. Please undersatnd that Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. --ColinFine (talk) 16:15, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

in preparing to change University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign response to the COVID-19 pandemic into a Redirect (preserving, I hope, a record of its History) I am first attempting to update Redirects to that article.

Using "What links here" I have found 8 Redirects to here: University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign response to the COVID-19 pandemic. I changed 2 of these Redirects to this: "#REDIRECT COVID-19 pandemic in Illinois#University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign response". For example, one of these 2 is UIUC response to COVID-19 pandemic. When I type "UIUC response to COVID-19 pandemic" in the "Search Wikipedia" window the redirect goes to the COVID-19 pandemic in Illinois article, but to the wrong place within that article (i.e. it does not go to the section titled "University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign response") -- but rather (on my laptop) to a location about 7 screenfuls earlier in the article. Am I formatting the "#REDIRECT ..." incorrectly? CWBoast (talk) 02:41, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

@CWBoast: Welcome to the Teahouse. I did exactly what you did (typing "UIUC response to COVID-19 pandemic" in the search field) and it brought me to the relevant section. It's working fine on my end. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:48, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

It's working for me too. Perhaps it's something on your end? ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 04:50, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you @Tenryuu: & @Ganbaruby: It still didn't work on my machine, so it seems that there is a problem with my machine. I then saw (in Wikipedia:Redirect) an alternative tactic: using an "anchor" -- and I tried that, with no better results on my machine. With my change to the "anchor" strategy, is "UIUC response to COVID-19 pandemic" still working on your machines? CWBoast (talk) 13:56, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

@CWBoast: Yup, still working for me. Maybe the people at WP:VP/T can help you? ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 14:47, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

@CWBoast: The change still works for me. I'll echo Ganbaruby's suggestion that you head on over to WP:VPT. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:08, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Again, thank you @Tenryuu: & @Ganbaruby:: After failing on a laptop, on a desktop, and on an iPad, it worked for me on my phone. What devices did you two use? Knowing that might help me to pose the question at WP:VPT. CWBoast (talk) 18:38, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

@CWBoast: Just using a laptop, Windows 10, Google Chrome. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:49, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

@CWBoast: Chrome user here too on MacOS Mojave, so I tried Safari for the heck of it and BAM! Sent me to the references section for some reason. Definitely bring it up at VPT. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 05:31, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

@Tenryuu: & @Ganbaruby:: I just now submitted this Village pump query. CWBoast (talk) 02:25, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

The two deaths of King Canute

If you read the article on King Canute you will see that the editor has said he died in Denmark and he also died in England - plainly impossible. The editor also says that he had only one daughter - Cunigund. but that is not true as his 8 year old daughter is buried at Bosham. Please can this page be amended? 88.145.182.120 (talk) 04:48, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Assuming this is Cnut the Great you're talking about, you should bring this concern to the article's talk page. I'm not seeing the discrepancy: the infobox states that he died in Shaftesbury, England, and in the body of the article it just says he died on 12 November 1035 in the first sentence. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:54, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

@88.145.182.120: The article states: Cnut died on 12 November 1035. In Denmark he was succeeded by Harthacnut, reigning as Cnut III, although with a war in Scandinavia against Magnus I of Norway, Harthacnut was "forsaken [by the English] because he was too long in Denmark" It's two different sentences. Hope that helps. Princess Persnickety (talk) 10:36, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Remove stub template from Beth Meyers?

I have added to the article on Beth Meyers. Is it now long enough for the "This article ... is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it." template to be removed? 73.195.249.93 (talk) 06:31, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello IP, thanks for expanding the article - It's no longer a stub so I have now removed the template and updated the banners on the talk page. Best, Pahunkat (talk) 09:03, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Why can't I file a dispute?

Why can't I file a dispute? Mark19651965 (talk) 08:25, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello Mark19651965. I'm assuming this is about your edits here: [2]. The first step in any WP dispute, is to attempt to talk to the editors you're having a dispute with, at the article's (Talk:Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth) or the editor's talkpages. See WP:BRD, WP:Communication is required and WP:DR. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:36, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Bonadea Courtesy ping. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:39, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. They won't address the substantive issues, they merely say I am in violation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark19651965 (talk • contribs) 08:53, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Noone has edited the article talkpage since 2020. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:56, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, Gråberg. @Mark19651965: The reason you have been receiving multiple warnings is that you have been edit warring; once you stop doing that and instead go to the article talk page and bring up your arguments there, the actual content can be discussed. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 09:01, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth do not "promote" or give publicity.  They "advocate", that is, they publicly support or recommend a particular cause.

They are 3,338 professionals in their relevant field.  And they do not proffer a "conspiracy theory".  They advocate an "educated hypothesis" -- a hypothesis that is now factually based.  Supporting this is the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF) study concluding that Bldg. 7 did not fall due to fire, thus profoundly contradicting official reports.  This is not an insignificant conclusion by an irrelevant institution, and it is worthy of entrance.  Accordingly, A&E deserve proper rhetorical respect and consideration.

University Report on 9/11 Building Collapse Contradicts Official Conclusions https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/university-report-on-911-building-collapse-contradicts-official-conclusions-301029854.html Allow the good faith, well-reasoned changes, otherwise address the issues directly, as I somehow cannot file a dispute: "Error: Unknown result from API." Mark19651965 (talk) 08:31, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Mark19651965 Please edit this existing section, instead of creating additional sections. As noted above, you need to discuss this with the other editors involved, on the article talk page, Talk:Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. Please note that Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state; if those sources generally refer to something as a conspiracy theory, then we do as well. If you have sources demonstrating that in general a different term is used, or that what you call a hypothesis is more generally accepted by the scientific or architectural communities, please offer them there. 331dot (talk) 08:57, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

I will further add that PR Newswire simply republishes press releases, which aren't generally acceptable as they are primary sources. 331dot (talk) 09:01, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

New article moved from my sandbox

Gentlemen,

I have moved a new article entitled "Chiral drugs" from my sandbox. I find the message "This sandbox is in the article namespace. Either move this page into your userspace, or remove the {{User sandbox}} template". How do I resolve this. Looking for help.

Valliappan Kannappan (talk) 10:11, 5 June 2021 (UTC) Valliappan Kannappan (talk) 10:11, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Valliappan Kannappan welcome to the Teahouse, the issue has been resolved by Victor Schmidt in this edit. Next time, simply command/ctrl f (in edit mode), and search for {{User sandbox}} and delete it to resolve the issue on your own. Also, it's best if you address us as Teahouse hosts instead of "gentlemen", thanks. Justiyaya (talk) 11:43, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Teahouse hosts,

Thank you so much for resolving the issue.

Valliappan Kannappan (talk) 12:24, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Contradictory rules?

I am confused by what looks like contradictory rules about deleting comments on a User Talk page. On one hand, WP:TALKO says "Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page." On the other hand, WP:BLANKING says "Policy does not prohibit users, whether registered or unregistered, from removing comments from their own talk pages." So what's the story - can a user delete other users' comments on their User Talk page or not? Gronk Oz (talk) 11:50, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Gronk Oz welcome to the Teahouse, that is a great question. I think there is a difference between changing a comment's meaning and removing it, therefore, there is no contradiction in the rules. In other words, if I removed a message on my talk page, that is not changing the meaning of the message. Justiyaya (talk) 11:58, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Aha - thanks, Justiyaya! Philosophically, I think that removing a comment also changes the meaning, but I can see what they are getting at.--Gronk Oz (talk) 12:04, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

@Gronk Oz: Another reason (see my comment below) is that removing a message signifies that you read the message, so it makes sense to allow that on your own talk pages. Justiyaya (talk) 12:11, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

So to summarize, changing the meaning of a message that is not your own is strictly prohibited. Removing a message on any talk page that is not your own without good reason is probably not allowed, but removing messages on your own talk page signifies that you read the message and is allowed, but it's probably better to put it in an archive. Justiyaya (talk) 12:07, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

There are some more guidelines at WP:OWNTALK, Gronk Oz. Personally, I don't have a large user talk page and I don't archive anything. Even if I started archiving, I wouldn't bother to keep stuff such as bot messages from suggestbot, minor insults or plaudits from other users etc. Note that there are some items that you must not delete. As with everything on Wikipedia, the page history of User Talk Pages keeps everything forever, so archiving is not strictly necessary, although it can help future searches. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:25, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Violation

Isn't this page's Objectives section a violation of WP:NPOV or WP:PROMO. ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 14:42, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it doesn't belong in a Wikipedia article, ExclusiveEditor: you're welcome to take it out. If you can find an entirely independent source which talks about the Council's purpose, something based on that source would be ideal to put in its place. --ColinFine (talk) 16:22, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Dubious References

Hi guys, I have a question about reliable sources. On the protected wikipedia page of a public figure, I see a rather malicious entry. I checked the references provided and they are questionable opinions rather than news reports. How do I get someone to look into it? Manatpeace (talk) 16:30, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Use the Talk page of the article and be specific about your concern. Or post in this thread and someone will look into it. Just make sure you tell us which article by linking to the page! Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:50, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

I published the Skip Search $O(n/m)$ pattern recognition algorithm at CPM98 (Combinatorial Pattern Matching 1998 conference, butchered algorithm by lecroq). I would like to include Skip Search on the String Matching page. Can someone help me with the reference details? I think the paper was "skip search, an O($N$/$M$) pattern matching algorithm, even on binary alphabets, with pattern size M and test size N. Golden eagle level zero (talk) 17:26, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Are opinion pieces and tweets considered credible citation source?

While browsing through several Wiki pages, I noticed that the personal life section of Sadhguru's (Jaggi Vasudev)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaggi_Vasudev page cited several opinion pieces (Citation 113) and tweets (Citation 114) as credible citations to support edits. What are the rules to be considered for citations? Thanks Jebyxp71 (talk) 16:45, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Some of the advice is given at WP:TWEET. The information can be used in limited ways. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:52, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Mike for the response. I read the WP:TWEET page and it seems that the citation is in violation of the rules that are mentioned there. What can we do to remove the citation and the associated text in the Personal Biography page?

Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;

it does not involve claims about third parties;

it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;

there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and

the article is not based primarily on such sources.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.185.178.39 (talk) 13:50, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

@Jebyxp71: as a new editor, you won't be able to edit that page, which has "extended confirmed" protection to protect it from vandalism. However, there seem to be plenty of people interested in it, so I suggest you express your detailed concerns at Talk:Jaggi Vasudev, quoting the relevant policy if necessary to say why certain items need to be removed. The rules for biographies of living people are quite strict. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:20, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

autoconfirmed user

I tried to edit the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minorities_in_Greece but was told that "Note: This page is semi-protected so that only autoconfirmed users can edit it. If you need help getting started with editing, please visit the Teahouse."

As this is the first time I encounter that could you please tell me what I can do to be able to contribute with editing it?

Thanks

Panayote

}} Παναγιώτης Δημητράς (talk) 17:34, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Παναγιώτης Δημητράς welcome to the teahouse, the page is semi protected to stop vandalism. Semi protection means that only users that are autocomfirmed (at least 4 days old and have 10 edits) can edit the page. I believe you already gained the Auto Confirmed verification, therefore you should be able to edit the page like normal. -- Justiyaya (talk) 17:59, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

When you click edit on a semi-protected page, there is a warning saying "Note: This page has been protected so that only autoconfirmed users can edit it...." However, you should still be able to edit. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:26, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Removal of protection!

Please remove protection from page Rajendra Mahato as no risk of vandalism seen there. Curious boy np (talk) 19:59, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello Curious boy np and welcome to the teahouse. You have already requested this at the right venue by posting at WP:RPP. However please contact the protecting admin Utcursch on their talk-page first. Also, this article might not be affected by vandalism specifically because it is currently protected.

Looking at your contribution history I wonder though why you request unprotection. May I ask what you are planning to edit on Rajendra Mahato?

You could also use the {{request edit}} template on the article's talk page or simply make use of the edit request wizard, and then someone else will implement your edit. – NJD-DE (talk) 20:05, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Were you also "Curious boy km", now retired, last post on 28 May? — Preceding unsigned comment added by David notMD (talk • contribs) 01:28, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Move

How do you move a page to a target page name which is already a redirect page? I am finding it difficult to move Pratas island to the original and real page name Pratas Island which is a redirect. Josedimaria237 (talk) 20:00, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Please place a technical request at WP:RM. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:05, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Taken care of. Scorpions13256 (talk) 16:22, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

In search of: Good, Featured, or other instances of Impressive Timelines

I am looking for examples of quality timelines on en.wikipedia or any site of the wikimedia foundation. I am looking for timelines that are:

• highly rated
• personal favorites
• otherwise appeal

to your (subjective) measure(s) of quality

Though I hope I am wrong, I am pretty sure there aren't any interactive or dynamic timelines.

Looking forward to replies, CmdrDan (talk) 20:10, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

There are loads of timeline articles in Wikipedia. Just type "Timeline of (etc)......" into the search box. One of my favourites would be Timeline of chemistry (a featured list) but I don't suppose that would suit many people. I'm not sure whether you'll get a meaningful reply here at the Teahouse, which is mainly used by newcomers to ask simple questions about editing: I note you are not such a person. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:08, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi, CmdrDan, since you said any Wikimedia site, I’ll mention that results of Wikidata queries can be displayed on a timeline. (I can’t remember the syntax right now.) They look quite nice with items that have images, e.g. timeline of paintings by your favourite (pre-20th-century) artist. ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) – (20:22 Mon 07, AEST) 10:22, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Archive of YouTube video

I cited a source ([3], for this article) that includes an embedded YouTube video; following WP:PLRT, I tried to archive it, but found that the embedded video was broken in the archived page, showing the error message "An error occurred. Please try again later." when I tried to play it. Is there a way to archive a YouTube video using the Wayback Machine or something similar, or should I just include a quote in the citation? 73.195.249.93 (talk) 23:24, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi IP 73.195.249.93. If the YouTube video you're trying to cite is OK per WP:YOUTUBE and WP:COPYLINK, then you can add a link to it to the citation. A cited source, however, doesn't need to be available online per WP:PUBLISHED; so, you can still cite the video or original content as long as you believe it's a reliable source and is used in proper context. Just try and provide as much information about the original video as you can. FWIW, you could possibly find a print secondary source to also help support the same content of that particular article; so, that way, there will be something besides the video (which is a primary source) also cited in support. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:51, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

coordination / canvassing on another Wikipedia

/ Do editors who clearly canvass / coordinate their actions on another Wikipedia and even get ArbCom-blocked there bear any responsibility or at least get closer scrutiny in English Wikipedia? And does it matter when it happened - yesterday or 10 years ago? Thanks. --Armatura (talk) 00:22, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Armatura. Are you trying to indirectly ask about a specific editor? Each Wikimedia project has it's own policies and guidelines, but inappropriate notifications and meat puppetry are not considered OK on English Wikipedia. Now, the way to deal with such a thing, may depend upon how serious of a problem it is. Something that happened 10 years ago that stopped happening 10 years ago is probably not as serious as something that happened yesterday. So, if an editor was warned or blocked for something that happened 10 years ago and they are still doing the same thing as of yesterday, then they don't seem to be listening very well and administrator involvement might be needed. Administrators and other editors, however, are unlikely going to start monitoring the contributions of other editors just for the fun of it; they usually do so only when they feel there's a reason to do so, and usually this reasons have do to with past cases of disruption or other types of problematic editing. Administrators are unlikely going to take strong action against first-time offenders, unless it's a pretty serious first-time offense; they're looking for patterns or other indications of a behavioral issue which show that the "problem" isn't simply a one-time lapse in judgement. So, if you have a particular editor in mind (there's no need to go into specifics here), and have had little success resolving things in other ways, then perhaps you should seek assistance from an administrator or from other editors at an appropriate noticeboard. Before you do that, however, you might want to take a look at Wikipedia:ANI advice, Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid on discussion pages and Wikipedia:Drama because there's a reason that someone created the short-cut link WP:Dramaboard. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:45, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks, Marchjuly, for clarifying. --Armatura (talk) 00:49, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Where Can I get input on a proposed article change?

I created Talk:Marcus_Aurelius#Replace_Marcus's_with_Marcus' on Marcus Aurelius' article talk page, and I was wondering how to get broad community input. Should I start an RfC or copy-paste a certain formatted message to related wikiprojects? Thanks! Tyrone Madera (talk) 01:42, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

@Tyrone Madera: the page has more than 700 watchers, and you just a few minutes ago posted your suggestion, so give it some time for interested editors to reply there. According to MOS:POS the 's ending is the Wikipedia style. RudolfRed (talk) 02:11, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

RudolfRed, Yeah, I kinda goofed. I'll check the watcher numbers next time. I kind of assumed that the response time was latent without looking into it. I'll strike my comments. Thanks, Tyrone Madera (talk) 04:48, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Poll: What is your favorite car, vintage or modern?

Poll: What is your favorite car, vintage or modern? 99.147.14.39 (talk) 05:37, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello IP, as much as I like cars too, this is not the place for questions like these. The Teahouse is meant for questions specifically about editing Wikipedia. Do you have such a question? ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 05:40, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Ganbaruby, this says it all. -- Hoary (talk) 09:11, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Why don't we create a page for rapper Dax

 Sandiey X (talk) 05:56, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

@Sandiey X: Welcome to the Teahouse. Is Dax notable by Wikipedia's standards, particularly for musicians? If Dax isn't, then it's likely an article about him isn't likely to be made. Are you sure you aren't talking about Dax (Rapper)? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:01, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse Sandiey X, why don't you make a page for the mentioned rapper your self? Please check WP:1st before you do so, and make sure the rapper meets the notability criteria. General notability guidelines are a great place to start. Justiyaya (talk) 06:04, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Dax (rapper) appears to be protected from creation, so I've submitted a technical move request as the page I mentioned earlier doesn't conform to standard disambiguation style. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:06, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

A little further explanation for Sandiey X: You don't follow Justiyaya's (qualified) suggestion, no matter how well-intended it was, because you can't. And you can't because after the article on "Dax (rapper)" was deleted after discussion, various attempts were made to ignore this discussion, which wasted people's time. If you believe that Dax now meets WP:GNG, then you might start by persuading RL0919 of this (on User talk:RL0919). (It was RL0919 who closed the discussion with a decision to delete.) Provide convincing evidence, of course. (Normally I'd point you to Callanecc, as the user who "salted" the article, but they're not around these days.) -- Hoary (talk) 08:14, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Yea Hoary you're right, I didn't realize that the article is salted. -- Justiyaya (talk) 09:50, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

@Hoary: I can't view what the deleted article used to be, but are you able to check if the page I mentioned, Dax (Rapper), is the same one that slipped through the cracks? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:15, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: Dax (Rapper) now redirects to Dax (rapper). —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:49, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

References/Citations from Different Languages

Hello Wikipedians) As I mentioned in a different post I was thinking to write a neutral article about a public figure before diving into more scientific articles. Experienced editors explained me that in order to write an article I shoulde have reliable secondary non-promotional sources (e.g. large on-line newspapers such as Financial Times, or scientific articles published in scientific journals). The notability criteria.

But what happens if a complete English-language article requires sources also from other languages, except from English. These references will be accepted? Antonis Theofanous (talk) 08:07, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, if those other-language sources are reliable. -- Hoary (talk) 08:17, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

@Antonis Theofanous: Editors aren't barred from using non-English sources as covered by WP:NOTENG. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:18, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Translating an article

Hi wikipedians! One more question for today) What happens in case we have an existing article in English with many citations that we want to translate in another language, e.g. Greek. But in Greek there are not any available online references or citations? Can I still translate this article? Antonis Theofanous (talk) 08:11, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

The Wikipedia of each language has its own policies and preferences. I think that you are asking what to do in order to create or augment an article in gr:Wikipedia. If this is so, then the place to ask about it is gr:Wikipedia. -- Hoary (talk) 08:19, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Dear Hoary This brings me to my next question) I was editing an article in Russian and I noticed that the alerts were different as if I have a different account for English, Russian and Greek. So I must conclude that in essence for each language I have a different account)?)Antonis Theofanous (talk) 08:38, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Antonis Theofanous, you have posted many questions here, and contributed a paragraph to an article. Perhaps consider adding more paragraphs to more articles? -- Hoary (talk) 08:59, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Dear Hoary to be honest with you I am still afraid to do big changes in articles. I don't want to do mistakes. But there are many things that I would like to improve step by step) Thanks! Antonis Theofanous (talk) 09:13, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

@Antonis Theofanous:. as Hoary mentoined, each wiki has its own policies, and their own alerts as well. But you have one global account, that can be used to log onto Russian, Greek, and English Wikipedias. When translating an article from one Wikipedia to another, see WP:TFOLWP. Mathglot (talk) 10:47, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

By mistake I have two accounts! How can I delete the old one?

Dear Wikipedians hi) I noticed that I have two accounts in Wikipedia) I didn't remember that I created an account few years ago. How can I delete the old one? I still have the password and access to this account. Can the administrator help me with this issue! Antonis Theofanous (talk) 08:14, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Accounts cannot be deleted. Simply ignore the old account; and say on User:Antonis Theofanous that you previously edited as such-and-such. -- Hoary (talk) 08:16, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

... and preferably also, at User:such-and-such, that you now edit as User:Antonis Theofanous. This will help to avoid any risk of suspicion that you might be abusing two accounts. Maproom (talk) 09:10, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. -- Hoary (talk) 09:13, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Maproom Good idea. I will enter in the account and in its page I will write that I am writing now as Antonis Theofanous))Antonis Theofanous (talk) 09:17, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Antonis Theofanous. I don't know if you have yet edited that other User page (you haven't yet put this on your current user page). But if you haven't, note that there is no need to login to that old account to edit its user page. In most cases it is not considered good etiquette to edit other editors' user pages, but there is no technical impediment to doing so, and in a case like this, it would be normal. Just go to User:(whatever the user name was) and edit there. --ColinFine (talk) 13:26, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Creating article

Hi! Can anyone tell me how much old Wikipedia account should be to create new article without going into the procedure of drafting etc.  Indusstar (talk) 08:56, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

@Indusstar: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. See Your first article for how to create a new article sucessfully. Victor Schmidt (talk) 08:58, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) hi! I believe you should be able to create an article directly to mainspace now, but I'd recommend articles to go through the drafting process first instead of going straight to mainspace, as this allows other editors to provide feedback to your article. additionally, drafted articles that do not follow guidelines such as notability do not get deleted outright and instead get advice to help the editor improve it. (although draft articles can and will still be deleted if they're blatant promotion, attack pages, etc). guidelines to creating an article can be found over at WP:Your first article and WP:Biographies of living persons if you're writing about a living or recently deceased person, but in short: see if they're notable by wikipedia's standards, find reliable sources, and avoid creating articles which you have a conflict of interest in. ◎ | melecie | t 09:05, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

@Indusstar: It is worth mentioning that there is a new pages patrol group who will review your new article even if you create it straight into Main Space. They sometimes treat more harshly articles that are borderline (for example regarding notability) than articles accepted by the WP:AfC process, so as a new editor I'd stick to the drafting mechanism. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:57, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Album Covers

Hello, I'm curious if whether album covers require specific permissions or are under specific copyright laws I need to follow and what I need to do to make sure I have the right to upload it to wikipedia. Thank you. HeyHiHelloGreetings (talk) 12:22, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi HeyHiHelloGreetings. If you have to ask this question, then you probably don't have the right to upload the album cover. I'm not trying to be mean, but you need to be the copyright holder of the album cover to have the right to upload it; so, if you need to ask, then you're probably not the copyright holder. Generally, the copyright holder of an album cover is either going to be one or some combination of the following: the record company that released the album. the artist or band who made the album, or the artist or graphic designer who designed the cover. There maybe cases where the copyright could possibly be someone else, but the copyright holder is pretty much never somebody who simply purchases the physical album or a digital version of the album.

Now, Wikipedia does allow certain types of copyrighted content to be uploaded as non-free content, and one of these types happens to be album covers. Wikipedia's non-free content use policy, however, is quite restrictive; so, it's hard to say whether it's OK to upload a particular album cover without knowing a bit more. Non-free album cover art is usually considered OK to upload as long as it's being used for primary identification purposes in the main infobox or at the top of a stand-alone Wikipedia article about the album itself. The non-free use of album covers in other articles or in other ways (e.g. discography sections in articles about bands) tends to be much much harder to justify. Moreover, non-free album covers can only be used in articles; they can't be used in drafts for possible articles, and they can't be used on userpages or on any other pages outside of the article namespace. You appear to be working on a draft for an article about an album in your sandbox; unfortunately, you can't add a non-free album cover to that page. If you try to do so, it will only be removed and eventually deleted. My recommendation to you is to finish working on your draft, and forget about the album cover for now. Whether your draft is accepted as an article will not depend on whether you're using an album cover in it, but rather whether the album itself meets this guideline. If your draft is someday accepted as an article, then you can upload the album cover. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:21, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Question

Am I going to trigger an edit filter every time I add a welcome message? Michael-Moates (talk) 13:23, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Michael-Moates, welcome to the Teahouse. That edit filter logs edits by new users, so once you accumulate some more time on Wikipedia, it won't do that any more. As a friendly note, I noticed that you've been welcoming accounts before they've made their first edit. This could be potentially confusing to them since your welcome message says "I noticed your contributions", when they haven't made any. I would recommend not giving that welcome message until they've made at least one edit. DanCherek (talk) 13:28, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

@Michael-Moates: To add to what DanCherek has already written, many accounts never get active on Wikipedia, meaning welcoming them is both a waste of time and server resources. Also, when welcoming users with edits make sure that you check them first for obvivious problems - welcoming a PR account or an LTA with the default welcome message is counterproductive. Once your account is WP:AUTOCONFIRMED, you might also enable Twinkle, which makes welcoming, warning, reverting and reporting users considerably easier. Victor Schmidt (talk) 14:16, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

@Michael-Moates: Equally, don't bother reporting inappropriate usernames to WP:UAA unless they, too, have actually already edited. This would waste administrator time, which is even more unecessary. Thanks, Nick Moyes (talk) 16:29, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

State Bank of India Chairmen pages

I am seeing a series of pages that are from the List of chairmen of the State Bank of India. Some are R. P. Goyal, Vishwanath N. Nadkarni, D. N. Ghosh. I don't think they are presumed notable but the citations used might not justify articles for all of them. Also running with assumption of good faith on the creator and don't want to discourage them by nominations. What is the ideal course of action? Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 13:37, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Nomadicghumakkad, How about a single nomination? Being prompted to find better sources ought to inspire them, rather than discourage. --Quisqualis (talk) 01:31, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Page name and approval

Hi, I have just created a Wikipedia page, and I had 2 questions:

1- How will I know it has been approved? 2- The page name has my username in it. Is it temporary? or is there a way to change it in order to put the real page name?

Thanks in advance for your help. Hardtofinduniqueusername (talk) 13:41, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello Hardtofinduniqueusername and welcome to the teahouse. I have moved the article from your sandbox to the draft space. You can find it at Draft:Jalal Eddine Ramdani. There you can continue editing on it, and then submit it for review.

Before you do that, I would recommend you to have a look again at the references used in the draft. A lot of them would not qualify as independent and reliable sources.

Once you submit your draft for review it may take up to 5 months. Whenever someone reviews or comments on it, you will receive a message on your personal talk page. Finally, when the draft is accepted as an article it will be moved from draft space to the main article space and won't have your username or the word "draft" in it any longer. – NJD-DE (talk) 14:00, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

This may be WP:TOOSOON in his musical career. David notMD (talk) 17:06, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

How to combat narratives

How to combat narratives with facts when people keep editing your facts out  please also look as I did cite them , and when I did the same user said I committed plagiarism FactsNotNarratives (talk) 16:15, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

FYI

 – Courtesy link: George Floyd protests in Minneapolis–Saint Paul

@FactsNotNarratives: Please stop your disruptive editing. Any information added to an article, especially a contentious one, must be cited to a reliable source. Everyone has their own perspective on an event, so to eliminate individual biases, Wikipedia chooses to summarize what's written in those reliable sources in a neutral point of view. Also, content disputes are fairly often here, but the proper way to deal with this is to go onto the talk page and engage in discussion. You've started a thread there, which is a good start, but do not edit the page any further unless the community agrees on your changes. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 16:35, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Sri Krishna Goshala Darveshpur Uttar Pradesh

i can find my old dreat i want to create and write new draft--Goshala (talk) 16:27, 6 June 2021 (UTC) Goshala (talk) 16:27, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

--Goshala (talk) 16:27, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

@Goshala: You created a redirect to itself, so it's going to be speedy deleted soon. You've also created Draft:Sri Krishna Goshala Darveshpur Uttar Pradesh; work on that draft first, and read WP:YFA carefully to see what we expect in a Wikipedia article. That being said, I notice that there's a huge number of accounts recently trying to create articles about this "Darveshpur" place. Have you previously had another Wikipedia account? ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 16:58, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

For the record, the redirect to itself is at Sri Krishna Goshala Darveshpur Uttar Pradesh. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 16:58, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Goshala and welcome to the teahouse. I am not sure what you tried to do, but it resulted in kind of a mess where your user talk page ended up in article space. Anyways, there's also a draft at Draft:श्री कृष्णा गौशाला दरवेशपुर शिकारपुर बुलंदशहर उत्तर प्रदेश. Please note that this is the English Wikipedia, so only English content can be accepted. From online translation that draft looks promotional to me, but I will leave that to someone else here who can actually understand Hindi. – NJD-DE (talk) 17:07, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

References

How to resolve edit wars?

As a new Wikipedia editor, I was involved in an "edit war" with an individual who was vandalizing an article in bad faith and making ad hominem attacks against me. How do we resolve situations like this? I did not want to go back and forth with this person but felt like I had no choice because he or she kept repeating the vandalism. Then I was rebuked by other Wikipedia editors for engaging in an Edit War. It felt like I was being punished simply for being a new user acting in good faith to fight against vandalism but not understanding the full range of tools at our disposal to fight against vandalism. AsianAmericanAdvocate (talk) 16:55, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

@AsianAmericanAdvocate: I cannot see the edits between you and the IP at Eugene Gu since they've been deleted (and I'm not an admin). However, I can see that you've removed significant amounts of content at George Takei and Andrew Yang. While being bold is encouraged, for major changes on highly-viewed articles, it's better to get consensus on the talk page before making the change. The content dispute process is known as bold, revert, discuss, and I don't see any discussing at Takei and Yang's articles at all. You are involved in a discussion at Gu's page; that's good, keep doing that, but respect community consensus even if it's not in your favor. Remember that edit warring is never okay, and many experienced editors choose to never revert second time. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 17:08, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

The edit warring warning is basically a "plague on both your houses." Right or wrong aside, Wikipedia prefers disputes being done on article talk pages. Also, what you consider vandalism, an Administrator may have seen as good faith edits. In this instance, perhaps not, as IP 47.150.243.192 has been warned, and an account created to repeat the same edits as 47.150 had made has been indefinitely blocked. At Eugene Gu you've properly continued at Talk. David notMD (talk) 17:13, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate the comments and constructive criticism here. I actually did not know what the concept of an edit war even was until I was admonished for it. After being admonished, I began to discover how to engage in discussions in the talk page. Just a quick question. How do I sign my signature after my comments? It is not straightforward about how to properly do the formatting for the talk page comments. I feel like I need to learn a new computer programming language lol. AsianAmericanAdvocate (talk)

@AsianAmericanAdvocate: Well, you did it correctly here and at Talk:Eugene Gu, but just in case you're unsure, just put four tildes (~~~~) after your comment. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 17:47, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

@Ganbaruby: Ah, perfect thanks for the tip! Will try the 4 tildas here to see how it works! AsianAmericanAdvocate (talk) 17:52, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Also, indent with one more colon than the preceding comment. David notMD (talk) 18:24, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello, AsianAmericanAdvocate. I've looked over your involvement in those three articles and I encourage you to read carefully the policies on edit warring and vandalism. They are interrelated because reverting vandalism is an exception to the prohibition on edit warring. However, vandalism has a narrow and precise definition on Wikipedia, briefly, edits that are deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia . . . To be clear, if two good faith editors disagree about a content matter, then neither is vandalizing. If you repeatedly revert an edit because it is vandalism, then the edit must be of a type that every single productive good faith editor would agree without hesitation is actually vandalism. Otherwise, the matter is a content dispute that should be worked out on the article talk page, at least initially. Report ongoing vandalism to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism and report edit warring to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. I also want to comment on your username. I am very sympathetic to the underlying sentiment, but I want to draw your attention to the policy language at WP:NOTADVOCACY which says, in part, content hosted in Wikipedia is not for: Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, scientific, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise., and the policy specifically mentions usernames. So, my advice is without any hostility because I think that you clearly have the potential to be an excellent editor. Please consider changing your username. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:32, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the tips and constructive criticism. I did not know that usernames are subject to policy language issues. How do I change my username to something more neutral without making a completely new account? Thanks! AsianAmericanAdvocate (talk) 18:40, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

AsianAmericanAdvocate, please see Wikipedia:Changing username. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:43, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

is it allowed?

Can i start a blog here? Deborah Jenkins (talk) 18:06, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Debbie J Deborah Jenkins (talk) 18:06, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Deborah Jenkins Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia is not a free webhost that can be used for any purpose such as hosting a blog; this is a project to write an encyclopedia. You may find a place to have a blog at one of the alternatives listed here. 331dot (talk) 18:09, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

is it not allowed to point out that one think "senior" editors break with wikipedia rules?

Quondum is in my view violating the NPOV rule in his claims on wikipedia: "every time I try to read a paper by McCulloch I am freshly appalled. [...] it needs to fit the reality: QI is horribly audacious pseudoscience, so we can't present it in a way that it could be perceived as believable. —Quondum 21:46, 4 June 21

This claim abut "horribly pseudoscience" he comes with about a theory (quantized inertia) that has more than 20 peer reviewed published papers behind it. Quondum only backing seems to be some critical blogs, and one or two papers with some critics of QI, one oof them with constructive critics mostly. After I mentioned that I think this was violating the NPOV rule then Quondum got aggressive also against me. Please advice, as I only want to contribute to wikipedia, but it seems like some established editors are bullying their personal views, please advice what you think. Look up the quantized inertia page, the talk page, and the talk page off Quondum. ChrisCalif (talk) 18:50, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy link for rather incoherent comment above Quantized inertia. Theroadislong (talk) 18:57, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

ChrisCalif You need to discuss this on the article talk page. If you have independent reliable sources that consider this topic a legitimate field of scientific inquiry and/or part of mainstream thinking, please build your case there. Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state, and if the breadth of them call this theory pseudoscience, then we do too. Wikipedia does not give equal time or consideration to all points of view, it depends on the sources.. 331dot (talk) 19:02, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

When discing it on the talk page this same editors hide it and say it is not relevant for the talk page. This I find strange as they are calling the theory on the page " horribly audacious pseudoscience" without any backing, but it is not allowed to criticize them and ask them to back it up. This is one of the pages Quondum comes with his claims that is not backed up https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Physics#Conundrum ChrisCalif (talk) 19:08, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Moving pages

I haven't moved many pages in the past and I was unclear what some of the rules are. I was under the impression that Art Napoleon (artist) should be moved to just Art Napoleon while Art Napoleon should be moved to Art Napoleon (film director) because the first person has many occupations and has a more filled out article that suggests he is more notable than the film director. I went ahead and moved the film director's page and then realized that I need to delete the redirect before moving the other page. Is it okay for me to do a speedy deletion? Did I totally screw up and should my original move be undone? TipsyElephant (talk) 19:07, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

@TipsyElephant, hello and welcome to the Teahouse, sorry your question has gone unanswered for a while, you could read WP:MOVE for guidance on page moving or better still, you could go to WP:RM and make requests there instead of unilaterally making a move. Celestina007 (talk) 22:11, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Do you want accurate information?

Hi,

I discovered yesterday that there is a Wiki page about me and my writing. I submitted several corrections and additions to the sight, but all of them seem to have been rejected. If you want Wikipedia to be a source of ACCURATE information, please restore the changes I made yesterday. If you cannot do that, then please contact me so I can tell you which pieces of info on my entry are entirely wrong.

Thanks, John R. Fultz www.johnrfultz.com 2600:1700:D250:24D0:6912:2B1C:203C:5D89 (talk) 19:07, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia is less concerned with what is true than with what can be verified from reliable sources. If you're able to provide those, please submit an edit request at the article's talk page. You are strongly discouraged from editing the article directly, as you have a conflict of interest. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:41, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

All changes to John R. Fultz require references. Given you claim you are JRF (Wikipedia can't tell), then on the Talk page, propose changes, with use of existing refs or new refs. Do not attempt to add stories that have not yet been published. David notMD (talk) 21:23, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello, 2600:1700:D250:24D0:6912:2B1C:203C:5D89. I recommend moving this article to "draft" status. That way, you can edit the article directly, perform much-needed improvements (correct factual errors and expand it), and only then ask someone without conflict of interest to review the whole article in one take. I believe that right now John R. Fultz does not have a sufficient number of good sources to meet Wikipedia notability requirements (neither WP:GNG not WP:AUTHOR). If you want to discuss sources, I can explain why I consider each individual reference in the article is not sufficiently in-depth or not independent or not reliable enough to count towards notability. Given the lack of sources, it's a matter of time until some other experienced editor will delete this article under WP:PROD or WP:AfD. Anton.bersh (talk) 21:58, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

"Council of Education" Social Consolidation

 Courtesy link: Draft:Council of Education Social Consolidation

Hello. How can you help me edit this article? This organization has not worked for hundreds of years. It was re-created in April and is currently being updated, so there are no references from reliable sources--Gülnar82 (talk) 19:55, 6 June 2021 (UTC) Gülnar82 (talk) 19:55, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Gülnar82, if you cannot find any coverage in reliable sources, including books and older periodicals, why would you think it is possible for other English Wikipedia editors to do so? Perhaps the Azeri Wikipedia has editors who could help you.--Quisqualis (talk) 00:33, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Handling disruptive editor

Methods to deal with very disruptive editor An article I watch has been impacted by an editor that seems disruptive to Wikipedia. Because I found the editor's edits to demonstrate a lack of regard for Wikipedia policies, I have followed their edits to see if they were similarly disruptive. As it turns out, their edits are more often than not disruptive/worsen the edited article (the rest of the edits I would say are in a grey area). This editor's edits are commonly reverted. Their edits are mostly made without sources (come to think of it... I don't recall ever seeing any source given). Furthermore, they don't seem neutral. The editor seems to follow an agenda. Frankly I think this editor should be banned, but I think someone with more experience should look at their contributions. Is there a way to open an inquiry into an editor who might be able to claim "ignorance" and flout policies with no repercussion if the totality of their edits are not considered? Many thanks for any help! Shoestringnomad (talk) 20:06, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Shoestringnomad Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If you have a user conduct issue to report, that isn't specifically vandalism, edit warring, or promtional editing, you may start a discussion at WP:ANI(for which you must notify any relevant users of its existence). Be advised that the conduct of all will be examined as well, you cannot limit the discussion to only one editor. 331dot (talk) 20:21, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

331dot Thank you! It does seem then like the onus is on me to build the case to make it as easy to process for a busy admin as possible. The way I have seen these go before can be hit-or-miss, perhaps depending on who takes on the incident. Shoestringnomad (talk) 20:47, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

No good deed goes unpunished. David notMD (talk) 21:25, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Receiving warnings

I received a level 3 warning template from an IP editor after reverting two of their edits due to them citing YouTube. I feel like this is unjust, but it might look bad if I casually remove warning templates from my talk page. ― Qwerfjkl | 𝕋𝔸𝕃𝕂  (please use {{reply to|Qwerfjkl}} on reply)Template:Z181 20:09, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Qwerfjkl Hello. You are permitted to remove posts from your own user talk page in most cases; be aware that doing so is considered an acknowledgement that the removed posts were read. See WP:BLANKING. In this case I don't think you'll have a problem. 331dot (talk) 20:12, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

@331dot Personally I prefer to strike out sections instead of removing them, to retain a copy. ― Qwerfjkl | 𝕋𝔸𝕃𝕂  (please use {{reply to|Qwerfjkl}} on reply)Template:Z181 20:14, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Qwerfjkl That's certainly a valid option. You don't have to remove them, but you are permitted to. 331dot (talk) 20:15, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Qwerfjkl. Removing posts from one's own talk page is a very ordinary practice, and as already noted, is merely taken to mean one has read them. (All edits are not only retained in the page history, but many regular users archive their talk pages.) Strikeouts are something usually done to one's own edits, mostly because they are faitly seen as an alteration of the original edits, rather than some external comment on them, and we generally don't alter other people's posts. Moreover, they usually are meant to indicate invalidity, such as that the original post was incorrect/you've changed your mind based on new evidence, etc. When rarely done to another person's edits, it is almost always also meant to mark them as invalid (e.g., crossing out a person's second vote by a sockpuppet at an Afd). All this is to say, there are places where striking another person's edits may be warranted, but I think the advice above could be taken as advising this practice as a mere ministerial and alternate way to mark a post as as read/log it to be retained, when it is anything but. I am not saying don't so this, nor that it might not even be warranted here, but I thought you should be aware of how striking the post might appear – especially since your original post is about a concern with appearances vis-à-vis these edits. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:06, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Notofications

I dont seem to get a notification when edits are made to pages on my watchlist. How can I ensure I get a notification? Heesxiisolehh (talk) 20:10, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Heesxiisolehh Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. There are not specific notifications for edits to watchlisted pages; your Watchlist needs to be monitored for changes to pages. There are notifications for edit reversions, emails, and thank-yous. Someone merely editing an article does not trigger a notification. 331dot (talk) 20:14, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

@331dot @Heesxiisolehh I believe RedWarn has an 'alert on change' feature for pages, and I'm sure there is a user script for this. ― Qwerfjkl | 𝕋𝔸𝕃𝕂  (please use {{reply to|Qwerfjkl}} on reply)Template:Z181 20:18, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Qwerfjkl Thanks, I am not familiar with that tool. 331dot (talk) 20:22, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

@331dot It 's similar to Twinkle, though primarily counter-vandalism. ― Qwerfjkl | 𝕋𝔸𝕃𝕂  (please use {{reply to|Qwerfjkl}} on reply)Template:Z181 20:25, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

@Heesxiisolehh Try Wikipedia:User scripts/List#Watchlist for Watchlist -related User scripts. ― Qwerfjkl | 𝕋𝔸𝕃𝕂  (please use {{reply to|Qwerfjkl}} on reply)Template:Z181 20:30, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Adding a Picture

 Shah 512S (talk) 20:27, 6 June 2021 (UTC) How to add a picture to a page

@Shah 512S see Wikipedia:Pictures and Wikipedia:Uploading pictures ― Qwerfjkl | 𝕋𝔸𝕃𝕂  (please use {{reply to|Qwerfjkl}} on reply)Template:Z181 20:31, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks @Qwerfjkl: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shah 512S (talk • contribs) 20:37, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Problem!

I've been eleven or more days started editing/writing on Wikipedia but I still not have that power to edit semi protected articles, why? 197.156.122.183 (talk) 21:24, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

If you registered an account, you are not using it atm, that could be it. IP:s can't edit semi protected articles. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:28, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Log into your account, and go to WP:AUTOC. It now has a nice box that shows if you are autoconfirmed or not. It normally happens automatically when your account is at least 4 days old and you have made at least 10 edits, but in some cases it takes longer. As noted above, you are not currently logged in. RudolfRed (talk) 21:37, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Wrote / edited lot of Space and Rocket articles, how to manage deadlock between editors

Hi Team, Been writing / editing articles in Wikipedia for over 10 years, there are some instance with deadlock between editors on acceptance, how do we solve it? Also, how to do review and get permission etc, kindly also give some information on that. Chandraprakash (talk) 22:06, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Frozenprakash. Does WP:Dispute resolution help?

As for your second question, there are several different kinds of reviewing. Have a look at WP:Reviewing. --ColinFine (talk) 22:25, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

How to delete a page I created

Hi. I requested that a page I created be deleted, because my abusive ex-partner made me create it. It contains misleading information, some of which has already been corrected, but the co-organizers of the march, whom she refused to credit on the page, have complained to me personally about not being given credit. They are not credited in any of the media surrounding the event because she wouldn't let anyone else speak to the media, but trust me: She did not do this alone, and I don't want to be bothered by people who are upset that she's taken credit for the entire event.

This is partly an issue about my own safety. I want the page deleted. If someone else wants to create an entirely new one, they are free to do so. Tling2 (talk) 22:34, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

@Tling2: Is this about We the People March? That article was created by a different editor, and has had several other editors including yourself contribute to it since then. I'm not sure it would qualify for deletion, if it is a notable event. If you know someone who is unhappy with the article contents, invite them to discuss it here on Wikipedia. Any information that would be added needs to be supported by citations to reliable sources. RudolfRed (talk) 22:44, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Tling2 (ec) This page is more for new users to ask about editing Wikipedia, you may wish to bring this to WP:ANI. If there is an immediate threat to your safety, you should contact your local authorities. This situation sounds like it involves more than just this Wikipedia article. I doubt very much that an article could be deleted on such grounds. Once you create something on Wikipedia, it belongs to Wikipedia and is no longer yours to exclusively control. As noted, others have edited it. You could request a vanishing. 331dot (talk) 22:47, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Tling2, you tried to delete the article under WP:G7, but that applies only when the only substantial content of the page was added by its author. It does not apply in this case because you are the #3 contributor and those other two editors contributed much more content than you did. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:04, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

William Weaver spacing problems in text but not in preview

William Weaver's Wikipedia entry has something weird going on with spacing. I could not discuss it on Weaver's talk page because "This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography." I don't understand that, so I'll explain the spacing problem here. In the "Biography" section, there is no space between "Service" and the comma following it. There is an extra space before several of the superscript footnote numbers. But it seems impossible to fix them. When you go into "Edit Source" and click "Show preview," the spacing problems are not there. That's what is weird.Maurice Magnus (talk) 23:19, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Bypass or purge your cache. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 23:24, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

What does that mean, or, rather, how do I do it?Maurice Magnus (talk) 23:45, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

@Maurice Magnus: What Jeske means is WP:PURGE. It's an option in the "More" dropdown menu near the top of the page. Wikipedia does get rid of extra spaces when rendering code; maybe that's what you're seeing? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:50, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

regarding this, it's a feature of the gadget Purgetab, which is not on by default so you may not see it, but can be activated through preferences > gadgets > "Add a "Purge" option to the top of the page, which purges the page's cache" ◎ | melecie | t 00:00, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) alternatively, use this link: purge article William Weaver. it can be obtained through this link: //en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=page_title&action=purge where you replace page_title with the article's name. ◎ | melecie | t 23:55, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I think Jéské actually meant Wikipedia:Bypass your cache. If you still see spaces then what is your browser, what is your skin at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering, and do you see spaces here? Please give a specific example where you see a space. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:02, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

To answer your question, Do you see spaces here?, I still see the problems I mentioned above. In the "Biography" section, there is no space between "Service" and the comma following it; that is in the second line of the second paragraph. Also, the superscript footnote numbers after "childhood," after "1949," and after "New York" have a space before them that should be eliminated. The superscript number after "Calvino" does not have a space.Maurice Magnus (talk) 00:19, 7 June 2021 (UTC) Also, in the bottom line, there is no space between "Rhinebeck" and "New York."Maurice Magnus (talk) 00:21, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Edit reverted with no discussion or justification other than "POV edit"

Hello everyone, I just made my first edit to Wikipedia. I added some sources and citations for some randomized trials and systematic reviews to an article that contained only low-quality evidence. It was immediately reverted with no explanation other than "POV edit". What does that even mean? It's this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feldenkrais_Method

Can anyone help me understand what happened? It is because I made a visual edit? Thanks.

I put some effort into accumulating some relevant evidence to put on the page and it's unfortunate that it was reverted without explanation. Edinburghpotsdam (talk) 00:21, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Medical/health articles have a standard of allowed evidence described at WP:MEDRS. Content referenced by individual clinical trials is not allowed. If, in your opinion, there is valid content to add to the article, start a discussion on the Talk page of the article and invite the editor who reverted you changes, to a discussion. David notMD (talk) 00:36, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

David notMD Thank you I appreciate your time. So I should summarise the RCTs in my own words? And what about systematic reviews which was what I led with? Also do you think this is what is meant by "POV edit"?

The RCTs cannot be mentioned at all! In looking more carefully at your proposed changes, your first reference was to a Wikipedia article. This is not allowed. On a much more serious note, you deleted large swathes of referenced content that was critical of the Feldenkrais Method. This is not allowed. The meta-analysis can be added, but do not over-do the conclusions. Within that journal article, only a limited amount of the analysis was true meta-analysis of multiple trials. The other evidence was from individual trials with different populations and outcomes. David notMD (talk) 00:45, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Actually, I disagree - Hindawi is a known predatory publisher of journal articles which has virtually no peer review process that makes it reliable. See the CITEWATCH entry for it under its doi of 10.1155 and related. While yes, that's a "systematic review", it's really not even more reliable than if I start a website and publish something myself under the words "systematic review". The edit also removed quite a few references to published books and government sources. Some of the information that was removed was cited to other less-than-perfect sources, but replacing all of the governmental health agency sources with a non-reputable article is why it was considered pushing a specific POV. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:52, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

David notMD (User/say hi!) I thank you both for the information. I can see the publishing practices on Wikipedia are far removed from common practice in peer-reviewed scientific research, at least as far as literature review goes. But, I will try again.

Thanks to Berchanhimez for identifying predatory journala as not a reliable source. To Edinburghpotsdam - yes, MEDRS is a shock to people used to medical writing. David notMD (talk) 01:26, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Edinburghpotsdam. Though more importantly, the underlying issues are discussed above, regarding your original and follow-up inquiries for the meaning of "POV", it is short for Point Of View, and when used, is usually intended to invoke the neutral point of view policy (which has shortcut names at "WP:POV" and "WP:NPOV"). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:24, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello!

I'm new here, and I want to say hello to you guys. Alright bye~~~~^^ Kittiy0403 (talk) 03:47, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

@Kittiy0403: Hello! Nice to meet you, and thanks for coming by the Teahouse. Feel free to swing by if you have any questions about editing. I JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 04:05, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Autistic Pride Day

Upcoming 18th June is Autistic Pride Day. Can wikipedia celebrate that day, such as by showing an infinity badge on the front page? Where is the right forum to discuss this proposal? Regards. RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 03:54, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

@RIT RAJARSHI: Welcome to the Teahouse, and thanks for your question about the main page logo. I know there are have been some changes to the logo for anniversary events and few milestones for article counts, but I'm not aware that we have done any for specific days of the year. I'm not exactly sure, but I would guess that proposing the idea on the village pump for non-policy proposals could be a good place to start. Does anyone else have any other suggestions? I JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 04:04, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

This is a nonstarter, unfortunately. Wikipedia doesn't show any sort of overt support for external holidays, and the only time the logo or front page has changed is for Wikipedia milestones or in responce to SOPA (and that one is still controversial to this day). —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 04:34, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

@Jéské Couriano: ,@I JethroBT: I missed the fact this article was featured on the front page several times, and we can do it again.

@RIT RAJARSHI: That might be a good alternative approach here. Is there a Did you know? fact or other front page content that could be prepared for 18 June? I JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 05:00, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I JethroBT It's not DYK eligible. But if the article is sourced better, maybe it could be added to WP:On this day again. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:57, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Help with licensing

Hello, I just need help with licenses and how to use them with different file.

}} Shabib (talk) 04:15, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Shabib20, and welcome to the Teahouse. It's hard to advise you when you are not specific about what you need. I'm guessing this is about the logo you uploaded for Among us?

Part of Wikipedia's purpose is to make information available for anybody to reuse for any purpose: almost all text is automatically licensed in this way, and where possible, images are as well. Ideally, all images used are licensed under CC-BY-SA or similar, so that anybody may reuse them freely; and where the copyright holder is willing to license an image in that way, it should be uploaded to Commons so that all Wikimedia projects can use it.

Unfortunately, most images (and in particular, most images you find on the internet) are not licensed in that way: logos, in particular, are rarely licensed in that way, because their owners do not want to give the whole world the right to reuse or alter them. However English Wikipedia does allow non-free content to use in certain circumstances (Not all editions of Wikipedia do allow this, but English Wikipedia does). This facility is often used for logos and cover art - and indeed the image in Among Us is uploaded in this way. You tried to upload the logo in the same way; but to upload non-free content, you are required to justify doing so explicitly, showing how the way you propose to use the image meets all the criteria in the non-free content criteria. You uploaded it without providing such a justification, so it was deleted. You could try again, giving the justification; but assuming you were intending to add it to Among Us, I think it would fail criterion 3 "Minimal usage", since there is already a non-free image in that article. And if you were planning to use it somewhere else than an article, that would fail criterion 7: "One article minimum".

You can read more about all this in Image use policy. --ColinFine (talk) 12:54, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Vansh sayani draft

I made a Wikipedia page about Indian child actor Vansh Sayani a few days ago. Today, I have added sources to it. Please accept that. Tellyring (talk) 09:49, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Vansh sayani has been Declined three times. And now resubmitted. Tellyring has repeatedly asked at Teahouse that this draft get immediate review and be accepted, despite being told that asking here will not get preferential treatment. David notMD (talk) 09:59, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi, welcome to Teahouse! As noted above, you can ask for another review on that page. Also, I glanced over the sources you added. I can't say anything about most of them because they are in Hindi, but two English sources look neither in-depth nor reliable. As is, this article will most likely be declined again. I would recommend first finding good sources and only after that writing an article summarizing those sources. Anton.bersh (talk) 10:02, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Tellyring, you have now submitted Draft:Vansh sayani four times, and it still doesn't cite even one source that would help to establish its subject as notable. If you can find some reliable independent sources with significant discussion of him, you should cite them in the draft before submitting it for review. If you can't, you are wasting the time of everyone involved. Maproom (talk) 10:03, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Given that Draft:Vansh sayani is the major effort by Tellyring since creating an account in mid-May, asked on Talk to describe relationship to Vs: Family? Manager? No reply. David notMD (talk) 10:15, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Tellyring indef blocked on 7 June 2021. David notMD (talk) 15:02, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Cannot Redirect a Page(Malavika Sharma)

The Page of Malvika Sharma(Indian actress) i.e Malavika Sharma should be redirected to Malvika Sharma because of the typo in the article name. But its not redirecting so help me. Either delete Malvika Sharma or merge it with Malavika Sharma with article name as ""Malvika Sharma"" Siddartha897 (talk) 10:01, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

At present, Malvika Sharma (her name, as confirmed by all the sources cited) is a redirect to the erroneous Malavika Sharma. Someone needs to delete the redirect and move the article. To the best of my knowledge, a non-admin is unable to do that. Maproom (talk) 10:12, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

@Siddartha897: and @Maproom:. I have fixed that. Thanks. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 10:17, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the help @Maproom: and @TheAafi: for fixing the problem so fast.Siddartha897 (talk) 10:23, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

"Page does not exist"

Often I see a phrase in red because an editor has gone to "Edit source" and put double brackets around the phrase, like this, but the phrase does not link to a Wikipedia page. Therefore, when you hover the cursor over the phrase, it says "Page does not exist." Sometimes, when I'm editing an entry, I remove non-linking double brackets. Should I, or is there a reason to keep them? If there is no reason to keep them, then why are they there? Is it just sloppiness? I find the red distracting.Maurice Magnus (talk) 10:07, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Wikipedia:Red link discusses this exact topic. In short, if there is a reasonable belief that someone will eventually create a page with that exact name and make that red link actually go there, then it makes sense to leave it so that the page can be discovered when it is created. In practice, though, most red links do not fall in this category and should be removed. Do you have a specific red link you would like to ask about? Anton.bersh (talk) 10:13, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I have no specific red link in mind, but I've seen some (I can't remember a specific one) in which almost every item in "Further reading" or some other list is red.Maurice Magnus (talk) 10:25, 7 June 2021 (UTC). This is amusing, but I just noticed that the word "this" in my first line is not red, as I expected it would be, but links to a Wikipedia entry for "this."

I sometimes see red links to foreign Wikipedias, as at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pietro_Aretino, which has red links to [it] and [de].Maurice Magnus (talk) 11:07, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Those links to foreign language Wikipedia use the template {{ill}}, where you will see an explanation of the process. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:14, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Guidelines on types of sources required to reference notability

Hello, I've recently had a page on a person rejected due to notability criteria. In particular the comment was "This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people)".

I included a number of interviews in international newspapers with the subject about their life and their recent book, as well as some newspaper articles about them and lots of articles which quote the subject. I understand the latter may not be significantly substantial, but do interviews with a subject about their work in international newspapers not count as substantial, secondary sources that are independent of the subject?

I'm happy to provide more context and the original references if that's helpful.

Thanks for helping me understand this. Tim Lancaster (talk) 10:38, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Tim Lancaster Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Interviews do not establish notability, because they are the words of the subject themselves. Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state about a subject, not what one says about itself. 331dot (talk) 10:42, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Are any wikipedia editors paid employees

One editor answered this when I asked "There are NO paid Wikipedia employees here or anywhere else on Wikipedia!". I am wondering if this really is the case? Are non of these 450 staff paid moderators or editors? "As of 2021, the foundation employs over 450 staff and contractors" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation ChrisCalif (talk) 10:50, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Paid staff do not edit in their capacity as such unless they are WiR or due to exigent circumstances. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 10:59, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello, ChrisCalif. Paid staff are not employed by Wikipedia, but rather by the Wikimedia Foundation which provides hosting services and technical support to hundreds of Wikipedia projects. English Wikipedia itself, which is the largest, has no paid staff and is entirely run by volunteers. Paid staff have a negligible presence here, although a few of them volunteer with separate accounts in their off hours. Paid staff involvement is limited to highly unusual situations with legal implications. Moderators, called administrators here, are 100% volunteers. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:59, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Devayush M Chowdhary

Not understanding why my submission for page creation was rejected. Reason stated is references do not show subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. But I have provided links to articles from mainline news outlets like The Times of India (timesofindia.com) that clearly speak about the subject and their notability in the article. Kindly advise. Prm111 (talk) 11:35, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Prm111, welcome to Teahouse! I agree with the user who declined this draft. If you have questions about a particular citation, please ask on Draft talk:Devayush M Chowdhary, not here. Feel free to mention/ping me in your posting there. Anton.bersh (talk) 11:43, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

List of articles with several red links

Hello, I found it very interesting to remove red links from articles. Do we have any list where the articles with plenty of red links are kept for reference.? Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 12:01, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Krishnavilasom Bhageerathan Pilla! Check out Category:Wikipedia red link cleanup – it contains articles that have excessive red links, but I think that's the closest we have. Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 12:33, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Krishnavilasom Bhageerathan Pilla. A "link" doesn't necessarily need to be removed just because it's red; in fact, red links can actually lead to new articles being created as explained here. For sure, there are many cases where red links are excessive and inappropriate; however, as a relatively new account, you might want carefully read through Wikipedia:Red link and Wikipedia:Notability before setting off to remove as many red links as you can find because there's a chance that doing such a thing might lead to unexpected and possible even unpleasant responses from other editors. As for your question, there is a maintenance template called Template:Cleanup red links which can be added to articles in which someone feels that the use of red links has gotten out of control. Articles tagged with that template are, I believe, added to Category:Wikipedia red link cleanup. So, that might be a good place to start if you're looking for articles tagged for red link issues. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:40, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Krishnavilasom Bhageerathan Pilla, welcome to the Teahouse. There is actually a use for red links, seen in this guideline, basically saying that if a topic is notable enough, and an article should be created with that name, a red link should be added to encourage editors to create an article with that name and to prevent articles from being an "orphan" (basically means no articles link to it). The guideline says, "Only remove red links if Wikipedia should not have an article on the subject." so be careful about removing red links. Justiyaya (talk) 12:41, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Justiyaya, Marchjuly and Bsoyka. I will be more aware from this moment. Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 13:08, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Non-free file

Hello, is there any bot that can upload a small version of this file? If so, how can I request it? Patrik L. (talk) 12:44, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Patrik L. Please take a look at Template:Non-free reduce since there are bots that can reduce the size of files so that they are more in accordance with WP:IMAGERES, and adding that template will help make that happen. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:48, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Attempting to add references to Crimes against Humanity

I have attempted to add two documents to the references to the phrase Crimes against Humanity. These references are important because they predate the previously cited first use of the phrase. But I am getting error messages that I have been unable to resolve. Also, what is supposed to be a footnote is being inserted into the test.

Can someone take a look and try to figure out what I did wrong?

Aunt Astrid Aunt Astrid (talk) 14:12, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

@Aunt Astrid:.  Done. I fixed the errors, where you had not put the citation between <ref></ref> tags and had used the wrong format for the access-date, making it appear to be next month rather than today. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:31, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Perfect. Thank you.

Just to complete the picture, Aunt Astrid I then noticed you had repeated the full URL as the website name (as publisher). As you will see in the citation now, the name of the website is just the part after the https://www. and before the first /. Also, you had left space between the citation and the punctuation preceding it, which needed to be removed. Don't forget to sign on Talk pages with four tildes ~~~~. You must have got that right the first time but not the second! Enjoy your editing: more info at WP:REFBEGIN. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:52, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Jubilee (Japanese Breakfast album) - advice for handling

Hello! I'm reaching out because I'm asking for advice on how to handle a situation.

So, there currently exists a draft, created a few months ago, for an album that was recently released (June 4) - Draft:Jubilee (Japanese Breakfast album). It failed AfC twice as it didn't meet WP:NALBUM, but both of those reviews happened well before the album was released, and therefore, the reviews were doomed to fail as the album didn't have sufficient press coverage yet. With that said, the album now appears to meet WP:NALBUM guidelines and appears be ready to be moved to articlespace. At the same time, there was already an created independently of the draft (see here) - that was blanked out to a redirect pending the draft approval.

This feels to me to be a case of WP:NOTBURO - if the only thing holding back the draft is previous failures of WP:NALBUM, and it now meets those guidelines - I'm tempted to WP:BEBOLD and bypass AfC and move it myself. It might take several weeks before another review of the draft comes, and that appears to be the only thing holding this article back.

With that said, I'd also like advice on how to handle this edit - just because a draft exists, doesn't mean that another article on the same topic can't exist in articlespace, if that article meets all the other guidelines to be an article. I disagree with the premise that we now have to wait for the AfC to be approved on the draft before an article can be made in articlespace. That just feels incorrect to me. The draft is, in my opinion, much more put together and more complete than the previous article in articlespace, but any good edits from the draft can be merged into the article later. I don't think the draft being "more complete" should override the article in articlespace.

Thanks for the help, and if you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer them. JCBird1012 (talk) 14:26, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

@JCBird1012: if you think a draft should be moved to article-space, there is no requirement to go through AfC. Go ahead and move it. Elli (talk | contribs) 14:44, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

@Elli: Any suggestions on going about that? So long as the redirect exists in article-space, the draft can’t be cleanly moved. I would merge, but then the draft would lose edit history, and I’m not a big fan of that idea. I could request the redirect in article-space be deleted, and then make the move from draft-space, but that also seems complex. Should I request a history merge per WP: Parallel histories? Thanks again for the help! JCBird1012 (talk) 15:18, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

@JCBird1012: as I'm a page-mover, I can swap the existing redirect with the draft. I'll do that now. Elli (talk | contribs) 15:34, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

@JCBird1012: just an FYI for the future, the proper way to request a move be performed that you cannot carry out is WP:RM/TR. Elli (talk | contribs) 15:38, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

@Elli: Thanks for the help. This was a situation I had never encountered before and I wanted to be absolutely sure I was doing the right thing. Thanks again.

Deleting a Draft: Randy Bishop

I would like to re-do the Randy Bishop entry that has been disputed by you. I've now been given multiple citations and sources that I believe will make the entry valid. Can you please let me know how I can delete the current "Randy Bishop" draft and start over? Thanks. Mmpm123 (talk) 15:21, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Mmpm123, just edit the existing draft, Draft:Randy Bishop. Remove what you can't cite, add only stuff supported by a cited WP:RS, and read WP:BLP carefully. When you are done to your satisfaction, submit the draft and find out if you've done it to WP:s satisfaction. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:28, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply! How do I actually access the document and put it into edit mode? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmpm123 (talk • contribs) 15:41, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

@Mmpm123: You should be able to just click the "Edit" link near the top of the page. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:58, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

If you need a general guide on editing, WP:TUTORIAL can help. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:23, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I only see an "Edit Source" option. Is this what I use?

@Mmpm123:Yes, that is the button that will let you edit :) CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:08, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

@Mmpm123: Now if you want to use the visual editor, you can go to your Special:Preferences/preferences, navigate to the Editing tab, and uncheck the box next to "Temporarily disable the visual editor while it is in beta". It'll only work in certain namespaces, like mainspace (where articles are). (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.) —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:25, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Want to create a page for a well known journalist, what to do?

Want to create a new page for a well known Journalist, M.A. Shaikh. AskariTube (talk) 17:50, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

@AskariTube: Welcome to the Teahouse. It seems you already started a draft on the subject. I'll point out that while it hasn't been submitted for review yet, it wouldn't stand on its own as an article as there are no good references. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:28, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Naming people charged in juvenile court

Hello all.

I have found a section in an article that lists the names of some youths charged with rape at a school (not sure I should link to it yet).

They were initially charged as adults and as such their names were reported in the reference. However, they were then moved to juvenile court and as the article states "As a result, the outcome of the case and what punishment, if any, the rapists faced is unknown". The article also refers to them as "perpetrators".

I'm not sure they should be named in the article as they are juveniles, even if it was already reported.

Do we have any guides for this?

Princess Persnickety (talk) 17:53, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

PrincessPersnickety, there is an essay (not formally adopted by the community and may be a minority view) about this at Wikipedia:Minors and persons judged incompetent. We also have WP:BLPNAME. I think this is probably something best handled in a talk page discussion at the specific article in question, and it may depend on how widely the minors' names were published in the first instance. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:54, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Reference

 Courtesy link: Draft:WuShuangPu

I am new here and looking for references for my page to get a real page on Wikipedia approved. I have tried Wikipedia pages for reference in my first try, but pages from Wikipedia as reference is not aloud. Now I have search for other reference and did found only two books as reference (with ISBN), I have made a chapter Reference and placed those two books in that part. Further I have placed some useful links to Universities, Libraries and Museums in a second chapter (named: See also). Would that be enough? Are the people here only looking at the chapter Reference or also to the other chapters to approve? Arno Jacobs (talk) 18:00, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Arno Jacobs, Hi and welcome to the teahouse. I went to your article and added one source and removed some items that weren't sources but rather were simply republications of the book. What you need for sources are reputable publications (academic journal articles, books) that discuss Wu Shuang Pu. I assume that most sources out there would be in Chinese, but I don't speak Chinese. If you know of any good Chinese-language sources (academic journal articles, books) that discuss Wu Shuang Pu, I'd encourage you to add them. I think that the sources existing in the article will likely be enough for the article to be approved, but it is definitely a close call. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:50, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

creating an article

how long does it take a new editor to qualify to create an article? JaneAtawa (talk) 18:02, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

@JaneAtawa: Welcome to the Teahouse. If you're asking about when users are autoconfirmed, an account needs to have made at least 10 edits and be 4 days old. That being said, the lack of said status doesn't prevent new users from going through the Articles for Creation process, which is highly recommended, as it allows more experienced users to check the draft and ensure that it is appropriate for Wikipedia, as creating an article is one of the hardest things you can do on here. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:22, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello, JaneAtawa, and welcome to the Teahouse! Your account must be autoconfirmed—the account must be at least 4 days old and have 10 edits—to create articles directly in the mainspace. However, any user can submit an article to Articles for Creation and have it be reviewed by an experienced editor. For more information, please see WP:YFA. --Aknell4 (talk • contribs) 18:24, 7 June 2021 (UTC)